Latest / NO FILTER / Season 1_ Sidebar 5(M4A_128K)

Transcript

Season 1_ Sidebar 5(M4A_128K) · NO FILTER

• 0:10
  Speaker 1: Hi, and welcome to this week's Proof Sidebar. I'm here
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: this week with Jessinda Davis and Kevin Fitzpatrick to discuss
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: episode seven of our series on the Cases of Lee
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: Clark and Kine's Story.
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: Hey guys, Hey Susan, Hey Susan.
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: This week on Proof, we heard episode seven Mortician's Powder,
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: and we heard about the autopsy evidence in the case.
• 0:39
  Speaker 2: Are black thereof I think this episode is it's so
• 0:44
  Speaker 2: frustrating because had there been an autopsy, we would have
• 0:47
  Speaker 2: so many answers, not a lot of what is or
• 0:50
  Speaker 2: maybe this or this could have happened, but we'd have
• 0:53
  Speaker 2: actual answers. And because Craig Burns chose not to do
• 0:57
  Speaker 2: an autopsy, there aren't answers.
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: Fel pretty certain this podcast would not exist if there'd
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: been an autopsy. We would not be here right now
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: because a lot of this the important issues in this
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: case were relatively trivial to determine. Again, with medical examiners
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: and with autopsies, there's not always going to be a
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: definitive answer. There's definitely room for ambiguity and for uncertainty.
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: But in this case, we would have had an answer.
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: I feel pretty.
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: Certain even to take a step back from that. Even
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: if just the simple step of testing Brian Bowling's hands
• 1:30
  Speaker 2: for gunshot residue, we may not be here having this discussion.
• 1:35
  Speaker 3: Yeah, there seemed to be several basic steps in an
• 1:39
  Speaker 3: investigation that simply weren't done in this case. And if
• 1:44
  Speaker 3: those three or four things have been done, everyone's questions
• 1:48
  Speaker 3: would be answered and we probably wouldn't be here.
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: I think the one thing they did that was by
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: the book was they did GSR test on Cain's Story's hands,
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: So that was appropriate. Everything else investigation not so much.
• 2:03
  Speaker 3: If they'd done those with Brian, we'd have a lot
• 2:05
  Speaker 3: more answers. If they'd done an autopsy, we'd have a
• 2:07
  Speaker 3: lot more answers. If they'd conducted their views quicker, we
• 2:10
  Speaker 3: might have more answers.
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: Yeah, given that we do have something of a record,
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: and by that I mean some photographs that were taken
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: apparently by Craig Burns, the county coroner of Floyd County,
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: what we can do, when we discussed the episode, is
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: review those and figure out what sort of determinations, what
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: sort of conclusions can be made, And there's some things
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: we just can't know now, not without more of a record,
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: but from what we can establish. Well, first of all,
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: let's start with the angle of the bullet issue. That
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: was one of the state's arguments a trial was that
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: Brian Bulan could not have killed himself because the angle
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: was wrong for a self pointed shot. And to back
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: up for a second, this whole issue of like is
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: the angle correct, is it suicide or homicide? It's kind
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: of frustrating because it doesn't really apply here. In my view,
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: this wasn't a suicide. This wasn't Brian trying to kill himself.
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: So using like sort of the classic statistics of how
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: shots are done to me, seems inapplicable.
• 3:10
  Speaker 3: I think that that's a good point, right, It wasn't
• 3:12
  Speaker 3: an intentional suicide. And I must say, when I first
• 3:16
  Speaker 3: saw the picture of the rod, I said, oh, it
• 3:19
  Speaker 3: looks like, you know, like somebody could have could have
• 3:22
  Speaker 3: shot him. And then I go, wait a second, I
• 3:23
  Speaker 3: don't know anything about this, the science of it, or
• 3:25
  Speaker 3: how it happens. I'm going to keep my mouth shut.
• 3:27
  Speaker 3: And I think that you guys bring up some good
• 3:29
  Speaker 3: points in the show about you know, someone's trying to
• 3:32
  Speaker 3: commit suicide, the bullet goes this way or those are
• 3:34
  Speaker 3: the people who survive. It's not as easy as it sounds.
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: And one of the claims the state really hammers on
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: is that this idea that self inflicted our suicide shots
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: are straight across the head, right, because that's what the neurosurgeon,
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: doctor Carl Herring, testifies about. But this is just not true.
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: This is just flatly false. Any medical examiner in the
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: country will tell you it's not how it works, and
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: that overwhelmingly, or at least the vast majority of shots
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: are in backwards.
• 4:01
  Speaker 3: He says that, but then one of you points out
• 4:03
  Speaker 3: in the show, could be because the people who come
• 4:05
  Speaker 3: to him are still alive. They're surviving.
• 4:07
  Speaker 2: Yeah, Doctor Peters pointed that out to us. It was
• 4:09
  Speaker 2: sort of an AHA movement for me when he pointed
• 4:12
  Speaker 2: out that the patients that the doctor the neurosurgeon would
• 4:15
  Speaker 2: have seen are our patients who are still technically alive,
• 4:20
  Speaker 2: So he's seeing different people, Whereas the people coming across
• 4:25
  Speaker 2: doctor Peter's tables he works as a medical examiner, they're dead.
• 4:29
  Speaker 2: So yes, the doctor who treated Brian would have seen
• 4:32
  Speaker 2: a different type of injury that wasn't fatal.
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: In most shots to the head are fatal, so he's
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: seeing sort of the outliner group to begin with, which
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: is why the question of what experts are amitted to
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: trial and how they testify is so important and in
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: this case basically just ignored because doctor Herring is an
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: expert sure and nerve surgery, but he is not an
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: expert in forensic pathology or assessing homicide versus suicide for
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: gunshot wounds. That's not what he's an expert in, and
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: by having him testify some medical examiner mistakes like this
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: can be made.
• 5:09
  Speaker 2: Well. I think it's also important. Doctor Peters pointed out
• 5:12
  Speaker 2: like either way, it doesn't matter whether it's upward or
• 5:16
  Speaker 2: downward angled. They could both be self inflicted, or they
• 5:19
  Speaker 2: could both be you know, by someone else pulling the trigger.
• 5:24
  Speaker 2: It doesn't definitively answer the question.
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: Us we don't know if it was downward upward because we, uh,
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: the record here is so bad that from doctors I've
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: spoken to, I've heard mixed assessments of what they think
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: is most likely going on.
• 5:37
  Speaker 3: When you're sitting on a jury and you have an
• 5:40
  Speaker 3: expert who you think is testifying or is qualified to
• 5:43
  Speaker 3: testify on this specific thing, and he tells you something,
• 5:47
  Speaker 3: You're going to tend to believe it right. It's being
• 5:50
  Speaker 3: presented to you as a fact, being presented by an expert,
• 5:55
  Speaker 3: and your natural listing should be to believe that.
• 5:59
  Speaker 2: If you have, you know, the defense expert presenting one
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: thing as fact, and you have the state's expert presenting
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: the complete opposite. As a jur how do you know
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: who to believe?
• 6:11
  Speaker 3: You know, it's absolutely difficult. You're right, I think that
• 6:15
  Speaker 3: you're going to be weighing those two things and you're
• 6:18
  Speaker 3: presented with who's wrong or who's not qualified? Be curious
• 6:21
  Speaker 3: to see if you guys can go back to that
• 6:23
  Speaker 3: dur and see what he thought of this expert, maybe
• 6:25
  Speaker 3: talked to him about it.
• 6:26
  Speaker 2: I don't know, And that's the question did jury even
• 6:30
  Speaker 2: understand or realize who was qualified and who was not qualified?
• 6:34
  Speaker 2: Because if it's not explained, it's not always obvious.
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: And people who are familiar with the corner system often
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: tend to complete the idea of corner with like a
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: medical official or medical examiner, when they're not at all related.
• 6:46
  Speaker 3: Everyone assumes that they have some expertise. And I thought
• 6:49
  Speaker 3: it was very interesting in this episode where he's admitted
• 6:53
  Speaker 3: to testify not as an expert but having some kind
• 6:57
  Speaker 3: of advanced opinion or something where he was allowed to
• 7:00
  Speaker 3: give testimony as if he was an expert, but he's
• 7:03
  Speaker 3: not an expert.
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: Yeah, the judge let him testify as a lay expert,
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: meaning he's just spouting off his opinion, which is typically
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: not how this plays out in court and was to
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: me an unusual choice for the judge to make, and
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: I think error.
• 7:18
  Speaker 3: That seems pretty extraordinary, right that a judge would allow
• 7:21
  Speaker 3: someone to testify who doesn't have any scientific expertise.
• 7:24
  Speaker 2: In the field.
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: Well, it's not the only extraordinary decision the judgement. Age
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: will hear next week about Ken's confession in fact that
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: was made to startan Dallas battle. But we also heard
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: this episode about the issue of the phone and which
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: hand and whether it was grasped in Brian's hand after
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: he was shot. And one of the kind of confusing
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: points is that the idea is that when Brian was shot,
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: he had what is called a cadaveric spasm, which is
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: where at the moment of death, muscles that are being
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: used or had exert can sort of have a very
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: rapid rigor mortis, which could be why someone who was
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: killed will still be clutching, say a gun if they
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: shot themselves or something like that. And here the idea
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: is that Brian still had the phone clutched tightly in
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: his hand because of a cadaveric spasm. And one of
• 8:21
  Speaker 1: the issues with this is that Brian wasn't dead. He
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: survived his injury. He was transported to the hospital on
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: life support, but he was still breathing, still had a pulse,
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: so in the classic sense, it could not have been
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: a cadaveric spasm. So whatever happened here, that's probably not
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: a scenario that we're looking at. That doesn't mean he
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: couldn't have been clutching the phone or other option in
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: his hand. But the idea that this was a death grip,
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: I think it's called on the episode, to me doesn't fit.
• 8:50
  Speaker 2: Whether or not he was clutching the phone in his
• 8:54
  Speaker 2: hand or how tightly, or if his fingers had to
• 8:56
  Speaker 2: be broken to take to get the phone away. That
• 9:00
  Speaker 2: is how Amanda's mother remembered it, and it's how Amanda
• 9:04
  Speaker 2: remembers the phone was in his right hand, held so
• 9:08
  Speaker 2: tightly that Deborah had to break his fingers to get
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: the phone out. That is a clear memory for them.
• 9:15
  Speaker 2: On the other hand, Cain's memory is different. Kin says
• 9:19
  Speaker 2: the phone was in his lap. Unfortunately, there's just no
• 9:22
  Speaker 2: documentation to say one way or the other. But Amanda
• 9:26
  Speaker 2: and Kin both have very vivid memories of the phone
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: being in different spot.
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: Unfortunately, the only memory that's documented early on is that
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: of Cain, who is interrogated by Battle and it's recorded
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: and he says that the phone was in Brian's lap
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: and it doesn't think it was in either hand, whereas
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: the interviews with Brian's family either don't occur or don't
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: occur until just before trial or at trial again, with
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: the exception of Brian's mother who's interviewed in May of
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: ninety seven, so seven months after this, and she describes
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: the phone ben being in the right hand. One issue
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: that was never documented though, is whether Brian's fingers had
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: been broken, and autopsy would have established this very easily.
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: That wasn't done, But there's nothing in the records just
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: that actually happened. And it's possible what Brian Stanleyer calls
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: is it feeling like they had to break his fingers
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: to get the phone out. But the other thing is
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: literally being broken does not seem to be based on
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: any kind of record.
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: On the other hand, though, when we spoke to Uncle
• 10:25
  Speaker 2: Michael and Aunt Melody, they both recall Dever talking about
• 10:31
  Speaker 2: it that night in the hospital. So even though there's
• 10:33
  Speaker 2: no documentation, there's no record of it, the family remembers
• 10:37
  Speaker 2: it being an issue, and one of the reasons they
• 10:40
  Speaker 2: started to question whether or not Kane's Russian rouled story
• 10:44
  Speaker 2: was in fact the truth.
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: Yeah, but one of the issues with that is if
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: the phone was in his right hand and people were
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: aware of it right away, I still wonder why no
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: one seems to have floated the possibility that this was
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: not self inflicted until two days.
• 11:01
  Speaker 3: It's such a crucial sort of point for everyone involved
• 11:05
  Speaker 3: in this story, for Cain and for Amanda, and it's
• 11:08
  Speaker 3: one of those things that were simply never going to
• 11:11
  Speaker 3: know exactly what happened. It's just another instance in this
• 11:15
  Speaker 3: case where if things have been handled differently sort of
• 11:18
  Speaker 3: night of we might have answers to some of those questions.
• 11:22
  Speaker 3: I wish for everyone's sake that we knew, And it
• 11:25
  Speaker 3: must be very difficult for everyone to have those memories
• 11:29
  Speaker 3: and to be certain about it and then to have
• 11:31
  Speaker 3: other people contradicting you who are also certain about it.
• 11:34
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it definitely can't be easy. And I think in
• 11:37
  Speaker 2: this episode we even play a clip of us talking
• 11:39
  Speaker 2: in the car and Dan the cameraman. You know, it's
• 11:42
  Speaker 2: the one thing that has given us all pause about
• 11:45
  Speaker 2: whether or not the phone was in his right hand,
• 11:47
  Speaker 2: because if it was in his right hand, there's no
• 11:50
  Speaker 2: way he could have pulled the trigger, or there's no
• 11:53
  Speaker 2: way he could have shot himself in the right side
• 11:55
  Speaker 2: of the head.
• 11:57
  Speaker 3: That's not possible. If the phone's in his right hand,
• 11:59
  Speaker 3: he can't shoot in the head. And I think we're
• 12:01
  Speaker 3: all coming to that determination at various points when.
• 12:03
  Speaker 2: We were in role. The one thing, though, knowing whether
• 12:07
  Speaker 2: or not the phone was in his right hand still
• 12:09
  Speaker 2: doesn't answer another question, which is, well, if it was
• 12:12
  Speaker 2: in his right hand, who did pull the trigger? Right,
• 12:16
  Speaker 2: it doesn't answer the question of how Cain and Lee
• 12:18
  Speaker 2: are involved in this story, which brings us back to
• 12:21
  Speaker 2: the contact shot. Was it a close shot or was
• 12:24
  Speaker 2: it a shot fired from a distance. If we're going
• 12:27
  Speaker 2: with the theory that you know that Brian didn't pull
• 12:30
  Speaker 2: the trigger, Yeah.
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: In most scenarios, an expert looking at the record we
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: have would probably conclude or almost definitely conclude that yes,
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: the record here is then we can't say for certain
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: various aspects of the case, but what almost every expert
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: would conclude is, based on the blackened appearance of the wound,
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: this could only have been a contact shot or near
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: contact shot, because that can only occur with the gun
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: being relatively close within a few inches of the victim
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: the time that's fired, and if that is the case,
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: that would categorically rule out the possibility that Lee Clark
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: fired the shot. The state's theory, the investigator theory, is
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: that Lee Clark was outside the Beturn window, sort of
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: laned in, pushed aside the plywood board, and shot through
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: the window, and that just doesn't work here. There's no
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: chance he could have done a contact shot in that scenario.
• 13:20
  Speaker 3: I think that it's easier in some people's minds to
• 13:23
  Speaker 3: put together a scenario by which Cain could have been
• 13:26
  Speaker 3: the shooter than Lee could have been the shooter. I
• 13:29
  Speaker 3: think after hearing some of the information you put in
• 13:32
  Speaker 3: this episode, even experts are sort of coming to that
• 13:37
  Speaker 3: determination that they find it hard to conceive of how
• 13:40
  Speaker 3: Lee could have been someone pulling the trigger in this situation.
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: Well, the one wrinkle, of course, is that there is
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: an alternative explanation for why the gunshot wound in this
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: case appears charred and blackend, and that's because it's not
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: due to burning, but rather due to some kind of
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: sub used by funeral directors are on ballmer's when they're
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: preparing bodies. And that came from the testimony of corner
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: Craig Burns, who set a trial that the black appearance
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: was actually because of a granulated powder he calls it
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: that was applied to the wound to stop it from
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: seeping blood or other fluids while at the funeral home,
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: and he says that he actually observed it being applied
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: a trial, although it's kind of interesting how it comes
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: up at trial when they're talking to him about it,
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: he says, I believe that's a granulated powder used by
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: a ballmer's And then there's an objection from the defense
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: who says, you can't just say what you believe, like
• 14:40
  Speaker 1: you have to have knowledge of this, and the judge
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: asked him, well, do you know that's what it was,
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: and he says, oh, yeah, actually I do know that's
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: what it was. Because I was there and I saw
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: it applied, which seems like a sudden shift in his
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: memory of how it came to be. But point being
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: the story of trials that this is not burning. This
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: is more to powder heat that was used, and therefore
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: this was not a contact shot.
• 15:05
  Speaker 2: And every expert we've spoken to nobody knows what this
• 15:09
  Speaker 2: morticians powder could be. No one's ever heard of any
• 15:12
  Speaker 2: kind of powder or substance applied to a womb that
• 15:15
  Speaker 2: turns a black charry color as it hardens.
• 15:18
  Speaker 1: But also it's very rare for forensic experts to actually
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: encounter something like this because they don't see bodies that
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: have been treated by Embalmer's. They don't encounter that. So
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: to them, it's a question that they've never had to
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: answer before or never even seen in their work.
• 15:36
  Speaker 2: Right, which is why they I guess that gives them
• 15:38
  Speaker 2: pause to make a definitive answer on whether it's a
• 15:41
  Speaker 2: contact shot or near contact shot, because they're like, well,
• 15:44
  Speaker 2: maybe something like that exists, but they say this, it's
• 15:47
  Speaker 2: nothing we've ever heard of.
• 15:49
  Speaker 3: Just another bizarre turn in this case, another situation that's
• 15:54
  Speaker 3: just perplexing.
• 15:56
  Speaker 2: So this week we did have a question from a
• 15:58
  Speaker 2: listener named Ramona, who said, have you heard of kids
• 16:02
  Speaker 2: for cash? I'm curious more and more about kickbacks after
• 16:05
  Speaker 2: the Burns No nos.
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: Well kids were cashed. Was a scandal from Pennsylvania from
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: a few years back where a judge was taking kickbacks
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: from a private children's attention center to send its kids
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: to detention centers for offenses that normally would never put
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: them in custody. So I think the implication here is
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: that like something corrupt or kickbacks were involved and why
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: there was no autopsy done, And yeah, that's definitely an
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: issue we would love to look into. Unfortunately, Floyd County
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: has to date not produced any records relevant to that.
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: But we do know that Bryan's family is all very
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: convinced that an autopsy was done in this case, which,
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: on the one hand, could potentially be memory conflation or
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: something they've come to think over the years, But they
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: are so adamant about this and we're so certain we
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: talked to them that an autopsy have been done. It
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: really makes me wonder if there's a reason for that
• 17:04
  Speaker 1: that they were told there was an autopsy.
• 17:06
  Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean when I first saw the photos, I
• 17:08
  Speaker 2: thought it was from an autopsy, Like, if they saw
• 17:11
  Speaker 2: those photos, you can see why they thought it was
• 17:13
  Speaker 2: an autopsy. But sometimes I wonder, like, we don't know.
• 17:19
  Speaker 2: We don't have all the records from Floyd County. So
• 17:23
  Speaker 2: we had a few more questions about the sound of
• 17:26
  Speaker 2: the gunshot in the trailer. They're kind of coming in
• 17:29
  Speaker 2: after I think it was an episode or two or ago.
• 17:32
  Speaker 2: But this is a message that came in from a
• 17:36
  Speaker 2: listener named Kristen. She says, this bothers me. Family in
• 17:40
  Speaker 2: a small trailer does not hear a gun shot, just
• 17:42
  Speaker 2: a thud, Caprice on the phone, does not hear the shot.
• 17:44
  Speaker 2: I live in a small farming community with lots of
• 17:46
  Speaker 2: empty land. Everyone has guns. I hear them going off constantly.
• 17:50
  Speaker 2: So basically her question is how how could they have
• 17:53
  Speaker 2: not hear the shot? What does a gunshot sound like
• 17:55
  Speaker 2: when placed directly on the skin? Does that silence it?
• 17:59
  Speaker 2: And one of our ex where it's actually addresses that
• 18:01
  Speaker 2: very question in the episode that came out on Monday,
• 18:05
  Speaker 2: where he said yes, essentially, having the gun up to
• 18:10
  Speaker 2: the head the head would act as a silencer, so
• 18:14
  Speaker 2: to him it was not alarming. It actually made sense
• 18:17
  Speaker 2: that the family didn't recognize it as a gunshot.
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: And we also heard this week about how Cain describes
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: Brian's hailing of the phone and how I put it
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: down in his lap before playing the game. If that's
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: what happened, then that would further muffle the sound that
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: would have been transmitted to a priest on the other
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: end of the line.
• 18:36
  Speaker 3: I had never heard this concept before, that if you
• 18:40
  Speaker 3: put a gun to someone that it sort of acts
• 18:42
  Speaker 3: as a little bit of a silencer. I found that
• 18:44
  Speaker 3: to be extraordinary. I mean not that I'm scientists are
• 18:48
  Speaker 3: an expert in the field. I just can't believe it
• 18:49
  Speaker 3: had never come up in any of the stories we
• 18:52
  Speaker 3: worked before. So I found that particularly interesting. So one
• 18:56
  Speaker 3: of the central figures in this story is clearly Dallas,
• 19:00
  Speaker 3: and when Jacinda first brought me the story was also
• 19:04
  Speaker 3: sort of framed around this man who was the central figure.
• 19:08
  Speaker 3: And next week, you guys are going to spend some
• 19:10
  Speaker 3: time investigating that.
• 19:12
  Speaker 2: Is that right, We're going to spend some time getting
• 19:14
  Speaker 2: to know Dallas Battle. Whenever we talk to somebody and
• 19:19
  Speaker 2: we mentioned Dallas Battle, everyone had a reaction, you know,
• 19:22
  Speaker 2: everyone we talked to him, And of course we're talking
• 19:24
  Speaker 2: to people who are familiar with this case or somehow
• 19:26
  Speaker 2: related to this case. So they had interactions with Dallas Battle.
• 19:30
  Speaker 2: But everyone had a reaction and had something to say
• 19:33
  Speaker 2: about him.
• 19:34
  Speaker 3: Yeah, everyone had an opinion.
• 19:36
  Speaker 2: Everyone had an opinion and more than opinion, like it
• 19:39
  Speaker 2: was a physical emotional reaction to hearing his name.
• 19:43
  Speaker 3: Wow, that should be interesting to hear. Look forward to it.
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to this week's Proof Sidebar. We're back
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: Monday with episode eight. If you have any questions for
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: future Sideber episodes, don't forget to send them O way
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: through email, Twitter, Facebook, or Instagram. On all social media,
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: we are Proof Crime Pod. You can also find me
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: on Twitter at the vief Mellow two and on Instagram
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: at s O O simp and you can find Just
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: Senda now on Instagram at j just send a proof