Latest / NO FILTER / Man allegedly kills 5-year-old neighbor_ dumps body_ Dad fakes baby_s kidnapping after fatal abuse(MP3_160K)

Transcript

Man allegedly kills 5-year-old neighbor_ dumps body_ Dad fakes baby_s kidnapping after fatal abuse(MP3_160K) · NO FILTER

• 0:11
  Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the Sidebar presented by True Crime News,
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: taking you inside the courtrooms of high profile and notorious
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: cases from across the country. I'm your host, Joshua Rutter.
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: I'm a criminal defense layer based in Los Angeles and
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: previously an LA County prosecutor for over a decade. You
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: can find me on all social platforms at Joshua Ritter
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: EESQ or at Joshua Rudder dot com. We are recording
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: this on Wednesday, November fifth, twenty twenty five. In this
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: week's episode, a father sentenced for his infant's murder after
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: claiming the body was abducted, plus an alleged abusive boyfriend
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: convicted for killing and disposing his girlfriend of twenty years.
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: But first a neighbor charged in the death of a
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: five year old boy as the search for the victim's
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: remains continue. Today, we are very excited to be joined
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: by Imron and Sorry, an attorney and legal analyst you
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: can catch on Fox, Court, TV, News Nation, and many
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: other outlets. Imron, welcome back, my friend. How are you.
• 1:10
  Speaker 2: I'm doing good, josh Thanks for having me.
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: I know you're a very busy guy. You told us
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: were you You said you were in court all day today.
• 1:18
  Speaker 3: Yeah, I was in Federal court Southern District of New
• 1:20
  Speaker 3: York pretty much all day. But this is a great
• 1:23
  Speaker 3: way to cap off the day in court, to come
• 1:25
  Speaker 3: here chat.
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: About some cases with you, Josh.
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: Yeah, this is your way of unwinding after a long
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: day in court. Let's get up, let's get on the
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: YouTube and talk about some court cases taking place around
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: the country. I like it.
• 1:40
  Speaker 2: Yeah, now let's do it.
• 1:41
  Speaker 3: And I got a newborn at home, so it's uh,
• 1:43
  Speaker 3: you know, we're firing on all cylinders here.
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: Congratulations, my friend. I can understand. Uh, I can understand
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: both the stress and why you might want to spend
• 1:54
  Speaker 1: a few more minutes in the office rather than heading
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: back home to all of that. So thank you again
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: for being here. Let's go ahead and just jump right
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: in then out of Pyat County, Idaho. After a four
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: year search into the disappearance of a missing child, prosecutors
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: have announced murder charges against a neighbor of the victim,
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: despite the absence of the boy's remains. Five year old
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: Michael Vaughan was last seen in July of twenty twenty
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: one outside his family home in the rural town of Fruitland, Idaho.
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: While extensive searches for the child failed to find the
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: boy or his remains, Stacy Wandra has been charged with
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: first degree murder, kidnapping, and destruction of evidence in the death.
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: Wandra and his wife, Sarah lived less than a half
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: mile from the Vaughn's home when the child disappeared. The
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: couple first appeared on a police radar about three years
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: ago when a cadaver dog alerted authorities to the presence
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: of human remains on the couple's property. An excavation of
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: their yard failed to yield any discoveries, but Sarah was
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: initially charged with failure to report a death before the
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: charges were dismissed. Nevertheless, the two remained key suspects in
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: Vaughn's suspected killing, and both have since been incarcerated on
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: unrelated charges. Even without Vaughn's body, prosecutors believe they have
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: identified key figures in Vaughn's disappearance and death, telling media
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: outlets quote, we believe we know the individuals involved and
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: are committed to pursuing justice with or without Michael's recovery.
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: Additional suspects could be named in Vaughn's death and We
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: will continue to update you as this case progresses and
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: roun This is one of those really tragic cases, but
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: it's also, from a perspective of attorneys, a really difficult
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: one both for the prosecution and defense. Here, what do
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: you think, first of all, about these types of cases
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: in general? A nobody case, it's several years old now,
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: they really don't have It's not like they have remains
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: and they can't quite tell what happened. They've got nothing,
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: and it sounds like nothing's really changed before they brought
• 3:56
  Speaker 1: these charges. Is this going to be a difficult case
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: for prosecutors?
• 4:00
  Speaker 3: Yeah, it could be a difficult case because they're they're
• 4:03
  Speaker 3: sort of playing it close to the cuff right now.
• 4:06
  Speaker 3: I you know, they hint at other suspects that may
• 4:09
  Speaker 3: be charged with this crime, but they're gonna have to
• 4:13
  Speaker 3: deal with the fact that they don't have the body
• 4:15
  Speaker 3: of this young boy so tragically you know, killed, and
• 4:19
  Speaker 3: they're gonna be dealing with circumstantial evidence most likely, and
• 4:22
  Speaker 3: it remains to be seen what exact evidence they are
• 4:25
  Speaker 3: using or they're going to rely on in tying these
• 4:28
  Speaker 3: defendants to this crime.
• 4:31
  Speaker 2: It could be some statements from.
• 4:34
  Speaker 3: Other individuals who may be, you know, cooperating with law
• 4:38
  Speaker 3: enforcement and pointing the finger. I do know that there
• 4:41
  Speaker 3: were some statements that Stacey Wandra made when the police
• 4:45
  Speaker 3: were at the scene at the house with a cadaver dog,
• 4:48
  Speaker 3: which may be implicating himself or his wife maybe pointing
• 4:52
  Speaker 3: some fingers there at the time. But they have been
• 4:56
  Speaker 3: dedicated to this case in the sense that this hap
• 5:00
  Speaker 3: many years ago.
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: This young boy went missing many years ago.
• 5:03
  Speaker 3: But they have been seemingly focused on these suspects, and
• 5:07
  Speaker 3: now we have, years later, these charges being brought. Really,
• 5:10
  Speaker 3: we have to see the strength of the evidence, and
• 5:12
  Speaker 3: I think the defense may have things to work with,
• 5:15
  Speaker 3: but they seem to have something to rely on for
• 5:18
  Speaker 3: these charges with these individuals, and again hinting that there
• 5:22
  Speaker 3: may be other suspects that may be charged.
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: Yeah, they're not giving us a lot at this point.
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: And we hope to find out more about what led
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: to these charges in the coming days and weeks. But
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: I'm going to ask you to lean into your experience
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: and kind of try to read through the lines of
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: as to why some of these things may have played
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: out the way that they did. The first thing that
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: I'm curious about is they initially charged the wife, Sarah,
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: not with murder, but with not reporting a death, which
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: is a bizarre kind of a charge. And I'm wondering
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: why they may have charged her that way, and then
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: why they may have dismissed it. And again, I know
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: I'm asking you to just kind of operate in the
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: dark here, but I'm curious if you have any theories
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: on that.
• 6:04
  Speaker 3: Yeah, it's an interesting move to make because they brought
• 6:07
  Speaker 3: the charges and that was some years ago, right that now,
• 6:09
  Speaker 3: between these charges now and when the wife was charged,
• 6:14
  Speaker 3: when they were at the location with the cadaver, doog
• 6:17
  Speaker 3: what happened in that time? Certainly something in order for
• 6:22
  Speaker 3: them to now rely on these charges, bring this case
• 6:25
  Speaker 3: before a grand jury and get these murder charges here.
• 6:29
  Speaker 3: But why would they take it They would charge this
• 6:33
  Speaker 3: individual charge the wife, then decline to prosecute or dismiss
• 6:38
  Speaker 3: these charges. Perhaps at that time they realized they didn't
• 6:41
  Speaker 3: have enough evidence in.
• 6:43
  Speaker 2: Order for those charges to go forward. I don't know.
• 6:47
  Speaker 3: Why, but certainly we see now a flurry of activity
• 6:51
  Speaker 3: in terms of the prosecutors bringing these murder charges against
• 6:54
  Speaker 3: Stacey Wandra, the wife also you know, now facing a
• 6:59
  Speaker 3: charge and other potential suspects who may be facing charges here.
• 7:04
  Speaker 3: I think we'll learn more information as the case progresses,
• 7:08
  Speaker 3: as we see what the prosecution is going to be
• 7:10
  Speaker 3: relying on, and as more suspects are now being brought
• 7:13
  Speaker 3: or will they be if they are brought to the
• 7:15
  Speaker 3: forefront as to maybe what happened and the information and
• 7:20
  Speaker 3: evidence that are now in prosecution's hands that may have
• 7:24
  Speaker 3: not been a few years ago.
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: An excellent assessment of that. And again, I know I'm
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: asking you to kind of read the tea leaves of
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: a case that we don't know much about, but I
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: had one theory and I'm curious to hear your thoughts
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: on this. Is that in California at least, and I'm
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: sure this works in other jurisdictions, there's a concept that
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: if somebody is charged with something in relation to a
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: crime and they end up pleading to that, that might
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: prevent prosecutors from bringing other charges related to that crime
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: later on. So I'm wondering if there was some sort
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: of strategic decision made here if she is charge with,
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: you know, not reporting a death. Who knows what the
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: exposure on that is, but I'm sure it's much less
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: than murder, and if she ends up taking some sort
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: of plea, might that have prevented them from charging her
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: with murder later on? Do you think I'm getting too
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: far into the weeds here or am I onto something?
• 8:17
  Speaker 3: No, Josh, I mean that may be a valid point
• 8:20
  Speaker 3: that you're making, right, because you know, certainly, as you
• 8:22
  Speaker 3: point out, there's a lot of real estate between a
• 8:26
  Speaker 3: murder charge and then failure to report, right, there's there's
• 8:30
  Speaker 3: a huge amount of real estate in terms of what
• 8:33
  Speaker 3: a defendant would have exposure to, and if there was
• 8:35
  Speaker 3: any argument, especially some creative defense work from a defense attorney,
• 8:40
  Speaker 3: in terms of the plea and what it would foreclose
• 8:43
  Speaker 3: in terms of a prosecutor being able to come back
• 8:46
  Speaker 3: and bring other charges related to the same sort of allegations,
• 8:50
  Speaker 3: then certainly the prosecution may be looking at that and saying,
• 8:54
  Speaker 3: all right, we're gonna take a step back, We're gonna
• 8:56
  Speaker 3: dismiss these charges or not go forward with them, and
• 8:59
  Speaker 3: we're gonna wait to see what other evidence we can gather,
• 9:02
  Speaker 3: because certainly we feel that there's probable cause and these
• 9:05
  Speaker 3: individuals are suspects, and then we come back later with
• 9:08
  Speaker 3: those murder charges. So that could be something at play here.
• 9:11
  Speaker 3: We may get more information as this case progresses.
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: I hope we do, because I hope that they're able
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: to bring some justice to the Vaughn family after so
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: many years still not being able to locate his body.
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: It's a horrific case, but it sounds like they're onto something.
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: It's just we don't know quite much quite yet what
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: that is. We will continue to keep a close eye
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: on this case as it develops. Let's move to Waukeshaw, Wisconsin,
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: where jurors took just over an hour to convict an
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: allegedly abusive man of the murder of his longtime girlfriend.
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: Matthew Paul was found guilty on all charges in Stephanie
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: Pavlon's killing after her disappearance in August of twenty twenty two.
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: Paul and Pavlon's shared a tumultuous, on again, off again
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: twenty years relationship, and the victim's mother claimed that Pavlon's
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: was a victim of domestic abuse in the courtship. Pavlon's
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: remains were eventually discovered by construction workers posting no trespassing
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: signs in a wooded area with the victims remained so
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: badly decomposed, a medical examiner could not determine the cause
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: or manner of death. Authorities discovered surveillance footage of Paul
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: and Pavlon's leaving the apartment they shared together prior to
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: her disappearance, before observing Paul returning to the apartment alone
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: with the victim's purse and water bottle. While Paul never
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: reported Pavlon's missing, CoP's uncovered communications on Paul's phone with
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: at least two individuals discussing sexual topics and the man's
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: plans to move to the Philippines. Paul declined to testify
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: in the trial, and his defense presented information that Pavelon
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: suffered from documented depression, noting that prosecutors could not definitively
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: prove that the man took part in Pavlon's death. However,
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: jurors were not convinced and took minimal deliberations to find
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: Paul guilty on all accounts. Paul's scheduled to be sentenced
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: on November eleventh, and the first degree murder conviction carries
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: a mandatory life sentence. Again, Imran not an easy case
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: here for the prosecution. Now we have a body, but
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: there's not much that they can get out of it
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: as far as for an evidentiary value. Medical examiner says,
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: I can't determine either cause or manner of death. But
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: there's other circumstantial evidence here. What in your view was
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: it that was probably most convincing to jurors because they
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: came back in about an hour after eight days of testimony.
• 11:38
  Speaker 3: Yeah, when you look at the case how it was
• 11:40
  Speaker 3: presented by the prosecution, then also know juxtapose that with
• 11:45
  Speaker 3: the defense that was put on. I think the prosecutors
• 11:48
  Speaker 3: really did a good job in putting for this narrative
• 11:52
  Speaker 3: of the relationship, this abuse that had occurred previously, and
• 11:56
  Speaker 3: it was seemingly was systematic abuse.
• 11:59
  Speaker 2: This wasn't isolated.
• 12:01
  Speaker 3: I know there was some text message that came into
• 12:03
  Speaker 3: evidence where he's making fun of her for, you know,
• 12:07
  Speaker 3: having seemingly urinated on herself in conjunction with the possible
• 12:14
  Speaker 3: abuse that it was an asphyxiation and she actually urinated
• 12:19
  Speaker 3: on herself, and there was some abusive text messages in
• 12:22
  Speaker 3: that regard. I think there was a history of more
• 12:24
  Speaker 3: physical abuse that the prosecution were able to present to
• 12:27
  Speaker 3: this jury. And of course this is collateral to the
• 12:31
  Speaker 3: actual charge of murder. But it allowed the prosecution to
• 12:35
  Speaker 3: go forward and argue the circumstantial case that they have,
• 12:40
  Speaker 3: And it doesn't surprise me that the jury came back
• 12:43
  Speaker 3: relatively quickly, notwithstanding the fact that body was decomposed to
• 12:47
  Speaker 3: the point where the emmy wasn't able to determine the
• 12:50
  Speaker 3: manner or.
• 12:51
  Speaker 2: Cause of death.
• 12:52
  Speaker 3: But there were these little pieces of evidence that I
• 12:54
  Speaker 3: think voted pretty poorly for the defendant, Right, Kim leaving
• 13:00
  Speaker 3: with the deceased, returning with her items, but not with
• 13:03
  Speaker 3: her not reporting her missing, the communications regarding going and
• 13:09
  Speaker 3: moving to the Philippines. I think there was also some
• 13:12
  Speaker 3: sort of piece of evidence that was even related to
• 13:15
  Speaker 3: extradition and the lack thereof with the Philippines, and he
• 13:18
  Speaker 3: was looking into that. So all these building blocks put together,
• 13:22
  Speaker 3: I think allowed the prosecution to take this case before
• 13:25
  Speaker 3: the jury and successfully get that conviction. The defense, on
• 13:31
  Speaker 3: the other hand, right, they painted this picture that she
• 13:33
  Speaker 3: was potentially suicidal and this was a possibility of her
• 13:38
  Speaker 3: taking her own life. There was a note that they
• 13:41
  Speaker 3: were trying to put forward was a suicide note, but
• 13:44
  Speaker 3: it wasn't. It was actually a breakup note. And I
• 13:47
  Speaker 3: think that sort of bodes again poorly for the defendant
• 13:51
  Speaker 3: rather than helping his defense. So I think putting all
• 13:55
  Speaker 3: this together, it was a circumstantial case. Yet the body
• 13:58
  Speaker 3: was so decomposed. We didn't get a conclusive manner of
• 14:02
  Speaker 3: death from the emmy, but the prosecution was successful. I
• 14:05
  Speaker 3: believe in putting forward that circumstantial evidence, painting a picture
• 14:08
  Speaker 3: of an abusive relationship that culminated with murder.
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: You're absolutely right. It was one of those cases. You know,
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: the prosecution built a death by a thousand cups kind
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: of a prosecution just bit by bit, chipping away at
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: any reasonable doubt that jurors may have had, and obviously
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: they were convinced thoroughly by the time they got to
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: the deliberation room. In these types of cases, I often
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: hear it described as it's not a case of who
• 14:32
  Speaker 1: did it, but it's a case of who else could
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: have done it? And I'm curious, I'm going to lean
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: into your experience and thinking as a defense attorney. Do
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: you think that that puts the defense at a disadvantage
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: in the sense that it's almost like shifting burden shifting
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: that it's this idea that hey, we can't tell you
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: we don't have a piece of evidence, we don't have
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: a witness, we don't have a confession. We can't tell
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: you exactly, you know, point to who did this? But
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: look at all of this, Ladies and gentlemen and ants,
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: ask the question who else could have done it? Isn't
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: that kind of making the defense have to answer questions
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: they shouldn't have to? Or am I reading too much
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: into this?
• 15:11
  Speaker 2: Well? Yeah, it is.
• 15:12
  Speaker 3: It's almost like putting the defense in a position, right
• 15:15
  Speaker 3: to prove a negative and to really put forth you know,
• 15:19
  Speaker 3: perhaps evidence that is burden shifting in some respects not
• 15:24
  Speaker 3: next necessarily technically or per se, but you know that's
• 15:28
  Speaker 3: also a defense strategy in a case like this. Right,
• 15:30
  Speaker 3: you want to try to raise that reasonable doubt and
• 15:34
  Speaker 3: perhaps present an alternate killer, right, or you plant that
• 15:38
  Speaker 3: seed in the jury's mind that the prosecution hasn't proved
• 15:42
  Speaker 3: beyond a reasonable doubt that it was this particular defendant
• 15:46
  Speaker 3: who may have killed this individual, if this individual was
• 15:49
  Speaker 3: killed at all, and it wasn't a suicide. So I
• 15:52
  Speaker 3: think that's a difficult concept or task, I would say,
• 15:57
  Speaker 3: for the defense in a case like this. But you're
• 16:00
  Speaker 3: left with little options when you have a litany of
• 16:04
  Speaker 3: evidence that the judge is allowing in into the case
• 16:07
  Speaker 3: about prior abuse, about these you know, certain actions taken
• 16:12
  Speaker 3: by the defendant after the individual went missing and then
• 16:15
  Speaker 3: was later learned to be deceased. So you know, you
• 16:18
  Speaker 3: have to confront that as a defense attorney, and you
• 16:21
  Speaker 3: have to work with what you have, right, you know,
• 16:23
  Speaker 3: if you're going to take a case to trial, if
• 16:24
  Speaker 3: your client is insisting on going to trial, you have
• 16:27
  Speaker 3: to work with what you have. And in a case
• 16:29
  Speaker 3: like this, what are the theories that the defense could
• 16:31
  Speaker 3: put out as a defense.
• 16:32
  Speaker 2: Theory that there's someone else did it?
• 16:34
  Speaker 3: Right, and you know, the prosecution has improved beyond a
• 16:38
  Speaker 3: reasonable doubt that it was this particular defendant who committed
• 16:41
  Speaker 3: this crime, or if it was a suicide. Right, So,
• 16:44
  Speaker 3: these are the sort of chips that you're dealt with
• 16:46
  Speaker 3: a defense as a defense attorney in a case like this,
• 16:49
  Speaker 3: and you've got to do, you know, the best you
• 16:50
  Speaker 3: can with them.
• 16:52
  Speaker 1: I get asked this all the time. I'm sure you
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: do as well, especially in these types of cases, about
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: whether or not you think this is when those rare
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: exceptions where it might be a good idea to go
• 17:03
  Speaker 1: ahead and put your client on the stand. And I'm
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: curious what your thoughts are in this case. Here? Is
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: this one of those rare exceptions, because as you pointed out,
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: it was one of those things where they don't have
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: direct physical evidence a confession, something pointing towards him. But
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: all of this circumstantial evidence, all of this mountain of evidence,
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: kind of creates a bunch of questions in the jurors
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: minds where they're going, well, it does certainly sound like
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: this guy doesn't have a reasonable explanation. Did that need
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: to come out of his own mouth?
• 17:32
  Speaker 3: In your view, yeah, I think it would be a
• 17:35
  Speaker 3: dangerous prospect to put him on the stand, right, Yeah,
• 17:38
  Speaker 3: you have all these sort of question marks. But at
• 17:41
  Speaker 3: the same time, by putting him on the stand, you're
• 17:44
  Speaker 3: also exposing him to providing answers to those question marks.
• 17:48
  Speaker 3: And there was a lot of that circumstantial evidence that
• 17:51
  Speaker 3: didn't really look good for this defendant. The searches about
• 17:54
  Speaker 3: the Philippines, the sort of sexual content in these text
• 17:58
  Speaker 3: messages with these others. You know, why did he have
• 18:02
  Speaker 3: the belongings of you know, the deceased when he came back.
• 18:06
  Speaker 3: That would all be fair game why was he searching
• 18:09
  Speaker 3: or looking up or had some material about extradition. I mean,
• 18:13
  Speaker 3: these are pretty damning pieces of circumstantial evidence sort of
• 18:17
  Speaker 3: evinced the consciousness of guilt, and that would all be
• 18:21
  Speaker 3: fair game, including the prior abuse. I would imagine if
• 18:24
  Speaker 3: he took the stand, and as a defense attorney, I
• 18:26
  Speaker 3: certainly would not want my client having to answer those
• 18:29
  Speaker 3: questions on cross or being put in the position of
• 18:32
  Speaker 3: perhaps opening the door to even more questions about the
• 18:36
  Speaker 3: past conduct or prior, or the relationship between the two,
• 18:40
  Speaker 3: or his searches or communications.
• 18:42
  Speaker 2: It just would be a dangerous prospect.
• 18:45
  Speaker 3: And even though there's these question marks that the prosecution
• 18:48
  Speaker 3: may be grappling with, in terms of explaining that to
• 18:51
  Speaker 3: the jury, the defense is better suited and saying, you know,
• 18:54
  Speaker 3: there's this reasonable doubt there because of these question marks,
• 18:58
  Speaker 3: rather than having a defendant lie like this, attempting to
• 19:01
  Speaker 3: fill in the blanks.
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: No, I think you're absolutely right. It's always difficult even
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: in the best of circumstances, and this was certainly not
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: the best of circumstances. Well, like we said, he is
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: scheduled to be sentenced next week, and he's looking at
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: a mandatory life sentence. Let's now move to our final
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: case out of Riverside County, California, where a father has
• 19:22
  Speaker 1: been sentenced to a quarter century behind bars for his
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: child's murder after claiming the boy was abducted. Jake Carrow
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: pleaded guilty to the murder of his seven month old son, Emmanuel,
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: and will serve more than twenty five years behind bars
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: for the charge, along with counts of child endangerment and
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: filing a false police report. The child's mother, Rebecca Harrow,
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: who has also been charged with his murder, after initially
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: claiming she was attacked in a parking lot while changing
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: Emmanuel's diaper, telling authorities she regained consciousness to find the
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: boy gone. Police quickly discovered inconsistencies in the mother's store,
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: and the Horrows became the center of the investigation, with
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: detectives determining that am Manuel was the victim of prolonged
• 20:07
  Speaker 1: abuse before succumbing to his injuries. This is not the
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: first time Harrow has been accused of abusing his children.
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: In twenty twenty three, Harrow pleaded guilty to the abuse
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: of another one of his kids in an ordeal that
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: left the girl with lifelong injuries, while Harrow was given
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: leniency and a suspended sentence incredibly in the first case.
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: The same courtesy was not extended in Emmanuel's death, and
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: Harrow's conviction could have massive implications for his wife's upcoming trial.
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: Imron horrific case. Horrible, seven months old, didn't even have
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: a chance to really make it in this world. It
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: lived seven months. It sounds like a nightmare of life
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: before he eventually succumbed to his injuries. This is what
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: prosecutors believe. And now he dies at the hands of
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: his own parents. Just everything about this breaks my heart.
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: But we're I'm most surprised and I want to hear
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: your thoughts is on how this do you how this
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: plea came about for Jake the father. There's no plea
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: deal here. This was not a coordinat This was not
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: something negotiated with the prosecution. There's no reports that he's
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: somehow going to cooperate, no reports that he's going to
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: tell prosecutors where the body is the or that he's
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: going to testify against his wife. No leniency handed out
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: by the judge. It was just one of those open
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: pleas where he goes around the prosecution says Judge, I
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: want to plead guilty. Give me whatever you feel is appropriate.
• 21:41
  Speaker 1: You don't see this happen all that often, especially in
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: a case like this, looking at twenty five to life,
• 21:46
  Speaker 1: you would expect him or his attorneys at least to
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: tell him go ahead and roll the dice and see
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: what happens. Why do you think something like this played
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: out this way?
• 21:54
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's interesting, Josh.
• 21:55
  Speaker 3: And we saw these articles about this leading up to
• 21:58
  Speaker 3: this plea, you know, and then the photograph of that
• 22:02
  Speaker 3: young baby, you know, which was you know, put out
• 22:06
  Speaker 3: in the press, and you just felt for that young young.
• 22:10
  Speaker 2: Child who tragically lost his life.
• 22:12
  Speaker 3: And now you have the guilty plea from the father
• 22:16
  Speaker 3: who has a history of abuse of children, who you
• 22:21
  Speaker 3: know was already got leniency on, you know, regarding the
• 22:25
  Speaker 3: other child.
• 22:26
  Speaker 2: I don't know, is it a mea culpa?
• 22:28
  Speaker 3: Did this individual actually, after all this, after all the
• 22:33
  Speaker 3: horrific things that he has done to children, to his
• 22:37
  Speaker 3: own children, maybe had some epiphany of guilt remorse and
• 22:42
  Speaker 3: decided to go before the judge around the prosecution and
• 22:47
  Speaker 3: have this sort of mea culpa and take responsibility for
• 22:50
  Speaker 3: his actions that may have occurred.
• 22:52
  Speaker 2: You know, we don't normally see that with defendants.
• 22:55
  Speaker 3: You see a lot of individuals doubling down on their crime,
• 22:58
  Speaker 3: trying to work out at least the best deal. And
• 23:01
  Speaker 3: often it's rare even at sentencing, you know, after a trial,
• 23:05
  Speaker 3: that a defendant really truly shows remorse. I don't know
• 23:09
  Speaker 3: if that's what happened here there, That may very well
• 23:13
  Speaker 3: be what happened, you know. I think the sort of
• 23:17
  Speaker 3: the writings on the wall for the mother, especially when
• 23:20
  Speaker 3: you have this concocted story at the backdrop, which shows
• 23:25
  Speaker 3: planning and you know, the attempt to evade you know,
• 23:30
  Speaker 3: responsibility and arrest for what happened here, I don't think
• 23:33
  Speaker 3: it's going to bode well for the wife. And the
• 23:35
  Speaker 3: wife may end up taking a plea deal, uh, you know,
• 23:39
  Speaker 3: and and the path sort of is being paved by
• 23:42
  Speaker 3: the husband. But it's a curious, uh sort of you know,
• 23:46
  Speaker 3: turn of events when you have a defendant willingly pleading
• 23:50
  Speaker 3: like this without negotiation and seemingly taking responsibility.
• 23:55
  Speaker 2: Maybe that's what happened here.
• 23:56
  Speaker 3: Maybe sitting in that jail cell uh and looking at
• 23:59
  Speaker 3: those the walls and thinking deep inside himself speculating here
• 24:04
  Speaker 3: may have brought this individual to say, listen, I think
• 24:07
  Speaker 3: I'm going to get convicted anyways. I don't know, you know,
• 24:10
  Speaker 3: I'm just going to go and accept responsibility.
• 24:13
  Speaker 2: This is all speculation, Josh.
• 24:15
  Speaker 3: But maybe that's what happened here, and then, you know,
• 24:17
  Speaker 3: I don't think it's going to go bode well for
• 24:19
  Speaker 3: the wife, especially when she was so active in concocting
• 24:23
  Speaker 3: this story to law enforcement that even if there's going
• 24:27
  Speaker 3: to be some sort of dispelling of responsibility or I
• 24:31
  Speaker 3: should say, you know, act being an active participant in
• 24:35
  Speaker 3: the death, at least, you know, being a participant and
• 24:39
  Speaker 3: conspiring to try to get this you know, false narrative
• 24:42
  Speaker 3: out there to law enforcement will not bode well for her.
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: Yeah, no, I agree with you. I mean, listen, it's
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: not like it's somehow impossible for these types of pleas
• 24:52
  Speaker 1: to take place. They do happen. I've just never seen them.
• 24:55
  Speaker 1: I just I've only ever seen a situation where, even
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: with the defendant goes around the prosecution and ask for
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: an open plea, there's some sort of negotiation in a
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: sense taking place with that judge. It's your honor. I
• 25:10
  Speaker 1: can't get a reasonable offer out of the prosecution. Therefore,
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: I'm coming to you and here's I'm willing to testify.
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: I'm willing to tell people where the body at whatever,
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: it is nothing. Just like you said, it's almost like
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: he just felt like, I've got to take responsibility for this,
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: and we're not getting any statements from him explaining it.
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: And it is a situation where the attorneys, despite you know,
• 25:34
  Speaker 1: whatever efforts they may have made to convince him otherwise,
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: it's his call. So he could have just said let
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: him know, I'm taking a plea and that's it, and
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: provided very little explanation to them as well. You mentioned
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: the mother, Rebecca a couple of times and how this
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: is not going to help her at all, and I
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: agree with you. I'm curious, though, do you think there's
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: a potential for him to be called as a witness
• 26:01
  Speaker 1: by the prosecution if she does go to trial. She
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: he's now pled, you know that whatever kind of Fifth
• 26:06
  Speaker 1: Amendment concerns, you know, however those play out, do you
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: think there's still perhaps a way that he might play
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: a role in her trial.
• 26:15
  Speaker 2: Yeah?
• 26:15
  Speaker 3: Absolutely, And Josh, you and I are former prosecutors, and
• 26:18
  Speaker 3: I am sure those prosecutors are already thinking about that
• 26:21
  Speaker 3: that if they are going to go to trial with
• 26:24
  Speaker 3: the other defendant that you know, they're going to want
• 26:28
  Speaker 3: to call the husband. Of course, try to speak to
• 26:31
  Speaker 3: him prior, and like you said, now he's he's pled,
• 26:33
  Speaker 3: he's going to be sentenced.
• 26:34
  Speaker 2: He has been sentenced.
• 26:35
  Speaker 3: He's going to be doing time, and some of the
• 26:37
  Speaker 3: restrictions won't be there in terms of the prosecution being
• 26:40
  Speaker 3: able to talk to him, and you know, considerations from
• 26:43
  Speaker 3: the defense standpoint, you know, about dangers of what he's
• 26:46
  Speaker 3: going to say. So I'm sure that the prosecution would
• 26:49
  Speaker 3: be considering calling him as a witness at trial, seeing
• 26:52
  Speaker 3: what he has to say, and maybe using that as
• 26:55
  Speaker 3: leverage to squeeze out a plea from the wife rather
• 26:59
  Speaker 3: than having to go through the trial and the wife,
• 27:03
  Speaker 3: you know, hearing about you know, him taking this pleading guilty.
• 27:08
  Speaker 3: Who knows if she also starts thinking about either leading
• 27:13
  Speaker 3: guilty in herself, or at least at the very least
• 27:16
  Speaker 3: telling her attorneys that she wants to work out a
• 27:18
  Speaker 3: deal rather than take the case to trial. There may
• 27:21
  Speaker 3: also be a thought in her head or the defense
• 27:23
  Speaker 3: team that because he's taken responsibility of this, that that
• 27:26
  Speaker 3: may be able to deflect at least some of the
• 27:28
  Speaker 3: higher top count charges against the mother.
• 27:32
  Speaker 2: But no matter how you.
• 27:34
  Speaker 3: Look at it is probably not going to be favorable
• 27:37
  Speaker 3: for her at trial, and he may very well be
• 27:41
  Speaker 3: a witness against her.
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: Yeah, bizarre case, the way it's played out, A tragic case,
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: the way that it happened. As I said, I mean,
• 27:49
  Speaker 1: I will never forget when we first had reports that
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: this baby was missing and a potential kidnapping, and the
• 27:57
  Speaker 1: parents did that press conference, and I think we all
• 28:00
  Speaker 1: just kind of got this sinking feeling in our gut
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: that something's not right here. Just none of this rings true.
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: The story is a little too fantastic. I hope this
• 28:09
  Speaker 1: doesn't turn out the way we're all suspecting, and here
• 28:12
  Speaker 1: we're sitting and it absolutely did. Anyhow, Thank you so much,
• 28:16
  Speaker 1: Imron for all of your thoughts. I always appreciate hearing
• 28:19
  Speaker 1: your take on these cases. Where can people find out
• 28:22
  Speaker 1: more about you?
• 28:24
  Speaker 2: Sure?
• 28:25
  Speaker 3: So you could go to the firm website, which is
• 28:28
  Speaker 3: www dot I Dollar Law AI D A L A l.
• 28:33
  Speaker 2: A W dot com. That's my law firm's website.
• 28:36
  Speaker 3: But you can find me on social media at Imran
• 28:39
  Speaker 3: and sorry Esq at Imran and sorry ESQ. That's my
• 28:44
  Speaker 3: Instagram handle and also the same on X so please
• 28:48
  Speaker 3: do so and please add me and follow me, and
• 28:53
  Speaker 3: you know, hopefully we'll have more content in the future.
• 28:55
  Speaker 2: Josh always awesome to be on with you.
• 28:57
  Speaker 1: Oh you're the best. I appreciate it and I'm your host,
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: at Joshua Ritter EESQ. And if you want to hear
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: my thoughts and coverage on even more true crime cases,
• 29:07
  Speaker 1: please check out my YouTube channel, Courtroom Confidential, and you
• 29:11
  Speaker 1: can of course find all of our sidebar episodes wherever
• 29:14
  Speaker 1: you get your podcasts, and we would love to hear
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: from you. If you've got questions or comments you'd like
• 29:19
  Speaker 1: us to address, please tweet us your questions with the
• 29:22
  Speaker 1: hashtag TCN Sidebar, and thank you for joining us at
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: the True Crime News Sidebar