Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / The Trail of Deception: The Murder of Jasmine Cigaroa

Transcript

The Trail of Deception: The Murder of Jasmine Cigaroa · Murder Files Unsealed

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Welcome to today's Deep Dive. I am your host, and
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: as always, I'm ready to get into it.
• 0:04
  Speaker 2: And I'm your resident expert. I'm really glad to be here,
• 0:07
  Speaker 2: even though today's topic is definitely a heavy one.
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it really is. But before we get into the specifics,
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: I want you, the listener, to just imagine something for
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: a second. Imagine committing, like, the perfect crime.
• 0:21
  Speaker 2: Right, that absolute flawless cover-up.
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: Exactly. You spent hours, maybe even days, anticipating every single variable.
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: You know, you scrub the physical scene until it literally shines.
• 0:33
  Speaker 2: You've managed your alibi down to the exact minute.
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: Right. And you've even managed to defeat the smart home
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: security cameras. Like you've plunged the entire digital record into
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: total darkness.
• 0:43
  Speaker 2: So you think you're completely untouchable.
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: You do. But then... And months later, you find yourself
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: sitting in a courtroom listening to a judge sentence you
• 0:51
  Speaker 1: to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
• 0:54
  Speaker 2: Wow.
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: And the reason you were caught, you parked a red
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: Mini Cooper three degrees too far to the left.
• 0:59
  Speaker 2: It's just wild. But, you know, it is the ultimate
• 1:01
  Speaker 2: paradox of human behavior under extreme pressure.
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: How do you mean?
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: Well, the brain can handle the massive cinematic logistics of
• 1:10
  Speaker 2: a cover-up. But it completely collapses under the weight of
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: microscopic everyday routines.
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: Like parking a car.
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: Exactly. And that is exactly what we are unpacking today.
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: We're looking at the concept of the narrative fracture.
• 1:24
  Speaker 1: The narrative fracture. I love that term. And today we're
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: applying that to the tragic and honestly just infuriating case
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: of Jasmine Siguroa.
• 1:32
  Speaker 2: Yes, a really heartbreaking story.
• 1:34
  Speaker 1: She was a 24-year-old student living in Denver preparing to
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: graduate with her master's degree. I mean, she was standing
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: right on the edge of the rest of her life.
• 1:41
  Speaker 2: She had so much ahead of her.
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: Yeah, she did. And then on a Tuesday morning in
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: March of 2021, she just completely vanishes.
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: And what makes this specific analysis so vital for anyone
• 1:51
  Speaker 2: listening today is that it really forces us to confront
• 1:54
  Speaker 2: how fragile our surface narratives really are. Right.
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: The stories we tell the world.
• 1:59
  Speaker 2: Exactly. When you look at the source materials for this
• 2:02
  Speaker 2: deep dive, and we've got police interrogation transcripts, neighbor testimonies,
• 2:06
  Speaker 2: digital forensic data. You aren't just reading a true crime timeline.
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: No, it feels much more immediate than that.
• 2:14
  Speaker 2: It does. You are watching a real-time collision between a
• 2:18
  Speaker 2: meticulously rehearsed, highly polished lie and the immovable silent testimony
• 2:23
  Speaker 2: of the physical world.
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: So we really need to set the scene for you guys.
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: It is March 10th, 2021. A husband, Jonathan Nuno Mahangos,
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: calls 911 to report his wife, Jasmine, missing from their
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: shared apartment.
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: Right. The initial call.
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: Yeah. And he paints this picture of a totally normal,
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: breezy morning. He went to work. She stayed home. End
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: of story.
• 2:46
  Speaker 2: But investigators, they can't just accept a story at face value.
• 2:50
  Speaker 2: They have to stress test it.
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: Which is like looking at a perfectly painted house, right? Yeah.
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: But the moment you tap on the walls, you realize
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: the whole foundation is rotting.
• 2:57
  Speaker 2: That's a great way to put it.
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: But how does an investigator know which wall to tap first?
• 3:02
  Speaker 2: Well, you apply the pressure to the victim's hidden reality first.
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: Okay, meaning what exactly?
• 3:07
  Speaker 2: Meaning before we can even touch the timeline of the
• 3:08
  Speaker 2: morning she vanished, we have to establish a baseline of
• 3:11
  Speaker 2: what Jasmine's life actually looked like behind closed doors.
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: Because it wasn't the happy picture Jonathan was painting.
• 3:17
  Speaker 2: Not at all. The reality of her marriage stood in sharp,
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: horrific contrast to the domestic bliss that Jonathan was selling
• 3:25
  Speaker 2: to the 911 dispatcher.
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: Okay, let me stop you there for a second. Because
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: when we say hidden reality, it implies that literally no
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: one knew.
• 3:32
  Speaker 2: Right, right.
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: But looking through these family and friend accounts in the
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: source material, people did know. Jasmine was actively confessing to
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: her friends. She literally told one friend, I have a
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: confession to make. I've been in an abusive relationship. She
• 3:47
  Speaker 1: admitted that he hit her, and she even mentioned multiple
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: hospital visits.
• 3:51
  Speaker 2: Yes, the hospital visits are a huge red flag.
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: So my question is, if she is telling people this,
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: Why does the source material indicate she was keeping the
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: actual specific details of the violence so incredibly vague?
• 4:04
  Speaker 2: That vagueness, it's a highly evolved, albeit tragic, protective mechanism.
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: A protective mechanism. How so?
• 4:12
  Speaker 2: Well, when a victim of severe domestic abuse confides in someone,
• 4:15
  Speaker 2: they're constantly almost subconsciously calibrating risk.
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: Oh, wow. Okay.
• 4:20
  Speaker 2: If Jasmine sits down and details exactly how her husband
• 4:23
  Speaker 2: strangled her or, you know, gives a specific timeline of
• 4:26
  Speaker 2: the hospital visits, she makes the threat entirely concrete to
• 4:30
  Speaker 2: that friend.
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: And concrete threats mean the friend is going to want
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: to do something about it.
• 4:34
  Speaker 2: Precisely. Concrete threats demand immediate radical interventions from the people
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: hearing them.
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: Like a friend calling the police on her behalf. Even
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: if she isn't ready for that.
• 4:45
  Speaker 2: Exactly. And if a victim isn't logistically or psychologically prepared
• 4:49
  Speaker 2: to flee, which, by the way, is the most dangerous
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: time in an abusive relationship.
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: Right. The act of leaving. Yeah.
• 4:55
  Speaker 2: A well-meaning friend calling the police can actually trigger a
• 4:59
  Speaker 2: fatal escalation from the abuser.
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: That is terrifying.
• 5:02
  Speaker 2: It is. So victims offer breadcrumbs. They say, he hits
• 5:06
  Speaker 2: me to sort of alleviate the immense psychological burden of
• 5:10
  Speaker 2: carrying the secrets.
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: But they keep it vague enough to prevent an uncontrollable
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: chain reaction.
• 5:16
  Speaker 2: Right. It's essentially a muffled cry for help.
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: And her brother, Francisco, he certainly heard that cry for help.
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: His testimony in the file is just heartbreaking.
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: It really is.
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: He talks about the severe depression and anxiety Jasmine was
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: suffering from. But the thing is, she wasn't just suffering passively.
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: She was actively trying to climb out of it.
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: She was putting in the work.
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: Yeah. She was seeing a therapist. In fact, She had
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: her final scheduled therapy appointment at 1.0 p.m. on Tuesday,
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: March 9th.
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: The exact day she disappeared.
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: Exactly. So what does that tell an investigator?
• 5:50
  Speaker 2: Oh, the psychology of that therapy appointment is a massive
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: anchor point in understanding the ensuing investigation.
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: Because it shows her state of mind. Yes.
• 5:57
  Speaker 2: A person who is actively engaging in the hard, painful
• 6:00
  Speaker 2: work of extricating herself from abuse. Someone who is literally
• 6:04
  Speaker 2: hours away from a finalizing therapy session. Does not voluntarily
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: walk away and disappear into thin air. Right.
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: You don't book a final session just to vanish.
• 6:13
  Speaker 2: Exactly. That appointment is a beacon of future-oriented behavior.
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: Future-oriented behavior.
• 6:18
  Speaker 2: Yeah. Suicidal or voluntarily missing individuals generally exhibit a severe
• 6:23
  Speaker 2: detachment from future obligations, not active participation in them.
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: That makes so much sense. Let's talk about the escalation, though,
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: because the history here is a textbook pressure cooker.
• 6:34
  Speaker 2: It really is a classic cycle.
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: Back in 2019... Jonathan was actually arrested for secondary assault.
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: He was accused of trying to choke Jasmine.
• 6:43
  Speaker 2: A highly lethal indicator, by the way.
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Strangulation is huge.
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: But she dropped the charges and they reunited. And I
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: want to play devil's advocate for the listener here because
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: I know people are thinking it.
• 6:53
  Speaker 2: Sure. Go ahead.
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: The common frustrating question people always ask is, why would
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: she drop the charges against someone who literally tried to
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: choke her?
• 7:03
  Speaker 2: It's a vital question to answer because it dismantles the
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: myth that victims just, you know, choose to stay.
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: Right. It's not a simple choice.
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: Not at all. We have to look at the neurobiology
• 7:12
  Speaker 2: of the trauma bond.
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: Okay. Break that down for us.
• 7:15
  Speaker 2: An abusive relationship isn't a state of constant violence. It
• 7:19
  Speaker 2: is a cycle. It's terrifying abuse followed by intense, desperate,
• 7:25
  Speaker 2: performative remorse from the abuser.
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: The honeymoon phase, some people call it.
• 7:29
  Speaker 2: Yes, and this creates a massive spike in cortisol and
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: adrenaline during the abuse. Your body's in fight or flight.
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: Right, sheer panic.
• 7:37
  Speaker 2: But then that's followed by a massive flood of dopamine
• 7:40
  Speaker 2: when the abuser apologizes and essentially saves the victim from
• 7:44
  Speaker 2: the very terror they created.
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: Oh, wow. So their brain actually connects the abuser... To
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: the feeling of safety.
• 7:50
  Speaker 2: Exactly. Over time, the victim's brain becomes chemically dependent on
• 7:55
  Speaker 2: this cycle. It's physiological.
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: So it's an actual addiction to the cycle.
• 7:58
  Speaker 2: Yes. And when you add the fear of the legal system,
• 8:01
  Speaker 2: the financial entanglement, and the abuser's manipulation of her empathy,
• 8:06
  Speaker 2: dropping the charges isn't a choice made in a vacuum.
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: It is a survival reflex.
• 8:11
  Speaker 2: Perfectly said. A survival reflex.
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: And that reflex was tested again just three months before
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: she vanished, around December or January.
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: Francisco testified about this massive public incident.
• 8:21
  Speaker 2: Yes, the car incident.
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: Yeah. They had a huge argument outside her apartment. Jonathan
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: literally tried to physically drag Jasmine out of her car
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: in public. She was so terrified she refused to go inside.
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: The police were called, and they actually forced Jonathan to
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: leave the premises.
• 8:38
  Speaker 2: Notice the shift in power dynamics there, though.
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: Because the secret was out.
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: Exactly. Up until that point, Jonathan's control relied entirely on secrecy.
• 8:47
  Speaker 2: By having the police intervene and physically remove him, his
• 8:51
  Speaker 2: absolute authority in that relationship is publicly shattered.
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: And I imagine that is a highly dangerous moment for
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: an abuser.
• 8:57
  Speaker 2: It is the most dangerous moment because they realize they're
• 9:00
  Speaker 2: losing their grip.
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: But the aftermath of that incident is what really disturbed
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: me in the notes.
• 9:05
  Speaker 2: That temporary separation.
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: Yeah, they separate. He moves in with his parents for
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: two months. Jasmine finally has her apartment to herself. She
• 9:13
  Speaker 1: is physically safe.
• 9:15
  Speaker 2: She has a buffer.
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: But then she gets sick. And Jonathan uses her illness
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: as an excuse to come over and take care of her.
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: He reels her right back in.
• 9:24
  Speaker 2: Sociologists call this coercive control, specifically through the weaponization of care.
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: The weaponization of care. That is a chilling phrase.
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: It is. Abusers have this terrifying predatory ability to spot
• 9:36
  Speaker 2: an opening. An illness, a financial setback, a death in
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: the family.
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: Anything that makes the victim vulnerable.
• 9:44
  Speaker 2: Right. Any moment where the victim's independent defenses are naturally lowered.
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: So by rushing in to play the selfless caretaker, Jonathan
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: actively neutralized the physical threat she felt during the car incident.
• 9:56
  Speaker 2: Yes. He hijacked her natural human need for support. to
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: reestablish his occupation.
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: Of her life. Which brings up a glaring paradox in
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: how Jonathan was perceived by the outside world.
• 10:07
  Speaker 2: The duality of his personality.
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: Exactly. I'm looking at the interviews with Jasmine's friends and
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: they talk about Jonathan wanting to be a physician's assistant.
• 10:15
  Speaker 2: A caregiver role.
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: Right. One friend described him as outgoing and charming. genuinely
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: believing he was turning his life around. How does a
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: man who tries to drag his wife out of a
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: car manage to convince her inner circle that he's a
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: budding health care professional?
• 10:29
  Speaker 2: Well, because the public charm is not accidental. It is
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: an active mechanism of the abuse.
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: It's intentional.
• 10:35
  Speaker 2: Absolutely. If you can present yourself to the world as
• 10:38
  Speaker 2: a helpful, outgoing, aspiring medical professional, you create an intentional
• 10:43
  Speaker 2: cognitive dissonance for anyone who might suspect you of violence.
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: Oh, I see. So if Jasmine tells a friend, Jonathan
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: chokes me, the friend's brain immediately struggles. Right.
• 10:54
  Speaker 2: The friend tries to reconcile the image of a violent
• 10:56
  Speaker 2: strangler with the image of the guy who, you know,
• 10:59
  Speaker 2: helped them study for exams and brought over soup when
• 11:01
  Speaker 2: they were sick.
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: And the abuser relies on that hesitation.
• 11:04
  Speaker 2: Yes, they thrive on it. It isolates the victim even
• 11:07
  Speaker 2: further because she knows her reality sounds unbelievable compared to
• 11:11
  Speaker 2: his public mask.
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: Wow. So the foundation of this marriage is already rotting,
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: completely compromised by coercive control, And escalating violence.
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: The stage is set. It is.
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: And that brings us to Tuesday, March 9th, the day
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: the facade completely caves in.
• 11:26
  Speaker 2: The day she disappears.
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: Right. Now, Jonathan's narrative is simple. He claims he woke up, showered,
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: went to work, and Jasmine was alive and well. He
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: even says she was texting him later in the day.
• 11:37
  Speaker 2: A very clean, simple story.
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: But the people living literally inches beneath their floorboards experienced
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: a completely different reality.
• 11:46
  Speaker 2: And this is where the transition from psychological control to
• 11:50
  Speaker 2: physical evidence begins.
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: Okay, talk me through that.
• 11:52
  Speaker 2: When an investigator is faced with a pristine suspect narrative,
• 11:57
  Speaker 2: they don't attack the narrative directly.
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: Why not?
• 11:59
  Speaker 2: Because it's a wall. The suspect has rehearsed it. Instead,
• 12:03
  Speaker 2: you look for where the narrative interacts with the physical environment.
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: Because you can't control the environment.
• 12:09
  Speaker 2: Exactly. And in this case, the environment was listening.
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: Let's break down the morning of the 9th then. The
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: downstairs neighbors happen to be home on a Tuesday morning
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: because they have an 11.0 a.m. doctor's appointment for their baby.
• 12:22
  Speaker 2: Right. A break in their usual routine.
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: So they're sleeping in and suddenly they are jolted awake
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: by a, quote, huge boon, unquote, from the apartment directly
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: above them.
• 12:33
  Speaker 2: The psychology of how those neighbors process that sound initially
• 12:37
  Speaker 2: is fascinating.
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: How so?
• 12:39
  Speaker 2: Well, our brains are hardwired to normalize the unexpected. We
• 12:42
  Speaker 2: don't instantly jump to murder.
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: No, of course not. You assume it's something normal.
• 12:46
  Speaker 2: Right, we jump to the most plausible, non-threatening explanation.
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: And the neighbor initially thinks it's just the couple's dogs
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: running around. They actually hear dog barking immediately after the boom.
• 12:57
  Speaker 2: But then the neighbor's brain flags an anomaly.
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: Yeah, this wasn't the usual scampering of paws. The neighbor
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: noted the magnitude of the boom was extraordinary.
• 13:05
  Speaker 2: And what bothered the neighbor most was what followed the barking.
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: A sudden, heavy, eerie silence.
• 13:12
  Speaker 2: Yes. And that silence is the crucial acoustic signature of
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: a traumatic event.
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: The acoustic signature. What does that mean in this context?
• 13:21
  Speaker 2: If you drop a heavy piece of furniture or if
• 13:24
  Speaker 2: dogs are just wrestling, the primary noise has a natural
• 13:29
  Speaker 2: chaotic decay.
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: Like an echo or trailing sounds.
• 13:31
  Speaker 2: Exactly. You hear the impact followed by trailing footsteps or
• 13:35
  Speaker 2: a human voice saying whoops or the continued panting and
• 13:37
  Speaker 2: movement of the animals.
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: But that's not what they heard.
• 13:40
  Speaker 2: No. A massive foundational impact followed instantly by a complete
• 13:44
  Speaker 2: vacuum of sound signals to the subconscious that a chaotic
• 13:47
  Speaker 2: event was abruptly and forcefully terminated.
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: That gave me chills. And the neighbor's subconscious is definitely
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: on high alert now. Because about 20 minutes later, at
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: roughly 11.20 a.m., they hear a car start up in
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: the shared garage.
• 14:03
  Speaker 2: Jasmine's car.
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: Right. It's Jasmine's car, which is a loud red Mini
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: Cooper with a white top. The neighbor knows this sound
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: intimately because they share the wall and hear it every
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: single day.
• 14:15
  Speaker 2: It's part of the background noise of their life.
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: But they notice something is wrong with how the car
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: is being driven. The neighbor tells the police the car
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: idled for a bit, but then pulled out, quote, hesitantly, unquote,
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: making an unusual engine noise.
• 14:29
  Speaker 2: This is where we have to talk about procedural memory.
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: Well, wait, I know what the listener is thinking right
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: now because I thought the exact same thing when I
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: was reading this part of the notes.
• 14:37
  Speaker 2: What's that?
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: Hesitant driving. I mean, that sounds like total hindsight bias.
• 14:42
  Speaker 2: Uh, sure.
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: It sounded like a neighbor who found out a woman
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: went missing and suddenly convinced themselves they heard a spooky
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: car noise just to feel important to the case. How
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: can investigators possibly rely on someone hearing a hesitant engine?
• 14:55
  Speaker 2: It's a fair skepticism, but we have to understand that
• 14:59
  Speaker 2: auditory pattern recognition is one of the most highly tuned
• 15:02
  Speaker 2: evolutionary tools humans possess.
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: Really?
• 15:05
  Speaker 2: Really.
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Even for something like a car engine.
• 15:07
  Speaker 2: Absolutely. We become entirely blind and deaf to the everyday,
• 15:11
  Speaker 2: you know. You don't notice the hum of your air
• 15:13
  Speaker 2: conditioner until the compressor fails.
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: Right. Or the hum of the fridge.
• 15:17
  Speaker 2: Exactly. You don't consciously listen to your neighbor's car every morning.
• 15:21
  Speaker 2: But driving a specific car, especially a small manual feeling
• 15:25
  Speaker 2: car like a Mini Cooper, requires unique muscle memory.
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: The clutch, the gas pedal.
• 15:31
  Speaker 2: Yes. Yes. The exact pressure required on the gas pedal
• 15:34
  Speaker 2: to reverse out of a tight garage. Jasmine possessed the
• 15:38
  Speaker 2: procedural memory for that specific vehicle. Her basal ganglia, which
• 15:42
  Speaker 2: is the part of the brain responsible for habit formation,
• 15:45
  Speaker 2: handled the driving automatically.
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: So it sounded smooth every other day because her brain
• 15:49
  Speaker 1: wasn't even thinking about it.
• 15:51
  Speaker 2: Exactly. But when an unfamiliar driver gets behind the wheel
• 15:54
  Speaker 2: of a highly specific car... Their brain is consciously trying
• 15:58
  Speaker 2: to figure out the friction point of the pedals and
• 16:00
  Speaker 2: the spatial dimensions of the garage.
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: So they read the engine differently.
• 16:03
  Speaker 2: They do. They pause before shifting. The neighbor didn't hear
• 16:07
  Speaker 2: a quote-unquote murderer. They heard a massive deviation in an
• 16:11
  Speaker 2: acoustic pattern they had absorbed hundreds of times.
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: Wow.
• 16:15
  Speaker 2: They heard the hesitation of a stranger's procedural memory trying
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: to mimic the owner's.
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: That is incredible. So cut to Jonathan in the interrogation room.
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: The police eventually ask him about this massive noise that
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: woke up the baby downstairs.
• 16:28
  Speaker 2: And how does he explain it?
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: Well, does he admit to a fight? No. His alibi
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: for the boom that shook the building is that their
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: dog was throwing around an unbreakable red bone toy.
• 16:38
  Speaker 2: A dog toy.
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: Yeah. He claims the dog lifts it up, drops it
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: on the floor trying to break it, and it makes
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: a loud noise.
• 16:44
  Speaker 2: I mean, it is an insulting attempt to explain away
• 16:47
  Speaker 2: a violent physical reality.
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: It really is.
• 16:50
  Speaker 2: The mass and velocity required to create a sound wave
• 16:54
  Speaker 2: powerful enough to wake a sleeping adult through structural flooring
• 16:57
  Speaker 2: cannot be generated by a 30-pound dog dropping a plastic toy.
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: It's just physically impossible. And to make matters worse for himself, Jonathan,
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: completely unprompted, decides to attack the neighbor's character.
• 17:09
  Speaker 2: Right. Classic deflection.
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: He tells the detectives that he doesn't really know them,
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: but he wants it on the record that he has
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: filed formal complaints against them for smoking weed and letting
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: their baby cry.
• 17:20
  Speaker 2: That is a preemptive strike known in behavioral analysis as
• 17:24
  Speaker 2: poisoning the well.
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: Poisoning the well.
• 17:26
  Speaker 2: Yes. Before the detective even presses him on the timeline
• 17:29
  Speaker 2: of the boom, Jonathan is trying to manipulate the detective's perception.
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: He wants them to think the neighbors are just lying
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: out of spite.
• 17:36
  Speaker 2: Exactly. He wants the police to view these neighbors as disgruntled, adversarial,
• 17:42
  Speaker 2: and unreliable narrators. He's saying, don't listen to them, they're
• 17:45
  Speaker 2: just mad, I reported them for weed.
• 17:47
  Speaker 1: But the problem with attacking auditory witness testimony is that,
• 17:50
  Speaker 1: in this case, it was corroborated by physical evidence left
• 17:54
  Speaker 1: at the scene.
• 17:54
  Speaker 2: Yes, the physical scene always tells the truth.
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: Which brings us to the brother, Francisco, and the physical
• 18:00
  Speaker 1: aftermath of whatever happened in that apartment. While Jonathan is
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: spinning stories about dog toys, Francisco gets permission to enter
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: the apartment after Jasmine is officially reported missing.
• 18:10
  Speaker 2: He's looking for clues.
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: Yeah. But what he discovers is a scene that has
• 18:14
  Speaker 1: been deeply, poorly tampered with.
• 18:17
  Speaker 2: The absence of expected items is often the loudest indicator
• 18:21
  Speaker 2: of staging.
• 18:22
  Speaker 1: The absence. Yes.
• 18:23
  Speaker 2: When someone stages a crime scene, they are trying to
• 18:26
  Speaker 2: direct a play for the investigators. They want you to
• 18:29
  Speaker 2: look at the props they left behind, but they often
• 18:32
  Speaker 2: forget what they took. What was Francisco's first observation?
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: Well, he goes into her closet and he notices that
• 18:38
  Speaker 1: every single pair of Jasmine Scholls All three or four
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: pairs she owned are gone.
• 18:44
  Speaker 2: All of them.
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: All of them. Now, Jonathan's story is that Jasmine texted him.
• 18:48
  Speaker 1: She was going out with some friends.
• 18:49
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: If you go out for lunch with friends, you wear
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: one pair of shoes. You do not pack up your
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: entire closet's worth of footwear like you're fleeing the country.
• 18:58
  Speaker 2: This is the paradox of staging. The perpetrator wants to
• 19:01
  Speaker 2: create the illusion that the victim packed up and left voluntarily,
• 19:05
  Speaker 2: perhaps to start a new life or go on a
• 19:07
  Speaker 2: long trip.
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: So they take the shoes to show she left.
• 19:09
  Speaker 2: But because they are operating under extreme stress, they overcompensate.
• 19:14
  Speaker 2: They take all the shoes, creating a scenario that completely
• 19:18
  Speaker 2: defies the mundane logic of a woman stepping out for
• 19:21
  Speaker 2: a casual afternoon.
• 19:22
  Speaker 1: But the shoes aren't even the biggest mistake. The most
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: damning evidence Francisco finds is actually down in the garage.
• 19:28
  Speaker 2: The Mini Cooper?
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: Yes. The red Mini Cooper is back in the bay.
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: But it is parked completely crooked. Crooked. It is tilted
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: hard to the left with the back end jutting out
• 19:38
  Speaker 1: toward the neighbor's parking space.
• 19:39
  Speaker 2: And this caught Francisco's eye immediately.
• 19:42
  Speaker 1: Oh, instantly. Francisco tells the police that this is a
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: massive red flag because Jasmine was incredibly particular about her car.
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: Because it was a tiny vehicle, she prided herself on
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: parking it perfectly straight, dead center in her assigned spot
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: every single time.
• 19:57
  Speaker 2: It was a point of pride for her.
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: And critically, she absolutely never let Jonathan drive it.
• 20:02
  Speaker 2: This is where we return to the concept of cognitive load.
• 20:05
  Speaker 2: We talked about it earlier with the auditory hesitation of
• 20:08
  Speaker 2: the car, but here is the physical proof.
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: I look at the crooked car like a forged signature
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: on a famous painting.
• 20:15
  Speaker 2: Oh, that's a good analogy.
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: Yeah, like from across the gallery, it looks like a masterpiece.
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: The car is in the garage. The doors are locked.
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: The scene is ostensibly normal. But the moment you get
• 20:25
  Speaker 1: up close and analyze the brushstrokes, you realize they are erratic.
• 20:29
  Speaker 2: The details betray the forgery.
• 20:31
  Speaker 1: The angles are completely wrong.
• 20:32
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 20:33
  Speaker 1: If Jonathan went to the enormous trouble of staging her
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: departure and bringing the car back, why be so astonishingly
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: sloppy with the final step of parking it?
• 20:42
  Speaker 2: Because a perpetrator in the immediate aftermath of a homicide
• 20:45
  Speaker 2: is operating under a suffocating, almost paralyzing cognitive load.
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: Meaning his brain is just overwhelmed.
• 20:51
  Speaker 2: Exactly. The human brain is a processor with limited bandwidth.
• 20:55
  Speaker 2: Jonathan is juggling raw adrenaline, sheer panic, the logistics of
• 20:59
  Speaker 2: moving a body, cleaning a scene, formulating his own alibi,
• 21:03
  Speaker 2: and worrying about being seen by neighbors.
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: He's just too many tabs open at once.
• 21:07
  Speaker 2: Precisely. The amygdala is screaming. In that state of hyperarousal,
• 21:12
  Speaker 2: the brain strips away all non-essential functions to focus purely
• 21:16
  Speaker 2: on survival and high-level concealment.
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: So he literally doesn't even possess the brainpower to notice
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: the angle of the tires. Exactly.
• 21:23
  Speaker 2: Exactly. The killer manages the macro cover-ups, the big things
• 21:27
  Speaker 2: they know will get them caught, but they entirely fail
• 21:30
  Speaker 2: at replicating the micro-routines of the victim.
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: Micro-routines. Like the shoes and the parking.
• 21:36
  Speaker 2: Yes. Micro-routines are the tiny subconscious habits that intimately define
• 21:40
  Speaker 2: a person's existence. How they fold their towels, the hook
• 21:44
  Speaker 2: they hang their keys on, or the exact mathematical angle
• 21:48
  Speaker 2: they bark their car.
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: And he didn't know her micro-routines.
• 21:51
  Speaker 2: Jonathan isn't Jasmine. He doesn't possess the years of muscle
• 21:54
  Speaker 2: memory required to park that Mini Cooper perfectly straight. In
• 21:57
  Speaker 2: his panic, he just wants the vehicle off the street
• 22:00
  Speaker 2: and out of sight.
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: Just ditch it and run.
• 22:02
  Speaker 2: Right. He dumps it in the garage and walks away.
• 22:04
  Speaker 2: But to Francisco, who knows the micro-routines of the person
• 22:07
  Speaker 2: he loves, that crooked car is screaming that a violent
• 22:10
  Speaker 2: stranger was behind the wheel.
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: And speaking of macro cover-ups, Francisco also checks the digital
• 22:15
  Speaker 1: infrastructure of the apartment.
• 22:17
  Speaker 2: The security cameras. Right.
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: He logs into Jasmine's Ring camera account. And he discovers
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: this massive, glaring digital blind spot. The security camera was
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: manually turned off from 11. p.m. Tuesday night until 7. a.m.
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: Wednesday morning.
• 22:34
  Speaker 2: An eight-hour blackout.
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: And only a couple of people had the password to
• 22:37
  Speaker 1: do that.
• 22:37
  Speaker 2: We have to differentiate between a technological failure and human
• 22:40
  Speaker 2: intervention here, though.
• 22:42
  Speaker 1: Well, can you explain how investigators actually know the difference?
• 22:45
  Speaker 1: I mean, my Wi-Fi drops all the time. Couldn't a
• 22:47
  Speaker 1: defense attorney just say the internet went down?
• 22:50
  Speaker 2: It A common defense, for sure, but digital forensics easily
• 22:53
  Speaker 2: dismantle it.
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: Really?
• 22:55
  Speaker 2: Because a dropped Wi-Fi signal leaves a specific type of
• 22:58
  Speaker 2: server-side error code. It shows the device attempting to ping
• 23:02
  Speaker 2: the router and failing.
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: Okay, so it shows it's trying to connect.
• 23:05
  Speaker 2: Right, but manually disabling a Ring camera requires deliberate, tech-savvy action.
• 23:11
  Speaker 2: It requires a user to open the application, authenticate their credentials,
• 23:15
  Speaker 2: navigate through the settings menus... And intentionally toggle the recording
• 23:19
  Speaker 2: feature off.
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: So there's a digital paper trail for that.
• 23:22
  Speaker 2: Exactly. The cloud infrastructure logs that exact sequence of commands,
• 23:27
  Speaker 2: often along with the IP address and device identifier of
• 23:30
  Speaker 2: the phone that issued the command.
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: Wow.
• 23:32
  Speaker 2: This wasn't a glitch. This was a premeditated blinding of
• 23:35
  Speaker 2: the digital eye during the exact eight-hour window a body
• 23:39
  Speaker 2: would need to be moved under the cover of darkness.
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: So investigators are now staring at a suspect whose timeline
• 23:46
  Speaker 1: is in total freefall. The physical world of the crooked car,
• 23:50
  Speaker 1: the auditory world of the neighbors, and the digital reality
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: of the ring camera all completely contradict it.
• 23:55
  Speaker 2: They have all the pieces.
• 23:57
  Speaker 1: So they bring Jonathan into the interrogation room. And watching
• 24:00
  Speaker 1: the detective handle this, it's not like the movies where
• 24:03
  Speaker 1: they come in screaming and slamming fists on the table.
• 24:05
  Speaker 2: It really works.
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: It is a slow, methodical, psychological chess match.
• 24:09
  Speaker 2: Experienced interrogators understand that a fabricated narrative is a fragile ecosystem.
• 24:15
  Speaker 2: If you smash it with a hammer immediately, the suspect
• 24:18
  Speaker 2: shuts down and demands an attorney. Right.
• 24:20
  Speaker 1: You spook them.
• 24:20
  Speaker 2: Instead, you let them build their ecosystem. You let them
• 24:23
  Speaker 2: add as many details as possible because every detail is
• 24:26
  Speaker 2: a potential tripwire.
• 24:27
  Speaker 1: Let's look at the initial 911 call and his early
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: demeanor because it really sets the tone.
• 24:32
  Speaker 2: The baseline behavior.
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Jonathan acts casually confused. He tells the dispatcher his
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: wife is missing. The dispatcher is gently probing, asking standard
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: protocol questions. Have we tried hospitals? Has she wanted to
• 24:46
  Speaker 1: hurt herself?
• 24:47
  Speaker 2: Standard triage questions.
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: Right. And Jonathan just calmly says, no, I have not
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: tried hospitals. Think about that. His wife, who has a
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: documented history of severe medical emergencies and hospital visits due
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: to domestic violence, is missing. And he hasn't even bothered
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: to call the local ER.
• 25:05
  Speaker 2: The psychological framework of an innocent person reporting a missing
• 25:09
  Speaker 2: loved one is characterized by frantic, chaotic urgency. Right.
• 25:12
  Speaker 1: You're calling everyone.
• 25:13
  Speaker 2: Exactly. They're calling every friend, driving around the neighborhood, checking hospitals,
• 25:18
  Speaker 2: constantly interrupting the dispatcher with theories.
• 25:21
  Speaker 1: But Jonathan isn't doing any of that. No.
• 25:23
  Speaker 2: Jonathan's demeanor is entirely passive. He's not actively trying to
• 25:27
  Speaker 2: find a missing woman. He's waiting for the police to
• 25:29
  Speaker 2: validate his script of a missing woman.
• 25:32
  Speaker 1: And the script he gives them is wildly specific. He
• 25:35
  Speaker 1: tells the detective about Tuesday morning. He says he woke
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: up at 6.30 a.m. He claims they showered together. leaning
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: hard into this illusion of romance.
• 25:43
  Speaker 2: Painting the happy picture.
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: He says they were happily discussing booking plane tickets and
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: a hotel for her graduation trip to Utah. And then
• 25:51
  Speaker 1: he describes exactly what she was wearing when he left
• 25:54
  Speaker 1: for work at 9-0-0-M.
• 25:56
  Speaker 2: Down to the smallest detail.
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: I mean, down to the thread. Blue shorts, a gray
• 26:01
  Speaker 1: veto shirt, and gray socks.
• 26:03
  Speaker 2: Ah, the gray socks. This is a classic behavioral red
• 26:06
  Speaker 2: flag known as the over-detailed lie.
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: Well, I have to challenge this because couldn't a defense
• 26:11
  Speaker 1: attorney argue that Jonathan is just in a state of
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: traumatic shock over his missing wife?
• 26:16
  Speaker 2: It's a plausible argument.
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: Right, like his brain hyper fixated on the last time
• 26:20
  Speaker 1: he saw her, embedding the color of her socks into
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: his memory.
• 26:23
  Speaker 2: It's a fair question, but forensic psychology differentiates between trauma-induced
• 26:28
  Speaker 2: hyper focus and a fabricated memory through the context of
• 26:31
  Speaker 2: the surrounding narrative.
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: Okay, what does that mean?
• 26:33
  Speaker 2: True trauma memories are often fragmented. A victim might vividly
• 26:37
  Speaker 2: remember the smell of cologne, but completely forget what room
• 26:40
  Speaker 2: they were in. Truth-tellers naturally possess massive gaps in their
• 26:44
  Speaker 2: memory for mundane, sequential details.
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: If you asked me what my husband was wearing yesterday morning,
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: I probably couldn't tell you.
• 26:51
  Speaker 2: Exactly. If I asked you exactly what socks your partner
• 26:54
  Speaker 2: put on three days ago before work, you'd have no idea.
• 26:57
  Speaker 1: Zero idea.
• 26:58
  Speaker 2: But a liar feels the inherent flimsiness of their story.
• 27:02
  Speaker 2: To compensate... They attempt to weigh the narrative down with ultra-specific, mundane,
• 27:07
  Speaker 2: imagery-like gray socks.
• 27:09
  Speaker 1: They think details equal truth.
• 27:11
  Speaker 2: Exactly. They subconsciously believe that providing granular data points will
• 27:15
  Speaker 2: trick the investigator's brain into perceiving the fabricated event as
• 27:19
  Speaker 2: a tangible, lived reality.
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: But the irony is, while his memory for gray socks
• 27:24
  Speaker 1: is photographic, his memory regarding actual, verifiable digital evidence is
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: incredibly convenient.
• 27:30
  Speaker 2: You are referring to the text message.
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: Yes, the text message. Jonathan claims that at 10 a.m.,
• 27:35
  Speaker 1: about an hour after he supposedly left for work, he
• 27:38
  Speaker 1: received a text message from Jasmine. Right. According to his script,
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: the text simply said she was going out with friends.
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: And Jonathan claims he replied, OK, be careful.
• 27:48
  Speaker 2: Did the detective ask him why he didn't inquire further?
• 27:51
  Speaker 2: I mean, if your spouse suddenly texts that they are
• 27:53
  Speaker 2: abandoning their Tuesday plans to go out, a normal response
• 27:56
  Speaker 2: is to ask, who with or where to?
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: He did ask. And Jonathan's response is a masterclass in manipulations.
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: He says he deliberately didn't ask her any follow-up questions
• 28:06
  Speaker 1: because they had fought in the past about him acting
• 28:09
  Speaker 1: like her dad. Oh, wow. He is literally weaponizing his
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: own history of controlling behavior. He's using a therapeutic concept,
• 28:16
  Speaker 1: giving his partner space as an airtight excuse for why
• 28:20
  Speaker 1: he showed absolute zero curiosity about her whereabouts. On the
• 28:23
  Speaker 1: day she disappeared.
• 28:24
  Speaker 2: It is cynical, but in a twisted way, it's a
• 28:27
  Speaker 2: brilliant narrative defense.
• 28:28
  Speaker 1: Oh, so?
• 28:29
  Speaker 2: Because it puts the detective in a position where questioning
• 28:31
  Speaker 2: his lack of concern seems like questioning his attempts to
• 28:34
  Speaker 2: be a better, less controlling husband.
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: Oh, I see. It corners the detective.
• 28:38
  Speaker 2: Right. However, narrative defenses crumble against digital forensics.
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: Exactly. Because the detective nods along and says, OK, do
• 28:45
  Speaker 1: you have your phone with you? Can I just see
• 28:47
  Speaker 1: that text real quick?
• 28:48
  Speaker 2: A very simple, reasonable request.
• 28:50
  Speaker 1: And Jonathan casually replies, oh, I don't have the text anymore.
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: I just went through my phone and deleted messages. He
• 28:57
  Speaker 1: claims he has this routine where he goes to his
• 28:59
  Speaker 1: phone every single month and just wipes his texts clean.
• 29:02
  Speaker 2: A massively convenient, statistically improbable coincidence that the monthly purge
• 29:07
  Speaker 2: happened on the exact afternoon his wife went missing.
• 29:10
  Speaker 1: Right. But here's where Jonathan tries his most audacious move.
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: To prove just how cooperative and transparent he is, he
• 29:20
  Speaker 1: eagerly offers to show the detective the rest of his phone.
• 29:23
  Speaker 2: Ah, the misdirection.
• 29:24
  Speaker 1: He literally opens his email app and starts reading off
• 29:27
  Speaker 1: completely mundane messages to the cops. He's like, look, here's
• 29:30
  Speaker 1: an email from my coworkers about planning a going away party. Oh,
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: and here's a message from my dad about a Sam's
• 29:35
  Speaker 1: Club account.
• 29:36
  Speaker 2: This technique is known as the illusion of transparency. It
• 29:39
  Speaker 2: is an active misdirection.
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: He felt like a magician waving his left hand so
• 29:43
  Speaker 1: you don't look at his right.
• 29:44
  Speaker 2: That is exactly what it is. He is trying to
• 29:46
  Speaker 2: establish a psychological contract with the detective that says, look
• 29:50
  Speaker 2: how open my digital life is to you. I am
• 29:52
  Speaker 2: hiding nothing. Look at this boring Sam's Club email.
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: Hoping the detective just buys the good guy act. Yes.
• 29:59
  Speaker 2: He hopes the detective will be so overwhelmed by his
• 30:02
  Speaker 2: superficial cooperation that they will mentally excuse the glaring, catastrophic
• 30:08
  Speaker 2: absence of the single text message that could actually verify
• 30:11
  Speaker 2: his alibi.
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: But the detective does not fall for the magic trick.
• 30:14
  Speaker 1: He lets Jonathan lay out this entire pristine timeline. The shower,
• 30:18
  Speaker 1: the graduation trip, the gray socks, the deleted text, the
• 30:21
  Speaker 1: Sands Club emails.
• 30:23
  Speaker 2: He lets him dig the hole.
• 30:24
  Speaker 1: He lets Jonathan paint the house and then the trap springs.
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: The detective systematically takes a sledgehammer to the foundation, starting
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: with the cars.
• 30:32
  Speaker 2: The shift in the interrogation room dynamics here is palpable.
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: You can almost feel it in the transcripts.
• 30:37
  Speaker 2: Yes. The detective pivots from passive information gathering to active
• 30:41
  Speaker 2: evidence-based confrontation.
• 30:43
  Speaker 1: The detective brings the neighbor's timeline right into the room.
• 30:47
  Speaker 1: He says, listen, Jonathan, your neighbor said your white car
• 30:50
  Speaker 1: was in the garage at 10 p.m. But by midnight,
• 30:54
  Speaker 1: they physically saw you out there moving the cars around
• 30:57
  Speaker 1: and suddenly... Jasmine's Mini Cooper was backed into the garage.
• 31:00
  Speaker 2: Notice the strategic use of third-party objectivity there.
• 31:04
  Speaker 1: Third-party objectivity.
• 31:05
  Speaker 2: Yes. The detective isn't saying, I think you moved the cars.
• 31:08
  Speaker 2: He is saying, the neighbor saw you.
• 31:10
  Speaker 1: Oh, that's smart. It is.
• 31:12
  Speaker 2: It removes the adversarial police versus suspect dynamic and forces
• 31:16
  Speaker 2: Jonathan to defend himself against civilians who have zero motive
• 31:20
  Speaker 2: to fabricate a story.
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: And Jonathan vehemently denies it. He insists his car was
• 31:25
  Speaker 1: parked out on the street the entire time. But his
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: body completely betrays his words.
• 31:30
  Speaker 2: Body language is so hard to control.
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: It's right there in the transcript. The detective literally stops
• 31:35
  Speaker 1: him and says, I'm getting confused signals from you right
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: now because you just nodded your head yes when your
• 31:40
  Speaker 1: mouth said no, no.
• 31:41
  Speaker 2: The physiological betrayal of a lie.
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: How does that happen, though? How do you nod yes
• 31:46
  Speaker 1: while saying no?
• 31:47
  Speaker 2: When the brain is confronted with a verifiable truth that
• 31:51
  Speaker 2: it wasn't prepared to defend against, the cognitive load spikes immensely.
• 31:55
  Speaker 1: We're back to cognitive load.
• 31:57
  Speaker 2: Right. The body, specifically the microexpressions and involuntary motor functions,
• 32:03
  Speaker 2: often responds to the truth before the conscious mind can
• 32:06
  Speaker 2: formulate the lie.
• 32:07
  Speaker 1: Wow.
• 32:08
  Speaker 2: The nod is the primal brain acknowledging the reality of
• 32:12
  Speaker 2: the midnight car movement. The verbal no is the conscious
• 32:16
  Speaker 2: cover-up frantically trying to override the nervous system.
• 32:19
  Speaker 1: And while Jonathan is reeling from that, The detective hits
• 32:22
  Speaker 1: him with confrontation number two. The cell phone towers.
• 32:26
  Speaker 2: The ultimate checkmate.
• 32:27
  Speaker 1: And I love how the detective does this. He leans
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: forward and explains cell tower technology to Jonathan like he's
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: a middle school science teacher.
• 32:34
  Speaker 2: It's brilliant.
• 32:35
  Speaker 1: He says, Jonathan, even if your phone isn't making or
• 32:37
  Speaker 1: receiving calls, it is constantly searching for a tower to
• 32:41
  Speaker 1: connect to. And that constant search makes a trail.
• 32:44
  Speaker 2: It is a phenomenal interrogation tactic. The detective is demystifying
• 32:48
  Speaker 2: the technology. He's stripping away the magic and presenting it
• 32:51
  Speaker 2: as a cold, hard, inescapable law of physics.
• 32:54
  Speaker 1: Well, can you actually explain that physics for the listener?
• 32:58
  Speaker 1: Because we hear cell tower pings on every true crime show.
• 33:01
  Speaker 1: But how accurate is it really? Don't defense attorneys constantly
• 33:06
  Speaker 1: try to get this data thrown out?
• 33:07
  Speaker 2: Defense attorneys attack it relentlessly, but the underlying science is robust.
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: Okay, break it down for me.
• 33:13
  Speaker 2: So your cell phone is essentially a highly sophisticated two-way radio. Right.
• 33:18
  Speaker 2: To ensure you can receive a call at a moment's notice,
• 33:21
  Speaker 2: the SIM card in your phone is engaged in a
• 33:23
  Speaker 2: continuous automated protocol with the cell towers. We call it
• 33:26
  Speaker 2: a handshake.
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: A handshake.
• 33:28
  Speaker 2: Yes. Even sitting idle in your pocket, the phone is
• 33:31
  Speaker 2: constantly measuring the signal strength, the RSSI of all nearby powers.
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: So it's always talking to the grid.
• 33:37
  Speaker 2: Constantly. As you drive down a highway, your phone seamlessly
• 33:40
  Speaker 2: drops the connection from a tower fading behind you and
• 33:43
  Speaker 2: connects to a stronger tower ahead of you.
• 33:45
  Speaker 1: So you don't drop a call.
• 33:47
  Speaker 2: Exactly. And the cellular provider logs every single one of
• 33:50
  Speaker 2: these handshakes. By analyzing the sequence of towers your phone
• 33:54
  Speaker 2: connected to and the specific antennas on those towers that
• 33:58
  Speaker 2: caught your signal, engineers can map your geographic trajectory with
• 34:02
  Speaker 2: devastating accuracy.
• 34:03
  Speaker 1: So you really can't hide.
• 34:05
  Speaker 2: You do not have to send a text or make
• 34:06
  Speaker 2: a call. Your mere existence with a powered-on device in
• 34:10
  Speaker 2: your pocket betrays your location to the grid.
• 34:14
  Speaker 1: And the detective lays this reality right on the table.
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: He looks to Jonathan and says, we've got your phone
• 34:19
  Speaker 1: leaving your address shortly after midnight Wednesday morning, heading eastbound
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: on I-70.
• 34:24
  Speaker 2: The absolute catastrophic collapse of the narrative fracture.
• 34:27
  Speaker 1: Jonathan completely panics. The transcript evolves into him just stammering.
• 34:32
  Speaker 1: He repeats, I did not leave my apartment. I am
• 34:34
  Speaker 1: not lying to you.
• 34:35
  Speaker 2: Pure desperation.
• 34:36
  Speaker 1: And then in a desperate move, he pivots to playing
• 34:38
  Speaker 1: the victim. He says, I just want my wife to
• 34:40
  Speaker 1: come home. I don't know what else to do.
• 34:42
  Speaker 2: Using grief as a shield.
• 34:43
  Speaker 1: Right. He is trying to use his manufactured grief as
• 34:48
  Speaker 1: a shield against the fact that his digital ghost was
• 34:50
  Speaker 1: just clocked driving down the interstate in the middle of
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: the night.
• 34:54
  Speaker 2: We are witnessing the destruction of the primary lie. Jonathan
• 34:58
  Speaker 2: can no longer mathematically claim he was asleep in his bed.
• 35:00
  Speaker 1: So what did he do?
• 35:01
  Speaker 2: Rather than face reality and confess, his brain frantically tries
• 35:06
  Speaker 2: to construct a secondary lie to explain the digital data.
• 35:10
  Speaker 1: But before he can even fully formulate that secondary lie...
• 35:14
  Speaker 1: The detective executes one of the most controversial but effective
• 35:18
  Speaker 1: psychological maneuvers in law enforcement.
• 35:20
  Speaker 2: Minimization.
• 35:21
  Speaker 1: Yes. He acts almost like a disappointed counselor.
• 35:23
  Speaker 2: The detective drastically softens his turn. He leans in and
• 35:27
  Speaker 2: says something to the effect of, listen, Jonathan, I understand
• 35:30
  Speaker 2: relationships are hard. People lose their temper. Things get out
• 35:34
  Speaker 2: of hand. If you made a mistake.
• 35:36
  Speaker 1: Now, I have to push back here. Doesn't that risk
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: a false confession?
• 35:39
  Speaker 2: It's a huge debate in the field.
• 35:41
  Speaker 1: Right. Because if a cop is basically telling a suspect, Hey,
• 35:45
  Speaker 1: it's okay. We know it was just a mistake. Couldn't
• 35:47
  Speaker 1: a vulnerable person just agree to end the stress of
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: the interrogation?
• 35:51
  Speaker 2: It is a highly debated tactic for exactly that reason.
• 35:55
  Speaker 2: And in cases of extreme sleep deprivation or diminished mental capacity,
• 35:59
  Speaker 2: minimization has absolutely led to false confessions.
• 36:01
  Speaker 1: That's so scary.
• 36:02
  Speaker 2: It is. However, with a calculated deceptive suspect like Jonathan,
• 36:06
  Speaker 2: it serves a different neurological purpose.
• 36:09
  Speaker 1: Okay, what's the purpose here?
• 36:10
  Speaker 2: A direct accusation like, I know you murdered your wife
• 36:13
  Speaker 2: in cold blood, spikes the suspect's cortisol. It triggers the
• 36:18
  Speaker 2: fight or flight response and usually results in them instantly
• 36:20
  Speaker 2: demanding a lawyer.
• 36:21
  Speaker 1: The wall goes up.
• 36:22
  Speaker 2: Minimization is designed to lower those cortisol levels. By removing
• 36:26
  Speaker 2: the moral weight of the crime, framing a brutal murder
• 36:29
  Speaker 2: as a relatable mistake born of a tough relationship, the
• 36:32
  Speaker 2: detective offers Jonathan a psychological life raft.
• 36:35
  Speaker 1: Oh, I see.
• 36:36
  Speaker 2: He is tricking Jonathan Amygdala into viewing the detective as
• 36:39
  Speaker 2: an empathetic ally rather than an existential threat. He lowers
• 36:43
  Speaker 2: the barrier to admission.
• 36:44
  Speaker 1: And it works. It genuinely works. Faced with the undeniable
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: cell tower physics and softened by the detective's empathy play,
• 36:51
  Speaker 1: Jonathan abandons his primary lie.
• 36:54
  Speaker 2: The first domino falls.
• 36:55
  Speaker 1: He finally admits he left the house. He says, OK, fine,
• 36:58
  Speaker 1: I did leave my house at midnight. But then the
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: secondary lie is born.
• 37:03
  Speaker 2: As expected.
• 37:04
  Speaker 1: He claimed he just went for a drive because he
• 37:06
  Speaker 1: couldn't sleep and was worrying about her. And when the
• 37:09
  Speaker 1: detective asks how far he drove, Jonathan insists he only
• 37:13
  Speaker 1: went a few miles up to Tower Road and Smith
• 37:15
  Speaker 1: Road and never stopped the car.
• 37:17
  Speaker 2: Which is a desperate, fatal miscalculation on Jonathan's part.
• 37:21
  Speaker 1: Because of the digital trail.
• 37:22
  Speaker 2: Exactly. Because, as we discussed, the digital trail doesn't just
• 37:26
  Speaker 2: show that you left. It shows exactly where you went and, critically,
• 37:30
  Speaker 2: where the device came to a complete stop.
• 37:32
  Speaker 1: Right. Jonathan tried to minimize the geography of his midnight drive,
• 37:35
  Speaker 1: keeping his story close to home. But the police didn't
• 37:38
  Speaker 1: have a theory. They had actual pings.
• 37:41
  Speaker 2: The hard data.
• 37:42
  Speaker 1: They knew his phone traveled deep into rural Adams County,
• 37:45
  Speaker 1: far past where he claimed to turn around. Specifically, the
• 37:49
  Speaker 1: data pinned him at the desolate intersection of East 26th
• 37:52
  Speaker 1: Avenue and Powhatan Road between 12.00 a.m. and 1.00 a.m.
• 37:56
  Speaker 2: Look at the geography of that data point. It is
• 37:59
  Speaker 2: the geographic and psychological opposite of the bustling, highly populated
• 38:04
  Speaker 2: apartment complex they lived in.
• 38:05
  Speaker 1: It's middle of nowhere dark.
• 38:07
  Speaker 2: Exactly. It is a location chosen specifically for its darkness,
• 38:11
  Speaker 2: its isolation, and its silence.
• 38:13
  Speaker 1: Armed with these exact digital coordinates, the physical search begins.
• 38:18
  Speaker 1: Law enforcement heads out on Thursday, March 11th. But the
• 38:21
  Speaker 1: terrain is so vast and the daylight fades so quickly
• 38:25
  Speaker 1: that they actually have to halt the search.
• 38:27
  Speaker 2: That must have been awful.
• 38:28
  Speaker 1: I can't even fathom the tension. The family is waiting
• 38:31
  Speaker 1: in agony. The police know the math says they are
• 38:34
  Speaker 1: standing right on top of the answer, but they are
• 38:36
  Speaker 1: physically unable to see it in the dark.
• 38:38
  Speaker 2: It is an agonizing pause, but the mathematics of the
• 38:42
  Speaker 2: digital footprint were too precise to fail them.
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: They resume the very next morning, at first light on Friday,
• 38:47
  Speaker 1: March 12th. And there, exactly where the cell tower handshakes
• 38:51
  Speaker 1: indicated Jonathan's phone had stopped moving, they make the tragic discovery.
• 38:55
  Speaker 2: They found her.
• 38:56
  Speaker 1: Jasmine's remains are found. The medical examiner subsequently determines the
• 39:00
  Speaker 1: cause of death was strangulation.
• 39:02
  Speaker 2: The physical reality finally completely shatters the lie.
• 39:06
  Speaker 1: It really does.
• 39:06
  Speaker 2: It confirms the horrific truth behind the huge boom the
• 39:09
  Speaker 2: downstairs neighbors heard. It explains the sudden heavy silence. It
• 39:14
  Speaker 2: explains the crooked car, the staged shoes, and the disabled camera.
• 39:17
  Speaker 1: Everything clicks into place.
• 39:19
  Speaker 2: The digital footprint led investigators directly to the horrific physical truth.
• 39:23
  Speaker 1: And yet, despite all of this, despite the neighbor's timeline,
• 39:26
  Speaker 1: the procedural memory failure in the garage, the IP logs
• 39:30
  Speaker 1: of the turned-off camera, the deleted text, and the cell
• 39:33
  Speaker 1: phone data, literally drawing a map to her body, Jonathan
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: never confessed.
• 39:38
  Speaker 2: Never.
• 39:38
  Speaker 1: He maintained his steadfast denial. He never openly admitted to
• 39:42
  Speaker 1: the murder, maintaining his absolute innocence all the way through
• 39:45
  Speaker 1: his trial in 2024.
• 39:47
  Speaker 2: This is a profound and deeply disturbing psychological reality that
• 39:50
  Speaker 2: we see in many domestic homicide cases.
• 39:53
  Speaker 1: I just can't wrap my head around it. He maintained
• 39:55
  Speaker 1: his innocence even after the jury convicted him, even after
• 39:58
  Speaker 1: the science proved it. Is it absolute delusion? Has his
• 40:02
  Speaker 1: brain just rewritten the narrative so intensely that he believes
• 40:05
  Speaker 1: his own lie? Or is it something more sinister?
• 40:08
  Speaker 2: It is rarely delusion. It is almost entirely about control.
• 40:12
  Speaker 1: Control over what? The narrative.
• 40:14
  Speaker 2: We have to look at the entire arc of their relationship.
• 40:17
  Speaker 2: Returning to our initial discussion of coercive control.
• 40:20
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 40:20
  Speaker 2: Right. For years, he dictated who she saw. He controlled
• 40:24
  Speaker 2: her physical safety. He isolated her from her family. When
• 40:27
  Speaker 2: she tried to leave, he manipulated her empathy to pull
• 40:31
  Speaker 2: her back in.
• 40:32
  Speaker 1: With the weaponization of care. Exactly.
• 40:34
  Speaker 2: When she was finally hours away from escaping for good
• 40:37
  Speaker 2: through therapy, he took her life, the ultimate permanent act
• 40:41
  Speaker 2: of asserting physical control. Right. And once he is caught,
• 40:44
  Speaker 2: once the state strips him of his freedom and his
• 40:47
  Speaker 2: public mask, the only asset he has left in the
• 40:50
  Speaker 2: world is the truth.
• 40:51
  Speaker 1: So he holds it. He gets to withhold the final
• 40:53
  Speaker 1: piece of the puzzle.
• 40:54
  Speaker 2: Precisely. By refusing to confess, he exerts a lingering, agonizing
• 40:58
  Speaker 2: control over Jasmine's family, her brother Francisco, and the justice
• 41:02
  Speaker 2: system itself.
• 41:03
  Speaker 1: He's still punishing them.
• 41:04
  Speaker 2: He denies them the finality of closure. Admitting guilt would
• 41:08
  Speaker 2: require him to surrender to the authority of the courts,
• 41:11
  Speaker 2: and more importantly, to acknowledge the eponymy and humanity of
• 41:14
  Speaker 2: his victim.
• 41:15
  Speaker 1: And he won't do that?
• 41:16
  Speaker 2: No. By maintaining the lie, he keeps his psychological mask
• 41:20
  Speaker 2: firmly in place. He remains the god and architect of
• 41:23
  Speaker 2: his own fabricated reality, demanding that everyone else suffer the ambiguity,
• 41:28
  Speaker 2: even as he goes to prison for the rest of
• 41:30
  Speaker 2: his life.
• 41:31
  Speaker 1: But the jury did not suffer his ambiguity. The outcome
• 41:34
  Speaker 1: was decisive. He was found guilty of first-degree murder, assault,
• 41:39
  Speaker 1: tampering with a body, and abuse of a corpse.
• 41:41
  Speaker 2: A clean sweep.
• 41:43
  Speaker 1: And he was sentenced to life in prison without the
• 41:45
  Speaker 1: possibility of parole.
• 41:46
  Speaker 2: Justice was served in the strictest legal definition of the term.
• 41:50
  Speaker 1: Right, he's off the streets.
• 41:51
  Speaker 2: The sentence permanently removes a violent predator from society. But
• 41:55
  Speaker 2: as the source material for this deep dive rightly emphasizes,
• 41:58
  Speaker 2: a conviction is not a resurrection.
• 42:01
  Speaker 1: No, it's not.
• 42:01
  Speaker 2: There is no true comfort for the family. The legal
• 42:05
  Speaker 2: system can process the data... but it cannot undo the profound,
• 42:08
  Speaker 2: senseless tragedy of a bright, driven young woman whose life
• 42:12
  Speaker 2: was extinguished by the person who stood at an altar
• 42:14
  Speaker 2: and promised to protect her.
• 42:16
  Speaker 1: So what does this all mean for you, listening to
• 42:18
  Speaker 1: this right now? We started this deep dive with a
• 42:21
  Speaker 1: missing person's report that a husband desperately tried to frame
• 42:25
  Speaker 1: as a routine misunderstanding, a wife who just forgot to text.
• 42:29
  Speaker 2: But it was never routine.
• 42:30
  Speaker 1: No. As we peeled back the layers and applied pressure
• 42:34
  Speaker 1: to the narrative... We found a history of coercive control.
• 42:38
  Speaker 1: And the entire facade crumbled, not because of a grand confession,
• 42:42
  Speaker 1: but because of the synthesis of human observation and technological reality.
• 42:46
  Speaker 2: It emphasizes the terrifying and reassuring interconnectedness of our modern lives.
• 42:51
  Speaker 1: Terrifying and reassuring. I like that.
• 42:53
  Speaker 2: An abusive relationship thrives in isolation. But in the modern world,
• 42:57
  Speaker 2: true isolation is almost impossible.
• 42:59
  Speaker 1: The digital breadcrumbs are always there.
• 43:01
  Speaker 2: Right. The observant neighbors processing an acoustic anomaly... A brother
• 43:05
  Speaker 2: recognizing the missing procedural memory in how a car was parked,
• 43:09
  Speaker 2: perfectly synchronized with the invisible but indelible digital fingerprints of
• 43:13
  Speaker 2: cloud servers and cell tower handshakes.
• 43:15
  Speaker 1: It's a stark reminder that the seemingly invisible details of
• 43:19
  Speaker 1: our lives create a massive, undeniable footprint. The micro-routines of
• 43:24
  Speaker 1: how you turn your steering wheel, the exact time your
• 43:27
  Speaker 1: smart home devices ping a router, the silent conversations your
• 43:31
  Speaker 1: phone is having with a tower... miles away while it
• 43:33
  Speaker 1: sits idle in your pocket.
• 43:34
  Speaker 2: You're never really off the grid.
• 43:36
  Speaker 1: No. We are constantly inadvertently leaving a trail of absolute
• 43:40
  Speaker 1: truth behind us.
• 43:41
  Speaker 2: Which leads to a really fascinating and frankly chilling broader
• 43:45
  Speaker 2: implication regarding the intersection of technology and domestic violence.
• 43:49
  Speaker 1: I really wanted to bring this up before we finish.
• 43:51
  Speaker 1: If we look at how Jasmine's case was solved, the
• 43:54
  Speaker 1: technology was entirely retrospective.
• 43:56
  Speaker 2: Used after the fact to solve the crime.
• 43:58
  Speaker 1: Exactly. Exactly. In our current age where devices track our
• 44:01
  Speaker 1: every micro movement, it is nearly impossible to commit a
• 44:03
  Speaker 1: major crime without leaving a digital trace. But it raises
• 44:07
  Speaker 1: this provocative thought for you to mull over as you
• 44:09
  Speaker 1: go about your day.
• 44:10
  Speaker 2: This is the real question.
• 44:11
  Speaker 1: If our smart home cameras, our cellular networks, and our
• 44:15
  Speaker 1: digital infrastructures are perfectly capable of tracking a killer's exact
• 44:19
  Speaker 1: movements after the violence occurs... How far are we from
• 44:23
  Speaker 1: a reality where these same networks are used to predict
• 44:26
  Speaker 1: and intervene before the violence escalates?
• 44:29
  Speaker 2: It is the ultimate ethical double-edged sword of the coming
• 44:33
  Speaker 2: artificial intelligence age.
• 44:35
  Speaker 1: It really is.
• 44:35
  Speaker 2: We already possess the data to map the clear systemic
• 44:39
  Speaker 2: patterns of abuse. The dropped calls, the sudden digital silences,
• 44:43
  Speaker 2: the geographic isolation, the spikes in heart rate recorded by
• 44:46
  Speaker 2: smartwatches during domestic arguments.
• 44:48
  Speaker 1: The data exists right now.
• 44:50
  Speaker 2: It does. If a predictive algorithm could flag those intersecting
• 44:53
  Speaker 2: data points in real time, could it have automatically dispatched
• 44:56
  Speaker 2: a wellness check to that Denver apartment before 11.00 a.m.
• 45:00
  Speaker 2: on that Tuesday morning?
• 45:01
  Speaker 1: But where is the line? Where is the boundary between
• 45:04
  Speaker 1: a life-saving intervention and a dystopian surveillance state?
• 45:07
  Speaker 2: That's the million-dollar question.
• 45:09
  Speaker 1: We desperately want the technology to catch the killer and
• 45:12
  Speaker 1: maybe even prevent the murder. But do we genuinely want
• 45:16
  Speaker 1: an algorithm passively monitoring the acoustics of our living room arguments?
• 45:20
  Speaker 1: and the biometric data of our heart rates to decide
• 45:23
  Speaker 1: if we are a threat to our spouses. It's a heavy,
• 45:26
  Speaker 1: deeply uncomfortable question.
• 45:28
  Speaker 2: And as the technology continues to outpace our legal and
• 45:31
  Speaker 2: ethical frameworks, it is a question society will inevitably be
• 45:35
  Speaker 2: forced to answer in the very near future.
• 45:37
  Speaker 1: We started this deep dive talking about a house with
• 45:39
  Speaker 1: a pristine coat of paint and a rotting foundation.
• 45:43
  Speaker 2: A very apt metaphor.
• 45:44
  Speaker 1: In Jasmine's case, the paint was thick and the abuser
• 45:47
  Speaker 1: guarded the front door with everything he had. But eventually,
• 45:50
  Speaker 1: the walls simply couldn't hold the weight of the lies
• 45:53
  Speaker 1: against the pressure of the physical and digital world.
• 45:55
  Speaker 2: The foundation crumbled.
• 45:57
  Speaker 1: The foundation crumbled, and the truth came to light. Thank
• 46:00
  Speaker 1: you for tapping on those walls and taking this deep
• 46:02
  Speaker 1: dive with us today.