Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / Woman Beaten, Strangled After Making Boyfriend Dinner

Transcript

Woman Beaten, Strangled After Making Boyfriend Dinner · Murder Files Unsealed

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: You know, you expect to be picking out paint colors
• 0:02
  Speaker 1: for a nursery. You expect to be dealing with the
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: stress of doctor's appointments or, I don't know, arguing playfully
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: over baby names.
• 0:11
  Speaker 2: Right. Maybe putting together a crib and getting frustrated with
• 0:13
  Speaker 2: the instructions.
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: Exactly. You definitely do not expect to be dragged out
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: of a gas-filled house by a SWAT team in the
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: middle of the night.
• 0:20
  Speaker 2: No, you don't. And I mean, it's the ultimate subversion
• 0:23
  Speaker 2: of human trust. You're talking about a situation that shifts
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: from the absolute pinnacle of future building, like literally creating
• 0:31
  Speaker 2: a new life, to an environment of calculated destruction.
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: It's just so jarring.
• 0:37
  Speaker 2: It really is. And what's truly terrifying here isn't just
• 0:40
  Speaker 2: that contrast. You know, it's the velocity of it all.
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: It's the speed at which it happened.
• 0:44
  Speaker 2: Exactly. We aren't looking at a slow, decades-long deterioration of
• 0:48
  Speaker 2: a relationship here. We're looking at a catastrophic escalation that
• 0:52
  Speaker 2: happened in a matter of weeks.
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: And that rapid escalation is exactly why we are digging
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: into this today. So welcome to our deep dive, everyone.
• 0:59
  Speaker 2: Glad to be here.
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: Today we're looking at a harrowing, just an incredibly complex
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: case out of Lincoln, Nebraska. And we're using transcripts, reports,
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: and some really detailed legal analysis gathered by the Law
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: and Crime Network to guide us.
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: Which is such a great resource for this kind of
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: deep dive.
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely. But I want to be clear right up
• 1:20
  Speaker 1: front to you listening. Our mission today isn't just to
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: tell you another true crime story. Right.
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: Far from it, honestly. If you're just looking for the
• 1:27
  Speaker 2: narrative facts, I mean, you can go read the headline.
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: Exactly. We want to take these facts and use them
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: as like a skeleton key. We want to unlock the
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: systems at play beneath the surface of this story.
• 1:39
  Speaker 2: Because there is so much beneath the surface here.
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: So much. We are going to dissect the anatomy of
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: domestic violence escalation. We're going to tear down the incredibly
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: complex and, frankly, totally misunderstood psychology behind protective orders.
• 1:52
  Speaker 2: That part is so crucial for people to understand.
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: It really is. And on top of that, we're going
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: to pull back the curtain on the actual mechanics of
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: the legal system. Like we're talking about the literal physics
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: of a SWAT rescue in an explosive environment. Which is
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: mind blowing. Totally. Plus the financial reality behind million dollar
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: bail bonds and the dual track justice system of civil litigation.
• 2:14
  Speaker 2: Because when you read a headline that says, you know,
• 2:17
  Speaker 2: man arrested after standoff, you are only seeing the final
• 2:21
  Speaker 2: explosive moment. Right.
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: Just the climax.
• 2:23
  Speaker 2: Yeah. You aren't seeing the systemic failures or the psychological
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: traps or even the intricate legal maneuvering that paved the
• 2:31
  Speaker 2: way for that moment. Understanding those underlying mechanics, it entirely
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: changes the way you process the news.
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: It absolutely does. So let's set the scene and introduce
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: you to the people at the center of this. We're
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: looking at Jessie Beck.
• 2:43
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: She was born and raised in Nebraska, living in the
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: capital city of Lincoln. She's a single mother of two children.
• 2:49
  Speaker 2: And like anyone in that position, she was just looking
• 2:51
  Speaker 2: for a partner to build a stable life with.
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: Yeah, exactly. She thought she'd found, as she put it
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: in her own words, her person. And that person was
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: Christopher Collins.
• 3:02
  Speaker 2: He was a local guy, right?
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. Local guy who owned a pretty extensive portfolio
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: of real estate properties in the Lincoln area. And on paper,
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: you know, it looked incredibly solid.
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: He had that financial stability.
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: He did. They had a connection. And the illusion of
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: this Perfect blended family was right there for the taking.
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: But the timeline of how that illusion shattered is just
• 3:24
  Speaker 2: critical here.
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: Walk us through that.
• 3:26
  Speaker 2: Well, by July of last year, the relationship between Jesse
• 3:29
  Speaker 2: and Christopher was so serious that they were actively planning
• 3:33
  Speaker 2: to undergo IVF treatments.
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: Wow, IVF. That is huge.
• 3:38
  Speaker 2: It is. And we really have to pause on that
• 3:40
  Speaker 2: because IVF isn't just a casual next step in a relationship.
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: No, it's an overwhelming process.
• 3:45
  Speaker 2: Exactly. It requires massive emotional, physical, and financial investment. It's
• 3:50
  Speaker 2: not like moving a toothbrush into someone's apartment, you know. Right.
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: It's next level commitment.
• 3:55
  Speaker 2: It requires a profound level of biological vulnerability and an
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: immense amount of trust. Planning a child together via IVF
• 4:02
  Speaker 2: means you have completely lowered your defenses.
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: Because you're literally building a future together.
• 4:08
  Speaker 2: Psychologically, you are signaling to this other person that you
• 4:11
  Speaker 2: view them as a permanent fixture in your life.
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: But then, just one month later, in August, the reality
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: shifts so violently.
• 4:20
  Speaker 2: It's like night and day.
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: It really is. According to Jessie, she had never seen
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: him act violently before. But out of nowhere, Colin's allegedly
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: attacks her.
• 4:30
  Speaker 2: And we need to be clear about the severity of this.
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: Yeah, this wasn't just a shouting match that got out
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: of hand. He was arrested on charges of assault by strangulation.
• 4:39
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: And because of that arrest, a protective order was immediately
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: issued by the courts.
• 4:44
  Speaker 2: We really need to zero in on that specific charge, too.
• 4:47
  Speaker 2: Assault by strangulation is a massive blinking red alert in
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: the context of domestic violence and criminology.
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: How so? I mean, is it treated differently than, say,
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: a standard assault charge where someone just gets punched?
• 5:00
  Speaker 2: Vastly differently, at least by anyone who actually understands the statistics.
• 5:03
  Speaker 2: Strangulation is widely recognized by law enforcement, medical professionals, and
• 5:07
  Speaker 2: advocates as one of the single highest predictors of future
• 5:10
  Speaker 2: lethal violence.
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: Oh, wow. Yeah.
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: Some studies suggest that if a victim is strangled by
• 5:15
  Speaker 2: their partner, their risk of eventually being murdered by that
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: same partner goes up by something like 700%. Wait, 700%?
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: That is staggering.
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: It is terrifying. And it's because strangulation isn't just about
• 5:28
  Speaker 2: inflicting pain, right? It's about demonstrating absolute literal power over
• 5:33
  Speaker 2: whether another human being gets to draw their next breath.
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: So it's about control.
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: Exactly. It's a psychological subjugation. So when a judge sees
• 5:42
  Speaker 2: a strangulation charge and issues a protective order, it isn't
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: a mere formality or some slap on the wrist.
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: It's a big deal.
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: It's an emergency lifesaving mechanism deployed by the state. The
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: legal system is essentially saying we have statistically identified a
• 5:56
  Speaker 2: high probability of homicide here and we are stepping in
• 5:59
  Speaker 2: to physically separate you.
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: Okay, let's unpack this.
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: Oh.
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: Because the timeline is about to give us absolute relationship
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: whiplash here.
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: It really is.
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: We go from moving at 100 miles an hour toward
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: building a family with IVF in July to slamming on
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: the brakes with a violent strangulation arrest and a protective
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: order in August.
• 6:17
  Speaker 2: Total. Right.
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: But then on September 24th, just a month later... Jessie
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: actively goes to the court and requests that the protective
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: order be lifted.
• 6:27
  Speaker 2: Which throws everyone for a loop.
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: Completely. She wanted to put the history behind them, reconnect,
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: and astonishingly move forward with the relationship and those IVF plans.
• 6:37
  Speaker 2: Hitting the gas again.
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: They hit the gas again, right toward the edge of
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: a cliff. And I really struggle with this part of
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: the legal system, honestly.
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: A lot of people do.
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: If an order is put in place for life-saving reasons,
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: especially after an arrest for something as statistically deadly as strangulation,
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: Why on earth does the system allow that barrier to
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: be so easily dismissed just because the victim asks for it?
• 6:59
  Speaker 2: It's arguably the most frustrating and complex intersection of criminal
• 7:04
  Speaker 2: law and human psychology.
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: I just don't get it.
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: Well, former prosecutor John Day, who analyzed this specific case
• 7:10
  Speaker 2: and has handled hundreds like it, points out a grim reality.
• 7:13
  Speaker 2: From a purely legal standpoint, a protective order is, at
• 7:17
  Speaker 2: the end of the day, just a piece of paper.
• 7:19
  Speaker 1: Right. It's just words on a page.
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: It's a judge telling someone to stay away, not to communicate,
• 7:24
  Speaker 2: not to post on social media.
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: But it's backed by the threat of arrest, isn't it?
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: I mean, if he violates it, he goes right back
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: to jail. Yes.
• 7:31
  Speaker 2: Violating it is a criminal offense, often a misdemeanor, which
• 7:35
  Speaker 2: triggers immediate police action. But the flaw in the system
• 7:39
  Speaker 2: is that it relies almost entirely on the cooperation and
• 7:43
  Speaker 2: reporting of the protected party.
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: Ah, I see.
• 7:46
  Speaker 2: It's not a physical force field. Law enforcement isn't standing
• 7:49
  Speaker 2: outside her house 24-7. When a victim walks into a
• 7:52
  Speaker 2: courtroom and formally files a request to dismiss that order,
• 7:56
  Speaker 2: they are exercising their legal agency as an adult.
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: And the court has to respect that agency. Right.
• 8:01
  Speaker 2: And the psychology behind why victims do this is incredibly
• 8:04
  Speaker 2: multilayered and often misunderstood by the general public.
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: Because the public just thinks, why would you go back
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: to the guy who choked you?
• 8:11
  Speaker 2: Exactly, which is a massive oversimplification of trauma bonding.
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: How does that bonding work in a case like this?
• 8:16
  Speaker 2: Well, sometimes victims truly believe the abuser has changed. The
• 8:20
  Speaker 2: abuser might be putting on the performance of a lifetime
• 8:23
  Speaker 2: showing intense remorse, making huge promises.
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: Saying whatever they need to say.
• 8:29
  Speaker 2: Exactly. And the victim clings to the hope for the relationship,
• 8:32
  Speaker 2: especially if they have kids or were in the vulnerable
• 8:35
  Speaker 2: process of planning a family like the IVF plans here.
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: That sunk cost fallacy almost.
• 8:41
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: They might be engaged in couples counseling and mistakenly believe
• 8:45
  Speaker 2: a clinical setting can cure what is fundamentally a behavioral
• 8:49
  Speaker 2: choice by the abuser.
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: And sometimes there's something much darker happening that the court
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: just can't easily see from the bench, right?
• 8:57
  Speaker 2: Precisely. Domestic violence advocates will tell you the unseen coercion
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: is the real monster here.
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: Like threats behind the scenes.
• 9:04
  Speaker 2: Exactly. The abuser might be manipulating the victim behind the scenes,
• 9:08
  Speaker 2: violating the protective order secretly, to apply immense emotional, psychological,
• 9:13
  Speaker 2: or even financial pressure.
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: Wow, so he's not even respecting the order while it's
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: in place.
• 9:18
  Speaker 2: Usually, no. If he controls the finances, or if he's
• 9:21
  Speaker 2: threatening her family, she might calculate that dropping the order
• 9:24
  Speaker 2: is actually the safest way to appease an angry, volatile man.
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: It's a survival tactic.
• 9:28
  Speaker 2: Exactly. She's choosing what she perceives as the lesser of
• 9:31
  Speaker 2: two evils.
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: But the judge has to know this. I mean, the
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: judge sitting on the bench sees the initial charge of strangulation,
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: They know the 700% statistic you just cited.
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: They absolutely know it.
• 9:43
  Speaker 1: So why did they just rubber stamp the dismissal?
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: Well, it's not a rubber stamp and it places judges
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: in an agonizing position. Judges have discretion. When a victim
• 9:52
  Speaker 2: asks to drop an order, a good judge will bring
• 9:55
  Speaker 2: them into chambers or ask them on the record why
• 9:57
  Speaker 2: they are requesting the dismissal.
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: So they do try to screen for coercion.
• 10:01
  Speaker 2: They do. They look for signs of intimidation. But ultimately,
• 10:04
  Speaker 2: if an adult victim of sound mind stands before the
• 10:07
  Speaker 2: court and unequivocally insists that they want to reconcile, that
• 10:10
  Speaker 2: they want the state to back out of their private relationship,
• 10:14
  Speaker 2: judges generally honor that request.
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: That must be so hard for the judge. It is.
• 10:18
  Speaker 2: There is a fundamental tension in American law between protecting
• 10:21
  Speaker 2: a citizen and respecting a citizen's autonomy.
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 10:24
  Speaker 2: The court inherently suspects something might be wrong behind closed doors,
• 10:28
  Speaker 2: but they cannot legally force a competent adult to accept
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: protection they are actively, vehemently rejecting.
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: It's a tragic paradox, really. The system designed to protect
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: you has to step aside if you ask it to,
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: even if everyone in the room suspects you're walking back
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: into a burning building.
• 10:45
  Speaker 2: It's heartbreaking.
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: And in Jesse's case... The lifting of that order was
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: supposed to be a fresh start, a clean slate for
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: them both.
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: That was her hope.
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: So on the night of September 24th, the very same
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: day the judge lifted the order, she decided to celebrate
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: this new beginning. She brought a warm, home-cooked meal to
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: Christopher's house around 10.00 p.m.
• 11:06
  Speaker 2: Such a nurturing gesture.
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: Right. She was bringing a meal to nurture a relationship.
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: But as we're about to see, the dismissal of that
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: legal protection wasn't a fresh start at all. It was
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: a green light.
• 11:17
  Speaker 2: That transition from the legal reality of the courtroom to
• 11:20
  Speaker 2: the private reality of the home on the night of
• 11:22
  Speaker 2: September 24th is where the psychology of the abuser comes
• 11:26
  Speaker 2: into sharp, terrifying focus.
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: Everything changes behind closed doors.
• 11:30
  Speaker 2: The moment the legal barrier is removed, the entire power
• 11:33
  Speaker 2: dynamic shifts.
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: So let's get into exactly what happened that night, based
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: on the deeply disturbing interview Jesse later gave to Colm TV.
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: It's a tough listen. Very tough. She arrives at Collins'
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: primary house with this warm meal. But the moment she
• 11:48
  Speaker 1: gets there, there's no dinner. There's no conversation.
• 11:51
  Speaker 2: It just evolves immediately.
• 11:52
  Speaker 1: Yeah. The situation instantly devolves into a calculated ambush. She
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: was allegedly hit so hard upon arriving that she was
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: knocked completely unconscious.
• 12:01
  Speaker 2: Which is horrifying.
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: And according to her own words, Collins essentially thought she
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: was dead and he just didn't know what to do.
• 12:09
  Speaker 2: The immediacy of that violence is staggering from a behavioral standpoint.
• 12:13
  Speaker 2: I mean, there was no argument.
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: No buildup at all. None.
• 12:16
  Speaker 2: There was no escalation of tension over dinner that eventually
• 12:18
  Speaker 2: boiled over. It was an immediate, brutal, preemptive strike resulting
• 12:23
  Speaker 2: in total unconsciousness.
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: And then, while she's unconscious, he relocates her.
• 12:28
  Speaker 2: This is a critical pivot.
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: He moves her body from his primary home to another
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: property entirely, a rental house that he owned in the city.
• 12:35
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: When Jesse finally wakes up, She's in a different house
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: and she's lying in a bed right next to Christopher Collins,
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: the man who just nearly killed her.
• 12:44
  Speaker 2: It's literally the plot of a horror movie.
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: She laid there for hours, completely paralyzed by fear, unsure
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: if she was going to survive the night.
• 12:52
  Speaker 2: We really need to look at the mechanics of abduction here.
• 12:55
  Speaker 2: Moving a victim to a secondary location is a massive
• 12:58
  Speaker 2: escalation in any violent crime.
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: Why is that secondary location so significant?
• 13:04
  Speaker 2: Criminologists consider a secondary location to be incredibly dangerous because
• 13:08
  Speaker 2: it isolates the victim in an environment where the attacker
• 13:11
  Speaker 2: has total environmental control.
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: Oh, I see.
• 13:14
  Speaker 2: It removes the victim from a place where neighbors might
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: hear a struggle or where police might normally check. Imagine
• 13:20
  Speaker 2: the sheer terror of her reality.
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: Waking up like that.
• 13:23
  Speaker 2: Right. Waking up from a traumatic brain injury, disorientated, realizing
• 13:26
  Speaker 2: you've been transported while unconscious, and the person sleeping next
• 13:30
  Speaker 2: to you is the one who put you in this condition.
• 13:33
  Speaker 2: The psychological poorment of those hours is unimaginable.
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: And it escalated in a way that is just completely visceral.
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: According to the source material, she remembers him eventually getting up,
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: grabbing a heavy glass bottle of Tito's vodka and slamming
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: it over her head. Then he got on top of
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: her and began strangling her again. The injuries she sustained
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: were just catastrophic. We're talking severe head trauma, internal bleeding,
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: and multiple broken ribs.
• 14:00
  Speaker 2: It's a miracle she survived that initial attack.
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: Truly. And the chilling asymmetry of that evening is hard
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: to shake. She arrived at that house at 10 p.m.
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: with a warm plate of food, actively trying to feed
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: and nurture the man she loved. Yeah. He allegedly arrived
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: at that exact same moment with lethal intent.
• 14:19
  Speaker 2: What's fascinating here is, and I'm using the word fascinating
• 14:23
  Speaker 2: in the glimmest, most clinical sense regarding criminal psychology, but
• 14:27
  Speaker 2: the concept of reignited animosity.
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: Tell me more about that.
• 14:30
  Speaker 2: We really have to analyze what the dismissal of the
• 14:33
  Speaker 2: protective order earlier that day actually accomplished in the mind
• 14:37
  Speaker 2: of the alleged abuser. Because it clearly didn't mend the relationship.
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: No, obviously not.
• 14:43
  Speaker 2: It is highly probable that dismissing the order actually emboldened him.
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: Almost like he felt he beat the system.
• 14:49
  Speaker 2: Exactly that. When an abuser is subjected to court supervision,
• 14:53
  Speaker 2: they feel a profound loss of control. And control is
• 14:56
  Speaker 2: the very thing they crave and demand in the relationship.
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: So the order was driving him crazy.
• 15:01
  Speaker 2: Right. The protective order is a constant humiliation to them.
• 15:04
  Speaker 2: So when the victim goes to court and successfully removes
• 15:07
  Speaker 2: that supervision, the abuser internalizes that as a massive victory.
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: He feels untouchable.
• 15:12
  Speaker 2: Exactly. They feel they've taken care of the legal hurdle.
• 15:15
  Speaker 2: The state is no longer watching. The piece of paper
• 15:18
  Speaker 2: is gone.
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: So instead of being grateful she dropped it, he's just
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: furious it was ever there in the first place.
• 15:23
  Speaker 2: Right. This does not foster gratitude. It often fosters this
• 15:27
  Speaker 2: reignited animosity. The abuser feels intense anger that the order
• 15:31
  Speaker 2: was ever placed at all, combined with a dangerous new
• 15:34
  Speaker 2: sense of invincibility.
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: Because she proved she'd protect him.
• 15:37
  Speaker 2: Yes, because the victim just proved to him that she
• 15:40
  Speaker 2: would protect him from the law.
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: It's like removing the safety on a loaded weapon. The
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: very act of trying to show trust by dropping the
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: order was the actual trigger for the violence.
• 15:50
  Speaker 2: It was the catalyst.
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: But this violence wasn't just going to stay contained to
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: that rental house. By the next morning, this situation spirals
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: from a domestic nightmare into a literal ticking time bomb
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: for an entire city block.
• 16:03
  Speaker 2: The timeline accelerates so rapidly the next morning. By 8.0 a.m.
• 16:08
  Speaker 2: on September 25th, Jesse's children realize they haven't heard from
• 16:12
  Speaker 2: their mother.
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: Which was unusual for her.
• 16:14
  Speaker 2: Very. That break in her routine, the failure to check in,
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: was enough for them to immediately call the police. And
• 16:21
  Speaker 2: this is a crucial procedural detail.
• 16:23
  Speaker 1: Why is that?
• 16:24
  Speaker 2: Because the children's vigilance is what initiated the massive law
• 16:28
  Speaker 2: enforcement response that followed. If they hadn't called, who knows
• 16:31
  Speaker 2: how long he would have had. Right.
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: So the police and the SWAT team initially respond to
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: Collins' primary home, the place she brought the dinner to
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: the night before. Right. They don't find the couple, but
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: they find obvious signs of a struggle. Blood, disarray. That
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: instantly elevates the situation. It's no longer a routine missing
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: persons check.
• 16:49
  Speaker 2: No, it's a crime scene now. Exactly.
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: Exactly. So the police put out an emergency alert that
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: Jesse is in severe danger, and they actually released surveillance
• 16:58
  Speaker 1: footage of Collins in his car, suspecting they might be
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: traveling together on the run.
• 17:03
  Speaker 2: Law enforcement at this point is operating under the assumption
• 17:06
  Speaker 2: of a kidnapping with a high probability of severe imminent violence.
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: Especially given the blood at the scene.
• 17:12
  Speaker 2: Yeah, the blood plus the history of the August strangulation charge.
• 17:16
  Speaker 2: They know the risk is off the charts.
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: But they were on the road at all. According to Jesse,
• 17:22
  Speaker 1: Collins was keeping her captive at that secondary rental property.
• 17:26
  Speaker 2: That isolated environment.
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: Yes, and he had, in her words, zero intention of
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: both of us making it out. He was actively pumping
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: the house full of natural gas.
• 17:36
  Speaker 2: That detail is just chillin'. He.
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: Was allegedly planning to blow up the home with both
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: of them inside. It was a calculated murder-suicide attempt.
• 17:43
  Speaker 2: This is the exact moment the profile of the crime
• 17:46
  Speaker 2: shifts dramatically. Pumping a residential home full of natural gas
• 17:50
  Speaker 2: introduces a highly combustible, incredible unstable element that completely changes
• 17:55
  Speaker 2: the tactical response.
• 17:57
  Speaker 1: Right, because we aren't just dealing with a guy with
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: a gun anymore. Which brings us to the climax of
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: the rescue.
• 18:03
  Speaker 2: The location discovery.
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: Right. The Lincoln Police Department uses investigative means, likely tracking
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: their cell phones, utilizing license plate readers, or maybe just
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: pulling his public property records to locate them at this
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: rental home, on the 200 block of Santa Fe.
• 18:18
  Speaker 2: Good police work to find that secondary location so fast.
• 18:22
  Speaker 1: Definitely. So the SWAT team sets up to breach the home.
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: But the moment they make entry, they're hit with a heavy,
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: overwhelming odor of natural gas.
• 18:30
  Speaker 2: A tactical nightmare.
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: Let's talk about the physics of this for a second,
• 18:33
  Speaker 1: because the danger here is just astronomical.
• 18:36
  Speaker 2: It's absolutely terrifying for a tactical unit. Natural gas, which
• 18:39
  Speaker 2: is mostly methane, has specific explosive thresholds.
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: Okay, what does that mean in this context?
• 18:45
  Speaker 2: In chemistry, we talk about the lower explosive limit, or LEL,
• 18:49
  Speaker 2: and the upper explosive limit, UEL.
• 18:51
  Speaker 1: Got it.
• 18:52
  Speaker 2: If the concentration of gas in the air is below
• 18:54
  Speaker 2: the LEL, which is usually around 5% for natural gas,
• 18:58
  Speaker 2: it's the cooling to burn, nothing happens.
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: Okay, and the upper limit?
• 19:01
  Speaker 2: If it's above the ULL, around 15%, it's too rich
• 19:05
  Speaker 2: to burn because there just isn't enough oxygen in the
• 19:08
  Speaker 2: room to fuel the fire.
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: But what if it's in the middle?
• 19:10
  Speaker 2: That's the danger zone. If that house is sitting anywhere
• 19:13
  Speaker 2: between 5% and 15% gas concentration, the entire structure is
• 19:18
  Speaker 2: essentially a fuel air bomb waiting for a catalyst.
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: And the SWAT team doesn't know where the concentration level
• 19:24
  Speaker 1: is when they breach. They're just guessing.
• 19:26
  Speaker 2: Exactly. They realize instantly that a single spark could ignite
• 19:31
  Speaker 2: the entire structure.
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: And SWAT gear is practically designed to make sparks, isn't it?
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: I mean, they're covered in metal.
• 19:37
  Speaker 2: Yes, they are. Think about the mechanics of a SWAT entry.
• 19:41
  Speaker 2: You have heavily armed officers carrying metal tools. The friction
• 19:45
  Speaker 2: of a metal breaching ram hitting a door hinge. That
• 19:48
  Speaker 2: can throw a spark.
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: Oh, wow. Even just opening the door is a risk.
• 19:51
  Speaker 2: Yeah. The muzzle flash from a firearm is obvious, but
• 19:54
  Speaker 2: even non-lethal tools like flashbangs are completely off the table. Right.
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: Those are literally small explosives.
• 19:59
  Speaker 2: Exactly. But it gets crazier. Even the static electricity from
• 20:03
  Speaker 2: tactical Velcro tearing or an electrical arc from a police
• 20:06
  Speaker 2: radio transmitting can generate enough energy to ignite a natural
• 20:11
  Speaker 2: gas mixture if it's in that explosive range.
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: Wait, Velcro? Seriously?
• 20:16
  Speaker 2: Yes. The discipline required to operate in that environment is
• 20:20
  Speaker 2: just unbelievable.
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: They have to secure a violent suspect who is actively
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: trying to kill his victim and rescue the victim while
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: operating inside a bomb that they can't accidentally set off
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: while fighting him.
• 20:31
  Speaker 2: The tactical restraint required in that specific environment is immense.
• 20:35
  Speaker 2: They can't use their standard kinetic entry methods.
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: Right. They can't shoot or use flashbangs.
• 20:40
  Speaker 2: No, they have to rely entirely on physical restraint and
• 20:43
  Speaker 2: overwhelming numbers without triggering an ignition source.
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: And they somehow managed to pull it off. They rescued Jesse,
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: and after what reports describe as a physical struggle with Collins,
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: they take him into custody.
• 20:54
  Speaker 2: Incredible work by those officers.
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: Truly. But the danger was so extreme that SWAT had
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: to immediately back out with them. They called in Lincoln
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: Fire and Rescue. And they didn't just vent the house.
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: They had to evacuate the adjacent houses and eventually the
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: entire neighborhood.
• 21:10
  Speaker 2: Because the blast radius would have been massive.
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: Exactly. I look at this like a localized earthquake. What
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: started as a deeply personal domestic incident, entirely behind closed doors,
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: literally radiated outward.
• 21:23
  Speaker 2: It affected everyone around them.
• 21:24
  Speaker 1: The shockwaves of this one relationship threatened the lives of
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: an entire city block. Families who had nothing to do
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: with this, who were just making breakfast on a Tuesday morning...
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: had to run for their lives because of the lethal
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: intent of one man toward one woman.
• 21:38
  Speaker 2: It perfectly illustrates how domestic violence is rarely just a
• 21:42
  Speaker 2: private matter. The involvement of natural gas shifts the legal
• 21:46
  Speaker 2: and tactical framework entirely.
• 21:47
  Speaker 1: It goes from private to public danger instantly.
• 21:50
  Speaker 2: It moves from a standard, localized domestic violence charge to
• 21:54
  Speaker 2: a potential mass casualty event. A natural gas explosion in
• 21:59
  Speaker 2: a residential area doesn't just destroy the source house.
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: What else does it do?
• 22:03
  Speaker 2: It can structurally compromise or level multiple homes on either
• 22:07
  Speaker 2: side and send lethal debris flying for blocks.
• 22:10
  Speaker 1: And the legal charges reflected that escalation instantly, didn't they?
• 22:14
  Speaker 2: Yes, they did. Initially, the police are looking at domestic assault.
• 22:18
  Speaker 2: But when the SWAT team secures a scene saturated with
• 22:21
  Speaker 2: natural gas intentionally deployed by the suspect, the legal framework explodes.
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: What do they charge him with?
• 22:28
  Speaker 2: The charges leap to kidnapping, terroristic threats, and the use
• 22:31
  Speaker 2: of a weapon to commit a felony.
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: Wait, can natural gas legally be classified as a weapon?
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: That sounds wild.
• 22:37
  Speaker 2: In this context, absolutely. The law defines a deadly weapon
• 22:41
  Speaker 2: not just as a gun or a knife, but as
• 22:43
  Speaker 2: any instrument, device, or substance that, in the manner it
• 22:46
  Speaker 2: is used or intended to be used, is capable of
• 22:49
  Speaker 2: producing death or serious bodily injury.
• 22:51
  Speaker 1: Oh, that makes sense.
• 22:52
  Speaker 2: By intentionally releasing the gas with the intent to cause
• 22:56
  Speaker 2: an explosion... Collins transformed the home's utility system into an
• 23:00
  Speaker 2: improvised explosive device.
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: Which is terrifying.
• 23:03
  Speaker 2: It really is. That elevates the crime to a completely
• 23:05
  Speaker 2: different echelon in the penal code.
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: The fact that this man turned a residential block into
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: a literal bomb makes what happened in the courtroom the
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: next day absolutely infuriating.
• 23:15
  Speaker 2: Ederainment. Right.
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: Collins is taken into custody. He makes his first appearance
• 23:19
  Speaker 1: in court. And his bond is set at a very
• 23:22
  Speaker 1: specific figure, 10% of $ 10 million.
• 23:25
  Speaker 2: Which is a huge number.
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: It is. Now, Law and Crime used a public records
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: search service called Truthfinder to look into Collins, and they
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: confirmed he owns several lucrative rental properties in the Lincoln area.
• 23:36
  Speaker 2: Including the exact house where he held Jesse hostage.
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: Yes, exactly. So what does this all mean? I have
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: a major pushback here on the whole concept of bail
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: for a guy like this.
• 23:46
  Speaker 2: Go ahead. What's your concern?
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: Well, if the bond is 10% of $ 10 million, that
• 23:50
  Speaker 1: means he effectively needs $ 1 million in cash or collateral
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: to get out of jail. Correct. If this guy is
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: a successful real estate owner with a portfolio of multiple properties,
• 24:00
  Speaker 1: it's entirely possible that he could leverage those assets, put
• 24:03
  Speaker 1: up the million dollars, and walk out.
• 24:05
  Speaker 2: It's highly probable he could afford that, yes.
• 24:07
  Speaker 1: What is stopping a man who just violently assaulted a woman,
• 24:12
  Speaker 1: kidnapped her, and tried to detonate a residential neighborhood from
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: walking right back out onto the streets while he awaits trial?
• 24:19
  Speaker 2: That is the exact question the community and the victim
• 24:22
  Speaker 2: ask when they see a bail amount that might actually
• 24:25
  Speaker 2: be attainable for a wealthy defendant.
• 24:27
  Speaker 1: It just feels wrong.
• 24:28
  Speaker 2: It feels like the system is letting a monster buy
• 24:31
  Speaker 2: his way out. But to understand this, we have to
• 24:33
  Speaker 2: break down the mechanics of the 10% of $ 10 million
• 24:37
  Speaker 2: bond structure from the judge's perspective.
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: Okay, walk me through that.
• 24:40
  Speaker 2: It's not just an arbitrary big number. It's a highly
• 24:43
  Speaker 2: specific financial mechanism designed to maintain ultimate control over the defendant.
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: But why not just deny bail entirely? If he's a
• 24:51
  Speaker 1: terroristic threat, hold him without bail. Or if you have
• 24:54
  Speaker 1: to set bail, set it at a flat $ 1 million.
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: Why the 10% rule?
• 24:59
  Speaker 2: Well, in some jurisdictions, for certain capital charges, a judge
• 25:02
  Speaker 2: can hold a suspect without bail.
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: But not here.
• 25:05
  Speaker 2: Often, state constitutions and statutory protections regarding the right to
• 25:09
  Speaker 2: bail require a judge to set a releasable amount unless
• 25:12
  Speaker 2: very specific criteria are met.
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: Ah, so they legally have to give them a number.
• 25:16
  Speaker 2: Usually, yes. By setting it at 10 percent of $ 10
• 25:19
  Speaker 2: million rather than a flat $ 1 million cash bond, the
• 25:23
  Speaker 2: judge is creating a massive financial leash.
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: Walk me through the mechanics of that leash. How does
• 25:29
  Speaker 1: it actually work if he pays the million?
• 25:32
  Speaker 2: If it were a flat $ 1 million bond and he
• 25:35
  Speaker 2: paid it, the transaction is largely done. The court has
• 25:38
  Speaker 2: their security.
• 25:39
  Speaker 1: Right. He bought his ticket out.
• 25:40
  Speaker 2: But with a 10 percent provision. If Collins manages to
• 25:44
  Speaker 2: liquidate assets or secure a surety bond for the $ 1
• 25:46
  Speaker 2: million and gets released, he doesn't just walk free.
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: There are strings attached.
• 25:51
  Speaker 2: Big strings. He is released under incredibly strict, court-mandated conditions,
• 25:56
  Speaker 2: and the remaining $ 9 million hangs over his head like
• 25:59
  Speaker 2: the sword of Damocles.
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: What kind of conditions are we talking about?
• 26:01
  Speaker 2: Severe restrictions. Mandatory electronic monitoring with a GPS ankle bracelet
• 26:06
  Speaker 2: that tracks his every movement. Constant check-ins with pre-trial services.
• 26:11
  Speaker 1: I assume he can't contact Jesse.
• 26:13
  Speaker 2: Absolute zero contact orders regarding the victim, her family, and
• 26:18
  Speaker 2: likely certain geographic areas of the city. He can't leave
• 26:21
  Speaker 2: the jurisdiction. He likely has to surrender his passport.
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: Okay, so they keep him on a tight leash.
• 26:26
  Speaker 2: The catch is this. If he violates even one of
• 26:29
  Speaker 2: those strict conditions of release, say he drives one block
• 26:32
  Speaker 2: too close to Jesse's house, or he fails to show
• 26:35
  Speaker 2: up for a procedural hearing, he doesn't just go back
• 26:38
  Speaker 2: to jail.
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: Wait, so if he steps out of line, who actually
• 26:41
  Speaker 1: collects that remaining $ 9 million? Is it the state?
• 26:44
  Speaker 2: Yes. He immediately forfeits the $ 1 million he already put up,
• 26:48
  Speaker 2: and he becomes legally liable to owe the court the
• 26:51
  Speaker 2: remaining $ 9 million.
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: But how does the court actually get that money if
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: he doesn't just have $ 9 million lying around in a
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: checking account?
• 26:57
  Speaker 2: The court would enter a civil judgment against him for
• 26:59
  Speaker 2: the full $ 10 million, and they execute the judgment by
• 27:03
  Speaker 2: placing liens on all of his known assets.
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: Oh, wow.
• 27:06
  Speaker 2: Those rental properties we mentioned. The state can seize them,
• 27:09
  Speaker 2: auction them off, freeze his bank accounts, and garnish any
• 27:12
  Speaker 2: income until that $ 10 million is satisfied.
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: So they basically ruin him.
• 27:16
  Speaker 2: It leverages his wealth entirely against his behavior. It uses
• 27:20
  Speaker 2: his own assets as leverage to ensure public safety and
• 27:23
  Speaker 2: his appearance at trial.
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: Okay, I see. So this is just about the money
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: he pays to get out. It's the total financial ruin
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: hanging over his head if he steps even one millimeter
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: out of line while he's out.
• 27:34
  Speaker 2: Exactly. While the theoretical possibility of a dangerous person bonding
• 27:38
  Speaker 2: out is terrifying, the structure of that specific bond is
• 27:42
  Speaker 2: designed to make the consequences of any further misbehavior financially
• 27:46
  Speaker 2: apocalyptic for him.
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: That does make me feel a little better about the logic.
• 27:49
  Speaker 2: And if he used a bail bondsman to secure that
• 27:52
  Speaker 2: $ 1 million, the bondsman would also have a vested interest
• 27:55
  Speaker 2: in hunting him down if he fled. Because the bondsman's
• 27:58
  Speaker 2: money is on the line, too.
• 27:59
  Speaker 1: But, you know, even with him in custody and all
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: these legal mechanisms grinding away... The nightmare for Jessie is
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: far from over.
• 28:08
  Speaker 2: It's really just beginning in some ways.
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: Yeah. She survived the night. She survived the gas. But
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: now we have to look at the reality of her
• 28:14
  Speaker 1: life today and the trauma of the upcoming trial.
• 28:17
  Speaker 2: Which is a heavy burden.
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: According to the source material, Jessie's current physical condition is devastating.
• 28:24
  Speaker 1: She's suffering from profound PTSD. She has diagnosed brain damage
• 28:28
  Speaker 1: from the blunt force trauma of the vodka bottle.
• 28:30
  Speaker 2: Just horrific injuries.
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: She has metal pins holding her ribs together. She literally
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: needs a walker just to keep her balance. And she's
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: currently relying on a GoFundMe campaign just to try and
• 28:41
  Speaker 1: cover the costs of her physical recovery.
• 28:44
  Speaker 2: It's a stark, brutal reminder that surviving a murder attempt
• 28:48
  Speaker 2: isn't the end of the story.
• 28:49
  Speaker 1: Not at all.
• 28:50
  Speaker 2: It's merely the beginning of a lifelong medical, financial, and
• 28:53
  Speaker 2: psychological battle. The acute trauma ends when the SWAT team
• 28:57
  Speaker 2: pulls you out, but the chronic trauma lasts forever.
• 29:01
  Speaker 1: And hanging over this entire recovery process is the looming
• 29:04
  Speaker 1: reality of the courtroom.
• 29:06
  Speaker 2: Yes, the trial is going to be incredibly difficult.
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: If this criminal case goes to trial, Jesse will likely
• 29:11
  Speaker 1: have to enter a courtroom, sit on a witness stand,
• 29:14
  Speaker 1: and face Christopher Collins again. The prosecution will absolutely need
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: her testimony to secure a conviction.
• 29:20
  Speaker 2: They can't do it without her.
• 29:21
  Speaker 1: John Day, the former prosecutor who analyzed this case... spoke
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: about the immense difficulty of being a defense lawyer in
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: a case with optics this horrific.
• 29:32
  Speaker 2: It's one of the most challenging aspects of the legal
• 29:34
  Speaker 2: system for the general public to digest emotionally.
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: It's a tough pill to swallow.
• 29:39
  Speaker 2: But if we connect this to the bigger picture, it's
• 29:41
  Speaker 2: absolutely essential for the functioning of our justice system.
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: I just have to ask, how can a defense attorney
• 29:47
  Speaker 1: possibly stand up in front of a jury and cross-examine
• 29:50
  Speaker 1: a woman who needs a walker to get to the stand?
• 29:53
  Speaker 2: It's a delicate dance.
• 29:54
  Speaker 1: Right. A woman who has metal in her ribs and
• 29:57
  Speaker 1: and brain damage from surviving a house that was pumped
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: full of gas. How does a lawyer do that without
• 30:03
  Speaker 1: looking like an absolute monster to the jury?
• 30:05
  Speaker 2: It requires extreme delicacy and highly specialized tactics. As John
• 30:10
  Speaker 2: Day described it, a defense attorney in this situation must
• 30:13
  Speaker 2: use a scalpel rather than a dull axe.
• 30:15
  Speaker 1: What does that mean in practice?
• 30:16
  Speaker 2: You can't go into that courtroom and aggressively attack the victim,
• 30:19
  Speaker 2: call her a liar, or badger her on the stand.
• 30:21
  Speaker 1: The jury would hate that.
• 30:23
  Speaker 2: Instantly. If you do that, the jury will instantly despise you,
• 30:28
  Speaker 2: they will despise your client by proxy, and you'll lose
• 30:30
  Speaker 2: the case right there. The optics, as you mentioned, are
• 30:33
  Speaker 2: incredibly sensitive.
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: So what's the defense's job, then? Just to sit there
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: and let the prosecution run the show?
• 30:39
  Speaker 2: Not at all. The defense attorney is bound by the
• 30:42
  Speaker 2: constitutional right of the accused to have a vigorous defense.
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: Even for someone like Collins?
• 30:47
  Speaker 2: Even for him. Their job isn't necessarily to prove the
• 30:51
  Speaker 2: client is innocent. Their job is to force the state
• 30:54
  Speaker 2: to prove the client is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
• 30:57
  Speaker 1: And how do they do that delicately?
• 30:59
  Speaker 2: The defense attorney will gently but firmly probe the victim's testimony.
• 31:04
  Speaker 2: They're looking for inconsistencies.
• 31:05
  Speaker 1: What kind of inconsistencies can you even look for in
• 31:08
  Speaker 1: a case like this? I mean, it seems pretty clear cut.
• 31:10
  Speaker 2: They're looking to see if memories have been altered by
• 31:13
  Speaker 2: the severe trauma, the brain damage, or outside influence from investigators.
• 31:18
  Speaker 2: They're probing for exaggerations, potential alternative motives, Or timelines that
• 31:22
  Speaker 2: don't perfectly match the physical evidence.
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: Like maybe finding a loophole?
• 31:26
  Speaker 2: For example, did the gas get turned on accidentally during
• 31:29
  Speaker 2: a struggle, rather than intentionally as a murder-suicide plot? They
• 31:33
  Speaker 2: will explore every alternative hypothesis.
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: So they're essentially testing the structural integrity of the prosecution's story,
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: tapping on it lightly to see if it cracks, rather
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: than taking a sledgehammer to the victim herself.
• 31:45
  Speaker 2: Precisely. They have to do a complete forensic investigation of
• 31:49
  Speaker 2: the facts.
• 31:50
  Speaker 1: That makes sense.
• 31:51
  Speaker 2: Is there a piece of digital evidence, a text message
• 31:54
  Speaker 2: or GPS data that contradicts a statement? It's highly unpleasant work,
• 31:59
  Speaker 2: and it's undoubtedly traumatic for the victim to endure that
• 32:02
  Speaker 2: kind of questioning.
• 32:03
  Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely.
• 32:04
  Speaker 2: But the system requires the defense to hold the prosecution's
• 32:07
  Speaker 2: feet to the fire. It ensures that when a conviction
• 32:10
  Speaker 2: is handed down and the state takes away a person's
• 32:12
  Speaker 2: liberty for the rest of their life, the state has
• 32:15
  Speaker 2: met the highest possible burden of proof, regardless of how
• 32:18
  Speaker 2: horrific the alleged crime appears to be.
• 32:20
  Speaker 1: It's a brutal process for a survivor to go through,
• 32:23
  Speaker 1: knowing their trauma is going to be dissected under a
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: microscope like that.
• 32:26
  Speaker 2: It is deeply unfair in many ways.
• 32:29
  Speaker 1: But the criminal trial isn't Jesse's only option for justice.
• 32:33
  Speaker 2: No, it's not.
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: The source material notes that Jesse is also actively exploring
• 32:37
  Speaker 1: civil options against Collins. And here's where it gets really interesting.
• 32:42
  Speaker 2: The civil system is fascinating.
• 32:44
  Speaker 1: I like to think about our dual court system using
• 32:47
  Speaker 1: an analogy of two entirely different kinds of warfare. The
• 32:51
  Speaker 1: criminal court is about the state stepping in to punish
• 32:54
  Speaker 1: the crime.
• 32:55
  Speaker 2: Right. It's the state versus the defendant.
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: It's society saying, you broke our laws, you threatened our neighborhood,
• 33:01
  Speaker 1: and we're going to take away your freedom. But civil court,
• 33:04
  Speaker 1: civil court is entirely different.
• 33:06
  Speaker 2: Completely different goals.
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: It's about the victim taking the reins. It's about the
• 33:10
  Speaker 1: victim legally and financially crippling the abuser to compensate for
• 33:14
  Speaker 1: the life, the health, and the peace of mind that
• 33:16
  Speaker 1: was stolen.
• 33:17
  Speaker 2: That's an excellent way to frame it. Criminal and civil
• 33:20
  Speaker 2: courts operate on entirely different tracks, with different goals, different
• 33:23
  Speaker 2: rules of engagement, and most importantly, vastly different burdens of proof.
• 33:28
  Speaker 1: One of the most surprising things in the source material
• 33:30
  Speaker 1: for people who don't follow the law closely is that
• 33:33
  Speaker 1: a victim doesn't need a criminal conviction to sue their
• 33:37
  Speaker 1: abuser in civil court.
• 33:38
  Speaker 2: That surprises a lot of people.
• 33:40
  Speaker 1: They can run concurrently, or the civil suit can proceed
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: even if the criminal case stalls or ends in an acquittal.
• 33:46
  Speaker 1: How does that actually work mechanically?
• 33:48
  Speaker 2: It comes down to the mechanics of the burden of proof,
• 33:51
  Speaker 2: which is the threshold required to win a case.
• 33:54
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 33:54
  Speaker 2: In a criminal trial, as we discussed, the state must
• 33:57
  Speaker 2: prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. That's an incredibly high bar.
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: You have to be almost 100% sure.
• 34:03
  Speaker 2: Right. You have to convince all 12 jurors that there
• 34:06
  Speaker 2: is almost no logical explanation other than the defendant's guilt.
• 34:11
  Speaker 2: The system is designed to prefer letting a guilty man
• 34:13
  Speaker 2: go free over putting an innocent man in a cage.
• 34:16
  Speaker 1: But in a civil court, it's different.
• 34:18
  Speaker 2: Very different. The standard of proof is much lower. It's
• 34:22
  Speaker 2: based on a concept called the preponderance of the evidence.
• 34:25
  Speaker 1: Break that down for me. What does preponderance of the
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: evidence actually mean in practice when you're sitting in a courtroom?
• 34:32
  Speaker 2: It means you only have to prove that it is
• 34:34
  Speaker 2: more likely than not that the defendant committed the acts.
• 34:37
  Speaker 1: Oh, wow.
• 34:38
  Speaker 2: If you picture the scales of justice in a criminal trial,
• 34:42
  Speaker 2: the prosecution has to slam the scale all the way
• 34:44
  Speaker 2: down to the floor on their side. In a civil trial,
• 34:48
  Speaker 2: the plaintiff, in this case, Jesse and her lawyers, only
• 34:51
  Speaker 2: has to tip the scale to 51%.
• 34:54
  Speaker 1: 51%, that's it.
• 34:55
  Speaker 2: If the jury believes there is a 51% chance Collins
• 34:59
  Speaker 2: caused her injuries, she wins the civil suit.
• 35:02
  Speaker 1: That's a massive difference. Why did the legal system create
• 35:05
  Speaker 1: two totally different standards?
• 35:07
  Speaker 2: Because the stakes are different. In a criminal trial, you
• 35:10
  Speaker 2: are dealing with a person's fundamental liberty.
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: Right, you're putting them in a cell.
• 35:13
  Speaker 2: You are taking away their freedom, putting them in a cage,
• 35:16
  Speaker 2: and branding them a felon. The founders and the legal
• 35:19
  Speaker 2: system determine that taking someone's freedom requires near absolute certainty.
• 35:24
  Speaker 1: But civil court is just about money.
• 35:26
  Speaker 2: Exactly. But in a civil trial, you are only dealing
• 35:29
  Speaker 2: with money. Nobody goes to prison in a civil trial.
• 35:32
  Speaker 2: Because liberty isn't on the line... the threshold for state
• 35:36
  Speaker 2: intervention into someone's bank account is lower than the threshold
• 35:39
  Speaker 2: for state intervention into their physical freedom.
• 35:42
  Speaker 1: And she can sue him for very specific things. The
• 35:45
  Speaker 1: sources mention she can sue for battery, assault, intentional infliction
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: of emotional distress, and pain and suffering.
• 35:52
  Speaker 2: Yes, a wide range of torts.
• 35:54
  Speaker 1: This is where his real estate portfolio comes back into play,
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: isn't it?
• 35:58
  Speaker 2: Exactly. Suing someone who is judgment-proof, which is a legal
• 36:02
  Speaker 2: term meaning they have no money or assets, is often
• 36:05
  Speaker 2: a hollow victory.
• 36:06
  Speaker 1: Right. You can't get blood from a stone.
• 36:07
  Speaker 2: You might win the case, get a piece of paper
• 36:09
  Speaker 2: saying you're owed a million dollars, but you'll never collect
• 36:12
  Speaker 2: a dime. But in this case, Collins has known highly
• 36:15
  Speaker 2: valuable assets.
• 36:16
  Speaker 1: The truth finder report.
• 36:18
  Speaker 2: Right. It confirmed he owns multiple rental properties. Those are tangible,
• 36:21
  Speaker 2: liquidatable assets.
• 36:22
  Speaker 1: So this isn't just a symbolic gesture. This is a
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: targeted strike at his financial foundation. It is.
• 36:28
  Speaker 2: And beyond the financial compensation, which Jessie desperately needs for
• 36:33
  Speaker 2: a lifetime of medical care, given her brain injury and
• 36:36
  Speaker 2: her current reliance on a GoFundMe, we must delve into
• 36:39
  Speaker 2: the psychological empowerment of civil litigation.
• 36:42
  Speaker 1: How does that help her psychologically?
• 36:45
  Speaker 2: Domestic violence is fundamentally about the abuser asserting absolute power
• 36:49
  Speaker 2: and control over the victim. Surviving the abuse often leaves
• 36:52
  Speaker 2: the victim feeling entirely powerless, subjected to the whims of police, prosecutors,
• 36:57
  Speaker 2: and judges.
• 36:58
  Speaker 1: And the criminal system, while it might put the guy
• 37:00
  Speaker 1: in jail, still treats the victim basically as just a
• 37:04
  Speaker 1: witness for the state. The state is the one driving
• 37:07
  Speaker 1: the car. The victim is just in the passenger seat.
• 37:09
  Speaker 2: Right. The victim has very little say in plea deals
• 37:12
  Speaker 2: or trial strategy in criminal court.
• 37:14
  Speaker 1: So the civil suit flips that dynamic.
• 37:16
  Speaker 2: Exactly. Initiating a civil suit is a profound therapeutic tool
• 37:20
  Speaker 2: for regaining agency. The victim becomes the plaintiff. She is
• 37:24
  Speaker 2: the one driving the car.
• 37:25
  Speaker 1: She's on the offensive.
• 37:26
  Speaker 2: Yes. Her lawyers are deposing the abuser, demanding his financial records,
• 37:32
  Speaker 2: forcing him to answer questions under oath in a setting
• 37:35
  Speaker 2: where he can't hide behind the Fifth Amendment in the
• 37:37
  Speaker 2: same way he can in a criminal trial.
• 37:39
  Speaker 1: Wait, he can't plead the Fifth in a civil trial?
• 37:43
  Speaker 2: He can, but it works differently. Unlike a criminal trial
• 37:46
  Speaker 2: where pleading the Fifth can't be used against you, in
• 37:49
  Speaker 2: a civil trial, if he refuses to answer a question
• 37:52
  Speaker 2: to avoid incriminating himself, the jury is legally allowed to
• 37:55
  Speaker 2: draw an adverse inference.
• 37:57
  Speaker 1: What does that mean?
• 37:58
  Speaker 2: They can assume his silence means he's guilty of whatever
• 38:01
  Speaker 2: they're asking.
• 38:01
  Speaker 1: Oh, wow. That is a powerful tool.
• 38:04
  Speaker 2: It's a huge advantage for the plaintiff. It's a way
• 38:07
  Speaker 2: for the victim to hit the abuser where it hurts
• 38:09
  Speaker 2: his wallet and his assets and to legally assert, you
• 38:12
  Speaker 2: took my health and now I'm going to take your resources.
• 38:15
  Speaker 1: It shifts the balance of power decisively back to the survivor.
• 38:18
  Speaker 2: It really is a remarkable mechanism for taking back control.
• 38:22
  Speaker 1: Let's pull all of this together and distill this deep
• 38:24
  Speaker 1: dive for you, the listener. We've covered a massive amount
• 38:27
  Speaker 1: of ground today.
• 38:28
  Speaker 2: We really have.
• 38:29
  Speaker 1: We started with the jarring juxtaposition of a couple planning IVF,
• 38:34
  Speaker 1: moving into the fragile, easily manipulated psychology of a dismissed
• 38:39
  Speaker 1: protective order.
• 38:40
  Speaker 2: And how quickly that escalated.
• 38:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah, we watched as that dismissal served as a catalyst
• 38:44
  Speaker 1: for a calculated ambush. leading to a literal ticking time
• 38:48
  Speaker 1: bomb that threatened an entire neighborhood.
• 38:50
  Speaker 2: A truly shocking chain of events.
• 38:52
  Speaker 1: And finally, we navigated the complex machinery of the legal system,
• 38:55
  Speaker 1: decoding the strategy behind a $ 10 million bail bond, the
• 38:59
  Speaker 1: tactical nightmare of an explosive SWAT breach, and the empowering
• 39:02
  Speaker 1: mechanics of dual court justice through civil litigation.
• 39:06
  Speaker 2: The breadth of this case is precisely why we examine
• 39:09
  Speaker 2: it in such intense detail.
• 39:10
  Speaker 1: It's so necessary.
• 39:11
  Speaker 2: And when we consume media, it's very easy to read
• 39:14
  Speaker 2: a headline that simply says, local man arrested after standoff
• 39:17
  Speaker 2: and just scroll right past it.
• 39:19
  Speaker 1: I do it all the time.
• 39:20
  Speaker 2: We all do. But by understanding the intricate mechanics behind
• 39:23
  Speaker 2: why a victim might drop a protective order, the legal
• 39:27
  Speaker 2: logic behind bail conditions, the physics of a natural gas threat,
• 39:31
  Speaker 2: and the critical differences between civil and criminal burdens of proof,
• 39:36
  Speaker 2: you equip yourself with a much sharper lens.
• 39:39
  Speaker 1: It totally changes your perspective.
• 39:40
  Speaker 2: You aren't just absorbing the news anymore. You're critically analyzing
• 39:43
  Speaker 2: the systems at play behind the headlines.
• 39:45
  Speaker 1: And that's exactly why we do this. But before we go,
• 39:48
  Speaker 1: I want to leave you with a final provocative thought
• 39:51
  Speaker 1: to mull over on your own.
• 39:53
  Speaker 2: What's on your mind?
• 39:54
  Speaker 1: It builds on everything we've discussed, specifically regarding the protective order.
• 39:59
  Speaker 1: The source has made it very clear that judges almost
• 40:01
  Speaker 1: always grant a victim's request to dismiss a protective order.
• 40:05
  Speaker 1: They defer to the victim's agency.
• 40:07
  Speaker 2: As is standard practice.
• 40:08
  Speaker 1: Right. But knowing what we now know, knowing the immense
• 40:12
  Speaker 1: unseen psychological pressure victims face from their abusers, And knowing
• 40:16
  Speaker 1: the statistically high danger of rapid re-escalation, as we saw
• 40:20
  Speaker 1: in this terrifying case, should the legal system step in
• 40:23
  Speaker 1: to protect victims from themselves?
• 40:25
  Speaker 2: Oh, that is the ultimate tension between personal liberty and
• 40:29
  Speaker 2: public safety.
• 40:30
  Speaker 1: Exactly. Should there be a mandatory cooling-off period, or perhaps
• 40:37
  Speaker 1: a required independent psychological evaluation before a court legally dissolves
• 40:42
  Speaker 1: a protective order, Even when the victim is standing there
• 40:45
  Speaker 1: begging for it to be dropped.
• 40:46
  Speaker 2: That would fundamentally change how we handle these cases.
• 40:49
  Speaker 1: Right. Should the state have the power to say, no,
• 40:52
  Speaker 1: we don't believe you're safe and we're keeping this order
• 40:54
  Speaker 1: in place against your will? It's a profound ethical question.
• 40:58
  Speaker 2: It really is something to think about.
• 40:59
  Speaker 1: Think back to how this all started. The expectation of
• 41:02
  Speaker 1: a normal life. The illusion of safety. The transition from
• 41:05
  Speaker 1: planning a nursery for a new baby to a SWAT team.
• 41:09
  Speaker 1: Dragging a woman out of a house rigged to blow.
• 41:11
  Speaker 1: It's sobering. And shows you how thin the line between
• 41:14
  Speaker 1: an ordinary life and absolute catastrophe really is and how
• 41:17
  Speaker 1: heavily we rely on these fragile legal structures to keep
• 41:20
  Speaker 1: us on the right side of that line.