Latest / NO FILTER / Husband admits to disposing of body but denies killing wife_ Ex-cop allegedly strangled mistress(MP3_160K)

Transcript

Husband admits to disposing of body but denies killing wife_ Ex-cop allegedly strangled mistress(MP3_160K) · NO FILTER

• 0:10
  Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome to the Sidebar presented by True Crime News,
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: taking you inside the courtrooms of high profile and notorious
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: cases from across the country. I'm your host, Joshua Ritter.
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: I'm a criminal defense lawyer based in Los Angeles and
• 0:22
  Speaker 1: previously an LA County prosecutor for over a decade. You
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: can find me on all social platforms at Joshua Ritter
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: EESQ or at Joshua Ridter dot com. We are recording
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: this episode on Wednesday, November nineteenth, twenty twenty five. In
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: this week's episode, a police officer accused of killing a
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: young pregnant woman to hide their illicit relationship, Plus a
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: mother accused of strangling her three children denied a change
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: of venue requests despite intense media scrutiny surrounding the case.
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: But first, a father accused of his wife's murder pleads
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: guilty to lesser charges rounding the death, but refuses culpability
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: in the slaying. As you can tell, I'm recording this
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: episode from a different location than my usual spot. I'm
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: out of town and i'm solo today, so let's go
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: ahead and just jump right in. First. Out of Norfolk County, Massachusetts,
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: a man accused of killing his wife, has admitted to
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: misleading police an improper disposal of a body, yet continues
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: to maintain his innocence in the slain. Brian Walsh was
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: set to face trial on Tuesday for the murder and
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: dismemberment of his wife, Anna, until the surprise plea delayed
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: proceedings for another day. Though Walsh accepted culpability on the
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: two counts, the move was made without a deal in
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: place from prosecutors, who refused any negotiations that did it
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: include the indictment charging murder. While Ona's body has never
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: been found, prosecutor's main confident that sufficient evidence exists to
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: convict Walsh of the alleged murder. This includes bags of
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: evidence allegedly discarded by Walsh containing a hacksaw and hatchet,
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: which investigators claim contained blood and DNA from both Walshes.
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: Detectives also uncovered some trouble in Google searches allegedly made
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: by Walsh from his son's iPad, including quote how to
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: stop a body from decomposing end quote how long before
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: a body starts to smell. Despite the brief delay for
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: the surprising plea on the lesser counts Walsh's trial is
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: moving forward for Anna's death and will be in front
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: of a jury by the time you're listening to this. Well,
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: a lot to unravel here, but I think the first
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: thing that we really need to discuss is this eleventh
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: hour plea. Why is it happening, What strategic value possibly
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: is there for the defense, and will this change the
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: prosecution's case at all. First of all, let me say this,
• 2:52
  Speaker 1: I've got a few years experience doing this type of stuff,
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: both from the prosecution and the defense side of the courtroom,
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: and I will say I cannot remember the last time
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: when I've seen an eleventh hour plea too things that
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: don't include the entire resolution of the case. That's not
• 3:10
  Speaker 1: to say it's never happened, and that's not to say
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: I've never seen eleventh hour Please. In fact, eleventh hour
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: please happen quite a bit, but it's usually to everything.
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: It's usually this game of chicken played between the prosecution
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: and the defense. Somebody blinks and that that final final
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: moment a plea deal is struck. That's not what's happening here.
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: In fact, this isn't a plea deal at all. This
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: is the defense going around the prosecution to the judge, saying,
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: your honor, we want to plead, but we only want
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: to plead to these two counts. The only thing it's
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: contention here is the murder. Now you can understand why
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: the judge might accept that trials are supposed to be
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: about things in dispute, and if the defense is saying,
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: it's not in dispute that he misled investigators, it's not
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: in dispute that he conveys a body is the way
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: they charge it in the Massachusetts meaning disposed of a
• 4:04
  Speaker 1: human remains. But it is in dispute that he committed
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: that murder, that he was the one responsible for that
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: dead body. So you can understand the judge says, okay, fine, well,
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: then what we're really here is have a dispute about
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: whether or not a murder was committed by this person.
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: Then let's just go ahead and proceed on that. So
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: I understand the legal reason for it, but let's get
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: to the strategic reason for it. And just for a
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: moment to understand too, this is being done over the
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: prosecution's objections. So the prosecution is not giving a plea
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: deal here. They gave him no advantage by accepting that plea.
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: In fact, they said, we won't even give you a
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: plea deal unless you also plead to the murder. So
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: they're actually objecting and we're asking the judge to not
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: allow this plea. But the judge did. Okay. Now let's
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: talk about why what advantage possibly does this give the defense,
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: And the only way I can see it is this
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: those texts, those Google searches are profoundly important in this case.
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: Without those Google searches, there's an argument to be made
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: that there might not even be enough to file here.
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: I think there is. You often time seem see no
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: body cases where somebody goes missing, the last person with them,
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: the husband is the husband, The husband does a bunch
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: of suspicious behavior afterwards, and there's usually enough to carry
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: the day. Here, though, those Google searches really seal the deal.
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: Those things like you know how long before a body
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: starts to smell, how to stop a body from decomposing?
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: And I think after a lot of litigation, and there
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: was a lot of litigation about those searches, they had
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: argued the defense that the police did not have a
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: probable cause to get inside of his electronic devices. He
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: had given consent for a search, but they went beyond
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: the scope of that consent when they found these searches,
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: these Google searches. Judge said, no, not buying that argument.
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: I'm allowing the Google searches in. I think at that point,
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: and this is just me speculating, but I think at
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: that point the defense team, the lawyers and clients sat
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: down and probably thought, Okay, we've got to deal with this.
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: We've got to have an answer for this, because these
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: are devastating, these Google searches. Well, the only answer for
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: that is really going to come from Brian Walsh. It's
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: going to be Brian Walsh saying I made these searches
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: for X reason, and the only reasonable reason why he
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: would be making those searches during the time that his
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: wife has gone missing is because he did something to
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: dispose of her body. Okay, that leads them in the
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: position where they did commit a crime of disposing or
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: conveying a body, as it is in Massachusetts. So they
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: might say to themselves, well, then let's go ahead and
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: admit that if that's what you're going to have to
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: testify to anyways. And I think the other thing we're
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: learning from this is he's definitely going to have to testify.
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: If that's what you're going to have to testify to,
• 7:08
  Speaker 1: then let's go ahead and admit that upfront and get
• 7:12
  Speaker 1: that off the table along with that you did mislead police,
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: because if you did dispose of her body and you
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: were telling police you don't know where she is, that's
• 7:21
  Speaker 1: misleading police. So let's just get rid of those two
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: and go into this case as a murder case, which
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: leads to the obvious question that I'm sure all of
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: you are asking, then why did he do it? What
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: possible reason would he have to dispose of his wife's
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: body if he wasn't responsible for her murder? And that's
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: going to be the real catch in this case, because
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: I think that's what it's going to come down to,
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: and I imagine we're going to find out in opening statements.
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: This is the type of case where I imagine we
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: will hear about this. But it still brings me back
• 7:54
  Speaker 1: to why go ahead and plead your client to things
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: that haven't been one by the prosecution. In my view,
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: as a defense attorney, always taken the tactic of concede
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: no ground. Don't give anything to the prosecution that has
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: not been earned by them. But that's exactly what they're
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: doing here now, probably for the reason I'm saying that
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: it's something they're going to admit to anyway, so might
• 8:19
  Speaker 1: as well get it off the table. But they could
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: still see how things play out in the trial. Many
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: goofy things happen during trials. We know this. Many times
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: trials go sideways, and this whole thing could fall apart
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: and still admit that. They could still put him on
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: the stand and say, ladies and gentlemen, I did do
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: these things, but what I didn't do is commit murder.
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: They could even make that argument an opening statement. There's
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: no rule that says, if you're charged with a crime
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: and you go to trial, you can't admit to that
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: during the trial. Could have been a strategy, could have
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: been a tactic that they taken. They decided to go
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: this route. Now the big question is will this is
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: this some sort of three D chess that we're not understanding,
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: and will this somehow affect the prosecution's ability to put
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: on a case. I've been asked the question of will
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: this somehow foreclose the prosecution's ability to put on those
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: Google searches or other evidence that he was hiding her
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: body because he already admitted it. The question really remains
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: is evidence comes in if it's relevant, doesn't matter if
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: that person's pled to that been found guilty of that.
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: If that evidence is relevant, then it's going to come
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: in here. It still remains relevant an innocent person. The
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: argument being made by the prosecution, and I think all
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: of us can follow, is an innocent person does not
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: go about hiding a body, especially their own wife. If
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: he happened upon her body, let's say she did it
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: through self harm, through an accident, or at someone else's hands,
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: he would immediately call the police. So an innocent person,
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: he is not going to go about trying to either
• 10:02
  Speaker 1: cut up or dispose of that body. The evidence, the
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: underlying conduct is something that the prosecutors will still be
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: allowed to prove. The Google searches are still something that
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: are relevant to the murder case because it still goes
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: towards his consciousness of guilt at that time. So I
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: don't think it's going to change all that dramatically what
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: the prosecution is going to be able to use in
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: this case. It's just going to maybe change slightly the
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: way the case is framed to the jury from the beginning,
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: very interesting, fascinating case and with one final kind of
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: fascinating turn before we start trial itself, and we will
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: continue to follow this one closely. Let's go ahead and
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: stay in Massachusetts, out of Boston. A former Stouton police
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: officer accused of killing a pregnant woman to hide their
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: illicit relationship is requesting a change of venue citing biased
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: media coverage. Matthew Farwell faces a number of charges related
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: to the murder of Andrew Birchmore and her unborn child.
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: Farwell allegedly met Birchmore through Stoughton's Police Explorer's Mentorship program
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: and begun a sexual relationship with Birchmore when she was
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: just fifteen years old. Birchmore was found dead in twenty
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: twenty one, and the twenty three year old's demise was
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: initially thought to be self inflicted, until evidence of the
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: alleged affair made Farwell the key suspect in the investigation.
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: The case has generated significant interest in Massachusetts and nationally,
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: and Farwell's defense is seeking to move the trial to
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: Rhode Island in order to avoid biased coverage of the case.
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: Federal prosecutors have yet to release a response in court,
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: but Farwell is expected to plead not guilty to all
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: charges and could face the death penalty if convicted. I
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: don't know why. To me, this just seems like the
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: motion DuJour with defense attorneys. You know, we follow a
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: lot of high profile cases on this podcast, and a
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: lot of those cases are cases where defense attorneys are saying, hey,
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: there's too much media attention on this and we want
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: it moved. And I think it's almost being overused. And
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: again I ask the question, as I always do, to
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: what strategic end for the defense? Just because you're moving
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: a trial from one geographic location to the other, doesn't
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: somehow make the trial better for you. Doesn't somehow make
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: the evidence less damaging. Yes, it takes it out of
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: that local community, but perhaps it's not something specific to
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: that local community. Now, things may be a little bit
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: different here because we are talking about a police officer
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: from that local police department, and maybe the defense is
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: feeling well because he is a police officer. Maybe there's
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: particular animosity towards the police being held by that local community,
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: and they might walk into there with bias against him
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: as a police officer in that community. Before they even
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: begin the trial. There's at least an argument there that
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: I can wrap my heads around, but it does seem
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: to be any case of this kind of media attention
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: is a case that they're going to request and the
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: judge is going to have to make a determination on this.
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: It's a little bit different here because we're talking about
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: federal court, and that's why they're able to move it
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: even out of the state, from Massachusetts to Rhode Island,
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: and I'm not as familiar as how federal judges usually
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: view these things, but it's still the same question being asked,
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: and that is, will the local community present such a
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: problem in finding an unbiased jury? And again, I go
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: back to the idea that I've worked on, been very
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: privileged to work on several high profile cases, and I
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: will tell you it's remarkable how often you find people
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: who come into jury selection on a case that you
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: think everyone is talking about, and they have no idea
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: who your client is, what they've done, what they're accused of.
• 13:55
  Speaker 1: People are really wrapped up in their own lives, and
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: a lot of it sometimes doesn't have to do with
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: the same things that we might concern ourselves with. So
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: that's really going to become The determination is is this
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: community so small and so tight knit that the judge
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: feels that it's really helpless to try to find people
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: who are able to come in there, and we'll have
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: And it's not even the question of no idea about
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: this case, but no bias about this case. Yeah, there
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: are people and people sit on juries sometimes who've heard
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: about a case. Yeah I've heard of this person or
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: I've heard of that case. But I have no preconceptions. No,
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: I've not biased my way. But you know, I don't
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: carry any biases into this case. So that's really going
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: to be the question for the judge. But again, let's
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: say they win. Let's say they move it to Rhode Island.
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: If this is a case of such national interests, won't
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: people in Rhode Island have the same issue. Apparently defense
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: feels not so much. The other thing I think at
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: play here is the really horrific and devastating nature of it.
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: And I think when you have a case like that,
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: you sometimes see defense attorneys taking the tactic of we've
• 15:13
  Speaker 1: got to try everything, We've got to essentially leave no
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: stone unturned because we're up against such an incredible emotional
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: toll here. There's no explaining his behavior rationally to people here.
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: If they believe he's involved in this, they're going to
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: hate this man. There is no way that they're going
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: to rationalize his taking of this young woman's life. I mean,
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: bear in mind, he's now been charged with, by the way,
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: not only the murder of Birchmore, but the murder of
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: her unborn child. And the reason for that is that
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: they were after a long period of time, by the way,
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: they thought about this long and hard, nearly a year
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: before they charged him with the murder of the unborn child.
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: And that is because they believe that his entire motive
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: was because she had become pregnant, and because he believed
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: the child with was his, which by the way, genetically
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: has been proven not to be the case, but because
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: he believed that because Birchmore told him that the child
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: was his and told him that she wanted him to
• 16:24
  Speaker 1: be part of the child's life. A man who was married,
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: a man who was having an affair, a man had
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: had a wife and children of his own. And I
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: think that's where they struggled, is did he actually believe
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: she was pregnant? Because if he didn't believe she was pregnant.
• 16:40
  Speaker 1: I think they'd have a more difficult time with adding
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: the charge for the homicide related to the unborn child. Again,
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: an incredibly sad case, but a case with a lot
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: of really interesting legal issues at play, and a case
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: we will continue to watch closely. But that one is
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: likely not going to be heading to trial until sometime
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: mid to late next year. We will continue to keep
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: watch on it. All right, it's the Massachusetts show today,
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: so we're going to stay in Massachusetts this time. We're
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: moving to Plymouth, where a judge has denied a change
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: of venue requests for a mother accused of killing her
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: three children, ruling that media coverage hasn't compromised any potential jurors.
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: Lindsey Canetcy is charged with strangling her daughter and two
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: sons with an exercise band before attempting to end her
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: own life by jumping out of a window of the
• 17:29
  Speaker 1: family home. Clancy's defense alleges that the mother was suffering
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: from psychosis at the time of the alleged murder. However,
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: prosecutors maintained that the killings were calculated, claiming Clancy meticulously
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: planned her children's demise, even mapping out the time it
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: would take her husband to go to the pharmacy and
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: pick up food, leaving her alone with the children. Clancy
• 17:52
  Speaker 1: appeared virtually in the court hearing from a hospital where
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: she has been receiving treatment since jumping from the window. Ultimately,
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: the judge denied the change of venue request, ruling that
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: coverage of the case had largely been unbiased despite the
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: intense popularity of the case. Clancy has reportedly been left
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: with long term paralysis due to her injuries and will
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: require ambulance transportation to court when her trial begins, which
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: is currently scheduled for July of next year. Okay, another case,
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: like I said, where that issue of change of venue
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: is at play, And again another case involving a kind
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: of close knit community where this case has obviously been
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: flooding the local news networks. And here the judge made
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: an interesting decision. The judge didn't say there's been enough
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: media coverage that I think that it needs to be moved.
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: The judge went one step beyond in that analysis, and
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: I think the proper way of looking at it. The
• 18:46
  Speaker 1: judge said, yeah, there is a lot of media coverage. Yeah,
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: that's the media's job. Yeah, it's local interest. People are interested,
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: but that media coverage has not been biased. That media
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: cover which has been fair and balanced, and in fact,
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: I don't think it's influenced people to think in one
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: way or the other, which is again ultimately the question.
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: It's not even like I said, it's not that people
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: don't know about a case. It's that people haven't made
• 19:13
  Speaker 1: up their minds about the case, and the judge felt
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: that that wasn't done here. Another thing to keep in
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: mind in these types of situations when we're talking about
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: bias is that can always be revealed in jury selection.
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: If in jury selection they bring in one hundred or
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: so jurors and they start to question them and ninety
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: of them are people who say they can't be fair
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: because they've already made up their mind about the case. Well,
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: then you know, a judge might rethink their decision to
• 19:39
  Speaker 1: change venue. But you know, making this decision ahead of
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: time to change venue, I think is rare and should
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: be rare. One notable example we saw was in the
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: Brian Coberger case that took place in a very small,
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: close knit community of Moscow, Idaho, a college town where
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: four college kids were murdered that consumed that local community.
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: There is no way I think that they thought, and
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: they actually did polling about people would not have made
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: up their minds or have biases. But the judge didn't
• 20:10
  Speaker 1: feel that that was the type of circumstance that applied here,
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: and I tend to agree with it. I tend to
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: agree that most cases should stay where they remain, because
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: that's kind of how our system works, is that you
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: are being tried by a twelve people who are your
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: peers from your local community. It's the community's way of
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: policing itself and deciding what is and what is acceptable.
• 20:35
  Speaker 1: This case, though, is interesting, because it is another case
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: of incredibly high emotional impact. We're talking about the murder
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: of three beautiful little children by their own mother, strangled
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: to death with exercise bands, and there is evidence of planning,
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: the fact that she asked her husband to go to
• 20:59
  Speaker 1: this and that she knew how long that might take him,
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: the fact that strangling someone to death, even a child,
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: is not quick work, something that you have to stay
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: and continue to do until that person has died. I
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: hate to get graphic about this, but that's what we're
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: talking about here. That is going to be really difficult
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: for jurors to sit through and hear testimony about want
• 21:24
  Speaker 1: and see evidence on and on the other side of it,
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: you have this woman who, in the midst of that
• 21:32
  Speaker 1: did legitimately attempt to take her own life. This is
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: not some sort of, in my view at least staged
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: attempt at suicide. These are not someone who, you know,
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: we see superficial wounds to their arms in an attempt
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: to quote unquote take their own life. This is a
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: person who jumped out of an upstairs window with the
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: idea that it would take their own life, to the
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: point that it has cost her what looks to be
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: permanent injury. She is now permanently paralyzed. She's in the
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: hospital currently, and she's going to have to be transported
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: by way of ambulance to get to court. That's going
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: to be a struggle for jurors and a struggle both
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: ways you look at it. Because this case is a
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: mental health insanity slash insanity type defense case. They're going
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: to say that she was suffering from such incredible postpartum
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: depression or syndrome, whatever you want to call it, that
• 22:37
  Speaker 1: she was not of her right mind when she committed
• 22:39
  Speaker 1: this crime, and there is I can say, I think
• 22:46
  Speaker 1: evidence to support that in the fact that she did
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: legitimately look to take her own life. A woman with
• 22:53
  Speaker 1: no criminal history of violence towards her children, no other
• 23:01
  Speaker 1: evidence of trouble that might you know. This wasn't going
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: through a divorce cuts, custody battle type situation. This was
• 23:09
  Speaker 1: just out of nowhere, turk your own life. A woman
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: who was receiving medication and battling with postpartum issues commits
• 23:19
  Speaker 1: this horrific crime. Again, in these insanity type crisis that
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: always comes down to, yes, you may have been unwell,
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: Yes you may have done been suffering from some sort
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: of mental unrest, but did you not know what you
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: were doing was wrong? That's really the question when it
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: comes down to insanity. It might even mean just more
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: of an argument of mitigation in this case, instead of
• 23:43
  Speaker 1: making a first degree murder second degree murder, do we
• 23:45
  Speaker 1: somehow drift down towards manslaughter? But I really think this
• 23:51
  Speaker 1: will be a struggle for jurors because, yes, they're going
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: to hear the incredible emotional impact of the children having
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: lost their lives and how they lost their life, and
• 24:00
  Speaker 1: juxtapose that with the incredible emotional impact of this woman
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: who is now permanently paralyzed because of what took place
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: that day, and the husband who's supporting her, the father
• 24:14
  Speaker 1: of these children, is supporting her saying my wife is
• 24:17
  Speaker 1: not a criminal, my wife was sick. Wow. What a case.
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: What an absolutely a devastating case for jurors to have
• 24:24
  Speaker 1: to sit through. And we will continue to watch this
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: one closely as well. But that is all that we
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: have for you this week. I want to just extend
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: my thanks and appreciation who continues, for everyone who continue
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: to watch and listen to us, and for all your support.
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: My name is Joshua Rihtter. I am on Instagram and Twitter.
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: You can find me at Joshua Rihtter esq and if
• 24:46
  Speaker 1: you want to hear my thoughts and coverage on even
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: more true crime cases, you can also check out my
• 24:51
  Speaker 1: own YouTube channel, Courtroom Confidential. And you can of course
• 24:55
  Speaker 1: find all of our Sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcasts,
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: and we would love to hear from you. I've got
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: questions or comments you'd like us to address. Please tweet
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: us your questions with the hashtag TC and Sidebar, and
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: thank you for joining us. At the True Crime News
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: sidebar