Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / ‘Killer Mom’ Poisoned Family at Thanksgiving Dinner

Transcript

‘Killer Mom’ Poisoned Family at Thanksgiving Dinner · Murder Files Unsealed

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: You know, usually when you think about Thanksgiving dinner, there
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: is this expectation of warmth. Like you expect safety and
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: just things being carefully curated for your comfort, right?
• 0:11
  Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely.
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 0:12
  Speaker 2: I mean, it is the one environment where your vigilance
• 0:15
  Speaker 2: is entirely suspended. Right.
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: Exactly. You have the roasted turkey and the ambient lighting
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: and everyone is clinking wine glasses.
• 0:22
  Speaker 2: You implicitly trust the people at the head of the table.
• 0:25
  Speaker 2: There's a whole You know, psychological contract at play when
• 0:28
  Speaker 2: you sit down at a family holiday meal.
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: Yes. And you completely drop your guard. But in 2025,
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: in the beautiful mountains of western North Carolina, that picturesque
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: dinner table devolved into an unimaginable crime scene.
• 0:41
  Speaker 2: It really did. And based on this incredible investigative reporting
• 0:45
  Speaker 2: by Chris Stewart and the legal analysis from former North
• 0:48
  Speaker 2: Carolina prosecutor Kristen Hakiotis, which we are pulling from a
• 0:51
  Speaker 2: detailed Law and Crime Network broadcast transcript today, it is
• 0:54
  Speaker 2: just terrifying.
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: Yeah, we are looking at a culinary landscape that is
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: honestly a domestic nightmare hiding in plain sight. So welcome
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: to the deep dive. Our mission today is to pull
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: apart how a seemingly normal celebrated local foodie unraveled into
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: a double life.
• 1:12
  Speaker 2: Right, because we're getting into the forensic chemistry of a
• 1:15
  Speaker 2: poisoning and the sudden resurrection of a 20-year-old cold case.
• 1:20
  Speaker 2: And the high stakes courtroom strategies that decide a life
• 1:24
  Speaker 2: or death verdict.
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: Exactly. And I want to remind everyone listening, you know,
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: while the details are really morbid, our goal here is
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: to extract fascinating insights about criminal investigations and legal maneuvers.
• 1:34
  Speaker 2: And to explore the incredibly dark realities that often hide
• 1:38
  Speaker 2: behind carefully constructed public personas. Because the morbid details of
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: this case offer a profound window into how modern criminal
• 1:45
  Speaker 2: investigations actually work.
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: Right. So before we get to the horror of that
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: Thanksgiving dinner, we really have to establish the baseline of
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: the architect behind it. We need to look at the
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: psychological profile of the suspect, Gudrun Casper Leining Kugel. Yeah.
• 1:57
  Speaker 2: And that story starts in Asheville, North Carolina.
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: It does. And for those who are unfamiliar, Asheville is
• 2:03
  Speaker 1: this vibrant cultural hub. I mean, it is a city
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: of roughly 100,000 people nestled right in the Appalachian Mountains.
• 2:10
  Speaker 2: It is a massive draw for tourists, you know. Famous
• 2:13
  Speaker 2: for artisanal food, craft breweries, and an eclectic music scene.
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: Yeah, it is the kind of place where reinvention is
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: really celebrated.
• 2:21
  Speaker 2: Which makes it the perfect ecosystem for someone looking to
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: craft a specific identity. Asheville attracts creatives and entrepreneurs. It's
• 2:28
  Speaker 2: an environment where a highly curated foodie persona can take
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: root and flourish without too much initial scrutiny.
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: And Goodrin absolutely planted her flag in that scene. According
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: to a 2016 feature in the local paper, The Mountain Express,
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: Gudrun and her managing partners began planning a restaurant called
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: the Patent Public House back in July of 2013.
• 2:49
  Speaker 2: Right, and she sold this concept inspired by European public houses.
• 2:53
  Speaker 2: She was focusing on comfort food and beer.
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: But she didn't just sell a menu, you know. She
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: sold a whole mythology about herself.
• 2:59
  Speaker 2: What stands out in that reporting is the elaborate backstory
• 3:03
  Speaker 2: she provided. It wasn't merely a passion for cooking.
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: No, not at all.
• 3:07
  Speaker 2: It was a fully formed, grandiose narrative of Lifelong entrepreneurship
• 3:11
  Speaker 2: and international worldliness.
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: Yeah. She claimed to have grown up traveling back and
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: forth between the United States, specifically Minnesota and Wisconsin and Germany.
• 3:22
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: And the work ethic she described was almost mythical. I mean,
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: she told this reporter she'd been working since she was
• 3:29
  Speaker 1: 13 years old. Yeah.
• 3:30
  Speaker 2: Specifically claiming that she owned a laundromat.
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: A 13-year-old owning a laundromat. Right.
• 3:35
  Speaker 2: And she said she had to learn how to run
• 3:37
  Speaker 2: the business and fix the machines.
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: Which is just, I mean, wow.
• 3:41
  Speaker 2: It is a claim that warrants immediate skepticism. Totally. Commercial
• 3:45
  Speaker 2: washing machines are incredibly complex pieces of heavy machinery.
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 3:49
  Speaker 2: They require specialized plumbing, electrical, and mechanical knowledge.
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: Yeah, like you can't just take a wrench to them.
• 3:55
  Speaker 2: Exactly.
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 3:56
  Speaker 2: The idea of a 13-year-old child owning a commercial real
• 3:59
  Speaker 2: estate venture, managing the financials, and personally repairing heavy-duty extractors
• 4:05
  Speaker 2: and dryers is fundamentally absurd.
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: But it was printed anyway.
• 4:08
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it was printed.
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: And the audacity doesn't stop there. The article goes on
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: to say she claimed to have opened six restaurants and
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: bars across the country before even arriving in Asheville.
• 4:19
  Speaker 2: But the specific locations of those six establishments were completely
• 4:23
  Speaker 2: absent from the reporting.
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: Right. OK, let's unpack this, because I look at this
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: early background and I think of someone who is essentially
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: writing their own unverified Wikipedia page.
• 4:33
  Speaker 2: That is a great way to put it.
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: You know, you move to a new hip town. You
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: tell everyone you were a child prodigy fixing washing machines
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: at 13. You lived in Germany. You have this invisible
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: empire of six restaurants.
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: You're like a chameleon changing colors to match a vibrant background.
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: Exactly. But let me push back a little here. According
• 4:50
  Speaker 1: to local television station WLOS, around that same time in 2016,
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: employees of her new restaurant quit on the spot just
• 4:59
  Speaker 1: a month into the grand opening.
• 5:01
  Speaker 2: Right. Claiming they weren't being paid.
• 5:03
  Speaker 1: And Goodrin just blamed a third-party payroll company. Plus, you know,
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: the broadcast mentioned public records from Truthfinder showed a couple
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: of aliases, but absolutely no real criminal history.
• 5:13
  Speaker 2: Not at all.
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: So couldn't this just be typical run-of-the-mill small business incompetence? Like,
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: does a failed pub and an inflated resume really point
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: to the early signs of a manipulative sociopath?
• 5:27
  Speaker 2: That is the exact tension a jury will eventually have
• 5:29
  Speaker 2: to grapple with. On its face, business failure is not
• 5:33
  Speaker 2: a crime.
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 5:34
  Speaker 2: And embellishing a resume to a local journalist is certainly
• 5:37
  Speaker 2: not a felony.
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: Obviously not.
• 5:39
  Speaker 2: But if we connect this to the bigger picture, we
• 5:41
  Speaker 2: have to analyze the psychology of self-mythologizing. Why do people
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: construct these elaborate fictions?
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: What's the payoff for them?
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: It is fundamentally about control. It is about controlling the
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: narrative and establishing a dominant position over everyone they interact with.
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: Oh, I see.
• 5:57
  Speaker 2: When she claims to be a teenage mechanical prodigy and
• 5:59
  Speaker 2: a seasoned international restaurateur, she is testing the gullibility of
• 6:04
  Speaker 2: her community.
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: Like pushing boundaries.
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: Yes. She is setting the terms of engagement, basically saying,
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: I am the expert, I am worldly, I am above questioning.
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: And when she gets called out for not paying her staff,
• 6:14
  Speaker 1: she just seamlessly deflects blame to a faceless payroll software company.
• 6:19
  Speaker 2: Which demonstrates a total refusal to take accountability.
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 6:23
  Speaker 2: And regarding your point about her lack of a criminal record,
• 6:27
  Speaker 2: This is actually a hallmark of this specific profile.
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: Wait, really? Not having a record is a hallmark?
• 6:33
  Speaker 2: Yes. Individuals who utilize calculated manipulation, or as we will explore,
• 6:38
  Speaker 2: chemical poisoning, do not typically rob convenience stores or get
• 6:42
  Speaker 2: into bar brawls.
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: Right. They aren't committing crimes of passion on the street.
• 6:46
  Speaker 2: Exactly. They do not generate long rap sheets for impulsive
• 6:50
  Speaker 2: violent crimes. They hide in plain sight.
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: Just blending in.
• 6:53
  Speaker 2: They hide behind the mundane reality of serving European comfort
• 6:57
  Speaker 2: food and attending town meetings. The lack of a criminal
• 7:01
  Speaker 2: record isn't proof of innocence. It merely indicates that the
• 7:04
  Speaker 2: mask has never slipped in a way that warranted police intervention.
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: Man, the mask was perfectly intact for years. She was
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: just the quirky, ambitious local foodie who maybe had a
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: run of bad luck with her pub.
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: But then we fast forward chronologically to the catalyst of
• 7:18
  Speaker 2: this entire investigation.
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: Thanksgiving 2025. And this is the part where you have
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: to wonder, how does a woman known for serving European
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: comfort food transition into serving a lethal concoction to her
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: own flesh and blood?
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: It requires an environmental setup that maximizes the deception, combined
• 7:37
  Speaker 2: with a profound escalation in predatory behavior.
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: Well, the setup was a Thanksgiving dinner hosted by Gudrun.
• 7:43
  Speaker 1: According to prosecutors, this was a 12-person gathering. Right. And
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: among those 12 guests were her two daughters, Lila Livis
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: and Mia Lacey, along with Mia's boyfriend, Richard Pegg.
• 7:54
  Speaker 2: A dozen people packed into a home, sharing space, passing plates.
• 7:59
  Speaker 2: The chaos of a family gathering provides excellent cover.
• 8:02
  Speaker 1: And the mechanism of the crime is staggering. Local reports
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: from WHNS-TV detailed that at some point during this dinner,
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: Gudrun offered her guests wine. Right.
• 8:11
  Speaker 2: Just a normal Thanksgiving offering.
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: But of the 12 people present, three specific guests drank
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: from one particular bottle. Leela, Mia, and Richard.
• 8:20
  Speaker 2: And after dinner, those three guests started to feel unwell.
• 8:23
  Speaker 1: Yeah, but the broadcast is very clear about this. This
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: wasn't the heavy lethargy of turkey and undercooked stuffing.
• 8:28
  Speaker 2: No, it was a sudden, violent, systemic collapse.
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: Leela felt so sick she had to be rushed to
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: the hospital. Mia and Richard also became violently ill, and tragically,
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: Lila Livis died roughly a week later on December 1st.
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: It is just heartbreaking.
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: Mia and Richard survived, but law enforcement made it clear
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: they are incredibly lucky to be alive.
• 8:48
  Speaker 2: Because the investigation revealed the nature of what they consumed,
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: it was not spoiled wine. It was an industrial chemical
• 8:56
  Speaker 2: called acetonitrile.
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: Here's where it gets really interesting and absolutely horrifying. Because
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the EPA
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: describe acetonitrile as a clear, colorless liquid.
• 9:08
  Speaker 2: Yes.
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: It is highly toxic, often used as a solvent for
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: manufacturing lithium batteries. The symptoms are severe headaches, nausea, and
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: as we saw, fatal consequences.
• 9:19
  Speaker 2: That is a devastating substance.
• 9:20
  Speaker 1: So I need you to explain the mechanics of this.
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: Because how does a chemical used for batteries actually destroy
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: the human body from a simple glass of wine?
• 9:27
  Speaker 2: The biological mechanism is incredibly insidious. Acetonitrile itself isn't what
• 9:33
  Speaker 2: immediately kills you, which is why the symptoms aren't always instantaneous.
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: Okay, so it has a delayed reaction.
• 9:39
  Speaker 2: Yes. When a person ingests acetonitrile, it enters the bloodstream
• 9:43
  Speaker 2: and travels straight to the liver.
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: And the liver, doing its normal job, tries to metabolize
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: and break down this foreign substance using specific enzymes.
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: Like it does with anything you eat or drink.
• 9:54
  Speaker 2: Precisely. Primarily, it uses the cytochrome P450 system. But the
• 9:58
  Speaker 2: problem is, when the liver breaks down, down acetonitrile, the
• 10:01
  Speaker 2: chemical reaction produces hydrogen cyanide as a byproduct.
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: Wait, like actual cyanide? It turns into cyanide inside your
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: own organs?
• 10:09
  Speaker 2: Yes. Your body metabolizes it into one of the most
• 10:11
  Speaker 2: famous and lethal poisons in human history. Oh my god.
• 10:15
  Speaker 2: Once that hydrogen cyanide is released into the bloodstream, it
• 10:18
  Speaker 2: travels to the cells and and binds tightly to an
• 10:20
  Speaker 2: enzyme called cytochrome soxidase.
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: And where is that enzyme?
• 10:24
  Speaker 2: That is located in the mitochondria, the powerhouse of the cell.
• 10:27
  Speaker 2: And this enzyme is strictly responsible for allowing cells to
• 10:30
  Speaker 2: use oxygen.
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: So it's essentially suffocating the cells from the inside.
• 10:34
  Speaker 2: It is cellular asphyxiation. It is exactly like putting a
• 10:38
  Speaker 2: plastic bag over the engine intake of a car. Wow.
• 10:41
  Speaker 2: The lungs are breathing in oxygen, the blood is carrying
• 10:44
  Speaker 2: the oxygen, but the cells are completely blocked from actually
• 10:48
  Speaker 2: using it.
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: So you are suffocating while breathing normal air. Correct.
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: The brain and the heart, which require the most oxygen,
• 10:55
  Speaker 2: begin to fail rapidly. This leads to the severe headaches,
• 10:58
  Speaker 2: the violent nausea, the seizures, and eventually cardiovascular collapse.
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: That is terrifying.
• 11:05
  Speaker 2: And the timeline of this, you know, the delay between ingestion,
• 11:08
  Speaker 2: liver metabolism, and cellular suffocation, that explains why they didn't
• 11:12
  Speaker 2: just collapse, the sick of the wine touched their lips.
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: Right, it bought her time. I am stuck on the
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: sheer audacity of this. It is like a twisted parlor trick,
• 11:20
  Speaker 1: hiding a weapon of industrial destruction inside a symbol of
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: family celebration.
• 11:24
  Speaker 2: It is profound deception.
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: A bottle of wine at Thanksgiving is communion. You know,
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: it's sharing. She weaponized it right in front of a
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: dozen witnesses. But it also requires such a staggering amount
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: of forethought.
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: Oh, absolutely.
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: Because assy to nitrile isn't something you just accidentally pick
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: up at the grocery store next to the baking soda. No.
• 11:41
  Speaker 2: Procurement requires intent. You have to actively seek that out.
• 11:45
  Speaker 2: But the most terrifying aspect... is the psychological detachment required
• 11:49
  Speaker 2: in the moment of execution.
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: Just sitting there. Right.
• 11:53
  Speaker 2: Historically and statistically, poisoning is a very specific category of crime.
• 11:58
  Speaker 2: It is cold, it is calculated, and it is intimate.
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: Because you have to be right there with them.
• 12:03
  Speaker 2: She had to pour that liquid, which is colorless and
• 12:06
  Speaker 2: presumably masked by the alcohol and tannins in the wine,
• 12:09
  Speaker 2: and serve it to them.
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: And then just watch.
• 12:11
  Speaker 2: Then she had to sit at that table with 12 people,
• 12:14
  Speaker 2: make casual conversation, pass the gravy... and watch her own
• 12:18
  Speaker 2: children ingest a fatal toxin.
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: And just wait for the symptoms to start.
• 12:23
  Speaker 2: She had to watch her daughter Lila deteriorate to the
• 12:25
  Speaker 2: point of requiring hospitalization, all while maintaining the facade of
• 12:29
  Speaker 2: a concerned mother and host.
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: I can't even imagine.
• 12:33
  Speaker 2: The emotional compartmentalization required to pretend nothing is wrong while
• 12:37
  Speaker 2: you watch your family suffer from a trap you set
• 12:40
  Speaker 2: is almost impossible for a healthy mind to fathom.
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: It really is. Which naturally brings us to the biggest
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: hurdle in any criminal prosecution— Which is proving that this
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: wasn't some insane million-to-one cross-contamination accident. Right.
• 12:53
  Speaker 2: Establishing the mens rea.
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: The state has to prove intent. They have to prove
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: she knew exactly what she was doing. And this brings
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: us to the digital evidence. And honestly, one of the
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: most baffling parts of this entire story.
• 13:05
  Speaker 2: The digital footprint is frequently where the carefully constructed facade shatters.
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: It really is. Because prosecutors held a hearing, attended by
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: local media... where they revealed what they extracted from Gudrun's computer.
• 13:18
  Speaker 2: And this is the part that is just staggering.
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: It was her Google search history. Right before that Thanksgiving dinner,
• 13:23
  Speaker 1: they alleged Gudrun searched the exact phrase, what happens if
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: I ingest a nitrile?
• 13:28
  Speaker 2: Spelled completely wrong.
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: Yeah, spelled N-I-G-H-T space T-R-I-A-L. A phonetic, blatant misspelling of
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: acid and nitrile.
• 13:38
  Speaker 2: In the legal field, that is the definition of a
• 13:40
  Speaker 2: smoking gun. But it also speaks volumes about the perpetrator's
• 13:44
  Speaker 2: state of mind.
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: But let me interrupt, because the misspelling is almost comical
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: if the results weren't so tragic.
• 13:49
  Speaker 2: It is bizarre.
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: If you are a sophisticated restaurateur who knows how to
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: procure an industrial battery solvent, how do you not know
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: how to spell it when you Google its lecial effects?
• 14:00
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it highlights a bizarre disconnect. It could be a
• 14:03
  Speaker 2: reliance on voice-to-text software that misunderstood her pronunciation.
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: Oh, like Siri or something just mishearing her?
• 14:10
  Speaker 2: Exactly. Or it could simply be the sheer arrogance of
• 14:13
  Speaker 2: someone who believes they're too clever to be caught, you know,
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: just rushing through a hasty digital inquiry without even bothering
• 14:20
  Speaker 2: to cover their tracks.
• 14:21
  Speaker 1: Just typing fast and not caring.
• 14:23
  Speaker 2: Regardless of how the typo happened, the intent of the
• 14:26
  Speaker 2: search query is undeniable.
• 14:28
  Speaker 1: And the legal fallout has been immediate. I mean, Gudrun
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: is now facing a mountain of charges. First-degree murder for
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: her daughter Lila. Two counts of first-degree attempted murder for
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: Mia and Richard.
• 14:39
  Speaker 2: And three counts of distribution of a prohibited mood and beverage.
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: Right. And she went before a judge, was completely denied bond,
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: and is currently sitting in a North Carolina jail. But
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: here's the procedural detail that completely threw me.
• 14:52
  Speaker 2: The representation issue.
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: Yes. During this process, she waived her right to appointed counsel.
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: She told the court she wanted to hire her own lawyer.
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: But she is locked in a cell without bond, meaning
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: she cannot work or earn a retainer fee. Right.
• 15:07
  Speaker 2: She has no income stream.
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: As a result, she is sitting there without a lawyer
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: at all as her February 10th probable cause hearing rapidly approaches.
• 15:16
  Speaker 2: And the former prosecutor on the broadcast, Kristen Hakiotis, specifically
• 15:21
  Speaker 2: noted how incredibly anomalous and dangerous this is.
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: I am totally lost on the logic here. If you
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: are facing the death penalty for poisoning your own daughter,
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: why on earth would you waive your right to a
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: court-appointed capital defender?
• 15:35
  Speaker 2: It defies all conventional legal strategy. I mean, typically, in
• 15:39
  Speaker 2: a first-degree murder case in North Carolina, the presiding judge
• 15:42
  Speaker 2: will immediately appoint a specialized capital defender.
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: Just automatically?
• 15:46
  Speaker 2: Yes, to ensure the defendant's constitutional rights are preserved from
• 15:50
  Speaker 2: day one during interrogations and evidence collection.
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: Okay, that makes sense.
• 15:53
  Speaker 2: And if the defendant later secures private counsel, the appointed
• 15:56
  Speaker 2: attorney simply withdraws. There is no downside to accepting the
• 16:00
  Speaker 2: free help initially.
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: So why reject it?
• 16:03
  Speaker 2: To actively reject that initial safety net, when your life
• 16:06
  Speaker 2: is quite literally on the line, suggests one of two
• 16:10
  Speaker 2: extreme scenarios.
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: Which are?
• 16:12
  Speaker 2: Either an overwhelming delusional arrogance, where she believes she can
• 16:16
  Speaker 2: outsmart the judicial system herself.
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: Like she thinks she's smarter than everyone in the room?
• 16:20
  Speaker 2: Yes. Or a severe psychological disconnect from the reality of
• 16:25
  Speaker 2: her peril.
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: Which opens the door to the mental health aspect of
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: this defense.
• 16:29
  Speaker 2: Absolutely. Hakuyo has made a brilliant point on this. If
• 16:33
  Speaker 2: she were defending this case... The absolute first step, long
• 16:37
  Speaker 2: before analyzing the chemistry of the poison or contesting the
• 16:40
  Speaker 2: search history, would be to order a comprehensive mental health evaluation.
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: Just to see if she's crazy.
• 16:46
  Speaker 2: Well, the legal terminology is much more specific than that.
• 16:49
  Speaker 2: The defense needs to determine two distinct things. Competency to
• 16:53
  Speaker 2: stand trial and sanity at the time of the offense.
• 16:56
  Speaker 1: Okay, what's the difference? Let's start with competency.
• 16:58
  Speaker 2: Competency means asking, does she currently understand the charges against her?
• 17:02
  Speaker 2: And is she mentally capable of assisting in her own defense?
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: Right now, sitting in the jail cell.
• 17:07
  Speaker 2: Exactly. The bizarre refusal of free legal counsel in a
• 17:10
  Speaker 2: death penalty case is a massive red flag regarding her
• 17:14
  Speaker 2: current competency.
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: So what happens if they say she isn't competent?
• 17:17
  Speaker 2: If she is deemed incompetent, the trial halts completely and
• 17:21
  Speaker 2: she's sent to a psychiatric facility until she is restored
• 17:23
  Speaker 2: to competency.
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: Wow. Okay. And what about sanity at the time of
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: the offense?
• 17:28
  Speaker 2: That is the affirmative defense of insanity. which asks, at
• 17:32
  Speaker 2: the very moment she allegedly poured that solvent into the wine,
• 17:36
  Speaker 2: did she suffer from a mental disease or defect that
• 17:38
  Speaker 2: prevented her from understanding the nature and quality of her actions?
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: Like she didn't know it was wrong.
• 17:43
  Speaker 2: Or knowing that what she was doing was wrong. Given
• 17:46
  Speaker 2: the wild circumstances of serving industrial poison at a family dinner,
• 17:50
  Speaker 2: her legal team has an obligation to explore whether she
• 17:53
  Speaker 2: was operating in a state of profound psychosis.
• 17:56
  Speaker 1: Okay, let's play devil's advocate for a second. Let's pretend
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: she eventually gets a lawyer, is deemed perfectly competent, And
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: goes to trial. How does a defense attorney even begin
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: to fight against a Google search history that asks, what
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: happens if I ingest the exact chemical that killed her
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: daughter three days later?
• 18:12
  Speaker 2: It is a monumental uphill battle. There's no denying that.
• 18:16
  Speaker 2: But defense attorneys are trained to attack the chain of evidence.
• 18:20
  Speaker 2: Hakiota's laid out the blueprint for this.
• 18:22
  Speaker 1: What's the blueprint?
• 18:23
  Speaker 2: You don't necessarily defend the content of the search. You
• 18:26
  Speaker 2: defend the chain of access.
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: You mean pointing the finger at someone else in the house?
• 18:30
  Speaker 2: Exactly that. The defense strategy basically resembles a shell game.
• 18:35
  Speaker 2: The defense will systematically ask, who else was at that dinner?
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: There were 12 people there. Right.
• 18:40
  Speaker 2: 12 people were in that house.
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 18:42
  Speaker 2: Who else had access to the wine bottle before it
• 18:45
  Speaker 2: was uncorked or poured? And most crucially, who else had
• 18:49
  Speaker 2: access to that specific computer or device?
• 18:51
  Speaker 1: Like if it was a family computer. Yes.
• 18:53
  Speaker 2: If it was located in a shared space, like a
• 18:55
  Speaker 2: living room or kitchen or an iPad sitting on the counter.
• 18:59
  Speaker 2: Can the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Goodrin's
• 19:02
  Speaker 2: specific fingers typed those misspelled words and not another guest
• 19:07
  Speaker 2: or family member who was present?
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: So they just try to muddy the waters and introduce
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: alternate suspects. Like, maybe Richard Googled it. Maybe Mia Googled it.
• 19:15
  Speaker 2: The defense only needs to create reasonable doubt. They do
• 19:18
  Speaker 2: not need to prove someone else actually did it. Furthermore,
• 19:22
  Speaker 2: they will rigorously interrogate the chemical itself.
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: How so?
• 19:26
  Speaker 2: Acetonitrile is a solvent. The defense will ask if it
• 19:30
  Speaker 2: is possible it was purchased for a legitimate, albeit unusual,
• 19:34
  Speaker 2: household reason.
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: Like what?
• 19:35
  Speaker 2: Cleaning? Exactly. Was it being used as an extreme cleaning agent?
• 19:39
  Speaker 2: Was there some bizarre DIY hobby project involving electronics or
• 19:43
  Speaker 2: batteries occurring in the home?
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: I see.
• 19:45
  Speaker 2: They will attempt to craft a plausible alternative narrative that
• 19:49
  Speaker 2: the chemical waste... in the house for a benign reason
• 19:52
  Speaker 2: and somehow, tragically, accidentally cross-contaminated the wine during the chaos
• 19:57
  Speaker 2: of preparing a meal for 12 people.
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: Somehow accidentally cross-contaminated. I mean, that is going to be
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: an incredibly tough pill for a jury to swallow when
• 20:04
  Speaker 1: the host is Googling the lethal effects just prior.
• 20:07
  Speaker 2: It is a staggering burden for the defense. But the
• 20:10
  Speaker 2: situation becomes infinitely more complex and, frankly, more terrifying when
• 20:14
  Speaker 2: you look at what law enforcement uncovered when they began
• 20:16
  Speaker 2: digging into her past.
• 20:18
  Speaker 1: You're totally right. The Thanksgiving poisoning is horrific enough on
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: its own to consume an entire community. But when investigators
• 20:25
  Speaker 1: start pulling at the threads of a suspect's life, old
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: skeletons have a way of shaking loose.
• 20:30
  Speaker 2: They almost always do in cases like this.
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: Yeah. And when deputies executed search warrants regarding the Thanksgiving incident,
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: they stumbled onto a ghost from almost 20 years ago.
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: a discovery that completely shifts the paradigm of who Gudrun
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: Kasperlein and Kugel might actually be.
• 20:47
  Speaker 2: We move from a localized family tragedy to the realm
• 20:50
  Speaker 2: of a potential serial perpetrator.
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: Let's shift our focus to 2007. We are moving from
• 20:55
  Speaker 1: the sterile forensics of chemical poisoning to a pile of ashes.
• 21:00
  Speaker 1: Deputies uncovered an arrest warrant that now formally accuses Gudrun
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: of an entirely separate, nearly 20-year-old, Cold case murder.
• 21:07
  Speaker 2: Which is just a massive development.
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: The victim's name was Michael Schmidt. He died on October 29, 2007,
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: in Henderson County, North Carolina, which is a community just
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: south of Asheville.
• 21:17
  Speaker 2: And at the time, his death was ruled an accidental
• 21:19
  Speaker 2: house fire.
• 21:20
  Speaker 1: Right. According to local Fox Carolina reports, Michael Schmidt perished
• 21:24
  Speaker 1: in those flames. But here is the detail that gave
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: me absolute chills.
• 21:29
  Speaker 2: The location changed.
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: Yes. Goodrin currently lives in the exact same house on
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: Schmidt Terrace in Hendersonville, where Michael Schmidt died in that
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: fire 18 years prior. The street is literally named Schmidt Terrace.
• 21:42
  Speaker 2: It is uncanny.
• 21:43
  Speaker 1: He dies in a house fire there in 2007, and
• 21:46
  Speaker 1: nearly two decades later, she is living in that same structure,
• 21:49
  Speaker 1: or the rebuilt structure, on that exact property when she
• 21:52
  Speaker 1: is arrested for poisoning her family.
• 21:54
  Speaker 2: The geographic overlap is astounding. And because of what investigators
• 21:57
  Speaker 2: found while looking into the 2025 Thanksgiving poisoning, she has
• 22:01
  Speaker 2: now been charged with a second count of first-degree murder
• 22:04
  Speaker 2: for the death of Michael Schmidt.
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: Hold on, I have to push back heavily on the
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: logistics of this. It's been almost 20 years. How do
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: you reconstruct a crime scene made of ash two decades later?
• 22:13
  Speaker 2: It is incredibly difficult.
• 22:15
  Speaker 1: It's like trying to reconstruct a shattered vase in the dark.
• 22:18
  Speaker 1: If a death was ruled an accidental house fire in 2007,
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: how can law enforcement suddenly, in 2025... gather enough physical
• 22:26
  Speaker 1: proof to state beyond a reasonable doubt that it was
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: a calculated murder.
• 22:31
  Speaker 2: Unpacking the complexities of resurrecting an arson cold case is fascinating,
• 22:35
  Speaker 2: and Hakiota's shed essential light on this. First, we have
• 22:39
  Speaker 2: to deduce what triggered the charge.
• 22:41
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 22:42
  Speaker 2: The police were executing search warrants on Goodrun's current home
• 22:46
  Speaker 2: and digital devices for evidence regarding the wine poisoning. They
• 22:49
  Speaker 2: must have found something incredibly explicit to justify immediately charging
• 22:53
  Speaker 2: an 18-year-old cold case.
• 22:55
  Speaker 1: What could that even look like? Like a confession note
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: hidden in the floorboards?
• 22:58
  Speaker 2: It could be diaries or physical journals where she meticulously
• 23:01
  Speaker 2: documented the 2007 crime.
• 23:03
  Speaker 1: People actually keep those.
• 23:04
  Speaker 2: They do, surprisingly often. It could also be physical trophies,
• 23:08
  Speaker 2: items belonging to Michael Schmidt that she kept from the fire.
• 23:11
  Speaker 2: It could even be newly discovered digital search history where
• 23:13
  Speaker 2: she was researching statute of limitations or details of her
• 23:16
  Speaker 2: own past crime.
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: Oh, that makes sense.
• 23:18
  Speaker 2: But finding a written confession in a journal is rarely
• 23:21
  Speaker 2: enough on its own. Because a good defense attorney will
• 23:24
  Speaker 2: just argue it was creative fiction or a delusion. The
• 23:27
  Speaker 2: state needs corroborating physical evidence from the fire itself.
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: Which brings us back to my question. How do you
• 23:33
  Speaker 1: get physical evidence from ashes 18 years later?
• 23:36
  Speaker 2: Law enforcement has to dive into the archival forensics. They
• 23:39
  Speaker 2: must pull the old 2007 fire marshal reports.
• 23:42
  Speaker 1: Assuming those still exist.
• 23:43
  Speaker 2: Right. Arson investigators use tools like gas chromatography and mass
• 23:47
  Speaker 2: spectrometry to detect accelerants. Did the fire marshal originally find
• 23:52
  Speaker 2: trace elements of gasoline or chemical accelerants, but lacked a
• 23:56
  Speaker 2: suspect to tie them to?
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: Maybe it was just filed away.
• 23:59
  Speaker 2: Exactly. Was it ruled an electrical fire at the time,
• 24:02
  Speaker 2: or was there always an underlying suspicion of arson that
• 24:05
  Speaker 2: simply went cold due to lack of evidence?
• 24:07
  Speaker 1: And what about the victim himself, Michael Schmidt? Like, his
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: actual remains?
• 24:11
  Speaker 2: That is the most critical biological question. What happened to
• 24:15
  Speaker 2: his remains? was a full autopsy performed in 2007.
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: But they always do one.
• 24:20
  Speaker 2: Not always. In cases of severe fires, if initial responders
• 24:25
  Speaker 2: pull a victim from a burning building, the immediate assumption
• 24:27
  Speaker 2: is often death by smoke inhalation or thermal injuries.
• 24:31
  Speaker 1: So they might just sign a death certificate and move on.
• 24:33
  Speaker 2: Frequently, yes. But a forensic pathologist looks for specific markers.
• 24:39
  Speaker 2: They look at carboxyhemoglobin levels in the blood.
• 24:42
  Speaker 1: What does that tell them?
• 24:42
  Speaker 2: Well, if a person's alive and breathing during a fire...
• 24:46
  Speaker 2: They inhale carbon monoxide, which binds to their hemoglobin.
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 24:50
  Speaker 2: If the autopsy from 2007 shows that Michael Schmidt had
• 24:53
  Speaker 2: zero carboxyhemoglobin in his blood, it means he was already
• 24:57
  Speaker 2: dead before the fire started. It means he wasn't breathing
• 24:59
  Speaker 2: the smoke.
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: Meaning the fire was just a cover-up.
• 25:02
  Speaker 2: A disposal mechanism. A coroner would also look for soot
• 25:05
  Speaker 2: in the trachea. If there is no soot, he wasn't breathing.
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: That is so dark.
• 25:09
  Speaker 2: Furthermore, they would test the preserved blood or tissue samples,
• 25:12
  Speaker 2: assuming they still exist, for pre-fire toxins. Did she poison
• 25:16
  Speaker 2: him in 2007 and then burn the house down to
• 25:19
  Speaker 2: hide the body?
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: Wow. Tying the two methods together.
• 25:22
  Speaker 2: Right. If the 2007 medical examiner did not perform these
• 25:26
  Speaker 2: specific toxicological tests, or if the biological samples were not
• 25:29
  Speaker 2: meticulously preserved in an evidence locker for two decades, securing
• 25:34
  Speaker 2: a conviction now becomes monumentally difficult.
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: But the prosecutors felt confident enough in whatever they found
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: to file a first-degree murder charge right now.
• 25:42
  Speaker 2: Which is what makes this legally breathtaking. I encourage you
• 25:46
  Speaker 2: listening to think critically about the timeline. What singular, irrefutable
• 25:50
  Speaker 2: piece of evidence could investigators possibly find in 2025 that
• 25:54
  Speaker 2: proves an 18-year-old fire was a calculated assassination?
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: The burden of proof resting on the state's shoulders is
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: just massive.
• 26:01
  Speaker 2: It really is.
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: So what does this all mean? We now have a multi-layered,
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: multi-decade criminal matrix. We have different methods of murder, a modern,
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: highly calculated chemical poisoning, and an ancient, chaotic arson.
• 26:14
  Speaker 2: Two entirely different scenarios.
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: How does the justice system begin to untangle this without
• 26:18
  Speaker 1: completely overwhelming a jury?
• 26:20
  Speaker 2: It becomes a highly strategic, intensely complicated legal battlefield.
• 26:25
  Speaker 1: Let's recap the sheer staggering weight of these charges. Goodren
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: is currently facing one count of first-degree murder for Lila,
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: two counts of attempted first-degree murder for Mia and Richard,
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: three counts of distributing a prohibited substance, and a completely
• 26:41
  Speaker 1: separate first-degree murder charge for Michael Schmidt.
• 26:43
  Speaker 2: It is a massive docket.
• 26:45
  Speaker 1: But we cannot gloss over the bombshell dropped by prosecutors
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: during the bond hearing. They told the court, on the record,
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: that Gudrun is currently under investigation for additional deaths.
• 26:56
  Speaker 2: That phrase entirely alters the profile of the suspect.
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: Plural. Additional deaths. We need to dwell on that for
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: a second because it is terrifying. We are no longer
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: talking about a tragic Thanksgiving dinner or a suspicious fire.
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: We are talking about the potential for a serial poisoner
• 27:10
  Speaker 1: operating undetected for decades.
• 27:12
  Speaker 2: It shifts the entire scale of the investigation.
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: How does law enforcement even begin to look for unknown
• 27:18
  Speaker 1: victims when the suspected weapon is a chemical that mimics
• 27:20
  Speaker 1: natural organ failure?
• 27:22
  Speaker 2: They have to reverse engineer her entire life. They will
• 27:25
  Speaker 2: subpoena every medical record, every death certificate of anyone she
• 27:30
  Speaker 2: was romantically involved with, anyone she had a business dispute with.
• 27:34
  Speaker 2: any family member who died suddenly.
• 27:36
  Speaker 1: Going all the way back?
• 27:37
  Speaker 2: Yes. They will look for patterns of sudden cardiovascular or
• 27:41
  Speaker 2: respiratory failure among her associates across Minnesota, Wisconsin, Germany, and
• 27:47
  Speaker 2: North Carolina.
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: Could they actually dig people up?
• 27:49
  Speaker 2: Exhumations of bodies buried years ago are a very real
• 27:53
  Speaker 2: possibility if they find suspicious connections.
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: It's an unfathomable amount of investigative work, but looking at
• 27:59
  Speaker 1: the immediate timeline, we have this probable cause hearing set
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: for February 10th. What exactly happens there, especially since she
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: currently has no lawyer?
• 28:09
  Speaker 2: Under North Carolina law, a probable cause hearing is typically
• 28:12
  Speaker 2: required for a felony within 15 days of the initial appearance.
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: Okay, so it's a fast process.
• 28:17
  Speaker 2: Right. It is a preliminary mechanism where the state must
• 28:19
  Speaker 2: demonstrate to a district court judge that they have sufficient
• 28:22
  Speaker 2: evidence to bind the case over to superior court for trial.
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: But what if she still doesn't have an attorney by then?
• 28:28
  Speaker 2: Well, however, as Hakiotis explained... The state has a powerful,
• 28:33
  Speaker 2: completely legal workaround to bypass this entirely.
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: Taking it to a grand jury.
• 28:38
  Speaker 2: Correct. The prosecution can present their evidence directly to a
• 28:42
  Speaker 2: grand jury in a secret proceeding.
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: Secret meaning the defense isn't there.
• 28:46
  Speaker 2: The defense is not present. The suspect is not present.
• 28:49
  Speaker 2: If the grand jury hears the evidence, like the misspelled
• 28:52
  Speaker 2: Google search and the chemical trace in the wine, and
• 28:55
  Speaker 2: issues a true bill of indictment before that February 10th date,
• 28:58
  Speaker 2: the probable cause hearing is canceled.
• 29:00
  Speaker 1: It just goes away.
• 29:01
  Speaker 2: It becomes moot. Given the overwhelming nature of the digital
• 29:05
  Speaker 2: evidence in the Thanksgiving case, it is highly probable the
• 29:08
  Speaker 2: state will seek a rapid indictment to lock the charges
• 29:11
  Speaker 2: in and move straight to superior court, effectively sidelining the
• 29:15
  Speaker 2: issue of her lacking an attorney for the preliminary hearing.
• 29:19
  Speaker 1: But once they actually get into a courtroom for trial,
• 29:21
  Speaker 1: how does a prosecutor present this? You can't just throw
• 29:24
  Speaker 1: 20 years of history and different murder methods at a
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: jury in one giant pile, right?
• 29:28
  Speaker 2: No, you can't. The trial structure is strictly dictated by
• 29:31
  Speaker 2: the rules of evidence designed to prevent a jury from
• 29:34
  Speaker 2: being unfairly prejudiced. The Thanksgiving charges, the murder, the attempted murders,
• 29:39
  Speaker 2: the poisoning. will all be tried together in one trial
• 29:42
  Speaker 2: because they are transactionally related.
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: Meaning they all happened at the same time.
• 29:46
  Speaker 2: Exactly. They occurred during the same continuous event involving the
• 29:49
  Speaker 2: same suspect and the same method.
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: But the 2007 fire is a completely different universe of facts.
• 29:56
  Speaker 2: It is entirely separate, which means the Michael Schmidt murder
• 29:59
  Speaker 2: must be tried in a completely separate trial. However, this
• 30:02
  Speaker 2: is where it gets legally fascinating. Prosecutors sometimes attempt to
• 30:06
  Speaker 2: introduce evidence of past bad acts into a current trial
• 30:10
  Speaker 2: to demonstrate a pattern relying on a specific statute known
• 30:13
  Speaker 2: as Rule 404B.
• 30:15
  Speaker 1: Let's unpack the logic of Rule 404B because legal jargon
• 30:18
  Speaker 1: can get dense, and I want to make sure we
• 30:19
  Speaker 1: all get this.
• 30:20
  Speaker 2: Rule 404B of the Rules of Evidence is a fundamental
• 30:24
  Speaker 2: concept in criminal law. Generally, a prosecutor is forbidden from
• 30:28
  Speaker 2: telling a jury, hey, this person committed a crime in
• 30:31
  Speaker 2: the past, therefore they are a bad person and likely
• 30:34
  Speaker 2: committed this new crime.
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: Right. You can't just say they are generally a criminal.
• 30:38
  Speaker 2: That is considered highly prejudicial character evidence. A jury might
• 30:41
  Speaker 2: convict someone just because they don't like their history, regardless
• 30:44
  Speaker 2: of the facts of the current case.
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: But 404B provides a loophole.
• 30:48
  Speaker 2: It provides an exception. A prosecutor can introduce evidence of
• 30:51
  Speaker 2: other crimes or wrongs only to prove specific things like motive, opportunity, intent, preparation,
• 30:58
  Speaker 2: or a distinct signature plan or scheme.
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: So could the state use the 2007 fire during the
• 31:04
  Speaker 1: Thanksgiving poisoning trial to prove she has a history of
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: killing people?
• 31:07
  Speaker 2: It is highly unlikely a judge would allow it.
• 31:09
  Speaker 1: Really? Why not?
• 31:10
  Speaker 2: Hakiotis highlighted this hurdle. The defense would object vehemently, arguing
• 31:15
  Speaker 2: the prejudice massively outweighs any probative value. The judge would
• 31:19
  Speaker 2: likely agree because the two crimes lack a consistent signature.
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: Because one is fire and one is poison.
• 31:24
  Speaker 2: Exactly. One is an alleged arson resulting in death in 2007.
• 31:29
  Speaker 2: The other is a highly calculated chemical poisoning using battery
• 31:33
  Speaker 2: solvent in 2025. The mechanism of death is radically different.
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: And the setting is different.
• 31:39
  Speaker 2: And the temporal gap is almost 20 years. Because they
• 31:43
  Speaker 2: don't share a distinct scheme, the state will be forced
• 31:46
  Speaker 2: to fight two completely separate, grueling wars in court.
• 31:49
  Speaker 1: And the ultimate weapon the state wields in both of
• 31:52
  Speaker 1: those wars, especially in this specific geographical jurisdiction, is the
• 31:56
  Speaker 1: death penalty.
• 31:57
  Speaker 2: Capital punishment alters the entire geometry of a criminal defense.
• 32:01
  Speaker 1: Because of where it's happening.
• 32:02
  Speaker 2: Yes. Henderson and Buncombe counties, situated in the western part
• 32:06
  Speaker 2: of North Carolina, can lean rural and highly conservative. Juries
• 32:10
  Speaker 2: drawn from these specific demographics are historically much more death-prone
• 32:15
  Speaker 2: than juries in urban liberal centers of the state.
• 32:17
  Speaker 1: Death prone, meaning they are more willing to give that sentence.
• 32:20
  Speaker 2: They are statistically more willing to impose the ultimate penalty.
• 32:23
  Speaker 1: Which gives the prosecutor an incredible amount of leverage behind
• 32:27
  Speaker 1: closed doors.
• 32:28
  Speaker 2: It is the ultimate prosecutorial trump card. Even if a
• 32:32
  Speaker 2: district attorney doesn't necessarily want to endure the decades of
• 32:35
  Speaker 2: mandatory expensive appeals that automatically follow a death sentence, simply
• 32:40
  Speaker 2: putting it on the table forces the defense's hand entirely.
• 32:43
  Speaker 1: Just having the threat there changes everything.
• 32:46
  Speaker 2: If the state's evidence is as robust as it appears,
• 32:49
  Speaker 2: with the damning digital searches and the chemical toxicology, a
• 32:53
  Speaker 2: defense attorney's primary objective rapidly shifts from securing an unlikely
• 32:57
  Speaker 2: acquittal to simply preserving their client's biological life.
• 33:01
  Speaker 1: They use the threat of the needle to extract a
• 33:04
  Speaker 1: plea deal.
• 33:04
  Speaker 2: Exactly the strategy. The state offers to take capital punishment
• 33:08
  Speaker 2: off the table in exchange for a guilty plea, resulting
• 33:11
  Speaker 2: in life in prison without the possibility of parole.
• 33:14
  Speaker 1: That makes sense from the state's perspective.
• 33:16
  Speaker 2: It secures a guaranteed conviction, permanently removes a dangerous individual
• 33:19
  Speaker 2: from the community, spares the surviving family members the profound
• 33:23
  Speaker 2: trauma of testifying at a brutal trial, and resolves a
• 33:26
  Speaker 2: highly complex, multi-jurisdictional legal nightmare without risking a wildcard jury verdict.
• 33:31
  Speaker 1: It is a heavy, almost suffocating reality to process. And
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: it brings this massive, decade-spanning legal thriller right back down
• 33:41
  Speaker 1: to our everyday reality. You listen to a deep dive
• 33:44
  Speaker 1: like this and you have to pause and reflect on
• 33:46
  Speaker 1: how well we actually know the people sharing our physical space.
• 33:50
  Speaker 2: It fundamentally shatters the illusion of community safety that we
• 33:53
  Speaker 2: all rely on to function daily.
• 33:55
  Speaker 1: It really does. You think about Goodrin Casper lining Kugel.
• 33:58
  Speaker 1: She was a restaurant owner. She gave charming interviews to
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: the local paper about her work ethic.
• 34:03
  Speaker 2: It's a normal citizen on paper.
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: Yeah. She served European comfort food to the tourists and
• 34:07
  Speaker 1: locals of Asheville. She was a neighbor on Schmidt Terrace.
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: The broadcast explicitly tapped into this modern anxiety we all
• 34:15
  Speaker 1: possess now.
• 34:15
  Speaker 2: The fear of the unknown neighbor.
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: They mention using public record tools like Truthfinder to check
• 34:20
  Speaker 1: up on people. We live in an era where we
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: feel a compulsive need to run background checks on the
• 34:25
  Speaker 1: person pouring our coffee or moving into the duplex next
• 34:27
  Speaker 1: door because cases like this are a violent reminder that
• 34:31
  Speaker 1: monsters do not always look like the villains in movies.
• 34:34
  Speaker 2: No, they don't.
• 34:35
  Speaker 1: They don't have scars or wear black capes. They look
• 34:38
  Speaker 1: like normal, hardworking, ambitious locals. They host Thanksgiving dinners.
• 34:42
  Speaker 2: The banality of evil is often its most effective camouflage.
• 34:46
  Speaker 1: And I want to leave you, the listener, with a
• 34:48
  Speaker 1: final chilling thought to mull over. It's a concept that
• 34:52
  Speaker 1: has been stuck in my head since we started deconstructing
• 34:55
  Speaker 1: these sources.
• 34:55
  Speaker 2: What is it?
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: Think about the timeline we just mapped out. Think about
• 34:59
  Speaker 1: Michael Schmidt dying in that fire back in 2007. That
• 35:03
  Speaker 1: case sat completely cold, filed away as a tragic accidental
• 35:08
  Speaker 1: house fire that For 18 years.
• 35:10
  Speaker 2: 18 years of silence.
• 35:11
  Speaker 1: Goodrin was living free and clear, building businesses, giving interviews.
• 35:15
  Speaker 1: If she hadn't made that incredibly sloppy, impulsive, almost comical
• 35:19
  Speaker 1: decision to Google what happens if I ingest a night
• 35:22
  Speaker 1: trial right before pouring that wine in 2025, would the
• 35:25
  Speaker 1: police have ever obtained the legal probable cause to search
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: her digital devices and her home?
• 35:30
  Speaker 2: It's highly unlikely.
• 35:32
  Speaker 1: Would the 18-year-old ashes of Michael Schmidt have ever been questioned?
• 35:35
  Speaker 2: It raises a profound and disturbing question. about the sheer
• 35:39
  Speaker 2: fragility of justice and how much of it relies on
• 35:42
  Speaker 2: the arrogance of the perpetrator rather than the brilliance of
• 35:45
  Speaker 2: the system.
• 35:46
  Speaker 1: It forces us to wonder how many perfect crimes are
• 35:48
  Speaker 1: out there right now, successfully buried in our communities, only
• 35:52
  Speaker 1: waiting to be uncovered because the perpetrator eventually gets bored
• 35:55
  Speaker 1: or gets arrogant and makes one lazy, misspelled mistake.