Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / ‘Perfect’ Wife Killed Husband in Shocking Back Porch Shooting

Transcript

‘Perfect’ Wife Killed Husband in Shocking Back Porch Shooting · Murder Files Unsealed

0:00
Speaker 1: I want you to take a second and just picture
0:03
Speaker 1: a very specific kind of couple in your community. You
0:06
Speaker 1: probably know exactly the type I'm talking about because, well,
0:10
Speaker 1: every town, every suburb, every tight-knit neighborhood has one.
0:13
Speaker 2: Oh, yeah, absolutely. Every place has that one couple.
0:16
Speaker 1: Right. They are the couple that just seems to have
0:18
Speaker 1: it all figured out. I mean, they are successful business owners.
0:22
Speaker 1: They are deeply active community leaders. Basically, the absolute picture...
0:28
Speaker 1: of happiness and stability.
0:29
Speaker 2: The ones you always see at the local events, right?
0:31
Speaker 1: Exactly. You bump into them at the local grocery store
0:34
Speaker 1: or like a weekend farmer's market and they're holding hands.
0:37
Speaker 1: They are coordinating their outfits and flashing those perfect stress-free smiles.
0:42
Speaker 2: Yeah, the kind of smiles that make you wonder if
0:44
Speaker 2: they have access to some secret manual for life that
0:46
Speaker 2: the rest of us never got.
0:48
Speaker 1: Yes, that exact manual. Now, I want you to hold
0:50
Speaker 1: that pristine aspirational image in your mind. Just focus on
0:54
Speaker 1: it for a second. And then I want you to
0:56
Speaker 1: ask yourself, what does it actually take for that flawless,
0:59
Speaker 1: perfectly curated facade to end in a shocking, bloody back
1:04
Speaker 1: porch shooting on a quiet July morning?
1:07
Speaker 2: It's the kind of sudden, violent whiplash that just, you know,
1:11
Speaker 2: it forces you to completely reevaluate everything you think you
1:14
Speaker 2: know about human nature and the people living right next
1:16
Speaker 2: door to you, for that matter.
1:17
Speaker 1: It really does.
1:18
Speaker 2: Because we are deeply comfortable, almost reliant, on the idea
1:22
Speaker 2: that what we see is what we get. We need
1:24
Speaker 2: to believe that a smiling couple is a happy couple
1:27
Speaker 2: because it just makes the world feel predictable. Right.
1:31
Speaker 1: It feels safe.
1:32
Speaker 2: But when violence like this erupts out of nowhere, it
1:34
Speaker 2: shatters that illusion instantly. And it leaves this massive wake
1:38
Speaker 2: of confusion that the legal system then has to step
1:40
Speaker 2: in and try to untangle.
1:41
Speaker 1: And that shattering of the illusion, the absolute chaos that
1:45
Speaker 1: follows when the curtain is finally pulled back, is exactly
1:47
Speaker 1: what we are getting into today. So welcome to The
1:50
Speaker 1: Deep Dive. Today, we are taking a massive microscope to
1:54
Speaker 1: the tragic and, frankly, incredibly complex case of Charlotte and
1:58
Speaker 1: Dane Smith out of Bladen County, North Carolina.
2:01
Speaker 2: It is a wild case. There are so many layers
2:03
Speaker 2: to it.
2:03
Speaker 1: There really are. And we are utilizing a fascinating multi-layered
2:07
Speaker 1: transcript today from the Law and Crime Network show on
2:10
Speaker 1: the case with Chris Stewart.
2:12
Speaker 2: Which features some incredibly insightful analysis. from legal expert Kristen Hokiotis.
2:18
Speaker 1: Yes, her insights in this source material are just incredible.
2:21
Speaker 1: So our mission today is to dissect the many, many
2:24
Speaker 1: layers of this true crime story alongside her analysis. We
2:28
Speaker 1: are not just looking at the basic facts of a shooting.
2:31
Speaker 2: No, not at all. We are going to explore the
2:34
Speaker 2: incredibly murky gray waters where self-defense collides with murder.
2:39
Speaker 1: And we are going to look at the bizarre and
2:41
Speaker 1: honestly somewhat terrifying realities of North Carolina's legal system. Because
2:46
Speaker 1: let me tell you, it operates in ways that will
2:48
Speaker 1: likely shock you.
2:49
Speaker 2: It shocked me when I first read through the procedural stuff, honestly.
2:52
Speaker 1: Right. And we're even going to touch on the jarring,
2:56
Speaker 1: surreal nature of how we consume legal media and trauma
3:00
Speaker 1: as entertainment today.
3:01
Speaker 2: Because it really is a case that operates on multiple
3:04
Speaker 2: overlapping levels simultaneously.
3:05
Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely.
3:06
Speaker 2: I mean, we have the deeply personal tragedy between a
3:08
Speaker 2: husband and a wife. Then you have the sprawling legal
3:11
Speaker 2: labyrinth that follows a homicide. And of course, the public
3:13
Speaker 2: spectacle of a small town watching its own royalty fall
3:16
Speaker 2: from grace.
3:17
Speaker 1: That small town element is huge.
3:19
Speaker 2: It really is. All of these elements are just tangled
3:21
Speaker 2: up together. And you cannot truly understand one without understanding
3:26
Speaker 2: how it impacts all the others.
3:27
Speaker 1: Which is why I am thrilled to be sitting across
3:30
Speaker 1: from our resident analytical guide right here. They are going
3:33
Speaker 1: to help us and help you navigate these incredibly complex issues.
3:38
Speaker 1: legal and psychological concepts at play.
3:41
Speaker 2: I am ready to get into it.
3:42
Speaker 1: Because I promise you, by the end of this deep dive,
3:45
Speaker 1: the way you perceive those perfect relationships you see in
3:48
Speaker 1: your own life is going to be fundamentally challenged. And
3:51
Speaker 1: how you view the criminal justice system as a whole
3:54
Speaker 1: is going to be severely, severely complicated.
3:57
Speaker 2: It's definitely going to change some perspectives.
3:59
Speaker 1: So you are sitting right here in the room with
4:01
Speaker 1: us for this one. So let's just get right into
4:02
Speaker 1: the heart of it. Let's start with the sociodynamics of
4:05
Speaker 1: this couple. Who were the Smiths before the morning of
4:09
Speaker 1: July 8th?
4:10
Speaker 2: Well, to understand the weight of what happened, we really
4:12
Speaker 2: have to understand their environment first. We are looking at Elizabethtown,
4:17
Speaker 2: which is nestled right in Bladen County.
4:19
Speaker 1: Okay, set the scene for us.
4:21
Speaker 2: So for anyone unfamiliar with the geography down there, this
4:24
Speaker 2: is an extremely rural stretch in eastern North Carolina. And
4:29
Speaker 2: in a place like that, prominence means something vastly different
4:33
Speaker 2: than it does in a major metropolitan area like New
4:35
Speaker 2: York or L.A.
4:36
Speaker 1: Right. It's not just about money.
4:37
Speaker 2: Exactly. In a big city, wealth or business success might
4:41
Speaker 2: get you a nice house, but it doesn't necessarily make
4:44
Speaker 2: you a household name. But in a rural county, being
4:47
Speaker 2: a successful business owner means you are woven into the
4:50
Speaker 2: very fabric of daily life.
4:52
Speaker 1: You're everywhere.
4:53
Speaker 2: You really are. And Charlotte Smith was deeply, deeply active
4:56
Speaker 2: in this community. She didn't just participate. She actively sought
5:00
Speaker 2: out leadership. She ran for a school board seat back
5:03
Speaker 2: in twenty twenty two. which, as we know, requires a
5:05
Speaker 2: highly visible, public-facing campaign.
5:08
Speaker 1: You have to be out there shaking hands, putting signs
5:10
Speaker 1: in yards.
5:11
Speaker 2: Yes. But her real, tangible influence came from her primary business.
5:16
Speaker 2: She owned the local paper, Bladen Online.
5:18
Speaker 1: Okay, let's unpack this for a second, because I think
5:21
Speaker 1: it is crucial to understand the kind of power that
5:23
Speaker 1: gives someone in a small town.
5:24
Speaker 2: It's a lot of power.
5:25
Speaker 1: It is. Owning the local paper isn't just about printing
5:28
Speaker 1: the high school football scores, you know. You are essentially
5:32
Speaker 1: controlling the flow of information for the entire county.
5:35
Speaker 2: You're the gatekeeper.
5:36
Speaker 1: Exactly. You decide what stories get highlighted, what controversies get buried,
5:42
Speaker 1: whose obituaries get the front page, and basically how the
5:45
Speaker 1: town perceives itself. That is a staggering amount of soft power.
5:49
Speaker 2: It really is. The publisher of a local paper in
5:52
Speaker 2: a rural setting isn't just a business owner. They are
5:56
Speaker 2: the chronicler of the town's history. They are the ultimate
5:59
Speaker 2: arbiter of what matters.
6:00
Speaker 1: They know everybody.
6:01
Speaker 2: Right. They know the police chief. They know the judges,
6:04
Speaker 2: the mayor. And more importantly, all of those people know them.
6:07
Speaker 2: So they have a vested interest in maintaining a certain
6:09
Speaker 2: level of decorum and public respectability.
6:11
Speaker 1: Because their entire livelihood depends on it.
6:14
Speaker 2: Their livelihood and their social standing depend on it entirely.
6:17
Speaker 1: Right. And then you add her husband, Dane Smith, into
6:20
Speaker 1: the mix. He owned his own very successful HVAC business
6:24
Speaker 1: called Cape Fear Heating and Cooling.
6:26
Speaker 2: Which is another massive touchpoint with the community.
6:28
Speaker 1: Huge. Think about what this means practically. He is the
6:31
Speaker 1: guy you call when your air conditioning suddenly dies in
6:34
Speaker 1: the middle of a sweltering 90 degree North Carolina summer.
6:38
Speaker 2: He's practically a hero in those moments.
6:40
Speaker 1: He really is. He is coming into your home, into
6:43
Speaker 1: your basement, saving you from the heat. The source material
6:46
Speaker 1: notes he was so visible and trusted that he was
6:48
Speaker 1: even posting videos online with tips for homeowners on how
6:52
Speaker 1: to prevent mold and mildew.
6:54
Speaker 2: So he's not just a tradesman, he's a trusted fixture.
6:57
Speaker 1: Exactly. So you have the woman who writes the news
7:00
Speaker 1: and the man who keeps the town's homes comfortable. They
7:03
Speaker 1: were a power couple in the truest, most literal small-town sense.
7:07
Speaker 2: They were local royalty, essentially.
7:09
Speaker 1: Yeah. And to highlight just how perfect things seemed to
7:12
Speaker 1: be going for them, we have to look at an
7:14
Speaker 1: announcement that was made on April 29th, which was just
7:17
Speaker 1: a few months before the shooting. Charlotte actually sold Bladen online.
7:21
Speaker 2: Which is a massive life transition. Selling a cornerstone business
7:25
Speaker 2: like that signals a major shift in lifestyle and priorities.
7:29
Speaker 1: It does, but it's the specific way it was framed
7:32
Speaker 1: that I really want to dissect here. Because the article
7:35
Speaker 1: announcing this deal, which, let's be honest, as the owner,
7:38
Speaker 1: she almost certainly had a heavy hand in crafting or
7:40
Speaker 1: at least approving before it went live, it reads like
7:43
Speaker 1: the end of a fairy tale.
7:44
Speaker 2: How so?
7:45
Speaker 1: Well, I want to read the quote directly from the
7:47
Speaker 1: source material for you. It said, and I quote, A
7:50
Speaker 1: very successful and beloved media outlet was owned by Bladen's
7:54
Speaker 1: own Dane and Charlotte Smith, who had decided to dedicate
7:57
Speaker 1: more of their lives at this point to family and
7:58
Speaker 1: enjoying life with a little less stress.
8:01
Speaker 2: Wow. A little less stress.
8:03
Speaker 1: Yeah.
8:03
Speaker 2: That is a phrasing that, when viewed through the lens
8:06
Speaker 2: of what was about to happen, becomes incredibly haunting.
8:09
Speaker 1: It really does. But see, this is where I have
8:11
Speaker 1: to push back on this whole concept of the public persona.
8:14
Speaker 1: I want to bring in a modern analogy here. When
8:17
Speaker 1: I read that quote, I instantly thought of a heavily
8:19
Speaker 1: curated social media feed.
8:22
Speaker 2: Oh, like Instagram versus reality.
8:23
Speaker 1: Exactly. You know the exact dynamic. You scroll through your
8:26
Speaker 1: feed and you see a couple posting the flawless vacation photos,
8:30
Speaker 1: the gushing anniversary posts, the living my best life hashtags.
8:34
Speaker 2: And you just know it's not the whole story.
8:36
Speaker 1: Right. What we see on that screen is almost never
8:39
Speaker 1: the whole truth. It is a highlight reel. And it
8:41
Speaker 1: makes me wonder, when a prominent couple makes a sweeping
8:44
Speaker 1: public declaration about stepping back to enjoy life and have
8:47
Speaker 1: less stress, how often does that actually serve as a
8:51
Speaker 1: public relations cover for deep, bubbling private resentments?
8:54
Speaker 2: That's a really sharp point.
8:56
Speaker 1: Were they really stepping back to sip iced tea on
8:59
Speaker 1: the porch? Or were they stepping back because the wheels
9:01
Speaker 1: of the marriage were quietly coming off and they just
9:04
Speaker 1: needed to retreat from the public eye before it all exploded?
9:07
Speaker 2: That is the ultimate question here. And it highlights a
9:10
Speaker 2: core psychological and legal theme that Kristen Hokiotis brings up
9:13
Speaker 2: in her analysis of this case. You truly fundamentally never
9:18
Speaker 2: know what goes on behind closed doors.
9:20
Speaker 1: You really don't.
9:21
Speaker 2: And from a strictly legal standpoint, that perfectly curated idyllic
9:25
Speaker 2: image is not just an interesting background detail. It is
9:29
Speaker 2: going to be actively weaponized by both sides in a courtroom.
9:33
Speaker 1: Wait, weaponized?
9:34
Speaker 2: Well, that retirement announcement is essentially a blank canvas. Both
9:37
Speaker 2: the prosecution and the defense are going to aggressively try
9:41
Speaker 2: to paint their own narrative over it.
9:42
Speaker 1: So how does that actually play out? If both sides
9:45
Speaker 1: have the exact same public announcement, the same article, how
9:49
Speaker 1: do they twist it to serve opposing agendas?
9:52
Speaker 2: It all comes down to intent and the idea of
9:54
Speaker 2: hidden coercion. Let's look at it from the defense's perspective first. OK.
9:59
Speaker 2: A defense attorney looking at this idyllic, less stress announcement
10:03
Speaker 2: might argue that this perfect image was actually an enforced
10:07
Speaker 2: suffocating facade.
10:08
Speaker 1: Like it was forced upon her.
10:09
Speaker 2: Exactly. They could argue that Dane Smith was secretly controlling
10:13
Speaker 2: or abusive for a long time and that the immense
10:16
Speaker 2: pressure to maintain this flawless public standing was as the
10:19
Speaker 2: town's prominent power couple kept Charlotte trapped, silent, and terrified
10:23
Speaker 2: to ever speak out.
10:24
Speaker 1: Wow, so the retirement was actually a retreat.
10:26
Speaker 2: Right. The defense could frame the sale of the newspaper
10:30
Speaker 2: and the retirement as an act of desperation, an attempt
10:33
Speaker 2: to de-escalate a volatile, dangerous private life by removing external stressors.
10:40
Speaker 2: They might say she sold her beloved business just to
10:43
Speaker 2: try and appease a highly unpredictable husband.
10:46
Speaker 1: So the defense uses the perfection as proof of the
10:49
Speaker 1: immense pressure she was under. But what about the prosecution?
10:52
Speaker 1: How do they use the exact same article?
10:55
Speaker 2: The prosecution is going to look at that exact same photograph,
10:57
Speaker 2: that exact same happy announcement, and argue the complete opposite.
11:01
Speaker 1: Naturally.
11:02
Speaker 2: They are going to take it at entirely face value
11:05
Speaker 2: to establish motive. They might argue that things were exactly
11:08
Speaker 2: as they seemed. They were wealthy. They were successful. They
11:11
Speaker 2: were transitioning to a comfortable new phase of life.
11:13
Speaker 1: Okay, but then why the shootings?
11:15
Speaker 2: Therefore, the prosecution will argue Charlotte didn't shoot him in
11:18
Speaker 2: a desperate panic. She cold-bloodedly executed him. Oh, wow. Why? Well,
11:23
Speaker 2: maybe to take the accumulated assets of both businesses and
11:26
Speaker 2: just run. Maybe she wanted the new stress-free life, but
11:29
Speaker 2: she just didn't want him in it anymore.
11:31
Speaker 1: That is incredibly dark.
11:33
Speaker 2: It is. The prosecution will use the idyllic image to
11:37
Speaker 2: argue that there was no history of abuse, just a
11:39
Speaker 2: calculated decision to end a life for personal gain. The
11:44
Speaker 2: public image is basically the ultimate double-edged sword in a
11:47
Speaker 2: trial like this.
11:48
Speaker 1: It is genuinely chilling when you realize that the exact
11:51
Speaker 1: same happy photograph, the exact same press release, can be
11:55
Speaker 1: presented to 12 jurors to prove you are either a desperate,
11:59
Speaker 1: terrified victim or a calculating sociopath.
12:02
Speaker 2: Completely dependent on the narrative spun by the lawyer holding
12:05
Speaker 2: the picture. Yeah.
12:06
Speaker 1: But whatever the reality was behind those closed doors, whatever
12:09
Speaker 1: was actually driving that less-stress announcement... We know that the
12:12
Speaker 1: peace did not last because just a little over two
12:16
Speaker 1: months after that idyllic April press release, the ultimate unimaginable
12:20
Speaker 1: stressor occurred.
12:21
Speaker 2: Right. The morning of July 8th. This is where the
12:24
Speaker 2: public facade completely collapses into a forensic reality.
12:27
Speaker 1: Let's move to that morning because this is where the
12:29
Speaker 1: timeline becomes incredibly dense. And it contains what I think
12:32
Speaker 1: is the most gripping and complex part of this entire case.
12:35
Speaker 1: The competing 911 calls.
12:37
Speaker 2: The calls are where everything pivots.
12:39
Speaker 1: They really are. So we are at roughly 11.20 in
12:42
Speaker 1: the morning. A neighbor calls 911. They had just found
12:46
Speaker 1: Dane Smith on the back porch of his own house,
12:48
Speaker 1: and he had been shot in the head.
12:50
Speaker 2: Just a horrific scene for a neighbor to stumble upon.
12:53
Speaker 1: Unimaginable. Now, thanks to the local reporting by WWATV that
12:58
Speaker 1: was highlighted in our source material, we have the details
13:01
Speaker 1: from that neighbor's 911 audio.
13:03
Speaker 2: Right.
13:04
Speaker 1: The dispatcher, as they are trained to do, tries to
13:07
Speaker 1: gather immediate threat intelligence. They ask, who shot Dame? And
13:11
Speaker 1: the neighbor says two incredibly important damning things.
13:15
Speaker 2: Which sets the entire tone for the police. Yes.
13:18
Speaker 1: First, they note that the couple had been fighting. Second,
13:22
Speaker 1: they state that the wife, Charlotte, just left.
13:24
Speaker 2: From a law enforcement perspective, right there, in the immediate
13:27
Speaker 2: chaotic aftermath of the shooting, the initial narrative begins to
13:31
Speaker 2: solidify in the dispatcher's mind and for the responding officers
13:34
Speaker 2: who are on their way.
13:35
Speaker 1: They think they know exactly what they're walking into.
13:37
Speaker 2: Exactly. You have an eyewitness, or at least an earwitness,
13:41
Speaker 2: placing the husband and wife in an active dispute, and crucially,
13:45
Speaker 2: placing the wife fleeing the scene of a fatal shooting.
13:49
Speaker 2: That sets a very specific high alert tone for the
13:52
Speaker 2: police response. They are now actively looking for a fleeing
13:55
Speaker 2: murder suspect.
13:57
Speaker 1: But then we get the twist. And it is a
13:59
Speaker 1: massive structural twist that turns this entire investigation on its head.
14:05
Speaker 1: Charlotte also made a 911 call. that very same day.
14:08
Speaker 2: Right, the second call.
14:09
Speaker 1: And according to the details provided by WWA, in her call,
14:12
Speaker 1: she didn't just report a shooting. She claimed that Dane
14:15
Speaker 1: had raped her, that he had physically held her down,
14:17
Speaker 1: and that he was violently abusing her.
14:19
Speaker 2: This is the crux of the entire legal battle right here.
14:22
Speaker 2: You have two simultaneous realities being presented through the county
14:25
Speaker 2: dispatch system at the exact same time.
14:27
Speaker 1: It's mind-boggling.
14:28
Speaker 2: The dispatcher is receiving one call painting the picture of
14:31
Speaker 2: a domestic dispute ending in murder with a fleeing suspect,
14:34
Speaker 2: and another call painting the picture of of a woman
14:36
Speaker 2: surviving a horrific violent sexual assault by using lethal force.
14:40
Speaker 1: Here's where it gets really interesting, though, because I want you,
14:43
Speaker 1: the listener, to think about the immense terrifying weight of
14:47
Speaker 1: these two conflicting calls.
14:49
Speaker 2: It's a massive contradiction.
14:50
Speaker 1: On one hand, you have a dead man on a
14:52
Speaker 1: porch and a wife who drove away. On the other,
14:55
Speaker 1: you have a woman claiming the most horrific, violating trauma imaginable.
15:00
Speaker 1: And it brings up a fundamental question of self-preservation.
15:03
Speaker 2: Which is?
15:04
Speaker 1: If someone is truly being violently sexually assaulted, if someone
15:07
Speaker 1: is being held down against their will by a stronger person,
15:11
Speaker 1: isn't lethal force completely and unequivocally justified?
15:14
Speaker 2: Morally and legally, yes.
15:15
Speaker 1: So how on earth does the law or a jury
15:19
Speaker 1: determine who the real victim is in a situation where
15:22
Speaker 1: the only other person in the room who knows the
15:24
Speaker 1: truth is dead?
15:26
Speaker 2: What's fascinating here is how the specific legal mechanisms of
15:29
Speaker 2: self-defense are actually operate in practice because it is not
15:33
Speaker 2: always as straightforward as people assume from watching movies.
15:36
Speaker 1: I imagine it varies a lot depending on where you are.
15:39
Speaker 2: It varies wildly by jurisdiction. But in North Carolina, the
15:43
Speaker 2: source material outlines the legal bar very clearly. In that state,
15:47
Speaker 2: you are legally permitted to use deadly force if you
15:51
Speaker 2: are in reasonable fear for your life or if you
15:54
Speaker 2: are facing imminent great bodily harm.
15:56
Speaker 1: And a sexual assault would cover that.
15:58
Speaker 2: A violent sexual assault. Absolutely meets the criteria for imminent
16:02
Speaker 2: great bodily harm. And importantly, and this is a huge
16:06
Speaker 2: critical factor in this specific case, North Carolina recognizes the
16:10
Speaker 2: Castle Doctrine.
16:11
Speaker 1: OK, stop right there and explain that, because I know
16:13
Speaker 1: some states require you to try and run away before
16:15
Speaker 1: you fight back.
16:16
Speaker 2: Right. The duty to retreat. In some jurisdictions, if an
16:19
Speaker 2: intruder breaks in or if you are attacked, the law
16:22
Speaker 2: requires you to attempt to safely retreat before using force.
16:25
Speaker 2: You have to try to run out the back door
16:27
Speaker 2: or climb out a window before you are legally allowed
16:29
Speaker 2: to use lethal force.
16:30
Speaker 1: Which seems crazy when you're in your own home.
16:32
Speaker 2: Many people agree with you, which is why under North
16:35
Speaker 2: Carolina's castle doctrine, your home is your castle. You do
16:38
Speaker 2: not have to try to run out the front door
16:39
Speaker 2: before you defend yourself. You are legally allowed to stand
16:43
Speaker 2: your ground in your own house and meet force with force.
16:46
Speaker 1: So applying that to Charlotte Smith, if her claim of
16:49
Speaker 1: being held down and violently assaulted on that porch is true,
16:53
Speaker 1: shooting him is not murder. It is a legally protected,
16:56
Speaker 1: justifiable act of self-defense.
16:58
Speaker 2: Potentially, yes. On paper, if the assault happened exactly as
17:02
Speaker 2: she claimed, she has a robust self-defense argument. But here
17:07
Speaker 2: is the crucial missing puzzle piece that Kristen Hokiotis zeroed
17:10
Speaker 2: in on in her analysis.
17:12
Speaker 1: What's that?
17:12
Speaker 2: It all comes down to the microscopic timeline of events.
17:15
Speaker 2: When exactly did Charlotte make her 911 call in relation
17:18
Speaker 2: to pulling the trigger? And what was the exact level
17:20
Speaker 2: of the threat at the precise millisecond she fired the gun?
17:23
Speaker 1: I hear that, but think about the practical reality of
17:26
Speaker 1: an assault. Why does the exact timing of the call
17:28
Speaker 1: matter so much? I mean, if the assault happened, it happened.
17:31
Speaker 1: The trauma is real regardless of when she dialed the phone.
17:34
Speaker 2: The trauma is definitely real, yes. But the legal justification
17:38
Speaker 2: for lethal force is entirely dependent on time.
17:42
Speaker 1: Okay, how so?
17:43
Speaker 2: Self-defense in criminal law is exclusively about neutralizing an active,
17:47
Speaker 2: imminent threat. It is not a license for retaliation after
17:51
Speaker 2: the fact. So let's look at the possible scenarios the
17:54
Speaker 2: investigators are going to be tearing apart. Right. Did she
17:58
Speaker 2: call 911 while she was barricaded in a bedroom with
18:01
Speaker 2: him actively trying to break the door down, and then
18:04
Speaker 2: she shot him when he breached the room?
18:05
Speaker 1: That would clearly be self-defense.
18:07
Speaker 2: Yes. Or did she manage to dial 911 during a
18:11
Speaker 2: momentary chaotic pause in a violent physical struggle on the porch?
18:15
Speaker 2: Those scenarios strongly support an active threat.
18:18
Speaker 1: Okay, I see where you're going with this.
18:19
Speaker 2: But look at the alternative. And this is exactly what
18:22
Speaker 2: the prosecution will be hunting for. Did she shoot him,
18:25
Speaker 2: incapacitate him so he's bleeding on the porch, and then
18:27
Speaker 2: make the call? Because if the threat was already neutralized
18:30
Speaker 2: by the gunshot, if he is lying on the ground, unarmed,
18:33
Speaker 2: unable to move or continue the assault, the legal justification
18:37
Speaker 2: for whatever she does next changes dramatically. She is no
18:41
Speaker 2: longer in imminent danger.
18:43
Speaker 1: That makes a lot of sense. If the threat is neutralized,
18:46
Speaker 1: the right to self-defense basically ends in that moment. Which
18:49
Speaker 1: brings us to her next action. Because once that gun
18:51
Speaker 1: went off, whether it was during an assault or otherwise,
18:54
Speaker 1: she didn't just call 911, sit down on the porch steps,
18:57
Speaker 1: and wait for the squad cars to pull up.
18:59
Speaker 2: No, she certainly did not. And her actions in the
19:02
Speaker 2: immediate aftermath lead us into one of the most fiercely
19:05
Speaker 2: debated areas of criminal law, the psychology and the legality
19:09
Speaker 2: of flight.
19:09
Speaker 1: Let's really dig into this, because this is wild. Charlotte
19:13
Speaker 1: did not stay at the scene. As the neighbor reported, she, quote,
19:16
Speaker 1: just left. Right. But she didn't just walk over to
19:19
Speaker 1: the neighbor's yard in shock. She was arrested later that day,
19:22
Speaker 1: completely out of the county. She was found in Montgomery County,
19:25
Speaker 1: North Carolina.
19:25
Speaker 2: Which is not close.
19:27
Speaker 1: No. For context, to get from Elizabethtown in Bladen County
19:31
Speaker 1: to Montgomery County is roughly a two-hour drive. That is
19:34
Speaker 1: a significant distance to cover after a fatal shooting.
19:37
Speaker 2: It takes a lot of deliberate action to drive for
19:39
Speaker 2: two hours.
19:40
Speaker 1: It does. And when you look at her mugshot from
19:42
Speaker 1: that eventual arrest... which the source notes was broadcast on
19:46
Speaker 1: W808 TV, you can see visible, profound anguish on her face.
19:52
Speaker 1: She doesn't look defiant. She looks utterly destroyed.
19:55
Speaker 2: The visual presentation of a defendant post-incident is always fascinating.
20:00
Speaker 2: Their demeanor, their expressions, whether their clothes are torn, is
20:04
Speaker 2: always heavily scrutinized by both investigators and eventually a jury.
20:07
Speaker 1: Because it tells a story.
20:08
Speaker 2: Exactly. But a photograph is static. It is the dynamic action,
20:13
Speaker 2: the two solid hours of driving away from a dead
20:16
Speaker 2: body that is going to form the central pillar of
20:18
Speaker 2: the state's murder case against her.
20:19
Speaker 1: But let me argue this from a purely human perspective
20:22
Speaker 1: for a second. And I want you, the listener, to
20:24
Speaker 1: think about this in the context of your own biology.
20:27
Speaker 1: Let's talk about the universal fight or flight response.
20:29
Speaker 2: Okay, let's hear it.
20:30
Speaker 1: This isn't a legal theory. It is hardwired into our
20:33
Speaker 1: autonomic nervous system. It is how human beings have survived
20:37
Speaker 1: for millennia. If you just survived a horrific, traumatizing sexual assault,
20:43
Speaker 1: if you were pushed to the absolute brink where you
20:46
Speaker 1: had to shoot your own husband in the head to
20:47
Speaker 1: save your own life, your brain is flooded with a
20:50
Speaker 1: toxic cocktail of adrenaline and cortisol.
20:53
Speaker 2: Your body is basically overriding your logic.
20:56
Speaker 1: Completely. Your prefrontal cortex, the part of your brain responsible
20:59
Speaker 1: for logic, reason, and saying, I should sit here and
21:01
Speaker 1: wait for the authorities, essentially shuts down. Your primordial instinct
21:05
Speaker 1: simply screams, run.
21:07
Speaker 2: Just get away from the danger.
21:08
Speaker 1: Get as far away from the site of the trauma,
21:10
Speaker 1: the site of the threat, as physically possible. It's like
21:12
Speaker 1: an animal escaping a trap. It doesn't wait around to
21:15
Speaker 1: see who set it. It just bolts. So my question is,
21:17
Speaker 1: why does the legal system view running away with such intense,
21:21
Speaker 1: almost punitive suspicion... when it is a perfectly natural, biologically
21:26
Speaker 1: predictable human reaction to extreme terror.
21:28
Speaker 2: You have just perfectly articulated the exact argument a seasoned
21:32
Speaker 2: defense attorney is going to make to a jury. Oh, absolutely.
21:35
Speaker 2: They would bring in expert witnesses, trauma psychologists, neurobiologists, to
21:40
Speaker 2: testify about the amygdala hijack. They'd explain trauma responses and
21:44
Speaker 2: how the autonomic nervous system completely overrides logical decision-making. in
21:49
Speaker 2: the aftermath of a near-death experience.
21:51
Speaker 1: Right, because who thinks clearly after that?
21:53
Speaker 2: Nobody does. So they will paint her flight as the
21:56
Speaker 2: ultimate proof of her terror. It wasn't guilt, it was
22:00
Speaker 2: blind panic.
22:00
Speaker 1: That makes total sense to me.
22:02
Speaker 2: But here is the problem. The law, unfortunately for defendants,
22:06
Speaker 2: often operates on a much colder, more calculated, centuries-old logic.
22:11
Speaker 1: Yeah, logic doesn't care about adrenaline.
22:13
Speaker 2: Exactly. While psychology understands trauma, Criminal law relies heavily on
22:18
Speaker 2: precedent and human behavioral assumptions. There is a deeply entrenched
22:22
Speaker 2: legal concept known as consciousness of guilt.
22:25
Speaker 1: Consciousness of guilt. That sounds incredibly ominous. What does that
22:29
Speaker 1: actually mean in a courtroom setting?
22:31
Speaker 2: It is ominous. And it is incredibly difficult for a
22:34
Speaker 2: defense to overcome. Hoke Yodas explains in our analysis that
22:38
Speaker 2: while fleeing the scene of a crime doesn't automatically prove
22:41
Speaker 2: that you committed a murder, it's not an automatic guilty verdict,
22:44
Speaker 2: it carries massive evidentiary weight.
22:46
Speaker 1: How massive.
22:48
Speaker 2: In fact, there was a special formalized jury instruction for it.
22:51
Speaker 2: At the very end of a trial, right before the
22:54
Speaker 2: jury goes back to deliberate, the judge will literally read
22:57
Speaker 2: them the law. And the judge will instruct the jury
23:00
Speaker 2: that they are legally permitted to consider the defendant's flight
23:03
Speaker 2: from the scene as tangible evidence that the defendant knew
23:06
Speaker 2: they had done something wrong.
23:07
Speaker 1: Wow. The judge explicitly tells them that.
23:10
Speaker 2: Yes. The underlying legal logic is an old maxim. The
23:14
Speaker 2: wicked flee when no man pursues. Innocent people who act
23:18
Speaker 2: in justified, righteous self-defense want the police to arrive.
23:22
Speaker 1: Because they want to be protected.
23:23
Speaker 2: Right. They want the authorities there so they can explain
23:26
Speaker 2: what happened, surrender the weapon safely, and be protected from
23:29
Speaker 2: any further harm. Guilty people, on the other hand, who
23:32
Speaker 2: know they just committed a crime, run to avoid capture.
23:35
Speaker 1: So the prosecution doesn't even have to scientifically prove she
23:39
Speaker 1: wasn't scared. They will just pound the table... Point to
23:42
Speaker 1: the two-hour drive and say to the jury, if she
23:45
Speaker 1: was truly the victim of an assault, if she had
23:47
Speaker 1: nothing to hide, why didn't she wait for the cops
23:50
Speaker 1: to protect her?
23:51
Speaker 2: Exactly. Why'd she drive past dozens of safe places?
23:55
Speaker 1: Yeah.
23:56
Speaker 2: Hokiotis actually outlines what she calls the ideal self-defense scenario
24:01
Speaker 2: from a defense lawyer's perspective.
24:03
Speaker 1: What does that look like?
24:04
Speaker 2: When a defense attorney gets a case, they are hoping
24:06
Speaker 2: for a very specific sequence of events. In a perfect world,
24:11
Speaker 2: The client neutralizes the threat, immediately calls 911 themselves, stays
24:16
Speaker 2: on the scene, puts the weapon down, and waits for
24:19
Speaker 2: law enforcement with their hands visible.
24:20
Speaker 1: Just a completely clean, transparent surrender.
24:23
Speaker 2: Yes. Or, at the very most, if the client is
24:26
Speaker 2: still absolutely terrified that the threat might resume, like maybe
24:30
Speaker 2: they think the attacker is going to get back up,
24:31
Speaker 2: they get in their car and drive to a safe,
24:33
Speaker 2: highly public location.
24:34
Speaker 1: Like a hospital or something.
24:36
Speaker 2: Right. They drive to the parking lot of the nearest
24:39
Speaker 2: police station. or a crowded gas station, and they stop
24:42
Speaker 2: running the absolute second they are surrounded by safety and
24:46
Speaker 2: the imminent threat dissipates. They seek authority. They don't evade it.
24:50
Speaker 1: But driving two hours away across county lines.
24:53
Speaker 2: Driving two hours away is a massive, almost insurmountable hurdle.
24:57
Speaker 2: As Hokiotis points out, she didn't just run out the
25:00
Speaker 2: back door and hide in the neighbor's shed until the
25:02
Speaker 2: sirens arrived. She got in a vehicle and drove for
25:05
Speaker 2: multiple hours.
25:06
Speaker 1: Which gives her time to think.
25:07
Speaker 2: Exactly. Prosecution is going to hammer on the idea that
25:11
Speaker 2: she had two full hours for her adrenaline to drop,
25:14
Speaker 2: two hours to pull over and call the police again,
25:16
Speaker 2: two hours to realize she was safe, but she kept driving.
25:19
Speaker 1: They will say she was fleeing the legal consequences, not
25:22
Speaker 1: a physical threat.
25:23
Speaker 2: Exactly. They will argue she was fleeing a premeditated murder.
25:28
Speaker 2: Overcoming that deeply ingrained assumption of guilt is going to
25:30
Speaker 2: require the defense team to present hard, undeniable physical evidence
25:35
Speaker 2: of the sexual assault she alleged in her 911 call.
25:38
Speaker 2: They need proof that her terror was justified.
25:41
Speaker 1: Which brings us to a part of the source material
25:43
Speaker 1: that absolutely stunned me. It honestly feels like something out
25:47
Speaker 1: of a Kafka novel.
25:49
Speaker 2: It's one of the most frustrating parts of the legal
25:50
Speaker 2: system in that state.
25:52
Speaker 1: To defend against this heavy assumption of guilt, to prove
25:55
Speaker 1: the assault actually happened, her attorneys need evidence. They need
25:59
Speaker 1: the police reports, the crime scene photos, the forensic data.
26:02
Speaker 2: The basics of any defense. Right.
26:04
Speaker 1: But getting that evidence involves a shocking procedural hurdle that
26:09
Speaker 1: is specific to the state of North Carolina. This is
26:12
Speaker 1: where we need to talk about the concept of the
26:13
Speaker 1: blindfolded defense and the bizarre reality of North Carolina's discovery laws.
26:17
Speaker 2: This is a nuance of the legal system that most
26:20
Speaker 2: citizens are completely blissfully unaware of until they, or someone
26:24
Speaker 2: they love, are suddenly caught in the gears of it.
26:27
Speaker 2: It goes against everything we assume about a fair trial
26:30
Speaker 2: from watching courtroom dramas on TV.
26:32
Speaker 1: Okay, so let me lay this out because I had
26:34
Speaker 1: to read this section of the transcript twice to make
26:36
Speaker 1: sure I understood it correctly. According to the legal expert
26:39
Speaker 1: in our source, under North Carolina law, the defense team
26:43
Speaker 1: is not statutorily entitled to any discovery while the case
26:46
Speaker 1: is only charged and pending in district court.
26:50
Speaker 2: And just to clarify the terminology for everyone listening, discovery
26:53
Speaker 2: is the absolute bedrock of a legal defense. It means
26:57
Speaker 2: all the evidence the state has gathered against you.
26:59
Speaker 1: Yeah, everything.
27:00
Speaker 2: It includes the police reports, the witness statements, the 901
27:03
Speaker 2: audio tapes, the crime scene photos, the autopsy reports, the
27:06
Speaker 2: forensic analysis. It is the state's entire playback.
27:10
Speaker 1: Right. And in North Carolina, at the beginning of the case,
27:13
Speaker 1: the defense doesn't get to see a single page of it.
27:15
Speaker 2: Not a single page.
27:17
Speaker 1: They only get access to the state's evidence once the
27:19
Speaker 1: case is formally indicted by a grand jury and moved
27:22
Speaker 1: up from district court to superior court. And here is
27:25
Speaker 1: the kicker, the part that is truly terrifying to me.
27:28
Speaker 1: Depending on how badly backlogged that specific county's court system is,
27:33
Speaker 1: getting that grand jury indictment can take months.
27:35
Speaker 2: Or even longer.
27:36
Speaker 1: In some cases, the source says it can take up
27:39
Speaker 1: to a full year. So I just want you to
27:41
Speaker 1: put yourself in Charlotte Smith's shoes for a second. You
27:44
Speaker 1: are locked in a county jail cell. You are facing
27:47
Speaker 1: a first-degree murder charge, which means you are facing the
27:50
Speaker 1: rest of your life in a cage. And your own lawyer...
27:54
Speaker 1: The person you have hired to fight for your life
27:57
Speaker 1: isn't legally allowed to see the state's evidence against you
28:00
Speaker 1: for potentially an entire year.
28:01
Speaker 2: It is wildly imbalanced.
28:03
Speaker 1: How is this not a massive, unconstitutional, systemic disadvantage? It
28:07
Speaker 1: sounds like you are forcing the defense to fight a
28:09
Speaker 1: heavyweight boxing match with one hand tied behind their back
28:12
Speaker 1: while blindfolded.
28:13
Speaker 2: If we connect this to the bigger picture of the
28:15
Speaker 2: American justice system, it absolutely highlights the inherent structural disadvantages
28:21
Speaker 2: defendants face. From the exact moment of arrest, you have
28:24
Speaker 2: the full weight, the unlimited budget, and the forensic resources
28:28
Speaker 2: of the state mobilized against you.
28:30
Speaker 1: They have entire departments working on this.
28:32
Speaker 2: Yes. And yet, in jurisdictions like North Carolina, you are
28:36
Speaker 2: legally kept completely in the dark during the most critical
28:39
Speaker 2: early stages of the case. The state knows everything, and
28:42
Speaker 2: you know absolutely nothing. Okiotis actually points out in the
28:45
Speaker 2: source material that she constantly has to explain this bizarre,
28:49
Speaker 2: frustrating rule to her clients. And it applies across the
28:52
Speaker 2: board from minor misdemeanors to capital felonies.
28:56
Speaker 1: But I just don't understand the logic. What is the
28:58
Speaker 1: state's justification for hiding the evidence? Why not just hand
29:02
Speaker 1: it over so the defense can prepare for trial?
29:04
Speaker 2: The historical legal justification usually revolves around protecting the integrity
29:08
Speaker 2: of the investigation.
29:10
Speaker 1: Protecting it from what?
29:11
Speaker 2: The state argues that if they hand over all the
29:13
Speaker 2: witness statements and police reports immediately before a grand jury
29:16
Speaker 2: has even officially indicted the person, A guilty defendant might
29:20
Speaker 2: use that information to tamper with witnesses, destroy uncollected evidence,
29:24
Speaker 2: or craft a fabricated alibi that perfectly matches the police timeline.
29:29
Speaker 1: Ah, so it's to prevent cheating, basically.
29:32
Speaker 2: Right. By withholding discovery until the indictment, the state secures
29:36
Speaker 2: their case first. But as you pointed out, the practical
29:39
Speaker 2: reality for defendants attorney trying to protect an innocent client
29:42
Speaker 2: is incredibly daunting.
29:44
Speaker 1: So what does a defense attorney even do in that situation?
29:47
Speaker 1: If you can't see the police reports, do you just
29:49
Speaker 1: sit around in your office and wait for a year
29:51
Speaker 1: until the paperwork finally clears the grand jury?
29:54
Speaker 2: Absolutely not. If a defense attorney waits a year to
29:57
Speaker 2: start working, they have already lost the case. They have
30:00
Speaker 2: to go on the offensive immediately, but they have to
30:02
Speaker 2: do it completely blind.
30:04
Speaker 1: How do you investigate blindly?
30:06
Speaker 2: Well, Hokyota stresses that the very first, most vital step
30:10
Speaker 2: in this scenario is an incredibly detailed, grueling client interview.
30:15
Speaker 2: Because you don't have the police reports to tell you
30:17
Speaker 2: what the state thinks happened, you have to build your
30:19
Speaker 2: entire foundational defense around what your client says happened.
30:23
Speaker 1: You have to rely purely on their memory.
30:25
Speaker 2: Yes. You have to sit with them in the jail.
30:28
Speaker 2: and walked through every single second of the event to
30:31
Speaker 2: establish a concrete timeline. You have to ask, where were
30:34
Speaker 2: you standing? Which hand held the gun? Where was he?
30:37
Speaker 2: What exactly did he say?
30:39
Speaker 1: But relying solely on the client's memory after a traumatic
30:42
Speaker 1: event seems incredibly risky. What about the physical evidence of
30:46
Speaker 1: the sexual assault Charlotte claimed on the 911 call? I mean,
30:50
Speaker 1: a year is a long time.
30:51
Speaker 2: Exactly. That is the true danger of this blind discovery law.
30:55
Speaker 2: It initiates a frantic race against the clock.
30:57
Speaker 1: Because evidence disappears.
30:59
Speaker 2: If Charlotte was violently sexually assaulted and physically held down
31:01
Speaker 2: on that porch, as she claimed, there's a very high
31:04
Speaker 2: probability that she sustained physical injuries. Bruising on her arms, scratches,
31:09
Speaker 2: defensive wounds, perhaps torn clothing.
31:11
Speaker 1: Crites, signs of a struggle.
31:12
Speaker 2: But biological evidence is fleeting. Bruises heal and fade in
31:15
Speaker 2: a matter of weeks. Scratches scab over and disappear. If
31:19
Speaker 2: the defense patiently waits a year to get the discovery file...
31:22
Speaker 2: just to see if the police bothered to photograph those
31:24
Speaker 2: specific injuries, they might open the file and find out
31:27
Speaker 2: the police entirely ignored her claims and took zero pictures. Oh,
31:31
Speaker 2: my God. And by that point, a year later, the
31:34
Speaker 2: bruises are gone. The evidence is gone forever.
31:37
Speaker 1: So the defense can't trust the police to document the
31:40
Speaker 1: exculpatory evidence. The defense investigator has to scramble to find
31:44
Speaker 1: and document that evidence immediately on their own.
31:47
Speaker 2: Yes, and it is a logistical nightmare. Hokiotis notes that generally...
31:52
Speaker 2: Standard protocol dictates that when someone is booked into a
31:55
Speaker 2: county jail for a serious, violent crime like murder, the
31:59
Speaker 2: intake process involves taking full-body booking photos.
32:02
Speaker 1: Right. They document you when you get there.
32:04
Speaker 2: Theoretically, those intake photos should document any pre-existing injuries upon arrival.
32:09
Speaker 2: But she also notes, with the skepticism of a seasoned
32:12
Speaker 2: defense attorney, that you cannot simply trust that the jail
32:16
Speaker 2: staff did a thorough, high-resolution job.
32:18
Speaker 1: Right. They're not crime scene photographers.
32:20
Speaker 2: Exactly. You can't trust that they got the right angles
32:23
Speaker 2: or adequate lighting to show a faint bruise. You have
32:25
Speaker 2: to send your own private investigator into the jail to
32:28
Speaker 2: professionally photograph those injuries.
32:30
Speaker 1: That seems straightforward enough, though. Your client is in jail.
32:33
Speaker 1: You send your guy in to take pictures.
32:35
Speaker 2: It should be straightforward, but it rarely is. Depending on
32:39
Speaker 2: the specific, often rigid protocols of that particular county sheriff
32:43
Speaker 2: who runs the jail, you might not be allowed to
32:45
Speaker 2: just walk in with a camera.
32:47
Speaker 1: They won't just let you in.
32:48
Speaker 2: Not always. You might have to draft an emergency motion,
32:50
Speaker 2: go before a judge, and fight for a court order
32:53
Speaker 2: just to compel the sheriff to allow your investigator into
32:56
Speaker 2: the holding facility with photographic equipment.
32:59
Speaker 1: Just to take a picture of a bruise. Yes.
33:02
Speaker 2: It is a massive procedural headache requiring hours of legal
33:06
Speaker 2: work at a moment when time is absolutely of the
33:09
Speaker 2: essence and evidence is literally fading from your client's skin.
33:13
Speaker 1: It's terrifying, honestly. The idea that vital, corroborating physical evidence
33:17
Speaker 1: of a violent assault evidence that could literally mean the
33:20
Speaker 1: difference between a justified self-defense acquittal and life in prison
33:23
Speaker 1: could just quietly fade away as a bruise heals, all
33:26
Speaker 1: while lawyers are bogged down arguing over court orders and
33:29
Speaker 1: grand jury delays.
33:30
Speaker 2: It is a staggering systemic flaw.
33:33
Speaker 1: It really is. But while the defense is scrambling in
33:36
Speaker 1: the dark, desperately trying to document injuries, we have to
33:40
Speaker 1: recognize that the prosecution is not having an easy time either.
33:43
Speaker 2: No, they have their own massive hurdles.
33:45
Speaker 1: They are facing their own distinct and frankly grim challenge
33:49
Speaker 1: because their star witness, the only person who can contradict
33:52
Speaker 1: Charlotte's story, is dead.
33:55
Speaker 2: Which fundamentally pivots the entire nature and strategy of the
33:58
Speaker 2: trial for them.
33:59
Speaker 1: Let's delve deeply into the prosecution's puzzle here. With Dane
34:03
Speaker 1: Smith deceased on the porch and assuming there were no
34:05
Speaker 1: other eyewitnesses present, no cameras, no neighbors looking over the
34:08
Speaker 1: fence at that exact moment, The prosecution cannot just put
34:12
Speaker 1: someone on the stand to point at the defendant and say,
34:15
Speaker 1: I saw her do it in cold blood.
34:16
Speaker 2: Right. There is no direct narrator for the state.
34:18
Speaker 1: Exactly. They are deprived of direct testimony. They have to
34:22
Speaker 1: rely entirely on circumstantial evidence and physical forensics.
34:26
Speaker 2: They essentially have to reconstruct a fluid, dynamic reality from
34:30
Speaker 2: the static echoes left behind at the scene. They have
34:33
Speaker 2: to make the silent evidence speak.
34:35
Speaker 1: Well said. And the types of evidence they will rely
34:38
Speaker 1: on are incredibly complex. They are going to be looking
34:40
Speaker 1: at the physical positioning of Dane's body when he was found.
34:44
Speaker 1: They will analyze the exact trajectory of the fatal gunshot.
34:48
Speaker 2: Which tells a huge part of the story.
34:49
Speaker 1: It does. And of course, in today's world, the most
34:52
Speaker 1: critical piece of the puzzle will likely be digital forensics,
34:56
Speaker 1: which means pulling every single text message, location ping, and
35:01
Speaker 1: piece of data from both of their smartphones.
35:04
Speaker 2: The digital footprint is everything now.
35:06
Speaker 1: It really is. And the prosecution has to take all
35:08
Speaker 1: of this circumstantial, often highly technical evidence, and weave it
35:13
Speaker 1: into a narrative compelling enough to meet the highest, most
35:16
Speaker 1: rigorous standard in the entire legal system. Proof beyond a
35:20
Speaker 1: reasonable doubt.
35:20
Speaker 2: Which is an incredibly steep hill to climb, especially when
35:23
Speaker 2: the defendant is claiming self-defense. Right. The expert in the
35:26
Speaker 2: source material, Hokiotis, makes a point to contrast this criminal
35:30
Speaker 2: standard with civil court to really highlight just how difficult
35:33
Speaker 2: it is. In a civil case, say, a lawsuit over
35:36
Speaker 2: a contract or a personal injury, the standard of proof
35:39
Speaker 2: is a preponderance of the evidence.
35:40
Speaker 1: What does that mean exactly?
35:42
Speaker 2: Adjun a set of scales. In civil court, you just
35:44
Speaker 2: have to tip the scales to 51%. You just have
35:47
Speaker 2: to convince the jury that it is more likely than
35:50
Speaker 2: not that your version of events is the truth. It's
35:53
Speaker 2: a slight tilt.
35:54
Speaker 1: Okay, that seems achievable.
35:56
Speaker 2: But in criminal court, the stakes are ultimate. When the
35:59
Speaker 2: state is trying to take away a citizen's liberty, or
36:02
Speaker 2: in some cases their life, 51% is not enough. You
36:06
Speaker 2: have to eliminate all reasonable doubt from the minds of
36:09
Speaker 2: 12 different people. You have to be practically certain.
36:12
Speaker 1: And to get to that level of certainty, the prosecution
36:15
Speaker 1: is going to lean heavily on community sentiment and that
36:18
Speaker 1: curated public image we discussed earlier to paint their picture
36:21
Speaker 1: of the victim, Dane.
36:23
Speaker 2: They need the jury to sympathize with him.
36:24
Speaker 1: They need the jury to see him not as an abuser,
36:27
Speaker 1: but as a victim. His obituary, which was undoubtedly read
36:30
Speaker 1: by half the town, called him a wonderful man and
36:33
Speaker 1: referred to his sudden death as a tragedy beyond belief.
36:37
Speaker 1: They're going to present him as the beloved, hardworking, local
36:40
Speaker 1: HVAC guy who was inexplicably gunned down by his wife.
36:45
Speaker 2: The character of the victim plays a huge role.
36:47
Speaker 1: But so, what does this all mean when it comes
36:49
Speaker 1: to the digital evidence? Because the hosts of the Law
36:52
Speaker 1: and Crime segment brought up a really interesting modern comparison
36:55
Speaker 1: between to the recent news surrounding Sean Diddy Combs.
36:58
Speaker 2: Yes, that was a very relevant comparison.
37:00
Speaker 1: He pointed out how modern trials, no matter how much
37:03
Speaker 1: PR or public goodwill a person has, often hinge entirely
37:07
Speaker 1: on hidden, deleted text messages. How does a jury reconcile
37:11
Speaker 1: a perfect public image, the beloved newspaper publisher and the
37:15
Speaker 1: successful businessman, with a digital footprint that might show a
37:19
Speaker 1: completely different, deeply toxic reality?
37:22
Speaker 2: That tension between the public face and the private data
37:25
Speaker 2: is where the forensic puzzle gets truly fascinating. Prosecutors use
37:29
Speaker 2: this data to methodically build a voice for the voiceless victim.
37:33
Speaker 1: Okay, how do they do that?
37:34
Speaker 2: They're going to take whatever official statement Charlotte eventually gives,
37:37
Speaker 2: or the initial claim she made on that 911 call
37:39
Speaker 2: about being held down and assaulted, and they're going to
37:41
Speaker 2: lay that narrative directly over top of the cold, hard
37:45
Speaker 2: forensic reality to see where the inconsistencies are. Because science
37:50
Speaker 2: doesn't lie, even if people do.
37:52
Speaker 1: Give me a specific example of how that clash between
37:55
Speaker 1: statement and science works in a courtroom. Let's play it out.
37:58
Speaker 2: Okay, let's play out a hypothetical based on her claims.
38:02
Speaker 2: Let's say Charlotte's official defense is that she was violently
38:06
Speaker 2: pinned down on her back on the wooden floor of
38:09
Speaker 2: the porch during a sexual assault. And in a desperate struggle,
38:13
Speaker 2: she managed to grab a handgun and shoot upward to
38:15
Speaker 2: get him off of her.
38:16
Speaker 1: Okay, that is a clear narrative of self-defense.
38:19
Speaker 2: Right. Now, the prosecution's forensics team is going to look
38:22
Speaker 2: at the blood spatter patterns on the porch, and the
38:25
Speaker 2: medical examiner is going to determine the exact bullet angle
38:28
Speaker 2: through the victim's skull.
38:30
Speaker 1: Right, the physical evidence.
38:31
Speaker 2: If the autopsy reveals that the bullet entered the top,
38:34
Speaker 2: the crown of Dane's head, and traveled downward into his neck,
38:38
Speaker 2: and the blood spatter experts testify that the cast-off blood
38:40
Speaker 2: is perfectly consistent with him sitting upright in a chair
38:44
Speaker 2: facing away from the door... then the physical evidence entirely
38:47
Speaker 2: contradicts her story of shooting upward from the ground. It
38:50
Speaker 2: suggests an execution-style ambush from behind, not a desperate struggle
38:55
Speaker 2: from below. If the physical evidence doesn't match the story,
38:59
Speaker 2: the self-defense claim completely crumbles.
39:01
Speaker 1: And what about the text messages? How do they reconstruct
39:04
Speaker 1: the emotional state of the marriage if one person is
39:06
Speaker 1: dead and the other is fighting for their life?
39:08
Speaker 2: The digital forensics will act as the emotional timeline of
39:11
Speaker 2: the relationship. Completely bypassing whatever they told their friends or
39:15
Speaker 2: posted on Facebook.
39:16
Speaker 1: It's the unfiltered truth.
39:18
Speaker 2: Exactly. Investigators aren't just looking at the day of the shooting.
39:21
Speaker 2: They will download the entire history of those phones. Do
39:25
Speaker 2: the couple's text messages over the last six months reveal
39:28
Speaker 2: a documented history of sharpness? expressing fear? Did she text
39:32
Speaker 2: her sister saying she was afraid to go home?
39:34
Speaker 1: Which would support her self-defense claim.
39:36
Speaker 2: Yes. Are there texts from Dane apologizing for violent outbursts
39:40
Speaker 2: or promising not to hurt her again? If so, that
39:43
Speaker 2: bolsters her claim of being an abused woman.
39:46
Speaker 1: But what if it goes the other way?
39:47
Speaker 2: Conversely, do the messages show premeditated malice and calculation on
39:51
Speaker 2: her part? Are there texts to friends complaining about how
39:54
Speaker 2: much she hates him? Are there Internet searches on her
39:57
Speaker 2: phone asking about his life insurance policies or researching the
40:01
Speaker 2: castle doctrine laws in North Carolina weeks before the shooting?
40:04
Speaker 1: Oh, that would be incredibly damning.
40:06
Speaker 2: The phones will act as the silent, unbiased witnesses to
40:09
Speaker 2: what was really going on behind closed doors. They capture
40:12
Speaker 2: the raw, unfiltered thoughts of the couple.
40:14
Speaker 1: It's incredible to think about. It's like their cell phones
40:17
Speaker 1: hold the actual objective truth of the marriage completely stripped
40:21
Speaker 1: of the public relations spin they put on it for
40:23
Speaker 1: the town.
40:23
Speaker 2: The digital footprint doesn't care about your reputation.
40:26
Speaker 1: But taking all this highly contested, deeply personal, and heavily
40:31
Speaker 1: scientific evidence and presenting it to a jury is the
40:34
Speaker 1: final hurdle. And in a community where everyone knows your name,
40:38
Speaker 1: where your businesses were fixtures of daily life, That hurdle
40:41
Speaker 1: is exceptionally high.
40:43
Speaker 2: The jury selection process for this is going to be intense.
40:46
Speaker 1: Let's look at the reality of small town justice and
40:48
Speaker 1: the incredibly long road ahead for this case.
40:51
Speaker 2: The venue of a trial, the physical location where the
40:54
Speaker 2: jury is selected, is sometimes just as important, if not
40:58
Speaker 2: more so, than the actual facts of the case. Context
41:01
Speaker 2: is everything.
41:02
Speaker 1: Bladen County is extremely rural. The population is small. And
41:06
Speaker 1: as we established at the beginning, Charlotte was a prominent figure.
41:10
Speaker 1: She was the former newspaper publisher. She literally controlled the
41:14
Speaker 1: local headlines.
41:15
Speaker 2: She was a known entity.
41:16
Speaker 1: Very known. She was a school board candidate whose face
41:19
Speaker 1: was on signs in people's yards. You have to imagine
41:22
Speaker 1: the local gossip mill in Elizabethtown is just churning at
41:26
Speaker 1: maximum capacity right now.
41:27
Speaker 2: I'm sure it's all anyone is talking about.
41:30
Speaker 1: In a town where you essentially ran the local media
41:32
Speaker 1: and your dead husband was in and out of everyone's
41:34
Speaker 1: houses fixing their AC units, how can the court possibly
41:38
Speaker 1: find 12 impartial people to sit on a jury who
41:41
Speaker 1: haven't already made up their minds. Doesn't this deep community
41:44
Speaker 1: integration create a massive conflict of interest for a fair trial?
41:48
Speaker 2: This raises an important question about the fundamental nature of
41:51
Speaker 2: rural justice versus urban justice. It seems highly intuitive to
41:55
Speaker 2: most people that in a small town, you couldn't possibly
41:58
Speaker 2: get a fair trial in a high-profile case because everyone
42:01
Speaker 2: knows everyone and rumors spread like wildfire.
42:04
Speaker 1: Right, the jury pool is tainted from day one.
42:07
Speaker 2: But legally speaking, the threshold for moving a trial is
42:10
Speaker 2: much more complicated. Simply knowing people, even knowing the judge
42:15
Speaker 2: who's presiding over the case, or being on a first-name
42:17
Speaker 2: basis with the local police officers who investigated the crime,
42:21
Speaker 2: is not enough to legally force a trial to be
42:23
Speaker 2: moved to a different county.
42:24
Speaker 1: Wait, really? Just knowing the people involved or knowing the
42:27
Speaker 1: victim isn't an automatic disqualification?
42:29
Speaker 2: No, it is not. As Hokey Otis explains in her analysis,
42:33
Speaker 2: if you live and commit a crime in a rural
42:35
Speaker 2: county with a small population, You cannot get past the
42:38
Speaker 2: simple demographic fact that people know each other.
42:41
Speaker 1: That's just a reality of the geography.
42:42
Speaker 2: The legal system expects a certain amount of familiarity. The
42:46
Speaker 2: legal bar for a change of venue motion is exceedingly high.
42:49
Speaker 2: The defense cannot just say, well, the town is talking.
42:52
Speaker 1: So what do they have to prove?
42:53
Speaker 2: They must prove to a judge, usually through extensive polling
42:57
Speaker 2: and jury questioning during a process called voir dire, that
43:01
Speaker 2: the jury pool has been so thoroughly, irreparably prejudiced by
43:06
Speaker 2: pretrial publicity, and rumor that finding a fair, impartial panel
43:10
Speaker 2: of 12 people is physically impossible.
43:13
Speaker 1: That sounds almost impossible to prove.
43:15
Speaker 2: They have to prove that the media coverage has essentially
43:17
Speaker 2: poisoned the well beyond filtration.
43:19
Speaker 1: So unless the local news, the very news she used
43:22
Speaker 1: to run, has been running a 247 smear campaign against her,
43:27
Speaker 1: she's likely going to be tried by people who read
43:29
Speaker 1: her newspaper and people whose air conditioning was fixed by
43:33
Speaker 1: the man she shot.
43:34
Speaker 2: Exactly. The judge will ask the potential jurors, Even though
43:38
Speaker 2: you have heard about this case, can you set that
43:40
Speaker 2: aside and decide the verdict solely based on the evidence
43:42
Speaker 2: presented in this courtroom? If enough people say yes, the
43:45
Speaker 2: trial stays in Bladen County.
43:47
Speaker 1: That is wild.
43:48
Speaker 2: And the timeline for when she will actually face those people,
43:51
Speaker 2: when she will finally have her day in court, is grueling.
43:54
Speaker 2: The wheels of justice move incredibly slowly, especially in murder
43:58
Speaker 2: cases with complex forensics. Hokiotis estimates it could easily be
44:02
Speaker 2: a couple of years before this case even reaches the
44:04
Speaker 2: trial phase.
44:05
Speaker 1: A couple of years, two years of waiting. And where
44:07
Speaker 1: is Charlotte during this time?
44:09
Speaker 2: Well, the source material notes she is currently being held
44:11
Speaker 2: without bond in the county jail with a preliminary court
44:15
Speaker 2: date expected on July 24th. Right.
44:17
Speaker 1: And here is yet another unique, highly specific facet of
44:21
Speaker 1: North Carolina law that dictates her immediate future. For a
44:25
Speaker 1: first-degree murder charge, once the case is eventually indicted by
44:28
Speaker 1: the grand jury and moved up to superior court, the
44:31
Speaker 1: state is required to hold what is called a Rule
44:33
Speaker 1: 24 hearing.
44:34
Speaker 2: Yes, the Rule 24 hearing.
44:36
Speaker 1: Break that down for us. What exactly happens at a
44:38
Speaker 1: Rule 24 hearing?
44:39
Speaker 2: A Rule 24 hearing is a pivotal moment in a
44:41
Speaker 2: capital case. That is the hearing where the prosecution officially
44:45
Speaker 2: declares to the judge and to the defense whether they
44:48
Speaker 2: are seeking the death penalty or life in prison without
44:51
Speaker 2: the possibility of parole.
44:52
Speaker 1: Those are the maximum punishments.
44:53
Speaker 2: Those are the two maximum punishments for first-degree murder in
44:56
Speaker 2: the state of North Carolina. If the state declares the
44:59
Speaker 2: case as capital, meaning they are officially seeking the execution
45:03
Speaker 2: of the defendant, then bond is generally entirely off the table.
45:07
Speaker 1: You're staying in jail.
45:08
Speaker 2: Period. But if the state declares the case as non-capital,
45:12
Speaker 2: meaning they're only seeking life imprisonment, then Charlotte might have
45:16
Speaker 2: the right to have a bond set.
45:18
Speaker 1: You emphasize might have the right. Why is it not guaranteed?
45:22
Speaker 2: Because it is entirely at the discretion of the presiding judge.
45:26
Speaker 2: She would have the legal right to request a bond hearing,
45:28
Speaker 2: and her attorneys would argue she is a prominent community
45:31
Speaker 2: member with ties to the area. But the judge is
45:33
Speaker 2: under no obligation whatsoever to grant it.
45:36
Speaker 1: Especially considering her actions that day.
45:38
Speaker 2: Exactly. Given the extreme violence of the crime, and more importantly,
45:42
Speaker 2: the glaring flight risk demonstrated by her driving two hours
45:45
Speaker 2: away from the scene on the day of the shooting,
45:47
Speaker 2: a judge might simply look at her actions... declare her
45:50
Speaker 2: a flight risk or a danger to the community, and
45:53
Speaker 2: deny bond regardless of the non-capital status.
45:56
Speaker 1: Which means she stays locked up.
45:58
Speaker 2: Which means the grueling heavy reality for Charlotte Smith is
46:02
Speaker 2: that she could spend years sitting in a small county
46:05
Speaker 2: jail cell just waiting for the trial to begin.
46:07
Speaker 1: Years in a concrete cell waiting for the chance to
46:10
Speaker 1: prove that she was a desperate victim acting in justified self-defense. Or, conversely,
46:16
Speaker 1: years in a cell because she methodically executed her husband
46:19
Speaker 1: and got caught.
46:20
Speaker 2: It is a stark, heavy reality either way. It really is.
46:23
Speaker 1: But before we wrap up this deep dive and summarize
46:26
Speaker 1: these massive legal concepts, I want to take a bizarre
46:28
Speaker 1: little detour.
46:29
Speaker 2: Oh, the detour.
46:30
Speaker 1: Yes. And it's something that really struck me in the
46:32
Speaker 1: source material because it perfectly encapsulates the incredibly chaotic, deeply
46:37
Speaker 1: disjointed way we consume legal news and information in the
46:41
Speaker 1: modern era.
46:41
Speaker 2: Ah, yes. The interruption. The tone of the broadcast completely fractured. Exactly.
46:45
Speaker 1: Exactly. Right in the middle of analyzing this tragic, bloody
46:50
Speaker 1: murder case, literally right after the host of The Long
46:53
Speaker 1: Crime Show mentions Charlotte claiming she was raped and violently
46:56
Speaker 1: abused by her dead husband, the source material abruptly breaks.
47:00
Speaker 2: And not for a moment of silence or reflection.
47:02
Speaker 1: No, it doesn't break for a moment of silence. It
47:05
Speaker 1: breaks for a legal alert.
47:07
Speaker 2: A sponsored message. seamlessly and aggressively woven right into the
47:11
Speaker 2: coverage of a bloody tragedy.
47:13
Speaker 1: Yes, a commercial from the massive, ubiquitous law firm Morgan
47:17
Speaker 1: & Morgan. And the alert has absolutely nothing to do
47:20
Speaker 1: with criminal law, domestic violence, or self-defense.
47:23
Speaker 2: Completely unrelated.
47:25
Speaker 1: It warns the viewer that children under the age of
47:27
Speaker 1: 21 are being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and non-alcoholic
47:30
Speaker 1: fatty liver disease at alarming rates, and that new research
47:34
Speaker 1: is linking these serious health conditions to ultra-processed foods. Right.
47:38
Speaker 1: And then, in the same breath used to discuss murder,
47:41
Speaker 1: the announcer urges families to join massive class action lawsuits
47:45
Speaker 1: against food companies to hold them financially accountable. I just
47:48
Speaker 1: have to pause and point out how utterly jarring this
47:50
Speaker 1: is for the listener.
47:51
Speaker 2: It's profound cognitive whiplash. It forces the brain to switch
47:55
Speaker 2: gears so violently that it almost disorients you.
47:59
Speaker 1: Completely. One second we are deep in the weeds talking
48:02
Speaker 1: about a deadly domestic dispute. A woman fleeing for her
48:05
Speaker 1: life or fleeing from her own guilt. And the intricate
48:08
Speaker 1: forensic breakdown of a back porch shooting where a man
48:11
Speaker 1: lost his life.
48:12
Speaker 2: And the next second.
48:13
Speaker 1: And in the very next breath, without any transition, we
48:16
Speaker 1: are talking about suing junk food conglomerates for giving teenagers
48:20
Speaker 1: liver disease. It feels like a glitch in the matrix.
48:24
Speaker 1: It feels dystopian.
48:26
Speaker 2: It is intensely jarring. But from a legal perspective, it
48:29
Speaker 2: actually serves as a fascinating, albeit completely unintentional, juxtaposition. of
48:34
Speaker 2: the American legal system as a whole.
48:36
Speaker 1: How so? Explain how those two things connect for you.
48:39
Speaker 2: Think about it. If we connect this bizarre commercial break
48:42
Speaker 2: back to what we were discussing earlier about the burden
48:44
Speaker 2: of proof, it highlights the massive, varied, and often contradictory
48:48
Speaker 2: spectrum of the law.
48:49
Speaker 1: Okay, break that down.
48:50
Speaker 2: Think about the drastically different stakes and standards being presented
48:54
Speaker 2: back to back. On one side of the commercial break,
48:57
Speaker 2: Charlotte Smith is fighting for her actual life and physical
49:00
Speaker 2: liberty under the incredibly strict criminal standard of beyond a
49:03
Speaker 2: reasonable doubt. Right.
49:04
Speaker 1: The highest standard.
49:05
Speaker 2: The state has to prove her guilt to a near
49:07
Speaker 2: certainty using blood spatter and bullet trajectories to lock her
49:11
Speaker 2: in a cage forever. It's intimate, bloody and ultimate.
49:15
Speaker 1: It's life or death.
49:17
Speaker 2: Meanwhile, immediately after the break, these massive corporate lawsuits against
49:21
Speaker 2: food companies operate entirely in the civil realm. They are
49:24
Speaker 2: not fighting for liberty. They are fighting for money.
49:27
Speaker 1: Right. The preponderance of the evidence standard.
49:29
Speaker 2: Exactly. And in that realm, the burden of proof is
49:33
Speaker 2: merely that preponderance of the evidence. The plaintiffs just have
49:36
Speaker 2: to prove that it is 51% likely that a specific
49:40
Speaker 2: chemical in ultra-processed food contributed to a child's diabetes. The
49:44
Speaker 2: contrast is staggering.
49:46
Speaker 1: It really is two completely different worlds operating under the
49:49
Speaker 1: same word.
49:49
Speaker 2: From deeply personal violent tragedies requiring absolute proof to sweeping
49:54
Speaker 2: statistics-based corporate negligence requiring only a slightly tipped scale, it
49:59
Speaker 2: all falls under the massive umbrella of the law. And
50:02
Speaker 2: modern media feeds it all to us in one continuous
50:05
Speaker 2: undifferentiated stream of content.
50:07
Speaker 1: It really makes you realize how we commodify both human
50:10
Speaker 1: trauma and massive legal battles as mere entertainment between commercial breaks.
50:15
Speaker 1: It all just becomes content.
50:17
Speaker 2: Just another segment before the ad.
50:19
Speaker 1: But bringing our focus back to the deeply personal, very
50:23
Speaker 1: real tragedy we've been unpacking today. Let's run through the
50:27
Speaker 1: critical takeaways for everyone listening.
50:29
Speaker 2: The primary pieces of the puzzle that remain on the
50:31
Speaker 2: board as we wait for this trial to eventually happen.
50:34
Speaker 1: We started by examining the complete shattering of the Smiths'
50:37
Speaker 1: perfect public image, proving that a carefully curated retirement announcement
50:41
Speaker 1: about enjoying life can easily hide a reality so dark
50:45
Speaker 1: and toxic it ends in gunfire.
50:47
Speaker 2: It's a reminder to question what you see.
50:49
Speaker 1: We looked at the intense, almost insurmountable legal implications of
50:53
Speaker 1: Charlotte's two-hour flight from the scene and how the genuine
50:56
Speaker 1: psychology of trauma clashes violently with the cold legal instruction
51:00
Speaker 1: of consciousness of guilt.
51:02
Speaker 2: We also uncovered the chilling... Systemic reality of North Carolina's
51:06
Speaker 2: blind discovery laws.
51:07
Speaker 1: That part is still crazy to me.
51:09
Speaker 2: Leaving defense attorneys to frantically scramble for disappearing physical evidence
51:13
Speaker 2: like bruises and defensive wounds, all while being legally locked
51:17
Speaker 2: out of the state's evidence files for up to a year.
51:20
Speaker 1: And finally, we explored the intricate forensic puzzle of proving
51:24
Speaker 1: what really happened on that back porch when the only
51:26
Speaker 1: other witness is dead. The reliance on blood spatter, the
51:30
Speaker 1: exact angles of bullet trajectories... and the silent, objective testimony
51:34
Speaker 1: of digital text messages.
51:36
Speaker 2: It is a case that is going to take years
51:38
Speaker 2: to resolve.
51:39
Speaker 1: Playing out in a small rural town where everyone is
51:41
Speaker 1: watching and everyone already has an opinion.
51:43
Speaker 2: It is a stark, heavy reminder that the truth of
51:46
Speaker 2: a human life is rarely as simple as a two-sentence
51:49
Speaker 2: 911 dispatch summary or a neighbor's fleeting observation.
51:53
Speaker 1: Absolutely. And as we leave you today, I want to
51:55
Speaker 1: leave you with one final, unsettling thought to mull over,
51:59
Speaker 1: building on that idea of the digital forensics we discussed.
52:01
Speaker 2: Oh, this is a good one.
52:02
Speaker 1: Think about your own digital footprint right now in this
52:05
Speaker 1: exact moment. If, heaven forbid, an unexplained tragedy occurred in
52:10
Speaker 1: your home today and investigators had to reconstruct the reality
52:13
Speaker 1: of your most intimate relationships using only your data.
52:18
Speaker 2: Using only your text messages, the GPS location pings from
52:21
Speaker 2: your phone, your internet search history.
52:23
Speaker 1: And the physical setup of your house. What story would
52:26
Speaker 1: that isolated evidence tell?
52:28
Speaker 2: Would it accurately reflect the nuanced, complex, often forgiving truth
52:34
Speaker 2: of who you are and how you truly relate to
52:36
Speaker 2: the people you love?
52:37
Speaker 1: Or would it paint a curated, easily misinterpreted picture? Could
52:41
Speaker 1: a prosecutor take a few angry texts sent out of context,
52:44
Speaker 1: a strange late-night internet search and a delayed phone call,
52:47
Speaker 1: and neatly package them to prove a malicious narrative you
52:50
Speaker 1: never intended?
52:51
Speaker 2: It's a terrifying thought to leave on. It is.
52:53
Speaker 1: But in the modern justice system, your data often speaks
52:56
Speaker 1: much louder and much clearer than your voice ever could.
53:00
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining us for this deep
53:02
Speaker 1: dive into the tragic and complex Charlotte and Dane Smith case.
53:06
Speaker 1: We invite you to sit back at the table with
53:07
Speaker 1: us for our next exploration.