Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / State Trooper Murders Ex-Girlfriend’s New Lover

Transcript

State Trooper Murders Ex-Girlfriend’s New Lover · Murder Files Unsealed

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: I want you to imagine a very specific kind of
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: person for a second. Okay.
• 0:04
  Speaker 2: I'm with you.
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: Think about someone whose entire career, like their literal job description,
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: is to protect the community you live in.
• 0:12
  Speaker 2: Right. The people we are literally conditioned to trust from childhood.
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: Exactly. We're talking about someone who has been rigorously trained
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: to investigate crimes, to secure forensic evidence, and to understand
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: the intricate mechanics of the law from the inside out.
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: So a law enforcement officer. Yeah.
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: And from a young age, we look for this exact
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: person when we endanger. We trust the uniform.
• 0:36
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: But now I want you to take that image and
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: imagine that exact same person taking every single ounce of
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: that specialized, taxpayer-funded knowledge and using it not to protect anyone.
• 0:47
  Speaker 2: But to become a predator.
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: Yes. To meticulously stalk and allegedly murder an innocent person.
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: It just completely flips the script on what makes us
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: feel safe.
• 0:55
  Speaker 2: It really does. And welcome to this deep dive, everyone. Today,
• 0:59
  Speaker 2: we are unpacking a massive stack of source material, which
• 1:03
  Speaker 2: includes a highly detailed case transcript and some really excellent
• 1:07
  Speaker 2: legal analysis from the Law and Crime Network.
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: And we're looking at the tragic, honestly chilling case of
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: William Hunter Schneider, who goes by Hunter.
• 1:16
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and looking through these documents, the feeling that hits
• 1:18
  Speaker 2: you immediately is just a profound betrayal of the social contract.
• 1:22
  Speaker 2: Hunter Schneider isn't a random suspect. He's a former Pennsylvania
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: state trooper.
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: Which changes everything about how we have to look at this.
• 1:30
  Speaker 2: It does. So our mission for today's deep dive is
• 1:33
  Speaker 2: going to go far beyond just recounting a true crime timeline.
• 1:36
  Speaker 2: We are deconstructing the anatomy of a stalking escalation.
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: We're also going to get into the weeds of how
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: modern digital forensics actually work. Like how they trap someone
• 1:45
  Speaker 1: who genuinely believes they are outsmarting the system.
• 1:47
  Speaker 2: And we'll break down the very complex, high-stace legal strategies
• 1:51
  Speaker 2: that the prosecution and the defense are preparing for trial
• 1:54
  Speaker 2: right now.
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: So let's establish exactly who we're dealing with here, because
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: Hunter Rezia's background is really the lens through which this
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: entire nightmare unfolds.
• 2:03
  Speaker 2: It's the foundation of the whole case.
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: Right. So Hunter Snyder is 27 years old. And to
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: become a state trooper in Pennsylvania, you don't just fill
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: out a quick application and get a badge.
• 2:13
  Speaker 2: Oh, not at all. You go through a grueling state
• 2:15
  Speaker 2: police academy.
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: Exactly. You have to pass intensive psychological evaluations, extensive background checks,
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: tactical driving, firearms training. And he passed all of it.
• 2:27
  Speaker 2: He did. He worked as a trooper for about 18
• 2:29
  Speaker 2: months before he was let go in June of 2023.
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: Right. And we really have to emphasize what that 18
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: months on the job actually means in practice. Yeah.
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: The legal analysis from former prosecutor Matt Mangino in our
• 2:41
  Speaker 2: sources points out something so crucial here. Hunter knows how
• 2:44
  Speaker 2: to investigate a crime scene.
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: He knows exactly what the police look for.
• 2:48
  Speaker 2: Exactly. He knows how cell phones are tracked, how security
• 2:51
  Speaker 2: cameras are pulled, how evidence is collected. But perhaps most disturbingly,
• 2:56
  Speaker 2: he acutely understands the psychological damage that stalking inflicts on
• 3:00
  Speaker 2: a victim.
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: Because he likely saw it firsthand, right?
• 3:03
  Speaker 2: Almost certainly. During his time on the force, he would
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: have responded to domestic violence and stalking calls. He has
• 3:09
  Speaker 2: seen the absolute terror in those victims' eyes.
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: Which makes the alleged actions here so much more insidious.
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: It really shatters that illusion of safety we all carry around.
• 3:21
  Speaker 2: That's a great way to put it. The illusion of safety.
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: Yeah, because we naturally walk through the world using mental shortcuts, heuristics.
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: We see a badge or hear someone's a trooper, and
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: our brain automatically categorizes them as responsible, stable.
• 3:34
  Speaker 2: The good guy.
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: Right. So for the victims involved in this case, realizing
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: that the predator is the guy who used to wear
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: the uniform isn't just scary. It makes you question your
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: own fundamental instincts about who is actually dangerous.
• 3:47
  Speaker 2: It destabilizes your entire worldview. But what's critical to understand
• 3:52
  Speaker 2: as we look at the timeline is that his specialized
• 3:54
  Speaker 2: law enforcement knowledge didn't result in some sort of invisible,
• 3:58
  Speaker 2: untraceable master crime.
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: It's actually quite the opposite, isn't it?
• 4:02
  Speaker 2: It really is. The arrogance often associated with that kind
• 4:05
  Speaker 2: of insider knowledge led him to leave a blatantly obvious,
• 4:08
  Speaker 2: almost haunting trail of harassment.
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: Well, let's get into the specifics of that timeline, because
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: this brings us to the woman at the center of this,
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: Courtney Liebergard.
• 4:17
  Speaker 2: And this detail is going to genuinely shock you.
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: It shocked me. When you hear about cases with this
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: level of fatal obsession... You usually assume there's a long,
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: tangled history, like a five-year marriage, a bitter divorce, shared custody, whatever.
• 4:32
  Speaker 2: You expect a deep, long-term bond. Right.
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: But according to the affidavit, Hunter and Courtney dated for
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: exactly one month.
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: 30 days.
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: 30 days. That was it. In October 2024. And she
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: broke it off.
• 4:44
  Speaker 2: Clinically speaking, a 30-day relationship is barely enough time to
• 4:47
  Speaker 2: learn someone's coffee order, let alone form a psychological bond...
• 4:52
  Speaker 2: that warrants the behavior we're about to unpack.
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: Right, it's just a blink of an eye.
• 4:56
  Speaker 2: But the brevity of the relationship is actually a major
• 4:59
  Speaker 2: red flag in threat assessment. When she ended this extremely
• 5:02
  Speaker 2: brief encounter, Hunter allegedly refused to accept the reality of
• 5:06
  Speaker 2: the situation.
• 5:07
  Speaker 1: He completely rejected it. Yeah.
• 5:09
  Speaker 2: The sheer volume, and more importantly, the specific language of
• 5:12
  Speaker 2: the messages he sent her, are textbook indicators of a
• 5:16
  Speaker 2: rapidly escalating threat.
• 5:18
  Speaker 1: I actually have some of these text messages right here
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: from the police affidavit, and they are incredibly tough to read.
• 5:24
  Speaker 2: They're unsettling.
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: You can just feel the delusion seeping through the screen.
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: I want to read these exact quotes because the language
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: is really important. He texts her, quote, nothing is ever
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: going to stop me from pursuing you.
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: Which is terrifying language coming from a former cop pursuing you.
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: Exactly. And then he follows up with, quote, how am
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: I supposed to stay wonderful when every day without you
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: drags me deeper into darkness?
• 5:47
  Speaker 2: Let's stop right there because we really need to unpack
• 5:49
  Speaker 2: that specific phrase. Drags me deeper into darkness.
• 5:53
  Speaker 1: It feels so heavy. It is.
• 5:55
  Speaker 2: In the psychology of stalking, that isn't romance. It is
• 5:58
  Speaker 2: deeply manipulative, coercive control.
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: Like an emotional hostage situation.
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: Precisely. He is taking the entire burden of his emotional stability,
• 6:06
  Speaker 2: his mental well-being, and potentially his own safety, and placing
• 6:10
  Speaker 2: it squarely on Courtney's shoulders.
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: Which is so unfair after 30 days.
• 6:14
  Speaker 2: It's a classic tactic. In a movie, maybe it sounds
• 6:17
  Speaker 2: like tragic romance, but in reality, it is a threat
• 6:20
  Speaker 2: wrapped in a plea. He's essentially saying, if I do
• 6:23
  Speaker 2: something terrible, it's your fault for leaving me.
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: It's totally suffocating. It's like you can even breathe just
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: reading it, and it escalates. He sends another massive block
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: of text.
• 6:34
  Speaker 2: It's a really long one.
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: Yeah, I'll read it. He says, quote, I know you
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: miss me, and I know you still love me. You
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: miss me. Your connection is stronger than anything I've ever felt.
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: And I know you feel the same way selfishly and unselfishly.
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: I am the best thing for you. And I would
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: do everything to prove that we never had a single issue.
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: You're my one person. I'm crazy. I know, but you
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: are my soulmate. We honestly belong together.
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: The complete detachment from reality in that message is just profound.
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: It's a total fantasy.
• 7:04
  Speaker 2: Notice the pronouns and the assumptions there. He doesn't ask
• 7:07
  Speaker 2: how she feels. He dictates it to her. I know
• 7:09
  Speaker 2: you miss me. I know you still love me.
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: He's telling her what her reality is.
• 7:13
  Speaker 2: Exactly. He is completely overriding her autonomy and constructing an
• 7:17
  Speaker 2: alternate reality where they are soulmates who, quote, never had
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: a single issue.
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: Well, he has to ignore the massive, glaring issue that
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: she actively chose to dump him after just a few weeks.
• 7:29
  Speaker 2: Right. He has to completely block that out to maintain
• 7:32
  Speaker 2: the delusion.
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: And Courtney's response to this tidal wave of delusion is just,
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: I mean... She is desperately trying to establish basic boundaries.
• 7:39
  Speaker 2: She's keeping it very grounded.
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: Yeah, she replies simply, Hunter, I can't. And he pushes back,
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: demanding to know why, insisting she knows it's a mistake
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: that she ran away.
• 7:50
  Speaker 2: And she holds her ground.
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: She does. Courtney writes, Hunter, you need to stop this.
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: I told you we can only be friends. He asks
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: why again, and she just bluntly says, because I said so.
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: Because I said so. It is a complete sentence.
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: It really is.
• 8:07
  Speaker 2: What's tragic is the psychological disparity here. You have Hunter
• 8:11
  Speaker 2: treating a one-month acquaintance like some fatalistic cosmic bond that
• 8:15
  Speaker 2: supersedes her free will.
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: And on the other side, Courtney is deeply grounded in reality,
• 8:21
  Speaker 2: exhausting herself, just trying to get him to respect the
• 8:24
  Speaker 2: most basic human boundary, which is the word no.
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: It honestly reminds me of, like, signing up for a
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: free trial on an app.
• 8:31
  Speaker 2: Okay, I like this analogy.
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: You know, you try it out for 30 days, you
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: realize you don't like the interface, it's buggy, so you
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: hit cancel. But the app just refuses to process the cancellation.
• 8:39
  Speaker 2: It won't let you go.
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: Right, it insists you are meant to be a premium
• 8:42
  Speaker 1: subscriber forever, and then it literally starts showing up at
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: your physical house.
• 8:46
  Speaker 2: That is exactly what this is like.
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: Which brings me to something I'm struggling to understand. How
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: does a human being mentally bridge the gap between a
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: brief trial phase of dating and a fatal possessive obsession.
• 9:01
  Speaker 2: It's a huge leap.
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: Like, is this warped behavior rooted in love at all,
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: or is it purely about control?
• 9:07
  Speaker 2: It's a great question, and I'm glad you brought it up,
• 9:09
  Speaker 2: but we need to completely separate the concept of love
• 9:13
  Speaker 2: from this equation.
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: Really? Completely separate it?
• 9:15
  Speaker 2: Completely. The clinical consensus is definitive here. Stalking is fundamentally
• 9:20
  Speaker 2: about control and ownership. Love, by definition, requires mutual respect
• 9:25
  Speaker 2: and a recognition of the other person's autonomy.
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: Which he clearly doesn't have.
• 9:28
  Speaker 2: Exactly. The incredibly short duration of their relationship actually proves
• 9:33
  Speaker 2: this point. He didn't have time to fall in love
• 9:35
  Speaker 2: with who Courtney actually was. He fell in love with
• 9:37
  Speaker 2: the idea of possessing her.
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: Wow.
• 9:39
  Speaker 2: So when she rejected him, he wasn't suffering from a
• 9:42
  Speaker 2: broken heart. He was suffering from a fractured ego. The
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: relentless texting is an attempt to force her back into
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: submission to repair that ego.
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: And the terrifying part is, this wasn't an isolated reaction
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: for him.
• 9:54
  Speaker 2: No, this was a pattern.
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: This was his established playbook, his modus operandi. According to
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: the reporting, in June 2023, which we should note, is
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: the exact same month he was let go from the
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: state police.
• 10:07
  Speaker 2: Very important detail.
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: Right. He was charged with stalking and harassment regarding a
• 10:11
  Speaker 1: completely different, unnamed ex-girlfriend.
• 10:14
  Speaker 2: And the behavioral pattern is nearly identical. In that 2023 case,
• 10:17
  Speaker 2: after a breakup, The sources indicate he reached out to
• 10:21
  Speaker 2: the victim more than a hundred times.
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: A hundred times.
• 10:23
  Speaker 2: He called, he texted, he messaged her on Snapchat. And
• 10:27
  Speaker 2: when she finally blocked him on everything, he created fake
• 10:30
  Speaker 2: social media accounts just to bypass those blocks.
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: And just like with Courtney, he escalated from the digital
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: world to the physical world. In 2023, he left a
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: box of relationship books with a typed note on her property.
• 10:43
  Speaker 2: A physical intrusion.
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: Exactly. And for that entire campaign of terror, The justice
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: system handed him 360 days of probation and an $ 1, 100 fine.
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: A slap on the wrist.
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: He didn't serve any time. Now, compare that to what
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: happened with Courtney. On January 17th, just four days before
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: the murder, he is caught on camera leaving a package
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: at Courtney's house.
• 11:04
  Speaker 2: And what was in it?
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: Inside was a coffee press.
• 11:06
  Speaker 2: It is the exact same script playing out again. The
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: digital bombardment is phase one, and phase two is the
• 11:12
  Speaker 2: physical intrusion, leaving a seemingly benign gift at the home.
• 11:17
  Speaker 1: But it's not benign, is it?
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: No, not at all. We have to look at this
• 11:20
  Speaker 2: through the lens of a stalking victim. To Courtney, that
• 11:23
  Speaker 2: coffee press is not a gift. It is a highly
• 11:26
  Speaker 2: aggressive message. It says, I know exactly where you sleep.
• 11:30
  Speaker 2: I can bypass your security. I can get right to
• 11:32
  Speaker 2: your front door. And your boundaries mean absolutely nothing to me.
• 11:35
  Speaker 2: It is pure psychological warfare.
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: And it forces us into the most horrific part of
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: this story. Because that psychological warfare didn't stay psychological. the
• 11:45
  Speaker 1: digital harassment, the fake accounts, the creepy packages, it all
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: crossed the threshold into physical violence.
• 11:51
  Speaker 2: Yes. The escalation from an unwanted physical presence at a
• 11:54
  Speaker 2: home to lethal violence is a very well-documented trajectory in
• 11:59
  Speaker 2: threat assessment.
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: And this case just illustrates that fatal progression perfectly.
• 12:04
  Speaker 2: Unfortunately, yes.
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: So this brings us to 44-year-old John Rabbits Jr., who
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: went by Johnny. He was Courtney's new boyfriend. And the
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: detail about Johnny that is just devastating to me is
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: that he was not oblivious.
• 12:19
  Speaker 2: He was highly aware.
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: He knew exactly who Hunter was and he was fully
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: aware of the threat he posed to them both.
• 12:25
  Speaker 2: He took the threat with the utmost seriousness. The source
• 12:28
  Speaker 2: material highlights that Johnny actually installed security cameras at both
• 12:31
  Speaker 2: his own house and Courtney's house.
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: Think about the mental load of that for a second.
• 12:35
  Speaker 2: Right. He was actively preparing for an intrusion by a
• 12:38
  Speaker 2: trained former law enforcement officer. He knew this man was unhinged,
• 12:43
  Speaker 2: and he essentially had to turn his daily life into
• 12:45
  Speaker 2: a localized surveillance state.
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: Just to try and create a perimeter of safety around
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: his relationship.
• 12:50
  Speaker 2: Exactly.
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: That's heartbreaking. You know, you shouldn't have to live in
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: a state of hypervigilance just to date someone. But all
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: of Johnny's precautions culminated on the day of the murder,
• 12:59
  Speaker 1: which was January 21st.
• 13:01
  Speaker 2: And the sequence of events here is just chilling.
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: It really is. At 5.34 p.m., Johnny calls 911.
• 13:08
  Speaker 2: And this 911 call isn't just a cry for help.
• 13:11
  Speaker 2: Legally speaking, it is the cornerstone of the entire case.
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: Because of what he says.
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: Yes. Johnny is suffering from a point-blank gunshot wound, and
• 13:21
  Speaker 2: he gives the dispatchers what is known in the legal
• 13:23
  Speaker 2: system as a dying declaration.
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: He tells them a male knocked on his door, shot him,
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: and ran away.
• 13:29
  Speaker 2: But he specifically adds a crucial detail. He states that
• 13:33
  Speaker 2: the shooter was there to, quote, shoot him over a girl.
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: Johnny was rushed to the hospital, but he was tragically
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: pronounced dead upon arrival. Now, I have to pause and
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: push back on the logistics that 911 call for a second.
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: If Johnny and Hunter had never officially met face to face,
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: like if Johnny only knew of Hunter through Courtney's ordeal,
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: how did Johnny immediately know in the agonizing moments after
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: being shot that this was about a girl?
• 13:58
  Speaker 2: That's a really important question.
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: Like, did Hunter give a villain monologue at the door
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: or did Johnny just instantly realize that the nightmare he
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: bought the cameras for it finally arrived?
• 14:07
  Speaker 2: It is crucial to look at both possibilities. While the
• 14:10
  Speaker 2: public affidavit doesn't detail the exact words exchanged at the threshold,
• 14:15
  Speaker 2: from an evidentiary standpoint, both scenarios are incredibly damning for Hunter.
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: How so?
• 14:20
  Speaker 2: Well, if Hunter announced his motive before firing, it demonstrates
• 14:24
  Speaker 2: immense premeditation and malice. He went there with a message.
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 14:28
  Speaker 2: But the more likely scenario, given human behavior in these
• 14:31
  Speaker 2: extreme crises, is that Johnny, who had been living in
• 14:34
  Speaker 2: this state of elevated anxiety, reviewing camera footage, bracing for
• 14:38
  Speaker 2: this exact man to show up, instantly connected the face
• 14:42
  Speaker 2: of the shooter to the stalking campaign.
• 14:44
  Speaker 1: He recognized the threat he'd been trying to protect Courtney from.
• 14:47
  Speaker 2: Exactly. He knew immediately who it was and why he
• 14:50
  Speaker 2: was there.
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: It is just a horrifying realization to have in your
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: final moments. And to fully grasp the level of premeditation here,
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: we have to look at a map. We have to
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: understand the geography of this crime.
• 15:01
  Speaker 2: Geography is everything here.
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: Because it wasn't a crime of sudden, spontaneous proximity. Hunter
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: lived in a town called Milton, Pennsylvania. Johnny lived in
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: Sugarloaf Township. That is about a 40-minute drive east of Milton.
• 15:14
  Speaker 2: And that geographic distance is vital legally. A 40-minute drive
• 15:19
  Speaker 2: is a massive commitment of time and intent.
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: You don't just accidentally drive 40 minutes.
• 15:24
  Speaker 2: Exactly. And furthermore, after the shooting, Hunter didn't just panic
• 15:28
  Speaker 2: and drive back to his own house. He drove to
• 15:30
  Speaker 2: a co-worker's house in Shemokin, which is about an hour
• 15:34
  Speaker 2: south of Sugarloaf Township.
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: So we were talking about a purposeful, sprawling journey across
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: multiple jurisdictions in the state.
• 15:41
  Speaker 2: It was moving.
• 15:43
  Speaker 1: And this perfectly sets up how investigators use that exact
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: geography and the digital footprints left across it to build
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: what I can only describe as an evidentiary trap around Hunter.
• 15:53
  Speaker 2: That's a perfect way to frame it. When someone commits
• 15:56
  Speaker 2: a crime that spans large distances in 2024, they are
• 15:59
  Speaker 2: moving through an invisible, dense web of data collection points.
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: Which you should know, being a former cop.
• 16:05
  Speaker 2: Right. And despite his law enforcement background, or perhaps because
• 16:08
  Speaker 2: he thought he could outsmart it, the investigators utilized that
• 16:11
  Speaker 2: web masterfully. And it started with something we call digital silence.
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: Okay, let's break down this concept of digital silence because
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: it is fascinating. According to the data pulled from social
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: media and cell towers, Hunter was actively using his phone
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: at 4.06 p.m.
• 16:27
  Speaker 2: What normal behavior.
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: But after that, he goes completely dark. Zero activity. No texts.
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: No social media scrolling. Nothing until 6.26 p.m.
• 16:39
  Speaker 2: Now, I need to explain how this data is actually
• 16:42
  Speaker 2: interpreted by investigators. Because it's not just about not sending
• 16:45
  Speaker 2: a text.
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: What else is it doing?
• 16:47
  Speaker 2: Cell phones are constantly passively communicating with nearby cell towers
• 16:51
  Speaker 2: to maintain a signal. We call this pinging. In modern forensics,
• 16:55
  Speaker 2: the absence of this digital activity during a highly relevant
• 16:58
  Speaker 2: window is often just as powerful as finding a fingerprint.
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: Because it shows intent to hide.
• 17:03
  Speaker 2: Exactly. The average person in their 20s does not put
• 17:06
  Speaker 2: their phone in airplane mode or turn it completely off
• 17:09
  Speaker 2: for two hours in the early evening without a specific reason.
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: Right. It's an affirmative act of concealment. It reminds me
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: of the spider web analogy we were talking about earlier.
• 17:16
  Speaker 2: Oh, let's hear that again.
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: So think of modern data tracking like a giant invisible
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: spider web covering the state. The killer thinks they're being
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: clever by turning off their phone and running off the grid.
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: They think they're brushing the web away so they can't
• 17:29
  Speaker 1: be caught. Right.
• 17:29
  Speaker 2: They think they're invisible.
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: But by doing that, they leave a massive two-hour hole
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: in the web. And that empty space is exactly the
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: shape of the killer.
• 17:38
  Speaker 2: That analogy holds up beautifully in court. The prosecution will
• 17:41
  Speaker 2: argue that the silence itself becomes the map of his movements.
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: Because it lines up with the drive time.
• 17:46
  Speaker 2: Exactly. Because when investigators overlay that two-hour window of absolute
• 17:51
  Speaker 2: digital silence with the exact driving timetable required to get
• 17:55
  Speaker 2: from Milton to Sugarloaf Township for a 5.34 p.m. shooting
• 17:59
  Speaker 2: and then down to Shemokin by 6.16 p.m., the timeline
• 18:03
  Speaker 2: aligns flawlessly.
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: But you can just convict a guy because his phone
• 18:06
  Speaker 1: was off. You had to physically put him at the scene.
• 18:09
  Speaker 2: And this is where the physical world betrays him.
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: You can hide your digital footprint by powering down a device...
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: But you cannot easily hide a two-ton vehicle. Investigators used
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: security cameras and ALPR's automated license plate readers to trace
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: the movement of Hunter's specific 2018 Hyundai Tucson.
• 18:29
  Speaker 2: And it wasn't just a generic silver SUV, right?
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: No, it had a very specific, distinctive decal on the
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: rear window.
• 18:37
  Speaker 2: It is incredible how often a personalized sticker or a
• 18:39
  Speaker 2: unique dent is the linchpin in a vehicular tracking case.
• 18:43
  Speaker 1: It really is.
• 18:44
  Speaker 2: This highly identifiable vehicle was spotted near Johnny's home and
• 18:48
  Speaker 2: near Hunter's home, perfectly synchronized with the timeline of the shooting.
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: So now you had the vehicle placing him at the scene. Next,
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: investigators pull the ballistics.
• 18:56
  Speaker 2: The physical evidence.
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: They recover a. 40 caliber shell casing from the doorstep
• 19:00
  Speaker 1: where Johnny was murdered. And when they execute a search
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: warrant on Hunter's residence, where he lived with his father,
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: they find that his father legally owns several. 40 caliber handguns.
• 19:09
  Speaker 2: The web is really tightening now. The digital silence, the
• 19:12
  Speaker 2: car decal, the. 40 caliber casing.
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: But then there is this one final detail that just
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: blew my mind because it is so small, yet so devastating.
• 19:22
  Speaker 2: Tell them about the shoes.
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: Yes, the shoes. At around 6.30 p.m. at the end
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: of that window of digital silence, Hunter arrives at his
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: co-worker's house in Shemokin. The co-worker tells investigators that Hunter
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: appeared visibly nervous.
• 19:36
  Speaker 2: Which is already suspicious.
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: And the coworker notes one incredibly specific thing. When Hunter
• 19:41
  Speaker 1: came inside, he took off his shoes because they were
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: completely wet.
• 19:44
  Speaker 2: Wet shoes. To a layperson, it's winter in Pennsylvania. Of
• 19:48
  Speaker 2: course his shoes might be wet. from the snow.
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: Right. Totally normal.
• 19:51
  Speaker 2: But to a forensic investigator, that is a goldmine because
• 19:55
  Speaker 2: investigators had already found and documented a fresh trail of
• 19:59
  Speaker 2: shoe prints in the snow right outside Johnny's house.
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: So those wet shoes in Shemokin are the physical liquid
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: link directly back to the snow outside the murder scene.
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: In Sugarloaf Township an hour earlier.
• 20:11
  Speaker 2: That is just brilliant police work.
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: It is meticulous.
• 20:14
  Speaker 2: In law, we often talk about a case not being
• 20:16
  Speaker 2: a single unbreakable chain. Breaks the rope still holds.
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: I love that visual.
• 20:24
  Speaker 2: They took the co-workers' casual observation about wet footwear and
• 20:28
  Speaker 2: connected it to the meteorological and forensic conditions at the
• 20:31
  Speaker 2: crime scene.
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: It's undeniable when you stack it all up.
• 20:34
  Speaker 2: When you intertwine the wet shoes, the. 40 caliber shell casing,
• 20:38
  Speaker 2: the father's guns, the Hyundai Tucson with the rear decal,
• 20:42
  Speaker 2: and the two hours of purposeful digital silence, you have
• 20:46
  Speaker 2: built an incredibly robust circumstantial case.
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: Which brings us to the next phase of this deep dive.
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: Gathering the evidence is only half the battle, right? Okay. Now,
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: we have to walk into the courtroom.
• 20:57
  Speaker 2: The trial strategy.
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: Exactly. How does a prosecutor take all these disparate facts—
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: the cell pins, the snow prints, the text messages, and
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: weave them into an airtight, undeniable narrative of first-degree murder.
• 21:09
  Speaker 2: The prosecution's playbook, as detailed by Matt Mangino, is going
• 21:13
  Speaker 2: to pivot heavily on clearly defining premeditation versus passion.
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: Okay, let's get into the weeds on that.
• 21:18
  Speaker 2: In Pennsylvania, to secure a first-degree murder conviction, the state
• 21:22
  Speaker 2: has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that this was
• 21:24
  Speaker 2: a willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing.
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: I want to clarify this because I think a lot
• 21:29
  Speaker 1: of people... hear the phrase love triangle or obsessive ex,
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: and they immediately jump to crime of passion.
• 21:35
  Speaker 2: Right, the classic movie trope.
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: You know, someone walks in on their partner with someone else,
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: their brain short circuits, and they snap. That's usually a
• 21:43
  Speaker 1: heat of passion, voluntary manslaughter situation. Right.
• 21:47
  Speaker 2: You're exactly right on the definition of a heat of
• 21:49
  Speaker 2: passion crime. But it fundamentally relies on sudden... adequate provocation.
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: Sudden being the key word.
• 21:57
  Speaker 2: Yes. And this is where that 40 minute drive becomes
• 22:00
  Speaker 2: the most lethal piece of evidence against Hunter. The legal
• 22:04
  Speaker 2: weight of a 40 minute drive cannot be overstated.
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: Because it's so much time.
• 22:09
  Speaker 2: If you are sitting behind the wheel of a car
• 22:11
  Speaker 2: for 40 minutes with a loaded gun driving towards the
• 22:13
  Speaker 2: home of your ex girlfriend's new partner. That is 40
• 22:16
  Speaker 2: minutes of uninterrupted reflection time.
• 22:18
  Speaker 1: You have dozens of opportunities to cool off.
• 22:20
  Speaker 2: Exactly. You can pull over to the shoulder. You can
• 22:22
  Speaker 2: take an exit. You can simply turn the car around.
• 22:25
  Speaker 1: You can't be in a sudden blind rage while obeying
• 22:28
  Speaker 1: speed limits and using turn signals for an hour. Precisely.
• 22:31
  Speaker 2: The fact that he didn't stop, the fact that he
• 22:33
  Speaker 2: completed the drive, parked, got out of his car, walked
• 22:36
  Speaker 2: to the door, and pulled the trigger completely destroys any
• 22:39
  Speaker 2: claim of a sudden loss of control.
• 22:42
  Speaker 1: It's cold and calculated.
• 22:43
  Speaker 2: The law views that 40-minute drive as a sustained, calculated
• 22:46
  Speaker 2: intent to kill. Premeditation doesn't require months of planning. It
• 22:51
  Speaker 2: can be formed in seconds, but 40 minutes cements it entirely.
• 22:55
  Speaker 1: So premeditation seems like a lock based on the geography alone.
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: But what about his history? We spent a lot of
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: time talking about his June 2023 stalking convictions.
• 23:06
  Speaker 2: Which is a huge factor here.
• 23:08
  Speaker 1: I know from following enough trials that bringing up a
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: defendant's past crimes can be a massive legal minefield. You
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: can't just stand up in front of a jury and say, hey,
• 23:16
  Speaker 1: you stalked a girl last year, so he definitely murdered
• 23:19
  Speaker 1: this guy today.
• 23:19
  Speaker 2: What you're referring to is Rule 404B. It's the rule
• 23:23
  Speaker 2: against using prior bad acts to prove a person's character
• 23:26
  Speaker 2: in order to show that they acted in accordance with
• 23:29
  Speaker 2: that character on a specific occasion.
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: So you can't just call him a bad guy?
• 23:32
  Speaker 2: Generally, no. You cannot use past crimes to say someone
• 23:36
  Speaker 2: is just a bad person. Judges are very strict about
• 23:39
  Speaker 2: this because it can severely prejudice a jury.
• 23:41
  Speaker 1: But there are exceptions.
• 23:42
  Speaker 2: However, yes, there are exceptions, and the prosecution will absolutely
• 23:46
  Speaker 2: fight to use them here. In this case, they will
• 23:49
  Speaker 2: try to admit the 2023 stalking conviction to prove a
• 23:53
  Speaker 2: modus operandi, an M.O., or to prove intent and identity.
• 23:57
  Speaker 1: Because the behavior across both cases was so identical. The
• 24:01
  Speaker 1: digital harassment followed by the physical package.
• 24:04
  Speaker 2: Exactly. The prosecution will argue to the judge that the
• 24:07
  Speaker 2: 2023 case isn't just a random past crime. It is
• 24:10
  Speaker 2: a signature crime.
• 24:12
  Speaker 1: It's his playbook.
• 24:13
  Speaker 2: Right. It shows a highly specific, identical pattern of behavior.
• 24:17
  Speaker 2: repeated obsessive digital contacts, creating fake accounts to bypass blocks,
• 24:22
  Speaker 2: leaving physical, seemingly benign packages at the victim's home.
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: So it establishes a pattern.
• 24:27
  Speaker 2: By showing the jury that Hunter operates with this exact
• 24:29
  Speaker 2: specialized playbook whenever he experiences rejection, it helps establish his
• 24:34
  Speaker 2: identity as the stalker in the current case and proves
• 24:36
  Speaker 2: his malicious intent from the very beginning.
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: It shows the coffee press wasn't a gift.
• 24:41
  Speaker 2: Exactly. It was step two of his proven threat model.
• 24:44
  Speaker 1: And then, of course, the prosecution has their witnesses. They
• 24:46
  Speaker 1: have Courtney, who will have to take the stand and
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: testify to the terrifying escalation of what was only a
• 24:52
  Speaker 1: 30-day relationship.
• 24:53
  Speaker 2: Which will be incredibly powerful testimony.
• 24:56
  Speaker 1: She is the one who will show the jury those
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: suffocating text messages, providing the absolute undeniable motive for the crime.
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: But then they also have Johnny. Even though he didn't survive,
• 25:09
  Speaker 1: he gets to testify.
• 25:10
  Speaker 2: Yes, through his 911 call. We touched on the dying
• 25:13
  Speaker 2: declaration earlier. But let's explain why it's admissible.
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: Don't do it.
• 25:17
  Speaker 2: Normally, a 911 call reporting what someone else did is
• 25:21
  Speaker 2: considered hearsay. It's an out-of-court statement offered to prove the
• 25:25
  Speaker 2: truth of the matter asserted.
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: And hearsay is usually thrown out.
• 25:28
  Speaker 2: Right. Hearsay is generally inadmissible because the defense can't cross-examine
• 25:32
  Speaker 2: the person who made the statement. Right.
• 25:34
  Speaker 1: You can't cross-examine a tape recording.
• 25:35
  Speaker 2: But the dying declaration is an exception rooted in centuries
• 25:39
  Speaker 2: of common law.
• 25:40
  Speaker 1: What's the logic behind it?
• 25:41
  Speaker 2: The historical legal logic is the assumption that a person
• 25:45
  Speaker 2: who believes they are taking their final breaths has no
• 25:49
  Speaker 2: earthly reason to lie. They are about to meet their maker,
• 25:52
  Speaker 2: so to speak.
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: Wow. So it carries a lot of weight.
• 25:55
  Speaker 2: The law grants those final statements a high degree of credibility.
• 25:59
  Speaker 2: Hearing a victim use their last ounces of strength to
• 26:01
  Speaker 2: identify the motive of their killer saying it was over
• 26:04
  Speaker 2: a girl is incredibly visceral. It is devastating for any
• 26:08
  Speaker 2: defense attorney to try and overcome in front of a jury.
• 26:11
  Speaker 1: But I want to play devil's advocate here for a
• 26:12
  Speaker 1: minute because we have to look at the other side
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: of the aisle. I want to bring up the concept
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: of tunnel vision.
• 26:17
  Speaker 2: Okay, let's look at the defense angle.
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: We've laid out this massive mountain of evidence against Hunter.
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: But if you're the defense, don't you have to attack
• 26:27
  Speaker 1: the investigation itself?
• 26:28
  Speaker 2: You absolutely do.
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: If the police know there's an obsessive ex-boyfriend with a
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: criminal stalking record living a few towns over, don't they
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: just stop looking for anyone else?
• 26:38
  Speaker 2: It's a common defense argument.
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: How does the prosecution prove to a jury that investigators
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: didn't just grab the most convenient, obvious suspect and mold
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: the wet shoes and the cell data to fit their
• 26:51
  Speaker 1: preconceived theory? Did they even look into whether Johnny had
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: any other enemies?
• 26:55
  Speaker 2: You'd think tunnel vision would be an easy argument to
• 26:58
  Speaker 2: make here because the police definitely homed in on Hunter
• 27:00
  Speaker 2: very quickly. But it's actually much harder for the defense
• 27:04
  Speaker 2: to prove tunnel vision today than it was 20 years ago.
• 27:07
  Speaker 1: Why is that?
• 27:08
  Speaker 2: And here is why. The digital forensics we talked about
• 27:12
  Speaker 2: act as a major guardrail against it. When the defense argues,
• 27:15
  Speaker 2: as in your spiderweb analogy, that the police spun the
• 27:18
  Speaker 2: web themselves to frame Hunter, the prosecution will just point
• 27:21
  Speaker 2: to the objective data.
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: The data doesn't lie.
• 27:24
  Speaker 2: Exactly. The police didn't tell Hunter's phone to stop pinging
• 27:27
  Speaker 2: towers for two hours. The police didn't drive a Hyundai
• 27:30
  Speaker 2: Tucson with his specific decal past the victim's house. The
• 27:33
  Speaker 2: police didn't plant. 40 caliber shell casings that happened to
• 27:37
  Speaker 2: match the caliber of weapons at his father's house. The
• 27:40
  Speaker 2: prosecution will argue that they didn't suffer from tunnel vision.
• 27:43
  Speaker 2: They simply followed the trail of data, and the data
• 27:46
  Speaker 2: only led to one person.
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: Okay, so if the tunnel vision argument is easily dismantled
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: by the data, let's pivot fully into the defense attorney's reality.
• 27:55
  Speaker 2: It's a tough place to be.
• 27:56
  Speaker 1: If you are sitting across a table from Hunter Schneider
• 27:59
  Speaker 1: in a holding cell, looking at this mountain of wet shoes,
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: cell pings, and camera footage, how do you even begin
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: to mount a defense in front of a jury? It
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: feels like an impossible task.
• 28:11
  Speaker 2: It is a monumental task. When faced with overwhelming circumstantial
• 28:15
  Speaker 2: and digital evidence, the defense generally has two primary pathways,
• 28:19
  Speaker 2: and both are fraught with massive legal risks.
• 28:22
  Speaker 1: What's the first option?
• 28:23
  Speaker 2: Option A is the strict denial strategy.
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: What I like to call the shaggy defense. It wasn't me.
• 28:28
  Speaker 2: Exactly. Option A involves strict denial. You challenge a prosecution
• 28:32
  Speaker 2: on the burden of proof. You argue that the evidence,
• 28:34
  Speaker 2: while voluminous, is purely circumstantial.
• 28:37
  Speaker 1: You poke holes.
• 28:38
  Speaker 2: Right. You say, yes. A car that looks like his
• 28:41
  Speaker 2: was on camera. But can you prove beyond a reasonable
• 28:45
  Speaker 2: doubt that he was driving it? Yes, his dad owns.
• 28:47
  Speaker 2: 40 caliber handguns. But can you definitively link that specific
• 28:51
  Speaker 2: bullet casing to that specific gun and prove Hunter pulled
• 28:55
  Speaker 2: the trigger?
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: So you're just creating doubt.
• 28:57
  Speaker 2: You don't have to prove innocence. You just have to
• 29:00
  Speaker 2: introduce a shadow of reasonable doubt into every single link
• 29:03
  Speaker 2: of the prosecution's chain.
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: But with the wet shoes at the exact time the
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: timeline matches up, And the text messages, I mean, that
• 29:10
  Speaker 1: feels like a massive stretch. I can't see a jury
• 29:13
  Speaker 1: buying that it was all just an incredibly unlucky coincidence.
• 29:17
  Speaker 2: It's a very tough sell for option A.
• 29:19
  Speaker 1: So what is option B?
• 29:20
  Speaker 2: Option B is far more complex. It involves conceding the
• 29:23
  Speaker 2: act but fighting the charge.
• 29:24
  Speaker 1: Admitting he did it.
• 29:25
  Speaker 2: Yes. This is where the defense essentially admits that Hunter
• 29:28
  Speaker 2: was the man at the door who pulled the trigger,
• 29:30
  Speaker 2: but they argue vigorously against first-degree murder. They try to
• 29:34
  Speaker 2: downgrade the charge to manslaughter or second degree murder.
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: How do they do that with a 40 minute drive?
• 29:39
  Speaker 2: By leaning into the very text messages that the prosecution
• 29:42
  Speaker 2: is using for motive. They argue that Hunter was so obsessively,
• 29:46
  Speaker 2: delusionally in love that his mental state was so severely
• 29:50
  Speaker 2: compromised that he was incapable of forming the specific legal
• 29:54
  Speaker 2: intent required for first degree premeditated murder.
• 29:57
  Speaker 1: So they basically argue he didn't realize the free trial
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: had ended, that his reality was so warped he thought
• 30:03
  Speaker 1: they were still in a relationship that he had to
• 30:05
  Speaker 1: somehow defend.
• 30:06
  Speaker 2: In a twisted legal sense, yes. They argue his perception
• 30:10
  Speaker 2: of reality was so fundamentally broken by his obsession that
• 30:13
  Speaker 2: he couldn't process the rejection rationally.
• 30:16
  Speaker 1: But wait, I had to stop you there. As we
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: just discussed, premeditation completely destroys the heat of passion argument.
• 30:21
  Speaker 2: It does.
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: If I am mentally compromised or in a blind rage,
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: I don't go to my dad's house... select a specific weapon,
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: get in my car, and drive for 40 minutes.
• 30:30
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: At what point does attempting a mental health defense accidentally
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: just prove to the jury exactly how dangerous, methodical, and
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: calculating the suspect actually is?
• 30:40
  Speaker 2: That is the exact tightrope the defense has to walk. Often,
• 30:44
  Speaker 2: trying to prove a compromised mental state inadvertently highlights the meticulous,
• 30:49
  Speaker 2: predatory nature of the crime.
• 30:51
  Speaker 1: It backfires.
• 30:52
  Speaker 2: However, the defense may not have a choice. In fact...
• 30:56
  Speaker 2: Matt Mangino states that in a case like this, with
• 31:00
  Speaker 2: a history of bizarre predatory conduct across multiple relationships, ordering
• 31:05
  Speaker 2: a comprehensive psychological evaluation isn't just a tactical choice for
• 31:09
  Speaker 2: the defense.
• 31:10
  Speaker 1: It's mandatory.
• 31:11
  Speaker 2: It is a constitutional obligation. If his attorneys don't thoroughly
• 31:14
  Speaker 2: investigate his mental health, they could be accused of ineffective
• 31:18
  Speaker 2: assistance of counsel down the road.
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: So they have to do the evaluation. just to see
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: if there is something broken enough in his brain to
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: explain this. They have to try. But we need to
• 31:26
  Speaker 1: be really clear on the legal definitions here, because to
• 31:29
  Speaker 1: the average person, saying he's mentally unwell sounds like the
• 31:33
  Speaker 1: defense is just making an excuse for cold-blooded murder.
• 31:35
  Speaker 2: Right, and that is a critical distinction. The defense is
• 31:38
  Speaker 2: likely seeking a mitigator, not an excuse.
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: What's the difference?
• 31:42
  Speaker 2: An excuse in legal terms would be an insanity defense,
• 31:46
  Speaker 2: pleading not guilty by reason of insanity, or NGRI. That
• 31:51
  Speaker 2: means arguing the defendant was so mentally ill they literally
• 31:54
  Speaker 2: did not know right from wrong at the time of
• 31:56
  Speaker 2: the crime.
• 31:57
  Speaker 1: And that's hard to prove.
• 31:58
  Speaker 2: The insanity defense is incredibly rare, extremely hard to prove,
• 32:02
  Speaker 2: and almost certainly wouldn't apply here.
• 32:04
  Speaker 1: Because he turned off his phone and fled the scene.
• 32:06
  Speaker 2: Exactly. Taking steps to avoid detection, like the digital silence
• 32:10
  Speaker 2: and fleeing to Shemokin, demonstrates a consciousness of guilt. He
• 32:14
  Speaker 2: knew what he was doing was wrong, and he tried
• 32:16
  Speaker 2: to hide it. Therefore, he is legally sane.
• 32:19
  Speaker 1: So what's a mitigator, then?
• 32:21
  Speaker 2: A mitigator, on the other hand, doesn't excuse the crime
• 32:23
  Speaker 2: at all. It is presented during the sentencing phase or
• 32:26
  Speaker 2: to argue for a lesser charge. It provides psychological context
• 32:30
  Speaker 2: that might persuade a judge or jury to lessen the
• 32:33
  Speaker 2: severity of the sentence.
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: Like saying, he's guilty, but... Exactly.
• 32:36
  Speaker 2: The defense would argue, look at these texts, look at
• 32:39
  Speaker 2: this history. This man's mind is profoundly disturbed. He belongs
• 32:43
  Speaker 2: in a secure prison facility, yes, but he doesn't deserve
• 32:46
  Speaker 2: the death penalty or life without parole... Because his perception
• 32:50
  Speaker 2: of reality is severely warped.
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: It's just a messy, tragic reality of the legal system
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: trying to quantify human behavior and assign a neat label
• 33:00
  Speaker 1: to pure obsession.
• 33:02
  Speaker 2: It really is.
• 33:03
  Speaker 1: As we bring you, our listeners, back up to the
• 33:05
  Speaker 1: surface from this deep dive, it is a massive amount
• 33:08
  Speaker 1: of information to process.
• 33:09
  Speaker 2: It's a heavy case.
• 33:10
  Speaker 1: We've gone from the collision of a 30-day relationship with
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: a fractured, controlling ego... watched it escalate through a terrifying,
• 33:17
  Speaker 1: recognizable pattern of digital and physical stalking, and followed the
• 33:21
  Speaker 1: rigorous forensic work.
• 33:23
  Speaker 2: The cell tower pings, the security cameras, the snowy footprints.
• 33:26
  Speaker 1: All the things that ultimately built this trap.
• 33:29
  Speaker 2: It is a profound tragedy, but it's also a stark
• 33:31
  Speaker 2: case study that highlights the intersection of modern tracking technology,
• 33:35
  Speaker 2: the psychology of coercion, and the devastating consequences when those
• 33:38
  Speaker 2: elements collide.
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: And the reality of a former protector. Someone who passed
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: the rigorous testing of a state trooper, allegedly utilizing his
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: insider knowledge to commit the ultimate crime. It is something
• 33:52
  Speaker 1: that will rightly haunt this community for a long time.
• 33:54
  Speaker 2: It's a betrayal of the highest order.
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: I think there are two massive takeaways from this deep
• 33:59
  Speaker 1: dive that connect directly to our everyday lives.
• 34:02
  Speaker 2: Let's hear them.
• 34:03
  Speaker 1: First, in our modern era, your digital footprint tells a
• 34:07
  Speaker 1: story you cannot control. The texts you send, your location data,
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: and as we learned today, Even your deliberate silent periods,
• 34:14
  Speaker 1: they create a permanent traceable web.
• 34:16
  Speaker 2: You can't hide from it.
• 34:17
  Speaker 1: And second, we have to be vigilant about recognizing the
• 34:21
  Speaker 1: red flags of stalking early. A barrage of intense suffocating
• 34:24
  Speaker 1: texts after a very short free trial relationship isn't a rom-com.
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: It isn't just an eccentric quirk.
• 34:30
  Speaker 2: It is a very real warning system.
• 34:32
  Speaker 1: Boundaries exist for a reason. And when someone repeatedly ignores
• 34:35
  Speaker 1: a simple because I said so, it is a blaring alarm.
• 34:38
  Speaker 2: Absolutely. And This case emphasizes that those early red flags
• 34:43
  Speaker 2: must be taken seriously, not just by the individuals experiencing them,
• 34:46
  Speaker 2: but by the institutions that are supposed to protect them.
• 34:49
  Speaker 1: Which brings me to a lingering, deeply uncomfortable thought that
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: I want to leave you with. OK. Let's look back
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: at June 2023. Hunter Schneider, a former state trooper with
• 35:00
  Speaker 1: extensive lethal training, stalks and harasses a woman over 100 times.
• 35:05
  Speaker 1: He leaves bizarre packages at her home. He bypasses her blocks.
• 35:09
  Speaker 1: He terrorizes her.
• 35:10
  Speaker 2: And what did the system do?
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: The justice system responds with probation and an $ 1, 100 fine.
• 35:16
  Speaker 2: That's it?
• 35:17
  Speaker 1: If the system had treated a law enforcement officer's predatory
• 35:20
  Speaker 1: behavior with the severe career-ending consequences it deserved the very
• 35:24
  Speaker 1: first time, would John Ravitz Jr. still be alive today?
• 35:27
  Speaker 2: It's a question we have to ask.
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: Are our laws actually designed to prevent stalking, or do
• 35:32
  Speaker 1: they only punish it after it turns deadly? It makes
• 35:35
  Speaker 1: you look back at that illusion of safety we started with.
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: We are conditioned to trust the badge, and we trust
• 35:40
  Speaker 1: the system.
• 35:40
  Speaker 2: But maybe we shouldn't blindly.
• 35:42
  Speaker 1: But when the system gives a known predator a slap
• 35:44
  Speaker 1: on the wrist, who is really keeping us safe? Let
• 35:48
  Speaker 1: that mull over as we conclude this deep dive.