« The Generation Why Podcast

Linda Stermer - 409

2021-02-07

January 7th, 2007. Kalamazoo, Michigan. Linda and Todd Stermer fell hard for each other and had a sweet little family together. After 14 years of marriage, they started arguing about things most couples do: affairs and finances. But in 2007, a fire broke out at their home and Todd Stermer was found dead on the lawn. Were those arguments just arguments or could they have directly led to Todd’s death? Did Linda kill her husband on purpose or was it a tragic accident? Join us as we discuss a case that we know you'll be talking about...

::Sponsors::

// ThirdLove. Find your perfect fitting bra today at thirdlove.com/genwhy and save 20% off your first purchase. --

//Embark. Order the Breed and Health kit to learn more about your dog. Visit EmbarkVet.com and use promo code GENWHY to get free shipping and save $30 off your Embark Breed and Health kit today.

See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Join wondering class in the thirteen app to listen ad free from wondering I do it better. Nothing much better. Now, just in how are you feeling I'm ok, rainy season. Two has launched I'd recommend that everybody go and listen to it if you're already subscribed then we are already
episodes. What, if you're not go check it out? This is bad Well over a year in the making and the frame team, which means there is more than just myself working on it. For sure case involves the murders of nine members of the wide L, Arizona Temple known as wide Coon around recommend listening to it and I think, by the end of it, you'll be really surprised by what our justice system is capable of. Don't miss You limited series on embassy the thing about hair she's, a friend until the end when a straightforward matter, case takes a series of chilling unexpected twists and turns. It expires one woman's manipulative and diabolical scheme starring to time a cat. Award word whenever NATO utter Judy Greer in Josh Demo. riveting story is based on one of the most compelling true crime. Sagas ever told on the iconic newsmagazine Dateline catch new episodes.
Bing about PAM Tuesdays on NBC. Let's talk about hair color. Everyone has a different route, But if you want to skip the salon into your her home Madison, delivers, salon quality results every time and, unlike other hair color, it's full of ingredients that nourisher hair What's amazing is that mass and red hair color doesn't smell and all the women in my life that have ever used it loved the results actually like the smell, and that's because doesn't have any ammonia provisions p p days or any of the bad stuff that makes you smell, like a chemical factory, get em all You free, multi, dimensional, hair color, delivered to your door or book an appointment for a fast and fabulous hair. Color service. how to Madison Red Hair Color bar near you visit Madison, reed dot com, that's mad and dash red dot com, and now generation, why listeners get ten percent off plus free shipping use code Jen? Why that code again G in W H? Why.
So tonight's case Aaron is either a wrongful conviction or the unless kissed woman alive. So with that, what are we talking about tonight that's right, we're talking about Linda, Inter starmer they lived in again, they had been married for quite a while I'll fourteen years or so and had multiple children she had brought children with her into the marriage, Brittany and Ashley, and then they had adopted her nephew and then they had to boys of their own, and the sons were Trenton Trevor and Corey. Corey was the one who is adopted when he was too and by the time this incident happens, the boys grown up their teenagers. This happen in Kalamazoo Michigan January? Seventh, two thousand seven, if you dont know where Kalamazoo is its ambition,
Chicago in Detroit and back in thousand ten, there were seventy four thousand residence or so now, the day of this incident Linda will say that her and Todd had been arguing. I guess this fight had lasted for a day or two and she aims that day. She was planning on leaving Todd. She told there two young boys that they should leave and go to the movies because she did want them to see the argument. A little while later in the day, she heard scream and she and to check out what was happening and she found Todd battling afire She then says that she wanted to go for help so she ran outside joy In their van she saw TAT run outside trying to pat the fire out, and she
but the vehicle and reverse and started to back up and then she put forward? This was a very quick incidents. Let's say this all happened within moments. She run over her husband, quite a scene, house is on fire. and she has run over her husband. Linda's neighbours are running over to her and she aimed at them to call nine one won the day. Is found Todd. He was severely burnt, a lot of clothes on wearing only boots and a pair of sweat, pants. The neighbour grab clothes from a vehicle and Rape them over Todd to keep warm because it was frigid outside by the time emergency responders, arrived Todd was unresponsive, they
moved him away from the house, because the house was gone: in flames, and there was a lot of flame material around, but Todd would stop Bree shortly thereafter and they perform CPR, but he was pronounced dead at the scene. So how do we get to this point? cotton lenders starmer. They seem to have it life together, married couple. They have kids Linda worked at, can link in Zoo Todd loved coaching, especially kid. He was involved with softball basketball, football and baseball they also like contain and work with his hands, particularly carpentry even had built his own home. they met when they were twenty five years old and got me aid in nineteen. Eighty three courting two Linda when they started talking about marriage, she told him
I have two daughters and he said: hey bring em. Let's do this whenever anybody asked them about their kids. He identified both the sun and the daughters as his kids. But over time they started to argue- and I believed that the argument started because of finances, which is, I think, probably in the top two or three reasons that people start to have trouble in them marriages. Linda was saying that Todd had accumulated more than five thousand dollars in debt and, of course, in turn, was saying that Linda in debt, twenty five thousand hours or so because the thirty one horses that they boarded. She had a number of horse that she took care of, and she claimed that because some they were being boarded that they actually Bringing in money but again when you have a couple
fighting over money you're going to get to different, versions of the same event: I'm sure that's. The truth is somewhere in the middle there, but regardless there had financial issues. Even if he is the one that seventy five thousand dollars and debt that could give her motive to kill him, because he's dragon me down, get rid of her or she's in debt and he's calling her out for that. we have also. Doesn't really matter which way in my mind and that's the other thing is, if you hear, the daughters or the sons. They each have a differ perception of why things were going poorly between the couple, because they all knew that things were bad, the daughters with a he's abusive and then of course the sun's would say Linda was doing all these bad things. Yet so it's whoever you listen to, they all have their own perception and it definitely seem like it was cut down the middle
daughters on one side and the On the other thoughts once would claim that never saw any physical abuse, but they do agree that their father had a temper. And could be very short and aggressive with people to be more specific, about the abuse that they accuse him they would say was mostly verbal. There was this story, I Linda conveyed it where he had it or one time, and then he went out, some flowers and came back and was very, very sorry that he had struck her but While the daughters even claim that she would get hit by him with either his hand or a belt, so for us these are things that are said after the fact and I'll leave it up the audience to decide what to think on that. There are definite
issues in this case between the two and it even gets the point where the day before the fire, it said that Todd found out about Linda's affair with a coworker named Chris Williams, so we have terrible debt an affair non, stop fighting abusive behaviour and then a mysterious fire in the home, and then Linda, quote unquote accidentally running over her husband got it. So this whole thing goes down now police? going to ask Linda what happened and How does she respond here and what happens when the first real Anderson the police show up, of course it. States. This idea that, She doesn't really now how it happened? There was all
surprise her, but once the pressure starts being applied. Then she he starts accusing tide, of trying to murder her. Two days later- she'll be interview, By detectives she was also interviewed by a private investigator hired by the insurance company, because you know house burns down your homeowner palace he kicks in and they need to know. What's going on and get a statement, she returned did her day- two investigators. She said that they are you'd about money- and she went to the Ass station to fill up their shabby blazer and brought breakfast home now, when speaking to the insurance investigators shoe ass. If she had any opinions on what could have started the fire- and she said I feel, like maybe Todd yet
me once during the day and told me that nobody else would ever have me, and I just I don't think that he meant for both of us too. I don't think I was posted be here, she's thinking that maybe he meant for both of them to die. Essentially yeah she also told it s gaiters, that Todd had an oil lamp and candles burning all around the house and that he would often bleed fuel from the furnace which could explore in how the fuel got on a towel. that was in the laundry now ass, gaiters tested to towels from the washing machine and they both tested positive for gasoline now, heating fuel from a furnace, especially when you have can we say they Donna Farm. I mean they had horses and stuff, that's a thing, but did it. Happened recently, we're not for sure it
the ideas here was maybe she was trying to kill her husband. How did she in Ankara to take him so that he could simply Dinah fire? Could she have drug dim? Could she have hit him in the head Of course, an autopsy is being performed and they find that the cause of death is a combination of burned. And smoke inhalation. They also fine blood, force, injuries to Todd's head. But you're, not sure if they were OZ by someone striking em in the head with an object or if they were caught by him being run over by vehicle or both they take did his blood. It came up. Negative for control substances, but they did pull urine and they found that he had Vike it in a system now You don't find a drug in your bloodstream means it's already passed through your system and you're still going to
in your urine, because now it starts Your body gets rid of it through the waste they he found Vike hidden in his urine, which means he ingest this drug, our or days before it was currently in his system, because It would have been found in his bloodstream. This will come up later well because he did look like He might have been struck in the head. I think they just don't believe her story, it doesn't ring true that she would make it out of the house totally fine, but he would be badly badly burned and, of course, die very soon. After They don't believe her reason for how he got ran over how we got here over with the van. and they asked the sun's what happened that day and when They said that she told them to even go to the movie theater they
to go. Ask dad or go talk to him and she stopped them and said your dad sleeping, don't talk to her, so they laughed so he was slow. in which that insinuates was he drugged when he was attacked, but talks calls. You report comes back pretty much clean now in two thousand and nine the detectives believe they have enough information there rest her and they charge sure with pride, meditated murder, and why felony murder in the course of committing arson- and just in I don't know about you, but in a reading newspaper accounts of the story it certainly seems as though this the kind of case that the public assumes Is just this woman to killer husband, though you get that feeling oh yeah, on the face of it. How can you
of a fire break out and then this terrible accident, where you run somebody over and I can say well, she I'm paying attention when she threw the car and reverse the houses. Fire. It's a high intensity moment, but there's a lot more to this and her trial is set to begin January twenty ten now, Linda ever took the witness stand, which typically, is probably a good idea, although There are a lot of people that fine, Linda, very charismatic, very matter of fact, and believable prosecution will and their case. They claim that Linda either sedated, Todd or knocked him unconscious before dousing him with gasoline and setting them on fire when Todd woke up and tried to escape.
She ran over him with her vehicle. she wanted him to die. On the other hand, the defence there can argue that the fire was accidental and that she accidently struck Todd with the vehicle So these are the two opposing narratives part of that species case in convincing, a jury of Linda's Gill to explain how the fire was started. They need public space this right. They can't just say: oh the house was set on fire, so for them there that the fire started on the first floor and I believe this because they took a look at the entire house and looked where the most damage was, and they factored in some things like the time of day how many people were at home
oh, it's on this first floor living room where the fire they say originated now. They also tested. Todd Clothing and they use this in court. They say his clothing tested for gasoline, and they said that the fire had been in generally set. This is what their fire expert says, and that Todd was at the centre of that fire. But just Then they tested, Linda's clothing and her clothing had no gasoline on it. If you're pouring gasoline on a person or the floor. Where have you it's going to splatter Allah, the place it should get back on you. So the defensive sang She wasn't in the room when this went down. Maybe Todd was pouring the ghastly, but they don't just rest with the. Orson evidence. They also look at what did other people know about this couple? Obviously
We have a couple whose fighting, maybe they talked other people and one of the people the prosecution calls in is Kate Fox. Now she to be really good friends with Linda, and she also worked at the same place in Kalamazoo Corps to Kate Fox, he said lender was telling her. That taught was physically and emotionally abusive and that she was planned, to divorce him and all that Linda had spent years thinking about how to get rid of him because issue This was really unhappy in the marriage and he was so abusive, and this kind of damning? I would say she also said that Linda had thought running over Todd with a car. During trial? Learn, though, bring in a gas station attendant? Who will testify, Linda went to the gas station that morning and appeared to be
been gas into a gas? Can work container well I'd, say assumed. Now she lifted up the hatch Back There was something going on back there and she had a gas pump in her hand. But did the gas station and see her put, the nozzle of the gas pump into a gas can know, but in court that something that the defence really does after and they get thee gas station attendant to admit that they never saw container I don't know why someone would walk to the back of their vehicle with the pomp and their handed do nothing, but that's the argument there, in her statements. She said that after the boys left shoe, down in the basement to do laundry, and why he was doing laundry. She found a towel that smell like fuel. That's when she heard Todd screaming
upstairs so she sang she was downstairs and cheap bound towel, that smell by gas and as investigators search the house. They did find these tunnels in the laundry So this is kind of matching up to her story. We did that Linda didn't testify, but because she spoke to the insurance company, her statements there could be used in cork. Absolutely now one of the things that comes up as well is this affair, with Chris Williams. so the prosecution gets him to testify now Wendy had said. I did start seeing him until after my husband had died from the fire by Chris Williams. While he told a very different story here that it had started while she was still married so coarse this The motive, not only were she and husband, just really upset with each other. Their marriage was very sour. She was having
a fair and was lying about it so now or there is a further motive of well now she doesn't might be married to the scanning more. She wants to move on. The prosecution doesn't believe, of course, that lend it didn't know she had run husband over. In fact, they believed that struck him intentionally and they go on to say that if she really cared about her husband, she wouldn't be asking other people to call my more one because she not only has a phone a cell phone, but she has two of them because she had, according to Kate foxes, testimony a second phone, so she could commit Kate, with her lover, but this is very- disputed in court. Is it not they're going off? testimony of her coworker, but at no point does it seem prosecution provide these two cell phones or even a pitcher of these She cell phones much less
bills are account statements for these two cellphones so are we. Have is the coworker saying she had them and the prosecution just agreeing with that, but they didn't really prove it. Then only But the defence really goes after Kate Fox, I believe in of going after everything. She says they go after her character and after her mental state they bring in case, Fox brother and his Estonia seems to really suggest that Kate Fox isn't someone to be trusted and also puts it there that maybe she has some mental health issues. Defence goes on to also say that that can fox saying these things, because she's not happy with Linda anymore. If they were friends, she wouldn't say any of this, but there some issues. There they kind of had a falling out of work
the shift situation that came up that cause from jealousy possibly also Linda owed, Kate, some money and didnt pay it so they're suggesting that maybe this is all just revenge, take mom to get word from our sponsor through love. Twenty twenty one is your time to shine, focus on what makes you happy started with better brows and underwear. Third love creates better browser that focus on what matters: that's comfort, with no short cuts or substitutions from and Stripes too late that actually feel soft to there number one rated twenty four, seven classic T shirt bra check out all the exclusive at third loved com. They absolutely stand behind their products, If you don't love it. Exchanges and returns are free, but you have to do that because, if you're, sure about your size. You can take their online fit finder quiz find the styles that fit your shape and body by answering. Just a few
simple questions to find a perfect fit. My wife loves her third love bra. I know you will to third love knows: is a perfect proffer everyone so right now they're offering my listeners twenty percent off you first order go to third loved outcome suggestion. Why now to find your perfect fitting bra and get twenty percent after first purchase? That's their loved calm, slashed g and w H. Why? For twenty percent off today were also brought you buy embark, I recently. just adopted a new dog. His name is Ergo I know he's a chihuahua, but there's the nelse go on with them, because he has a cute little face a super long hair. If I were to be walking him down the street and somebody Werner poach me and ask what kind of dogs that I wouldn't know. What to tell every dog has a story, and I want to know the mystery behind Erskyll and that's where embark comes in embark, allows dog owners to learn about their pups breed ancestry, health traits even finds your dogs,
relatives embark detects over three hundred fifty breeds and screens for a hundred ninety genetic health conditions. So you can know the best care for your dog create a training and health plan from breed trades to genetic risk factors. There kit is very straightforward: easy to use with simple step by step instructions If you ve done any sort of dna testing, you know it's a quick swab put it back in the packaging and send it off and wait for your results. Right now embark has an offer on there red and Healthcare for our listeners. This new year go to embark vet dot com now to get free. shipping and save thirty dollars off your embark breed and healthcare with Promo Code Jen, why visit embark that dot com and use promo code g? and W H why to save forty dollars today now the prosecution, a few other witnesses, and these My least favorite types of witnesses
their jailhouse informants, and there are two of them one is named Verona Tracy Tracy says she overheard a conversation in which Linda said something about hitting Todd over the head with a lying pan and being sorry about it on cross. domination, though her so kind of fell apart and she wasn't certain on who she heard Linda telling it too. So it's. A vague story from this one jailhouse informant the other one data is testimony is a little bit more coherent. She said that after Linda Toll her several conflicting stories about tots death that she admitted to her about the murder. And she said that she and Todd had argued the day of the fire. She struck him in the head with something and then later
started the fire with gasoline. While he was leaving on key, examination, though both of these jailhouse, foremans admitted to having mental health issues, so this is, defence, discrediting them and attacking their character, but both had said that he was sleeping. She had struck him and use gasoline but all these details are fairly well known: So whether or not she actually admit to these two jailhouse informants or as we hate to assume they were approached by law enforcement or prosecution and offered a deal to help them out. We hope that doesn't happen but we ve seen it happen in the past. So prosecution, their working this. That Linda is a liar and that cheese knowingly lied to.
two gaiters the insurance company. She is a liar right at came. There they're saying don't trust anything. She says and then of course give examples of things that she says and paint them as lies go on to try and address the people who testified for them and try to build up their credibility, because the defence is trying to tear their credibility down and of they don't know why? Chris Williams would say that the affair began before TAT had died and a week a guess it's this idea that, while he must not be telling the truth, and of course we have these two sides arguing back and forth, either is telling the truth. He's lying, because he now thinks lenders a murderer and he's trying to help the prosecutor, but that's the way it goes, which one do you believe that I want to go back to this point for a minute because
is this gas station attendant, I believe, is a very important part of this trial and ask said this: she asked whether She got gas that morning in a can She says. No, she did not. You have paternity cease, indeed, a large you had an opportunity to judge her credibility. I would submit that she certainly appears to be a very credible person who has recall The incident has no reason to make anything up and by all appearances, Linda's Termer, with the hatch up standing in the back of her vehicle with a nozzle, in her hand. Again this is driving home. The point that should the defence can say this station attendant, never saw gas can or a gas container, but why? else. Wid Linda, be at the back of the vehicle. with an outline her hand, it's like
Your common sense. In other words and remember, she's, a liar, the defence brings Todd's mother up to the stand, which is sort of a interesting angle. Here, his mother will testify that Todd's previous homes had burned down suspiciously, and, of course, are saying Maybe he's setting this fire because he's trying to get himself of the whole that he's in with all this dead. You have to give it to him at separate? the story. Is it not what chances of three homes burning down. The defence If they're closing arguments, say that all the evidences weak answer come stand. Show those suggest the fire was accidental or if Dil currently set, was started by Todd because She was the one that was on fire and was in the middle of the fire, they'll I emphasise that Todd's mother talked about
burning down his previous homes, which would back the conclusion that Todd said the. Air himself, you think well, his own mother is saying that he burned those other two homes down for the injured, money. Why would he did a third time and if that's true It is possible that Linda lost track of him while trying to get away in the van to go get help. Maybe she forgot to get a cell phone to make that call Prosecutor finishes by saying of Linda. She had the motive. She had the opportunity she got the gas she sent the boys away, didn't call for help. She ran him over and then sheets. Lie after lie here. had we know she's a liar she's, a diabolic scheming, manipulative, liar and a murderer. Now, I would say anybody whose ready this case. If you just pick up one
local papers in Michigan. Things you'll see is it sounds like House was set on fire and then the husband TA comes running out the house because he said he's trying to save his life and then waiting in the Van and runs him over. That's this case. Simply but is an accurate. So this jury has to take an all all of this information and the jury was comprised of eight men, six women. And, of course the family members are in court waiting to hear what the He has to say what did they fight? They found her guilty of both of the charges and that is a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole. I personally don't think that's surprising because What are the chances somebody who's fighting with their husband there crushing debt and she
having an affair? What are the chance of a fire breaking out. Then him acts we're getting run over by a van. I get one the jury said not she's guilty send her away. Their deftly seemed more strikes against her. Much of what the defence tried to do. Was to mitigate or to throw down Pond statements made by their people or testimony, but the picture that was painted by the prosecution seemed very, very concise and seemed believable, but things don't stop there. The family is divided because again this I believe that Linda killed their father and the daughters believe that Todd was abusive and that, if anything he was like responsible for what happened. They dont think there had any harmful and too in this at all that she's, basically a victim. I do know that
the daughters expressed some regret, because this device, it is keeping them separated from their brothers. They want to have relationships with their family and it's not a good place because of this trial and because of the death I mean you imagine Thanksgiving Forthem all sitting around the table. One side, thinking dad. This and the other side. Thinking mom did this snack gonna go well absolutely. Obviously the next step for Linda, isn't just to go off to prison and spend her life there. She files appeals and just as I remember talking with you about this case in my first class, to you was if she's this obviously guilty. Sound reports based on statements and based on how many people say won't know: she's lying I did she need another trial because that's what she's? currently going after well you're.
who is going to appeal when you have a life sentence and no trial is perfect and I'm not trying to bash attorneys, prosecutors or defence attorneys, but now thing. Is so neatly packed up that there isn't some discrepancy. any some sort of technicality that you can attack and an appeal and guess what are in this process Peter was calling her a liar and screaming at her all throughout this trial, and at no point did her defence object to that. That's pretty prejudicial yeah Jeff getting, who is her attorney maiden, of calls like that, each, not to hire a fire expert. Now, according to the attorney, though, this was something disk with Linda and they had come to an agreement, but in her defence I'm sure he- Was very persuasive, we don't need this, but when you see the result of the trial when you hear
the jury has to say you have to look back and go. I didn't get good advice, they claim that the fire was set accidentally, which how How could it be set accidentally and at one point they said is that a burning ember came out of the the fireplace or one of the candles or oil cans tipped over but Todd's cover and gasoline the living room is covered and gasoline days did suggests, will taught muscle. Did it himself, I it makes sense I'm thinking well, they didn't higher their own, so everything that the process you should put in goes in and they didn't even cross examined this guy very well. So here? You have the press Yoda yelling at her and then they didn't cross, examine they didnt pay. really cross examined the fire expert and they didn't higher the roan. You dont know why. The attorney
that choice or believed in it so much. But if I had to guess it's because he really believed that the state couldn't prove their case, that it was an intentional fire, but I would argue if there is gasoline in the house Then that's all you need gasoline was set on fire. They know that much whilst with be gasoline. There doesn't belong on the floor of the house or on towels right I would say this is definitely an example of the attorney not in good enough or making a bad call, and he should have stuck with one theory or another. I personally think just my opinion either say it was absolutely an accident. Was absolutely Todd, because if all your using is prosecutions, expert and they're saying It was intentionally set, then you have to go with that, because you
higher your own to say that it was an accident and by going with both It weakens your own argument. I think you're absolutely correct, because jumping around different there is it makes it sound, like the defence, doesn't really know what happened part of what happens in court. the attorney has to look like they know. We are talking about, they know what happened, that's part of convincing the jerry. What happened so of Europe? out and saying what could have been this could have been. That sounds like you. Sure there's an hour an expert who also talk forty eight hours by the way, but they believe There's no evidence that Todd was with gasoline, does not say there was no gas lamp the scene That's not what they're saying that they're saying, if you doubt with ghastly and set them on fire their problem. Not gonna go out the house yet and I could get
so they're saying he wasn't housing gasoline, so the prosecutions fury or what they present. to the jury is wrong, but I think a rigid the prosecutor should have said. Doused him or doubts the room and gasoline cause. It's not that much a leap to say will maybe she just set the couch fire that he was laying on maybe she's, rendered around the room in Paris circle around him of gasoline and set down on fire me She said that when she saw him fighting the blaze there was fire between her and him and she could not get to him. So she left the house to get help Oh the fire expert, she hires, and that goes in forty eight hours I could buy. analysis, but it doesn't disprove the
she was the one pouring the gasoline. It just proves that he didn't have to be destined gasoline, but and when he was outside, he was only wearing boots and sweat, pants he'd Ray his shirt could have been because it was how soon gasoline and burned up- and he was right- They get it off in time. The I didn't go well for her, but since the trial starts getting more competent people to take up her case to help her case. And so in twenty. Sixteen, an attorney filed an amended petition, which colluded these findings and it took about two years but she was granted another day in court October of twenty eighteen, a federal
held an evidentiary hearing. In this case, it's the states, fire expert who testified at this hearing and said he followed proper investigative procedures, but he had been. I guess you could say criticised for not taking samples of the remains he said he didn't need to but there were other expert saying he should have, and of course this is stuff that the judge rural Judge, Arthur J Tar now is going to have to figure out. I see it as once. The court had made its call, but now there's going to possibly be a new trial, everything's thrown into doubt, and now we have other people coming in saying. Why are they do this? Why did they do that and it starts to look bad, her defence team? they didn't do a very good job. They didn't object to this results. Prosecutor.
yelling you're a liar all throughout the case. And honestly earn. If I may on trial. I want my d, to attorney to objective every single thing comes out of that prosecutors mouth and if this guy doing his job while he's not representing her good enough. It was a couple of later, when the judge issued a ruling and said that the prosecutor was wrong because the screw had told the jurors that lend ahead to cellphones, while they didn't have proof Like you said they didn't have bills showing that she had to phones. They didn't have the two phones so Why are they getting away with saying that? Well, there is the other problem. There many on the other side, the defence attorney getting never said anything to counter that judge went on to say that Kate Fox how she did have some mental health issues and her brother testified that she would be untruthful if she
to get back at somebody and then also looked at the arson evidence and, according to judge significant evidence pointed the finger of suspicion at Mister Starmer because of his mouth this testimony and because of the new information come from another fire expert? What is this add up to? Well, this judge. Throws it all out and Linda walks free. This was December twenty eight twenty eighteen, she had spent about nine years in prison honestly, I dont want, sway anyone, but I think she did this. I think she's guilty but I agree with this judges decision. I I agree that this evidence, hearing showed her defence wholly inadequate and, at this point throwing out a lot of this evidence and letting her walk. Free is probably right thing to do now? The prosecution, the state can always come back and retry her, but I think the system is
king the way it should, regardless of the fact that I think she totally did it. You can read about a story you can hear ass to you can believe some as guilty. But if there were things happening in the court that and have been happening if her defence seemed incompetent can't just let those things slide just because you think she's guilty, she needs to have proper representation and the prosecution should have to back up what they say with proof now? How many times have you said if the prosecution claims that pigs fly and they get away with it. While they didn't this time, because you cell phones, that's essentially pigs fly, at least in this case. The defense was at least in the first trial, when they brought Todd's mother on, to testify to his previous homes burning down. How can this guy
have to homes burned down before this third They insinuated arson, but they didn't really come right out and say he burn. On two houses he's an arsonists and so Even though the prosecution didn't prove that had to phones. The defence didn't actually prove that he had burned down as two houses, they just brought them all. Want to see his previous. Houses had burned down, they didn't have to because it was never proven to be arson there was nuance there and they just planted that seed without having to provide proof and there's a difference there, and I I found that at least to be one thing that the defence did right at first trial. Just in this, retrial has not happened yet and we oh that in twenty nineteen they Michigan it A general appeal this decision. They want Lynn
conviction reinstated. I think there's enough evidence to go forward. and retry her again. I think that, They ve been shown where there, Cummings were, been shown where they lost and they can come back even stronger. dont know how the defence is going to counter that, because the defense, has shown their cards now. Who's gonna have the better fire expert did they don't suggest she had to phone and they just stick to widen He called nine hundred one, why? Why did she backup over her husband when she saw that he had gotten out of the house. Where was she going Why would she leave her husband there? Things like that? They could stick to her story on the chain? events that happen that morning, and I think they have em Stronger case has opposed throwing out things like she had to
phones. One too. You know office gave her affair. With this other man just say He was having an affair, you can just leave it at that. You don't have to. Go into some finite details of this. Practice is the smartest way to shop and save. You can earn cash box get over thirty five hundred stores, whether it's fast and beauty, electronics, homosexuals, travelling dining or subscription services. You can earn cash back with racket in membership is free and it's really easy to sign up rocketing deposits. Your cash back directly into your Paypal account, or they can send you a check, it's a noble You are earning cash back when you shop, it's like you're, getting Aid to shop start getting cash back now, with racket in rocketing has fifteen million members who are already saving start all of your shopping, the racket and at racket, dot com or get the racket in at the start. Saving today, your cash back really adds up,
So really what this comes down to is the court says Linda Starmer- was denied due process. That's as simple as we can put it through process fair. movement through the normal judicial system, especially a citizen's entitlement and sheep. Probably was, and that first trial, I wonder If you were to survey all the people who read about this case, I really believe that most people see Linda Starmer as guilty. I wonder how many people would be willing to say that they also feel She didn't get a fair trial because there this idea that, once you label, someone as something say guilty you you're not is ready to give them anything. You want taken away. You want them punished, but we all know this is that makes mistakes, but if we have a system. That's trying its best.
And that's what I see in this case this mission court. It's trying its best to be fair to her which, I think is a great exam. Ample of a civilised society that weakens step beyond our perceptions are feelings. What we know and say they deserve this much in other words, they deserve a fair trial, no matter what we think that feedback. We get every now and then, when some. Here's me- or you say they pray We did it or they are guilty, but then they didn't get a fair trial warrants site. It doesn't matter if they got a fair trial guilty. That's just not how the system works and if you don't give them a fair trial, did you We have to give an innocent person a fair trial, either the bird
is on the state to prove guilt and to stay, it has all the resources. The state has all the hards really in their favour to prove guilt? That's where we What to see these things go smoothly We want to see fair, send our justice system and honestly and me we pick out the cases that are just fleetly whatcha doing. You know we we dont cover A lot of cases words. Everything is just neatly packaged up and persons found guilty most of those things, don't even a trial, its normally just a clean process. But it's these cases that we like to pick out show where errors can be made where if you say something in court, you need to back it up with evidence,
otherwise. People can walk free, even guilty people scattered to your due diligence. I know when we say we think she's probably guilty or not we know she's counting because we really dont know who idea that her husband could have This fire and accelerate, and himself up. and then she asked any random over that's possible, it may unlikely, but it's possible. You factor and that his own mother testified that he had to other homes burned down and others This fire, oh, what are the odds right, but for me just the idea that she went off got gasoline took the nozzle to the back of vehicle like she did. She also had her sons leave the house mean there. many different ways. I can get to she's, probably guilty.
that seem more realistic to me. But that's just my opinion again. I applaud the court for doing the right thing, because it is a matter whether she did it or not. It's up to the court to get it right. and part of getting it right is to respect people's rights. So Aaron. If she didn't do this, let's go this chain of events that had to have happened. She happened to go to a gas station and walked, on the back of a car with the fuel pump, retrieved something out of the back of her car, but not Philip aghast tank and the gas station attendant was confused. Then she goes home continue argue with her husband and tells her sons to go to the movies and when go to say goodbye dad. She says he
sleeping leave him alone, and then Todd gets up doubts as the living room with gasoline had set on fire accidently, that's himself on fire screams out. She comes stairs from the basement, The laundry room is, and there happens to be gasoline, so towels that she came across down their sees her husband, is fighting of house fire. She happens to not have or phone and she runs outside, gets in the van to get help it sees her husband come outside, padding himself down from the flames, doesn't know. He goes decides to put the car and reverse and back up over her husband, then the neighbors come up and she's distraught and crying, and then Investigators come up and she tells them he was true.
They kill me. This is why I dont believe her. It's just too much I don't think a lot has been made of this, but the judge at the evidentiary hearing even said and I dont know if he's just going out the prosecution but was talking about her backing up over, has been and then driving back over him again, maintain that never happened? You have anything. she ran over once, but didn't realize it. There was proof that she beheld were with the van. There was blood on the ban. You know if she didn't hit him with a pan in its proven that she didn't drug him, because the talks college report came back negative. He could sustain these head injuries from the Van but again This is a lot of bad luck. I think we'd certainly being to hear what the audience has to say, subscribe on Apple pie,
Spotify or wherever you're listening right now join wondering plus in the wondering app to listen ad free
on a cold February morning and Indianapolis Tony caresses woke up got dressed loaded, sawed off shock on Andrew to his bank. After entering the office, he quickly found his investment banker and wired the muzzle of his gun to the back of the man's head. Tony wasn't there to steal anything? He was there to take his life back. And his plan was so well calculated that for the next sixty three hours they Indianapolis Police Department couldn't stop it, and so outrageous and potentially catastrophic that the entire nation couldn't turn away from it. American hostage is a new podcast, starring, John HAM. That tells the true story of one man who channeled the rage of a nation and took justice into his own hands and ass. The nation washed live Tony, would become a hero to millions to hear the story follow american hostage. Where were you get your podcast or you can binge all aid episodes right now on Amazon, music or wondering plus
Transcript generated on 2022-03-16.