« Up and Vanished

Case Evidence 05.15.17


Take a deeper look at the evidence as experts discuss new developments in the case.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
One may fourth, Ryan, Dukes defence attorney waved his arraignment in entered an automatic plea of not guilty. The question is: why is it just a formality? Ores, and turning for paying for trial, as far as the evidence to stay here, against Ryan. Duke we don't really know mostly as a result of his gag order, but based on what we do know it safe Whatever testimony Bo Deuce gave the GB, I was certainly incriminate Ryan and will likely be you against him in a trial, but what if Rhine didn't do with the state as alleging or What are the rules of Ryan Duke and though dukes were reversed, with presumption of innocence, if Ryan do proceeds with not guilty plea and goes to trial, but what is defence look like and does he stand a chance of getting off today we're going to speak with an experienced defence attorney named Ashley merchant to help answer some? These tough question
This case evidence so my name is actually merchant and I'm a criminal defence attorney in the Atlanta Georgia area. They do primarily serious felony work yes, just gonna start off speaking more generally, can you explain to me what innocent until proven, He is and what the importance of these words come from. What is it I guess and fine, because everybody thinks innocent until proven guilty is a concept that follows you out an entire criminal case, and it doesn't is an evident standard at trial. That's it pretrial, There is really no assumption in favour of a defendant me. Most of the laws are a little bit pro state and less per defendant. But then, when you get to trial, the state has to prove
guilty beyond reasonable doubt and that's where we say innocent until proven guilty, because the state has that burden at trial to find enough evidence that you did a crime and to convince twelve people that you ve done this crime beyond reasonable doubt, and so it's it's really just in evidence standard that we have a trial. Why is innocent until proven guilty? Would you say in this particular case with what we know, what the gag order, what we don't know and all the possibilities. So until proven guilty is very important in this case, particularly because there's not a lot of evidence in there's a lot of alternative theories, and so any time there's alternative theories that the gene. I will tell the jury that not only does the state have to prove him guilty plus Ryan, for example, Rhine Duke, has to prove him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, but they also have to disprove all reasonable alternative theories and said that that means, as if the defence says you know, look at this guy. Let's look at both jukes, for example. Let's say: maybe he did it the state or
so not only has to prove Ryan Duke did it, but they also have to disprove the beau. Dukes could have done it. So that's how it works. They can, when we say hey, they can present their theories and they have to disprove those the earnest eyes. They can present other theories, but they have to be reasonable theories, so the defence can get up there and they can argue other alternative, reasonable theories to the jury, and it's really up to the jury to determine if those are reasonable theories, so You know a lot of that strategy decision for defence lawyer. You don't want to get up there and say some far fetched crazy story, because then the jury just doesn't believe you, but if you have a reasonable plot. Viable alternative. You can present that in my experience it's not to get up there and say: oh there's, ten other people that could have done this. It makes more sense for you, as a defence attorney in as the defence to trying to
is on an actual reasonable theory and put that theory forth and the state have to disprove that theory. So in this case, for example, both jukes, you could put forth that as a theory that he's actually the masterminds and he's actually the one they did it, and then the state will have to focus on disproving that theory. If they want to take their stance, how does it affect the prosecutions plan and in their whole game plan for everything if there are a whole prosecution, relies entirely on boat dukes. Testimony against Ryan, if Ryan, Dukes Defence is that both dukes did it. How does that work in the courtroom? Has it affect their case? all the prosecution is putting all of their eggs in the boat jukes basket. So their whole case is based on his credibility. What he has led them to what he has said here and so they have got to try and find some what we call corroborating evidence to corroborate his story, things that make his story more likely to be true. They have got to bolster his reputation. They have got to say that he's been concern
stand and that he doesn't have a motivation to lie, and then, on the flip side, the defence has to say, what he actually does have a motivation to lie and there actually are holes in his story, and this is why we think Bo Dukes is not telling the truth. This is why we think he's not worthy of belief and a big thing that the defence might use is the fact that he has prior criminal convictions. One, for example, he's gotta theft so here a prior convicted Phelan and he's got a theft case and as they have alleged in the indictment in this case, the state thinks that the motive was theft, they put them. Nightmare they put in the indictment for the felony murder accounts that it was a burglary with the intense come in a theft inside the house. So clearly they ve got some evidence. We don't know what that some evidence that there were some theft will with that, though, dukes makes a lot of sense because he has prior theft. Convictions were Ryan, Duke has none and said: that's something that would be very reasonable for the defence to argue so can they bring up his past criminal record
for their events, definitely when boat dukes takes a stand, his criminal record becomes relevant and it becomes admissible evidence and so he's got. A prior fellow conviction for thefts fraud, things like that, and so that actually is something that would be admissible at trial. They can actually put in a certified copy of his conviction in his sentence. Can cross examined him on it. They can also another thing that I think is something that I personally would do is His immunity agreement use what he would be facing if he was in Ryan Dukes Seat, what if the tables were turned, and so you cross examined bow? You would question him about. You know if you hadn't come for if you were the one sitting in Ryan's chair, you would be facing a life without parole sentence. You would be facing a murder charge. And so that when the jury understands what Ryan's facing and they Stan, the motivation BO might have to turn the tables, because he's put himself in a significantly better position by being the first one to come forward. He now
he's gotta immunity right. How do we mean eels work I mean in the court room. Where are you immune? From a mean? Any doing everything how's that work is it a written piece of paper is a handshake agreement. You know cases seems like there was deeply some sort of deal on the table because both confessed that too his friends which ended up in our house. And so what could that be? and in how could that past we change in the future based on his behavior. Agreements are really dependent on how good your lawyer is quite frankly, and what your lawyer can get from the district attorney. It's a contract that your negotiating in negotiating terms of it and as Chancellor you want it to be broad. You wanted to cover just about everything you want it to cover what we call riveted views as well. You want it to cover what you admit to doing and what they find based on what you ve met it to do. So, even if you don't say everything in the first interview you want to make sure that what they find later on that your client might have done that that's also covered in the immunity agreement, so
agreement is very broad and it covers a lot of different grounds and You never want to have an immunity agreement, just as a handshake you want in writing. It needs to be a contract. It needs to be something. That's that's on paper because the jury has a right to see it. So when they go trial and Ryan's case? The jury will have a right to see both immunity agreement and look at that and say you know that that's his motivation for testifying he's testifying in exchange for this deal, it's it's no different than if a definite took a political and they testified in exchange. For that please deal you want to set out the parameters exactly what you have to do to get the immunity and a lot of times. The problem with plea agreements, if you take a deal in exchange for the plea agreement, is the prosecution, the condition that you have to give truthful testimony or then, when you get upon the sand who determine if you're telling the truth and if you dont say what the prosecution wants to hear, they think you're lying and they Voyager deal,
because they said that's not what we think is the truth and so you're not giving truthful testimony, whereas defence, maybe think them showing that for us so that those can t on what the actual trial testimony ends up being unity, but you can also very easily lose their seems like you can you can lose out if you're found to be lying. If they determine that, when you testify you're not telling the truth, you can actually lose that so is it set in stone as soon as they sign up here favorite, say: ok, here's the deal, but in Well then it's not really mean. My past experience I've just kind of seeing that it seemed like please there's are allowed to lie to you as part of their Bessie, gave me a way of doing things. So Can they just a year we ideal for you, but we never say anything. Now you don't have a deal. The possible, I mean if they don't have anything signed, it sought ironclad. Yes, you could definitely get out of it; they can definitely back out of it and that's the point but having oral agreement are having.
An agreement that some extremely broad. You also want to factor in the fact that the federal authorities can charge him and said you want to make sure that any agreement you ve got is a defence lawyer free to protect. Your client includes the federal authorities coming forward and charging him with some type of crime, If you take a body over county lines, you can implicate certain federal statutes, and so you could actually end up with some federal charges well The new year is upon us, which resolutions do you plan to conquer and twenty twenty sticking to improve?
Appertain becoming more mindful and creating a healthier lifestyle through diet, exercise and, of course, improved sleep. The sleep number three hundred and sixty smart bed helps everyone get the proven quality sleep that will change their life. Use the sleep iq app to help create your routine sleep numbers, individual fit technology is simply amazing, go check out a sleep number store and see for yourself. Sleep number beds allow you to adjust on each side to set your ideal furnace comfort and support the sleep number three hundred and sixty smart bed senses your movements in automatically adjust, keep you sleeping comfortably throughout the whole night with sleep IQ technology inside the bed. It tracks how you're sleeping give you personalized insights for your best sleep. Just cover proven quality sleep with a sleep number three hundred and sixty smart bed save one thousand dollars on a queen special edition, smart bed, now nineteen. Ninety nine during the January sale, only at asleep number store or sleep number dot com, slash cadence, again go check out asleep them restore her visit, sleep number, dot, com,
slash. Cadence, so in your personal opinion, in a week that Ryan Duke has pled not guilty sort of what explained what's going on and what you things going to be what it is all means right, so he was indicted and he's pledged not guilty, so the indictment is interesting to me because it's very vague it doesnt actual include a whole lot of information. It talks about him using his hand, which is odd, because in Georgia, aggravated assault normally is not with a hand it's with an object, so normally as with a gun
or with a hammer or a rock. You know something I mean it in a home situation may be picking up a lamp. You know something that would actually cause them to blunt force. Trauma a hand other than strangulation is not usually the cause of death, and so in this case it's interesting that they're putting that he caused the death with his head, and but they're not telling any more. So I if his lawyer challenges this indictment I'll, probably be successful because it doesn't give enough information an indictment, to give you enough information in order to prepare for the defense in order to prepare for defend against what it is your accused of doing things killed her with a hand that doesn't tell you anything known not at all. I thought it was restrains I've had kind of mix, reviews and feelings about whether it's odd or whether its normal. I thought it was really weird. It is one of the most vague indictments I've seen and so that's why. I think it would not stand up to a challenge, because the indictment has to put
you on notice as to what it is useless to defend against it. Doesn't that's how you every little detail or every little bit of evidence, but it has to tell you how the government thinks you did this. So you say reduce turning and challenge the indictment. What do you mean? You mean challenges in court when he's defending himself against what he's being accused of or challenge the indictment before goes to try as far as to trial, we actually have something in Georgia, called it a mirror, and what that means is that means to quiet the indictment. It's kind of a quick The indictment of the lantern for quashing the indictment he can trying quash this indictment, which means it is essentially getting it dismiss the indictment dismissed now if he successful with that they have another right at the apple. So let's say his lawyer files that demure that motion to quash this indictment wins the indictments quash the deal to go to another grand jury and trade get another indictment? They have two bites, the apple, if this indictment isn't good and is thrown out, they can go by can try and get another indictment, and that next indictment
Could add more information so an external was successful. Doing that, then would Ryan do be released image the period of that second indictment. He could he could technically be released, but it would most likely happen is the day. Would go quickly to the grand jury and get another indictment they could even The second indictment before this one was dismissed. It's extremely vague. It does not tell us, not I mean normally there not very detailed, but they at least tell us the manner in which the death habit. They tell us What you know died as a result of a gunshot wound died from blunt forced. Roma by a hammer. I mean those earth that these are examples died. Strangulation. You neither those are examples of what an indictment normally size. It says how the death occurred. Second, tell you all the evidence is not going to tell you the states whole theory, but it's going to tell you what they think happened and how the death occurred. This doesn't say that it just says caused the death by using his hands or his hand. Would that doesn't tell us anything using his hand.
Mean is de strangler unit that you have to put strangulation of its choking by using his hands and a choking manner. A hand in and of itself is not an offensive weapon and in Georgia to be what they're they're alleging the object has to be an offensive weapon, and so that's why? Normally, you would see a gun You would see a knife you would see in our rock. He would see a hammer whatever it is. A hand has to be used in a choking manner to be an offensive weapon deserve. It doesn't say that it doesn't say anything, so we don't know, and quite frankly, the guy may not know how she died in other. They may have a statement from from Ryan from Bow, and data have a body, and so without a body it's very hard to determine the manner of death. Don't they you know how they to hide. If you're gonna grants a jury that somebody kills they do. They have to have a theory as to how the person died and how Ryan made that happen, how he effectually did the killing, and so the fact that they don't have anything in this indictment tells me either they dont know, or they don't
people knowing but they're, taking a chance by making an indictment as this vague that doesn't have information because they could lose this indictment. So why would they make us, or will you be wiser in their benefit to do that? Or is it at all? It is in their benefit to do it, and if the defence of turning doesnt challenge The way that is in their benefit is if they go to trial. Let's say the defensive me doesn't challenge this, and this indictment goes to trial in time the state has to prove what they allegedly indictment. The government always wants to put as little as possible in the indictment because they got approve it whatever it as they say happened. They ve got approve it. So if they put strangulation, they gotta proof should I buy strangulation did they want to put as little as possible, but they still have to put enough in to tell the defence and the defendant what their accusing him of doing. So, it's a fine line, so the I set for them by not putting extra information in is that trial. They don't have to prove that they only have to prove what's here, Sir, Now, all they ve got approve is that he caused her
by using a hand, that's it, they don't have a murder weapon. They don't have a cause of death. I have any of those things they just have to have some link between him, causing the death and his hand to have to prove how hitting somebody with your hair could kill them. If that's what they're alleged but we don't know, then that's the whole point why this indictment so vague. We don't know you're saying he hid her. We don't know they're, saying that he used his hand some pressure point? You know where you can hit a certain vain or artery in Rome in their so many different ways that you could use your hand of Europe. Trained mean you could use your hand to kill someone may maybe his hand and knew exactly how to her spleen to cause your spleen to bleed at mean they're, so many different theories, but the state by not putting that in their they're, not stuck with that so they're not stuck with Peru. In a certain way, so they may not know. Quite frankly, where does the information of Ryan do being inside her house, and you.
In one hand, come from in the first place. Do you think I think comes from bow and I think it comes from Ryan? I think that those people talked, I think they probably have hearsay from other folks leaner broke. He wanted the reward. I mean different people who heard different stories. They probably have a lot of different hearsay that they ve pieced together to formulate what they think happened and now they're trying to get the evidence to prove that to corroborate that's the corroborating evidence and quite possibly the glove that they found at the scene. It probably was never tested varieties. Dna bow within the system both had dna in the system because he's a convict, Phelan Ryan is now so if they did find dna on that glove, they never would have tested against Ryan. So now that he's arrested, they can get a search warrant for his dna and they can run that and see
his dna is on that glove, and that would be something that they would be looking for to corroborate this story, if they so that he was at the scene. So I would think that at this point there probably running a lot of dna and one thing- that's important- also Is it GB eyes made a lot of advances in DNA ten years ago they had. I caught touch dna, but it's an amplification type of dna. They had it ten years ago, but GB I didn't do it. They only had places that you know certain labs around the country. Did it at a high cost. Well now, GB. I has the ability to do that, and so they actually can get dna from a touch where it used to be. You had to leave seamen saliva blood. Now they can get it from skin cells. So it's I'm it's pretty amazing that they could get it. If, if what say there was a hat that was left at the scene, they could take the brim of the hat where the skin and the sweat would be, and they can actually test for DNA, so use that as the glove if they had a fingerprint, maybe a partial
something a fingerprint they can actually take that skin cells from that fingerprint and tested for DNA. So it's likely there whenever story, the b. I saying in this nightmare right here either came from Ryan, Duke Bo Dukes or both let's say there Ryan, Duke in some capacity did confess to let's say just being inside her house or whatever vague and they have here or even convent, to killing Tierra telling you know about false confession: or even if Ryan do they confessed to kill terror or being in her house or whatever incriminate him in this indictment. Can you take it back what if he was pressure. You what's the deal with it. I mean it's a very fast area of the law, because people tend to in a jury situation. They tend to believe the defendant admitted to doing something that they did it. They have a hard time thinking that someone would lie and put themselves in harm's way, but we actually see it and all the time and there's a psychology around it. When you have a police officer,
interviewing you repeatedly, you want to help them and there were a good, their trained, getting information out there not necessarily trend it. Getting information out there trying to getting information and they are asking you questions in a manner that makes you want to help them and makes you think that if you tell them what they want to hear, you're gonna get some benefit from that and so water times, when people are in those situations, its high stress, they ve been accused of something awful. They are in police custody, their uncomfortable there, you know exhausted there vulnerable and the very vulnerable to be telling things that mean and not necessarily be the truth, and so a lot of times. The story is told them repeatedly by the police, the version that the police want to hear and they almost adopt that is their own, and so we see a couple different types of false confessions. We see ones where the police have told the story and the defendant just says. Yes, that's what happened, but the definite never actually says in his own words,
her words. So those is like the police saying you know, I know what happened. This is what happened? Isn't it and you have an exhausted, stressed out defendant whose sitting there in and sometimes uneducated, feeble minded, sometimes sitting there and police are saying we know this is what happened and they just agree a yeah you they're just tired, and so it's one of those things that if someone asks you enough times you may just given at the end. You may just say yes, yes, that's what happened. Can I go now, and so we see that as one type of false confession. We also see in Georgia a lot because of how our evidence laws are written. We see a defendant who may be makes an admission and then takes the back and what the rules of evidence say is that only the part that were there confessing to the crime actually comes in a trial. So the part where they're? Not?
fasting that doesn't come in and so, for example, had a case where my client wanted something from the police. They were holding his daughter, unwanted his daughter to go back into his wife's custody. So he's telling the police. What do I need to tell you for us to get our daughter back? They said you need to tell us so he told them that and then they left the room and he tells the camera. I just liked them- and I I made I don't know, that's true, because I wanted my daughter back one of my wife to have my daughter back. I didn't want to go into state custody, but at trial. The only part that was admitted was the part where he said he did the explanation as to why he lied to the police that wasn't admitted so the jury is left hearing the confession and the part where he says you now actually lied, and this is why it in Vila do they're allowed to do that. Their allotted you don't take excerpts of what you say hey. This is what matters that other surf the web. I guess- and they actually do that all the time when they have a confession, any part of a confession that helps the defendant is considered self serving hearsay and
not allowed to bring that. It means we are not allowed to bring that unless the defence, so the state tries to keep it out their successful, keeping out that's what our losses and so you're only hearing the bits and pieces of the confession that support the governments case: you're, not hearing the bits and pieces of the confession that don't support the governments case. And so you know a lot of times with these false confessions. It wasn't even really a false confession. It was that nobody ever heard the whole thing. They only heard the bits and pieces that help the government. While cells in your car screw when that happens, based on the way it works for the state, any that's the reasons that I get a lot of clients you come in and they may be completely innocent and they want to go and tell the police what happened and, unlike now, we're not going to tell the police anything because it's never gonna help. You re just knocked
so I have an attorney right. That's why you have an attorney in your attorney, can draw from those experiences and tell you that innocent people think you should go and tell the truth. You know when the police call them and say hey. We want to hear your shouted story. They want to go, tell it, but what they don't realize are all these intricate details, where the truth can be manipulated somehow if it benefits the government's case instead, that's why you have to be really cautious and I mean, quite frankly, I am of the opinion that I dont, let my clients talk to the police. I may not. I hate that because I think it stunts the truce seeking, but at the same time I just
I trust that the whole story we get out and I'm just always worried that their only getting get part of it. So we may see that, in this case, in a Ryan may have made some admissions that worked true, that he thought if he made those admissions, he was gonna get go home or he thought he was gonna get a better deal or something like that, and so, when the jury, here's a confession at trial, there's oftentimes a back story that they're not hearing about from that confession that the defendant was promised something else. You know promise he could go home promises family wouldn't be harassed promised they would let a witness go. You know whatever it is, but a lot of times a jury hearing that, and so they think the confessions, a confession. If Ryan be confess, two gb I drink interview that obviously happened without his attorney. Because he s estate appointed turning to begin with. Does that changes thinking they use that core said you know what do they
to do what they say before the interview starts to make that confession legitimate and what things do attorneys used to say: hey. This was not done properly. It's very hard to get a confession. Turnout is next to impossible. You have got to have a client who is astute enough to say I want a lawyer, I'm not talking to you anymore. I mean pretty much otherwise, if its ambiguous, it all your request, for an attorney or hey. Maybe I want to talk, and then you decide you start talking again in all of that comes in its very difficult for us to actually get a confession thrown out and court. Because of me, more failure to do more, and I mean it's just it's almost impossible, because what happens as the police are able to ask a lot of questions when their investigating Aunt Miranda and then and on this case, that wouldn't apply because he was under arrest at the time But if you didn't have a lawyer, he was under arrest and he signed something saying he We need to talk to them. Just statements are pretty much coming in unless he specifically said I want a lawyer. He's
Pretty much skill in his statement then right does the police are able to ask a lot of questions when their investing wanted to talk to them. His statements are pretty much coming in unless he specifically said I it's that time of year again time to set new goals and resolutions that are easy to make, but their harder to stick to an audible. We, that listening. Can motivate inspire in form and he'll be successful and twenty twenty and the years to come? No matter what your resolution or goal as this year, you'll find the perfect audio book audible to motivate and inspire you weathers, getting physically fit financially fit or being a better parent leader or person. It's all on audible and held motivate you audible, is issuing a challenge to current and
members finnish, three audio books by March Third and get a twenty dollar Amazon credit, it's that simple and there's nothing to enter audible, keep track of your progress for you. Honourable members, can choose three titles. Every month, one audio book into exclusive, audible, originals. You can't hear anywhere else. Audible members also get access to exclusive guided fitness programmes. Tells you start the new year off right, listen on any device anytime anywhere at home, at the jam on your computer or just on the go. You'll also enjoy easy exchanges for any audio bug. You don't love and an audio book library you keep forever. Even if you cancel I've been listening to your a bad ass by Jensen, Shiro, which is an awesome audio book. The keystone, motivated and positive about the new year start listening with a thirty day. Audible trial choose one audio book in two audible, originals, absolutely free visas,
audible, dot com, slash up or text. You p two five hundred five hundred again, that's audible, dot com, slash you p, or tax up to five hundred five hundred so What is Ryan Dukes turn you gonna do now. Based on you. Experience where Thing heading and what would a good defence attorney due for Ryan Duke, I will be looking very very carefully at both dukes and his family and his motivation. I would be gathering reports on him. I would be investigated, would have my investigator
looking at all of his witnesses and whereabouts and whatever has been going on for the last decade in his life to see because he is the link right now and it sounds like he's the one that has led them to arrest Ryan and No there's two version. If I M by were involved, there's two versions: one of them has Ryan during the killing, and one of them has both doing the killing, and so I would be looking for whatever I could find as to. Why bow all of a sudden would come forward and make this this statement, this untrue statement that Ryan did it and bow was just and after the fact accessory. What is it in both life that would have caused him to do this? Is he a thief? Did he have money problems? Was this financially faded. Did he have some love affair returns to you know it was there some other motivation? Why would he have done that? So I would be developing evidence to show, the other reasonable theory that both could actually be the one that did this murderer. Have you seen Before, where the rules are a verse like that mean
This to me seems like cereal and Jane, his bow, and it is, I mean it's just like in Syria, where either the first person who comes forward and says their story is believed. I mean, if you have kids in your kids, aren't NASA early, honest and truthful and they can cause a mass and you bring em, and you say you know hey which one are you cause the mass who did this year? There are certain types of people that one of them is gonna say: oh, he did it because the first person to fast dirt or tell a story, you believe, and then after that story comes out after you know one kid says the other candidate you're backtracking to try and undue that story you believe the first story, the police form their case around the first story, and so it takes a lot of evidence to undo whatever theory. It is that they are trying to advance so once they formulate their theory there locked in
that an absent some you huge exonerating evidence something huge dna, not matching something their minds are looking for things to support that theory and so by BO coming forward. First, it's unfortunate because you certainly dont want to encourage you know in this. The the kids. You dont encourage one of your children to lie on the other child. You know, but that's what we're doing I mean we're essentially doing that were essentially encouraging. Bow and people like both to come forward and tell their story first, because then they get a good deal. We want people to tell the truth, but at the same time we're encouraging people to come forward and give their version of the truth that helps them early on in the case, and you see this Eliza sincerely sought. In that case you see it and jailhouse niches all the time, there's informants in the jail house, and it's amazing to me. The jury's believe that
an inmate is going to tell his roommate everything that happens and then that roommate is gonna. Call the dna up and say I, now that someone so confess to all this stuff I'll testify in exchange for India and the jury's believe that it is amazing to me, but they always do and how they all have a great motive to do that, it's insane and then it's like afterwards. They write a letter you, after the trial, the inmate rights lanterns like hey, I justified for you. Can I get ten years off my summons, you know like. Why would anybody believe they have nothing to lose and clearly something again right exactly, and they have to look at our motives. So that's what I would be doing if I was working on the case, I would be looking at what are both motives. Wasn't dig into him because the police, I'm gonna, be doing that their focused on Ryan and the police regularly. Don't look at alternative theories because they have to disclose them to the defence. So if the police are walked into this theory,
the government's locked into Ryan did the killing, but was an accessory. They are never going to investigate, bow, asked the killer ever be, if they do and they find evidence of that they have to turn it over the defence. So they're not gonna do that, because this can have their case. So as a defence or we have to do that, we have to go, and we have to do that. Investigation to show motives and we have to find that evidence that the police aren't looking for because they ve locked into a theory. They locked what they think happened and that's what they believe they eminent a lot of times it's as simple as an initial credibility, determination. You know, whoever interviewed BO, believed him sure they believed him and who knows why But whoever interviewed him believed him and they ran with that story and said: that's. You know that initial credibility of termination we are working to undo. Essentially what do you make of his gag order,
It's interesting. I think that they just don't wanna, be bothered by dealing with this. This is a very small town. I dont think that they have the resources to deal with in. Views and requests for information, and I almost got the sense of the judge just didn't want anybody to talk about it in this kind of wanted to be taken out of the spotlight, and you know it puts a different perspective and stress on the case, because everybody's watching- and so everybody is questioning, if let's say, there's a deal offered or something: ok we'll why wise their deal offered. If we really think that he did this awful crime, why would you offer him Addio road and so by putting a gag border on you? You can kind of
stop some of that speculation and stop some of the people. From from looking at the facts of the case, I mean, I think, is unfortunate. I am not a fan of gag borders, I'm afraid of open government. I think everything should be open. I think we should people broadcast live from courtrooms because of its happening in a court of law. It should be public. It should be something that you know, you're, proud of what you're doing and how we are conducting yourself in the world should be able to see it. So I dont like the gag order, but I dont know if the motivations were necessarily sinister or if they were just we can deal with this. It just seems so typical in this case. To me it means been, twelve years since we any sort of arrest or movement in this case at all in doing that. Five years the gb I kept this case file sealed completely sealed they don't have to do now we are allowed to do that? You don't have to do that. They never cleared anybody. They kept it. Why open or just sealed and open suspects ten percent interest known whose no answers and debt seem to get us anywhere and now
as soon as there is. Some movement in the case has been to arrest they the more silence on this thing? Is you like? Do they not learn? thing over the past twelve years and their communities is going to set up. This point: will it's kind of buttressed by the warrant and the indictment they don't say anything. I'm in the warrant is one of the most vague once I've ever seen, the warrant is supposed to give you an mason. Normally, when I have a case, if I can get the warrant, I know what they're saying my client did. You know, I know what the allegations are in this case. The warrant hardly even trucks. The statute I mean it doesn't say anything about any of the evidence it just as we think that he committed this crime, which I'm shocked, they could even get a warrant based on that, because normally it has to say why we think he committed this crime. It just says we think he committed this caught. It doesn't give any information, nothing, nothing nothing, I mean I'm shot the one, I'm shocked at the indictment, and so I think that follows along with the gag order. This whole, hasty they don't want. Anybody know anything why why? Why do they? Not what anybody to know the manner she died. I mean you it's
using to me that you can read an arrest warrant, an indictment and have clue how this woman died. Its humbly if you read them and you have absolutely no clue what happened, none, you have no clue so the. How would the defendant I mean this is. This is one supposed to tell the defendant when he's got to defend against men, he probably has no clue you how there's nothing here I mean you have. No idea how she died other than you know with me: the fourth thought. He uses hand that doesn't tell us anything, and so then we have the gap order, and so we're just laughed to wonder what is it that everybody is trying to hide what and is it that day they know and it's awful. They don't want us to now or is it that they dont and they don't want everybody scrutinising the fact that they just really dont know anything more, that's an offer. That's I mean that's what it sounds like to me, because there, then maybe getting some new dna evidence or something like that or being able to confirm from some work. Mina remains that she actually is deceased mean what do they know. What has changed other than BO dukes coming forward?
and making some statements and then Ryan, maybe making some confessions when he was arrested. What also changed it doesn't seem like em in there, certainly not giving us that information. So I'd, be, I mean I'm very curious about when they start to have motions and when they start to file things, if we're going to have access to it are throwing to continue try and cover everything up and keep everything is vague as possible. Moves crazy, too much like it's like the secret trial in the secret tribunal in that's not how special work now these are emulous taxpayer dollars like our tax dollars or paying for every aspect of a criminal trial. So we as as taxpayers and citizens, have a right to know what goes
I mean that's the illusion that checks and even a public defender here right depends to turn me right right, some in their hangs everything the paying for his defence they're, paying for the prosecution paying for the courthouse paying for the staff in the courthouse. Airconditioning courthouse the property when everything is a public forum and mean that's one of the rights that our country was founded on in our public right, it's in our constitution that at a public trial, you have a public trial right. So the fact that the public is being kept out, very alarming? I mean that's. You know. We started this whole case treaty to make sure that that didn't happen, that things were allowed to happen and secret things when allow to happen like that, and even if the defence attorney is in favour of it, it's so harms the process. It harms criminal defendants because when things happening closed doors we don't know the truth. We don't. We can't scrutinise at em, it's just like body cams. If you look at the police for years, they are able to do stuff, and nobody could
Now, all of a sudden we ve body camps or my god- has a news not changed in the last nosey ability its huge five years ago. When I questioned yours, they would have said, I believe whatever the police say now, when I passengers about that there are like. Well, I don't know, I see the news worse than it is right, and I know at least do sometimes, and that's because about him, that's because the public right of access- and so I hate it whenever that is curtailed in any way, because the public has a right to know what's going on and that's the only way to have accountability do this goes completely against the decision. There are precedents for where things are kind of naturally going in the world, I feel like accountability. Experience see all the things that the government and police her. Having to do more and more in two thousand seventeen, this goes against. All of that is just some small town, just the last night. They dont want the world looking at their stuff. I wanted to know, you know they want to do it, how they do it and they don't.
Anybody outside looking at it in scrutinising, and I mean I think it's that simple they for listening. As today's episodes mixing mastered by resonate recordings, if you want to improve it, We have your apply, cast or sort o clock of your own check them out a resonate recordings, dot com, this Thursday, releasing especial bonus episode that you don't want to miss Phoebe giving you a sneak peak of. What's the common episode, nineteen which comes out on one day may twenty second so stay tuned. These guys we'll see Thursday.
Transcript generated on 2020-01-12.