Deadly Home Homicide Full Closing Arguments

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: On February 11th of 2023, this defendant forever silenced the voice of Xavier J. Pedron, or as you've come to know him through this trial, Alex. On February 11th of 2023, this defendant extinguished Alex through her brutal assault and her intentional drugging. Alex's voice cannot tell you what happened, but Alex's body is screaming out to you that he was abused and he was drugged. You saw the graphic photos displayed of Alex at autopsy. You saw the bruising on his body on multiple planes on both sides of his face and head and throughout all sides of his scalp, including on the top of his head. That was this defendant's stamp of abuse. You heard the levels of Xanax inside of his body. That was so this defendant could quiet his cries. Alex suffered in his final hours. As he bled internally from inside of his abdomen, the Xanax slowed his respiratory system. Every bath that he took was pained by that rib fracture he had. With less blood to deliver oxygen throughout his body, his brain swelled, and his body began to shut down until Alex took his last breath. At 9.44 a.m. on February 11th of 2023, Alex Xavier J. Pedron was declared deceased. If Alex were alive today, he would be 9 years, 10 months, and 4 days old. He would be finishing the 4th grade. Alex is missed by brothers and sisters. Alex's death has left a hole in the heart of his mother, Jenna Love, and his father, Derek Pedron. Through this defendant's abuse and intentional drugging, this community, your community, has forever lost the potential of Alex's life and what it could have been. Alex mattered. This trial process is about protecting the defendant's constitutional rights and proving that this defendant is responsible for Alex's abuse, Alex's neglect, and his death. At 9.25 a.m. on February 11th of 2023, this defendant called 911. You know it because you heard it. According to that call, she woke up to find Alex on the ground. Twice during that call, she represents that Alex's body was on the ground. She says that Alex was unresponsive and that there was an open bag of her medication on the floor. The defendant reported that she tried CPR on Alex's body to no avail and that Alex was not breathing. As that 911 call is taking place, deputies Jarr and Anderson arrive on scene. It's perhaps one of the fastest responses one could see to a 911 call. The person is still on the call and the deputies are arriving on scene. When they arrive and this defendant opens the front door, Alex's body is on the bed, not the floor. There is a white sheet under his body to protect the bed from any accidents during the previous evening. That white sheet is undisturbed. It tells you that after Alex was put on that white sheet and in that bed, he did not move to the floor again. It's where he died. Alex's body was in rigor. His left hand was tucked inside of his pants and his right hand was up towards his head. The left hand being tucked into his pants tells you that his body was not moved from the floor to the bed. As deputy Jarr touched Alex's body and rotated it onto its side, you saw the black substance start to leak out of the side of his mouth. That small movement of just rotating his body to one side caused that substance to start coming out of his mouth. That tells you that this defendant never performed CPR. It was a lie. This defendant told Sergeant Williams that she performed CPR for upwards of 10 minutes. You observed Deputy Jarr actually performed CPR and what happened when he just started to perform CPR. You saw the substance start to ooze out from Alex's mouth. And then as the body was moved to the floor, how it continued to ooze out and pool behind his head. That tells you there was no CPR before Deputy Jarr arrived on scene. This defendant also said when she was on the stand that after trying to perform CPR, she held Alex's body in her arms and cried. You saw the simple movement of holding his body in her arms would have caused that same reaction. Through the investigation into this case, you know that this defendant texted Laura Lee Raines at 9.07 a.m. According to the defendant, she did not immediately notice Alex was not on the bed. You know from the forensic interviews of both Araya and Brantley that they slept upstairs. You know from the testimony of Brantley that he verified once again that he slept upstairs. And as soon as this defendant woke up, if what this defendant was reporting was true, she would have known immediately that Alex's body was not in that bed. But Alex's body was in that bed. It just wasn't moving. Because he was dead. The children tell you that's what happened. The scene investigation tells you that's what happened. Alex's body tells you that's what happened. Your common sense tells you that is what happened in this case. At 9:20 in the morning, this defendant texts Rafael Suarez. Something is wrong with my son. Don't come. The text message to Rafael Suarez, the person that she's supposed to go on a date with, goes out before she calls her own mother about Alex. The text message about Rafael Suarez saying don't come over regarding her date, goes out before she calls 9-1-1. At 9:21 AM, the defendant calls her mother, not 9-1-1. For 52 seconds they talk. And then over three minutes pass, after that phone call to her mother, where the testimony establishes that the defendant's mother instructed her to call 9-1-1. Three minutes plus pass until at 9:25 in 52 seconds she calls 9-1-1. There is only one person in the whole world who could have drugged Alex. That person's in the room and she's seated at that table. All right. Common sense tells you that medication that you take any time takes effect within an hour or two. The amount of Xanax in Alex's system, you heard through the defense expert witness, was enough to potentially cause the death of an adult. That tells you about the amount of Xanax in a 6-year-old child's system. This isn't candy. This isn't something that you munch on. This is bitter pills. And they're inside of a 6-year-old child's body. It is impossible for Derek to have drugged Alex. Because if Derek did it, he left the house at 7:15 when he was arrested. If he drugged Alex, Alex would have been feeling the effects of Xanax by 8 to 9 o'clock. He would have been unconscious by 9 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to midnight at the latest. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:11:10] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:11:11] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:11:13] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:11:19] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:11:20] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:11:20] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:11:42] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:11:46] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:11:47] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:11:48] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:11:58] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:12:00] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:12:04] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:12:07] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:12:20] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:12:21] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:12:32] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:12:33] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:12:53] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:12:54] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:12:56] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:12:59] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:13:04] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:13:16] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:13:21] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:13:23] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:13:29] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:13:32] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:13:42] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:13:46] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:13:54] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:13:55] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:14:01] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:14:03] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:14:05] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:14:06] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:14:12] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:14:13] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:14:14] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:14:14] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:14:16] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:14:17] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:14:23] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:14:25] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:14:29] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:14:32] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:14:39] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:14:41] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:14:44] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:14:50] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:14:54] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:14:55] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:14:57] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:14:59] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:15:04] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:15:06] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:15:21] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:15:24] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:15:30] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:15:31] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:15:42] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:15:43] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:15:58] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:16:03] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:16:32] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:16:34] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:16:39] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:16:46] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:16:50] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:16:51] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:16:54] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:16:55] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:16:58] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:16:59] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:17:10] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:17:12] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:17:18] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:17:19] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:17:22] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:17:25] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:17:37] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:17:40] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:17:44] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:17:46] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:18:14] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:18:17] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:18:48] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:18:49] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:18:56] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:19:03] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:19:24] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:19:36] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:19:42] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:19:43] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:19:46] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:19:50] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:19:59] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:20:00] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:20:08] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:20:09] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 11 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:20:19] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:20:21] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:20:33] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:20:38] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:20:44] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:20:45] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:20:49] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:20:52] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:20:57] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:20:59] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:21:06] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:21:08] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:21:12] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:21:13] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:21:20] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:21:21] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:21:29] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:21:30] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:21:37] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:21:38] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:21:46] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:21:47] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:22:02] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:22:14] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:22:36] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:22:39] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:22:47] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:22:49] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:22:57] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:23:00] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:23:19] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:23:22] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:23:28] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:23:33] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:23:42] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:23:43] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:24:08] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:24:10] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:24:16] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:24:17] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:24:27] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:24:30] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:24:37] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:24:55] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:25:06] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:25:10] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:25:13] Speaker ?: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. [00:25:14] Speaker 1: Dead by 11 to 10 o'clock. Major is in the room right next door. He's been interviewed multiple times. He would have heard that brutal beating because this defendant reports that she heard it from upstairs. Brantley is home on that same floor. Araya is home. The defendant's story is not supported by Deputy Kearney's observations. It's not supported by what this defendant originally reported to law enforcement. Which is that Alex was asleep that entire time. Which is completely supported by Deputy Kearney's observations. Which is completely supported by what Derek told all of you. Which is completely supported by the scene with the garbage can being emptied. And Derek sweeping. You also know it didn't happen because Laura Lee heard Alex's voice on that phone call at 10:30 in the evening. You also know it didn't happen because this defendant reported that Alex was fine that evening. Multiple times she told law enforcement. At the end of performing CPR. When Deputy Anderson tells the defendant. That Alex is gone. The defendant's response is how is that possible he was fine. After being in this trial for the last two and a half weeks. It's really easy to want to blame Derek Pedron. You know that Derek Pedron is violent with women. [00:27:33] Speaker ?: He is. [00:27:33] Speaker 1: You saw a disturbing and disgusting conduct on multiple videos that involve Derek. At the beginning of this trial. During my opening statement. I told all of you. Derek is a domestic abuser. And by God he is. Large portions of this trial actually felt like this trial was a domestic violence trial. And Derek Pedron was on trial. Perhaps one of the benefits of this trial. That Derek Pedron was faced with his domestic violence in those videos. And his conduct. Will it change his behavior? Who knows. But one can hope. But don't fall for this defendant's smokescreen. Do not let her. Use his domestic violence against her. To allow her. To get away with a homicide of a child. You were told during opening statements by the defense. That there were going to be multiple witnesses. One of which was going to come in here and tell you. That they witnessed. Alex Xavier gets struck and beat more than 12 times. That didn't happen. Judge completely improper objection. Go on to. No. Overruled. Go ahead. You heard you're going to see multiple videos of the same. There's one video that's been admitted. Where Derek Pedron is yelling. Horrible things. At Alex inside that van. Things that are abusive. There's another video from years ago. Where the children are tapping their heads. And they say dad just hit me. Those are the two videos you saw. That are supposed to establish that Derek is a child abuser. Context also matters. Deputy Paff during his testimony. Talked about our prior domestic violence offense. That he responded to the residents. Just a week or so before. He talked about Alex and Derek's interaction during that time. In fact. It came up again. Because on the evening of February 10th. Derek said can I say goodbye to my kids. And the deputies say you remember how it went last time. We can't do it again for that reason. Days before they could not pull Alex off of his father. [00:30:25] Speaker ?: They could not pull Alex off of Derek. [00:30:26] Speaker 1: They created a situation for almost 20 minutes where law enforcement had to work to separate them. That encounter tells you what you need to know about Alex's relationship and love for his father. Make no mistake about it. Derek has responsibility. He has responsibility for Alex's neglect. He has responsibility for not getting Alex to the doctor on time. He has responsibility for not ensuring that Alex was attending school. He has responsibility for bringing drugs into the home for this defendant to use. But Derek's responsibility is not for you to decide today. You are deciding this defendant's responsibility. And his responsibility cannot be an excuse for this defendant to avoid responsibility for her actions. You have heard even more compelling evidence that this defendant is responsible for Alex's abuse and his death. The defendant's own children. In a forensic interview that was conducted by Major, and remember the dynamics of the forensic interview. At the time that law enforcement originally responds on February 11th, they believe this may be an overdose of prednisone. There's bruising on Alex Xavier's body on the outside, but they don't know about all the trauma on the inside. In an abundance of caution, law enforcement sets up forensic interviews of the children. Major goes and stays with his dad, a dad who has no idea what's happening inside the home of the defendant. Brantley and Uriah stay with the defendant's family. They are with separate families and think about what they report in those forensic interviews. Major says that this defendant kicks Alex a lot in his chest and in his face. That this defendant kicked Alex the last time Major saw Alex. That'd be the night before he died. That this defendant has choked Alex on multiple different occasions. That this defendant gets mad at Alex because Alex gets up at night for snacks. That this defendant puts hot sauce on his food as a punishment. That this defendant stomps or steps on Alex's chest. Major was interviewed a second time less than a month later on March 2nd of 2023. During that forensic interview, Major talked about the purported stairway fall. And what this defendant did after that purported fall down the stairs. By bending Alex's leg until Alex cried out in pain. And the defendant told Alex to be quiet or she would bend it further. Major also talked about seeing this defendant choke Alex during that same encounter. Brantley was interviewed originally on February 12th. Brantley talked about Alex stealing. That this defendant got mad for the stealing and kicked Alex in the chest. That Alex whined and winced in pain. Brantley made a statement in that forensic interview about how this defendant in the past used a spoon. To strike Alex. When he was asked if there's any choking in the house. He said yes, my mom does it and she does it to Alex. Both Major and Brantley independently say all of this happens when Derek is not home. And Brantley says the evening before Alex passed, he was asleep upstairs. Brantley made statements in that forensic interview about green poisonous water. He made statements about guns upstairs, diamonds upstairs, and the spoon being upstairs. Those statements have been represented as untrustworthy just because of nature and the content of what they contain. This is a five-year-old child talking. Do not judge a statement of a five-year-old child from the perspective of an adult. I like to take my kids to sporting events. When they're much younger, I would take them to brewer games. When someone would ask me what happened at that brewer game, I would talk about the pitching, who hit well, what the final score was, and how the brewers played overall. The perspective of my daughters, who were much younger, would talk about what they got to eat. Did dad buy licorice? Did we have ice cream? Did we go to the play station inside the stadium? We had the exact same experience, but the perspectives that we had as an adult and as children were different. Brantley talked about green poisonous water. Remember the scene photographs? There was green water in the toilet. Brantley talked about his dad having guns. How many times in those videos that we were shown were there actual arguments about firearms in that house? It came up more than once. Brantley talked about diamonds being upstairs in that same area. It makes sense that jewelry and a gun or those type of items are all going to be stored in a safe area in the house. That's a five-year-old child's perspective. That's what he's describing. Remember that. Brantley was interviewed a second time after Derek recorded Brantley. You saw Derek record Brantley. You saw the full recording. Derek actually asked open-ended questions. Tell me what you just said. What happened after that? What happened after that? Those are open-ended questions the kind that you heard from Danielle on the stand that you should use when you're interviewing a child. Based on those open-ended questions, a second forensic interview is set up of Brantley. During this interview, Brantley said that this defendant pushed Alex down the stairs. But what's important about what he was saying is he's talking about a push down the stairs before death. He's not talking about the push down the stairs that happened resulting in the broken leg. He's talking about something that happened within the timeframe right before Alex died, where this defendant was abusive of Alex. He says that Alex would get up at night for food, and he describes how this defendant pushed Alex down the stairs. Brantley says it happened the day before Alex died. [00:38:33] Speaker ?: Why is that important? [00:38:35] Speaker 1: Because when Brantley took the stand and talked about that fall, he said the exact same thing when he testified in this courtroom before all of you. That there was a push down the stairs the day before Alex Xavier died. You know the dynamics are where each one of these children lived in separate households. You saw both independently testify to the vivid abuse they witnessed at the hands of this defendant. Major took the stand in the very same courtroom where his own mother is in the courtroom. Think about that from the perspective of both Major and Brantley. He came into the courtroom and they testified in the same room as their own mother about what she did to their own brother. Major said that the defendant would punch, hit, kick, and choke Alex. He said all of these things happened while Derek was at work. He described a specific instance of kicking in the kitchen where the defendant kicked Alex while Alex was on the ground. Kicked him multiple times. He talked about another incident that happened in the living room where mom, quote, kicked Alex everywhere on his body. He talked about multiple instances of choking, including one that happened the day before Alex died. The defendant was on top of Alex, straddling him. And he gave a really powerful and a really vivid description of Alex's response, his bodily response to being choked. He talked about how his arms and legs were flailing. Think about that. Think about that because that is a natural response to someone choking and trying to fight off being choked. And he's telling you with his eyes what he saw this defendant do. He talked about how this defendant would punch Alex and he demonstrated with his fists. Talked about how Alex would be treated differently with food. He'd be kept from eating. He only got crust from the pizza. You get hot sauce on his food. He was treated differently. If he could sit on the floor. If he didn't finish his food on time. Talked about how Alex would get up in the middle of the night. Defendant told you that Alex got up in the middle of the night. Brantley, who has not been living with Major. He's been living with Derek. Verified Derek, excuse me, Major's account of events. He described this defendant assaulting Alex over and over. Talked about Alex being on the ground and the defendant kicking Alex in his chest. Brantley said this defendant would abuse Alex a lot. That she would routinely choke Alex. Alex's face would turn red and sometimes purple. The defendant would choke, kick and hit Alex on more than three occasions. During this trial, he was asked about food for the first time. He says this defendant would put hot sauce on Alex's food. The defendant would add more hot sauce if Alex wouldn't eat the food with the hot sauce on it. So, years passed between those original interviews in February of 2023. Major was now 12 years old when he took the stand. Brantley was nine. [00:42:36] Speaker ?: They have grown up. [00:42:39] Speaker 1: Their vocabulary has improved. They have more words to tell you what happened and they use that vocabulary and those words to tell you what they've witnessed in their home with their own eyes at the hands of this defendant. Ladies and gentlemen, child abuse is a crime that happens behind closed doors. Perpetrators of child abuse rely on that fact. They rely on the fact that the public is shielded from their actions. That you can't see what happens in the home. That the victims of child abuse are people that they have relationships with. That the witnesses of the child in the home are people that they have relationships with. That provides perpetrators of child abuse like this defendant with protection. But this defendant's own children told you about this defendant's abuse of Alex. And if you're wondering why and the state doesn't have to prove motive, there's a couple things for you to consider. This defendant suffered a traumatic brain injury by Alex's mother, Jenna Love, hitting her with a baseball bat. Alex's father, Derek, has repeatedly abused this defendant. Alex as a child, every time she looks at Alex, is a reminder of Jenna Love and being assaulted. And having to take care of Jenna Love's son. And a reminder of Derek's domestic violence. And having to take care of Derek's son. And if you still have doubt and you shouldn't by now. You can consider this defendant's prior conduct. And whether it establishes the identity of the person who abused and neglected Alex Xavier. You know that in 2011, Haley suffered a traumatic brain injury. Haley was admitted to the hospital with multiple skull fractures. According to this defendant, Haley suffered that traumatic brain injury from a fall down stairs. In 2013, Haley was admitted to the hospital yet again. After living with this defendant and Dustin Barnes for a period of six months. In those preceding months, Haley went from the 80th percentile in weight to the 6th percentile in weight. She was losing hair. She had a fractured foot. And potential fractures in her hands. Haley was not this defendant's child. There was another child, the same age as Haley, that lived in that house. And the two were treated different. Alex is not this defendant's child. There are children of a similar age to Alex in his home. According to those children, Alex was treated different. You can only use the evidence from 2011 and 2013 if the similarities from that evidence, and in this case, help you identify who the perpetrator of the abuse was. I want to talk a little bit about child neglect. Alex had over 100 absences from school in two years. In a little over the half year that he attended the first grade, he had 40 absences in 75 days. The principal of Alex's school testified about the harm that is caused to children when they don't attend school. It impacts their growth. It impacts their development. It impacts their functioning. It impacts their social skills. You also saw Alex's appearance at the time of his autopsy. He was extraordinarily thin. [00:47:41] Speaker ?: He was dehydrated. [00:47:47] Speaker 1: Conditions that were consistent with what the children described with terms of him eating. Or not being able to drink. Because if he drank, it would cause him to have to go to the bathroom. You know that Alex had a broken leg. You know that Alex wasn't taken for medical treatment for days after that broken leg. Derek deserves responsibility for that. But so does this defendant. There are many ways in which you can get a child to a medical facility without having to drive them there. There are many actions that this defendant could have sought to try and help Alex. [00:48:34] Speaker ?: And I want to go back to Alex's death. [00:48:35] Speaker 1: A person who intentionally administers a drug to a child to put that child to sleep. Has a responsibility to watch over that child. When you engage in that extraordinarily dangerous conduct, that's not an excuse for you to go to sleep. And hope that everything turns out right the next morning so you can go on that date. But that's what this defendant did. Giving Alex Xavier drugs and then going to bed after he is knocked out and not watching over him contributed to his death. Because if there was action taken, monitoring to counteract the effects of those drugs, Alex Xavier could still be alive. In this trial you get to consider this defendant's words and actions. She never disclosed the abuse to the children outside of one arguable 911 call. To police, to friends, to family, except for one video that she sent to Laura Lee. And what were her instructions with the video that she sent to Laura Lee? Hold on to it in case I need it. Not help me. Not help my children. Not protect me or protect my children. Hold on to this in case I need it. You know that this defendant got rid of the SD cards. Special investigator, or investigative Sergeant Amundsen, saw those SD cards on February 11th, 2002. He didn't collect them that day, and I imagine he's kicking himself for it. This defendant had the password, the ability to log in. And when you log on to the account, it sends a notification to the email of that account. The holder of that account would get the notification and be able to sign in and delete those videos. This defendant was deleting those videos. You know that after the death of Al Xavier, Derek was meeting with law enforcement, gave a statement to law enforcement, was cooperating with law enforcement, and this defendant's response to that was to tell him he should not do it. [00:51:48] Speaker ?: This defendant's words, her actions, show her guilt. Her lies about the shower establish her guilt. Her lies about the shower establish her guilt. After I've been speaking to you for a while, I'm now going to talk about the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:51:52] Speaker 1: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:51:56] Speaker ?: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:52:00] Speaker 1: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:52:03] Speaker ?: The most exciting part of the law. [00:52:03] Speaker 1: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:52:28] Speaker ?: The most exciting part of the law. [00:52:29] Speaker 1: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:52:37] Speaker ?: The most exciting part of the law. [00:52:37] Speaker 1: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:52:39] Speaker ?: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:52:41] Speaker 1: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:52:43] Speaker ?: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:52:47] Speaker 1: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:53:03] Speaker ?: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:53:07] Speaker 1: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:53:14] Speaker ?: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:53:17] Speaker 1: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:53:26] Speaker ?: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:53:29] Speaker 1: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:53:34] Speaker ?: The most exciting part of the law. [00:53:35] Speaker 1: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:53:50] Speaker ?: The most exciting part of the law. [00:53:51] Speaker 1: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:53:58] Speaker ?: The most exciting part of the law. [00:53:59] Speaker 1: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:54:03] Speaker ?: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:54:07] Speaker 1: The most exciting part of the law. [00:54:09] Speaker ?: The most exciting part of the law. [00:54:16] Speaker 1: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:54:23] Speaker ?: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:54:26] Speaker 1: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:54:36] Speaker ?: The most exciting part of the law. [00:54:37] Speaker 1: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:54:59] Speaker ?: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:55:04] Speaker 1: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:55:07] Speaker ?: The most exciting part of the law. [00:55:16] Speaker 1: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:55:19] Speaker ?: The most exciting part of the law. [00:55:19] Speaker 1: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:55:21] Speaker ?: The most exciting part of the law. [00:55:22] Speaker 1: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:55:53] Speaker ?: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. [00:55:57] Speaker 1: The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. The most exciting part of the law. That the defendant acted intentionally. Kicking someone is an intentional act. Punching someone is an intentional act. Hitting someone is an intentional act. And by God. Choking a six year old child. Is an intentional act. Did one of those acts. Cause the death of Alex. This is where you do have to agree. You have to agree on the act. That caused his death. The testimony of the medical examiners. Give you two different ways. The abdominal injuries. That Xavier had. Were a substantial condition. Resulting in his death. That's what Dr. Quinton testified to. He listed as the number one cause. On his report. The impairment of his physical condition. By administering a drug. Is another way. Of committing child abuse. It's an intentional act. It impairs his physical condition. And the administration of Xanax. Caused his death. Either one of those. As long as all 12. Agree. Is sufficient for finding. And answering that question. Yes. Dr. Endress said in her testimony. That this defendant avoids. Responsibility. That this defendant. Projects blame. On other people. You witnessed that. Through the defense testimony. Over two days. There was something. [00:58:04] Speaker ?: That the defendant said. Twice. During her testimony. [00:58:07] Speaker 1: That all of you. Should agree with. This defendant. Told you twice. That Alex. [00:58:12] Speaker ?: Was murdered. Alex. Was murdered. Alex. [00:58:15] Speaker 1: Was murdered. Alex. [00:58:17] Speaker ?: Was murdered. By this defendant. [00:58:19] Speaker 1: This defendant. [00:58:20] Speaker ?: Does everything. She can. [00:58:20] Speaker 1: To avoid. Personal responsibility. Give her a lesson. In personal responsibility. [00:58:24] Speaker ?: And find. Her guilty. You. [00:58:27] Speaker 1: Just like. Getting. Be. Ladies and gentlemen. [00:58:31] Speaker ?: Is there a more terrifying. [00:58:31] Speaker 1: Thing. Is there a more terrifying. [00:58:33] Speaker ?: Thing. Is there a more terrifying. [00:58:35] Speaker 1: Thing. Is there a more terrifying. Thing. Is there a more terrifying. Thing. Is there a more terrifying. [00:58:41] Speaker ?: Thing. [00:58:41] Speaker 1: Is there a more terrifying. [00:58:42] Speaker ?: Thing. [00:58:42] Speaker 1: Is there a more terrifying. [00:58:43] Speaker ?: Thing. [00:58:43] Speaker 1: Is there a more terrifying. [00:58:44] Speaker ?: Thing. [00:58:44] Speaker 1: Is there a more terrifying. Thing. Is there a more terrifying. Thing. [00:58:48] Speaker ?: Is there a more terrifying. Thing. Is there a more terrifying. Thing. [00:58:52] Speaker 2: Is there a more terrifying. Thing. Is there a more terrifying. [00:58:55] Speaker ?: Thing. Is there a more terrifying. Thing. [00:58:57] Speaker 2: Is there a more terrifying. [00:58:58] Speaker ?: Thing. [00:58:58] Speaker 2: Is there a more terrifying. [00:58:59] Speaker ?: Thing. [00:58:59] Speaker 2: Is there a more terrifying. [00:59:00] Speaker ?: Thing. [00:59:00] Speaker 2: Is there a more terrifying. [00:59:01] Speaker ?: Thing. [00:59:01] Speaker 2: Is there a more terrifying. [00:59:02] Speaker ?: Thing. [00:59:02] Speaker 2: Is there a more terrifying. [00:59:03] Speaker ?: Thing. [00:59:03] Speaker 2: Is there a more terrifying. [00:59:04] Speaker ?: Thing. [00:59:04] Speaker 2: Is there a more terrifying. [00:59:05] Speaker ?: Thing. [00:59:05] Speaker 2: Is there a more terrifying. [00:59:06] Speaker ?: Thing. [00:59:06] Speaker 2: Is there a more terrifying. [00:59:07] Speaker ?: Thing. [00:59:07] Speaker 2: Is there a more terrifying. [00:59:08] Speaker ?: Thing. Is there a more terrifying. [00:59:08] Speaker 2: Thing. Is there a more terrifying. [00:59:10] Speaker ?: Thing. [00:59:10] Speaker 2: Is there a more terrifying. [00:59:11] Speaker ?: Thing. [00:59:11] Speaker 2: Is there a more terrifying. [00:59:12] Speaker ?: Thing. [00:59:12] Speaker 2: A more terrifying. You should be able to expect. That he won't harm him. Pedron's statement. Tells you something. Do you like getting beaten. Tells you that it happened before. It tells you. It was going to happen again. Tragically. It was routine. And it tells you something else. That is critically important. In this case. Tells you that Derek Pedron. Was not Alex Xavier's protector. He was his abuser. And that matters. That matters. Because this case. Is not just about. What happened to Alex Xavier. Is about what law enforcement. Chose. Not to see. It is about what they. Refused to investigate. Is about how they. Locked on to Josie Dykeman. In the very first hour. And never honestly. Revisited their assumptions. Even after the medical science. The facts. And their own. Forensic pathologist. Proved. That major parts. Of their theory. Were wrong. From the very beginning. Of this case. Back in. 2023. The government. Has tried to give us. All. A headline. [01:00:29] Speaker ?: Mother. [01:00:30] Speaker 2: Murders. Stepson. And. Stages. Seen. [01:00:35] Speaker ?: That is. [01:00:36] Speaker 2: The government's. Headline. [01:00:38] Speaker ?: It is. [01:00:39] Speaker 2: Dramatic. It is. Sensational. It is. Horrific. And. [01:00:45] Speaker ?: It triggers. [01:00:46] Speaker 2: A powerful. Emotional. Response. [01:00:49] Speaker ?: Is. It is. [01:00:50] Speaker 2: Exactly. The type. Of accusation. [01:00:53] Speaker ?: That can. [01:00:53] Speaker 2: Hit. Hard. And. Cause. People. [01:00:58] Speaker ?: To stop. [01:00:59] Speaker 2: Thinking. [01:01:00] Speaker ?: Critically. [01:01:00] Speaker 2: The law. Asks. More. Of you. [01:01:04] Speaker ?: Than. [01:01:05] Speaker 2: Simply. Reacting. [01:01:07] Speaker ?: To a headline. [01:01:08] Speaker 2: You must. Read. The article. You must. Critically. Examine. The evidence. [01:01:15] Speaker ?: And. [01:01:16] Speaker 2: Separate. A motion. From. [01:01:19] Speaker ?: Proof. [01:01:20] Speaker 2: And. Search. For the truth. And. When you do that. You will see. [01:01:26] Speaker ?: That. [01:01:27] Speaker 2: The government. Has tried. [01:01:29] Speaker ?: Is. [01:01:31] Speaker 2: Innocent. Woman. Charged. Suspect. [01:01:35] Speaker ?: At. [01:01:36] Speaker 2: Large. Ladies and gentlemen. This is a case. About. [01:01:40] Speaker ?: How. Innocent. [01:01:42] Speaker 2: People. Get convicted. Of. Murder. And. [01:01:47] Speaker ?: I want. [01:01:48] Speaker 2: To put something. Right out. And open. Just to say it. Usually. [01:01:53] Speaker ?: When I go to sleep. At night. [01:01:55] Speaker 2: And hit the pillow. I'm out. [01:01:57] Speaker ?: I'm out. [01:01:58] Speaker 2: Because. I'm terrified. I'm terrified. That something. [01:02:02] Speaker ?: I. [01:02:02] Speaker 2: Failed to do. Or say. Or. Failed to explain. Will end up. With an innocent woman. Being convicted. And so. All I ask of you. Is that. When I inevitably. Fall short. In. Giving you my thoughts. On this case. That when you go back. Into the jury room. Upon. Your collective wisdom. And. [01:02:24] Speaker ?: The many. [01:02:24] Speaker 2: Many notes. You took. [01:02:26] Speaker ?: Throughout. This trial. Now. [01:02:29] Speaker 2: This case. Comes down. To three. Fundamental truths. The first truth. [01:02:34] Speaker ?: Is that. [01:02:35] Speaker 2: This investigation. Was not a search. For the truth. It was a defense. Of a premature. Conclusion. The second. Fundamental truth. Is that. [01:02:44] Speaker ?: The medical science. [01:02:45] Speaker 2: Does not. Support. Murder. [01:02:48] Speaker ?: And. [01:02:49] Speaker 2: The third. Fundamental truth. About this case. [01:02:52] Speaker ?: Is that. [01:02:53] Speaker 2: There are. Multiple. Reasonable. Explanations. That are. Consistent. With. Josie's. Innocence. Overdose. Derek. As the abuser. Injuries. Not intended. To cause. Death. And. The list. Goes on. I would like to talk to you. About some of those. As we go forward. But I. [01:03:16] Speaker ?: First. [01:03:16] Speaker 2: Would like to start. Where the law begins. The burden of proof. Proof. Proof. Beyond a reasonable doubt. And we've all heard that before. And what is the burden of proof? [01:03:27] Speaker ?: Well. [01:03:28] Speaker 2: The burden of proof. Was built. On a hard lesson. Which is that. When the burden is too low. Innocent people. Do get convicted. Because. Human beings. The courts. Are run. By human beings. We are all human. We are fallible. We make mistakes. We make assumptions. We make assumptions. We have biases. And the burden of proof. Is designed. To protect. Against those. Human. Those very human errors. And that is why. We have such a high burden. Because. Society. Concluded. That it is. Unacceptable. To. Convict. Innocent people. For something. They didn't do. So I'll talk. Briefly. What reasonable. [01:04:15] Speaker ?: Doubt. [01:04:16] Speaker 2: Is. But I'll. First. [01:04:19] Speaker ?: Start. [01:04:20] Speaker 2: With. What it is not. What reasonable. Doubt. Is not. [01:04:25] Speaker ?: It's not. [01:04:26] Speaker 2: That you think. Something. Probably. [01:04:29] Speaker ?: Happened. [01:04:29] Speaker 2: It is not. Enough. That there is. More evidence. [01:04:33] Speaker ?: That you believe. [01:04:33] Speaker 2: Of guilt. Than there is. Of innocence. That something bad. Happened. Based on the evidence. That is not. Enough. The government. Must eliminate. Each and every. Reasonable. Hypothesis. Consistent. With innocence. Any reasonable. Explanation. Consistent. With Josie's innocence. And we heard. Some of that. In the trial testimony. We heard. From dr. Quinton. That overdose. Is a very real. Possibility. It is. Squarely. [01:05:04] Speaker ?: Supported by the evidence. [01:05:05] Speaker 2: And if. [01:05:06] Speaker ?: This was. [01:05:06] Speaker 2: An accidental. Overdose. Count one. Must fail. This is not. An intentional. Homicide. And if. It's. An overdose. Count three. [01:05:18] Speaker ?: Must fail. [01:05:19] Speaker 2: And that's. Just one. [01:05:21] Speaker ?: Example. And you'll. [01:05:23] Speaker 2: Hear more. As we go. [01:05:25] Speaker ?: Forward. [01:05:26] Speaker 2: But. It is. Important. To know. That you do not. Have to solve. [01:05:32] Speaker ?: Every mystery. [01:05:33] Speaker 2: You do not. Have to pick. That you. Think is. The most. Convincing. All you have. To do. Is. Determine. If there is. One. Single. Reasonable doubt. [01:05:47] Speaker ?: In this case. [01:05:48] Speaker 2: Just one. Now. Let's talk. About. The first. Truth. In this case. That this case. Was not a search. For the truth. [01:05:58] Speaker ?: It was. [01:05:59] Speaker 2: Focused. 211. Call. Comes in. Reporting. The tragic death. Of a child. And even. In that first. Moment. Josie. Raises. The possibility. Of overdose. And so. What do. Law enforcement. Do. Get. Josie. [01:06:19] Speaker ?: Guilty. [01:06:20] Speaker 2: Immediately. They conclude. [01:06:22] Speaker ?: That she. [01:06:22] Speaker 2: Must have. Staged. That scene. Immediately. They thought. She must be. Covering. For a. Horrible. Crime. [01:06:32] Speaker ?: Only. [01:06:33] Speaker 2: A murderer. Would stage. The scene. Hill bottles. Around. On the floor. They had. No testing. On those items. They formed. A conclusion. Based on. An assumption. From day one. And began. Defending. That conclusion. Rather than. [01:06:51] Speaker ?: Trying to find out. What actually. Happened. [01:06:54] Speaker 2: Now. Let's talk. About. The investigation. And. The incredible. Failure. That we saw. Because of a breakdown. In the chain. Of command. The testimony. That there was. No single person. In charge. Of this investigation. And lieutenant. Williams. He agreed. This is not. Just an issue. About. Flow charts. And organizational. Dynamics. This is a. [01:07:20] Speaker ?: Critically. [01:07:20] Speaker 2: Important. Factor. In any. Investigation. This complex. There are. Hundreds of. Witnesses. To an interview. Multiple. Competing. Inferences. And explanations. Medical. Hundreds. Of thousands. Of documents. In this. Very case. Alone. And so. It is. Critically. Important. That you. [01:07:45] Speaker ?: Have. [01:07:45] Speaker 2: One person. In charge. To assign. Tasks. [01:07:49] Speaker ?: And. To ensure. [01:07:50] Speaker 2: That things. Do not. [01:07:52] Speaker ?: Fall. [01:07:53] Speaker 2: Through the cracks. Important. That no one. Was truly. In charge. [01:07:58] Speaker ?: And even. [01:07:58] Speaker 2: Sergeant. Amundsen. When he. Testified. He. Testified. Very. Reluctantly. That he. [01:08:07] Speaker ?: Was. [01:08:08] Speaker 2: In the lead. of. That. I think. Captures. [01:08:13] Speaker ?: The concerns. [01:08:14] Speaker 2: With this. Investigation. [01:08:16] Speaker ?: Imagine. [01:08:17] Speaker 2: Putting. Together. A puzzle. [01:08:20] Speaker ?: While. [01:08:20] Speaker 2: Throwing. [01:08:21] Speaker ?: Away. [01:08:22] Speaker 2: Every. Piece. That doesn't. [01:08:25] Speaker ?: Immediately. [01:08:26] Speaker 2: Fit. Now. [01:08:28] Speaker ?: Let's. [01:08:29] Speaker 2: Talk. [01:08:30] Speaker ?: About. [01:08:30] Speaker 2: The behavior. The actions. Of. What happened. [01:08:34] Speaker ?: Because. [01:08:35] Speaker 2: An investigation. Should not. Just. Draw. Conclusion. And defend. That conclusion. An investigation. Should actively. Try. To disprove. Its own. Conclusion. Just like. The scientific method. To test. All of the other. Possible. [01:08:53] Speaker ?: Reasons. [01:08:54] Speaker 2: Or. Possible. An investigation. At the very. Beginning. It should. Expand. It should. Look at. All the. Possibilities. It should not. Immediately. Narrow. But. We saw. How. This investigation. Immediately. Narrowed. When instead. It should. Have broadened. And we see. That. In the DNA. Evidence. Which you. Didn't hear. [01:09:23] Speaker ?: Anything. [01:09:24] Speaker 2: About. That. Because. The investigation. Into. The DNA. Evidence. And who. Touched. The pill. Bottle. And the cap. Was not. Designed. To search. For the truth. It was designed. To prove. That. And. Guess what. It was on there. [01:09:46] Speaker ?: That. [01:09:47] Speaker 2: Supports. [01:09:48] Speaker ?: The idea. [01:09:48] Speaker 2: That. [01:09:49] Speaker ?: He. [01:09:49] Speaker 2: Got. [01:09:50] Speaker ?: Into. [01:09:50] Speaker 2: Something. Overnight. It. Doesn't. Support. The staging. Theory. And so. [01:09:58] Speaker ?: What. [01:09:58] Speaker 2: Did they do. Did they say. You know. That's. Unexpected. No. [01:10:04] Speaker ?: More. [01:10:05] Speaker 2: Questions. [01:10:06] Speaker ?: They. [01:10:06] Speaker 2: Didn't. Test. Samples. From. The other. Adults. That. Could have. Contributed. For. Carsten. Jar. They. [01:10:19] Speaker ?: Simply. [01:10:19] Speaker 2: Said. Oh no. [01:10:21] Speaker ?: This. [01:10:21] Speaker 2: Doesn't. Support. Theory. So. We're. [01:10:26] Speaker ?: Gonna. [01:10:26] Speaker 2: Stop. Looking. That is. The very. First. Investigative. Decision. That happened. In this case. Even though. The crime. Lab. Analyst. Specifically. Said. Please. Send. In. A. DNA. Sample. [01:10:47] Speaker ?: And. [01:10:47] Speaker 2: They. [01:10:48] Speaker ?: Didn't. Do. [01:10:50] Speaker 2: That. [01:10:51] Speaker ?: If. [01:10:51] Speaker 2: This. Were. Truly. [01:10:54] Speaker ?: A. [01:10:54] Speaker 2: Search. For. The truth. Why. Would. They. Not. Submit. Comparison. Samples. Why. Would. [01:11:06] Speaker ?: They. [01:11:06] Speaker 2: Not. [01:11:07] Speaker ?: Want. To. [01:11:09] Speaker 2: Know. Who. Touch. Coach. [01:11:13] Speaker ?: Bag. [01:11:14] Speaker 2: Think. [01:11:15] Speaker ?: About. [01:11:15] Speaker 2: That. [01:11:16] Speaker ?: What. [01:11:16] Speaker 2: Would. [01:11:17] Speaker ?: That. Tell. Us. [01:11:18] Speaker 2: If. Alex's. DNA. On. The. [01:11:23] Speaker ?: Coach. [01:11:23] Speaker 2: Bag. That. Would. [01:11:26] Speaker ?: Show. [01:11:26] Speaker 2: That. [01:11:27] Speaker ?: He. [01:11:27] Speaker 2: Gotten. [01:11:28] Speaker ?: Into. [01:11:28] Speaker 2: Something. But. [01:11:30] Speaker ?: They. [01:11:30] Speaker 2: Didn't. [01:11:31] Speaker ?: Do. [01:11:31] Speaker 2: That. [01:11:32] Speaker ?: So. [01:11:32] Speaker 2: We. [01:11:33] Speaker ?: Don't. [01:11:33] Speaker 2: Know. [01:11:34] Speaker ?: We. [01:11:35] Speaker 2: Are. Left. [01:11:37] Speaker ?: With. [01:11:37] Speaker 2: In. Do. That. Were. Never. Tested. And. Dr. Quinton. Acknowledged. [01:11:46] Speaker ?: This. [01:11:46] Speaker 2: Would. [01:11:47] Speaker ?: Be. [01:11:47] Speaker 2: Important. [01:11:48] Speaker ?: Contextual. [01:11:48] Speaker 2: Information. [01:11:49] Speaker ?: As. Well. As. [01:11:49] Speaker 2: Dr. Christensen. [01:11:50] Speaker ?: That. Would. [01:11:50] Speaker 2: Help. Us. [01:11:52] Speaker ?: Understand. [01:11:52] Speaker 2: Was. [01:11:53] Speaker ?: This. [01:11:53] Speaker 2: An. [01:11:54] Speaker ?: Accidental. [01:11:54] Speaker 2: Overdose. [01:11:55] Speaker ?: They. [01:11:55] Speaker 2: Never. [01:11:56] Speaker ?: Tested. [01:11:56] Speaker 2: So. [01:11:57] Speaker ?: Here. [01:11:57] Speaker 2: We. Have. The. Did. Why. [01:12:02] Speaker ?: Is. [01:12:02] Speaker 2: That. [01:12:03] Speaker ?: They. Want. [01:12:04] Speaker 2: Us. [01:12:05] Speaker ?: To. [01:12:05] Speaker 2: Believe. Them. [01:12:07] Speaker ?: They. [01:12:07] Speaker 2: Say. Believe. [01:12:09] Speaker ?: Us. [01:12:10] Speaker 2: We. [01:12:11] Speaker ?: Believe. [01:12:11] Speaker 2: It. [01:12:12] Speaker ?: So. [01:12:12] Speaker 2: You. Should. [01:12:14] Speaker ?: Too. [01:12:14] Speaker 2: But. [01:12:15] Speaker ?: They. [01:12:15] Speaker 2: Don't. [01:12:16] Speaker ?: Have. [01:12:16] Speaker 2: Any facts. To. [01:12:18] Speaker ?: Prove. That. [01:12:19] Speaker 2: Because. [01:12:20] Speaker ?: They. [01:12:20] Speaker 2: Were. [01:12:21] Speaker ?: Not. [01:12:21] Speaker 2: Testing. For. [01:12:23] Speaker ?: Their. [01:12:23] Speaker 2: Own. [01:12:24] Speaker ?: Theory. [01:12:24] Speaker 2: Being. [01:12:25] Speaker ?: Wrong. [01:12:25] Speaker 2: They. Were. [01:12:27] Speaker ?: Not. [01:12:27] Speaker 2: Truly. Searching. And. Confirmation. Bias. Took. Hold. [01:12:34] Speaker ?: Of. [01:12:35] Speaker 2: The. Investigation. And. Just. Briefly. [01:12:40] Speaker ?: On. [01:12:40] Speaker 2: Confirmation. Bias. We. All. Know. What. Happens. When. Everyone. Watches. The. Packers. Fans. Say. No. That. Was. Clean. The. Rhythms. Just. Feeding. Us. Back. What. [01:13:05] Speaker ?: We. [01:13:05] Speaker 2: Want. [01:13:06] Speaker ?: To. [01:13:07] Speaker 2: Hear. And. [01:13:09] Speaker ?: To. [01:13:09] Speaker 2: Be. Clear. This. Is. Not. About. Bad. Intentions. Or. Makes. Overt. Or. Obvious. Is. So. Powerful. Because. It. Is. Powerful. Nonetheless. [01:13:30] Speaker ?: And. That. [01:13:31] Speaker 2: Is. [01:13:32] Speaker ?: Impossible. [01:13:32] Speaker 2: For. [01:13:33] Speaker ?: Any. [01:13:34] Speaker 2: Medical. Personnel. Are. [01:13:37] Speaker ?: Not. [01:13:37] Speaker 2: Immune. We. All. Seek. To. Conform. Evidence. To. [01:13:45] Speaker ?: Our. [01:13:45] Speaker 2: Existing. Beliefs. And. [01:13:48] Speaker ?: It. [01:13:49] Speaker 2: Takes. A lot. Of. Effort. To. admitted Derrick Pedron was a suspect. Sergeant Amundsen said he is still a suspect to this day. That is the very definition of reasonable doubt and there's more. Ten days into the investigation investigators were already working with Derrick Pedron to defense proof the case. Now you heard Sergeant Amundsen come in and testify under oath. The first time that conversation happened that was in September after Josie was already charged and arrested. Matter of fact that's not true. It was ten days after El Xavier had died and I think that demonstrates one of the fundamental failures of this investigation which is that none of the investigators had read all the reports and the reason why Sergeant Amundsen didn't really know what happened in that meeting in September which was a meeting that was never disclosed to the defense. No report was made of it. We only learned of it because we physically laid eyes on every bit of video evidence that was in this case and we discovered this. We said okay here's a meeting with a key witness in the case talking about problems in the case. Talking about how the Xanax issue and talking about Derrick's phone in the very beginning of that meeting. The investigators asked Derrick, this was in September, you still have that phone that we were interested in looking into? He said yes. But then a little while later in that same conversation they asked him again can we see your phone? He said oh what are you talking about? It's broken. I don't have that phone and they never even asked what he meant by that. Not once. They never seized Derrick Derrick Williams' phone at all this entire investigation. Let's draw the contrast between that behavior and that of Josie's. You saw Josie's interview with Lieutenant Williams at the very beginning of this case when this had just happened and Josie handed over the phone willingly. Now of course it is true that investigators could have seized that phone without question. And maybe Josie knew that. Maybe not. Maybe not. But what they couldn't have done is compel her passcode. And Josie gave them her passcode without any problem. And that unlocked her life for investigators to inspect. Guess who didn't do that? Derrick Pedrin. And think about phones. Just for a moment. A phone is no longer this rotary dial, you know, object that we had in our house that to communicate people across long distances. No, it is now essentially an alter ego. There is no single belonging that any of us possess that gives more insight into what we are doing with our lives, where we physically are located at any given time, what we're searching for, who we're communicating with, what we are communicating about. This gives police a roadmap into Josie's life. And because she had nothing to hide, she gave it to them. Can we conclude the same thing about Derrick Pedrin? That is up to you. It is up to you to decide. So again, we see the investigation immediately focusing only on Josie and not testing its own theories. Now again, Derrick Pedrin admitted to Xanax, bringing it into the house. And that wasn't what he said at first. He had to be caught lying in that very first instance. Because he said that it came from Josie. It came from Josie's mom, came from her prescription. And that was not true. And then he said it was from Ted Kolkine. She got it from Ted Kolkine. Investigators ran down that lead. Turns out that wasn't true. So finally, finally, finally, he admitted to being the source of this substance that we know could very well have killed Alex Xavier, but they never fully investigated. They never investigated his supplier. They never asked, they never investigated drug transactions. And they never followed up on any of this evidence. There was a critical text on February 9th of 2023. One day before the evening into Alex Xavier's last day. And they never investigated that. We only found out about what was going on when Mr. Pedrin was up on the stand and Attorney Zacher asked him about it. That was the first time. Investigators apparently never asked. So we had to do that in open court in front of everyone and find out what the answer is. Let's talk about Derek Pedrin again for a moment. Investigators knew he had a lengthy history of violence, seven criminal convictions, a serial strangler of women, Josie being first and foremost threats to kill Josie. He put her head through the wall several times. There were no contact provisions, but that was just a sheet of paper. And we also saw that there is evidence of child abuse. You saw that video. It was heart wrenching. Do you like getting your ass beat? That represents rage, intimidation, and violence, and abuse. And when Mr. Pedrin was asked about that particular incident, the question was, you were out of control, right? You would agree. You were out of control. His answer? I wasn't out of control. I was just angry. Does that match up? If any of us were walking down the street and saw somebody behaving that way towards a child, would we say, no need to worry. He's not out of control. He's just angry. Well, apparently Sergeant Amundson agreed with that as he testified. Now, there's another thing. And here is a very telling exchange. When Mr. Pedrin was asked, have you ever punched or kicked the children? His answer? I don't think so. Is there a parent in this world who cannot simply answer that question with an O? That would be a parent who has done that. That would be a parent who has done that more times than he is willing to admit. And so we have repeated lies from a suspect in this own investigation. Lied about the Xanax. And let's just ask if he's willing. And he lied about his alcohol use. Even though he got arrested months earlier from his testimony while he was intoxicated. I guess we have to believe that he forgot about that. But the truth is much likely different. And so if Mr. Pedrin is willing to lie about some of these most, the smallest things that don't matter in a criminal trial, are we really to believe that he wouldn't be willing to lie about what's most important to him? His own responsibility for Alex Xavier's death? That is a question that you will have to resolve. But the importance of this, the point is that the government's investigation, it created the uncertainty in this case. And they own that uncertainty. They created it. And they took on the highest burden in the law when they filed these charges. And they don't just get to come in here and throw out different possibilities of what might have happened. They have to provide precise proof of what happened in that house and what caused Alex Xavier's death. And so again, we saw no single investigator reviewing any of the case file. Key interviews without police reports. And again, just I must say one more thing about this, this meeting that happened in September that was not disclosed in any report. In a search for the truth, investigators document important witness context when they're talking about problems in the case, they're talking about issues in the case. They write reports. I mean, they wrote a report about some random person who evidently didn't know Josie and said something about how she wouldn't let her look after her dog. But they didn't write a report with one of their key witnesses, who apparently is still a suspect. Why? Because if you're searching for the truth, you document these contacts. But if you're defending a conclusion, inconvenient facts have a way of leaving no paper trail. So we see how evidence portraying Derek negatively was minimized or ignored. Evidence portraying Josie negatively was amplified and emphasized. Investigators never failed to follow up on or failed to follow up on statements that Derek treated Alex poorly. And these irrelevant comments were included. And we'll get to this later. But there was also a key piece of evidence in this trial that you heard, which was the 911 call in November of 2022 when Derek Pedrin had viciously assaulted Josie by repeatedly punching her in her throat and strangling her because she cooked the beef, the ground beef for the kids. That was his ground beef. And so that's what he does when you cook his ground beef for the kids. And she told you that in the 911 call that she had no reason to know would show up in a homicide trial four years later. But what does that tell you? It tells you that she said he did the same thing to his six year old to Alex and that he was teaching Alex to lie. That was in that call. That is a snapshot of what is actually happening in real time before anybody knew and become relevant in this trial. That is evidence you don't have to ignore. So let's move forward to some of the most dramatic, incredible testimony I've seen in a trial. When Lieutenant Williams was asked about what is the state's theory? Why would Josie do this? When she was looking forward to a date, she was taking selfies with Brantley. She was texting with Raphael. She was seemingly looking forward to a future with someone other than Derek. Why would she do that? And Lieutenant Williams's answer was, if you're saying she killed him that night, I have no idea. Once again, that is the very definition of reasonable doubt. If he doesn't know, how can we? And then you also heard from Sergeant Amundsen, the lead investigator who apparently hasn't read all the reports, looked at the transcripts or watched all the videos. He testified that that conversation about thinking like defense lawyers happened in September. That was wrong. It happened February 21. And he testified as well. What is your theory? Why would you do this? How did this happen? And he said the working theory, working theory, is that Josie must have murdered Alex because he wouldn't let her go to sleep. She wanted to go on a date the next day. So she murdered a child. And that's their working theory. Like my working drafts, which go through eight different versions before I finalize them. So maybe if we have a trial in two weeks, the working theory would change once again because they do not know. They are required beyond a reasonable doubt to prove exactly what happened, not to provide us with a working theory. So if the supposed lead investigators can't explain to us what happened, how can we know? And why don't they know? It's because the evidence in this case never supported the murder theory. The evidence kept pointing back towards overdose, towards Derek, towards uncertainty. But that overdose evidence was ignored. You heard from Dr. Quinton. He could not determine the exact cause of death. And he could not rule out overdose. And he said that Xanax's role in this was crucial. What does that mean? That means that overdose is not some far-fetched speculative theory. It is reasonable. It is medically supported. It is consistent with the toxicology. And it is so critically important to understand that if this was an overdose, intentional homicide is not proven. Count one is not proven. Count three is not proven. And that is enough for reasonable doubt just in and of itself. But then we have an example from the medical examiner. From Ms. Lubinsky, who I guess in Wisconsin, but I know in Wisconsin, we don't have medical doctors who serve as medical examiners. I guess that's unique to us. But it seemed like Ms. Lubinsky was much more of a police officer than a medical professional. Because her entry into the case essentially was an attempt to overrule the pathologist who said that this was homicide due to the accidents of some other person. But instead, she wrote that there was homicidal violence and that Alex Xavier died from homicidal assault. Those were her words, not Dr. Quinton. He told you that. Those weren't his words. He wouldn't have used them. And so what does that tell us? Well, what it tells us as well as Ms. Lubinsky's testimony about how the mindset had taken such strong hold that this was only about proving Josie guilty. It was not about exploring what happened. And that is why Ms. Lubinsky came in and she told us all that there were brown bananas on the fruit stand in their house. And we saw the photo, the brown bananas were next to fresh fruit and other snacks that the kids could get freely. And frankly, if brown bananas are criminal neglect, then you're going to have to lock me up too. Because how many of us have not let bananas overripen in our kitchen? But the point is that bananas are not evidence of criminal neglect. They're evidence of how confirmation bias was so powerful in this investigation. And look, we know why that was. We know why. It was because Josie was never going to be able to move past her earlier convictions in 2001 and 2011 and 2013. And I will say, my biggest fear in this case is that you will not be able to look past this evidence for what it is. It is the state attempting to distract you, to overwhelm you, to provoke anger, to distract you from anything but the lack of evidence in this case. We never tried to hide this from you. We never tried to hide this from you. We told you this was coming. But if the state had the facts to prove its case, they wouldn't have to rely on convictions that go back to up to 15 years ago. And the state is trying, not subtly, to use this prior conviction as evidence of current guilt. They're trying to say she was an abuser then and she's an abuser now. That is what they're trying to get you to conclude. But the evidence doesn't support that. The 2011 evidence did not conclude that she was abusive. This was an incident where a young child held on the stairs. And this similarity, I think, explains why they believe that they can use that to say that she must have done something wrong here. But the facts are much different. In that case, Josie was a 19-year-old addict. And she did not care about her responsibility. She was neglectful. And a child was injured, falling down the stairs at her apartment. Now, that was investigated at the time. And investigator Tony DeLapp, the officer who investigated this, walked through the house. And noted no inconsistent information about what she had reported. Josie took the child immediately into the hospital. And there was no medical certainty in that case. Four doctors agreed that this was consistent with the explanation. And there was not one doctor who was willing to say that this was abuse. And there's another important aspect of that. There was evidence that was destroyed as part of that. And the instruction says that you can conclude, you can draw the inference, that this would have been favorable. But the point is that abuse was not established at all in that case. And there was no conviction. But there was another concerning circumstance with Haley in 2013. To be sure. There were some fractures. And there were some other conditions having to do with malnutrition, vitamin D deficiencies, other physical ailments that are dangerous for a child if they're not treated. And that was investigated thoroughly. And it was believed that as to the physiological conditions, that she had celiac. And celiac basically explained all of these conditions. It's basically a disorder that prevents absorbing proper nutrients. And that explains vitamin D deficiency. That explains some of the other findings. This was a coherent explanation from the medical science of what would lead to some of these conditions. But then you did have these concerning injuries. But what did they find out? They investigated everybody in that household. They interviewed them. Not one of them said that Josie was abusive towards the child. Not one. In fact, her partner at the time, who was the other caregiver who was in that household all the time. He had no job. Josie didn't work full time, but she was picking up shifts when she could. But her partner, Dustin Barnes, told investigators she never hurt the children. That was what's called a statement against interest. Because he was the only potential source of those injuries. And once again, there was no established abuse by Josie in that case. The conviction was for neglect, not abuse. And that is important. Now again, the government wants you to conclude that Josie was an abuser then. She was secretly an abuser and now she's an abuser now. But you cannot use that reasoning. The instruction tells you that you cannot use that evidence to say that this is what happened. And again, if they had the facts to support their case, they wouldn't have to go lean so heavily on an older situation that doesn't even prove what they say it does. And just one quick point on that, which is that most people don't know what actually happens in criminal cases. All people usually know is what is in the criminal complaint. And that is a document written by prosecutors that has all the bad information that makes you look guilty, makes you look the worst. But people don't have access to the police reports. They don't have access to the medical experts, any of the forensic analysis. They don't really know the facts. And so when somebody has a past, particularly in a very troubling case, people are inclined to believe the worst because they just don't know the details. I'm going to object. [01:33:38] Speaker 1: We stipulated to these facts and we're now arguing the facts that we stipulated to? [01:33:42] Speaker 2: I assume he's talking about the stipulated facts. Yes. I'll move on. I'll move on. So again, this is evidence meant to insinuate that Josie is secretly abuser without evidence. And there's a saying that where there's smoke, there's fire. And that is true. As far as I know, I don't know anything that produces smoke other than fire. But what looks like smoke is not always smoke. And in this case, what you're seeing is the massive cloud of dust that they are kicking up to distract you, to overwhelm you, to inflame you, to do anything other than look at the evidence in this case or lack thereof. Now, the neglect case was very serious. It was wrong. But it was not abuse. And it does not explain what happened in this case. But what it does explain is how the medical providers were so quick to conclude that Alex Xavier had been abused in the femur fracture incident. And I won't dwell too much on that because Governor's lawyer didn't talk about it too much. But just to be clear about that, the medical expert who looked at this femur fracture, who was most qualified to make an opinion about it, he said that this was 100% not abuse. Doctors don't speak in such certain terms unless they know something is true. And that was true. And Dr. Peterson knew that. And that was why he was so certain. And these other concerning conditions that I think the nurse was reasonably concerned about, and Dr. Glowacki, who you heard from, reasonably concerned about, those were found out to be not fractures. Those were developmental conditions. But they look like fractures on an x-ray. And so the providers were concerned reasonably. But the facts turned out not to support their concerns. And again, the only qualified expert that we heard from says that that was not abuse. And it is reasonable to believe him. But we saw through that femur fracture incident how suspicion immediately became conclusions. And that is the problem in cases like this. Because we're talking about very difficult subjects. And it's hard not to get very angry about this. But anger clouds our judgment. And it clouds our ability to critically examine the evidence. And that's what we're here to do. So touching once more on the second point, which is that the medical science does not prove murder in this case. In fact, it suggests otherwise. Overdose as a possible cause of death. Injuries that were not inevitably going to cause death. Injuries that do not reflect an intent to kill. That's all testimony that you heard from the medical experts. You heard that there was no fatal head trauma. No strangulation. And the blood loss was not a fatal amount. And you heard that alprazolam was crucial to the finding of the cause of death. None of the experts qualified could conclude that there was an intent for Al-Xavier to die. There was toxicology again showing highly elevated levels of alprazolam. This is not disputed. There was enough to kill an adult and certainly enough to cause a child's death. But here's the other point that's very important. This was a gradual process. And that reflects not a sudden violent homicidal rage. That is a gradual process. And sadly, it's consistent with overdose in this case. And the blood loss numbers, again, not sufficient to cause death. Those were not injuries that were inevitably going to lead to death. You had effectively one fifteenth of the total amount of blood volume lost. When you have to reach approximately 33% to start going into shock. And so these were awful. But they were not the types of injuries that would inevitably lead to someone dying. So again, the medical science contradicts the state's murder theory. And it points toward overdose. So I'll move on to a very important issue in this case. Before getting to the elements. Which is the witnesses that you've heard from. And determining their credibility. You have Derek, Loralee, Major, Brantley. And children's statements filtered through adults. And you heard the statement, do you like getting your ass beat? Whether you punched or kicked the children? I don't think so. Derek testified that he couldn't control his violence. So let's talk about Derek Pedron's credibility. We've heard about all of the violence. Indisputably, he was deceptive throughout the investigation. He was shown to be manipulative. Chronic liar. An alcoholic addict. And there was this sham marriage with Loralee. Which we heard about from Misty Craig. And he lied about the timeline. We'll get to that. The timeline of when he got home that night. The night before Alex Xavier died. But let's just take some basic impressions from that testimony. Because there were so many lies. It was very difficult to categorize and catalog them. But here's a figure that I think tells you all you need to know. When he was asked questions on his direct. Questions that were designed to make Josie look bad. He was very certain. He was certain of his answers. When asked questions that would have made Josie look good in any way. He testified, I don't recall. One hundred and thirty times. Or more. If you're telling the truth. You do not have to remember what you told other people. And you experience this. Having to go in and out. While Pedron had to constantly be reminded of what he had said. On a video recording. Or an audio recording. Or something else. Just to remind him. Yes, that's what you said. You remember that? Again. If you tell the truth. You don't have to remember what you said. And then we had Misty Craig. Who testified. Very reluctantly. I don't know about you. But she looked like another victim of Derrick Pedron. Well in fact. She testified. That she was. Because this was the Derrick Pedron. Who was abusive thug. Staring at her. From the gallery. And she testified reluctantly. But she acknowledged. That Derrick said. That he would cut her head off. And send it to her mother. If she testified about the trial. And he said. That he. By telling her. About the marriage to Loralee. Being related to. This very trial. [01:40:52] Speaker ?: And then we had. [01:40:53] Speaker 2: Justin Belito. Thank God. For Justin Belito. The good Samaritan. That was. Watching this trial. On TV. Like many others are. And he was so. Astounded. And outraged. By Pedron's. Lies. On the stand. That he reached out to us. To set the record straight. He did not want. To get involved. In this. That is the last thing. He wanted to get involved. But he was so. Troubled. By the lies. About Derrick. Claiming. He never used Xanax. That he put himself. Into this. Understanding. That he could be. Put through the ringer. And boy. That is true. You saw the government's lawyer. Go up. And just trash him. And berate him. With. Accusations that. Let's put it this way. Must have come from Pedron. Without verification. That's all I'll say about that. [01:41:41] Speaker ?: But. [01:41:42] Speaker 2: What the government lawyer. Didn't attack. Was Justin's testimony. About Derrick Pedron. Using Xanax. Never attacked. The veracity of that. Apparently. According to. The prosecution. This. Young man. Was. Engaged in some. Big grudge. Against Pedron. For. Terminating his employment. At the car wash. His epic bid. To regain his minimum. Wage employment. At. Ship shape. Is that realistically. Something that people. Would. Want to do. To insert themselves. Into a trial like this. Because they want to get. Their job back. For. The work under. [01:42:21] Speaker ?: Derrick Pedron. [01:42:22] Speaker 2: There's a law school. Saying. [01:42:24] Speaker ?: That. [01:42:25] Speaker 2: If you don't have the facts. You pound the law. And if you don't have the law. You pound the facts. And if you don't have either. You pound the table. We saw a lot of table pounding. In this trial. Did we not? Now again. If Derrick Pedron. Is willing to lie. About these things. What makes us think. That he wouldn't lie. About. His responsibility. For. You have to rule. Out. Beyond a reasonable doubt. That Pedron. Was the source. Of the Xanax. He admitted it. You have to rule out. That Pedron. Was the source. Of the injuries. We know. That they could have occurred. At the time. When Derrick. [01:43:05] Speaker ?: Was alone. [01:43:06] Speaker 2: With Alex Xavier. We know that. And. [01:43:09] Speaker ?: We know that Derrick. [01:43:10] Speaker 2: Lied on the stand. Now. A reasonable doubt. Is. A doubt. That would. Cause you. To pause. [01:43:18] Speaker ?: Or to hesitate. [01:43:18] Speaker 2: In part. Important affairs. Of life. And so. What are the most. Important affairs. Of life. That we all. Go through. In. At some point. Whether to choose. A partner. Where to live. Educational decisions. Financial decisions. Medical decisions. Buying a house. Well. Forget buying a house. Would anyone. Buy a used car. From Derrick Pedron. [01:43:41] Speaker ?: And. [01:43:42] Speaker 2: How about. Brantley. In major. Their testimony. Fell. Below reasonable doubt. But the government. Is not trying to sell us all. A used car. Sell you. A used car. They're trying to sell you. Someone's freedom. That is why. This is so. Serious. And important. That this is taken. That is. Analyzed. Carefully. Cautiously. So let's talk about. The children's testimony. There's not a question. About whether those children. Are sympathetic. Of course. Of course. [01:44:13] Speaker ?: They are. But the question. [01:44:15] Speaker 2: Is reliability. The question. Is. Whether we can. Rely on their testimony. In a. In a trial. For first degree. Intentional homicide. The state must prove. Beyond a reasonable doubt. That these children. Weren't coached. The state must also. Prove. Beyond a reasonable doubt. That they did not lie. Under oath. Repeatedly. And. They also must prove. Beyond a reasonable doubt. That these children. Were so consistent. So credible. That their testimony. Can be relied on. In this very. Homicide trial. What did we hear. From the children. Again. The same. Habit. Of. Answering certain questions. With. With confidence. That. Made Josie look. Bad. But anything. That made her look good. In any way. Was. Met with a. [01:45:13] Speaker ?: I don't know. [01:45:14] Speaker 2: That. That. I don't know. If everyone caught. When Brantley. [01:45:19] Speaker ?: Was testifying. [01:45:20] Speaker 2: Well. She was. She was calling Josie. Mom Josie. A lot. She was. That was. The. The name. That he used. Instead of mom. He said. Josie did this. Josie did that. But at one point. He answered. Our mom. And then he immediately. Corrected himself. He corrected his own testimony. And said. Josie. Now ask yourselves. Is that something. He was. Taught. To say. [01:45:47] Speaker ?: And. [01:45:48] Speaker 2: He apologized. He apologized. To. Pedran. In the middle. Of his testimony. And he was asked. About that. When he came back. Onto the stand. And he said. He apologized. To his dad. For lying. [01:46:03] Speaker ?: So. [01:46:04] Speaker 2: He admitted. He lied. On the stand. But what did he say. That he apologized. To his dad. About. [01:46:12] Speaker ?: He apologized. [01:46:13] Speaker 2: To his dad. For not telling. The jury. For not telling you. That his dad. Was an alcoholic. Basically. That he used alcohol. That was what he said. I'm sorry dad. I didn't tell him. That you used alcohol. Now ask yourself. Does that make sense? Do you think. That he was apologizing. For making his dad. Look good. In the eyes of the jury. Or is it. That he let slip. Something he was told. [01:46:37] Speaker ?: Not to say. [01:46:38] Speaker 2: When you have competing inferences. And complete. Competing doubts. The jury instruction. Tells you. Very clearly. That you must resolve. Every reasonable doubt. In favor of Josie. And that is the rule. That you will need to apply. When you're in the jury room. And again. Bringing it back. To that. 2022. 911. Call. Where Josie. Reported. This. Assault. From. Pedron. Regarding. The. Ground beef. And she said. Derek. Repeatedly. Punched her. In the throat. And strangled her. And that he did. The same thing. [01:47:17] Speaker ?: To Alex. And that he was. [01:47:19] Speaker 2: Teaching his son. To lie. That is. As reliable. As you can get. [01:47:24] Speaker ?: That occurred. [01:47:25] Speaker 2: At the time. In preparation. For this trial. And that's important. And you can consider that. And so. Let's talk about. Brantley's testimony. About the femur. Injury. Or the. Supposed. Kick. [01:47:40] Speaker ?: Down the stairs. [01:47:41] Speaker 2: So. He says. Apparently. That was not. He was not talking about. What caused the fracture. That this happened. After. And you must ask. Is that consistent. At all. With the evidence. [01:47:53] Speaker ?: Now. [01:47:54] Speaker 2: There was no certainty. The exact day. And we can't rely. On his dates. But. Let's just. Look at the evidence. That we have. The objective evidence. About that injury. There was. A follow-up appointment. With Gunderson. Where he was found. To be healing. Well. In. Make sure. That that happened. And Josie. Took him. To the follow-up. Appointment. And he was. Doing well. And then. Sarah Wagner Barton. The CPS. Worker. She did a home visit. She came. Through the house. Now. First. She talked. To the medical staff. And the medical staff. Had no concerns. About Josie. And she also. [01:48:34] Speaker ?: Found. [01:48:35] Speaker 2: That the kids. Were. In good spirits. And that she found. [01:48:39] Speaker ?: No immediate. [01:48:39] Speaker 2: Alex. And the family. At Gunderson. Where she said. That Alex. Did tell her. [01:48:45] Speaker ?: That. [01:48:46] Speaker 2: Dad would. Spank. And. Moving on. Ms. Wagner Barton. Then went. To do the. The site visit. At the house. And she went. Through. And she saw. That the kids. Were being. Well cared for. They had all of their. Basic needs. She had no concerns. [01:49:04] Speaker ?: Alex. [01:49:05] Speaker 2: Was doing well. He was. Proud of his. Still healing well. [01:49:09] Speaker ?: He was not. [01:49:09] Speaker 2: He had not. Re-injured. [01:49:11] Speaker ?: His. [01:49:12] Speaker 2: Femur. And then. We do have. The autopsy report. And there was. No evidence. That. His. Femur injury. Had been. Aggravated. That. [01:49:24] Speaker ?: At. [01:49:24] Speaker 2: Josie. Kicked. This child. Down. The staircase. And. [01:49:30] Speaker ?: We saw. [01:49:31] Speaker 2: That staircase. That thing. Was a death trap. And. Just to reiterate. The staircase. Condition. Was dangerous. But. Josie. Was a renter. Shame. On that landlord. Can not be expected. To just. Install. Railings. Or put. Walls. Alongside. A staircase. Finish. A basement. That is not. Within. Their capacity. Now let's talk about Major Hellerud and his testimony. And the issue there is that you saw his testimony evolved as contrary facts got in the way. Reliable memories do not shift every time they are tested. And again, if you're telling the truth, you don't have to remember what happened. So you had the changing bedroom account where Major's story changed as the facts developed. First he saw this attack supposedly in Josie's bedroom through from his bedroom into hers. But then he was confronted with the fact that there was a curtain up. And so he said the curtain wasn't always there or it wasn't always up. And then when he testified at trial, it became he actually walked into the room. How can we know? None of those all cannot be true. And you can disregard that testimony because you have to determine whether it is precise proof that you can rely upon. And then you had this implausible testimony Now does that make sense that Josie would make a child soil himself so that she would just then have to clean up herself? That makes no sense. And then you saw the delayed appearance of this other serious allegation about the bending of the leg back while choking, which is how he mimicked it in the interview. And this was not mentioned in the first interview. But it appeared only after he had discussions with family and reappeared. But then he testified at trial to the opposite facts, that somehow this was a bending backwards. And this was a completely implausible mechanism for injury. So this was implausible and it changed over time. And we all know that we show that the evidence suggests that the family discussed the case with Major. And there were concerns about coaching. And so the pattern was, there was remember, Major remembered dramatic accusations. But when he was confronted with inconsistencies, inconsistencies and prior statements and specifics, his response became, I don't remember. Again, how many times did he not remember? 137 times? He remembered the accusations, but not the contradictions. And the law requires testimony that is so consistent, so credible that no innocent explanation could be true. And so the pattern was, there was Major remembered dramatic accusations. But when he was confronted with inconsistencies and prior statements and specifics, his response became, I don't remember. Again, how many times did he not remember? 137 times. He remembered the accusations, but not the contradictions. And the law requires testimony that is so consistent, so credible, that no innocent explanation could be true. So does that mean you should not rely on anything the children say? Well, think about the example of a big pot of stew that you're making for the family. And somehow a big piece of rotten meat goes into that stew. Would you still keep the stew? Would you eat it? Or would you throw it away and start again? That is why you cannot rely on the stew. You cannot rely on these statements as precise proof of the allegations in this case. We know the state itself is uncertain. We heard that from the lead investigators. But we also know because of the charges in this case. We see how the government added charges in the very middle of the case. That's why you have a new option here for reckless homicide, because the state is trying to throw as much everything as they can, everything that they can against the wall and see what is going to stick. They need something to stick. But let's talk about the first count, intentional homicide. The state must have precise proof of causation. And if overdose is an explanation, there is no causation. And if injury is insufficient to cause death, that is not causation. So what do we not have here? We have no motive. We have no eyewitness. And there's no DNA tie. And there's medical uncertainty. And no coherent explanation. Why would Josie suddenly become a murderer? Well, texting with Laura Lee and phone calls with Laura Lee and texts with Raphael, planning the date next morning with children. And let's talk about the timeline of that evening. The day before February 10. So Derek Pedron arrived home at 5:30. How do we know that? Not because he told us. He said he got home at 6:30. But then we found out because we had the surveillance evidence to prove that he had left the Walmart at 5:30. And why would he lie about when he arrived at the house? He thought he would get away with misleading you. And we wouldn't have found out if we hadn't looked at the footage. Perhaps the government hadn't looked at the footage. But if he's lying about the timeline, then we have to wonder, is he lying because he thinks he'll never face accountability? And we know that Alex was awake at the time Derek was around. This was something that Major certainly testified to as well. But let's So let's just get to one detail that I think is very important here. Pedron testified that he had changed Alex Xavier's pants. But there would be no... [01:55:45] Speaker 1: That mischaracterizes the testimony. Mr. Pedron never testified that he changed. That came from the defendant. [01:55:51] Speaker 2: Forgive me. There was testimony to that effect. Thank you. But there would be no reason to do that if he hadn't soiled himself. So again, we know that Alex Xavier was up at some point. And we know that he was asleep during the welfare check. And we know from the medical experts that that would be consistent with either potentially a concussion, mild concussion or mild alprazolam intoxication. And so that is certainly consistent with the timeline. And we know that Pedron was downstairs near him at that time and that Derek had Xanax access. And so we know that Josie was texting and texting about going on a date. And she slept from three to nine. Is that consistent with someone who knew she had just murdered a child? And again, her behavior in the morning. It was normal. Normal texts, ordinary plans. And then a shocking discovery and CPR attempts. Immediately raising overdose as a concern. Panic. And is this consistent with somebody who had just brutally murdered a child? Now, I remember we watched the interview with Josie with Lieutenant Williams. We all watched that together in the trial. And I remember watching that for the first time. And what I saw was a woman who was in shock. She was self-soothing. She appeared to be in disbelief and in grief. And it felt real to me on a physical level. This did not seem like a woman who expected for this to happen. She did not look like a woman who had just murdered a child. And so the reality of the home was that Derek dominated that environment with fear, intimidation, violence, drug use, children cowering in closets. And we have evidence of Josie's relationship with Alex Xavier. She communicated with the school regularly. She wanted to make sure that he was able to celebrate his birthday because he had a summer birthday and he wanted, didn't want him to feel left out from the other kids who could celebrate their birthdays. She wrote to the teacher to make sure that Alex Xavier, she was concerned he was getting bullied. And so she wanted to make sure that Alex Xavier was not being bullied. Is that a woman who had callous disregard for this child's safety? Is that something if you were really, if you had just this murderous rage for this child that you would do something like that? She wanted to make sure that his winter gloves fit properly, that he had water, that he had toys, that he had happy meals. Having him sleep next to her in bed, taking him to doctor visits, making sure that he had badger care so that he could have dental care. When his dad had simply just tried to take a cap and shove it back into his mouth. And then we saw the Walmart video. Where Josie made sure that his sister went and got him a sucker. She wanted Alex to have a sucker too. So he didn't feel left out. She cared for Alex. Like her own son. And again, does this seem like someone who had hidden homicidal rage for a child? This death was tragic, but it was not intentional. So count two, we see a contradictory theory where either she intentionally or recklessly killed him. But if you don't believe that, then she negligently caused his death. And you must find three separate acts of criminal neglect, not just careless or something that could have been done differently. Neglect, criminal neglect. And causation. And to prove causation on count two, you have to believe, you have, well, the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that Josie knew where Derek had put the Xanax in that household. Now, there is no proof that Josie knew there was still Xanax in that house. Derek was connected to the drugs. But there is no proof that she controlled the Xanax or even knew where it was. Now, Derek was an addict facing arrest. The simplest assumption or conclusion is that he either took it or flushed it. She would not know what he would have done with it while she was dealing with Sergeant Kernine. You cannot negligently fail to secure something you don't know is there. And if Derek caused the injuries, the injuries were not obviously fatal to somebody who would observe Alex Xavier. There was no proof that Josie knew that his death was somehow imminent. Tragically, abuse had been normalized inside this home. Now, hindsight cannot replace proof. And this is an attempt to get the jury to reach a compromise verdict. If you don't believe the other theories, then you can settle on this one. But the law doesn't permit compromise when the evidence does not support chronic criminal neglect. And so, let's go to count three, repeated abuse and abuse causing death that Josie failed to prevent abuse or caused abuse. Now, the major failures of this count are that, again, overdose is not ruled out. Injuries not proven to be fatal. And Derek, as the source of those injuries, not ruled out. And in terms of the failure to prevent any of that, they have to show a capability to intervene or a capability of doing something that would have prevented future harm. Now, let's talk about the bathroom incident. Derek goes into the bathroom with Alex Xavier and closes the door and locks it. She thinks he heard Alex Xavier, but she doesn't know exactly what happened. What is she supposed to do? Kick down the door? Physically overpower this person who has abused her repeatedly? Or call police at that moment? Calling police has never worked before. Calling the police would not protect her or Alex. Because Derek would get out every single time and the beatings would only increase. And again, remember that 911 call where she did report Derek recruiting Alex and teaching him to lie? What happened after that? He got out and he immediately battered her again. Calling the police would not have caused or prevented or not have prevented future harm. We know that restraining orders wouldn't stop him. Nothing would stop him. So, before I sit down, I want to share some final thoughts. Because when I sit down after this, the government's lawyer has the last word because the government has the burden of proof here. So I just want to say thank you for sitting through what has been a painful trial. We could not do this without you. But you are doing it and you are doing it the right way. And this case is heartbreaking. A young child died under horrific circumstances. So, Alex Xavier should have had a future. He should have had an opportunity to become something other than his father. And sadly, that opportunity was taken from him. And if I were sitting where you are sitting right now, I would want to punish someone for what happened to Alex Xavier. I would want that. Anyone with a conscience would want that. But the person who deserves that punishment is not on trial today. And I ask you not to convict Josie for her abuser's crime. Because the law requires justice. And justice is not vengeance. Vengeance is easy. Vengeance says a terrible thing happened and somebody must pay for it, even if the proof is uncertain. Justice is much, much harder. Justice requires discipline. Justice requires understanding when there is no uncertainty, even when it is emotionally unsatisfying. Justice requires understanding that sometimes the evidence doesn't provide a neat, complete answer. But does it achieve justice to rely on an investigation that's searched only for Josie's, evidence of Josie's guilt? Does it achieve justice when the medical science does not support the government's murder theory or its allegations of count three? And does it achieve justice when there remain multiple reasonable explanations that are consistent with Josie's innocence? It is up to you alone as jurors to determine that. Now, your duty is not to the defense, not to the prosecution, not to public opinion, emotion, or sympathy. Your duty is to the law and to your own conscience. And to be able to walk out of this courtroom without ever having to wonder whether you may have convicted an innocent person. And if you have that doubt, then you have your answer, not guilty on all counts. Thank you. Thank you. [02:05:56] Speaker 1: Do you want me to go, Your Honor? [02:06:00] Speaker 2: Do we need a break for five, ten minutes, or do you want to go ahead? Like everybody's ready to go ahead? Go ahead. [02:06:11] Speaker 1: Ladies and gentlemen, believe it or not, my favorite jury instruction is the burden of proof. Because it says exactly what your job is. Your job is not to search for doubt. Your job is to search for the truth. What you just heard was the smoke show continue that Josie started, the defendant started with her testimony. Look at all of these other things, but how much of what the defense argued focused on the two days involving Alex Xavier's death? Heck, how many times did you hear the name Alex or Alex Xavier during their comments? They brought up the 2011 and 2013 other acts as if that was the entirety of what the state relied on. The state's argument regarding those was less than five minutes. And the state's argument regarding those told you exactly what the law says on how to use it. They're the ones that brought up using it improperly. I want to talk first about the accusation about the investigation in this case. And that there was tunnel vision associated with this defendant. Because nothing could be further from the truth. The defense gave the example of a puzzle that is missing pieces. There was a puzzle with missing pieces in this case. But it was the defendant that was taking those pieces away from the investigation. When they responded that day, they were first responders trying to save Alex's life. They performed CPR on Alex's body. In the efforts of trying to perform CPR on Alex's body, they moved the pill container. They put it on the bed. They touched it. When this case was first being investigated, it's being investigated as an overdose. That pill container was sent out to the crime lab to see if it had Alex Xavier's DNA on it. Why? Because law enforcement was looking to see if this was, in fact, an overdose. Just like the defendant said. That's why they sent it out looking for Alex Xavier's DNA. They were investigating it as an overdose. If you look at the first search warrants in this case, which was brought up, the first search warrants were looking at child neglect resulting in death. Because they were looking at it as a potential overdose where drug exposure happened in the home. Is that pointing the finger at this defendant? No, that's keeping an open mind. You heard that the defendant willingly gave over her cell phone. You saw the video. Investigator Williams said, we're going to get a search warrant for your phone. She knew they were going to get a warrant for her phone. It was with that information that she turned it over. But the defense paints it like it was a voluntary, here's my phone, here's my passcode. Look at whatever you want. That's not what she did. And don't let them portray it that way to you. Law enforcement did search warrants for her accounts, Google, Facebook. But they also did them for Mr. Pedran. They were also examining him as a potential suspect. You heard that they did search warrants for her and for Mr. Pedran. But it was this defendant's words to investigators originally, and this is important. That morning, she said that Al Xavier was asleep the entire time that Mr. Pedran was home. Al Xavier was asleep the entire time that Mr. Pedran was home. Why is that important at that stage of the investigation? The autopsy is done on February 13th. And that's where they see all the internal injuries. Based on the internal injuries, they now know that this is a child abuse case. That it's a severe child abuse case. But what the defense doesn't want you to know is that the investigators are relying on her word during this portion of the investigation. Her word is that Al Xavier was asleep during that time frame when Mr. Pedran was home. And so what does that mean? That narrows the suspects. Mr. Pedran couldn't have committed the child abuse according to her words. And so they have now lost probable cause to get a search warrant for his fault. But they don't tell you that. And so they continue to investigate. They have the internal injuries. They have the forensic interviews of the children. And the forensic interviews of the children in all of the forensic interviews. Not one of the children ever says that Mr. Pedran does any form of child abuse to any of them. A riot. No child abuse by Derek Pedran. Brantley. No child abuse by Derek Pedran. Major. No child abuse by Derek Pedran. But they all point the finger at this defendant. This defendant alone. Those children were in two separate homes. And they talk about hitting, kicking, and choking by this defendant. That's magnificent coaching by some power from above that children in different homes can magically say the same thing. Unless that's what happened. And so now, they are looking at this defendant for child abuse. Because this defendant's own children say she's a child abuser. And then they get the toxicology results. And they have a conversation with Mr. Pedran. And I want you to think about what Mr. Pedran says regarding the toxicology results. "I buy Xanax." He's admitting that he illegally purchases Xanax. He's admitting that he illegally purchases Xanax for her. And who has the phone, the only phone with a text message that comes back to Xanax? This defendant. Text message to her mother saying, "Do you want to try a Xanax?" What does that message tell you? She has Xanax. She possesses Xanax. And she's willing to give it out to someone else if they want to try it. Now, she's had the benefit of listening to everyone testify. She's had the benefit of seeing that text message and knowing it's going to come into evidence. And having to come up with an excuse for it. And how much did you hear that she was prepared? She initially said that she prepped every week since being charged in this case. For the moment that she was on the stand. Think about when she was charged with the offense. And she got a copy of the criminal complaint. And it mentions the child abuse. And it mentions the Xanax for the first time. She knows about the results. Who's the first person she calls in this world? Mr. Pedran. What does she say to him? I love you. Repeatedly. I love you. Do you love me? I want to talk to the children. And what does Mr. Pedran say? He allows her to talk to the children. You heard arguments from the defense about the theory of the case. The theory of the case. Investigative Sergeant Rich Amundsen testified that Mr. Pedran is still a suspect. What do you know about this case? You know he was bringing Xanax into the home. Heck yeah, he's still a suspect. You know he committed child neglect. Heck yeah, he's still a suspect. There's nothing that investigator Sergeant Amundsen said that is not true. But they want you to believe that because he's a suspect in those things, he's a suspect in the abuse and death. That's not what was said. They were asked if he was still a suspect. And the answer is yes. To neglect. To delivering Xanax. To her. You're asked about a working theory of the case. You heard the theory of the case. Not from Investigator Williams who is removed from the case after doing a few months work on it. The defendant is obviously upset about being removed from the case. And hasn't done any work on it since. But you did hear a complete theory of the case from the investigator that's been on it ever since. Let's talk a little bit about the DNA evidence because the defense wants to make a big deal about that DNA evidence. Right? You didn't test the bag that belongs to this defendant. You didn't test the pill container that belongs to this defendant. It was tested. It was tested for Alex Xavier's DNA. And then when they went back and watched the body cam, they saw CPR being performed. And then they saw those containers being moved. That's Alex Xavier's DNA being transferred to those containers. The bag is her bag. Of course it's going to have her DNA on it. What they didn't explain and what they can't explain because it demonstrates her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Is that bag coming down and being put on the floor? Is that pill container being emptied out? Is that pill container being used to stage an overdose? And what did that buy this defendant? It bought her time. It bought her time that day because investigators allegedly looked at the scene and said, "This does look like an overdose." And then they started putting the pieces together. They started looking at the evidence. Because what they didn't know when they responded to that scene was all the internal injuries that Alex Xavier had before he was administered those drugs. When you know those injuries and you know how severely this child was abused. When you know that in the context of this bag and a child having to open that container. When you know that the pills were dumped in that bag. You know it's staged. The evidence also keeps throwing out overdose, overdose, overdose as if that's what the medical examiners said in this case. The practice of medicine involves differential diagnosis. It involves looking at the entirety of the facts and the picture. If you look at just the pills and the toxicology results in this case, it's consistent with overdose. That was the question. But you have to look at it in the context of a beaten and battered child who is then drugged. Who is then given the amount that could kill an adult human being. Who is given an amount that's going to result in that child being unconscious and dying within hours. That completely removes Mr. Pedrick. There's only one person in the world who had the ability to administer drugs to that child. This defendant. There's only one person who had the ability to abuse that child without anyone else knowing about it. That's this defendant. There were other children in the home. Mr. Pedrick was there. She said Mr. Pedrick couldn't have done it originally. It was only after being charged. At trial. That she says. This is what I heard in the bathroom. But you also know that didn't happen. Because you know how severe those injuries are. You know how symptomatic. Alex Xavier would have been. A fractured rib. A lacerated liver. Bleeding into his mesentery. You saw the photographs of all of his injuries. You heard that law enforcement had contact with him and saw none of that. You heard that Laura Lee heard a voice. A voice of a child that was okay at 10:30 at night. Dr. Quinton testified that both the injuries and the toxicology in his system were substantial factors to his death. So no it's not correct. That if you rule out toxicology as an overdose and if you look at just the pill matters that this isn't a homicide. That is not. That is not what Dr. Quinton said. And the other forensic pathologist, the one who didn't write a report, if we're going to criticize law enforcement for not writing a report during a meeting with somebody. What about their forensic pathologist who didn't write a report with all of his findings and conclusions and was left to me asking questions only to find out that his opinion is that an adult abused a child, that he would have been symptomatic rather quickly as a result of those injuries, and that with that amount of toxicology of Xanax in his system, he would have been unconscious and dying within a few hours. That was their expert's testimony that he couldn't bother to put in paper despite being paid $12,000. Why? [02:20:55] Speaker ?: Why? Why? Why? Why? The defense screams. [02:21:00] Speaker 1: The instructions that you have in front of you say that the state does not have to explain motive, and don't let them put that on the state. That is not the state's responsibility. The state's responsibility is to prove facts and evidence. And the facts and the evidence are that this defendant brutally beat a child and then administered Xanax. There's only one person in the world that could stage that scene, to bring that bag down, to empty the pill container, to put it by the body, to buy more time. Those who have nothing to fear have nothing to hide. Who's the person who's been hiding things and concealing things since the very beginning of this case? Whose testimony wasn't even commented on by the defense? This defendant. If children get something wrong on the stand, they're inconsistent. If children are too consistent, they can't be believed. That's also what was argued in this case. What kind of world do we live in where we can attack a child no matter what they say in a courtroom? It's just never going to be good enough. Because child abuse is a crime that happens behind closed doors. And if it's children that witness it, too bad, so sad. No matter what, they just can't be believed. Even when they're that consistent. Those who have nothing to fear have nothing to hide. This defendant has hid a lot. Tell her that you see her. Tell her that you see her for who she is. Tell her that you know what she did to Alex Xavier. Tell her she's guilty. [02:23:08] Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Treberson. Mm-hmm.