Dentist Behind the Door Trial: Full Closing Arguments

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: March 7th, 2025 was the last day that Evan Barron talked to his dad. March 7th, 2025 was the last day that James David Barron spent on this earth. March 7th, 2025, after months and months of spiraling, after months and months of unhinged behavior, and after months and months of getting more and more obsessive and out of control, on March 7th, 2025, this defendant snapped for the last time. It started off fine, like any other day, but just like the many, many, many, many times in the last months and months and months, this defendant started another argument with David. And it was the same argument that she had been starting since December. Lilia. Since the day that the defendant found out about Lilia back in December, her relationship with David Barron didn't stand a chance. And I want you ladies and gentlemen to understand reasonably so. I don't think anybody faults the defendant for feeling upset and angry when she found out that her boyfriend was sending money to a woman in a different country and paying her daughter's rent. That's not what we're here to talk about. I don't want there to be any confusion about the fact that nobody liked David sending money to Lilia. His family didn't like it. His kids didn't like it. His ex-wife didn't like it. That's not the issue that we're here to talk about, is whether or not she had a right to be angry at David for sending money to Lilia. The question is how she handled the news of Lilia. That's why we're here. Because she didn't leave him. She didn't break up with him. She wanted to stay with him. She wanted to try and fix things. Great. That's her decision. She wants to stay with Mr. Barron. She loves Mr. Barron. She's so desperate and needy for love. And she feels like Mr. Barron is the love of her life. And so she wants to try and fix things with David. And so she finds out about Lilia. And she decides that she wants to stick it out. But at what cost? At what cost does this defendant go through to stick it out with David Barron? Constant questions. Constant insecurities. Constant arguments. Constant fights. Constant anger. Constant aggression. Reaching out to everybody about Lilia. Lilia was a secret to nobody in the defendant's world. She reached out to David's son. She reached out to David's ex-wife. She reached out to her sister, Dana. She reached out to her sister, Leslie. She reached out to Jen, to Jessica, to McClain, to Judy, to Mike. Anybody that would listen to her complain about Lilia heard about it. The obsession ran deeper than just the complaints to her friends and family because she took to Facebook. She found Lilia on Facebook. She found Lilia's daughter on Facebook. She's messaging them. She's somehow getting their phone numbers. She's calling them. She's getting her sister to try and call them. She's looking at who Lilia's following on Facebook to see how many men are following her. She's getting her sister to use her real estate business to try and look things up about Lilia, to try and look things up about her daughter, to try and look things up about David. This obsession was so under her skin that it was literally all she thought about. It was all she talked about. It was all she argued with David about. It was all she ever wanted to talk about with anyone who was willing to listen. And she became unhinged. And that unhinged jealousy was not new to David and it was not new to the defendant. Because before Lilia there was Laura and after Laura there was Meg. And then came Lilia and she just had a new reason to start fights with David Barron. She had a new reason to yell at David Barron. She had a new reason to focus her anger and her aggression and her obsession on Lilia. And so that brings us to the night of March 7th. And David did what he always did when this defendant would start a fight about Lilia. Removed himself. Over and over and over again. December 28th went to a hotel. January 4th went to a hotel. February 1st tried to go to a hotel. Wasn't allowed to get in and get his stuff. He was trying to leave. And she wouldn't let him. February 16th locks himself upstairs in the guest bedroom. March 7th locks himself upstairs in the guest bedroom. And this defendant did what she always did. She got angry. She got obsessive. She got unhinged. And she spiraled. For the last time on March 7th. So David goes upstairs. He's in the bedroom. And she goes and gets her Glock. She goes and gets her Glock. She walks up the stairs. She gets the gun. Six inches away from the door. She points. She listens. She aims. And she fires. And Mr. Barron is dead. And not only that, ladies and gentlemen, but we know that she was yelling threats to David before she fired that gun. Why do we know that? Because Mr. Barron is cowarding behind a wall just on the other side of that locked door. He's hiding from this defendant. What is she screaming? I'm going to shoot you. I'm going to kill you. There's no telling what she's screaming. She's screaming something that's scary enough for Mr. Barron to feel the need to be literally hiding behind the wall, behind the locked door of the guest bedroom. So she gets in. She sees Mr. Barron face down in a pool of his own blood. And now she knows she's in trouble. That's where the cover up begins. And now the defendant is in self-preservation mode. She sees Mr. Barron. She reaches down, checks his pulse, gets blood all over her hands. She doesn't feel the pulse. She knows she needs a defense now. She knows she's in trouble. So what does she do? She goes and gets Mr. Barron's gun. And we're going to talk about why the evidence proves that that gun was never in the possession of Data Barron that night. Why that gun was never in that bedroom until the defendant went and got it with her bloody hands and put it in there. And how do we know that? She goes and gets the gun. She walks. And keep in mind, Mr. Barron's body is not here anymore because the paramedics have already taken him away. He's lying right there. She has to step over his dead body, through his blood with her bloody footprints, to the bed. She gets the holster, unsnaps the holster, takes the gun out of the holster, walks back over to Mr. Barron's body. She knows she needs a defense. What's the most easy defense for her to think of? I'm going to make it look like he was firing this gun back at me. So she gets his Beretta, she bends down at a low angle, no more than 12 to 16 inches off of the ground, gets Mr. Barron's hand, puts it either on the gun, near the gun, and she tries to fire, but it jams. So she pulls the slide back, a bullet comes out. She leans back down, she tries again, jams again, pulls the slide, bullet falls out. Let's try for a third time. Bends back down, fires the first shot, fires the second shot, third shot goes off. Her hand, we know, got caught in the slide because she was holding it at an awkward angle, all the way down by Mr. Barron's body, so she gets slide bite, there and there. From the slide, her hand is obstructing the slide, and we also know that because the casing never came out, because she didn't have a good grip on the gun. She's holding it awkwardly, and she shoots it that high off of the ground. That is how high off the ground those shots were fired. Look where the trajectory is headed, that high off of the ground, right to Mr. Barron's dead bottom. We know he didn't fire those, because he's face down on the ground dead. She did. There's the slide bite she got from when she bent down on the ground, and her hand got caught in the slide. Then what does she do with the gun? Well, to continue on with her cover-up, she places the gun right next to Mr. Barron's left hand. It's no coincidence that that gun is laying on top of the pool of blood placed there, right next to his left hand. Then what does she do? Still in cover-up mode, so she goes and finds all the bullets she can find, all the casings that she can find, continuing to step over Mr. Barron's dead body, walking all through his blood, into the bathroom, with her bloody footprints, and flushes those casings. And we know that those casings were flushed from that upstairs bathroom, because they were found in the septic tank line. Then what does she do? Keep in mind, what she does isn't render aid to Mr. Barron. What she does isn't try and perform CPR, something that she is, as a doctor, certified in doing. She leans down next to Mr. Barron's dead body and starts wiping up the blood, because she's more worried about the blood on her feet and the blood on her floor than she is about her boyfriend's dead body laying face down, right in front of her. She walks all over the room. She's carrying that towel. You heard Sergeant Durham talk about these blood drops. Those are blood drops from a 90-degree angle dripping off of an object, right? Mixed in with all those bloody footprints. She's walking around, wiping blood, carrying the bloody towel that's dripping everywhere. It's getting on the bed. That, ladies and gentlemen, is why this defendant has been charged with murder. Because, unfortunately for the defendant, while she might lie, the evidence sure doesn't. So, let's look at malice murder, count one. These are the elements that you have to find, beyond a reasonable doubt, to find the defendant guilty of malice murder. That she, with malice, caused the death of James Barron by shooting him. That's count one. Counts two and three are both felony murder. Count two is that in the commission of an aggravated assault, she caused the death of James Barron. And then count three is in the commission of criminal damage to property. In the first degree, she caused the death of James Barron. And I see all of you guys writing. I just want you to know that you will have the indictment with all these elements. You'll have the charges. So, this won't be the last time you get to see all these elements, just in case. If you want to take notes, absolutely do it. I just want to make sure you all know. This won't be the last time you see these elements. Count four, aggravated assault. So, like I said, count two, felony murder, is based off of this aggravated assault, right? So, she committed an aggravated assault and, in doing so, killed James David Barron. So, what is aggravated assault? That she assaulted James Barron with a deadly weapon, in this case a firearm. An object which, when used defensively, is likely to and does result in bodily injury by firing said weapon through a door in the direction of James Barron. That's what aggravated assault is. [00:13:33] Speaker ?: That's what aggravated assault is. [00:13:33] Speaker 1: Essentially, using a deadly weapon, a firearm is a deadly weapon, when used defensively, shooting it, is likely to, or did in this case, result in serious bodily injury by firing the weapon through a door in the direction of James Barron. Doing that, firing a firearm through the door in the direction of James Barron, is what caused his death. That is both aggravated assault, count four, as well as the felony murder, count two. What is criminal damage to property in the first degree? This is the basis of the other felony murder. That she knowingly and without authority interfered with a door in a manner so as to endanger human life by shooting the door of a room that was occupied by James Barron. So what does that mean? Essentially, what criminal damage in the first degree is that she knowingly interfered with a door, so that means damaging a door, that she without authority damaged the door. What that means is essentially when you have shared property, for example, they both share this house together. Both of their names are on the deed, this is a shared house. When you have shared property, she has to have the authority to damage the property. In this case, I don't believe that there's going to be any evidence that Mr. Barron gave her the authority to shoot the door and kill him. And she shot that door, she damaged that door in a manner that endangered Mr. Barron's life. That's essentially criminal damage to property in the first degree. Count 6, possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony is very straightforward that she had a firearm while she committed the aggravated assault. And lastly, count 7, tampering with evidence, essentially, that she knowingly concealed physical evidence. In this case, it's the shell casings and bullets with the intent to obstruct her own prosecution. So like I said, ladies and gentlemen, those are the elements that you have to find each one of those beyond a reasonable doubt in order to find the defendant guilty of each one of those counts. So, the evidence doesn't lie. What evidence do we have that we definitively know does not lie in this case? We know that the gunshot was 8 1⁄2 inches above the lock. Not only that, but we know that this gunshot was fired at an upward angle. Not at a downward angle in the direction of the lock, but at an upward angle in the direction of Mr. Barron. And I know that there was discussion. Mr. Willis had his arms and, you know, said she was nervous, so she must have been going like this. Ladies and gentlemen, I don't know that she could be that far off shooting the lock off of the door if she closed her eyes. I think even if she had walked up to the door from right here and closed her eyes, she would have been closer to the lock on that door. At most, she would have been shooting at a downward angle towards the lock. But instead, she's quite literally shooting in the opposite direction of the door. That is the evidence in this case. That the shot was fired at an angle. What that means is that she didn't walk straight up on it and try and shoot the lock off like she said she did. She came at an angle. At an angle to better be able to aim at Mr. Barron. Not straight on while Mr. Barron's voice is coming from the right, but at an angle so that she can have better aim to hit her bullseye. Then it was six inches away from the tip of the door, the tip of her gun. Six inches, at most, from that door is the evidence that we know in this case that does not lie. No one's disputing that David is behind that locked door, and the evidence is very clear that he is taking a defensive stance behind the wall, behind the locked door. Because he is, again, shot through the wall, through his left arm, through the side of his body, and then the bullet landed in the right side of his chest cavity. We know that the shell casings were flushed. She finally admitted it after she got caught with the shell casings having been flushed. And I want to talk to you about the holster. Why is the holster so important in this case? Because the defendant told Investigator Meffert over and over and over again that when I walked in that room, what was on the ground was the defendant. I mean, I'm sorry, the victim. My phone is what she said. So her phone, his gun, and his holster was laying next to his body on the floor. That's what she told Investigator Meffert over and over again. So let's look at the holster. First of all, we know the holster wasn't on the floor when law enforcement got there because it's on the bed. So was this holster ever actually even on the ground next to Mr. Barron's body? Well, this is the picture that you saw when Sergeant Jerome was testifying, and he talked to you about how the blue fluorescent is blood. And if you'll notice, there's blue fluorescent on the body of the holster where someone would pick it up, and there's blue fluorescent on the snap of the holster. But notice where there's no blood, the strap. There is not a single drop of blood on the snap of that holster. What is that consistent with? Someone with a bloody hand picking up the holster with their other bloody hand, unsnapping the holster, taking the gun out, and putting it on the bed. That's what that evidence shows. If that holster was laying next to Mr. Barron's dead body, there would be at least one singular drop of blood on the snap of that holster. And we know that she wouldn't put the holster on the bed because her footprints are leading right up to the bed. Her bloody footprints lead right up to the bed where the holster is sitting. And not only that, but she places the gun next to his left hand after he's been killed. And I know we heard lots of different testimony. First, with Investigator Mefford, she said, oh, the gun was laying right there, and I just, like, pushed it out of the way. And then she testified that she tried to kill herself, but the gun was in the holster on the bed, and that's when she took the gun out of the holster. And then she said, actually, I don't remember where the gun was, and I don't remember if the gun was in the holster. And then it just turned into a bunch of other members. She didn't push the gun out of the way. She didn't go pick up the gun to shoot herself. She got the gun, staged the crime scene, and then planted the gun next to his left hand. We know that she tried to wipe up the scene. She has the bloody towel with all the droplets all over the bedroom. And we know that David had absolutely no alcohol in his system at the time of death, regardless of the continuous times that she tried to tell people that he'd been drinking too much that night. Jack Daniels and beer. Jack Daniels and beer. I told him he was drinking too much. And he got mad. He was drinking Jack Daniels and beer. No, he wasn't. Then she tried to say, she tried to cover that up by saying, oh, well, what I meant was earlier in the day he was drinking too much. That's what I meant, earlier in the day. There wasn't even a Jack Daniels bottle in the house. There wasn't an empty beer can in the house. He has my journal. He has my phone. He kept yelling, he has my journal. He has my phone. I wanted my journal. I wanted my phone. No, he didn't. The journal was downstairs in the living room. The gunshots fired outside the bedroom, no more than 16 inches off the ground. And we're going to talk about that again later, but that evidence does not lie. What is malice? Malice is not ill will or hatred. Unwornful intent to kill without justification. Essentially, what malice is for the malice murder is the intent to kill. No premeditation is required. I know that TV sometimes likes to make everybody think that you have to have premeditated murder. You have to have this plan, this thought out premeditated plan. That's not the case. Malice can be formed in an instant. The second this defendant got her block, walked up to this door and held it six inches away from the door, that is malice. The intent to kill has been formed from the second she decided to raise the gun, point it at the door, and fire. No motive is required to be proven, although in this case there's plenty of motive. But I did want to put that in there because that is the law that technically no motive is required. And that's because sometimes people kill people for no reason at all. In this case, we know that's not the case, but that's the law. So how do we know that this defendant intended to kill Mr. Barron? Well, like I said, going to get your gun while he's already locked himself in the bedroom door, walking up to the door, six inches away at an angle, and firing in the direction of his voice while threatening him, is malice. going to get Mr. Barron's gun, planting it in the crime scene to make it look like he threatened her with it, is malice. Getting that gun, placing it next to his dead body, to make it look like he was shooting at her, and then telling the officers on scene that he shot at her, is malice. Standing over his dead body, getting a towel, and wiping up the blood, is malice. Walking over his dead body, through his blood, collecting the shell casings, and flushing them down the toilet, to hide evidence, is malice. Control follow through, hit the bullseye. [00:24:15] Speaker ?: Malice. [00:24:16] Speaker 1: Looking at the Hall County jail, and I know that there was discussion about whether or not she deleted that search. I don't know why that mattered. Whether or not she deleted the post wasn't the point. The point was, three hours before she calls 911 for murdering her boyfriend, she's looking at a tab on her phone about the Hall County jail. Days before the murder, she's looking up the Hall County jail. That's malice. We know that Mr. Barron is dead, and he's dead. We know that Mr. Barron is dead, and we know that she shot him. The question was, why? Malice. Because she intended to kill him. Aggrebated assault. I want to talk about the underlying felonies before we get to the felony murder. We know that she had a firearm, and we know that when you shoot a firearm at someone, it can result in bodily injury, and in this case, did result in bodily injury. We know that she fired that gun through a door in the direction of James Barron. That is aggravated assault. You should find the defendant guilty of count four. And because he died when she intentionally pointed that gun in the direction of Mr. Barron and fired, you should find him guilty of count two felony murder. No malice is required for the two counts of felony murder. Malice is not required. All that's required for you to find the defendant guilty of the two felony murder counts is if you find that the elements of each one of those underlying felonies has been met beyond a reasonable doubt, and you find that Mr. Barron is dead. [00:26:07] Speaker ?: Okay. [00:26:08] Speaker 1: So let's talk about criminal damage to property. Well, we know that she intentionally shot the door. She's told you that over and over and over again. Why she shot the door is what we're differing on with the defendant. But there's no debate about whether or not she knowingly interfered with the door. And there's no debate about the fact that her and Mr. Barron own that property together. So she's without authority to do so. And she did it in a way that endangered human life because Mr. Barron is dead. Damaging a door by shooting it when someone is occupying a bedroom is endangering a human life. Even if Mr. Barron hadn't died, that is endangering a human life. Even if she completely missed Mr. Barron. Getting a gun, shooting it at a door, endangers human life when there's somebody on the other side of that door. That's why you should find the defendant guilty of criminal damage to property in the first degree. And that's also why you should find the defendant guilty of count three felony murder because he did die. Because she fired a gun at a door in a way that endangered Mr. Barron's life because he died. This count, count five is very straightforward like, or this is count six, I apologize. She had a firearm when she committed the aggravated assault. That's it. We know she flushed the shell casings and bullets. And what other reason does she have to flush that unless it's to obstruct with the prosecution of herself? We know that she was doing that to obstruct with the prosecution of herself because everything she did that night, she did to try and obstruct the prosecution of herself. Planting the gun, wiping up the blood, flushing the shell casings, lying, everything she was doing to protect herself. That's it, ladies and gentlemen. Those are all the elements for every count that this defendant is charged with. To find her guilty of every single count in the indictment beyond a reasonable doubt, that's everything. And what about the defendant? What did she say? Because while the fiscal evidence doesn't lie, we know she did. Over and over and over and over and over again. So first let's talk about her behavior on the scene. Contrary to what their paid for opinion expert said on the stand about her behavior on the scene, we all saw the defendant's behavior on that body cam. We all saw it, three hours of it. The fake crying, the dry heaving, the fake throwing up, the fake passing out with her eyes wide open. I don't know why the question was asked about can you have a panic attack with your eyes open. That wasn't what I asked. I asked the officer if her eyes ever closed when she passed out. When she slowly and dramatically collapsed to the ground like three or four times, with her eyes wide open. The three hours that she sat there and wailed without a single tear coming out of her eyes. And, ladies and gentlemen, I'm a big crier so I feel like I'm an expert in this subject. When you cry even at a slow, silent cry, you're going to have a snotty pain. You're going to be wiping your nose with the back of your hand. You're going to be wiping your nose with the sleeve on your arm. You're going to need to blow your nose. Your nose is going to be all red. You're going to be wiping tears from your eyes. Not once. You watch that three-hour body cam again if you want. You can ask the judge and look for it. And wait for one single time where she wipes a tear from her eye or snot from her nose. And you won't find one. She put on the world's biggest show in the history of shows. She really should be an award-winning actress, to be honest, because that was a show. And not only that, but what did she say on the body cam? Because she's lying through body language, but she's also lying with her words. From the second deputies get on the scene, she's lying to them. "He made me go up the stairs." "I got dragged down the stairs." "He shot at me." She says that five times I counted. "He shot at me." Five times she told responding officers, while her boyfriend is laying dead upstairs, tells them that he shot at her and that is a complete, bull-faced lie. He is literally lying face down and pooled his blood upstairs. She's pretending to be distraught about that, while lying about him shooting at her. "He grabbed me by the neck and dragged me upstairs." A lie. "I said he'd been drinking too much." She says that twice on body cam. "I said he'd been drinking too much and he got mad at me." She's lying about him shooting at her. She's lying about him dragging her up the stairs. She's lying about him being drunk. Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie. From the second law enforcement gets involved with this case. And then she says, "He made me leave the night of the DUI." We know that story changes a whole bunch. So let's talk about what she told Investigator Mefford about the kitchen incident. The elaborate, long, detailed story about her in the kitchen with Mr. Baron playing with his gun the night of the murder. She told that story to Investigator Mefford, I mean, at least two or three times. Because it made no sense. So Investigator Mefford kept asking, "Can you please explain to me this situation again? I need to understand better. Can you please explain it to me?" And she goes into so much detail about this complete and utter lie. I was brushing my teeth and he was going to go upstairs to sleep. And then he got his gun and then I followed him into the kitchen. This is, by the way, after they had already started arguing, she said that. Then he hands me the gun in the holster and says, "Unsnap the holster and take it out." Why did she say that to Investigator Mefford? She's making up this whole story. We know that, right? Why was she so specific? She says it multiple times. I unsnapped the holster and I took the gun out. Because she's planting seeds. In case they find my fingerprints on this holster, I need to have a story for why those are there. Plants the seed. I unsnapped the holster and took the gun out. Then she said, "He put it in my hand. He wanted to see how it felt. He wanted to see how it fit in my hand." Then she tells Investigator Mefford, "He wanted me to put my finger on the trigger to see if it reached." Why did she say that? So specific of a lie. He wanted me to put my finger on the trigger to see if it reached. Just in case her fingers got on the trigger of his gun. Have to have a story for that one. I put my hand on the slide. He wanted me to rack it. Putting her prints all over the rack of the gun. Then all the bullets came out. They all just came out, she says. And then I went to go throw them away in the trash. But he wanted me to go flush them in the toilet. Every single lie about that story was said for a reason. He was drinking too much. He was drinking Jack Daniels, maybe some beer. Here we go again. He must be a drunk. Not a drop of alcohol in his system when he died. Repeatedly tells him I never picked up the shell casings or bullets. We know that's a lie. Over and over. He asked me, no, no, no. No, no, no. I never did that. I don't know why I would do that. Over and over and over again. I never shot towards the stairs. I only shot towards the door. I never shot anywhere else. I shot that one time at the door. Never anywhere else. Only place I shot that door. I didn't touch anything else other than the door when I tried to open it. That's what she says first. I didn't touch anything else. His gun was right there by his leg. Holster on the floor too. His gun was right there. Right next to my phone. In the holster. All right there. All a lie. Never shot his gun. Never, ever, ever shot his gun. I don't think he shot his gun. Now we're backing up a little bit. Because the first story about how he shot his gun really didn't make sense in the first place. She doesn't really know what to say. She hasn't had enough time to really formulate this, this plan. So now she's starting to back off of it. Maybe it was a door slam. I don't really know. Maybe he shot his gun. Maybe it was a door slam. Why did she say this? I even reached down and touched his phone in his back pocket. Why did she say that? I want you to ask yourself why she said that. Because defense has made the biggest deal about the fact that Mr. Barron must have had her phone and his phone when he went up and locked himself in that room. And those phones must have traveled up the stairs together. They called a super experienced expert to the stand to tell you that, that those phones traveled up the stairs together. Who brought them up the stairs together, first of all? Who did that? Even if we agree that that 12-second lapse was just the phones not being regulated and it wasn't the defendant following Mr. Barron up the stairs with her own phone. Even if we believe that those phones came up the stairs at the same time, who brought them up there? And why is she talking about touching his phone? Maybe it's because once she got in the room and she's planting evidence in the crime scene, she goes and gets Mr. Barron's phone and puts it in his pocket. Got my phone, got his phone, gonna walk up the stairs, puts his phone in his pocket, cleans up the rest of the scene, calls 911. We know he didn't have the journal in the room with him. Then all of a sudden she says, I touched everything in there. So first we went from I touched nothing to I touched everything. Because he keeps asking her, because her story's not adding up. Your story's not adding up. I don't understand. Please explain it to me. It's not adding up. I don't understand. Oh, well, actually, really, I touched everything. Really, I just touched everything. I touched his phone in his back pocket, pushed the gun out of the way. My hands are all in his blood. This guy would text me, but I told him about the guy. Now all of a sudden, they have motive for Mr. Barron seeing the text, and now he's in this horrible rage and forces her to commit aggravated sodomy on him. I just pushed the gun out of the way. Oh, I was waiting for police, sitting on the stairs. We saw her. She's wiping up the blood. She's walking down the stairs, sees the deputy, turns around, goes back up the stairs, does some last minute cleanup next to Mr. Barron's dead body, then comes to the stairs two minutes later. In her body language, in the interview, we all saw it. I put one tiny clip in there just because I felt this was a good encapsulation of how she acted in this interview. This is after she finds out Mr. Barron has not made it. This is after that, and she's wailing and, you know, fake crying and all the things. And at one point, I want you to watch. She gets up, she goes, and first she bangs her arms against the wall, something she does many, many times, both on scene as well as in the interview room, bangs her arms on the wall of the door, or on the wall. Then she turns around, leans her back up against the wall, pauses, looks over at Investigator Wefford to make sure that he's watching. Then the wailing begins again. [00:38:51] Speaker ?: Oops. [00:38:57] Speaker 1: Let's watch it again with sound. Oh my god. By the way, that goes on for 10 minutes. I counted. 10 minutes, nobody says a single word, and she does that without a single tear, without a single reach of a tissue, without a single wipe of the nose. 10 whole minutes. What is beyond a reasonable doubt? What does that mean? It's not beyond all doubt. It's not beyond a shadow of a doubt. It's not to a mathematical certainty. What beyond a reasonable doubt is, is a doubt for which reason can be given. It's a doubt for which reason can be given. It's about your common sense, and it's about your reason. It's not a doubt for which an unreasonable reason can be given. And at the beginning of this trial, Ms. Bagwell got up and she told you that this case wasn't going to be about the what, and it wasn't going to be about the who, but it was going to be about the why. Why did this defendant shoot and kill Mr. Barron? And ladies and gentlemen, when you look at the evidence in this case, when you look at the actual evidence in this case, there's only one reasonable answer as to why. I'm going to sit down, like the judge told you yesterday, Mr. Willis is going to have a chance to get up and speak with you. And then I get one last chance to argue. And then I promise you will literally never have to hear from me ever again. But while you're listening to Mr. Willis, I want you to ask yourself an important question. What in this case is actual evidence? And what in this case is a story? [00:41:35] Speaker 2: You want a man? Yes, sir. Good morning. It's been a long ride, hasn't it? Um, we've talked about a lot of things these almost two weeks, I guess. And I want to talk to you about about you and specifically how you do your job, the job that you've been assigned to do. Um, there's really only one way that you can do the job that you have. Okay? First, you've got to understand what the law is. You can't possibly do your job the way you want to do it unless you know exactly what the law is. Okay? And if you know what it is, it's going to be a tool for you. It's going to take some of the weight off your shoulders. If you're like me, maybe this has been keeping you up. Maybe you're worried about how you're going to do this right. Well, that's what the law is for. The law is that no person shall be convicted of any crime unless and until each element of the crime as charged is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. And the burden of proof rests on the state to prove every material allegation in the indictment and every reasonable element, every essential element of the crime charge beyond a reasonable doubt. What is beyond a reasonable doubt? Some of you guys, I think, have served on civil juries. There was one or two who'd served on a civil jury before. If you were in a case in a civil jury, they'd tell you the standard is what's called preponderance of the evidence. That's like the scales of justice that you've seen. That just means just slightly tipping the scales. Okay? So that's how we make decisions in our life most of the time. Whichever one seems like the right one to go with. Right? If you make a decision in this case based upon that, you haven't done your duty. You've missed it. Okay? There's another standard of proof that's called clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing evidence, which is much higher than preponderance. That's the standard of proof. If the government wants to take a child away from a parent, they have to prove their case by clear and convincing evidence. Clear and convincing. If you make your decision based upon clear and convincing evidence, you haven't done it. It's also the standard, by the way, to impeach a sitting U.S. president. Clear and convincing. Not enough. Government has to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is the highest known standard in the universe. Okay? It's been with us for hundreds of years. It is the only form, it's the best formulation that we could articulate to describe what's not mathematical certainty. Because they don't have to prove a case to mathematical certainty. We're dealing with human beings here. Mathematical certainty is not possible. But this is the standard. It's as close to that as you can get. The state had the burden, in this case, of proving beyond a reasonable doubt. Number one. Number one. That her action. That shot. Was not justified. They have to prove that to you beyond a reasonable doubt. Job one. Job two. If they can do that. If they can do that. Then the elements has charged in the indictment. Each one of those. Let's start off with number one. First of all. Months and months of unhinged behavior. Months and months of unhinged behavior. Miss Bennett tells you. On the part of Miss Miracle. Constant aggression. By Miss Miracle. Constant aggression. Lillia was all she talked about. She told you. That's true. It's the only thing she could. Talk about. Remember when the St. Simons police officer came in here. It was one of the very first witnesses a state called. To talk about that February 1st issue. Remember. Did you have an idea what kind of trial you were going to be in for when you saw that? Did you know it? Could you believe that? That officer shows up at a scene. From somebody calling the police. Knocks on the door. She pokes her head out. Is everything okay? Oh yeah. It's fine. No. There's no problem here. Hmm. Step out with me. Are you sure you're okay? She doesn't say a word. Not a word. [00:48:42] Speaker ?: Not a word. [00:48:43] Speaker 2: She takes his hand. And puts it up to her head. Not a word. And he feels a softball. A softball sized injury to her skull. But he's a good guy. He's never hit me before. Well he seems pretty calm. I guess we probably should get out of here. All right. Let's go. Did you see it? Police get called in this case. In this case. They show up. Who calls them? Miss Miracle. Over and over and over and over and over again. Over and over again. She's hysterical on the phone. She can't even explain what her name is. And she can barely get the address out. What does she tell those first responders on those videos? I'm so scared. Has he ever done this to you before? She doesn't say a word. All she can do is this. I thought he was going to kill me. I tried to feel for a pulse. He told me don't go to sleep tonight. I was going to leave but I was scared. Here we are again. He's a good man. He's such a good guy. I was going to move forward. He got so mad at me. I wasn't mad at him. I was just tired. If I moved on he would kill me. He would shove that gun down my throat. I told him let me sleep up there. The door downstairs doesn't lock. I should have got in my car. I should have. It's on me. I should have left. But I have that stupid device on there. Right out of the chute. But then she hears he's still alive. She goes in that interview room. Oh that interview room. Where they're telling her he's alive. Oh I don't know. I'm not sure. I got this little form here for you to sign. Do I need a lawyer? Nah yeah. You know. No reason to have one. Oh okay. Sure. We got this little form here. Supposed to have you initial. That you understand every right. Nah just here. Just take this. Sell this thing out here. As she says. She's giving every signal in the world. That needs to be given to an investigator. That there is a problem here. I don't know if I should tell you everything. Is he still alive? Can you just tell me is he still alive? We'll find out here in a minute. If she's staging this whole thing. If this is a staged presentation. Don't you think. She's going to fire away. All the things that he's done to her. Don't you think she's going to mention. The St. Simon's incident. With a softball injury. And tell him that that's verifiable. She doesn't do any of that. None of it. None of this stuff. Makes sense if she's faking it. Why doesn't she even display the injuries. Folks. Body looks like this. She doesn't even. She doesn't even bother. To display for him. What she has on her body. She's trying to make it seem like he attacked her. Wouldn't you think. Hey look at this. Look at this. He has to notice. Hey what's on your arm. Oh. That's from when he grabbed me. She's not trying to push a narrative that he even attacked her. Right. Why this. She knows how many shots are shot with the Beretta. She knows. Right. She knows it without a doubt. It's not a question. Why does she tell him. He only shot at her once. Does that make any sense. If she's staging the scene. Why keep telling what a good guy is. Why keep repeating that. Over and over. And over again. If you want to know who James David Barron is. I think you found out when his son took the stand. That's what I think. Let me tell you why. Remember his son testified that when Suzanne came to meet the family. That they were impressed. They liked her. She was into family. Just like they were. Remember that. And they were like. Okay dad. Nice. Right. She went on vacation with them. To the beach. They're around her the whole time. And they like what they see. They get a call. He gets a call. December the 28th. On his phone. Answers it. In the night. And he's told this. She's in the bathroom. There's loud banging on the door. She is locked inside. And all she wanted to do was get away. He tells you. That she said. I pulled a gun on your father. I pulled a gun. On your dad. A man. He has known his entire life. And what do they do. When it's over. What did him and his brother do. When it was over. Do you remember. They went and had a sit down with their father. They called it an intervention. For him. And his behavior. They've known her for three months. This happens. And they confront him. Compare that folks. To Dana Gardner. Remember Dana. Suzanne's sister. Remember she met. She met David Barron. The whole family did. And they said. At that party. Remember it was a January 18th party. They said something was off. Something was off. About him. She'd been coaching Suzanne. To try to leave this relationship. Even though she didn't know. She didn't have a clue. About the violence. That was happening to Suzanne. Didn't have a clue. She's coaching Suzanne. About how to leave the relationship. She gets two missed calls. On March the 7th. 2025. Two missed calls. In the middle of the night. And what was her first thought. You heard the 911 call. She knew it. She knew it in her gut. This man's been isolating her. Something ain't right. And she knew it. All she talks about is Lilia. Miss Bennett told you. All she talks about is Lilia. All she talks about. There's one instance in these texts. Where she actually says something. About what he's been doing. After the St. Simon's incident. She says. You should be ashamed of yourself. What's his response? You should be ashamed of yourself. And how you reacted. It was you who acted so terribly. To have some persons call the police. And her response immediately. Is to go. Oh yeah. I forgot about this one. You're so drunk. You can't even talk. And then. She immediately backtracks. I fell and hit my head. I talked to them today. Don't worry. You're good. And I fell and hit my head. They heard me yell. I talked to them today. You did nothing. I held the door. I pushed you down. That's it. Everything's fine here. All she talks about is Lilia. You bet. Let's talk about Lilia for a second. Why is he sending these women money? Who are these women? From this other country? That he's just sending money to? Who are they? What do you think? What do you think? This is the only thing she's permitted to talk about. This is it. That's why it's all over the text. It's the only thing she can complain about. This. Did you notice this? Did you notice they put in all these texts between Suzanne and Evan? And that they stopped on February the 15th. Did you notice that? Remember what happened on February the 16th? When he went cruising up to that same bedroom. Behind this same door. Comes down when he's darn good and ready. Wakes her up by tapping on her foot with a firearm. And she runs out of the house. Gets into her car. As he's running out the front door. We also know this is when she'd started communicating with Charlie English. What was she doing with every single text that she got from Charlie English? Except for the last one. Deleting them immediately. State's medical examiner. I want to talk just quickly about this. There's an injury to Mr. Barron's bridge of his nose from the fall. And there's stippling around his face. Remember the state's medical examiner said that that's pseudo-stippling from the material from the door that came through. I just want to remind you guys of that in case we get stuck on it later. Did you think this? Did you notice this? Did you notice when they called the medical examiner? Were you thinking, hey, where's time of death? Were you thinking that? I missed it. I was like, why didn't they put that in there? Why didn't they put that in there? I was like, oh. It's this thing. This Hall County Sheriff's Office jail thing at 1030. As though she's like, the murder happened. This murder happened hours ago. And she's searching for the jail and deletes it. Remember that whole deletion thing? They were more than happy. They were more than happy to put in this deletion. And let you guys believe that that really happened. To make your decision. So you put your name on a verdict form. They're more than happy to give you that. This deletion. That never happened. She didn't even look at this on March 7th. It's from March 3rd. It was a tab that was on her phone. But they were happy to give it to you like that. And we had to have one of the best experts in the world, frankly, to come in here and tell you that's not correct. And what else did he tell you? 1 06 AM, both of those phones are going up the stairs together. Both of them. At the same time. Don't you think, don't you honestly think that they have the ability to find that out, too? Why did we have to do it? Didn't you want to know that? Why do we have to do it? Not only do the phones go up the stairs together, they don't come back down. They don't come back down. What does that tell you? We know for a fact she fires through the door. What's the thing she does next? She has to run down into the garage, get a hammer, run back up the stairs, and hammer through this door. To try to save this man's life. The phone doesn't make the trip. She doesn't call 911 yet. Why? She doesn't have her phone. Because he stole it. He just took it from her. Like he took whatever else he wanted to take. Just took it. We know for a fact he had the phone. It never made the trip back down the stairs. The state has suggested that Mr. Barron removes himself. He removes himself. That's what he does. He's such a calm person. He just removes himself from the situation. This guy's not removing himself. He's regrouping. It's part of his control. He comes down when he's good and ready. He took her phone back in September at the hotel. Left her in the room. Came back up and did what he wanted. He took her phone on March the 7th. And we can prove it. And we did. But they weren't going to give you that. We had to. She's 5'5". She weighs 120 pounds. This man is 6'3". He weighs 235 pounds. All he has to do is put his hands on her. It's over. And he did. And he did. If it's true, he's the removal guy. And he's got a 0.0 BAC on March 7th. Why doesn't he leave and walk out and go rent a hotel? He's got the only keys to the only functional car. If he's afraid of her or whatever, he can walk right out that front door if he wants to. He's done it before, apparently. Why doesn't he do it this night? Because he wants to come back down. [01:06:38] Speaker ?: Because he wants to come back down. [01:06:39] Speaker 2: He wants to take her phone. Know she's isolated. And come down when he's ready. Don't close your eyes tonight. Don't you close your eyes tonight. This is super important to me. Maybe not to you guys, but I hope it is. What's new on March 7th, 2025? What's the new information? She's known about Lillia since December the 28th. What's new? What motivates her to do anything to him? What's new is the Charlie English text. He saw it. He became enraged and unhinged. He choked her. Pulled her down on her knees. Put his sex organ in her mouth. Told her to suck it. And he just took his pistol and put it right on her lips. Did you notice that in the interview? You said he put it in your mouth. No, no, no. I didn't say it. I put it in my mouth. She corrects him right away. Right to my lips. My lips. There's something else in her mouth. We know she was trying to move on. She was talking to her sister about it. We know she's talking to somebody else. How does he react to her moving on? Well, with violence. She'd never seen him like this before. I want to talk to you about her statement, okay? I want to talk to you specifically about some law that you're going to get from the judge about that. The judge is going to tell you that in determining whether the defendant's statement was voluntary, you should consider whether the defendant was accurately advised of her constitutional rights. And whether she clearly and understood and knowingly gave up those rights. If you failed to find she was properly informed of those rights and that she understood and gave them up, you must disregard the statement entirely and give it no consideration in your verdict. If you have that power with that statement, you have that power with that statement, you can do it. It's a garbage statement. It's not worth nothing. And let's talk about the investigator that got it. You remember when I was showing him the pictures of her injuries? And I said, hey, I'll show you the pictures of her injuries that I showed you before and you said, accurately reflect how they were. Well, yeah, I said that before, but I mean, yeah, it was only open court. He handed them to me. I didn't have time to look at them or something. I even forgot what he said. I wasn't ready. I need all the information ahead of time or something. This is Mr. Firearms Training. He's had like two hours of domestic violence training. He's never had a homicide case before in his life. And yet, in the area where he is the most trained, in firearms. I say to him, if somebody is over there shaking like this, if somebody is over there shaking like this, they may not be so accurate with how their shot is. And he goes, they're still going to hit the target. Do you remember that? Wild. Wild. [01:11:09] Speaker ?: Wild. [01:11:14] Speaker 2: Wild. Remember Ms. Bennett questioning Ms. Miracle about her choices, her reasonable choices. What was the reasonable option? Your most reasonable option was to shoot the lock, she said. Your most reasonable option. As though in this scene, in this scenario, with what's been done to her in the past, with what he's done to her on this night, she's sitting there going, what is my most reasonable option here? It's insane. [01:11:50] Speaker ?: I know. [01:11:50] Speaker 2: I'll examine the outside of the door and see if I can pick it with a screwdriver. It's insane. [01:12:03] Speaker ?: It's insane. It's insane. [01:12:04] Speaker 2: It's insane. It's insane. It's insane. That's not how a mind works in a situation like this. It can't. I want to talk to you about this 216 DUI arrest. [01:12:11] Speaker ?: This is super important. Super important. It really is. That's the night that he went up to that room and locked that door and came down later. [01:12:11] Speaker 2: It can't. I want to talk to you about this 216 DUI arrest. This is super important. Super important. It really is. That's the night that he went up to that room, locked that door, and came down later, woke her up by tapping her on the foot with his firearm. And the government suggests to you that because there's a note in her phone, writing out what happened on that night, that really, frankly, everything in that note's true. Can you imagine being so frightened of someone, so frightened of making a mistake and telling the truth about what someone had done to you, that you have to rehearse it in your phone? You have to rehearse it in your phone. And that's what she did. And we know, we know, without a doubt, that what is in that phone, that note, is false, false, false. And you can know it straight to your bones. false. You want to know why? And I'm sure most of you are already here, but for those who aren't. In the note, she says, hmm, I get up and David's there. He comes down. I calmly go to the car. Goodbye, he's on the step. Goodbye. Goodbye. Really? I'm going to talk about this one in a second. Last one. Why does he call her 18 times when she leaves? 18 times. And she's ignoring every call. Eighteen times. That happened. He came out of that door. He touched her with his firearm. And he tried to rape her anally. And she was so afraid to tell anybody about that, that she practiced her story in her phone. And it's false. Ms. Bennett, Ms. Bennett questioning Dr. Elkhorn, you remember? Dr. Elkhorn, what about this jail intake screening question from March 16th, the DUI arrest night? What about that? Doesn't it say on there, does the inmate have bruises? Doesn't it say on there that? Dr. Elkhorn's like, yeah, that's a screening question that somebody asks you when you get checked in the jail. Do you have bruises? No. No. Have you attempted suicide? No. Oh, well, then that proves it. Sure. She wasn't dressed out. Nobody examined her body. And if they had, which is what was suggested to you, if they had, and checked off a form, do you honestly believe that the state wouldn't call that person as a witness? Do you believe that? Me neither. Dr. Elkhorn. Dr. Elkhorn. She's done 5,000 forensic examinations. 5,000. This is a person who worked for the state when people would claim that they were not guilty by reason of insanity. I don't know what I'm doing. Her job was to ferret out liars for years. When she worked at the VA for seven years, doing PTSD work. She testifies for the state 75% of the time. 75% of the time. When she tells you, Suzanne Miracle has PTSD. She has PTSD from David Barron's actions. What was the action? What was what they called the index event? Do you remember? It's a gun on the lips. Got it in the mouth, on the lips. She's watched all of those body cameras. She's seen this behavior from Suzanne that you guys all watched. And she tells you, "That's an acute trauma response." There's nothing on there to suggest otherwise at all. Oh, well, she's being paid by the defense, they would say. You can't believe a word she has to say. Okay, fine. What about EMS? What about EMS? You saw them. They showed up. Who called them? The deputy. This person is having a panic attack. They show up. What do they do? They check her heart rate. Oh my gosh, it's elevated. We need to take you to the hospital. Can you imagine? There's a murder investigation going on. EMS shows up and says, "We need to take this person to the hospital." That's literally what they're telling the police. Heart rate is elevated. This is what they do for a living. This person needs to go. Does Suzanne take that opportunity and go, "Great, yeah, I'm losing it here. My method acting has worked perfectly. Let's go to the hospital." Nope. Nope. Dr. Elkhorn told you if somebody's faking a mental health episode, that's what they want. They want somebody to go, "Okay, this is a mental health problem." She goes, "Nope." What is PTSD? PTSD is exposure to what? PTSD is a life-threatening event, a life-threatening event. It's what it is. It's what it is. It's what she has. Guns at her lips. That's the event. And then we got into the, "What about the counseling records at the jail?" You know, she says she doesn't like jail as well. Well, yeah, her lawyer told her not to talk at all about her case and the facts of her case, even with her therapist, and that's my fault, right? Because she didn't even get a chance to have that, you know, to have that dealt with. She just, just held it. But, what has she got? Hypervigilance, claustrophobia, hopelessness, frequent nightmares, increased heart rate and sweating, withdrawal, flat affect, the low monotone voice that they observed from her. And then, no eye contact, remember that? That was the thing the deputy said, "Well, you know, I believed her at first, but she didn't make eye contact with me later on, and I thought maybe she was faking it." My last one, "I don't deserve anything better," that's what she was reporting. If Dr. Elkhon is incorrect, if her testing is invalid, if her procedures are not up to snuff, why didn't the government call an expert to say she did it wrong? If she's off, where's the person to say why? You didn't get it. Because it doesn't exist, because it's correct. I want to talk just quickly about some of the things Ms. Bennett said. She told you that Suzanne went into self-preservation mode after the shot through the door. Did she hear it? She went into self-preservation mode. Hmm. By sprinting down the stairs to grab a hammer, bash through a door, injure herself right here, trying to get through it to get to him, self-preservation mode. And she picks up his gun, and she told you what she did with it. Twice. And we told you she was going to tell you that. Self-preservation mode. They say she put Mr. Barron's hand on the gun to fire the shot. Really? His left hand? He's a right-hander. She put his left hand on the gun? This is her genius plan? Okay, does that make any sense? She staged the crime scene, they say. The world's greatest performance. Let me talk to you about the self-defense charge that you're going to get, okay? A defendant is justified in using force that's intended or likely to, likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. Justified in using force that's likely to cause death or great bodily injury when they reasonably believe that the use of such force is necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to herself or the commission of a forcible felony. What's a forcible felony? Aggravated assault by strangulation, which he'd already done downstairs. Aggravated sodomy, which he'd already done downstairs. Malice murder. Malice murder. Malice murder. Malice murder. Malice murder. Malice murder. Which he told her he was going to do. [01:25:59] Speaker ?: Don't close your eyes tonight. Shove this gun down your effing throat. [01:26:01] Speaker 2: The point is that Suzanne doesn't have to intend to kill or shoot James David Barron for self-defense to apply. The force is the shot. She doesn't have to intend to kill him in order to have self-defense apply. She only has to reasonably believe that the force is necessary to prevent death or a serious bodily injury to herself or the commission of a forcible felony. Forcible felony, strangle, don't close your eyes tonight. Or aggravated sodomy, which is the forcible performance of an oral sex act. That's it. She doesn't have to intend to kill him. She just has to be concerned about these things. To boil it down even further, self-defense means Suzanne's allowed to use deadly force if she reasonably believes it's necessary to prevent death, serious injury, or a forcible felony. Even if the shot that killed Mr. Barron was not the outcome that she intended. She doesn't have to intend to be killing Mr. Barron to claim self-defense. The state has the burden of proving to you beyond a reasonable doubt that her action, that shot, that one shot, was not justified. The judge is going to tell you this as well. He's going to tell you the defendant's use of deadly force may be justified even when there's not even been physical contact between anyone. There's no prerequisite for actual physical contact. We have loads of physical contact in this case, but you don't even need it. If the menacing action of the alleged victim is sufficient to create a reasonable belief that the defendant's life is in imminent danger, the defendant is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury, or a forcible felony is about to be committed, the defendant's use of deadly force may be justified. And the state has to disprove that to you beyond a reasonable doubt. You can think of it like this. At the top would be, let's say, we've proven to you beyond a reasonable, we, the defense, which we don't have a burden at all, but let's say we had proven to you self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt, the verdict would be not guilty. Even if you think it's probably self-defense, not guilty. Perhaps self-defense, not guilty. May not be self-defense, not guilty. Unlikely self-defense, not guilty. Highly unlikely self-defense, the verdict still under the law is not guilty. The only way, the only way you get to the guilty box is if the state's proven it beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not. That's the law. Remember, the state has the burden of proving to you two things. One, that it wasn't self-defense. We just talked about that. And if they get past that, if somehow they got past that, we go into here. Each of the elements of the charge fence and the indictment. So, let's talk about what those are. Malice murder. Here's the indictment. Malice of forethought causing death of James Barron by shooting him. It's a malice murder charge. What does that boil down to? With malice of forethought causing death of James Barron by shooting him. Malice of forethought is the intent to kill without justification. In other words, without self defense. Intent to kill. Deliberate intention to unlawfully take the life of another person. Deliberate intention. Abandoned and malignant heart. That's the malice murder count. It's what it boils down to. That that shot through a closed door. That shot through a closed door. Where she can't see a single thing on the other side of that door. And the only thing she's got to know where he is, is hearing. And I guess under the state's theory, once you take three or four classes. At a gun range. You've become James Bond. Or Jason Bourne. I know where he is and I, ooh, a kill shot through a closed door. She tells him a million times, I'm trying to shoot the lock, I'm trying to shoot the lock, I'm trying to shoot the lock, I'm trying to shoot the lock off, I'm trying to shoot the lock off. No, government says ignore that, ignore that, ignore that she's intending to kill him through a closed door. And she can't even hear where he is. The only time she hears where he is, he's in the bed. Remember, he's on the bed. By the way, how would she sight this in, from this height? When you're really trying to, right? She's five foot five, you guys are going to have this door back there. Play around with that. You're going to see, this shot did not go down like that. It was like this. Intent to kill, insane, insane. Aggravated assault, we've only got two more, okay? Aggravated assault. This one, this one's a little bit trickier, okay? And I'm going to go through it with you, so you don't, I want you to make sure that you know it. Assault James David Barron by firing said weapon through a door in the direction of James David Barron. Assault is firing the weapon through a door. That's the act. The act is the firing of the weapon. Assault. By firing said weapon through a door. You're going to have this in your charges, so I think it's on page 11. The court will send back. Assault means either she intended to cause the injury by shooting him, meaning the same thing before. We got Jason Bourne over here shooting through a closed door. She'd have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to have intended to hit him with that shot. Ignore all her statements, you know, that she's trying to shoot the lock. She's not really trying to shoot the lock. She's trying to kill him through a closed door. She wants to hit him through a closed door. Of course, she waits till he's caught behind a closed door. He's down in the living room asleep. She really wants him dead. She waits till he's behind a closed door. Okay. Intended to kill him, actually intended to injure him, or the one that's in bold. The one that's in bold. Commits an act which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury. Commits an act that places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury. What's the act? Remember, the act is by firing a weapon. Right? So, commits an act by firing a weapon through a door which places another in reasonable apprehension of immediately receiving a violent injury. What does that mean? It means the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he saw or heard or perceived the shot after she shot it, but before it hit him. After the shot, but before it hit him beyond a reasonable doubt. That's literally what they have to prove. Yeah. It's insane. It's insane. It's insane. And you remember this? Do you remember when the medical examiner testified? And I said, Dr. Zeng, would you expect that a human being would be able to perceive a shot after it's fired, but before it strikes them? And she said, she waited a long time. She goes, I don't know. That's what she said. And I said, wait a second now. Wait a second. Dr. Zeng, we talked a couple weeks ago on the phone and I asked you this very same question. I said, do you think they'd be able to see it, perceive it, hear it before it hits them? And you told me you didn't think so. And she said, okay, but I don't know today. There is zero evidence, zero evidence of that. Zero. Forget proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing. Nothing. It's a law. This is very important. It is not enough to show that he's in a defensive position, which he's apparently selected, which is apparently the worst place, clearly the worst place in the world to pick when somebody's telling you they're going to shoot a lock off a door. But apparently he selected that in a defensive position. Doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that he's in a defensive position. Her saying, I'm going to shoot the lock off. I'm going to shoot the lock off. That is not what she's charged with. That's not it. He's got to perceive the shot after the shot, but before it hits him. No way. Last one. Last one. [01:38:20] Speaker ?: Last one. Damage to property. [01:38:22] Speaker 2: This is a property crime charge. Damage to property. They charged her with a felony of damaging property. Okay. What do they have to prove? They have to prove knowingly, and without authority, she interfered with a door. Also on page 11 of your charges, you'll see this. Without authority means without legal right or privilege. Without legal right or privilege over what? [01:39:14] Speaker ?: The door. [01:39:16] Speaker 2: That door. That door. That door. That she owns. The government has to prove that she was without legal right or authority over a door that she owns. Beyond a reasonable doubt. And that she knew she didn't have legal right or authority over her own door. Beyond a reasonable doubt. It's insane. It's insane. But that's how they want to get you to a felony murder conviction. On a property crime. For a door she owns. And that she would have absolutely no idea to know. She has no authority over. Bottom line, folks. Malice murder. They have to prove beyond reason without. She intended to kill him. Behind a closed door. Through the use of her fantastic hearing. And her expert marksmanship. [01:40:51] Speaker ?: Aggravated assault. [01:40:53] Speaker 2: They have to prove. That Mr. Baron saw, heard, perceived the shot after it was shot. But before it struck him. Based on zero evidence to that fact. And in fact, evidence from the medical examiner that she previously told me that she didn't think so. And with the damage to property that she knew she was without authority. That she was without authority over the door. And that she knew it. Beyond a reasonable doubt. That's what they have to show. Now the tampering charge. We don't have anything to say about that. Hang it up. If after giving consideration to all the facts and circumstances of this case, if your minds are wavering. Unsettled. Unsatisfied. Then that is a doubt of the law. And you should find the defendant not guilty. That's what the judge can tell you. If the state fails to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It would be your duty. It would be your duty to acquit the defendant. If you're gonna find her guilty, it's easy guys. It's easy. Evidence has to be so overwhelming you don't have a choice. So overwhelming you don't even have a choice. Is that what you got? Facts and circumstances that merely place upon the defendant a grave suspicion of the crime charged. Or that merely raises speculation or conjecture to the defendant's guilt are not sufficient to authorize a conviction of the defendant. Remember they had two jobs. Prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that she was not justified. No way was she justified. No way. Not even close. And if they do that, then you move on to the elements. And we went through those. [01:43:35] Speaker ?: Let me tell you a little bit more about some of the self-defense charges you're gonna get, okay, from the judge. [01:43:40] Speaker 2: Evidence of prior difficulties or lack thereof between the defendant and alleged victim has been admitted for the sole purpose of illustrating, if it does, the state of the feeling between the defendant and the alleged victim. The reasonableness of alleged fears by the defendant. [01:44:03] Speaker ?: Right? [01:44:03] Speaker 2: The prior violence by Mr. Barron has been admitted so that you can know what she could expect to determine her reasonableness and her behavior. You may consider relevant evidence the defendant's been subjected to acts of family violence or dating violence in order to establish the defendant's reasonable belief that deadly force was immediately necessary. Immediately necessary. If she can reasonably know that he's coming out of that door whenever he's good and ready, that's how you can know how necessary it was for her to try to get her phone and get out of there. The defendant's use of deadly force may be justified even when there has not been physical contact between anyone. If the menacing action of the alleged victim is sufficient to create a reasonable belief that a defendant's life is in imminent danger, the defendant is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or a forcible felony is about to be committed, then the defendant's use of deadly force may be justified. He doesn't even have to have contacted or touched her before. Of course he did. Her body's proof of that. Self-defense means she's allowed to use deadly force if she reasonably believes it's necessary to prevent death, serious injury, or a forcible felony, even if the shot that killed Mr. Barron was not the outcome she intended. Here's one. We haven't talked about this one yet. Judge is going to tell you that she is under no duty, no duty to retreat. A person who's not the aggressor is not required to retreat before being justified in using force that she reasonably believes is necessary. You heard a lot of evidence about whether or not she could leave that night, how she could leave, what method she could use. She could take that nice path down the road that you saw the video of walking out the front door. She could go to a neighbor she doesn't know, except they gave her a basket once. So then obviously you can show up at their house at 1:00 AM and expect he's not going to be right on your heels. You can find a spare set of keys that apparently he doesn't even know where they exist on 12, 28, 24, even though he's got the only keys to the functional car right there in his pocket. And when we show the video of that little side room, you see any keys on the table? No. He took her phone just so she couldn't leave. That's why he had it. That's what it was for. But she doesn't even have to leave. She's under no duty to leave a home that she co-owns. And frankly, that she paid more for than he did. No duty to leave under the law. We showed you she couldn't. But she doesn't have to. One couple more things. And we, you'll, y'all probably won't get here, okay? But just so you know, felony murder is murder. Malice murder is one of the murders. Felony murder is another murder. They're all murder. Don't be thinking, you know, it's something other than a murder. Felony murder is a murder. [01:48:13] Speaker ?: Last thing. [01:48:21] Speaker 2: And I shouldn't have put it up there because you guys are already reading it. But if, somehow, you get through all of the self-defense stuff and you guys feel like the government has just squashed that somehow, beyond a reasonable doubt, there's no way, there's absolutely no way she could have been thinking she needed to be free and safe and afraid. If you got past that, then you got through all the elements, right, you'd have this additional option, okay? The court's giving you an option of an involuntary manslaughter as a lesser offense. And I'm not telling you to do this, I'm just telling you this is one of the options after you've already gone through all the other stuff. Involuntary manslaughter. The defendant may not be guilty of malice murder in count one or felony murder in counts two or three, but still be guilty of involuntary. For involuntary, the evidence must prove the defendant caused the death of another person without intending to by committing the offense of reckless conduct. What's reckless conduct? Causing bodily harm by consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that their act would cause harm to someone else. It's an unintentional killing through reckless behavior. It's another option for you. It's not what I'm asking you to do. It's not what I'm asking you to do. It's not what I'm asking you to do. I told you at the beginning, you weren't kind of meter. [01:50:06] Speaker ?: Remember? I told you. [01:50:08] Speaker 2: And you didn't. You didn't. And you won't. [01:50:20] Speaker ?: You still won't. [01:50:25] Speaker 2: This woman is gone. As much as, almost as much as James Barron. Gone. Our position is, he did it to her. She was in fear for her life when she pulled that trigger, guys. And there's only 12 people in the world that have the power to give it back to her. They're all in this box. I have to guess what Miss Bennett's going to talk about when I sit down. [01:51:17] Speaker ?: I'm about to sit down. And then she gets to go again. [01:51:20] Speaker 2: One of the reasons that the government gets to go twice is because of the burden of proof. The burden of proof is so high for them. It's so high they get to go twice. So I got to guess what she's going to say, okay? And I don't know. But I'm going to just guess. It's going to be a lot of stuff about what happened after she fired the shot. A whole lot of stuff about what happened after. Probably all about what happened after. What happened after the self-defense doesn't change the fact that it was self-defense. [01:52:17] Speaker ?: It can't. [01:52:22] Speaker 2: You don't show malice by flushing shells down the toilet after a suicide attempt. Or having a towel in the room. Or making up a story to cover the fact that you had to flush them down the shelves. I mean that you did flush them down the toilet. You don't. There's going to be some stuff I forgot. And I'm not going to be able to get back up. Like I said, I can't get back up and respond to the things they're going to do. No, it's not because I don't want to. Return verdicts I'm not guilty on all counts except for the tampering, please. [01:53:16] Speaker ?: Thank you. [01:53:18] Speaker 3: As I discuss, we'll now begin final conclusion, closing argument by the state. [01:53:25] Speaker 1: Thank you, Honor. I wanted to, before I got going really, I wanted to briefly respond to just a few things about the charges in the indictment. Um, and the elements that need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Where the microphone is? I close to your left. Sorry, I realized that wasn't over here. Um, I want to talk to you about the elements of aggravated suicide. So, Mr. Willis is absolutely right as far as the aggravated assault. Basically, you either have to prove, uh, an intent to injure or that someone was in reasonable apprehension of receiving injury. You can do either or. You can, you can think that one happened. You can think that both happened. Either that there was an intent to injure or that someone was in reasonable apprehension of receiving injury. In this case, there's both and I want to explain why. We already really talked about the intent to kill with the malice, right? So, the intent to injure, in this case, was the fact that she walked up to the door, put the gun right up to the door, fired in the direction of Mr. Baron. The difference between the intent with the aggravated assault and the malice murder is that with aggravated assault, you don't have to prove when she did that she intended to kill, just that she intended basically to strike her target. Um, whether or not she actually did isn't the question. It's just whether there was the intent there. If she walked up to the door with her gun and placed it six inches from the door in the direction of where Mr. Baron's standing and fired, if when she did that she had the intent to injure. That's one way you can find the aggravated assault. And, or, meaning you can find that and the other way, or just reasonable apprehension, you can find that Mr. Baron, what she did when she walked up to the door, held it up to the door, and started yelling, I'm going to shoot the door, I'm going to shoot you, I'm going to shoot you. What we know is that is Mr. Willis is assuming what she said was, I'm going to shoot the lock off, I'm going to shoot the lock off, because that's what she says that she said, right? Like, we're just assuming she was saying, I'm going to shoot the lock off David, I'm going to shoot the lock off David, because she says that's what she was saying. What we know is she's yelling something that has Mr. Baron scared enough to be hiding behind the wall. What I think that the evidence shows is she's yelling, I'm going to shoot you. I'm going to shoot you, I'm going to shoot you, I have a gun, I'm going to shoot you. Maybe she's yelling, I'm going to kill you. She's yelling all of these things that has caused Mr. Baron to literally hide, like this, behind the wall. That's reasonable apprehension of receiving injury. He's terrified. [01:56:13] Speaker 2: Ladies and gentlemen. Judge, I have to object to the, she didn't tie it to the shot, which is the allegato, so I object to her explanation. [01:56:21] Speaker 3: Without commenting on the evidence, the court is not commenting on the evidence, the lawyers have a certain amount of discretion as it relates to their argument and I will authorize said argument. [01:56:38] Speaker 1: That's reasonable apprehension of receiving injury, ladies and gentlemen. Is David hiding behind the wall while she's yelling, I'm going to shoot? Why else would he be hiding behind the wall if not because she's yelling that she's going to shoot him? That's reasonable apprehension of receiving injury. The judge is not going to tell you whatever Mr. Willis said about the time between the bullet leaving the gun and hitting Mr. Baron. That's not what the judge is going to read you. You will not hear the judge say that to you. That's what Mr. Willis wants you to believe. That's his argument. He has every right to argue that to you. You're not going to hear that from the judge. And I want to make that very clear. What the law requires is that Mr. Baron be in reasonable apprehension of receiving injury from the defendant's actions. [01:57:33] Speaker 2: Judge, I re-object to counsel's explanation of the law being factually inaccurate. [01:57:41] Speaker 3: Objection is noted. Continue. [01:57:44] Speaker 1: So I wanted to make that very clear to everybody. As far as the criminal damage to property in the first degree. It's a property crime that places someone's life in danger. That's what makes it criminal damage to property in the first degree. There's something called criminal damage to property in the second degree. That's just damaging property. If I took Ms. Bagwell's phone and smashed it on the ground. That's what that is. What criminal damage to property in the first degree. And the reason why this statute exists. Is for situations just like this one. Drive by shootings. When someone shoots into a car. While someone's occupying that car. That is criminal damage to property in the first degree. Because you've damaged property. That endangers somebody's life. [01:58:35] Speaker ?: A drive by shooting of a home. [01:58:37] Speaker 1: Someone's shooting into an apartment door. Someone's shooting into any wall that someone's on the other side of. That's what this charge is for ladies and gentlemen. This isn't just some property crime. That the state has decided to just kind of shove into a felony murder statute and give it to you. Because we're just petty and angry. Criminal damage to property in the first degree is created for situations. Like this one. When you have someone hiding behind a locked door. And someone chooses to get a gun. Shoot through the door and endanger that person's life. What makes it a felony murder is if that person dies. Same thing with the drive by shooting. If you shoot into a car that someone's occupying. And the person doesn't even get hit. That's criminal damage to property in the first degree. If that person were to die. It becomes felony murder. That is what criminal damage to property in the first degree is created for. To the without authority. They are trying to basically get you to find the defendant not guilty of criminal damage to property in the first degree. Because of the without authority. Because for some reason Mr. Barron should have known to yell out. Before you shoot through the door I do not give you authority to do this. I do not give you authority to damage this door. For her to know not to do it. This is joint property. [02:00:02] Speaker ?: Ladies and gentlemen. [02:00:02] Speaker 1: If they wanted to sell the home. She has to give Mr. Barron's permission. She wants to do anything with the home. [02:00:08] Speaker ?: He owns it. [02:00:09] Speaker 1: Their names are both on the date. It might sound ridiculous. You might not agree with it. You might think it sounds weird. [02:00:16] Speaker ?: But that's the law. [02:00:17] Speaker 1: And so. When you took your oath as a juror to follow the law. This is what we are asking you to do is follow the law. It might sound funky. That the without authority means she had that. It doesn't mean she has to ask permission to damage her own door. That's not what that means ladies and gentlemen. What it means. Is you can't just go damaging property without authority. They have joint property. The law tells you. That you can't do this. That's why she was charged with it. If she was allowed to damage her own door. She wouldn't have been charged with it. I want to talk about the self defense. And I put a question mark. Behind it for a reason. And that's because at no point. Throughout this entire case. Did this defendant say that she shot Mr. Barron in self defense. Not once. Not a single time. But what she said. Was I wanted to get my phone. So I was trying to shoot the lock off the door. And it must have accidentally killed him. That is called accident. That is not called self defense. And I gave her. Many opportunities. When you got that gun. And brought it upstairs. Were you going to use it to defend yourself. Were you going to use it to try to shoot the lock off. I was trying to shoot the lock off the door. No point does she ever say. That what she did. That her actions. Were to defend herself. She wanted to get her phone. That's what she told you. Again. I don't believe the evidence shows that Mr. Barron. Even ever had her phone. But if you believe. That he did. It's still not self defense. Regardless. Of if he had the phone or not. That's not the point. The point is. Shooting the lock off the door. To get your phone. Is not self defense. That's an accident. She is saying. She accidentally killed him. Because she doesn't want to have to admit. That she intentionally shot. And killed Mr. Barron. I want to talk to you about. Why this isn't self defense. And I'm going to go back for a minute. Because. Y'all read. A million text messages. I know you're probably sick of them. I know you've seen a lot of them. But Mr. Willis was incorrect. When I said. That I was going to get up. And talk about everything that happened. After the shot was fired. Because what I want to talk to you about. Is everything that happened. Before it. Right. Because. For her to be in fear for her life. You have to believe. That what she was saying about Mr. Barron. Is true. Mr. Willis was just. Having you assume. That all that was true. But we know. That this defendant. Doesn't know how to do anything. But lie. And Mr. Willis. Conveniently. A single one of her statements. In. Investigator Mefford's interview. Or on body cam. And there's a reason for that. Because they're all lies. And he wants you to just. Gloss over that. He wants you to just. Forget about. The times that she lied over. And over. And over. To investigator Mefford. To the deputies. To you. On the stand. He wants you to forget about that. So he didn't even mention it. So I want to talk to you about. Why we know. That everything she said. About Mr. Barron. Is a lie. And this is the crazy thing. About murder cases. Ladies and gentlemen. Is. That defendant gets to get up. On that witness stand. And she gets to say. Whatever she wants. About Mr. Barron. She can tell you. These horror stories. About him. And guess who's not here. To defend himself. He doesn't get to say. A single word. To rebut a single lie. That she got up there. And told you. And so. In order to figure out. If you think. She was telling the truth. Or not. We need to look. At the behavior. Of Mr. Barron. And this defendant. Before that night. Because that will tell you. Everything. That you need to know. About what kind of person. She is. Versus. What kind of person. Mr. Barron was. Because he doesn't have. The opportunity. To get up. [02:04:12] Speaker ?: And tell you himself. [02:04:13] Speaker 1: So let's look at this text. From October 12th. 2024. [02:04:17] Speaker ?: She says. [02:04:18] Speaker 1: I'm so wet. Thinking about sucking your. Hello. Hello. He says. I would love that. That was two hours ago. Offer is gone. He says. As I was charging my phone. As I was charging my phone. How about. October 28th. With Meg. The hair incident. Ladies and gentlemen. Cannot forget. About. The twins. Birthday party. In September. When Mr. Barron. Told his son's. Wife's. Daughter. Sister in law. That she had pretty hair. Enter. Enter. Two month argument. About that. I'm worried about you going trick or treating with Meg being there. I don't trust her. I hate that I even have to think about this. It is obvious you are attracted to her. Please let me know if you prefer her. I have been through this. It has made me sick all day thinking about it. Men are visual. You are apparently attracted to her. If you want her. Go after her. I do not have hair like that. I am a builder. What is this horribly abusive controlling man say back? Baby please don't worry. I will not go if you wish. There is no attraction on my end. Talk about isolation. We are still on the Meg situation. He is not in the mood to sex. So he is not in the mood to sex. He is not in the mood to sex. He is not in the mood to sex. He is not in the mood to sex. He is not in the mood to sex. He is not in the mood to sex. He is not in the mood to sex. He is not in the mood to sex. He is not in the mood to sex. He is not in the mood to sex. [02:05:46] Speaker ?: He is not in the mood to sex. [02:05:47] Speaker 1: He is in the mood to sex. He is not in the mood to sex. He is in the mood to sex. He is in the mood to sex. He is in the mood to sex. He is in the mood to sex. [02:05:53] Speaker ?: He is in the mood to sex. He is in the mood to sex. [02:05:55] Speaker 1: He is in the mood to sex. He is in the mood to sex. He is in the mood to sex. He is in the mood to sex. He is in the mood to sex. He is in the mood to sex. He is in the mood to sex. He is in the mood to sex. He is in the mood to sex. He is in the mood to sex. He is in the mood to sex. He is in the mood to sex. Once again, we should have phone sex. Pussy needs lots of attention. He says, I know, but I am zeroed in on TV. He just wants to watch TV. Never mind, she says. After this weekend, I do not think I excite you. Maybe if I have pretty hair. He says, I am so in love with you. That horribly verbally and physically abusive man. That is his response to this out of nowhere argument. I am so in love with you. She says, I wonder. I do not have pretty hair. I am not young. He says, you have beautiful hair and are beautiful. I want you to desire me. You act like we are married and we are not. I have no ring on my finger. What a horribly abusive man he is. So isolating and controlling and manipulative. Keeps going. I do desire you, babe. She says, I am not sure. We never text sexually like we used to. We are not married. I think you need some young pussy with pretty hair. Not interested in mine anymore. Barely wanted it this past weekend after not having for 10 days. His response, I only need you. I am going to hug you now to stop this. I am going to hug you now to stop this. Wow. He is just a horrible, horrible person. How about December 5th? When are you going to ask me to marry you? When are you going to ask me to marry you? She sends that text twice eight minutes apart because he didn't respond in eight minutes. He says, certainly soon. She says, why a secret? I am not 20. Never mind. I don't want to marry. I can survive alone. His response, what? I mean, half of the time that this happens, these fights come out of nowhere and he has no idea what's going on. It goes from, I love you to you hate me and you, you know, you don't want to marry me. She's begging him over and over and over again to marry her. But she wants you to believe that while this is going on, remember it's December, the violence is escalating. It's escalating, ladies and gentlemen. She's already been sodomized, raped, beaten, begging him to marry her. Long text, still on December 5th. I don't want to get married. I will take care of myself. I don't care about what anyone thinks. But I do think about you way too much. You do not think of me in the same way. I cannot make another mistake. I'm really good. I will be fine. I always survive. I don't need anyone to take care of me. I need alone time to think this through. You did tell me two weeks ago this moved way too dot dot dot. You said you didn't have time to think about me or getting a ring because we got a house too fast. I'm beginning to agree with you. I'm not the woman for you. You need somebody more dependent on you. You're a good person. He says I certainly want to marry you and I have the same feelings for you. She says no you don't. I'm going to have, I'm going to have this discussion again. If you wanted me, I would have known by now. Go find what you want. Well, I thought that he was so controlling of her. I thought that he was isolating her from her family, not letting her see her family. I thought that he was raping her, but she's telling him that she's angry because he doesn't even want to have sex with her because he's not interested. But I thought that she was all hiding in bedrooms during family events because he basically won't let her talk to anyone. December 15th. I know it's really small, but you'll remember this one. I'm not going to read it all for the sake of not needing to where she says she gets angry because he doesn't respond to her text in 20 minutes. He says I'm very interested, I thought you were going to sleep. And then he's talking about wrapping her daughter's Christmas present. He says I was wrapping your daughter's Christmas present. Enter pages and pages of unresponded to text messages from Suzanne because he didn't respond to her in 20 minutes when she said that she wanted to be writing his whole hard cock squirting all over him. Enter pages and pages of yelling by Suzanne to him because he didn't respond to her for 20 minutes to that text. But I thought he was so controlling and manipulative and abusive. January 13th, at this point, he's already, we know, pointed the gun at her, according to her. Raped her, beat, strangled all the things. I do love you, I'm struggling with this, trying to understand what happened and why. I feel like perhaps I'm not all you need. You were the one thing that was solid in my life. I want to believe so hard that Lilia or Laura mean nothing to you. Let's be patient with each other and I know we can get through this. And he says yes we can. She doesn't say you meant everything to me until you beat me, raped me, strangled me, and pointed a gun to my head. And I understand those were the two rules, right? Apparently she's allowed to yell at him for literally everything else he does. But she's not allowed to mention the physical abuse. So she just, you know, leaves those out of the continuous rage texts to him. This continues. I need someone that fits me, that lifts me up, I'm sorry. I feel inadequate with you. I am not enough. I feel unwanted. I feel like if I let this go that you're texting them every day and talking to them on your ride home. And enjoy their company. I'm never enough. This is what you need to do. And what's David's response? Because don't forget, if she tries to leave him, he's going to kill her, right? That's what she wants you to believe. If you leave me, I am going to kill you. What's his response? Okay, let's end this. You will never trust me no matter what I do or say. There's nothing that I can do to satisfy you. Yikes. He's super abusive and manipulative and angry and controlling and threatening. Then all of a sudden she starts to dial it back because she doesn't want to leave him, right? Because she's so desperate and obsessed for love. So the second he mentions breaking up, now her tune starts to switch. I feel all alone, I know you never understand, I thought you loved me, all those things. He says, I don't care for anyone but you, but you can't understand. I won't come this weekend and we'll hire an attorney on the house situation. He's just done with it. He's tired of the same argument. Over and over. What he did wasn't right, but either break up with him or try and be past it. But to do what she's doing, he can't take it anymore. Please call me. Don't hire an attorney. Please call me. But he's so manipulative and controlling and obsessive and abusive. She's the one who won't let him go. She's the one begging him not to leave her. January 21st, all these texts, I'm not going to read them all. It's just a ginormous pages and pages rant without any response from David about how heartbroken she is about Lilia, how alone she is. Who's Lilia? I deserve an answer. Who's Lilia? I fell in love with you. I've been hurt. Why couldn't you just love me for me? Over and over and over and he doesn't respond. But according to Dr. Elkhorn, him ignoring her is also abusive, right? And manipulative. Because he can't do anything right. If he responds, that was probably abusive. If he doesn't respond, that's also abusive, according to her. What all he's trying to do is just not engage in this crazy, repetitive behavior. February 24th, and again, talking about Lilia. I deserve more to fight over a woman like that. Over and over, she's fighting about Lilia. He says no feelings towards her. Why do you care for her? I mean, rant after rant. Then let's talk about this text. This is to Dana. This is a text from the defendant to Dana. I'm not going to contact him. I'm tired of chasing. If he wants to come, he can find me. I found out on my own. He was honest. She's talking about that. Then she says, I told him I don't mind him texting other women as long as they're friends. I have dyed friends. That's not true. He can't even say a woman's hair is pretty without it turning into a two-month argument. She told her on January 20th she's not going to contact him. Here's January 21st. Text after text after text after text. How about how much he made her feel safe? There's plenty more than this. I only put in three. The one I want to bring your attention to most is February 17th. The day after he attempted to anally sodomize her to the point where she had to flee her home in nothing but a t-shirt and was arrested for DUI. Thank you for keeping me calm and wanting to help me. I feel so safe and loved by you. Ladies and gentlemen, I asked Dr. Elkhorn. You read all 4,000 pages of those text messages, right? Yes. Did you see a single text message? One single text message where David called her a name? No. Threaten her. No. Not one. How many text messages did we see? She's calling him a piece of shit. Cursing at him. Calling him names. Said something about he's a pile of doo-doo. Over and over. The only abuser, the only evidence of any abuse is by her to him. That is the only evidence that you have seen of domestic abuse is from this defendant to Mr. Varin. That is it. And I want to talk about the bruises. [02:16:22] Speaker ?: This was taken by investigator Redford. [02:16:22] Speaker 1: This was taken by somebody who works for the defendant on an unknown date. Look at the difference in those bruises. That's why investigator Redford corrected himself and said, once I had a chance to actually compare them, I realized that they don't look the same. They look completely different. It's way darker. How about the tops of her arms? You see that big bruise on the top of her arm? Where is it? I don't see anything. How about the redness down here? Do you see anything on her arm? I don't. Where did those bruises come from? I have no idea. What I do know is they didn't come from Mr. Varin because everything she says is a lie. What I do know is that she continued to reach in both of these holes to try and unlock the door. Could have caused a bruise. What I do know is that the paramedic came in and said that bruises will show between 20 minutes and two hours. This is taken at 6:30 on the left. This is taken at 6:30 the following morning. That's about almost six hours since Mr. Barin has been dead. Where's that bruise? It's nowhere. You know what else I know? Is that this defendant spent three hours flopping around on the ground on the crime scene. She's leaning up against the corner of the house with her forearms. If you want to watch the body cam again just to look at her behavior. Watch how many times she bangs her arms up against the wall or the corner of that house. Watch how many times she falls to the ground rolling around. Watch the interview. Watch how many times she's banging up against the wall. She falls onto the chair. She's rolling around on the ground. I have no idea. A million different things she did could have caused some of those bruises. But what I do know is that they look completely different. And I have no idea when the one on the right was taken. Or by who. Mr. Willis told you this. This is the law the judge is going to read. But what he didn't explain well. Was that self defense. Someone is justified in committing murder only when it's necessary. To prevent death or great bodily injury. So I want to talk to you about that. Because let's say for argument's sake. You believe everything that she said about what happened the night of March 7th. Right. Let's say that you believe that he did force her to commit aggravated sodomy on him. Let's say you do believe you put that gun to her mouth. Let's say you believe all of that. You also have to believe that that was the only reasonable way. And that it was necessary to shoot that door to prevent death or a forcible felony against herself. And he's right. There's no duty to retreat. There's no duty to retreat. But the reason that retreating comes into play is because is it reasonable and necessary? What does reasonable mean? It's not reasonable to her. It's not reasonable to the defendant. It's reasonable. The belief must be reasonable. That is a reasonable person would believe that that use of force was necessary. What that means is this objective, reasonable person. You take an objective, reasonable person. Would an objective, reasonable person believe that after being beaten, threatened with death, forced to commit oral sex, a gun pointed to your mouth. Would a reasonable person think the best way to protect yourself is to take a gun, walk up to the door, where the person who is armed with a weapon that's just been pointed at you, in your mouth, that the reasonable way to defend yourself is to shoot through that door. In what world, ladies and gentlemen, would someone who is in fear for their life, by a person who is armed on the other side of that door, not think that if I shoot at this door, he's going to shoot back at me? In what world? She is so in fear for her life that she thinks that's the only way to protect herself, but she doesn't even think about the fact that if she shoots through this door, he's going to shoot back at her? What if she had missed, and he was still alive, armed with a gun? And she doesn't for once take a second to think that he might shoot back at her? What if she was trying to aim at the lock? Shoots the lock off, gets in the door, what was her game plan? He has just beaten her, according to her. Forged her to commit oral sex, according to her. Put a gun to her mouth, according to her. And she thinks she's going to shoot the lock off, walk in and go, "Can you please give me my phone? I really want to call an Uber so I can leave." And then he's just going to hand the phone over, she's going to walk downstairs, stand outside on the porch with all the wild dogs, and call an Uber. And he's just going to hang out upstairs and let her, you know, let her rideshare come along and take her away. That is the most unreasonable thing I've ever heard. If you are in fear for your life by a person who is armed with a gun, the last thing you're going to do is follow him up to the locked door and shoot at him. You're going to get out. She's friends with one of the neighbors that gave her a gift basket on Christmas with a handwritten note. But she wants you to believe that it was more reasonable for her to shoot into a room with an armed person than to go knock on the neighbor's door at 1am. She wants you to believe that these wild dogs are the reason that she didn't want to walk out of the house. I'm not making that up, she said it. I'm not even trying to make fun of her for it. That's what she said, so we have to address that, ladies and gentlemen. She wants you to believe that this was reasonable to a reasonable person. That's why I know that David Barron never had his gun. Because if he had his gun, there is not a single chance she would have ever shot into that door. There is no chance that if he had that gun and he had just threatened her with it, that she would have gone up there and she would have shot into that door. Because what if she had missed? You're also going to hear about excessive force. Again, for argument's sake, let's say you believe everything she said about March 7th. You're also going to hear the judge tell you that you're not justified in using excessive force while you're defending yourself. For example, using excessive force would be trying to shoot the lock off the door to get a phone. That's excessive. That is so excessive. To use reasonable force is what you have to find in order to find her not guilty. Shooting a lock off of a door to get a phone is excessive. And you're also going to hear about revenge because you're also not justified in using force basically just to get back at someone. So again, let's say you believe everything she said is the truth. That he made her do all those things. He points a gun at her. You heard what she said. I have a gun too, David. That's what you've heard her say. So let's say you believe all those things are true. Now she's angry because he has just forced her to commit oral sex on him. He's just pointed a gun at her. She's mad. I'm going to show you I have a gun too. Walks up the stairs and shoots. That is not self-defense. That is revenge. That is not self-defense. And you should not find the defendant not guilty because of that. What if you find that she does that because of Lilia? She's so angry about Lilia that she wants to get back at him. I have a gun too, David. Walks up the stairs, shoots. That's revenge. That's not self-defense. The judge is going to tell you that. And I want to talk about these. Because at the beginning of this case, Mr. Willis got up and he said this case is about self-defense. That's what he said, right? But then what happened was he realized that self-defense ain't looking so good anymore. When you have someone who killed someone who's hiding behind a locked door and won't admit that she shot him in self-defense because she's going to double down on I'm trying to shoot this by aiming up here. Self-defense isn't looking good anymore. So now we want voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. Just in case. Just in case you guys don't think that it was self-defense, just going to slide this one on in there. Let's throw the spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks. Everything but the kitchen sink. In case you don't believe self-defense, we want to have a backup plan. B and C. Do not find the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. And here's why. Voluntary manslaughter. The purpose of this statue is if, for example, someone walks in the room and their spouse is actively cheating on them and they already had a gun on them and they're just so immediately and filled with rage they shoot the person. That is similar to voluntary manslaughter. Why is what happened in this case not voluntary manslaughter? Because it's only if the person acted on a sudden, only because of a sudden violent years of school passion. What else is important about voluntary manslaughter? Time passing. Between provocation and the killing. Defense wants you to believe that because David was sending money to Lilia, that she was just so angry, so enraged, that maybe you're going to hopefully at least believe that she just killed him because of that. That's not voluntary manslaughter, ladies and gentlemen. Three months had passed. Cooled off. This is the law. If someone has had time to cool off, it's not voluntary manslaughter. She's had three months of cooling off. She's choosing to stay with him. That's her choice. No one's making her do it. That doesn't mean that every time someone gets mad at a significant other and they can't get over it, months pass and they're hoping they can get over it and they can't look her allowed to kill them. Leave. Break up with him. The cooling off period. You can't find her guilty of voluntary manslaughter if you find she had a cooling off period. She got out about Lilia in December. We're in March. Imagine, she cannot say, I was so angry at David and I just couldn't get past it and it was just so violent, irresistible passion inside me and so I decided to kill him. You can't, that is not voluntary manslaughter. That is murder. That is, I was unhappy in my relationship and I couldn't move past it and instead of leaving, I just decided to kill him. What is involuntary manslaughter? Essentially causing the death, without intending to, by reckless conduct. Defense wants to relabel the aggravated assault where she walked up to the door about six inches away, aimed in the direction of Mr. Barron and fired as reckless. Ladies and gentlemen, that's not reckless, that's assault. They want you to find her guilty of involuntary manslaughter by reducing what she did. By calling it reckless. That's not reckless conduct, ladies and gentlemen. That is aggravated assault. That is an intent to assault or put someone in reasonable apprehension of receiving injury. I'm gonna shoot you. I'm gonna shoot you. Fires the gun. That's not reckless. That is assault. Do not find the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter. It is a cop-out. They're trying to slide those in, just in case their self-defense theory doesn't work, because it makes no sense. Hopefully you at least do that. Credibility of a witness. The judge is gonna tell you this. Basically, it's your job to judge the credibility of every single person who got up on that witness stand. That's your job. You can do that by looking at the manner in which they testify or their lack of interest in the case or their interest in the case. So let's look at all the witnesses you heard from from the state. All the officers have absolutely no interest in this case. They're just doing their jobs. Think about the manner in which they testify. Let's talk about Evan Barron, because they really attacked Evan. Mr. Rolls really attacked Evan in his clothes. He said that, "Evan told you who the victim really is." I don't know what testimony that he was listening to when Evan testified, because what I heard Evan testify to about the night of December 28th, is that she called him frantic, yelling that she pointed a gun at him, at David, that David got the gun away from her, that he was trying to leave, and that she had his keys and had locked herself in the closet or bathroom. It keeps going back and forth. I don't know which one it was at this point, because everyone said both. Closet or bathroom. And that he heard his dad yelling because he wanted to get his keys so he could leave. And then what Evan testified to was that after they made sure everyone was okay, that dad is safe at a hotel because she finally gave him his keys back, and after he made sure Suzanne was okay, he told Suzanne, "We don't like this whole Lillia thing. We've known about it. We're going to talk to him about it." This wasn't some intervention for the victim's anger and all these things that Mr. Willis was talking about. It was a complete misrepresentation of what Evan said. And Evan kept trying to correct him on the stand, too. I vividly remember that. He kept saying, "You were going to have an intervention, though, with your dad after this, right?" Yeah, an intervention about Lillia. We wanted to talk to him about Lillia because we didn't want him sending money to her. But an intervention, right? And then he just wrote the word intervention. Completely misrepresenting what Evan said in the testimony. Completely misrepresenting it. And then the whole spare key situation. Did you see any keys on the counter? Evan said, clear as day. We found him in the junk drawer. In the pantry. I don't know why we were showing all this body cam. To show that there were no keys sitting out on the counter. No one said that the keys were sitting out on the counter. He said they were in a junk drawer. They're just trying to make Evan look like a liar. And to be honest, of all the family members you heard from, Evan was the most honest. He has every reason to come in here and say all these horrible things about the defendant because she murdered his dad. But guess what he did? He told you the truth. I was happy for him. They had a lot in common. They liked football. Family vacation was great. We all got along. When you're judging the credibility of witnesses, part of what you're doing is judging the manner in which they testified. He had every reason to come in here and think of anything to say to shame her and to put her down because she killed his dad. And he told you the truth. We liked her. I didn't like the Lilia thing either. I wanted it to go away. I think the only bad thing he said about her was it made me a little bit uncomfortable that she was reaching out to me that much about Lilia. That was it. How about Beth? Beth has known David for 50 years. Married him for 23. This defendant knew him for 10 months. Married for 23 years, has known him for 50, remained friends with him up until the day that he was killed. And what did she tell you? He was a peaceful, kind person. How about Laura? Married for over 10 years. Friends for 25. Remained friends up until the day he died. What did she tell you? What did she tell you? Same thing. Let's talk about Dana and her kids. How about the manner in which they testified? The rehearsed robotic testimony you heard from them. How about the story that one of them said about the defendant being force fed a bowl of ice cream by David. That was the example that they gave about how abusive he is. He gave her a big bowl of ice cream. They're trying to pull anything out. They don't want their mom to be convicted of murder. And I don't blame them. I don't blame them. They're her kids. They did nothing wrong. Dana did nothing wrong. It's her sister. But when you're judging their credibility, that's something for you to consider. The manner that they testified in and their interest in this case. How about Dr. Elkhorn? I really don't want to spend too much time on Dr. Elkhorn because I personally don't think it's worth it. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. [02:34:49] Speaker ?: I don't want to spend too much time on the court. [02:34:50] Speaker 1: I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. [02:35:14] Speaker ?: I don't want to spend too much time on the court. [02:35:15] Speaker 1: I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. [02:35:36] Speaker ?: I don't want to spend too much time on the court. [02:35:37] Speaker 1: I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. [02:35:48] Speaker ?: I don't want to spend too much time on the court. [02:35:49] Speaker 1: I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. I don't want to spend too much time on the court. That he made her basically perform oral sex on him the night that she killed him. She's diagnosing her with PTSD for trauma that Mr. Barron inflicted on her allegedly and she didn't think it was important to put in her report that the night that he was killed he forced her to perform oral sex on him. How was that not important for your report? First time I heard about it was in opening statements because it wasn't in her report. First time I heard about the suicide was in opening statements because it wasn't in her report. Jim Persinger is very impressive. He is a very credible witness. He is very impressive. And I do not think he got up there in my view, any of y'all. I just put him up in this slide because I didn't really understand the purpose of his testimony. I didn't really see how it was relevant because the phones went up the stairs 12 seconds apart. He attributes that to a glitch, or not a glitch, but a lag in the phones. How do we know that they didn't just go up the stairs 12 seconds apart? He's just making an assumption. Could have gone up the stairs five seconds apart. Also, it doesn't really matter if the phones went upstairs at the same time because we don't know who took him up the stairs. Could have been her. Didn't tell us anything. [02:37:53] Speaker ?: Could have gone up the stairs 12 seconds apart. [02:37:57] Speaker 1: How about the credibility of the defendant? I think I've talked about it enough. So I'm going to breeze through the fact that this defendant is a compulsive liar. But these are all the lies that I could just think of on the top of my head that we know for an absolute fact are not true. We know that David didn't shoot at her regardless of how many times she said he did. We know she flushed shell casings regardless of how many times she said she didn't. We know she fired his gun. We know he wasn't drinking. We know that that gun was not next to his body. We know that the whole store was not next to his body. And we know that that whole kitchen store was a total lie. What about the fake ER visit? She was lying to y'all about that until we took a break and then she gets back up on the stand and all of a sudden oh yeah I'm sorry that was a lie. Because she'd been caught. Couldn't lie about that one anymore. How about the fake man? Tried to lie about that at first then realized she'd been caught with that too. So then she gave up on that one. Fake law enforcement coming to talk to her at St. Simons. She's manipulating him. Imagine if Mr. Barron had done that. And texted Suzanne. Oh I'm vomiting up blood. Come see me. [02:39:10] Speaker ?: Oh my gosh. [02:39:11] Speaker 1: The things we would have heard from Dr. Elkhorn about that. I want to talk to you about this. Mr. Will has barely touched on it. Probably because it makes absolutely no sense and no one really knows what to make of it. She wants you to believe that those shots from 12 to that is a foot. This is 12 inches off the ground. It's from her committing suicide. [02:39:46] Speaker ?: In what world? [02:39:47] Speaker 1: In what world? With a gun like this? Was she laying on the ground? Was she sitting on the ground? She had no blood on her back. She had no blood on her butt. How was she 12 to 16 inches off the ground with a gun like this? Tries to fire it once. Oh no. It didn't fire. Tries to fire it a second time. Oh no. It didn't fire. Tries to fire it a third time. On the third time. Oops. Let me try again. In what world? Does that make any sense? That is the most insane thing. She didn't even really go into detail about how she did it because I don't think she knows to this minute how to explain how those shots fired from 12 inches off the ground were from an attempted suicide. But she wants you to believe that that's the reason why she fired David's gun out the door and why she flushed the shell casings because she didn't want anyone to know that she sat here and just continuously did that. I want to show you the verdict form very quickly. Judge, may I have the... This is what the verdict form is going to look like. You're going to have it as well. And I want to show you and explain so you're not confused because there's a lot of options. This is count one. Malice murder. To find... To put an X right here, you would have to believe either that the state did not meet all of its elements, which we have. Which means the only other reason you would put an X here is if you find that the defendant acted in self-defense and was justified in killing Mr. Merrin. That's the only reason to put an X right there. If you find that she maliciously killed the defendant intended to kill him, this is where you put your X. Line two. Every count. Line two is going to be what the defendant is charged with in the indictment and what the state is going to ask that you find the defendant guilty with beyond a reasonable doubt. Line two. Malice murder. Guilty. On to count two. This is the felony murder based off of aggravated assault. Guilty. What are these below it? These are their plans B and C. This is the... Oops, self-defense doesn't really make any sense. Hopefully, maybe they do manslaughter instead. Judge, I have to object. [02:42:44] Speaker 2: I've allowed her to state this many times. The charges are from the court, not from the defense. So I'd ask her not to make that inference. Object. [02:42:53] Speaker 1: I don't think there's anything improper about this judge. They asked for them to find the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter and I'm asking them not to. [02:43:04] Speaker 2: I most certainly did not. [02:43:09] Speaker 3: Without commenting on the evidence, the state is welcome to give their opinion on what they would like for the jury to cross-check whatever and that's perfectly reasonable without commenting on the evidence. The court has created the documents that are being referenced and it's the court's. Again, not making any comment when it's the court's document with input from the parties with ultimately my final. So I will overrule the objection with that explanation. State may proceed. Thank you, Judge. [02:43:51] Speaker 1: Sounds like they're not asking you to find her guilty of voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter. So that makes that a whole lot easier for you all then. Count three. Guilty of felonary murder based off of the criminal damage in the first degree. Again, the second line on the verdict form. Count four. Again, only this if you find the state has not met the elements beyond a reasonable doubt or self-defense. If not, we move on to aggravated assault. What's below it is reckless conduct. Again, a lesser included that the defendant is not charged with. This is a cop out. This is what state's asking you to find the defendant guilty of. Count five. First degree damage, criminal damage, property in the first degree. Second line. Again, reckless conduct is their plan, is a plan B. And lastly, the last two. There's no other options other than guilty or not guilty as to counts six or seven. [02:45:01] Speaker ?: The defendant is guilty. [02:45:02] Speaker 1: There's no excuse, there's no justification, and there's no defense for walking up to a door, getting six inches away, and killing someone who's hiding behind it. And on top of that, her actions after the fact show why this was malicious and why there was intent. Because not only did she kill Mr. Baron, but then, while she stepped over his dead body, she altered the scene. She tampered with the evidence. She planted evidence. That is malice. After everything you've heard in this case, there is no room left for any doubt. There's just not. And at the beginning of this trial, Mr. Willis did. He put that picture up. The smiling selfie of the defendant on the beach, and he said, "You're never going to get to meet her. You're never going to get to hear from her. She's gone." And then you know what he just said? Yeah. [02:46:25] Speaker ?: She's gone almost as much as James Baron. [02:46:26] Speaker 1: That is insulting. She's sitting right there. She got to see her kids yesterday. She got to see her smiling kids. They got to see her. Guess who you didn't get to meet? Guess who you're never going to get to meet? Guess who's never going to get to see his smiling kids? And his kids are never going to get to see him. You are never going to hear from him. He is never going to get to come in here and defend himself from her lies. She took that right from him, and she took the privilege from you to hear from him. You will never get to meet James Baron. There's only one victim in this case, ladies and gentlemen. And I promise you it's not the person who took a gun, brought it up, and shot through a locked door at someone hiding behind it. That's not the victim. This is not the victim. This is the victim. He might not ever have the opportunity to come in here and tell his side of the story. But fortunately for Mr. Baron, the evidence speaks louder than he probably ever could have. And so that's where you come in, ladies and gentlemen, that's where you come in. Because even though David's voice was taken from him by her, your verdict can speak volumes for him. So I'm going to ask that you follow the evidence, you ignore the lies, and you find this defendant guilty. Thank you.