Egregious Exploitation: The Sandra Birchmore Trial Day 11

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: What a day, what a day. Good evening, everybody, and welcome back into the Margaret McLean Show. Today was a very interesting day in federal court. Let me tell you, for some of you that saw me in the noon break, wow, the House of Cards, I'm telling you, that was the initial state police investigation into the death of Sandra Birchmore is collapsing. It is collapsing. It's barely up, in my opinion. So, by the way, I'm Margaret McLean, the host of the show. I'm a former prosecutor, longtime civil litigator, and law professor at Boston College. So I've been covering this case in court from the very beginning, and I really appreciate the chat. You guys are amazing. And I'm jealous about the banana bread that's now I'm starving because, of course, today was so crazy. I didn't even have a chance to, I didn't have a chance to really eat anything. I didn't eat lunch because I was talking to you guys, but it's really okay. I'm fine with that. So just briefly, Sandra Birchmore is the 23-year-old victim who prosecutors allege was killed by the defendant, former Stoughton police officer, Matthew Farwell. And then he staged it to look like she took her own life. That's what the prosecution alleges. I was in court all day and man, I'll have to tell you, there's just, this case gets crazier by the day. So really let's, let's get to it. And let me get my, of course, I've got to play my nice intro. So here we go. So today Sandra's long-time therapist wrapped up the state medical examiner who originally ruled that Sandra took her own life. She testified. And then, drum roll please, William Farwell, Matthew's twin brother actually took the stand. But before we get into all of that, joining me tonight, I'm thrilled to break it all down. Here with me is attorney Elise Hirshon. I'm going to bring her up. And, uh, Hey, Elise. So great. I'm so glad you're here because there's so much we have to talk about. This is just nuts. And I want to introduce you, um, officially. So Elise is a highly respected Boston based criminal defense attorney. She has many, many, many homicides under her belt. She's knows what she's talking about. And also she is a national television analyst and I'm so happy to have her on. So man. Okay. I hope I can live up to that. Oh, no, you, you, you are great. I really, I actually enjoy every time I see you on, um, Commonwealth Confidential or some of the other national shows, I, I really enjoy it because you, you know what you're talking about, which is awesome. So yeah. So let's take it. Um, let's take the therapist first and talk a little bit about her. So she was on the stand Friday for the half day. She treated Sandra on and off for nearly a decade and she anchored, uh, that the prosecution's push against the defense theory that Sandra took her own life. So she testified about Sandra's state of mind before her death and even saw her the day before she died. So she described Sandra as bubbly, vibrant and more like herself, uh, in the days, you know, in the days prior. And she was ecstatic and hopeful and joyful about her pregnancy. She also noted that Sandra had a deep love for her cats. And, and she also talked about how resilient she was because of course the defense in cross-examination had to bring up as much of that prior mental health history as possible. So at least in your opinion, how strong was this witness for the prosecution? [00:04:19] Elise Hirshon: I think they're doing the best they can. Um, I would contrast the therapist and Birchmore state of mind in mind right up to, and before the night she died to the, basically the picture of Farwell leading up to when she died and the change in his demeanor, but also how angry he got when the friend called the dispatcher that was 1.5 weeks about before she turned up dead. So we have him appearing agitated was the testimony and we have her appearing happy and not in a mental state where a trained therapist who's a mandated reporter. If she had noticed any signs that her mental state was unstable, unstable to the point where she might hurt herself, she would report that. Um, and I'm sure she would testify to that she was emotional. She's very close to Sandra. Uh, seems that she was, I think she was a [00:05:19] Speaker 1: credible witness for the prosecution. Oh yeah. I think so too. Yeah. And I saw her demeanor. So her demeanor on the stand, I thought to myself, wow, I'd like her as my own therapist. I mean, she was just this, uh, lovely, soft voice, nice, nice way about her. And boy, did she hold up during cross-examination? In my opinion, she really listened to the defense attorney's questions and, you know, still held her own, which I think is amazing because in your experience, jurors assess the personality and the credibility of these witnesses, right? [00:05:57] Elise Hirshon: Absolutely. Just because a witness is presented as an expert, it could be a DNA expert. It could be a therapist. It could be a detective. Just because, uh, someone presents as an expert does not mean the jury is required to credit that person as the expert. And we see that when there's a battle of the experts, right? It's not possible to hold competing experts with competing opinions equally. That, that seems like not possible. So the jury could look at the therapist and say, yeah, she's protecting Sandra. It was her patient. Maybe there's like a, there's a caretaker type vibe coming from her. It's possible they could see that, but what does she have to gain by this? Um, you know, and that's always what defense attorneys look for. Right. And I'm sure we'll get to it today. Um, and you were there today, right? Where immunized witness was, was testifying for the prosecution. So that's something that we really go after as defense attorneys. And this therapist didn't have that. She went up there and she said, she, you know, and I, and I, again, I'm speaking as a legal analyst, but as a defense attorney, I would do the same thing that the defense did. I would point out, well, you don't know for sure. You weren't there. Um, you know, you understand that nine months before that she communicated to a friend that she wanted to kill herself, didn't attempt to, but wanted to was having suicidal thoughts. And then there was an attempt prior prior it, you know, I would point out, but again, remember that this is a little bit of an inverted trial because yes, ability of suicide, just the possibility. And it can be this much that can be reasonable doubt. So all the defense has to do is keep that door cracked open to not only prove murder, but they have to disprove suicide essentially. And they don't have that certificate to back it up. And I'm sure we'll get to that. [00:07:55] Speaker 1: Um, yeah, no, no, you're absolutely right. And for example, today I was, um, I spent a lot of time watching the jury and during the medical examiner's testimony, I was really watching the jury and I, I noticed, um, yeah, they are very, very attentive. So, and I, I do, I think they, they know exactly what the defense attorney's theories are and some of the, the high points in her cross-examination, because I noticed them, you know, just, just really, really focusing and listening to her questions as well. So I think they're, they're really good at being open-minded here. And you're absolutely right. I think this is a very tough case for the defense to, to defend. What do you think? [00:08:43] Elise Hirshon: So I can make the argument on both sides, which is fortunately or unfortunately how lawyers operate. I think the prosecution has a hard case because they're starting with, this may not even be a homicide and usually in homicide trials, not always, but usually that's determined. Even if you go self defense, you know that the person died from a third party, the whole defense here is it could possibly be a suicide. And they have a original death certificate in the original investigators that went to the crime scene that determined it to not be suspicious and determined it to be a suicide. So they do have that in their corner and the prosecution has a huge uphill battle there. But on the other hand, even though this isn't technically an element that has to be proven or disproven, Matthew Farwell is very unlikable. And that is gratuitous to say it that way. Yeah. He, there's evidence that he is statutory rapist. There's evidence that he groomed her. There's evidence that he abused his authority as a mentor in a, in a mentee relationship with Birchmore. There's, I mean, the unlikability of a client matters and you try to concede what you need to, it's sort of admit what you can't deny, deny what you can't admit. Yes. He is a cheater. Yes. He is a liar. Yes. He's this. Yes. He's that. Um, but so you have to concede that, right? You can't get up there and say, my client is an angel and he's innocent. That's not going to fly with anybody. So I think the defense has to play that very carefully. There's a fine line there. I'm really, I saw a comment too, about you watching the jury. I'm so glad you watched, you're watching the jury too. When I'm on trial, I try so hard to look up at the jury, but I'm like watching the witness and I'm taking notes and I'm like editing and adding and really writing out my cross questions and some additional cross questions. So it's always great to have somebody look at the jury. Cause I'm like, that's what I want to know. How did the jury look? How is the jury attending to this trial? So exactly. Yeah. Yeah. And I think it's very interesting because [00:10:54] Speaker 1: I agree with you when I'm trying a case, I'm the same way I'm focusing on what to say next and the witness. And I will glance over at the jury obviously, but for me sitting there in the courtroom, I can really watch them and listen at the same time. One thing I will say as, as a lawyer today, for example, this morning it was, let's see, um, the therapist was on and by the time, let's say an hour into it, let's say by the time 10 o'clock rolled around, basically the therapist had testified to everything that, that, that was needed. So, so the defense attorney, her cross-examination, she made some valid points yet. I feel like the valid points were lost because she dragged her cross-examination out so much. And I looked over at the jury and they, at first they were interested if with, with some of the points about the mental illness in the past and her journal. But then I saw this and the clocks over there and I see, I see them looking at the clock and I see, you know, and then uh, for redirect examination, the prosecutor did the same thing. Now I think these federal prosecutors are very, very good. I would have made a few points in redirect, rehabilitate the witness who was excellent. And she did a good job rehabilitating the witness, but then, uh, she went on too long, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And the jury's like this and like that, you know? So I, and I said, gosh, I wish, I wish I could let them know, Hey, stop, sit down. You know, you made your point and you've highlighted what you need to highlight. And yeah, it's hard. You don't want to leave [00:12:47] Elise Hirshon: anything on the table, but I was also taught by a mentor. I mean, I, when I was right out of law school, I was still waiting for my bar results. They were sent in the mail at that time. Um, and I was second seating, my first trial, which happened to be a first degree murder trial, um, in Brockton, the judge gave me permission to sit at council table. I had my JD, but I did. Oh, at that point, passed the bar. I passed the bar in the middle of the jury deliberating. Um, congratulations. That's pretty cool. So at that point, I'm like, I'm hooked or, you know, I knew I wanted to do murder cases, but I'm like, all right, I'm hooked. And my mentor at the time, my second set is still a mentor to this day. Who's been doing this a long time. And he's like, you got to go to district court and do a bail argument. I'm like, what are you talking about? I don't need to do a bail argument. I want to do a murder trial. But, um, all that to say, he taught me sit down and shut up. Yeah. He doesn't mince words. And he said, sit down and shut up. So when I'm up there, cross-examining, and sometimes I kind of pull it too soon. Sometimes you pull it too late. It really, it depends on the witness. It depends on the case. Right. And you just look at, it's always easy to Monday morning quarterback and say, oh, this should have cut off at this point. They should have said this. When you're in it, you're doing the best you can. But in my head, I always hear, sit down and shut up, sit down and shut up. And I'm like, don't ask that last question. That's your closing argument point. Just leave it. Right. Yeah. I know. We want to, we want to be like, but isn't that right? You know, and sometimes you have to [00:14:18] Speaker 1: save it for the end. It's very hard, but I think at the real skilled attorneys, they're, they're great at it. I mean, some of them drag it out too. I mean, I think Reddington was pretty [00:14:27] Elise Hirshon: good at it. Uh, cross examination. So succinct. And the other thing that is such a, it's such an underrated skill. You don't have to ask a question of every witness. You don't have to be there. Your speaking time does not have to be equal with the prosecution. And it really shouldn't because they're the ones with the burden, right? You're the one as a former prosecutor, you're the one with the burden. You should be presenting your case. We're just trying to kind of, and I look at it like, you know, there's a, there's a boat and it's taking on water and the prosecution's putting all these bricks on, all these bricks on to sink the boat. The defense just has to take out enough that it doesn't sink all the way. Yeah. And it's still somewhat floating. That's the reason we rolled out. You don't have to remove every single brick leaves there that aren't as heavy, that don't matter as much. Um, Reddington is, was just, that was amazing to watch. Um, you know, obviously this is not live streamed, but I, I know I want to, yeah, I've it's, um, Reddington is a, is a lone wolf. He tries cases himself, um, as a solo, it's very unusual in a murder trial. I don't know. He has such, I don't know how that he has that mental capacity and the memory and the organization. He is not there taking notes, like a transcript of that trial. You saw him just writing. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. [00:15:50] Speaker 1: Old style, like all the way. So old school, like, oh, how do you do that? I have to tell you a story and I have to tell my chat. They'll like this. They like these little stories that we tell them. So you just reminded me of something back in the day. I took the Massachusetts bar and the New York state bar at the same time. I'm originally from upstate New York. So I thought, why not? So, you know, there was a lot like the, the two states and then the multi-state. Well, anyway, Massachusetts mailed their results out first and all my friends from BC law, they all got their results in the mail and you know, they passed and they went out and they celebrated. Well, guess what? They lost my, my results were lost in the mail. I was so depressed. I was so depressed. I still recall the day. Right. So then they didn't come. They didn't come. And I called, uh, whoever it was that handled that, that's agency or whatever. I called and I said, you know, um, my, I haven't gotten results yet. It was maybe a week or so after. And I said, I, I, I can you let me know if I passed or not? And they say, no, you have to wait for a second mailing. So I'm like, Oh my God. And it wasn't even due to be mailed out for the second time or another like two or three weeks. So then I found out. Yeah. So in the meantime, I found out I passed New York. So I figured if I passed New York, which is harder than I passed mass and I eventually found out I passed mass, but I'll never forget the angst. I can't even imagine that because [00:17:22] Elise Hirshon: you know, back in the time where they mailed the results, you had to go home and open them. And I live on the North shore and I was on a trial on the South shore and it was a two hour commute. So the tech started coming through that people pass and I'm like, I am two hours away from even checking if I got the mail. Yeah. Yeah. For you, for you to wait weeks. That is. Oh yeah. Those two hours for me, I'm driving. I'm like, if I didn't pass, I have to go back to court tomorrow and be like, I'm like, I'm thinking in my head. I was like trying to be confident that I passed. I'm like, how am I going to show my face in this courtroom tomorrow? Oh, I know. I know. [00:18:02] Speaker 1: But people do. They're bad test takers and they do fail it. Oh my God. I can't even imagine. [00:18:07] Elise Hirshon: And then it's harder to pass each time. Like the pass rate decreases each time you take it. [00:18:12] Speaker 1: Probably because you're nervous. Yeah, definitely. So, all right. So I want to go back to my questions. I, all right. Let's talk about Dr. Capo Martinez and she's the Massachusetts state forensic pathologist who performed the original autopsy in 2021. Yes. Oh boy. Oh boy. Oh boy. And so her demeanor, she was actually, well, I mean, quite calm, but still, um, I mean, I would think, I would think she'd be embarrassed, but she actually blamed it on the state police for not providing her, providing her with the proper information. For example, originally Canton police called, said that Sandra was, um, hanging by a scarf, not the actual, uh, duffel bag strap. I mean, it was just crazy. So she didn't see any photographs from the crime scene until weeks later. And that was after she made her determination. She, she was convinced by the police that it was, uh, Sandra took her own life. She didn't receive any, um, you know, the, the broke, a broken necklace, which was found at the scene. She didn't see, hear anything about any digital, uh, forensics like on the phone. Right. She didn't hear any of that. Uh, all of those text messages between Sandra and Matthew Farwell. She didn't know that he was the last one to see her alive. There's so much that she didn't know. It just blew my mind listening to that today. So, so basically she, she said that, um, she received such little information from law enforcement and it caused her to rev to provide a flawed conclusion that Sandra took her own life. And then, so, you know, she testified that the initial intake she received from Canton and state police asserted the death was a S by hanging, uh, with no trauma and no signs of fall play. And she noted also that the investigators gave her zero reason to believe the death was suspicious at the time at all. So what do you have to say to that so much? [00:20:34] Elise Hirshon: It is not up to the medical examiner to review text messages between suspects and victims. That's not part of their evaluation. They are a forensic pathologist. It is science, right? So for her to blame, I mean, the scarf and the duffel bag and the photos. Okay. That's horrific investigation. That's like Bowdoin all the way, um, which is what we call it in Massachusetts. When you say it was a flawed investigation. Um, although it's interesting because the way they found it actually helps the defense. So now I'm wondering how is the prosecution going to argue that it was flawed in their own case. We're also in Karen Reed territory. I know we're in the county. The same district attorney was leading that office, the same, same state troopers, same towns. I mean, there's already a big question mark on the homicide department, uh, in that area. So does the prosecution lean on that and, and lean on the sloppiness of the investigation, which usually they're fighting, right. And they're fighting and they're trying to say, this wasn't sloppy. This is true. This is the guy, but there was no guy at that point. Once it's, you know, not, not homicide. If it's ruled, you know, death by self-infliction, I understand there's some limitations. Yeah. I know. We can use, I picked up on that. Yep. She took her own life. Can I say that? Uh, yes. Yes. You can say that. Then why would there be a further investigation? But if she got photos like weeks later, why wasn't, why didn't she update and [00:22:09] Speaker 1: reevaluate then if there were mistakes? That's true. You're, you're absolutely right. And I think she was asked that as well. Uh, one thing I will point out though, is, um, I think it's pretty clear to jurors that this is a U S attorney, a federal prosecutor and she, and they, the feds are criticizing the state investigation. So when trooper done was on and his investigation was clearly flawed, I mean, you know, he interviewed Farwell, Matthew Farwell, the defendant in a part, a school parking lot without notes. It was not recorded. It was not memorialized. And then they, they, they looked at his phone and he said, and they found no text messages between Sandra Birchmore and Farwell. So they gave the phone right back to him. He deleted, deleted them, but they didn't run it under celebrate or anything like that. So I think jurors realized that it was the stateies that screwed it up [00:23:06] Elise Hirshon: and the FBI came in to save the day. It's still, how do you, it's still reasonable doubt to me. Um, but can Matthew Farwell's unlikeability, let's call it, overcome that there's a question as to how she died? Yeah. Someone can come in and say, you know what, that wasn't right. This is right. But that in and of itself means two different trained. I mean, the Massachusetts state police investigates homicides all the time. There are convictions all the time. The feds do not get involved in the majority of these cases. Murder is a state crime. Right. So are we to, are we to now draw a question on all of those? Um, and let's, so I want to also, I, and I, you were there, so you have a lot more detail than me, but one of the questions I had was she, they changed the death certificate from homicide to under, I'm sorry, from death by her taking her own life, the S word to undetermined. So the death certificate to this day still doesn't state homicide. Right. Why not? I, I don't know. I can't, I can't [00:24:20] Speaker 1: figure that out. I know. And that, but then it's really weird because she did change the part, um, the cause of death from asphyxia by hanging to just plain asphyxia. But you would think she would take the extra step and say homicide because she didn't make this change until April of 2026. So that's this year, right? That's, that's this year. So you would think she would have took it, taken it one more step. I, that is, and you know, that there's doubt there undetermined is the [00:24:55] Elise Hirshon: definition of, you don't know. We're not confident enough to take it all the way to homicide. Um, I've had a, I had a homicide that I second sat, um, my second one I ever did. And it was a man who was accused of it almost strangely similar, but he was accused of having an affair with his wife's, his pregnant wife's twin. So a little bit of the twin element, but on the different, different side. And his wife was in the hospital having their baby and they sent him home cause it was going to be a while and they had another child and he went home and had intercourse with the identical twin who, the one he was not married to. And she died in the course of that. Oh my God. And it was died by asphyxiation. They ruled it a homicide. Um, the defense was accidental because another factor is he was almost 500 pounds and she was about 130. So my goodness, say we use the same medical examiner that testified in Karen Reed that testified, um, in, uh, Lindsay Clancy. Uh, so she was a former chief medical examiner and she is now the forensic pathologist that she consults now for the defense, but she worked for the state from state, um, city of Chicago, Dr. Labasada. And she essentially, her testimony was, it's like having two refrigerators on top of you. Cause the average refrigerator is about 240 pounds. I mean, Nancy Grace, like took this into the woods and shot it. I mean, she went a berserk over that testimony, but it could have been an accident, right? Yeah. Homicide accident is still identified as a homicide. This is not that. That's interesting. Right. So it can say accidental, um, if they purely think it's accidental, but if it could be homicide, they're putting homicide on there. I guess my point is that yes, there was our theory of defense was consensual sex gone wrong. There was also, um, similar to this, some unusual proclivities with regards to the type of sex and, and rough sex and her former boyfriend testified, and there was choking involved. So it was the same thing, um, or similar aspects of this. There were some aspects of, uh, I don't think there's any allocation that this was a death through intercourse, but, um, which is interesting as to why all of those text messages and very explicitly came in and so many of them, but we can come back to that, but all this to say, this could have been an accident very similarly as it could have been. They, he was charged with rape murder. They put homicide on the death certificate, even though the defense was, it wasn't a homicide at all. So all that to say, homicide is not on this death certificate. If there's a question, they still put it on there. So how big is this question as to what it is? Was it an ego thing? They didn't want to change it and, and do a total 180. They just wanted to sort of come 90 degrees. I mean, we're in a gray area here and how is the jury supposed to figure this out if the medical examiner didn't figure this out at least on an official document, right? [00:28:16] Speaker 1: Yeah. And you know, that's a really good point. And that's a point I would bring up on closing argument. If I, if I'm the defense. Right. Yeah. But it's hard for me to believe, and I'm sure. So they were talking about the big meeting that, that she had this medical examiner with, you know, you're talking, you know, the FBI people and all sorts of people were involved. There's a lot of egos in that [00:28:39] Elise Hirshon: room and people pulling a card over the other. Yeah, I'm sure. Yeah. But based on, based on the [00:28:47] Speaker 1: new information, I I'm, I'm actually shocked that she didn't change it to homicide. And I think, I think the strongest evidence against Matthew Farwell is, uh, leading up to it where, you know, he's disguised in a mask, he goes upstairs and her phone has, stops moving when he's up there. [00:29:07] Elise Hirshon: And then he comes back down. It doesn't even open, right? They can see when you use face ID or touch ID to open the phone. That's how specific and detailed this evidence can be. I know. And, you know, and we saw this in Karen Reed similarly, where they said we were asleep, but they saw the phones active in the Alberts house and they could see them, the phones going up and down the hallway. I mean, did Chloe, the dog take the phones and walk the phones around? Like they weren't asleep. Um, yeah. And this is, this is a woman, Sandra Birchman was on her phone a lot. There were a lot of text messages and a lot of text messages. She had a lot of friends. So I agree with you. That is such, [00:29:48] Speaker 1: such compelling evidence. Yeah. I think that based on what I've heard, I just think that so, so, so very strong. And, you know, I also think it's interesting. Um, some of the stuff that she testified about today, I thought that the autopsy photos, right? There was certain physical anomalies, right? That she pointed out, uh, for example, Sandra's hair was severely tangled inside the bucket of the, uh, inside the buckle. Yeah. Of the duffel bag strap. So what does that indicate to you? I would think it would indicate a violent struggle. What do you think? I think it can go either way. I think [00:30:34] Elise Hirshon: that to me is not dispositive, although I would make that, I would make that point if I were the prosecution. Um, because as much as we don't want to think about it, if there's a hanging, it's not a smooth way to die. It's can be, the body can make involuntary movements, let's say. So could the, it's true be tangled at some point, you know, so I could push back on that. [00:31:05] Speaker 1: Yeah. Yep. No, I, if I were the defense. Yep. Yep. I could see a defense attorney pushing back on that. And then she also, the medical examiner admitted that injuries and abrasions on Sandra's chin and neck indicated that either her body or the strap, it's the ligature strap itself may have been moved. So then there's that, but then the defense made the argument that it, it could be from all the weight and she, the way she was leaning when she was hanging, you know, so I guess you can spin it either way. Right. [00:31:42] Elise Hirshon: Exactly. And that's all the defense needs. Right. Right. Two possibilities. They don't even have to, they don't have to be exactly equal. It could just be a possibility that it could have been suicide. So that's why the prosecution actually has to prove murder and disprove suicide as an option, because even if they show all this evidence that it's a homicide, you know, and that's why I say the likability of the defendant, of course, that's not support. That's not admissible evidence. It's that's why all this evidence coming in with the sexual, the sexting that they did and the proclivities and the role playing and all of that. What is the actual relevance of that? Because to me, it seems extremely prejudicial. I'm sure there were many arguments about this, but you can't convict somebody because they're a bad guy, because they're a cheater, because they have affairs, because they, um, you know, do things you don't approve because they're into certain types of consensual, you know, outside of the minor accusations, the accusations where she couldn't consent, but outside of rough and violent sex. I mean, jurors might not agree with that, but how can you not consider that when you're looking at him with some sort of disgust, right? That he, his wife was pregnant and had a baby, I think the next day after Sandra died. So that's why I did. Yeah. He went to the hospital right from [00:33:08] Speaker 1: Sandra's apartment after he allegedly, this is what happened to my murder case. And I, the evidence [00:33:14] Elise Hirshon: in that did not prove first degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt, because there was no evidence of anger or malice. I mean, there was a relationship going on there. Um, but the jury was so morally offended by a man cheating on his pregnant wife, who was having a baby that night or within hours of that, that undoubtedly to me, I mean, without being able to be in the jury room or talk to the jurors, but that undoubtedly to me, sealed the deal. And even sort of two possibilities, if you look at all these other things he did, and it's much more graphic than what, you know, there wasn't the texting back when I did this one. It's so detailed. And I, I'm sure they argued it was more prejudicial than probative. It shouldn't come in. Clearly I came in, they found the relevance, the balancing factor, but none of that is good. All of that hurt him, um, hurt how they look at him. And I, it's just, it's a, it's a hard case to defend. I think because of that, because of everything they did, because of how they met, because of her age, because of the allegations and the implications of the grooming, the authority, the police officer element. I mean, Bella twin brother and the other, uh, his other affair partners. I mean, it's so [00:34:43] Speaker 1: well, let me, let me ask you about that. So the other affair partners now, if I'm the prosecution, I, so they came in for a very limited, these other three mistresses that, that he had this extramarital affair with, they came in for a limited purpose because the, uh, defense attorney said in her opening statement that Farwell was wearing the mask because he was trying to hide his extramarital affairs. So therefore that door open, I know she kicked the door open. However, um, in your opinion, did the judge make the right decision here to allow these mistresses to testify? Because I still think that could be highly prejudicial, uh, testimony that might outweigh, outweigh the probative value. [00:35:32] Elise Hirshon: What do you think about that? I think that they would not have been allowed to testify or at least with regards to the mask. I don't know if they would have been allowed to testify at all if that door hadn't been opened. And right. There are pros and cons and I'm not, the defense has a strategy and they're experienced. And this is not meant as criticism. This is from the outside, not having access to the evidence from the outside. But as a attorney that tries cases, as I'm sure you noticed, why bring that up in your opening? If that's going to come in at some point in the trial, hold it, hold onto it. And certain things you have to see how they play out. And if you say something in your opening, you cannot take it back. And there are witnesses that sometimes don't testify. They do testify. You're not expecting them to throughout the trial. And the, that's why it's opening statements. You want to keep it shorter. You don't want to over promise. Um, and we saw the opposite effect, you know, the jurors like to be told something and then shown something they don't like to be told, you know, and I go back to Lindsay Clancy, the prosecutor saying, you know, essentially that she faked her suicide. She faked this mental illness and then completely changed strategy. Even their own experts know there's severe mental illness going on. Disagree what it was, disagreed, uh, that it wasn't murder that, but there was all, there was mental illness there. Right. Then they changed their closing and said, well, there's mental health and there's mental illness, but not that arises to the level. And then we saw it in Brian Walsh. Yeah. Again, going back to the defense saying, we're going to show you how she died and we're going to show you this. And then they didn't call any witnesses. I know I'm not questioning their decision to not call witnesses. Clearly there was not any witness that would have helped. And clearly he was, he decided obviously, but he was not taking the stand. There's too much, [00:37:32] Speaker 1: too much to explain. I know, but my gosh, I, I, but these are examples, right. Of [00:37:40] Elise Hirshon: things that happen in the opening that by the end, the jury's saying, well, you just told me I was going to get this. And now I didn't, you know, you get a menu and you order the steak and they, they give you a hamburger. Exactly. And you're like, well, I didn't order this, but you're the one that told me you have this. Right. And then you don't follow through. So it fortunately or unfortunately, jurors hold lawyers accountable to things and they hold the lawyers responsible for maybe not as much as this. Cause it's really, it was just the witnesses, but yeah. Did the judge make the right call? I think an appellate lawyer will decide that. [00:38:19] Speaker 1: Yeah. That's what I'm a little worried about it. I mean, a little bit to me, like, I'd hate to see this case tried over again. If you know, if there is a conviction, but on appeal, I can, I mean, that might be brought up. Right. I mean, if I'm the prosecution, I don't know if I'd even would have, they have so much evidence. I don't know if you really need those three women, quite frankly, [00:38:41] Elise Hirshon: you know, to me, I see the text messages that exposes the somewhat disturbing dynamic of their relationship and the details of it. I see that as a bigger red herring and more prejudicial without necessarily probative value here that could turn the jury against him without it being, you know, in terms of bad character evidence. Right. It's not like you're saying, oh, he used to go around and pull people over and rip them out of the car and beat them up. That's bad character evidence. You can't say, well, he beat people up and you know, so therefore he must violent talent. Yeah, exactly. But I think that, I don't know if that should have come in. I'm sure there were a lot of motions that were argued prior to this and there were decisions made that one side is not going to be happy with. We'll have to see how this turns out. If he's acquitted, none of that matters. [00:39:35] Speaker 1: Right. Yeah. Yeah. You know, none of that matters. I don't know if that's going to be the case. And and by the way, I wanted to bring up another interesting before I forget. Oh, before I forget, before I forget something, there's two things before I forget. I wanted to ask you. So you're starting, [00:39:55] Elise Hirshon: do you have your own YouTube channel? Yes. So I have a YouTube page, a YouTube channel. I'm not hosting my own show right now. Okay. But it's a place to collect all of my, I do a lot of appearances all over the place. So my YouTube channel is, it's LawyerUp. So it's also my license plate is LawyerUp. Oh yeah, that's right. We talked about your license plate. I love that. So Elise Hirsch on LawyerUp. Yeah. So I, if I'm new to YouTube, I, I, this is not my realm of expertise, but I was told that I should pull all of my different appearances into one place. So that's what I'm trying to do. So you can go to one place and see what I have to say. And I do try to change it up and say different things on, you know, this is more of a conversation when I do appearances on, you know, CNN, NBC or Boston 25, it's like a minute, you know, 30 seconds, a minute, sometimes back and forth, but it's much more succinct. So this is a much deeper conversation with a fellow lawyer, which is a totally, it's a different type of, I know I'm smiling. I know we're talking about a homicide and it's a terrible, you know, we, we go, we can get into detail that some people can't. Maybe we sometimes go down a little legalese rabbit hole, but it's interesting to me to talk to somebody to this deep of level on it. So I do appreciate you having me on your show. [00:41:21] Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely. And, uh, and I like to help. I believe me, I had a, um, doing the YouTube thing. It's a, it's hard. I originally started with a, an audio, um, a podcast that didn't have the, the video component. I was in court all day today, something, but you know, then my son said, Oh mom, you really need to try YouTube. So then that was a whole other thing. And it does take some time to, to get your channel going and get people to recognize it. So if you, if you have any questions or on YouTube or anything, let me know. So thank you. Yeah. Yeah, absolutely. We try to help each other, I think. And I love the community on YouTube. I like it better than just the podcast because YouTube, you can see the chat and, and I follow it like Caleb Flynn, Lindsey Clancy. We all, because it was live streamed, we could, you know, I, we had to get our coffees in the morning and a lot of the same people would follow the case and have questions and, and different, uh, things. And I would say, Oh, wow, that's really interesting. So I learned from them as well. So it's a really, I love it. I think it's a great forum for law and a true crime. So, uh, my pitch to YouTube here, but, um, one thing I wanted to go back to, so I don't forget, uh, I thought today in court, um, so the no hemorrhage debate. So I think we're going to see a fierce battle or over that hyoid bone fracture, because the defense is hammering home that there was no surrounding hemorrhage, arguing that the bone was broken after death during the autopsy or during transportation. So how do you think prosecutors will effectively counter that medical argument without losing a, a lay person or, you know, the reasonable doubt or having reasonable doubt pop up like a puppet? What do you think? I mean, [00:43:19] Elise Hirshon: I thought that was kind of interesting. I think it's interesting. I think it's a great point. And I think it has more context and maybe more power here because of what the discussion between her taking her own life and homicide. So otherwise it would say, okay, why are you arguing about the hyoid bone? We know this was a homicide and this is what happens in strangulation or asphyxiation, choking cases. This is the hyoid bone gets fractured, but hyoid bone doesn't necessarily say, cause it's right. Yeah. Right in front. It doesn't necessarily tell you, it doesn't tell you who did it and it doesn't tell you really how, um, they have to, the medical examiner puts other pieces together, not text messages. No, you know, photos are important for sure. Right. How the body was positioned. A lot of times we have homicides. The body was moved, attempting life-saving, uh, you know, attempts by either, you know, I had a client who was accused of killing the mother of his children and, and he took off and his mother as a nurse showed up and tried to save her life. And she was on the phone with 9-1-1, but we'll never know how that body was left and we'll never know exactly what happened. They still ruled it a homicide. Um, and it was a choking and it was with a dog leash. Um, the death certificates and homicide. So all this to say, there's a, there's a way to tell, but is the medical examiner or any forensic pathologist going to ever get up there and say, no, this isn't possible. Yes. This is what happened. Not really, not in something like this. I mean, a gunshot wound, they're going to say, is it possible? It was caused by something else. They're going to say no. Cause the gunshot wound is a gunshot wound. Right. But in terms of this, usually forensic experts are working with probabilities and statistical analysis. So they usually as defense attorneys, you're saying, well, isn't it possible? This, isn't it possible? This, when you're trying to just, again, keep that door cracked open to reasonable doubt. Isn't it possible that it could have been, she took her own life. Isn't it possible this? So I think that the prosecution is not going to be able to parade up 17 people like they did with the mask. Right. It was a little overkill. Um, you know, they had his colleagues that he hated masks and he was on this association that, you know, was trying to ban masks. I mean, he, he, he was really, you know, the three girlfriends, the three affair partners. It ended up being a little lot bit of a detour and it took, I think multiple days. So are they going to let them take every investigator up and said, Nope, I didn't knock into the body. I didn't, you know, do this during transport. I didn't touch this. They're not going to be able to disprove that it's going to be a possibility that's going to stick, but it's everything else that could sink that boat. Right. [00:46:17] Speaker 1: Yeah. And one of the biggest things I, you know, I'm trying to analyze this as a lay person, as maybe a member of the jury would, that's what the way I try to do it when I watch these trials. One thing that I, I noted, and I, again, I, I saw the autopsies pictures today and, um, the way the very, the way that, uh, Sandra was hanging, you know, it just in a seated position, it's just seems so out of the norm for me. And yeah, it seems so out of the ordinary. It, and it, it seemed too sophisticated for somebody like Sandra Birch more. I mean, that, that just my gut. Um, I, I, in the way it was tied, it was tied very tightly too. So I, I don't know. I just can't imagine her doing that to herself. And I wonder if jurors who bring their everyday experiences [00:47:14] Elise Hirshon: will feel the same way. I think that's a huge point you just made. And I think that's likely whichever way they feel is going to be stronger than an argument about a hyoid bone. But if I were the defense, I'd be going after that. Absolutely. And I would be saying they don't even know their medical exam didn't even know their investigators who went to the scene, didn't even know, you know, they're going to say, well, they were collaborators. This is their colleague. And they're trying to, but at that point, it's not, did every single person know about this relationship? And did every single person know that he was there that night? And then when they went to the scene, they were like, Oh, we've got to rule this, that she, that she did it. I mean, we're getting a little bit into conspiracy territory there, but in terms of the seated hanging, I think obviously I'm not have my medical license, but it's odd to me because there's a way to abort it. And I think the way that usually hangings happen, um, where there's, there's no out, right. There's a stool or a stool or a chair that's kicked away and then you can't back out of it. But if you're seated or you're on the floor, it's like you, I think there's medical evidence that you can't drown yourself. You can't force yourself to drown because your body naturally kicks in and tries to fight it. So if you're fighting it and the floor's right there, how does that happen? It's horrifically graphic. And I'm sorry if that detail is not appropriate, but that's how I think that's how I look at this case, just in terms of the forensic pathologist that I've worked with and what the body is known to do when [00:48:54] Speaker 1: it's close to death. Yeah. It just, I don't know. It just doesn't make sense. Seated hanging, it just doesn't make sense to me for her unless, I mean, I guess the defense could argue that, um, you know, she didn't, wasn't trying, trying that hard to do it. I don't know. Uh, but then that's a, that's a guess as well. Like, you know, in hope, hoping to be found and she wasn't, I don't know, but I, I just still, that struck me as very odd. And, and I think that again, the strongest testimony is the fact that he was there and there's no evidence that anybody else was there at the time she died. So, and he had the motive. They always look for motive, even though you don't have to prove motive, right? It's not an element of the crime. It has to make sense. It has to make sense. And he did start to, you could see how he started to unravel as soon as the friend called the police departments and said, Oh, you know, he's having an affair with Sandra Birchmore from that point on. And then he got really upset and we had testimony from the dispatcher that said how upset he got. And he started swearing. And that was a week or so before and his demeanor changed. I remember that. Or yeah. Yeah. And then he texted Sandra and he was really mad. Sandra expletive, expletive, expletive. Somebody called my work. He was really angry about that. And then around that time is when he asked for the key and then he inspect, weirdly inspected her bedroom and the closet door. And that's what she was hanging from. But there, so I feel like it's a circumstantial case that there's just, I feel like the jury is going to put the stuff together. And obviously if there was no, um, forensic footprint and, uh, I, I don't know your, you, then there might be more reasonable doubt here, but I feel like there's a strong forensic footprint in the prosecution's favor here. So [00:50:53] Elise Hirshon: there is, I mean, his DNA on what they're calling a murder weapon, the strap, right? [00:50:58] Speaker 1: Yeah. And I have a picture of that. I've got my big, there, there it is right there. There's the strap, how it hung from the door. She's I'm not showing, obviously I would never show her, but, um, you know, if you look at it, it's, she's not that far off the ground. Do you know what I mean? It's just, it's just really weird. It just, the whole thing was really weird. And then, um, there's, I will say [00:51:24] Elise Hirshon: in terms of DNA, you know, and I worked with a lot of DNA experts and I've cross examined them. I've direct examined them. DNA doesn't tell you how and when it got on. And sometimes it doesn't even tell you who, because we have transferred DNA. So, or how direct it was. So the typical example, and I'm, and I'm saying in the context of things, is this the most likely scenario? No, but we're looking at just creating a possibility, just creating a doubt. Yeah. Yeah. That there are holes in the prosecution's theory that allows for something else to be possible. That's all reasonable doubt is. Yeah. So if they're saying his DNA is on the strap, well, it's, what kind of strap is it? It's not, you know, DNA on a weapon, like a knife or a hammer or a gun. That's, and if that's the murder weapon, that's much more of, that's much stronger evidence. We're talking about a strap. He could have touched that a week ago, a month ago, or a year ago. We don't know. And DNA forensics experts can't tell us either. So, and the example about transfer DNA, which is unlikely here, but let's say his DNA got on there because someone else touched something he touched and then touched that. You know, the example is, you know, there's a trash can and, you know, like a trash can out in the street, a public trash can or at a gas station and somebody's fleeing a crime scene and they throw, you know, a bloody bandana that was, or a mask, you know, into the trash to get rid of it. And you had just eaten McDonald's and threw your McDonald's thing in there and that bandana touches the McDonald's and you're connected to a murder. So yeah, yeah, true. And it exchanges too. There's an exchange of DNA. There could be, and it's not even just like grease or visible, just, we're talking about sometimes microscopic. So DNA tells you some things. It doesn't tell you everything. And in this case it doesn't because this isn't an inherently a weapon. It was turned into one according to the prosecution's theory. Right. No, you've made some [00:53:50] Speaker 1: excellent points. I mean, clearly you've made some great points and, and it's you're right about DNA. I mean, I'm interested though, is it's interesting because yes, the defense attorney brought up those points on DNA. However, here's another problem. If, if somehow the defense attorney was able to cross examine based on what you just said with the McDonald's, I mean, obviously that's more for closing argument, but if there's any way that would have been amazing, that would have been great because what ended up happening was the cross-examination on the DNA. Uh, when was it? I forget. I'm losing my, it might've been, I don't know, maybe Thursday was in the afternoon. Oh, it was Thursday afternoon. Oh my gosh. It dragged on and on and on and on. And again, [00:54:42] Elise Hirshon: in the cross, you're saying the cross, the usually the direct drags on and you're like, Oh my God. No, I know it's like too much with the direct. So it did, but the cross did the cross [00:54:52] Speaker 1: dragged on and on and on and on and, and, and lost everyone, including me. Uh, and I'm, I'm trying to really pay attention so that I can update everybody on the trial. But I looked over at the jury once again, and there they were fidgeting, looking at the clock, but it got, they got so in the weeds of the science of DNA that they lost me. I didn't know what the heck they were talking about. So, and I've watched trials before with plenty of DNA stuff. And, but I think that, I mean, I think just like you were just now, people learned more, [00:55:25] Elise Hirshon: it's boring testimony. Yeah, that's, it's boring. It's boring for even a lawyer trying a case. I'm like, here we go. And usually when they're first starting to testify about their experience in this and that, and this is part of what happened in Lindsey Clancy. Reddington wanted to stipulate to certain DNA evidence to avoid this whole rigmarole. And ironically, by putting the DNA expert on there, that's when the Patrick Clancy conspiracy theories really took off because his DNA was on something and Lindsey Clancy's wasn't and everyone lost their minds. We know that inclusive, like there's very prejudicial sounding testimony in there, which is why it's so much easier. You don't always want to stipulate, but if it's the idea in this case, in that case was not whether she did it, it was what the intent was. The prosecution has a right to put on their case, but they went way long on it and the jury, it just loses people. So I wasn't there for the cross. It's really interesting to hear that because usually the cross is not as long. It was long. And it was all about transfer. I saw somebody write a note about a comment about that. It was a big piece of the cross was about transfer, but they [00:56:40] Speaker 1: did it ad nauseum. They did it ad nauseum to the point where they, they, they, I watched them lose the jury and I just wish they had made, and I understand that it's not, it's not an easy topic and I'm not saying I do any better, but just from my observation, it was not, it just sort of, I don't know, after a while, everybody, including me zoned out. So just say it, you know, uh, it, so, you know, and, and again, I think they, these lawyers, some of them need to really think about how they're going to conduct their cross-examination, especially on DNA, make their points, shorten it up. And then on closing argument, talk about the McDonald's. Like you talked to, you know, you know what I mean? Give, [00:57:27] Elise Hirshon: give them an example, like a real world example is important. Yeah. Sometimes, you know, and I wasn't there and this is the hard part about federal court and live streaming, but taking obviously I'm so, I'm very interesting that you're there and thankful that you're there to hear this because this is something that, you know, I'm wondering, they're trying to make, they're trying to bring evidence in so they can make an argument at closing. Sometimes that takes a while and sometimes in the moment or moments or minutes or hopefully not hours, I don't know how long it was. It was hours. The jury is like, where are we going? And then at the closing, hopefully the defense will say like, sometimes if hours sounds like it's very long, but if I'm doing a cross-examination and I know that it's going long, but I have to do it because I have to lay the foundation to get certain evidence in, I will address it in my closing and they may do this. I know at times it seems like we were talking a lot about something that it wasn't clear at the time. Well, I'm going to tell you why I did that. Yes. So not every time, but sometimes you can see certain things. Sometimes you can see the unlikability of your clients. Sometimes you can see things during the trial that you explain why you did it. Sometimes you don't need to explain, but you know, this is why I made such a big deal of that in the trial. And to make it absolutely clear what that was, this is it. Boom. And then you argue the McDonald's, the bandana, the transfer and this. Yeah. You heard them told you it was possible. This is how it could happen to anybody walking down the street. This could have happened here. Reasonable doubt. So clear and succinct in your closing. So I'm hopeful that that's where they're headed for this. When I say hopeful, I just mean. Yeah. No, I know what you're saying. [00:59:26] Speaker 1: Yeah. Yeah. It's interesting to hear your, your examples because it's great because you really get into the defense attorney strategy. And then what do you do? And that's, that's a great idea on closing. And to almost to apologize to his jury, you know, I'm sorry, you know, it did go on for a long time, but here's the point I was trying to make. So no, you have, that's, that's great. I think we learn a lot from you, Elise. So I think I really appreciate it. Oh, now what William Farwell, everybody's couldn't wait to get to William Farwell. And I'm just reading this. So the wrap up. Oh, [01:00:01] Elise Hirshon: couldn't this be from his brother William too. If they're identical twins, I mean, that's an argument. [01:00:07] Speaker 1: They're not identical twins. No. Okay. Yeah. Then that wouldn't, it wouldn't be the same DNA. They made that clear in the long drawn out DNA testimony. So no, got it. I was just reading that. [01:00:18] Elise Hirshon: I was like, yeah, that sounds like a law and order episode, but yeah, that would be if it was identical [01:00:25] Speaker 1: twins and they were both having a relations with Sanders. So that would, that would have been quite an issue here. That would be reasonable doubt. I can imagine. My understanding, I know he's still on the [01:00:35] Elise Hirshon: stand, but is it my understanding that the twin William, that he testified that he did not know [01:00:41] Speaker 1: that his brother was in a relationship with her? No, I don't, you know, he just got on the, well, okay. So yeah, he just got on the stand. So there wasn't very much to his testimony. First of all, he's testifying under a federal grant of immunity. And he admitted that he, he was worried about the fact that he had a sexual contact with Sandra while he was on duty. Um, I thought that, um, he started his sexual relationship in 2018 with her. And I, at some point, I know that they both, they knew they were both having relations with Sandra at some point, but William denies that the, his sexual relationship with Sandra started when she was 15 years old, like the brother. But, um, it, there's no way that I, no, I do believe. And at one point, both brothers, so what the FBI found when they looked at the phones for both brothers, both brothers had a picture of Sandra with Jason Picard, who's the real dad of, an explicit picture that I think Sandra might've even sent to them. So, you know, they, they knew, um, they were both having relationships with her. Um, it just, but, but, you know, to the extent we need to find out tomorrow. So that's where we're all kind of waiting for tomorrow, because I do believe we will hear, um, text messages between Matthew and his brother, uh, uh, most likely about Sandra. So we'll see what, what they have to say. [01:02:25] Elise Hirshon: Right. And it's going to be an interesting day. Right. After she died, if there's text messages, after she died, I mean, even before, right. To show a state of mind, but they're conversing about her. It's, it's interesting. It's upsetting. Right. And, and somewhat disturbing to see how Matthew Farwell, the defendant spoke about her to others. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. It was all, I wonder what his brother said or what he said to his brother, how close they are. And if he, how much he shared, that will be interesting to see tomorrow. I know it will be very interesting [01:02:57] Speaker 1: to see. And especially when, uh, you wonder if anything's going to come out when, um, Sandra's friend called the police station to say, oh, you know, they're having an affair. You wonder if he texted his brother. I mean, how close were they? I'm not really, I don't, you know, it seems to me that they were quite close. I mean, that's the first person you'd reach out to would be your brother. And, you know, to talk because they, they both met Sandra in the explorers program way back when. [01:03:24] Elise Hirshon: So, you know, the power dynamic. Yeah. It's very sad. She clearly here's the question taken advantage [01:03:32] Speaker 1: of. Oh, I know. And for some reason, why can't I see, I think my eyes are tired today. So I'm not, you know, I can't see the questions very well. I got to make it bigger here. All right. So his immunity doesn't protect him, if he perjures himself, you're absolutely right. So yes, that's everything [01:03:49] Elise Hirshon: but perjury and future crimes. Right. Perjury. Yeah. And, uh, so we'll see what he has to say. [01:03:56] Speaker 1: It'd be very interesting. Um, let's see what, so Julie, did you see his, uh, body language when his brother walked in and left the court? Um, so Julie's there too. I see Julie quite a bit. Um, Matthew Farwell was so bothered all day that his brother was testifying, uh, with his body language. No, sure. Yeah, I'm sure. Absolutely. I was sitting right behind Matthew Farwell. Um, I mean, a few rows back, but it's hard to see the body language because he's always facing forward and he's making notes. And I feel like he hardly ever looks at any of the witnesses. So he's, he's, he's very stoic and will whisper to his attorneys once in a while, but, but I'm, I'm surprised Julie, you were able to see that. Cause I, I, or I missed it. You know, it's, uh, that's interesting. I think, [01:04:49] Elise Hirshon: you know, and with all defendants, people are looking at them for any reaction to what someone says or someone walks in and it is telling, but at the same time, I will say if he reacted, that's probably an authentic reaction, but yeah. Um, I can imagine you tell your clients do not react. Stoic is better than emotional, not moving and not taking a ton of notes is better than writing furiously and passing notes around and doing anything distracting. The idea is not to be distracting to the jury. So I wonder if the jury noticed that today, I mean, they're looking at him. [01:05:32] Speaker 1: Yeah. They're, they have a better viewpoint than me. Cause I'm sitting directly behind them. [01:05:35] Elise Hirshon: But you want your client to keep it calm and to keep the temperature down and to not react. And sometimes people not in Julie, but sometimes people and the other platforms that I'm on, you know, a lot of people will get upset that, oh, they don't seem like they care, but we, we really, [01:05:56] Speaker 1: yeah, that's, we tell them not to. Yeah. Um, yeah, that's, that's okay. Yeah. I always wondered about that. Like we just live stream the Caleb Flynn trial. I don't know if you're familiar with that, but the defendant was the biggest cry baby from the night. And they held that against him. It's like [01:06:16] Elise Hirshon: he was crying too much. And then I covered another, you know, Brendan Banfield or Brian Walsh didn't budge. So no matter what, um, you know, when Karen Reed, they were saying she has an RBF and you know, so people are going to no matter what make judgments. Right. And, and also I know probably wrapping up last point, but that I don't know that it's necessarily, that's not really for this case, but in terms of other cases, thinking that someone should or shouldn't act or grieve or mourn or show certain emotions at the time that they discover somebody's dead or the time they did something, it's, it's, none of us can really say, and hopefully none of us are in any of those positions where we can firsthand. Um, but it is human nature to look at how somebody reacts. I mean, that's what I do when I cross-examine a witness. I'm looking at where they're looking, if they're looking around, you know, one of the prosecution witnesses in Clancy is looking up and before he answered each time. Yeah. And you're like, why is he doing that? So we all do it. It's interesting. I forgot about that. It was the, it was the guy who met Clancy at McLean. He was the forensic psychiatrist. I forget his name, but he had the glasses and he kept playing with his glasses. Yeah. And his testimony took twice as long as it probably should have, because there was like a 30 second pause every time he answered. And you're like, yeah, trying to remember, or is he trying not to contradict somebody? I remember that. Yeah. I totally remember [01:07:52] Speaker 1: that. That was painful. Speaking of Clancy, do you think that the, um, the district attorney, Tim Cruz will bring first degree, um, murder charges against her? Do you think he's, okay. [01:08:03] Elise Hirshon: I mean, they, the first degree murder charges are still standing. Yeah. But do I see Tim Cruz reducing it down? I don't. Uh, and for political gain, it doesn't matter because he's running unopposed. So even though the community might say, don't try this again, this is horrific. Whether they agree that she shouldn't have been charged with first degree or just because it disrupts the town. I mean, there could be a million reasons. He doesn't need to actually represent his constituents right now because he doesn't really need their vote. He's going to get in anyways. He's been there for 20 years plus. So he's a very law and order, very aggressive prosecutor. I don't see him backing down. Do you? [01:08:50] Speaker 1: Um, I've been, I've put a lot of thought into this originally I said no, and he's my DA. So I'm in, I live in Plymouth County. So I, I think, um, I think he risks having a, uh, and, and the reason I think it's interesting, he hasn't made any come out and made a press conference because if he doesn't drop the charges down, at least a second degree or manslaughter, he risks having another mistrial. Um, another hung jury, in my opinion, because I feel like people are so divided. My chat was divided. So, and then God, you know, he also risks, uh, not guilty by reason of insanity, because look, 11 voted with Reddington. There was only one holdout. So why not drop the charges down just to, you know, whatever. And then it's up to Lindsay Clancy and she may elect a bench trial. Then we would never have another hung jury again. That's my thought. Two cents. [01:09:53] Elise Hirshon: That is the should probably. Um, but I've had a trial that was a mistrial. Um, we're not allowed to contact the jurors, but a juror reached out, uh, to someone on our team and said it was 11 to one for acquittal. It actually moved the, I guess the dial for the prosecutor. And we ended up making a deal. Okay. But that was not Plum of County. Um, but you know, we're talking about, we talked about Karen Reed. That was 11 to one for acquittal the first time. Didn't we find that out after there was a whole appeal that the judge and they were, they were an agreement on, they were an agreement on, I think on the first and the second to acquit. They were split on the manslaughter vehicular. Yeah. And I think it was 11 to one. They went forward with a first again. I thought, was it not 11 to one? [01:10:55] Speaker 1: I don't remember that it was, unless I'm mixing it up with, I thought it was something like, um, it was, there's more in favor of acquittal. It was a heavy majority. Yeah. Anyway. I think when [01:11:08] Elise Hirshon: cases are public, there's the DAs have. Oh, nine to three. I think the DAs push them forward more to show their strength, I guess you could call it when it's public that they're not going to back down. That's true. For public pressure. They're going to do what law and order and what they think is right. What they believe in. I mean, he came out right after and said, she's a murderer. [01:11:34] Speaker 1: Yep. That's true. So we'll see. Well, anyway, I don't want to bring it. We're already over an hour. I can't believe it. Are we? We can talk forever. Well, let me know if you come to court, I would love to, uh, maybe we can do a live outside the court. I figured out how to do that. [01:11:52] Elise Hirshon: Oh, great. Yeah. My office is in the north end. Okay. Um, although I'm usually in court, but I'm close by and I would love, I'm going to try to come for closings. [01:12:03] Speaker 1: Oh, that would be wonderful. Well, let me know. And we can do something outside the court and we, or, you know, and then we can have some, go out and have some dinner in the north end. I love that. I would love it. I got some spots. Oh, good. I'm sure you do. Well, thank you so much. I appreciate you being a part of the show and hold on and I'll say goodbye, like off air, but I wanted to thank the chat. You guys are wonderful. And thank you. That's great. I love that. That's awesome. They're my, they're my favorite. They're like, they're really good. And, and I, I'll have to say the very astute. So very, very astute when we're watching that, especially when we're live streaming, they pick up on stuff that I am like, Oh my God, you're right. I didn't think of that. [01:12:42] Elise Hirshon: So it's like a team. We're a part of a team. It's really cool. [01:12:45] Speaker 1: It is like a team. It's it. I love it. So anyway, um, good night, everybody. And thank you so much. Great, great show tonight. Thank you so much. That's because I had a lease on and I really appreciate it. And it's fun chatting. Um, yeah, so I'll let you go and eat dinner and everybody, I'll see you tomorrow and I'll let you know what goes on with William Farwell on the stand. It should be a fireworks day. All right. Well, with that, I'm going to end the stream. Everybody have a great night.