Larry Millete Murder Trial: Prosecution prepares to rest their case — Right Now

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Welcome back, everyone. Yesterday was day 23 of the Larry Milliette murder trial, and the jury hears, heard, I should say, from the ex-wife of Jamie Laird, the man Maya had an affair with before she disappeared. News 8's Kelly Hesedal has the latest from the South Bay Courthouse, but then she will be joining us here in studio here after this story. [00:00:27] Kelly Hesedal: That's right, and she was definitely one of the most compelling witnesses of this trial. Now, Patricia Laird, she was very direct, she spoke in a very matter-of-fact tone, and she walked the jury through how she found out about the affair between Maya and Jamie. Now, she works at the sheriff's office, and she said Larry called her workplace in 2020 and told her, our spouses are having an affair, and I just thought you should know. She testified the phone calls from Larry continued through February and March of 2020 to the point she blocked him. She was also getting calls from other phone numbers associated with Larry, his Aunt Kathy's phone, his kids' cell phones, the prosecution insinuating he was calling her from all of these other numbers because she had blocked his phone number. At one point, Patricia kicked Jamie out of the house. Then later on, the couple tried to reconcile. Patricia got pregnant, and in January of 2021, a few days before Maya disappeared, Larry got a hold of Patricia. She was about to head to the hospital to give birth at UC San Diego, and Larry told her, hey, this affair hasn't stopped. Patricia's like, well, give me Maya's phone number, and I'll call her myself. She told the jury she called Maya and asked her, are you cheating with my husband? I'm about to give birth, mom to mom, tell me the truth, and she said Maya told her no. Then Patricia said, well, leave the drama out of my life. I'm about to be a mom, and she said Maya told her, he, meaning Larry, he's crazy, and so Patricia said she then switched into law enforcement mode and said, are you okay? You know, do you need a restraining order? And she said Maya told her, no, I have an attorney. I'm taking care of it. Kelly Hesedal, News 8. [00:02:01] Speaker 1: All right, so joining us now in studio for the first time here to talk about the Larry Meliette murder trial is Kelly Hesedal. Kelly, thanks for joining us. [00:02:08] Kelly Hesedal: Thank you so much. I'm super happy to be here. [00:02:10] Speaker 1: And I think what's really key here, Kelly, is that you have been covering not only the trial, but a lot of the pre-trial hearings, many of which could have gone as short as five minutes because it's a status update. There have been a number of lawyers that have changed that have been by Larry's side, but you've been there since day zero, let's call it. We're now on day 23 here of this murder trial. What has stood out for you? I know the prosecution is about to wrap up their case here, but what has stood out to you? Because this is a very unique case in not only its notability, but the fact that it's a nobody, and even to the point where I think it's fair to say no established murder weapon, and yet we have a murder trial. True, true. I mean, well, let's start [00:02:55] Kelly Hesedal: with some of the key witnesses, right, that we've heard from. I mean, two of the big witnesses we were waiting for, and one of them kind of came as a shock. We didn't even know she was going to testify. You know, Jamie Laird, obviously, everybody was waiting to hear from him. We've never heard from him before, but Patricia Laird, who took the witness stand yesterday and was probably, to me, one of the most compelling witnesses of this entire trial. I mean, everybody kind of wants to know the juicy details of, like, what happened between her and Jamie and how this whole thing fell apart, how it all, you know, just unraveled. But she got on the witness stand yesterday, and she was very direct and just very matter-of-fact. Like, you know, Larry called me, told me about this affair in February of 2020. Before that, she said she had no idea her husband was cheating. And even then, I think she didn't even believe necessarily that he was cheating, because she said he would go to work, he would come home, everything seemed fine. I mean, he was acting normal, everything was okay. So I think initially, she didn't want to believe it. But the way she found out from Larry was, she's a sheriff's deputy, so she's working at the sheriff's office. She's out probably on a call. He calls her workplace and has somebody at work call her and say, hey, there's a guy identifying himself as a Navy hospital employee. He says he wants to talk to you. And at the time, she was like, oh my gosh, Jamie works for the Navy. Like, let me get a, let me talk to whoever it is. And instead, it's Larry who gets on the phone, and he's like, hey, my name's Larry. I think our spouses are having an affair. And I mean, that's how she first found out about it. And then those phone calls didn't stop. They continued through February, through March. She has to block him. She's telling him, stop calling me because she doesn't want to be part of this drama. She kind of probably didn't want to believe that it was really true. She kicks Jamie out at some point. They're separated for a little while, I think. They get back together. She gets pregnant. Larry's still calling her. And, you know, they insinuated he was calling her from, like, the kid's cell phones, from his Aunt Kathy's cell phone, from his work partner, his boss, Terry Fonville's phone. So he's making all these phone calls to the point where she was like, just stop. I'm trying to move on with my life. I'm going to have a baby. Like, just stop already. I don't want to be part of any of this drama. [00:05:07] Speaker 1: Yeah. And there was also the revelation, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, where it was during Jamie's testimony that she learned that the affair had indeed continued up at that point, right? [00:05:19] Kelly Hesedal: I think she knew for a while that it was going on or maybe had suspicions. But, I mean, there was this, like, stunning moment in the courtroom when she said to everybody, hey, I knew about this affair. I did not know the details until two days ago when everyone else, just like you, found out this affair as well. Now, she didn't say if she was on social media, if she was watching the news or what happened. But, I mean, and we don't even know if she was supposed to be watching coverage considering she was a witness. But in this case, I think they kind of gave her a pass considering what she's been through. [00:05:51] Speaker 3: Yeah. I mean, what a way to find out, you know. I think maybe if you could maybe go into the mind of the defense here for a little bit because during the Jamie Laird testimony, a lot of what we were seeing from the defense during the cross-examination was this guy is a liar. He lied about his relationship with Maya. He lied about where he was. He lied about who he was texting, who he was DMing and all that. To hear them kind of frame that in the sense of this might not be the most trustworthy person that we have on the stand. And at the same time, you know, kind of dancing around this issue of third party culpability, multiple sidebars that have addressed this. To hear Patricia come in and confirm some of these details as to his whereabouts. Do you think, and I don't want to ask you and kind of make you like take a side or another, but just from your objective perspective, is that like a ding on the defense in terms of what they're trying to build here? [00:06:42] Kelly Hesedal: Well, let me just tell you right off the bat, having sat through Jamie's testimony, having sat through Patricia's testimony, seeing the two of them in person and hearing from them, it was it was perfect for the prosecution. Jamie Laird was someone that, it's hard to describe, but like if you met him, kind of this innocent sort of like puppy dog, like, okay, yes, your honor, you like, you know, very young, gave his young vibe across, you know, he just very believable, very earnest, very honest, like he was the perfect witness for the prosecution. I don't think, in my opinion, the jury would have looked at him and said, yeah, this guy had something to do with this. I think his reasons for why he lied are very clear. He was trying to save his marriage. He was trying to save his job. He didn't want to get fired. I mean, it was very believable. I did not feel like he was hiding anything. I mean, he was talking about highly personal things, you know, sexual messages between him and Maya. He admitted he was in love with her and it started out as kind of like this, you know, puppy dog love or whatever you want to call it. But then it grew into something deep, like he really was in love with this woman. And I think the jury really believed him. I mean, they were very attentive to all of his testimony and certainly everybody was attentive to Patricia's testimony. Now, having said that, Patricia was the opposite of Jamie. Very just like all business, like I'm going to lay it out there. I've got nothing to hide. I don't want this drama. I'm like a mom. I've got two kids. And so I think the dynamic between the two of them was really interesting. And it's just like, if you would have heard from Jamie yourself, I think you would have been like, okay, this guy is understandable why he lied. You know, I mean, anybody in that situation probably was trying to save their marriage and trying to save their [00:08:26] Speaker 1: job may have done the same thing. Now, as for sort of what goes next, we know there's obviously been a lot of further focus on the poison hemlock and the the conine that derives from that where it's been found, the availability of it in in the county. But then I thought it was interesting that the the loud bangs, which have not been cemented as gunshots or another, have also sort of still been hovering around earlier in the trial. Is it would you say it's fair to say that that prosecutors have not sort of settled in on a cause of death? Or are they just simply sort of allowing for the jury to decide, would you say? [00:09:07] Kelly Hesedal: Um, that's a good question. I mean, obviously, they brought in both of those potential murder weapons, right? Because when you hear the audio of those bangs, it sounds very much. It sounds like gunshots. Yeah, but the way that the bangs happened was so odd because it happened and then it stopped for a long period of time. And then there were more bangs later on that you're trying to in your mind wrap your head around like what would be going on? Why would you be, you know, if you were not to say was shooting, then you'd stop for like 45 minutes and then start shooting again, like that wouldn't make any sense. The dogs were going off barking, all that kind of thing. I think the poison hemlock theory is probably one that would explain a lot of things for the jury, right? There was no crime, alleged crime, or there's no crime scene. There was no blood anywhere that they found or anything like that. So that could help explain why that happened. But the one thing that sort of I think the jury would kind of question kind of question about the poison is the fact that, you know, why would he just have it sitting out where his kids are, right? That's so toxic. He had two vials, only one they really talked about that they tested, but it was like in the dining room, just sitting on the dining room counter or this like little chest of things there. Like, why would you have that out if you had three kids and it was so deadly? I don't think though, I think he's going to have a hard time explaining that why he was Googling all that stuff, right? You know, because I did look up the, the Harry Fleabane, the weed that was found in it. And if you Google it, some people in some cultures try to ward off evil spirits with Harry Fleabane. It was never brought up in the trial. The defense never went there. He's dabbled in the spiritual. Right. And so that would kind of explain why you might just have it sitting out, right? But the defense never brought it up. They didn't go there during cross or anything like that. So I think that the problem they have is the fact that he was Google, allegedly Googling all of these things on his computer. How do you explain that? How do you explain that more than once you've brought up poison hemlock and oh, wow, it just happens to be growing near your workplace. Oh, wow. It just happens to be in your house or the poison inside it or the conine happened to be inside that vial. So I think they're probably trying to throw out lots of ideas to the jury. [00:11:16] Speaker 3: And we've asked this question before. We asked it as recently as yesterday to Jenny Day, but I think it's important to get multiple perspectives on this. You've talked to a lot of legal experts about this. I've helped you do some of them right here in the studio. So, you know, we've talked about circumstantial murder trials where there's not a body. When it comes to the idea of identifying a method of death, there's not a lot of time left to really solidify that. Who knows if they're going to. If I were to put money on it, I don't think they would. Do you think that that is necessary at this point? You know, of course, you know, shadow of a doubt, you want it without, you know, beyond a reasonable doubt for the jury to be convinced that Larry in fact did kill Maya. But is that something that you think from your conversations with experts can be achieved without even pinpointing a method of [00:12:05] Kelly Hesedal: death? I mean, just speaking to this trial specifically or this case, I think, I mean, we're talking six weeks worth of evidence, circumstantial evidence that they're bringing forth. And I mean, I think that it, you don't necessarily have to have a cause of death. I think they, as long as you establish a strong motive in this case, I mean, I think that it's natural for somebody in their mind to go, well, if he didn't do it, then what happened to her? And I know, I know that you're right. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. They have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there's enough evidence to convict him. It's not what you know, it's what you can prove. I agree with that. But I personally think there's been plenty of evidence showing this a motive, basically. So I guess I, you know, I don't know what the jury is going to decide, but I think the prosecution is throwing out every single thing that they possibly have. Yeah. [00:12:58] Speaker 1: There's also something else that I wanted to ask you about, because this is sort of like more like reporter notebook, but there have been a number of emotional outbursts in this trial. Do you think that, I guess first, what was your reaction to each of them? The latest being Mari Chris's husband, correct? Someone who you and I have both interacted with on either searches or stories, you know, about Maya's disappearance and subsequent, you know, obviously murder investigation. But then also even just going back to, you know, some of the sisters on the stand and people hanging around in the corridor. What's that been like to just be observant of these outbursts or these sort of actions that have taken [00:13:43] Kelly Hesedal: place? I mean, I just think it speaks to just the high heightened amount of emotions in this trial. I mean, it's not just the people involved, like the family members. I mean, these attorneys, there is no love lost between these attorneys, the defense and the prosecution, lots of eye rolling, lots of faces. Like, I mean, the judge has admonished the defense more than once now and even warned them this week. You continue this, there's going to be consequences because it's gotten so bad. But as far as the outbursts go, I mean, the one with Richard, for example, this week, I mean, I wasn't in the courtroom when that happened, but I can tell you that there is definitely, you feel that tension there between both sides. I mean, when they exit the courtroom, when they enter the courtroom, you can feel that it's there. And I just think that, you know, these families have been dealing with this for five years, you know, it's been a long time coming. And here they are kind of toward the finish line, if you will, in some ways, perhaps. And I just think there's just so much at stake here, you know, there's so much at stake. And, you know, the fact that this was one of their family members for so long, and it's just so personal. And how do you wrap your mind around that kind of thing? I just think, you know, I don't know if I'm answering exactly what you're asking. But no, but I think you are, because I was going to ask you, [00:15:03] Speaker 1: like, what was I mean, Larry, from from all intents and purposes, from what I've heard, has pretty much remained emotionally objective, correct? Right. There was one day in the courtroom, [00:15:12] Kelly Hesedal: and I was not there for this either. But apparently, he was wiping his eyes, as Genesis was reading some of these text messages, like it went on for hours and hours and hours of all these text messages between the two of them back in 2020. Apparently, he was wiping his eyes at that point. Was it whether it was [00:15:27] Speaker 1: it real? I don't know. Yeah, I know that for a lot of viewers at home, like I, this is a case that is obviously does not have cameras in the courtroom. But, but I can tell you that I think for a lot of people that are just sort of, you know, at home viewers, they, they, they want to know, how is the suspect reacting? What emotions are they showing? You know, it's not always, you know, this frustration or slamming your fist, like we saw, for instance, at the Abulaban trial. But oftentimes, how is he reacting to pictures of his wife, the allegations of, obviously, the unfaithfulness that was a huge, that we know from text messages played a large role in his life and potential motive. So, just curious if he ever got emotional to any of that stuff. Stone-faced. Wow. Always stone-faced. Now, [00:16:14] Kelly Hesedal: one interesting thing about him, though, is every day, you know, when the jury comes in, everybody stands up. He's standing there kind of at attention, like looking at each one, trying to make eye contact with them. And I mean, is that his defense telling him, make some sort of connection or remind the jury that you're a human, right, that you're, you know, a good person or whatever it is? I don't know. But I will say the jurors do not make eye contact with them. They keep walking. [00:16:38] Speaker 3: I have two questions, one relating to the trial, one relating to like the greater scope and like the national interest to it. The first question is, and we're all kind of waiting for it. And I know you probably won't have an answer, but I just want to hear your thoughts. Do you think that Larry will be on the stand? Do you, if you had to make a personal, you know, prediction right now, what do [00:16:59] Kelly Hesedal: you think would be the case here? This is something all of us want to know, especially as we get closer and closer to the defense putting on their case. And we were just talking about it out in the hallway, actually with another coworker. I, I, my gut would say no, because I, first of all, the defense attorneys aren't going to want to put him on period. Most defense attorneys never want [00:17:19] Speaker 1: their client to testify. Very little to gain, a lot to lose. I get the sense though, like if they, [00:17:23] Kelly Hesedal: especially if they're looking ahead to potentially an appeal, if this doesn't go their direction, you know, I think they don't want anything to be put out there that potentially could harm him. Now, having said that, as you guys know, he's called reporters. He's talked with some reporters on multiple occasions. I, I think that he's somebody that probably feels very strongly about his side of the story and wanting to get it out there. So at the end of the day, it's going to be his call. And I, I don't know. So it's a 50 50 to me. I think his attorneys are obviously going to advise him not to do it. Do I think he's going to push and say he wants to do it? Probably. Because as defense attorneys, attorneys have told me, legal experts have said, there are so many questions in this case about things that have happened that only he can explain. And if you don't put him out there to explain some of those to the jury, you're just leaving that up in the ether for them to make their own conclusions as to what really happened. The poison hemlock, the, I guess if you want to go the loud bangs, [00:18:26] Speaker 3: um, you know, any of these where he drove on January 8th, you know, he says Solana. Yeah, he said Solana beach and there's been, you know, lifeguards there that have said, we did not see this vehicle. We did not see this man. So obviously there's some conflict there in where he really [00:18:41] Kelly Hesedal: was. Right. And also the grand Canyon thing. I don't know if you guys saw the notes yesterday about the sidebar about the grand Canyon. Yeah. Why don't you explain it for the audience? Yes. Okay. So, and forgive me, cause I know some of this came out in prelim. I don't remember exactly how it came out, but supposedly there's like 444 missing miles that were on the Lexus. I don't know exactly how they became missing. You know, he shut, allegedly shut off the infotainment thing. So that I think that tracks your vehicle. Okay. Anyway, so there's these missing miles, it's 444 or something like that. So January 29th through the 30th, he took a trip to the grand Canyon with his three children. He left according to the prosecution at 1:30 in the afternoon, got there at like 11:45 at night, then turned around and came back the next day at two o'clock in the afternoon. So he was driving for like, you know, almost 24 hours or whatever you want to call it, to spend just a handful of hours at the grand Canyon with his three kids who were very young at the time. I mean, his youngest was like five. [00:19:45] Speaker 1: Do, do we know if he actually went there or is that just that's what he says and then the miles? [00:19:52] Kelly Hesedal: I'm not exactly sure how the prosecution knows that he actually went there. But what was interesting, this all came out in a sidebar without the jury. What was interesting is, and the reason it came out was because the prosecution wants to bring in these photos from this very remote area near Blythe, California, Lake Havasu area. Right on the border. Right, right, which is around 200 and some miles in one direction to get there, right? So double it, 400 and some. So the prosecution wants to bring in these photos of the area because they went out there and they searched. I'm not exactly sure what date it was, but they went out there with search teams looking to see if they could find her there and they didn't find anything. But it's like, and I haven't been out there, but it's super remote. Super remote. Probably could never find anything if you were there. And so the prosecution kind of pushed this theory to the judge of like, sometimes when people put bodies places, they go back to check on them. Like she referenced Scott Peterson, for example. Wow. And so the theory, I think, and this is just speculation, I don't know this for a fact, is that let's say just for argument's sake from the prosecution that he were to have put her body in this place, that there he was two weeks later driving out toward the Grand Canyon with the kids, stopping at Blythe, according to the prosecution, maybe to check on it and then coming back. But, but you had to, I'm sure you had to explain it by saying like, hey, we're going to the Grand Canyon. [00:21:20] Speaker 3: Otherwise, it's like, why are you going? Right. So this was a sidebar. What was, what did the judge say? [00:21:25] Kelly Hesedal: Okay, right. And again, all speculation, but the judge said, no, you cannot bring these photos in. However, whichever witnesses that's going to testify about this search that they're, that they did can describe this is a super remote area. Would it be possible to find a body there or put to hide a body there? They can bring that kind of questioning in with the witness, but they can't bring in the photos. [00:21:47] Speaker 3: So, so in a way, sort of similar to the way in which the defense wanted to go around some of these Jamie Laird questions, a question by question basis. Right, right. Maybe not exactly, [00:21:57] Kelly Hesedal: but in some sort of way, maybe. Right, right, right. So yeah, I mean, and it was something that was brought up right before, you know, the witnesses took the stand and the jury was brought in. So it's just, you know, you learn a lot in these sidebars and some of it's stuff that the jury's never going to see. For example, photos of Jamie Laird at the hospital. That was brought up yesterday. The prosecution wanted to bring it in and the defense was like, hey, what do you mean you're going to bring in these photos of him at the hospital? You're the ones that don't even want to talk about where he was or like, let us go down this road of like, how much did you check out Jamie Laird's alibi? You're the ones that are saying, don't do that. Right. And now you want to bring in these photos because if they would have allowed the photos in, the defense was arguing, well, it's fair game then for us to go start questioning more like, OK, so here, these photos were taken at two o'clock. Where were you at three o'clock? Where were you at four o'clock? Blah, blah, blah, you know? And so the judge is like, no, I said third party culpability is off the table. All you can say in the testimony is this is where he was and that, you know, Patricia could testify and say he was with me the entire time. She said he was there from January 7th to January 10th and she said he never left. [00:23:01] Speaker 1: OK. Jack, you had one more question. I think you wanted to ask, right? [00:23:05] Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah. And we can maybe wrap it up with this. I told you it wouldn't be about 30 minutes. And look at us. We're already on the fast track towards 30 minutes. I could talk about this for hours. I really could. Yeah. So but, you know, this, of course, has been a case that has garnered national attention over the past few years, over the past five plus years. You have been covering this extensively for quite a long time. You, in fact, have been, you know, featured on a podcast for 48 hours, CBS investigative documentary series to talk about this. When you're having these conversations with people and when you're seeing this, tell me about the national attention that you're seeing throughout not just the years leading to this trial, but the trial itself. [00:23:44] Kelly Hesedal: Tell us about those experiences. Well, I mean, obviously, there's a huge interest in this case nationally for a number of reasons, the spell casting, that kind of thing. In fact, it was a young woman. You know, she has children. I mean, we've got producers from all the networks that are there on a regular basis. You know, I'm sure they're planning for long hour long specials once this whole trial wraps up. But yeah, I mean, there's a ton of interest on social media. You go on YouTube, like people are looking at the prelim because we used to have all the streaming, you know, all the videos and stuff from the preliminary trial. I mean, I think there's a ton of national interest on this. I think there's just so many questions because are we ever going to know exactly [00:24:26] Speaker 3: what happened in that house? And just the, you know, the turnover and the defense attorneys that we saw, Larry, have five years to just get a trial started. Now it's here. You know, we're in the midst of it right now. We're past the halfway point, it seems like right now. [00:24:40] Kelly Hesedal: And it's going to be an interesting backstory. So I spoke to Colby, one of the defense attorneys, one day, just very briefly, not media friendly attorneys, I will say that. Not a huge fan of the media, though most defense attorneys, you know, a lot of times aren't. Understandably. It depends on the result. Yeah, sure. So and I briefly did ask him because I was so I'm so curious to know how they got involved with the case. Like, how did he decide to take this on? Because, you know, his prior attorney, as you know, was under investigation. And I believe it was the new attorneys that put her under investigation for fraud. Because she was also not even a criminal defense. She was not a criminal defense attorney. Right. And she may allegedly may have embezzled money from the Milliette family. But I was basically just told that, yeah, we got involved at some point. And you can tell just by listening to them talk about this case, like they feel so strongly about making sure that his rights aren't violated. It's almost as if they want to paint him to the jury as a victim in all of this. I mean, and I know that's their job. Yeah. But like, you know, got to protect Mr. Milliette's rights. We got to make sure that, you know, we're doing this by the book, like sometimes even telling the judge this as if the judge doesn't know. Right. And they want to put everything on the record, you know, just in case this does come back for appeal. [00:25:52] Speaker 1: Yeah. So many interesting aspects about the case. And then even just going back to Judge Camarena's his own father, obviously his notable, you know, like there's just so many different aspects of this case related to it, the backstory, everything that are so fascinating. And Kelly, we can't thank you enough for your coverage. Today's a bit of not a day off because you're here, but it's a day off from the trial. You guys are going to go back in on Monday, [00:26:17] Kelly Hesedal: right? Yep. It goes back in Monday. The prosecution is expected to rest on Monday. I don't know if that's really going to happen. We'll see. The defense said that they're going to take four to five days to put on their case. It's going to take a couple days for them to gather all the evidence to get it to the jury. And then I'm told after that, they'll do closing arguments. [00:26:35] Speaker 1: Okay. Well, Kelly, thank you so much. We'll keep you on speed dial for all of this. Okay. All right. We'll have you back in soon.