About this transcript: This is a full AI-generated transcript of Letecia Stauch Trial — Chilling Prosecutor’s Closing Arguments — Part 1 from The Last Alibi, published July 14, 2026. The transcript contains 18,296 words with timestamps and was generated using Whisper AI.
"After weeks of testimony, the Leticia Stoush trial has reached one of its most critical moments. In this video, you'll hear the prosecution and the defense present their final arguments before the jury begins deliberations and decides the verdict. What we'll do is I will read these instructions,..."
[00:00:00] Speaker 1: After weeks of testimony, the Leticia Stoush trial has reached one of its most critical moments. In this video, you'll hear the prosecution and the defense present their final arguments before the jury begins deliberations and decides the verdict.
[00:00:24] Speaker 2: What we'll do is I will read these instructions, then we'll take about a 15-minute recess or so, then we're going to come back. Then the prosecution has an opportunity to give you a closing argument. After that, the defense has an opportunity to give a closing argument. After that, then the prosecution has an opportunity to give rebuttal. It's much like rebuttal evidence. They get to comment on anything that the defense had to comment on in their closing argument. So that's the process. I want to tell you, we work almost always on a closing argument, from my perspective, a little bit on the fly because I've not placed time limitations on the attorneys. However, I'm not going to have you guys sitting there for a four-hour block of time either. So it may be that we do the prosecution closing, the defense closing, and take a break, a lunch break, and then do rebuttal. The other thing is that since we are here for closing, that means that this case has been concluded. That means that you will be here all day. Normally, you have gone out to lunch, those sorts of things, that won't be happening today. We're going to order lunch in for you. When we take our break, we're going to have somebody come down, and they'll tell you about the lunch process and stuff like that. But we're going to have you here today, and once we discharge you, or once we send you back for deliberations, you'll need to stay together for the deliberation period. Members of the jury, the evidence in this case has been completed. In a moment, I will read to you jury instructions that contain the rules of law you must apply to reach your verdict. You will have copies of what I read to take with you to the jury room. But first, I want to mention a few things to keep in mind when you are discussing this case in the jury room. Until you have returned a verdict, you must not do any research about this case, or this kind of case, using any source, including dictionaries, reference materials, the internet, or other electronic means. You must not communicate in any way with anyone else about this case or this kind of case until you have returned a verdict in court. This includes your family and friends. If you have a cell phone or other electronic device, you must keep it turned off during the jury deliberations. Actually, what happens is we collect all of those, you get them back at the end, and sometimes you even get back your own. But we collect them all, and we hold onto them during deliberations. It is my job to decide what rules of law apply to the case. While the attorneys may comment on some of these rules, you must follow the instructions I give you. Even if you disagree with or do not understand the reasons for some of the rules of law, you must follow them. No single instruction describes all the law which must be applied. The instructions must be considered together as a whole. During this trial, you received all of the evidence that you may properly consider in deciding the issues in the case. Your decision must be made by applying the rules of law that I give you to the evidence presented at trial. Remember, you must not be influenced by sympathy, bias, or prejudice in reaching your decision. You should not allow bias or any kind of prejudice based upon gender to influence your decision. If you decide that the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it will be my job to decide what the punishment will be. In making your decision, you must not consider punishment at all. At times during the trial, attorneys made objections. Do not draw any conclusions from the objections or from my rulings on the objections. These only related to legal questions I had to decide and should not influence your thinking. If I told you not to consider a particular statement that was made during the trial, you must not consider it in your deliberations. Finally, you should consider all the evidence in light of your experience in life. The defendant is charged with committing the crimes of murder in the first degree after deliberation, murder in the first degree, child under 12, position of trust, tampering with the deceased human body, and tampering with physical evidence in El Paso County, Colorado on or about January 27, 2020. The defendant has pled not guilty by reason of insanity. The charges against the defendant are not evidence. The charges against the defendant are just accusations. The fact that the defendant has been accused is not evidence that the defendant committed any crime. Every person charged with a crime is presumed innocent. This presumption of innocence remains with the defendant throughout the trial and should be given effect by you unless, after considering all the evidence, you are then convinced that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden of proof is upon the prosecution to prove the dissatisfaction of the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, the existence of all of the elements necessary to constitute the crime charged. Reasonable doubt means a doubt based upon reason and common sense, which arises from a fair and rational consideration of all of the evidence or lack of evidence in the case. It is a doubt which is not a vague, speculative, or imaginary doubt, but such a doubt as would cause reasonable people to hesitate to act in matters of importance to themselves. If you find from the evidence that each and every element of a crime has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty of that crime. If you find from the evidence that the prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the elements of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty of that crime. The number of witnesses testifying for or against a certain fact does not, by itself, prove or disprove that fact. You are the sole judges of the credibility of each witness and the weight to be given the witness's testimony. You should carefully consider all of the testimony given and the circumstances under which each witness has testified. For each witness, consider that person's knowledge, motive, state of mind, demeanor, and manner while testifying. Consider the witness's ability to observe, the strength of that person's memory, and how that person obtained his or her knowledge. Consider any relationship the witness may have to either side of the case and how each witness might be affected by the verdict. Consider how the testimony of the witness is supported or contradicted by other evidence in the case. You should consider all facts and circumstances shown by the evidence when you evaluate each witness's testimony. You may believe all of the testimony of a witness, part of it, or none of it. A witness qualified as an expert by education, training, or experience may state opinions. You are not bound by the testimony of witnesses who testified as experts. The credibility of an expert's testimony is to be considered as that of any other witness. You may believe all of an expert witness's testimony, part of it, or none of it. The way you give the testimony is entirely your decision. Every defendant has a constitutional right not to testify. The decision not to testify cannot be used as an inference of guilt and cannot prejudice the defendant. It is not evidence, does not prove anything, and must not be considered for any purpose. The court has taken judicial notice of a certain fact. You may or may not accept that fact as true. It is entirely your decision to determine what weight, if any, shall be given to the evidence. And this is where the 9A goes. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the El Paso County Jail was accepting WebEx meetings on March 20 of 2020. The defendant's attorney had a WebEx meeting with the defendant on that date around noon. Later that day, Dr. Moore had a conversation with the defendant about Gannon being found in Florida. A fact may be proven by either direct or circumstantial evidence. Under the law, both are acceptable ways to prove something. Neither is necessarily more reliable than the other. Direct evidence is based on first-hand observation of the fact in question. For example, a witness's testimony that she looked out a window and saw snow falling might be offered as direct evidence that it had snowed. Circumstantial evidence is indirect. It is based on observations of related facts that may lead you to reach a conclusion about the fact in question. For example, a witness's testimony that she looked out a window and saw snow covering the ground might be offered as circumstantial evidence that it had snowed.
[00:09:50] Speaker ?: For example, a witness's testimony that had snowed out on the ground.
[00:09:51] Speaker 2: For example, a witness's testimony that had snowed out on the ground. For example, a witness's testimony that had snowed out on the ground. You may discuss this case only when you are all present and you may only deliberate in the jury room. No juror should attempt to discuss this case with other jurors or anyone else at any other time except when all jurors are in the jury room. Once you begin your deliberations, if you have a question, your foreperson should write it on a piece of paper, sign it, and give it to the bailiff who will bring it to me. The court will then determine the appropriate way to answer the question. However, there may be some questions that, under the law, the court is not permitted to answer. Please do not speculate about what the answer to your question might have been or why the court is not able to answer a particular question. Finally, please be sure to keep the original question and response. Excuse me. Do not destroy them as they are part of the official record in this case and must be returned to me when you return the instructions and verdict forms at the end of the case. One other caveat to this instruction is that that takes time because I have to reconvene the court, have to bring the lawyers in, we have to discuss the question, what the possible response is. So, it's not as quick as the questions that we have when you're asking witnesses. During this trial, you were permitted to submit written questions to witnesses. If a particular question was not asked, do not guess why the question was not asked or what the answer might have been. My decision not to ask a question submitted by a juror is not a reflection on the person asking it and you should not attach any significance to the failure to ask a question. By making legal rulings on the admissibility of questions, I did not intend to suggest or express any opinion about the question. My decision whether or not to allow a question is based on the applicable rules of evidence and other rules of law and not on the facts of this particular case. It is my responsibility to assure that all parties receive a fair trial according to the law and rules of evidence. The fact that certain questions were not asked must not affect your consideration of the evidence in any way. Do not give greater weight to questions or answers to questions that are submitted by yourself or your fellow jurors. In making your decision, you must consider all of the evidence that has been presented. In this case, a separate offense is charged against the defendant in each count of the information. Each count charges a separate and distinct offense, and the evidence in the law applicable to each count should be considered separately, uninfluenced by your decision as to any other count. The fact that you may find the defendant guilty, or not guilty, of one of the offenses charged, should not control your verdict as to any other offense charged against the defendant. The defendant may be found guilty, or not guilty, of any one or all of the offenses charged. A crime is committed when the defendant has committed a voluntary act prohibited by law together with a culpable state of mind. A voluntary act means an act performed consciously as a result of effort or determination. Proof of the voluntary act alone is insufficient to prove that the defendant has the required state of mind. The culpable state of mind is as much an element of the crime as the act itself, and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, either by direct or circumstantial evidence. In this case, the applicable states of mind are explained below. The term "after deliberation" means not only intentionally, but also that the decision to commit the act has been made after the exercise of reflection and judgment concerning the act. An act committed after deliberation is never one which has been committed in a hasty or impulsive manner. A person acts intentionally or with intent when her conscious objective is to cause the specific result prescribed by the statute defining the offense. It is immaterial whether or not the result actually occurred. A person acts knowingly or willfully with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when she is aware that her conduct is of such nature or that such a circumstance exists. A person acts knowingly or willfully with respect to a result of her conduct when she is aware that her conduct is practically certain to cause the result. These next instructions have to deal with the elements that must be proven for the charges and it makes more sense once you actually have all the instructions because it references in instruction 21. The elements of the crime of murder in the first degree after deliberation are that the defendant in the state of Colorado at or about the date and place charged after deliberation and with intent to cause the death of a person other than herself, cause the death of that person or of another person, and that the defendant's conduct was not legally authorized by the affirmative defense in instruction 21. After considering all of the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has proven each of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree after deliberation. After considering all of the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty of murder in the first degree after deliberation. The elements of the crime of murder in the first degree child under 12 position of trust are that the defendant in the state of Colorado at or about the date and place charged knowingly caused the death of a child who had not yet attained 12 years of age and the defendant was in a position of trust with respect to the child and that the defendant's conduct was not legally authorized by the affirmative defense in instruction 21. After considering all of the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has proven each of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree child under 12 position of trust. After considering all of the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty of murder in the first degree child under 12 position of trust. The elements of the crime of tampering with a deceased human body are that the defendant in the state of Colorado at or about the date and place charge believed that an official proceeding was pending in progress or about to be instituted and acting without legal right or authority willfully destroyed, mutilated, concealed, removed, or altered a human body, part of a human body, or human remains with intent to impair its or their appearance or availability in the official proceedings and that the defendant's conduct was not legally authorized by the affirmative defense in instruction 21. After considering all of the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has proven each of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty of tampering with a deceased human body. After considering all of the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty of tampering with a deceased human body. The elements of the crime of tampering with physical evidence are that the defendant in the state of Colorado at or about the date and place charged believed that an official proceeding was pending in progress or about to be instituted and acting without legal right or authority destroyed, mutilated, concealed, removed, or altered physical evidence with intent to impair its verity or availability in the pending or prospective official proceeding and that the defendant's conduct was not legally authorized by the affirmative defense in instruction 21. After considering all of the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has proven each of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty of tampering with physical evidence. After considering all of the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has failed to prove any one or more of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty of tampering with physical evidence. In this case, certain words or phrases have a particular meaning. The following are the definitions of those words and phrases. Accordingly, you are to use the following definitions where those words and phrases appear in the instructions and define crimes, defenses, special rules, and verdict questions. Cause means that act or failure to act which in natural and probable sequence produced the claimed injury. It is a cause without which the claimed injury would not have been incurred. Homicide means the killing of a person by another. Official proceeding means a proceeding heard before any legislative, judicial, administrative, or other governmental agency. Or official authorized to hear evidence under oath, including any magistrate, hearing examiner, commissioner, notary, or other person taking testimony or deposition in any such proceedings. Person, when referring to the victim of a homicide, means a human being who had been born and was alive at the time of the homicidal act. Physical evidence includes any article, object, document, record, or other thing of physical substance. Physical evidence does not include a human body, part of a human body, or human remains. Person in a position of trust includes, but is not limited to, any person who is a parent or acting in the place of a parent and charged with any of a parent's rights, duties, or responsibilities concerning a child, including a guardian or someone otherwise responsible for the general supervision of a child's welfare, or a person who is charged with any duty or responsibility for the health, education, welfare, or supervision of a child, including foster care, child care, family care, or institutional care, either independently or through another, no matter how brief, at the time of the unlawful act. The evidence in this case has raised the defense of insanity as a defense to the crimes of murder in the first degree after deliberation, murder in the first degree, child under 12, position of trust, tampering with the deceased human body, and tampering with physical evidence. The defendant was insane at the time of the commission of the acts if: She was so diseased or defective in mind at the time of the commission of the act as to be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong with respect to that act, or She suffered from a condition of mind caused by mental disease or defect that prevented her from forming a culpable mental state that is an essential element of a crime charged. But, care should be taken not to confuse mental disease or defect with moral obliquity, mental depravity, or passion growing out of anger, revenge, hatred, or other motives and kindred evil conditions, because, when an act is induced by any of these causes, the person is accountable to the law. In addition, diseased or defective in mind does not refer to an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct. Similarly, mental disease or defect means only those severely abnormal mental conditions that grossly and demonstrably impair a person's perception or understanding of reality, and that are not attributable to the voluntary ingestion of alcohol or any other psychoactive substance. Mental disease or defect does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct. The law presumes everyone to be sane. However, after some evidence of insanity is introduced, the burden of proof is upon the people to prove to the satisfaction of the jury, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant was sane at the time of the commission of the crimes charged. In order to meet this burden of proof, the prosecution must disprove, beyond a reasonable doubt, both of the above numbered conditions. After considering all the evidence, if you decide that the prosecution has failed to meet this burden of proof, then the prosecution has failed to prove that the defendant was sane at the time of the commission of the acts, which is an essential element of murder in the first degree after deliberation, murder in the first degree child under 12 position of trust, tampering with the deceased human body and tampering with physical evidence. In that event, you must find the defendant not guilty and have the foreperson sign the designated section of part A of the verdict form to indicate your verdicts. After considering all the evidence, if you decide the prosecution has met this burden of proof, then the prosecution has proved the defendant was not insane at the time of the commission of the acts. In that event, your verdicts concerning the charges of murder in the first degree after deliberation, murder in the first degree child under 12 position of trust, tampering with a deceased human body and tampering with physical evidence must depend upon your determination whether the prosecution has met its burden of proof with respect to the remaining elements of this offense. Instruction 22. Concerning the affirmative defense of insanity, certain words or phrases have a particular meaning. Diseased or defective mind does not refer to an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct. Mental disease or defect means only those severely abnormal mental conditions, which grossly and demonstrably impair a person's perception or understanding of reality, and which are not attributable to the voluntary ingestion of alcohol or any other psychopathic substance, except that it does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct. Moral obliquity refers to an act committed by a person who is capable of distinguishing moral right from moral wrong, but nevertheless acts out a perverse and culpable rejection of prevailing moral standards. Moral obliquity does not include an act committed by a person in a state of mental illness that renders the person incapable of distinguishing right from wrong with respect to the act. Incapable of distinguishing right from wrong refers to cognitive inability due to a mental disease or defect to distinguish right from wrong as measured by a societal standard or morality, even though the person may be aware that the conduct in question is criminal. The phrase incapable of distinguishing right from wrong does not refer to a purely personal and subjective standard of morality. If you find that the defendant, and this question will make more sense once you see the verdict forms, if you find the defendant guilty of one or more of the following charges of murder in the first degree after deliberation, murder in the first degree child under 12, position of trust, tampering with the deceased human body, and tampering with physical evidence, you should disregard the remainder of this instruction and sign section A of the verdict form for that charge to indicate your verdict of guilty. If, however, you find the defendant not guilty of one or more of the following charges of murder in the first degree. I'm sorry, murder in the first degree after deliberation, murder in the first degree child under 12, position of trust, tampering with the deceased human body, and tampering with physical evidence, you should sign section A of the verdict form to indicate your verdict of not guilty, and you should also answer the following verdict question in section B of the verdict form. Did you find the defendant not guilty solely based on the defense of insanity? Answer, yes or no. The court reminds you that the prosecution has the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each element of the crime charged, including that the defendant was not insane at the time of the commission of the act. If you decide that the only element of the crime charged that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant was sane at the time of the commission of the act, you should mark yes in the appropriate place in section B of the verdict form and have the foreperson sign the designated form in that section of the verdict form. If you decide that the prosecution has failed to prove any other element beyond a reasonable doubt, you should mark no in the appropriate place in section B of the verdict form and have the foreperson sign the designated line in that section of the verdict form. In any trial or hearing in which the mental condition or of the defendant is at issue, witnesses not specially trained in psychiatry or psychology may testify as to their observation of the defendant's actions and conduct and as to conversations which they have had with her bearing upon her mental condition, and they shall be permitted to give their opinions or conclusions concerning the mental condition of the defendant. This is an information instruction and must have no persuasive bearing on the verdicts you arrive at under the evidence. If a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity, it is the court's duty to commit the defendant to the Department of Human Services until such time as the court determines that the defendant no longer requires hospitalization because she no longer suffers from a mental disease or defect which is likely to cause her to be dangerous to herself, to others, or to the community in the reasonably foreseeable future. If a defendant is found not guilty by reason of insanity, she will never again be tried on the merits of the criminal charges filed against her. The question of the defendant's sanity or insanity has reference to her mental condition at the time of the alleged acts, the condition of the defendant's mind previous to the act charged, and since that time, may be considered only to aid you in determining her sanity or insanity at the time of the acts charged. In a few moments, the bailiff will escort you to the jury room where you will select one of your members to be the foreperson. Your foreperson will preside over your deliberations and shall sign any verdict form and verdict question form that you may agree on according to the rules that I am about to explain. The verdict for each charge must represent the considered judgment of each juror and it must be unanimous. In other words, all of you must agree to all parts of it. This requirement applies to any determinations that you make in response to verdict questions which you conclude should be answered. Only one verdict shall be returned signed for each count. The verdict forms, verdict question forms, and these instructions shall remain in the possession of your foreperson until I ask for them in open court. Upon reaching a verdict and, if required by your verdicts, answering any verdict questions, you will inform the bailiff who in turn will notify me and you will remain in the jury room until I call you into the courtroom. You will be provided with four verdict forms. You will also be provided with four verdict question forms with directions that explain under what circumstances you should complete those forms. When you have unanimously agreed upon your verdicts, you will select the option on each form which reflects your verdict and the foreperson will sign the verdict form as I have stated. Similarly, if you conclude the verdict questions should be answered, you will select the option on each verdict question form which reflects your unanimous decision. And the foreperson will sign each verdict question form as I have stated. I will now read to you the verdict and the verdict question forms. You must not draw any inferences based on the order in which I read them. The verdict and verdict question forms you will receive read as follows. Jury verdict count number one, charge of murder in the first degree after deliberation, section Roman, part A, section Roman numeral one. We, the jury, find the defendant, Letitia Stouck, not guilty of count number one, murder in the first degree after deliberation. Part A, section Roman numeral two. We, the jury, find the defendant, Letitia Stouck, guilty of count number one, murder in the first degree after deliberation. If you fill out part A, Roman numeral one, you are finding the defendant not guilty and you are finding the issues in favor of the defendant. If you do that, you need to fill out part B, which asks you the question, If you find the defendant not guilty of murder in the first degree, you should answer the following question. However, if you find the defendant guilty of murder in the first degree, you should leave this section blank. As to the charge of murder in the first degree after deliberation, did you find the defendant not guilty solely based on the defense of insanity? So, with respect to each verdict form, you have three options. It can be a straight not guilty, it can be guilty, it can be not guilty by reason of insanity. So, if you were to find the defendant just straight not guilty, the prosecution had not presented enough evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that that charge against the defendant, you would fill it not guilty and be done. Similarly, if you were to find the defendant, or that the prosecution had presented sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she was guilty, you could fill it out as guilty. If you find her to be not guilty because she was insane at the time, you need to answer not guilty and answer this question on the back. Verdict form number two, charge of murder in the first degree, child under 12, position of trust. Section Roman numeral one, we the jury find the defendant, Letitia Stouck, not guilty of count number two, murder in the first degree, child under 12, position of trust. Again, only if you find her not guilty should you consider the question on part B. As to the charge of murder in the first degree, child under 12, position of trust, did you find the defendant not guilty solely based on the defense of insanity? Verdict form or count number three, we the jury, part A, Roman numeral one, we the jury find the defendant, Letitia Stouck, not guilty of count number three, tampering with the deceased human body. Roman numeral two, we the jury find the defendant, Letitia Stouck, guilty of count number three, tampering with the deceased human body. And the same question on the back under part B. So let me go back for a moment, double check this. Okay, so let's see. All right, let me call your attention back because I may have introduced some confusion. If you look back at instruction 23, and I said I thought this might be a typographical error, it is not. This is an accurate statement. If you find the defendant guilty of one or more of the following charges of murder in the first degree, after deliberation, murder in the first degree, child under 12, position of trust, tampering with a deceased human body, and tampering with physical evidence, you should disregard the remainder of this instruction and sign section A of the verdict form for that charge to indicate your verdict of guilty. So that's an accurate statement.
[00:35:54] Speaker ?: That's an accurate statement.
[00:35:54] Speaker 2: What I was thinking about is that it also implicated the insanity provision. But under section A of each verdict form, you're determining whether she's not guilty or whether she's guilty. So, instruction 23 is accurate the way that it was stated and the way that it was read to you. I just didn't want there to be any confusion about that since I may have introduced some. So, what we're going to do is take about a 15-minute recess. So, if I can have everyone back in the jury room at, say, 5 after 10, we should be able to start on time. Again, even though you've gotten the instructions, still can't start deliberating yet. You have to wait. So, don't talk to each other about it. Don't talk to anyone else about it. Don't do your own independent research about any aspect of the case. We'll see you at 10 after 5 when we come back. My hope is that we will probably go until noon. We might go a little bit longer. Thank you. You may all be seated. Court will recall 20 CR 1358, People v. Leticia Stouck. Record should reflect the jury has returned to the courtroom. At this point in time, we will start with the prosecution's closing argument. Prosecution? Thanks, Judge.
[00:37:36] Speaker 3: Good morning. It's been on trial. You guys have sat through a lot of evidence, and you're going to have to sift through that evidence and sift through the instructions, kind of what we talked about when we're selecting you, and apply the facts of this case to the law that you now have been given. Before I start my closing, I want to just say thank you for that. You guys have been very attentive. I can see that every day. You've asked some very good questions that I'm actually going to use in my closing argument as I go forward here. One of the things about a homicide case that is true in the form in pretty much every homicide case I've done in my career is the case kind of evolves to talk about the defendant. We spend a lot of time talking about the defendant. And then when you add that the defense is insanity, you even spend more time talking about the defendant. I want to come back to Gannon in a little bit. Gannon's been in. Gannon's been in a box back here for the whole trial. This is what the trial should be about. And I'm not doing this to get sympathy from you. I'm doing this to tell you that what Gannon had to tell you in this trial through the autopsy. All you need to know. And when the defendant did what she did to him. He was saying at the time she did it. Not only do we know how he was killed and the effort and determination it took to kill him. We also know that his body was found in Florida. The body wasn't found in Florida. Do you think we'd be talking about insanity in this file? The pure fact of divine intervention that Macon Ponder happened to be searching that bridge when he did. Remember he said he searched that bridge every two years. Just so happened on March 17th, 2020. Out there searching that bridge and he saw that suitcase. Dr. Lewis says it was crazy to drive a suitcase across the country and dump it over a bridge in Florida. Was it really? Think about the divine intervention of Gannon's body even being found to get here to where we're at right now. And the effort and determination that she took to hide his body. We're going to talk about that quite a bit more as I go through my closing. What I'd like to do now is talk about the autopsy and his injuries. I'm not going to show you any pictures. I'm going to tell you that right up front. I'm going to use the diagram. I wonder if we can have the TVs turned on. I can start with that. To describe his injuries because his injuries are relevant. They're not only relevant to the crimes that she's charged with, the murder counts, but they're relevant to what her state of mind was when she committed those crimes. And so what we have up on the board now is People's Exhibit 144. You heard Dr. Ignacio testify. We showed you pictures of each and every injury that Gannon handed his body. His first diagram in People's Exhibit 144 kind of depicts the stab wounds. It also depicts the gunshot wound to his left chin area. Now, at least the group that I talked to in jury selection, we talked about every day of your life. You were trained to be jurors. It means you're using your common sense to make decisions, just like you're going to have to today when you go back to the deliberation room. Just by looking at these injuries, what does your common sense tell you? Without Dr. Ignacio's testimony, Gannon was defending himself. He was fighting off. Despite having hydrocodone in his system. Made him lethargic. He somehow was able to fight her off. The injuries to his fingers, the injuries to his arms.
[00:42:30] Speaker ?: 18 times.
[00:42:31] Speaker 3: 18 times. She took a knife. The locations of the stab wounds. What does that tell you? Use your common sense. It's not psychotic. It's strategic. The stab wounds are to the chest. As Gannon's fighting, the stab wounds are to his back. But it's not just stab wounds. You know that. He has to use judgment and reflection to get another weapon. What that weapon was, who knows? But she got a weapon and hit him in the skull four separate times. Go to the next diagram. I forgot to mention the strategic stab wound to his neck, just underneath his ear, which we see in people's exhibit 145. The diagram doesn't do justice to the skull fracture that she caused him. And I'm not going to show you pictures, but I think, remember those pictures? Completely obliterated the skull. The amount of force it takes to do that.
[00:43:51] Speaker ?: Judgment.
[00:43:53] Speaker 3: Reflection. The next exhibit shows the injuries that he had to the top of his head. Four separate strikes to his head. Wasn't good enough.
[00:44:06] Speaker ?: Wasn't good enough.
[00:44:08] Speaker 3: Wasn't good enough for her. So, judgment, reflection, she goes and gets a handgun. She fires that handgun three times. I don't know how those bullets stay in the pillow. We can rack our brain for ages. I don't know how those bullets stayed in that pillow. I don't know that we'll ever know how those bullets stayed in that pillow. What matters is the bullet that went into Gannon. That bullet matched the gun. Really, she used that was still in the house. He attributed to Quincy Brown using. Or Aguardo using. Or whatever story of the day it was. Judgment. Reflection. Location of gunshot wound. Let's talk about make and ponder a little bit. Because as. He drives to Florida. She checks in at about 12:22 in the morning. Just after midnight. Candlewood Suites. Florida. Why do they drive all the way from Decatur in one night. To get to Florida. Why does she want to get rid of Gannon's body in Florida. Gulf of Mexico. You drive this bridge at night. As Macon Ponder testified to.
[00:45:50] Speaker ?: There's no lights on it.
[00:45:51] Speaker 3: We know that sometime between. Well. Probably between 4:00 in the morning. To 5:00 in the morning.
[00:46:00] Speaker ?: She's out there. Look at the location.
[00:46:02] Speaker 3: Look at the location where the body was found. With the red arrow.
[00:46:06] Speaker ?: I mean.
[00:46:06] Speaker 3: Exhibit 63.
[00:46:08] Speaker ?: More importantly.
[00:46:09] Speaker 3: Look at the space that she has. To park this vehicle. I don't know where the pointer is. Right behind you. It's right there on the window. You can see. The shoulder here. And there's plenty of room.
[00:46:25] Speaker ?: Why does she park there? Because she can.
[00:46:28] Speaker 3: 4:00 in the morning. There's no traffic out there. Does she think there's water underneath the bridge? Is that illogical thinking? As you're crossing a bridge. And you can't see anything. You cross a main waterway. This can be a river. And you continue going until you find a place to stop. She probably had to wait that there was no traffic. It's with the body. Did you ever think the body was going to be found again? Go to the next slide. You see the suitcase underneath the bridge. And as Macon Ponder testified. It was where he and his co-worker found it. It was clearly someone who dropped it directly over the bridge. There's an imprint that you remember seeing pictures of. And they ended up dragging it under the bridge. Not knowing what the contents were. More importantly. Not smelling anything. Why is that important? Probably didn't smell anything. The body had been out here since February 4th. This is now March 17th. In Florida heat. They didn't smell anything until the suitcase was open. That lends some credibility to Harley when she says she never smelled or never knew the suitcase was back in the back of the van. Anyway. They dump it out and they see the probably the most horrific thing anybody can ever see in their lives. Scan his body in a fetal position. Be composed. Wearing the same clothes that he was wearing. January 7th. January 7th. 2020. Which killed him. Pants in a white stripe. Watch the video. When they leave. See them wearing sweatpants with a white stripe. Talk about that more later. Now let's talk about the law.
[00:48:32] Speaker ?: Okay.
[00:48:33] Speaker 3: And as I go through the law. I'm going to later kind of go through the timeline of events. And I would like you to think about the mental states. And sanity as I talk about those. So I want to talk about the law first. The first instruction I have up here is the elements of the crime of murder in the first degree after deliberation. You will see that most of these elements are not in dispute. That the defendant. Not in dispute. In the state of Colorado. At or about the date and place charge. Not in dispute. After deliberation and with intent. Those are highlighted because those are the culpable mental states that are attached to that crime. Those are the culpable mental states in the insanity definition that we're talking about. So I want to highlight those in a second. To cause the death of a person other than herself. Cause the death of a person again. Those are not in dispute either. And number seven is the issue in the case. That's the insanity defense. We're going to talk about in a minute. Can we go to the next elements? After deliberation. Not only intentionally. But also that the decision to commit the act has been made after the exercise of reflection. And judgment concerning the act. An act committed after deliberation is never one which has been committed in a hasty or impulsive matter. Now some of you before you came into court. You've never seen this definition. You're probably thinking about premeditation. Where people are planning something out. And it takes days to plan out the murder. And then they finally do the murder. That's not what that definition says. It's just enough time to have judgment and reflection.
[00:50:21] Speaker ?: To make decisions. To go from grabbing a knife.
[00:50:24] Speaker 3: To go to grabbing some blunt force object. Is she exercising judgment and reflection?
[00:50:28] Speaker ?: And it doesn't have to be good judgment. It doesn't have to be bad judgment.
[00:50:28] Speaker 3: It just has to be judgment.
[00:50:30] Speaker ?: Is she making a decision?
[00:50:32] Speaker 3: A person acts intentionally or with intent when her conscious objective is to cause a specific result prescribed by the statute defined in the offense. It is immaterial whether or not the result actually occurred.
[00:50:45] Speaker ?: I don't want to bet money on it, but I bet you all that.
[00:50:47] Speaker 3: A lawyer wrote that definition.
[00:50:48] Speaker ?: It just means with intent. What was their intent? Did she intend to kill Gannon when she did what she did to Gannon?
[00:50:48] Speaker 3: I would suggest that that's not disputed. Because that's not disputed. We can now go to the next crime.
[00:50:52] Speaker ?: The next crime.
[00:50:52] Speaker 3: The next crime.
[00:50:53] Speaker ?: The next crime.
[00:50:53] Speaker 3: Is to cause a specific result prescribed by the statute defined in the offense. It is immaterial whether or not the result actually occurred. I don't want to bet money on it, but I bet you a lawyer wrote that definition. It just means with intent. What was their intent? Did she intend to kill Gannon when she did what she did to Gannon? I would suggest that that's not disputed. We can now go to the next crime, which is murder in the first degree, a child under the age of 12, and the defendant was in a position of trust. Now, the reason why there's two counts of murder, there's only one victim, is because this is just another theory of first degree murder. There's several theories of first degree murder in law. These are the two that are in front of you now, okay? And as you can see, the mental state is what's different, and the age of the victim. And then the defendant has to be in a possession of trust. That's not disputed. She's stepmom. She's obviously acting as Gannon's parent at the time that she... But let's talk about what knowingly is, because that's the culpable mental state with this crime. A person acts knowingly or willfully with respect to conduct or to circumstance described by statute defining an offense when she is aware that her conduct is of such a nature or that such a circumstance exists. A person acts knowingly or willfully with respect to result of her conduct when she is aware that her conduct is practically certain to cause the result. A person acts knowingly.
[00:52:35] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:52:35] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:52:37] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:52:38] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:52:47] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:52:48] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:52:51] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:52:53] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:52:55] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:52:56] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:52:59] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:53:00] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:53:13] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:53:15] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:53:22] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:53:23] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:53:26] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:53:29] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:53:39] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:53:43] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:53:45] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:53:47] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:53:51] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:53:52] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:54:04] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:54:05] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:54:39] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:54:40] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:54:45] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:54:47] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:55:03] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:55:04] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:55:08] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:55:11] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:55:44] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:55:45] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:55:48] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:55:49] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:55:53] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:55:54] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:56:22] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:56:23] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:56:39] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:56:40] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:56:45] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:56:47] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:56:52] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:56:53] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:56:55] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:56:57] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:56:59] Speaker ?: A person acts like an offense to the victim.
[00:57:00] Speaker 3: A person acts like an offense to the victim. What do you think Al Stout might have noticed? When it says it has to be grossly and demonstrably? He's got to demonstrate it, right? It's not something you snap your fingers and then all of a sudden go into a different personality. What about a brother? How are you? Think he might have noticed it? Let's talk about the doctors. I'm actually going to talk about Dr. Niedehauser first. Dr. Niedehauser was really the first doctor and all the doctors you heard from this year. If you recall, she saw her on December 5th, December 13th, 30 minutes each time. Came in and remember the difference between a clinical evaluation and a forensic evaluation. Clinical evaluation. I rely on what the patient says. I rely just like if they came in and said, "I've got a fever." I'm going to take that at their word and I'm going to treat them for what they're telling me. She comes in and says, "I've got anxiety." Treats her for anxiety. She diagnoses her with general anxiety. And she told you understand that she had general anxiety at the time she's testimony. A lot of people did that came in and testified. That's not a severe and abnormal mental condition that grossly and demonstrably impairs a person's perception or understanding of reality. We all experienced that. In fact, you got to experience her experiencing it on video. In January 29th, 2020, when she's being interviewed, remember at the end of the interview, she had to call the paramedics and she said she was suffering from panic attacks. The paramedics came in and said your vital signs are not only good, they're exceptionally good. You're breathing fine. Your heart rate's fine. I don't know what the problem is. I think she might have been faking that to get out of the setting. Dr. Anita Heiser also tells us that she had no history of inpatient psychiatric treatment, no history other than anxiety of any other diagnosis for mental illnesses. And this is based on what the defendant's telling her. No evidence of psychosis. No reason to put her on an M1 hole. If she was experiencing psychosis in December of 2019, the doctor would have had an obligation to come in. That's the kind of stuff that talks about severely abnormal mental conditions that affects your vision of reality. It's not there. The other thing about that visit, the timing of that visit, December of 2019. Remember the whole purpose of that visit is so that she can get a letter to go to her employment because she didn't want to work anymore. The ironic part about it is at the second interview, the defendant tells her, I don't want to work there anymore. But I got a contract, so I need a letter to get out of it. But what else happens right before Shannon is murdered? He goes on a cruise. He goes on a cruise in January. You think that might have something to do with not wanting to go to work? Based on what you know about her and the statements she's made. Dr. Moore, Christine Moore. She works at the jail. She's a psychologist. She evaluates people who come in who are charged with serious crimes, perhaps their first time in a jail. They evaluate to see if they're in danger to themselves or others. It's a psychological evaluation. She said it was a clinical evaluation. They also want to know if there's any medication they might need. What the defendant tells her is that she has anxiety. I didn't do the crime. Not going to be a problem. That was on March 5th, 2020. First day of her visit in the jail. Dr. Moore spent quite a bit of time with her up until January 5th of 2021. Seeing her either once every two weeks or once every week depending on what was going on with her. March 20th she goes to her and says, "I just want to see how you're doing." The reason why I'm telling you this is because she doesn't say, "Hey, Maria Sanchez did it. You know what? I've got disassociative identity disorder. You're a psychologist. I need help." Nothing. In fact, she told you there was no evidence during the entire time she spent with her that she had disassociated. Identity Disorder or any other severe mental illness that meets that definition. This was less, well, it was a little over a month after the crime. January 27th, March 5th. And then what happens on June 5th, 2020 in the jail? She recalled Dr. Moore's testimony. She reviews all the deputy's notes to see what's going on with the defendant at the time to see how she's doing. And she reviews notes from deputies that say, "I'm going to start acting crazy." That's what the defendant says. And then on that very day, June 5th, 2020, she enters a competency issue into the court. That's how we get to the competency evaluations that I'm going to talk about here in a second. The timing of that. Okay? Gannon's body was found on March 17th. She finds out about it on March 20th. You know that she's read the discovery of the police sports in this case, and there's nothing wrong with that. She's entitled to read that. Point is, she's read it. And then all of a sudden, I'm going to start acting crazy. Is there another defense? No dissociative identity disorder. Certainly no Maria Sanchez during her entire time or entire visits with Dr. Moore for that year period of time. The first competency evaluation was done down at the state hospital. We don't pick where she goes. The prosecution, when I say we, we don't pick what doctors do the evaluation. The court orders it, goes to the state hospital. Doctors are chosen. They do an evaluation. What's relevant about this first competency evaluation that takes place on July 20th, 2020, is when she goes to the state hospital. Is that they have a two-week observation period. Her nurses, employees are watching her. She actually goes to a nurse and says, "Can you tell when someone's faking it?" Dr. Torres and Dr. Gray actually, they do a forensic interview with her on August 4th of 2020. Again, now we're in a forensic mode. Now we're not just going to listen to what she has to say. We're going to look at collateral information. We're going to call Al Stout. We're going to try to call Harley. We're going to try to call family members to see if we can cooperate with what she's telling us. So what does she tell them? I've got bipolar disorder. I'm a manic depressant. I ramble. I'm a manic depression. That's my mental illness. Nothing about disassociative identity disorder, which according to Dr. Lewis, she's had since a very young age. Nothing about Maria Sanchez. Remember Dr. Torres' testimony when she was talking about the competency evaluation? One of the psychological tests that she took had a question about multi-personalities. And the answer led Dr. Torres to ask her, "Hey, do you have multiple personalities?" And this is August 4th, 2020. Dr. Gray and Dr. Torres diagnosed her with specified personality disorder with borderline and narcissistic features. We talked about that a little bit. Now, does it meet that definition? How do we know if it meets that definition? Her actions. How other people perceive her. I also know Dr. Torres told you, "No, it's not a severe mental disease. It's not something that affects her everyday life. It affects her ability to make decisions." No evidence of psychosis during that evaluation either. No history of inpatient treatment during that evaluation. Psychological testing. MMPI-2. Remember that test? What does that test tell you when told Dr. Torres and Dr. Gray? That she exaggerates psychiatric treatments to the point where even people who are hospitalized for their mental illness don't answer questions that way. You think she might be faking it? Now we go to the second competency evaluation with Dr. Grimmett. Now, remember how Dr. Grimmett became involved in this case? The defense at the time, and it wasn't these defense attorneys, requested that she do the evaluation of the second competency evaluation. We had nothing to do with that.
[01:08:33] Speaker ?: So, now this happens on December 22, 2020. That's when Dr. Grimmett talks to her.
[01:08:34] Speaker 3: And so I want you to think about how it's progressed now. Now, she starts talking about disassociative identity disorder and bipolar disorder. When I say she, the defendant. That's what the defendant is telling Dr. Grimmett. She says she has four distinct personalities. None of those four were Maria Sanchez. Remember what Dr. Grimmett testified to? That she was, first of all, creating these names. Second of all, like Jasmine was a Disney character. Talked about vampires. Twilight.
[01:09:21] Speaker ?: I've seen the movie Twilight. I know I hate admitting that, but I've seen it.
[01:09:23] Speaker 3: And she cited the characters from that movie. And Dr. Grimmett said, "Wait a minute here. You're just telling me characters from a movie? That's not disassociative identity disorder." But she evaluated her for it, because that's what she's telling me. Dr. Grimmett evaluated her for DID. Said, "No, not there. I don't even need any more information. I don't need to rule it out. It's not there." She also diagnosed the defendant with other. "I don't need any more information. I don't need any more information. I don't need to rule it out. It's not there." She also diagnosed the defendant with other.
[01:09:39] Speaker ?: She cited the characters from that movie. And Dr. Grimmett said, "Wait a minute here.
[01:09:41] Speaker 3: You're just telling me characters from a movie? That's not disassociative identity disorder." But she evaluated her for it, because that's what she's telling her. Dr. Grimmett evaluated her for DID. Said, "No, not there. I don't even need any more information. I don't need to rule it out. Not there." She also diagnosed the defendant with other. Specified personality disorder with borderline and narcissistic features. She also told you that it doesn't fit that definition. Jump forward to February of 2022. I don't know when the conversation took place, but at some point before. The defendant pled not guilty by reason of insanity on February 11th, 2022. They had a conversation. The council had a conversation with Dr. Lewis. Remember Dr. Lewis testified that I recommended you change your plea to not guilty by reason of insanity. Why is that important? Why did I ask her about that? I think that put a little pressure on her. And she says, "I recommend you plead not guilty by reason of insanity, and I'll do the evaluation." Why didn't she do the evaluation when she went away? Why'd she wait until November? Come out and talk to the defendant. Needless to say, when she pled not guilty by reason of insanity in February, the same process happened as happened when she raised competency. She's sent down to the state hospital. She's sent down to the state hospital. The state hospital chooses who's going to do the evaluation. They make a decision of who already knows the case. Dr. Torres and Dr. Gray already read all the discovery in this case. They knew the facts of the case. They knew the defendant. But they're doing a different evaluation. As you remember, competency goes to her state of mind at the time they're doing the evaluation. What's her understanding? What's happening in the courtroom? Whether or not she can get along with her attorneys? That kind of thing. Insanity is completely different. Insanity, you've got to go back, just like the law says, at the time of the crime, what was her mental state? So that's a much broader evaluation. You've got to look at everything. So, Dr. Torres and Dr. Gray, they also reached out again, call out. They attempt to talk to Harley, family members. To see what's going on with her. But what is the defendant saying now? She's gone off of bipolar now. And now she's created more personalities as part of this disassociative identity disorder. Is it just a coincidence that she's faulted with Dr. Lewis prior to all this? Now Maria Sanchez comes into play during this evaluation. Dr. Torres testified, and it's in a report, that she said, there's no credible evidence to conclude she has a condition that conforms to the definition of a mental disease or defect. Pretty powerful language. That's powerful language. No credible evidence. What's also interesting about this evaluation, compared to Dr. Lewis's evaluation, is they do two interviews, if you remember. One was in March, one was in June. The March interview, I think I couldn't count how many questions, but it wasn't a lot of questions asked. It was the defendant talking. They just let her go. In June, they asked more questions. One of the questions that Dr. Torres asked is, can we talk to Maria? Can we talk to Maria Sanchez?
[01:13:51] Speaker ?: She said, no, no.
[01:13:53] Speaker 3: Maria just doesn't come out. There's got to be some kind of stressor. There's got to be a triggering event. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what the DSM-5 says. I can't just summon Maria. We saw on Wednesday how that happened, and it was magic, according to Dr. Lewis. No severe, abnormal mental conditions. They grossly and monsterly impaired a person's perception of understanding of reality. No psychosis. No bipolar. Because remember, their first competency evaluation, they said they had to rule it out. Bipolar does not exist with this defendant based on Dr. Torres and Dr. Gray. They also said no disassociative identity disorder. Didn't have to rule that out. They had enough to say there's no credible evidence.
[01:14:50] Speaker ?: That's not there.
[01:14:51] Speaker 3: They continued on with the diagnosis of other specified personality disorder with borderline and narcissistic features. Dr. Torres and Dr. Gray They made the conclusion that the defendant was not legally insane at the time of the crime. Let's go to the next slide, which is the credibility instruction. This instruction applies to experts as well. You may believe all the testimony of the witness, part of it, or none of it. This instruction applies to every witness who testifies, including Dr. Lewis. I've got highlighted certain words there.
[01:15:35] Speaker ?: Motive.
[01:15:37] Speaker 3: You see motive in the elements of first-degree murder, but you see it here. Money is a strong motivator. Having shows on HBO, strong motivator. Having your son videotape evaluations on a first-degree murder case that's gotten quite a bit of publicity for perhaps another documentary is motive. We're going to do a documentary. She says, she's saying, sorry, did what I could. Acting. Not as good as, well, not as bad as Robert Caneer, I guess she would say. But she's acting. You also have to look at her demeanor and manner while testing. She wouldn't answer any of my questions. She wouldn't answer my questions. Because she didn't want you to know the answers. She wanted you to know what she wanted to say. She shows up to court late. Talk about narcissistic tendencies. Banner while testifying. I think it speaks for itself, how she testified. Especially when you compare Dr. Torres. You know, obviously she would disagree with my questions. Remember how many times she says it depends to me. She's not our expert. She just happens to be the expert that the state hospital chose to come in to do a neutral evaluation. The truth. Dr. Lewis. She didn't know the legal definition of insanity in the state of Colorado, ladies and gentlemen. The whole reason she came in to testify. I'm not even sure what her opinion is anymore, based on your questions at the end. Remember how she answered it? About the MRI and the EEG that she withdrew? My opinion is ongoing. What does that mean? Does that tell you that her opinion, that she was legally insane at the time, counts for anything? Because when you think about her report, she does this preliminary report, which was supposed to be an insanity report, 35 days before trial. That says, hey, I need more information. I need an EEG and an MRI done. If I'm going to make a decision on insanity. Well, that doesn't happen. MRIs. Take someone to the hospital for two hours, you do an MRI and come back.
[01:18:44] Speaker ?: Never happened.
[01:18:46] Speaker 3: But yet, a few days before trial, she hands over a report saying, I find her legally insane. And that's literally all she says. Don't know what standard of insanity she's using. What I do know is she didn't get the information that she needed. What information she had? She had a third MMPI-2 test that Dr. Torres told you about that a Dr. Leach took that was hired by the defense to do psychological testing based on what Dr. Lewis requested. That's what the results of that showed. It was the same exaggerating psychiatric symptoms to the point where people who are hospitalized for mental illnesses would not answer those questions that way. That didn't seem to matter to me. I want to talk about the facts of the case. And the reason why I want to do that is because I think it's important for you to look at the defendant's actions. For. During. And after. She killed. I'm going to start with the video. Of Gannon's burns. I just don't know what to do.
[01:20:36] Speaker 4: I just don't know what to do.
[01:20:37] Speaker ?: I just don't know what to do.
[01:20:37] Speaker 4: I just don't know what to do. I just don't know what to do.
[01:20:39] Speaker ?: I just don't know what to do. I just don't know what to do. I just don't know what to do. I just don't know what to do. I just don't know what to do. I just don't know what to do. I just don't know what to do.
[01:20:44] Speaker 2: I just don't know what to do. I just don't know what to do. Well devastating.
[01:20:47] Speaker 3: I just don't know what to do. I just don't know what to do. I just don't know what to do. I just don't know what to do.
[01:20:51] Speaker 4: Well devastating. I just don't know what to do. I just don't know what to do. I'm just freaked out. Okay. Are you sure you didn't do it on purpose? Pinky. Okay. We promise. Bye. You promise. Pinky promise.
[01:21:04] Speaker 3: Pinky.
[01:21:05] Speaker 4: Okay. All right. So listen. Listen. All right. We're gonna have to sell stuff to fix it. Okay. So we figure out what we got to sell. We can sell the sofa. We can sell whatever because we got to get it fixed. So lady, don't be mad at us and kick aside the house. Okay. You got it?
[01:21:26] Speaker ?: You got it?
[01:21:27] Speaker 5: I'm just worried about my friends. Okay.
[01:21:31] Speaker 4: Listen, listen, listen, listen. So tomorrow. Why is that important?
[01:21:36] Speaker 3: Why is she videotaping an 11 year old boy who has burns? More importantly, why did she stop videotaping a little boy? Gannon. I think it might be because Gannon said I'm just worried about my burns. I think that was the purpose of that video. I think that's using judgment and reflection. Now, the hydrocodone. Hydrocodone. I can't sit, stand here and tell you how that got an advantage system. All I can tell you is there's only one person there that could be. Did she give it to him because of the burns? I don't know. But when she gave it to him, do you think that's using judgment and reflection? So, January 27th, this is actually at 9:46 is when this video was recording, Sunday night. The next morning, January 27th, 2020, at 4:36 in the morning, a decision was made for her, she made the decision to text Mix Hicks saying, "My stepfather had just been killed in a car accident." Words to that effect. Miss Hicks responds later on saying, "I'm sorry. Please let me know." And I'm paraphrasing, I don't have it memorized. But she says, "Where's the effect? Please let me know if there's anything we can do and when you can come in." She responds back, the defendant does, by saying, "Why are you being so insensitive? This is a family member that just died on the East Coast." Why is that important? Because that's the theory that Dr. Lewis wants you to believe. The fact that she makes this text about the stepfather is somehow tied to the killing of Gannon. Something years later. It just means she didn't want to go to work that day. Could it possibly mean that she knew what she was going to do when she said, and tomorrow she calls Gannon school and says, "He's not coming in today." And she texts Al Stout and says, "Hey, I'm going to make up an excuse to not go to work." What she does. And Gannon's not going to go to school because of his stomach issues.
[01:24:44] Speaker ?: Judgment?
[01:24:45] Speaker 3: Judgment? Reflection? Then, on that same morning, at 8:14 and 8:16 a.m., she takes that picture of Gannon in bed. Why does she take a picture of Gannon in bed and text it to Gannon's father, Al? Look, Gannon's alive. He's here. He's sick. He's in bed. I've heard Al Stout testify a little bit about Gannon. He has ADHD. Hyper. He's still at 8:14. I think he might be lethargic from hydrocodone. Why are you still in bed? I think she wants to prove that he's still alive because she knew how much hydrocodone she gave him. Is that a rational reason to do it? Does that make sense? January 27th at 9:54 a.m., text Al from her phone. This was your question, by the way. She texts Al from her phone saying, "I left my phone at home before she left the house." Do you think that's an indication that she knew what was going to happen? Is it that far-fetched to think that she knows Gannon had been poisoned and that something might happen to Gannon? Then at 10:12 a.m., they leave in Al's truck. And again, this is the video that you saw that you can see his pants with the white stripe down. And when they leave, you see him get into the back seat of the pickup truck and Stout gets into the driver's seat. They drive away. What the heck is she doing taking a sick kid out to go shopping for dog clothes? They're gone until 2:20 p.m. when they come back. You saw the videos. She drives in the back of the driveway. She's got it back in and then drive back in. Eventually the truck comes to a stop. They're stopped in that driveway for 39 seconds. What are they talking about in that truck?
[01:27:27] Speaker ?: Doors open.
[01:27:28] Speaker 3: You see the leg drop. You see Gannon beeline right through the garage. You see the defendant going after her. At 2:26 p.m., you see the defendant come out and move the Tiguan from the driveway back and back it into the garage. What was the need at that moment to back that Tiguan into the garage? Then you see her come out in the front of the garage, out below the garage door and look around. Back in the house. This is when the murder happens, ladies and gentlemen. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door.
[01:28:26] Speaker ?: This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door.
[01:28:29] Speaker 3: This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door.
[01:28:31] Speaker ?: This is when she comes to the garage door.
[01:28:32] Speaker 3: This is when she comes to the garage door.
[01:28:33] Speaker ?: This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door.
[01:28:35] Speaker 3: This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door.
[01:28:43] Speaker ?: This is when she comes to the garage door.
[01:28:44] Speaker 3: This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door.
[01:28:48] Speaker ?: This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door.
[01:28:51] Speaker 3: This is when she comes to the garage door.
[01:28:52] Speaker ?: This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door.
[01:28:55] Speaker 3: This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door.
[01:28:58] Speaker ?: This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door.
[01:29:06] Speaker 3: This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door.
[01:29:11] Speaker ?: This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door.
[01:29:18] Speaker 3: This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door.
[01:29:20] Speaker ?: This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door.
[01:29:23] Speaker 3: This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door. This is when she comes to the garage door.
[01:29:28] Speaker ?: This is when she comes to the garage door.
[01:29:29] Speaker 3: She stuffs him in a suitcase. She drags his body to the storage room. Opens the large green suitcase. Somehow manages to squeeze him in there. Gets the blankets off the bed. Wraps him up in that. Pillows. Picks up the shell casings. Does something with a knife. Does something with a blunt force object. She sticks them into the storage room. Does something with those boxes on them. 3:11 p.m. Al texted her. Said, "Are you sleeping?" No response from the defendant. Lena gets home. She gets to the house about 3:15 p.m. The bus comes by about 3:11 p.m. Doesn't let Lena in the house. She makes Lena stay outside because she's got work to do. Got to clean that bloody mess in that room. Got to hide evidence. Got to tamper with things. Dana's dad texted him at 3:35. Said, "Hey, buddy." Having no clue what she did to him. No response to that. No one read that text until 7:40 that evening. That was a defendant reading it.
[01:31:02] Speaker ?: 6:27 p.m.
[01:31:03] Speaker 3: The defendant texts Al and says, "Gannon went to a friend's house. He's supposed to be home at 6:00. He's not home yet." 6:55, she calls 9-1-1. You heard that call. How can she do this? How can she talk to Gannon's father like nothing happened? Isn't that traits of an antisocial personality disorder? The fact that you can have no sympathy, no cold and callous and act like nothing happened? And she does it through the whole day. You guys know that. She calls Landon on Gannon's phone a couple times that night. Is that a trait of an antisocial personality disorder? Landon gets a call from Gannon. She knows he's missing. And it's her. Next morning, January 28, 2020. At 6:22 a.m., you see the team going to leave. It's gone for 10 minutes. What is she doing? Is it beyond the realm of possibility that she's doing a practice run to see if anybody's watching her? She's about to move the body. Is that beyond the realm of common sense? She, again, comes back, backs into the garage. Heard evidence that she never backed that Tiguan in the back of the garage until that day. They leave. When I say they, bend it and Gannon's body. They go to the airport, leave the house at 8:13 a.m., they get to the airport about 8:30 a.m. She's made the decision to rent another car. She even left the house. Is that evidence of psychosis? Or is that evidence of thinking things through? I'm going to leave Gannon's body in the back of that Tiguan at the airport. We're going to pick up a car. Al's didn't care because we're not going to put mileage on my lease vehicle. Al gets off the airplane. He's just worried about Gannon. Where's my son? You think at that moment he cared that she rented a car? But she made a big deal about, hey, I want to put my house on my Tiguan. She never finished Gannon. They go to the interview at Starbucks at 1:00, approximately 1:30 that afternoon. They had that interview, you worded. After that interview, she disappears. She takes the rental car and it's gone that afternoon. No one knows where she's at. We do. She's at Life360 at her. We got her going back to the airport at 4:41 p.m. We have a parking ticket that was found inside the white Kia rental car that says she went into the airport at 4:41 p.m. Now, she must have got out of there quickly because she never had to get another ticket when she left. But we know from Life360 and we know from the telephone, the Tiguan, that the Tiguan didn't leave. But she leaves the airport shortly after that. What is she doing at the airport? Is it that crazy to think that she's checking on Gannon's body in the back of the Tiguan? Does that sound like someone doesn't know right from wrong? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something?
[01:34:58] Speaker ?: Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something?
[01:34:59] Speaker 3: Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something?
[01:35:13] Speaker ?: Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something?
[01:35:14] Speaker 3: Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something?
[01:35:25] Speaker ?: Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something?
[01:35:26] Speaker 3: Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something?
[01:35:40] Speaker ?: Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something?
[01:35:45] Speaker 3: Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something?
[01:36:25] Speaker ?: Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something?
[01:36:28] Speaker 3: Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something?
[01:36:36] Speaker ?: Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something?
[01:36:37] Speaker 3: Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something? Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something?
[01:36:40] Speaker ?: Does that sound like someone who's trying to get away with something?
[01:36:41] Speaker 3: If she's manipulating Harley, do you think she's manipulating Gannon? Do you think she's manipulating Lena? Do you think that's manipulation, the video you just saw? We're going to have to sell stuff because the lady's going to be upset with this, the owner of the house. If she goes to the S-curve in Palmer Lake, you know that at 9:23 p.m. She's there for at least five minutes. We don't know why actually she's there. We know that the board was down there sometime in mid-February when we started searching there, based on the information we had from her Life360 and the telematics. We know that board had Gannon's blood on it. DNA matched it. Why is she going out to hide the body there? I don't know. Probably because it's a good location. She can't keep it in the Tiguan. Does she know right from wrong? At 12:00 a.m., 28th into the 29th, Carly drives out to her employment to pick her up. They leave the Tiguan there overnight. This whole time while she's missing and dumping Dana's body up in Palmer Lake, Detective Bethel is trying to get her to come in for an interview. Remember that? Carl Stout's trying to call her to get in for an interview. Her phone's on air con. The next morning, Carly drives her to the airport. They drop off the keys to the Kia. When I say drop it off, they threw the keys to the Kia to an attendant. Left. Is that rational thinking? Is that someone who didn't want to get caught?
[01:38:36] Speaker ?: Text at 10:25 a.m. on the 29th. I'm on my way to Detective Bethel. The interview.
[01:38:39] Speaker 3: It takes her over an hour and a half to get there.
[01:38:42] Speaker ?: We know that the car is washed on the way.
[01:38:43] Speaker 3: You saw photos of the water dripping off of it when she gets there. The interview she gives, you watched it. I'm not going to get into all the details. It takes her over an hour and a half to get there. We know that the car is washed away, so you saw photos of the water dripping off of it when she gets there. The interview she gives, you watched it, I'm not going to get into all the details, I just want to emphasize that she plants seeds. The suitcase is critical. Who says that? I think it was Eduardo at this time. Eduardo also took a suitcase when he took Gannon. She knows where the suitcase is at up in Palmer Lake. On January 30, 2020, her family shows up, Dakota Lowry, Brenda Awkward, and Dembra Locklear, her mother. Flying to Denver, they rent that Nissan Altima and drive down to Colorado Springs. They pick them up, take them to the extended stay suites hotel. The next morning, they rent that van Brenda Awkward does to collect their stuff at the house. They get her suitcase, including that red or pink suitcase that we recover in South Carolina that has blood on it that happens to match Gannon with a blanket inside it that happens to match Gannon. Pretty strong evidence. You got blood of the victim that you just killed with you when you're arrested on March 2nd. But what happens after they load things up? We know the suitcase was not there because the police were checking everything that came out of that house. We also know what Dakota said about when they exchanged vans, that he saw that very same green suitcase that was under the bridge that day and she says she had softball equipment
[01:40:39] Speaker ?: in it.
[01:40:40] Speaker 3: But when she gives the interview with the KKTV reporter at 12:10 PM, well, let's just look at her words, what are her words, we can play this video. You are?
[01:41:03] Speaker 5: I am Tisha Stout, which is Gannon's stepmother.
[01:41:07] Speaker 3: You've been a part of the investigation since the very first time you were the last person to see him. Is that right? Correct. What did you see when you last saw him?
[01:41:17] Speaker 5: Well, I'm not allowed to talk about anything with the case. I would more so be willing to talk about how the community needs to have faith and continue to work together and not make these false accusations. And I would never, never, ever hurt this child. And I know there's some questions out there about, okay, so tell me what happens. That's up to the investigations when they end up letting you guys know, but I've cooperated with them. Even to the point that we were held with a gun and my daughter, a 17-year-old who serves our country and the United States Air Force, who has never committed a crime or do anything wrong in her life, was put in handcuffs over the keys that was in her purse so they could take her car. I'm just ready for Gannon to come home, most importantly for him to see his family. But second, I am going to be so ecstatic when I'm able to say to people that I hope they have a really sincere apology for all these theories that have came out online, for all the things they said that I have done or people have done. I just want everyone to know that we're going to find Gannon.
[01:42:16] Speaker 3: Can you talk to me a little bit about him? I don't know once.
[01:42:19] Speaker 5: Gannon is so kind and he loves to play video games. That's one of his favorite things. He loves Sonic and Mario and you know, he's always helpful and he was always so helpful with the dogs around the house and we have two little cute dogs and he was always like a person I could say, "Gannon, can you go do this?" And he would do it right away. You know, sometimes with kids we have to remind them and things like that and that's okay, but he was so sweet and able to help anyone. He could notice when you're sick and say, "Are you okay?" And such a kind heart. We should all come together and wait until the end and see what happens because Gannon's going to come home.
[01:42:56] Speaker 2: Any message for Gannon?
[01:42:57] Speaker 5: The message for Gannon I have is, "Gannon, when you get here, you'll be able to truly tell what happened and then I really hope I get a sincere apology from everyone who has made all those things, especially from my husband."
[01:43:13] Speaker 3: What we just heard there, that evidence that she might have some antisocial trait. We can calmly talk about that through a news reporter she's done. I failed to mention Amanda Van Est, who was the same nurse who examined her for injuries based on what she was telling people. First interview that she was raped and she examined her head and found no injuries. But what else did she do? She also told you about M1 holes and if she would have noticed anything that would require her to have a doctor examine her for an M1 hole, she would have got no evidence of mental disease, no evidence of psychosis. And this is the 29th, two days after she killed him. We know that a GPS tractor was later placed on that Nissan Altima and you know where she went when she disappeared for two hours and told her family that she was going to a pet store. Got her right back at the S-curve. She picks up Ganon's body, puts him in the trunk of that Nissan Altima, leaves the board out there, later found, and drives back to the hotel after she goes and gets some more dog outfits. And when she gets back to the extended stay suites, she's got to move Ganon's body from the trunk to the van that Brenda Ockwood rented earlier that day. We know that had to happen because of Dakota Lowery's testing. Her and Dakota go to the budget rental van place the next morning, February 1st, and they've got to move all the suitcases from one van to another. That's when he sees the green suitcase, knew something was suspicious about it. You saw his reaction. He had to get on a witness stand. He got subpoenaed here to come here. I think he felt manipulated by this defendant. You know the rest of the story. She drives across country with Harley. She's using the Ford Motor Company to check in the hotels. They've got a little scheme you saw in video. Harley would go into the dogs. She'd check in as one person. All rational thinking. It's also by social personality traits, perhaps. They drive all the way to Florida. They get there February 4th. Another divine intervention. Power up at 4:30, 6:00 in the morning in between the hotel and where Ganon's body is found. Every 24 or 25 hours it happens. It happens at that moment. That tells you that van is on the move in the middle of the night. It tells you she dumped Ganon's body that night or the early morning hours of February 4th. I'm going to go through fast now because I've been talking way too long. I'm going to talk about the pretext phone calls. You know all the stories. I'm not going to get into the details. Eduardo. Immunity. Quincy Brown. Several different versions of that. Bike accident. Uncle Matt. One that. Significant. And she says, I'm so sorry, Al, for lying to you. I'm going to tell you the truth. I wasn't in the car when I left Petco. It wasn't in the truck. Fake pregnant lady with cash. She's laundering money. She's arrested on March 2nd, 2020. She comes up with a story of now how it's Angel the babysitter who did it. Suitcase with Ganon's blood. Down on her. We've got all the searches on her phone that I'm not going to go through. You just saw it a few days ago. What I'd like to talk about is what people who are truly, legally insane do under these circumstances. Because there are people who are truly, legally insane, ladies and gentlemen. They don't act like that. If they don't have the capacity to know right from wrong, they're not going to hide the body. They're going to act like nothing happened. They may even do the crime if someone's there watching them because they don't know that it's wrong. Do you think she would have done this to Ganon if anyone was in the room with her? Of course not. They also don't lie. There's no reason to lie because they don't think it's wrong. So they come in and they say things like, "My God, I heard a voice that I thought was the devil. And the devil made me do this. I had no choice. Why are you even talking to me about it?" That's what we're talking about when we talk about a severe mental disease or defect. When we're talking about the capacity to form the intent or the capacity to use judgment and reflection, I'm going to refer you back to Mice and Men, the book. I read that a long time ago, but I still remember. It's about George and Lenny during the Depression. And George is a smart one. Lenny has some severe mental illnesses. Lenny likes to pet rabbits. He's such a big guy that he doesn't even know his own strength. So he would pet rabbits to the point where he would kill them. That's what we're talking about when you don't have the capacity to form the intent to kill because the mental illness doesn't allow you to. We're not talking about someone who makes choices to get weapons to kill with. I appreciate your patience. I know I've talked a long time here. Much longer than I thought. And I apologize for that. There's only one right verdict in this case. That's guilty to each and every charge that she's charged with. First degree murder after deliberation. First degree murder child under the age of 12. Tampering with the deceased body and tampering with physical evidence.