Opening statements begin in Faith Hedgepeth murder trial

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: For those of you, if you have any back issues and so forth, feel free to stand where you are if you want to step down off of the jury box and where the sheriff is seated. It's fine to do that. I have no problems with that. All right. At this time, we will proceed to opening statements. Will there be an opening statement from the state of North Carolina? [00:00:24] Speaker 2: Yes, Your Honor. [00:00:24] Speaker 1: This jury is with Ms. Lamarckin. [00:00:26] Speaker 2: Thank you, Your Honor. [00:00:27] Speaker 1: Yes, Your Honor. [00:00:28] Speaker 2: The evidence in this case is louder than the noise around it. Listen to the evidence, not the noise. Faith Hedgepeth was 19 years old in September of 2012. She was a student at UNC. She came from a very loving family, part of a close-knit community, the Havala-Saponi tribe in Hollister, North Carolina, where she grew up. She was going to be the first person in her family to graduate college, and she was on track. Instead, in the early morning hours of September 7, 2012, the defendant, she was going to be the first person in her family, she was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. [00:01:44] Speaker ?: She was going to be the first person in her family. [00:01:44] Speaker 2: She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. [00:01:46] Speaker ?: She was going to be the first person in her family. [00:01:47] Speaker 2: She was going to be the first person in her family. [00:01:48] Speaker ?: She was going to be the first person in her family. [00:01:48] Speaker 2: She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. [00:01:52] Speaker ?: She was going to be the first person in her family. [00:01:53] Speaker 2: She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. [00:02:10] Speaker ?: She was going to be the first person in her family. [00:02:11] Speaker 2: She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. [00:02:18] Speaker ?: She was going to be the first person in her family. [00:02:18] Speaker 2: She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. [00:02:24] Speaker ?: She was going to be the first person in her family. [00:02:25] Speaker 2: She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. [00:02:42] Speaker ?: She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. [00:02:45] Speaker 2: She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. She was going to be the first person in her family. [00:03:00] Speaker ?: She was going to be the first person in her family. [00:03:01] Speaker 2: She was going to be the first person in her family. And it was a stranger to Faith and she to him. In fact, that he was a stranger is the reason it took years to find him. Because from the jump, within a few weeks of Faith's murder, they had this single male DNA profile inside her body, discovered by the forensic pathologist who did the swabs of her vagina in her rectum and they had his DNA all over the crime scene. They knew they had to find the man who left his DNA. Chapel Hill PD investigated this case because it happened in Chapel Hill town, but up part where Durham County is, which is why we're in Durham. But Chapel Hill PD investigated the case. Chapel Hill PD, y'all, is a small town police department. They have like two to three murders a year. Chapel Hill is a wonderful place to live. And this very simple to solve case became a huge endeavor. Because the defendant was a stranger. Chapel Hill started as you would with the circle of people who had a connection to Faith. They looked at everybody. And then they moved outward in concentric circles, right? Looking at anybody who had a connection to Faith. And of course the connections got more and more tenuous as they moved out. They ran out of circles. And they could not find the man who left his DNA, y'all. They talked to hundreds of people. They took DNA swaths from hundreds of people. But they could not find him. They asked for help. The North Carolina State Bureau investigation came in about a year later. And they worked together in tandem. They never stopped. They never stopped looking. Because they knew. They knew who had done it. The man who left his DNA. That created a lot of noise. It created a lot of noise. And some people started to fill in the blanks. Because that's what humans do. We try to make sense of the senseless. And some of the noise sounded a lot like conspiracy theory. But once they found the defendant in 2021, the noise went quiet. And rightly so. Because it was only ever noise. Listen to the evidence. Not the noise. During this time in September 2012, Faith was living with her best buddy at college, Carina Rosario. Her best best friend was her niece, who's only a year apart in age. That's Alexis Evans. And she's going to explain why she's only a year apart from Faith. They grew up together. And they were best friends. But her best buddy at college was Carina Rosario. And during this time, Faith was in between living situations. And she and Carina had been close since before they started freshman year. Because they did an orientation program together. And they were not hitched at the hip. Was it joined at the hip? They did everything together. They danced together. They studied together. They looked out for each other. They took care of each other. They were like sisters. And so it was a no-brainer. When Faith needed a place to stay temporarily, Carina said, you stay with me. So Carina was living in a single bedroom, very small apartment. And Faith came over and dumped all her stuff in a giant heap. Like in the small living room area. And they shared everything. They shared the bedroom. They shared the bed. They shared the bathroom. They shared Faith's car. They also shared one key to the apartment. Which means they left the door unlocked, depending on who had the key and what the plan was. In the early morning hours of September 7th, they had finished studying at the library. And they went to the Thrill, which was a popular club in Chapel Hill. It's not open anymore. And it so happens that Carina was going through a hard time. She had a lot going on in her personal life. And she was upset. And Faith was taking care of her. That's what they did. Faith was the designated driver. And Carina had a lot to drink. Faith did not. Carina was drunk. They left the bar at about 2:00 in the morning when it closed. They lingered outside for a little bit with people they knew. And then they climbed into Faith's car. And Faith drove them home. Carina doesn't -- by that time, she was really starting to feel sick. She doesn't remember the drive home. She doesn't remember how Faith helped her get from the parking lot up the stairway to their second floor apartment. She does remember throwing up next to her bed into a trash can that she knew had been in the living room, along with Faith's other stuff, like holding pots and pans. Faith had gotten that trash can and put it next to Carina's side of the bed. And Carina was throwing up, in particular, red, slushy, alcoholic beverage that she had too much of at the throne. After a bit, Carina was in the bathroom. She stayed in there. It was about 3:00 a.m. when they got back from the club on September 7th. And then she was in the bathroom for maybe an hour or longer. And she was trying to call a boy that she wanted to be with. And when he didn't answer, she called another boy that she had just seen at the Thrill. And he agreed to come pick her up. And this was not unusual for them. And so, at about 4:20, 4:30, Carina got up to leave the apartment. And she called out to Faith and said she was leaving. She was going with Jordan was his name. And she was leaving the key with Faith. And she didn't hear anything. She presumed Faith was in the sleep. And she closed the door behind her and left it unlocked. Because that's what they did. She went down to the parking lot, got in Jordan's car, and went to his house for the rest of that early morning. Cut to about 9:00 a.m. When she wakes up, Jordan's already gone to class. And she's there without a ride. She needs to get to class. But she's got stuff in the apartment she's got to turn in. So she starts calling Faith. She calls Faith several times. Faith does not respond. So Carina calls another of their friends, Marisol. Who does eventually come and pick Carina up. And drives her back to the apartment. As they pull into the apartment, they notice that Faith's car is still there. They talk for a few minutes in the car. And then they go up to the apartment together. By now it's around 11:00 in the morning on September 7th, 2012. They go into the apartment. Of course, the door is still unlocked. It's quiet. They move into the bedroom. And Carina sees Faith's hair. She's otherwise covered over with the bedspread. And there, the evidence will show you that they try to take in what they're seeing. But their brains are resistant to making sense better. She saw a lot of blood. She thought, "Did she fall off the bed?" She's going to tell you about it. She'll tell you what she remembers. She does call 911. And at one point, the 911 operator, who's also trying to figure out what's going on, says to Carina, "Touch her body. Is she warm? Is she cold? She's trying to sort out. Is there something Carina can do to help her?" And Carina doesn't want to, but she finally touches Faith's body. And you hear her say, "She's cold." You'll hear that 911 call. You'll hear from Carina. You'll hear from Marisol. And some of the other people who were there around saw Faith in the hours before she died. You'll also hear from some of the law enforcement officers who investigated the case. You'll hear from the forensic scientists who analyzed the DNA that was found at the crime scene and realized it was one single, solitary, male DNA profile everywhere, including inside Faith's body. And also analyzed the DNA that came from this defendant's gene. You'll hear from the forensic scientists about the latent prints, the palm print and the thumbprint that were found on the movies. You'll hear from the forensic pathologist, who is the woman who conducted the autopsy. of Faith's body and confirmed that her cause of death was blunt force trauma, due to beating her. You'll also hear from a member of the defendant's family. His brother-in-law, Elvis, who will tell you a little bit about the defendant. That he came here in 2010 from Guatemala. That he joined his mother, his fluvia, who worked at the Outback Steakhouse in Durham. And that the defendant worked there, too, for a little bit in 2010. He also took language classes in English. And Elvis will tell you that there were a number of family members from Guatemala who worked at the Outback Steakhouse. And they and other people from Guatemala lived, a lot of them, in the apartment complex where Faith was murdered. You'll hear from another person who lived, also from Guatemala, lived with his wife and his six or seven brothers-in-law, in the apartment, directly across from Faith and Karina's apartment, just on the other side of the parking lot. And he'll tell you that he remembers they had a cookout the night Faith was done. It started at about 6:00 p.m. And it went until about 5:00 a.m. the next morning when it finally broke out. And this cookout was a picnic table, right next to where Faith parked her car in the road. You will see from the evidence in this case that the defendant committed these acts against Faith in a fit of rage. Not because he knew her. Not because of who she was. You'll hear from the evidence. She was beloved by everyone who knew her. He didn't do this to her because of who she was. He did it because of who he is. And you will see, you may not see or hear evidence about what exactly precipitated his rage, but you will see exactly what he did with it. Exactly what he did with it. He crept into her apartment under cover of darkness. He walked past the kitchen, took two bottles off the counter, a McCarty bottle and a Blue Riesling bottle. He dropped the Blue Riesling bottle on the floor and used the McCarty rum bottle to come down on her head. She didn't even have a chance to get up. And he did it again and again and again. You'll see the DNA on her boxer shorts, that's his, is right up here on the waist where he pulled them off her body. And they were found on the floor, rolled up with her underwear still inside. You'll see that he ripped a tampon out of her vagina, threw it on the bed, it was found next to her feet. And he forced his penis into both her vagina and her rectum. And he still had enough rage left that he took the time to write a note so everybody would know, "I'm not stupid." "Bitch. Jealous." And he walked like a whistler back into the dark. Having left behind the most important witness you will ever run in this trial. His own DNA. His own prints. y'all this case is not complicated it's devastating it's horrifying it's a family's worst nightmare and one they will never fully wake up from but it's also simple it is the evidence is loud and clear and if you listen to it and you'll hear and you will be fully satisfied that you know the truth the simple truth that the defendant Miguel Sáñuel is guilty he is guilty of murder he is guilty of sexual offense he is guilty of rape and he is guilty of the murder of faith [00:17:00] Speaker 1: thank you madam D.F. Will there be an opening statement from the defense? [00:17:08] Speaker 3: there was a lot to take in I heard a lot about evidence and I heard a lot about noise now it's my turn I like to go about this chronologically so on the night of September 7th 2012 Ms. Hedgbeth and her roommate were at a bar called The Thrill downtown Shackle Hill you'll get to see potentially a video footage of both arriving into the club time stamps are off on the video footage about 15 minutes and so we have a pretty good idea of what time they enter the club they stayed for a little over an hour they did leave about 2 o'clock in the morning and after that it's a little unclear Ms. Rosario gives a written statement to the police on September 7th 2012 says Faith and I rode home together in my car or in Faith's car I got home I was really drunk I remember throwing up in a trash can Faith was in the bedroom I went into the bathroom Ms. Rosario says that she stayed in the bathroom from about 3:05 to 4:20 in the morning she made a few texts she doesn't make any calls until about 4 o'clock she's texting a guy named George of the Prairie you're going to hear from him I'll get to him in a moment she texts him about 4:45 saying goodnight and then all of a sudden phone calls about 4 o'clock in the morning please come get me text him please come get me now he lived about 15 minutes away he lived on Longview Street Chapel Hill and this apartment was in Durham County just over the line so it's about 15-20 minute drive Ms. Rosario says that during this time this whole hour and a half she was sitting on the floor in the bathroom never got up never went back into the bedroom didn't wash her hands didn't brush her teeth even though she says she and vomited and vomited and the bedroom that she stands up walks straight outside gets into Jordan's car when he pulls up and leaves but I didn't hear the opening statement was that when Jordan picked her up he noticed something something that he felt like he had to tell the police later and so on the evening the evening on September 7th 2012 Jordan McCrary called the police he said listen I'm not accusing anybody of anything but she told me to call you if I don't remember anything about it last night but what I want to tell you is this when I picked up Karina she got in the car I looked over and she was doing something to her hand and she said why do I have blood on my hand and I asked her and he says she changed the subject and he didn't force the issue anymore now some people might consider that to be noise people might consider that something you want to consider when you're sitting in judgment of somebody accused [00:20:55] Speaker ?: of murder [00:20:55] Speaker 3: because the state's theory as I understand it is that sometime after Ms. Rosario has suddenly left in the middle of the night taking nothing with her and she had 15 minutes before Jordan got there he gets him [00:21:15] Speaker ?: you know [00:21:15] Speaker 3: a toothbrush he had him [00:21:17] Speaker ?: a bag [00:21:17] Speaker 3: a purse a wallet nothing walks out in the middle of the night waiting for him outside now when interviewed she says that she doesn't see anything going on outside Jordan said when he pulled up he didn't see anything going on outside I'm bringing this up because I heard a lot about a barbecue that was going on and I guess this barbecue was supposed to be you know for some reason that my client must have been in the area and the SBI has been as recently as a month ago interviewing people that were at this supposed barbecue and the people they interview keep getting asked do you know Miguel? and they repeatedly say no they say was he there at this barbecue? and repeatedly the people say no he was not there that night they pulled cell tower records to see if they can put his cell phone in the area at the time nothing instead of when you hear about a barbecue and it's supposed to be well he must have been at a barbecue and that's what happened where's the rest of the evidence? the rest of the evidence because throughout jury selection the state is very clear to all of you you know it's a hard burden hold it to us beyond a reasonable doubt promise us you will hold us to that and everybody did and now you've heard part of the story and already the forecast of the evidence at least as I heard it just left out what I consider and what I think you might consider some pretty important details things about someone not being identified blood on somebody's hand now Jordan Crary says that he drove Ms. Rosario back to his apartment they slept there until about 8:45 the next morning Jordan had class and she told police that she had two papers that she had presumably handwritten the night before that she needed to type so she calls Faith over about a 90 minute period 14 times no answer now the bus stop is across the street from Jordan's house Ms. Rosario's testimony anticipated will be that I was really worried I didn't have the key to my apartment and so that's why I was calling Faith 14 times in 90 minutes which I don't think there would be any evidence that she had ever done before no answer from Faith's time in fact interestingly enough from the time Ms. Rosario left the apartment at 4:20 there's no activity on Faith's phone nobody reports seeing her after Ms. Rosario left nobody reports her giving them a telephone call after Ms. Rosario left in fact Ms. Rosario though it's quite clear that after this blurry time in the bedroom where she doesn't really remember what happened other than throwing up and that Faith was in the bedroom she didn't have any more communication with Faith now the bathroom I'm going to use will be about right here in that part and there was no door to the bathroom it's not like it was a downstairs bathroom with a door closed bathroom's here bedroom door about right here it's about 5 feet Ms. Rosario says the bedroom door was open so now you've got 90 minutes no communication she's sitting about 14 feet away no doors between them no communication no Ms. Heshedrup was described as a wonderful loving person we can certainly agree on that but then you'll have to ask yourself this loving and wonderful person is it odd that she would not have come and checked on Ms. Rosario who was only a few feet away apparently according to her crying in the bathroom I think so but that's going to be up to you to decide do these facts make sense is this just noise or are you starting to hear a lot of things that don't add up and the next day [00:25:51] Speaker ?: eventually [00:25:51] Speaker 3: Marisol Rangel picks up Ms. Rosario at Jordan's house they get back to the apartment they do go in together 911 is called I want you to listen very closely to 911 call you are the evidence you figure out the credibility listen to the call tell yourself what does this sound is this a normal call? or are there things about this call that are more than just noise because on that phone call Mr. Rosario people keep saying there's stuff out of place in my apartment there's this blue bottle that's in the bedroom this blue bottle that had been in the apartment for a couple of weeks police arrive on the scene the first officer that comes in puts his hand on Ms. Hedgepath's neck and says we don't need an ambulance her body felt cold and stiff other police officers arrive on the scene they're talking to people trying to figure out if they can get any information about what might have happened the crime scene technicians actually don't get into the apartment until about 3:30 that afternoon many many hours have gone by and in between those crime scene technicians going in the apartment multiple police officers were in and out of the apartment lots of people going in and out of the apartment during that time one of the officers outside bumps into the downstairs neighbor her name's Joy Barker you'll hear testimony from her Ms. Barker who's about 80 years old now had lived in this apartment complex since about April and Ms. Rosario and Ms. Hedgepeth lived above her she didn't really know said the police say did you notice anything last night? did you hear anything out of the ordinary? Ms. Barker gives a written statement 12:30 in the afternoon on September 7th says yeah and I stayed up early late I was watching the Democratic National Convention out of the news junk [00:28:04] Speaker ?: says [00:28:05] Speaker 3: in this 3:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. time period I heard four loud thumps and when Ms. Barker's writing that down for the police she doesn't know anything about what happened that night nobody has said did you hear anything between a particular time period she's just asked did you hear anything? and she says these are the things that I heard noise the state says well this is just noise it doesn't have anything to do with what's really going on here why not address it? Ms. Barker has no motive for making a pen up so the police continue to investigate they take a lot of crime scene photos and those are critical in this case I anticipate one side or the other we're going to show these crime scene photos look at them very carefully each place that was photographed every photograph in there look at it ask yourself do these photographs what do they tell us? does this align with what the state is trying to tell us? that you know these relevators must have burst in at some point after 4:20 in a pit of rage done these horrible things this note that's written it's pure speculation that somebody's going to break in and block print a note that doesn't make any sense for someone that's already been killed the states repeatedly said well they didn't know each other at all they were complete strangers prove it that's just a throw away statement it's the state's burden if that's how they are proving this case if they're saying it's a stranger and it's a DNA case prove it rule out the doubts in your mind that's what you were going to be told and you're sitting in judgment with somebody else and this is the burden the state asks you to remember and you're promised to follow hold them to it because what my fellow counselor says is not evidence and what I say is not evidence and so when we hear these were blanket statements please keep that in mind so as the police investigate on the first day they get it through they take photographs of the apartment Miss Hedget's body hasn't moved until about midnight we know that her body was moved in the apartment by the crime scene technicians how many times? we do not know how many different ways and what position her body was? we do not know and that's important for the forensic evidence and I will get to that in a while but I want to stay chronologically to do the best of my ability so the police talk to Miss Rosario get her to write a written statement that night and they're looking in the apartment one of the they want to know [00:31:05] Speaker ?: where the door [00:31:06] Speaker 3: the bathroom it's got a hole in it and why it's not up Miss Rosario says well I have an ex-boyfriend that lives a couple of buildings over and you know he recently broke in and broke the door out and I had to get a restraining room and I had to get a restraining room and I had to get a restraining room and I had to get a restraining room police are interested in that and actually investigate that angle of it it's not noise these are things in a proper police investigation that you're supposed to look at they get the voicemail message that night from Jordan McCrary they interview him the next day he tells the police recorded interview exactly what I told you in the beginning Ms. Rosario was sort of emotional when he picked her up she had blood on her hand I saw she said within that first 48 hour time period so what did the police do? they called the State Bureau of Investigation they said listen can you send some texts over here to test this Lexus to see what we find what we find if anything so the SBI sends over some people to test the Lexus they test the passenger side they find a spot on the passenger side near the door handle on the interior they test it they test it in something called phenothema it reacts to hemoglobin and they see a presumptive positive indication for blood in the Lexus so they take a swab up send it to the prime lab brush request have this tested prime lab tests it they say there's DNA in it we can't make a profile so we have this presumptively positive test for blood we have what Mr. McCreary said and then on the 10th the police go back to the apartment they want to do a little more searching they notice something they missed the first time around [00:33:18] Speaker ?: they'd spend all their [00:33:20] Speaker 3: time in the bedroom they didn't really look much in the bathroom and so when they go back they see the spot where Ms. Rosario said she'd been sitting the whole time for that 90 minutes and against that door frame was about a two and a half inch blood drip where she was sitting what did the police do? they take a swab and test it first with the phenophaling it's presumptively positive for blood I don't know I mean you'll see photographs of it there's no dispute what it is and the swab never gets tested the swab never gets tested for 13 years go by that's why it was never tested the defense asks for it to be tested it can't be located until it's gone it's not any of the police reports until 2025 no mention we had this evidence but we lost it you know this blood in the bathroom where somebody said they were sitting a person who was suddenly in the middle of the night who got into a car with a guy who said he saw blood on her hand maybe that's noise to some people but that sounds like forensic evidence to others you get to pick do you think it's noise? it's noise if you think it's something related to what happened between that time the two young women were alone in the apartment that time period where the downstairs neighbor heard four loud thumps we'll never know what was mixed in with that blood sample what DNA may or may not have been mixed in with the blood sample with the roommate to sit because the police lost as Hedge Pat's phone gets collected from the crime scene on the morning of September 7th, 2012 one of the lead investigators wants to start looking through it so he takes it from one of the crime scene technicians now we can't test it for DNA the crime lab is able to test two small spots where they see what looks like genetic material on it but all the other spots on it per phone don't get swapped because the evidence was mishandled more information more information they don't have on the night of September 8th Officer Matthews from the Chapel Hill Police Department conducts an interview with Ms. Rosari asking her about what happened he says do you remember Jordan when you were having a conversation about blood on your hand she says no I don't remember that conversation he says are you sure? yeah I have no memory of that conversation with Jordan maybe that's noise you get to decide that Officer Matthews says to Ms. Rosario [00:36:30] Speaker ?: you know [00:36:30] Speaker 3: you suggested that it might be helpful for you to come with us to the crime scene look around see if anything's out of place Officer Matthews [00:36:41] Speaker ?: says [00:36:41] Speaker 3: yeah I didn't want to do that at first but I'm going to take you up on your suggestion so they go back to the apartment hey look Ms. Rosario takes them all through the apartment says anything missing just that blue bottle [00:36:56] Speaker ?: he said [00:36:57] Speaker 3: that blue bottle is out of place that's the only thing it doesn't mention a rum bottle it doesn't mention a bigger wine bottle in the kitchen anything else just that blue bottle it kept getting mentioned on the 911 calls imagine a blue bottle Officer Matthews while he's in the apartment he notices some what he thinks might be blood around the sink has it tested presumptively positive for blood so he again says you know [00:37:30] Speaker ?: Mr. Rosario [00:37:30] Speaker 3: he said you threw up and I know when I threw up one of the first things [00:37:34] Speaker ?: I want to do [00:37:34] Speaker 3: is wash my mouth out of the water I know that you were in the bathroom did you use the sink? I respond no I didn't use the sink I didn't use the sink no I just wasn't thinking about that for that 90 minute that I was on the floor at the bathroom I didn't wash my hands I didn't brush my teeth I didn't do anything I just sat on the floor but she's been in the apartment with him when they've seen the blood around the sink is that my voice? or is she taking herself away from something that connects her? that's up to you you get to decide those issues as the investigation continues to unfold police officers are looking at other pieces of evidence and the medical examiner does an autopsy on September 8, 2012 now at this point a 19 year old person has lost her life and it's not just one doctor that's in the room for the medical examination there are two doctors in there and there's a third gentleman taking photographs they're looking for anything that might be related to her death they do a full examination they find no evidence of any physical trauma to her genital region her rectal region they do an internal examination they're looking for service all of the things that you would want to look for again, two doctors in the room absolutely no physical evidence whatsoever any injury to any of her genital areas these are the things that we didn't want to talk about they're similar for they do they wipe her lungs very low lung wipe so when the state said she was bludgeoning and these horrible things the state says happened must have happened and then our client must have just left and then this hedge path must have still been alive maybe dying medical testimony in this case about conversations the state's had with medical examiner's office is that this hedge path due to these injuries most likely would have died under a minute within seconds and the lung weight corroborates that you would have a higher lung weight in this case and I don't think the medical examiner's going to deny that if somebody had died slow physical evidence is a low lung weight swabs are taken and I want to go through all of this DNA evidence that we talked about there was a vaginal swab taken there was a rectal swab taken they get tested five sperm heads are found on the vaginal slide five total less than one sperm head per field of u are found on the rectal swabs now a lot of people hear that information and they think well that must mean something happened that night otherwise you wouldn't see that information that just wouldn't be there and that's when in a forensics case like the states is putting this forward as we go to the science we look at things like the national protocol for sexual assault medical forensic examination published by the United States Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women this was published in September of 2020 and when you read this manual to find out about time frames because when you're investigating a case first degree murder case time frames matter you have to rule out the evidence to hold the states to its burden what does the Department of Justice say that samples should be collected regardless of the patient's post-assault activities showering urinating douching [00:42:02] Speaker ?: swimming [00:42:02] Speaker 3: sexual activity eating or drinking sexual assault samples should be collected from any consenting patient seeking care as soon as possible in up to five days or longer post-assault however time frames are offered only as a benchmark for consideration and should not be used as the basis to deny medical forensic care to any patient who has experienced sexual assault it is important to remember that sample collection beyond the cutoff point is conceivable and may be warranted in particular cases that's great advice medically because if someone says something horrible happened four days ago five days ago six days ago in the old days there was about a 72 hour rule and it was well we're not going to try to collect samples but as medicine and technology have evolved now they can look back further and lengthen out the time period and that it works both ways the evidence I just read for you is important for investigators to understand that if we send something off to forensics and they say we find what the SBI's current manual deems a rarer amount of sperm you need to look back rule everything out close the window because finding something doesn't mean a crime occurred you have to connect them you have to use the evidence otherwise you leave this you leave this big gap in time you leave this gap in evidence and when we talk about criminal trials and proof beyond the reasonable doubt proof beyond the reasonable doubt you don't want these gaps in evidence because you have a burden beyond a reasonable doubt and so I heard a murder weapon states telling you a murder weapon was found and that must be the murder weapon make them prove it they say the DNA the defendant is on the murder weapon let's talk about that first of all this alleged murder weapon is a bottle that had been in the apartment for weeks this isn't something that had been brought in allegedly from outside some weapon that somebody showed up with for weeks this has been in the apartment 96% of the DNA mixture on this bottle that was tested at the time was from his hedge fund it was blood less than 4% of it is considered part of the DNA mixture not states analyst from the SBI she's going to testify she's not going to say yeah this was his DNA this 4% and 96% of it was Ms. Hesbeth's DNA no she's going to talk about likelihood ratios and hypotheticals that get run when you have a mixture analysis of DNA and that there are all these different points these alleles that people have within their genetic material and you'll hear that multiple multiple places were missing so when you hear his DNA was on the bottle sometimes it creates this sense that oh ok I only have a match it's not even close to what it is and the hypothetical that got used was if they had Shepeth in my client versus two unknown unrelated individuals and the crime lab's going to say well we ran those two hypotheticals to come up with a you know a likelihood ratio that the DNA was the defendants why not run it against Faith Hedge Path my client hypothetical two Faith Hedge Path and an unknown unrelated individual they could it's their burden beyond reasonable doubt so when you hear well his DNA is on the murder weapon listen to it closely it doesn't mean what you think and that is the thing that you're going to hear more about DNA evidence in this case from a professor of biology at UNC young guy Morgan Korsix is named teaches a course in forensics forensics I want to make sure I get this right so what I anticipate you're going to hear a lot of this is sort of news to me as well you're very insistent about what DNA means and what it does not mean and finding DNA in a mixture or a match does not mean that the person who contributed the DNA left it there a time and place it does not mean the person whose DNA is found committed a crime and when you hear these big numbers you know ten trillion times more likely it's this person's DNA in the mixture than some other person's place it does not mean that that individual is ten trillion times more likely likely to have committed a crime than a random unrelated person now if you think when you hear DNA results and you hear big numbers ten thousand times or ten million times more likely it's this person's DNA than the other and you jump to the conclusion well it must be ten trillion times more likely this person committed a crime than someone else that's what we in the legal [00:48:02] Speaker ?: profession [00:48:02] Speaker 3: call the prosecutors balance it and they did not do that but that is something that can be confusing and people can jump [00:48:10] Speaker ?: to that [00:48:10] Speaker 3: because we are the CSI generation and you see television shows and a crime has been committed and someone swabs something and says well there's DNA there we crack the case because that must be the person don't worry about the rest of the evidence in this case just focus on that because everything else is noise except when it's not furthermore only one small spot on this run ball that had blood on it got tested for thirteen years and all of a sudden the defense said well can we test the rest of this bottle so swabs are taken on the remainder of this rum bottle not connected to the defendant [00:48:54] Speaker ?: and there's nothing [00:48:55] Speaker 3: that said they couldn't have tested that bottle way back when but when you hear his DNA is on the rum bottle and then you hear it will know there's a mixture of DNA multiple, multiple sections of alleles are missing all these different areas of the bottle the bottle could have been tested or not tested I'm asking you to look at the light through that I heard a fellow counselor say Ms. H. Pest's tampon was found on the ground and it had a defendant's DNA on it that's not the evidence the evidence in this case is that is that there was a tampon found on the ground there were two profiles on it only one profile was a full genetic profile my client was excluded from that the other DNA that was on a small portion of the tampon was not there was no profile that could be made that could be made and no conclusion on a profile doesn't mean well still could have been maybe it was maybe it wasn't and no conclusion means we've tested this for DNA and we cannot draw a conclusion that's the lab member of Aaron Urbush from the State Bureau of Investigations it's going to be a testimony no conclusion doesn't mean yeah it might have been it's no conclusion we don't know what this means and it would be dangerous for us to try to have somebody presume we might know what that meant because we can't draw a conclusion this white bag that was on the bed multiple people had DNA on that clearly much bizarre again you may ask yourself this state saying a complete stranger broke hand I'm with a block print in English a note for somebody who could never be the state wants you to assume that whatever was written on this bag was written that night would ask you to assume that it was just one person that wrote it maybe instead of me two people writing notes to each other over time these are things that need to be ruled out when you're trying to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt which they have repeatedly said please hold us to our burden and I'll say and say again hold them to our burden there were multiple other pieces of evidence in that crime scene that have never been tested things like the front door knob the inside of the front door knob these things weren't tested the palms the massage pass hands were not tested were not tested I heard something about boxer shorts and being pulled off somebody's body and that my client's DNA was found on those boxer shorts 2026 no 2021 a cutting was taken from these boxer shorts because they've previously been tested and it turns out there's a mixture [00:52:10] Speaker ?: of multiple [00:52:10] Speaker 3: multiple people and on one area where a q-tip's been used several places certain alleles in common in common with my client wrong there most of them were missing so again [00:52:27] Speaker ?: to say [00:52:28] Speaker 3: well his DNA is on there he's asking you to ignore what the science is and then this is nothing more than a mixture of DNA and again the state expert says well I'll run two hypotheticals hypothetical one the DNA on this portion of the boxer shorts is Ms. Hedgehead my client and an unknown unrelated individual hypothetical two the DNA mixture of these three people is three unknown unrelated individuals and I will on cross-examination I'm going to ask why would you not include Ms. Hedgehead other types of chemicals [00:53:14] Speaker ?: of course [00:53:15] Speaker 3: you're going to have inflated numbers look at how many of the allele markers were missing on that piece of evidence who handled that evidence before the SBI tested it again in 2021 because you're going to see crime scene photos with at least one crime scene technician in the crime scene and they're global two separate photos two separate photos so this idea that evidence gets collected would be nice to think that it always has a nice orderly process and everything goes smoothly but what's getting tested is only as good as the way it's collected the way that it's handled the chain of custody and I would say you when you see the evidence [00:53:58] Speaker ?: in this case [00:53:58] Speaker 3: and you listen I think you're going to have questions about how things were handled after my client who's approached by the police to be arrested they ahead of time decided we're going to go we know where he lives we're going to arrest and I'm there to talk they do approach him the arresting officer Officer Matthews has a cell phone says hey you know this girl not a glossy photograph not this is fake hedge battle here's the other detail she was killed a couple of years ago in Chapel Hill now this is in 2021 nine years later you approach somebody you don't have a big glossy photograph there's no evidence there's no evidence there's hedge pass the name of Jews there's no evidence that investigator Matthews says you know this happened in 2012 this was in Chapel Hill now you know this girl on an iPhone she was killed a couple of years ago in Chapel Hill and it's so important to jog people's memories to show them glossy photographs ask yourself in this case why wasn't it done? my client's arrested and like any police investigation you would want to find out more information about who this person is several of these ex-girlfriends good interview [00:55:42] Speaker ?: hey [00:55:43] Speaker 3: has this got violent? is this a bad person? has he ever done anything to hurt you? objection you'll hear testimony from several ex-girlfriends no issues none objection maybe that's noise objection sustain I don't think so this idea so this this idea of some rage break in break in no forced entry no window broken no door kicked in Mr. Rosario says I didn't want to do that where's the burden? where's the burden? and when you hear what DNA [00:56:35] Speaker ?: oh [00:56:35] Speaker 3: do we have DNA don't listen to anything listen to these time frames listen to what it means and what it does not mean because finding a sample of DNA finding a sperm hat on on a swab it's taken gives you a longer time frame police you have to work on eliminate people because if it just turns into well we swab something we find DNA we solve the case and all the rest of the evidence blood stories people leaving in the middle of the night people start calling it noise it's not it is the evidence in this case and that's what you get to weigh I've talked to you for a long time here because I don't get to talk for a long time it's important for me to make sure that these concepts these forensic concepts are in your mind as you weigh the evidence because otherwise it just sounds like a CSI television show and it can be hard so focus in on that ask yourself is this noise? is it just DNA and the rest is noise? or are there things in this case that don't add up that you can't reconcile and if that's the case hold the state to that burden that he'd ask each of them [00:58:00] Speaker ?: repeatedly to hold up [00:58:02] Speaker 3: hold on to the oath that he took when he came into the courtroom and that's all we're asking and I think that if you do and you listen to all of the evidence and you hold on to that oath and look no matter how painful it is if you hold on to that oath and what the state asks you to do I think you can return a verdict of not guilty and that's what we're asking [00:58:31] Speaker ?: thank you [00:58:34] Speaker 1: thank you Mr. Williamsport [00:58:37] Speaker ?: alright [00:58:37] Speaker 1: ladies and gentlemen as I told we're going to take a break we'll come back at 12:15 [00:58:45] Speaker ?: once again [00:58:46] Speaker 1: please do not express an opinion [00:58:47] Speaker ?: nor form an opinion [00:58:48] Speaker 1: everyone else remain seated we're going to come back at 12:15 and we'll start with the presentation of the state's evidence if you'll leave your pens and pads [00:58:57] Speaker ?: and your chairs as I said [00:58:59] Speaker 1: everyone else remain seated rather than law enforcement while the jury leaves the courtroom the courtroom [00:59:32] Speaker ?: All right.