Wife ‘Purposefully’ Shoots Husband in Face Before Christmas: State

[00:00:00] Jason Fredaway: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm Jason Fredaway, I'm up in the State of New York in this case. It's my opportunity to speak to you directly kind of about what this case is going to be about. I'm sure you're curious to further reading the indictment, no details, no evidence, no pictures yet. So you've kind of probably been wondering what is this all about. Of course, the indictment's not evidence, it gives the people in the community, the jury gives some issue to decide amongst yourselves that forms the issue of the tribe on you, 12 people. So the allegation is that Lacey Bowles, this defendant, has murdered her husband, Daniel continues on December 22, 2019. And as I'm trying to think about how to talk to you about this case, what to say, what to say, what to highlight to you, I thought about something Mr. Steele raised in Guadir and I raised it as well, Mr. Cole raised it. This rollercoaster type of relationship. Mr. Steele used the term rollercoaster relationship. I talked about it while you're asking questions, if you've ever seen a volatile relationship, I think Mr. Steele may have used the terms, "Hey, they loved hard and they fought hard." It was up and it was great, but when it was down, it was as low as it gets, it was as bad as it gets. I started thinking about it, you know, who can I compare these two people? Dan and Lacey, and it's going to be important in this case, just important almost is to know what happened and for you people to decide what happened, it's going to be important for you to understand and come to know the dynamic of Dan and Lacey. What happened, who were these people, and how did they get into this? I started thinking about it. And who were some other famous couples that you can characterize that were up and down, high and low, good and bad, and started thinking about it. Bonnie and Clyde. They had Bonnie Parker, Clyde Barrow. They got together. We know what happened to them. [00:02:22] Speaker ?: They were packed together. [00:02:24] Speaker 2: Excuse me, Mr. Treadwell. Yes, sir. I apologize. [00:02:27] Speaker ?: This is not enough. [00:02:28] Jason Fredaway: Okay, how would you take this outside the presence of the truth? The defense is a blessing. [00:02:33] Speaker 2: Okay. All right. Well, I kind of gave you a heads up that there might be a lot of in and out of the courtroom. It's starting a little sooner than I anticipated, but why don't we move you all back into the jury room to the jury room for just a brief, brief moment. All right, I'll hear your objection. [00:03:24] Speaker 3: I want to apologize to the process. I did not mean to interrupt, but Bonnie and Clyde, your honor, are notorious American outlaws. This is not argument at the end of the case. And they did crime sprees throughout the country during the Great Depression. I mean, none of that's similar. And that's why I objected. I did not object lightly. I just-- that's a terrible analogy to use with a lacy bolt on trial. And that's one of my objections. [00:04:10] Speaker 2: Any response? [00:04:11] Jason Fredaway: It's not a legal objection at all. See, I don't think-- Sir, may I please respond to the court? It's in my terms. Your honor, I can't respond to objections that aren't legal in nature. Like, that's not an open statement. That's not a legal objection. And I'm not going to continue a team of Bonnie and Clyde comparison. My theme is going to be Sid and Nancy. So I'm moving on to Sid and Nancy. And that will be my simple thing. But what I'm doing is comparing a well-known-- I think it's a well-known couple who had a tumultuous relationship with each other, not getting into any kind of specifics or making a comparison and trying to say that this party, this defendant is exactly like these people. But I want people to identify this relationship as being extremely volatile. This relationship as being the best of times, the worst of times. I think the way-- a proper way to do that is just to give an example of two people in American history, Sid and Nancy, the late '70s, that were together and about the same age as these participants. It ended in tragedy, as did this, and it's a volatile relationship. Mr. Steele raised this whole theme in one ear. He's asking a rollercoaster type of relationship, a volatile relationship. Obviously, that's a theme of this case on both sides. And I think it's a-- I'm not saying-- I'm not talking about these Lacey Bowles and Dan Akers committed a crime spurt. I'm not saying that. I'm saying they were involved in a very-- a strikingly volatile relationship that ended in a tragedy. And that's-- that's perfectly acceptable to draw an analogy in an old age statement. When I show, this is the evidence that's going to be before you. Let me remind you of these people. [00:05:52] Speaker 2: All right. [00:05:52] Speaker 3: Anything else? My legal objection is it's beyond the permitted parameters of an opening statement. An opening statement is for the state to discuss not what the defense is going to show under the Parker versus state, but only what the state evidence will show. There'll be nothing in this case that I know about that would introduce this analogy of Bonnie and Clyde or the other individuals. So that is my objection. And it's prejudice under 403. [00:06:24] Speaker 2: All right. Um, the state's going to overrule the objection. And you can have a continuing objection. [00:06:32] Jason Fredaway: Judge, uh, I know may as well get some other things out in the air since Mr. Steele raised some case that says I can't talk about what the-- what I expect the defense to show. That's outrageous. Part of my opening statement absolutely does. I anticipate bringing in what I think the defense will show. And I'll say that the defense has no burden to produce any evidence or presenting the evidence whatsoever. They enjoyed the right to silence and the burden of proof that belongs with the state and stays there. But I do believe I'm perfectly allowed to say I anticipate based on witness names and information that I've gotten before the trial. I certainly anticipate these people to testify. This is what I anticipate them to say by the defense. They may testify. They may not. But I anticipate Ross Gardner, Dr. Jamie Downs, Dr. Carol Terry, Dr. Eric Warren, all of these experts. This is what I anticipate happening. I don't believe that's improper either. So I'll save another objection at another evacuation degree and ask that this be raised. [00:07:35] Speaker 2: Well, there's nothing wrong with you saying this is what you expect the evidence to show. No, I don't think that was part of the objection, so. [00:07:44] Speaker 3: It is actually the objection. May I have one more here? [00:07:48] Speaker 2: Sure. [00:08:14] Speaker ?: I'm Parker versus state, P-A-R-K-E-R. [00:08:35] Speaker 3: I'm Parker versus state, P-A-R-K-E-R, 277 Georgia, 439-588 Southeast 2B683, it's 2003 case. And it specifically states it's been cited several times since 2003. It's in division two, third paragraph. The purpose of the opening statement is to inform the jury and the court of the nature of the case and to give them an outline of the proof the party anticipates presenting. The prosecuting attorney's opening statement is limited to the statement of what the state expects to prove. Prosecutor may state what he expects his witnesses to testify to. Although Georgia has not specifically addressed this subject, a review of our sister states reveals that many courts prohibit any mention of the other side's anticipated evidence during the opening statement. The advocate is thus precluded from criticizing the attempted, excuse me, the anticipated proof of the other side or from discussing evidence that will be elicited during the cross-examination of the adverse witnesses. In Georgia, good faith is the general test for passing upon the preliminary statement of the prosecutor to the jury as to what he expects to prove in a criminal case. Based upon our review of the record, it appears that the prosecutor had a reasonable basis for believing Parker would introduce an alibi in evidence. The list of defense witnesses, including his mother and his sister. The mother was present in the courtroom. The sister was under defense subpoena to appear. The prosecutor stated on the record in a pretrial discussion, the defense counsel indicated to the state these witnesses would testify. However, the record also reflects that Parker failed to file the alibi in evidence. We find the situation here comparable as discussed in the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Then I'm skipping to Hall, the United States, Hall versus State. That's wrong. United States versus Hall, 165 F3, 1095 7th Circuit, 1999. In Hall, the Seventh Circuit also determined that the prosecutor had a reasonable basis for believing that Hall would introduce the alibi evidence discussed by the state in opening. Notwithstanding that good faith belief, the Hall court held, "We have serious doubts as to the appropriateness of a prosecutor commenting on a potential alibi witness of a defendant. We believe it to be a rare situation where it would be appropriate for a prosecutor to comment on anticipated defense evidence because a defendant is under no obligation to put forward evidence of his or her own behalf. When the prosecution raises the specter of a flawed alibi and the defense chooses not to offer any alibi, it may well leave the jury with an unfavorable impression of a defendant." We agree with Hall, with excuse me, with the Hall court, that it is inappropriate for a prosecutor in a criminal case to discuss an opening statement the evidence she anticipates the defense will present a trial. The criminal defendant is under no obligation to prove or disprove anything. The law is absolutely clear that the criminal defendant carries no burden of proof or persuasion whatsoever. That's my case. [00:12:10] Jason Fredaway: Okay. Any response to that, would you tread away? Obviously, it's a specific streamlined case when you're talking about a defensive alibi. If you're in opening statement as the state and so you say this defendant's going to produce a defensive alibi and here's why the defense can't be believed or can be undermined or should not be believed by you and then the defendant chooses not to exercise that defensive alibi. That's a special circumstance in the cases he cited. And that's why each of the cases he cited dealt with an alibi. But I, in nowhere in my 23-year career have I ever been limited into saying, I anticipate the defense calling expert witnesses. I anticipate those witnesses will try to testify to x, y, or z. And that's always allowed. I have a right to show not only what I believe the state's evidence will be, but what I anticipate the defense evidence will be. There will be ample instruction to this jury that the defendant is under no obligation to admit any testimony or evidence at all. She enjoys the right to remain silent, not be held against her. But let's just be honest here. We've been some, we've been served with notice of six very highly paid expert witnesses by the defendant. I, I can, I have a good faith basis to believe that those witnesses, some or all, will be called in the defense side of the case because you don't go out and hire, paid $20,000 to witnesses like that and not call them. So I think that's a good faith basis that these witnesses will be called. They've provided us with CVs. They've provided us with synopsis of what their testimony, what their findings were in the examinations of the defense preparation of the case. So I have a good faith basis they will be called. And I believe I'm entitled under Georgia law to bring that up to the, to the jury. Now I do so at my own peril, because if I go into all these expert witnesses and what they're going to say and how they're going to help defend the case, and the defense chooses not to call any of those people, well, then I look like an idiot. And Mr. Steel can, Mr. Leo can get up here and say, what is this? You know, we didn't call any of those people. What is it? What's the sham? What's he trying to sell you of your, we didn't do any of that. Well, fine, but I have a right to a good faith basis to sell the jury. I believe that's what the evidence would be. Thank you. All right. Well, I'm looking at the, um, [00:14:38] Speaker 2: case law that was decided to the court Parker versus state prosecuting attorney's opening statement is limited to the statement of what the state expects to prove. And as was just read, our sister states prohibit any mention of the other side's anticipated evidence during the opening statement. The advocate is thus precluded from criticizing the anticipated proof of the other side or from discussing evidence that will be elicited during the cross-examination of adverse witnesses. So I feel bound to that law and I'll instruct, I'll sustain the objection and limit the state and opening to its evidence. And if that creates a problem for Mr. Treadaway, and you need a few minutes to change your notes and I'll give you a little time If you want it. [00:15:48] Speaker ?: I don't want it. [00:15:52] Speaker 2: Okay. All right. Let's have the jury back. [00:16:06] Speaker ?: Let's see. Let's see. [00:16:14] Jason Fredaway: Let's see. [00:16:23] Speaker ?: Let's see. Let's see. Let's see. Let's see. [00:16:37] Speaker 2: All right, welcome back whenever you're ready, Mr. Treadaway. [00:17:03] Jason Fredaway: Please, the court again, your honor. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your patience. I was at the analogy of some people, some star-crossed kind of people, star-crossed lovers who would experience the volatile relationship up and down, back and forth, positive and negative, and talked about Ryan and Clyde. But a really more appropriate type of kind of relationship is somebody that came across it online last night as I was thinking about it. It's Sid and Nancy. You know Sid and Nancy. In the late 70s, there was a band called the Sex Pistols. They were a punk band out of England. The bass player was named Sid Vicious and his girlfriend was Nancy Fungent. There's a movie about it. You may have seen the movie. It's called the Sid and Nancy. But that's kind of a perfect example of two people who they loved each other and they loved each other really fiercely and really hard. But at the same time, they were toxic to each other. They couldn't persist. The relationship wasn't going to succeed. There were issues, mental health issues, dependency issues, anger issues, violence issues. And ultimately, in 1978, Nancy was found stabbed in a Chelsea hotel room. Sid Vicious was there. He said he didn't remember anything about it. He had been on substances. He didn't remember anything about it. He was released on bail in New York City after Nancy's killing and he overdosed on heroin days later. And that was the end of Sid and Nancy. But it gives you an idea of two people that kind of, they were, they were good for a while and they were as good as it could be, but then it just, it went downhill and deteriorated quickly, deteriorated badly, and a negative tragedy. So that's kind of like a situation that you can look at two people probably never should have gotten together. And when they got together, everybody watching is kind of, you know, it's kind of worried about how it's going to turn out. So I want you to think about as this evidence comes for you, as the state's evidence unfolds before you in this case, think about these two people, their dynamics, their individual dynamics, and their collective dynamics, how they interacted with each other. As I said, I respectfully believe it's going to be important that I submit to you that you really got to understand the two people to understand what happened. When you decide what happened, we don't say what happened. Mr. Steele doesn't say what happened. You say what happened. That's your job. And it's your job alone. You can say what happened and nobody will dispute it because you're the finders of fact. The judge is the finder of law. He tells you what the law is and you have to follow the law and the instructions, but you're the finders of fact. You get to decide what happened here, what really happened in this case. And for that, you'll render a verdict at the end of the case, a unanimous verdict about what did happen. Let me take you back to around the time of this murder. This was December 22nd, 2019. So a ways back, think about what was going on back then, December of 2019, December 22nd, 21st, 22nd, Christmas time, 2019, before COVID. COVID-19, people were kind of talking about it. People were getting sick. They didn't know what it really was, but at that time, December, still didn't really know what it was. It's, I want to just orient you to, to the time period. If you remember back that far, it doesn't seem like it's that far back with COVID, but COVID's just coming on, just getting popular then. And it's Christmas time. Dan and Lacey are married. They live on this, uh, in Braymel Port, on Braymel Port, 34 Braymel Port, I believe in Dallas. They live together. They live together with children at that, uh, location. Now, Dan was a hardworking guy and you'll learn about him throughout this case. He was a local sheet metal union laborer. Good job. So he's the union laborer with a sheet metal company, local union 85, I believe, the sheet metal workers union. He would go to big commercial sites, hospitals, uh, airport, uh, warehouses, huge buildings, uh, to do sheet metal work. And they were constructing new wings. Maybe you look at the, uh, well-star quality hospital doing that huge wing on the back of it, like doubling the size of it. You've seen it with the cranes. The sheet metal worker union is probably doing that. It's that type of commercial heavy construction. So that's what Dan did. He had a good job. Uh, they were struggling, Lacey and Dan, not gonna make, not gonna make it out like they weren't. They were struggling. They were, money was tight. Lacey falls. The defendant was a stay at home mom taking care of kids. Money was tight. Dan, uh, had a job at the, uh, hospital, not this hospital, Piedmont hospital, kind of coming to, or Northside hospital was kind of coming to a close. And he was scheduled to go on to another job. His tools went, uh, the moment he was murdered, his tools were actually still on the job at the hospital. He was going to transition into another job at the airport, but he was working and they were making it and they were making ends meet. They didn't have a lot of money like, like all of us, they were, they were watching their budget, counting their headings and just making it work. A lot of, you know, two or three kids, young kids, six year old son. Dan was kind of a quintessential typical father. He coached his kids in baseball. He, uh, coached his kids in football. He was really active in their lives. All of his kids get kids with another, uh, marriage, another relationship. This defendant had kids with another relationship. So together they kind of made a family, made it work with combined children and combined relationships from other people. So they were just doing what everybody would do, what anybody would do, trying to get by, trying to do the best you could. Dan had just bought a new car, bought a, not a new car from a dealership, but he bought a car from his sister and brother-in-law, bought a used car to get back and forth to work. So he was looking forward to that, fixing that up, getting back to work. He was really looking forward to it. He was going to show it. Really looking forward to it on the last, one of the last days he was alive. He was really looking forward to getting started with the baseball with his son. Season's coming up early, uh, 2020. So December, Christmas, 2020, or 2019. So baseball is going to be coming up, what, February, March, youth baseball. He's really involved with that. And actually one of the pieces of evidence we'll show you is that Dan, right before he was murdered, he went to his sister's house and he was getting, uh, getting a baseball club. So, you know, really, he was really excited to start the new season with his kid, uh, with baseball. So, you know, that's kind of the scene. They were not, not rich people. They were just normal people trying to make it work, but their relationship was volatile. You'll see, for example, in this case, once, uh, you'll see, you'll hear an audio recording in this case where Dan, he recorded one of their arguments. They would have explosive arguments and people would see these arguments. I'm sure some of you may have, you know, people, you may have seen people argue, married people argue, they had this. Right. They hadn't been married very long, but they had been together for a long time. They'd been together, together several years and then they made it official shortly before his death and got married. But Dan was actually involved in November of 2019 in a pretty, pretty bad argument with, with this defendant. For whatever reason, he decided to record that on his phone and we'll hear that. We'll hear the defendant's own words or argument with him. And he was just recording. And we have that as a piece of his legacy here to play for you, a piece of what was left behind. So, I hope you understand and I hope you will understand, keep an open mind as this evidence comes before you of their relationship and how it was and how you put these little pieces in front of you. You never lose sight of, of, of the type of relationship they had because that's important. So let me take you up to the 20, uh, 2019, excuse me, uh, December 22nd, 2019, basically 2021, 29, excuse me, December 21, December 22, because Dan was murdered in the late, late, early hours of 2020, uh, December, uh, December 20, sorry, December 22nd. So December 21st would have been his last full day alive on earth. Uh, but he was murdered shortly after, turned into December 22nd, 2019. So over into the early, early morning hours of December 22nd, as we were this morning. But take him to December 21st, 2019, basically his last full day on earth. Uh, well, not surprising, uh, Dan and Lacey are arguing. It's, you know, Christmas time can be stressful, as you know, that Christmas time can be a stress. You've got to buy presents for the kids, you've got to have something to give them, you've got to get the tree, the house decorated, it costs money. So for somebody living, for two people living on a budget, it can be difficult. So, you know, Dan's kind of stressed and, and Lacey's stressed and they're arguing a little bit. Well, Dan buys one of the kids a pig. He buys one of the kids a little pet pig. It's called like a mini pig or a miniature pig, like a potbelly type of thing. It's a pet. But then, and this defendant, she didn't like that. So she didn't like that. And one, she, she thought that that was too extravagant of a gift to get for one kid, but the other kids didn't really get equal types of gifts. They didn't get equal gifts voluntarily. They didn't get equal gifts of, of, uh, kind of, kind of a notable gift, like a little pet pig. And it's a big deal. The other kids just maybe got money or gift cards. And this defendant, she didn't like that. She didn't care for that. She said, "Hey, you're buying this kid a pig, but the other kids get this. It's not right. I don't like that." So it kind of caused some friction. Then, then this defendant was concerned about how they're going to feed it. It's got to have a, a, a little pen. It's going to have, uh, maybe better, a veterinary care. It's going to have food at a minimum, but this stuff costs money. We're actually going to show you a receipt in this case. We're going to have somebody come testify for the tractor supply over here at 278. You'll see where Dan, in the last few days of his life, he went and bought their little pig food. So he was planning to have this little pig and have them in their lives as a pet. He was thinking ahead. He was thinking forward. He was thinking forward about his son's baseball. So he's thinking of things that are going to outlast December 22nd, 2019, the last day of his life. He's future thinking. That's what the evidence is going to show you. So they get into an argument. So Dan and this defendant, they get into an argument about this, this pig, some finance issues. So Dan goes out to buy some things at the store. No, no abnormality there. He goes out to buy some things at the store, different things that were needed at the household. He takes the six-year-old son with him and they're gone a long time. They're gone a time, an amount of time that this defendant found unusual. She thinks it's unusual that they're gone four hours to the store and all they had to take out was a few things. And that sets this defendant off even more. She's not happy about that. Where have you been? Why are you taking my son for four hours? All you have to do is go to the Dollar General or whatever. Where have you been? Why are you gone four hours? And they get into it again, back and forth, up and down, positive and negative. They're back into arguing again. Now, there was evidence, there was evidence in this case that this defendant said, well, when Dan did get home from the store that day, his last day on earth, when he got home from the store, they got into a physical arm. Now they're going to say this defendant says that it got physical. Of course, we don't have Dan's side of that because he's dead. But after his death, this defendant says they got physical. This defendant says to the police, well, he came up behind me, kind of put me in a bear hug. He kind of pushed me up against the wall and choked me and took my phone away. He took my phone because he thought I was doing something with my phone that he wanted to look at. And he took my phone. And that's what this defendant said. So she ends up leaving. This defendant left the house and goes to her father's house. He had a car lot. Mostel sells cars, used cars. So this defendant went to her father. He doesn't call the police about this supposed incident, but he goes to her father and tells her father what happened at the car. There's no evidence at this point of either three that there was any choking marks, any bruising, any kind of physical injury at all. But this is what this defendant says after the death of Dan was. This is right now. He took my phone. He assaulted me. He got physical with me. So at this point, Dan finally does come back home, comes back home again. And at this point, when he comes back home, now this is a home they're living in. This is both of their homes. So Dan comes back home. And the defendant says she got startled because she didn't expect Dan to be back in the home. Now think about that. She says, "I was startled when he came back into the home. I didn't expect him back." Even though he lives there. She says she was startled and that he was back to phone this return. A little later on that day, a gentleman named Terry Lee, the father, this defendant's father, the car lot owner. He comes over and he has the McDonald's food for the kids, his grandparents, right? He comes by a lot of Saturdays and he has McDonald's food for the kids, you know, a happy meal, nuggets, whatever, for the kids. They love that stuff. So he comes over, he does that. Now this defendant says that that really made Dan angry. Now she said that made Dan angry, that he said something like, she tells the police, he said something like, "We don't need your charity. We have enough money to buy our food. You don't have to give us food. We have food." And this defendant says that Dan kind of took offense that the grandfather was coming over giving the kids food because Dan wants to be known to somebody who can take care of his family financially, emotionally. So he, this defendant claims Dan didn't like that. So instead of joining in with the family little get together, we've got Terry and me, the grandfather, the kid, the kid, yeah, this defendant, Lacey, Joe, Lee, Bowles, and the kids, obviously the grandfather, instead of joining kind of in that dinner, that little moment, Dan just kind of goes out in his car, the car, the Cadillac, old Cadillac he bought for his brother, probably. So he kind of goes out in his car, just wants to be alone, goes out, goes out in his car, and he's kind of dinging out his car. And this six-year-old is in the car at some point, wouldn't talk with him, whatever. And eventually Dan leaves. He leaves the house. Terry leaves still there. The kids are still there. This defendant's still there. But Dan leaves. Maybe he was leaving to cool off or just take some time. We don't know. But he left. And eventually, he ends up at 278 South. We talked about that in one year. I think everybody asked, every panel, do you know this bar at 278 South? So Dan goes there. And he's, he's, uh, he's having a beer there, [00:32:59] Speaker ?: whatever, a car, just chilling, just hanging out with his phone, looking at the TV. And we know [00:33:06] Jason Fredaway: what he was doing there. We know what he was doing there. Because total crazy coincidence, one of his old friends from school, a lady named Hope Allen, hadn't seen Dan in a while, but had been a Facebook friend, kind of texts back and forth sometimes. Hope Allen just happened to come into 278 South. That exact same time. I mean, crazy coincidence. Think about it. Here's Dan. He's at this bar. And here comes Hope Allen. And she has seen Dan in a few years, but they've been touching back and forth because actually, Hope Allen worked at the hospital. She's a nurse. She's going to come talk to you. She worked at the hospital and Dan was outside helping to expand, right? So he's up in the crane or up on the roof of the hospital. And he's communicating with Hope Allen. Hey, I'm here. I'm out here working. And Hope Allen's inside working. She's the nurse. So she had seen Dan and talked to him. She had talked to him recently and she sees him at 278 South. So she goes up to him. Hey, Dan, this is me. How are you? She's going to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that during that visit, when she had with Dan on that night, and this is 30 minutes before he's murdered, she's going to tell you 30 minutes. She had known him for years. They grew up as kids together in the neighborhood. I think she had even dated one of Dan's friends, but she's going to tell you that she had known Dan for years. And she's going to tell you it was the same old Dan. What was that? Happy go look. Glass half full. Jokester, prankster, happy guy. Fun guy. Life of the party. And she's going to say, you know, when I sat down and talked to Dan, it's like we didn't miss a beat. I hadn't seen him in a while, but we picked up our conversation and our friendship. He's showing you pictures of his kids playing baseball. He's coaching. He's telling you this. He's telling you that. And she's going to talk to you about that. And she's going to talk to you about how he was, his demeanor, what he's like 30 minutes before he gets killed. She didn't tell you this. We don't have to wonder why. Because she saw him and she talked to him and she remembered. Now, now about six days later, Hope Allen did that he had been killed. And she was, she's going to tell you that she was shocked. And she's going to tell you she reached out to the family and said, Oh my God, I was just with him Saturday night, 278 South, December 21st. I was with him. So Dan's at the 278 with Hope Allen. Hope Allen said, Let me get back to my people. It's good seeing you. He gives me a hug. I'll see you later. Keep in touch. And Hope Allen goes on to talk with her people and leaves down at the bar. He doesn't stay long. She leaves. And he is at the home. He leaves and he goes to McDonald's. McDonald's on Hiram Suti. You may know it. Hiram Suti at Chevron. He goes to McDonald's. He goes there. We have geolocation evidence that you will see. We have the time he was there. You'll see it. The exact time he was there, the exact time he left. That's all on this phone. If you didn't know, you're going to learn a lot about cell phone technology in this case. Cell phone literally tracks everywhere you're at. It tracks everything you do, everybody you talk to. In fact, when you take a picture or when you text somebody, you don't know this, you're going to learn in this case that if you text somebody, your phone even backs up the location of where that text was sent when you sent. So it's amazing. And it tracked Dan's location at the McDonald's. He was at the McDonald's after 278, but before he went home. So Dan gets a combo meal or something. He gets like a double, you know, a big double and some fries and a drink. He gets a combo and heads home. His home's only about 15 minutes from there. 10, 12, 15 minutes from there. The lady from the sheriff's office is going to show you the exact time. She's wrapped, she's routed out. She's mapped it out. And we're going to, we're going to show you when he was at McDonald's and then how long it would have taken to get home. So he gets home. Now, the first thing he encounters, now remember this is late. This is like 12:30, 12:23, 12:30 a.m. This is kind of late. Now we're in December 22nd that I talked about. Now we've rolled over to December 22nd of 2019. Now it's early early Sunday morning at 278, late Saturday night, 11:30. Now he's at home 12:23-ish on Sunday morning. Split level kind of house, walks up the stair. When you go in the door, you can go up to the main living area. You can go down to a basement, kind of a bench basement. Well, the first thing Dan Akers encounters when he goes up and goes in the door, he encounters a booby trap set by her. She set a booby trap for the main. She took a Swiffer walk. On these Swiffer she clang the floor with. She took it and set it up against the door. A little carefully, a little gingerly. So that when he came home, and this is a guy that lives there. He has a key that lives there. But she sets up this trap. So that when he opens the door, it's going to knock over this mop and let her know that he's back. She's upstairs with the kids. She's upstairs in the bedroom area. Remember, split level. She's up there. He goes down to the basement. He's knocked over this Swiffer mom to 12:25 a.m. What is this? Whatever. He has his McDonald's. He has his keys. Didn't eat this McDonald's yet. That's it in his hand. Goes down to a basement. We'll show you all these pictures. Goes down some stairs. Goes down to a basement. But he wasn't alive. This defendant heard that Swiffer walk. Her movie travel. What's the thing? She heard he knocked it over when he came in. And she heard it. That sends the signal to her. So she walks down the stairs too. Dan's walking. He's got his keys. He's McDonald's. He's right-hand. He's left. He's got a hat. And this person. This person right here. She comes up to him. He turns around. Faces her. She shoots him in the face. With a .22 caliber pistol that her father gave to her. Her pistol. Shoots him one time. In the face. In the nostril. One shot. One shot over. Why? Because that's all that was needed. To kill him. Ambush. Executed. In his own basement. Christmas tree upstairs. Presents underneath. Kids upstairs. She shoots him. Great yard. Dead. In his basement. And that's how he has to go out. That's what she did. So. She calls the police. She calls 911. You're going to hear that tape. That tape's going to be the first thing you hear in this case. It's the first thing out of the box. I want you to listen to it. That's what happened. He's dead on the ground. On the floor. He's dead. You don't survive that. You can't. So he's not going to make it. Right? She calls 911. I want you to listen to it. You can decide. If you believe this emotion. And this outrage. And this. These. These. Emotional. Expressions. That she makes on 911. You listen to it. You'll have to evaluate it. To see if it was genuine. Or if it was part of the plan. Part of the act. You listen to it. Now. Police come out. There is blood on the scene. You'll. You'll. Unfortunately. Have to see this. Okay? So. You just. Prepare yourself. Now. There's going to be some bloody pictures. There's blood. Obviously. Where Mr. Akers was murdered. There's blood. Lost. The significant amount of blood. For this one head. And this is a facial wound. There is blood. Going up the stairs. And that could only be from one person. That's from Mason Bowles. The blood on her hands. She says. And as she tells police afterwards. Hey. I tried to do CPR. I got blood. I think. But he was just believing too badly. I couldn't do CPR. And you'll hear the 911 operator actually say. Hey. Can you go down there and help them? And she says. No. Please don't make me do that. So she goes upstairs. And you'll see blood on the handrail. Blood on the wall. Up. Back floor. Up the stairs. She's. She's got blood on her. According to her. And it's obvious. From the friends of heaven. There is blood. There's cast off blood on the wall. Something was. You know. Either a hand. Or something was. Kind of brushed aside. There's cast off blood on the wall. And you'll see that. There's swipe. It's called swipe blood. Pressed blood. On the stairway. There's blood on the front door. No. There's blood on the front door. Think about this. She and his defendant. Had to open the door for the police. And they arrived. Sheriff's workers. She had to unlock the door. 911 tells her. Unlock the door. Turn on the light. So that they can get there. And get in. And help you. So there's blood on the handrail. So 911 operator. 911 operator. Informs Pauley County Sheriff's Office. There's the shooting. At Braymore Fort. 34 Braymore. They just nailed it. Don't get quick. As you know. Now it's a heavy police response. So they get there. They talk to Ms. Bowles. This thing. They say. Hey what happened? And she had already told 911 what happened to us. And she says. He shot himself. He shot himself. She says. He shot himself. He committed suicide. He shot himself. Then I have a one operator. Ask her. You know. Where's the gun now? Because their job. One of their jobs. Is to obviously. Make people safe. Make people safe. Where's the gun now? She says. I just picked it up and threw it. I picked it up and threw it. What she says. Police get there. You're going to hear from all first responders. What they saw. What they encountered. What they noted. What they investigated. When they first. What they detected. When they first got there. Notes they made. Incident reports they filled out. You're going to hear about all that. This defendant was not very helpful at the scene. They're going to come to know. Because she was in such a state of turmoil. I guess. That she said she thought she was going to vomit. She's having this breakdown. It's hyperventilation. And she's. They decided. The police decided to take her on to the Ungolstar Falling Hospital. She needs to be checked out. Her blood pressure. Hyperventilation. Whatever. She needs to get on to it. So she goes on. This defendant goes on to the hospital. And unfortunately. Ladies and gentlemen. The jury. At the hospital. She throws away. All the clothing. That she was wearing. She washes her hands. Scrubs them all night. And dust rolls so big up there. And throws away all her clothes. The clothes are never found again. Because she throws them away. She washes her hands. No scientific evidence can be gathered from that now. Her hands have been scrubbed. Her clothes have been destroyed. So we don't know what evidence was on that. Her hands or her clothing. But she says. This was a suicide. He killed himself. And that's what she says. And originally. In her first interview. He killed himself. He shot himself. Now in the first interview. The first time she talks to the place. She says. Well. I saw him come home. I saw him. Go down the stairs. One of the detectives. Is going to testify to you. That the vantage point. Where she says she saw him. It would be impossible to see him. But anyway. She says. I saw him come down. And go down the stairs. So I followed him. I walk in the room. He just shoots each other. Boom. No words. No. He just shoots each other. That's what she says. [00:46:12] Speaker ?: Right. [00:46:17] Jason Fredaway: Then she starts wondering about. The location of that entry. No exit. Well. If you're going to find out. Went in the nostril. Traveled upward to the right. And lodged in the brain. Did not exit. The skull catalytic. So she starts thinking about that. And then she changes her story. A little bit. She says. Well. When I walked in there. This is different now. See. This is a different story. But when I walked in there. He says to me. You can't save me. Or God can't save me. Or something. And starts to commit suicide. Starts to shoot himself in the head. Face. And now she says. I grabbed the gun. We kind of toss him over. She didn't say that. I can't wait. But she says that. We kind of toss him over. Right. Because that's going to explain. Why someone would shoot themselves. In the nose. So she comes up. And that. Laker. So. Off. Off. This. This. This man's body. Goes on off. To the Georgia Bureau. Investigation. Is it's taken away. For analysis. Autopsy. Examination. By a doctor. Down there. At the GPI. And the scene. Is still being processed. And photograph. And. You're going to learn a lot. About how that scene. Was processed. The things that were actually. Recovered. During the examination. The scene. And the process. And. I wanted to. Kind of. Show you this. Kind of. An example. Of. This defendant's. Suicide story. Okay. You ever play this little game. With the kids. Played it with mine. A bunch of times. It's called. Jenga. With these little blocks. Up here. Make this little tower. Y'all probably seen it. I got the. Generic version. Toys R Us. It's called. The jumbling tower. But. Most of them are called. Jenga. I think that's who created it. So you build this little tower. These little pieces. And the object is. Of the game. Y'all played it. Probably with your kids. Or at a party. Object of the game. Is everybody has to take a turn. And remove these little parts. Y'all know what I'm talking about. I don't even move this. See. Y'all seen this little thing. So you have to remove. These little parts. Like you might take out. This part. And you try to remove. These parts. So that the whole tower. Doesn't just collapse. And the last person. To remove one of the pieces. And it collapsed. That person loses. Jenga. Well that's kind of like. This defendant's suicide story. Right. She tells them. It's a suicide. Right. And when she tells them. It's a suicide. The little tower. Is. Is. It's just been built. Right. Because she just tells them. It's a suicide. So that little tower. Is solid. That suicide story. Is solid. Because. They have no reason. To think it ain't. They don't go in there. And say. Oh. You're probably just lying to us. You're probably murdering her. No. They believe her story. It's a suicide. They worked the crime scene. As a suicide. That's what they did. Because that's the information. They have. So when she comes out. With that. The tower. The suicide tower. It's solid. It has all its pieces. But then. The medical examiner. Calls the police. And call the encounter. The medical examiner says. Something's not right about this suicide. Something's not right there. Medical examiner's the first person. That you're going to hear about in this investigation. That they. He kind of switches off the light. Something's not right there. Medical examiner finds no sooting. And no stifling. On the man's body. The head of the entry loop. No sooting. No stifling. If you're not in the guns. You don't worry. You hear about it. Sooting. You know. When a. Let's just call this. This is the projectile. Or this is the barrel. When the projectile comes out of the pistol. That occurs as a result of an explosion in the pistol itself. There's an explosion. The bullet. You'll see the bullets. The bullet in this case. So the 22 caliber long rifle bullet. The bullet has gunpowder. And a firing pin hits the shell of the bullet. The casing of the bullet. And that causes an explosion. And the projectile leaves the barrel as a result of an explosion. It's propelled out by an explosion. Well when there's an explosion there's gases and other items that expel also with the projectile. Because it's an explosion. You're seeing explosions on TV. Boom. All this stuff goes everywhere. That's sooting. S-O-O-T-I-N-G on savory one. Sooting. What that is is some of those gases and that unburnt gunpowder. That's going to come out and get on the entry one. Or around the entry one. If it's a contact wound. If it's a close wound. Of course if it's a non-contact wound. It's several feet away. That sooting is not going to be there. But if it's a contact wound. Someone killing themselves by shooting himself with the nose. Dr. Langman at the medical examiner's office. He is the medical examiner. He's been doing it for decades. He should see sooting. He doesn't see it. There's another concept called stippling. Stippling is when little particles. Not gases. But actual particles come out of a barrel of a gun. And they hit the skin or clothing. Whatever the surface may be. And they can actually cause an abrasion on the skin. They cause abrasion on the skin when they come out of the barrel. And they can even bend themselves under the skin. And it's also called tattooing. It's stippling or tattooing. They call it tattooing because when those particles come out and get under your skin. It leaves like a black imprint, like a tattoo, like ink. There's none of that on Dan Aker's face. Dr. Langman sees none of that. So now this story about suicide, contact wound to the... In fact, this defendant doesn't even say it's a contact wound. She says, the defendant, excuse me, the victim pointed the gun at himself and shot himself. But it was close enough where there should have been stippling and stippling if you will leave her version of it. And Dr. Langman doesn't see that. He doesn't see stippling. He doesn't see stippling. So he calls the investigators in the case. He says, hey, there's some problems here. I need to know more. He doesn't just... He has three things he can do. Number one, he has to determine the cause of death. Okay, cause of death. Cause of death is a bullet to the brain. That's cause of death. That's what caused the person to die. Manner of death is how that happened. He couldn't classify manner of death as accident. I'm walking with a gun. I'm not being careful. I shoot myself in the head. That's an accident. The cause of death is gunshot wound, but that's an accident. He could have called it an accident. He can call it undetermined. Dr. Langman has the ability, he has the option to say, I can't figure out what happened. It's undetermined. Or he can call it a homicide. So he's trying to figure out what the evidence shows and what it really is. So he calls the investigators, the detectives, and he says, hey, I have some questions about this. Can you send me more information? He's doing his job. Can you send me more information? Can I get police reports? Can I get photographs? Can I, can I get something about this guy's personal history? Was he struggling? Was he depressed? Did he have a history of mental health issues where he was committed to a mental hospital? Anything that would lean towards suicide? Some of the Pauline County Sheriff's Office says, here, here's all the stuff we got. He doesn't, he wasn't depressed. He's coaching his kid. He's working. That's all we know. Here, they give it to him. So he looks at everything. Dr. Layman, he looks at everything. And he, he even takes his, his findings. He takes his opinions to a peer review board at the GBI. Other people, they do the same thing as he does. He puts his findings, we put for a peer review board. These are my findings. And ultimately, Dr. Layman still rules this and classifies this as a homicidist, not suicide. Dr. Layman says that. And he'll tell you in great detail why he says that. So now, it's classified as a suicide by the medical examiner. And now police, now they have to start looking at it in a different way. Because they even gave the defendant to the devil first. It's a suicide find. Now they've got information from a scientific medical professional. This is not suicide. It's a homicidist. So now they have to go back and start looking exactly more carefully, exactly what they find, what they saw, what they found, what they saw. They're looking at the photographs. And then, that's when this suicide tower starts to climb. This suicide story starts to climb. Okay? And let me give you all more ways that starts to climb. They asked this defendant in the interview, the first interview, Detective Ogden. You'll meet them. He says, hey, was your husband right-handed or left-handed? This defendant says, hey, he's right-handed. Okay? You're going to see a photograph, ladies and gentlemen, of this pistol that killed this man. Right beside his left hand. He says, he was right-handed. [00:56:27] Speaker ?: He said, hey, he was right-handed. [00:56:29] Jason Fredaway: Like he was right-handed. He was right beside his left hand on the floor. But she says, he was right-handed. So now, you're expected to believe, ladies and gentlemen, he shot himself in the nose with his left-handed. So then, see, that's one of the pieces that's coming off. You see, he's not left-handed. But he goes with his left hand. Thirty-three minutes later, in the interview with this defendant, you see, she's not. She starts thinking about over 30 minutes later, she changes her story and says, oh, he was ambidextrous. He could use either hand. Well, you're going to see pictures in this case where he has his watch on his left wrist. Indicated most people right-handed that they do that. You're going to see a picture of him doing some siding work on his house with his cousin's house with a hammer in his right hand. You're going to hear his family members say, he was right-handed. I grew up with him my whole life. He was right-handed. But this defendant says he was left-handed. He was ambidextrous. He could shoot himself with his left hand. That's no problem. That's the first one. The second one is this McDonald's family. Now, the police are going to tell you, the detective is going to tell you that this is something that is disturbing, right? So, the detective is going to tell you that when this detective walked in that room and Dan Akers was laying there dead, this detective distinctly smelled the odor of French fry oil. Dan Akers had walked into that room and been in there for such a short period of time with that McDonald's food that the detective could smell that French fry. And he looked down and he saw a cup from the drink in the McDonald's cup with the straw and then knocked over. But when it dropped to the ground, ice cubes hadn't even melted. You still see. That's how quickly they got to the scene. But it's also important to know, that's how quickly, how short amount of time Dan Akers was in that room before he was executed. The fry smell was there. The ice hadn't even melted. He didn't even have time, really, to do nothing to turn around. So, another piece comes out. We're supposed to, they watched you, or it is proposed to you, that this man goes to McDonald's at about 12 o'clock, 12 and 5, and then I'm in the over there on the over there on the over there. He gets his last meal on earth, which is going to be this combo meal, but doesn't eat it. He just walks into a room, and within seconds, he shoots himself. That's an alternate theory, which is good at that one. Another problem with the suicide tower here, the structure, is what about the holster? Remember, we asked you some questions about holstering. What here? What about this holster? Defendants said, well, he must have carried that weapon, that pistol, even though it's hers. He must have carried that pistol in a holster, because after he shot himself, I saw a holster on the ground, on the floor. And I just grabbed it, and ran upstairs, and put it in a gun safe. Huh. Let me get this straight. Let me make sure I get this. This man just killed himself in your presence. This fertile one with no warning. He just killed himself. And your thought is to get this holster, camouflage holster, you'll see it, pick it up, remove it, go upstairs, go in the closet, go into a gun safe, put it in there, and lock it. That's your response? Well, I just, you know, I was upset. I wasn't really thinking. Okay. So, you weren't thinking, but you're thinking about secreting evidence away in a gun locker? That's another little piece, you know? And all of a sudden, this little suicide structure is starting to teeter. It's starting to tutter. It's not as strong as it once was. It still may get by. It still may survive a high wind. But it's not as strong as it was. But there's more. But there's more. They say to this good thing. Hey, did you wash your hands at 34th Ray Hill Court? At any time after this suicide, did you wash your hands? Nope. Never did. I didn't wash my hands at home. I washed my hands at the hospital, but I didn't wash my hands at home. You sure? Yeah. Positive. Oh, yeah. I didn't wash my hands at home. They take pictures of this defendant's bathroom, and the sink is covered with blood. You'll see it. Not thick, coagulated blood, but blood where somebody had washed their hands. It's drips of blood. It's drips of blood diluted by water where somebody had washed their hands. She said, I didn't wash my hands. Well, there's blood all in the sink. Oh, oh. You know what that was? I was on my period, and that was my period. What? Go ahead and take her. Take her piece out there. It's just. That's what she said. That's her story. Talking about that holster for a moment more. You're going to see that this is on. We'll bring it to you. This is a holster that goes on a belt. You're going to see that. We're going to show you Mr. Aker's blood clothing that he was wearing when he was killed. There's no belt. There's sweatpants. There's no place to put them on. But this lieutenant claims, well, he must have had the gun in that holster on a belt. He must have it in that holster because I found the holster, and I put the holster in the safe. So that's where he was carrying it, I guess. Well, he has no belt. Is he carrying it in his hand? Is he carrying the gun in the holster in his hand? Remember, he's got the McDonald's bag. You're going to see that McDonald's bag drops straight to the floor and he's shot. You saw him control his body motions. You can't hold him anything anymore. He's falling backwards. He's dead. So that bag follows to the floor. So we've got the McDonald's bag right here. We've got the keys over here, his car keys. So it indicates, seems to indicate that he was holding his car keys. They fall right there. Where was he holding this holster? It wasn't on a belt because he had one. And let's talk about a little bit more about that gun safe where this defendant hid the holster away. Police come back out to the house a couple months later and they want to do a search warrant. They execute a search warrant at the home. They're trying to find that holster. They want to find it. They're examining it. Well, they find it. They go up and they find this gun safe. We're going to bring you the safe. You'll see the safe. But before they open the safe, they do a test on it. It's called the Blue Star Test. You may have watched Forensic Files or Crime Scene Show. Another word for it is Luminol. But in this county, Blue Star is a little cheaper. So they use a test called Blue Star. It's the same. It comes in a squeeze bottle. They squeeze Blue Star. They spray it onto the gun safe that they found in this defendant's closet. They spray it with Blue Star. Blue Star is a chemical. It's a reagent to the iron in blood. So the iron in blood will react with this Blue Star chemical. And they can see if this gun safe has blood on it or has it had blood on it. Even if you clean it with bleach, you can see this blood react on this gun safe through this Blue Star if blood had been on it. No blood on this gun safe. Well, who cares? So what? Remember, she said she had blood all over her because she tried to perform CPR. So she said she had blood on her hands. There's blood going up the stairs. There's blood in the sink. She says, I have blood on me. There's no blood on that gun safe. Zero. Even though she said, I grabbed that polster, ran upstairs, put it in that safe. There's no blood on that safe. So they're talking to this defendant at her home during the execution of the search warrant. They say, hey, would you mind coming back and just talking to us at the police station again? Can we clear up some more things? We had some more questions. She says, sure, I'll go. She gave three interviews, one written statement and two live interviews. She was cooperative. She had her story down and she was going to stick to it. It changed. It evolved. It matched the evidence evolution, but it changed to match the evidence. But it pretty much was the same. She gave three statements. So they asked her, can you come back and give a statement? She says, yeah. Well, she grabs her keychain, put your keys on it, kind of grab it, hold it close to her. And they said, you want me and your keys? We're going to drive you. We'll drive you. And we'll drive you back. It's a voluntary interview. If you don't want to go, you don't have to. We'll drive you there. We don't need your keys. We'll drive you to the station and bring you back. And they say, you don't need your keys. But speaking of keys, do you have a key to this gun safe? Because we know the holster is in there. You told us it was. Do you have a key to it? Nope. I don't have a key. I don't have a key to that gun safe. I threw that holster in there on December 22, 2019. I haven't opened it since. I don't want to open it. I want nothing to do with that gun safe. I don't have a key. Okay. But she's kind of holding these keys, the keychain, a bunch of keys. And it's shot by a detective who's trained to see things we may not see. A detective who's trained to notice things we may not notice. He sees a key on that keychain that he thinks will match this gun safe. He sees it. He makes a note of it. Well, they tell her again, you don't need your keys. We'll bring you back. She puts the keys down. That detective picks up the keychain. She says she didn't have a key to the gun safe. She turns the key on the key right over. Well, I might lie about that. She had the key on her keychain to the gun safe. They open it right up. They get the holster. Camouflage holster. They do the blue star testing on that holster. Same result. No blood on that holster. But she says she grabbed the holster and she was bloody and went upstairs and put it in the safe. There's no blood on that holster either. Go ahead and take another piece away. Because this whole suicide tower, this fear, it's being weakened worse and worse. It's being weakened further and further and further because the pieces are falling apart. The foundation is falling apart. She says that Dan, he must have had this gun. He got the gun two weeks ago for some reason. Dan's friends and workers, co-workers and family, they're going to come in here and tell you, Dan never used guns. He didn't have guns. He's on probation. He wouldn't even allow him to have a gun. He didn't go to the shooting range. He didn't carry a gun. We never saw him with a gun. But they saw this defendant with a gun. She went to the range. In this one episode that we're going to talk to you about, that Witses are going to tell you about, where they were having a party on a deck, having a get-together with family, and somebody was just doing a prank, and they made a big noise on the side of the deck, and everybody gets kind of scared. This defendant went in and got a gun and came out with it. So she knows guns. That's what the evidence is going to show you. She's familiar to shoot it. Dan didn't mess with guns. But she says, he must be carrying this gun. All they follow up is to her. 22 caliber, high standard, sentinel pistol, revolver. Her gun. I told you about that Dan had looked forward to baseball with his kids, looked forward to living. Did the mundane things that we all do, and one thing that is important, you're going to find that that next Monday, had he been alive, we had an eye appointment for him to get some good glasses. He had made that appointment. So you see, the important part of that is going to show you through the evidence, this is a man who's just living his life. He's making plans for after, just to replace him. He's making plans, future thinking, future thinking, forward plans. This is not somebody who's writing a suicide note. This is it, I'm just not going to end it all. Thank you, see you later. No suicide note. This is somebody making future plans. Somebody who wants to be around. Think about this. Think about this. Think about when you get to know Dan Akers and when his family describes him. Hopefully by the end of the struggle, you'll know when you get to know him. Family man lives for his kids. Think about this person making a decision to kill himself at Christmastime. In his own home. He lives for his kids. That's his shining light. But he's going to kill himself on December 22nd. So for the rest of their entire lives, their kids can think about, well, it's Christmas again. That's when dad kills himself. And he does it in his own home with them upstairs to sleep. People think about it if that's likely, if that's reasonable to believe. You know, for a line of reasons, this case is old. But it's almost seven years later, it's just three times before you. It's a variety of reasons for that. And Dan's long gone. But as you listen to this evidence, as this evidence comes before you, Dan still has a voice. He still speaks. And I hope he speaks to you. Because his voice will be through this evidence. His voice will be, his voice will speak to you when there's a pistol that she said she threw across the room that whether this is conveniently or not so conveniently. But by the man's left hand, he's not left handed. So, Dan will speak to you through this evidence. And I ask, respectfully, that you hear him. And we hear him. And we hear him from the audience, right? He's still speaking. He's saying, I didn't do this. She did this to me. [01:12:24] Speaker ?: Thank you.