May 1, 2025 • 57 mins
Leah speaks to Byron Case’s legal team about Kelly’s littering case docket, which Kelly says is wrong and is being used to discredit her. How do they answer these allegations and will this affect Byron’s case in any way?
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Two days before our last episode came out, Kelly pointed
out there was a different case number on her littering
case court docket, and the sentence of forty eight hours
shock jail time and two years probation, which you heard
her say never happened, was in fact also incorrect. What
(00:24):
will Byron's legal team have to say about this?
Speaker 2 (00:28):
What are your concerns? I mean I could just hear
it in your voice. Yeah, I mean I'm upset. I've
been up all night.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Is this alleged clerical error easily explained? Will it change
how Kelly's credibility is now viewed? And what a fact,
if any, will this have on Byron's legal case. I'm
(00:57):
Leah Rothman. This is The Real Killer, Episode fifteen the docket.
Right after Kelly and I speak that Tuesday night about
this error on her court docket, I message Byron's attorney,
(01:19):
Brian Russell to see if he can get the rest
of the team together to talk the next morning. I
don't share with Brian exactly why I'm asking for this
last minute interview, but he comes back and says yes,
he and the team will be available. So the next
morning at eleven am my time, Brian, Nicole Gordon, Sean O'Brien,
(01:42):
Quin O'Brien, and I all log into Zoom for what
will be a very interesting conversation about Kelly's court docket
and what can and cannot be proven?
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Can everyone hear me?
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (01:59):
Yeah yet.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
So thank you for getting together this quickly, because I
reached out to Brian last night late last night asking
for us to all get together. Kelly texted me yesterday
and sent me screen grabs from her littering charge and
I was like, okay, great, and she was like, see,
(02:22):
it's just a fine.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
I just had to pay a fine. And I was like, well,
let me send you what I have.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
It says you did forty eight hours of shock, jail
time and two years probation. Within minutes, she wrote me
back angrily pointed out that there is another case number
next to that sentence on the docket, and at first
I didn't see it. She was like, that's not my
(02:50):
case number, and I was like, I don't see what
you're seeing and she's basically like, you dummy, it's right there.
And so I looked up that case number and it's
a guy named Brendan.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
I won't use his last name who in nineteen.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
Ninety nine got in trouble for allegedly passing some bad checks.
It doesn't say anything about shock jail time, but under
his sentence or program info, it says that he had
unsupervised probation for seven hundred and thirty one days, So
that's two years.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
In a day.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
Kelly, as you heard in the last episode, said I
didn't go to jail. I didn't I wasn't on probation.
So how do you explain this?
Speaker 4 (03:35):
Kelly's word is mud. Frankly, I don't care what Kelly
has to say about anything.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
That's Brian Russell.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
Unless there's some independent corroboration. Her word alone doesn't do anything.
The point is she's still at a minimum, let's say,
if even if it was just a fine, right, she
was still convicted of a Class amis demeanor, which is
what the probation is irrelevant to that fact that both
(04:06):
her and the prosecutor's office had a duty to tell
Byron that she was convicted of a Class A misdemeanor
during all of this, right during all of their investigation
and everything like that. So the fact that sorry, not
the fact her allegation that she didn't actually do any
jail time, which I still believed to be false. That
(04:30):
is irrelevant to this issue. That she was still convicted
of a Class A misdemeanor, and that this all happened
while she was quote unquote cooperating with the Jackson County
prosecutor right she had an incentive. She had an active
warrant out for her arrest. She admitted to you that
(04:50):
she was picked up on that warrant by the Least
Summit Police Department, which was that was new information for us,
because we never knew where she was picked up on warrant.
We just knew that she was picked up one more so,
as far as what our response is to that is,
it's great. That's great. Thank you for telling us and
confirming that you were convicted of a Class A misdemeanor,
(05:12):
that you lied about it to Byron's defense counsel when
he asked if you had ever been convicted of a
felony or misdemeanor in state or federal court, and that
the prosecutor's office should have known about it, probably did
know about it and didn't do their job and fulfill
their duty to disclose that to Byron and his defense.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Team, here's Sean O'Brien.
Speaker 5 (05:34):
You know, we had found the clerical error that they
had linked some unrelated person's case to her case net.
But that was a clerical error. Apparently doesn't negate any
of the other stuff. That's not his shock time, that's
not his judgment.
Speaker 4 (05:50):
We know it's a.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Clerical error because I reached out to Christopher Class who's
the sheriff of Cooper County, and he did confirm that
she did two days of shock time. Okay, so Nicole,
and glad you brought that up, because I have your
email that you sent me and.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
He does not He does not do that. I'll read
it to you, you said.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
The email says, we've received your Sunshine Law requests for
information regarding detention records for Kelly Moffatt. Looking up information
on Moffitt, it was found through court records that she
was sentenced to two days jail time back on April third,
two thousand and one, on a littering case. On a
littering case, those records have since been destroyed in accordance
(06:31):
with our retention schedule. We show no other incarceration for Moffitt,
and our records. If you have any further questions, please
feel free to contact the sheriff's office. So they're basically saying,
we don't have any records that she was detained. We
are looking at the court records, which seemed to be erroneous,
and that's what they're referencing. They don't say that she
spent any time there.
Speaker 5 (06:51):
Well, in other words, she owes Boone County two days
of shock time. Is what that means. I mean, you know,
we've looked at you know, three lawyers have looked this over.
She owes Boone County two day shock time. And what
the sheriff is saying, we don't have the jail records,
but the court order to do them. She probably did them,
(07:12):
and if she did them, their records are destroyed. That's
what that means.
Speaker 4 (07:17):
Another component of this is Kelly claims that she was
never arrested. Well, we have a record from the Missouri
State Highway Patrol from April fifteenth of two thousand that
says that she was arrested.
Speaker 5 (07:33):
This is the thing you have to understand about dealing
with Kelly. She's the kind of liar who will tell
a lie to cover a lie, to cover a lie,
and she demonstrated that to you in your last episode
that we listened. We heard that several times.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
And with all due respect, I just can't look at
this and say definitively that she's tolling a lie.
Speaker 6 (07:56):
Then you should look at other records that are going
to corroborate that date.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
Let me finish, because but you guys, where are they?
Where are the records that corroborate that she actually went
to jail or I mean, or was even sentenced to it.
All I'm saying is, if we look at this, she
seemed very confused about the two days, forty eight hours
of shock, jail time, and the two years probation. She
(08:21):
also said when she was asked in her deposition, you
know about if she had been in trouble with the law,
she didn't really consider a littering charge in a fine
that big of a deal. But what about pick a
warrant and extra died it to a different county?
Speaker 4 (08:39):
Right?
Speaker 6 (08:39):
Yeah, why would she be extradited to a different county
if there wasn't a big deal.
Speaker 4 (08:43):
Yeah, they issued a warrant for her arrest, a bench warrant,
and she was arrested on that bench warrant. And here
she is saying that to be extradited. For hold On
to be extradited from Jackson County to Cooper County would
have taken more than a day or two. She was
in jail somewhat. Maybe she wasn't in jail in Cooper County.
Maybe the judge in Cooper County said, oh, you said
(09:06):
in the Jackson County jail, or in the least summit
jail for two days while you were waiting to get
extradited here to plead guilty to this fine, we're going
to credit you for that two days. But we don't
know this. But you don't know And why don't we
know it, Leah, We don't know it because the Jackson
County Prosecutor's office hid it. They did not disclose they
(09:28):
had Kelly was a minor on this charge too, and
so they knew about this. There's no reason they shouldn't
have known about this, and they failed to disclose it.
And it wasn't until twenty years later that we're finding it,
and all the records have been destroyed, and so we're
trying to piece together what happened as best we can.
(09:50):
But as far as what Kelly has to say about it,
or what her memory, says, it's funny that she you know,
it's funny the things that she remembers so is vividly,
and then the things she has no memory of or
she's not sure about. And so, as far as for
our purposes and for Byron's purposes, all that really matters
(10:11):
is that she was convicted of a class amiss.
Speaker 5 (10:14):
To mean, and she responded to a question about it
by saying, I've never even been in trouble with the police.
She told you she was taken in custody on a warrant.
Speaker 4 (10:24):
Right, If that's not trouble with them, I think we
would all remember getting arrested and picked up on a
warrant and having to sit in jail and wait to
get transferred to another county and to use her word.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Extradited, I hear you.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
I mean, just so you know, I was up all
night like this does not sit well with me. This
is troubling to me. It's troubling because I didn't pick
up on there being another case number as many times
as I've looked at this docket.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
The fact that I didn't pick up on that, and.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
Also a large part of the case, or you know,
a large part of the case is that Kelly is
a drug addicted liar that was in bigger trouble and
flipped on Byron in order to get out of the
bigger trouble.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
We absolutely don't know that to be the fact.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
We don't know that she was actually sentenced to that
this is actually her sentence. If that case number that's
on there is wrong, we don't know that the sentence
on there is wrong. Because stay with me for one second.
On another page of these docket records, the page that
(11:34):
talks about her sentence, stand by yeah, On the page
that talks about charges and sentence. Under sentence, it says fine, fine,
fourteen dollars and ninety five cents. So where is where
is the sentence of forty eight hours shock, jail time
(11:54):
in two years probation.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
I can hold it up.
Speaker 4 (11:57):
I can't not. Yeah, I'm looking at it on line
right now.
Speaker 3 (12:01):
Here's Quinn O'Brien.
Speaker 6 (12:03):
She still lied, And I mean, we keep forgetting that
a medical examiner has said that her version of events
is totally impossible, that it's a Hollywood fiction. We're forgetting that.
Don Rand and other gas station attendants told people at
one time or another that they saw someone get out
of a car and go use a payphone. We're forgetting that.
(12:25):
Bob told the Fishers that he saw Anastasia later that
night and tried to get her to get in the car.
There's just so much out there that shows that Kelly's
story is false. That you know, these these little things
are I mean, at what point are we just? I mean,
you're asking us to prove that there was a clerical
(12:45):
error rather than you know, have Kelly prove that she
wasn't in prison, Make her prove that she wasn't in jail.
Have her prove that. Show ask her where she was,
what she was doing, If she wasn't doing shocked time,
what was she doing, where was she made?
Speaker 1 (13:02):
It's not up to her to prove it. It's up
to you, guys to prove it. Right and again I
say this with all due respect, but it's up to you.
Guys are making the allegations. It's up to you to
prove it, not to Kelly. I mean, Kelly's just I'm
telling you what she said. This is what you guys
have done, have gone after her credibility left and right.
She says, I have not told a lie, and I
(13:23):
can hear your laughter about to come in, but she says,
I've not told a lie since I've come forward, and
this is an example of the stuff that has been
used against her to discredit her. And so it's not
her job to prove this. It's your job if you
make the allegation.
Speaker 6 (13:38):
Bia, It's not your job to give her a parachute
out of these things either, Like when she started to
say that if she and Byron weren't interrogated together, that
she might have gone ahead and admitted or hum forward,
not admitted. If she and Byron hadn't been interrogated together,
then she would have talked about seeing the death. You
stepped in and said, well, the records say that you
(14:01):
weren't interrogated together, and she said, oh, oh, oh, you're right.
So she gets a parachute out of her lies.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
And I don't think that's a parachute.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
I think I was taking her to task, like I
was pointing out that what she said was untrue. I
don't think that's a parachute I was giving her.
Speaker 6 (14:18):
I would have let her go. I would have asked
her so in that interrogation together, what happened?
Speaker 1 (14:23):
Okay, but this isn't about me, right, now I've already
I'm like admitting that I've messed up by not even
recognizing that there was, you know, a different case number
next to the sentence that differed from the case number
on the upper left hand corner or the upper you know,
on the.
Speaker 2 (14:38):
Top of the page.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Like I should have should have I should have figured
this out a long time ago and asked you guys
a long time ago about this.
Speaker 6 (14:45):
So, yeah, we've known about it for a long time.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
Nobody said anything. Nobody, nobody has said anything. So everyone,
I mean, we've been moving forward as if she did
time in jail and was on probation. I don't. Well, again,
there's no proof of that right now, there is no
proof of that. If you have proof, then please what
sure we do we have proof of that? Where's the
(15:18):
proof that she was in jail?
Speaker 4 (15:20):
Here, let me show you that she was in jail.
She admitted to it. What are you talking about? She
just admitted to it. She said she was arrested in
least summit.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
But she didn't. I'm talking about getting sentenced.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
So she pled guilty and that her sentence is supposed
to be forty eight hours in jail in two years probation.
Where is the proof that that actually was the case.
And here's another question, and I actually don't know this answer.
I think I know the answer, but I'm going to
ask you, if you're on probation, do you get a
probation officer.
Speaker 4 (15:47):
We tried to find her probation officer and all of that.
But here's the thing. She was a juvenile on this thing.
So those are all closed records. We can't get it
that until we file the havienes.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
But you don't know that they're as a probation officer.
Speaker 4 (16:01):
Correct, Yeah, I don't know that she had a probation officer.
And the other thing that we have looked into was
she was a Kansas resident at the time, but on
Missouri probation. So there's a weird It's like, okay, well,
would she have gotten a Kansas probation officer? You know,
would that have been put over there to do that?
(16:22):
And you know, we still believe that she was put
on probation, which would totally make sense because when all
of this happens, she's supposed to be quote unquote cooperating
with the Jackson County Prosecutor's office. Right in December of
two thousand, they put this tape recorder in the Moffit residence.
Right months go by, no phone calls with Byron, no
(16:45):
no reported attempts of phone calls with Byron. Kelly seems
to disappear because there's literally no reports. Then she gets
picked up on this warrant, pleads guilty. We still believe,
sentenced to two days shock time with probation. But let's
say she's not. Let's say she's just convicted of a
Class A misdemeanor. The reason it makes sense for her
(17:06):
to be sentenced to two years probation is so the
prosecutors have control over her during the pendency of the
rest of their investigation and prosecution into Byron. Right so,
and then it's two months after this guilty plead that
she finally gets Byron on the phone. But I wanted
(17:28):
to point out too, and I tried to share my screen,
but I can't. I can email you this document I
have because we took screenshots of this back when we
found it, and I'm looking at the screen shot of
it now, not the screenshot. I'm looking at the screen
on case net right now, and it looks like it
has been altered from when we first found it and
(17:49):
gathered it because it used to say on April third,
two thousand and one, judgment entered SEES which stands for
suspended execution of sentence thirty days, can secut with case number,
consecutive with case number, you know, and then that's the
case number we're talking about, which is related to somebody
different forty eight hours shot time probation two years right now,
(18:13):
and then under that entry it says guiltyply. Now on
live on case Net it just says April third, two
thousand and one, guiltyply. It doesn't have judgment entered on
that docket report like it used to. So something somebody
got on there and changed something and I don't know
why that happened, and I don't know who did that,
but that's new. That is also new information for us.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
This is true. There are two dockets.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
The one Cooper County sent me on April sixteenth, twenty
twenty four. In the middle of the page, under sentence
it says fine. Then under total case fine imposed it
says fourteen dollars and ninety five cents. In the docket
Byron's legal team sent me, which they pulled on October two,
twelfth twenty twenty one. In the middle of the page,
(19:02):
it says Kelly was sentenced to a fine of fourteen
dollars and ninety five cents, just like the one Cooper
County sent me, but lowered down on that page, in
the itemized list of events that happened in the case
on April third, two thousand and one, there is that
other person's case number, and next to it is the
(19:24):
sentence of forty eight hours shock jail time and two
years probation.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
So what the hell which sentence is the real one?
Speaker 1 (19:33):
When was the forty eight hours shock jail time two
years probation erased from the docket? It had to have
been some time between October of twenty twenty one and
April of twenty twenty four.
Speaker 3 (19:47):
Who did it and why? By the way, I.
Speaker 1 (19:51):
Had asked Byron's legal team about these two different court
dockets before, because one had the sentence forty eight hours
shock jail time and two years probation and the other
one didn't have it. They said it was because there
was a difference between what information a lawyer can access
on case net, Missouri's legal case database and what the
(20:14):
general public can. Not sure if that's what happened or
if it's something else. In an attempt to get some
clarity on Kelly's two different court dockets and whether or
not she was ever sentenced to forty eight hours in
jail and two years probation, I email the Jackson County
(20:35):
Prosecutor's office to see if they will answer my questions
at least about this. Remember, months ago, I was told
that it wouldn't be appropriate for Prosecutor Teresa Crayon to
speak until all litigation in this case is complete. When
the prosecutor's office responds, they say the same thing, They
can't comment until all litigation is complete on this matter
(21:00):
Nicole again, and the state was able to find Byron's
records in a different county, They did a background check
on him, brought it to trial. Why didn't you need
to tell me they didn't do that with Kelly and
brought it to trial. And so there is the presumption
of this wasn't disclosed and.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
Why I mean, and I think that we're.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Allowed to hypothesize of all the reasons that someone would
in Kelly's position would implicate.
Speaker 4 (21:26):
Somebody else in a murder.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
I mean, we're allowed to do that, but Brian's right.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
The fact of the matter is is that they didn't
disclose it and they had a duty to right.
Speaker 4 (21:34):
And we have court records that say that she was
on shot time, two days of shot time with a
thirty day backup in two years probation. That's what the
records we have say. She might say that that's not
true and that's not what happened, and that's fine, you
know what. That's what this process is for. And maybe
we find out that she wasn't sentenced to two days
(21:55):
of shock time, but at a minimum, she was still
convicted of a class A mystery, right, and that's what
they had a duty to disclose.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
So I think there are two issues, right.
Speaker 1 (22:05):
I think it's I mean, you have been putting forth
the theory that she got into this bigger trouble, and
you know, Kelly is a drug addicted liar and she,
you know, was in this bigger trouble and that's why
she flipped and worked with prosecutors. That doesn't seem as
(22:26):
plausible as it did before.
Speaker 6 (22:29):
I think that's another statement of the theory though, And
can I can I correct the theory really quick that
she Our theory is that this case connected her to
the prosecution, that she could have been in much more
trouble if she hadn't worked with prosecutors to get out
of it.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
Let's go back for one second and look at the timeline.
Kelly was arrested in April of two thousand on this
littering charge. She didn't up for her arraignment in June
of two thousand, That's when the warrant was issued three
months later in September of two thousand. Kelly was basically
(23:12):
made to come forward when her drug counselor went to
the authorities. So when was Kelly allegedly incentivized to work
with prosecutors. Was it between when she got the littering
charge and when she came forward, so between April and September?
Or was it between when she came forward and when
(23:35):
she was picked up on the warrant, so between September
and the following April. I went back and found a
report Kilgore wrote on September twentieth, two thousand, the day
after Kelly came forward. Kilgore wrote quote, Apparently Ms Moffatt
offered to tape record a conversation with Byron Case and
(23:57):
try to get him to admit to the shooting. Mister
Beard and Ms McGowan were in favor of attempting the recording,
So it seems it was Kelly's idea to try and
record Byron confessing, and this happened around the time she
came forward. What would be the point in a quid
(24:18):
pro quo scenario with prosecutors. Was it to point the
finger at Byron because it seems she had already done that,
or was it to finally get Byron on the phone
and again, remember it was her idea to do that.
Speaker 6 (24:34):
Back to Quinn, I still don't know if that's the
case because a lot of those records are going to
be confidential because she's a juvenile, and some of these
records are you going to be things that we can't
get until the behavior is proceeding. But she was on
the prosecution's radar. She's an addict, and this is the
case that you know, we know about. We're not saying
(24:58):
that she did this to how to put this? Somebody
helped me out, your dad, you know what I want?
Speaker 5 (25:06):
Yeah. The point is when somebody is addicted, the prospect
of one night in jail is terrifying because that means
withdrawal that means cold Turkey, and so that's incentive for
her to cooperate with the police. But why she decided
(25:27):
to implicate Byron is a much much different, more complex
thing than what you've described. I think that she lied
multiple times to multiple people about why she's an addict,
why she has this drug problem. She says, because I
saw Anastasia murdered, and then she says, because I saw
(25:47):
Justin murder Anastasia, and then she changes that to Byron.
So she tells this lie because it's convenient at the
moment at the time. And then when she finally tells
a therapist and a therapist says, you go to the
police or I will. Now suddenly the lie is locked in,
(26:08):
and she doesn't have a choice but to go through
with the lie that she's been telling. And so if
she's under stress, it's a stress of being locked into
a lie that she now can't get out of. And
so she ends up going to a lawyer, going to
the prosecution. And so why the delay of months and
(26:29):
months and months between her cooperation decision and getting Byron
on the phone to you know, try to trap him
into saying something incriminating.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
That's not how Kelly sees it. Kelly mentioned in the
last episode that she had been accused of stalking Byron.
Kelly said, well, the police were the ones who gave
her his number, So maybe Kelly had tried calling Byron
before that June fifth call back to Sean.
Speaker 5 (27:00):
She doesn't want to do it, but I think this
case and the prospect of going to jail because she
has that warrant pending, I think that is what you know,
motivated her finally to follow through with the phone call
to Byron. And now you know she's in over her head.
(27:20):
She can't back out of this. She can't. There's no
way to do it.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
Another thing to point out Leah is that in that
report that Sergeant Kilgore wrote from December of two thousand,
when he installs the tape recorder, the last thing he
writes is assistant prosecutor Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Amy McGowan told
me to give her phone number and her pager number,
(27:44):
and so that so Kelly has the prosecutor, the Jackson
County Prosecutor, one of the top deputies in Jackson County
prosecutor's contact info and then she gets picked up in
Jackson County on this warrant. Who is she going to
maybe call to get some help out of that situation?
You know, we believe that there's it's very plausible that
she called Amy McGowan and said, I'm in trouble and
(28:07):
I need help, and they said, okay, well we can
help you with this. But here's what you're going to
need to start playing ballbat her with us, right.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
But but let me just let me jump in real quick.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
We don't know that to be true, and now we
don't know. We know one there's another thing we don't
know to be true, and that's that she actually was
sentenced to forty eight hours of shockjail time in two
years probation.
Speaker 4 (28:30):
That is, we don't know. We don't know what that is.
So we don't know that.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
We don't actually know that there was.
Speaker 4 (28:34):
Any bigger's We don't have to prove that, I know, but.
Speaker 1 (28:38):
We but we've put that forth like we have said
that in the podcast. You guys have talked about that
that you you allege that there was some bigger trouble
that she was in that she had to get out of.
And I don't think that that is have been I
don't think that's been proven. I don't think that even
that her sentence, that sentence of forty eight hours of
shockjail time in two years probation has been proven. And
(28:59):
the thing I want to say in my email to
the Prosecutor's office, I also ask about this allegation that
after Kelly was picked up on the warrant, she called
Amy McGowan, who helped her in exchange for Kelly getting
Byron on the phone in a recorded confession.
Speaker 3 (29:15):
But here's another question.
Speaker 1 (29:18):
If Amy McGowan intervened, and that is a mighty big if,
why would that forty eight hours of shot, jail time
and two years probation ever be entered into the docket.
If something sneaky and nefarius went on, one would imagine
there would be enormous attention given to covering all tracks.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
Okay, back to our interview, and then one.
Speaker 1 (29:44):
Other thing I want to say, Sean, like, yes, Kelly
came forward and first said to her dad Byron, then
to the counselor said justin. It was her mom who
actually said no, no, no, Kelly told your dad. It
was Byron. It was her mom who called her out
and said, no, you tell her you know this is
(30:06):
what you told your dad. So yes, she flip flops,
but her mom makes her change her story back to Byron.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
It wasn't like she did it on her own. Okay, Sorry,
what were you going to say.
Speaker 4 (30:16):
Brian in response to that, Well, I don't know. I mean,
obviously the lies of Kelly's lies. We all have different theories, right.
I think that she was just a troubled kid trying
to get either back in with her parents and that's
what started this ball rolling, or that this was just
a lie that spun out of control.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
Right.
Speaker 4 (30:37):
She her story, everything she says, there's inconsistencies, not just
across statements after she comes forward, but even within single
interviews there's inconsistencies. Even with what she was saying to you.
There's inconsistencies right all this time. Oh, she just wanted
to come forward. If only somebody had just been mean
(30:58):
to me in one of these interviews, I would have
told you truth. But then she says I wanted to
come forward. But that's not even then she didn't come forward.
They seemed to after she's in rehab, detoxing, and who knows,
we don't even know how long she was in rehab
before this whole maggy thing allegedly happened. But she says that, well,
(31:19):
I tried to say that it was justin or that
it was some other thing, and then her mom drags
out another lie out of her. I don't know it
just none of it makes sense. Did she want to
come forward or did she not come because at no
point in this does she do anything voluntarily.
Speaker 6 (31:35):
No, And I still think that to call her, I mean,
she said that we characterized her as a drug kingpin,
and I don't recall ever even saying anything like that.
I mean, that's that's not the theory that she was
in trouble for something bigger. We've known for a long
time that it was a littering charge, and that's all
it has to be, is a littering charge. She doesn't
(31:57):
have to have, you know, drugs on her or be
a And that's not our theory. Our theory is that
she continues to use and she's connected to the prosecution.
Now she's on probation and she gets arrested, and I
don't believe that she was arrested just for having a
headlight out. I don't believe that. I would love to
(32:18):
get those records and we're actually trying to.
Speaker 4 (32:19):
Tell where's her, where's her proof that she was that
she was arrested for a broken headline?
Speaker 6 (32:24):
Yeah, I don't. I don't believe that for a second.
I think that she's on probation and she gets arrested
for drugs and she realizes that she's going to have
to do backup time, and then the prosecutor steps in
to help her out. I still think that that's the case,
and I have nothing, except for killing off its word
that that's not the case.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
I mean, hold on one second.
Speaker 1 (32:48):
Sorry to trumpt you, but to be fair, Quinn, you
guys did say that you believed that she might have
been involved in some bigger drug thing.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
I mean, it's in the podcast. We did talk about that, so.
Speaker 6 (33:00):
You know we speculated that it could have been the case.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
Right, So I'm just saying you said, that's not what
we all.
Speaker 4 (33:05):
What we ever thought, and it might have been related
to drugs, but not or something.
Speaker 6 (33:12):
When I say bigger drug thing, that's not I mean,
she used the word getting caught. Sorry, I know she.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
Used you she used the working pin. You've never used
the word kingpin.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
But you did allege that she was involved or you
speculated that she might have been involved in some bigger
drug issue.
Speaker 2 (33:30):
She used the word kingpin. You've never used that word,
but that sort of thing, I mean a person.
Speaker 4 (33:37):
And as far as our quote, our theory quote that
she's was a drug addict and a compulsive liar, that
wasn't our theory. That comes straight out of her mom's mouth.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
I think what Brian is referring to are a couple
of things Kelly's mom, Deborah Moffatt, has said in the past.
The first was in a report written by Sergeant Kilgore
regarding Kelly coming forward. Kilgore wrote, quote, Miss Moffatt stated
to me that this whole situation has ruined Kelly's life
by her not being able to deal with the situation.
(34:09):
Miss Moffittt stated to me that last spring Kelly called
her on the telephone at four hundred hours crying. Kelly
stated to Miss Moffittt, I saw Anastasia murdered. From that
point on, according to Miss Moffatt, they have been chipping
away on her, trying to get the whole story. I
asked again when Kelly first told her this, and Miss
(34:31):
Moffett stated that Kelly was lying to them a lot
back then, and then said I better shut up then.
On the stand, during cross examination, Deborah was asked if
Kelly would mislead her about her drug use and other topics.
Deborah said, in part quote, well, she was a drug addict.
She was lying to me because she needed money. She
(34:54):
wanted to come back home. I had a younger daughter
at home. She knew if she came back home she
could use drugs. I mean that's what a drug addict does.
She couldn't really tell me the truth about any of
her activity. Okay, back to Brian, you know.
Speaker 4 (35:10):
That's not us saying that she says that she was
a compulsive liar and a drug addict. And the phone
call that she has with Byron, she says, nobody's gonna
believe me because I'm a crackhead, I'm a poke head,
and I'm an alcoholic. You know. I mean, that's not us,
that's her.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
I hear you.
Speaker 1 (35:27):
I do.
Speaker 2 (35:30):
This has thrown me for a bit of a loop.
I'm just being very honest with you.
Speaker 4 (35:44):
What are your concerns?
Speaker 2 (35:45):
I mean I could just hear in your voice. Yeah,
I mean I'm upset.
Speaker 1 (35:49):
I've been up all night and like really concerned about this, because,
first of all, I'm not thrilled with myself for not
catching that. I think that for somebody who says is
that they have told the truth and have been fighting
a credibility issue, and this has been one of the
things used against them to say, look, they're lying. And
(36:09):
she very quickly pointed out something that could potentially prove
that she's told the truth, that she really didn't have
this sentence. She didn't spend time in jail for this,
She wasn't on probation. That is worrisome to me, and
I understand that, like the other issue is the Brady violations,
that the prosecutors didn't hand this over.
Speaker 2 (36:30):
I do understand. I understand that.
Speaker 1 (36:32):
I guess I understand that you're saying that that's still
that's doesn't change.
Speaker 5 (36:36):
Let me clarify the leg Stop you guys, stop, stop, stop,
just answer answer this. Let me clarify the legal issue
for you. The prosecutor is obliged to disclose if a
witness they're using has any criminal convictions for felonies or misdemeanors.
They were asked and they said none. And then in
(37:00):
a deposition, Kelly Moffatt was asked, do you have any
felonies or misdemeanor convictions, and she said, I've never even
been in trouble with the police, So that's a lie.
And so at the time of trial, the defense lawyer
was entitled to prove that she had been arrested and charged,
(37:23):
and frankly, under the circumstances, I think this was a
minor in possession charge that got dropped down to a
littering charge on a misdemeanor, because that's what the facts show,
and so that's the record. And then we have a
judgment that shows that she's facing a possibility of arrest
(37:47):
and there's a warrant. There's an actual warrant connected to
this case. That warrant is pending during the pendency of
Byron's charges. That gives her in incentive. And it doesn't
matter that the prosecutor played on it or used it.
What matters is that that fact out there is an
(38:10):
incentive for her to color her story, to cooperate with
the police, to do what's necessary to avoid being taken
into custody and go go cold turkey in a jail cell.
It's not that it's a serious charge, it's that it's
(38:30):
a charge that could result in her going to jail,
But it's also a lie she told in a deposition
and something the defense was entitled to use. But in
terms of the overall story here, it's not the biggest
thing that shows she's lying. It is a thing that
could have been used, not just the conviction itself, but
(38:50):
the fact that she lied about ever being in trouble
with the police. So that's where it all fits.
Speaker 1 (38:56):
Yeah, it seems like the warrant was issued for her
because she didn't show up to the arraignment.
Speaker 2 (39:03):
So that's why the warrant was.
Speaker 5 (39:04):
Issued, right, right, because the charge was pending, right, So
that's number one.
Speaker 1 (39:09):
Number two, we don't know that there was a bigger
charge or anything like possession. We don't know that to
be the case, right, And my whole thing is like,
now that we've seen this clerical error on the docket,
what some of what was used to say Kelly might
have worked with prosecutors to get out of something bigger,
(39:29):
something that would have resulted in two years probation, forty
eight hours shot jail time. We has been is not proven,
has not been proven. We don't know that to be
the case. So I get that the Brady violations are
still there. I'm not taking anything away from that, but
something that has been used to, you know, discredit her
(39:51):
and make it seem like she and allude to the
fact that she might have worked with prosecutors. I don't
think that there there's I don't think the facts are
there right now. I cannot we cannot prove that she
was actually sentenced to that time and that probation. If
you can find something that actually proves that that happened,
(40:12):
then that's something different. But right now, with that clerical error,
the whole that whole thing could be a clerical error
because it says under other pages the only sentence was
the fine.
Speaker 4 (40:21):
I would just like to.
Speaker 1 (40:22):
Say that the sheriff looked at the same court records
that we're all looking at and came up with the
same conclusion that that's what she was sentenced to. Yeah,
but if the court record, the court docket is is erroneous,
if it's false and they're reading he was reading the
same or she was reading the same thing that we're
reading from right and assuming the same thing, and he
(40:42):
came to the same conclusion that that case was not
connected with Kelly's case.
Speaker 2 (40:48):
But he didn't say that in that email.
Speaker 1 (40:49):
Now he says that it looks like she was sentenced
to show time and probation say anything about another case. Right,
he's saying, I read the court record that you read,
and this is the conclusion.
Speaker 2 (41:01):
I came up with. Right, But we can't.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
I mean, that's not proof of anything because we're as
we're understanding, like there are falsehoods. There's like you know,
there are clerical errors on them. I know that that's
what you want in order to feel good about this,
because I get as a journalist, you want to you
want the proof before you start accusing people or giving
people a platform to do damage to some I understand
(41:27):
where you're coming from.
Speaker 4 (41:27):
I do, I get it.
Speaker 2 (41:29):
I mean, I am.
Speaker 1 (41:30):
Just trying to be fair to both sides, and when
something is brought to me, I have to go to
the other side and ask about it.
Speaker 2 (41:38):
I mean I was stunned last night. I mean stunned.
Speaker 1 (41:45):
And you know, does she bring evidence of anything out?
Like all the evidence that she has to prove her innocence, we.
Speaker 2 (41:52):
Would love to see.
Speaker 1 (41:54):
So if there's anything else that she has, I have
searched this file inside it now and I have looked
for things that can corroborate her story, and so if
there's anything else, we'd love to know about it. She
just screen grabbed the sentence for me and it said,
you know, fourteen dollars and ninety five cents.
Speaker 4 (42:12):
And that's all that.
Speaker 1 (42:13):
That's the only evidence that she's offered you to corroborate
any of her I mean, is there Yeah, because she
says there's nothing else to prove, that's what she I means,
She's like, I didn't do the time. That wasn't my sentence. Oh,
I'm just talking about her story in general. I mean,
it seems like she's really honed in on this.
Speaker 2 (42:30):
No, this is this has been from.
Speaker 1 (42:31):
Yesterday, last night to this morning, you know, I mean,
this is what we're focused on, what I'm focused on
right now. And yes there are questions about other things
for sure, but this is this is the focus for
right now.
Speaker 5 (42:44):
Well, it's what do you compare with I've never been
in trouble with the police. You know, we can show
that to a lie.
Speaker 2 (42:51):
I hear you, Sean, I really do.
Speaker 1 (42:53):
I also can understand and this is where maybe the
Libra and me can get me in trouble sometimes because
I can see side so very much. But I can
see a young kid who's scared and is like, doesn't
think a littering charge and a fine of fourteen dollars
and ninety five cents is really getting in trouble with police.
(43:14):
I'm sure she was surrounded by a lot of people
in that drug world who were getting in real trouble
with the police, and so she didn't actually consider it.
Speaker 4 (43:24):
So she said it go ahead. Sorry, I apologize, No,
I was.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
Just gonna say, like what she said in her deposition,
I mean, was she hiding something?
Speaker 4 (43:32):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (43:33):
I kind of understand her being like, it wasn't that
big of a deal. I paid less than fifteen bucks
to get out of it. If anything, to your point,
it's the prosecutors who should have turned that over.
Speaker 4 (43:44):
Her description to you did not sound like it wasn't
that big of a deal, she says. She vividly remembers
now getting arrested by the Least Summit Police Department and
extradited to Cooper County. And so you're saying that.
Speaker 2 (43:58):
You can, but she doesn't remember going to jail or
being on probation.
Speaker 4 (44:02):
But she would have gone to jail if she tested
and got extradited to Cooper County and by.
Speaker 1 (44:06):
Going to jail and being sentenced to jail or two
different things.
Speaker 4 (44:10):
Right, Yes, but not with what you're talking about. You're
saying you believe what Kelly's saying that she would. Well,
I totally slipped my mind when I'm in a deposition
on a murder case when Byron's defense lawyer says, have
you ever been convicted of a class of a misdemeanor
or felony in state or federal court? And it just
(44:32):
slips her mind because in her mind this was just
some little ticket. No, it could not have been some
little ticket in her mind at that time based on
what she told you, she got picked up on a
warrant and got transferred from Jackson County to two hours
away to Cooper County to be arraigned. Right, And we
(44:53):
have no idea, and she hasn't said yet. I'm sure
she'll come up with a great story on what happened
in between getting ac by the least Summit Police Department
and showing up in court in Cooper County to plead guilty.
But there's simply no way that that would not have
been a big deal to her.
Speaker 6 (45:10):
This is handcuff She's being transported in a police vehicle
in handcuffs, if that's not being in trouble with the police.
Speaker 4 (45:19):
But I mean, I guess what else can I don't
know what else we could say about that. That's you know,
it is what it is.
Speaker 1 (45:26):
Yeah, And I think she said she spent a little
bit of time there until she was bailed out or whatever.
But you know, yeah, I mean, I there's just I
needed to ask you about it. If you can find
anything that says that she actually was on probation or
(45:46):
you know, spent forty eight hours in jail, obviously I
would love to see it. As of right now, I
can't say that I believe that that happened.
Speaker 2 (45:56):
And I think that this clerical error.
Speaker 4 (45:58):
Yeah, well we know that, but there's a clerical error.
We don't know the extent of it. And it's our
job to assume that. When there's facts that could go
either way, we have to look at them and what
helps our client, what's in the best interests of our client.
This clerical error has somebody else's case number on there,
but it says consecutive with that case number, so in
(46:22):
our mind and I'm reading this, it's what I just
sent you. I just emailed it to you. I thought
you would have already had it, and maybe you do.
But that nothing about this rules out that she still
got thirty days a suspended execution, a suspended execution of
thirty days with two days shock time in two years probation.
We still have evidence of that. It's what I just
(46:44):
sent you. Maybe this other person also got that same
sentence for a different class a misdemeanor, but that does
not disprove that Kelly MafA did it. And even if
it did again, that's not the central issue. The central
issue is she was convicted of a misdemeanor, and she
lied about it, and the prosecutor's office failed to disclose.
Speaker 5 (47:03):
It, and we couldn't find a relationship between the two cases,
and so, you know, looking at it when we drilled
down into it, it's a mistake by one number in
that notation that this sentence is consecutive to that other sentence.
The other sentence belongs to somebody else, but this sentence
is Kelly's.
Speaker 1 (47:24):
For the record, the two case numbers are not even
remotely alike. Each are twelve digits, which include both letters
and numbers, but These two are not off by a
digit or two. They are radically different. It seems the
only thing Kelly and this Brendan person have in common
(47:45):
is that two separate events happen in their cases on
the same day. April third, two thousand and one.
Speaker 2 (47:53):
Did you ever look at Angie's.
Speaker 1 (47:57):
Angie Giannino is the friend Kelly was with when they
were pulled over in Cooper County. You heard from Angie
in episode eleven, And what did you find.
Speaker 2 (48:06):
From Angie's docket?
Speaker 4 (48:08):
We were just looking at that again recently. Let me see,
let me find some notes here. I know for a
fact that she showed up to her hearing. She did
not have a warrant issue for her arrest, and she
was fined two hundred and fifty dollars, but her charge
was a Class B missdemeanor for exceeding the speed limit
(48:30):
of twenty miles an hour or more.
Speaker 6 (48:32):
Because she successfully paid the fine and completed her probation,
that won't be publicly available on case neet, but she
had to get that a different.
Speaker 4 (48:40):
Way, and she well, this was on case net what
I just said. Let's see, so she was That was
June sixth of two thousand and that's the date that
Kelly was also supposed to show up, and she skipped,
and then it was a couple weeks after that that
the warrant was issued for her arrest.
Speaker 1 (48:56):
And there's also an error on the date that they
were arrested. I thought, in case at one point it
said five on May fifteenth, but.
Speaker 2 (49:03):
It's actually April fifteenth.
Speaker 1 (49:06):
Why on this page does it only say the finest
thirteen dollars. The sentence is fourteen dollars and ninety five cents.
Speaker 4 (49:15):
I don't know. I mean, that's kind of one of
those things that we're like, yeah, we know that this
is an imperfect record, and that's why we've been waiting
to not waiting, but trying to. You know, we've sent
record requests to everybody. Nicole when we after we first
found out about this issue, drove to Cooper County and
(49:36):
went and looked looked for it physically, for records that
we could find, you know, I mean, that's this is
one of the problems you routinely run into with these
kinds of cases, is that once it's been decades, you know,
you're you're practically doing what's the word, I'm looking for
archaeological examination, right, it's so I'm glad that Kelly able to,
(50:00):
you know, say no, that that didn't happen. But at
this point we still only have Kelly's word for it.
And again, let's let's assume she's right and for some reason,
her friend gets on a lower misdemeanor charge. Her friend
gets two hundred and fifty dollars, but after having to
issue a warrant that she's picked up on, she was
only fined fifteen dollars. It's I don't know, it's just
(50:24):
in my experience. There's we still got a lot of questions.
Speaker 1 (50:27):
It is interesting that Angie got a two hundred and
fifty dollars fine and Kelly got only a fourteen dollars
and ninety five cent fine. But how much would a
minor be fined for a littering charge? Anything else anybody
wants to say before we I would just like to
say some of the stuff that Kelly said about Cooper
County and getting arrested with Angie and taking her car back,
(50:50):
I don't know, it's not true. I mean, Angie, we
have an affidavid from Angie Gannino that contradicts that straight up.
But I went back to Angie's affidavit, and she said
this about what happened after she and Kelly were arrested. Quote,
when we were pulled over, I was arrested and ticketed
for driving ninety miles per hour in a seventy mile
(51:11):
per hour zone. My vehicle was impounded and I was
taken to the Cooper County jail. Kelly was ticketed for
littering for throwing the bottle of alcohol out the window.
I do not know if she was arrested. I do
not know how she got back to Kansas City, Okay.
Kelly told me that instead of impounding Angie's car, police
(51:33):
gave Kelly Angie's car keys, and Kelly used Angie's car
for a couple of days. I don't want to say more,
but Kelly's not been truthful with you all the way.
But I understand where you're coming from and wanting to
Q and being worried and.
Speaker 4 (51:51):
Concerned, and we appreciate being fact checked. And yeah, I
mean I think you So everything about our case still stands.
Is arrested at least once, uh, which she denied ever
being being in trouble with the police. She was convicted
of a Class A misdemeanor which she lied about and
(52:11):
which the prosecutors failed to disclose. That's the salient issue,
and discovery and uh more investigation will get to the
bottom of what exactly she was sentenced to. But if
the only evidence refuting this is Kelly Moffatt, well that's
(52:32):
hardly any evidence at all.
Speaker 1 (52:34):
I mean, I guess what would it take for you
to build it? And I'm not kelly spokesperson. I'm just
asking these questions. What would take? What would it take
for you to believe that Kelly in fact was not
sentenced to forty eight hours shop jail time in two
years probation.
Speaker 4 (52:50):
I would probably say some certified record that shows that
that's all it was that or I don't know, a
cashed check or some document or or the testimony of
some other credible person other than Kelly that was there.
You know, something along those lines would would be helpful. Obviously.
(53:10):
You know, it's hard to sit anywhere and say, oh, well,
if this happened. You know, every time something comes up,
we're gonna have questions, and especially if it's something that
Kelly is relying on. But but yeah, I mean, I
wouldn't say we're not for our purposes. What she was
sentenced to is almost beside the point, you know. The
(53:34):
point is what we've already mentioned, that she was convicted,
that she was in trouble, and that she lied about it, right.
Speaker 1 (53:41):
I think, I mean she was was in this morning,
still very upset about this, just so you know, very upset.
Speaker 4 (53:50):
I mean that's Byron's been in prison for almost twenty
five years because of her lives. So I don't really
care if she's upset. But I'm glad you thanks for Tommins.
Speaker 1 (54:01):
I think our goals and this aren't you know, they're
at the end of the day. You come from a
journalist's point of view, and we're just presenting facts as.
Speaker 4 (54:10):
We see them.
Speaker 1 (54:11):
We may have, you know, hypotheticals. That's our job, you know,
is to try to figure out what happened. And but
I mean, I think I'm sorry to interrupt you, Nicole.
Speaker 2 (54:21):
I think the whole thing.
Speaker 1 (54:23):
I think Kelly's point right now is that she's been
fighting credibility issues for a very long time and here's
an example of something that's being used, wrongfully used against her,
and she's like, I told you this didn't happen. This
is a clerical error. This, This did not happen, and
(54:43):
this is an example of stuff that's been used against
me to try to make me look like a liar.
Speaker 2 (54:49):
And she's like, yes, I've lied in the past.
Speaker 1 (54:51):
There are things that I can't remember, but I remember
the important stuff. She remembers what she said about Byron,
and she remembers what she witnessed Byron.
Speaker 2 (54:59):
Do she remembers not.
Speaker 1 (55:02):
Going to jail and not spending being sentenced to probation,
and you know, it's I don't know, I just.
Speaker 4 (55:10):
Well, and just just to put things in context too.
What Kelly says about this is we learned about it
when we were listening to the podcast. Right, We've never
had it. We have yet to have the opportunity to
find out anything more about this, you know. And we
and when we asked Angie what she knew about it,
she said, I don't know what happened. I don't know
(55:30):
what happened after it. I don't know what happened with
Kelly's thing, Right, She said that to me too, Yeah,
and so and we we know for a fact though
she got a warrant, and she got picked up on
a warrant, and it seems very strange to me that
a rural county judge would issue a bench warrant, and
then once the person shows up in his courtroom on
that bench warrant on a Class A misdemeanor, he says, Oh,
(55:53):
never mind, I'm only going to sentence you to fifteen dollars. Fine.
I just don't that. I still have a lot of
questions about that, and just Kelly's word that that's all
that happened just doesn't to me. That's not doesn't really
move me.
Speaker 2 (56:12):
All right, thank you everyone, I appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (56:15):
Yeah, hey, it's still great, I hope. Yeah, we're passionate
about this.
Speaker 2 (56:22):
Thanks everyone, Bye bye bye.
Speaker 1 (56:26):
The next day, Brian and I speak again. One of
the things Brian says is he doesn't want me to
think the team was trying to pull one over on me. Okay,
this was supposed to be our last episode, but there's
still so much left to share, like what Byron's legal
team and Byron have to say about some of Kelly's allegations,
(56:48):
and what they have to say when I ask them.
Some of your questions and mine. To see photos, maps,
and documents really to this season's story. Follow the Real
Killer podcast on Instagram and at TRK podcast on TikTok.
(57:10):
The Real Killer is a production of AYR Media and iHeartMedia,
hosted by me Leah Rothman, Executive producers Leah Rothman and
Elisa Rosen for AYR Media. Written by Leah Rothman, Editing
and sound design by Cameron Taggi, Mixed and mastered by
Cameron Taggi, Audio engineer Justin Longerbeam studio engineer Graham Gibson,
(57:38):
Legal consul for AYR Media. Jonni Douglas, executive producer for iHeartMedia,
Maya Howard
Two days before our last episode came out, Kelly pointed
out there was a different case number on her littering
case court docket, and the sentence of forty eight hours
shock jail time and two years probation, which you heard
her say never happened, was in fact also incorrect. What
(00:24):
will Byron's legal team have to say about this?
Speaker 2 (00:28):
What are your concerns? I mean I could just hear
it in your voice. Yeah, I mean I'm upset. I've
been up all night.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Is this alleged clerical error easily explained? Will it change
how Kelly's credibility is now viewed? And what a fact,
if any, will this have on Byron's legal case. I'm
(00:57):
Leah Rothman. This is The Real Killer, Episode fifteen the docket.
Right after Kelly and I speak that Tuesday night about
this error on her court docket, I message Byron's attorney,
(01:19):
Brian Russell to see if he can get the rest
of the team together to talk the next morning. I
don't share with Brian exactly why I'm asking for this
last minute interview, but he comes back and says yes,
he and the team will be available. So the next
morning at eleven am my time, Brian, Nicole Gordon, Sean O'Brien,
(01:42):
Quin O'Brien, and I all log into Zoom for what
will be a very interesting conversation about Kelly's court docket
and what can and cannot be proven?
Speaker 2 (01:56):
Can everyone hear me?
Speaker 3 (01:58):
Yes?
Speaker 4 (01:59):
Yeah yet.
Speaker 1 (02:00):
So thank you for getting together this quickly, because I
reached out to Brian last night late last night asking
for us to all get together. Kelly texted me yesterday
and sent me screen grabs from her littering charge and
I was like, okay, great, and she was like, see,
(02:22):
it's just a fine.
Speaker 2 (02:24):
I just had to pay a fine. And I was like, well,
let me send you what I have.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
It says you did forty eight hours of shock, jail
time and two years probation. Within minutes, she wrote me
back angrily pointed out that there is another case number
next to that sentence on the docket, and at first
I didn't see it. She was like, that's not my
(02:50):
case number, and I was like, I don't see what
you're seeing and she's basically like, you dummy, it's right there.
And so I looked up that case number and it's
a guy named Brendan.
Speaker 2 (03:03):
I won't use his last name who in nineteen.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
Ninety nine got in trouble for allegedly passing some bad checks.
It doesn't say anything about shock jail time, but under
his sentence or program info, it says that he had
unsupervised probation for seven hundred and thirty one days, So
that's two years.
Speaker 4 (03:23):
In a day.
Speaker 1 (03:25):
Kelly, as you heard in the last episode, said I
didn't go to jail. I didn't I wasn't on probation.
So how do you explain this?
Speaker 4 (03:35):
Kelly's word is mud. Frankly, I don't care what Kelly
has to say about anything.
Speaker 3 (03:41):
That's Brian Russell.
Speaker 4 (03:43):
Unless there's some independent corroboration. Her word alone doesn't do anything.
The point is she's still at a minimum, let's say,
if even if it was just a fine, right, she
was still convicted of a Class amis demeanor, which is
what the probation is irrelevant to that fact that both
(04:06):
her and the prosecutor's office had a duty to tell
Byron that she was convicted of a Class A misdemeanor
during all of this, right during all of their investigation
and everything like that. So the fact that sorry, not
the fact her allegation that she didn't actually do any
jail time, which I still believed to be false. That
(04:30):
is irrelevant to this issue. That she was still convicted
of a Class A misdemeanor, and that this all happened
while she was quote unquote cooperating with the Jackson County
prosecutor right she had an incentive. She had an active
warrant out for her arrest. She admitted to you that
(04:50):
she was picked up on that warrant by the Least
Summit Police Department, which was that was new information for us,
because we never knew where she was picked up on warrant.
We just knew that she was picked up one more so,
as far as what our response is to that is,
it's great. That's great. Thank you for telling us and
confirming that you were convicted of a Class A misdemeanor,
(05:12):
that you lied about it to Byron's defense counsel when
he asked if you had ever been convicted of a
felony or misdemeanor in state or federal court, and that
the prosecutor's office should have known about it, probably did
know about it and didn't do their job and fulfill
their duty to disclose that to Byron and his defense.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Team, here's Sean O'Brien.
Speaker 5 (05:34):
You know, we had found the clerical error that they
had linked some unrelated person's case to her case net.
But that was a clerical error. Apparently doesn't negate any
of the other stuff. That's not his shock time, that's
not his judgment.
Speaker 4 (05:50):
We know it's a.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Clerical error because I reached out to Christopher Class who's
the sheriff of Cooper County, and he did confirm that
she did two days of shock time. Okay, so Nicole,
and glad you brought that up, because I have your
email that you sent me and.
Speaker 2 (06:04):
He does not He does not do that. I'll read
it to you, you said.
Speaker 1 (06:08):
The email says, we've received your Sunshine Law requests for
information regarding detention records for Kelly Moffatt. Looking up information
on Moffitt, it was found through court records that she
was sentenced to two days jail time back on April third,
two thousand and one, on a littering case. On a
littering case, those records have since been destroyed in accordance
(06:31):
with our retention schedule. We show no other incarceration for Moffitt,
and our records. If you have any further questions, please
feel free to contact the sheriff's office. So they're basically saying,
we don't have any records that she was detained. We
are looking at the court records, which seemed to be erroneous,
and that's what they're referencing. They don't say that she
spent any time there.
Speaker 5 (06:51):
Well, in other words, she owes Boone County two days
of shock time. Is what that means. I mean, you know,
we've looked at you know, three lawyers have looked this over.
She owes Boone County two day shock time. And what
the sheriff is saying, we don't have the jail records,
but the court order to do them. She probably did them,
(07:12):
and if she did them, their records are destroyed. That's
what that means.
Speaker 4 (07:17):
Another component of this is Kelly claims that she was
never arrested. Well, we have a record from the Missouri
State Highway Patrol from April fifteenth of two thousand that
says that she was arrested.
Speaker 5 (07:33):
This is the thing you have to understand about dealing
with Kelly. She's the kind of liar who will tell
a lie to cover a lie, to cover a lie,
and she demonstrated that to you in your last episode
that we listened. We heard that several times.
Speaker 1 (07:48):
And with all due respect, I just can't look at
this and say definitively that she's tolling a lie.
Speaker 6 (07:56):
Then you should look at other records that are going
to corroborate that date.
Speaker 1 (08:00):
Let me finish, because but you guys, where are they?
Where are the records that corroborate that she actually went
to jail or I mean, or was even sentenced to it.
All I'm saying is, if we look at this, she
seemed very confused about the two days, forty eight hours
of shock, jail time, and the two years probation. She
(08:21):
also said when she was asked in her deposition, you
know about if she had been in trouble with the law,
she didn't really consider a littering charge in a fine
that big of a deal. But what about pick a
warrant and extra died it to a different county?
Speaker 4 (08:39):
Right?
Speaker 6 (08:39):
Yeah, why would she be extradited to a different county
if there wasn't a big deal.
Speaker 4 (08:43):
Yeah, they issued a warrant for her arrest, a bench warrant,
and she was arrested on that bench warrant. And here
she is saying that to be extradited. For hold On
to be extradited from Jackson County to Cooper County would
have taken more than a day or two. She was
in jail somewhat. Maybe she wasn't in jail in Cooper County.
Maybe the judge in Cooper County said, oh, you said
(09:06):
in the Jackson County jail, or in the least summit
jail for two days while you were waiting to get
extradited here to plead guilty to this fine, we're going
to credit you for that two days. But we don't
know this. But you don't know And why don't we
know it, Leah, We don't know it because the Jackson
County Prosecutor's office hid it. They did not disclose they
(09:28):
had Kelly was a minor on this charge too, and
so they knew about this. There's no reason they shouldn't
have known about this, and they failed to disclose it.
And it wasn't until twenty years later that we're finding it,
and all the records have been destroyed, and so we're
trying to piece together what happened as best we can.
(09:50):
But as far as what Kelly has to say about it,
or what her memory, says, it's funny that she you know,
it's funny the things that she remembers so is vividly,
and then the things she has no memory of or
she's not sure about. And so, as far as for
our purposes and for Byron's purposes, all that really matters
(10:11):
is that she was convicted of a class amiss.
Speaker 5 (10:14):
To mean, and she responded to a question about it
by saying, I've never even been in trouble with the police.
She told you she was taken in custody on a warrant.
Speaker 4 (10:24):
Right, If that's not trouble with them, I think we
would all remember getting arrested and picked up on a
warrant and having to sit in jail and wait to
get transferred to another county and to use her word.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
Extradited, I hear you.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
I mean, just so you know, I was up all
night like this does not sit well with me. This
is troubling to me. It's troubling because I didn't pick
up on there being another case number as many times
as I've looked at this docket.
Speaker 2 (10:54):
The fact that I didn't pick up on that, and.
Speaker 1 (10:56):
Also a large part of the case, or you know,
a large part of the case is that Kelly is
a drug addicted liar that was in bigger trouble and
flipped on Byron in order to get out of the
bigger trouble.
Speaker 2 (11:11):
We absolutely don't know that to be the fact.
Speaker 1 (11:13):
We don't know that she was actually sentenced to that
this is actually her sentence. If that case number that's
on there is wrong, we don't know that the sentence
on there is wrong. Because stay with me for one second.
On another page of these docket records, the page that
(11:34):
talks about her sentence, stand by yeah, On the page
that talks about charges and sentence. Under sentence, it says fine, fine,
fourteen dollars and ninety five cents. So where is where
is the sentence of forty eight hours shock, jail time
(11:54):
in two years probation.
Speaker 2 (11:56):
I can hold it up.
Speaker 4 (11:57):
I can't not. Yeah, I'm looking at it on line
right now.
Speaker 3 (12:01):
Here's Quinn O'Brien.
Speaker 6 (12:03):
She still lied, And I mean, we keep forgetting that
a medical examiner has said that her version of events
is totally impossible, that it's a Hollywood fiction. We're forgetting that.
Don Rand and other gas station attendants told people at
one time or another that they saw someone get out
of a car and go use a payphone. We're forgetting that.
(12:25):
Bob told the Fishers that he saw Anastasia later that
night and tried to get her to get in the car.
There's just so much out there that shows that Kelly's
story is false. That you know, these these little things
are I mean, at what point are we just? I mean,
you're asking us to prove that there was a clerical
(12:45):
error rather than you know, have Kelly prove that she
wasn't in prison, Make her prove that she wasn't in jail.
Have her prove that. Show ask her where she was,
what she was doing, If she wasn't doing shocked time,
what was she doing, where was she made?
Speaker 1 (13:02):
It's not up to her to prove it. It's up
to you, guys to prove it. Right and again I
say this with all due respect, but it's up to you.
Guys are making the allegations. It's up to you to
prove it, not to Kelly. I mean, Kelly's just I'm
telling you what she said. This is what you guys
have done, have gone after her credibility left and right.
She says, I have not told a lie, and I
(13:23):
can hear your laughter about to come in, but she says,
I've not told a lie since I've come forward, and
this is an example of the stuff that has been
used against her to discredit her. And so it's not
her job to prove this. It's your job if you
make the allegation.
Speaker 6 (13:38):
Bia, It's not your job to give her a parachute
out of these things either, Like when she started to
say that if she and Byron weren't interrogated together, that
she might have gone ahead and admitted or hum forward,
not admitted. If she and Byron hadn't been interrogated together,
then she would have talked about seeing the death. You
stepped in and said, well, the records say that you
(14:01):
weren't interrogated together, and she said, oh, oh, oh, you're right.
So she gets a parachute out of her lies.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
And I don't think that's a parachute.
Speaker 1 (14:10):
I think I was taking her to task, like I
was pointing out that what she said was untrue. I
don't think that's a parachute I was giving her.
Speaker 6 (14:18):
I would have let her go. I would have asked
her so in that interrogation together, what happened?
Speaker 1 (14:23):
Okay, but this isn't about me, right, now I've already
I'm like admitting that I've messed up by not even
recognizing that there was, you know, a different case number
next to the sentence that differed from the case number
on the upper left hand corner or the upper you know,
on the.
Speaker 2 (14:38):
Top of the page.
Speaker 1 (14:39):
Like I should have should have I should have figured
this out a long time ago and asked you guys
a long time ago about this.
Speaker 6 (14:45):
So, yeah, we've known about it for a long time.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
Nobody said anything. Nobody, nobody has said anything. So everyone,
I mean, we've been moving forward as if she did
time in jail and was on probation. I don't. Well, again,
there's no proof of that right now, there is no
proof of that. If you have proof, then please what
sure we do we have proof of that? Where's the
(15:18):
proof that she was in jail?
Speaker 4 (15:20):
Here, let me show you that she was in jail.
She admitted to it. What are you talking about? She
just admitted to it. She said she was arrested in
least summit.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
But she didn't. I'm talking about getting sentenced.
Speaker 1 (15:30):
So she pled guilty and that her sentence is supposed
to be forty eight hours in jail in two years probation.
Where is the proof that that actually was the case.
And here's another question, and I actually don't know this answer.
I think I know the answer, but I'm going to
ask you, if you're on probation, do you get a
probation officer.
Speaker 4 (15:47):
We tried to find her probation officer and all of that.
But here's the thing. She was a juvenile on this thing.
So those are all closed records. We can't get it
that until we file the havienes.
Speaker 2 (15:58):
But you don't know that they're as a probation officer.
Speaker 4 (16:01):
Correct, Yeah, I don't know that she had a probation officer.
And the other thing that we have looked into was
she was a Kansas resident at the time, but on
Missouri probation. So there's a weird It's like, okay, well,
would she have gotten a Kansas probation officer? You know,
would that have been put over there to do that?
(16:22):
And you know, we still believe that she was put
on probation, which would totally make sense because when all
of this happens, she's supposed to be quote unquote cooperating
with the Jackson County Prosecutor's office. Right in December of
two thousand, they put this tape recorder in the Moffit residence.
Right months go by, no phone calls with Byron, no
(16:45):
no reported attempts of phone calls with Byron. Kelly seems
to disappear because there's literally no reports. Then she gets
picked up on this warrant, pleads guilty. We still believe,
sentenced to two days shock time with probation. But let's
say she's not. Let's say she's just convicted of a
Class A misdemeanor. The reason it makes sense for her
(17:06):
to be sentenced to two years probation is so the
prosecutors have control over her during the pendency of the
rest of their investigation and prosecution into Byron. Right so,
and then it's two months after this guilty plead that
she finally gets Byron on the phone. But I wanted
(17:28):
to point out too, and I tried to share my screen,
but I can't. I can email you this document I
have because we took screenshots of this back when we
found it, and I'm looking at the screen shot of
it now, not the screenshot. I'm looking at the screen
on case net right now, and it looks like it
has been altered from when we first found it and
(17:49):
gathered it because it used to say on April third,
two thousand and one, judgment entered SEES which stands for
suspended execution of sentence thirty days, can secut with case number,
consecutive with case number, you know, and then that's the
case number we're talking about, which is related to somebody
different forty eight hours shot time probation two years right now,
(18:13):
and then under that entry it says guiltyply. Now on
live on case Net it just says April third, two
thousand and one, guiltyply. It doesn't have judgment entered on
that docket report like it used to. So something somebody
got on there and changed something and I don't know
why that happened, and I don't know who did that,
but that's new. That is also new information for us.
Speaker 3 (18:36):
This is true. There are two dockets.
Speaker 1 (18:40):
The one Cooper County sent me on April sixteenth, twenty
twenty four. In the middle of the page, under sentence
it says fine. Then under total case fine imposed it
says fourteen dollars and ninety five cents. In the docket
Byron's legal team sent me, which they pulled on October two,
twelfth twenty twenty one. In the middle of the page,
(19:02):
it says Kelly was sentenced to a fine of fourteen
dollars and ninety five cents, just like the one Cooper
County sent me, but lowered down on that page, in
the itemized list of events that happened in the case
on April third, two thousand and one, there is that
other person's case number, and next to it is the
(19:24):
sentence of forty eight hours shock jail time and two
years probation.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
So what the hell which sentence is the real one?
Speaker 1 (19:33):
When was the forty eight hours shock jail time two
years probation erased from the docket? It had to have
been some time between October of twenty twenty one and
April of twenty twenty four.
Speaker 3 (19:47):
Who did it and why? By the way, I.
Speaker 1 (19:51):
Had asked Byron's legal team about these two different court
dockets before, because one had the sentence forty eight hours
shock jail time and two years probation and the other
one didn't have it. They said it was because there
was a difference between what information a lawyer can access
on case net, Missouri's legal case database and what the
(20:14):
general public can. Not sure if that's what happened or
if it's something else. In an attempt to get some
clarity on Kelly's two different court dockets and whether or
not she was ever sentenced to forty eight hours in
jail and two years probation, I email the Jackson County
(20:35):
Prosecutor's office to see if they will answer my questions
at least about this. Remember, months ago, I was told
that it wouldn't be appropriate for Prosecutor Teresa Crayon to
speak until all litigation in this case is complete. When
the prosecutor's office responds, they say the same thing, They
can't comment until all litigation is complete on this matter
(21:00):
Nicole again, and the state was able to find Byron's
records in a different county, They did a background check
on him, brought it to trial. Why didn't you need
to tell me they didn't do that with Kelly and
brought it to trial. And so there is the presumption
of this wasn't disclosed and.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
Why I mean, and I think that we're.
Speaker 1 (21:18):
Allowed to hypothesize of all the reasons that someone would
in Kelly's position would implicate.
Speaker 4 (21:26):
Somebody else in a murder.
Speaker 2 (21:27):
I mean, we're allowed to do that, but Brian's right.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
The fact of the matter is is that they didn't
disclose it and they had a duty to right.
Speaker 4 (21:34):
And we have court records that say that she was
on shot time, two days of shot time with a
thirty day backup in two years probation. That's what the
records we have say. She might say that that's not
true and that's not what happened, and that's fine, you
know what. That's what this process is for. And maybe
we find out that she wasn't sentenced to two days
(21:55):
of shock time, but at a minimum, she was still
convicted of a class A mystery, right, and that's what
they had a duty to disclose.
Speaker 2 (22:03):
So I think there are two issues, right.
Speaker 1 (22:05):
I think it's I mean, you have been putting forth
the theory that she got into this bigger trouble, and
you know, Kelly is a drug addicted liar and she,
you know, was in this bigger trouble and that's why
she flipped and worked with prosecutors. That doesn't seem as
(22:26):
plausible as it did before.
Speaker 6 (22:29):
I think that's another statement of the theory though, And
can I can I correct the theory really quick that
she Our theory is that this case connected her to
the prosecution, that she could have been in much more
trouble if she hadn't worked with prosecutors to get out
of it.
Speaker 1 (22:49):
Let's go back for one second and look at the timeline.
Kelly was arrested in April of two thousand on this
littering charge. She didn't up for her arraignment in June
of two thousand, That's when the warrant was issued three
months later in September of two thousand. Kelly was basically
(23:12):
made to come forward when her drug counselor went to
the authorities. So when was Kelly allegedly incentivized to work
with prosecutors. Was it between when she got the littering
charge and when she came forward, so between April and September?
Or was it between when she came forward and when
(23:35):
she was picked up on the warrant, so between September
and the following April. I went back and found a
report Kilgore wrote on September twentieth, two thousand, the day
after Kelly came forward. Kilgore wrote quote, Apparently Ms Moffatt
offered to tape record a conversation with Byron Case and
(23:57):
try to get him to admit to the shooting. Mister
Beard and Ms McGowan were in favor of attempting the recording,
So it seems it was Kelly's idea to try and
record Byron confessing, and this happened around the time she
came forward. What would be the point in a quid
(24:18):
pro quo scenario with prosecutors. Was it to point the
finger at Byron because it seems she had already done that,
or was it to finally get Byron on the phone
and again, remember it was her idea to do that.
Speaker 6 (24:34):
Back to Quinn, I still don't know if that's the
case because a lot of those records are going to
be confidential because she's a juvenile, and some of these
records are you going to be things that we can't
get until the behavior is proceeding. But she was on
the prosecution's radar. She's an addict, and this is the
case that you know, we know about. We're not saying
(24:58):
that she did this to how to put this? Somebody
helped me out, your dad, you know what I want?
Speaker 5 (25:06):
Yeah. The point is when somebody is addicted, the prospect
of one night in jail is terrifying because that means
withdrawal that means cold Turkey, and so that's incentive for
her to cooperate with the police. But why she decided
(25:27):
to implicate Byron is a much much different, more complex
thing than what you've described. I think that she lied
multiple times to multiple people about why she's an addict,
why she has this drug problem. She says, because I
saw Anastasia murdered, and then she says, because I saw
(25:47):
Justin murder Anastasia, and then she changes that to Byron.
So she tells this lie because it's convenient at the
moment at the time. And then when she finally tells
a therapist and a therapist says, you go to the
police or I will. Now suddenly the lie is locked in,
(26:08):
and she doesn't have a choice but to go through
with the lie that she's been telling. And so if
she's under stress, it's a stress of being locked into
a lie that she now can't get out of. And
so she ends up going to a lawyer, going to
the prosecution. And so why the delay of months and
(26:29):
months and months between her cooperation decision and getting Byron
on the phone to you know, try to trap him
into saying something incriminating.
Speaker 1 (26:42):
That's not how Kelly sees it. Kelly mentioned in the
last episode that she had been accused of stalking Byron.
Kelly said, well, the police were the ones who gave
her his number, So maybe Kelly had tried calling Byron
before that June fifth call back to Sean.
Speaker 5 (27:00):
She doesn't want to do it, but I think this
case and the prospect of going to jail because she
has that warrant pending, I think that is what you know,
motivated her finally to follow through with the phone call
to Byron. And now you know she's in over her head.
(27:20):
She can't back out of this. She can't. There's no
way to do it.
Speaker 4 (27:23):
Another thing to point out Leah is that in that
report that Sergeant Kilgore wrote from December of two thousand,
when he installs the tape recorder, the last thing he
writes is assistant prosecutor Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Amy McGowan told
me to give her phone number and her pager number,
(27:44):
and so that so Kelly has the prosecutor, the Jackson
County Prosecutor, one of the top deputies in Jackson County
prosecutor's contact info and then she gets picked up in
Jackson County on this warrant. Who is she going to
maybe call to get some help out of that situation?
You know, we believe that there's it's very plausible that
she called Amy McGowan and said, I'm in trouble and
(28:07):
I need help, and they said, okay, well we can
help you with this. But here's what you're going to
need to start playing ballbat her with us, right.
Speaker 2 (28:15):
But but let me just let me jump in real quick.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
We don't know that to be true, and now we
don't know. We know one there's another thing we don't
know to be true, and that's that she actually was
sentenced to forty eight hours of shockjail time in two
years probation.
Speaker 4 (28:30):
That is, we don't know. We don't know what that is.
So we don't know that.
Speaker 2 (28:33):
We don't actually know that there was.
Speaker 4 (28:34):
Any bigger's We don't have to prove that, I know, but.
Speaker 1 (28:38):
We but we've put that forth like we have said
that in the podcast. You guys have talked about that
that you you allege that there was some bigger trouble
that she was in that she had to get out of.
And I don't think that that is have been I
don't think that's been proven. I don't think that even
that her sentence, that sentence of forty eight hours of
shockjail time in two years probation has been proven. And
(28:59):
the thing I want to say in my email to
the Prosecutor's office, I also ask about this allegation that
after Kelly was picked up on the warrant, she called
Amy McGowan, who helped her in exchange for Kelly getting
Byron on the phone in a recorded confession.
Speaker 3 (29:15):
But here's another question.
Speaker 1 (29:18):
If Amy McGowan intervened, and that is a mighty big if,
why would that forty eight hours of shot, jail time
and two years probation ever be entered into the docket.
If something sneaky and nefarius went on, one would imagine
there would be enormous attention given to covering all tracks.
Speaker 3 (29:41):
Okay, back to our interview, and then one.
Speaker 1 (29:44):
Other thing I want to say, Sean, like, yes, Kelly
came forward and first said to her dad Byron, then
to the counselor said justin. It was her mom who
actually said no, no, no, Kelly told your dad. It
was Byron. It was her mom who called her out
and said, no, you tell her you know this is
(30:06):
what you told your dad. So yes, she flip flops,
but her mom makes her change her story back to Byron.
Speaker 2 (30:13):
It wasn't like she did it on her own. Okay, Sorry,
what were you going to say.
Speaker 4 (30:16):
Brian in response to that, Well, I don't know. I mean,
obviously the lies of Kelly's lies. We all have different theories, right.
I think that she was just a troubled kid trying
to get either back in with her parents and that's
what started this ball rolling, or that this was just
a lie that spun out of control.
Speaker 1 (30:36):
Right.
Speaker 4 (30:37):
She her story, everything she says, there's inconsistencies, not just
across statements after she comes forward, but even within single
interviews there's inconsistencies. Even with what she was saying to you.
There's inconsistencies right all this time. Oh, she just wanted
to come forward. If only somebody had just been mean
(30:58):
to me in one of these interviews, I would have
told you truth. But then she says I wanted to
come forward. But that's not even then she didn't come forward.
They seemed to after she's in rehab, detoxing, and who knows,
we don't even know how long she was in rehab
before this whole maggy thing allegedly happened. But she says that, well,
(31:19):
I tried to say that it was justin or that
it was some other thing, and then her mom drags
out another lie out of her. I don't know it
just none of it makes sense. Did she want to
come forward or did she not come because at no
point in this does she do anything voluntarily.
Speaker 6 (31:35):
No, And I still think that to call her, I mean,
she said that we characterized her as a drug kingpin,
and I don't recall ever even saying anything like that.
I mean, that's that's not the theory that she was
in trouble for something bigger. We've known for a long
time that it was a littering charge, and that's all
it has to be, is a littering charge. She doesn't
(31:57):
have to have, you know, drugs on her or be
a And that's not our theory. Our theory is that
she continues to use and she's connected to the prosecution.
Now she's on probation and she gets arrested, and I
don't believe that she was arrested just for having a
headlight out. I don't believe that. I would love to
(32:18):
get those records and we're actually trying to.
Speaker 4 (32:19):
Tell where's her, where's her proof that she was that
she was arrested for a broken headline?
Speaker 6 (32:24):
Yeah, I don't. I don't believe that for a second.
I think that she's on probation and she gets arrested
for drugs and she realizes that she's going to have
to do backup time, and then the prosecutor steps in
to help her out. I still think that that's the case,
and I have nothing, except for killing off its word
that that's not the case.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
I mean, hold on one second.
Speaker 1 (32:48):
Sorry to trumpt you, but to be fair, Quinn, you
guys did say that you believed that she might have
been involved in some bigger drug thing.
Speaker 2 (32:56):
I mean, it's in the podcast. We did talk about that, so.
Speaker 6 (33:00):
You know we speculated that it could have been the case.
Speaker 2 (33:03):
Right, So I'm just saying you said, that's not what
we all.
Speaker 4 (33:05):
What we ever thought, and it might have been related
to drugs, but not or something.
Speaker 6 (33:12):
When I say bigger drug thing, that's not I mean,
she used the word getting caught. Sorry, I know she.
Speaker 2 (33:18):
Used you she used the working pin. You've never used
the word kingpin.
Speaker 1 (33:22):
But you did allege that she was involved or you
speculated that she might have been involved in some bigger
drug issue.
Speaker 2 (33:30):
She used the word kingpin. You've never used that word,
but that sort of thing, I mean a person.
Speaker 4 (33:37):
And as far as our quote, our theory quote that
she's was a drug addict and a compulsive liar, that
wasn't our theory. That comes straight out of her mom's mouth.
Speaker 1 (33:47):
I think what Brian is referring to are a couple
of things Kelly's mom, Deborah Moffatt, has said in the past.
The first was in a report written by Sergeant Kilgore
regarding Kelly coming forward. Kilgore wrote, quote, Miss Moffatt stated
to me that this whole situation has ruined Kelly's life
by her not being able to deal with the situation.
(34:09):
Miss Moffittt stated to me that last spring Kelly called
her on the telephone at four hundred hours crying. Kelly
stated to Miss Moffittt, I saw Anastasia murdered. From that
point on, according to Miss Moffatt, they have been chipping
away on her, trying to get the whole story. I
asked again when Kelly first told her this, and Miss
(34:31):
Moffett stated that Kelly was lying to them a lot
back then, and then said I better shut up then.
On the stand, during cross examination, Deborah was asked if
Kelly would mislead her about her drug use and other topics.
Deborah said, in part quote, well, she was a drug addict.
She was lying to me because she needed money. She
(34:54):
wanted to come back home. I had a younger daughter
at home. She knew if she came back home she
could use drugs. I mean that's what a drug addict does.
She couldn't really tell me the truth about any of
her activity. Okay, back to Brian, you know.
Speaker 4 (35:10):
That's not us saying that she says that she was
a compulsive liar and a drug addict. And the phone
call that she has with Byron, she says, nobody's gonna
believe me because I'm a crackhead, I'm a poke head,
and I'm an alcoholic. You know. I mean, that's not us,
that's her.
Speaker 2 (35:26):
I hear you.
Speaker 1 (35:27):
I do.
Speaker 2 (35:30):
This has thrown me for a bit of a loop.
I'm just being very honest with you.
Speaker 4 (35:44):
What are your concerns?
Speaker 2 (35:45):
I mean I could just hear in your voice. Yeah,
I mean I'm upset.
Speaker 1 (35:49):
I've been up all night and like really concerned about this, because,
first of all, I'm not thrilled with myself for not
catching that. I think that for somebody who says is
that they have told the truth and have been fighting
a credibility issue, and this has been one of the
things used against them to say, look, they're lying. And
(36:09):
she very quickly pointed out something that could potentially prove
that she's told the truth, that she really didn't have
this sentence. She didn't spend time in jail for this,
She wasn't on probation. That is worrisome to me, and
I understand that, like the other issue is the Brady violations,
that the prosecutors didn't hand this over.
Speaker 2 (36:30):
I do understand. I understand that.
Speaker 1 (36:32):
I guess I understand that you're saying that that's still
that's doesn't change.
Speaker 5 (36:36):
Let me clarify the leg Stop you guys, stop, stop, stop,
just answer answer this. Let me clarify the legal issue
for you. The prosecutor is obliged to disclose if a
witness they're using has any criminal convictions for felonies or misdemeanors.
They were asked and they said none. And then in
(37:00):
a deposition, Kelly Moffatt was asked, do you have any
felonies or misdemeanor convictions, and she said, I've never even
been in trouble with the police, So that's a lie.
And so at the time of trial, the defense lawyer
was entitled to prove that she had been arrested and charged,
(37:23):
and frankly, under the circumstances, I think this was a
minor in possession charge that got dropped down to a
littering charge on a misdemeanor, because that's what the facts show,
and so that's the record. And then we have a
judgment that shows that she's facing a possibility of arrest
(37:47):
and there's a warrant. There's an actual warrant connected to
this case. That warrant is pending during the pendency of
Byron's charges. That gives her in incentive. And it doesn't
matter that the prosecutor played on it or used it.
What matters is that that fact out there is an
(38:10):
incentive for her to color her story, to cooperate with
the police, to do what's necessary to avoid being taken
into custody and go go cold turkey in a jail cell.
It's not that it's a serious charge, it's that it's
(38:30):
a charge that could result in her going to jail,
But it's also a lie she told in a deposition
and something the defense was entitled to use. But in
terms of the overall story here, it's not the biggest
thing that shows she's lying. It is a thing that
could have been used, not just the conviction itself, but
(38:50):
the fact that she lied about ever being in trouble
with the police. So that's where it all fits.
Speaker 1 (38:56):
Yeah, it seems like the warrant was issued for her
because she didn't show up to the arraignment.
Speaker 2 (39:03):
So that's why the warrant was.
Speaker 5 (39:04):
Issued, right, right, because the charge was pending, right, So
that's number one.
Speaker 1 (39:09):
Number two, we don't know that there was a bigger
charge or anything like possession. We don't know that to
be the case, right, And my whole thing is like,
now that we've seen this clerical error on the docket,
what some of what was used to say Kelly might
have worked with prosecutors to get out of something bigger,
(39:29):
something that would have resulted in two years probation, forty
eight hours shot jail time. We has been is not proven,
has not been proven. We don't know that to be
the case. So I get that the Brady violations are
still there. I'm not taking anything away from that, but
something that has been used to, you know, discredit her
(39:51):
and make it seem like she and allude to the
fact that she might have worked with prosecutors. I don't
think that there there's I don't think the facts are
there right now. I cannot we cannot prove that she
was actually sentenced to that time and that probation. If
you can find something that actually proves that that happened,
(40:12):
then that's something different. But right now, with that clerical error,
the whole that whole thing could be a clerical error
because it says under other pages the only sentence was
the fine.
Speaker 4 (40:21):
I would just like to.
Speaker 1 (40:22):
Say that the sheriff looked at the same court records
that we're all looking at and came up with the
same conclusion that that's what she was sentenced to. Yeah,
but if the court record, the court docket is is erroneous,
if it's false and they're reading he was reading the
same or she was reading the same thing that we're
reading from right and assuming the same thing, and he
(40:42):
came to the same conclusion that that case was not
connected with Kelly's case.
Speaker 2 (40:48):
But he didn't say that in that email.
Speaker 1 (40:49):
Now he says that it looks like she was sentenced
to show time and probation say anything about another case. Right,
he's saying, I read the court record that you read,
and this is the conclusion.
Speaker 2 (41:01):
I came up with. Right, But we can't.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
I mean, that's not proof of anything because we're as
we're understanding, like there are falsehoods. There's like you know,
there are clerical errors on them. I know that that's
what you want in order to feel good about this,
because I get as a journalist, you want to you
want the proof before you start accusing people or giving
people a platform to do damage to some I understand
(41:27):
where you're coming from.
Speaker 4 (41:27):
I do, I get it.
Speaker 2 (41:29):
I mean, I am.
Speaker 1 (41:30):
Just trying to be fair to both sides, and when
something is brought to me, I have to go to
the other side and ask about it.
Speaker 2 (41:38):
I mean I was stunned last night. I mean stunned.
Speaker 1 (41:45):
And you know, does she bring evidence of anything out?
Like all the evidence that she has to prove her innocence, we.
Speaker 2 (41:52):
Would love to see.
Speaker 1 (41:54):
So if there's anything else that she has, I have
searched this file inside it now and I have looked
for things that can corroborate her story, and so if
there's anything else, we'd love to know about it. She
just screen grabbed the sentence for me and it said,
you know, fourteen dollars and ninety five cents.
Speaker 4 (42:12):
And that's all that.
Speaker 1 (42:13):
That's the only evidence that she's offered you to corroborate
any of her I mean, is there Yeah, because she
says there's nothing else to prove, that's what she I means,
She's like, I didn't do the time. That wasn't my sentence. Oh,
I'm just talking about her story in general. I mean,
it seems like she's really honed in on this.
Speaker 2 (42:30):
No, this is this has been from.
Speaker 1 (42:31):
Yesterday, last night to this morning, you know, I mean,
this is what we're focused on, what I'm focused on
right now. And yes there are questions about other things
for sure, but this is this is the focus for
right now.
Speaker 5 (42:44):
Well, it's what do you compare with I've never been
in trouble with the police. You know, we can show
that to a lie.
Speaker 2 (42:51):
I hear you, Sean, I really do.
Speaker 1 (42:53):
I also can understand and this is where maybe the
Libra and me can get me in trouble sometimes because
I can see side so very much. But I can
see a young kid who's scared and is like, doesn't
think a littering charge and a fine of fourteen dollars
and ninety five cents is really getting in trouble with police.
(43:14):
I'm sure she was surrounded by a lot of people
in that drug world who were getting in real trouble
with the police, and so she didn't actually consider it.
Speaker 4 (43:24):
So she said it go ahead. Sorry, I apologize, No,
I was.
Speaker 1 (43:27):
Just gonna say, like what she said in her deposition,
I mean, was she hiding something?
Speaker 4 (43:32):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (43:33):
I kind of understand her being like, it wasn't that
big of a deal. I paid less than fifteen bucks
to get out of it. If anything, to your point,
it's the prosecutors who should have turned that over.
Speaker 4 (43:44):
Her description to you did not sound like it wasn't
that big of a deal, she says. She vividly remembers
now getting arrested by the Least Summit Police Department and
extradited to Cooper County. And so you're saying that.
Speaker 2 (43:58):
You can, but she doesn't remember going to jail or
being on probation.
Speaker 4 (44:02):
But she would have gone to jail if she tested
and got extradited to Cooper County and by.
Speaker 1 (44:06):
Going to jail and being sentenced to jail or two
different things.
Speaker 4 (44:10):
Right, Yes, but not with what you're talking about. You're
saying you believe what Kelly's saying that she would. Well,
I totally slipped my mind when I'm in a deposition
on a murder case when Byron's defense lawyer says, have
you ever been convicted of a class of a misdemeanor
or felony in state or federal court? And it just
(44:32):
slips her mind because in her mind this was just
some little ticket. No, it could not have been some
little ticket in her mind at that time based on
what she told you, she got picked up on a
warrant and got transferred from Jackson County to two hours
away to Cooper County to be arraigned. Right, And we
(44:53):
have no idea, and she hasn't said yet. I'm sure
she'll come up with a great story on what happened
in between getting ac by the least Summit Police Department
and showing up in court in Cooper County to plead guilty.
But there's simply no way that that would not have
been a big deal to her.
Speaker 6 (45:10):
This is handcuff She's being transported in a police vehicle
in handcuffs, if that's not being in trouble with the police.
Speaker 4 (45:19):
But I mean, I guess what else can I don't
know what else we could say about that. That's you know,
it is what it is.
Speaker 1 (45:26):
Yeah, And I think she said she spent a little
bit of time there until she was bailed out or whatever.
But you know, yeah, I mean, I there's just I
needed to ask you about it. If you can find
anything that says that she actually was on probation or
(45:46):
you know, spent forty eight hours in jail, obviously I
would love to see it. As of right now, I
can't say that I believe that that happened.
Speaker 2 (45:56):
And I think that this clerical error.
Speaker 4 (45:58):
Yeah, well we know that, but there's a clerical error.
We don't know the extent of it. And it's our
job to assume that. When there's facts that could go
either way, we have to look at them and what
helps our client, what's in the best interests of our client.
This clerical error has somebody else's case number on there,
but it says consecutive with that case number, so in
(46:22):
our mind and I'm reading this, it's what I just
sent you. I just emailed it to you. I thought
you would have already had it, and maybe you do.
But that nothing about this rules out that she still
got thirty days a suspended execution, a suspended execution of
thirty days with two days shock time in two years probation.
We still have evidence of that. It's what I just
(46:44):
sent you. Maybe this other person also got that same
sentence for a different class a misdemeanor, but that does
not disprove that Kelly MafA did it. And even if
it did again, that's not the central issue. The central
issue is she was convicted of a misdemeanor, and she
lied about it, and the prosecutor's office failed to disclose.
Speaker 5 (47:03):
It, and we couldn't find a relationship between the two cases,
and so, you know, looking at it when we drilled
down into it, it's a mistake by one number in
that notation that this sentence is consecutive to that other sentence.
The other sentence belongs to somebody else, but this sentence
is Kelly's.
Speaker 1 (47:24):
For the record, the two case numbers are not even
remotely alike. Each are twelve digits, which include both letters
and numbers, but These two are not off by a
digit or two. They are radically different. It seems the
only thing Kelly and this Brendan person have in common
(47:45):
is that two separate events happen in their cases on
the same day. April third, two thousand and one.
Speaker 2 (47:53):
Did you ever look at Angie's.
Speaker 1 (47:57):
Angie Giannino is the friend Kelly was with when they
were pulled over in Cooper County. You heard from Angie
in episode eleven, And what did you find.
Speaker 2 (48:06):
From Angie's docket?
Speaker 4 (48:08):
We were just looking at that again recently. Let me see,
let me find some notes here. I know for a
fact that she showed up to her hearing. She did
not have a warrant issue for her arrest, and she
was fined two hundred and fifty dollars, but her charge
was a Class B missdemeanor for exceeding the speed limit
(48:30):
of twenty miles an hour or more.
Speaker 6 (48:32):
Because she successfully paid the fine and completed her probation,
that won't be publicly available on case neet, but she
had to get that a different.
Speaker 4 (48:40):
Way, and she well, this was on case net what
I just said. Let's see, so she was That was
June sixth of two thousand and that's the date that
Kelly was also supposed to show up, and she skipped,
and then it was a couple weeks after that that
the warrant was issued for her arrest.
Speaker 1 (48:56):
And there's also an error on the date that they
were arrested. I thought, in case at one point it
said five on May fifteenth, but.
Speaker 2 (49:03):
It's actually April fifteenth.
Speaker 1 (49:06):
Why on this page does it only say the finest
thirteen dollars. The sentence is fourteen dollars and ninety five cents.
Speaker 4 (49:15):
I don't know. I mean, that's kind of one of
those things that we're like, yeah, we know that this
is an imperfect record, and that's why we've been waiting
to not waiting, but trying to. You know, we've sent
record requests to everybody. Nicole when we after we first
found out about this issue, drove to Cooper County and
(49:36):
went and looked looked for it physically, for records that
we could find, you know, I mean, that's this is
one of the problems you routinely run into with these
kinds of cases, is that once it's been decades, you know,
you're you're practically doing what's the word, I'm looking for
archaeological examination, right, it's so I'm glad that Kelly able to,
(50:00):
you know, say no, that that didn't happen. But at
this point we still only have Kelly's word for it.
And again, let's let's assume she's right and for some reason,
her friend gets on a lower misdemeanor charge. Her friend
gets two hundred and fifty dollars, but after having to
issue a warrant that she's picked up on, she was
only fined fifteen dollars. It's I don't know, it's just
(50:24):
in my experience. There's we still got a lot of questions.
Speaker 1 (50:27):
It is interesting that Angie got a two hundred and
fifty dollars fine and Kelly got only a fourteen dollars
and ninety five cent fine. But how much would a
minor be fined for a littering charge? Anything else anybody
wants to say before we I would just like to
say some of the stuff that Kelly said about Cooper
County and getting arrested with Angie and taking her car back,
(50:50):
I don't know, it's not true. I mean, Angie, we
have an affidavid from Angie Gannino that contradicts that straight up.
But I went back to Angie's affidavit, and she said
this about what happened after she and Kelly were arrested. Quote,
when we were pulled over, I was arrested and ticketed
for driving ninety miles per hour in a seventy mile
(51:11):
per hour zone. My vehicle was impounded and I was
taken to the Cooper County jail. Kelly was ticketed for
littering for throwing the bottle of alcohol out the window.
I do not know if she was arrested. I do
not know how she got back to Kansas City, Okay.
Kelly told me that instead of impounding Angie's car, police
(51:33):
gave Kelly Angie's car keys, and Kelly used Angie's car
for a couple of days. I don't want to say more,
but Kelly's not been truthful with you all the way.
But I understand where you're coming from and wanting to
Q and being worried and.
Speaker 4 (51:51):
Concerned, and we appreciate being fact checked. And yeah, I
mean I think you So everything about our case still stands.
Is arrested at least once, uh, which she denied ever
being being in trouble with the police. She was convicted
of a Class A misdemeanor which she lied about and
(52:11):
which the prosecutors failed to disclose. That's the salient issue,
and discovery and uh more investigation will get to the
bottom of what exactly she was sentenced to. But if
the only evidence refuting this is Kelly Moffatt, well that's
(52:32):
hardly any evidence at all.
Speaker 1 (52:34):
I mean, I guess what would it take for you
to build it? And I'm not kelly spokesperson. I'm just
asking these questions. What would take? What would it take
for you to believe that Kelly in fact was not
sentenced to forty eight hours shop jail time in two
years probation.
Speaker 4 (52:50):
I would probably say some certified record that shows that
that's all it was that or I don't know, a
cashed check or some document or or the testimony of
some other credible person other than Kelly that was there.
You know, something along those lines would would be helpful. Obviously.
(53:10):
You know, it's hard to sit anywhere and say, oh, well,
if this happened. You know, every time something comes up,
we're gonna have questions, and especially if it's something that
Kelly is relying on. But but yeah, I mean, I
wouldn't say we're not for our purposes. What she was
sentenced to is almost beside the point, you know. The
(53:34):
point is what we've already mentioned, that she was convicted,
that she was in trouble, and that she lied about it, right.
Speaker 1 (53:41):
I think, I mean she was was in this morning,
still very upset about this, just so you know, very upset.
Speaker 4 (53:50):
I mean that's Byron's been in prison for almost twenty
five years because of her lives. So I don't really
care if she's upset. But I'm glad you thanks for Tommins.
Speaker 1 (54:01):
I think our goals and this aren't you know, they're
at the end of the day. You come from a
journalist's point of view, and we're just presenting facts as.
Speaker 4 (54:10):
We see them.
Speaker 1 (54:11):
We may have, you know, hypotheticals. That's our job, you know,
is to try to figure out what happened. And but
I mean, I think I'm sorry to interrupt you, Nicole.
Speaker 2 (54:21):
I think the whole thing.
Speaker 1 (54:23):
I think Kelly's point right now is that she's been
fighting credibility issues for a very long time and here's
an example of something that's being used, wrongfully used against her,
and she's like, I told you this didn't happen. This
is a clerical error. This, This did not happen, and
(54:43):
this is an example of stuff that's been used against
me to try to make me look like a liar.
Speaker 2 (54:49):
And she's like, yes, I've lied in the past.
Speaker 1 (54:51):
There are things that I can't remember, but I remember
the important stuff. She remembers what she said about Byron,
and she remembers what she witnessed Byron.
Speaker 2 (54:59):
Do she remembers not.
Speaker 1 (55:02):
Going to jail and not spending being sentenced to probation,
and you know, it's I don't know, I just.
Speaker 4 (55:10):
Well, and just just to put things in context too.
What Kelly says about this is we learned about it
when we were listening to the podcast. Right, We've never
had it. We have yet to have the opportunity to
find out anything more about this, you know. And we
and when we asked Angie what she knew about it,
she said, I don't know what happened. I don't know
(55:30):
what happened after it. I don't know what happened with
Kelly's thing, Right, She said that to me too, Yeah,
and so and we we know for a fact though
she got a warrant, and she got picked up on
a warrant, and it seems very strange to me that
a rural county judge would issue a bench warrant, and
then once the person shows up in his courtroom on
that bench warrant on a Class A misdemeanor, he says, Oh,
(55:53):
never mind, I'm only going to sentence you to fifteen dollars. Fine.
I just don't that. I still have a lot of
questions about that, and just Kelly's word that that's all
that happened just doesn't to me. That's not doesn't really
move me.
Speaker 2 (56:12):
All right, thank you everyone, I appreciate it.
Speaker 4 (56:15):
Yeah, hey, it's still great, I hope. Yeah, we're passionate
about this.
Speaker 2 (56:22):
Thanks everyone, Bye bye bye.
Speaker 1 (56:26):
The next day, Brian and I speak again. One of
the things Brian says is he doesn't want me to
think the team was trying to pull one over on me. Okay,
this was supposed to be our last episode, but there's
still so much left to share, like what Byron's legal
team and Byron have to say about some of Kelly's allegations,
(56:48):
and what they have to say when I ask them.
Some of your questions and mine. To see photos, maps,
and documents really to this season's story. Follow the Real
Killer podcast on Instagram and at TRK podcast on TikTok.
(57:10):
The Real Killer is a production of AYR Media and iHeartMedia,
hosted by me Leah Rothman, Executive producers Leah Rothman and
Elisa Rosen for AYR Media. Written by Leah Rothman, Editing
and sound design by Cameron Taggi, Mixed and mastered by
Cameron Taggi, Audio engineer Justin Longerbeam studio engineer Graham Gibson,
(57:38):
Legal consul for AYR Media. Jonni Douglas, executive producer for iHeartMedia,
Maya Howard
Host
Leah Rothman
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!