Bill Mowbray Pt. Two Ft. True Crime Cat Lawyer

None

Episode Transcript

(00:06):
Riddle Me That is a true crimepodcast that deals with adult themes. Some
episodes explore disturbing topics such as murder, abuse, sexual violence, drug abuse,
suicide, and self harm. Pleaselisten at your own risk. Theories
discussed in episodes may not be theopinion of the host. Welcome back to

(00:31):
part two of my coverage on BillMowbray. I'm again joined by a lease
from the True Crime Cat Lawyer podcast. In this episode, we're going to
be discussing Susie's trial and eventual acquittal. So Susie's son, Wade, just
couldn't let it go. He whenhis mother was first arrested and charged,

(00:52):
he was sixteen and he was livingin Shreveport, Louisiana with his father.
Obviously, his mother was in jail, so he went to live with his
dad. So while his mom wasserving her prison sentence, he was growing
up and he decided he would goto law school. He was able to
request copies of the trial testimony andother trial notes. He reviewed all this

(01:15):
information over and over and started interviewingpeople in the community, friends, family,
basically anybody who knew his mom andhis stepdad. So five months into
this review, he found evidence contradictingthe state's expert witness, Pscue, regarding
the blood spatter found on the nightgown. So based on this contradictory evidence,

(01:38):
he filed an appeal on behalf ofSusie and a hearing was held. At
this hearing, Pscue actually admitted thathis blood spatter testimony in the first trial
was invalid because no follow up testinghad been done. That's kind of a
big blow to the case, isn'tit. It is? And I think

(02:00):
there are some ways you could getaround this being a big deal. But
in Susie's case, the nightgown wasthe central piece of evidence in this prosecution's
case. So for your so calledexpert to say that they're testing wasn't valid
not a good look. No,it's not a good look, But doesn't

(02:23):
it So often happen in cases wherethe evidence looks pretty sound. Otherwise,
I'm a judge often look at itand go, eh, you know,
yeah, I see that you gotthis wrong, and I acknowledge that this
is wrong, But it's not enoughfor a new trial type of a thing,
right, It's sort of the reasonableminds can differ kind of argument.

(02:45):
But they also had the other labtechnicians who testified at trial admit that there
was no scientific support for their testimony. Oh yikes, you've got scientists in
lab text saying nothing scientific here,just totally subjective. We're, you know,
not following any scientific method and youknow, nothing's pure reviewed here.

(03:08):
We're just going for it and we'regiving opinions based on nothing science related.
That does not look good. Yeah. So, of course, with all
of these quote unquote scientists making thesestatements under oath, the judge ruled that
without Hescue's testimony, there was anotherequally reasonable hypothesis other than Susie's guilt,

(03:35):
and that was that Bill's death waseither a suicide or an accident. So
in December of nineteen ninety six,Susie was granted a new trial based on
the testimony provided by the experts,as well as what we talked about earlier.
The prosecution's suppression of McDonald's report inher original trial Wasn't do you call

(03:55):
that suppression when someone just waits tillthe last minute. They did hand it
over, right, they did.So I think it goes back to kind
of what you were alluding to earlierin dumping all of these documents on a
person, kind of at the lastminute kind of thing. I think from

(04:15):
what it sounded like, nobody eversaid this explicitly, but from what it
sounded like, they didn't really knowthat this report existed, and because the
prosecution never called McDonald, they neverreally had the chance to kind of flesh
that out. And I'm not reallysure why they didn't call him as a
witness, but I think it reallywas that report was just buried somewhere and

(04:41):
they either didn't have time to getto it or didn't look for it.
Something happened to where they didn't usethat report in some way. Yeah,
that makes sense if you're dumping abunch of documents on people at the eleventh
hour. They're in the middle oftrial preparation, and maybe they don't have
the team behind them be going throughthousands of pages when it's only a couple

(05:02):
of weeks prior to when they're starting. So it makes sense that it was
carefully orchestrated on the part of theprosecution, potentially just so that maybe that
report wouldn't be found, right,And I don't know that the defensive strategy
was what the prosecutions was, Andby that I mean that they really were

(05:25):
focused on showing that Bill committed suicide, and so I don't know that the
blood spatter evidence or testimony was reallythat crucial to them in so far as
kind of discrediting that testimony. Yeah, it feels like in going forward with
the expert that they went forward withthat was a really poor choice that they

(05:49):
should have. If they were goingto make the nightgown a point of contention
and make it such a central focus, they should have covered their bases and
made sure that they were using theinternational expert if they were going to use
anybody at all. It was areally poorly calculated move on the part of
the prosecution. Unfortunately, so thesecond trial began in January nineteen ninety eight,

(06:15):
Pscu was again forced to admit onthe stand that his original trial testimony
was scientifically invalid. Well, ifthis reminds me of that Netflix documentary where
they go into fight mark evidence andI think maybe five or evidence, and
they go into blood spatter and howthese things all result in so many wrongful
convictions, and some of the expertsit's just ridiculous how much they vary.

(06:40):
It doesn't mean that there aren't somepeople out there who could be considered experts.
It's just that there's so much subjectivityattached to these subsets of forensic science.
And I think when you're sort ofpresenting a case that has forensics,
most of the people out there probablydon't understand forensics. I'll be the first

(07:01):
to admit I don't understand all forensicsme either. So what you're really relying
on is the experts to provide thetestimony that is scientific. You know,
anybody offers the street could come inand testify and say, oh, I
think that that's blood, and youknow, just say whatever they want.

(07:23):
You're not going to be qualified asan expert because you have no basis for
that opinion. It's like in thestaircase, the guy who was a blood
spatter expert was like, not reallyan expert, and he should not have
been testifying, and it's muddied thewaters of the case, you know exactly.
And so I feel like when you'representing this testimony at the first trial,

(07:45):
and then by the time it getsthe second trial, this so called
expert is getting on the stand andsaying the words scientifically invalid. Yeah,
you've definitely just lost the jury onhis opinion. Rightfully so, because his
testing and his expertise is supposed tobe scientific. I mean, how embarrassing

(08:07):
for Hescue too to have to getup repeatedly and to admit that the testing
he was using was not scientific.It just doesn't even make sense why you
would want to get up there andshare your finding. I'm assuming that it
was sort of like that pick metype energy, like look what I've done,
and I'm going to support your conclusionof murder. And the evidence wasn't
there, but he kind of justdidn't fabricate it, but he interpreted it

(08:31):
in a way that was definitely notscientific. Yes, And I think Breton
Alice from the Prosecutors podcast have saidthis several times in their episodes that you
can pay anybody to say whatever youwant them to say, Like, if
you pay enough money, you canalways find somebody to agree with you.
Oh yeah, that's such a dangerousthing because you want people to present the

(08:58):
best sign to the evidence that theypossibly can, Like in this case,
it should have been McDonald that wasproviding the blood spatter report, regardless of
whether he supported that or not.That's who you went with to begin with.
You know, you shouldn't be allowedto sort of quote unquote shop for
experts just to find somebody that's gonnaagree with what you want them to well,

(09:22):
because some people have ethics that aren'texactly malleable, and maybe it's a
case where you could argue it eitherway, and so they're like a hired
gun and they come in and they'relike, Okay, one could interpret it
this way or this way, SoI'm going to choose to interpret it this
way, and I don't see thatas any ethical violation. And then you
could have some experts that are like, I don't care what conclusion you want

(09:43):
me to reach, I'll reach it. But then others who are going to
come in and be like, eh, I don't see what you see.
I see the opposite. So Ican't in good conscience go along with what
you want me to say. SoI guess in a situation like that,
are they going to be forced touse an expert that is saying the opposite
of what they say? But itshould be put into evidence right that they

(10:05):
did do this, or they didhire this expert and this expert had findings
opposite to which they did, andthen it would give the defense or prosecution,
depending on the opportunity to use thatexpert to their advantage. But yeah,
as a shopping for experts is difficult, right, because there seems to
be people out there who were willingto say anything for a book, right.

(10:26):
And I think that the big problemin this case, in her original
trial was that there wasn't the presentingof the competing experts. So again,
whether this was because of the suppressionor because the defense just dropped the ball,
whatever it is, they definitely changestrategies for the second trial. And

(10:50):
so they called McDonald to testify forthe defense, and he told the jury
that it was more likely that Billcommitted suicide based on his review of the
nightgown and the other blood spatter evidence. So along with you know, this
sort of discrediting of hescue, theyalso then brought in McDonald to sort of

(11:11):
have both of the quote unquote experts, one who is clearly not an expert
and has been I think well discreditedthrough his testimony, but then to also
sort of bring this person that iswell known and respected. I mean,
you want somebody who is internationally renownedand has testified in these big trials.

(11:33):
You want somebody like that to testifyfor you Yeah, it's sort of like
the case with sniffer dogs. Itvery much depends on the handler, and
the training isn't the same across theboard. So when you get somebody to
testify, you want to make surethat person is the very best in their
field, because not all sniffer dogsare created equally, and all handlers definitely

(11:56):
aren't either. And I think that'sthe same with blood spatter analysis, is
when there is no standard as towhat exactly an expert is, I think
it depends on which state you're in, right, It's not like some standardized
thing all across the US which makesyou a blood spatter expert. You can
get very little education and call yourselfan expert in that field. So,

(12:18):
like we kind of talked about earlier, the initial theory for the prosecution in
the first trial was that Susie hadstraddled Bill and then shot him. Well,
they kind of abandoned that theory bythe time of the second trial,
and their new theory was that Susieshot Bill from behind the pillow wall,

(12:41):
and argued that there's no way Billcould have possibly shot himself because he was
in that normal sleeping position they foundhim in where he was covered with a
blanket, and then there was noblood or gunshot residue or brain matter on
his right hand. Yeah, Ithought it was weird that they settled on
this. Susie was straddling Bill becauseof all the reasons we listed earlier,

(13:05):
Bill would have an opportunity to fightback, he would likely stir. It
wouldn't make sense with the position hewas found in, so shooting him behind
the pillow wall makes a lot moresense. It does. It's like you
said, if you're sort of wantingto do this in the least reactive way
possible, doing it while he's sleepingand is defenseless is, for lack of

(13:28):
a better term, the perfect timeto do it because if he's sleeping,
he's not going to see it coming. If you're behind him from this pillow
wall, again, he's not goingto see it coming. So he's not
going to have a chance to fightback, try to grab the gun from
you. It's going to be quoteunquote as clean as possible. Yeah.
I think from a strategic point ofview, and if we're to believe that

(13:50):
Susie did this, she's likely aplanner. That would seem like the best
planned to straddle him. Would seemlike there's a lot of opportunity for some
kind of blowback, for some kindof fence where he realizes that she's doing
something and he changes his position,and it becomes very obvious that it wasn't
indeed Bill who died by his ownhand, it was Susie who's responsible.

(14:11):
So, yeah, the pillow wallthing shooting through that, Yeah, I
definitely could buy that that was theposition she was in. So on top
of discrediting the prosecution's witnesses and havingMcDonald testify, the defense continued to push
the financial and emotional mental problems thatBill had. So they actually brought a

(14:35):
banker who was not part of thefirst trial, who testified that two days
before Bill's death, Bill had beggedand pleaded for a loan from him,
and he vowed to commit suicide ifhe didn't get that loan. Well that's
interesting, isn't it. It is, so of course the banker wasn't able

(15:00):
to give him the loan because healready had those two loans on the dealership,
and from everything I gathered, hewasn't even supposed to have those two.
He was only supposed to have one. So there was no way he
was going to get this loan.So he basically told this banker, if
you don't give me this loan,I'm going to kill myself. But one

(15:22):
thing I don't buy though, isif he did like I could I believe
that he said that, sure,and I believe that sure, that could
have been the sentiment. But ifhe was going to do that, going
to end his own life, Iwould think that he would change the policy
from his estranged wife being the beneficiary. Who know the nature of their relationship
at that moment. Seems to bekind of a matter of opinion because Bill

(15:46):
isn't here to tell us exactly whatwas going on, But it feel like
he would have changed the beneficiary toKristen if that was his intent to end
his own life, given the factthat they were only talking about dividing their
assets at this point, right right. And something else that was mentioned is
that, like he said, thebeneficiary hadn't been changed, even though there

(16:07):
were many people, including the insurancecompany, that said that that was his
plan and his intent to change it. They're also he's got this plan going
in motion, but then he doesn'thave any plan for how to conduct his
business and what should happen to thatafterwards, Like he didn't leave a note,
he didn't leave any kind of planor instructions about his business. So

(16:33):
not everybody does for sure when asuicide happens. But given that he's already
attempted and contemplated suicide once before,and he's already making these other plans,
it seems like he would be someonewho would have something kind of set in
motion for what happens after he's gone. I feel like, if he's going
to make the effort to do thisand to make the decision to end his

(16:57):
life, it seems like everything weknow about Bill, that he would put
some kind of plan or protocols inplace where he's like, this is what
will happen in the event of mydeath. And so it gives his daughter
a little more guidance how exactly hefelt towards Susie at this point in time,
I guess is up for debate,because we really don't know. We

(17:18):
only have Susie to go on,so it's a little bit difficult. But
I just have a hard time believingthat he because this isn't an impulsive suicide,
if it was indeed a suicide,because we have him using this as
a tactic in order to help securethis loan, and then he doesn't get
the loan. So over to believethat this is planned out, it seems
like a really strange way to goabout it. If that was indeed what

(17:41):
happened. I just I don't necessarilybuy some of the arguments they were trying
to make about why this is suicideversus murder or accident. So during closing
arguments, Susie decided she would havean outburst in the room and she yelled
to the jury quote, I didn'tdo it. Okay, that's so dramatic

(18:08):
outbirths from defendants such as that.It just seems so much against advice of
your attorney, because outbirths like thatdon't typically help you. But it seems
like it's something that somebody is doingin almost a way of being manipulative to
the jury, like, oh,only an innocent person would cry out in
the courtroom. I didn't do itexactly. And so, like you said,

(18:33):
she was obviously removed from the courtroomuntil she could calm down, because
no judge likes that. And inthe Oxygen special, I watched one of
the friends and former attorneys of Billsthat was kind of there along watching the
trial. She said that it seemedlike the jury they didn't take it well.

(18:56):
It seemed really fake to them,and so they were kind of put
off by it. For lack ofa better term, Yeah, I think
that it was one of those thingsthat it's like calling his business partner before
she called nine one one. It'sjust a poorly calculated decision. It doesn't
feel like a genuine outburst of emotionbecause I feel like if you were going

(19:17):
to have a genuine outburst of emotionlike that, it should have happened to
the first trial. And I don'tknow that screaming I didn't do it ever
helpful because we're just it's been soingrained into us that dependants always say they
didn't commit the crime. So youtrying to tell me that in your trial

(19:38):
doesn't mean anything because like everybody saysthey didn't do it, you know.
He Yeah. I feel like ifthat's the case, then you really didn't
do it. I feel like thisintense emotion that is behind this, I
mean she's been this has been youknow, years in the make. Now
this isn't like this fresh reaction afterthe death bill, and she's just so

(20:00):
upset by it. It just theprotracted outburst of emotion just it doesn't makes
it, in my mind more likelythat it's disingenuous. And yeah, I
didn't do it. It's not agood argument for somebody not doing it because
everybody says they didn't do it exactly, and everybody says I didn't do it.
I don't think anybody wants to goto jail, so of course I'm

(20:22):
going to say I didn't do it. Yeah. I think people will do
and say anything not to go tojail. And at this point she's like,
Okay, I've seen what prison canbe. Like, I want to
get out of here. And youknow, my son's gone to law school.
He believes wholeheartedly in my innocence,So let me kind of do what
I can here. And I'm surethat he did not advise her to do

(20:45):
that. So the jury did initiallyhave some trouble with deliberations, but the
judge asked them to kind of goback to the drawing board and really see
if they could come to a decision, and on January twenty fourth of nineteen
ninety eight, Susie Mowbray was acquittedof all charges. Wow, that was

(21:11):
a bold move. And so thiswas a jury that acquitted her. Yes,
yes, okay, I thought maybeshe did like a bench trial or
something, and the judge was like, no, the evidence, Okay,
that is a lot. I mean, it seemed like a pretty good case.
I get that the expert not beingan expert like that is damaging to
the prosecution, but I still thinkthere's a very good argument that he could

(21:34):
not have done this to himself.The evidence just does not support that.
And well then who had access tohim. There's only one person that had
access to him, and that wasSusie. Right. So what I will
say is it came up in thatOxygen episode that I watched. They said,
you know, it wasn't that thejury didn't think that Susie killed Bill.

(21:59):
I think that there were definitely somemembers of the jury that thought that,
but they didn't feel that the prosecutionproved their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
And the formant specifically read in courtthat the outcome of the trial was
due to the improper handling of theevidence. Fair enough, right, And

(22:21):
there's that argument for a better tolet a guilty person go than you have
However, many innocent people in jail, and I think sometimes it's unfortunate,
but this ends up being a resultof using experts that aren't actually experts when
you clearly seem to know that that'sthe case. You've got someone who's internationally

(22:41):
renowned, and you're choosing to usethis heskey person instead. So I feel
like it was a really poor choiceon the part of the prosecution, and
they ended up getting an l fromthis rather than their initial w and they're
like, yeah, we're going totake a win, but not so fast,
because Susie's son was very dedicated tohis mother and he did what is

(23:03):
so hard to do is get thisconviction turned around and she was acquitted.
Like, I can't even believe thatbased on what we know, but I
get their point that there just mightnot have been enough evidence beyond a reasonable
doubt, coupled with hescue. It'sjust super frustrating, though it is.
And you know, of course,now because we sort of have this acquittal,

(23:30):
now we're done. You know,they don't get to come back and
say we're going to try you againfor this, like they had their opportunity
and they lost. And to knowthat you lost because of your own conduct.
It's going to make you stomp andthink at some point. I mean,
not only is that embarrassing, butit's got to be kind of damaging

(23:52):
to the career of a prosecutor too, even if just in the short term,
because it's not good from an opticsperspective. Right, it's not just
that you lost the case. It'slike they're calling you out because of the
way you handled and processed the case. Lack of integrity type of a thing,
right, and that never looks good. I mean, prosecutors already have

(24:17):
this kind of they'll do everything liketo get a win. You know,
they'll stop it nothing to get awin. So to have this kind of
come out, it's like, well, apparently everything includes mishandling evidence and hiring
experts who aren't even doing scientific testing. Yeah, they could have done a

(24:41):
better job, but they were moreconcerned with getting a win than handling the
case properly and in a way thatwas the most ethical, right. I
Mean, one could argue that itwas unethical to handle things the way they
did, knowing that Hesque wasn't thetype of expert that they were wanting him
to be. But yet they wentahead with it anyways. That was a

(25:02):
poor choice, right, and Ithink we see now, like what the
consequences of that choice are. Youknow, if you're going to make the
choice to have that kind of anexpert, you're going to be stuck with
the consequences of him eventually admitting thatwhat he did initially wasn't scientific. But

(25:25):
I think nine out of ten timesthey probably get away with it because most
people are never granted a new trial. That's where Susy got real lucky here.
And I think it wasn't one thingin particular. It was like that
totality of circumstances. Yeah, definitely, where you have multiple lab techs and
hescue, and then you also havethe suppression of the report from McDonald.

(25:51):
Like all of these things added up. It wasn't just that she had one
thing. They don't have their stufftogether at all. You're not handling things
in a scientific matter, but you'representing it like you are. So we're
questioning your integrity and your ability topresent things that are based in fact.
Now everything is going to be almosttainted, right, It's all going to

(26:12):
be coming from these people who liedto us about these other things. So
I can see why the jury reachedthe conclusion that they did. However frustrating
it is for us who are lookingat it now. And I think at
the end of the day, youshould want a prosecution that's gonna bring a
case where you don't have a reasonabledoubt, like as best as you can.

(26:33):
You know, obviously the defense isalways going to try to argue that
there's a reasonable doubt. But whenyou're literally handing them reasonable doubt because you
don't have qualified experts, Yeah,it's only their own fault, right,
they only have themselves to blame here. And unfortunately for the family of Bill,
you know, surviving Kristen, she'sprobably left in just emotional upheaval because

(27:00):
everything that she thought was already putto bed, the fact that Susie had
murdered her father, well that's beenthrown out now, So what justice does
she get for her father? Soshe was extremely disappointed by the verdict in
the second trial, and she evensaid that she felt like Susie literally got

(27:22):
away with her father's murder. Yeah, I could see why she felt that
way, and I can't imagine thetype of impact that must have had on
her because you feel like, youknow, this is wrapped up, and
you've got a resolution. I mean, closure's not really something that's easy to
get, right, but it's resolved. Your father is dead, but the
person who did this to him isin jail. And then when she leaves,

(27:45):
I don't know how you deal withthat. I don't know how you
process not only your grief but youranger. Right. It's like you said
you had resolution to some extent andthen you had everything kind of unravel But
then she gets this new trial andyou're like, Okay, well, you
know, the prosecution can still maketheir arguments, try to make their case,

(28:10):
but then to have an acquittal,and an acquittal based on the fact
that the prosecution and the police mishandledevidence, that's got to like make you
super pissed off at them. Whydidn't you handle this scene properly from the
beginning and treat it like you shouldhave from the very beginning. Yeah,

(28:32):
and that's the unintended consequences of awin at all costs mentality, exactly.
And at the end of the day, you know, like you said,
Bill and Kristen are the ones wholose. You know, Bill lost his
life, whether suicide, accident,murder, whatever, You think happened.
He's no longer here and his daughterhas no answers as to why. Yeah,

(29:00):
heart really goes out to Kristen becausein my mind, it's pretty clear
what happened here, and just inmy personal opinion, it's a miscarriage of
justice. But the fault and theblame lay on the shoulders of the prosecution
here because this would have never beenoverturned. She would have never got a
new trial had they not used Askewand these lab techs for their unscientific tests.

(29:22):
Yeah. So, after the secondtrial, Susie brought what is called
a nineteen eighty three action for acivil rights violation, which is basically a
wrongful conviction lawsuit. So she namedthe county, the three prosecutors, three
police officers, and the county labtechnician, all of whom participated in the

(29:47):
trial. She also, classy ladythat she is, She sued her husband's
heirs in order to try and regainthe life insurance policy. Gross. Yes,
this one, like you said,super gross. But two it also
like still doesn't make you look good. No, It's like, what do

(30:08):
you care more about proving that you'reinnocent or do you care about regaining this
money that you think is rightfully yours. I just don't like that. I
mean, I get, if sheactually is innocent, that she would fight
for the overturning of the conviction andthe suing of you know, the state,

(30:29):
the city, the prosecutors. Itotally get that, But it's the
suing of the airs and re traumatizingthem it really bothers me. Yeah,
it's at this point, it's likeit's been ten years, eleven years since
the death of Bill. Just moveon at this point, you know.

(30:52):
Yeah, the fact that you're willingto drag them through the mud and through
another court process just for you know, your own financial gain, which is
a long shot anyways. So Idon't know, it's just not a good
look, right. So the courtdismissed all of her nineteen eighty three claims

(31:14):
because police officers and other state actorsfor the most part, have some kind
of qualified immunity that protects them fromcivil actions if they're in the furtherance of
their duties as a state actor.So this also includes prosecutors. They have
prosecutorial immunity, which is a verysimilar thing. There definitely are exceptions,

(31:37):
but like I said, if you'rekind of acting just in the furtherance of
your duties. In your job,you're usually pretty shielded, and so basically,
I think that the reason her casewas dismissed is that there's no real
smoking gun kind of exonerating her orestablishing that any of the prosecutors or lab

(31:59):
techs were out to get her.I think that obviously the case was mishandled,
but I more see that as kindof like a negligence and intelligence kind
of argument versus like them being maliciousin their prosecution of her. I think
sometimes when you want to win,you will ignore certain facts, and you

(32:22):
know, maybe that was the factthat Hesku wasn't doing things right. Maybe
they didn't ask enough questions about hismethods and how scientific they were. I
don't know if it was just negligence, or if they on purpose try to
withhold the other experts testimony and youknow, kind of bury that with a
bunch of other things and push himforward in a way that they're trying to

(32:44):
be deceptive. I mean, whetherthat's acting with integrity or not is not
for me to decide, But Ithink if they would have acted differently,
there might have been a different outcome, but it seemed like getting a win
was the most important thing, andI think that's a difficult thing to balance,
right, wanting to win and doingwhatever you can to win versus,

(33:06):
you know, keeping your ethics intact. I think you're walking a tightrope with
that if you're in the position aprosecutor all the time. And I think
that's why they have prosecutorial immunity,because people make mistakes sometimes, and when
you're doing a large case, it'seasy to make mistakes. And even with
those Brady violations, when they withholdexculpatory evidence, you often never see them

(33:28):
getting punished for it, because Ithink it's just it's like with police officers
being protected from making mistakes or whenthere's a shooting where we think like,
oh, they should be charged forthat, but they're protected because they're acting,
like you said, as a stateactor, so they're shielded from those
sorts of things. I just,you know, did an episode with another

(33:50):
podcast about wrongful convictions in particular,and so we talked in that case about
wrongful conviction lawsuits afterwards, and inthe case we talked about there was very
clear evidence of innocence, and inmy mind, in Susie's case, I

(34:12):
don't see that there to me,Like the judge said when he granted her
new trial, I still feel likethere's evidence that either Bill committed suicide or
she killed him. But I don'tthink that there's evidence very clearly one way
or another. Yeah, I thinkthat there's not really the argument for innocence

(34:32):
here and the wrongful conviction as thereis. Sure she was acquitted of the
charges because of the states you know, misconduct or however you want to frame
that with regards to Hescu and theother lab techs. So it's not clear
there was evidence to support her innocenceso much as they kind of screwed up
and they're paying for it. Andshe maybe got lucky here because the jury

(34:57):
was like, we didn't like whatthe state did with the experts, and
you know, it makes them questionthe integrity of everything. So I don't
think that's the same. There's awrongful conviction and her being actually innocent,
And I think that's important to notebecause you know, as I said,
we were discussing exonerations in this episode, and one of the important things is

(35:21):
in order to actually be exonerated ofa crime, you have to have some
kind of evidence of innocence, andthat to me is just not clear in
this case. No, it feelsballsy that she even wants to go forward
with it. It does, andI think it just I'm sure part of
it was like her son, youknow, saying, oh, you've been

(35:43):
acquitted and you've served this time inprison and you should be compensated for that,
and it's like, yeah, itsucks. But at the same time,
like you said, you just happento get lucky this second time,
Like if there hadn't been that prosecutorialmisconduct and the mishandling of evidence, if
very well could have gone the otherway the second time too. Yeah,

(36:04):
So I don't know. Maybe you'reright, Maybe it's her son, like
he's devoted his whole life to becominga lawyer so he could have this moment
to free his mother and he's succeeded, and the entire trajectory of his life
has been shaped by her potential actions. You know, if you were to
believe that she's responsible, and soif he's then saying, I think you
should take this one step further andwe should have this, you know,

(36:28):
be wrongful conviction and maybe you'll getsome kind of monetary reward for it,
and he's pushing for all these things. Maybe she's just kind of acquiescing to
whatever he wants because he's given upso much to fight for her. Yeah,
and I mean, at this point, what's it going to hurt?
I guess is an argument to bemade to why not try it? Yeah?

(36:49):
They, I mean, they can'ttry her again at this point,
So what do they really have tolose except for you know, losing face,
right, And I mean she trulydidn't seem to care about that.
No, obviously not if she's goingto go after the inheritance of Kristen,
she doesn't care exactly. So atthis point, celest stitch effort to kind

(37:13):
of, you know, make upfor that. But again, in my
mind, what we should be usingwrongful compensation lawsuits and wrongful compensation funds for
is people who were actually innocent.I thought it was like you couldn't file
lawsuit unless you were exonerated. Ithought when you were just acquitted, you

(37:34):
couldn't unless you were actually like exoneratedof the crime. Yeah. So I
mean I think anybody can file anykind of lawsuit. But it is America.
Yes, So that's essentially what thejudge was saying when he threw out
her claims is that you haven't shownany kind of evidence that gets you beyond

(37:55):
the immunity to where you can suethese people for you know, the reason
since we've been talking about there justthere is no evidence of innocence in this
case. That's so like clear cutthat we see in other cases. Yeah,
that makes sense. I could totallysee why the judge came to that
conclusion because also the state doesn't liketo pay out unless it's very very clear

(38:16):
that person is innocent. And youknow, like I said, that's rightfully
so we shouldn't be paying people whenit's something that could go either way.
And to me, that's why Ithink they have that evidence of innocence really
defining exoneration because it's looking at everythingthat's available and saying there's no way that

(38:43):
this person committed this crime. Andin her case, if you look at
the nightgown, you look at theblood spatter, you look at her actions,
who she called when she called,like all the things of the case.
To me, I think you cango either way, but I definitely
cannot say for sure that she isinnocent, I think you can eliminate the

(39:06):
nightgown. And I think most peoplethat are hearing this story, not a
jury, because you have a differentkind of burden on you as a jury
with what is going to help youreach your conclusion, but as a you
know, just a typical lay personlistening to this case, I think it's
very easy to draw the conclusion thatshe did it. I think so,

(39:27):
And in my mind, it's like, I still do have a lot of
questions about, you know, whythere's no blood or brain matter on her.
I can you know, concede thatshe cleaned herself off. But even
just the way that she's kind ofdescribing what happened, I'm still not really

(39:49):
sure what positioning she would have beenin if she had done it like it
still is just so confusing to me. And a lot of those things would
have been answered if it was investigatedas a crime and the scene was properly
photographed, forensically tested right in thatmoment. Even the blood spatter on the
wall which you got to paint over. So many of these things could help

(40:12):
fill in the puzzle pieces and saythat they thought it was a murder,
Well, then maybe they would geta warrant to search the entire home,
and maybe there was a bag withclothing in which she was wearing to murder
Bill. But yet this is somethingthat she potentially had a chance to dispose
of if it indeed existed before thepolice came back to do their evidence sweep

(40:34):
the next day, because they basicallyjust left her to it, and we're
like, we'll come back the nextday to collect further evidence. And that's,
like you said, that's something we'renever going to know, because she's
obviously never gonna say I took offall of my bloody clothes and I threw
him in a dumpster on Seventh Streetor whatever, you know, Like she's
never going to say something like that. And because they never investigated it like

(40:55):
an actual crime, I truly couldnot find what level of investigation they did.
I know that there were some picturestaken, the sheets and the covers
and her nightgown were taken, butI have no idea what other things were
taken, or what other pictures weretaken, or avenues they explored, like

(41:19):
did they check in any trash,Like if you're treating it as a suicide,
I mean I would posit a guessthat you didn't do those things.
But that's why I think it's soimportant to treat a case like it's a
homicide, because otherwise you're, likeyou said, you're just giving her the
opportunity because you've left her to herown devices for the evening. Okay,
Like why wouldn't she go throw awayall of the incriminating evidence? Yeah,

(41:44):
And I mean you could also sayshe might have time to do it before
she could have hit it, youknow, elsewhere, because Bill was alive.
It's not like time of death helpsus with what time she did this,
do you know what I mean?Like it makes it a little more
vague because he was still alive.Then he could have been alive for two
hours. I mean, if he'scontinually bleeding, the blood probably won't be

(42:04):
dry because it's pooling in places.And I mean, I don't know how
carefully they checked that because they believedit was a suicide, so I don't
think they were checking how dry bloodspatter was in certain places. That's something
I was kind of I couldn't quiteword it before, but I definitely was
thinking about. Was just because hewas alive when they found him, Like

(42:25):
that didn't necessarily mean he had justbeen shot. It's like you said,
he could have like slowly been bleedingout for who knows how long? Oh,
totally, and not all head woundsresult in death, So this could
have been a head wound that perhapshe could have survived had there been the
appropriate medical intervention in you know,kind of an expedient manner. But we

(42:47):
just don't know how much time lapsedbetween the shooting and then the phone call
to the business partner, right,And I never found any information on that,
like when the two calls took place, how much time was between the
two. I mean, she definitelycould have made the calls back to back,
and she could have waited to evenmake the business partner call for hours

(43:10):
on end. I didn't find anyinformation about that. And in my mind,
there's still so much evidence that Iwish we had, but we obviously
never could have because they never tooka good hard look at the case.
Yeah, And I think it's thatargument for, like you said, just

(43:30):
having them investigate it as a crimeand then letting the evidence lead them in
whatever direction it is. And Ithink you can handle this in a very
empathetic way. You get a victim'sadvocate you have them sit with the surviving
family member and talk with her beforepolice do their interview. But I think
you want to get a proper interviewdone that night. You want to make

(43:52):
sure that you're doing it as gentlyas possible, because this person, if
they aren't responsible, has endured agreat deal of trauma, so you want
to tread lightly. But I alsothink you don't want to step away from
that scene, which could hold vitalclues as to what happened. You don't
want to make assumptions based on whatthat one person is saying, because this

(44:13):
is incredibly atypical from the jump,and so you would hope that they would
have gone, Okay, we're goingto just treat this as a crime scene.
But they took her word for it, and you know, she's probably
giving them reason to believe that thiscould be true. There was a prior
suicide attempt, the financial situation.Susie's probably telling them that everything you know

(44:35):
on their checklist is present, andthey're taking everything she's saying at face value,
and they're probably trying to be verycompassionate to what she's just possibly endured,
and their minds might not have initiallyjumped to what if she did this,
But you'd like to hope that somebodythere would have thought that exactly.
And one other thing that I neverreally got confirm nation of was how much

(45:01):
of a statement they got from her. Like they obviously got her explanation about
his elbow being over his head andshe reaches over and touches him and then
the gun goes off. They gotthat from her, but I don't know
how much else they got from her, like how extensive her statement was.

(45:21):
And I'm obviously not an investigator,so I don't know how they sort of
proceed in a suicide, like whatkind of statement they take. But I
would hope that you would still wantto take a comprehensive statement from the only
other person who was there. Yeah, one would hope, right. You'd
think, even if it is asuicide, you want to get down a

(45:43):
very clear recollection of exactly what happened, What were the events leading up to
this, what was his mental state. You want to make sure that you've
got all of your details nailed down, because, as you know, unless
you've processed the evidence, you don'treally know what happened going off experience.
You're going off gut when you firstwalk into it, and then you're going

(46:04):
off what the surviving person is sayinghappened. But there's so many other things
that are going to contribute to whatactually happened that you don't have the ability
to assess with your naked eye,right. And I mean, even if
you're just looking at Okay, thisis a suicide, I would think that
you would want to still kind ofconduct a halfway decent investigation because if you're

(46:30):
thinking this is suicide, you probablywant the family to receive the insurance money,
and so maybe you should investigate allthe avenues because maybe they have an
insurance clause that doesn't allow a payout. So maybe we want to try to
help the family as best we can, So let's investigate this like it's a
murder, just in case, becausemaybe we can get a loophole for the

(46:52):
family and also actually do our jobs. Yeah, that was my thoughts too.
In case there's any insurance issues,you want to make sure that you
conducted at least some kind of investigationto prove this is what we think happened.
This is a credible scenario, andit just seems like some things fell
through the cracks here. Yeah,and I think it's such a problem when

(47:16):
investigators have tunnel vision as to howa case is and like you said,
don't let the evidence lead them towhat happened. It's such a problem that
you can't undo. You know,by the time, even just the next
day when they come back, thingshave changed dramatically. Yeah, she wouldn't

(47:36):
have had the ability to clean upthat blood spatter with her friends if they
didn't give her that like one dayreprieve, hey, we'll come back tomorrow,
and she speedily it was like,Okay, I'm just gonna clean up
all this blood here. So theycould have got a much maybe better idea
of what happened at that scene hadthey reacted in a more reasonable time frame

(47:58):
aka when they arrived at this scene, they should have never left, exactly.
I understand like wanting to strike thebalance between being respectful and you know,
giving the family time, but alsolike if my family member was actually
like murdered, I want you todo your job, like I want you

(48:20):
to respect me, sure, butI also want you to investigate the scene,
close it off, like I wantyou to treat this like it's a
very serious thing. And you know, I obviously need time to grieve and
I need time to process, butI understand that you also have a job
to do, and I want youto be able to do that job in

(48:40):
the best way possible. Yeah,please cross your teas, dot your eyes
over all of your bases so thatif this ever needs to be revisited at
a later date, you've got theinformation to do so thoroughly right. Because
it's like we've talked about, youcan't go back and try to recreate the

(49:01):
story. You know, you haveto do it that first time when you've
arrived on scene. That's all Ihave for you. Like I said,
when I came across this case,my mind was just like bloan. So
I can tell you now since we'vetalked about it, that I saw it
on Accident, Suicide or Murder onOxygen, which is just a fascinating series.

(49:24):
If you haven't watched it, Ihighly recommend it. They definitely have
some like super twisty turney cases thatthey cover. Yeah, I'll definitely check
it out because I'm really into caseswhere there is just no clear cut answer,
and I think it's just because ourhuman brain wants to fill in the
gaps and wants to solve that puzzle. But I always feel so deeply for

(49:47):
the surviving family members that are leftbehind with these tragedies without proper, clear
cut answers, especially when they feellike there wasn't a proper investigation or there
wasn't an adequate investigation done, sothey just don't feel like they can ever
get the proper answers. So I'lldefinitely check out that series. So at

(50:07):
least you want to tell us alittle bit about your show, True Crime
Cat Lawyer. Yes, so Icover true crime cases from the Pacific Northwest
And just for reference, we definethe Pacific Northwest as Oregon, Washington,
Idaho, and British Columbia, sowe cover serial killers, unsolved murders,

(50:29):
missing persons from that region. Werelease episodes every other Thursday, and we
are pretty much on every platform thatyou can think of to listen to podcasts,
and you can check us out onsocial media as well. You can
look up True Crime Cat Lawyer onInstagram, Facebook, and TikTok and True

(50:49):
Crime cat law on Twitter. Andwhen at Last says we, she means
her and her Cat Winston, who'salso a female, which is like the
cutest thing ever. Yes, sheis the face of the podcast and definitely
the one who runs the show.I'm just working here as one of her
minions. Isn't that how that worksbeing a Winston mom? Oh? Yes,

(51:15):
she definitely runs a tight ship andit's her way or the highway.
Well, I want to thank youso much a Lease for coming on the
show and telling me about this verycomplex case that definitely left me scratching my
head at parts, But in theend, I think I definitely have an
opinion and it's pretty clear to everybodywho's listening. Yes, And I so

(51:35):
appreciate you being a willing listener inthis story and letting me take you on
this wild and strange ride. LikeI said, this case like just jumped
out at me, and I'm soexcited that I got to share it with
you because I so often I'm aloneon my cases, and so it's nice
to have somebody to be able tolike chat through these like crazy cases with.

(51:59):
Oh. I know. It's sogood to have a sounding board sometimes,
isn't it When you think something andyou're like, yes, this person
agrees with me, I'm not wrong. Yeah, And just we've had this
like super good discussion the whole time. It's nice to have that, especially
in a case where there's just somany questions and head scratching points. Yeah,

(52:19):
and it's also good when people arelike affirming when you're right, but
it's also good when they're telling you, like, hey, it could be
this way, so you can startto see things a different way when you
get a good discussion going, likewe just said. Yeah, it's one
of the things that I truly lovedoing these collaborations for. Yeah, it's
one of my favorite things too.It's really fun to connect with somebody and
to talk about cases because in theends you always feel like you've got a

(52:42):
greater understanding. Yes, and Idefinitely have you know, different perspectives as
well. I want to thank everybodyfor listening, and if you enjoyed this
episode and you're interested in joining thePatreon, I will leave the links in
the show notes below. So Iwant to thank my editor Alisa, who
goes by the name of Smile,and I'll link her music in the show
notes as well. Until next time, stay safe and remember accept nothing,

(53:07):
question everything.