Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Let's get right to our koa common spirit health hotline
and UH and my friend Paul Morrow. Paul is a
former NYPD inspector.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
He headed up the NYPD Intelligence Department.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
He has a fabulous substack called the Ops Desk O
P S D E s K.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Dot substack dot com.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
And he's a Fox News contributor and getting more and
more airtime on Fox as well.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
He should Paul, welcome back to the show.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
So I imagine you fully expected to be traveling to
Idaho soon and now you're not where you was shocked
by this plea deal.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
I don't even want to say the guy's name, but
you can if you want.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Were you as surprised by this plea deal as I was?
Speaker 3 (00:45):
And what do you make of it, especially at this
stage of the game, as we were going into jury
selection and look like we were inside the five yard
line on this thing. Finally after three years of dilatoria
tactics the defense, but it looks like it worked out
for them. In terms of what I make of it,
(01:07):
I think that there must have been and I don't
know this, but I can't see any of the way
to read the tea leaves here. I think there must
have been a prosecution vulnerability here. This case looked about
as airtight as they come, and the families, according to
all reporting, were on board with going to trial and
going to the death penalty.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Well, here you have all of those.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Factors, and the prosecution apparently put out a deal that
in my estimation, it's probably been on the table for
a while. And once the defense lost the last of
its voluminous motions because they are losing them all the alibi,
the alternative theories of who could have done it, they
kept losing motions. Once the defense was out of play,
(01:52):
they decided, Okay, we have no further plays, Let's take
the deal. The real question becomes why was there a
deal to begin with. I have a couple of theories
on it, but I think there must have been a
vulnerability on the prosecution side that they assessed that we
don't all have an awareness of them.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
And one quick note for listeners, and we'll come back
to the topic with Paul. The US Senate just passed
the so called Big Beautiful Bill by a vote of
fifty one to fifty, which means there was one more
Republican no from the previous time and Vice President JD.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Vance cast a tie breaking vote. All right, so back
to Paul.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
I heard I'm sure you know this guy, Mark Yarragos
who it was an interesting character. I'm not a big
fan interesting character. He made an interesting point on television
last night. He said, if I were the defense, I'm
not sure I would have accepted the deal because he's
got because the deal takes away any opportunity for appeal.
If he were to get sentenced, even if he were
(02:49):
to get a death sentence, he'd probably be on death
row for twenty or thirty years and maybe the death
penalty even be abolished by then.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
And you know, if the prosecution.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
Seemed to I think, like you said, Paul, maybe there's
some kind of weakness, then maybe the defense should have
refused the deal. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
I mean, it's absolutely not a bad thought. There is there.
I believe at least one, maybe several people that are
on death row for decades right now in Idaho. And
so consequently, that analysis does hold some water because if
you're saying, Okay, he's going to be on death row
for the next twenty thirty years as the appeals wind
(03:29):
their way up the chain, who knows he may even
be able to get himself a new trial based on
an appeal that succeeds, because there were some questions about
the DNA. Now I feel like the investigatory genealogical DNA
technology has been upheld, that whole methodology has been upheld
for the most part, and under the facts that are reported,
(03:52):
it looks like it would withstand appeal. Nonetheless, there must
be a vulnerability. The FBI does not like that methodology out.
I don't think that would be enough for this state
to say, Okay, we'll take a deal here. But I
know that the FBI was being very very recalcitrant in
coming across with how they did what they did, and
(04:14):
maybe there was something there that just made this prosecutor
very very nervous. This prosecutor ulsem he's from Layton County,
even though the case got moved to Boise and Layton
County and particularly Moscow where that prosecutorial seat is very liberal,
and he may just may have some sort of ideological
(04:35):
problem with the death penalty. That's a possibility to grow.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Okay, So we just have about three three and a
half minutes left here, Paul. So what I had read
was that either two or three of the families of
the four victims wanted to go for the death penalty,
and one family at least wasn't against it, but they
just wanted it all done. They'd be fine basically with
(04:59):
whatever outcome was, as long as there was some kind
of justice. They weren't really pushing for the death penalty.
The thing I wonder about is the other two kids
who were in that house and lived. I wonder if
there's any thought in the mind of the prosecutor not
to put them through a trial.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Well, I think that.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
I mean, I guess it could be a facet But
when you consider that the two kids that lived just
apparently agreed to sit for a documentary, and I assume
they got very well paid for it, had another complication
for the prosecution's case. And you know, we saw in
the Karen Reid case that the defense was able to
subpoena not only the documentary and cut up clips of
(05:46):
it to use during the case, but even got the
stuff that was cut from the documentary and fell to
the cutting room floor, and then juxtaposed that with statements
that were given years ago to the police to show
inconsistency inconsistency.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Excuse me.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
So you may have had a situation where all of
a sudden, all of this material that they were going
to use in trial was on the cutting room floor
and now available to the defense growing inconsistencies from some
of their prime witnesses, and that may have been another
vulnerability that they did not want to address.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
And it also goes to the fact that what we.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
Had as part of that whole thing, the fact that
there were leaks. The Dateline documentary showed that somebody, and
it seemed to be from the prosecution side the way
Judge Hippler was acting, somebody was leaking material that violated
the gag order, and the prosecution may not have wanted
that sunlight on them. Either might have been a prosecution
(06:43):
could have been a cop, could have been a secretary
in the court's office. We don't know, but that could
have been a vulnerability as well. So when you take
all of these factors together, the prosecution may have finally said, look,
let's just make sure we nail this thing down, that
it's over. This guy's off the street for good, and
that's it. But you know, as the Consalve's family has said,
it leaves him alive to pursue what appears to be
(07:07):
a very narcissistic personalities and ambitions, a book and stuff
like that, jailhouse interviews.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
So it's over, but.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
It's probably not over in a certain sense.
Speaker 1 (07:17):
Yeah, I mean, I think the only real upside for
the prosecution here is the fact that he waives all
rights to appeal. Last, very quick question, Paul, I'm just
about out of time here. Do you think there's any
chance that a significant factor for the prosecution would have
been cost savings of ending it now?
Speaker 3 (07:36):
No, this thing has already been pretty expensive, and you've gone,
like I said, let's say ninety yards down field, So
you're in the red zone now. And what's left, you know,
a couple of months of trial and taking the jury
at this point, after all, they've spent moving the venue,
all the police over time gathering the evidence. I think
that would be foolhardy And if you really want to
(07:57):
turn around.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
I was thinking about the cost of death penalty appeals.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
Yeah, I mean, I guess, you know, but when you
consider the fact that you're going to have three months
of trial likely and you're gonna have half of America's
media there, every hotel was. I mean, if you want
to make it dollars and to do that, but you
know that's what we're talking about.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
That's funny.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
It's a it's a revenue raiser. So I don't think
it shouldn't be that. It should be the interests of justice.
It should be what determines.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
Paul Morrow, former NYPD inspector, head of NYPD Intelligence.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
He's also an attorney.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
He's a Fox News contributor and and one of the
great uh sort of relatively at this point. New Voices
on Fox really adds a lot to that network. Paul,
It's it's great to have you back. Thanks for doing
this anytime.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
Ros
Let's get right to our koa common spirit health hotline
and UH and my friend Paul Morrow. Paul is a
former NYPD inspector.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
He headed up the NYPD Intelligence Department.
Speaker 1 (00:13):
He has a fabulous substack called the Ops Desk O
P S D E s K.
Speaker 2 (00:18):
Dot substack dot com.
Speaker 1 (00:21):
And he's a Fox News contributor and getting more and
more airtime on Fox as well.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
He should Paul, welcome back to the show.
Speaker 3 (00:28):
Thank you for having me.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
So I imagine you fully expected to be traveling to
Idaho soon and now you're not where you was shocked
by this plea deal.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
I don't even want to say the guy's name, but
you can if you want.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
Were you as surprised by this plea deal as I was?
Speaker 3 (00:45):
And what do you make of it, especially at this
stage of the game, as we were going into jury
selection and look like we were inside the five yard
line on this thing. Finally after three years of dilatoria
tactics the defense, but it looks like it worked out
for them. In terms of what I make of it,
(01:07):
I think that there must have been and I don't
know this, but I can't see any of the way
to read the tea leaves here. I think there must
have been a prosecution vulnerability here. This case looked about
as airtight as they come, and the families, according to
all reporting, were on board with going to trial and
going to the death penalty.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Well, here you have all of those.
Speaker 3 (01:30):
Factors, and the prosecution apparently put out a deal that
in my estimation, it's probably been on the table for
a while. And once the defense lost the last of
its voluminous motions because they are losing them all the alibi,
the alternative theories of who could have done it, they
kept losing motions. Once the defense was out of play,
(01:52):
they decided, Okay, we have no further plays, Let's take
the deal. The real question becomes why was there a
deal to begin with. I have a couple of theories
on it, but I think there must have been a
vulnerability on the prosecution side that they assessed that we
don't all have an awareness of them.
Speaker 1 (02:08):
And one quick note for listeners, and we'll come back
to the topic with Paul. The US Senate just passed
the so called Big Beautiful Bill by a vote of
fifty one to fifty, which means there was one more
Republican no from the previous time and Vice President JD.
Speaker 2 (02:23):
Vance cast a tie breaking vote. All right, so back
to Paul.
Speaker 1 (02:27):
I heard I'm sure you know this guy, Mark Yarragos
who it was an interesting character. I'm not a big
fan interesting character. He made an interesting point on television
last night. He said, if I were the defense, I'm
not sure I would have accepted the deal because he's
got because the deal takes away any opportunity for appeal.
If he were to get sentenced, even if he were
(02:49):
to get a death sentence, he'd probably be on death
row for twenty or thirty years and maybe the death
penalty even be abolished by then.
Speaker 2 (02:56):
And you know, if the prosecution.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
Seemed to I think, like you said, Paul, maybe there's
some kind of weakness, then maybe the defense should have
refused the deal. Yeah.
Speaker 3 (03:08):
I mean, it's absolutely not a bad thought. There is there.
I believe at least one, maybe several people that are
on death row for decades right now in Idaho. And
so consequently, that analysis does hold some water because if
you're saying, Okay, he's going to be on death row
for the next twenty thirty years as the appeals wind
(03:29):
their way up the chain, who knows he may even
be able to get himself a new trial based on
an appeal that succeeds, because there were some questions about
the DNA. Now I feel like the investigatory genealogical DNA
technology has been upheld, that whole methodology has been upheld
for the most part, and under the facts that are reported,
(03:52):
it looks like it would withstand appeal. Nonetheless, there must
be a vulnerability. The FBI does not like that methodology out.
I don't think that would be enough for this state
to say, Okay, we'll take a deal here. But I
know that the FBI was being very very recalcitrant in
coming across with how they did what they did, and
(04:14):
maybe there was something there that just made this prosecutor
very very nervous. This prosecutor ulsem he's from Layton County,
even though the case got moved to Boise and Layton
County and particularly Moscow where that prosecutorial seat is very liberal,
and he may just may have some sort of ideological
(04:35):
problem with the death penalty. That's a possibility to grow.
Speaker 1 (04:38):
Okay, So we just have about three three and a
half minutes left here, Paul. So what I had read
was that either two or three of the families of
the four victims wanted to go for the death penalty,
and one family at least wasn't against it, but they
just wanted it all done. They'd be fine basically with
(04:59):
whatever outcome was, as long as there was some kind
of justice. They weren't really pushing for the death penalty.
The thing I wonder about is the other two kids
who were in that house and lived. I wonder if
there's any thought in the mind of the prosecutor not
to put them through a trial.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Well, I think that.
Speaker 3 (05:22):
I mean, I guess it could be a facet But
when you consider that the two kids that lived just
apparently agreed to sit for a documentary, and I assume
they got very well paid for it, had another complication
for the prosecution's case. And you know, we saw in
the Karen Reid case that the defense was able to
subpoena not only the documentary and cut up clips of
(05:46):
it to use during the case, but even got the
stuff that was cut from the documentary and fell to
the cutting room floor, and then juxtaposed that with statements
that were given years ago to the police to show
inconsistency inconsistency.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
Excuse me.
Speaker 3 (06:00):
So you may have had a situation where all of
a sudden, all of this material that they were going
to use in trial was on the cutting room floor
and now available to the defense growing inconsistencies from some
of their prime witnesses, and that may have been another
vulnerability that they did not want to address.
Speaker 2 (06:21):
And it also goes to the fact that what we.
Speaker 3 (06:23):
Had as part of that whole thing, the fact that
there were leaks. The Dateline documentary showed that somebody, and
it seemed to be from the prosecution side the way
Judge Hippler was acting, somebody was leaking material that violated
the gag order, and the prosecution may not have wanted
that sunlight on them. Either might have been a prosecution
(06:43):
could have been a cop, could have been a secretary
in the court's office. We don't know, but that could
have been a vulnerability as well. So when you take
all of these factors together, the prosecution may have finally said, look,
let's just make sure we nail this thing down, that
it's over. This guy's off the street for good, and
that's it. But you know, as the Consalve's family has said,
it leaves him alive to pursue what appears to be
(07:07):
a very narcissistic personalities and ambitions, a book and stuff
like that, jailhouse interviews.
Speaker 2 (07:13):
So it's over, but.
Speaker 3 (07:15):
It's probably not over in a certain sense.
Speaker 1 (07:17):
Yeah, I mean, I think the only real upside for
the prosecution here is the fact that he waives all
rights to appeal. Last, very quick question, Paul, I'm just
about out of time here. Do you think there's any
chance that a significant factor for the prosecution would have
been cost savings of ending it now?
Speaker 3 (07:36):
No, this thing has already been pretty expensive, and you've gone,
like I said, let's say ninety yards down field, So
you're in the red zone now. And what's left, you know,
a couple of months of trial and taking the jury
at this point, after all, they've spent moving the venue,
all the police over time gathering the evidence. I think
that would be foolhardy And if you really want to
(07:57):
turn around.
Speaker 1 (07:57):
I was thinking about the cost of death penalty appeals.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
Yeah, I mean, I guess, you know, but when you
consider the fact that you're going to have three months
of trial likely and you're gonna have half of America's
media there, every hotel was. I mean, if you want
to make it dollars and to do that, but you
know that's what we're talking about.
Speaker 2 (08:17):
That's funny.
Speaker 3 (08:17):
It's a it's a revenue raiser. So I don't think
it shouldn't be that. It should be the interests of justice.
It should be what determines.
Speaker 1 (08:25):
Paul Morrow, former NYPD inspector, head of NYPD Intelligence.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
He's also an attorney.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
He's a Fox News contributor and and one of the
great uh sort of relatively at this point. New Voices
on Fox really adds a lot to that network. Paul,
It's it's great to have you back. Thanks for doing
this anytime.
Speaker 3 (08:44):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (08:44):
Ros
The Ross Kaminsky Show News
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
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.