All language subtitles for 2022-Two Shallow Graves-The McStay Family Murders-EP5-Wheres Dan-E

The family disappeared in 2010,
and authorities stopped looking for clues

after they presumed the family had
vanished into Mexico.

Years later, the graves of all four of the
McStays turned up in the Mojave Desert.

Defense tests on two items found buried
with the McStay family in shallow graves

revealed the DNA profiles of three unknown
people.

The unknown profiles
are from none of the

McStays and are not from
defendant Chase Merritt.

Who are they from?

And are they from the real killers?

So these are the items that we had Susanna
Ryan, one of our DNA experts, run a

machine called an MVAC, which basically is
a small vacuum that is used for the

purpose of sucking up DNA instead of using
a traditional swab.

What's your analysis of what you're seeing
so far?

I think it's, you know, it's interesting
to me to see.

We've got, especially the black bra where
we have the most results, where there's

clearly a male, at
least one male present

on there that is not
matching Joseph McStay.

It's not matching Charles Merritt.

There's DNA from individuals other than
McStay or Charles Merritt.

So that's what we're seeing with this
data.

We went to the prosecution and said, hey,
look, I think this could be a home run.

I mean, we could really find the killer.

Or killers.

This DNA issue is
what observers are telling

me is one of the key
issues in this case.

The fact that the defense is able to put
forward that there's DNA evidence at the

gravesite that does not link the crime to
the defendant is huge.

The defense repeatedly made a demand to
run profiles, for lack of a better term,

through CODIS.

CODIS is the combined DNA index system.

And it contains DNA profiles of suspects
and defendants.

And it's used to help solve
cases where you have an

unknown DNA contribution
to help identify the contributor.

There's millions of profiles in there.

So when you enter
your profile, if you get

hit or hits, you know
you're onto something.

Those can be explored and find out who the
hit was with.

This CODIS system
is only available to law

enforcement and
prosecutors, not to the defense.

So if it was going to get run to see
who's, if there's a possible match,

it would have to be done by the
prosecution.

And they said, no, we're not even going to
do a comparison in CODIS.

That was their answer.

We didn't understand it.

Why couldn't they run the DNA through
CODIS?

Why couldn't they go find Dan Kavanaugh?

Why couldn't they do a lot of things they
could have easily done?

The question assumes that they want the
truth.

And not a win.

What would be the harm in just running
them and see if it did hit something?

Because it, again, it's not an actual
profile.

Both our lab's testing of any of those
items and the defense lab's testing fell

well below that threshold
to be what's considered

usable to come up with
any type of potential profile.

When you're talking such an incomplete
profile as you're talking about in the

number of assumptions
that have to be computer

generated, you run the risk
for a lot of potential error.

The quality of the evidence is so decayed
that there's no reliability in it.

And it doesn't meet even our lab's
thresholds of reliability.

And so we're not hiding behind red tape,
bureaucratic red tape.

We're just saying these aren't biological
profiles to be entered into CODIS.

They were here for, you know, three years,
four years in this state.

But you're talking about dirt and heat and
weather, all these things that destroy DNA.

And for them to
magically, you know, find

three profiles, none of
them being the family.

The knot on this electrical
cord is so intertwined

with Joseph's body and the
fabric that he's wrapped in.

If this was in such direct contact with his
body, how could his DNA not show up there?

He should have found Joey's DNA.

It defies what we believe is common sense
science, right?

The suspect who tied this knot around
Joseph's body with his bare hands.

That person's DNA survived, but Joseph's
didn't.

It's really just another red herring for
the defense.

It's another way to try
and make it look like,

hey, we're trying to
exonerate our client.

And this is more of a cover up by the DA's
office.

They are not willing to do
what we need to do, and this

would help us figure out who
really killed the McStay family.

The truth is the most important thing
here.

What are they afraid of finding?

Do they fear that one of the witnesses or
one of the people that they didn't

investigate, like Dan
Cavanaugh, are they afraid of

one of those coming back
as a potential contributor?

That's... that's where I have a problem.

My name is Suzanne O'Ryan.

It's S-U-Z-A-N-N-A-R-Y-A-N.

The sledgehammer obviously was the murder
weapon.

It was in the graves.

You would realistically expect that if
there was going to be some DNA from an

unknown source, if their theory is merit
is not the killer, it's some unknown

person, you would expect
that the sledgehammer

would be something
that they would test.

That's the... that's something that the
perpetrator would have handled, right?

Actually, to be honest, I don't know if I
requested this particular item or not.

Yes, it would be something that was
handled.

I definitely didn't test it.

One of the reasons that I would say is
that we know the MBAC is better for porous.

..

porous items, things with ridges.

So... it could have been tested.

We... but we did not correct.

There are ridges on that handle.

There are some ridges on that handle,
yes.

So the sledgehammer has a series of lines,
ridges, down the handle.

It could have been tested.

All the items could have been tested.

Kind of odd, right?

You would think you would want to test the
one piece of evidence that you know for

sure the killer had in their possession at
one point, but they declined to do so.

There's ridges literally on the handle.

They could have totally tested that item.

So I call bullshit.

You have to wonder, are
they really telling the truth

about how important this
DNA is that they found?

Someone thought that those items would
have a better chance of identifying the

actual perpetrator than the hammer that's
in front of you.

You know, I suggest a number of items to
test, and these were the items that were

approved and submitted to the lab for
testing.

Did you ask for the hammer or not?

I do not recollect.

I think there's a good possibility I did.

I think there were
a number of items I

requested, but not every
single item was tested.

I told my attorneys, test everything in
the grave.

I don't care everything.

Whatever you can test in the grave.

They could have run a few CODIS.

You were told by the defense, we don't
want CODIS last May, right?

On April 9th, 2018, they decided to
forebone the CODIS upload.

And that was before you had any results?

Yes.

So we have to obtain that approval prior
to any processing on the case.

The defense could have checked a box to
have it tested.

Right.

Had the defense counsel
gotten it in by just

simply checking the,
yes, box, we want it run.

But when he opted not to, it was then too
late.

Me and McGee had an argument about it.

Why the fuck didn't you have that DNA run?

I told you it was not going to be mine.

And he said, well, I have to be certain.

And I said, so what you're telling me is
you don't necessarily believe I'm innocent?

Yeah.

If you're a prosecuting agency sending
something, then yeah, you have that option.

It's not available to defense attorneys.

You can request it all you want if they're
not going to do it.

And who's to say who filled out that
request?

Was it my assistant, Lisa?

Was it, you know, Jim's assistant?

Was it, you know, who was it that did?

I mean, they don't know.

But even if we had crossed that,
it doesn't apply to us.

It only applies to law enforcement
agencies.

They were afraid of what they were going
to find if there was a viable sample.

That's why.

Because they knew it was going to be
Chase's.

After you pull that trigger, there's not
much more you can do.

If I was in defense, I wouldn't want to
touch that one either.

It might come up with something I don't
want to see.

And I want Mike to come up with our
client's DNA, and then our case is over.

We're going to find this individual of
individuals.

I know that the sheriffs, the FBI,
everybody wants to bring this to justice.

And if it's the last thing I do,
I want to...

I just want to know that, you know,
when it's over.

Right now, live in court
in California, the brother

of the victim, Mike McStay,
is on the witness stand.

I knew Michael was going to end up there,
and I didn't want to see it.

Period.

That's it.

Bottom line.

Good morning, sir.

Good morning.

I could care less about his feelings,
to be honest, in the context of the trial.

I have compassion for him as a brother of
somebody who was killed so brutally.

But in terms of a trial
witness, I'm going to do what I

have to do to make whatever
point I think we have to make.

Let me ask you, did you own a white
utility truck in 2010?

Yes, I owned a white Chevrolet 2007 3500
HD.

Michael had a white pickup truck.

That was just another crazy fact to this
case.

Did you see the video of the neighbor
surveillance video?

You know, it's called the Mitchley video
that we watched in court here.

I did, yes.

Okay.

Um, is that your truck?

It's not my truck.

No.

The truck on the video.

No.

That's the 4th?

The 4th.

The day that you told Deputy Tingley you
drove past the house.

And he tells Officer Tingley in his first
statement, he says, I was there at my

brother's house on February 4th or the
6th.

When I saw that in this report,
I almost fell out of my chair.

What do you mean you were there on the
4th?

What do you mean you were there on the
4th?

That's the day they disappeared.

How isn't anybody just like jumping from
the ceiling saying, what?

You were there on the 4th or the 6th?

I was there on the 4th.

I was there on the 4th.

I was there on the 4th.

You could probably check my cell phone
records and things if you wanted to.

I'm sure you have been marked with the 99
degree.

And tell me if that, uh, is
that an accurate adaptation

of your phone records for
the 1st part of February 2010?

It must be, yeah, I think it's fine.

That's my phone number.

That's, that's my number.

There's nowhere on those records to indicate
where you are when the call is made.

I have no idea.

I mean, I'm not an expert.

So I've got to talk to Sprint or whoever
does that kind of work.

If you look at Michael's phone records,
they don't have location data.

He had more than ample
time to be at Joseph's

home during when they
say the family disappeared.

You recall that you told the
deputy Tingley that you drove

past your brother's home on
February 4th or the 6th of 2010?

You recall that?

I'm not sure if it was, um, I'm not sure
if they got that right.

I really don't, I'm not sure.

I don't like seeing my son go through
that.

I don't like to see him hurting like that.

That, that tears me apart.

I knew Michael didn't do it.

He loved Joey too much.

There's no way.

I don't even think Michael would kill his
worst enemy.

He's just not that type.

He's not built that way.

He didn't understand it at all.

And he wasn't able to explain it.

It just didn't seem to catch fire with
anyone.

Nobody seemed to care about it.

It was kind of a familiar feeling I got in
the trial with a lot of things that we

thought were important, but nobody else
thought were important.

There was plenty of people that were on
that team that Mike did it, you know.

There was a lot of people that thought
Mike could have done it.

Especially the, the online message boards.

Anything about Michael was too much.

I mean, they went after Michael 10 times
worse than anybody else.

Okay, I'm gonna be polite and nice as best
I can, but they don't know a damn thing.

And they're out there
criticizing Michael

concerning his brother
that he loves dearly.

And they have no clue about the
relationship between Joey and Michael.

I can understand why
public opinion or the defense's

opinion would lead to
that line of questioning.

There's a lot of red flags about Michael,
I'm not gonna lie.

What would his motive have been?

I guess jealousy or money or...

There was something that was found by one
of the researchers.

There was some sort of
document that was found where

Michael was being brought
to court over a fraudulent loan.

And for the loan, he had stated that he
was the CEO of Earth Inspired Products.

Did you ever apply
for a loan indicating that

you were the owner of
Earth Inspired Products?

I don't believe so.

A fresh memory?

Yeah.

And you're aware when
you signed that application

to the bank that it was
under penalty of purchase.

Projection argumentative.

I believe, I don't know.

Is it?

You would know, I wouldn't know.

When you made that statement
that you were the owner

of Earth Inspired Products,
that was not true, was it?

Yeah.

Here you have this loan application where
somebody's saying that they're the owner

of a company, of a person that goes
missing or, you know, dies not long after.

Was he just trying to make himself CEO of
Earth Inspired Products?

Finding a document like that, that
bothered me.

Like, that bothered me for a long time.

And at first, Patrick wouldn't talk to me
about it at all.

I'm sorry, but Michael's my son.

In regards of what Amy thinks,
I don't think he would lie.

He had nothing to do with it.

Before I just blurt this out, I'm going to
show counsel a statement that I'm going to

ask you about, that
would have been made in

March of 2010 to the
Orange County Register.

On March 26, 2010, that
my fear is that I'm looking for

two adult shallow graves
and my two nephews' crosses.

I remember saying that, yes.

When you made that statement to Brittany
Levine in March of 2010, that was three

years, eight months...
Before they were found, right?

When you look at it, two shallow graves?

Wait a minute.

Okay, one shallow grave
would have been bad

enough, because you're
saying shallow grave.

Who knew it was a shallow grave?

But to say two?

That's pretty remarkable.

I don't put any stock in that at all.

It's just what Michael imagined.

What he thought was coming down the line.

He finally realized that
he wasn't going to see his

brother and sister-in-law
and his nephews again.

And so he, the picture
comes in his head of

two graves and two
other graves or whatever.

And that's just how he described it.

My question is, you made that statement.

Because that was my fear.

And you made that statement.

That I wasn't looking for a missing persons
case, but rather a possible homicide.

I didn't want to point out that he was the
guy that did anything.

That would have been silly.

There was no evidence to bring that up.

But do you understand how easy it is to
make someone look guilty?

Because it is.

You can take facts from, you know,
whatever place you want and put them into

the scenario you want and make someone
look guilty.

And I did that for that express purpose.

And I know that they actually investigated
Michael, you know, that the San Bernardino

Sheriff's Department investigated Michael
as well.

There's some weird things that he may have
done and questionable, I guess,

business practices.

But there was never anything concealed
when we asked him about it.

There's no evidence he ever traveled to
the desert.

There's no evidence he was
ever even around Joseph for,

you know, the weeks before
or after they went missing.

No one was immune from examination.

Everyone was a suspect until they,
and they just started narrowing down.

Not possible, alibi, not in the area, you
know, nothing linking them to the crime.

In our investigation,
we had a, gosh, there

was maybe three or four
whiteboards in a room.

And we had pictures of anyone who was
associated with the family, knew the

family, had business dealings with Joseph
or Summer.

So we just had this huge list of people
that we had to talk to and verify and

prove or disprove any involvement they may
have had.

Vic got wrangled into this right away.

Because, hey, you know, is it a crazy
ex-lover that's jealous?

Vic Johansson, who's Summer's
ex-boyfriend, had sent her an email close

to Christmas of 2009 saying that he still
loved her and would forever.

But I just, I keep thinking,
like, how do you get,

how do you get four people
without anyone seeing me?

Like, Summer used to always watch the
murder mystery stuff.

But she would always tell me that,
um, if she ever got kidnapped,

she would fight.

Because she read the books about how the
girls get so scared they don't fight back.

So she would, she convinced me that,
like, she wouldn't fight her.

His cell phone records revealed that a
cell phone was using cell site locations

in Orange County during the time the
family went missing.

His cell phone also used
cell site locations outside

of California shortly
after they went missing.

There was no cell site
information or any other information

that showed Johansson near
or around the McStay residence.

So, I can understand why they didn't
continue with that.

It was kind of our way of keeping track of
who still needed to be interviewed,

who could or couldn't be.

And then we'd move that name to another
board.

So, he got moved off the list.

So, Michael McFadden came
up because there was domestic

violence arrest that he
had with an ex-girlfriend.

Michael McFadden is
Joey's first wife's new

husband and my oldest
grandson's stepfather.

I'm thinking immediately, whoa, I got
a grandson that's living with this guy.

And like I say, we had to look at him.

Summer had some suspicions.

And, you know, instead of just saying,
no, that's not true, he says he's gonna

muzzle her or, you know, I'll come over
there and muzzle her myself.

Doesn't really do anything to make you
feel any better about the guy.

If you were sitting in my shoes back then
and looking at the case back in 2010,

2011, you had to take a hard look at
McFadden.

I mean, he jumped to the top of the list.

Can't exclude him, so we put
all that information up there

with him and had to follow
where the hard evidence took us.

Now you have to come talk to me.

Let's face it, you're
doing an investigation

and it would be a
little frivolous not to.

You know, I was waiting for this to
happen, you know.

You understand my apprehension,
you know.

Of course.

Innocent people are sitting in jail as I
speak.

I have a background that you're well aware
of.

That background was a way distant past,
you know.

Mm-hmm.

I'm, uh, I'm about as straightforward and
honest and, uh, clean liver as you can get.

Well, just straight up, if you had
anything to do with this, tell me.

I did not.

I did not.

I mean, no.

We got all of his dealings with Joseph.

We tried to figure out what their
relationship was all about.

What contact they had, if they still had
any contact.

So, we took a hard look at all of that.

So this is his alibi for February 4th.

McFadden claimed to be working at the store
on a day the McStay family went missing.

McFadden later went home after work and
remained in the residence.

And you say, okay, well, what else?

And there's nothing
that physically puts him

there in the desert during
the time in question.

So, that's where you kind of run out of
leads with him.

There was just so many things that,
when you look at, I guess, the pile of

evidence against people, there's some
larger piles than others.

Dan was definitely
one of the top suspects

because he had intimate
knowledge of the business.

He understood how the business worked.

And because he was kind of a flake.

Just like, man, this guy is very
intelligent.

Is he smart enough to commit a crime and
cover it up?

Could he do that?

So, what's the latest with Dan Cavanaugh?

He's not looking for him anymore?

Where is he at?

Dan Cavanaugh is still being looked for.

Our investigator is following up on leads
that we have every week.

He is still working on a newly developed
lead.

And we hope to find him, serve him,
and have him come to court and testify.

We sent Mr. Robertson, our investigator,
down there to find him at all costs.

You know, do what you have to do.

Turn over every stone, talk to whoever
you've got to talk to, but find him.

And he's a very experienced investigator,
a former homicide detective himself.

He wasn't able to locate him.

You talk about off the grid.

This guy, when we went out to try to find
him, he was gone.

Gone, gone, gone, without a trace.

If they hired a PI to find him,
they hired a dumb one.

Because apparently they didn't find him.

How was it beneficial for them not to be
able to find him?

Because then they could create doubt.

But if he's there testifying, they're
going to have answers.

And they don't want to hear the answers.

Gee, we'll look for him, but we'll never
find him.

Should we put him on the stand?

Oh, no, no, no.

You know, let's look for him, but maybe we
shouldn't find him.

Yeah, it was not hard for me to find Dan.

So we had his phone numbers, we had his
address.

He was down in San Diego,
and basically we had to

knock on his door and say,
Hey, can we go somewhere?

And yeah, let's go to my business park.

So we went and interviewed him there.

The fourth is the last time they touched.

So you think that you actually talked to
him the last day or last time?

The fourth is when they stopped,
right back.

Okay, so then there was
like a week right there when

I was in Hawaii and hadn't
had any contact with him.

And when did you go to Hawaii?

I went to Hawaii like
early January, like a month

before, with my girlfriend
to go out there and serve.

We knew that his bank records showed he
had been in Hawaii.

There were multiple purchases throughout
the state on debit cards.

His phone records showed him making phone
calls to Hawaii numbers while he was there.

Lauren Knowles was his girlfriend at the
time.

The first thing she told
me, she was like, listen,

I'm not with Dan
Cavanaugh, I hate that guy.

We're broken up.

He's not my boyfriend anymore.

He's a jerk.

He parties.

He's crazy.

Whatever.

I don't want anything to do with this
case, but I understand that it was this

family and I understand why you're wanting
to interview me.

And she was like, I was with him.

Here are the photographs.

Here confirms it.

Oh, I know.

His girlfriend says he was in Hawaii.

And they sent a bunch of Facebook photos
to show, hey, here we are in Hawaii.

But you and I know that that doesn't show
anything.

Unless you have the metadata from those
photographs, it doesn't mean anything.

And they never got the actual photographs
from Miss Knowles.

They just got an email
with Facebook posts that

are purportedly posted
on the 4th of February.

But it doesn't say that that's when
they're standing there on the beach.

So we have no idea.

At any point during that relationship, did
you and Mr. Cavanaugh travel to Hawaii?

Yes.

Do you recall when you returned from
Hawaii?

February.

Middle of February.

They weren't even in a relationship
anymore.

She really had... I mean, it was clear she
didn't like Dan.

There was no love lost between the two of
them.

There wasn't a reason for her to lie for
him.

It's not uncommon for a victim of domestic
violence to lie for the person.

When you talk to his
girlfriend at the time, Miss

Knowles, remember, she's
the victim of domestic violence.

She was afraid of him.

And I think if she would have
said anything that would put

Dan in jeopardy, I think she
would have had retaliation.

I mean, she has seen firsthand what he's
capable of.

Are you afraid of Dan?

Again, she violates the court's orders.

Oh, she didn't answer.

Um... It makes me uncomfortable.

I mean, they're making this guy out like
he's a stone-cold killer.

Put Dan up against another guy,
and he'll run.

I think that they knew they couldn't win.

So the whole case, everything they did was
created out.

I think he's guilty of a lot of things,
but it's not murder.

Well, Dan Kavanaugh threatening to bring
down the business.

They could also be seen as temper
tantrums, right?

Uh, spouting off, blowing off hot air,
right?

Without more, there's no evidence that,
in fact, he did that.

They kept saying it over and over.

There's Dan Kavanaugh.

What about Dan Kavanaugh?

What about Dan Kavanaugh?

I'm like, what do they have that I missed?

Where is this other evidence that pointed
Dan being the killer?

And I never got that.

So, um, I'm still waiting for it if they
have it.

Who can we take off the list?

We couldn't eliminate Chase.

There was just overwhelming evidence that
just kept leading us back to Chase.

Traces of Merritt's DNA were discovered
inside the McStay's abandoned Isuzu trooper.

Prosecutors argue in 2010, Merritt killed
his close friend, Joseph McStay,

McStay's wife, Summer, and their two
young children, Giovanni and Joseph Jr.

, in their Fallbrook
home, out of greed.

Traces of Merritt's DNA were discovered
inside the McStay's abandoned Isuzu trooper.

This is the McStay's whitest Isuzu trooper
that was recovered.

San Diego retrieves the McStay's Isuzu
trooper.

They photograph it.

They do DNA swabs.

So when we got the investigation,
we get the swabs that they collected.

They weren't processed, but they collected
them.

So we do get a DNA hit on Joseph.

I believe Summer's DNA was in there as a
trace.

And then so was Charles Merritt's DNA as a
trace contributor on the driver's side.

There is evidence in this case that the
defendant's profile existed on the

steering wheel gear shifter of the
trooper.

One of those samples was at a greater
prevalence than even Summer.

It was not located anywhere in the
passenger area swap.

We have evidence of someone having DNA
located in a position consistent with a

driver of a vehicle which he claims never
to have driven.

We have evidence of the trooper.

Have you ever been in it?

Have you ever been in it?

Yeah.

When the last time I was in it,
we played paintball, camp penalty.

Front passenger.

But never driven.

Never driven.

Detective Fisk asked you if you'd ever
drove the trooper.

And you said no, you
had only been a passenger

on the trooper when
you went paintballing.

I just want to clarify that with you.

Actually, that isn't what I said,
because I remember the conversation.

Just refresh my memory, actually.

I mean, I only drove it two or three times
and only short distances, so...

This interview is how many years later?

That was in 2010.

This is in 2014.

Four years later, he's trying to recall
what he told Fisk and Dugal, right?

It was four years prior.

Chase was not going to remember.

It's silly.

The one thing the DNA
analysis and the trooper tells us is

that one thing for sure is that
he did not drive the trooper.

He certainly didn't drive to San Ysidro
because he would have been caked with DNA.

That steering wheel would have been caked
with his DNA as opposed to trace transfer

DNA on the right side of the steering
wheel.

They had trace DNA of Chase inside the
vehicle.

You shake someone's hand, you exchange
sweat between that hand, and you get in

the vehicle, and you transfer it inside
the vehicle.

As we highlighted, there's no DNA on the
inside where you close the door.

There's none on the side mirrors or any of
the things you would do, seat belt,

any of that.

It's on the steering wheel, and it's on
the gear shift or center controls,

because they swabbed all of that with the
same item.

Which was poor investigation work on its
own.

When we were talking with
our crime scene specialist,

they're like, they should
have broke that down.

They should have, one thing for the air
conditioning, one thing for the gear shift.

And so you knew where it came from.

The DNA was either on
the gear shift, center console,

4x4 shifter, the air
conditioning, or radio control.

One of those.

But they have no flippin' clue which one,
because they use one swab for all of those.

To say it's on the gear
shift is basically an

inference that they believe
I was driving the car.

And that's just simply not true.

If Chase Merritt's driving
that vehicle, his DNA

would be over more
than just those two spots.

My plan was, which
I like to do, is use the

people's expert to the
benefit of the defense.

My name is Donald Thomas Jones.

D-O-N-A-L-B-P-H-O-M-A-S-J-O-N-E-S.

Some of the studies that I
had you review, they talked

about the analysis of
DNA found inside vehicles.

Correct?

Yes, sir.

And people that have
never even been in the

vehicle could still be
on the steering wheel.

I don't remember that specifically,
but I would say that that's a possibility.

Would it be reasonable
for you to conclude that

this could be secondary
transfer DNA in the vehicle?

It is a possible explanation for that.

Is it a reasonable one?

I believe it is reasonable, yes,
sir.

The defense claimed that it was placed
there by touch DNA transfer due to a

handshake that occurred during the meeting
in the Rancho Chick-fil-A.

The problem with that is they never
produced evidence of that meeting.

You ever see that guy shake hands with
Joseph McStay?

No, sir, I did not.

Okay.

So when you were asked, is that
reasonable?

And you responded, I believe it is.

It was making the assumption that there
had been that interaction.

They never produced evidence of a
handshake.

So there was no
evidence in the record that

any DNA would possibly
have been transferred.

Well, you know, they're trying to say
this, but there's no proof of that.

Well, wait a minute.

My attorney should have objected,
like, right then.

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.

That's reversing the burden of proof.

We don't have to prove bitterly shit.

You have to.

I could see the writing of the wall.

And, well, both Jim and Raj.

I said, the problem is, you two have lost
this case.

You're getting me convicted.

And Jim says, I think you're
over-exaggerating.

And I said, no, Jim.

I'm going to be convicted.

There's no question.

And if I don't testify, I have no chance.

Visiting my dad yesterday, he said he's
about 90% sure that he's going to testify.

And it's mostly because he just,
I think he just feels frustrated having to

sit there and listen to
all of these fragments of

the story that aren't really
being pulled together.

We all assumed he would testify just
because of his narcissism.

That he had to tell his story,
that he had to be in control.

He had to control the narrative.

There's no way he wouldn't let this whole
trial go without him having his say.

He's a rat on a sinking ship.

He'll do whatever he can to survive,
no matter what gets in his way.

As far as me testifying, I...

Right now I'm 50-50.

It's going to put me over the edge one way
or the other.

And, obviously, I'm a gambler.

So, we're in a good place, Chase.

We're at reasonable doubt.

You get on the stand...

Whoa.

Nobody can stop you from testifying,
including your lawyers.

Do you understand that?

Yes.

It was blow, after blow, after blow,
to a child's skull.

That is an intentional killing by this
man.

My defense attorneys were not on board
with each other.

They did argue different things.

We, the jury, in the other titled action,
find the defendant, Charles Ray Merritt.

Hi.

How's it going?

Can you tell me who you are?

I'm Daniel Kavanagh.