Extra! Extra! Court Overturns Conviction in Murder of Harmony Montgomery

[00:00:00] [SPEAKER_01] I'm Anya, and today we're going to be talking about some pretty shocking legal developments in the case of a murdered little girl. Content warning, this episode contains discussion of murder, including the murder of a child. I want to warn everybody, it also contains incredibly graphic descriptions of child abuse. So, be warned.

[00:00:22] [SPEAKER_00] So, as we record, there was just earlier a very surprising decision out of the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The murder conviction of Adam Montgomery for the death of his child Harmony was overturned. A lot of people are very upset about it. They have questions. Why did this happen? How did it happen? So, we're going to go through this decision with you and try to answer those questions.

[00:00:49] [SPEAKER_01] Yes. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[00:00:53] [SPEAKER_00] And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet. We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:01:05] [SPEAKER_01] And this is Extra Extra Court Overturns Conviction in Murder of Harmony Montgomery.

[00:01:11] [SPEAKER_00] Well, let's get right into it. I think the thing to do is to take a close look at this decision, a multi-page decision, and it opens up with a description of the offenses with which Mr. Montgomery was charged.

[00:02:14] [SPEAKER_00] I think that's a good place to begin because it really outlines the horror of what happened and what we are dealing with. Anya, would you mind reading?

[00:02:25] [SPEAKER_01] Sure. You want me to read this bolded part right here in paragraph two?

[00:02:29] [SPEAKER_00] Yes.

[00:02:30] [SPEAKER_01] The defendant was the biological father of the victim, Harmony Montgomery. In February 2019, the victim went to live with the defendant and his wife, Kayla Montgomery, at the defendant's grandmother's home in Manchester. In July 2019, when the first charged offense occurred, the victim was five years old. The other occupants of the home at that time included the defendant's uncle and the two biological children of the defendant and Kayla.

[00:02:59] [SPEAKER_01] Both of those children were younger than the victim. The defendant's uncle returned home in July from a three-week trip and saw the victim in the kitchen with a black eye. The uncle asked the victim what she had done, and the defendant answered, She didn't do anything. I bashed her around the fucking house. The uncle testified that the defendant said he put the victim in charge to watch her five-month-old brother while the defendant used the bathroom.

[00:03:23] [SPEAKER_01] And when the defendant returned, he found the victim with her hands over the baby's mouth and his lips were supposedly blue.

[00:03:30] [SPEAKER_00] Okay, that is pretty brutal stuff. It gets worse. Anya, would you read the next bold section?

[00:03:38] [SPEAKER_01] On November 27, 2019, the defendant's family was evicted from the home in Manchester. The defendant, Kayla, and the three children began living in their car, which they parked at a friend's apartment complex in Manchester. Although the victim was toilet-trained before she was three years old, she started to have accidents once the family began living in the car. When the victim had an accident, the defendant became angry and would hit her in the face or on her leg or hand.

[00:04:04] [SPEAKER_01] The defendant became angrier the more accidents the victims had and would then hit her repeatedly. On December 7, 2019, the victim had an accident early in the morning and the defendant repeatedly punched her in the head. Later that morning, the family drove to a methadone clinic where Kayla and the defendant took turns going inside while the others stayed in the car with the children. When the defendant returned to the car, he realized the victim had another accident and started yelling at her and hitting her in the head repeatedly.

[00:04:32] [SPEAKER_01] From the methadone clinic, the defendant drove the family to Burger King. While they were driving, the victim was in the backseat crying and making strange moaning-like noises. The defendant told the victim to shut up, and at each red light at which they stopped, the defendant reached back and repeatedly punched the victim in the head. The defendant stopped hitting the victim when they got to Burger King. With the final punch, he said in a scared voice that he felt something and thought he really hurt her this time.

[00:04:59] [SPEAKER_00] This is absolutely horrible stuff, but let's just get through this. There's a couple more paragraphs in bold. Why don't you read those? I think it's really important. As hard as this is to listen to, it really gives us the context we need.

[00:05:14] [SPEAKER_01] I don't know how anyone could treat their baby like this. She's a baby. She's five. Quote, later that day, the family's car broke down at a traffic light and they had to abandon it. As the defendant and Kayla were getting the children out of the car, the victim did not respond and they realized she had died. The defendant got a duffel bag from the trunk and put the victim's body in it and brought it back to the friend's apartment complex where the defendant put it in a snowbank.

[00:05:38] [SPEAKER_01] Following the loss of their car, the family stayed in a friend's car, then with Kayla's mother, and then from December 30th through February 20th at the Families in Transition Shelter in Manchester, which is also known as FIT. The defendant brought the duffel bag containing the victim's body to each place where they stayed. At FIT, the defendant put the duffel bag in the ceiling vent in their room. When the victim's body began to smell and leak fluid, the defendant put the body into garbage bags, which he then stuffed into a diaper bag.

[00:06:08] [SPEAKER_01] The defendant worked at a restaurant at that time and would store the bag in the restaurant's freezer while he was there. The family moved from FIT to an apartment in Manchester. There, the defendant kept the victim's body in the apartment's freezer. The defendant began discussing getting rid of the victim's body and devised a plan to dismember her and use lime, which he believed would hasten decomposition of the body.

[00:06:29] [SPEAKER_01] On February 26th, the defendant withdrew cash from an ATM and purchased lime, an angle grinder, a blade, and a battery. At some point thereafter, the defendant thawed the victim's body in the bathtub at the apartment and had Kayla help remove the victim's clothing. The defendant had a large bag of lime and spent several hours in the bathroom with the victim's body. When the defendant was finished, he put the victim's body back into the diaper bag and put the bag back in the freezer.

[00:06:57] [SPEAKER_00] Keep going.

[00:06:58] [SPEAKER_01] On March 3rd, the defendant and Kayla stayed at an Econo lodge with a friend of the defendant and the friend's girlfriend. The defendant had asked the friend to rent a U-Haul for him because he needed to move stuff. That evening, the friend arranged the rental. Back at the hotel, the friend and the defendant went outside to smoke a cigarette, and the defendant began pacing back and forth, repeating, I fucked up. The defendant left the hotel in the U-Haul in the middle of the night. He took the diaper bag containing the victim's body with him and returned without it.

[00:07:28] [SPEAKER_01] Telling Kayla he got rid of her.

[00:07:30] [SPEAKER_00] Okay, that's basically the elements of this offense. It's horrifying. It's incredibly disturbing. I almost say it's especially disturbing if you're a parent, but I imagine this is disturbing to anyone, whether you're a parent or not, to think about the terrible abuse this child suffered. And even about the callous way her body was treated after she was deceased.

[00:07:59] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, how parents could do that to their own child. I mean, how you could do that to any child. But certainly, it's very disturbing and sort of counter to what we think is the natural way of loving and protecting your children.

[00:08:10] [SPEAKER_00] So let's talk about what he was charged with one count of each of the following offenses, second-degree murder, second-degree assault for having struck the victim in July of 2019, falsifying physical evidence and witness tampering, also charged by criminal complaint with abuse of a corpse.

[00:08:33] [SPEAKER_00] So let's go back to our tried-and-true example of Anya stealing boxes of cereal. And let's also keep in mind that one thing that often happens in criminal matters is if a person is charged with one or more offenses and they are kind of related, then it makes sense for a variety of reasons. Let's just try them both at the same time.

[00:09:02] [SPEAKER_00] So if Anya goes down to the local grocery store and steals two boxes of cereal, I think we would all agree it wouldn't make a lot of sense for us to have a trial for her stealing one box and then a month later have a separate trial for whether or not she stole the second box. These are related. Let's just have one trial for all the charges. Does that make sense?

[00:09:29] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, and that's typically how things play out.

[00:09:31] [SPEAKER_00] But I think it would also be easy for us to imagine situations where, oh, this person is charged with multiple offenses, but they are so different, they're so separated in time, it doesn't make sense to do it all at once. Or you could also argue it isn't even fair to the defendant to do them all at once.

[00:09:56] [SPEAKER_00] Maybe you stole a box of cereal at the local store last week, maybe 20 years ago. You stole a box of cereal from New York. Let's not do both of those at once, even without considering any statute of limitation issues. And with all of that in mind, let's also talk about something we've talked about quite a lot on this show,

[00:10:21] [SPEAKER_00] which is that when a person is on trial for a particular offense, you want to do everything you can to make sure that the jury is judging their innocence or guilt for that one particular offense. You don't want to be in a situation where a prosecutor can stand up there and say, oh, this is a bad person.

[00:10:49] [SPEAKER_00] Here's a lot of bad stuff this person did that's not even related to the crime, but it's going to make you think he's bad. And if you think he's bad, you're more likely to convict him. You know what I'm saying?

[00:11:01] [SPEAKER_01] I do know what you're saying.

[00:11:02] [SPEAKER_00] So we don't want that. We only want stuff admitted that is going to deal with the one particular offense. So...

[00:11:11] [SPEAKER_01] Can I ask you something?

[00:11:12] [SPEAKER_00] Please do.

[00:11:13] [SPEAKER_01] So like when we were talking about the Alec Murdoch case that we've covered recently, now that one got overturned for different reasons, but not because of this, because when it came to his many, many financial crimes, that was a whole separate matter. And then they did the murders separately. So is that like a case where it's like they don't... And even the higher court even kind of said, hey, probably too much of the financial stuff came in to the murder trial.

[00:11:40] [SPEAKER_01] But at least they were trying in principle to separate those things.

[00:11:44] [SPEAKER_00] Yes. So with all of that said, the defendant, Mr. Montgomery, when he came to court, basically his argument was the person who delivered the fatal blow that killed the child wasn't me. It was Kayla. And as it happens at the time of the final blow,

[00:12:11] [SPEAKER_00] the only adults in the car were him and Kayla. We have her testimony about what happened. But it's basically his argument is there are two words against each other. Now, when we look at these other charges, when we look at whether or not he assaulted her on this other occasion, there's lots of evidence for that. There's lots of witnesses saying he did this.

[00:12:39] [SPEAKER_00] We know he assaulted her. So his argument was these two offenses shouldn't have been charged together because I'm concerned that the jury looked at these offenses and said, oh, this guy is clearly guilty of this assault, where we have witnesses, as we've just heard, who've seen evidence of that assault.

[00:13:08] [SPEAKER_00] And so since he did that assault, therefore I think he's more likely to be guilty of the crime that ended with her death. That's the argument. I'm curious what your thoughts are about that.

[00:13:26] [SPEAKER_01] Okay. I mean, listen, I always feel like I'm kind of the hot-headed reporter on the show or whatever. And I try to understand the cold legal kind of principles behind this. I think I understand the principles. Personally? I don't know. I'm like, as somebody, I don't know. I guess my interaction is like, what?

[00:13:54] [SPEAKER_01] So we're supposed to give scumbags a billion different trials just in case? I mean, it's like, how much public resources have to be wasted on these people? Like, yeah. You know, you're like a scumbag child abuser. You can't take care of your family. Can't even protect your family from yourself.

[00:14:19] [SPEAKER_01] But, you know, the taxpayers have got to foot the bill for like, you know, multiple different trials for each of this. Just to be fair. It's just, I don't know. It gets to a point, Kevin, where I just think it's kind of ridiculous, I guess. It's kind of ridiculous. But I get it. I get it at the same time. I mean, I want trials to be fair, blah, blah, blah, whatever. I just, I just, at some point, it just feels like it's getting neurotic.

[00:14:45] [SPEAKER_00] The temperatures are rising. That doesn't mean your spending has to. Shop our wonderful sponsor, Quince.

[00:14:52] [SPEAKER_01] Quince is our go-to brand when it comes to clothing. Their pieces look great and feel great. They're clothes that we feel excited to put on again and again. Plus, they go with everything. We're talking about premium-made wardrobe staples that last, that you can wear all the time.

[00:15:07] [SPEAKER_00] Quince doesn't do markups or middlemen. They partner with top ethical artisans and factories to ensure they're giving you the best. And all of their products are 50 to 80 percent less expensive than what you'd find at competitors.

[00:15:23] [SPEAKER_01] This summer, shop their breathable European linen shorts and shirts starting only at $34. And Quince does more than just clothes. Check out their ceramic cookware line, their premium bedding, and their custom upholstered sofas.

[00:15:36] [SPEAKER_00] I have two pieces coming in. The 100% European linen relaxed short-sleeved shirt in Martini Olive. I'm branching out and trying new things, which means button-downs with short sleeves. What a concept. It's casual but put together and perfectly lightweight for the sticky summer months. I also got new pants. The Comfort Stretch Traveler 5 Pocket Pants Athletic Tapered in Dark Charcoal. They look professional and put together with a great sharp fit and a nice stretch.

[00:16:06] [SPEAKER_01] Elevate your summer wardrobe. Go to quince.com slash msheet for free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's quince.com slash msheet for free shipping and 365-day returns. Quince.com slash msheet. This message is sponsored by Greenlight.

[00:16:26] [SPEAKER_00] It's always scary when someone tries to scam your family. We had scammers hack into our relative's email and send all of his email contacts junk. Thank goodness we were all able to fix it and it did not go beyond that. But the problem is huge and growing. Families lost $12.5 billion to fraud last year. With Greenlight Family Shield, you can keep your family from becoming a statistic.

[00:16:51] [SPEAKER_01] Greenlight Family Shield is an app that helps keep your whole family safe from scams and fraud. Not just one person. Your grandparents. Your kids. You. That's because Greenlight knows that this affects everybody in your family when it happens. Greenlight Family Shield protects with financial account monitoring, credit locking, and real-time alerts when potential fraud is detected. They offer up to a million dollars of identity theft coverage so you can have peace of mind.

[00:17:17] [SPEAKER_00] Unfortunately, as true crime podcasters, we know that fraudsters and scammers are trying to rip you off all the time. Greenlight Family Shield puts the power back in your hands and it takes just minutes to set up.

[00:17:30] [SPEAKER_01] We love their identity protection services. We also love that they're monitoring our financial accounts and that they'll lock our credit in an instant if something goes wrong. We use Greenlight and you should too.

[00:17:42] [SPEAKER_00] Scammers are not waiting. Neither should you. Go to greenlight.com slash msheet right now to get started. That's greenlight.com slash msheet. Greenlight.com slash msheet.

[00:17:56] [SPEAKER_01] You know, like, and personally, I think knowing what we know now about child abuse, about violent parents, about any kind of domestic violence, why shouldn't the people hear that? That seems highly relevant.

[00:18:14] [SPEAKER_01] You know, acting like, I mean, listen, I get, I get, listen, if you have an instance of a guy being accused of murdering his wife and then they bring out, well, he was a drug dealer. I don't really think that's necessarily fair. You can be a drug dealer, not murder your wife. And if the state theory of the crime has nothing to do with the drug dealing, it was like a fight between them. I don't think they should get to bring that in. I agree with that.

[00:18:38] [SPEAKER_01] But, like, from a common sense perspective, I just feel like this just feels like, yeah, this is highly relevant that he's been abusing her and targeting her and, like, abusing her in such a heinous way and going after her and almost treating her just, like, so poorly. I don't know. It's like I kind of am often torn, as they say on the show, between my, like, I understand our rule of law.

[00:19:04] [SPEAKER_01] I want defendants' rights to be protected, but sometimes in cases I feel like it gets to the point where it's like, I mean, I don't know. I don't know what to tell you. It's kind of, it's pretty obvious what happened here.

[00:19:14] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, I understand what you're saying. Obviously, they're contending that by having the trial on both charges simultaneously, it was a way to, like, sneak in some character witness under, some character evidence under a different pretext.

[00:19:31] [SPEAKER_00] And the state, I want to stress, strongly disagreed with the idea that the evidence for the murder itself was weak, even though the testimony for that came only from Kayla. I want to read some more from this, quote,

[00:19:51] [SPEAKER_00] The state disputes, however, that the evidence on the murder charge was weak, arguing that so much of what Kayla said was corroborated by physical evidence that it was easy to credit the parts of her testimony that lacked such corroboration. Specifically, the state contends, 1. Kayla's testimony that the defendant stored the victim's body in the ceiling of their room at FIT was corroborated by DNA and fingerprint evidence taken from that ceiling.

[00:20:17] [SPEAKER_00] 2. Kayla's testimony that the defendant stored the bag containing the victim's body in the freezer at work was corroborated by two of the defendant's co-workers who testified that they saw the defendant entering or leaving the restaurant's walk-in cooler with the bag.

[00:20:31] [SPEAKER_00] 3. Kayla's testimony that the defendant was corroborated by evidence that a $500 cash withdrawal was made from Kayla's joint bank account 22 minutes before a nearly $400 cash purchase of items, including a bag of lime and an angle grinder was made at a nearby Home Depot.

[00:20:54] [SPEAKER_00] 4. Kayla's testimony that the defendant was corroborated by testimony that the defendant was corroborated by testimony of the friend, his girlfriend, and the person who rented the U-Haul. 4. This evidence, notes the court, however, supports only Kayla's testimony about the defendant's actions after the victim's death.

[00:21:19] [SPEAKER_00] It does not corroborate her testimony that the defendant killed the victim on December 7th by repeatedly punching her in the head." 4. So while the court is saying, everything she's saying that we can check out from other sources checks out. We think she's a really good witness. And the court is saying, well, we only care about what she says that can't be checked out by any other witness.

[00:21:47] [SPEAKER_00] And we are concerned that the jury's decision was influenced by the strength of the evidence against the other charges. Does that make sense? I mean, I understand what you're saying, yes. Obviously, you strongly disagree.

[00:22:08] [SPEAKER_01] I just, I don't know. It's like, it's like we bend over backwards. It's, I don't know. It seems pretty stupid to me, but I get the principle behind it and I support the principle behind it. I just think, I feel like at some point it's just splitting hairs. You know what I mean? And like, I just, I don't, it just seems like a tremendous waste of time and resources for everybody.

[00:22:32] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, it certainly.

[00:22:33] [SPEAKER_01] So we can make sure this absolute scumbag, you know, gets his fair day. It's like, I get that. I want the absolute scumbags to get their, you know, day in trial and have fairness be the case for them along with everyone else. We need that, right? You can't just say, well, this guy's a bad guy, so throw out the Constitution. That's, that throws out the Constitution for everybody. I understand that.

[00:22:56] [SPEAKER_01] I just feel like at some point this is just getting, I mean, this just seems like, I mean, like, why not let the jury decide? Like, which they did. I mean, it's like, oh yeah, they're influenced by that. But, you know, I don't know, doesn't it seem, is it not relevant that he's consistently abusing her? And then is the one who's taking such pains to cover up the murder? I don't know. I feel like, I mean, what do you think?

[00:23:26] [SPEAKER_00] I don't agree with this decision. I don't necessarily think it's a crazy or an insane decision. I understand where they were coming from. I also understand and to some extent share the visceral anger and disgust.

[00:23:44] [SPEAKER_00] When you look at this person and you think of the harm and the violence he perpetrated against this child who deserved to have him as her protector and to think that he did this and he's going to put us all through another trial. There's something about that that's disgusting and infuriating. I certainly feel that.

[00:24:11] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, it's disgusting. It's just a waste of space. It would have been better if this guy had died before killing his daughter because then she would have lived and she was an innocent child and deserved to live. And he, frankly, based on his character, didn't. Like, it's just and now he's got to, you know, drag the people of New Hampshire through this again, drag all the people who are in this case through this again, you know, waste a bunch of money. It just it's like at some point I feel like they're just it's like there's finite resources in the world.

[00:24:40] [SPEAKER_01] And the fact that we're having to and it's not all about money. It's just what more of what it means. You know what I mean? Like that it is just a waste. I'm not. I mean, on some level, I do think it's a crazy decision. On another level, I don't think it's a crazy decision. I do understand what they're talking about. I understand it. And maybe if the facts were a little bit different, I would be more amenable to being like, yeah, I totally get that.

[00:25:06] [SPEAKER_01] Maybe I'm just reacting emotionally because it's a little girl and because of what he did to her. I definitely concede that. I just feel like it. When people say all the criminals have all the rights, I'm always like, guys, that's for a good reason, because we have a constitution and that means we all have rights. Right. But sometimes you got a hand to tell those people when you see a case like this go down because you're just like, oh, my God.

[00:25:34] [SPEAKER_00] Let me read another.

[00:25:35] [SPEAKER_01] You're kidding.

[00:25:36] [SPEAKER_00] Let me read another excerpt here. Quote, here is the case was presented at trial. Well, the jury was asked to determine which of the two adults who were with the victim on December 6th and 7th, 2019, the defendant or Kayla killed her. While the jury heard no evidence that Kayla had ever physically assaulted the victim, it heard evidence from multiple witnesses that the defendant physically assaulted the victim in July 2019.

[00:25:58] [SPEAKER_00] Thus, there was a significant risk that the jury would draw the impermissible inference that because the defendant assaulted the victim before by striking her in the head, he must be the one who fatally assaulted her in December by again striking her in the head. End quote. So what they're saying there is just because we can prove and know that a person did something in July, that shouldn't be proof that he did something in December.

[00:26:29] [SPEAKER_00] I do think it's relevant. We know common sense that she was basically killed by either Kayla or Mr. Montgomery. And we know certainly that one of those people has a documented history of abuse. So common sense does come into play.

[00:26:51] [SPEAKER_01] Well, apparently it doesn't in New Hampshire. I have a question. You hear about other cases where people bring in like, oh, this this boyfriend has a history of abusing this woman who was murdered then in a way that looked like, you know, he beat her up. Like you hear about that in some cases and in some cases it seems like the prosecution is able to get that in where it's like the circumstances outweigh. Personally, I also just want to say, like, I feel like, you know, I understand this principle.

[00:27:20] [SPEAKER_01] I think it's an important principle. But I also think like when you apply it so stringently in this case, it sort of misunderstands like the reality of abuse, physical abuse and the reality of child abuse. It seems like it is highly relevant for the jury to know, hey, if we're deciding between who did it, Kayla or this guy, you know, we should probably know about who was documented as having, you know, been beating her up constantly.

[00:27:45] [SPEAKER_01] It just like what like where's the line of like something that is relevant and you can bring it in or you can say, hey, this serial killer has a history of raping women. And that's what happened here. Like where does where's the line?

[00:27:58] [SPEAKER_00] It's difficult to say. It's also important to note that evidence which is impermissible in one context can be brought in in another context. So it's possible you could bring in some of this evidence through other routes. They're just saying this one particular route of bringing it in by doing the two charges together was impermissible. And they said that the jury did not get good instructions.

[00:28:27] [SPEAKER_00] The court notes, quote, the instruction said only that the jury must consider each indictment separately and that its verdict on one indictment cannot influence its verdict on another. Nothing in the instruction, however, told the jurors that they were prohibited from considering the evidence admitted on one charge when reaching their verdict on another.

[00:28:49] [SPEAKER_00] The instruction then left the jury free to consider evidence of the defendant's assault on the victim in July when deliberating on the second degree murder charge, end quote.

[00:28:58] [SPEAKER_01] Okay. So what I'm hearing you say there is that if they had brought some of this abuse in through other means, if the prosecution had managed to do that.

[00:29:08] [SPEAKER_00] Then perhaps.

[00:29:08] [SPEAKER_01] Then perhaps it would have been okay. But the combination is where they're drawing more of a line. I understand that.

[00:29:14] [SPEAKER_00] And again, let's say you are on trial for charges of stealing a box of cereal in June of last year and July of last year. And in June, we have you on videotape stealing the cereal and making a sign on videotape saying, I did it. I'm guilty. Ha ha ha.

[00:29:38] [SPEAKER_01] That is my M.O.

[00:29:39] [SPEAKER_00] And then in July, there's no evidence whatsoever other than an eyewitness who thinks they may have seen you. You wouldn't want to be convicted of the second offense just because people thought, well, look at what she did in June. That's the argument.

[00:29:57] [SPEAKER_01] I think sometimes lawyers just disappear into like I respect the law. I respect what judges and lawyers are doing. I get it. I just think a lot of it's a hard it's I think it's a hard thing to sell this to the public. I think the public sees this and they say, well, where's the common sense? And it's hard. It's hard for me to accept it, frankly.

[00:30:23] [SPEAKER_01] And and I feel like I, you know, am more immersed in this than most people. But it's like, you know, at some point sometimes with these rulings, even when I think there's an understandable legal reason for it, it can just be something that's so frustrating to look at because you're just like, OK, I guess we should just all like. You know, check out of reality here and like, you know, leave our common sense at the door. You know, I think it's hard to shake that. I think that's a real valid reaction to it.

[00:30:53] [SPEAKER_01] But I don't I don't think that means we should like be hating on judges or saying, oh, well, you know, it's all a disaster. There's there can be good reasons for this. And certainly I think, you know, there's a principle of it's better for one guilty person to go. It's what is better for one guilty person to go. Sorry, 10 guilty people to go free than one innocent person be wrongfully convicted. And and I understand that. And and all of that is fine.

[00:31:22] [SPEAKER_01] It's just more of like when it gets implemented sometimes in these cases, I think people, including myself, are just like, what?

[00:31:28] [SPEAKER_00] It's infuriating. Infuriating. I think the evidence clearly shows that this man and I use that term loosely, that this individual, this creature, that he is guilty of this offense. It's important to remember this is not the end of the process. This doesn't mean there won't ultimately be justice in this case. But it is awful to think of everybody having to go through and do all of this again.

[00:31:58] [SPEAKER_01] I mean, there may be justice in this case, but there may not be. I mean, let's not let's let sugarcoat it. I'm confident there'd be justice in this case. I don't know. All you need is one weird jury. Is there anything else in this that we should read?

[00:32:17] [SPEAKER_00] I think we got through the gist of it. And we just want to give people this quick update.

[00:32:22] [SPEAKER_01] I do have a question for you. Is this something where was there a dissent or was this unanimous?

[00:32:29] [SPEAKER_00] I'm not clear on that. I was just looking at the primary opinion.

[00:32:32] [SPEAKER_01] OK. Primary opinion. Well, you know, I mean, I think this is horrible and I do feel terror. I mean, like this is it's just this poor kid. I mean, this is how how people stood by, frankly, and allowed this to happen. I do not understand if if a kid is getting beaten up in a house that should be an emergency situation. And, you know, I don't I don't understand any sort of culture where that's considered

[00:33:01] [SPEAKER_01] normal or or OK. This kid deserves so much better. And to be used as a punching bag by your own father at the age of five. I mean, the terror she must have experienced on a daily basis living with her abuser in such close quarters is really. It's really hard to think about. And I. Yeah.

[00:33:22] [SPEAKER_00] The opinion was delivered by Gould and it says at the end here that McDonald, Donovan and Count Way concurred.

[00:33:32] [SPEAKER_01] All right. So, I mean, they seem to feel like this is this is a pretty solid maledict law. And listen, I get it. I mean, I get I get annoyed with this stuff, but I get it. And ultimately, I think it's. There's a like there's instances in the law, Kevin, where I get mad and I'm like, this shouldn't be this way. And then other times it's like, wow, this is a really terrible outcome and this stinks and I disagree with it. But also I understand it. And that's where this falls for me. How about you?

[00:34:01] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, it's frustrating. As I say, it's not it's not a crazy or insane opinion. It's an infuriating opinion, but it's not crazy or insane.

[00:34:09] [SPEAKER_01] Well, one can only hope that justice is ultimately delivered for harmony. And it just, yeah, my heart breaks for that kid. That's horrible. But thank you for doing this research. I really appreciate you, Kevin.

[00:34:22] [SPEAKER_00] Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail.com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[00:34:42] [SPEAKER_01] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[00:35:05] [SPEAKER_00] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet, and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com.

[00:35:15] [SPEAKER_01] If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.