The Murder of Faith Hedgepeth: The Trial of Miguel Enrique Salguero-Olivares: Day Eight: Cookouts and Calls

[00:00:00] [SPEAKER_05] I am in love with Miracle Balm from our new sponsor, Jones Road Beauty. Now, let's be clear, I'm not the biggest makeup wearer in the world. Sometimes I skip wearing makeup because it just doesn't feel good. It's too cakey, it looks bad or off, and sometimes I'm just in way too much of a rush to apply it well. But when I put on my Miracle Balm, it looks natural, fresh, effortless. I put it on and I could head out to dinner with friends or a little date night with Kevin, or we could go to court. I love how lightweight it feels and I love that it gives me a bit of a glow.

[00:00:28] [SPEAKER_05] It's just this kind of clean, natural look that I love. I adore how it enhances my skin instead of just hiding it. Also for me, it's just so convenient. I could put it on really fast. Like one day after we were super busy with the podcast, Kevin and I went out for dinner and a movie, the new MST3K reboot. So even though I didn't have a lot of time, I put it on and loved the way I looked. It took about like five minutes at most. Also, clean beauty is a must for me.

[00:00:51] [SPEAKER_01] This formula is packed with ingredients that love your skin with no phthalates, sulfates or BPA.

[00:00:58] [SPEAKER_05] No clogging, no clumping, just convenient beauty. Miracle Balm requires no brushes. Use it as a highlighter, a bronzer, a blush, lip tint, whatever you want. They'll have you glowing up in 60 seconds. They did for me. Oh, and definitely try their minimalist defining mascara too. The formula leaves your lashes so soft and feathery, no clumps, and it's the most natural looking definition.

[00:01:18] [SPEAKER_05] Modern day makeup that's clean, strategic and multifunctional for effortless routines. For a limited time, our listeners are getting a free full sized mascara on their first purchase when they use code M sheet at checkout. Just head to jonesroadbeauty.com and use code M sheet at checkout. After you purchase, they will ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them our show sent you.

[00:01:41] [SPEAKER_05] I'm Anya, and today we're going to be catching up on the eighth day of an ongoing murder trial in North Carolina. Content warning. This episode contains discussion of rape and murder. All right, folks, so we're back. Sorry we missed you on Friday, which was, of course, day eight of the Faith Hedgepath murder trial. We had a bunch of stuff going on and ended up going down to Johnson County, Indiana to try to get our hands on some documents that we did not get.

[00:02:09] [SPEAKER_05] So we wasted a day, but that's OK because we're back and we're going to catch up and we're going to basically be taking you through everything that happened on Friday. And that's important because a lot of important things happened on Friday. We got to hear a lot of really interesting stuff that I think is going to really illuminate this case and even further. So let's revisit why we're here. Faith Hedgepath was a 19 year old young woman attending UNC Chapel Hill.

[00:02:36] [SPEAKER_05] She was a sophomore. She was living with her friend Karina Rosario off campus in an apartment on the Durham County Chapel Hill border in Durham County. And unfortunately, she was brutally raped and murdered on September 7th, 2012. This case went unsolved for a long time. Then on September 16th, 2021, there was an arrest, a man named Miguel Enrique Salguero Olivares.

[00:03:03] [SPEAKER_05] Not someone who Faith seemingly knew. And police and prosecutors are saying this is the guy who did this to her. The defense is saying, no, you got it wrong. The defense is led by James Rainsford. Also on that team, Jason Murphy, Christopher Barnes. On the prosecution side, we have Lisa Coltrane, a special state prosecutor. We have Angela Garcia Lamarca, who is a Durham County assistant district attorney. And then her colleague, Brooke Stone.

[00:03:31] [SPEAKER_05] The judge is the Honorable Keith O. Gregory. So that's everything that's going on. Today, we're going to get to some really interesting stuff. We had the wrap up, so to speak, of the DNA expert Aaron Ermish. We also heard from the man who threw this cookout that coincided with Faith's murder that is central to the prosecution's case.

[00:03:55] [SPEAKER_05] We also heard from somebody who is related to the defendant and then a couple of other folks, including a State Bureau of Investigation special agent and someone who worked at the detention center where he was able to kind of authenticate calls made by the defendant. So let's get into all of that and what it all means. How's that sound, Kevin?

[00:04:17] [SPEAKER_01] That sounds great. Let's do it.

[00:04:18] [SPEAKER_05] Let's do it. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[00:04:22] [SPEAKER_01] 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.

[00:04:34] [SPEAKER_05] And this is the murder of Faith Hedgepeth, the trial of Miguel Enrique Salguero Olivares, Day 8, cookouts and calls.

[00:04:42] [SPEAKER_05] All right.

[00:05:28] [SPEAKER_05] So Day 8 started with continued testimony from Erin Ermish, the North Carolina State Crime Lab forensic scientist who worked on this case since 2012. Kevin, does it surprise you in this case that this forensic scientist was on the stand for three days? I mean, not entire days, but she was on the stand at least at one point, you know, for three straight days.

[00:05:52] [SPEAKER_01] It is absolutely crucial evidence and testimony that she's offering. So, number one, it's important that the state have enough time with the witness to get that out there. Then it's important that the defense have plenty of time to try to challenge it. So, no, I'm not in the least bit surprised. How about yourself?

[00:06:09] [SPEAKER_05] No, yeah, I'm not either, especially in a case like this where it's purported by the state to be a stranger homicide. And primarily forensics are what is linking Miguel Enrique Salguero Olivares to Faith Hedgepeth. She's not working with him. He's not a colleague. He's not a neighbor. He doesn't live in this apartment complex. He's not someone in her community. He's not a student going to classes with her. He's not in any of her organizations.

[00:06:38] [SPEAKER_05] She has no connection to this guy. He's a perfect stranger. So, when you have a situation like that, it becomes very difficult to figure out, okay, who did this? What really weighs against him in this case is DNA and fingerprints. We already heard from the fingerprints expert. Ms. Ermish is the DNA expert.

[00:06:58] [SPEAKER_05] So, it doesn't surprise me that we're really hearing a lot from her and that the state is really laser focused on having her speak to the jury, having her present, you know, presentations on DNA almost about like how this works, how we do it, what's changed, what's happened. And I think it is really important. Now, I got some questions. Predominantly in this case, I wanted to mostly focus on what was said at trial. There's a reason for that.

[00:07:27] [SPEAKER_05] I mean, there's drawbacks to that, but I think there's benefits. The drawback is you're not really seeing what came before. You're not seeing the context. The benefit is that everything we're seeing is the best of the best, highly vetted, okayed by the judge, you know, and we're not coming into it with any preconceived notions, which a lot of people I think do have in this case because there's been so much focus on the roommate, Karina Rosario, and people in Face Life.

[00:07:52] [SPEAKER_05] So, you know, I think some people are coming into this when I see some commentary online, it's very much in the lines of, well, I still think a roommate's sketchy. And it's like, okay, but like, but what does the evidence say? Like, like we should be focused on that and not anyone's vibes about anyone else. You know, there's a lot of people out there in the world, some people that you might have really good vibes with and get along with great and maybe other people that rub you the wrong way. But that doesn't matter at all in a case like this. So, there's that.

[00:08:20] [SPEAKER_05] But the downside is that, you know, we're not sure about some of these legal wranglings. So, I did cheat. I did look back because I've been very curious. How did this guy come on the radar? That's been something I've not been hearing. And Kevin, let me tell you, unsurprisingly, there's a reason for that. So, would it surprise you to learn that the state, the state requested that the judge exclude any discussion of,

[00:08:47] [SPEAKER_05] the investigative genetic genealogy used to hone in on the defendant here?

[00:08:54] [SPEAKER_01] No.

[00:08:55] [SPEAKER_05] Why would that not surprise you?

[00:08:57] [SPEAKER_01] We often, the use of investigative genetic genealogy is very complicated. And it involves bringing in the names of people who aren't directly related to a crime. And so, I could imagine that they're doing that in order to protect the privacy interests of people who are not involved in a crime.

[00:09:21] [SPEAKER_05] I could also see it's like you just don't want to get into it with the jury. Like, you know, like, okay, we have to explain all this. And I don't know, maybe it freaks them out because they're like, wait, what is, you know, I don't know. Maybe they just are worried it would be controversial. We know that in the case of the murdered University of Idaho students.

[00:09:41] [SPEAKER_01] And that's what my mind went back to that Idaho case. I remember the prosecutors in that case were always wrangling with the defense about whether or not this IgG material should be brought in.

[00:09:52] [SPEAKER_05] Yeah. And Taylor, to her credit, you know, made a really big deal about that. And, like, that's her job. I didn't agree with her points. I thought they were kind of out there. But, like, she made it a huge headache for the prosecution. Like, we're going to bring all these names in. And they're like, no, don't do that. So, like, you know, there's always been this debate. A talented defense attorney can really make a lot of hay, I think, out of this stuff. And it's still kind of in its maybe not infancy but toddlerhood. So it's new.

[00:10:21] [SPEAKER_05] And you never know how that's going to go down.

[00:10:22] [SPEAKER_01] I think if the defense can make one of these things sound like really, really complicated and hard to understand, some jurors might just throw up their hands and say, I just don't accept this.

[00:10:32] [SPEAKER_05] Yeah, I'm just not going to. I can't trust it. I completely agree. Or if it sounds like overreach or governmental overreach or whatever, like they're violating our privacy. I could see the prosecution. I don't know exactly the reasons why they didn't want that. But I just want to fill that in because a lot of people have been asking me, like, how do they get this guy? And then it sounds like they followed up on that by using the pretext of a driving while intoxicated incident he was involved in to actually get his DNA and be able to confirm it.

[00:11:01] [SPEAKER_05] So it sounds like they honed in on him using IgG and then were able to go for it. So that's interesting. I still wonder why it took so long to get to him. 2012 to 2021 is a long time. I'm not criticizing law enforcement here. I mean, maybe if I knew the truth, I would criticize them. I don't know. But I'm not really like throwing stones or trying to lay blame with anyone. I just would want to know. I'd be curious.

[00:11:31] [SPEAKER_05] What were the challenges and hurdles that made it take so long? Or is that actually pretty normal or speedy even? And a lot of things in true crime, like, it sounds like a long time to us. But then maybe you kind of learn context and it makes sense. So I'm just not I'm not really prepared to be like, oh, they messed up. It's just I'm curious because. Certainly prior to 2021, there were a lot of breaking news about cases being solved with DNA. And I'm just curious. I'm a curious person.

[00:11:59] [SPEAKER_05] So anyway, Miss Ermish went back to the stand and talked about, you know, her reports, you know, talked about different things she had found in her investigation. How the final report from 2021, you know, finally able to compare the DNA to this defendant and talking about various things that they tried to take DNA from, like Faith's car, Alexis. They had a sample from that, didn't have enough DNA to do anything.

[00:12:29] [SPEAKER_05] With didn't have enough DNA profile to do anything with the tube top in the case. And there were just a number of things where it's like just dead ends. And that's a reminder that, like, DNA is not just some given thing. Like, you're not going to get it from every thing you test. It's a lot more fragile than I think people look at. They looked at the population database used by the lab, which can kind of separate people into different categories. It's Caucasian, African-American, Hispanic.

[00:13:00] [SPEAKER_05] So they're just kind of going even more into some of this. And one thing that was interesting is we got a question from the jury on this day. So I don't I remember when we were covering the Delphi trial, we would talk about questions from the jury. Like in Indiana, the jury can question people on the stand. So what do I mean by that? Like they they can't just I remember when we when we told our friend Brett from the prosecutors, who's a wonderful guy and everyone should everyone should listen to the prosecutors.

[00:13:29] [SPEAKER_05] It's one of my favorite true crime podcasts. I remember we told him, yeah, a jury asked a juror asked a question and he was like, what? I think he got the impression that like a juror just stood up and said, hey, what does this mean? And like it was probably thinking like, what kind of out of control nonsense is Indiana doing? But the thing is, it's actually a little more rigorous than that.

[00:13:53] [SPEAKER_05] A juror can write a question on a card that is presented to the judge and they have a sidebar with the parties and the attorneys. And they determine that it's an appropriate thing to put out there. And then they will they will ask that to the judge will ask that to the witness. So there's a filter. It's not like they're just, you know, hey, just yelling. But anyways, so in this case, it was more of a question for the judge.

[00:14:18] [SPEAKER_05] So they were asking, you know, do we have an estimation of how long this trial is going to be? And the judge said, well, it's moving around like it's moving along at a good pace, which I agree with. But the original estimate was like five to six weeks. What do you make of a juror asking that?

[00:14:39] [SPEAKER_01] It kind of gives me the idea that maybe they're getting tired of the trial. Maybe they feel like they've seen a lot of evidence and they may feel like they're ready to move on.

[00:14:51] [SPEAKER_05] And from our perspective as outsiders who are not on the jury, we might kind of understand that because we have seen a lot and we're about to see more evidence against this defendant. But I think it's really important for anyone who ever is on a jury. You got to give the defense a chance, especially in a criminal trial, especially in a murder trial. You got to give them a chance to put on what their side is.

[00:15:12] [SPEAKER_05] I think it's important to be realistic and take in the weight of the evidence presented against this defendant, but maybe don't completely close the door against possibilities raised. That would be my viewpoint because I just don't think that's fair. You never know what kind of wild information might surface.

[00:15:39] [SPEAKER_05] You and I have heard of the rare case where a defense attorney is able to kind of have a Perry Mason moment, frankly, and come out and be like, actually, this kind of turns everything we just heard on its head. And I think you have to you can't close yourself off to that just because you have to wait. The state has what seems like a slam dunk case on its hands. So that would be my thinking. Again, I don't think we're in the when we're when we're commenting on these cases. We're not the jury.

[00:16:09] [SPEAKER_05] OK, I see people trying to police each other online in online true crime spaces of it's innocent until proven guilty. We're not on the jury. We're not even in the court. We're not even in North Carolina. We can use our common sense and our heads and say this sounds really bad for the defendant. That doesn't mean I don't support people necessarily just, you know, saying, well, nothing can convince me he's innocent now. Like, I think we should all be open minded, even people just commenting on it who don't have any sort of ability to be in that jury room. Fall means darker days and chilly air.

[00:16:38] [SPEAKER_05] But if you or your partner sleep hot, it can be tricky to get your bedding set up just right. And we all know that health and wellness starts with good sleep. For Kevin and I, that means it starts with amazing, comfortable bedding from our sponsor, Bowlin Branch.

[00:16:50] [SPEAKER_01] Stay cozy as the temperatures drop with Bowlin Branch. You'll never sleep hot again. These sheets are going to help you make your bed feel like the coziest, most relaxing place in the world. Somewhere to snuggle up as the winds blow. Their signature sheets are the key ingredient, but they also provide temperature regulating comforters, cozy and breathable blankets. You are going to want to upgrade your entire bed.

[00:17:14] [SPEAKER_05] We certainly did. Our first foray into Bowlin Branch was their signature hemmed sheet set in dusty rose. Love the color. Love the matching waffle bed blanket. We actually ran out and bought a second set. These ones are sand colored. That way, we will never have to go back to regular bedding.

[00:17:29] [SPEAKER_01] Once you try Bowlin Branch, you will understand. It's like bedding from a really nice hotel, woven specifically for airflow, not just softness. So you will feel cozy, not hot. We have been getting amazing sleep on these.

[00:17:42] [SPEAKER_05] Plus, I don't know what magic or sorcery they're doing for this, but the more we wash them, the softer they get. I've never had that before. Seriously, check them out. You're going to melt away. You're going to take your bedtime routine to the max. Bowlin Branch sheets are the official pick of the murder sheets from here on out.

[00:17:59] [SPEAKER_01] Upgrade your sleep with Bowlin Branch. Get 15% off your first order plus free shipping at bowlinbranch.com slash msheet with code msheet. That's Bowlin Branch. B-O-L-L-A-N-D branch.com slash msheet. Code msheet to unlock 15% off. Exclusions apply. We'd like to give a big thank you to Vented, the sponsor of this episode.

[00:18:21] [SPEAKER_05] For those of you who haven't seen backgrounds of our lives, the clutter has gotten out of hand at our house. So I've decided to make an effort to do some serious cleaning. One of the places I'm starting is in our bedroom closet. I can't believe all the clothes I had in there that I'd probably frankly never wear again. They were taking up a lot of space. But I didn't want to just be wasteful and throw them away. That didn't seem right. And they have a lot of life in them.

[00:18:44] [SPEAKER_01] That's when we found out about Vented, a great way to turn the clothes in our closet into money.

[00:18:49] [SPEAKER_05] And also clear up closet space for new clothes.

[00:18:53] [SPEAKER_01] Vented is a secondhand market app that makes it easy for everyday sellers like us to sell our pre-loved fashion items. I love that this app is free to download and there are no seller fees. That means we get to keep everything we earn.

[00:19:10] [SPEAKER_05] Vented makes it so easy to list items. They even help you after an item sells by creating prepaid shipping labels. It couldn't be simpler. And that just makes me want to list more and more items. It makes me feel so much better to have a less cluttered closet.

[00:19:24] [SPEAKER_01] And these days it also helps to be able to earn some extra money. Especially when Vented makes it so easy. That's Vented. V-I-N-T-E-D. See what's hiding in your closet. You might be surprised how much you can earn with Vented. Download the Vented app for free to start listing with no seller fees.

[00:19:45] [SPEAKER_05] We love looking good and saving money. So we love our wonderful sponsor, Quince. The clothes they make are comfortable, affordable, and they don't go out of style. They're those wardrobe staples you'll reach for again and again. We certainly do.

[00:19:58] [SPEAKER_01] I recently got a Pearl Snap Denim Western shirt in denim blue that I wear all the time now. For everyday and for fancier events and get-togethers, it's breathable and comfortable, which is a huge deal for me. And I know as the weather cools, I'll be returning to my Quince sweaters. Namely, my Australian Merino Wool Cable Crewneck Sweater and my Mongolian Cashmere Crewneck Sweater. Those are so soft and so perfect for the fall. Their Mongolian Cashmere Sweater start at just $60. Check them out.

[00:20:28] [SPEAKER_05] Seriously, get them and we can all match. I love my 100% European linen fit and flare midi dress in chilly red and navy blue. I got two of them because I love them so much. The fit is so good. I think they're so cute and I've gotten a lot of compliments wearing them. So love that. And as Kevin said, I can't wait until it's a bit colder out so I can break out my Mongolian Cashmere Sweaters. That's the great thing about Quince, though. You want to wear these pieces again and again. These are classic pieces.

[00:20:54] [SPEAKER_05] And you're going to want to get even more because these are 50 to 80% less than similar brands because they cut out the middlemen. Refresh your wardrobe without breaking the budget.

[00:21:03] [SPEAKER_01] Find your next fall favorites at Quince. Download the Quince app for app-exclusive offers or go to Quince.com. Get free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK, too. And when Quince asks where you heard about them, let them know it was the murder sheet. It is the best way to support the show.

[00:21:22] [SPEAKER_05] So anyways, they have redirect with this witness. She talks about how they're asking, okay, can DNA break down? And she talks about, well, the profile doesn't change. Nothing can change a profile. There's no way to change a profile once something is deposited on an item. So if I go and touch a bunch of stuff and my touch DNA is found on it, it's not going to morph into something where it shows some other person was there. Right. That would be pretty weird.

[00:21:52] [SPEAKER_05] Your DNA is unique to you. And, you know, there's a lot of questions on Cross about storage. And why do you think that's smart of the defense to kind of be like, well, how is this stored? How is this, you know, like what were the precautions taken or why, you know, why weren't you involved with making sure it was stored properly? Why would they raise that?

[00:22:12] [SPEAKER_01] They're doing everything they can, in my opinion, to try to raise doubt about the validity of the test results. And that means attacking every step of it. And if the material was stored improperly, then maybe you can't rely on the test results. So let's look at everything and try to raise questions and doubts about every step of the process.

[00:22:35] [SPEAKER_05] Makes sense. And so the prosecution was able to address that on redirect, which, of course, is their kind of opportunity to be like, OK, we just heard a bunch of bad stuff on Cross. Let's let's try to kind of get this back under control. And they they talk about, you know, as long as it's she talked about, like, as long as it's sealed, like, that's what I need. Like, I don't I'm not the storage person. I'm not the supervisor of that. And she noted also that, like, at a certain point, she didn't need more items.

[00:23:04] [SPEAKER_05] She had identified this unknown DNA profile from the rectal swab in Faith's body, from the vaginal swab in Faith's body, from other, you know, from the items at the scene. They have this unknown profile. They have it. So, you know, saying like we have to test everything. They actually implemented a limit of items that they could test in 2014 to avoid that, because at some point you are taking resources away from other cases, frankly. And at some point there's diminishing return on investment. Sometimes I see people come like, why don't they test this or that or this and that?

[00:23:33] [SPEAKER_05] And that's not how it works. Like, especially if you if you get something, obviously there's an incentive to keep testing in cases where it's not yielded any offender DNA or it's not yielded good offender DNA that could be utilized robustly. So. In this case, like they had it so kind of like some of the defense nitpicking about like what was tested and what wasn't kind of falls a bit flat because it's like they have.

[00:23:59] [SPEAKER_05] DNA that shows sexual contact at the same time or right before Faith's murder. So if this was all touch DNA, then I think the state might be in more trouble because while that could be illuminating, it's still pretty circumstantial. Now, DNA is circumstantial in general. I know that sounds weird because we think of DNA as like the gold standard, but DNA is circumstantial. Someone can have sex with somebody else. That person can get murdered.

[00:24:26] [SPEAKER_05] And that doesn't mean the person who had sexual contact committed a crime. But that's why context is very important. And a lot of what the state is quietly doing is building up context in a way that really, really, really traps the defendant. At one point there was questioning. The defense is basically kind of going to her and saying, what are the percentages of the mixtures of DNA?

[00:24:49] [SPEAKER_05] So oftentimes you get DNA that's a mixture where it's maybe largely the most of the mixture is the victim. And then there's this kind of mysterious offender DNA also mixed in there. And she noted, you know, typically there's more DNA in a bodily fluid. So if one contributor left blood and that's the source of their DNA and the other one left skin cells from touch DNA, you would expect more DNA from the person who left blood. That's something we've heard again and again.

[00:25:18] [SPEAKER_05] When there's a lot of blood at the scene, a lot of victims' blood, that can actually drown out offender DNA if all they're doing is touch DNA. Because the blood is, quote unquote, louder than those kind of little skin cells. It's much more delicate. It's harder to find. It can even make it impossible or at least very difficult to get. It reduces your chances of getting what you need as far as offender DNA. And OK, so then, you know, that kind of that witness wraps.

[00:25:45] [SPEAKER_05] We also we then get someone named Eldis Cordero Ordonis. And this man required a interpreter because his native tongue is Spanish. And he revealed that he is actually related to the defendant. His sister is married to one of his uncles, essentially. So the defendant's mother is the sister-in-law of her mother.

[00:26:14] [SPEAKER_05] His mother. That's a bit confusing. But they're like, you know, they're they're related by marriage. This man, Mr. Ordonis, is from Guatemala as well. He came to Durham County in 2007. In 2010, he was working at the Outback, which is where we heard that the defendant worked with his mother. And the defendant's mother is known as Miss Fluvia.

[00:26:41] [SPEAKER_05] She had come to the area before this man, before Mr. Ordonis. And he doesn't really remember when the defendant first came from Guatemala to the Durham County area. But he also worked at the Outback, as I mentioned. And now this is interesting. You're going to notice some questioning from the prosecution that I think raises some questions to me about this witness. Yes. OK, so they're noting that and he's saying, I don't remember when he came here. And then the prosecutor asks, do you remember telling law enforcement that he worked there in 2010 at the Outback?

[00:27:11] [SPEAKER_05] He remembers the time in the past. What does that look like, Kevin, when you have like a witness who suddenly is not like remembering certain things on the stand? But the prosecutor has these transcripts and these interviews that were conducted with law enforcement in the past, basically able to be like, well, you said this at the time. What I mean, what are your thoughts on that?

[00:27:32] [SPEAKER_01] I think there's always a couple of different possibilities for things like that. One is that it's simply a case of these events happened a long time ago. Not all of us can be expected to remember right off the top of our heads everything that happened on a particular date, 8, 9, 10, 11 years ago.

[00:27:54] [SPEAKER_01] And maybe we need to refresh our memories by looking at a deposition and by looking at testimony we gave a while ago. The other explanation is the person does indeed remember and is trying to modify or shade their testimony in a way to protect somebody.

[00:28:14] [SPEAKER_05] Yeah. And I don't really weigh in on what this is at this point. Maybe we'll have a better sense going through what other things this man claims not to remember. But he says that Mr. Ordona says that his job at Outback was making salads and the defendant's job was bussing tables. He remembered taking English classes around 2010, 2011. So was the defendant. He was doing that, too. Talked about, like, seeing him in Franklin and giving him a ride.

[00:28:43] [SPEAKER_05] And how there was, like, a community of people working at the Outback all from Guatemala. And not all of them were part of this family, but some of them were. They talked about how, you know, this man was living at Hawthorne at the View, the apartments, then was called Willowbrook when the murder happened. He had previously lived at King's Arms apartment complex, which was actually where also the defendant lived.

[00:29:13] [SPEAKER_05] And was claiming he didn't remember if the defendant lived there in 2010. But, of course, that's what he told police back in the day. He talked about some of the people he knew who lived at the Hawthorne apartments. Ariel Velasquez, Eva Ordones, Daniel Ordones, some other people. Was asked about, like, are some of these people related to Luis Lopez? And he says, I don't know him. Isn't his wife your cousin? You know, there's just suddenly, like, memory problems.

[00:29:40] [SPEAKER_05] But they're establishing essentially, like, this community of Guatemalans at the Outback who are also connected to this building. And again, remember that Karina Rosario and Faith Hedgepeth also lived at Hawthorne at the View. It was called Willowbrook Apartments back in 2012 when she was murdered, but then it became known as Hawthorne at the View. They asked him, like, were you close to the defendant? And he said no, didn't really hang out. Now, he, the only thing that we had was, like, a family connection.

[00:30:10] [SPEAKER_05] We never grew up together. I wasn't friends with him in Guatemala or when we were here. He talked about how his wife's sister would spend time with him and that he seemingly wanted to be that woman's boyfriend. But it turns out he had told people that he didn't want to hang out with him because basically the defendant drank a lot. But he claimed not to remember that or said, oh, I heard he drinks, but I never saw it.

[00:30:35] [SPEAKER_05] So, again, you're kind of just like, it just seems to be like a subtle shading of like, to me, I read some of this as like, I don't want to be involved. More so than lying for anybody, but just more of like distancing yourself. That's how I read some of this. What do you think?

[00:30:52] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, I tend to agree. I think that's a good reading of it.

[00:30:54] [SPEAKER_05] You know, they were like, you know, did you tell law enforcement that you felt scared or fearful about testifying? And he said, you know, I feel comfortable because I'm telling the truth. But, you know, he also is asked, well, why were you afraid? I have a family, you know, my daughters and stuff. So it's like, is he worried like people who are supporters of the defendant might harm him? Or like, is it just the idea of being a quote unquote snitch or an informant, something that might hurt? I don't know.

[00:31:22] [SPEAKER_05] Said he learned of Faith's death when he was actually working at the Outback. And the manager came in and said, my neighbor was just killed. And they, you know, they heard about this because they knew people who lived in that apartment. So it kind of it spread quickly. And he said he didn't talk much about the murder with people at Outback, just simply like that. He kind of heard that and said, wow, that apartment complex must be kind of dangerous.

[00:31:52] [SPEAKER_05] And one of his relatives said, hey, you used to live there. So, like, that's kind of scary. He also mentioned that he talked to the defendant's mother a couple of weeks ago on the phone. That's interesting. He claimed that she said, I'm not asking you to talk in favor of my son. I just want you to tell the truth. How does that make you feel?

[00:32:13] [SPEAKER_01] That makes me feel a little uncomfortable. That makes me feel like an attempt to influence a witness.

[00:32:18] [SPEAKER_05] Judging by all the things he forgot, maybe it worked. I don't know.

[00:32:21] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah.

[00:32:21] [SPEAKER_05] It's odd.

[00:32:22] [SPEAKER_01] It's odd. It raises a lot of very interesting questions about how much credibility we should assign to this witness.

[00:32:30] [SPEAKER_05] Either way, though, I think he did function how the state wanted him to because he basically establishes some kind of link as far as the defendant's personal life to this specific area. And also kind of introduced to the jury the idea that this guy was a drinker and that maybe people in his own community didn't really want to be around him. So even though he's not saying that, it becomes clear that he told police that. Now, he might be kind of establishing some of what the state wants you to know about the defendant.

[00:33:00] [SPEAKER_05] This next witness is more about, I guess, putting the defendant potentially there that day. The state doesn't really quite get there, in my opinion. But I see the vision. And let's talk about what this guy said. This one is Luis Lopez, who we heard about in the previous questioning. He has a fencing company and he was born in Guatemala. So was his wife.

[00:33:26] [SPEAKER_05] And in September of 2012, he lived at Willowbrook, or this is where the same apartment complex that the murder happened at. He lived with his wife, his brothers-in-law. There were six people he was living with. He points out on the map where he lived. And where he lived is the apartment complex exactly across from where Faith and Karina lived. So it's right there.

[00:33:50] [SPEAKER_05] And this is actually the man who threw the famous, or infamous, we should say, cookout that the state hypothesizes brought the defendant into the area where he then subsequently prayed upon Faith. And this cookout was something that went on all night. You know, like it wasn't like, okay, it's late, we're done. Like it went on into the early hours of the morning. And there was drinking. And so we're going to hear about that.

[00:34:15] [SPEAKER_05] So he talks about how there was, you know, he was asked, do you remember Faith? And he says, I saw her a couple times in the parking lot. Points out where that is, the parking lot used by the tenants. And the day before she was murdered, Mr. Lopez had the day off. And so did his wife. So they decided to do a cookout. And he was able to point out where they would normally do the cookout.

[00:34:47] [SPEAKER_05] And like kind of identifies that area where it normally happened. There's like a little parking area. There's a picnic area. And they also, that a picture of that shows where Faith was parked. And it was like right there. And he pointed out where he lived in the backside of where the table is. So like he's kind of like kind of setting the scene for the jury. They asked like, did you ever really spend time at this picnic table? Did you often have cookouts? He said this was actually the only time they even did this.

[00:35:18] [SPEAKER_05] And his brother's-in-law might have had other cookouts or other times where they were hanging out there. But like he, oftentimes his breaks would not coincide with theirs. So he was not entirely sure. So he said the cookout started about 3 or 4.30 p.m. somewhere in there. They would go outside. They ate outside. They started drinking. At first it was just this couple. Then the brothers-in-law started arriving.

[00:35:45] [SPEAKER_05] One got there like 8 p.m., another 9 p.m., another 10 p.m. A friend got there between 9 and 10 p.m. That friend was named Abel. And he was a distant cousin of the wife. So they all knew him. And that man walked to the cookout. He was also from Guatemala. And he's asked like were there other people from Guatemala in the apartment complex? And he says yes. At that point, like later at night, they stopped cooking and were just drinking.

[00:36:14] [SPEAKER_05] Somebody came with Abel. And he also walked there. They're drinking Corona. They're drinking Heineken. Things like that. Beer. He doesn't really remember how many beers. But, you know, it seems like they were drinking quite a lot. Like enough to, he says enough to affect his memory. And he named some of the people, first names who were there. And he's asked like is it possible other people came that night? And he's told no.

[00:36:44] [SPEAKER_05] And he's asked, do you know Miguel Enrique Salguero Olivares? And he says no. And he like does the whole thing where like do you know, like, you know, this defendant, like, you know, point to him. The guy in the courtroom, he's like I don't recognize him. I don't know him. And is this the guy that Abel brought around the cookout? And he says I don't remember. Could it be this person? And he's like I just I don't remember.

[00:37:12] [SPEAKER_05] He's asked was Abel's friend speaking English or Spanish? And he said Spanish. The guy was a Spanish speaker. And at a certain point, like very early in the morning, the cookout ends. The drinking ends. They stop drinking. Everyone goes back home. He, his brothers in law and his wife go in to their apartment. And Abel and his friend leave walking.

[00:37:38] [SPEAKER_05] I think what is highly implied here, although this man cannot confirm it for sure, is that the friend of Abel was the defendant. You have another Spanish speaker who's showing up part of this Guatemalan community. And, you know, I think another possibility is everyone's so drunk. They also don't even if it's not Abel's friend. People are so drunk. They don't see some extra guy slipping around. Attracted by the party and the booze flowing.

[00:38:07] [SPEAKER_05] Especially since we know now that at least the word on the street was that the defendant really liked to drink. Alcohol reduces your inhibitions. So something that you've been fantasizing about, something that, you know, you decide you want sex right now and you don't care who gets hurt. That's the kind of choice that I could see being made even more easily when someone's under the influence of a lot of alcohol. So he testifies that the day after the cookout, he's trying to buy a fishing boat. He's dealing with that.

[00:38:35] [SPEAKER_05] And then he shows back up at the apartment complex, finds police everywhere, tape he can't pull in to park. He goes to the police and say and says, what's going on? And they tell him, we can't really tell you because there's an investigation. He talks about how a detective approaches him and says, I need your DNA. And he gives the DNA. He says his brothers-in-law give their DNA. He's like, you know, we didn't they weren't messing around with it. They were just like, here you go. And.

[00:39:05] [SPEAKER_05] You know, that was it. But they heard that a young woman got murdered. And then on cross, he's asked, did you speak to police recently? I'll be curious what you think about this question. They say, do you recall seeing saying telling police that you saw the young lady having an altercation with her roommate? That is objected to and then sustained by the judge. What do you think of that?

[00:39:28] [SPEAKER_01] They're trying to sneak some information and some inferences in front of the jury.

[00:39:35] [SPEAKER_05] Yes. Again, all of the stuff with Karina Rosario might be more interesting to me if this were not so clearly a rape murder. Karina Rosario is a woman and did not leave semen in Faith Hedgepeth's body. Like, I'm sorry to be graphic like that, but. I don't know. It's hard for me to really take any of that super seriously.

[00:39:58] [SPEAKER_01] I agree completely.

[00:39:59] [SPEAKER_05] Just based on what I've heard. It just really sounds like a whole lot of conjecture and nothing. And everything I saw from Karina Rosario on the stand was someone who was pretty devastated by her friend's murder. Anyways, so next up is Justin Ellerby. He is from the Durham County Sheriff's Office and supervises the detention center in Durham County. And he talks about how the detention center has an intelligence unit that monitors all correspondence as well as phone calls.

[00:40:29] [SPEAKER_05] And we all know that you have no expectation of privacy on your phone calls if you are incarcerated, whether that's in jail or prison. It says that when people call you, this is a call from wherever. And, you know, so that should not be a surprise to anyone. It's interesting. There was a lot of talk about phone calls and jail calls and whatnot. I was like, OK, wow, we're going to get some jail calls. And it's like, actually, they're really mostly dealing with transcripts. Maybe that is because the defendant is primarily a Spanish speaker.

[00:40:59] [SPEAKER_05] And I don't know, didn't want to translate it. I don't I don't exactly know. But there's a transcriptions of conversations between the defendant and his mother. There's a lot of back and forth legally about this and some things occurring outside of the jury view. But, you know, this guy is there to testify to. Essentially. Here, you know, these transcripts, this is what we got from when he was in this detention center.

[00:41:29] [SPEAKER_05] And at one point, the defense is like bringing up my cousin, Vinny, about like, oh, transcripts can be sort of misleading. Didn't expect that in there. I mean, I do enjoy that movie, though. But, you know, they're just trying to get stuff out and it's understandable. Another witness that they called that they sort of wrapped up with was special agent in charge of the special operations unit of the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation, Justin Heinrich. And.

[00:41:58] [SPEAKER_05] Again, there's some legal wrangling before this goes on. The state's trying to get in a sample of handwriting from the defendant and saying, like, we need to put this in front of the jury and they can decide if it's similar to the handwriting in the scrawled note left on the bag in Faith's room. The note that said. I'm not stupid, bitch, jealous. And.

[00:42:28] [SPEAKER_05] So what they're saying, this is the proper province of the jury. We don't need a handwriting expert. Let them decide. And the defense, you know, is like they're going back and forth and they kind of like the judge, like, is there enough similarities to warrant this? What do you think about that?

[00:42:46] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, I think that's very interesting. And I think it's some good lawyering.

[00:42:56] [SPEAKER_05] And the judge says, like, I don't need to be a handwriting expert. Like, you know, we can just let this in and let the jury decide.

[00:43:02] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, it's really ultimately up to the jury to decide how to weigh particular evidence or to make conclusions about what the facts of a certain matter is.

[00:43:12] [SPEAKER_05] Yeah. And what this says is basically like the picture shows a stack of foreign currency. I don't recognize what it is, but it says in block letters. Mi amor aji te dejo para las unas y el cabelo tu gordito. I don't know what that means in Spanish, but maybe some of you do. But I just wanted to get this recorded so I didn't put it through a translator.

[00:43:42] [SPEAKER_05] As far as it looking like, it definitely is like those big block letters. But as far as it looking the same, I'm no handwriting expert myself. Maybe there's some similarities. I don't know. But I could also see someone being like, oh, it's not. It's not similar. So I guess I think when I look at it, I mean, the one on the when I the I'm not stupid bitch jealous.

[00:44:10] [SPEAKER_05] I see similarities, but it's so much neater. And the other one's written on this kind of crinkly paper bag. But certainly like if this guy has a tendency to write everything in all caps block letters, that's something that I think the jury can maybe take into account. This guy talks about how initially SBI, which of course is their state police investigative bureau, they came in and were helping process the crime scene. After the one year anniversary, they came.

[00:44:37] [SPEAKER_05] They went from limited assistance in the case to full time assistance in the case. He spent a month getting just all caught up on the investigation. He looked at all the interviews. He wanted he and an agent named Philip Stevens went to Karina Rosario to hear her from for themselves. They wanted to see, like, what's going on here. And they said that she was remarkably consistent to them. They would talk and, you know, there were changes in her story, though, like she would.

[00:45:07] [SPEAKER_05] Mention then the Bacardi bottle or like, you know, but the thing is that what he felt was she's not being deceptive. He says that basically in his experience as an investigator, when you're dealing with someone who's being honest, the big picture never changes. There might be small details that change. Things you remember later on or things you emphasize in a retelling of the story. But the big picture is consistent. It's when you start getting those big picture variations or someone trying to shade things in a way to make themselves look better.

[00:45:37] [SPEAKER_05] That is when you're setting off red flags for this investigator, at least. He's saying for her very big big picture is totally consistent. And he's talked with her since 2013. She has continued to be available, never changed her phone number, never ran off and has cooperated extensively with the investigators. Also talked to a lot of other key players in the case.

[00:46:04] [SPEAKER_05] And, you know, said that the investigation was largely at first focused on her romantic partners, focused on Faith's romantic partners, focused on those people in her life, focused on Karina Rosario, Jordan McCrary. Focused on people from Red Robin where Faith worked. Focused on where she was from, Warren County. Maybe someone from her past life before she went to college is doing something. Focused on different organizations she's with at UNC. The Bounce Back program. Her various classes.

[00:46:33] [SPEAKER_05] The American Indian Circle that she belonged to. And neighbors, you know, trying to get camera footage, trying to do all this. You know, back then in 2012, people didn't really have ring cameras. So, you know, they didn't do a lot with that. But he said DNA was a big priority. And he said at one point, if the DNA matches, we found our person. Now, there was an objection and a move to strike from the defense when he said that. Why do you think that is?

[00:47:04] [SPEAKER_01] I think it's pretty clear. You don't want that sort of thing.

[00:47:08] [SPEAKER_05] We find the DNA. We got the guy.

[00:47:10] [SPEAKER_01] You know, that kind of wraps it up.

[00:47:12] [SPEAKER_05] Yes. And that was overruled. So talked about how like 100 people had been approached, swabbed people from her life, people from all these groups I just mentioned.

[00:47:22] [SPEAKER_01] I'm really curious to see how the defense ultimately tries to deal with some of this.

[00:47:28] [SPEAKER_05] Well, I'm going to tell you this witness just threw a huge I mean, at the end, we're going to get to this. He threw a huge wrench in anything they might be able to do. Like this is bad. Like if we thought what was before was bad anyway. So he says that this is clearly a rape murder based on the violent assault, the blood spatter, the sexual assault. You know, there's not injuries consistent with the sexual assault, but that does not mean there's no sexual assault. Her breasts being left exposed. She's nude from the waist down. These weren't things that Faith was doing in the apartment.

[00:47:57] [SPEAKER_05] She wasn't sleeping naked. She wasn't especially on her period. You know, the tampon being pulled out. A lot of women that I've talked to who've sent us emails or commented in our Patreon about this have noted like women, unless they're incapacitated somehow, are not going to leave a tampon on the ground. They're not going to just pull out a tampon in bed and leave it on the ground like that. That alone is so.

[00:48:21] [SPEAKER_05] Antithetical to what people, women tend to do that, you know, obviously there's exceptions to every generalization. Right. If someone's really. In a bad mental state or super drunk or something, but by no accounts was Faith in either of those things. And I agree with that. Like, there's a lot about this. It's like she had specific sexual partners that she gravitated toward. Actually, they talked a little bit about that.

[00:48:48] [SPEAKER_05] So special agent in charge, Heinrich, was looking at the intimate partners himself. And they were all about her age and they all tended to be actually, you know, African-American or black men. And, you know, I mean, like it's notable that the defendant does not is not in that demographic. He is, you know, quite pale skin, frankly.

[00:49:14] [SPEAKER_05] It's like he's not even like, you know, I mean, we all like many people have like a type of person that they might be attracted to or whatnot. And they were seeing even when her high school boyfriend, he was actually Native American, but he had darker skin. So it's like this guy doesn't fit into her life. He doesn't fit into her social circle. He doesn't fit into any of her life experiences. He doesn't fit into. Someone she would be attracted to necessarily because he is lighter skinned. I think everyone makes an exception, right?

[00:49:44] [SPEAKER_05] You can have a type and then go with someone else. But I think it's like noting like there's not really a lot of room for him to come in here and really be. Someone who's a likely consensual sexual partner, I guess. I mean, is that what do you think that's why they kind of brought that up?

[00:50:01] [SPEAKER_01] I think so. That makes sense.

[00:50:03] [SPEAKER_05] Talked about how they had this spreadsheet with thousands of people on it. And, you know, he talked about some of the texts and it kind of backed up what we've heard. You saw her text of are you registered to vote to her niece who she was very close with. She talked about like texts from Karina. At one point, Karina, this made me really sad. Karina texted her something to the extent of like, oh, are you mad at me? Is that why you're not responding? Like, I'm sorry I got so drunk last night. That just kind of broke my heart a little bit. She doesn't even know she's dead. Just all these texts back and forth. And they really kind of corroborate what's already been said.

[00:50:32] [SPEAKER_05] OK, so now to wrap up, he talks about tower dumps that they got of cell phone records. And they would try to get that and maybe see if a phone number shows up that they can link to somebody. And, you know, like the kind of thing you hear about with tower dumps a lot. But they ultimately didn't find anything with the defendant from that. He's had a number of phones since then. But this guy also notes like a tower dump is not the end all be all.

[00:50:58] [SPEAKER_04] It wouldn't always necessarily appear. And in all of their search and all and everything they did, this man's name never turned up.

[00:51:13] [SPEAKER_05] And this guy asked, did you, you know, check his name against the spreadsheet that you made? And also how wonderful that they're making. That's how we got started, right, Kevin? Making a big spreadsheet of all the restaurant homicides we can think of. And it turns out that's that's what they're doing now. But no, in all seriousness, they're like, OK, did he come up? Not at all. He was totally invisible to investigators because he had no connection. There was no nexus. It was with DNA that really linked him to this completely.

[00:51:42] [SPEAKER_05] Talked about what he was able to find out about the defendant. Born in Guatemala in 1993. Came to North Carolina in 2010. And he worked in restaurants, construction. He painted. He installed floor panels. He apparently the Outback Steakhouse was right across from the Red Robin where Faith worked. So that's kind of interesting. He was living at the King's Arms apartment. And they tried to get his employment records.

[00:52:11] [SPEAKER_05] And there were no records of him or his mother working at the Outback. We've certainly heard testimony from multiple people that he did work there, though. Now, this is where things get wild. So he they end up bringing in a jail phone call through this witness. But he's reading the transcript. So let's hear from him on that one.

[00:52:34] [SPEAKER_03] Line one, if you could tell the jury what that says.

[00:52:39] [SPEAKER_00] It begins with the defendant, male voice one, saying, My DNA on the body of the girl and that how.

[00:52:48] [SPEAKER_03] And then go down to line three. Line two is his mother speaking, correct?

[00:52:53] [SPEAKER_00] And then he continues to say, But how am I going to explain something that I didn't do?

[00:53:01] [SPEAKER_03] And then go to line five.

[00:53:06] [SPEAKER_00] I don't know her. They did show the photos. And I didn't see any photo I recognized.

[00:53:14] [SPEAKER_03] And line 10.

[00:53:16] [SPEAKER_00] Line 10. Again, this is the defendant speaking. For starters, how how how supposedly if on those days I was working there? In other words, how is my DNA going to be there unless someone had placed it? I don't know.

[00:53:31] [SPEAKER_02] And then I'm going to skip to line. I'm sorry, 13.

[00:53:49] [SPEAKER_00] Line 13. Again, this is the defendant speaking.

[00:53:54] [SPEAKER_03] Oh, and then line 14. I'm sorry, line 15.

[00:53:59] [SPEAKER_00] Mom, but I don't know that the woman I've never had. I haven't even.

[00:54:05] [SPEAKER_03] And then line 17.

[00:54:08] [SPEAKER_00] Seen her in my life ever brushed up against her or something. Seen her at some place. Never. In other words, do you understand me how my head is right now? I have not seen her in my life.

[00:54:27] [SPEAKER_02] You have one more question?

[00:54:29] [SPEAKER_03] Not as to the next thing would be another exhibit.

[00:54:32] [SPEAKER_02] I think we've reached the time.

[00:54:34] [SPEAKER_03] Yes, sir.

[00:54:35] [SPEAKER_05] So he's saying repeatedly, I never met this girl. I don't know this girl. Who is this girl? I never saw her in my life. He's emphasizing that to his mother again and again. This makes him a liar because forensic evidence ties him to the scene in so many ways, through the DNA in various places and through his thumbprint and through his palm print on the bottle. This is so damaging to the defense, in my opinion, because this makes it hard for the jury.

[00:55:04] [SPEAKER_05] They heard him deny this. I don't know. I've seen her picture and never saw her in my life. The very least we know he had sexual contact. He wants to argue that that sexual contact was not criminal and was consensual. That's his only hope here, because I don't believe that, you know, police planted this. He's got to explain that. And I never met her is simply not true. He's lying. What do you think?

[00:55:27] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, I think it really is looking increasingly bad for this defendant.

[00:55:34] [SPEAKER_05] It's not unreasonable to say that DNA is circumstantial. It is. There are ways his DNA can be present in that and that there's ways his fingerprints and his palm prints can be present. And he's still innocent. There is. But the way the state has built its case, it's increasingly unlikely. And the reason is because he has no reason to be there. And it's unlikely that Faith would have wanted to hook up with him consensually.

[00:56:02] [SPEAKER_05] Based on everything we've heard about her, her preferences sexually, what she wanted to do sexually, like not have sex on her period. Like that was a firm boundary with her. So why is she doing that with a stranger instead of trusted sexual partner? Leaving the tampon. Like this is so clearly a sexual assault. And he's the one who had sexual contact with her. So that kind of, you know, kind of narrows it down. But anyways, that's kind of sums it up.

[00:56:28] [SPEAKER_05] And that was kind of, I think, a pretty bombshell day for the state at least.

[00:56:33] [SPEAKER_01] So thanks for listening.

[00:56:34] [SPEAKER_05] Yeah.

[00:56:35] [SPEAKER_01] 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.

[00:56:55] [SPEAKER_05] 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.

[00:57:19] [SPEAKER_01] 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.

[00:57:29] [SPEAKER_05] 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. Don't forget to find out on the webpage there. Don't forget to let your lead overiline time.

[00:57:51] Don't forget to withdraw