The Murder of Faith Hedgepeth: The Trial of Miguel Enrique Salguero-Olivares: Day Eleven: Closing Arguments

[00:00:00] [SPEAKER_02] I'm Anya, and today we're going to talk about closing arguments in the Faith Hedgepeth Murder Trial. Content warning, this episode contains discussion of rape and murder in some graphic detail. So, as a reminder, this trial is all about the murder of 19 year old Faith Hedgepeth. She was a sophomore at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, a very prestigious school. She was going there.

[00:00:28] [SPEAKER_02] She had dreams about working with children, possibly being a pediatrician. But all of her hopes and dreams were cut short on September 7th, 2012, when she was found dead in the off-campus apartment she shared with her roommate and dear friend, Karina Rosario. And this was in Durham County, near the border with Chapel Hill. And she had been bludgeoned to death. And there were also indications that she had been sexually assaulted.

[00:00:59] [SPEAKER_02] including male DNA found within her body. Horrible case. September 16th, 2021, police arrest Miguel Enrique Salguero-Olivares. So he is somebody who's a stranger to Faith, by all accounts, and doesn't know her. But they're saying the DNA is a match here.

[00:01:21] [SPEAKER_02] So you have, on the prosecution side for this entire trial, it has been Lisa Coltrane, a special state prosecutor who does a lot of arson and homicide cases in North Carolina. You have Angela Garcia-LaMarca, who is a Durham County Assistant District Attorney. And you also have Brooke Stone, who is her colleague, also a Durham County Assistant District Attorney. That's been the prosecution. On the defense side, you have James Rainsford, Jason Murphy, and Christopher Barnes.

[00:01:49] [SPEAKER_02] And then the judge is the Honorable Keith O. Gregory of the Superior Court. So today is sort of the culmination of so much of what we've been watching. You have the defense and the prosecution getting the opportunity to lay out their closing arguments. We're going to talk about what was said. We're going to talk about how we think everyone did. And we're going to talk about what we think the outcome of this case may be, although that's highly speculative because we can never fully know what a jury will do. So want to get into it, Kevin?

[00:02:19] [SPEAKER_01] Let's do it.

[00:02:21] [SPEAKER_02] My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[00:02:23] [SPEAKER_01] And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is Murder Sheet. We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:02:35] [SPEAKER_02] And this is The Murder of Faith Hedgepeth, the trial of Miguel Enrique Salguero Olivares, day 11, closing arguments.

[00:03:29] [SPEAKER_02] So the closing arguments were sort of divided up on both sides. There was a lot of debate yesterday about, like, how this would go down. But the prosecution went first. The defense went second. No follow-up from the prosecution. That's how they decided to do it. And what they ended up doing was both teams actually had two people deliver the closing arguments. It was like a relay race. They would hand the baton to the next person.

[00:03:58] [SPEAKER_02] So we got to hear from four attorneys during two closing arguments. That's not really something I've seen before. Have you ever seen that?

[00:04:05] [SPEAKER_01] I have not.

[00:04:06] [SPEAKER_02] Well, in North Carolina, it's all the teamwork makes the dream work, I guess, whether you're defense or a prosecutor. So we had Angela Garcia-LaMarca deliver the first part of this. And she is also the attorney who delivered the state's opening arguments. I want to just say, just from a stylistic standpoint, I love her style. She is able to be very incisive while also leaning into the emotion. Oftentimes emotion is something that I think it's like salt.

[00:04:36] [SPEAKER_02] Sprinkle a little bit on there and it goes a long way. You don't just give your guests at dinner party a big block of salt, like they're deer or cows or something. There's such a thing that's too much emotion. But she almost interlaces what she's saying, even if it's just the facts, with a layer of emotion. Really kind of feel like it's very sincere and almost allowing herself to feel what the victim might have felt

[00:05:04] [SPEAKER_02] or feel what the victim's loved ones might be feeling. And I think she's just I love the way she is able to kind of communicate in that way. It's very I don't know. It's for me, it appeals to me. Maybe it's not everybody's cup of tea, but I like it. And she opens up. Talking about. There's no worse thing that anyone can experience, most likely than like losing a child. That is what has happened to Faith's family.

[00:05:35] [SPEAKER_02] And. Talked about how this I thought this was a kind of a powerful quote when the defendant brought down the bottle on her head. That was the start of a bleeding that still hasn't stopped. That bleeding kind of goes on every day for those who love and miss Faith. And they talked about, you know, the various people on the stand. Karina, Tlaib, Marisol. All these people who knew Faith who can't get over what happened.

[00:05:58] [SPEAKER_02] Marisol talking about how like she like has struggles thinking about how she saw Faith with her hair matted, her face blackened from the beating. And so she starts with that emotion of like, here's how it affected these people. But then she kind of gets into and the forensic evidence in this case is screaming the truth. The forensic evidence in this case is screaming his name, Miguel Enrique Salguero-Olivares. So it's kind of taking the emotion. But then it's like. Who's to blame here? The defendant.

[00:06:26] [SPEAKER_02] And she goes into how we may never know why exactly he did this. Like, we can't force him to tell us because he has constitutional protections, which is good. And. You know, but it almost doesn't matter. What matters is he sentenced Faith to death and he sentenced those who loved her to this life imprisonment without her. And she she's funny. She just like throws out these things when she talks about how y'all, I have poster boards.

[00:06:55] [SPEAKER_02] And then she's like, I'll get them in two shakes of a lamb's tail. And she's running around. People are laughing. There was some like thing where they couldn't see what she was doing. So she's yelling mercy sakes alive. She just she has a kind of a sense of humor about stuff when it's going wrong that doesn't detract from the tragedy of what happened. But more of is just about like the kind of everyday courtroom proceedings that I liked. Now, this was interesting, Kevin. I would be curious about what you think about this as an attorney. Her side of things was was leaning into the emotion at first.

[00:07:25] [SPEAKER_02] But then really what she was there to do is break out a bunch of poster boards and show each of the crimes that they have charged him with and show each of the elements that the state has to prove in order to get a conviction on those crimes. And then tell them, OK, we did this. And then she like check off. Like we have to prove that you went into the house. Check.

[00:07:45] [SPEAKER_01] That's a that's a very effective technique because you show the jury. Here's what we had to prove. Guess what? We did it. And you illustrate that in a very graphic, easy to understand way.

[00:07:56] [SPEAKER_02] I thought it was great. Yeah, I found it very compelling. But it was also simple. It wasn't like it was like, yeah, you know, OK, because when you look at all the all the elements of a crime and it could almost feel overwhelming. Like, OK, did they really get into this or that? But hearing her kind of go through it. Check them all off. Obviously, she's going to be more sympathetic to the state side of things. So, like, you know, I'm sure the defense would say don't check that one off. But I thought it was a very effective presentation. And.

[00:08:27] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah, so and she also as a in the process, she broke down what she felt was the most likely theory. She was very clear, like, you don't have to believe my theory. This is just like an explanation because we all want an explanation. This is what I think happened. But like, we don't have to prove this. Talk about that, Kevin. Why doesn't the state? Why can the state say, well, we think this something like this happened? Why don't they have to prove that? Why is it more about the elements versus like kind of a story they tell?

[00:08:55] [SPEAKER_01] Well, the fact is all you have to prove are certain elements. You don't have to have a story that necessarily. You just have to say they did a particular action with premeditation. You don't have to describe what they had for dinner or what was in their mind or how they got to a particular location. You just have to prove whatever the elements are.

[00:09:19] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah, we were used to watching crime unfold and like police procedurals. And oftentimes in those or in other types of crime shows, you see the killer. Get set off. Go target someone for a specific reason, do the thing and then leave. And so sometimes I think our minds are attuned to like, why did this happen? Also, it makes us feel safer if we know why it happened. If we know why it happened, maybe we can do things and live in a different way where like that won't happen to us. But it's not always possible to know why things happen.

[00:09:49] [SPEAKER_02] But the state offered a bit of a theory. Again, not official evidence and they're not like locked down on it. But one of the charges, first degree burglary. One of the elements of that, you have to, you know, go into a specific. So he went into a sleeping apartment, pushing open and unlocked door counts as burglary. You don't have to smash your way in. You don't have to break anything. There's no signs of forced entry because the door was left unlocked. We heard Karina Rosario's testimony. They always left the door unlocked.

[00:10:18] [SPEAKER_02] They shared a key. Makes sense. It was nighttime. That was one of the elements that they added. And then they kind of broke down. Karina Rosario left the apartment at 425 a.m. The cookout broke up around 5 a.m. Sometime after that, most likely, is when this happened. There's no evidence of anyone seeing the defendant in the light of that morning. And around 11 a.m., Faith was already cold. Her body had already turned cold to Karina's touch.

[00:10:48] [SPEAKER_02] Takes a while for the body to do that. So they talked about how there was no consent to let him in the apartment. They didn't know him. He wouldn't have had consent. Faith was asleep when the attack took place. She was in bed, you know, lying there. And, you know, another charge that they were talking about. So this is interesting. So he starts with sexual offense and rape. Those basically have the same, the number of the same elements to them.

[00:11:17] [SPEAKER_02] The difference is that rape in North Carolina legally is defined as, you know, basically it has to have the penis going into the victim's vagina. That's what rape is in this context. And they have the sperm inside during, you know, in the rape swabs and whatnot, evidence of penetration. And she also asked him, like, think about the condition of the body.

[00:11:46] [SPEAKER_02] Her shirt is pulled up above her breasts. She's naked from the breasts down. A tampon with male DNA on the string. They can't definitively say it's his, but still. Is found on the floor, flattened out. Her clothes are pulled off. Panty liners pulled off. You know, it's, it's, uh, she talks about the, the bigness, the hugeness, the vastness of the numbers of like, you know, the septillions of.

[00:12:16] [SPEAKER_02] The possibility that it's not him is just so out there. And she says, it's not like an ant versus an elephant. It's like an ant versus a universe of elements. Like the elephant, like it's not an elephant. It's like too many elephants to even fathom. Um, and yeah, talked about how, um, you know, for the sexual offense, that is the anal intercourse. So that would be the penis into anus. I mean, again, I'm sorry to be graphic here.

[00:12:45] [SPEAKER_02] It's just like, I mean, we're adults and this is.

[00:12:47] [SPEAKER_01] It's what we're talking about. Yeah. You have to describe the facts as they are.

[00:12:51] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah. And I'm not going to use a bunch of euphemisms because I mean, we're, we're all adults here and this is a serious topic. And I think we can, I think we should be able to handle it. I mean, if it's, I mean, certainly understand if it's too upsetting for some people. I just, I think we should talk about it in plain, clear language. And, you know, the DNA showed anal intercourse. You know, again, she was asleep and the indication is that she was battered into submission. Like she didn't get it. There's no real defensive wound.

[00:13:21] [SPEAKER_02] She didn't really get a chance to defend herself. If you're like lying there and then someone's bashing you in the head and you're, you probably go unconscious pretty quickly. She talked about the lack of injuries during the intercourse. And she said, you know, one reason why that could be is that Faith is unconscious when she's being raped and assaulted. You know, she's not, her body's totally relaxed because she is unconscious at this point, which I think makes a lot of sense. It's also the fact she's on her period.

[00:13:50] [SPEAKER_02] So that is the sexual offense and the rape. And then there's two charges of murder. Kevin, how can that be? He's only accused of killing one individual. How can he be charged with murder twice? One of them for the record, so you know, is first degree murder and perpetration of a felony. And the other one is first degree murder based on malice, premeditation and deliberation.

[00:14:10] [SPEAKER_01] We'd like to give a big thank you to Vinted, the sponsor of this episode.

[00:14:14] [SPEAKER_02] 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.

[00:14:37] [SPEAKER_01] That's when we found out about Vinted, a great way to turn the clothes in our closet into money.

[00:14:43] [SPEAKER_02] And also clear up closet space for new clothes.

[00:14:46] [SPEAKER_01] Vinted 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.

[00:15:03] [SPEAKER_02] Vinted 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.

[00:15:18] [SPEAKER_01] And these days it also helps to be able to earn some extra money. Especially when Vinted makes it so easy. That's Vinted. V-I-N-T-E-D. See what's hiding in your closet. You might be surprised how much you can earn with Vinted. Download the Vinted app for free to start listing with no seller fees.

[00:15:39] [SPEAKER_02] 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.

[00:15:52] [SPEAKER_01] I recently got a pearl snap denim western shirt and 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 sweaters start at just $60. Check them out.

[00:16:22] [SPEAKER_02] Seriously, get them and we can all match. I love my 100% European linen fit and flare midi dress in chili 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.

[00:16:46] [SPEAKER_02] These are classic pieces 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.

[00:16:56] [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.

[00:17:16] [SPEAKER_01] So when you often we saw this in the Richard Allen case, you want to give the jury basically a choice. If you're charging felony murder, that's basically means, oh, they didn't plan the murder. It just happened when they were doing another felony. First degree murder means, no, they went there and they intended to do murder. And in fact, did do murder.

[00:17:46] [SPEAKER_01] So you're basically giving the jury a choice. Do you think he intended to kill this person when he showed up there? Do you think the killing was an accident or something that just happened as part of another crime? And the jury can pick which charge they feel most appropriate. In the Delphi case, they just ended up convicting of everything. And in that instance, Judge Gull threw out two of the four murder convictions.

[00:18:11] [SPEAKER_02] And what did Richard Allen say after the trial about his confusion over that?

[00:18:15] [SPEAKER_01] Richard Allen famously said they convicted me of killing four people. But I just killed two.

[00:18:21] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah. Yeah. I have charged with murder four times. We're paraphrasing here, but not a super bright guy. But anyways, in this case, they explained they can be he can be convicted of both. You don't have to choose between them. You could do both. You could do one. You can do neither. It's all about what we prove as far as the elements. What their argument was, the defendant was committing rape and sexual offense. And so this doesn't the murder doesn't require intent or premeditation. This in this scenario, he goes in there.

[00:18:50] [SPEAKER_02] He wants to rape and sexually assault her. So he takes a bottle and hits her in the head so she won't fight back. And the goal is more of the sexual offense and the rape. And he kills her as a result of that. Maybe he's not coming in to kill her, but he's coming in to rape her. And this is what happens. The other one is, you know, basically requires malice. So intentionally and with malice killed her.

[00:19:19] [SPEAKER_02] The malice is like someone trying to inflict wounds with a deadly weapon resulting in death intended to kill the victim. And she knows, like, we can't pull thoughts out of his head and figure out what exactly he intended. But what you can do with, you know, with looking at motive and intent and stuff is you can make inferences based on actions. I think a lot of people should remember that because I think sometimes like there's this like it's unknowable. The truth is unknowable. We can't know because we don't know what was in his head.

[00:19:48] [SPEAKER_02] But like from the circumstances, we can logically infer why something might have happened. So if someone is battered into submission and then subsequently raped, we can kind of infer that the goal of the battering was to incapacitate them for the rape. Right. We don't need to be in the person's head. We could just look at what happened. And in this case, you know, talked about how premeditation. What does that mean?

[00:20:15] [SPEAKER_02] Does that mean he has to go in and have this whole plan for years? No. No. She talked about how he's smashing her with the bottle again and again and again to knock her out and to harm her. Even between those swings, there's a choice. I'm going to do this again and again and again. You know, this premeditation in that. It could be seconds. That doesn't matter. It's not about stewing over something for a long time.

[00:20:44] [SPEAKER_02] It's it's about the the instant in which you're making this decision that, you know, is going to end the life of somebody severely injure them or possibly injure them or possibly kill them rather. So this is more about the act being the, you know, proximate cause of the victim's death. So, I mean, what do you think about that?

[00:21:03] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, that makes sense.

[00:21:06] [SPEAKER_02] I thought this was an effective phrase. So I think this. I think this was highly effective. One thing that also stuck out to me was that. She said, if you don't believe basically that we've fulfilled our burden here, you have to let him walk out the door with you.

[00:21:24] [SPEAKER_01] That is very effective.

[00:21:26] [SPEAKER_02] Because all I was thinking is if I'm a juror, I don't want this guy. I have something about, like, we're all going to walk out together and, like, he's going to just be out there with me. And you want this guy with you? No. Yeah. No, I thought that was just a very, like, just phrasing it in a certain way to kind of conjure a certain thing. So, you know, but her thing was if you believe the forensics, you have to convict him. Stop him. You have the power to stop him. He's known. Tell him what he's already known for 14 years that he's guilty.

[00:21:53] [SPEAKER_02] And you're the conscience of this community and what we will not tolerate in the apartments where our children sleep. That was pretty effective. I thought she did an excellent job. I think the whole let's go through the checklist to make everyone feel better about each charge was great. I'm sure these guys didn't invent that. I'm sure that's been done before, but I thought it was very effectively used here.

[00:22:18] [SPEAKER_02] It gets the jury to focus on what matters and what was actually proven and hone in on, I think, what's important. What do you think?

[00:22:27] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, it's very clever. I thought she did a great job.

[00:22:29] [SPEAKER_02] I love her passion and the way she communicates. I think she's great at that. Now, one thing I should have mentioned up top, but I sort of forgot. CBS 17 reported the demographics of the jury, at least sex wise. They said that there were three men on the jury and nine women. So I don't know. I've seen media get that wrong sometimes in other cases. Like, I know, I think I got it wrong in the Delphi case because I guess we're too sleep deprived.

[00:22:59] [SPEAKER_02] But, you know, interesting, substantial majority of women on the jury. You know, that that can I think I personally think that will hurt the defendant because I think a lot of women look at this and they say this is an obvious sexual assault.

[00:23:15] [SPEAKER_02] No woman who has a period is going to just throw their tampon on the floor, throw their panty liner on the floor, sleep with their shirt up around their neck with their breasts out in a bed where they share with their roommate who they're not in any sort of sexual relationship with. And while you're actively bleeding on your period, no panties, nothing that's not. Like, that's just so antithetical. I mean, like, I think that makes sense to men of why you wouldn't want to do that.

[00:23:43] [SPEAKER_02] Right. But like a woman definitely like has that experience, too, and is like that doesn't make any sense. So I think that hurts him. But you never know. Sometimes I think women, some women really sympathize with men in different situations. So you never know. The next person, though, we heard from was Prosecutor Lisa Coltrane.

[00:24:06] [SPEAKER_02] I just want to say, like, and this isn't to knock anything that came before, because as I said, I thought Miss Garcia Lamarca did a remarkable job. Lisa Coltrane destroyed this. I mean, like in a good way. Like, I'm complimenting her. She did amazing. I thought she like this. I don't know. She like she like just kept dunking on the defense. This was just a route. I don't she. I mean, I'm going to be a little crass here.

[00:24:36] [SPEAKER_02] She kicked ass. Like, I was. I was really impressed with with what she had to say. And I'm probably not going to do it justice. At all. But let's get into it. So. She says, you know, the defense gets to go last and you're going to hear a bunch of noise, which is, you know, typical. I think oftentimes prosecutors might say that is like, don't listen to them.

[00:25:04] [SPEAKER_02] But she talks about. Well, I'll let I'll let I'll I'll I'll play a clip from her right now.

[00:25:12] [SPEAKER_00] Little lawyer trick. I'm going to let you in kind of behind the curtain. A little lawyer trick. And it's something called red herrings. Red herring. A red herring is when a lawyer doesn't want you to focus on something really important. It's really heavy. They don't want you to look at that. So they're like, look at this shiny thing over here. That doesn't matter.

[00:25:40] [SPEAKER_00] Don't focus on this lab report and this lab report and this lab report. Don't focus on all these lab reports. Focus on the red herrings. Because if you focus on these, he's guilty. Those red herrings are noise. They're distractions.

[00:26:10] [SPEAKER_00] And there's been a lot of noise around this case.

[00:26:16] [SPEAKER_02] So she's saying that, you know how you and I have a joke about Kevin and I have a joke about something like this. We talk about shiny keys. Right. If one of us doesn't want to say it, like talk about something or whatever, like, oh, Anya, look, shiny keys. Like, you know, a baby is distracted by keys. Or I might say, Kevin, look, keys. And like it's like to jokingly say, like, let's let's talk about something else that we want to talk about. And what she's saying is that the defense is essentially doing that. Don't look over here. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

[00:26:46] [SPEAKER_02] And then she proceeds. Yeah. She explains, you know, the red herrings. Don't focus on the lab reports. And what she says is what I don't want is for you to get sucked into nonsense. Love her. I mean, she's just great. Then she proceeds to, like, look at all of the checks that the defense wrote in their opening and proceed to say, hey, all these bounced. So these are things that the defense said they were going to do in their opening.

[00:27:13] [SPEAKER_02] They were going to we're going to hear from Joy Barker, the 80 year old neighbor who heard thumps above. And she said the state didn't want to call her because why would you care? She obviously heard Karina and Faith going into their apartment, some drunk college girls bumping around. Not really relevant to the case. But, you know, we didn't bring her in. But why didn't the defense when they said that was going to be a big deal? Why didn't the defense bring in this UNC professor? They said they were going to show you photographs of the crime scene investigators not wearing gloves at the scene.

[00:27:43] [SPEAKER_02] Where were those? You know, where did you? They said explicitly that they were going to bring in the defendant's girlfriends who were going to speak. Oh, he was a gentleman to me. Where were they? And then she then this one just, you know, she's like she's like warming him up. And then this I thought was pretty devastating. She says. You know, they acted like when he was arrested in 2021 that the police didn't mention that the murder had occurred in 2012.

[00:28:12] [SPEAKER_02] They said it was a couple of years ago. That's what the defense claimed. And, you know, like, of course you didn't remember her because they didn't specify the year. They just said a couple of years ago. And then I can't believe why wouldn't you ask about 2012? And no one really remembered this on the stand. But then they pulled up the video where you clearly see the officers saying, oh, yeah, this happened in 2012. So if the if the prosecution had a blunder with that meme, I feel like this might have been the defense's version of that,

[00:28:40] [SPEAKER_02] where it was like very clear that what they claimed was happening was simply not true. And whether they said that because they got confused or they didn't remember that or they were trying to shade it and didn't think they'd get called out. I don't know. But that was embarrassing. So, you know, I thought she was just she was just jabbing them. There's been a lot of that towards the state's case from the defense. But this time it really felt like the state was kind of turning around.

[00:29:09] [SPEAKER_02] It was like, oh, you want to dance? Let's go. You know, and I thought they really. For me, as somebody who was watching this and at a certain point felt the evidence was enough to convict and has been very skeptical of the defense's case, albeit complimentary of their performance, given the circumstances like to me, I don't see them as bad attorneys. I just see them as having a bad case, a lot of bad facts. I mean, they've done a good job with what they've had.

[00:29:34] [SPEAKER_02] But if I like trap an artist in a room with, you know, very like only crayons, they're not going to be able to make an oil painting. Well, I guess you can melt down the crayons. But you know what I mean? You're not going to make if you have you're only as good as your tools, I guess. Let's say that. And I think with an attorney, to a certain extent, you're as good as your case, unless you're really willing to be super dishonest and like lie, which I do. I, you know, I feel like they've they've been. I've not seen anything where I've been like, oh, they've been horrible and unethical.

[00:30:03] [SPEAKER_02] And doing anything totally wild. I think they're doing what they can with what they have. But anyway, she's just killing them over it. I mean, I mean, she she is just very, very forceful about this. And then she says, you know, the state, you know, they're saying, oh, the state was going to say that Faith and defendant didn't know each other. Make them prove it. And she's like, challenge accepted. And then it's like Faith had a type of man she was interested in. They were all African-American or dark skinned.

[00:30:30] [SPEAKER_02] You know, she had one boyfriend, I believe, who was Native American back in high school. But, you know, that was what she liked. And she's like, people can date against their type. But like. It's not like this guy is like some person that she would have been like super into. There's no digital overlap between them. There's no overlap in their social circles. They this guy didn't. This guy was taking English lessons at the time. So communication could have been like a barrier. She didn't speak Spanish.

[00:30:59] [SPEAKER_02] And then what's more, all the people who knew her really well and were around her communicating with her every day. They never heard of this guy. They never heard of a guy named Miguel. They never heard of any sort of thing that could point to. Oh, I I hooked up with this guy who I met and, you know, like anything. So. You know, and then she plays part of the video where he's denying knowing her and where he's the transcript where he's telling his mother, I never knew her, like all of this.

[00:31:29] [SPEAKER_02] So then she's saying now they want to throw Karina Rosario under the bus because, oh, there's this blood trail that leads to her. And she's like, listen, the blood drip on the bathroom doorframe. What does that tell us? It's it's pretty obviously Faith's blood. It tells us nothing. And then, OK, you want to say Karina Rosario made this comment about having a spot of blood on her hand. Where's the rest of the blood? If she's involved in the murder, she's going to be covered in blood.

[00:31:56] [SPEAKER_02] So somehow she washes herself and her clothes really effectively in like in a ridiculously short amount of time and gets rid of all that evidence, but leaves one spot and then calls it out to somebody. It doesn't make any sense. What makes sense? She was drinking a bunch of red slushies, vomited on herself, and she was also spotting from her abortion. So like. Maybe like that kind of makes more sense than like something that doesn't isn't really supported by the forensic evidence.

[00:32:25] [SPEAKER_02] The trail of blood to Karina falls apart is what she said. It's noise. And she talked about the investigation. Yeah, there were problems, but like 14 years with better technology and with some of these people having more experience. Of course, anyone can Monday morning quarterback. Everything. Certain things would have been done differently today, but nothing would be done perfectly today because there's no such thing as a perfect investigation. And your standard is perfection.

[00:32:51] [SPEAKER_02] Then God help you, you're you're too persnickety, you know, they talked about like, you know, I just she was kind of like this incisive. She said things like, oh, yeah, they didn't they didn't collect everything in her apartment because that's not how anything works. They didn't talk to everyone in Chapel Hill either. Like. Like, like the defense is going to complain about stuff that doesn't really mean the jury should listen to it. You know what she said? None of this matters because the guy who did it left his DNA like confetti all over the room.

[00:33:22] [SPEAKER_02] I mean, she just she was on fire. Honestly, I was so impressed. She talks about how the guy. You know, she kind of like, OK, the meme thing. Yeah, you got us on that one. But, you know, we did. I'm glad it got cleared up because we didn't want to put bad evidence out there. I was like, OK. But. You know, when you look at it, I mean, it just kind of. It's really looks so small in the context of what they do have. And.

[00:33:49] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah, I she talks about how this guy. She even defending Karina Rosario, like she was on the phone texting, doing something for all but like a 14 minute stretch. So she's like, so how is she like killing her best friend? And then also like planting semen and fingerprints and then also texting the whole time like normal. And like washing up and like staging the crime scene.

[00:34:20] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah, it did. It didn't make it. She just made it sound as ridiculous as I think it is and basically concluded kind of emotionally with Karina with, you know, this guy came in like a thief in the night. And stole these people's best friend, a future pediatrician, a future person who's going to contribute to the community, a sister, a daughter, cousin. And just this is this is horrible. And she got really emotional talking about like this guy gets to come in here, rape and kill this girl.

[00:34:49] [SPEAKER_02] And then we have to dissect her life and her sexual partners and how she didn't like to have sex on her period. And she's the one almost on trial as we're dissecting everything about her to figure it out. And the trauma and harm that he has inflicted in doing this is just incalculable.

[00:35:11] [SPEAKER_00] Faith can't even have any dignity in death. She was assaulted. She was beaten. She was violated. She had his penis rammed inside of her. And now her life has had to be dissected for you to fight about her sexual partners. About the fact that she doesn't like to have sex when she's on her period.

[00:35:40] [SPEAKER_00] About who she was sleeping with. You've had to have pictures of her vagina splayed across this courtroom because of this man's selfish actions. Because he couldn't be made to feel stupid.

[00:35:59] [SPEAKER_00] And Faith and Karina and Marisol and Tlaib and Mitch and Jordan and Alexis and Faith's entire family have had to pay.

[00:36:21] [SPEAKER_00] And pay and pay and pay and pay and be wracked with guilt about like what could I have done to save her? Why couldn't I have just locked the door? Could I have called on her? Could I have gotten mace for her? Could I have done something? All the officers have thought, what could I have done to solve this sooner?

[00:36:47] [SPEAKER_00] So this family didn't have to be in torture for so many years. All these people have wracked themselves with guilt when the guilt lays right here with this man. It's been here since September 7th. It remains here now. The evidence is loud. It is clear.

[00:37:13] [SPEAKER_00] And it is shouting at you that this defendant sexually assaulted Faith Hedgepeth. The evidence is loud. It is clear. And it is shouting at you that he raped Faith Hedgepeth. It is loud. It is clear. And it is shouting at you that he murdered Faith Hedgepeth.

[00:37:35] [SPEAKER_02] I thought masterclass.

[00:37:38] [SPEAKER_01] Masterclass.

[00:37:39] [SPEAKER_02] Excellent. I thought, what did you think about any of that?

[00:37:42] [SPEAKER_01] I thought she did. I think both of them did a terrific job with their closing arguments. Very, very effectively done.

[00:37:49] [SPEAKER_02] So the defense comes in and Jason Murphy starts out with the closing argument. And his big point is, I guess, you know, tunnel vision. They had tunnel vision. In 2021, they had the forensic evidence that came back. And it was the match. And that was all they focused on. And to that, I say, yeah.

[00:38:21] [SPEAKER_02] But let's hear him out. So he talks about, you know, he was across the street in September 2012. He was a teenage boy. He was 19 himself. You know, and there's a double standard because Karina and Tlaib and all these other people in Faith Circle, they're going out and drinking and partying and having fun and having sex with each other and forgetting stuff because they had too much to drink. Why is it so hard to believe that this 19-year-old young man maybe did something similar?

[00:38:47] [SPEAKER_02] Why is it so hard to believe that he didn't just hook up with somebody? They were partying. He forgot about it. He was drinking. He why is he held to this standard where he can't forget anything, but all these other people can. And it's kind of suspicious that they did. And let me just say, I see what he's saying. I think that's a fair point. What do you think?

[00:39:12] [SPEAKER_01] I see what he is saying. I don't think it's particularly persuasive. It's not. In this instance, when you look at the context of the other evidence and the context of who Faith was.

[00:39:25] [SPEAKER_02] I can give him this, that it's a decent point. It just pales in comparison to the evidence in the case. Like, we need to have a nuanced view of this stuff because an attorney on either side can make a decent point, but that doesn't mean we need to base everything off of that. And that's what struck me. I'm like, yeah, that's fair. I would have loved to have heard more about, though, like his lifestyle and what he was or wasn't doing. I'm like, was he? Would he hook up with girls?

[00:39:53] [SPEAKER_02] Like, frankly, like if he had a story about that, maybe he should have testified. And I know you think that's a bad idea and it would have been because he's guilty. But in a hypothetical where. Where like maybe he's not hearing about it would have been helpful, I think. And he did one thing about defense attorneys that I don't like when they do this. Not everyone does this, but I hate when it's like.

[00:40:21] [SPEAKER_02] Oh, here's a version of events that benefits my side. And let me just act like it's totally crazy for anyone to think differently. This is where he does this. He says, like, you know, only one person in this case left the apartment with literal blood on her hands. First of all, we don't know what was on her hands. It was never tested and she wiped it off. So now. But like Karina left with blood on her hands and it would have been, you know, Jordan McCrary,

[00:40:49] [SPEAKER_02] who was the one who told the story, saw her drinking red slushies. So why wouldn't he assume red slushies? Well, she told him it was blood because she was drunk and she was confused. Like, you know, I don't know. I just wrote down. That's not how people work, Mr. Murphy. If he if she if she says blood, he's not going to immediately think slushies. You know, I mean, I don't know. And then he says, like, you know, the case, the burden lies with the state. They have to prove every element of their case. You know, that is totally true. Totally fair.

[00:41:19] [SPEAKER_02] Before I get. But don't let me stop this episode without telling you the state's like whole theory, though, because I kind of skipped over that. But let's talk about Rainsford. So Rainsford concludes for the defense. He talks about again, it's the classic defense attorney things like, oh, Karina Rosario says she was drunk, but her texts are too coherent.

[00:41:41] [SPEAKER_02] Is there is there like a is it like is there like a scale of drunkenness versus coherence to your text that makes it believable or not believable? Like that just seems so like you can't know what might be very coherent for her is less coherent for it. Like, like that's so subjective. It's like I hate when they they oftentimes you hear that, you know, it's like this can't be true because it's too much this. And it's like, yeah, that's just your opinion, man.

[00:42:10] [SPEAKER_02] And she talked about it again, this obsession of like, oh, oh, she she was going out to be with a guy. Why wouldn't you have brushed her teeth if she was vomiting? I don't know. She was a total drunken mess. That really does. Maybe that's a bit in my day. I was in college at this time. I was starting out my freshman year. So I guess I'm kind of about their age. I wouldn't have done that. But, you know, I don't know.

[00:42:36] [SPEAKER_02] I definitely the word that people used at my college when people were acting like this was kind of it was called ratchet. Right. You know, it was kind of like, you know, messy or gross or, you know, but I think in a college culture where drinking is a big thing, sometimes people do stuff that's kind of gross.

[00:42:53] [SPEAKER_02] People let their apartment get really messy and gross like that people don't necessarily exercise the best hygiene when they're super drunk and looking just to go hook up with anybody because they're feeling really sad about themselves. None of that really strikes me as weird. I mean, it's weird in the context of like regular adulthood. It's not weird in the context of what was going on with Karina Rosario at the time.

[00:43:23] [SPEAKER_02] So, you know, he's like, this isn't a red herring that we basically were implying that it was Karina Rosario and that that was important. It's what we were given by the police. It could still be a red herring. He's like, oh, my client wasn't evasive when he was trying to talk to the police about this. He offered to bring them upstairs. But like he has a job, so he's going to be focused on that. And, you know, all we know about this mystery person at the barbecue is that they spoke Spanish. That doesn't mean it was my guy. And we didn't even hear from a crime scene reconstruction expert.

[00:43:50] [SPEAKER_02] And why would, you know, if if this someone just broke in and killed Faith randomly, why would they put pillows and comforters over her? Why wouldn't you know what? That almost implies regret. How could that just be some crazy intruder? It's not my job to call witnesses of all these people I didn't call, you know, like all that. You know, the state brought out a meme. I mean, that's their that's their standard for vetting. And, you know, he's he's not guilty. And the state didn't prove their case, hold them to their burden.

[00:44:19] [SPEAKER_02] Let's talk about the state's theory about what actually happened and why this happened. So their idea for this was the girls get home. Faith is driving. Karina is falling down drunk and doesn't remember any of this, which testimony supports. The picnic area where these folks are gathered with, you know, possibly the defendant there is within the eyeline of the parking space where Faith parked that night.

[00:44:48] [SPEAKER_02] And seeing these two young ladies who were often approached by men, you know, the defendant approaches them. And maybe Faith, maybe he tries to engage them in some way. You know, whatever that means. Cat calling. Saying lewd comment. Trying to flirt. Who knows? Offering to carry Karina, whatever.

[00:45:15] [SPEAKER_02] And Faith, who had a protective personality, maybe immediately or maybe after some kind of back and forth, gets annoyed of this guy being pushy or inappropriate. And says something to the effect of, are you stupid? Can't you see she's sick? Go away. She rejects him. She makes him feel stupid or small or rejected in some way. And she takes Karina upstairs to the apartment.

[00:45:39] [SPEAKER_02] And the defendant is extremely pissed off about this and is drunk, feels humiliated. Some men don't deal with that very well. They don't deal with rejection well. You know, men are, most men I think would just brush it off. But there's a certain type where that's not acceptable and there's like a rage to it.

[00:46:04] [SPEAKER_02] I think sometimes, Kevin, we talk about this sometimes, but I think men are the, I mean, people often say like women are the more emotional ones. But like I think men can be extremely emotional.

[00:46:15] [SPEAKER_01] That's fair.

[00:46:16] [SPEAKER_02] I remember we, when we, you know, we had a trainer work with Nick at one point to try to make him a little bit, a little bit more respectful. And, you know, using some of the positive reinforcements. And she was funny because she was like, yeah, I always say the boy dogs are a little more emotional. She's like, I guess that's kind of for humans too. But I think like men hide their emotions, but then it can kind of explode out. Not always in violence, but certainly sometimes it can.

[00:46:44] [SPEAKER_02] So anyways, this guy stews on it. And then at some point he sees Karina leave and get picked up. And she's, that happens at about 425 and this cookout's still going on. It's still going on until 5 a.m. And so at some point he, maybe before this he messed around with Faith's gas tank as revenge. But then he sees Karina leave and he sees an opportunity.

[00:47:09] [SPEAKER_02] So he goes up there, gets into the apartment because it's unlocked and does what he does as revenge. By beating and raping her, he can recover some of his lost manhood or whatever in his mind. And feel like the bigger man, feel like the more powerful one. He's now humiliating her, leaving her like that, possibly leaving a taunting note.

[00:47:39] [SPEAKER_02] And yeah, that is their, that is their outline of what happened. Although as they noted, you don't have to agree or feel like we proved every element of that. They're just trying to give a narrative. So after all of this, the jury was given instruction on the law. The alternates were sort of separated from those who were deliberating. Two men and two women were the alternates.

[00:48:04] [SPEAKER_02] And the jury around 3 p.m. today went off to deliberate. I noticed that a number of times while the prosecution was speaking, and it's noted, it's not lost on me that the two prosecutors who spoke today were women. The defendant, to my mind, was. I'm not a big believer in looking. People can make all kinds of weird facial expressions and it doesn't mean anything. Sometimes people think I look really sad.

[00:48:34] [SPEAKER_02] And I'm like, I'm okay. And they're like, oh, you just look, you know, is everything okay? And I'm just, I'm fine, you know? Like, I don't think I'm sad. Like, I think I'm just, it's just my face. But I'll say what I'm going to say. He looked like he was smirking. He just did. To me, it looked like a smirk. Maybe it wasn't. Maybe it was nerves. I don't know. I'm not going to put anything on it, but it didn't look good to me.

[00:49:02] [SPEAKER_00] What do you think of this case?

[00:49:05] [SPEAKER_01] I think there is very strong evidence of his guilt. I feel the prosecution has met its burden. And I feel like the defense was not able to shake the pillars of evidence. So I would be expecting a conviction.

[00:49:26] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah, that's my feeling too. Listen, I held out for a while because I was sort of like, maybe the defense is going to present something that might change my mind. So I didn't really want to land firmly on guilt because I felt like there might be. I felt it was unlikely, but a possibility that there might be evidence lurking around the corner that could inform us and. Make us think differently. Right. Right. And so that's.

[00:49:55] [SPEAKER_02] That's kind of where I was. But I was always feeling like this is a strong case and this is bad for the defendant. Having seen it all, I think his guilt is inescapable. And I think they very much surpassed, I would say, the burden placed upon them. The state. I think the defense tried and they should be commended because that is their role to advocate zealously for their client. And they did so. I just don't think they really had a leg to stand on as far as like combating this evidence.

[00:50:25] [SPEAKER_02] And certainly their client didn't do them many favors. But, yeah, I would predict that he would be convicted. But again, you never know with the jury. You never know.

[00:50:35] [SPEAKER_01] You never know.

[00:50:35] [SPEAKER_02] I think it would be nuts if they hung. I think to me that just seems. That would have to be like someone on there is just, I don't know. Really out there. It just seems extremely clear to me that he's very guilty. It's not an ambiguous case. So that's where I stand. I will be curious to see what you all think. And I will be curious to see what the jury thinks. That's perhaps the most important.

[00:51:03] [SPEAKER_01] That is the important part.

[00:51:04] [SPEAKER_02] Those are the folks who actually matter in this case. And so let's, I guess we'll find out later. But thank you all so much for listening.

[00:51:12] [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 dot com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[00:51:31] [SPEAKER_02] 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.

[00:51:56] [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.

[00:52:06] [SPEAKER_02] 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.