Steve Pankey trial opening statements

he had done so he also calls his Pastor Jim Christie for guidance and he also called several of Janelle's friends to see if he knew if they knew where Janelle was at 11 14 Jim called the Community Police Department now contrary to what we hear sometimes through Hollywood or through media the police department doesn't wait 24 hours before taking a missing person's report so the Greenland Police Department responds immediately to the Matthews home officer Dave Mathis was the first officer to arrive at the Matthews home along with Detective Jack stocker and one of the first things that they noticed were footprints outside the Matthews home in the front of the house there were footprints that were just outside of the windows that looked down into that basement living room that you've already seen a photograph of in the back of the home there are footprints that are around the back up the uh the staircase to it up second floor deck to a door that leads into the kitchen and the other thing that they noticed was many of the footprints that were seen out back were obliterated by what appeared to be a hard garden rake exhibit number 10. you can see some of the footprints that I'm talking about and you can see some of the raking marks a similar Garden rate was found hanging in the Matthews garage the with marks of the teeth on that rake that you'll see during the course of this trial are similar in terms of width to the spacing on those raking marks in the backyard of the Matthews home in the garage area underneath uh where a car would be parked in grease or oil there are some similar footprint type markings through as if somebody walks through the very short of the world and what you'll see in some of these Footprints is a very distinctive tread pattern looks like little dots and it's clear that those same shoes that made the tracks in the snow also walk through the garage that rake was found hanging in the Matthew's garage the existence of these raid marks was held very close to the vest by the Greeley Police Department some folks refer to it as hold back evidence the idea being that the only people who know the existence of these wrecking marks are the police department and the perpetrator years later Jennifer Matthews did not know that there were raid marks outside of her home in the snow having seemingly vanished Into Thin Air Janelle went missing for 35 years here in Greeley this was enormous news thank you this was enormous news the community was terrified there were reward posters posted all over town with requesting information about The Disappearance of Janelle you'll hear that there were massive Community searches in and around the fields of Greeley out into into rural World County looking for any signs dogs were used to track her television news crews ran stories recreations stories about her disappearance ran in the media almost every single day Janelle is in fact one of the first children to appear on the milk cartons in schools saying have you seen me this was enormous news in Weld County and she remained missing until July 23 of 2019. on that day an oil gas company who was installing a gas pipeline Avalon County Road 49 near County Road 34 and a half Unearthed what appeared to be a skeleton and clothing using the front of the blade of a front end loader after what you will hear is a very detailed very arduous search by forensic anthropologists we have exhibit 73 please you will hear about the uncovering of Janelle Matthew's remains can you put up exhibit two next to that please you'll see the clothing that was uncovered from that field buried in a hole underneath the soil and you'll see the same vest the same shirt the same skirt of the same undergarments that Janelle was wearing December 20th of 1984. ladies and gentlemen she didn't even have time to change clothes well it was also immediately apparent to forensic anthropologists and to the coroner exhibit 83. was the cause of death single gunshot wounds to the upper left portion of Janelle's skull these remains were confirmed of regional Matthews through dental records after DNA and obviously through the clothing if we can have exhibit number 87 you'll see that the trajectory of that gunshot was from left to right and add it down thank you so how do we get here how do we get to this trial at this place at this time we talked about this quite a bit Mr Miller and Ms Wells talked about this a lot yesterday there is no DNA in this case nor should we expect there to be because you saw where Janelle was recovered and you'll hear from DNA experts who will tell you that the worst possible environment for DNA to remain on an individual's clothing on their body is soil and sand for 35 years experts wolves for DNA not expecting to find any and of course they didn't her home was never processed in 1984 for what we now call Touch DNA because frankly the technology didn't exist in 1984. what you will hear over the course of this trial is the type of evidence that is as old as time itself statements statements of the defendant statements that span 37 years statements and behaviors that will ultimately lead you to but one conclusion that the defendant is the person that police were looking for 37 years on January 17th of 1985. about three weeks after Janelle's disappearance no one knew who Stephen pinky was he had not been identified through the course of the initial investigation no one could talk to him talked about him as having anything to do with the Matthews family or General Matthews and yet he chose to pick up the phone that day called The Gravely police department and talked to detective Jack stopper and in the four course excuse me of that phone call he first identifies himself as a a ordained Baptist minister he claimed that he had contact with someone who had information about Janelle's disappearance and he asked to take his scholar to share the information with him that the early Police Department had developed in the investigation up to that point almost an adult version of you tell me what you know I'll tell you what I know well of course detectives aren't going to be doing that at the very initial stages of investigation and certainly not to somebody who had never been identified in the course of this investigation as potentially having any information and almost as if to entice detective Statler to accept this offer what the defendant tells him is that he has definite evidence that Janelle was abducted and that she was probably dead before she left the house three weeks later this phone call is made with second scholar again refused to give up any information about his investigation the defendant ended the conversation 12 Days Later on his own accord the defendant showed up at the Greeley Police Department again in an effort to talk to law enforcement on that date again he specifically spoke to detective staller for a very brief period of time this interview if you will was really an opportunity or an effort by detective established part put a face with a name who was the person that called me on January 17th of 1985. you'll hear that that conversation with the defendant in detective statler's mind was so insignificant that it garnered barely a paragraph in a report the detectives Stout wrote about his investigate investigative efforts yes in the defendant this conversation was enormously important in an interview with the podcaster that he did November of 2019. he is still talking about this interview and he tells the podcaster that he was pleasantly surprised at how easy the interview went and that that night when he went home he had he he did sleep really good his words for the first time in a long time end of January 1985 slept really well for the first time in a long time ladies and gentlemen we talked a lot about this in the last couple of days that motive is not an element of any of the offenses that have been charged in this case we don't have to prove a moment but if we have evidence of what a motive is that is certainly something that could be important to you all in determining identity and intent and it certainly helps in establishing its high between the defendant and general Matthews who want paper appeared to be complete strangers you'll hear that in 1977 the defendant was also a member of the Sunnyview Church of the Nazarene and that he was involved in a romantic relationship with a fellow church member named Deb Moon in 1977 the defendant took Miss Moon on a long drive down various rural World County Roads and as the result of this long drive Miss Moon had or caused a criminal investigation to occur that was investigated by the Greeley Police Department and the Will County Sheriff's Office as the result of that investigation criminal charges were filed that were ultimately and subsequently dismissed to be clear but the fact of that criminal investigation those criminal charges was published in the early Tribune and was seen by the leadership and members of the church at the Sunnyview Church of the Nazarene and as a result of this investigation Pastor Jim Christie the leader of the church excommunicated the defendant from the church kicked him out you'll hear that even after that occurred the defendant still came back to the church on several different occasions and was basically forced to leave you will hear that this chain of events that I just described instilled a hatred in the defendant for the church the church members the Greeley police department and the wall County Sheriff's Office and it was shortly after this removal from the church that the Matthews joined the one of the members that the defendant himself has said he harbored a hatred for was Russ Ross because you see Not only was the defendant affiliated with Russ Ross at the church but they worked together at the 7-Up modeling it in distribution plan here in Greeley and they had conflict to the point where there are lawsuits filed there are police reports taken about conflict between the defendant and Russ Ross he's been quoted as saying he hated restaurants he testified on that stand that he thought Russ was a jerk Russ was the last person to see Janelle Matthews alive on December 20th of 1984. except for the person who abducted and killed her and pay very close attention during the course of this trial to the statements that are attributed to the defender listen to him talk about things and his description of what happened on December 20th of 1984. and in writings that will detail in a few minutes he claims that on the evening of December 20th of 1984 he was at home he claims that he was at home with his wife and his five-year-old son and he said he was at home planning to leave for a trip to California to visit his family the next morning and he's standing at the window of his home on 6086 West West 10th Street looking out the window watching the weather conditions because he's concerned about the ability to leave his home and drive to California the next morning he's worried about the snow he's worried about getting his two-wheel drive car down a long dirt driveway up to 10th Street you'll hear that according to NOAA the national oceanographic Oshie osinagraphic and Atmospheric Administration I think I said that wrong there was a mere one inch of snow on the ground on December 20th of 1984 and the high temperature was 38 degrees he claims he was drinking a Pepsi and then he washed two cars pull into the driveway of his home that he believed where police cars coming to serve him with papers he claims that they left in the early morning hours of December 21st arriving 16 or 17 hours straight through to Big Bear California Big Bear Lake California spending the Christmas holiday with his family and returning on December 26th to us on the girly and for the next 37 years he will assert that he had no knowledge of Janelle Matthews the Matthews family her disappearance and hadn't heard anything about it until six days later you'll hear that repeated over and over and over again we know that his version of events that occurred on December 20th of 1984 are inaccurate because the other person that you will hear from this is not like's wife Angela Hicks Miss Hicks will tell you that they were married October of 1978 when she was very young 19 or 20 years old and throughout their marriage until she filed for divorce in 2000 she suffered significant psychological abuse at the hands of the defendant despite the conditions of her marriage and her home life she will detail for you significant events surrounding Janelle's disappearance which ultimately led to her going to the police at Idaho in the late 1990s to report the conduct that I'll describe for you but what she will testify to is that in December of 1984 their son Mark was five years old they lived at the home of 6086 West 10th Street and at the time the defendant was selling cars off of the lot at their home under the business name of Aaron Otto Aaron Auto and she recalls that on the evening of December 21st while they're at home still at the home of Greeley he walks in and makes the surprise announcement that they're leaving to go to California the next morning which will be December 22nd of 1984. she'll tell you this was not a planned trip and in fact if it had been a planned trip she would have done the laundry she would have packed food for their five-year-old son and she had done none of those things she recalls being shocked by this and the first thing that the first thought that crossed her mind was what are we going to do with our dogs see they have two family dogs exhibit number 62. what do you do with the dogs who's going to take care of our dogs when we leave the next morning and she asked the defendant that and his response was I dumped him off I dumped them off Angela never saw those dogs again thank you she will tell you mistakes will tell you that she was certain that they packed their car in the pre-dawn hours of December 22nd and drove to Big Bear Big Bear California arriving on December 23rd she'll also tell you that inexplicably they left Christmas morning to drive back to Greeley arriving on December 26th when they get home they see me on the drive she will describe to you the very unusual behavior of having the defendant telling her to turn on the car radio and flipping through the channels as they're driving he's looking for stories about Janelle's disappearance this is unusual to her because in and amongst this psychological abuse that I described or that I alluded to for a period of time in a tanky home there's no television there's no newspapers and there's no radio allowed to use her words he wanted to have a Godly home and so media wasn't allowed in the Panky home yet when they're driving back home on December 25th and 26th he has her flipping through the radio stations looking for news reports about the 12 year old girl who's missing in Greeley when they arrived back to Greeley they don't go home they drive right by their house on 10th Street he's driving mind you to the Safeway store at 10th at 10th Street and 35th Avenue and he instructs her to go into the store get the newspaper for that day and to in essence beg for the other newspapers from the previous days having very little money in their pocket she has to do exactly that panhandle from customers coming out of the store for mere change to get into the newspaper bins that were back in the day to get underneath the lower shelves to get the newspapers from the previous day she returns to the car in the parking lot of the Safeway store and he instructs her demands that she read to him the newspaper stories not about the snow not about the Broncos about The Disappearance of General Matthews and she is forced to read those stories to him several different times before they can go home once she finished they returned to the home on West 10th Street and Angela will testify that immediately upon arriving home she's unpacking the five-year-old son she's unpacking the clothing and the the possessions in the car and he immediately gets out of the car and begins digging in the front yard what he claims is there's a problem with the septic system so he starts digging in the front yard confused Angela went inside checked the toilets checked the sinks there's nothing wrong you can't see anything wrong with the plumbing two days later she'll describe for you another very strange occurrence where she's in the house she's I'm going about her daily chores and she smells something burning and she steps out of the home and what you'll hear is that the plot of land that they have is very narrow and very long and at the back end of the property what she sees is a car on fire a reddish orange vehicle parked at the back of their property engulfed in flames before she remembers is the exterior of the car is not on fire the interior of the car is Anderson who he used to own Anderson Salvage out east in Greeley who unfortunately just recently passed away has testified in this case previously and you'll hear about his previous testimony his job was his company buys that scrap metal buys up reptile cars and repurposes that metal but buys that from consumers from people who bring these vehicles in and he remembers the defendant bringing the car to him that Mr Anderson described is suspicious and when asked about what was suspicious about it he called it a phony fire and what he described as a phony fire is one in which only the inside of the car is burned out the vast majority of the car fires that he has seen in the course of his career are burned from the outside not this car but the defendant brought to him Miss Hicks will continue in her testimony about some of the strange occurrences and Strange Behaviors for you during the course of this trial and she'll describe that in February of 1985 since he's no longer welcome at Sunnyview church for the Nazarene obviously for many years they are now members at a church called Faith Ministries and in February shortly after Janelle's disappearance about the time that some of these searches are beginning in and around the Greeley area they're at church service and the pastor during the course of the service during a call for prayer speaks of a vision that he had in which he he says that Janelle is alive she's alive and well and that she will be returned to her family upon hearing this the defendant as you will hear becomes enraged and starts muttering to himself false prophet and he says that several different times becoming more agitated as he says it each time to the point where he leaves the Pew in the church and starts pacing back and forth to the point where members of the church have to take him out of the church to avoid this distraction disruption that he is creating in 1999 fast forwarding ahead they're still married and at this point they're living in the state of Idaho in the course of their marriage the defendant tells told Miss Hicks that the Sunny the Sun Valley Idaho Police Department refuses to believe or excuse me refuses to take in the information that he has about Janelle's disappearance because they won't give them immunity in exchange for the information that he has he looks confused at that point and he sees that confusion on her face and he says to her you don't think I could have hurt her meaning Janelle do you she'd look just like her you just you look just like her she looks just like you looked just like you she will testify that when she heard that her blood ran cold because she had never put two or two together at that point she'd never connected the dots between the strange occurrences that I've described for you and there are others and Janelle Matthew's disappearance so she goes to the police department to find out whether or not he has in fact been talking to them about Janelle Matthews and two members of the Sun Valley Police Department will confirm that he had been in trying to get immunity in exchange for information that he had about you know Matthew's disappearance on May 23 of 1999 mistakes goes back into the police department and she's sitting talking with um several members of the police department and she has with her a newspaper a copy of a newspaper article from December 21st of 1984. and the title of that article was greeted Greeley girl believed kidnapped and there was a quote by then Lieutenant Paul Branham from the Greeley Police Department in that article which basically says that there are signs of Foul Play but that information is being withheld from the public during the course of this investigation and Angela in 1999 wrote along the side of that newspaper article one time he talked about snow being raped outside the Matthews House Angela finally filed for divorce in November of 2001 and that divorce decree was ordered on February in February of 2002. you'll hear that in July August excuse me of 2008 the Panky family had a tragedy their second son Carl was murdered in Arizona and Angela will tell you that the day before the funeral Carl's ashes were in herb and there was a family viewing visitation and there was an opportunity for them to privately view screen if you will a video montage in our rl's memory and she'll tell you that as this is occurring she sees the defendant standing over the Earth and she heard him say quote I hope God didn't allow this to happen because of Janelle Matthews August of 2008 . ladies and gentlemen following the defendant's appearance in 1985 at the gorilla Police Department he wasn't even a blip on the radar stream of the police department no reports about him no further interviews no one knew who he was and the others will see during the course of this trial it's almost as if over the course of time the defendant walks up to the shoulder of law enforcement Taps him on the shoulder and says here I am come get me what do I mean by that ladies and gentlemen statements that the defendant made to Angela Hicks for only the tip of the iceberg of the evidence in this case and as I talked through just a few of the statements that you'll hear over the course of this trial please remember this the truth does not change reality cannot be twisted but what you'll see is the defendant's statements over the course of time have changed significantly the truth does not change in November of 1986 the defendant while still living at 686 West 10th Street was contacted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a completely unrelated matter has nothing to do with General Mathis yet during the course of that brief conversation the defendant told the FBI agents that he thought they were there to talk to him about Janelle's disappearance and he further told him the agent Greg McHugh who will testify in his trial that the focus of the investigation should instead be directed at membership in the church the sunny View Church of Nazarene based on allegations that he makes of ritual ritualistic group sex is words to the FBI Troy thereafter after that FBI interview the defendant moves his family very abruptly as you'll hear out of Greeley first to Oklahoma Texas Arkansas California Oregon finally settling in Idaho you'll hear that in the winter of 1996 leading into 1997 defendant for some reason was videotaping a traffic stop that an officer at the Ketchum police firm by the name of wheat Anderson was made unrelated to him he's standing there videotaping it and when he's asked to step away from the traffic stop the defendant very specifically says to officer Edgerton quote or my language don't [ __ ] with me I've buried more people than you know kind of taken aback by that officer Edgerton says where do these burials take place and his immediate response was Colorado six months later Ketchum Police Department are investigating a disturbance at a local police local restaurant excuse me and during the course of that investigation the defendant is asked to make out a written statement now at the time he claims he has dyslexia so another officer arrives on scene Nathan Taylor arrives and the right takes down his statement for him but what the defendant has the officer right is the Sun Valley Idaho Police have created a lengthy file on me in regards to The Disappearance of Janelle Matthews in Greeley Colorado over a decade ago there's bad blood between the police and me he goes on in April 26 of 1999 in yet another Court pleading in the state of Idaho this time to the court of appeals he refers to himself as a master manipulator and says quote is almost a certainty that the state will not be able to solve the 1985 is what he writes disappearance of Mr no Matthews from a Colorado jurisdiction without the appellants cooperation he further argued that the state hopes the Appellate were appellant will reveal the location of Miss Matthew's body and once again argues or claims that he received the supposed information confession through the course of a pastoral privilege that he exercised the man has never been an ordained minister in any religious Faith at all the quotation that I started this opening statement with regarding being fearful of receiving the death penalty was written in September of 1999. in April of 2003 he had another polluting to the Idaho trial courts he claims quote the defendant entered the Greeley police department and told the detective that he had privileged information regarding The Disappearance of Janelle Matthews and the defendant said that the family should be informed that Janelle died before Crossing 10th Street and to not give the family hope in that same pleading in that same case he asserted that he had attempted to get immunity from the Weld County District Attorney's office and district attorney Al Dominguez through the Lincoln County Idaho prosecutor by the name of Jennifer Brown you will hear from Jennifer Brown now Jennifer ewer and Al Dominguez that never happened but this is one of the first times but certainly not the last that the defendant begins asking for immunity I'll talk about immunity again in a moment in 2011 the defendant finally abandons his claim that he has some kind of a pastoral privilege that prohibits him from sharing the information with law enforcement he begins writing letters to the district attorney's office here in wall County and you'll see in those letters he starts to change his story very significantly in a letter dated June 1st of 2011 he says I would like to make the following factual statement regarding my knowledge of Ms Matthews I lived in Will County from June of 1973 to early 1987. I first heard about Miss Matthews and her disappearance while returning from Christmas in California honored by December 26th of 1984. I have never had any knowledge that would lead me to believe anyone involved in Miss Matthew's disappearance was a threat to the General Public miss work I have one minute but I'll give you some more time I'm sorry I have one minute but I'll give you a few more minutes okay thank you and he then refers to her as the late Janelle Matthews and says that Miss Matthews the legend of Matthews is at all times innocent in her death and disappearance ladies and gentlemen her body wasn't found for another eight years he's referring to her as the late Janelle Matthews the defendant repeatedly demands immunity from law enforcement before giving up this information now to be clear immunity means an agreement by law enforcement and the district attorney's office that he cannot be charged in exchange for the information he shares without that Grant of immunity he refuses to share any information that he has about The Disappearance of General Matthews you will see during the course of this trial literally thousands of searches on his devices for information regarding General Matthew's disappearance ramping up after law enforcement appears at his front door in April of 2019 it certainly doesn't start then but it ramps up and you will see entry after entry after entry on iPods iPads excuse me and iPhones about the searching that he does for Janelle two other things that I want to point out at this point during the trial statements don't end when he was arrested on this case you will hear that he was selled housed at the Weld County jail with an inmate by the name of Patrick callus was in custody on his own issues he's in custody for distribution of the controlled substance this is from November 30th of 2020 to April 5th 2021 Mr callous will tell you that he was acquaintances with the defendant in the jail and that they had developed an acquaintance a bond through spiritual he calls them spiritual things but through prayer groups and consoling one another based on the circumstances in which they find themselves Mr callous will tell you that one morning the defendant approached Mr callous seldor and he says Pat I need forgiveness and what asked for what the defendant says that he was feeling guilty and that I made some mistakes and I did some bad things callous basically guessing I think at this point what the conversation was about says because everybody knows why Mr Pinky's in custody says did you kill her the defendant nodded and said that's between me and God which Carlos will tell you that it was clear of the defendant was asking for forgiveness for what he referred to as finally ladies and gentlemen during the course of this trial and you've heard all those uh references to this before the defendant has previously testified at another hearing in this case from this stand and you'll hear some of the statements that he made and I think you've heard enough by now to understand the major issue you need to resolve in this case is identity is he the person did it and in order for you to make that determination you will have to make determinations about The credibility of the witnesses who testify in this case Angela Hicks law enforcement other witnesses that will testify before you but you will also have an opportunity to determine whether or not the defendant in his protestations was credible and to that end what you will hear is before he testified at the previous hearing he had an opportunity to sit down with his attorney before testifying and what you will hear is the defendant from that stand said I sat in talked about my answer with my attorney and sometimes my attorney said that's a good answer sometimes my attorney said quote that's [ __ ] and nobody's going to believe that I had an opportunity to cross-examine him the next day after this conversation claims that he claims took place and when he was asked what were the statements that you made that your attorney told you were [ __ ] and nobody would believe them I couldn't remember and what you will hear is that he also didn't remember the answers that his attorney told him were good answers keep that in mind that planning session if you will because ladies and gentlemen the truth does not change yet his statements did for 34 and a half years Janelle laid buried in that field at the conclusion of this case the evidence will prove to you Beyond A Reasonable Doubt a doubt based on reason and Common Sense that the defendant is the individual who kidnaps and murdered Janelle Matthews thank you Mr Harris how I had time to yours to wish I said I'll have time to hear is if you wish thank you you are I could have one moment [Music] thank you thank you [Music] foreign Steve didn't do this I feel called to say these things at the beginning of this trial and they have to be said there are deep problems with this case that go to the foundations of our criminal law the principles behind them you have do you hear the evidence in this case are going to be the ones to put those principles into effect that protect the community from a miscarriage of Justice yes this is about Janelle Matthews yes this is about what happened to her this is about the truth about a community coming to understand react to the Deep uncertainty of what happened to Janelle Matthews yes it's about Justice but not a simple uncritical Justice hear the evidence in this case when you listen to how it's discussed by the prosecutors but the detectives by the police by the people of the community and you take a step back for a moment and not as a podcast host not as a true crime enthusiast not as somebody who's sitting at home watching a crime TV show when you take a step back and you look at what this case is What's Happening Here in court what's really going on with this process in court and the reaction of the people who have investigated this who want it solved who want that finality what you will see is that this is a case that shows you how in our system an innocent man gets convicted when you take that step back not in those other roles not in your everyday life when you have thoughts but you take that step back and you look at what this case is and you do your duty as a juror you'll see that it leads to one conclusion at the end of this trial that you will have to impose you have to give because Justice will require it doesn't listen to the evidence that has made the prosecutors and the most recent detectives and some members of the community so sure of the conclusion that they're coming to you have to look at the Hard facts of the case have to know that you know there's no DNA in the case there's no DNA found that could be compared there's no DNA link to Steve whether or not they could have done that then or not it's not there there's no link you'll hear that there's no fingerprints Steve's fingerprints are not in the house in 1984 they can check for fingerprints it's not there is no murder weapon you're not going to hear but they've found something that was used that was everyone to Steve involved in that bullet hole you're not going to hear it it's not there not only is there no DNA there's no fingerprints there's no murder weapon there is no witness in this case who will put Steve at the house nobody says they saw him there foreign says he did not see anybody around the house when he dropped Janelle off Russell Ross will say that he didn't see any suspicious Vehicles he didn't see any vehicles on the side of the street he didn't see anybody following him when you analyze the evidence and you hear people talk about the evidence that makes them so sure that it was Steve you have to keep these hard and fast points in mind the footprints they don't match to Steve foreign cigarette Ash found near one of the footprints in the snow cigarette Ash does not link to Steve there's no picture of Steve there is no video the Matthews will tell you nobody even mentioned Steve's name to them before 2019. they'd never seen him they'd never heard of him they've never been around him completely unknown to the family Russell Ross who dropped Janelle off that night didn't see anything linked to my client and neither did anybody else you're not going to hear about any physical evidence the links my client to the scene of this as you're listening to the evidence in this case as you're listening to the detectives talk about their work and what they think about it what they did and didn't do when you listen to the people who are around Janelle in those on that evening day and so forth when you listen to the testimony people talking about statements words things that people say you have to you will have to it will have to come up in your mind when you listen to that all of these things that I just went through you will have to compare those things to what's really known and not known about what really happened here if the things that people say either days months or years in the future have that any corroborating evidence from the scene because we all know how it is that innocent people get convicted when there's no evidence of the type that I'm talking about you're going to hear evidence that there was no sign of struggle in that house you Mr Wolf told you and you're going to hear it time and again I'm sure that Janelle was not the kind of 12 year old who wouldn't put up a struggle if somebody who she didn't know had never seen before tried to do something to her Mr Matthews was in the house for an hour and 45 minutes before he called the police there was no noted signs of struggle he didn't even he didn't know for sure at that up until he came to realize that she was missing he didn't come home there was no blood there was no nothing out of place that would indicate somebody else had been done something to his daughter in a physical way nothing like that so when you listen to all the evidence about what people are saying whether or not those people are credible or not whether those people have obscure reasons to say the things that they say they're discernible to you that make sense to you or not have to go back to the original evidence in the case because people can say things say a lot of things people can miss perceive things perceive things differently put different narratives on things but the things that I just went through with you the hard and fast evidence in this case it's not there because Steve did not do this Greeley was a smaller place we talked about that in 1984. foreign you're going to hear this idea that the rake marks were something that was uh kept from kept by law enforcement only the real only the real killer would know about the rake marks but that's just not the case lots of people knew it there were people all over that block the next morning the neighbors the people who were around this who talked other people in the town who came to know about the case people were interested in this it's not just now with podcasts that everybody knows about it back then as well people knew about it people were asking questions and talking and rumors were flying things were being said so somebody knowing and getting involved in all of that out of some kind of interest in that type of things calling the police asking for information saying bizarre things about it that's not just Steve that's a lot of people then and now it's just not the case that only the killer would know that the the footprint outside were raked through that's the garage of the Matthews home where the rake was found put back on the rack on the side of the garage people knew about it and Steve's saying things about it doesn't show that he killed her 36 years passes you're going to hear that there was a search you're going to hear that there's articles being written you're going to hear that uh if it's a famous case in Greeley of course people want the case solved people have different reactions there's different elements of the community that have a reaction to the uncertainty of all those things I just went through which the evidence will show the lack of DNA the lack of fingerprints the lack of a sign of struggle the lack of physical evidence the lack of a link between those Footprints and anybody who they can prove there's different reactions to that of the 36 years of course their sadness of course there's all the things that we know happened and happen when a child something like this happens to a child but there's an incredible amount of pressure built up in the community about the case there's understandable pressure to all the case you'll hear about those things of course the detective are looking into all a lot of different things people are identified as suspects more than one but there's also pressure to solve this and pressures that do not necessarily Aid in finding the truth pressures of the detectives the pressures of the district attorney who want this salt who want that finality for the family for the community for the people involved but after you hear the evidence in this case you're going to have to wonder if the truth has actually been found out or some of those elements of the community have run ahead have run ahead to that conclusion because they because the finality is desired you're going to hear evidence about True Crime enthusiasts then and now about people who call into the police department when something like this happens who say all sorts of things true and not true understandable and not understandable and sometimes you're going to see when you hear the evidence that you can imagine a case where of course those things that are statements that are made later in time can lead to other corroborating evidence DNA fingerprints physical evidence a witness who saw the person at the scene even sometimes those things can lead to those things and give certainty but you're going to see in this case that's not true here you're going to hear evidence about how Steve is different you're going to hear unusual details about Steve's life his manner of living things that you may agree with not agree with like dislike have biases about have judgments about all of those things that you have as a normal human being but at the end of the day his words don't prove the case you're not going to hear evidence that the basis of his words the police got solid evidence so that you as the jury can have that certainty that you need because it wasn't him it's always said he found out about the general Matthews case after we got back from California or six days later whatever the exact statement is always said that he said a lot of other things too but you you're gonna have to go back and compare it to what we actually have in the case hard and fast evidence Angela Hicks she's not going to tell you that he was gone at the time from the house and knows where Steve was or was and at different times when Janelle Matthews went missing she says a lot of other stuff about after the fact about the trip to California that's disputed that's would be reasonable for police to want to look into these things to see if it brings up other solid evidence so that they can get the finality that is really needed but that's not the case here she just says these things she just has a perception of different events it doesn't lead to corroborating evidence you're not going to hear about any and then the elephant in the room but you're just gonna have to come to terms with is a part of this case Norris Drake normal strike lived right across the street from Janelle Matthews in the Matthews family Morris Drake left his house I'm sorry his brother lived there he was staying with his mother that night so he was there he had another house somewhere he was staying with his mother that night he left that house right in the time frame when it's possible for him to have done it he was looking at something when he went outside the baby sat Janelle Matthews so he knew her she wouldn't have considered him a stranger and struggled against him she would have been she would have known him he described the next day he described the Matthew's backyard to one of the witnesses Connie davia who you'll hear from next day he's knew about the footprints he said the girl was taken out the back door the next day he said that the child was dead he said that the next day and the way he described it to Connie David it seemed like it was an eyewitness account because it was so graphic notice Drake passed away I don't remember the exact year I think it was 2009. so he's not here for the police to investigate anymore and you're gonna have to make a determination because there is evidence tying him to this crime there is evidence about opportunity for him to have committed the crime you're going to have to make a determination in this case if you are sitting on a jury in a case where somebody who is dead committed the crime any evidence against Mr Drake is consistent with other evidence in the case foreign was across the street he would have seen Janelle entered a dark house turn off the light and the car drive away nor streak knew Janelle there wouldn't have been a struggle it's consistent with so much of the evidence and you're going to have to make a determination that in order for you to find Steve guilty to know for sure about that we need to make an evaluation you're going to be called upon to make an evaluation of the the Fidelity and the extent and how certain these detectives are and eliminating him as the person who did this and as you'll see with this evidence if you can't do that you could be sitting on a jury the man accused when the person who did the car and passed away 13 years ago there's a witness named Linda rosscott she says that she came home from work one day saw Doris Drake trying to get into the house with her daughters so when the detectives say that they eliminated Nora strike as as a suspect look about you need to be looking at you will be called upon to look into did they really because otherwise the risk of a miscarriage of Justice is Extreme in this case everybody knows whether or not you're watching CSI or just know from it being a matter of common sense in a case like this you have to eliminate the other suspects they haven't done that in this case as the evidence will show hear information about orange cars about a lot of periphery issues I ask you when you hear evidence about cars about what people said at different times if different cars were involved and what time frames and who had what car and whether or not they've really eliminated all of the other possibilities in this case I won't go I don't know exactly how the testimony is going to come out on all this orange color stuff because this is a live thing people get up here and testify I have to compare that to the hard and fast evidence in this case that exists and doesn't exist judge can I just ask how much time I have yes 15 minutes thank you your honor you're going to hear evidence about a jailhouse informant the type of evidence that one turns to when there's not that hard and fast evidence to place this man at that crime scene somebody who's been kind of felony convictions who's playing the game who knows how this all works who knows what they're getting in return and what they'd hope to get in return even if they're not getting it and even if those things should reasonably bring up in the police's mind in law enforcement and prosecutors hey let's let's use that to get corroborating evidence if it's reasonable for that you have to ask yourself the question is it getting the certainty that is required as a juror when a man here stands accused when there's no witness to put him there there's no DNA there's no fingerprints there's no picture of them there there's no evidence of him being at the house at all in terms of those categories I just went through I am asking you to take a critical eye not to make a rush to judgment but to be critical because yes it's about it's about Justice but what is that in this case motive there was been discussion you'll hear discussion and testimony that goes to the prosecution's theory of what the motive was for Steve and when you don't have those hard and fast pieces of evidence in the case that gives certainty you have to you have to concoct a motive to make it fit the fence is asking you to take a critical eye towards what this motive is that they're saying Steve had it doesn't make sense does it actually explain that he would that he did this because as the evidence unfolds you're gonna see that there's speculation involved there's leaps of logic that have been undertaken because of that pressure understandable pressure to solve the case to have that finality understandable pressure but not pressure that necessarily AIDS in finding the actual truth Steve didn't do this not a simple uncritical Justice but one that recognizes what is really going on here and what your role as a juror really is nobody likes you're not going to be told that anybody likes what happened to Janelle it's horrible the community has had lots of different reactions but you're the ones in the courtroom so at the end of the day and you look at this case we're going to be called upon to put those principles into effect that protect the community from the miscarriage of Justice which is not Justice for Janelle but you're going to see is that this is how an innocent man gets convicted a case like this Steve didn't do this at the end of this trial we're going to stand up here we're going to ask you to give the verdict that has to be given in the case which is not guilty thank you cheers so you want to do a quick sidebar all right ladies and gentlemen I want to take an early lunch break and have you come back to 115. I'll advising again until the trial is complete it was not discussed this case with anyone that includes your family you know that happened in the trial other Jewish or anyone else so many approaches you and tries to discuss the trial with you please let me know about it immediately it's also important that you must have read or listen to him and news report to the trial do that in any way try to gain any information about this case outside of the courtroom that includes refrain from researching on the Internet Medical law books encyclopedes or dictionaries social media investment continues throughout the trial finally it is especially important that you do not form or express any opinion on the case until it is finally submitted to you so I wish you a good launch and see you back here please at 1 15. thank you please guys