L.O.G. 134 The Drunk Defense

Hello and welcome to the video version of The Human Behavior Podcast. I'm Brian Marren, the host and creator of the show. As always, I will be joined by human behavior expert, Mr. Greg Williams, who the show is affectionately named after. On the show, we discuss different topics, the lenses of what we call Human Behavior Pattern Recognition Analysis. If you'd like to find out more about what that is, please check the links in the episode details and go to our website to learn more. Please don't forget to follow us on social media. The links are also in the episode details. And hit the like and subscribe button to help support our work. Thanks for tuning in, and we hope you enjoy the show. Good morning, Greg.

Good morning, Brian.

We're going to go ahead and get started this morning out of a case from actually right outside of Chicago. Happened not that long ago. It just came down. I think that the charge happened like in 2019, but just recently is where everything happened.

But this is a very interesting one. It's right up our alley in terms of human behavior and human performance. And what happened was this kid—well, not kid, he was a grown man, 21 years old, living with his mom.

And what happened was, he believed an intruder had broken into his bedroom while he was sleeping back in 2019. He grabbed a baseball bat and struck the person multiple times and ended up killing the person. That person was his mom, Mary Summerwill, that he lived with. So, she ended up dying from that injuries. So, he said, responding officers showed up, said, "I know it's my mother. Oh my God, what did I do?"

So, what happened was, he had a blood alcohol level of 0.27, which is very high. He had THC in his system (for most people—sorry, I thought it was on mute—for most people that's very high). He had THC in his system, and his attorney alleged that he had just returned from a trip to Europe, so he had jet lag, which is a real thing, you know, your time zone difference, adding to the, you know, you're sleep-deprived, all those different issues.

But he was originally charged with second-degree murder, and then that got down—I'm just trying to make sure I get the facts right—but either way, so it got knocked down, and then he ended up—he pled guilty to the amended charge of involuntary manslaughter. And his sentence is 200 hours of community service and probation for four years. So, just real quick, he killed his mother in the middle of the night thinking he was an intruder, and then ended up getting involuntary manslaughter and charged with 200 hours of community service and probation.

The interesting facts in here too is that the prosecutor then said, "Imprisoning this man serves no purpose." He said, "Thomas Summerwill must live with the fact that accidental or not, he is responsible for his mother's death." He said, "He will never again be able to hug her, seek advice from her, tell he loves her," all that stuff. "And that is a very heavy burden." So, the reason why we're talking about this case specifically, and starting with this, is that sentence right there. The idea is that, given the facts of the case, he was heavily intoxicated, drugs in the system, tired, just had a trip from Europe, thought there was an intruder, ended up being his mother, and he killed her. And he basically got off with nothing, right? He's a couple hundred hours of community service and probation. And even the prosecutor said, "Putting him in jail, imprisoning him, serves no purpose."

So, sentencing and our correction system is a very, very interesting, complicated place in our society. One, just how society in general chooses to deal with criminals. Two, how it actually plays out on the street. Three, what are the facts at each individual case on the merits of that case, because that should determine what that sentence is. Because we have all kinds for different crimes. There's different types of mandatory sentencing where the judge has to do a minimum of a certain amount. And there's always debates back and forth and how these things play out and what's happened. There's no better example than when crack cocaine epidemic exploded in the United States, and then they made this legislation to do heavy sentencing for it. And then literally they go back now and said, "Wait a minute, we're imprisoning these people for like if you had 10 times that amount of cocaine, it would be the same charge. Why is this?" And then we just found out it was a great documentary, you did a whole thing, and one of the legislators involved, it said it was like an error in how it was written, it wasn't meant even to be that way. So, there's all kinds of different complicating factors in here.

But I want to stick with kind of what we're talking about with the sentencing and how that happened. And this is not something that's unusual. Even just when I was trying to do the follow-up on this case, there was another one recently, about six months ago or so, or eight months ago, in Florida where a guy woke up in the middle of the night, thought his wife was in bed with him, heard something out in the hallway, went out there, fired a shot, and killed his pregnant wife and the baby. And mother died there. And there's been no charges filed in that as of what I know right now from the little research I was able to do on it. He admitted to it and said it was an accident. He was distraught. You can hear it on the 911 tapes. But the idea is that that's another one of these situations. So, they do happen. It's not something that happens frequently, but it happens enough where this stuff—there's different case law that surrounds us. So, I just want to give a little bit of the facts of the case with that intro part there, Greg, and then we can talk about how this happens, why this happens, and then how this plays out. And the big word in anything to do with any trial or any conviction, is precedent, legal precedent, because that's important, because that determines and influences follow-on cases other than just the one that you're specifically referring to. So, that's always my point in there about any of those. So, where do you want to start with this?

Holy moses. After that preamble, where do I want to start? Well, let me start by saying Thomas Summerwill's defense attorney was Liam Dixon. And great work by Liam. If you'd like to come on the show, we'd love to have him. Sadly, I don't remember the prosecutor's name off the top of my memory, Brian.

County prosecutor.

Yeah, I don't know the prosecutor's answer, whether it was accidental or not. I'd like to talk about that if you'd like to come on the show, that would be great. But I will tell you right now that there are judges and attorneys and DAs and APAs in the audience right now listening to us or watching us. And there are certain cases that need to go away, that they want to go away, that serves no greater good. And clearly, they felt that this was one of them.

I'll give you an example. Most people don't know that dad was in the home when this happened. This was in the very early morning hours, very late at night, very early morning, just before dawn. And the kid was in his bedroom, and the mom came in the bedroom, and dad was somewhere else in the house. That means dad was a key player on the fact that dad could have said, "Listen, they had been arguing all night. He wouldn't go to bed. She wouldn't." You understand that would speak to motive. Okay, then you talk about intent. He used a souvenir baseball bat that he kept over his bed. And there were multiple hits. Okay, that multiple demonstrates intent, tends to do, do you see what I'm trying to say? It's all about a jury or doing a bench trial in front of a judge.

So, all the facts that came across the prosecutor's office, he had to weigh them and go, "What's for the greater good of Campton Hills, Illinois? What's for the greater good of the state of Illinois?" Do you know what I'm trying to say? For the county of wherever the [ __ ] the county is. And he found the criminal intent to be lacking. So, clearly your defense attorney is not going to argue that, right? And yes, Thomas has to live with this for the rest of their life. But I think that what I'd like to talk about too is certain shortcomings that I see in the case that need to be addressed and have it, they haven't in the news media and certainly haven't on the court docket.

Now, to go to your case, and I'm unfamiliar with the Florida case. Listen, there's a period when so many things matter. Was there alcohol? Was intoxication? Was there involuntary intoxication? Was there Ambien on board? Was there something else? Had the person lived in a crime area? Had they been broken into before? All that other stuff. But I will tell you this, and it's the only time that I'll, that I'll say something about a gun. You can't unring the bell with a gun. Do you know what I'm trying to say? If you pull a bat on somebody and you say, "Hey, I swear to God, I'm going to, you know, wreak in the head once," there's elements of that where even after the first strike, you might be able to recover or take that back. With a gun, that's rarely the case. So, I feel horrible about that situation, Brian, but I don't know enough about that specific case.

This one, you said something that, that, that I think is highly significant, and that's the blood alcohol content. And both of us can speak as subject matter experts on that one. And I would say the thing that worries me, and I don't know if it worries me as much as it intrigues me, is the type of stuff that happens with a 0.27. So, you understand that most states in the United States have a 0.08 as their level of intoxication for like drunk driving, for legally driving. And I don't give a [ __ ], each one of those, because they affect everyone differently. A 0.08 for one person is like they wouldn't, there's no impairment. 0.08 for some people is, "Oh my God, you shouldn't even be standing right now," and let alone driving, right?

But let's go double that. So, let's go to 0.16. A 0.16 is a very high BAC (Blood Alcohol Content). You have a lot less control over your balance, your voluntary, involuntary musculature. Walking is difficult, talking is difficult. You fall, you trip frequently. And that's why when you see roadside maneuvers on Axon body cams, or different on YouTube, for example, you see that a person at a 0.16 can't function. They can't, they shouldn't be out there. And that's what drew their attention to their driving. We're talking about a guy that's got, then again, you get what I'm trying to say, 0.08, 0.16, 0.24. From 0.2 to 0.3, you know, let's call it a 0.29, you got stupor and confusion and dazed and distorted. Oh yeah, you're getting, you're getting up into possible alcohol poisoning. Exactly. Serious brain damage. But, you know, anything past that, your balance is deteriorated so significantly that likely you're going to need help to walk. You're going to be holding onto the wall, you're going to.

So, what's interesting to me, and just, let's throw this question out there. Let's say that he's a 0.27. How did they determine that? Well, they determined that by taking a test. So, they either did a needle or they did a breath test, right? Sometime shortly after the police arrived. Well, it wouldn't have been within the first five minutes. So, let's say it was 15 to 30 minutes later, more likely an hour later at least. He was going up or whether he's coming down, a 0.27 is huge, Brian. You understand what I'm trying to say? So, the idea that he, and he also had some THC on board. But the point here is that they felt it significant enough to have him tested, which was a good thing. Should have had mom tested as well, should have had dad tested, right? The more you know, the better you can make a determination of the facts. But his mens rea (guilty mind), his understanding of right and wrong, good and evil, multiple hits and all that other stuff at a 0.27 are going to be questionable at best.

Yes, but my thing is, even retrieving the bat and swinging the bat. Do you get what I'm trying to say? Multiple times and hitting the target, sometimes at a 0.27, you'd imagine that you could push a person over or clearly flee from them.

So, to me, listen, a good standard is the smell test, right? Fish should smell like fish. The eye should be clear when you're buying it at the deli. It should smell like the ocean, shouldn't smell like a shoe. This caper smells like a shoe. So, somebody might have wanted to get rid of it. Nobody in the house, dad must have not contested it. Her sisters, if there were any, or family members must have said, "Oh, it's a horrible accident." You know what?

So, there was another report, again, getting into, that the family supported the dropping the charges. They were all close. They, you know, they had, even the prosecutor, you know, said something about the mother-son relationship, that it was a loving relationship, all that stuff.

I love my mom. I never hit her with a bat.

Well, right. And but he, but this is why I brought up the point is that that the blood alcohol level affects everyone differently. So, if you, I get what we were saying, is that at that point, you should be so inebriated it'd be pretty hard to swing a baseball bat and stand up, let alone hit a target with a baseball bat multiple times. So, you're, I think you're alluding to there may be some other, something else going on in here or some other intent. But the kid's 21, Brian. The kid's 21. If he's died in the wool alcoholic by 21, and a 0.27 doesn't bother him, he would be an enigma. He would be a special case. Do you remember when we were kids and they used to have that thing where you put the baseball bat on the ground with the small end, and you put your forehead against it and ran around in circles and you walked around like an idiot? That's what he would have been like, specifically if he would have been waking out of a sleep. And I'm prepared to talk about jet lag as well. But the idea is a 0.27, even if it handles different people, we're not talking about a giant. We're not talking about a guy that has a liver to metabolize that much alcohol.

Right, but you're also talking about, you know, someone just, you at a party with a 0.27, trying to swing a baseball bat, let alone, you know, this is now, what would it, what catecholamine effect did he have thinking there was an intruder in his house, right? So, all of a sudden, he's still going to get the adrenaline hit. He's still going to get the dopamine. He's still going to get the cortisol. Is it going to have a different effect because of the large amount of alcohol in his blood? Yes, absolutely. But is it still going to do what it's supposed to do? Did he think he was in that survival situation? I mean, so I, I get what you're saying, you're kind of, but there were, it appeared that the prosecutor, the police officers, and the family, there was nothing else there for them to think what happened, that what happened is what happened, and there was no nefarious intent, or there was no, he never thought that, right? I mean, do you remember Nebraska? Do you remember the Nebraska case where the kid hit his mom with the bat and killed her, followed by the Washington case? You know why you don't remember them? Because there were no [  ] cases like that. What I'm trying to say is that it's so rare when something is this rare, look, I don't know what's going on in Illinois that they have that many homicides to investigate. Remember, not all homicides are a person killed in other places, and not all homicides are murder, right? But I'm not alluding to the fact that this is murder, but I'm telling you what, there's more at play here. Do you get what I'm trying to say? He must have had a lot on his plate as a prosecutor. And when the family comes and goes, "Hey, we don't want any resolution here that involves jail time," that's an easy way out. So, the prosecutor is not going to go, "No, I insist that we do further investigation and, and I know the kid feels like [  ] too." He even told the responding officer, "I can't believe that this is what I did." But we're talking about multiple hits with a baseball bat to the head on a person inside his bedroom, which is inside a house. It's a much different situation than he heard somebody rattling at the door and then they kicked the door open, then they did this, you know, this is a shadowy figure at night. He grabs a bat. Did he say anything? Do you hear what I'm trying to say? Did mom say anything? I would just like, I would like to have known more before I pulled the plug on this one.

Okay, so you're saying that based on what you've read on this case, you think that there's more to the story here, or there's, there's, there's pieces, not necessarily pieces missing, you want to know more. There's other, there's other, there's other, you know, there's potentially other facts of this case that did not come out due to the fact that everyone said, "No, this was an accident." His family got behind him. His prosecutor said, "[ __ ], I got 37 other cases I got to deal with. Sounds good to me." And his defense attorney made an agreement and said, "Look, we'll do this, we'll do that. The guy's got to live with the stuff." And the prosecutor said, "Yeah, it's for the greater good. Let's let it go away."

But I'll tell you another thing. It's so unique that even the news media wanted to follow it. "Hey, this kid beat his mom to death with a bat." It's not domestic violence, clearly. But what is it, Brian? Because there's like, do you remember the Ambien murder case? I'm going to get this wrong, but do you remember Roseanne Barr? Oh yeah, female comedian Roseanne Barr made that racist rant that cost her a show and everything else. And she said Ambien was the, was the cause of it. And being around the block a little bit, Ambien, Schedule IV controlled narcotic, you know, some people have to take it to fly or do all these other sleep. So, if this kid would have said, "I was on Ambien," Brian, I can give you 15 or 16 cases where people sleep-drove. They sleep-had sex. They sleep-ate. They sleep-fought. Plus, the guy, the guy that said successfully that he was on Ambien when he walked in to kill his wife at the nursing home. There was a nursing home in the South, America, South, and he walked in and shot nine to death and injured two more trying to find his wife. And they came back, I'll have to look it up, but folks, do your homework, and his defense was Ambien. And they dropped it from first-degree premeditated murder down to second-degree murder. Do you see what I'm saying? So, if this would have involved Ambien, now here's the other thing that's suspicious. Everybody wants to fix jet lag. Jet lag is very different than most people think it is. And you go back to capers, DARPA (Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) wanted to fight jet lag, Brian. NBA, Andy Reid, the gosh-darn effects of the Ambien were, or the effects of jet lag were so strong that the NBA, Pro Baseball, DARPA, the Navy in 1986, all of these people wanted to do something against it. So, all jet lag is, is the desynchronization between our circadian body clock and the external time from where we left and our destination. So, certain things can work and certain things can't, like there's a bunch of myths that go along with it. But when he said jet lag, the defense attorney, that got me thinking, okay, so westward travel is never as severe as is going to the East, because you're losing the time, and you know, we even get screwed on that too. So, he comes back from Ireland. Ireland literally is the closest tourist destination that he could have flown to. Do you get what I'm trying to say? And he was flying from Chicago or New York, he wasn't flying from San Diego. So, when somebody tries to pile on, and another thing, your Honor, whenever I hear or feel that, Brian, I become suspicious. And it almost felt suspicious that they were saying, "Hey, he was a 0.27, and you know, he had that jet lag." To me, it was like, "Hey, listen, I made a mistake." That's what I would have done. Do you get what I'm trying to say? And I would have said, "Hey, I made the mistake so poorly that at a 0.27, I wasn't thinking clearly. I didn't even have the mens rea. I didn't even have the guilty knowledge to formulate the opinion that what I was doing was wrong and could cause a death." You see where I'm going? Why, why didn't they go there? And again, I got nothing against this kid, Brian. He's going through a horrible tragedy just because his mom died. I know, I'm an orphan. I get it. But the idea is that that being accused of something is different than this case. He, he was charged with some pretty serious offenses. So, the coppers on the ground must have thought something smelled wrong. Okay. And then the DA and the defense attorney get together and later, less than a year later, Brian, they're talking about a plea agreement. And here, a year and what, six months later, the kid's on probation, he's walking, and it's not reporting probation, right? So, it just seems fast to me.

Yeah, so, if I get this right, you're saying that there is more to this story or that something isn't being explained. And I know you brought up, obviously things would have changed if, you know, there was an argument the night before or there was like that would have, but that wasn't reported. So, right, I mean, because, because going off of what they said, including the effects of alcohol and there's THC in his system and the effects of travel like that. I mean, those, those do, I mean, you just, you just gave weight to that, that, that statement saying that, yes, this, this effect of jet lag has been studied by all these organizations, and people are trying to understand how it affects us, and it does affect our circadian rhythm, which would affect how you're sleeping, the quality of sleep you're getting, how much sleep you actually have. Well, plus the alcohol would really mess with that. And it would, I mean, you know, the cognitive decline, you can do that basic testing of that stuff, it is massively affected. Anyone who's ever been tired before knows that, just driving across country with my brother, we weren't consuming any alcohol and we're just sitting here through the night like, we can't recall people's names or stories. We're going, "Oh yeah, here, here it comes in." Because we both have those experiences where I can do gross motor movements, I can run up a hill, I can drive a car, but I can't tell you about a conversation I had a couple days ago because I can't remember the details because my brain is just flatlined at that point and I'm running on caffeine. Right. So, the idea is, I mean, his, it's not that I don't, his defense is, you know, these are the facts of the case, they, it is what occurred. So, I'm just curious as to what you're trying to get at.

Yeah, but it's not what you think. Listen, listen. If I was giving you four facts and asking you to decide rather than giving you the case in chief, the entire case, you'd be suspicious too. Where was he the night before? It says early morning hours. Exactly. What was the time of death? What was mom doing in the room? Had mom done this before? These are things that I need to know to formulate my response. So, mom normally comes in at 4:15 every morning, goes, "Get up, sleepyhead, you got that job interview. Here we go." Or did mom sneak in because she wanted to check that he was breathing because she was worried because he's a hopeless alcoholic? There are facts that inform what occurred that night. And my thing is, by leaving out, by omitting those facts, either knowingly or accidentally, it makes it harder for me to judge the temerity of the case. And I'm telling you, I'm not the arbiter here. Judge signed off on this. The kid, Thomas, agreed to this. Liam, his defense attorney, worked with the prosecutor to get this as the outcome. But I don't think your cases should be based on emotion, and this feels emotional. It feels like they said, "My God, the guy killed his mom, man. Isn't that enough?" Well, maybe it isn't enough.

Yeah, the emotion part too is the, the statements from the prosecutor. That's what, that's what really is. I'm reading through this going, "Okay, yeah, I get it. The defense attorney's saying this." But the statement from the prosecutor is what got me, because I was like, "Wait a minute, wait a minute." Because he said, "I want to read again. It's an accidental." Wait, well, that's the thing. He's like, "Thomas Summerwill must live with the fact that accidental or not, he is responsible for his mother's death." Wait, wait a minute. Is it accidental or not? That's what a trial is supposed to be. That's what an investigation is supposed to reveal. That was an odd comment to make, and I didn't really understand what she, she meant by that. Did he, "Oh, hey, MF," afterwards, and swing three more times, do you get what I'm saying, while she was on the ground? Now, listen, maybe they're protecting us because those are facts that we don't need to know, and it's just horrific and accidental. Okay, I get it. But not even the prosecutor made that clear to me in his statements. It was almost like the brush-off. He was almost saying like, "Hey, we got this." Do you get what I'm trying to say? I think there's so much more. The time, what happened just before. Had the kid eaten dinner? Had that would have differed, that would have been a different, I think we probably would have both had a different reaction than if the prosecutor said, "Hey, given the facts of the case, and set this out, and due to the extensive investigation conducted by the law enforcement officer and the prosecuting attorney, we have deemed that this is not, there was no intent, there was no criminal intent, certainly there was no like this." Exactly. I mean, you, you know, if it was like you said that case where it's so over the top, you know, that obvious that this was not something that was ever intended, you know, you could, you, I would feel like you'd want to spell that out, especially if you're that probably, hey, this is why specifically this is why we made that decision, especially if you come to any of these things, it would be the same one with the one I brought up, again, it's still a newer pace with the guy who shot his wife who was pregnant. Same thing, like you, you would have, you would want to ensure that that is exactly what happened, and then you'd spell that out.

So, he was likely arrested, your guy, that shot pregnant wife was likely arrested. And I'll tell you, this interview didn't say he was ever arrested, right? But I mean, think about this, okay, what do you know at the time? Thomas, they arrested him. They brought him out of there, and they charged him. Because look, all of a sudden, it's early morning or late at night. Again, there's a discrepancy and you know where was, why mom was, but mom is dead at his feet. He's sitting there emotionally going, "Oh my God, I can't believe it's my mom, I killed her." But dad is in the house, and there's these questions. So, the cop on the scene has at least probable cause to believe that he was the actor, the proximate cause of this death. So, that's right. And we have no question because the guy's own admission says, and the evidence shows that the Florida case, he was the cause of that death. But that's where the investigation truly begins, Brian. It's not cut and dried. It's not the balance of evidence, it's the, it's the facts. And again, the arbiter of facts is a judge in this case, and the judge must have signed off on it. But again, a judge will, when both the prosecuting and the defense attorney are in cahoots—not cahoots illegally, but I mean when they're in agreement. Robert Stewart, Robert Stewart is the guy. It's North Carolina, the, it was a healthcare and old folks' home in, oh, the one you talked about where he shot him, where he came in and he shot, killed eight and injured a bunch. We had started it for a domestic violence thing back in one of our T3s. But look it up. It's a great caper because the Ambien defense worked. But listen, we have no such defense here. Jet lag is a complicating factor, but I don't think it's a defense in this case. Unless he would have said, "Listen, the guy just flew in from Ireland. He was still drinking on the return flight." Yeah, they had a purim in bed. That's why mom went in and checked on him, Brian. I'll believe that for a dollar. Do you see what I'm trying to say? Now, you're saying more that that mom went in to talk him in and check on him and make sure he doesn't die violently asleep because of the vomit or something. Okay, those are things that I would need to know. Maybe they're here, but if they are here, why wouldn't you have said, "Hey, based on this strong evidence of the contrary, you get what I'm trying to say, we've decided to go this way in the case." I feel like that look, most people get the happy head when they're doing a crime, and they make a mistake, and those mistakes ooze out. We were talking briefly before the call on the Morphew, that the Barry Morphew, Suzanne Morphew, still hasn't been found. And it's just an hour from where I'm sitting right now where this horrific homicide likely occurred. And what happened is, if there wasn't a mistake, why did he go around doing the things that look wrong? Went to Salida, visited a dumpster five different times. Do you get what I'm trying to say? Her bike and her bike helmet were found away from the house on a trail that she liked to use on Mother's Day. But the information shows that she was sunning on the back deck by the pool on Mother's Day. He discovers that she's having an affair. She's trying to find out that he had an affair, Brian. Those are factors that when I hear it, when I'm in the journal, yeah, I'm taking notes. I go, "Okay, I got this. This is plausible." I believe this. This case just didn't give me enough of that. And I'm not faulting, I trust me, I'm not faulting the, the, the news media on this one, rarely, because they reported everything they had. But, you know, we just didn't get enough from the prosecutor here.

Well, and this is where it gets into, that's why it brought up the sentencing and precedent, right? So, that it does set a precedent. And I also said, you know, these, it does happen where these accidental homicides occur, right? And, but it's very, it's rare, right? It's not something. So, that's why when they do happen, I'm always inclined to go, "Okay, what else is going on? Let's, let's wait for the, anytime you see that stuff on the news, you can usually tell even with early reporting sometimes you go, 'Yeah, there's something else going on here.'" Right. And it takes weeks or months or whatever. But it's rarely this, you know, completely, you know, what I don't know what a normal family is, but normal family where they don't, you know, where some accident occurs. Those are those are true tragedies, right? And, but they're very, very rare. There's usually some sort of intent or something behind it. So, I'm always kind of weighted in that, that area going, "All right, well, what are the other facts of the case here?" So, yeah. And that's the part of the other discussion too, is sentencing. And that's why I brought it up, you know, because the prosecutor did say, there, there was, "Serves no purpose to imprison him." It serves no purpose. Okay. If the family and the victim's family, meaning is all saying like, "No, we don't, we don't want him prosecuted. We don't want him in jail," then, then, yes, because then I understand that statement meaning then why would you put him in there? Because no one's, who wants him in there? Why, why should the taxpayers pay for that if there's no, it's almost, it's not a victimless crime, but it's, it's no one's wanting him prosecuted then why would we prosecute him? So, I understand that. But that's also important legal precedent. I mean, what else, what other crimes can I use that on if I'm a defense attorney? "Why are you sentencing my client? No one who wants them prosecuted. No one here is it, you is it yours? Why do you want him in jail? No one does. Take it, take a poll of his neighborhood. What is jail going to help?" Right. So, statistically, right, because, because that's that, that's right. Arguably true in other cases, you know what I'm saying? It's like, why does this simple drug possession of someone who has no other crimes on their record, why put them in jail? I mean, that's the argument, you know, I mean, what does it serve to have the taxpayers pay for this and then, then go, you know, so, you're, you're, you're kind of bringing this other stuff into this case that, I, it applies. But then if it applies in this case, it applies so.

So, do you know the reasoning behind the Combat Rule of Three? We're good enough friends. You're an incredible instructor and teacher and mentor to so many people, and you've been around since the early days. So, the hardest part was encountering the difference between SOI East and SOI West (Schools of Infantry), and you're talking about the Marine Corps, the Marine Corps West Coast, and the different the different mentalities and mindsets and personalities that go along with it. But so, what I had to do is I had to come up with Combat Rule of Threes to explicate further, to explain my reasoning. Because I would show a reason that I would stop a car in Iraq or Afghanistan, and on the West Coast, they'd go, "Okay," and they'd take notes. On the East Coast, they'd go, "I could be, but could be there." And they were second-guessing and sniping every [ __ ] sentence, you know? And not everybody, but, but, but certainly the, the core of the core that, that, that we're making decisions. So, I had to come up, and I had to show that not preponderance of evidence, but two or three. One could be happenstance. Two could be just a coincidence, Brian, but three tends to show. And then when it builds above three, that coalition, that, that, that constellation of cues is important. So, when you look at Morphew in comparison to this case, Morphew is, is definitely a stronger case. It happened on Mother's Day. Why Mother's Day is a significant date. Okay, so on significant dates, your emotional content to what's going on is higher. So, why do you think that on Thomas's case, I'm asking you know what happened before? Did he just get home? Was there an argument at dinner before that? Did he come home late and make a big hudu when he came into the house? Those things are important. So, sorry that A-10s are rehearsing over the house.

So, then if I look at that, Brian, what other factors should I look at? Okay, all of a sudden, she, you know, went to the trail with her mountain bike, but left her mountain bike there and is never seen again. And that's unprecedented. And then this happened, and, for example, he said that she must have gone somewhere, and then she, he was expecting her home, but her phone messages and texts just abruptly ended when he said he got home. Well, what are those signs of? So, what I'm saying is there's certain artifacts and evidence that when you put them in an affidavit for an arrest warrant, and you certainly put them in your case in chief, that when you start reading them, they fit. They fit like a hand in a glove. They fit like a foot in a shoe. And they don't smell. They don't, you don't have to shove them in there like, like somebody says, "Well, it's junk science because Casey Anthony's phone pinged at these locations and ultimately they found her dead baby," or, you know, those kind of things, Brian. I believe science, and unless it's disproven, I believe artifacts and evidence tend to show it. Now, I will tell you, on what we're getting on Thomas's case, the artifacts and evidence don't tend to show that it was premeditated, certainly not. Okay, but did he know it was his mom? That's the real argument there. And what factors would have played into that decision? And I guess we vote a prosecutor in to make those big money decisions for us. So, we got to stand by his ruling. But I would also point to your precedent, if it's a precedent that we set that, "Hey, listen, the jail doesn't do any good," then how many other cases are we convicting a person of jail? So, that I, I agree, that's, that doesn't pass the smell of us either.

My biggest issue with this case are all these statements from the prosecutor. It's like specifically, right, and what do you know that we don't know that would have changed the outcome of this case?

Well, right. And this also goes into comparing the one I brought up with Florida where the guy shot her, he shot his own wife. There was no talk about any alcohol or anything in that. And then, well, here's the thing.

He was pregnant.

Well, but here, yeah, here's the thing is that same thing with, with our, that this kid in Illinois, outside of Chicago, they killed mom, the baseball bat, it's like what, why are you already at that level if you're ready to kill someone who's in your, in your bedroom and your mom's house where you live? Like what is there something happening in the past?

Exactly.

Now you're getting it. Now, and I know you've always had it, Brian, but I think now you're getting my level of suspicion. So, for example, a woman being pregnant would heighten my awareness because sometimes people have arguments over money, over pregnancy. Did they have domestic arguments before? And just because, listen, he might have been the worst domestic violence [ __ ] in the world, but this is out of character for his past. We need to know those things because, and, and does the general public need to know everything? Well, I guess not, but aren't we supposed to be transparent? And specifically with our legal system, it's public unless it has to be private because it's a national security thing or some other factor. And I'm just saying, show us the evidence, show us what you saw that led you to this conclusion, and we'll go away. And that's why I'm saying that I'd love to see Liam on the show to tell us exactly what he saw, felt, smelt, what the interviews were like. I'd like one of the initial officers on the scene to tell us, what did you see, what did you, can you imagine dad's not interviewed in this? Dad's in the house and doesn't have a comment. I don't find that hard to believe, and you know why. Why didn't, why didn't he speak at court during this, during sentencing? "Hey, I love my son, I love my wife. This is a horrible accident, folks." Because that was the thing, it's like, well, I, when I'm just reading the news reports on it, I'm like, "Well, where's the statement from the dad? Like, why wouldn't he, if this is, you know, if he's in, why wouldn't he be there in court during something, say, 'Hey, your Honor, this is a horrible situation. I, you know, that this is, you know, I could never imagine.'" You, you'd be, if you've truly supported this and this is what occurred, then why wouldn't he? So, there's a whole bunch of, with all these cases, there always are. And that's why I, my, I just brought up the point of, why do you instantly go to, "I'm going to kill this person"? I mean, it takes a lot. I don't know, it would take a long time. That's a very specific weapon. The only thing that would have been worse if it was knifing, because it's a very personal thing. So, I get it, but, but don't tell me that it was alcohol and that they didn't understand the mens rea, but then they did nine or eight or five shots with a baseball bat to a person's head. Do you see what I'm trying to say? You're trying too hard to pigeonhole me into a decision when the evidence should be the decision that we make. And, and we're all grown people and listen, maybe they know something. Maybe right now the prosecutor's listening to us, Brian, and going, "Ah, what you didn't know is we already decided that." Okay, then tell us. Then tell us and we'll go away, right? I mean, isn't that the answer? The answer is that we just want to know. It's our search for truth. We want to know, we want to understand the investigation, like you do, especially because a mom died, right?

Yeah, especially since this kid's not going to do a day in jail, because, yeah, there, there are all these kind of unanswered questions that you can't get from just, so, what else did they know? Because maybe it is completely benign. Maybe there is this other stuff that was going on or, or whatever happened in that family or whoever it is. And that it's, I, yeah, there's, there could be other reasons, but it, it hasn't come out yet. And the Florida one, I'm going to follow now that I stumbled, I lost it. Yeah, and there's no reporting of any charges or any investigation. It was just, "Hey, he talked to us right away." You can hear on the 911 tapes, and you're going, "Okay, okay." But this is kind of the, he said he reached over, thought she was in bed next to him, heard something out there, and just saw something in the hallway, immediately took a shot. Like, "All right, like that again." This is, this is unusual behavior. What, what else is going on here? What the [ __ ]?

I'll tell you a quick story, one of the scariest I've ever been. I lived in the area where you had to go and get your VHS or Beta, the machine, you had to rent the machine along with the tape and take it to your house and put the two together and plug them in. That's how old I am. And we're in Colorado Springs. We just done a caper down at Red Devil, and the house was so small and so hot that we had a fold-out couch. And the only place that we could plug in and put the table for the movie, and we were watching Rosemary's Baby or some scary film. And so, I had to go to the bathroom. I know my wife was laying next to me. I know it, confirmation bias, because I just told her, "Hey, I got to slip out, go to the bathroom." Pause the tape, walked in, and she had gone to the bathroom and stood up off the toilet in a dark house wearing a white nightgown. And I had my first haunting. So, I'm going like, "Yeah, yeah, crap. I'm defensive, ready to fight, everything else." And Brian, if I would have had alcohol on board, ETOH (ethanol), something would have gone wrong. I would have struck out. And I was scared in that moment, and it took me a minute to fight that adrenaline wave and calm down. So, I know how it could happen, just tell me the story. Just show me the evidence. Do you get what I'm trying to say? You, you conclude certain things happen, we dissect some cases so deeply, and here's one that the, the people want to know, and we haven't gone, we haven't gone to the, to the level of telling me and showing me that you made the right choice. And I need to know.

And one thing with those choices and how we look at the situations, I mean, I, these are, we have our own beliefs on how you should be able to defend yourself and what, there's legal things, what you can and can't do, which changes from state to state or different areas. But, but, I look at it as this. So, for example, not long ago, I was living at a place that was a cool little, you know, house that we were renting. But it's closer to the beach. And so, what do you get when you're closer to the beach? You get some beach people, some bums. There's some little areas near there, and it's like kind of not far from us was that, at night, there was kind of part of this park where, some homeless folks would hang out and either drink or just sleep or whatever. But we're in that area. So, I had the, the cameras, the Ring cameras and stuff for the house and all that. But I knew because there was an issue where I was gone. I was actually working with the local PD. And it was like someone just passed out or fell, showed up at the house, tried to open the door. It was locked. And what was it? It was some completely very, very intoxicated, homeless person. And, that's generally 99.9 times out of whatever, that's what it was going to be, and that's what it was. So, that's how we always, I talked to Makayli and Harper about this, is how you handle those situations. And one, always call the police. That's what they're there for. They'll come and get them, if there's someone's trespassing on our property. So, this is right, yeah, it's, it's that this is what happens why we always lock the door. It's something you have to deal with. They're mostly harmless. You just have to be careful and you don't want to deal with them, right?

So, but now it's different. Like where I live now, just because of, where it's at, how it's built, and the the location. You don't come in here unless you live here. There is no other reason. There is no drive-through. It's right next to an area. It's gated. It's this. It's off of a main street. There's no cut through. There's literally no just because of how the terrain is and where it's built here in Southern California. There's a major street not far from me and another one over here. But there's no reason to come through here, cut across. So, that actually changes things. So, now when I see someone or someone's acting suspicious here, it's actually, it's, it's more suspicious to me. It raises higher on the level due to the fact that you have to have some sort of intent. There are no random homeless people hanging around where I live right now. There are no little habitual areas or anchor points that people go to. So, what I'm, and what I'm getting at is, with each of these situations, that what that's what has to be put in context. So, even though where I was living before, I was more likely to have someone trespass on my property, it was less likely that this was the person was actually a threat. Do you get what I'm saying? Where I'm going?

Absolutely, because, you know, you're establishing whether there is probable cause to believe. We're being a good witness. Should I dial nine and one and hover my finger over the next one? Or, what am I being hypervigilant? And it's just a person searching the Domino's guy, it's his first night searching for the pizza. And you can see that when we get out here with the DoorDash and all the delivery stuff because they're always looking. It's not clearly marked. You always got the bag, though, obviously. Every place looks the same. You know that landscaping is the same. But listen, Brian, the dad was in the house. Did the kid yell, "Freeze!"? Did dad hear a ruckus? Was mom wearing all black and wanted to surprise the kid? Had they all been drinking at a welcome back son party and so everybody was in a deep slumber and mom was going to throw a piss and walked into the wrong room? Brian, all of those would have been affirmative defenses that had I read that in a story, I would have said, "I can see how that happened." Right? Because what life is the same for all of us? Yeah, each of us unique little snowflakes has nuanced things that happens to us that are different than other people. Okay, but all in all, all of our lives are the same. We're born, we grow, we have a job, we go to school, or we have these external influences, and we have a career or go into the military or do something here. All of a sudden, it's a 21-year-old kid that killed this 50, three, I think, yeah, if it's two years, yeah, their lives are gone. I, I mean, no, no offense to it. You don't, you don't unring the bell. I can't come back from that. I'm trying to say it. And then certainly she can't. Yeah, and it's going to be a little awkward at Christmas, you know.

Well, I'll tell you right now, is dad going to sleep in a house with this kid again?

Yeah, and somebody's going to say, "Psychologists are going to say, 'Well, it's unlikely that the kid's going to reoffend.'" Yeah, I'm not taking that chance. So, is alcohol part of his non-reporting probation? I'm certain it has to be. But was this an alcohol problem that reared its head before and he became violent? I mean, those type of answers, listen, somebody right now is going to, "Why would you do a BAC on the dad?" Because if dad and mom were [ __ ] faced on that night, that would have helped me understand the dynamic of the home. Yes.

And it's not again that I'm the judge here, but I want to understand how the justice system is dispensing his paper. It helps you understand the context of the situation, of course. All of those, all right, meaningless, yeah, okay. You can't get there from here without the context. And I know that's why you're bringing up all of these factors, because if you don't investigate each one of those, one, that's how you miss certain things. That's how you find out later like, "No, he knew what he was doing." Right. And each one of those little details kind of, they do matter, right? And because it, again, like you said, it helps, it helps inform how these events all coalesce. Because, you know, right at the bat, you go, "How the [ __ ]?" Not to use the term "bat," but "How do you, you know, how does this actually occur? How does someone actually kill that?" No, no, how did that happen, Brian, from an outside perspective? Yeah.

How could you think of that? She's taking everything I've trained her to do it against me. Wonder why she ordered that ninja hat. That's not for Halloween. The idea, though, Brian, is that those are reasonable things to fear. And if I would like some on this one, you're wondering, "Well, why didn't I say about the insurance?" Because the insurance would go to the dad. It certainly wouldn't go to the son. And you'd say, "Yeah, well, she could have written her will in such a way." Well, then that would have sent off bells and whistle because the insurance investigator would have said, "Hey, timeout," right? So, clearly, that's not the case. And I say clearly because that would have been up, "Case is still under investigation," or, "Just prosecutor, come on the show and say, 'This is what you didn't know.'" Take five minutes, laid out, show us your case in chief and why you made the decision that you did. And clearly, the defense attorney is going to be fun, but the defense attorney is not going to go, "Now, he really needs some time in jail." It's not his job.

No, but I still would like to know a little more about the case, so I can sleep better at night. No pun intended. So, to kind of go to what the prosecutor's comments were at sentencing and what the actual sentence was, what right does that do in terms of now going forward with other cases? So, let's say there's a hypothetical case where now it's, it's kind of the same, circumstances or middle of night, but, but, let's say in this case the guy meant to kill the person, meant to kill his wife.

No, are, are they now able to use this case? Of course they are.

True.

I mean, so, listen, I don't, I don't want to set a precedent by, by telling people how to commit, but can you imagine that all of a sudden you go, "Hey, mom, have you seen my socks?" "Oh, they're on your dresser." "Bang." You get what I'm trying to say? "Oh, holy [ __ ], I'm a 0.27, I didn't know what I was doing, Brian." You can manipulate the perspective to demonstrate something. Yes. But people always make mistakes. Don't try because, yeah, yes, yes. You can use other cases to say, "Listen, I want that Bart Simpson, 'The boys will be boys,' that's your Honor." But listen, what we're saying here is a life was lost, and it's a tragedy. Okay, we're saying that this kid will likely never rebound to the level that he was before that death, and that the whole family lost a wonderful, loving mom and everything else. So, let's tuck it nicely and put it to bed. And, somebody's going to say, "Mind your business." I'm not going to mind my business because what happens in my backyard is important to me. Do you see what I'm saying? And this affects societal issues.

Yeah, for me and for my family going forward as well. Yeah. No, and again, that, that's kind of why, what jumped out to me specifically like, we talked about one comment or the comments from the prosecutor, especially the, "Whether it was accidental or not." Like that was like, "Hey, hang on, hang on one second here." Or which, which one is it? Because if you're saying it was, those are two different cases. Then if you're saying, if you're saying my actions and statements would have been the same if it was intentional, Houston, we have a problem.

Are we not saying that? We're saying that when he says "whether it's accidental or not," "or not" means intentional. Means that there was nefarious intent involved there somewhere. And to me, that's what I wanted. Is that to you? One sense does that to you? Yeah.

Add evidence to the reason why you're unsure about this. Meaning, meaning, like you said, you me, because, no, no, no, but, but hang on. Because you brought up right at the beginning, and I wanted to hit it on it anyway, and, you said, "Prosecutors sometimes get cases." Okay, we'll explain what you mean by that. Okay. So, this, I would end here with you saying, reinvoking exactly that.

Listen, there's some cases you just can't win. Where the parents, for example, and I'm not going to say the, the, the names, but the parents' only way to identify the body, they didn't have a toothbrush. The whole family shared the toothbrush. They didn't have a hairbrush for the daughter that went missing. They had a communal hairbrush. The girl went to a birthday party, the family didn't know where in the neighborhood or what the person's name was. So, when we found the decedent, which is young female, we're all pissed. And the very first thing that we want to do is charge the parents with negligent, being negligent and child, where the welfare crimes. They knew or should have known that she was in a situation. When the real thing was, it was a murder and rape perpetrated by these people that took the girl from the, the birthday party and then abandoned her body. So, in the best interest of justice, just because I was pissed at the family members for allowing this daughter to live in those conditions, didn't make it right. So, the prosecutor dropped those charges early on because there were emotion-based charges that I brought because I was a father, and they fit, Brian. They, I, I didn't, yeah, I know, they put my thumb on the scale. They absolutely fit, yes. But listen, the family was always already going through the kidnapping, rape, and murder of their young daughter. Why compile that, by charging them as [ __ ] parents? Do you get where I'm going? So, that's a case that needs to go away. And it was right that they came in and said, "Greg, this part of the case is going away." And I had to agree with it because logically it served no additional purpose. Now, could it have been a cautionary tale to the rest of the neighborhood, "Pay attention to your kids and where they go"? Yeah, but remember, that's why we had the Boogeyman story. Story. That's why Grimm's Fairy Tales are still popular. You know what I'm saying? You, you trace back all the, the, the cryptology, encrypted and cryptozoologically, cryptozoology, that that all comes from the same place. You wanted your kids to stay in line, so we came up with these details, the story or anything else. So, Brian, sometimes the case needs to go away. Sometimes the person gets a DUI, and they're reckless, and the person in the vehicle with them dies, and it's their brother or their mom or their sister or something like that. Yeah, and those additional charges, while warranted, you get what I'm trying to say, aren't going to, aren't going to help the dispensation of justice. So, that's all I mean by it at this caper. To me, reading that comment smacked to the fact that the prosecutor had a full docket. You get what I'm trying to say? Nobody came up and objected to this as an outcome, and so he chose the least objectionable outcome to this case. That's what it felt like. And specifically bolstered by that line that you've read, where whether it was or not. What do you mean "or not"? And maybe you misspoke, you get what I'm trying to say.

But no, and that's the only thing that was that line. That's, that's the thing that, I go, "Well, wait a minute, what did they, did they misspeak? Did they not realize that they were saying, were they trying to speak hypothetically or, or not hypothetically, but, at, at like a 30,000 level? They're not getting down to the details. They're just, they're just kind of an overall discussion." Or was this different? Was a news crew on the lawn of the courthouse in Illinois, and he came out to read a prepared statement? Brian, wouldn't that have changed the outcome? That's what I meant by the Combat Rule of Threes. Is if you know certain factors, you can put them together. And guess what? We're not putting them together with a round, a peg in a square hole. What we're saying is these things fit together naturally, and this is already in evidence. We're not bringing stuff out from left field. So, if he said this and if he made it as a casual remark to a reporter that was in his office, you see what I'm trying to say? Yeah, that is what I want to know. How, how did it feel to you? Because it didn't feel right to me. And if it is a case that needs to go away, then tell us. "This case serves no further purpose. He's already in jail in his mind," or whatever where we could, I could, I could reach out to the defense and prosecution to see if they want to come on the show and do a follow-up on it.

And, you know, what? That would be a great one on our Patreon site or whatever. Yeah, it would only take 15 minutes. You guys laid out for us, and, you know, you, you report, we decide. That that's a tagline for some [ __ ] news agencies. Yeah. I don't know, I think people are tired of those lines.

I get it. Yeah. And again, we're both kind of hit the same point, I, I got it, but you're laying out what I read in the news articles, the facts of the case. I'm going, "Okay, well, this, this, that makes sense," you know. But are all of these other questions answered and have they been? And was there some other influence going on here? Because that can happen in these cases. Because, some, prosecutors and judges in a sense, do have some leeway in one, how they, how they administer justice, right, sentencing. Unless there's some some minimums in certain areas. But a judge is supposed to obviously for sentencing purposes, take a look at everything involved in the case that we even talked about. A prosecutor can even look at all this stuff and, they have to make the determination even going forward, is this going to stand up to a trial? Do we have enough evidence now? The rigor, is it going to stand the test of it of a trial? Like you said, someone's going to be countering us on every one of these points. Will it hold up? Does it have the merits? And that, that's an important thing that some people get frustrated with justice systems where they go, "Why didn't they charge this guy with more? He clearly did it." Like, "Yeah, but it has to go to trial. And then things happen in trial." So, you're right. Hearing you have to lay out your case and demonstrate that it's likely you'll win. Yes, because all that defense attorney has to do is create doubt in the mind of the jury. That's it. They don't have to prove one member in the jury, you just have to. And that, man, that's, that's tough. But that's what it's set up that way to keep, our justice system was written the way it is to keep innocent people from going to jail. That's the point of it. Not to, it's not to aggressively go after criminals, it's to make sure innocent people don't go to jail. And we still make mistakes on it, although it's gotten a lot better. But, yeah, I think that's, that's always important to understand. Well, I'll, I'll follow up with them. I'll reach out, I'll see if they.

I'd love that. I'd also love you to follow up on that Florida case. I think we'd all like to know.

I'm going to stay on top. I just stumbled across that, so I didn't have time to deep dive it or anything, and I didn't find anything updated. I didn't find anything newer than when it first broke like eight or nine months ago. So, it makes me think that there is no update to the case, which. And if you want to look at a diminished capacity case, Robert Stewart, I know it was in the first, it was between 2001 and 2010. I know that it was in North Carolina, and it was at a health, rehab nursing home facility. Domestic violence incident. He claimed Ambien as the defense. Killed eight, injured two. I remember it was a great caper, Brian, for people to understand how diminished capacity works and how being under the influence of, here, a mind-altering drug, right, created enough doubt that they couldn't demonstrate mens rea for premeditation. Important case. And you know how I am, I love case law. That's where you learn how to prosecute or defend future capers.

Yep.

No, I mean, that, that, that's a good one. I'll look that up. I'll, I'll provide a link in the episode details. Yeah, yeah, as well. And, and a link to these, and a link to the Florida one that just happened in like, no, I think last November or something like that. I can't remember. But, it's not, not that long ago. But didn't find anything newer on it. So, who knows. Like we said, those cases do happen. They're infrequent. And when right, when they, when they pop up, usually you and I are doing the, "Yeah, okay, but what, what are we saying here?" A week before they arrest this guy, two weeks or whatever. Because some of them, because they're strong, the, the, the one, the one from Colorado you just sent me, the Chris Watts one, that they did a whole big Netflix documentary on. When that happened, we watched that interview, we're like, "Oh my God, this guy killed them." We were on watch from the beginning. They should have been called. So, all right, man. Anything else to add? Is any closing, closing remarks? Any closing remarks, like, like the prosecutor in this case, just?

Well, we, we, we could or may not be going off the air right now, Brian. All right, that's all I'm saying on that. We appreciate everyone for tuning in. Again, we had some, some difficulties with some of the stuff getting on Apple Podcast. So, it was just some weird fluke thing. Hopefully, because now this week's one is, is totally fine. But always remember, there's other places to listen to us. You can go on Spotify, follow us on, on, on Instagram. I have The Human Behavior Podcast Instagram page going, so we can add some more stuff to that. We have the Patreon that you can subscribe to. We do a lot of like some weekly recaps that just go on there. We've got our, some of our webinars are on there. We've got all kinds of videos and episode extras that are on there. We'll bring back some guests if we've had some interviews with Sean on there again to, to bring back stuff. That, that stuff is all on the Patreon site. So, you guys can check that out. And so, we do appreciate everyone for tuning in. Thank you. If you enjoyed it, please tell your friends about it. Send it out to others to listen to. It helps with the show. And don't forget that training changes behavior.