Moochie, qui a tué Jill Halliburton? (2023): Season 1, Episode 4 - Episode #1.4 - full transcript

I got in contact
with the founder of Dropcam.

His name's Greg Duffy.
So I spoke with him last night.

Now,
the only caveat to this whole thing

is that he does not wanna
participate in anything.

ALLARI (ON PHONE): "Right."
He doesn't wanna be subpoenaed.

He doesn't want his personal
information, et cetera.

So, I went on to ask him about,

you know, how the camera works
and things like that.

I'm assuming that Nan-Yao
had an email notification

because he makes in his statement

that he got emailed regarding
a disconnect."Yes."



So, the interesting thing is,

when the camera gets shut off,

it would have sent still pictures
of the last motion to him by email.

MICHAEL: Oh, really?
"Oh, wow."

So, if this person walked up
where he claims

and undid the camera,
there'd be a snapshot of that,

which he never says that.
"No."

The other thing I think
we have to look at is this.

Nan-Yao never says anything
about the other camera.

They were both Dropcams.

What did he say about the other
camera, Allari, do you remember?

I mean, he had-
"That nothing happened on it."

Yeah.
"That it's missing

and he didn't get anything
from the other camera, so...



And they don't believe anything
really happened there. So, nothing."

Right. But, again, that goes against
what Dropcam is saying

because he would've been notified
by email

and he would've gotten a still shot

if someone came up
and disconnected that camera.

Which, again,
is leading everything up to...

this whole camera thing,
and the death, and him just checking

is all fabricated.

# BABY HUEY &
THE BABY SITTERS: Hard Times #

# Cold, cold eyes upon me they stare

# People all around me

# And they're all in fear

# They don't seem to want me

# But they won't admit

# I must be some
kind of creature up here having fits

# Havin' hard times

# In this crazy town

# Havin' hard times

# There's no love to be found #

(SONG ENDS)

They could've gotten a warrant
for his emails.

They could've seen the email
that supposedly notified him

of it being disconnected,

and they could have checked
if that email showed the still shot

of the last person
to disconnect the camera,

or whatever the last motion was.
And they didn't.

It's, again, a lot of these, like,
officers just, "Oh, just trust us.

We'll just trust him,
and then you just trust us,

and don't worry,
that's somebody's liberty."

And, actually, in this case, life,
actual life is on the line

'cause, if we lose, you know, he'll
be executed by the State of Florida.

MAN (ON PHONE): "If you don't have
a subscription service,

you're only able to see live video.

It's not gonna be recorded
up to three hours."

So, hold-
"It's only a snapshot.

It's not gonna be the video,
but only snapshots

of what happened three hours ago."

So, wait a minute. So...

(STAMMERS) I wanna...
'cause I'm kinda confused.

So, if I don't have...
If my trial period ends, right?

Then I have up to three hours
to see snapshots?

"Yes."

I asked him, "If I was law
enforcement and I called you guys,

and I asked you guys
for this information,

what would you tell me?"
They said exactly...

He can see not the video footage,

but still shots of everything
he saw three hours prior.Mmm.

But, we'll definitely
have to see and pinpoint

at what time he actually did call.
Right.

I mean, he could have,
and then, at which point,

we could argue that they were just...
negligent.Right. Exactly.

And that they could've got it
within three hours

and they didn't get it.
Right.

They interviewed Dropcam
that afternoon.

Somebody called Dropcam.
There's a report of it.

One of the officers...
I think it was at, like, 1:45.

So, it's shortly after the murder.

I think the only big mistake
that the officers made

is that they never pressed Mr Su.

They never pressed him.

And they didn't because he was
spoon-feeding them, slowly, his son.

(ON FILM) Can I speak to you?

One more thing I kind of forgot
to tell you.

Sir.

He cover his face, OK?
My son cover his face.

And then, next thing you know,

he put a towel or something
on top of the camera.

That was why you-
That's why we are in.

So, I know that it's the reason why

initially I suspect
this person I saw in the mask.

Maybe him because he's tried
to pull a prank on me.

Why would he say that?
Have you ever done that?

I've thrown shit,
like, over the camera.

No, have you ever put something
around your face messing around?
No, I haven't.

And, your mom saw it and said,
"Oh, you're silly," or whatever?No.

Sure about that?
Yeah.

Put something on my face?
Like, cover up my face?

Are you sure about that?
Yeah.

So, what did happen?

Because the son says
that never happened.

Dad says that happened,
and that's how he believed

that it was his son
because that happened.

But son says, "No,
that conversation never happened."

Red flag. Red flag.

But, every time it happened,

he kept going back to the fact that,

"my son... my son did it,
my son could've done it."

He kind of infers without coming
across as saying, "My son did it."

There's a lot of inferences.

He's the only one
that knew the camera was up there.

(ON VIDEO)
Because both of them being unplugged

indicated
that they know this camera.

Well, let me ask you, who knows
where these security cam-My son.

He also referenced that he gave
his son, like, a yellow envelope

with all the bank accounts
and all of that stuff on there.

I seal them up
in an envelope and said,

"This envelope is here,
if something happens, open it.

Just leave it. (INDISTINCT)

I'm not sure if the envelope
will be open or not.

So, he gave information
like that as well.

Like, almost like providing...

not necessarily- I mean,
almost in a way, like a motive.

So, my opinion is
he was not protective of the son,

let's put it that way.

(ON VIDEO) Why he tie them up?

Why he tie them up? It's his mom.

He didn't have to tie her up.

He made statements
to the detectives,

like I previously stated that,
you know,

"If he did this, you know,
I can accept it."

(ON VIDEO) I would accept the truth
that he did it.

But before that...

we need to make sure
that everything is done fairly.

And he just kind of "spedfoon" them

and gave them enough information
to get them out of his room

and into the other
interrogation room.

I mean, the theory could be,
if Nan-Yao committed the murder...

..he might know
there's not enough evidence

to convict his son.

But there's enough to have doubt
for him, that he didn't do it.

I just find that strange that,

from A to B, to C to D,
to E to F, to G,

everything is covered,
everything is fine.

As far as me
having a witness with me,

coming back to the home
at a certain time...

Calling in at a certain time...

Getting my son involved
at a certain time.

You know... Listen,
it could've all happened that way.

But, if it did, then it was perfect.
It was perfect.

And, as I said before,
nothing's perfect in a murder case,

and that's his kind of plan.

Coincidence
that he's there 9:30 to 11:30

and no burglar comes in
at that time.

And, just, they happen to come
after he leaves.

(ON VIDEO) I could be wrong,
and I saw this figure

with white towel type of thing
cover his face.

My memory is probably not very good
because it's just a glimpse of that.

He happens to check the camera
at the exact same time

the bad guy
is pulling the camera down.

The exact same time.

That is an unbelievable coincidence.

He should've played the lotto
the same night.

He should've played it all week.

He should've played the cash float
every day, 'cause how can you-

"OK, I'm just gon'
look into my phone.

Oh, by the way, I'm at work.
(FALSE YAWN) Oh, I'm bored.

Let me check the cameras.
Oh! What is this?

I see somebody breaking in. Oh!"

What's the chances?

Then, the subscription ends

and conveniently,
everything is just gone,

and now there's no proof of anything.

(CLEARS THROAT)
That whole part is troubling.

(ON VIDEO) When's the last time
you saw your mom?

This morning around,
probably, like, 9:45.

Right before I left, I said, "Hey,
I'm going to work. See you later."

What was her response?

She was sitting in the living room
with the other camera.

There's another camera
and probably my dad could watch her.

She was just reading a book
in the living room.

When she come to bed,
my impression was

it's about 8:00, 8:30,
or something like that.

And then,
I kind of dozing off, on and off,

and finally I wake up around 9,
10 or something like that.

You got up and she was still in bed?
Yes, still in bed.

Asleep?
She was totally asleep.

JOHN: 'Nan-Yao makes a statement
that at 8:30, Jill comes to bed

and she sleeps, and she was in bed
until he left at 11:30.

At 9:45, Justin leaves the house,

makes the statement
that his mom's on the couch.

So, why would the contradiction
be SO vastly different

if Jill was on the couch or in bed?

Why would they be, basically,
telling opposite stories?'

And granted, two people
standing next to each other

could see the same thing and tell
you different stories.

But, they're going to tell you that
yeah, there was one person here.

If he was in any way involved,
it does show an opportunity

to have had alone time
with her to have done this.

Um, more than enough time to do this
in the span of two hours.

'There's clearly enough time
after his son leaves

to possibly
have committed the crime,

to stage the crime
to make it look like a burglary,

and then leave and
go to work to set up an alibi.

And, when he gets to work,

he then uses the Dropcam
as a reference

to claim that someone
has broken into the house.

And, instead of calling the police
to investigate,

he calls his son to go to the house.

Why not call the front guard gate,

where there's
an armed security guard?

Or call the Davie Police Department,
who are less than a mile away?

That would've been there
a lot quicker

than either him or Justin
leaving their job

and going back to the house.'

Two reasons why he could
be sending his son.

One is stupidity,
'cause you're sending your son in

to a possible burglar
who's in your house.

Or two,
he's trying to establish a timeline

and he's allowing his son
to find his mother dead.

And we know that Nan-Yao was
nowhere near the house at the time.

There's an interest
in saying that he saw a person

at a particular time because
it would change the time of death.

And that's why the police did not
investigate before that time.

'Cause he's limited the time

to after
he saw the person on camera.

(ON VIDEO) Did you see any other
injuries to her besides her neck?

I wanted to say her face was
a little bit bruised or something.

But I don't know if that's from,
like, you know,

the rigor mortis,
or I don't even know.

JOHN:
'You're not gonna find rigor mortis

in a 15 minute window,
or a 20 minute window.

And probably not even
a 30 minute window.

By the naked eye,
the person isn't gonna notice it.

But, Justin did notice it.

And, if Justin noticed it,
it had to be pretty substantial.'

The other thing
I thought was interesting is,

and if you remember this...

About 12:28 PM,

Justin shows up at the house. OK?

They bring the canine in
within about an hour,

not even that I think it was.

Now, canines will search for people,

and they'll do tracks.

So,
if someone went in or out a door,

and then down the grass
around the lawn, you know,

through the bushes,
or whatever it is,

the dog's gonna pick up on that.

Even if there's other people around.
OK?

So, the canine,

which I thought was very specific

because he didn't pick up any track
of anybody leaving the residence.

This is showing me that nobody
left the house after the murder.

Alright, well...

We're gonna have Mr Su here.

You're here, sir.

OK, thanks.

So, what did you see?

When I clicking, I saw this figure

with his face covered with some
kind of white cloth.

It's...

The camera image is not very good.

Kind of foggy.
But, I could see this figure.

The face is covered,
some kind of white cloth,

except around eye is (INDISTINCT)
like this.

Straight.
And this total black here.

So, basically, you're motioning
that you could see the eyes?

I could not see the eye.
Well, I mean the eye area.

The eye area is pitch black.

What do you mean pitch black?
Because it's a dark man.

It's what?
It's a band of darkness,

in contrast to the white thing
he's wearing on his face.

And, you said you had an opportunity

to look at your statement that
you gave to the police?Yes, mm-hmm.

And, now the detective,
in that statement,

asked you if the person
was Black or white, correct?

He said is it Black and white, yes.
And, you said white, correct?

I wasn't sure if I mistaken
his question

as a white-ish person,
or a white human being.

But I just,
my impression was he is white-ish.

Because of the mask in his face.

And also, the shirt is white.

The person,
you said a male or whatever,

could you tell
if it was a male or female?

I think it's a male.
OK.

Rather skinny.
OK.

How old did this male look?
20-ish.

OK.
Doesn't looks like very old to me.

OK.I can't see the face,
so I can't tell.

But, from the body language,
that he's not dragging,

the moving body is rather smooth.

Is it a white male, Black male, or-
It looks like white to me.

OK.

And I think
he understood the question,

and I think who he saw in 2014
was a white person.Right.

If there was any indication
that the person was Black,

he would've said Black.
And then, in the-

And, he asked his son, you know,
"Was that you?"

He would not confuse his son
for a Black person.Right.

I just think they probably-
They coached him.

Yeah, they coached him.
Mm-hmm.

And that's the position they took.
Mm-hmm.

But, at least we know
what their tactic is gonna be.

Um, I don't think
it's gonna come across well.

Plus, we could impeach him.

We'll just play that portion.

And the jurors are gonna be like,

"You clearly said a white person."
Yeah.

Um, so, that part's good.
It's on video.

Then, of course, we find out
some personal stuff about him.

He got remarried...
What, a couple of years...

He said in 2017 he got remarried.

So, three years after the fact.

And then she, well,
currently she's 30 years old.

She's 30 years old. He's 68.

There is a 38 year difference.

She has a son.

Uh, we found out Justin moved
after this.

Somehow,
he's not in the house anymore.

He's still living in the house where
this happened with his new wife,

which is also kind of odd.

I don't know
when he would've started dating her.

But, at least, for a while.
Dating or seeing her...

(CHUCKLES)
Yeah. I don't know.

I wonder if that's why he went
to the office that morning?

Could be. Could be.
(CHUCKLES)

I don't know.

(TENSE MUSIC)

So, on the date in question,
September 8th, 2014,

when you read the text messages,

it just equals out to somebody
that's just on an average day.

I mean... if you look
at most of the text messages,

they're basically
a guy who's talking to a girl

and trying to set something up
for his birthday.

Take, for instance,
he's asking this girl,

"What are you gonna do? Are you
gonna come to my birthday party?"

So, 15 minutes before
the husband leaves,

he's having a text conversation
with a young lady.

He's not looking
to see if neighbours are home,

or he's not canvassing the place,

or he's not in the car
with someone else

while they're driving around
looking through a neighbourhood.

He's texting back and forth
about a birthday party.

So, I find that really unusual.

And then, at 11:29,

a MINUTE before
the husband is supposed to leave,

he texts her,
"Well, you might not wanna watch,

'cause a lot of girls
know me in there."

You know, this is one of the places
he probably frequents, right?

And, she replies back,
"Oh, that's fine. I like girls too."

Even afterwards, if I go to some of
the text messages around 12:34.

12:34, he's supposed to be

gone with the wind

in a car somewhere,
leaving the scene.

He's texting, "You flaw girl."

And then, at 1:01,
it's, "What you doing?"

If I was to tie someone up,
stab them, and push them in the tub,

there's no way in the world
that I'd be texting,

"What you doing?" or "You flaw."

I would be scared out of my mind.

So,
reading through these text messages,

there is nothing in this phone

after someone is supposed
to have committed a crime

that harsh, that heinous,

that would tell you
that they did it.

I don't see it.

Usually, people in that situation
become very agitated very quickly.

Um, so, we might expect them

to look pretty chaotic,
to look pretty distressed.

Oftentimes, they actually
will blab it out to somebody

that they committed the homicide,
and that's often how they're caught.

In this case,
Dayonte did none of that.

So, in fact, he seemed
to kind of go back to normal.

And, there's really
kind of two ways of reading that.

One is that
he didn't commit the homicide,

you know,
so he's not feeling agitated,

he's not experiencing that
because he's innocent.

The other possibility
is that he's a psychopath,

and so, he doesn't experience

those sorts of
emotional roller coasters

that people normally do if
they've committed a homicide.

You know, I've seen other murderers
who've done the same thing.

Have committed a homicide,
and then go right off

and try to find their girlfriend
and have a night with them.

And, that's something most of us
wouldn't think to do.

But, again, it's hard to know.

I mean, we don't know that he
did it, you know, so it's hard to-

You know, obviously,
I can't say he's a psychopath

and this behaviour indicates
that he is guilty of this homicide.

I can only try
to put it in perspective

of here's
how to understand that behaviour

IF he committed the homicide,

and here's
how we can understand that behaviour

if he did not commit the homicide.

(TENSE MUSIC)

So, we do have what was requested.
ALLARI: Oh, good.

But, as I was going through...

more or less reading out
the outgoing text messages

between, let's say, 11:15 and 12:30,

there were some in these records

that he did not have on the list.
GENTRY: Right.

So, I don't understand why that is,
but obviously,

the more text messages we have,
the better.

He had more text messages
around the time that I didn't have,

and I was like
"Woah, that's very interesting."

Right.
Because, in this one, there's not...

Around, like 11:30,
and stuff like that,

I don't have any, but you have them.

Yeah, there's 11:29, 11:31,

11:48, 11:52,

11:58, two of those, three of those.

Wow.

12:03, 12:09...
Mm-hmm.

Now, this is a little bit of a gap.

12:09, then the next one is 12:22.

See now, yeah, I have one at 12:27.

Then it picks back up at 1:00.
But, you have a 12:27 outgoing?

Yeah.
Really? That's so weird.

So, you have some
that are not on here.

Right!
(BOTH LAUGH)

Yes. Right.
This is insane.

I mean the good part is we seem to
have a lot of text activity from him.

During that time.
During that time frame,

which is very helpful to us

because I don't know
how you could be involved in such...

like, a gruesome,
torturous type of killing like this,

and then you're texting
this light-hearted text about-

Right. "Are you gonna
come to the party with me?"

"Are you going to be intimidated
if the other strippers are there?"

And, she's like, "No, you know,
I don't care about the strippers.

I used to be a stripper,
so it's fine with me."

"OK, cool."

While you... Who does that?

Yeah, or even while you're, you know,

if there is multiple people
and your role is to,

you know,
grab the cash and the jewellery,

whilst she's maybe screaming
on the floor or something.

I mean, yeah, it's impossible.
Right.

So, I think that's good.

I don't understand why the records,
his records show...

(CHUCKLES)

But, I don't know how. I mean, these
are the actual phone records, so I...

Well, why take out the texts

from around the time
that the murder would've happened?

That's so weird.
Because they want it blank.

They want it blank
Yeah.

They want it blank. "See, there was
nothing going on."Right.

If they actually did that,
that's very improper.

Yeah, we'll have to see where
those came from. I don't know.

Do we really know if they've been
through all of these records

and have analysed them
as extensively as we have?

Because they might not have.

It seems that
they just ended everything

after Dayonte got the DNA hit.

I mean, we haven't seen
any other reports.

I haven't seen any other reports
that they've analysed anything.

So, they may not even
know this even exists.

So, we're looking at times between...

Between, let's just figure 11:30,
when the husband leaves the house,

and 12:28
when he's pinging off the tower

seven miles away, eight miles away.

11:30 and...?
12:28.

57 calls.
57, OK.

So, it's almost a text a minute.

So, how do we explain

that there's only five SMS messages
on the extraction

and they're relying
on the extraction

with the very minimal activity,

implying
that he was up and available

for an hour to commit this murder.

But if there are 57 text messages
on the call detail records,

and it's showing
it's almost one a minute?

I'd have to go with the confidence
in the T-Mobile data.

Over the extraction?
Well, both.

But, I mean,
the call detail records are accurate.

I mean, in my opinion,
I've analysed thousands of them.

Multiple different companies...

And we have a very high confidence

in the cellular network
and the computerised systems

that they use to capture and document
calls and texts

and, in some cases, data sessions.

So, the phone extraction thing is...

for me, it's a mixed bag, as you say.

Why didn't it capture on the device
that call that the network captured?

He deleted a lot of texts too.

He deleted a lot of stuff.

So, if he deleted those text
messages during the time frame,

they're not gonna come up
in the extraction then, right?

That's what I'm thinking.

I can't find them separately
in a deleted file.Right.

But, that's, kind of,
how I would approach it

if I was gonna drill down on this
and try to mesh it

and flush out more activity
during the time frame necessary.

(TENSE MUSIC)

Well, you know, to some degree,

we've been limited
in what we can do because, um...

we don't have the ability
to do in person depositions.

Um...

We haven't had the ability
to meet with our client.

And then, you know,
if you schedule a phone,

we know that, I mean, they're not
supposed to record the conversations,

and I'm not saying
that they're doing it,

it's just that they have the ability.

Let's put it this way, they have the
ability to record the conversations.

Mm-hmm.
Without you knowing.

But I'm not saying
they're doing that.

But, we just held off

until we can have, like,
the old-fashioned visits

where you can actually go to the jail

and you're in a private room
with the client,

and you know nobody is recording you.

It's hell. It's hell.

Everybody, you know, went through,

like, a mental stress or whatever

because you have
the pandemic raising havoc,

and then you've got
the whole court system being down.

And then, nobody knowing
when they're gonna go to trial,

like the dates
of the court opening up.

Nobody really knows, or whatever.

And, treatment-wise, being in jail,

is not the best
and it's always been like that.

So, like,
they're making up their own rules

aimed towards me
that I have to follow.

And then, if I don't follow them,
I'm penalised.

Like, you know
they had restricted visitation

where I can't get visitation,
but, like,

sometimes
they just let it go through.

I don't know if they took it off
where I can get it now.

But they restricted my visitation
where I couldn't get it.

They're trying to isolate him
and make him feel alone,

and make him feel that there's
nobody out here that is wanting him.

Any time you try to call him,

you try to have a little small
conversation with him,

ANYTHING you say, they say,
"Oh, you said the wrong word now."

My wife's number's blocked.

I got a friend number's blocked.
My number's blocked.

Any time he call us,
he can't get through now.

So, the only time we can reach him
is through a letter,

and I think he tried to write us
a couple times,

and they just didn't send it.

Because we get word
through a third party, well, like,

"Hey, did you get the letter?"
"No, we didn't get any letter."

It's starting to weigh on him
for a while.

It could take a toll on anyone.

ALLARI: They're trying to keep them
separate as much as possible.

They've taken away certain liberties
that they have in the jail

to limit contact with other inmates.

And a lot of inmates are suffering

because they're on lockdown
in a jail cell by themselves

without contact with other people.

So, mentally,
a lot of our clients are suffering,

not just physically,
including Dayonte.

He really wants this case
to go forward and go to trial.

But, without a future court date,

um, he's just kind of feeling,

you know, restless
and desperate to go to court.

And worried and anxious.

It's difficult because
he's been in the jail for so long,

and he was now
just reaching the end,

and now we have to tell him

that it's on hold indefinitely
without a future date.

A doctor comes to clear you,

to make sure
you're no longer suicidal.

And all it takes
is you telling them,

"Oh, no I never was, da-da-da-da,"
because you want to get off,

because it is basically
taking you from one torture place

and you go into another
that's more so greater,

where you have to wrestle
with these thoughts.

With the pills, it was just, like,

a whole episode of just,
like, wanting to give up.

Just being done with everything.

Because you... Just being tired.

Man, I don't really like
thinking about it

because it places myself
in a dark spot.

But if you just call it quit,
everything could be over with.

You won't have those problems
anymore.

You won't have
to deal with all that.

And I am really dying to know

when I'm going to trial,
when trial is coming up.

But I guess I'll speak with my
lawyers when they come and see me,

or I'll figure out that way,
because, um, jail is...

I'm over jail now.
I'm tired of jail. Jail is too much.

(SOMBRE MUSIC)

(MICHAEL WHISPERS) Hey there.
I haven't seen you in a while.

You never call.
What?

What happened to your eye?
Huh?

What happened to your eye? It's red.

SHARI:
Judge, and I can let you know

that we reached out to the lab

to do some additional testing.

So, I'm anticipating
hearing from the lab any day now.

What's the issue with the DNA?

There is some new techniques

that have come about
since this test was done.

So, you're suggesting
that the science has advanced

and they have new techniques
that they've developed,

and can answer more questions?

Yes, with the new developments
in the testing,

they're able to go in and test it,

and make matches
and develop full profiles

that they couldn't,
even a year ago, and now they can.

We at least learned
that what they're doing

with respect to having,
retesting things,

and some things
that have never been tested,

and then retesting
other things that have been done.

And then, when I talked to Shari
out in the hall, she was like,

"Well, we'll see how it pans out.

You know, it could...
We don't know how it'll..."

You know, like,
it could go either way...

Mm-hmm.
..in terms of what the results...

I mean,
any time you start testing something,

you never know what you're gonna get.

All of the DNA was rerun

and it confirmed that the first run
was correct.

The defendant's DNA
was on the knife,

on the Kershaw knife,
outside the home.

The defendant's DNA
was on the looped belt

that was used to tie Mrs Su.

But also, on the door
from the point of entry,

the DNA wasn't sufficient

to be able to compare to anyone

with the technology
that was available at the time.

And now, that DNA profile

that was previously there
but not enough to compare,

was enough to compare.

And it was a single source
to the defendant.

It doesn't look good, right?

Um, someone's DNA
being on the exterior of a door

where a person was murdered
is not...

you know,
very positive for the defendant.

And, it's not ambiguous,

like some of the mixtures
that we have in this case.

So, the "who" question has been
answered for that sample,
essentially.

Um, and,
so then it really just becomes

a question
of how did that DNA get there,

and when did that DNA get there?

And DNA doesn't ever
tell us those things.

Is it because
he participated in this crime?

Or is it because it transferred here
through some other process?

A person's DNA being on an item

doesn't mean they touched an item,
doesn't mean they handled an item.

And just the DNA itself
would never be enough.

'But in addition to that, now there
is an unidentified area of DNA,

a Gatorade bottle,
that was found inside the home.

You know,
it just stood out of place.

Like, it was in this room
that was, like, a spare room.

It was very clean and nobody
in the house drank that.

So, we do have a piece of evidence
that they collected,

they think could be the perpetrator,

and turns out yes,
they got DNA off it,

but they can't
match it to anybody.

They can't match it to the family.

It doesn't match to our client.

So, there was an aspect of the
testing that actually helps us.'

And then, there were prints

lifted off of the jewellery boxes
that were opened

and it was obvious that...

..you know,
somebody was going through them.

Unless it was all staged.

But it looked like that, arguably,

was a person who potentially
was robbing the place.

And none of those prints
came back to our client.

And so,
they're deemed to be unidentified.

So, you know, that, of course,
is significant.

But we have not been given

this fingerprint information,

which is a shame,
considering how many years later.

I think the first thing I noticed,

I heard like a... screeching.

Squeaky, screeching sound,
and my dog started barking.

Around, like, how long did you
hear this squeaky screeching?

Seconds.

So, what happened
when you went over to the door?

The blinds were closed,
so I lifted a blind.

OK. So, you're looking through
a blind through your glass door?

Correct.
And, where were you looking?

Directly across the street.
Out front.

Directly in the front,
my front yard,

which was across the street
of the Sus' house.

Did you notice any cars there?
I don't remember there being-

Certainly,
there wasn't any car parked

in front of my door or their door.

Now, the driveways are wide,
so maybe, you know...

I don't even remember if my car
was parked in the driveway.

But nothing in front of our doors.
OK.

Alright, so, um... what did you see?

I don't know. Whether it was
someone from the inside pulling,

I thought maybe
it was a dog or something,

that somebody was trying
to pull inside.

My...

..thought process when
all the screeching and everything,

I mean, you just don't think

that it's, at noon,
something horrible.

And I thought it was a dog.

Maybe... They had an older dog,

I thought maybe
the dog had been hit by a car.

The dog was deaf, you know.
I didn't know, and I thought,

"Well, maybe Jill was trying
to get the dog in the house."

I didn't know what...
I don't know what...

Now, how long
were you standing by that door,

looking across the street?

10 or 15 seconds, maybe.
Not long, that I recall...

I stayed there
until the door closed.

OK. So, you saw the door close?
Yes.

(CURIOUS MUSIC)

(MUTTERS)

That's it, 1327, yeah.

This whole thing had her very upset.

Oh, I totally agree. I understand.
You didn't help.

I'm sorry. I apologise, but there's
not much I can do about that.

I apologise.
Well, there is.

I'm right in the building
where the lawyers are.OK.

No, what I'm just saying is
I apologise for upsetting her,

but there's not much I could do.
I stopped and knocked on the door.

I don't know who her lawyers are
or anything.Listen to me.

It's not her lawyers. I'm a lawyer.
OK.

But I'm in the same building as
the people who represent this kid.

OK.
They're on the sixth floor.

Mike whatever his name is?
Yeah, Orlando.

I'm on the fifth floor. Right there.
Right. OK. Alright.

So, you can call my office
and she'll be happy to talk to-OK.

Basically, I came back, cos I wanted
to see exactly what we could see

and a couple of other things
that I had questions.

That's it, that's what you can see.
Yeah.

So, nothing's changed, right? I
mean-

Nothing's changed there.
Did you see the dogs?Yeah.

That's what prompted
this whole thing.Right.

The doors were the same.
Right.

She was in the kitchen cooking.
The blinds are the same too?

Blinds are the same.

She heard the dogs were going crazy.
Right.

Two or three times, she said,
"Get away from there."Right.

And, finally, she came to get them
and she looked out

and saw the tail end of whatever
was going on there.

Whenever the door was going, OK.

So, whatever she described,
that's her perspective.

Right, OK, alright.

And, you don't have cameras, right?
You didn't have cameras back then?

Uh, no.
Alright.

We're scheduled for trial
the end of the year

and, uh, you know, I...

I got some problems with this case.
(CHUCKLES)

Well, there are some
problems with the case.Yeah.

I mean,
you also have a guilty client,

Clearly, somebody alive
in that house around noon

opened the door
for some reason which we don't know.

And we know that Nan-Yao

was at his office during that time.

We know that he left his house
sometime around 11:30.

And with the evidence now showing
that somebody opened the door,

clearly it was either Jill
that opened the door,

maybe prior to being murdered,

or it was the suspect
who opened the door,

maybe trying to either flee,

or to look out front
to see if anybody's coming.

So, this clearly helps Nan-Yao

in his case as an alibi.

Um, even though
there are so many discrepancies

and things that he's said
that don't really...

that aren't really accurate.

So, you know, looking back on this,

this is pivotal at this point,

and Betty's clearly a very important
witness in this case.

(ON VIDEO) Just check the garage,
man. I was there.

I don't need to check
the fucking garage.Why not?

Because you said
you were in the library.

So? What's wrong with that?

So,
what if you're not in the library?

Then, where were you?
In my car.

What were you doing in your car?
Sleeping.

So, I'm gonna ask you
the same question again.

So, you don't fuck this up.

Be honest with me.

Did you stay in your car sleeping,
or did you go to the library?

I said that-
OK, I'm sorry I said that to you.

You fucking lied about that too?
Because...

I don't wanna seem like an asshole.

No, 'cause you know I'm gonna
fucking find out the truth.

(TENSE MUSIC)

Oh, it's him...

Let me make sure, though.
Hang on one second...

(FAINTLY) Hello?
Hey, Mike, do you have a photocopy

of Justin's car
in the file anywhere?

OK, yeah, that's what I want to see.

I kind of want to compare.

Alright, thanks...

It may, but I'm not sold.

Not 100%.

It could just be
the angle of the car.

That's what it could be.

But... hold on.

And boom. And there we are.

This is him big screen.
Um, you can see the Ford.

You can actually see
the white t-shirt inside

with the "Breaking Bad" on it.

(TENSE MUSIC)

And, he exits at 12:20.

He's leaving now.

I'm trying to simulate
the actual drive

from Broward College
to the crime scene.

I'm going as fast as I can
without breaking any traffic rules.

Um, we're going to see how fast
we can get there from the school.

(DRAMATIC MUSIC)

It took me ten minutes.

(SOMBRE MUSIC)

So, I guess what I'm saying is,
given that I guess...

both of the statements
of them are problematic.Yes.

But what I'm saying is,

they're gonna
fall back on the video surveillance

to prove that it couldn't have been,
for example,

couldn't have been the son
because of the video surveillance.

I'm just saying whatever else
needs to be done on that end

to investigate, to see, you know...

In other words,
we don't wanna spin our wheels

with trying to make it seem

like the son was involved.
Right.

If they're gonna be able to come back

and show proof, conclusive proof...

..that he was never alone
in the house with his mother.Right.

(GENTLE MUSIC)

(INDISTINCT CHATTER)

I'm a finder of fact.

You know,
I'm going to review the evidence

and the discovery
that's given to us,

and I'm going to find the things
that are good for Dayonte,

find the things
that are bad for Dayonte,

and present them to the defence.

You know, the lawyers are the ones

who then have
to take that information

and construct it into a case

as what they feel
is the best logical defence.

(INDISTINCT SHOUTING)

'You know, before with the knife
being outside a front-locked door...

Um, you know,
there's all kinds of speculation
as to how that got there.

But, with the stuff being
on the entrance to the glass,

that's pretty incriminating evidence

that puts him at that back door,

at least touching it at some point.'

MAN: And what is your opinion,
personally?

Personally? (STUTTERS)

I- I... Oh, that's tough to say.

I mean, looking at it now, um...

I mean,
my gut feeling going into the trial

is that the defence trying to show

that it's someone else
is gonna be difficult to prove.

Even though they don't have
to prove it, they have to prove it.

And they need to prove it
in front of the jury,

and that's gonna be difficult
for them to do.

MAN: So, what is going to be
your strategy for the trial?

Well, I mean, I think the, um...

thrust of the argument is that...

..the person that, the perpetrator,

was familiar with the house
and had been there before.

You know, targeting Justin's room...

And then the master bedroom...
Taking down the cameras.

Because we don't think
it's really a coincidence

that this happened
after these parties.

You know, it seems more likely that

a perpetrator

is somebody
that could've known Justin,

could've been there before, you know.

And you know,
sort of go down that path.

When I first got involved,
there was a lot of talk

in that, like,
Justin did it, or Nan-Yao did it.

But, if you start out on that tone,

and then the jury feel bad
for the person,

they're gonna look at you like,
you know,

"OK,
their defence is that he did it."

And, they're gonna be like,
"There is no way."

So, that's why, you know,

in the end,
it wouldn't be a wise angle.

And that's not our role,
to solve the crime, so to speak.

So,
you just try to sort of throw out

as much stuff as you can

to create reasonable doubt.

(TENSE MUSIC)

This is the process
of selecting a jury.

I am going to ask you
a series of questions

that are related to whether

you can serve as a juror
in this case, OK?

Under Florida law,

in order for a juror to even sit

on a case in which
the death penalty is an option,

um, they have to...

be able to consider
the death penalty.

You don't want people who have
extremes. So, both disqualify you.

If you would never consider the
death penalty, you're disqualified.

If you will always consider the
death penalty appropriate

for murder in the first degree,
you're disqualified.

Are you able to sit and listen to
everything Ms Schneider and I put on,

anything the defence may put on,

and consider life in prison?
Yes, ma'am.

OK. And the alternative,
are you able to consider,

and really consider,
proposing the death penalty?

Yes, I can.
OK.

You're talking to people that
woke up that morning and just said,

"Oh, OK,
I think I have jury duty today."

And then,
flash forward to six hours later,

and they're sitting in a room
with a judge and a defendant

with four defence
attorneys and two prosecutors.

"Tell me all of your thoughts on,

arguably, the heaviest topic that
you could discuss with somebody."

I mean, and you're trying to take
that little glimmer of information

and figure out how it's gonna shape
the rest of the case.

That's why I try to delve
as deep as I possibly can

in the limited framework
that we're given,

to try to identify those people who,

it doesn't matter what we present,
they're gonna kill Dayonte.

We give them numbers.

One could never impose death.
Seven will always impose death.

So, we don't want any sixes,
we don't want any fives.

We want mostly twos.
Maybe some threes.

But what really ends up happening is
kind of in the middle and up there.

And then, of course, the state,

they'll come up
with all these lame excuses

to strike all the black jurors,
which, of course, we fight.

Let's face it,
they're probably gonna be

looking for white women
that have some money.

Only 3% of counties
across the country

still regularly impose
death sentences.

But our county
is one of those counties.

Yeah, we had, six, I believe,
six executions last year.

That's a lot of people to kill.
Like, one person every two months.

Basically, what it boiled down to,
during a pandemic. (CHUCKLES)

I think we're happy
with the jury that we have.

But, you know, we won't know

if it's a good jury until,
you know, the trial's over.