Crime Weekly - S2 Ep86: Danielle Redlick: The Verdict Is In (Part 3)

Episode Date: July 8, 2022

The statistics tell us that intimate partner homicide is far more common than any of us would like to believe, with nearly one out of five murder victims being killed by a person they were in a romantic relationship with. It’s hard to understand how love and passion can turn to hate and violence, but if you look at the studies, it seems the most common motive is jealousy. But when the woman in the relationship is the attacker, and the man is the victim, and there is a history of domestic violence between them, we have to examine the details a bit more closely, because for society as a whole, it’s hard to determine what is right, what is wrong, and what is a moral gray area. In January of 2019, after allegedly dealing with years of physical abuse and emotional neglect, 46 year old Danielle Redlick stabbed her husband of over a decade. It would be eleven hours before she would call 911 to report his death, at which time she claimed 65 year old Michael Redlick had died from a heart attack after stabbing himself. During a police investigation, law enforcement discovered that the true situation was not as straightforward as Danielle had made it seem, and she was soon under arrest for murder, but during her trial all of the details came out, painting a complicated picture of a relationship that had maybe always been far from perfect. Try our coffee!! - www.CriminalCoffeeCo.com Become a Patreon member -- > https://www.patreon.com/CrimeWeekly Shop for your Crime Weekly gear here --> https://crimeweeklypodcast.com/shop Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/CrimeWeeklyPodcast Website: CrimeWeeklyPodcast.com Instagram: @CrimeWeeklyPod Twitter: @CrimeWeeklyPod Facebook: @CrimeWeeklyPod

This Father's Day at Lowe's. Score free gifts for the greatest dad. Right now, get a free Blackstone 8-piece accessory kit when you buy a Blackstone 28-inch griddle. Plus, get two free Select Craftsman V20 tools when you buy an RP brushless drill and impact driver combo kit. Shop these deals and more this Father's Day at Lowe's. We help, you save.

Valid through 615. While supplies last. Selection varies by location. Hello, everybody. Welcome back to Crime Weekly. I'm Stephanie Harlow. And I'm Derek Levasseur. So today we are finishing up the case that we've been working on for the past two weeks. This is the third and final part of that case, the Danielle Redlich and Michael Redlich case. Before we dive in, though, Derek, is there anything you want to address? Well, I mean, we were just talking about it. So we record our ads before we record our episode so we don't have to stop during the

episode. And I will tell you, it is the 4th of July. So when you're seeing this, it's not anymore. What is it? The 8th? But we're recording this on the 4th of July at night. So there's a ton of fireworks outside my house. So I do apologize if during the episode you hear like massive explosions going off. I can tell you right now you're going to hear it in some of the ads. But yeah, I apologize for the people listening just on audio. I'm sure it's going to get annoying. Yeah. If you guys follow me on social media and have for years, every single year on the 4th of July, I go on Instagram or Twitter or both and complain about how much I hate fireworks because they're so obnoxious to me. And I know people like them, but I hate them. Especially if you have small

children, man, those fireworks be waking your kids up. The dogs are stressed out. Everybody's stressed out. It sounds literally like the revolutionary war out there. Like they just got the cannons going off and it's very, it's not, I don't like it. How about those people, those terrible people that will drive to New Hampshire and spend like 500 bucks on fireworks that are way too large for your area? I hate those people. Do you do that? That's me. Do you do that?

No, never. Never done that before in my life. Yeah. So, I mean, I hate you, but we already knew that. Not me. Boy Scout over here. So now we know that Derek is a person that not only likes fireworks, but contributes to the loud noises of the 4th of July that make it one of the worst holidays ever. And I am the exact opposite. I just stay quietly in my house and I hate everybody who has fireworks, but all right, that's fine.

That's cool. I mean, just don't see the point in them. It's like, yay, they're like popping off in the sky. Yay. I get it. I guess they look cool. But damn, some people be going. You and I being on the different sides of the aisle.

Yeah. Shocker. Yeah. Well, I mean, you weren't very happy when the fireworks were going off and you're trying to do the ads, were you? You said, I'm going to have to call the police in a minute. I know. I felt like a snitch.itch i know that was even a lot for me they stopped early though so i was like damn call the police i'll complain about it at my house but i'm not gonna call the police derrick shoot i didn't call them just tell them that i didn't call i wanted to but i didn't he

was just shaking his fist all right so we so we're going to dive right in. We kind of left off where I guess we sort of took episode one to talk about, with, I guess, disturbing the peace and sort of being, you know, having a problem with alcohol and getting a little violent with paramedics and police and things when she was under the influence of alcohol. But with all the information and evidence gathered during the investigation, the police believed that they did have enough to arrest Danielle Redlich, but they didn't initially arrest her on charges that were connected to her husband Michael's death. She was arrested on January 23rd, 2019 for a probation violation. I'm pretty sure, and I guess you can tell me if I'm

wrong or right, but it feels like they probably arrested her to hold her and maybe like question her more about Michael's death. And they kind of used the probation violation as an excuse to do that because her probation violation would be that she was drinking, right? As I talked about in the last episode, Danielle had been charged with disorderly intoxication and attacking a paramedic in January of 2018. And part of her probation terms was an understanding that she wouldn't be able to drink alcohol probably for, I don't know, a year or so. It didn't really specify how long she would be expected to not be under the influence of alcohol. But when they tested her blood at the hospital after Michael was found dead that same morning, her blood sample tested positive for alcohol

and that put her in violation of her probation. It could be a coincidence because essentially the probation officer would have to file for a probation violation, which would then be issued by a judge, and then the police could go pick her up on that violation. So there would have to be multiple entities involved. They can't just go there and say, oh, you're on probation. This was part of your probation. We're going to arrest you for it. There has to be some paperwork done, some filings made, but that being the case, it absolutely could be a situation where police go to the probation officer and say, hey, one of your people, we believe they might've committed a homicide. They were drunk at the time. Might want to look into this. Oh yeah, I can see that. She definitely violated the terms of her

probation. Let's get a warrant for her. So there could have been a coordinated effort to get her into the station so that obviously she's there lawfully, legally under arrest, and they can, while in custody, question her about the actual reason that she's there. So yeah, it definitely possible. I can't deny that. Is this pretty common as far as like probation goes, if you get into like an altercation when you're under the influence of alcohol, is it common for them to say like, oh, you can't drink alcohol anymore? And like, do they have your probation officer come every so often and just like test you to see if you have been drinking alcohol?, I mean, how, how would that even work? It seems like there would have to be a good amount of, um, you know, somebody like watching you all the time to make sure that you're not

drinking alcohol as an adult. Yeah, no, there's definitely ways to do it. I know not only in criminal cases, but in civil cases, this happens where they can make it. So the person has to go to a facility, a lab facility and get tested once, twice a month, whatever it might be. And they can test their urine for alcohol. And when you have DUIs, when you have someone who has multiple DUIs, they can actually install a system in their vehicle that they have to basically a breathalyzer that they have to blow into before the ignition will turn over as part of their probation. So there's definitely different ways of doing it. And it can be a

requirement mirror. Listen, the, you know, you were arrested under circumstances where you were heavily intoxicated. So clearly you have an issue with alcohol. So part of your probation is to not only stay out of trouble, but stay off the substance that got you into trouble in the first place. So I don't know how often she was going for testing because it seems like one of our first offenses. So it probably wasn't that often, but it might've been a situation where if you get arrested or even have contact with police because you're intoxicated, you can be violated on your probation.

And this is the situation here. She has contact with police and it's not only contact, but it's negative contact, right? You can have contact with them for a ticket. But if your probation officer gets information through a dispatch log or informed by the police that you had a negative contact with them where you were the main target of the investigation, whatever that was, for intoxication, and that's part of your probation, they can definitely file for violation of probation with the courts. Yeah. I know about that breathalyzer car thing from a movie. I think it was like the 40-year-old version, right? Do you remember? He's like driving and she's like, breathe into this. Oh no, she's driving. I've seen it a lot. I'll tell you, I won't say names, but I've actually seen,

which I didn't agree with, but I saw a firefighter who had this, which is crazy to me. He wasn't allowed to drive the fire trucks anymore, but he would literally go to his car at the end of a shift to blow in his machine before he could drive away in his car. It was crazy to me, but that's a different story. Damn. It's got to be effective though. I mean, at least I feel like every car should have that, right? Because then ain't nobody driving drunk, right? Unless they have somebody else blow into it I guess they could have someone else blow into it

but no it's an effective machine and it does work and it is somewhat of a deterrent because I Don't think many people for the most part are gonna help you beat the system If you're intoxicated most good people wouldn't do that, but in this particular case, yeah, everything's on the up-and-up There's a serious up and up. There's a serious contact with police. It's for a bad reason, right? She's suspected in a possible homicide. It comes back that she's intoxicated. So yes, they're going to learn very quickly that she's on probation and they're going to go through the proper channels to make sure that her probation officer knows the situation she's currently involved in and the condition she was under at the time of the incident, which is a violation of her probation.

And here's something I think is really important to talk about, because if you remember from the 911 call, Danielle told the 911 operator that on the night she and Michael were fighting and he ended up being stabbed, she said she was not drinking, only he was. And this was obviously a lie because when her blood was tested, she still had alcohol in her system over 12 hours later. She didn't have like a lot of alcohol in her system, but we were talking about it on the phone the other day and you were saying the amount of alcohol she had in her system, it would still make her like legally drunk. Like if she got pulled over, she could still get a DUI. But considering that the rate, you know, that alcohol metabolizes at, it suggests that Danielle was

probably heavily intoxicated the night before at the time that she and Michael argued and he ended up dead. I agree with you. And after you called me, I was thinking about it more and I wanted to save it for the episode. And this is some speculation on my part, but I believe you said it was 0.10 possibly. That's what you were seeing the number 10. Yeah. It said that little like sign that says less than, you know, like in math. Yeah. And then, and then it said 10. Yeah. Yeah. And 0.08 is illegal in Rhode Island for, for DUI. But I'll even say this, because I was asking myself after part two, because it does seem like based on phone activity, and you confirm this, that after this horrific incident, it does appear that Danielle might have fell asleep. And I was thinking to myself,

how could you fall asleep after something? I know I don't care how tired you are. No way I'm going to fall asleep after something like this occurs. If you were drunk if you're drunk if you're if extremely intoxicated yeah you could fall asleep and that would explain the phone activity that would explain her passing out for a few hours after killing someone whether it was lawful or not that is a traumatic event and to just pass out i guess the the the rush from it could also really get you hyper but but I do think what's a more reasonable explanation, you're extremely intoxicated. You basically pass out after the

incident because you're so drunk. And even when she wakes up and she's finally tested, she still has the presence of alcohol in her system. That makes a lot more sense. Probably drinking before she fell asleep, maybe didn't drink the entire time after, but like you're talking about, what is it? Eight to 10 hours we're talking about as it's metabolizing? 12 hours, it would be from the time that he was dead to the time her blood was tested in the hospital, about 12 hours. That's a long time to still be at that level. So that would explain the behavior as far as falling asleep after this traumatic incident. I agree. And we're going to

talk a little bit more about that timeline that evening later on in this episode. And I do want to kind of go over what we think may have happened based on when her cell phone was being used, when it appears she was asleep, what she was doing before she fell asleep, things like that. So that's going to be interesting. After Danielle was arrested for the probation violation, armed herself with a knife, and then stabbed her husband. Afterwards, she had attempted to clean up the crime scene and delete information off of her cell phone, knowing that there was going to be an investigation. The affidavit stated that Danielle had, quote, committed an act imminently dangerous to her husband and evidencing a depraved mind regardless of human life. Even after stabbing

her husband, she admitted to not rendering aid while he was moaning and out of it while he died, end quote. And this is going to become a huge point of contention throughout the trial because the prosecution is going to want to prove that there was a chance for Danielle to save Michael's life, whereas the defense is going to say, no, there absolutely was no chance. Yeah. I want to weigh in on that as well, but before we do, let's take a quick break. All right. So we're back from break. And I also think this is extremely important. I'm glad we're talking about it because that is something I was also thinking about. So whether it's a self-defense situation or it's a second degree murder, there is, I think, a very good argument that if a call is made immediately, now it does seem like he was fatally injured by the way he was stabbed,

but she doesn't know that at the time. There's no way she can know the extent of his injuries. So if a call is made almost immediately after he is injured, I don't know if he would have been saved, but at least the defense could say an attempt was made. She got herself out of the situation. She used the force to stop the attack on her. And then she immediately rendered aid by doing whatever she did and also calling for paramedics. She does say that she tried to perform CPR, although there's no evidence of that. But we know there's no evidence of her trying to call the police immediately. And I do think that's a big red flag because although the injury could be somewhat justified if she felt like she was in fear of her life,

what's the justification for not immediately contacting authorities? What reason would you have for that other than you wanted him to die? She said she was afraid that no one would believe her and she was on parole. And that was her reason for not immediately calling 911. On probation? Yeah. On probation and afraid that no one would believe her. Which I think is a fair fear to have, but it's not a justification for not calling. You have to

call. That is a responsibility, whether it's a car accident, something like this. You do need to contact authorities if there's an ability to help someone and they're no longer a threat to you, which clearly he wasn't. Any reasonable person would be able to know at that moment, based on the extent of his injury, based on what he's doing, how he's bleeding out, that he's no longer a threat to you and that you need to take the proper steps to try to get him the assistance he's needed now that there's no longer an immediate threat to your life. Yeah. And you'll hear it because we'll play some clips from, from the trial portion when they're're they're saying to her like, oh, you know, you thought he was dead already. She's like, yeah, I already thought he was dead. So there's nothing I could do at this point. Like why? Why call the police? And I was afraid no one would believe me and et cetera, et cetera. a personal justification, but not like a legal one, one that wouldn't stand up and be an actual

reason the police would be like, oh yeah, you've done bad things before and you were on probation and you felt like no one was going to believe you. So absolutely, this completely makes sense. So it was something that was kind of stacked up against her during trial, I think. I get it. I get it. And this all makes sense to me. I said it last episode, we're saying it now. There are definitely things about this case that are questionable as far as the decision-making process on behalf of Danielle. It may just have been a series of bad decisions that made her look bad, or there could be more to it, which there are people who believe that, a lot of people who believe that, in fact. So it depends on how you want to look at it. And I think it really comes down to your opinion of Danielle based on what we're seeing at trial, what you've seen from

other witnesses, what you've heard about her from us. It really comes down to personal opinion and whether or not you believe her. That's really where I think a lot of this comes from, especially from a jury perspective, because we only have her side of the story and she's giving you her reasoning behind some of the things that do look suspicious and there's really no way to dispute it. All you can really base it on is, do you believe her? That's, that's the truth. Once again, as we were kind of talking about last episode, a lot of like perspective comes into that, you know, like your own personal perspective your

experiences in life what you've been through things like that like are you going to believe what she says because you've experienced similar things so you understand why she may be disassociating why she may be seeming to be emotionless at times why she may have gone into shock why she may have been afraid things like that or have you never really lived through anything similar so you just really can't wrap your head around it at all. And because I believe they tried to get her to take a deal initially, and she said, no, she wanted to go to trial. And that was a risky move to take because depending on who's on that trial, it could go very badly for her. That's right. You never know with a jury. It's a group

of human beings that have their own personal experiences in life and their own personal opinions on certain topics. And depending on their assessment of you said they believe the reason why the jury went that way was. But after her arrest, Danielle pleaded not guilty to the charges. And then, as we know, when she finally went to trial, she admitted that she had been the one to stab Michael. Because before this, you know, she's saying like he stabbed himself, he had a heart attack, things like that. But then finally, she's like, OK, yes, I did it. But it was done in self-defense. She claimed that after their son's football game, both she and Michael went back to their house. She got there first, and she sat in the kitchen to wait.

When Michael got home, he went right to the freezer. He got his bottle of vodka, poured himself a drink, and then the two of them stared at each other for a few moments before she alleged that Michael said, quote, aren't you afraid to be home alone with me without the kids, end quote. Danielle told Michael that she actually was afraid and they would have to go back to their old arrangements of living separately. She said that Michael did not respond to this, that he just stared at her some more until she told him that he looked really crazy and disturbing. And she claims his response to this was Sam Katie, that Cape Fear reference again, that I really still don't understand. Even when her lawyer asked her

to explain it in court, she sort of did try to, but it still doesn't make sense to me. Do you know the context that was being used to make that comment i think so um he's the antagonist in the movie and he's like a is a character named sam katie yes okay and he's just uh a crazed ex-con chasing two women okay after those comments is there anything else but what happens next i said okay whatever that's weird and i said i'm just gonna i'm hungry if you're not want we haven't eaten if you're not ready you don't want to get something to eat he's like just looking at me he goes where are you gonna go you're going out and i said i'm gonna go get something to eat and he said well i'm going out to see what kind of women i can pick up so So Danielle left the house. She went to McDonald's. She ordered food to go

and she picked up a bottle of wine before going home. When she got home, Michael was not there. She sat down at the table to eat. Within five minutes, Michael came home and she claims he immediately walked up to the table that she was sitting at and sort of nonchalantly took her phone and walked away. But then he turned back to her and grabbed her hamburger, taking a bite. Here is Danielle explaining what she claims happened next. He's talking about Caesar and then he spits the food at me. Do you recall what he said about Caesar? So did you make up your mind? Did you answer him back? Are you going to the Florida Cup?

Then I just said, okay. I grabbed the bag and I said, you know, I think I am going to go out with Cesar. And I start walking into the kitchen and I walk, going to walk through the kitchen and I'm turning to throw the bag of food onto the center island. And's when he he comes up behind me and grabs me when he grabs you what happens at that point I just shift and to the left and I trip up on my feet and I follow the ground and then I hear I feel something hit me in the back of the head I try and get up and be able to he's right on top of me so no not all the way how were you positioned then at that point um just i was on my knees so i was always coming up he grabbed me by the collar i felt our heads collide and at that point i grabbed the center island and I reach up to pull myself up to face him this way.

And that's when he takes his right hand. So he grabs me here and slams me down onto the center island counter. So he's grabbed your hair? Grabbed me, yes. Was your hair up like it is today or was it down? Down. So he's grabbed your hair and has slammed it onto the island here? Yes. Well, I'm scared. I'm thinking I'm under attack.

What are you seeing from him? Are you able to see his face? Yes. At that point, he's got severe angry look, grimace. Is that the same look that you described previously? It is. Are you trying to talk to him is he talking to you I don't remember what he said he was saying something I know I know he called me a bitch and he had my he had his hand he was holding my head down on the counter. So I can't see him entirely. So I'm just pinned up against the counter like this,

and he's straddling my body here and has me pinned. So my arm's here, and he's got his hand on my head, and he's holding it down. He's standing above me here this way and he cocks his fist back, I can see him, and he's acting like he's going to punch me in the face. Instead he comes down and he grinds his fist into my face and then puts both his hands over my hand and my nose and he's pressing as hard as he can smashing my nose into my face what are you doing um at that point um i can't really do anything he's got me pinned and i can't move and i'm trying to wiggle out are you able to no is there any conversation going on at this point i can't speak

no are you able to breathe no i tried to take like three or four breaths and I couldn't even get a breath. So what do you do? What are you doing? All I can do. So I've got a free arm here and the drawer in front of me is the only thing I can do. And I know that there's items in there. You find the knife. You're able to open the drawer?

Yes. You're able to grab the knife? Pull it out, yes. How does it continue from there? Pull the knife out, and I don't know if he saw it, but he released my head, so I'm able to move. What are you going to stab me? And I take the knife, and I position it and face it toward him. What does he do at that point?

He immediately just goes for my chin and puts me back. And I stab him. How are you positioned at the point of stabbing him? Basically on the back of the island. At that point, are you able to get out? After I stab him, yes. Prior to doing that, prior to stabbing him with a knife, are you able to remove yourself? No. Are you able to wiggle free?

No. Are you able to get out without using a weapon? No, I was trying. Are you able to talk to him? No. So in that clip that you just heard and or saw, depending on if you're just listening or if you're watching on YouTube, Danielle's being questioned by her own attorney and they're prompting her to testify that she had no way out of this situation, which is what we've talked about in previous episodes in order to prove that this was self-defense. And, you know, in order to prove self-defense, Danielle has to convince the jury that she felt there was no way out. And the only option she had was to stab Michael so that she could get away. And according to this, what she's kind of saying, how she's explaining this,

she was sort of pinned against the counter, like with her back to the counter and like leaning backwards. Is that what you got out of it? That she was kind of explaining that's the way it went down? I was a little confused at first, but when she said she was pinned over the back of the counter, I was like, okay, so she's kind of like arcing her back over the counter itself. She was on her side at first and then she kind of twisted. That's how, yeah, that's what I, that was my read on it. Yeah. So what do you think about that? You know, I, I, I find her very believable. I really do. The story itself. Yeah. It's going to have details whether you're telling the truth or not. But the story itself just fits with what I think my general profile of both Danielle and Michael are. It fits the

way I perceive them. And they're dynamic, right? They're dynamic and how it would have escalated them being a home. We've gotten to this point numerous times in their relationship where before it got violent, something deescalated the situation. However, one wrong thing said by either party, it could have escalated. And I feel like it's like this volcano ready to erupt. And as soon as she says, maybe I will go see Caesar. That's all he needed to hear. He was already there. That was the tipping point for him where I feel like she had been drinking. And by the way, nothing wrong. She can say whatever she wants, but she had been drinking and it was kind of like tit for tat going back. I don't think she

was sitting there cowering in a corner. She went out and got McDonald's and came back after getting McDonald's and a bottle of wine. Clearly before she left, which he didn't stop her from leaving, she wasn't in fear of her life. Her response to this whole situation, them being home, him making those comments was, I'm going to go get some McDonald's and a bottle of wine and go back home. So at that point, I think the argument of being like, oh, I was in fear of my life. He was making those comments. It's not going to hold any water. But she comes home with her Mickey D's and her wine and planning on just doing her own thing. He comes back, he's pushing her buttons. She's pushing his, and she says exactly what she knows

is going to crush him, hit him deep because he's really upset about Caesar. And I think he elevated the situation and made it and made it violent. He put his hands on her. And based on what I've seen from the pictures of Michael and her, it wouldn't be hard for him to overpower her. And I'm not going to reiterate everything you just said. All she has to do is be in fear of her life and make some attempt to remove herself from the situation, even if it's just trying to wiggle out of it. If he's covering her mouth and her nose, it wouldn't be hard for her to pass out, especially if he's angry and he's pushing his weight onto her face from that angle. And I also think there was details that she gave that to me just made the story more believable.

Like instead of him doing something like, I don't know, spinning on her or whatever, trying to meet just his, him grinding his fist into her face. That just sounds like a weird thing to think of as far as a lie, that just more sounds like he wanted to punch her square in the face, but he also didn't want the ramifications of it. So he got really close to do it. And then he was like, Ooh, let me just grind my fist into your face. Cause you're, I want to punch you so hard right now. It just sounds believable to me. And so honestly, everything she said right there, yeah, she had time to prepare. I get that. But it just sounds very believable based on the two people we've been talking about for three parts now. That's my take. What's your take?

Yeah, I kind of felt the same way. It felt to me like he almost wanted her to say something that would trigger him, right? Like he was kind of poking and prodding and, you know, he knows her. He's been in a relationship with her for over a decade and she knows him. And when you know somebody that well, you know how to make them happy and you know how to piss them off more than anybody else, right? You kind of know exactly what to do to get under their skin one way or the other. And so he keeps making these comments, making those comments, hoping she says something that in his mind gives him permission to fly off the handle. And that was it. Yeah, maybe I will go see Caesar. That was for him, like now justification. Oh, my wife just said she is going to go see another man. So now I have the right to put my hands on her in his mind. Obviously, I will reiterate that because I don't

want anybody to think that I'm saying it. I believe it gave him the right to do that. But in his twisted mind, the mind of an abuser, that's what he's going to think. It's going to give him that green light. And that's what happened. Yeah, I got the same impression from the whole grinding the fist in the face. Yes. That's like so much rage. And it also seemed like, you know, instead of strangling her, he doesn't want to leave marks. Instead of choking her, he's putting his hand over her face, over her mouth and her nose where she can breathe. He doesn't want to leave the marks that you would leave when you're choking somebody. He doesn't want to leave the marks you would leave when you're punching somebody in the face, which to me makes me feel maybe like he probably wasn't

planning to kill her that night. He probably, it was just another one of those abuse scenarios that goes back in this toxic cycle, but it doesn't mean he wouldn't have. I think a lot of times these abuse situations turn into the victim dying when the person didn't intend for that to happen they just went too far their anchor was too um hot and fueled and they didn't realize how long they were holding their the the air holes closed and then so it doesn't it makes sense that she might have thought you know he may go too far this time so yeah i find it to be a believable scenario sadly love that you said that too because that is another element to it i hate doing this go too far this time. So yeah, I find it to be a believable scenario, sadly. Love that you said that too, because that is another element to it. I hate doing this,

but as good investigators, we have to put ourselves in the mind of the criminal here. And let's just say for the sake of this conversation, it's Michael. Just from a biomechanical perspective, if you think about the idea, if you were holding me or I was holding you over a counter, you need leverage. And the best point to have leverage where the person can't lift themselves up is to hold them by their head. If you take someone and you push on their forehead or their face and they're trying to lift their chest up, it's impossible. But if you put your hand on their chest or their stomach, they can bend themselves upward. So if he was trying to hold her back and keep her from getting up, yeah, it would be smushing her face or a hand. So like just said and again so glad you said it he may have been pushing on her face

and nose so hard stopping her breathing but really he was just trying to inhibit her ability to get up but it doesn't matter if he's stopping her from breathing and she's in fear of her life then there's justification there so it doesn't matter what his intent is. It matters what he's doing. So great point by you. Glad you said it. But yeah, from a biomechanical perspective, even the angle she's describing herself being at, that would be as the offender for me to hold her there, I would want to keep her head pinned to the counter. So it does make sense. Yeah, absolutely. I guess it's sad. It's sad. It's a bad situation, but the way she described it, it doesn't seem implausible. But, you know, when she's cross-examined by the state, obviously the prosecutor is going to try and prove that she could have gotten away, that the situation she was in wasn't dire, and that she had other options besides stabbing Michael Redlich. The state would also

want to attempt to prove that Danielle could have saved Michael's life or at least tried to save his life, but instead she let him die. And at this point, you have a 6'1", 240-pound man pressed against your body, yes? Yes. Pressing you against that island that island yes the next thing that you say happens is that he begins to take his fist and he's rubbing it in your face that was your story right took my head and he held it down it was a very awkward position i couldn't move because it was a hurting and yes he had me pinned so he had he held my head down first so your neck is sort of like correct against the corner of that island at that point yes he doesn't punch me no well he hit me in the back of the head but in the back

where you wear your hair covers correct yes from the skin that's exposed he doesn't he doesn't strike and then it is it at this moment that he decides that he's going to put his hands over your nose and mouth? Yes. Your testimony is that he doesn't immediately react to you getting the knife, correct? He reacts. He lets my head go. A little bit. Yes.

And when he lets your head go, you're able to go from sort of this position to more like this position able to break my arm free yeah the left arm and now you're kind of squared up with mr redlich i wouldn't say squared up i don't know it was kind of an awkward feeling so more square than you were you're not sort of you're not sort of twisted like you were before right you're you're sort of more my legs are still kind of twisted but like you're twisted but now your back is kind of more square than it was before. Yes, I'd say that. And Mr. Redlich is still right there pressed up against you. Yes. And his reaction to... Because he doesn't have his hands on your mouth anymore, right? Right. His reaction, and he's still full of this rage, correct? Yes. You see it in his eyes.

Yes. He's angry. And you think that he's going to maybe kill you in this moment. Yes. And he sees you with a knife. And his reaction, you say, is he takes his hand and he shoves with all of his might your chin back against that island, correct? Yes. And so now you feel that the edge of that marble pressed in.

Somewhat, yes. So he wasn't pushing at all? Yes. I mean, I felt it, yes. Because he's pushing hard. He shoved me, yes. He shoved my face back, yes. Just that my lower body was kind of twisted so

and i know what i felt but you know i don't know how i can how it looked but you're not saying he didn't use an extraordinary amount of force to sort of push push you back against that island correct he absolutely used force to push my head back yes and it's in that moment that you take the knife and you jab it into his shoulder. Right. But that doesn't stop him. That doesn't dissuade him. Correct? Yes, after he was stabbed.

Well, yesterday you said that he still kind of kept coming after he was stabbed. I said that. You said there wasn't an immediate reaction to him being stabbed and that he sort of continued to force himself on you. When I grabbed the knife and I held it again toward him, he didn't immediately, he did not stop. So he stops when he gets stabbed, that's your testimony today? Yes, I mean, yes. You feel his hand, which had been forced down your face, come off, correct? Yes.

And he is standing there, and he begins to bleed, yes? I don't know. I ran. You ran. So let's talk about that. You told the 911 operator the altercation started at 1030, correct? Yes. You also told the 911 operator that you heard moaning from the bathroom, correct? I think I did say moaning at one point. So when you're in the bathroom and you're hearing moaning, Michael's alive.

Yes. Do you recall telling the 911 operator that after you emerged from the bathroom, you found Michael on the floor and you tried to give him mouth-to-mouth? You remember saying that, yes? That I did what now? I'm sorry. That you gave him mouth-to-mouth after you emerged. Yes. And you testified to that yesterday.

Yes. You also talked to Terrilyn Tucker about that, didn't you? Yes. You also talked to Terrilyn Tucker about that, didn't you? Yes. And in fact, you told Terrilyn Tucker that you gave him mouth to mouth until you vomited on him, correct? No, I did not say that. She's totally wrong about that. She's wrong about that. Yes. When you were sitting with Terrilyn Tucker, you saw her writing notes when you were talking, right? I saw her handwriting notes. Yeah. Okay. And I said, I smelled something like vomit

from coming, but there was no vomit. I said it smelled like vomit. So you come out, you say it's about 15 minutes you think you're in, correct? I don't really know how long. It was a while. It wasn't quick.

Had to be less than an hour, though, we know. Right. So when you come out and you see him, you think he's he might be being dramatic at first correct that was just an initial thought yes i was shocked and then he's there's blood everywhere it's quite a bit of blood and you're looking at your husband who's on the floor um not responding, yes? Yes. But before you do mouth-to-mouth, you lift up his shirt and you look at the wound.

Yes. And you actually press your hand on that wound and watch the blood flow under your fingers. I don't know that it got on my fingers, but yes, I saw it. Well, you touched a wound and blood didn't get on you? I saw blood come out. That's all I recall. When you pressed on the wound? Yes. But before you do the CPR, you are engaged in this effort to find your phone. Can't find your phone, right? Right. So it's camouflaged in a black jacket. You see it and you get it,

right? Yes. And you are standing in the immediate proximity of your husband. Yes. Looking down on him, un him unresponsive yes having seen that wound and pressed on that wound and seen the blood flow yes yes and you realize this is serious yes and you think to yourself i should call 9-1-1 because he needs help correct yes he needs help, correct? Yes. He needs professionals to come in and try to save his life. I don't believe that he was dead at that point. You didn't believe he was dead. I believe he was dead. Yes. So you did CPR on a dead man? At that moment, I was hoping that he wasn't. Okay. So you thought there was a chance that this man could still be safe because otherwise you wouldn't have done CPR, right?

Yes. You've never given mouth-to-mouth on a person or a dummy or anyone. No. So, standing there over your husband in this moment where you think he's safe, knowing that 911 is the route to that possibility. Yes. You set your phone down. Objection. Misstating our testimony. Well, did you set your phone down. Objection. Misstating our testimony.

Well, did you keep your phone in your hand? I'll sustain that. I don't remember. I just remember looking at his face and I was freaking out and I'm like, well, and I guess my thought was... Well, no, no. I'm not asking what your thought was. And I don't care where your phone was at. What I do care about is

you're standing over him. You thought, I can call 911 right now. And instead of doing that, instead of taking your finger and doing three little moves, 911, you begin to perform amateur CPR on him, correct? Yes. So you stood in that home with the power to call for help and you let your husband bleed to death on that floor it already bled to death i when i was doing the blowing into his mouth i was wondering if i could recover or him or something i didn't

so which is it and i thought which one is it is he dead or you think it's possible to to say if he could be recovered something would have to be done immediately. And so, yes, I thought perhaps I should do that. Are you telling this jury that you thought it was impossible to both dial 911 and do CPR? No, it's not impossible. So you could have done it? Yes. And you chose not to?

I dialed 911 right after that. No, no, no. In Yes. And you chose not to? I dialed 911 right after that. No, no, no. In that moment, you chose not to? Right. So in these fleeting moments, you think Mr. Redlich can be saved. You choose not to save him. I wouldn't put it that way, no. It is at 1052 that you make this one and only sort of attempt at a 911 call. You hit 911, 911, correct? Yes. And you know that it doesn't connect. Yes.

No one's on the other end of that attempt. No. All right. So there's a lot there to discuss, which we will do when we get back from the break. Okay. break. Okay, so that was the prosecutor questioning Danielle about that night. And basically what he's trying to do is he's trying to say, she told the 911 operator the whole altercation happened around 1030. She doesn't place that 911 call till 1052. She's in the bathroom for roughly about 15 minutes. So there was a period of time where she would have known that Michael was laying there. He'd been stabbed. He's in a puddle of blood. She takes his shirt up to see the wound. She realizes, you know,

it's dire. She tries to perform mouth to mouth. But during that time, she does not call 911. She doesn't attempt to even call 911 till 1052 and then realizes that call doesn't go through and doesn't call 911 again. And he's kind of going at her where he's like, why didn't you call? Well, I thought he was dead. Well, why'd you perform CPR if you thought he was dead? And that kind of line of questioning. What do you think about that?

Such a fascinating exchange. And what was interesting to me? Is if you really watch that segment and I know you chopped it up for us because you're there's a lot There's a long trial there. Yeah, but what I found to be interesting based on what I saw And and you can correct me if there was more It almost sounds like to me The defense is conceding to the fact that the initial

Argument that led to the stabbing itself, they're not disputing that. They're saying, listen, you're the only story in town and the way you're describing it, it does sound like we get it. Like you could have felt like you could have died and you didn't stab them in the neck or the heart. You stabbed them in like the shoulder to get them off of you. So we're not going to even argue that point because it sounds pretty reasonable. It seems like their approach is to really go after the aftermath and the lack of performance on her part, which is interesting to me, but okay, let's go there. So again, I find her believable. You mean the prosecution, right? What's that? I'm sorry. Yes. The prosecution. I apologize. the prosecution going after her yes thank you and so

she's in this position she stabs him and it was a couple chances where she could actually could make her story even more believable he never took his hand off my mouth i couldn't breathe the whole time so i stabbed him she says no no when i showed him the knife he took his hand off my face however when i had the knife he jacked back on my chin again. And she's just telling the truth. And I would think if she said it was on her mouth and nose the whole time, that would be even a stronger argument, but she doesn't. And who's going to dispute that claim? But yet she's still saying what happened. And I like the fact that she said, I can't tell you how it looked. I can only tell you how it felt because if you're making up the story you're gonna have that whole visual of like

How dramatic it looks and like what's going to be visual for the jury? She's like listen, I I don't know how my legs were I can tell you I was in a really uncomfortable position But I haven't looked at it from an outer out out of body experience. I got corrected on that in the comments I haven't looked at it from an out-of-body experience because I was living it. I can only tell you what I was feeling. And so I found it very believable. So let's fast forward. She stabs him in like the shoulder, which she believes to be the shoulder area. She immediately removes herself from the situation, locks herself in the bathroom, which to me is again, very believable because we have evidence of her doing the same thing the night before. So this is a, this is an actual behavior for her where she locks herself in that bathroom to protect herself or to

remove herself from the situation. And yeah, so if she believes he's not fatally injured, she's going to stay there in there for a little bit. She starts to hear moaning. She thinks maybe he's playing possum or overreacting, whatever, to get a reaction out of her. She says the incident happens around 1030. She makes this call and we'll get into the call at 1052. So it's only 22 minutes later. Not a lot of time. If she sits into the, in the bathroom for 10 or 15 minutes, I don't think it's crazy. She comes back out and I kind of understand what she's saying. Like she's a smart woman. She can see that he's dead like you would

know he's not breathing he's dead but there's also part of you that's like maybe i can bring him back it's it's not something where you're like he can still be saved but there's a part of you that's in denial where you're like let me try something and maybe like in the movies where they're not breathing and you pull them out of the river but but you perform CPR and then they come back. But she knew he was gone. So she tried to do CPR. And then she also immediately after tried to call 911. And we talked about the 911 thing. I do think you can make an argument that if it doesn't go through, you could call back.

911 is always in. It's not out of service at any point. But I also haven't been in that situation where you're looking at your husband that you just fatally wounded and you're calling the police trying to figure out your story so that, you know, what actually happened makes sense to them. And you don't go to prison for something that was justifiable. So I can see a lot of thoughts and emotions running through your brain at that point where you may not be thinking clearly. You may have tunnel vision on Michael and you could dial the number wrong, but there

was an attempt made at least. Especially if she's drunk, right? We know, and we know she was drinking. We know it. She bought the wine. We have the BAC. So she's not even of clear mind. So I, again, I find her very believable.

And I also think it's very telling that the prosecution really kind of conceded the whole event that led to the stabbing. And they're more attacking her actions after to say, listen, you had the ability after a justified defense of yourself to render aid or get aid there. And you didn't. It's an interesting argument. I don't think it's very strong. Well, because like you said, they can't prove what happened during the altercation. They only

have her word to go on. Her actions afterward, they have an electronic footprint of that. They can have proof of when certain calls were made, when web history was being searched, when the phone was being used, et cetera. They really only can go after that. Otherwise, they're just going to call her a liar and say, oh, it didn't happen. They can't do that. There's nobody else to say what happened or didn't happen. So they have to go after the aftermath. Yeah. It's all so believable. And I don't want to go too far back, but this all just the behavior, even before the stabbing, not to go out of order here, but if you just look at Michael's past and not to disrespect him in any way now that he's gone,

but it's one of those things where control has always been at the forefront of his mind. He's been grooming Danielle since she was a little kid. He's kind of created this woman that he wanted and well before her brain was capable of making those decisions as a grown woman. And he's always kind of had her under his thumb. He was doing his own thing. Well, no, she met him for the first time in her 20s. So I wouldn't go that far. It wasn't like she was a kid being raised by him. She was in her 20s when they first met, when she was first introduced to him. Because remember, she's about 10 years older than her younger siblings. So I don't think that her brain wasn't able to develop at that point. So let me ask, that's an interesting... So I

remember he's a stepfather. He came into the picture much later. I knew she was in her late teens, early 20s. So you just clarified that for me. But I think about myself in my twenties and the way I was processing information then, as opposed to how I process information now and how much older he was than her and what his adulthood level was, his mindset. And I do think he had a power of authority over her. He was in a position where she looks at him as like an adult figure where she's still a kid and i feel like he took advantage of that i do feel like there's grooming there and he's always kind of been able to manipulate the situation where she hasn't really experienced other men

she she's been with him since very since a very young age in her 20s so i don't know how many men she had dated before that and i feel like this whole situation led up to the fact where when she says, maybe I will go see Caesar, that was probably the first or one of the first times where she said, yeah, maybe I will go see another man. And he's always been the one calling the shots. And when she finally says something that he doesn't like that says, hey, you're not in control of me. And, you know, there are other men out there and now I know it.

It just, it was, it was something that was boiling over for the last 10 years and it just finally came to a head. But yeah, not to go too far back. I mean, it all just makes sense to me. It doesn't seem too far fetched. It doesn't seem like she's trying to make herself a bigger victim than she was. And I feel like the aftermath of what happened, I do feel like intoxication played a role. I do feel like stabbing someone for the first time and not knowing what to expect when you come out of the bathroom. I'm sure she was surprised to see that can all play a big factor in your decision-making process. And I absolutely think it could justify dialing a number wrong. I do think that could be possible. And no, for sure.

I agree. There was a good deal of grooming going on. I'm glad we're talking about this because we do see people in their 20s as adults. But it really depends on what your life has been like. How much responsibility have you ever had to have for yourself? Things like that. And it's important to talk about it because there may be young women listening to this and they may be approached at some points in their life by a man in his 40s or 50s. And they may think like, oh, you know, this is an authority

figure. This is somebody who's older and wiser than me. And that's how they may sort of perceive it when really, you know, there is a possibility of abuse there starting from a very early period where that person, not necessarily. I'm sure there's lots of relationships out there where there's a big age gap or it's completely healthy and it's not toxic and things like that. But there is the potential where older men do sometimes go after younger women specifically because they want to sort of mold them into the partner that they want. They want to get them before they've already been, you know, trained by others or before they've had life experiences that sort of shape them. And you hear this sometimes with jobs, you know, big corporations, they'll say, like, oh, I'd rather take somebody who doesn't have much of a resume. That way I can teach them how I want them to do it here. I don't want them to come in with preconceived notions about how it

was done other places. I want them to know how it's done here. And you may think like, oh, that's a good point, but it's actually kind of like problematic, right? Because it's like, I don't want you to come in with knowledge. I don't want you to come in with intelligence. I want you to come in as a blank slate that I can write on. So that is something that even though she wasn't a child, she still was very naive compared to him in the ways of the world. Right. And that's why I wanted to bring it up because when she comes back to that house after getting her McDonald's and her wine, I think it's her kind of way of saying, I am not as under your thumb as I used to be anymore. And now that I've experienced the idea of other men,

I know that you're not the only game in town. And maybe he has a little bit more confidence to her, which is why she says what she says, where he's sitting there, she's alone with him. He's kind of passively intimidating her. And she's saying, you know what? Maybe I will go see Caesar. Maybe I will. And she probably wouldn't have done something like that in the past. I know we've talked about some of the comments she made about tampons. Like she threw in her digs there and stuff. But I feel like this is the first time where she's kind of saying like, I'm not chasing you anymore. And in fact, there are other men that are interested in me and you just got to deal with it.

Yeah. And in fact, I see her coming back to the house with her food as her saying like, I'm here. I'm ready to talk about this. We've been down this road before. We've had these arguments. Eventually, we do have to sit down and work through this. I'm here and ready to do that. And he wasn't ready. And once she figured that out, yeah, I think she got like, you know, like, I mean, yeah, for two days, I've been trying to like make this better for two days. I've been

giving you the chance to cool down so that you could finally talk about this like an adult. You still haven't. And you're still like getting in these digs about Caesar. And I'm sick of this. So like, yeah, maybe I will. Exactly. She just she had enough and it made him snap. Yeah. So basically, after this, she goes on to testify that she started cleaning up the blood right after deciding that Michael was dead, which would put her cleaning up between 11 p.m. and 12 a.m., and this was around the same time that she started deleting text messages off her phone. Now, she claims she eventually fell asleep next to Michael's body. She woke up around 7 a.m. She

began cleaning the house a little bit more. She claims she did not take a shower. She just thought about washing her hands in the shower, but she doesn't remember if she actually turned the shower on. She's saying she didn't clean herself up much at all, basically. She just changed her pants in the morning. And I think this was what the prosecution was sort of trying to allude to. And they never really came out directly and said it. And a lot of people didn't like the prosecutor and how he examined her, you know because she she is the victim of of domestic violence regardless of yeah i didn't like it yeah i didn't like it i get it but i don't like it

either i agree with the people who said that yeah it turned people off yeah and um in what he he should have very aggressive very aggressive and he's trying to catch her in a lie right he's trying to throw her off her toes that's what they do jose baez does it all the time i don't like when he does it i don't like when this dude's doing it. We understand why it's happening. It's just uncomfortable for us to see it, knowing what she's been through. So what he's trying to show, I think, is that she needed time. Your husband's dead. What are you going to do next? Somebody's going to have to eventually come and see this, right? You can't hide his body. It's not happening. So instead of calling the police that night, she said she thought he could be saved. Once she figured out he couldn't be saved, she should have then called the police,

but she didn't because she needed time to alter that scene because she knew an investigation was going to happen. And so she needed the time to not necessarily clean the scene because that wasn't possible, but to, you know, rub the blood around, make the patterns less visible, make them less easily determined by, you know, a blood splatter expert, things like that. She needed time to make sure that the investigation was far enough away from the time of the murder that it would be impossible to prove what had happened in that house, right? She knew she was probably going to have to go and answer for what had happened. She was going to be arrested. There was probably going to be an investigation, but at least they wouldn't be able to prove physically with actual evidence what happened

in that investigation. And that's what the prosecution's trying to say. I don't know why he had to do all of that in order to say it. Yeah. I mean, everyone has their own approach, I guess. I don't know. Well, let's talk about forensic expert Stuart James, who testified about the blood spatter pattern at the scene. He explained that almost the entire floor was covered in blood.

Some of it appeared to be diluted and altered. This would provide a challenge for the investigators because there had been so much manipulation of the scene, it would be difficult to match the evidence at the scene to Danielle's version of events. He explained about satellite blood spatter, which are small droplets of blood that are distributed around a drop or a pool of blood as a result of that blood impacting the target surface. So like a pool of blood or a droplet of blood is gonna hit a surface like a countertop or a floor, and it's gonna send off smaller little spatters of blood. And that's what he's talking about when he means satellite.

And Stuart James pointed to an area of satellite spatter, but then he showed the jury how that area that would have produced the little blood spatters that come off the main area Which he called the parent area it was absent So basically like the parent area isn't there but all the other like satellite stuff off of it is but he can't tell where that Parent area even was to begin with you cannot get this You cannot make this pattern without having

some additional blood So one time there had to have been a pool of blood in that area yeah a pooling of blood i can clarify a pooling of blood or multiple drops that are close together and whatever was there is gone it's gone and the satellite the satellite stains are present but you cannot tell where the parent area was. Yeah, it all makes sense to me. I will say this, and I don't know how much further down we're going to go on the forensics, and we'll address it if we do. But I will say I don't think anybody's disputing the fact that she attempted to clean up the crime scene extensively. Not disputing it.

What it comes down to is her reasoning behind doing it. Did she do it because she was in fear that it looked bad and she was going to get charged with a crime that she didn't commit? Or was she doing it because she murdered her husband and was trying to get away with it? I feel like how poor it was, the cleanup suggests that she was not really sure what she was doing. I think I said this in episode two, where I said that the fact that it was so poorly done Suggest that it wasn't premeditated and that she was kind of just like going with whatever thought came to mind like maybe I should start Cleaning this up or maybe I should do this and she was probably having Multiple thoughts at that time and that's why you look at the crime scene photos that we showed last episode

It was terrible. You could see everything so if she was trying to hide something to to the point where investigators wouldn't find it she didn't do a very good job so this the satellite you know the satellite droplets not being associated with any parent area it totally makes sense because she was cleaning up the bigger pools of blood and not the little ones i don't think anybody's disputing that i don't think you're going to tell me that anybody was disputing that again don't think you're gonna tell me that anybody was disputing that Again, it all comes back to why did she do it? Was it because she was scared and didn't know how police were going to view it? Or was she doing it to try to cover up a crime and it's up to you again what you believe honestly

I feel like the alcohol has a lot to do with it. Like you're not thinking straight Yeah, when you're when you're that drunk like if she was still had that much alcohol present in her body 12 hours later, think about how much she would have had to have, you know, consumed that night and how drunk she would have been. And you're not thinking straight, man. You're thinking like, oh, I got to clean this up. You're not thinking like, well, what then happens?

Like there's still a body here, you know? Like who knows what her reasonings were. She probably doesn't even know because she was intoxicated any pictures of the wine bottle no but they said they found like a ton of wine bottles in the recycling bin and like the garbage can and stuff outside there's a lot of them and they have her receipt from the wine bottle she purchased so who knows so what i would have wanted to see as an investigator and i'm sure it's relevant i'm sure they did this i would have wanted to see what wine bottles she purchased if she had opened that wine bottle while she was sitting there eating her mcdonald's and i would have wanted to have located that wine that specific wine bottle

and seen how much was left and they can determine with a reasonable degree of certainty based on how her weight how much she had eat how much of the bottle was gone, the possible level of intoxication she could be at after drinking that much. If the bottle's almost full, well, was she drinking something else or whatever? But I mean, if the bottle's empty and it's in the recycling bin, a full bottle of wine, I'm not a big wine drinker. How about you? If you drink a bottle of wine, how buzzed are you after a bottle of wine? You know I'm a big wine drinker and yeah if i drink a whole bottle of wine i don't think i would be i'd be like you know buzzed for sure but i wouldn't be like falling down you know cleaning up blood from a crime scene drunk maybe two bottles of wine i'd be doing that

and i don't think i would be that drunk because you got to think with a bottle of wine, there's about four glasses of wine in a bottle of wine. And if you're metabolizing that at about a drink an hour, which is what they say you metabolize alcohol at, she still got alcohol in her system 12 hours later. That means she's probably about three. She's probably on her second or third bottle of wine. But she's not clear about that because she says they even ask her in the trial like what were you drinking when you're having your your mcdonald's and she says no so when did she drink then if the fight happened directly after the mcdonald's then when did she consume this alcohol i tend to believe she was probably drinking before she went to mcdonald's she probably did continue drinking when she got home and then probably continued drinking after she stabbed Michael and found him dead.

Interesting. Yeah, I mean, definitely beforehand, right? Maybe that's why she grabbed another bottle. Maybe she was low, was like, shit, I need some more wine. And she was going out for the wine and just happened to grab the McDonald's too. You got to soak up the alcohol. That's right. Yeah. She could have been drinking for hours before that and realized I'm getting low here. I need to go get a bottle of wine before they close. And the argument happened at around 1030. Did you say what time she went out for the wine and the McDonald's at? I think you did. No, but it's, she gets home right about like the the time you know the i think the 10 o'clock time when she's sitting there and then he gets home so most liquor stores close around 11 from cvs the the wine so just so you know oh oh but they still even at a cvs if the if the laws in florida are only 11 p.m even though cvs's can be

24 hours they can't serve liquor after you know they can't serve liquor after, you know, they can't sell liquor after 11. They have to stop. Well, regardless, here's my thing. It looks like due to her cell phone activity, she went to bed around like 1-ish, 1, 1.30 in the morning. So when is this alcohol being consumed? Like, when is it being consumed?

I think before. Yeah. I think before. I think she was drunk during the altercate the altercation for sure probably having something to drink while she's cleaning up and stuff too because she's freaking out who knows yeah we don't know we'll never know that's i don't know about that i don't know i don't know about that wine afterwards like comes out of the bathroom and then grabs a glass of wine i mean maybe to calm her nerves i guess it's

possible can't can't say it's yeah she sees that he's dead. She realizes this is bad. She's already drunk. She's cleaning up the blood. She's freaking out. She's drinking at the same time. Yeah, it makes sense. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I buy it. I mean, so basically, without spending too much time on this, the same issue was encountered all throughout the crime scene. Certain blood patterns being there, but not being complete, not being able to tell what happened. But Stuart James did admit that based on what he could see, it looked as if Michael Redlich had followed Danielle to the master bathroom before returning to the living

room, sort of the living room area between the living room and the kitchen, where he fell down and then bled out against the wall. And the prosecution claimed during closing statements that the state was not arguing that Danielle had intended to kill Michael, just that she'd had a choice to call and get him help, and she had chosen not to. The prosecutor then brought up Danielle's multiple references to Romeo and Juliet, and he says, you know, she's basically trying to recreate that. She knew she was going to claim that Michael had done this to himself. And so she waited for over 10 hours after she knew he was dead, and then she cut her own wrists before calling the police. So it would seem as if Michael had taken his own life, and she had attempted to take hers so that she could be

with him. But the prosecutor argued that Danielle had not done this that she could be with him. But the prosecutor argued that Danielle had not done this so she could be with Michael, like in death, I guess. She was very calculated about how she had gone about, you know, harming herself. She had gone on the internet, she looked up how to do it, how long it would take for her to die after doing it, and then she made sure to call the police so that someone would be there to save her. And she'd done this specifically so she wouldn't have to answer for what she had done. Danielle didn't choose to call 911 until she was the one bleeding, until it was her life on the line. She had her phone as Michael was laying there dead. She was on a dating app. She was on Google. But she didn't call the police

until she had hurt herself. The prosecutor explained that they believed Danielle had committed second-degree murder because her actions had caused Michael's death, and she'd done so with a depraved mind and indifference to human life. So basically, the state of Florida, they'd have to prove that Danielle's conduct had been so wanton, so deficient in a moral sense of concern, so lacking in regard for Michael's life, that her actions warranted the same criminal liability as a person who had intentionally caused his death. And this charge focuses more on the risk created by Danielle's conduct than the actual crime itself, which is pretty much what you had been saying earlier, that they weren't

really focused on the fight itself or the way it had gone down, or even arguing that she had not done so in self-defense, but in the aftermath. And they also argued, the prosecution, the knife that Danielle had used to kill Michael was very large. It was a very large knife. And the prosecution argued that Danielle would have been reasonably aware that a knife of that size would at the very least cause serious bodily injury. Specifically, you have a testimony that relates to the fact that that knife travels through into the shoulder, through some skin tissue, hits a vein, goes through a pectoral muscle, and it enters into the chest cavity. And the medical examiner talked about how devastating that is going to be for a person. And it continues further and actually pierces the lung.

You saw a hole in Michael's lung. That is the state's evidence as it relates to the serious bodily injury portion of that obstruction. The state is not saying, because, you know, throughout this case, Ms. Redlich has made statements about how she didn't think that, you know, she was surprised that Michael died. And I think it's a dangerous game to put any stock in things Ms. Redlich says, but it's not entirely unreasonable that you stab someone in the shoulder

and you're going to kill them. And the state probably agrees with that. That when she stabs him there, everything that results was a bit of a surprise at the end of the day. But the state doesn't have to prove that she intended to kill him or even that she knew that the location of that stab wound would bring about death. But an ordinary person knows big old knife into someone's body deep enough to hit their lung. That element in that aspect, that element has been proven. I think that's a bad argument, and I'm going to tell you why when we get back from this

break. Okay, so the prosecution saying, listen, it's a big knife. And she knew that if she stabbed him with a big knife that, you know, she might be hitting. So it doesn't matter at that point. Like if you're grabbing a knife to stab someone because you think that they're about to kill you and you just are kind of feeling around with one arm the way she kind of described because he had her pinned she's not gonna be like oh this is the knife i have my hand oh this is a big knife this is a big knife this might cause more damage than i want to cause let me search around while i'm being suffocated to death with my hand and find a smaller knife no bad argument it's it's not great It's not a great way to start proving her intent or her lack of regard for human life, at least. Completely agree. I was really struggling with that one.

I'm like, yikes, he missed on this one. And I think he even kind of felt like it because he began by saying the state's not denying the fact that you could stab someone and based on not knowing the body makeup or stabbing someone in the past, you know, we can understand how she might be surprised by the amount of injuries he sustained from that one stab wound. But then he goes on to say, but it was a big knife. If you're doing that, you don't know how deep you went or the angle it went in at. There's no way she would know. There's absolutely no way. In fact, I would argue that based on where she stabbed him, she probably assumed it wasn't significant that maybe she just caught him in the shoulder blade or something like that.

And he was overreacting to what was happening to try to gain sympathy from her. But she knew that the general vicinity in which she stabbed him was in the shoulder. And I would argue that most people would assume if you stab someone in the shoulder, they they'll be fine Based on movies and tv, right? They you know, you see people get shot and stabbed all the time and they end up making it so I would If i'm not someone who's trained in that I would assume he's going to be okay. He's cut. I definitely stabbed him But he's going to be fine. He's he's he's trying to get me out of the bathroom and even by You know stewart's admission. He did follow her to the bathroom. There's blood trail to support it. He was probably pounding on that door to still get in there. And then very quickly,

he started to lose a lot of blood and realize he's in trouble. And that's when he made his way back to the kitchen. But I think it's reasonable to assume that if he's still able to physically make it to the bathroom door and bang on the door door that he's okay, that he's going to be all right if he's able to do that. So I think that argument that he made is more supportive of her in the fact that what she did was perfectly reasonable for a person who's in that situation. And I mean, I would say there was a million other places she could have stabbed him where in your head as a person who sort of knows the human body, you're going to think I can do more damage, right? If you stab him in the side, you got all those organs there that are pretty important

in the stomach. That's going to not be great either. Like you're going to think the shoulder is the least, like you can't stab him in the back. You might hit his spine. Like the shoulder is the least problematic of places if you have to stab somebody. Not that I'm saying that was going through her head because I have no idea. And she didn't say it was. But if I'm trying to stab someone and not kill them, the shoulder's the place that you would probably think about doing it. And yeah, I think Michael following her to the bathroom shows that he didn't even know how badly wounded he was. Right. And it probably hit him at some point when it was too late but he didn't call the police he didn't call anybody it didn't look like he was trying to you know get out of the house and go

to the doctor he was going after her still and she did say something like oh he was screaming through the door like he was going to send me to jail i think that's probably more likely that he was saying that than the sam katie stuff i don't get that stuff at all i don't get why he'd be saying that after he's stabbed but yes to say like say like, you stabbed me, ha, I'm going to send you to jail. Now I'm going to send you to prison. And he doesn't even realize how badly he's wounded at that point until it's too late. Didn't he say Sam Katie before he was stabbed? I don't know, man. I think, no. Yeah. I think, I think he's, I think you said he said it before he was stabbed. I do think he could not knowing is the extent of his injuries, being at the door.

You just effing stabbed me. I'm calling the police. You're done. You're on probation. You're done. And then within a second, whoa, now your vision's starting to go. And I can't breathe. Oh, this is not good.

And he walks away. And within seconds, he lost enough blood where he probably passed out on the floor. Something else, not to be too specific. I don't know if you're going to get into this, but she said she smelt vomit. I can tell you that with shootings and stabbings that I've been an investigator on, there are instances, many instances where a human being after being shot or stabbed will vomit. So I wonder if you know this or not, but if there was vomit in that place and if it was, in fact, from Michael and maybe under his body and that's what she was smelling.

There wasn't any vomit. If you remember, we did cover that briefly, I believe in episode two, but she had mentioned to, I believe, the police and a couple of the people that she told her original story to that he had vomitedited and then they said oh she's lying because there was no vomit but she said she smelled it but she clarifies in this statement when she's talking to the the prosecutor like no i said i smelled it but there was none so i don't really know what she could have been smelling okay all right so the prosecutor also argued that like danielle had done things um even afterwards that kind of made her seem guilty. Like while she was in jail, Danielle had used the PIN number of her cellmate to make a call to her

sister during which she complained about Michael nonstop. So like when you're in jail, you get a certain PIN number that you can call and make calls out with and it's affixed to you. Like it's your number and therefore all the calls that are recorded under that number. She didn't want anybody to hear what she was saying to her sister, so she used her cellmate's PIN number to make those calls. And then the prosecution brought this up as well as emails that Danielle had sent and entries from her journal where Danielle was speaking very negatively about Michael. The prosecutor claimed that this was how Danielle felt about Michael, and that was how she felt when she stabbed him. To prove their second-degree murder charge,

the prosecution had to prove that Danielle had evil intent or ill will, hatred, or spite towards her husband. So they have to say she's got evil intent. She had to be hating him when she stabbed him. She had to have ill will towards him when she stabbed him, which would be the evidence of that. I don't really see how they did that either. Like, I did watch the whole trial. I'm trying to think now of the times when the prosecutor was bringing it up and, oh, she hated him when she plunged that knife into him. I guess probably she did. I mean, he had been abusing her

systematically for quite some time. I don't understand. Is that a thing? Like if you hate the person that you killed, does that mean necessarily that it was murder over self-defense? I don't know. I couldn't really follow that. I think if you could prove it, yes. If you could get into the brain of someone and say they did it out of anger and not out of self-preservation, yeah. But how do you prove that? Yeah. How do you prove it? I mean, these things that you're saying.

That's why he was bringing up the emails and stuff and what she was saying about him. Yeah, they don't. It's a really, where we're at right now, it's a really weak argument. And when you're trying to convict someone of murder, you need more than speculative information that maybe because of a pin code that she used so that, you know, people wouldn't see her phone calls or, you know, some of the emails or the text messages she was deleting. I just think it's a really, really weak argument. Yeah, I think that most of his argument so far has been pretty weak. But the state would also have to go on to prove that Danielle's act indicated an indifference to human life. And in many ways, everything I just said sort of goes to this, is that the choice to take this big knife and plunge it that deep and just see what happens is indifference. Because once again, inside your body are all the things that keep you alive. And when you start jabbing sharp objects into the areas of your body that keep you upright,

you are telling that person and you are telling the world that you are indifferent to the consequences. But there's more. There is what Ms. Redlich told you she did. She told you from her own mouth that she believed that he could be saved. She believed he was not dead. She let him die. If she was right, she let him die. And if that is not indifference, if that is not putting your life and your interests ahead of the man laying on that floor, then the state of Florida does not know what else is. All right. My quick comments on it, because we've already kind of beat this up pretty good. He's twisting her words. I'm not speculating on that. I heard the conversation between the two of them. I clearly understood what she was saying, which is I believed he was dead, but I was

hopeful that I could bring him back. But if anything was going to be done to bring him back, it wasn't going to be the police that were 20 minutes away. It was like right then and there or there was nothing. But I was pretty much under the impression from what I was seeing and hearing that he was no longer alive. And then he says here that she knew she believed he was still alive. That's not what I took from it. Maybe our viewers or listeners out there feel differently. I feel like he's

reaching. Exactly. I agree. He, you, that's why I played the exchange that they had as well as this, because it kind of shows that he's got nothing. He's grasping. He got her to sort of admit that maybe, you know, she thought Michael could still be alive. That like little glimmer he's holding onto that in a sea of darkness. And that's it. So by the way, she did something like she didn't call the police, but according to her, if you believe her, she did try to perform CPR. So if she thought he was still alive, she did try to do something.

She didn't walk away and go outside and smoke a cigarette on camera. She, she tried to do something according to her. So yeah, very, he, like you said, he's grasping. And the prosecution isn't saying, oh, you didn't try to do CPR. Oh, you didn't try to do mouth to mouth. So yeah, very, like you said, he's grasping. And the prosecution isn't saying, oh, you didn't try to do CPR. Oh, you didn't try to do mouth to mouth. They're using that. So they're basically cementing her story by using it against her. So yeah, it's just, it's not working. And the prosecution also talked about the context that they had given the jury and what was happening in the years before Michael's death, they acknowledged that there was an uneven power dynamic in the marriage. Michael was older. He had a string of prestigious jobs and connections.

He had the money and therefore the power within the relationship. And during this testimony, when the prosecutor saying this, I'm like, whose lawyer are you, man? We're acknowledging all of this. This is like big stuff. This isn't something little when you're talking about a relationship. It's a big deal when somebody holds all the cards. And the prosecutor said, listen, Danielle had testified that when she had filed for divorce, Michael weaponized it against her. And he had threatened her that she would lose everything if she followed through. The prosecutor said that Danielle was using dating apps to speak to other men. And she was on the app every day connecting with men and having conversations.

But she was still going through her husband's emails, trying to find dirt on him, pulling out an email that he'd sent years before, sending it to him. You know, in that email, Danielle had told Michael that she was done, that he was an untrustworthy person, while she herself was listed as separated on a dating app when she was trying to meet men. And the prosecution claimed that this was important because before Michael had discovered that Danielle was talking to other men outside of the marriage, she had the smallest bit of power on him. She was the one who looked like the good wife. She was the one who looked like she was being loyal when he was being disloyal. But when Michael found her meet mindful messages, she lost that little bit of leverage.

So the one thing that she drags out and uses to call him a lying, rotten son of a bitch, she doesn't have anymore. And she knows the divorce is going to be more difficult and everything that's going to come with this. And you heard that Michael is sarcastic and sometimes sharp with his tongue. And this is what's going on leading up to and on the 10th and on to the 11th. And the state of Florida will not get it before you and justify how Michael Redlich acted on the 10th.

Maybe some of us can understand it, but I'm not going to attempt to make it okay or say, this is why it's understandable. He found out that his wife was talking to other men and he reacted and he reacted in quite in a in quite a upset way is that understandable is it not that's for you to decide you know this is where he lost a lot of people i think and this is where he definitely lost me because i think that's a good point what what they were saying like okay she had this leverage where she was like the one who looked good but now she also has done something bad that can be used against her during a divorce so everything's going to be harder she doesn't have this like small bit of power and then he's like do we understand why michael did it maybe some of us can understand what we're not

saying it's right but we understand dude was like following her to stores like going into the stores and yelling at her like completely unhinged He was drinking enough where his kids were like sending texts about it. And this prosecutor is going to stand up here and be like, we can understand why he, maybe some of us can understand why he did it. And it really wasn't a good look. Like it was definitely the wrong thing to say. Nope. Yeah. I mean, he, Michael couldn't control what Danielle was doing. I think it's reasonable to be upset regardless of what you've done in the past. If you find out that your wife is talking to other men, but you are in total control of how you react to it. You could react like Michael did, or you can remove yourself from the situation. Michael chose to escalate the situation on multiple occasions. So it's not a matter of

like, if you think it's just, if you think it's justified or reasonable what he did, then you might have some things you have to work on because no, regardless of if your wife is cheating on you, if your wife is cheating on you and I'm talking full-blown cheating, that's her choice. And ultimately you have a choice to remove yourself from the situation and find someone else or try to win someone back or make someone pay for what they did to you. Obviously we know we're all adults here that it, you know, two wrongs don't make a right. So to respond to it with violence is not the answer. He chose, he chose that. That was his choice. And he put himself in a situation where I think they both were kind of pushing each other's buttons. I really do. And I'm not saying that makes Danielle a bad person here, but I do feel

like, and I said it after the last part that there was something about the idea of her having a little bit of power that I think she liked. Like he had always been in control of her. He'd always been the one where she had been catching him and now the roles were reversed and she got to see a side of him where his insecurities were being exposed. And I think there was a part of her that kind of liked that. I really do. And I'm not a psychologist, but I feel like there was a, I don't think she ever thought it would get to this point, but I think she liked the idea that he had hurt her so much that she was shoot, taking a shot at his ego being like, Oh, you think that like, I can't find anybody else. I'm a terrible person. And you're going to go out and do whatever you want to do. Well, guess what? I'm desirable as

well. And I feel like there was an element to that where she, she liked throwing that in his face. Yeah. It's possible. Not good by either party, by the way. It's possible. But I, yeah, I agree. It was just a bad move on the prosecutor's point. And then obviously the defense comes in and they're saying the same thing. They're saying this was self-defense, but yes, there were bad power dynamics from the beginning. Danielle and Michael were never actual equal partners. And Michael also held on to the control and the authority over his wife the entire time they were married. Michael viewed Danielle as a possession that he had bought and paid for, and he had his own issues going on under the surface. He was insecure about his position in his career. He was insecure about his increasing age. He was insecure about

his relationship with his younger wife. These insecurities led to fights and to Michael being physically violent with Danielle. You heard how sometimes she would fight back. Mostly she'd normalize it. She'd get flowery words, an apology, a hope that it would be better. It's not. Same cycle continues. Here are those examples of being hit,

being pinned down, trapped, defenseless, being choked. The look in his eyes as he would attack her, as he would attack his property, because of his ego, because of his insecurities. What I just said, right? I agree with all of it. And I think that there was a power that he had over her, and I feel like he was losing control of his possession and she knew it. And that's why when I say toxic, it was just a really bad relationship overall. They were

pushing each other's buttons. They should not have been together. And that's why something like this can happen. So yeah, without going further, I know we got more to go, but I do think there was a dynamic there where they were both being very disrespectful to each other in many instances. And this is what can happen. This is what can happen. And it's a real thing. It's not just due to these prior events that she was going to die in her own home at the hands of her own husband. Now, remember, Danielle, she's the one on trial here,

so she doesn't have to prove that she killed Michael because of self-defense, right? Her lawyers just have to give the jury reasonable doubt that Danielle did not stab Michael with hatred in her heart or with the intent to let him bleed out on the floor and die. In order to do that, Danielle's defense team would have to show that Michael was the main aggressor and there was no other way for Danielle to get away from him, so she stabbed him, an action which would cause him to move away from her and allow her to run away to a safer place. Because she had run away afraid of Michael, she didn't know that the wound she had given him was fatal until it was too late. And, you know, as the defense was giving their closing statements, Court TV, they were bringing on different attorneys to give their opinions. And here's what they said. I think the defense is doing a great job.

I think that they're proving by preponderance of the evidence that she feared for her life. And I think him using those text messages and highlighting the all caps from the children prove that he was a scary monster, not just to her, but to the children too. And I think it even trumped Jaden's account that my dad was not violent because she was involved in those texts too. It really is working for her and proving her theory of self-defense. Not just texts, but also this email, Franz, that the prosecution in closing started with this email from a couple of years earlier talking about how she felt that she had a knife in her bag, bleeding out. That metaphor, the theme the prosecution used, now we see Andrew Parnell trying to turn that to their advantage. How effective was that?

I think he gave the jury a good reason why they can push that aside in terms of the metaphor of the knife. I think there is a plausible argument that, okay, the common theme to this case is betrayal, right? That is on both sides, that is essentially what both sides are alluding to.

So I think he did a good job with that, and I agree with Maria. I think they're establishing a good foundation for a self defense assertion and maybe that leads to a good old fashioned acquittal. What I'm concerned about is and what I'm curious about is,

how do they justify the subsequent behavior after the killing of this accused defendant? What are they going to do with that? Because if I'm a juror, I'm thinking, okay, well, that's all fine and good. But explain to us what she did after the killing and why she did it and the inconsistencies and

the lies i think that is the the tall mountain they have to scale okay let's take a quick break and then i want to address what uh what that guy said at the end of his statement All right, we're back. So the defense lawyer at the end, he said, how are they going to explain or how are they going to justify why, you know, Danielle didn't call the police at all during that next 11 hours? Why she did the thing she did? I think it's a valid question, and it's one we've come back to many times during these three episodes. How was the defense going to explain how Danielle behaved in the 11 hours after she stabbed Michael? So the defense brought up the fact that no one really knows how long it took for Michael to die after he was wounded. The medical examiner had given an estimation of five to six minutes to Detective Pamela Wehrer, but the same medical examiner had also stated on

the stand when she testified in court that some people with these types of injuries could take hours to bleed out. So that sort of was supposed to give the jury like reasonable doubt that Michael could have been alive for longer than five or six minutes and Danielle didn't do anything. Now, Danielle's attorneys claimed that the time it took for Michael to die was important and it did matter. And again, the evidence doesn't support that he's alive, that he's awake for any substantial amount of time. It's certainly not hours. And why does it not support that? You have a pretty clear trail of where he's walking. It's cleaned, but it's still a trail that shows where he's walking. It's cleaned, but it's still a trail that shows where he's walking. The blood guy agreed with that evidence. We don't have phone

calls from him. We don't have him leaving the home. He's not calling 911 for help. He's not doing anything. So we know that his ability to do anything there, very short lived, pretty much follows her to the bathroom and then goes back out to the living room, falls down and that's all. So when Mr. Wiggins is cross examining Ms. Redlich yesterday on the stands and keeps asking questions about standing over his body with a phone in her hands, choosing not to call 911, choosing to let him die. Is that what you heard from her? not to call 911, choosing to let him die. Is that what you heard from her?

That she was choosing to let him die? Or did you hear something else? Did you hear about what happened in the kitchen? About how she ran away? About how she goes in the bathroom? About how she hears him at the bathroom. He doesn't come in. She doesn't see him.

She's hiding in the bathroom, the toilet closet. She doesn't hear him anymore. I think it was well said. It's really not my, I mean, it was well said. It's what we said a few minutes ago. We didn't, it would be very hard to believe based on the injuries he sustained that he was still alive 20 minutes after sustaining those injuries. And that's from an investigator who's dealt with injuries like this, but he was stabbed in the lungs.

He was stabbed in a major vein. He would have bled out quickly. And like the prosecutor was saying, although the blood was cleaned up, there was still evidence of a lot of blood being present at some point. You could see the swirl marks where they were making those swirl marks. She was making those swirl marks with an extensive amount of blood. So he had bled out profusely within that first couple of minutes and his behavior supported him going back to the kitchen and falling down almost immediately. So yeah, if you could prove that when she exited the bathroom, she could clearly see that he was alive and still breathing and chose not to call police. Yeah, slam dunk. But I don't think the biology behind it, I don't think that this type of injury supports the idea that when she exited the bathroom after being afraid that he was still going to be able to hurt her that she walked over and saw that he was

you know alive i think that she noticed very quickly he wasn't breathing he wasn't moving might have already been slightly cold it happens quickly um and realized that he was no longer with them and so that's what the prosecutor's saying did you hear that she's standing over him with a phone saying bleed out no she came out of the bathroom and said, oh, my had his phone in his pocket. We know that because the police took it out and had blood all over it after he was dead. He didn't take his phone out of his pocket and call the police. He didn't have time to do that. I think as soon as he realized that it was serious, he had already lost so much blood that it was over for him. That's right. And obviously, we can both admit that Danielle's defense attorney did a much better job than the state prosecutor. He said, you know, Danielle did

not attempt to alter the scene to make it look like something else had happened. She was just cleaning up her husband's blood off the floor because, you know, you don't really know what to do in that situation and you are in shock and nobody can say how anybody's going to react when they're faced with something like that. And the defense attorney admitted that she did delete text messages and he had asked her why she had done that, but she wasn't sure. She didn't really know why she had done it, but she did say she was worried about the kids and maybe she didn't want them to see what her parents had been texting back and forth that day if an investigation did follow.

He said that Danielle was confronted with a situation she wasn't ready to handle, and unless the jury was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Danielle did not act in self-defense, what happened afterwards, the cleanup and all of that, it didn't really matter for the second-degree murder charge. It would only be relevant to the tampering charge. And it didn't in any way disprove self-defense. Her reaction to finding her husband dead on the floor, whatever that reaction was, did not make her guilty of murder. So it argues that the calls she's making afterwards show calculation time, time to think up a story, time to set the stage, set the scene, make up your story, tell everyone what it's going to be. She had 11 hours to do that in the house.

She didn't get rid of the knives. They're there on the ground, on the floor, nearby to where the attack happened. She doesn't get rid of his phone. She doesn't leave the home, doesn't flee, go anywhere. You saw the Google search. You can take that back with you and see all of her web history. There's no searches for how to get rid of body, how to get rid of blood evidence, how to dispose of anything. She testified on direct that there's a lake across the street from her. If you're trying to set the scene, get rid of evidence, it's probably a pretty good place to start. Didn't happen. Came out, she saw the sudden cold end to a tumultuous marriage laying on the ground and she couldn't process it. And then her actions afterwards proved that.

I think you had said something similar in part one or part two, I can't remember, but you were like, man, if she had a lot of time to make up a story, you'd think she would have come up with a better one than that. She didn't have her story straight. She was telling different things to different people. If she had done what she'd done to buy time, you'd think she would have had her ducks in a row a little bit more. That's right. Yeah. Couldn't agree more. Yeah. So the defense attorney made a really good argument, I think. There wasn't any web history of like,

oh, how do I clean up blood so nobody can tell what happened or anything like that. It was a good closing statement. And the jury agreed because after deliberating, they found Danielle Redlich not guilty of second degree murder. However, they did find her guilty of the tampering with evidence charge. After the verdict was read, her defense team claimed that it would be unlawful to give Danielle a sentence of anything overtime served. The judge did not make a decision at that time. She said that Danielle could bond out and be released, but she would be making her decision for sentencing in August, which is next month. On June 17, 2022, Danielle left jail and went home for the first time in

three years. Well, that's right, John. Danielle Redlich walking out these doors just in the past half hour after three years and about 11 hours after she heard the verdict of not guilty after being accused of stabbing her husband to death. We were right here as she walked out. Take a look. You can see inside she was hugging who we think is her father, carrying a huge bag full of her belongings we're guessing were accumulated over her time here. Walking to the parking lot, she was soft spoken, telling a crowd of reporters she's thanking God she's out now that verdict coming in just before noon today the jury only deliberating a couple hours last night and half the day today if she was guilty she could have been sentenced to life in prison I was able to ask Redlich how it feels and what she plans to do next how does it feel to be with your family right now your dad picking you up? Amazing.

This is a walk of faith. What's the first thing you're going to do? Call my kids. What are you going to do tomorrow? Praise God, praise God. In the aftermath, most people agreed with the verdict, but some spoke out and said they believed that a large reason for Danielle being found not guilty was the fact that the

jury did not like the victim, Michael Redlich. Florida State Attorney David Orenberg said, quote, They didn't like the fact that the victim married his stepdaughter. They didn't like the fact that there was possible evidence of domestic violence. And it didn't matter that the defendant's daughter testified that she, the mother, was usually the aggressor. So in the end, the jury clearly disliked the victim, they liked the defendant, and I think they also liked her defense lawyer a lot, end quote. He conveniently left out the fact that the prosecution and the prosecuting attorney was

acting like a dick, and people probably didn't like him that much, but I can see why he would have left that out. But I don't disagree with anything he said there. Those are the facts, right? The fact is he did, I think it's a human nature for jury members. They're not robots to consider these things. These are decisions that Michael made, right? He made the decision to marry his stepdaughter there were clear indications of domestic violence and so yeah you're gonna take those things into considerations because there's human beings on that jury and those are not things that should be applauded they should it's sorry to say it guys it's

not a good thing to marry your stepdaughter I mean if you do that you know and you're offended by this I apologize but that's not what what we are doing in our society these days so So, yeah, I think most people would be turned off by that. And I also wound to the shoulder, the fact that the prosecution acknowledged the fact that basically everything she said happened before that injury probably was true. And then you had multiple people up there who said that, yeah, he could have died within a very quick period of time. And you have evidence of a previous incident where Danielle did the exact same behavior by hiding in the bathroom for an extended period of time and you have evidence of a previous incident where Danielle did the exact same behavior by hiding in the bathroom for an extended period of time. So it all just makes

sense to, and to go after what she did afterwards when there is like very little, and it's not strong, but some evidence that she at least had made an attempt to call someone. And she obviously didn't do the right thing. I definitely think she could have handled it better afterwards. No doubt about it, which is why she was found guilty of tampering with evidence. Totally agree with that, by the way. Bad decisions made afterwards, but I think people can understand that more considering what she had just been through and what she had witnessed when she came out of the bathroom and wasn't expecting to see.

So I think also, in addition to what this gentleman said, I think it was also just the facts of the case that supported the acquittal. Yeah, absolutely. I mean, we both agreed you can't prove what happened there. You can't prove what happened there. They had to leave it up to a jury. Did the jury believe she had been abused in the past? The jury clearly did. I think we believe that as well. Did the jury believe that Michael was being violent with her again that night? Obviously they did in order to feel that she had defended herself from something. So at the end of the day, all that other stuff, like the subtleties, the context that the prosecution was really kind of relying on, it didn't matter to people as much as like the hard facts of the case and of the history of this couple and the history of the violence between this couple. And, you know, in the past, there have been other examples of women who killed their husbands after being the victims of domestic violence, and they've been found not guilty of

murder. In 1977, Francine Hughes set fire to the bed her husband was sleeping in. This would be a hard one to attribute to self-defense, you know, because he was sleeping, but she was acquitted by reason of temporary insanity. This case and others like it, though, where the women are found not guilty, they're pretty rare, especially for that time, you know, in the 70s. A jury usually does not side with a person who kills another person, regardless of what the situation is. As we mentioned at the beginning of the series, when a woman or even a man are entrenched in a relationship that includes abuse, it's really never black and white. And it's never as easy as saying they should have just left.

The statistics show us that it takes an average of seven attempts to successfully leave an abusive relationship for good. A study in 2003 showed that for a woman in an abusive relationship, the time period where she's trying to leave is the most dangerous for her in that relationship. And that's saying a lot when you're in an abusive relationship, to say that the time you're trying to leave is the most dangerous for you. More than 50% of requests for housing and safe shelter made by abuse survivors in the U.S. cannot be met, and 38% of victims of domestic violence will be homeless at some point in their lives. More than 80% of survivors of domestic violence report that the abuse and their abuser disrupted their ability to work, and the lifetime cost of intimate partner violence for women is estimated to be over $103,000, where for men, it's just over $23,000. This includes costs associated with health problems, lost productivity, and criminal justice costs.

And why is it so hard to leave? Because you aren't just going through your run-of-the-mill divorce with a person who agrees, you know, it's not working out. You're trying to leave an abuser. And abusers go to great lengths to prevent their victims from leaving. There are a lot of factors. Most of the time, you're being manipulated, threatened, and intimidated. You're also being controlled with the threat of losing everything, whether it be the home you've built a life in, custody of your children, financial support, access to bank accounts, etc. And what is to say that, you know, you're even protected if you do leave?

In a study where men who had killed their wives were interviewed, these men claimed that threats of separation or actual separation were the precipitating factors that led to the murder. When you're in a relationship with someone and you've seen what they're capable of and what they'll do to hurt you, which can sometimes include, you know,

hurting you or hurting your kids or separating you from your kids. When you've seen what they'll do to keep their control over you, sometimes it feels like staying is the easiest option. You convince yourself that if you just don't do those things that trigger him, it will be okay. You tell yourself that if you're really nice to him, or you don't talk to that guy he doesn't like, or you quit that job that he feels takes too much of your time or you don't wear that dress that he told you not to wear anymore or you delete your instagram because he claims that you having one makes him feel like he can't trust you he'll be okay and you can go day by day walking on eggshells to make sure not to set him off these are things that people who are abused systematically tell themselves because sometimes like i said it's

easier to stay than to risk leaving and being hurt then or being hurt after you leave or losing your kids or losing your livelihood. So it's a very complicated situation. We've been acknowledging that since the beginning, but hopefully if you do hear this and you are in that situation, you know that there's places you can call. We will put resources in the description box if you're watching on YouTube, domestic violence resources, places you can call, things like that. There is help out there. And hopefully, you know, there are people in your life that you can turn to because another factor of, you know, domestic abuse victims was that they didn't really have a lot of people who they could turn to. They didn't have a strong

support system. And oftentimes the abusers will sort of isolate you from your support system, your family, your friends, so that there is nobody you can turn to for help. So just try to keep your support system and don't let anybody isolate you from that. I mean, there's no easy way. There's no solution really that I can tell you. Yeah. See a lot of it. Seen a lot of it over my years as a police officer. We do the best that we can to help, but it is difficult because there are things that we may not see as investigators that are going on within the home. All the things that you mentioned as far as the control that the abuser has over their victim. And it's deeper than just leaving. There's a lot more than that. And also not to be emotional here, but there's love

too. You can still love your abuser, you know, and that makes it tough too. And with this particular situation, my final thoughts are pretty simple. If we had a camera in the house when this was happening, maybe we would think different about the acquittal. But based on what was presented in court, I think it was a very clear-cut case that there wasn't enough there to say that she had any intent on killing him. And the actions afterwards significantly proved that, beyond a reasonable doubt, that her lack of action was intentional and that she wanted him to die. I also would say that if this was premeditated or that she wanted him to die. I also would say that if this was premeditated or if you were trying to gain sympathy, I do think even though

you could try to time it out by looking on a Google search, I think it's a huge risk to slit your wrists in the hope that someone's going to get there to save you because you don't know what the response time is going to be. You can assume, but that's a pretty big risk to take if your intentional is only to gain sympathy. I think there's other ways to do it. So yeah, I'm completely okay with the acquittal. I think it was the right decision based on the evidence presented. And I think it's fair to say that Michael definitely had a power over Danielle from a very young age and he used that throughout their relationship and the threat of financial instability for her and the taking of her children obviously played a

huge role in her willingness to stay. But she also did, in Michael's defense, I don't think Michael was intending on killing her that night. I mean, I wasn't there, but I think he was assaulting her. There's no doubt about it. And I think he was trying to hurt her, no doubt about it. And that's what happens in these situations where it escalates from one person to the other and to the point where someone ends up dead. It's happened before and unfortunately will happen again. I hope for everyone's sake that the kids, that Jaden and Sawyer can move on from this with their mother. And still, you know, obviously they love their father. And this was a horrible situation that, that got out of control. And I hope that they can move on from it and that they can live a normal life as best as I can, because ultimately that's what we care about. You know, I care about the kids and, and what they have to deal with.

And hopefully they can move on with their lives and, and, and do what they want to do in life and not let their parents' decisions affect what they want to do in life and not let their parents' decisions affect what they're capable of in the future because it's terrible. They didn't ask for that. Yeah. I mean, it's not as cut and dry as it seemed at the beginning for me, right? When you read that- Right. Definitely not. When you read the headlines, especially, they sensationalize like wife stabs husband and doesn't call 911 and goes on dating sites. Like those are the headlines. And you're like, this is like pretty easy to figure out what happened here.

But then you get deeper in and that's where the context does matter. And yeah, my main thoughts and my final thoughts are with Jaden and Sawyer. Because if you think about it, they lost their father. And then very shortly after, they lost their mother. And for three years, they haven't had either parent with them. That's right. Overnight. They knew that there was stuff going on.

They knew there was stuff happening. But they had gotten used to that stuff happening. It was sort of just like a part of their life now. And for their lives to change so dramatically overnight, it has to be such a level of trauma that I really do hope they can recover from it. I hope they get some therapy. I hope they talk to somebody who helps them realize that none of this was their fault, that they had nothing to do with it, and that what happened with Danielle and Michael is completely separate from anything that's going on with Sawyer and Jaden

because they should be able to live normal lives and, like you said, not have to pay for the mistakes. Carry that burden. That's, it's not their fault. They, they, and as you said, and a lot of people agreed with you, them bringing the children into their problems, you know, having Sawyer stay there and do what he was doing. You had, you had a big problem with that. And I was kind of on the fence and a lot of people agreed with you, you know, they, they should have kept it between those two. So completely agree. I'm glad we covered it. Cause I do think there's a lot of people out there. We've had messages from people

where they're going through similar situations and episodes that we've talked, you know, talked about stuff like this have allowed them to get out of those bad situations. And that's why we do it. Yeah. We know we don't, we acknowledge the fact that there is a level of entertainment with this, where you guys are watching this because you enjoy listening to these cases, not necessarily for the, the information or the context of what we're talking about, but you enjoy listening to true crime, but we also always want to make it where it's educational and you, and you leave the episode informed, whether it's something that directly affects you or someone you love. And if you leave these cases with a new piece of information that you can take with you and use for yourself or someone else, well, then that's a win. And I do think there's a lot

that we can all take from this, not only you guys, but Stephanie and I as well. And as we talk to other people and we go through situations, we're better equipped for them than we were before we studied this case and before we dove into it and broke it down. Yeah. Thank you guys so much for being here. I know it was a tough one and it can be triggering for a lot of people who are in these situations or have been in these situations. And I wouldn't be so narcissistic to tell you just leave, but there are things that you can be doing to set yourself up if you do ever plan to leave. You know, have a go bag ready. Put money aside in any way that you can. Put money aside in a place where they don't know it is. Things like that.

Little things that you can do to set yourself up to give yourself the confidence that you know you have a parachute if you need to jump. And that's all I have to say about that. Thank you guys so much for being here. We start a new case next week. Let us know in the comments what you've been thinking about this case. And we'll see you soon. Yeah, be safe, everyone. Good night.