Hidden True Crime - CHAD DAYBELL TRIAL: Dr. John Breaks Down Prosecution's Rebuttal

Episode Date: May 27, 2024

Dr. John Breaks Down Prosecution's Rebuttal Part 1 Join Hidden True Crime as we follow Chad Daybell's trial from beginning to end. Host Lauren Matthias is in the courtroom daily, doing lunch lives on��YouTube and summarizing each day and week right here on Hidden: A True Crime Podcast. Lauren Matthias was a television reporter for a decade and has followed the Lori Vallow and Chad Daybell case since 2019. She and her husband, Dr. John Matthias, a criminal psychologist, started Hidden True Crime in 2020 with their Season, 'Beyond the Veil,' a psychological deep dive into the doomsday murders and prophet. What started as a simple conversation at their dinner table became a captivating podcast. Join the dynamic duo of Dr. John Matthias, a forensic psychologist, and Lauren Matthias, an investigative journalist, as they delve into the psychological facets of unthinkable crimes every week. Their unique perspectives and in-depth analysis offer a fresh take on true crime storytelling. Thank you for your support through sponsorships, subscribing, listening, and becoming a Patreon member at Patreon.com/HiddenTrueCrime Our Sponsors:* Check out Acorns: https://acorns.com/HIDDENTRUECRIME* Check out Acorns: https://acorns.com/HIDDENTRUECRIME* Check out Armoire and use my code HIDDENTRUECRIME for a great deal: https://www.armoire.style* Check out Effecty and use my code HIDDENTRUECRIME for a great deal: https://www.effecty.com* Check out Happy Mammoth and use my code HIDDENTRUECRIME for a great deal: https://happymammoth.comSupport this podcast at — https://redcircle.com/hidden-a-true-crime-podcast1836/donationsAdvertising Inquiries: https://redcircle.com/brandsPrivacy & Opt-Out: https://redcircle.com/privacy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Lately, I've been trying to be more intentional about what I wear, intentional about everything, just choosing pieces that feel effortless, still put together, timeless, but also not overthinking it every morning. It's why I keep going back to quince. Their pieces just make getting dressed easier and I feel so classy. I feel elevated. The fits are flattering. The fabric is really high quality. Everything is wearable day to day. I actually got this really, really, beautiful yellow V-neck midi dress from them, and I paired it with some Italian leather sandals. It's one of those outfits that just works. It feels polished but still comfortable. It's exactly what I've been looking for. What surprises me, though, is the quality for the price.

Quince uses premium materials like European linen, organic cotton, but they cut out the middleman. So everything is priced way lower than you'd expect. Refresh. your every day with luxury you can actually use. Head to quince.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. That's quince, quince, ui and c e.com slash hidden true crime for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash hidden true crime. Hello, hidden jans. It's Lauren and John surprise. I think you guys were expecting us. I have my reporter Mike, this is my travel set. So I can say, John, back to you like I used to in the back in the days when I was working in TV.

And, but I'm so glad to be home with my husband this Memorial Day weekend, despite us being in separate rooms. But so hence my travel mic. And we have an important show, I think, for you today, because what happened Thursday, in court was really important. And John is going to share his thoughts and things that we've discussed together. You're also going to discuss some other things that happened this week. We're sort of going to put some pieces of the week together. This week in the Chad Daybell case has been defense.

So unlike Lori Ballo's trial last year at this time, there were defense witnesses called for Chad Daybell's trial. And his attorney, John Pryor, called those witnesses this week. They included Emma Dave L. Murray and Garth Daybell, Chad, and Tammy Daybell's children. And then rebuttal started

on Thursday with the prosecution. Whoa, what a week. Just to clarify, when you say you're in another room, you mean you're in another office for the show. Yeah, I'm not police. Yes. Nothing wrong with couples that sleep apart.

I know that's a thing. thing to have your own bedroom, but that is not what we do. Right. I do not mean, we share a master bedroom and we are in our separate, I don't know if you'd call mine an office. I'm sitting in a little corner of a guest room. But yes, separate rooms so we can do the split screen and you're in your office. Right, because the last time you said that we got all kinds of questions, so I just want to clarify before we get those questions again. Right, right, right. Couple to each their own, John and I share a master bedroom. I know some couples are like, hey, they're pro-separate beds.

We're doing the show from separate offices. So, yeah. Yeah. So we just. Well, it actually, it actually has some prescience for tonight's show because we'll be talking about Tammy Daybell's death and where she was and whether Chad was with her, right? So in a way, it is relevant because it doesn't seem like Chad was in the same bed with Tammy.

Correct. When she died or at least when Garth found her. So yeah, that's something we'll be talking about that's important to the case. So is this foreshadowing or is this a Freudian slip? Or did I just also do something else and foreshadow? No, this is foreshadowing. We're going to talk. Okay, so I'm foreshadowing some Freudian slips we're also going to talk about.

Right. Yeah, we'll talk about some important Freudian slips during the trial that I really didn't weigh on too heavily. but I want to talk more about that tonight and what a Freudian slip is and why it's important or could be important on this case. There we go. And with all of this laid out, John, back to you. The defense called their final witness who was Dr. Eric Bartolink. Dr. Eric Bartolink is a professor of anthropology. He's a human remains expert, and he was called to essentially talk about Tiley's remains.

So I'd be a little remiss if I didn't bring up. up my favorite expert witness, Dr. Craig Hempekean, who was the last witness on Wednesday. I said that that was, that was like the defense's aha moment for the entire trial, because basically Dr. Hempekean took the stand. And when I say he's my favorite witness, I mean, he, it looked like he had just come into the courtroom from changing the oil on his truck, like five minutes before he strolled in there, because he was super casual. He was laid back, right he was totally he looked like i don't know it's hard to describe him he we were kind of joking that he's like you know the most expertly expert that ever lived like this guy is confident you know

prior was fan girling him it was amazing but expert expert face expertly expert face yes so i i thought that that he was going to be i in all likelihood i thought he was going to be the last witness just because of the way he probably was treating him. And because of this moment where he essentially said that there's no DNA that can be linked to Chad Daibow in terms of, at least in terms of JJ's remains, I mean, he was sufficiently vague about it to imply that there was no DNA anywhere that would tie Chad Debo to these crimes. And as I pointed out, that doesn't really matter because this is a conspiracy to commit murder case.

So you don't even, you don't have to be present. You don't have to have DNA on the crime scene to be convicted of. a conspiracy case. But anyway, the reason I'm bringing this up is because I didn't expect another witness to be called. And so here, here comes Dr. Eric Bartolink, who also, by the way, was super casual. Let's talk about Dr. Bartolink for a moment. He was an interesting expert. You know, I've talked about how sometimes witnesses can backfire for the defense. And I feel like that was largely what happened here. So Pryor brought him on to essentially say that he believed that Tiley was her body was burned as a whole. And because her limbs were missing, he thought that perhaps the body had been moved

to Chad's property. The implication that I took from that, or I guess the implication that Pryor wants the jury to draw from that is that presumably Alex Cox or somebody else committed this murder, tried burning the body unsuccessfully, removed the limbs and then moved the remains to Chad's property, thereby suggesting that Chad not only wasn't involved in the murders or the direct murders, but that Chad was not the one on the property. Alex was the one on the property when the remains were placed. So that's essentially what prior, I think, was trying to accomplish.

And again, let's get back to this idea that this is a conspiracy to commit murder case. So Chad Daybill does not need to murder anyone. here. He does not even need to be on the property. His DNA does not need to be there. For a conspiracy to commit murder case, basically you just have to have, there has to be an agreement. There has to be an intentional agreement to murder someone. So there has to be a plan or intent to kill someone. So if, you know, in a lot of lifetime movies, you'll see, you know, people will meet in a park or wherever. They'll meet somewhere somewhat secretive and they'll talk about killing someone. And the plan might even be vague. That is conspiracy to commit murder. And if somebody is murdered from that clandested

meeting in the park, that's still considered first degree murder. That's still, that person can be convicted of first degree murder for that, for simply planning a murder and talking about a murder in a park, for example. And so I think, you know, there's a little bit of a slight of hand here with prior. He's trying to read, you know, he's trying to redirect the focus and suggest that because there's no DNA and there's potentially there's not a huge amount of physical evidence against Chad that somehow he should be exonerated or acquitted of murder. And of course, he's neglecting to say that this is a conspiracy case. And none of that is really relevant. So like I said then, this is kind of smoke and mirrors. But let's get back to Dr. Bartling. So he's trying to argue that

the body was burned as a whole and therefore it's unlikely it was burned on Chad's property because the limbs were removed and they weren't there. The body was dismembered. This is how this backfires spectacularly to me. On cross-examination, we learned not only that the limbs were dismembered, that they were removed, but we also learned that there's a series of blunt force traumas.

There's a jaw bone fracture. This was new information to me. There's a jaw bone fracture. So the jawbone is fractured in six places from blunt force trauma. The pelvis, the skull, the sternum, and the ribs were also, subjected to blunt force trauma. The pelvis, as we know from previous testimony, the pelvis had a number of sharp force defects. There were two fractures to the ribs. And all told, this was a remarkable statistic. This is one of the last things that Dr. Bartling said. He said there were

18 sharp force defects and 16 blunt force traumas to Tiley's body. If you're trying to picture what happened to Tiley, the reason why this backfires spectacularly is because it's very easy to imagine that Tiley fought back. At some point, Tyler knew what was going to happen. She was maybe attacked, physically attacked. She fights back. Somebody hits her,

I would imagine, maybe hits her with an object or with a fist. I don't know, but somebody hits her with sufficient force to break her jaw, to fracture her jaw in six places, hits her ribs with sufficient force to fracture multiple ribs. Unfortunately, for the defense, in my mind, this expert is creating this vivid picture of what happened.

And I'm sure, I can't imagine, you know, people tend to be in these scenarios when you present information like this. People tend to be pretty visual. And it's not hard to imagine the jury kind of getting the implications of this that a broken jaw is not something you're going to get from tripping. It's heartbreaking. They called it blunt force trauma. They call it what it is. Right. And so, I mean, yeah, it's horrible.

It's the picture, what Dr. Bartolink presented. to the jury was forget about the fact that the body was burned as a whole and may be moved, was the picture of someone who was attacked, violently, subdued, and then murdered, presumably when she was alive. And it's not hard to imagine that the sharp force defects to the pelvis involved something horrific. So the last witness for the defense is actually painting a vivid picture of a gruesome murder that's almost certainly going to help the prosecution. in my mind's eye. It definitely did there were, I can share with you because I was in the courtroom and it was, it was, oh my gosh, it was a heartbreaking morning. There were tears, including me,

mostly after we are told before court that if we show emotion on our face, that court might not be for us and that we should consider watching from home. I want to keep imagining, not imagine, I want to keep saying, well, maybe it's not as bad as I think it is when it comes to Tiley, you know, after we hear things. And I think it's just how I personally protect myself. Well, maybe, maybe not. And all that witness did on Thursday was solidify every fear I've ever had. And that is what that witness did.

Yeah. And I think that the point that prior was trying to get across to the jury was that somehow by moving the body to Chad Dable's property, that Chad Dable didn't participate in that. But again, the issue is not whether he directly participated. And by the way, it's not hard to imagine that he did. But because of the pickax, Tiley's DNA on it that's in his garage and the shovel.

Let's also remember that we learned from Melanie Gibb that he took JJ upstairs to discipline him and came back with a scratch on his neck. Right, exactly. And so the question is whether he knows that, I mean, let's assume that prior is correct. The question is, does he, is there some agreement between Chad and Lori and Alice Cox to,

to plan and carry out this murder? Even if the body's moved. I mean, I don't necessarily believe that it was moved, but this particular witness paints a very disturbing picture of what happened to Tiley, and it's one that's not going to help Chad Daybell, I'm pretty sure. And I can tell you this too. Chad Daybell, once again. empty vessel.

So here was the entire courtroom just trying to control our emotions. Not Chad Debo. He sat there like a slug. Zero emotion from him as the witness. Like I almost think he was thinking, yeah, see? There's no proof. Like it was crazy. He didn't seem to get what was going on.

He was the only one that seemed to not get what was going on in that courtroom. Yeah. And I don't think he understands necessarily. understands, I think he certainly understands the charges against him, but I'm not sure he entirely understands this idea that, like I talked about, I made a comparison with the Charles Manson murders where Manson wasn't present, Manson wasn't present, and essentially the jury convicted Manson because of his ideology. The jury found, or the prosecution argued that Charles Manson's beliefs, essentially, is his ideology constituted an overt act.

of conspiracy. And that's what you have here. You have someone with this extreme belief system of dark and light and zombies and dark spirits that's trying to murder people because he's designated them as dark spirits. And people, whether himself or other people, are agreeing to that and carrying it out. And that's a conspiracy to commit murder, whether he's present or not. And that's exactly, you know, that's why Manson was convicted because it was his belief system that was considered to the most detrimental element of that particular case. And that was considered to be a clear act of conspiracy. And so a lot of this defense case is just pure, it's pure subterfuge, it's peer, you know, redirection, it's smoke and mirrors, it's trying

to get the jury to focus on elements of the case that aren't that important, that aren't that salient. And so, you know, I guess the question is, did the he, did prior accomplish that? I don't know. I, I, I, I, Most juries, I think, are pretty astute. And I think when they get instructions from Judge Boyce, that they'll focus on what they need to. But it was an interesting defense case in the sense that a lot of it was completely irrelevant. Not only was it a miscalculation on Pryor's part, but I mean, it was a bit tone deaf. I don't know how Pryor believed that that would strike a nerve with the jury. I guess he's not, somehow Pryor's not processing the emotional component of testimony.

And he's thinking only in terms of strategy. And he's thinking only in terms of this as an intellectual puzzle. If you see this as an intellectual puzzle and you argue that the body, I guess that the body had to be burned somewhere else and moved, then maybe he thinks he's going to score some points. But there's clearly this lack of emotional intelligence, like not reading the emotional impact of an expert saying that her bone was fractured in six places. Well, let's go further.

John Pryor's cross exam was terrible. Yeah. John Pryor got up with one question. I don't know if he thought he was being smart or what. So we hear about this blunt force trauma entirely her head, her sternum, her jaw. And John Pryor gets up and essentially confirms it by posing the question, but you're telling me that this blunt force trauma didn't necessarily, there's no proof that it happened at Chad Daybell's property.

And all I'm sitting here thinking is John Pryor knows very well about this blunt force trauma. This is blunt force trauma. And this is his attorney who's been talking to Chad Daybell for years and years. And he just got up as we're like processing the blunt force trauma. He gets up to be like, okay, so, you know, yeah, blunt force trauma. Confirmed. By the way, though, where did it happen? So I don't think he fully grasped that we were all like, you know,

trying to control our emotions in the courtroom while he gets up to think and thinks that that's going to help because that's all I got out of it is wow just wow and I think you're right John Pryor is looking at this as some sort of like creating doubt and some sort of formula and he's not taking into account the emotions and I think it's by the way I think it's one of the critical mistakes that defense attorneys and sometimes prosecutors make as well is that they see cases as intellectual puzzles and not as storylines that involve a lot of emotions. And I think that, you know, as I talked about before, juries really want to know the most coherent story. And they also, they're going to, emotions are a big part of that story.

So in some ways, the most coherent story that makes sense of the evidence and grabs their emotions in particular is the story they're going to go with. They're actually going to be put off by, if you tell a story that lacks emotions and it's purely intellectual, then they're not going to, it's not going to resonate with a typical jury. You know, and I think the prior has clearly seen this as an intellectual puzzle. In some ways, he thinks he's more clever than the prosecution and then he's outsmarting them and outstratizing them. And so, but that's not, again, that's not what juries are really looking at or that's not what resonates with juries. The other thing that that witness proved to everyone, I think there was some doubt, those severe wounds that you refer to in her pelvis that happened at or near the time of death.

We all still wanted to hope that maybe a lot of people even wrote me after saying, no, no, Lauren, you're wrong. A lot of people wanted to believe that that was maybe part of the fire or just dismembering. but what that witness told us was that no, Tiley was most likely burned whole, which means that these marks that happened at or near the time of death without burn marks had nothing to do with that. I'm sorry to say that, but like, don't underestimate the evil of these crimes.

Don't underestimate what that slug sitting there is capable of. And he showed no abotion during this testimony. Zero. As we in the courtroom and the gallery are all processing it with just shattered hearts, don't underestimate that person in the courtroom and what he's capable of.

I just want to say that. And I don't think now that the jury's going to underestimate him either. And that was the power of that defense attorney. And when I say power, or not defense attorney, excuse me, defense witness, but not for the defense. It was a powerful moment for justice and for the prosecution. Thank you, John Pryor, for your contribution to justice. And let's, if you have it, let's talk about another potential horrible moment for Pryor. Is that an example of confirmation bias when you take into account all of these other reports, documents, statements of people who are not present at the murder?

Is that an example of confirmation bias when you take into account all of these other reports, documents, statements of people who are not present at the murder? There you go. Right. So he's talking about Tammy, Davelle. He was talking about Tammy Daybell and the prosecution to just cross and he was redirecting and trying to prove or tried to imply that Tammy's, death might not have been murder, that Chad, that it might have been natural. That's his defense.

And while attempting to say that, look, we don't know that this couldn't have been natural. And the medical examiner's office is wrong with her cause of death. It's not homicide. He literally says he calls it murder at the time of murder. He doesn't say time of death. He says, you know, at the time of murder. But the important point here is he's talking about Tammy, and his whole argument for Tammy has been that she died of natural causes. Right, his entire thing. And at this moment, he was trying to convince the jury of that. Right. So his whole argument, yeah. Is that an example of confirmation bias when you take into account all of these other reports, documents, statements of people who are not present at the murder? Right. Keep in mind. The important point here is that his whole case regarding Tammy's death,

was that it was natural causes and not murder. And here you have him calling. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the internet, and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in. Ora actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password

manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring, and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring, or just a VPN. ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today at ORA dot com slash remove protect yourself now at aura.com slash remove get a murder what's one financial lesson you learned the hard way i'll go first it's not too late to start saving today's episode is sponsored by acorns acorns is a financial wellness app that makes it easy to start saving and investing for your future you don't need to be an expert acorns will recommend a diversified portfolio that matches you and your money

goals you don't need to be rich acorns lets you get started with the spare money you have right now And one of the best things about acorns is they allow you to see projected growth on their website. Simply go online, type in how much money you'd put in and see the potential future balance of your account. Sign up now and join the over 13 million all-time customers who have already saved and invested over $22 billion with acorns. Head to acorns.com slash hidden true crime or download the acorns app to get started. Paid non-client endorsement compensation provides incentive to positively promote acorns, Tier 1 compensation provided. Investing involves risk,

Acorns Advisors, LLC, and SEC registered investment advisor. A few important disclosures at acorns.com slash hidden true crime. You asked me if I thought that would be important. And I guess my first response was, I don't know because I don't, you know, it depends on what the jury heard. You know, moments like that, I think it's been a long trial. The jury's been sitting there for a long time. I don't know if they're hanging on every word.

People like us that are reporting on it and are curious about putting this puzzle together. I think we have the time to kind of go back and reflect on these types of moments, but I'm not sure the jury does. And so the question, you know, do I think it's important? Yes. But do I know if the jury heard that and is going to make sense of it and process it in a way that could affect the case? I don't know. Like if I had to bet, it seems to me like these types of moments kind of slipped through the cracks.

and that maybe they're not going to catch that. But let's say for the sake of argument, they do catch that. You know, I'm a psychologist, so my job is to process the psychological elements of this case. And let's talk about why that could be important. Number one, so what is the Freudian slip? Basically, Freud believed that slips of words or the tongue or these types of things were similar to dreams in the sense that Freud saw dreams as the mind was in a state of, of vulnerability and sleep.

And so the typical eagle defenses are not operating. That means that the mind is freer to kind of associate, free associate and make connections between things. And so dreams, according to Freud, Freud called dreams the royal road to the unconscious. And what he meant was the dreams reflect all those things that we kind of push away during the day, all those things that are kind of forbidden,

the things we try to repress. And at night, they're given more free reign because we're not guarding them as much. Our egos are not as involved in keeping things quiet in our mind at night. In fact, we can't. And so Freud self slips like this as being similar. These are the moments when those unconscious impulses or desires kind of break through the eagle's defenses and they expose what the individual is really thinking or feeling.

And so what's fascinating about this, if we go with that theory of a Freudian slip, What's fascinating about this is that Pryor thinks this was murder. What you have here, I think, you've got a defense attorney at the end of a very long trial. There's a lot of stress. There's a lot of cognitive overload, meaning he's trying to process a ton of stuff. There's anxiety here, right? There's distraction. There's all this stuff.

He's been defending again, if he, let's just say hypothetically, he believes this is murder. Deep down, he believes this is murder. But he knows, obviously, he can't say that. that or he can't show that. He can't even think it. So in a way, he has to repress them. It has to be, it's sort of an unacceptable view or impulse that would obviously cost him his job and cost him a lot. It would cost him, if he said that publicly, it would cost Jay Bell, Chad Daybell potentially his life, right? But so you have this situation where you've got all this stress and all this distraction and overload and here he says it. And I think the reason he

saying it here is because this belief is breaking through kind of those defenses that he's held in check for, for, you know, I don't know how long, like over a month, right? And maybe, so maybe it's from a psychological standpoint, the way to see this is that prior himself at some level thinks that this was murder or he believes this was murder, but he knows that his job obviously is to argue that it's not murder, it's natural because his job is to defend his client. And clearly that's what he's been trying to do for 29 days. This slip might be the most honest moment for Pryor. And by the way, Pryor would vehemently deny what I'm saying.

I'm sure he has to, of course. But he would just say it was a simple mistake. But in a way, that's what's interesting here is that Freudian slips are, they can be simple mistakes. They can be simple mental errors. They can be deeper than that. They can be deeply repressed material. They can be as dramatic as deeply repressed traumas from childhood, or they could be as simple as

being distracted and making a simple mental mistake. Either way, it's still exposing something truthful about the unconscious and what someone really thinks below all those ego defenses. It's really kind of exposing what someone might really think and feel. And I think you had that type of moment here. But you asked me, is this going to matter? it all depends on whether the jury picks up on it. So if the jury heard that and they noted it and somebody wrote it down and they're like, oh my gosh, Prior just called this a murder.

He's been arguing now for six weeks that Tammy Debel was killed, not killed, that Tammy Debel died of natural causes. And here we go. He just said it was a murder. He's telling us the truth, right? If a juror hears that and notes that, and I don't know, it'll be, you know, after we get a verdict here? I'd like to know. I'd like, I'd love to ask a juror. Did you, did you guys hear that? Did you deliberate on that? When you initially posed that question to me, my response was based

on the fact that I said, I don't know, I don't know if that's going to be important because I, it's the kind of thing after a long trial that may just slip through the jury, you know, the cracks of, of the jury being able to process that or hear it or understand it. And, but if, if one of them caught it, then it could have monumental importance. If you combine prior sane murder for Tammy with the fact that this expert, Dr. Bartolink, is painting this really gruesome picture of how Tiley was murdered and how, no matter where she is, that somehow Chad Daible knew about this and participated in it, I just don't know, I don't know how you get.

Like, that is not the way to conclude a case, clearly. that this is a complete disaster if those are both accurate. So yeah, I think that those were monumental mistakes or potentially monumental mistakes. But again, I'll be super curious to see what the jury does with that. You know, does that after the fact, after a verdict, you know, maybe we'll be fortunate enough to talk to a few jurors and ask about deliberations and ask about that moment

and whether that moment mattered to them. Because, I mean, potentially, yeah, it could be huge. I do think it's a Freudian slip of sorts. By the way, Freud called that parapraxis. That was his technical term for Freudian slip, parapraxis. If you look at Pryor's body language, there's certainly moments where he turned his back to Chad. There's moments when he appears disgusted by Chad.

Like, there's a lot of evidence in Pryor's body language and how he's treating Chad, that he probably believes that. Right. And he probably believes deep down that Chad did commit murder, or may have committed murder. And, of course, since he's paid not, to argue that or believe it, he's going to act completely differently. But I mean, if you look at him sitting next to Chad day in and day out, there's moments when he's quite collegial with Chad and

quite, you know, friendly, but there's also moments when he's not. And you might say, well, that's part of any relationship. Well, maybe. But I mean, he's being paid to act as if Chad is completely innocent. His nonverbal should reflect that. And they don't always do that. And so that's the whole point of a Freudian slip is it really, it really betrays, gets below the server. It portrays what we're really thinking and it betrays us in terms of how we're trying to act or how we're trying to stay guarded to not let something, to not reveal our true beliefs. So another, what I personally think is a parapraxis is what Emma Deabel said. And I want to say that I did catch this one in the gallery. So this one I caught in the gallery.

I wasn't even, I don't even think I was like, you know, catching things. things in the gallery, like you're not paying attention to any one particular thing. And when Emma Daybell stated something about her dad's seen her mother's death, I jumped. And it was, whoa. And I can tell you that other people heard it too. And she's a witness, not an attorney. A lot of people heard it. As we went out for recess, we all, did you hear that? Did you hear that? Yes, other people heard it. And I'd like to play that really quickly. At the time of the discovery of the passing of your mother, how would you describe your father's emotions? He was more distressed than I've ever seen him in my entire life.

I'm used to, well, at that time, I was an adult, but he felt like an adultier adult. I was used to my parents being in control and in charge, and seeing him so distressed and emotionally out of control was very scary to me. and I didn't doubt his grief at all. I'd never seen him more upset than in that moment. Would you be able to assess whether that was genuine grief or not? It appeared to be genuine grief. Is there any doubt in your mind?

No doubt at all. You understand that at the time he was involved in an affair with another woman, correct? Correct. But in spite of that, you still felt that he was genuinely grieved about your mother's death? I know that the grief that he felt was real. He may not have had the same romantic relationship with my mother that he had in the past, but I know that he valued her as a person and seeing her die was very traumatic. And seeing her die was very traumatic. Yeah. It's again, it's it's another one of those paraproxic moments, right? It's potentially Emma Daybell telling us that she knows more than she's letting out. It's one of those moments. Maybe she's, again, maybe she's experienced a lot of anxiety on the stand.

She's trying to keep her story straight. And this is a slip. This is her knowledge or kind of breaking through those defenses and kind of revealing itself. And so again, the question is, will the jury pick up on that? Will they see that? I don't know. That's always the question. If you take it literally and Emmett Debo is very literal, then she's essentially saying that her dad

told her that he was present when Tammy died, which would put him at the scene when she died, when she was murdered. And that was a moment that many heard in court. Do you think the jury picked up on that? Yes, I'm sure someone in the jury heard because I heard and other people in the gallery heard. And so if you just take the probability there, I assume a juror heard that. And now that I think that going back to Thursday, which we need to process, seeing that the

jury is also seeing that Emma Daybell Murray and Garth Debel are not telling the full truth. They're going to be more inclined to think that that Freudian slip was something real. Yeah. And so, yeah, why don't we go to the prosecution's rebuttal case and talk about their first witness who, yeah, who stated that her bombshell was that Emma told her. So this was a teacher, Ms. Jensen, that worked with Emma. and she told Emma that her mother died from a blood clot. Lisa Marie Jensen, a wonderful woman I was able to talk to after court a bit and thank her for her testimony.

So Lisa Marie Jensen was the first witness that the prosecution called rebuttal and she was able to testify of Tammy's warmth and how she had many friends at work. She was able to testify of her health and her Fitbit steps. And she was able to testify that Emma Dable, who she referred to as a friend of hers in court, told her at work, because they all worked together at the same elementary school, that they guessed or assumed that maybe her mother passed away because of a blood clot, which is very different than everything else that had been said. Right. And so that became extremely important because Detective Mattingly testified later that Emma had no desire to, and we learned about this previously, but that Emma had no desire whatsoever to know or see or talk about the results of her mother's autopsy. So clearly, whatever, so not only was she being misleading about the blood clop, she was being dishonest about that. She was essentially lying about it, but she didn't know how her mother died. So she's fabricating the entire blood clot story to try to, presumably to try to get people to leave her alone, I assume. Or I don't even know to fabricate it. You know, with the pink foam, which she also allegedly shared with people at school, I think she could have guessed a pulmonary embolism, which is a clot in your lung.

And maybe that was also suggested. But she had told everyone at the school that there was pink foam that morning. So that would be another reason to perhaps share. that. It's important for a lot of reasons. One is it really challenges her credibility, obviously, and that's clearly what the prosecution's up to. But there's a real avoidance here in terms of wanting to know the truth or wanting to know what really happened, right? That this is clearly a case of pretty significant denial that she doesn't want to know. And I think that's really damning for her because it suggests that she's going to believe or espouse anything that her father

tells her. Yeah. Yeah. She's going to defend her father no matter what to the ends of the earth. And in fact, you found a blog post that we confirmed was her that essentially says that many years ago, right? What was the date on that? Like 2015? Yeah. In fact, I'll read it. In fact, a thank you to our Gemkaya for sending this blog post. I thought I had read everything and we did find Emma Daybell's blog on the way back machine, and we had read a lot of it already. But this was a blog post that we looked into

and we did confirm it was hers from 2015, that she wrote about her father. And we have heard from people that she was very close to her father. Dawson Murray, the brother-in-law of Emma, shared that Emma was very, very close to her father, that Garth, Davey was closer to his mother. And she says as much here. So I will just read it. This is copied directly from a blog entry written by Emma Daibel on January 8th, 2015. It's titled Our Heavenly Father, in quotes. One thing that has helped me to better understand my Heavenly Father's love for me is to observe my earthly father's love. I have always been a daddy girl.

I would do anything for my dad, and he would do anything for me. My dad has been to multiple David Archiletta concerts. I know that standing in the middle of a bunch of teenage girls screaming at the top of their lungs wasn't something. he particularly wanted to do, but he gladly came along with me. Dad has also been to the movie theater with me several times to see cinematic classics, such as the Justin Bieber movie in 3D and High School Musical 3, the Singalong edition. Despite the fact that films of this sort aren't exactly his favorite, dad went along with me because it was something I wanted to do, and he wanted nothing more than for me to be happy. My dad gets up really early in the morning to go to work.

I spent a lot of time in high school talking to him and my mother late at night about problems I was facing. I know it was hard for him to sacrifice much-needed sleep to listen to my inks-ridden teenage problems. But he stayed awake because he loves me and he knew I needed him. My dad knew that losing a student council election was far from the end of the world, but he sat and listened because he knew it was important to me. I knew I could always count on dad for help.

When I was serving a mission 14,000 miles away from home, I looked forward. to the weekly emails from dad, he understood what was going through and gave timely counsel. When I came home early due to illness, it was while talking with him that I realized I needed to stay home. I love him and I feel incredibly blessed to have him in my life. Sometimes due to various circumstances, our fathers aren't always there for us the way we would like them to be, but our heavenly father will always be there for us. He is the ultimate parent and he is perfect. He will constantly be there for us. There's quite a few things. I even noticed some new things reading that the second time.

But thoughts, John? I think it confirms everything we just said, that she, she's in denial. She's very close to her father. She's obviously so close to him. She's willing to go as far as potentially being dishonest to keep him out of prison and to tell his story, even if it's a false story. And even if it means being dishonest about her mother's death, her mother's murder. So, but I mean, this issue about the, she said it all.

She said, I'd do anything from my father, including lie about a murder he committed. That's the first thing she says, you've always been a daddy's girl, clearly. I would do anything for my dad and he would do anything for me. Right. I also, she calls him a dad, her dad, and she refers to her mom as mother. And then she says that her dad wakes up really early. and yet her mother does too, and they both stay up and listen to her, but she's only thinking her dad. She's just very focused on her dad.

I apologize, though, but yes, she would do anything for her dad and he would do anything for her. Right, and she is. And she's even going so far as to stick her head in the ground and pretend that her mother wasn't murdered, and she seems fine with that. So I think Emma Daval is showing that to a large extent she's incapable of processing reality. And I said this before earlier in the week. Her inability, her desire not to see the autopsy results, not to process them or understand them, shows that she's in total denial and that she's avoiding the truth. She's avoiding what really happened here. She doesn't want to know.

And presumably even if she knows, she's still going to be in denial about it and believe her father. Those autopsy results, that was something else that happened in court on Thursday, part of the prosecution's rebuttal. Oh, there were three witnesses, right? And this was a law enforcement officer who tried to show Emma Daybell her mother's autopsy results before the public knew, wanted to sit down with her, no strings attached, no interview, gave her a victim's advocate at that same time. And she said, I don't want to see the autopsy results. I don't want to know them. I mean, really, she's saying, I don't want to know them. What you said was interesting, though. You said, you realized that she has no ability to process reality. What do you mean by that? Because it's

True. That's what I'm seeing, but that's what people can't have a hard time understanding. Again, not having any desire to know how I'm rather died, not wanting to know, not having the desire to share the, you know, to go over the autopsy results with the detective. Her belief system is comparable or similar to her father. So I think that probably, because it's potentially so extreme, that probably compromises her ability to really process the world effectively and realistically. least, I think those all run together. So it goes beyond the autopsy results. So what I mean is that taken as a whole, her belief system, her relationship with her father, her extremely close relationship with her father, her inability to really want to see, her desire not to see the autopsy results. All of that, I think, really impairs her ability to effectively make sense of the world.

Someone is wondering if Chad had the ability to turn his daughter then against his wife, against her own mother, Tammy DeBell. I think that was happening years ago. I don't know if I'd use the term turn against. I think it was probably more a case where Chad was becoming emotionally, more emotionally attuned and closer to Emma. And in some ways, I think Emma was becoming more of a spouse than Tammy, than Emma was probably a bit of a surrogate spouse for Chad,

and that Chad probably felt more emotional closeness to Emma than he did to Tammy. and so I think that that division was probably happening for a long time. Yeah. Agree. That makes sense. Thank you for explaining that. Most people don't realize how much their personal information is being bought and sold every day. Data brokers are making billions, pulling details about you from public records and the Internet,

and then packaging and selling it, usually without your consent. That's how your information lands in the hands of scammers, spammers, even stalkers. It's why you get endless robocalls and why ads seem to follow you everywhere. That's where ORA comes in. ORA actively removes your data from broker sites and keeps it off. They also instantly alert you if your information shows up in a breach or on the dark web. But ORA goes beyond data protection. With one app, you get a VPN, antivirus, password manager, spam call protection, dark web monitoring,

and even up to $5 million in identity theft insurance, all backed by 24-7 U.S.-based fraud support. Other companies might sell just credit monitoring, or, just a VPN. ORA gives you all of it, together, at the same price competitors charge for just one service. Start your free trial today atora.com slash remove. Protect yourself now at aura.com slash remove.