Lori Vallow convicted in kids’ murders; Masterson accuser alleges church intimidation — TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Julia Jenae joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss jury deliberations in Lori Vallow’s murder trial before she was convicted on all counts, allegations of intimidation by the Church of Scientology in Danny Masterson’s second sexual assault trial, and a stepmother sentenced to life for the brutal murder of her 11-year-old stepson.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:00:10]
Hello and welcome to The Sidebar presented by True Crime Daily, taking you inside the courtrooms of high profile and notorious cases from across the country. I'm your host, Joshua Ritter. I'm a criminal defense lawyer based in Los Angeles and previously an LA County prosecutor for nearly a decade. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @JoshuaRitterESQ and please check me out at Joshuaritter.com. We're recording this on Friday, May 12th, 2023.
In this week's episode, we check in on the ongoing retrial of actor Danny Masterson as his accusers testify about alleged intimidation by the Church of Scientology, which delayed their initial reporting of their purported assaults. Also, the sentencing for a stepmother convicted of beating, stabbing and shooting her 11-year-old stepson before dumping his body in a suitcase. Her defense? It wasn't me. It was my alternate personality.
But first, deliberations have finally begun in the murder trial of alleged doomsday killer Lori Vallow after closing arguments concluded on May 11th. Today, we are excited to be joined by Julia Jenae, a former civil litigator who took her talents to investigative journalism, bringing the intricacies of the criminal justice system to a larger audience. Julia is currently a legal correspondent you can catch on Court TV. Julia, welcome.
Julia Jenae:
[00:01:31]
Hey, Josh. Thank you so much for having me on.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:34]
Well, we've really been looking forward to this. Before we jump into these cases, I know you've been following them all very closely. Could you tell us a little bit about your background and your current work?
Julia Jenae:
[00:01:44]
Sure. As you mentioned, I'm a legal correspondent for Court TV. I've been doing that since we relaunched in 2019. I get to travel across the country and cover some of the high-profile trials that happen and also some that aren't that well known but are really important to those communities where they are and some of them, they really impact our legal system. So it's a dream job for me and I'm really excited to be able to do it.
Before that, I was investigative reporter getting to dig in to problems that people have and try and get them solved for them and help them get answers to their questions. And before that, an attorney, I practiced for about five years as a civil litigator on the plaintiff's side and just love the law, enjoy it. I'm from Atlanta, Georgia, and that's where Court TV is based. So that's where I am right now.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:37]
Fantastic. Well, we are so happy that Court TV did relaunch because I think it was something that was really missing from kind of our cultural insights into what goes on into some of these trials. And it's good to have cameras in the courtroom where we can. And your reporting is a huge part of that. And I know that you bring your legal background and then just your investigative journalism background to these cases. So we're really excited to hear your opinions on them. So let's jump right in.
First of all, out of Boise, Idaho. Lori Vallow's trial may soon reach a conclusion as jurors begin deliberations on murder charges for the mother charged with the deaths of her two young children. Vallow's youngest son, JJ Vallow, age seven, and daughter Tylee Ryan, 16, were last seen alive in September of 2019 before they were found buried in 2020 on the Idaho property of Vallow's fifth husband Chad Daybell.
Vallow also faces charges of theft for allegedly collecting payments on behalf of the children after their deaths, really classy, and charges of conspiracy and murder related to the death of Chad Daybell's late wife, Tammy. In their closing arguments, prosecutors allege that Lori was motivated by money, power, and sex in the killings, accusing Lori and her husband Chad, of using their extremist religious views to rationalize their actions. The couple reportedly shared fringe beliefs revolving around the apocalypse and their self-proclaimed mission from God to free the world of dark spirits.
After weeks of testimony and nearly 60 witnesses, the prosecution rested their case with the defense promptly resting themselves without presenting any witnesses or evidence on Lori's behalf. Julie, I know you have been following this case closely. I'm just going to let you jump right in. Give us your initial impressions of, first, the prosecution's case and closing arguments specifically.
Julia Jenae:
[00:04:32]
Yeah. Court TV has been covering this so closely. We've got teams on the ground. They've been reporting to us every step of the way, even though we don't have cameras there in those courtrooms. And that's kind of given this case an air of somewhat secrecy when it comes to the public really wanting to know what's going on. And sometimes we're not really able to access the way we are in some other jurisdictions, but that's been specific to Ada County there.
The prosecution's case, I believe, is very strong. And I'm intrigued by their theme, the way they approach this. We all had heard the story. We'd seen the documentaries. We kind of knew how they were laying out this cult that Lori Vallow Daybell was this mom who was in love with Chad and wanted to join him as they walked off into the sunset, leading the 144,000.
But I think the narrative that the prosecution put forth in front of this jury was unique, that they said this was about her being in charge, that she was the one running everything, which I think runs counter to sometimes what we anticipate or think of a cult, especially in a religious setting that sometimes tends to be patriarchal, where you have the prophet who's in charge and everyone else is following what the prophet says.
But they emphasize the word goddess that she was constantly being told or telling others that she was a goddess and that she had this sexual control over Chad Daybell and all of the pieces that needed to be moved in order for her to come into this powerful position was for his wife to be eliminated, was for her husband to be eliminated. It was for her children to be eliminated and for her brother to really be her right-hand man and carry out all of these things.
So I think the way that they presented this was an interesting strategy, and I believe it's going to work in front of this jury. They've been deliberating now for several hours over the course of two days. And we'll see what they come back with.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:06:33]
Yeah, I agree with you. I think it's a strong case. And I think they did need to provide something for the jurors to hang their hats on as far as a motive. We talk about this all the time, that the prosecution doesn't need to prove motive.
But I think that's kind of an empty statement, because if you don't provide jurors with an understanding as to the why something took place, they're going to have a hard time wrapping their heads around it, especially in a case like this involving a mother taking the lives of her two children. You've got to give them a reason why. Otherwise, I think it's just so shocking that people just initially their gut reaction is to not believe that something like this could take place.
But turning now to the defense in their closing, they finally started to point the attention at Chad Daybell. Was this too little, too late? Why do you think we didn't see more of this throughout the trial?
Julia Jenae:
[00:07:25]
I try to separate how I feel about it as a reporter and this desire to see certain things and want to know a why, want to know a motive, want the defense to get in there and give us all that they have, which is not required of them. If they feel that the state didn't carry their burden, then they don't have to put on anything, which is what the defense chose to do. They also didn't give us much in terms of the opening statement.
So Jim Archibald just gave a tiny bit, just said a little bit about freedom of religion in this country, that Lori very much was a devout person and that that's a constitutional right that should be protected but didn't -- I mean it was just minutes long in terms of what he told this jury at the very beginning of this long trial.
So, yes, we were very much anticipating what was going to happen in the case, no case, no Lori Vallow Daybell on the stand. But then we heard a lengthy closing argument. I think that was a satisfying in a way when it comes to those of us who are very much invested in watching these trials where he laid out how Chad was the one who was in control of everything.
But also that Lori Vallow changed in her demeanor, the way that she loved him and wanted to be this second-hand woman to this beautiful future that he was laying out for her and that her life "changed" dramatically when he came into her life and that she was unaware of what was going on. And he mentioned Jesus a lot. I was surprised at how much he talked about Lori loves Jesus.
And I think that may be something that could resonate with the jury in a location where you have a lot of people who are religious, who are faithful, and not in any sense near what Lori Vallow Daybell's beliefs were. But to try and connect them, I think is why he continued to talk about how she's devout, how she believed and she believed this person who was a prophet because she believed he heard from God.
They don't have insanity as a defense in Idaho. But I felt that he tried to plant those seeds in this jury's mind that her will was not something that she was in control of, and that Chad was the one who was in control of it. She was out of the country when these things happened, and she took his word for why they happened the way they happened.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:09:55]
Yeah, really interesting. In listening to some of that closing, I did notice that too, kind of the invocation of a lot of religious elements and it got me thinking, how much is Lori driving this defense and which might explain some of the strategic decisions taken early on.
And this is purely speculation, but for the most part, a defense attorney is in charge of the strategy and the legal arguments and they have their client there who can make some decisions, most importantly about whether or not to take the stand. But for the most part, the attorney should be steering the ship. All of that being said, you still have to consider what your client wants. And if they're adamantly objecting to some things being said or some arguments being made, it's a decision that has to be made by the defense attorney whether or not to listen to that.
And I wonder if that was part of the reason why we didn't hear more about Chad. And I wonder if that was part of the decision of what were some of the arguments made in closing. But it was certainly interesting, to some it was shocking, to myself and others not so much, that she didn't take the stand. But the fact that they she didn't take the stand, they called no witnesses. And a case of this magnitude, do you think that hamstrung them in any kind of way?
Julia Jenae:
[00:11:17]
Well, you made so many good points. I wanted to react to what you said about whether or not Lori was on board with the way this played out. We have a little insight because our legal correspondent, Chanley Painter, was in the courtroom. And there were moments in that closing argument, especially when the defense attorney was kind of personally attacking Chad, saying he was a two-bit author who couldn't even sell books. He was supposed to be a prophet gathering 144,000, he'd only made it to six people.
And look at him next to Charles Vallow, kind of insinuating that he's not an attractive man. She, apparently her body language said that she did not like what was being said, that she was glaring at her attorney, had her face. She's usually pretty upbeat, we've heard, inside of that courtroom, but she didn't like those things. But the consensus was from those watching inside that she wasn't furious with her attorney after the fact. She still cooled off, it seem and was still agreeable with him.
So to your point that they didn't put on a lot of witnesses, didn't bring that up through the trial, may have been with the understanding that at the end, we are going to use it, but it will only be this one time in the closing argument. But like you said, the defense attorney, they handled the strategy whether or not their client likes it up until that moment that they get asked if they want to take the stand. And that is something that's solely in the hands of the defendant.
But just naturally, I feel like there should have been some witness, someone who could have testified. Even if they just testified about her change, because they said, look, she changed from this person to that person. Granted, Colby Ryan, her son, was on the stand and he testified about her not having these beliefs when he was a boy and being raised by her. But was there not a friend? I guess Melanie Gibb was already on the stand. They could have recalled someone at least to give this jury something. But clearly, the jury has a lot to think about.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:13:20]
Yeah. Yeah. That's really interesting. I love that you guys -- another reason why it's important to have networks like Court TV with people in court to give us those reactions when we don't have cameras in court. Just to kind of go further along our speculation here, I wonder if he thought, okay, well, you were telling me to keep my mouth shut through trial, but this is closing and there's not much you can do about it at this point. So I'm going to do what the best I can to try to see.
Julia Jenae:
[00:13:48]
Ask for forgiveness.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:13:48]
Yeah. And ask -- yeah. Not ask for permission, ask for forgiveness and just kind of put this argument out there. Well, we will hopefully maybe find out someday. Last point on this. Many are expecting a very swift verdict in this case. And I'm curious if you agree and if you do think that they take more time or they do end up taking more time, where do you think the sticking point will be with the jurors?
Julia Jenae:
[00:14:12]
I always say one thing is certain about juries, and that is you cannot predict based on them. It is not a science. It depends on where I am and what kind of case it is. And some were you're so sure that the jury is going to take their time and they come back in 30 minutes or one where you think, oh, this is going to be quick, and they take four days.
But as far as a sticking point, I think the law is what's going to trip them up. They've got multiple charges here and they're all kind of interconnected. You've got an overarching conspiracy and to commit murder and grand theft. And then you have a murder and a conspiracy charge for each of the children.
So you've got for the first-degree murder of Tylee Ryan and then for the conspiracy to commit murder of Tylee Ryan and then one for JJ Vallow, two like that. And then just one -- in terms of Lori Vallow Daybell, only one that relates to Tammy Daybell, which is, of course, Chad Daybell's late wife. That one is just conspiracy.
So they kind of got to go through these and figure out, is this conspiracy? Is it murder? And even under murder there in the indictment, it says that if you were not present, if you aided, encouraged, I've got the law here, if you advise and encourage the commission of it or you aided or abetted, then you're still part of this murder.
So how is it different from conspiracy? Hard to dissect. I'm not an Idaho attorney just looking at the law on its face. I'm sure there are some nuances and things that are a lot easier for them to understand, but a jury is going to be looking at it similar to the way we're looking at it, kind of fresh. And there are a lot of steps to figure out what is what.
I mean, they could blindly just go through and say, we feel that she's guilty and go down the board. But I think most jurors, when they see a prosecutor take the time that they have, when they see the process has been very thorough, they want to make sure they're doing the same thing and they want to give it the respect that it deserves. This is someone's life on the line.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:16:19]
Yeah. Yeah. I couldn't agree with you more. This is not a straightforward case like we've seen in some of these high-profile cases before. I'm thinking of like Alex Murdock, where factually, if they believe what the prosecution presented, it's clear as day this is murder.
In this case with conspiracy, the law is a little more nuanced and maybe difficult to understand for jurors. And I think the prosecution did a fantastic job of presenting substantial evidence of motive. I've said this many times before, motive. We understand she had a reason to have done what she did or been involved in it. Plenty of consciousness of guilt, the way she behaved afterwards and the things that she said are indicative of a person who knew that her children were dead.
But it's that final connecting of dots of what did she know and when did she know it? Did she know and did she help plan these murders beforehand, which I think might be a sticking point, if any, like you said, with these jurors?
Well, as we're recording this, they're deliberating. We're hoping to get through this whole recording without Julia having to run in front of a camera to tell us what's going on. And if this podcast comes out, by the time we have a verdict, I'm sure we will hear it from all of our listeners that we're a little bit late to the game.
But in any case, we will keep our eyes on all of this for any developments. Let's move now to Los Angeles, California, where Danny Masterson's retrial on three counts of rape is underway this week with harrowing testimony from an accuser who alleges that the Church of Scientology intimidated her into staying silent about her accusations.
The accuser, known only as Jane Doe one, claims she was drugged and choked by the actor before she was sexually assaulted in an incident taking place back in 2003. According to Jane Doe one, officials with the church threatened that she would be labeled a suppressive person, that's in quotes, if she came forward to law enforcement with her accusations.
In defiance of the church, Jane Doe one made a report to LAPD in 2004 and has alleged that she was pressured into signing an NDA by the church after charges were not filed initially against the actor. Masterson's defense went on the offensive, pointing out the inconsistencies in Jane Doe one's account of the incident and showing jurors a bikini photo of her, pardon me, which was taken five days after the alleged assault, asking jurors if she looked like a victim in pain.
Scientology continues to play a prominent role in this trial, as it did in the first. During a break in testimony, observers of the trial were heard to get into an argument with one person allegedly shouting Scientology is a cult. Masterson's attorneys then asked for a mistrial, which was denied after the judge questioned jurors on if they had heard the confrontation or if it affected their ability to be impartial.
The jury will now be partially sequestered, taking their lunch break inside the courtroom and using a private elevator to gain access to the courtroom. Masterson again faces three counts of forcible rape from three different accusers dating back to 2001 and 2003 after a mistrial was declared in December of last year with a hung jury favoring acquittal on all three counts.
Julie, let's first talk about Masterson's defense and their choice of being, by all accounts, really aggressive here. How do you think that is sitting with the jury? And specifically, we mentioned this one instance of them showing a bikini photo of the victim asking if that looks like a person who's just been assaulted. How do you think, strategy wise, talk to us about that.
Julia Jenae:
[00:20:14]
It's a hard choice for the defense to go that route. I think that you have to consider that you are going to offend people on the jury. Now, they know their jurors better than anyone because they picked them. They went through the jury selection process. They know who's sitting there and they've got an idea of where their leanings are.
I've seen it both ways. I've seen rape cases where the attorneys are careful not to come off as someone who is shaming a victim. But more often than not, I see defense attorneys who will go all in. It seems that they are not worried about it because they're already at this stage, right. They're in the criminal trial so they are doing everything that they can.
I've seen the smiling photos that certain defense attorneys will show of the victim in the hours before or the hours after the alleged incident. And they'll say, does this look like a person who has been sexually assaulted? You'd hope. And the prosecution usually has that burden to show that or to remind these jurors that the studies are there, that people who have been sexually assaulted, you can't pick and choose how they're going to act. There's not one way that someone reacts to it. And trauma has different faces.
For example, the Harvey Weinstein trial, they actually brought in an expert who was just teaching these jurors about rape culture because it is something that I don't think across the board people understand. There's still a lot of misconceptions.
So to see something like a bikini picture, I mean, that's not even relating to the actual incident. That's just saying, oh, this is someone who, what, likes to go to the beach, does that really equal someone who cannot be raped? I mean, it shudder to think that that is something that work, but they know their jurors.
And there's likely other evidence that they are consistently giving to this jury to show in their opinion, that this is someone who would have made a false accusation and not someone who was a victim of, not only the defendant, but there in a sense, also having to defend the church.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:22:27]
Yeah. Yeah. So well put. It's such a -- I don't know if people appreciate how difficult a job it is for these defense attorneys in these types of cases in particular, because they have to walk such a fine line of you want to show the proper amount of respect. Like you say, you don't want to be accused of victim shaming someone or retraumatizing them and keeping in mind how the jury is going to react to that.
But then at the same time, you've got your client sitting there who's fighting for their life and expects zealous advocacy on their behalf. And so it's hard to navigate those waters. Yeah. Who knows? I mean, who knows where crossing the line exists or not. But it looks like the defense, at least in this case, has decided that it's at least to some extent, no holds barred.
You mentioned the Church and Scientology. What are your thoughts about the role that Scientology is playing in this case? It's obviously of great concern to courtroom observers from what we just chatted about and the fact that the jury is now going to be sequestered.
I'm just going to give my experience a little bit here. I know that juries behave a little differently when they know it's a high-profile case. When they come into courtroom, many trials take place and it's to an empty courtroom. I've done many, many trials where it's just you and the jurors and nobody else in the courtroom.
Then some trials have a full courtroom and cameras inside. And that's going to affect jurors to some extent. I'm not going to say it's going to change their decision, but it's going to affect how they behave and think about the case. And now, one step further be, they're being sequestered to some extent, and they know that Scientology is kind of in the background here. I know I'm throwing a lot at you all at once, but how do you think that affects all of this?
Julia Jenae:
[00:24:21]
Well, first, talking about the sequestration, I think that's a good idea. I've been in courtrooms where if you're in the hallway, if you're eating lunch when there's a high-profile case, people are talking about it everywhere. And even sometimes as a reporter, if we're allowed to give our reports in the hall, we're constantly trying to make sure that a juror didn't come out another way.
And I've had a juror, unbeknownst to the juror, sit right next to my live shot and eat her lunch. I can't talk about my analysis of the case or maybe things that I know that the jurors aren't going to be allowed to know because it was in a motion and lemony.
So kudos for, I think, the partial sequestration. As long as it's not full, where they can't go home to their families on the weekend or at night. I think that's when jurors get very agitated. But if they're giving them food and it's just during the day, I think that's the best move, especially in a high profile case.
But I do think they take it a little bit more seriously. I don't think, like you said, it changes the outcome, but that they want to go through it a little bit slower just to make sure it's clear to everyone that they took their time. Whereas if no one's watching, they're still coming to the same decision, but maybe not slowing it down as much. But that's just my opinion on it.
As far as the role of the church in this case, you can't separate the two, it seems. And the way that the first trial went and what we're seeing now. Because for prosecutors, it's the explanation as to why these accusers couldn't come forward sooner, why they didn't have the outcry. And that's another, going back to what I said about having to teach the jury about rape culture and what can happen and what it's like to be someone who's been victimized. There's got to be that explanation.
And my understanding from, we had a team there for the first trial, is that there are members of the church who are very -- they're prominent in the courtroom, sitting in the gallery and monitoring what's going on and paying attention to this trial because there are no cameras. But certainly, the church is coming up constantly in the conversation that's happening through the testimony.
Joshua Ritter:
[timestamp]
[00:26:36] Yeah. Yeah. It's hard to imagine that, at least in the back of their minds, it's not playing some role. And like you said, I don't think maybe changing their decision, but they know this case is of special concern to a lot of people. And it's hard to imagine that won't be at least a subject of conversation amongst them when they begin to deliberate. Well, it's unfortunate that they have not allowed cameras in the courtroom in this case because I think it is a fascinating case. But we will continue to follow it and give updates as they come along.
Finally, let's turn to Colorado Springs, where Letecia Stauch has been convicted of the murder of her 11-year-old stepson, Gannon Stauch, by an El Paso County jury and subsequently sentenced to life without parole. Gannon was reported missing in 2020 by Stauch. However, the investigation quickly pointed in her direction after she gave varying accounts of the boy's disappearance.
Initially, Stauch told investigators that Gannon hadn't returned from a friend's house, but later told detectives an intruder had assaulted her and taken the boy at gunpoint. A search of Stauch's house and vehicle revealed traces of Gannon's blood in the boy's bedroom, along with the trunk and rear bumper of her car.
Stauch was later arrested and charged in the boy's murder, and Gannon's body was found in a suitcase near a bridge in Florida. Stauch would ultimately change her plea from guilty, pardon me, from not guilty to not guilty by reason of insanity.
At trial, the defense claimed that Stauch suffered from severe mental illness, including multiple personalities, one of which her defense argued was responsible for Gannon's murder. Ultimately, the jury disagreed, convicting Stauch on all counts.
Julia, we are delighted to have you on this podcast for many reasons, but one of those is that you have in particular covered this case on a daily basis for Court TV. So I'm just going to let you tell us your general thoughts on this case and what were some of the highlights to you?
Julia Jenae:
[00:28:41]
This case was one that intrigued so many people around the world. Justice for Gannon was a hashtag that was so popular, especially as we got close to the end of this trial. But it happened in 2020. You have this stepmom who was taking care of two stepchildren. She had an older daughter who was 17 and her husband was serving in the National Guard.
He was away at the time that this little boy, who was 11 years old, goes missing and it's weeks before they find his body on the other side of the country, as you mentioned, in a suitcase. And she's giving all of these accounts. She's saying first that she doesn't know where he is and then that someone was around them. She gave a name. She gave Eduardo as a name of someone she had let in the house and that they had raped her. And then she doesn't know what happened again.
And during the trial, we heard the phone calls of the father, Al Stauch, who was with the FBI, talking to his wife. She didn't know the FBI was there and recording the calls to try and convince her to give them information about where Gannon was because she essentially left. She didn't stick around. She said she was upset about the scrutiny and that people weren't believing her. So she went to South Carolina, so many miles away from Colorado.
And you could just hear it in his voice, the composure he had to keep While he knew it was possible his son was dead. But telling her, you're a good mom, you didn't do anything wrong. Just give me information about what happened. Tell me more. We know that that's a lie so tell me the truth.
She never admitted. The prosecutor said in his closing it was by divine intervention that a bridge inspector who only inspects that bridge every two years happened to be looking under that bridge in Florida and saw feet coming out of the suitcase. And I mean, such difficult testimony for everyone involved to listen to there in the courtroom. The community came out just filling up the courtroom.
I mean, this wasn't your high-profile case with a celebrity of sorts. But for this community, this was the case of the decade for them. And they definitely showed up and showed out inside of the courtroom.
Ultimately, her defense was that she had suffered trauma as a child, a lot of sexual abuse, and that she created personalities, alters. And one of them was named Maria. And Maria was this protector, sometimes had a Russian accent, sometimes spoke Spanish. And that was the one who had come out.
And to tell you some of the details about how Gannon died, he was stabbed 18 times. He was shot and he suffered blunt force trauma. Still a big question of what really happened when she was keeping him, why she would have done this. She didn't take the stand. So we don't know what she has to say about it, what may have triggered her.
But ultimately, the prosecution just says there's absolutely no excuse for it and it doesn't matter what her motive was. This was first degree murder. The jury took about two days, and they came back with a guilty verdict, not believing that dissociative identity disorder claim.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:31:59]
Just a heartbreaking case. It's just so awful to hear this type of stuff. I want to talk about the mental health defense here a little bit more. You've been covering murder cases for many years. I know you see insanity defenses come up at times. It's a very high risk, high reward, because essentially the defense is, yes, she participated in it, but here are the reasons why you should excuse her.
And in this case, it's almost a step farther by saying it's not that just she's suffering from mental health issues and was therefore temporarily insane, but that this other personality took over. Do you think that was just a bridge too far with jurors? And talk to us a little bit about the testimony the prosecution put on about whether or not she showed any signs of mental unrest beforehand.
Julia Jenae:
[00:32:54]
Josh, I asked that exact question of the defense attorney the first chance I got. Because in his closing argument, the attorney mentioned that there was psychosis, that she had a psychotic break when this happened, and that just the details of the crime and the fact that she had not abused the children before that, that nothing pointed to her doing this except for a psychotic break. He still talked about DID or dissociative identity disorder, but he really seemed to lean into psychosis.
So I asked him why did you go the route of dissociative identity disorder? Just because multiple personalities, it's a far stretch. There are people who interact on a, you know, every once in a while with people who are dealing with mental illness, mental breaks, certain stressors. But for him to go or for their strategy or their doctor to come on and talk about multiple personalities, felt like that made it more difficult to really understand and perhaps think that she was malingering, that she had made this up.
And he said he couldn't explain. He knew that it was all very hard to understand. They brought in different experts. And because this was the claim of the defendant, they went down that road. And he doesn't know if that may have been difficult for the jury to digest. But I do know, they have to come up or they have to present, I should say, a disorder that is a mental defect or disease that renders you incapable of understanding right from wrong.
And as you mentioned, that's a high bar. It's not just I was under a lot of stress. I had a lot of anger. I was depressed. And then this happened. It's got to be that you have this diagnosable or something that an expert can point to as your disease. And perhaps that's the one that stood out as the most probable based on her symptoms.
But they brought in an expert who had been a consultant for HBO for Guilty or Crazy But Not Insane, what is the name of this documentary. She was very well versed. She was much older lady. She'd gone to Yale and Harvard back in the day. And I'm not sure if she was able to really connect with this jury. She was very knowledgeable.
But you could tell she loved this area of the psychiatric field. And it seemed that it was something that she was going to figure out how Stauch had multiple personalities. We even saw video of her like asking the personalities to come out. And then they did. And we heard the different alters talking. It's just I think it was a very hard sell for this defense in front of a jury.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:35:43]
Yeah. Hard sell, too, when you're talking about a victim that is just so innocent. I mean, when you're talking about an 11-year-old being stabbed, beaten and shot and then thrown in a suitcase by the side of a bridge, that is a real difficult hill to climb. And you better have some really convincing evidence as to why that took place. And it sounds like they just did not hear, and the jurors didn't buy it. And I think rightfully so. So hopefully that brings some justice to Gannon and his family what small comfort that might bring.
But, Julia, this has been fantastic. Thank you so much for coming on this week. Where can people find out more about you?
Julia Jenae:
[00:36:27]
Oh, I'm on Twitter, Facebook and on, let's see, what's the other one? Instagram. Yeah, on those, @JuliaCourtTV is my handle and you can of course catch me on Court TV, www.courttv.com is where we stream live. But can also figure out where we are over the air if you go to that website and figure out what channel we are on on your TV across the nation.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:36:50]
Fantastic. And I do. Almost every single day. I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @JoshuaRitterESQ and please check out Joshuaritter.com.
You can find our Sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcasts. And we want to hear from you. If you have questions or comments you'd like us to address, tweet us your questions with the hashtag #TCDSidebar. And thank you for joining us at the True Crime Daily Sidebar.
