Tory Lanez sentenced; Kohberger’s defense reveals alleged alibi in Idaho slayings — TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Natalie Whittingham-Burrell joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss the 10-year sentence imposed on Tory Lanez following his conviction in the shooting of Megan Thee Stallion, a potential alibi presented by Bryan Kohberger’s defense attorneys in the University of Idaho killings, and the retrial for a man dubbed “The Widower,” who’s again facing charges in the death of his sixth wife.
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 and trials 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 or at joshuaritter.com. We are recording this on Friday, August 11th, 2023.
In this week's episode, a man dubbed the widower, who has been suspected of killing three of his six ex-wives will stand trial again for the alleged murder of his sixth wife following a surprise court decision to overturn his prior conviction and death sentence. Plus, new developments in the University of Idaho murders as the defense raises an alleged alibi for suspected killer Bryan Kohberger.
But first, Canadian rapper Tory Lanez is sentenced to 10 years in prison following his conviction for the shooting of fellow artist Megan Thee Stallion. Today, we are joined by Natalie Whittingham-Burrell, a criminal defense attorney and legal commentator you can find online at @natalielawyerchick. Natalie, welcome.
Natalie Whittingham-Burrell:
[00:01:25]
Thank you so much for having me, Joshua. It's nice to see you.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:28]
It's nice to see you as well. We've been looking forward to this. I know that you have a following online that's pretty faithful, and I know you do a lot of this kind of legal commentary. But please, for our listeners to get a chance to know who you are, tell us a little bit about your background and current practice.
Natalie Whittingham-Burrell:
[00:01:45]
Sure. So like I said, I'm a criminal defense attorney. But more than that, I'm a public defender. I always put it that way. I'm not just a criminal defense attorney. I have the honor to be a public defender. And I've been practicing here in the State of Maryland since 2011. In 2020, I launched my YouTube channel, @natalielawyerchick, during the pandemic so that I could cover legal topics. And we've grown quite a following there. Our subscribers are called the Lawyer Chicklets and there are some great, fun people that love legal commentary and true crime. And so if anyone's ever interested, check us out.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:23]
Absolutely. Well, because of that and because of your following, we're very excited to have you here today. And I know that you've been following these cases closely, so I'm curious to hear your insights. We'll jump right in out of Los Angeles, California, where Canadian hip hop artist Tory Lanez has been sentenced to 10 years in prison, following his conviction on three felony charges surrounding the shooting of fellow artist Megan Thee Stallion.
The shooting, which took place after a 2020 party at the home of Kylie Jenner, left Megan with bullet fragments in her feet, which later had to be surgically removed. Lanez reportedly yelled for Megan to dance before discharging a firearm at her as she was walking away from an SUV that the two had been traveling in. Megan initially attempted to protect Lanez in the shooting, telling police that she had cut her feet on glass. However, she later named Lanez as her shooter in an Instagram live video and a subsequent song entitled Shots Fired. I just love that that's where we're at today. That that's how you come forward about how you're the victim of a crime.
After coming forward with her allegations, Megan faced intense scrutiny from media outlets and the hip hop community, which Lanez even creating an album which questioned her versions of events. Lane was -- Lanez, pardon me, was convicted last December on charges including assault with a semiautomatic firearm carrying a loaded, unregistered firearm in a vehicle and discharging a firearm with gross negligence. Attorneys for Lanez sought a shorter sentence arguing for probation and alleging that Lanez' actions were the result of an alcohol abuse disorder, combined with anxiety and PTSD of his mother's unexpected death.
However, prosecutors roundly rejected the idea that mental illness was a focus of the case, noting that such claims were not presented during trial. The judge ultimately handed Lanez a 10-year sentence, remarking actions have consequences and there are no winners in this case. All right, Natalie, jump right in. I want to just -- what are your thoughts? Were you surprised by this sentence? Ten years is a lot of time.
Natalie Whittingham-Burrell:
[00:04:31]
Ten years is a lot of time. And if this was my average case where there was a contact shooting and someone had a minimal criminal record, I would say that's quite a bit. This was not your average case. There was a lot of media attention around this case and a lot of that that was generated by Lanez himself. This is something that was born out during the trial, that Lanez made a song in which he called into question Megan Thee Stallion's version of events, a music video in which he used a horse's leg in order to make fun of her version of events. And so it seemed like he was taunting her story, her trauma, and he was the person that caused it. It's going to be very hard to say that you're remorseful or not a further danger.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:05:21]
Yeah. Yeah. I'm glad that you brought that up because that was highlighted by the prosecution in the sentencing. And I wanted to talk to you about that because we're talking about actions that he took in conduct not related to the -- well, related in a sense, but not part of what he's actually charged of. And the prosecution, in regards to that, said that not only did the defendant do the heinous acts of shooting her, he then subjected her to two and a half years of hell. And I get it. I think it demonstrates a lack of remorse. But I guess my question is, how appropriate do you feel it is to have the words and actions and conduct of a defendant after an event unrelated, unconnected in the actual commission of the crime to play a role in sentencing?
Natalie Whittingham-Burrell:
[00:06:13]
So I'm of two minds about that. If it's truly unrelated, like after this, my client joined some type of organization that you maybe don't agree with or went to an event that the prosecution doesn't support, you shouldn't be using that against him. The problem here, and I empathize with defense counsel here, because you just can't control your clients, but the problem here is that it could be seen as a form of witness intimidation, attempting to intimidate her into dropping it or not wanting to testify in order to stop the deluge of abuse that she received online.
I mean, I don't know if this is true or not, but there have been allegations from Megan Thee Stallion herself, that he was paying certain bloggers in order to put out negative stories about herself. And that was mentioned in the sentencing in her statement. So I think it's a little bit different just because of that witness intimidation aspect of it. If it was directed at someone else, if it was him saying things without mentioning her, maybe, but he just, he crossed the line I think, unfortunately.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:07:21]
That's a really important distinction that you make. And I appreciate that point, that it would be one thing if he was making songs and talking very publicly about how he's innocent. But when you start to direct that towards the alleged victim, then, yeah, I guess you're right, that can be interpreted as trying to dissuade someone from even coming forward, which already she indicated some reluctance at least to come forward about it initially and then didn't even come forward about it in a very traditional way. So you can understand why the prosecution would be concerned with making sure that those victims, that her rights were protected.
What about -- he's a Canadian citizen. So there is the possibility of deportation here. I mean, this happens many times. This becomes an issue, especially in California, where somebody commits a crime of violence and then we're talking about them not being a citizen, then perhaps being deported. What do you think are the chances for Tory Lanez?
Natalie Whittingham-Burrell:
[00:08:16]
Right. So this is actually something that I deal with quite a bit in my practice where we'll have people, either documents that are undocumented, and their risks are different depending on their status. But here it's pretty clear that he's at extreme risk of deportation. And that's because I believe he is, of course, documented. I'm not sure if he has a green card or a visa, if he's permanent or not. It doesn't matter.
Because once you are convicted of a violent felony or an aggravated felony, which he is convicted of here in the federal system, this would be considered an aggravated felony, he is at risk of deportation and removal proceedings. And that he's not open to any mitigating factors or stay of deportation because the crime that he's convicted of is an aggravated felony. And it also is potentially a domestic violence offense since they had a romantic relationship at the time of the shooting. So for all of those reasons, it's very likely he'll be deported.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:09:22]
I'm so glad you brought up that aspect about the relationship or alleged relationship, whatever it was at the time, between the two of them, because one of the things that the DA highlighted in a press conference afterwards about this was that she being a celebrity really was able to shed some light on issues dealing with women and violence against them, especially at the hands of men that they might be in a relationship with.
And I'm curious if you think that that played a role in all of this, because the case wasn't your traditional domestic violence case that we usually see. It was more of this kind of overblown. And I'm not trying to minimalize it. I think it was very dangerous, but it was almost this overblown fight where the whole thing of telling her to dance. And then I think it was the allegation was that he shot at the ground and it ricocheted and hit her. But do you think that the domestic violence aspect of it or the male on female crime aspect of it, played a role in all this?
Natalie Whittingham-Burrell:
[00:10:29]
I think --
Joshua Ritter:
[00:10:29]
And in his sentencing, pardon me, in particular?
Natalie Whittingham-Burrell:
[00:10:32]
Sure. Sure. I think it's certainly something to consider. I like the word that you used, overblown, not because the prosecution is overblowing it by pursuing it, but because this was something that did not have to become what it became. There was no reason for anyone to take out a gun when there's a verbal argument about who's sleeping with who or who likes whom. These are interpersonal relationships everyone has to deal with, and there's no reason for a gun to come out.
So in that way, yes, it's completely extreme that a gun was ever taken out. And any time you introduce a gun, you have to be aware of the risk of hurting someone. And so in domestic violence situations or any time where people have romantic involvement with each other, it appears that the emotions are so much more heightened that. When your feelings are involved, your love is involved, your lust is involved. It's possible that people act extremely irrationally. So I think that does play a part in it. She's not your typical, I would say vulnerable victim in that she doesn't rely on him financially. They don't live together, but there is that romantic tilt to it. And I think that that does play a role in how you see the sentence.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:11:53]
Yeah, I tend to agree with you. It didn't seem to be highlighted in the media in the way that they were following it. But I imagine that that was something that the prosecution made sure to drive home to the jurors, and they obviously bought into all of it. And the case was convincing enough to them and to the judge. It was a convincing enough case to be as serious for a 10-year sentence.
Let's now turn to Moscow, Idaho, where, according to new court filings in the University of Idaho murder case, defense attorneys allege that Bryan Kohberger has an alibi for the night of the brutal slayings. Kohberger was charged with four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary for the stabbing deaths of Kaylee Goncalves, Madison Mogen, Xana Kernodle and Ethan Chapin. The four college students were massacred in their off-campus home in the early morning hours of November 13th, 2022.
Kohberger's defense has now claimed that the suspect had a habit of going for long drives by himself, conveniently, which he was allegedly doing at the time of the murders. Saying in part, Mr. Kohberger has long had a habit of going for drives alone. Often, he would go for drives at night. He did so late on November 12th and into November 13th, 2022. Mr. Kohberger is not claiming to be at a specific location at a specific time. Really kind of a strange way of putting all of that.
The defense has indicated that they intend to corroborate their alibi through cross-examination of the state's witnesses, presentation of expert witnesses or potential unnamed witnesses. The search for Kohberger's vehicle was a key piece in the investigation that led to his arrest, with investigators claiming the car was seen multiple times between Kohberger's campus at Washington State University and the crime scene, roughly a 15-minute drive away.
Police also heavily relied on cell phone tracking evidence to place Kohberger near the murder scene before and after the time of the slaying. But notably, his cell phone was allegedly turned off during when the murders are believed to have taken place. The defense has also revealed their strategy in discrediting the genealogy testing that was used to allegedly establish a DNA link between Kohberger and a knife sheath found at the home where the students were killed. According to an affidavit penned by a doctor of genealogy, the methods used to match Kohberger's DNA were questionable. The doctor noted that many popular ancestry sites now prohibit forensic or investigative genetic genealogy in their databases. Kohberger's trial is tentatively set for October 2nd.
All right, Natalie. Let's first chat briefly about this concept of kind of compelled disclosure of alibi evidence. In most cases, the defense -- I always say this, I even say this in voir dire when I'm speaking to two potential jurors if I'm defending a case that the defense does not have the burden, they can sit on their hands if they want.
Now, there is this idea of mutual discovery, but this idea of compelling evidence, meaning if you want to present any kind of defense that may deal with an alibi, you're going to have to give up who that person is and what they're going to say ahead of time. Walk us through that. How does that work in practice? And I guess my other part that I'm hoping you can touch on is do you feel that this pushes up against the protections of the Fifth Amendment and that burden of proof?
Natalie Whittingham-Burrell:
[00:15:31]
I'm going to sound like a broken record here, but I'm of two minds here. And this one's real tough for me. Clearly, we know that the prosecution has the burden to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not the defendant's burden to prove their case. It's not the defendant's burden to prove themselves not guilty. But what I'm concerned about is when the defense has to reveal basically what their theory of the case is, and that's more of what this alibi disclosure looks like, here's our theory of the case, our client wasn't there and he was driving around, then that kind of gives up some of the defendant's right to sit back on their hands, as you said, and make the prosecutor prove their case. And it gives the prosecutor something to work with from the defense side that they wouldn't otherwise have.
Now, I'll kind of draw a distinction with my state. I practice in the State of Maryland, and we do have an alibi witness disclosure requirement, but it doesn't look like this. It's where you have a person who would say, ah, Mr. Kohberger was at McDonald's, and I actually sold him a burger at the time that he's supposed to have committed this crime. He couldn't have committed the crime because he was across the town at McDonald's. And otherwise, you wouldn't have to disclose my client was driving around, something that would really only come from your client's testimony. And I don't think that that's fair, that he would have to. But I don't know about the great State of Idaho. They also don't allow for an insanity defense, so they do things differently there. So who knows?
Joshua Ritter:
[00:17:06]
Yeah. No, I agree with you. I kind of fall on both sides of this in that I understand that the prosecution is entitled to some extent that we don't have the idea of surprise witnesses and shock defenses, that it's not like we see in the movies where it's all the defense can kind of hold on to something and wait till the last second and surprise everybody with it and catch the prosecution on their heels mostly.
But I do agree with you in the idea that the defense is allowed to counterpunch and that they don't have to be the one to first explain their theory of the case, as you were saying. And proof of that is that in many jurisdictions, the defense doesn't even have to give an opening statement and they can reserve that until they begin their case in chief. The reason for that being they want to see everything that the prosecution's going to say first, because their theory may change because of like what I said, they're allowed to counterpunch and kind of react to what the prosecution says. But this requirement in Idaho seems to push them to the edge of saying no, here is my theory.
And if you read that motion that they filed, the Kohberger's team, it's very specific on what they intend to do. And I wonder, does this somehow pigeonhole them and prevent them from changing that theory depending on how the case unfolds at trial? I agree with you. There does seem to be some sort of conflict here. Given that the defense did not provide a specific location or eyewitness, my other thinking is, is this just kind of covering their bases? In other words, does it leave open the possibility of them being able to kind of bob and weave at trial but not be precluded for making an alibi defense? Do you think that could be the purpose of this?
Natalie Whittingham-Burrell:
[00:19:14]
Those were actually my thoughts exactly when I was reading through it again, and this is maybe a second or third time reading it. His lead attorney, Ann Taylor, is a very well qualified, death penalty qualified public defender. She has an excellent reputation that precedes her.
And so I think the reason that it's so general, he was driving around, we'll see what people say in order to corroborate that is that it leaves them leeway. It leaves them wiggle room in case something else is developed in the trial that's helpful to them so that no one can turn around and say, well, you didn't assert that in your alibi. And so now we get to either rebut it or ask for some type of jury instruction against it. It seems like it's just general enough that they could fit almost anything into that. Unless they're going to say that he was actually at McDonald's down the street at the time that the murder happened.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:20:07]
Right. Right. It makes me wonder, too, it sounds like they must take this very seriously in Idaho that like you said, where you practice in Maryland. Same to some extent in California. The defense has to put a witness list together and if that witness is going to be an alibi witness, they kind of have to give an offer of proof of what that person might testify to ahead of time.
But for this kind of a detailed motion to be filed makes me wonder if this isn't something that defense attorneys really have to deal with up there, where a judge will just stop them in their tracks if they even get close to presenting what might seem like alibi evidence. But we will see.
I agree with you. The defense team does seem like they are definitely very experienced in this case. And I think they need to be because I think they got their hands full. Just give us an idea of what you think to expect over the next coming weeks on this case. It's supposed to start in October. You think there's any chance of that happening?
Natalie Whittingham-Burrell:
[00:21:04]
I mean I wouldn't be surprised if it happened in October just because you've got these two top notch teams and it seems like Taylor's team, the minute she got it, she was at the scene. They were photographing. She's got experts. So I think it's very possible. And the thing I want to point out to you guys about this case is do not discount their opposition or challenging to that DNA evidence. DNA is DNA, right? Like it's solid science. It really is.
However, the person that they retain, Steve Mercer used to be the DNA trainer for the public defender's Office of the State of Maryland, where I currently work. And he trained me in DNA, in challenging DNA evidence when I first started practicing. I went to like DNA college with him. He is fantastic. So if there's anything to find there, he will find it. So don't discount. Usually, I'm like, oh, there's DNA. It's a foregone conclusion. But once they said Steve Mercer was involved, I said, oh, well, there might be something there. We'll see.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:22:06]
Interesting. We appreciate that insight. Well, and they better be ready for it because I think the case really rises and falls on that. They have a lot of corroborating evidence. They have a lot to support it, but the linchpin in this whole thing is that DNA on that knife sheath. If the defense is able to offer any kind of a reasonable explanation for why his DNA would end up there, they may have a puncher's chance in this whole thing. So we'll see.
Our last case moves us over to a Las Vegas, Nevada, where Thomas Randolph, a man once dubbed the widower by media outlets, is set to stand trial again for the 2008 deaths of his wife and hit man Randolph had allegedly hired to kill her. Randolph's sixth wife Sharon Causse and the couple's occasional handyman, Michael Miller, were found murdered in Randolph's home after he called 911. At the time, Randolph told officers that a masked intruder had killed his wife before Randolph shot the man.
Following Causse's death, Randolph received nearly $400,000 in life insurance payouts related to her passing. After further investigation, authorities alleged that Randolph had conspired with Miller to kill Causse and Randolph was convicted in 2017 for both murders and sentenced to death. The Nevada Supreme Court, however, later reviewed Randolph's case, ultimately overturning his conviction, ruling that prior bad acts evidence used by the prosecution should not have been allowed at trial. The evidence included allegations that he had killed his second wife, Becky Randolph, to receive nearly $500,000 payout in insurance, a crime he was acquitted for in the State of Utah.
While prosecutors are no longer seeking the death penalty due to the defendant's age, he is now 68, Randolph will again stand trial for the killings of his sixth wife, with opening statements set to begin as we're recording this episode. All right. Talk to us, Natalie, about the idea of prior bad acts evidence. What is it and why does it seem to be prone to misuse by the prosecution?
Natalie Whittingham-Burrell:
[00:24:25]
Right. So it said the rules of evidence, we call them 404 B, but the statute might change from state to state, but federal's 404 B. The rules of evidence dictate that when someone is standing accused of a crime, the fact that they have committed a bad act or even the same crime before should not be introduced against them because it's prejudicial unless certain other exceptions are made. And it's like a piece of Swiss cheese, that rule. There's a whole bunch of holes in it where those exceptions lie.
But pretty much you can't introduce it to show just because they did this crime before, they must have done it again. It has to instead show something like, this is the way in which they commit this crime, like, say, a serial killer or something like that, or this person had some other type of identity. Like this shows that this is the same person who's committing the crime identity. But without those things or impeachment or something like that, that evidence should not come in.
Because what does it do to the mind of a juror if I hear that someone has three or four wives, four wives who have previously predeceased this wife who has been murdered, I'm going to think this guy did it because that's just common sense. And I'm going to set aside everything else I've heard in that trial, because this is a guy who has probably killed his prior four wives. That is actually an improper inference.
You should be making a judgment based on the evidence of this particular case. There is the possibility that someone could have killed their first wife and not killed their second wife and their second wife had been murdered. And they are factually innocent of that thing. And so that's why that prior bad acts evidence was improperly admitted, and the appellate court was right for sending the case back for a new trial.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:26:18]
So incredibly well put. Thank you for that. It's a hard concept to understand. But you made it make absolute sense that, yes, this person is on trial for this specific crime. I don't care all of the awful stuff that they may have done before. Even if that awful stuff looks a lot like the awful stuff we're looking at here, you can't just bring that in the hopes that that will muddy the waters enough to convict them for the crime here. And it sounds like that's exactly what they did in his prior case, even according to the Nevada Supreme Court.
But the reports on this were that they heavily relied on that prior evidence. It wasn't that it was just brought in as kind of how we normally see prior bad acts brought in. It's kind of a sideshow to the main event being the trial, but they heavily relied on it. And it was a trial where he was acquitted of those crimes as well, which is also a little more offensive. I'm just, as a former prosecutor, personally offended when I see prosecutors going a little bit too far. And this is what ends up happening is people end up getting their cases overturned and now you're back in trial again, and with the risk that this man could walk.
And yes, that's not to say that prior acts of a defendant, if they are so similar to what they're being accused of, cannot be corroborative evidence. I've had a trial when I was a prosecutor where a young lady was robbing GameStop stores, the video game stores, and she always wrapped her face with a bandana, and she always had remarkably pink shoes. Every single person said, I can identify this person, but they were wearing a bandana. They were about this height. And I remember the pink shoes. Well, that became a major part of the case. And we talked about that evidence. And yes, it came in as "prior bad act", but it was so similar that we could say, listen, this corroborates the evidence here.
If you've just got a case where the wife ends up dead in bed and then all of a sudden now you've got a case where it appears to be alleged break in, those are not similar enough. And I think even the Nevada Supreme Court agrees with that. And it's just frustrating for me to see them now having to go through this whole thing again because they were just a little overzealous the first time around.
So my question being, how do you think they're going to change things this time around? Do you think they're not going to touch that evidence at all? Or do you think they'll try to get into it but just be a little bit more cautious about how they do it? And then I guess my other question is, if they don't present this evidence, is there a way that the defense could open up the door to that evidence, even if the prosecution doesn't bring it in themselves?
Natalie Whittingham-Burrell:
[00:29:04]
Sure. Those are both great questions. So, number one, I don't have to be prescient and guess how they're going to play this case out because their opening arguments have already occurred and the prosecution's opening arguments have been very detailed and have steered clear away from that prior bad acts evidence, as they should, which almost makes it a bit more offensive.
The fact that they leaned on them so heavily in the first trial because they have a statement from Mr. Randolph that is not great. He takes law enforcement through a walk through of the house four days after the shooting. The manner in which he behaves during that walk through and the way in which it contradicts the physical evidence are all at this moment highly incriminating. They didn't need to do what they did previously. So as far as what the prosecution's strategy is, it's going to be to overwhelm with Mr. Randolph's own statement, which can be very devastating to the case. And what was your second question?
Joshua Ritter:
[00:30:09]
Is there a possibility if the prosecution says, okay, we're not going to present this in our case, but is there a way that the defense could open up the door inadvertently and the prosecution gets that evidence in? I'm thinking of something, but I'm sure you're thinking of the same thing.
Natalie Whittingham-Burrell:
[00:30:26]
I'm not sure if I'm thinking of the same thing, but I know that I'm thinking of the one thing I'm always afraid, I always try to stay away from. My client would never do anything like this. If you say that and I'm not laughing because it's funny. I'm laughing because it's a defense attorney's biggest fear to accidentally say something and open the door to something very bad.
You can say my client is -- Murdaugh did it, I'm the model family man. Alec Murdaugh is who I'm speaking of. I'm the best possible husband, great family man. My family loves me. Well, that was all evidence of his character. And now they could get into his financial crimes because that showed bad character. So you could open the door by saying what a great husband he is. And you can talk about, well, then what happened to all these wives? And then also, here's all the issues with his character that you would have never had to hear about before had defense counsel never made that a part of their case.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:31:24]
Yeah, I agree. That's what I was thinking of, is that somehow them saying something so overly broad about he would never harm a fly. Oh, really? Well, let me ask you about this. Or if he takes the stand himself, no indication that he might, but if he takes the stand himself, in fact, I think this alone might prevent him from taking the stand. The idea that that evidence is out there because he could easily open up the door by just some slip of I've never experienced anything like this in my life. That's why I was so shocked by the events. Oh, really, sir? Well, isn't it true? In fact, you could easily see that happening, but we'll see how it all unfolds. We'll keep watching this case.
It's interesting that you referenced that video, Natalie, because that was the other thing. I remember watching this thing the first time around. And I remember thinking this is going to come back to haunt the man because it is so detailed. It's not a matter of many times people who end up being defendants give a statement to police and they're sometimes vague. I came home and I found her dead and I was so shocked, and the guy was running and I shot him. But he is literally walking them through second by second where he stood, how many shots fired, where his wife's body was laying. All of this stuff, they are then going to spend the next few weeks analyzing to see if there's any consistencies from what the physical evidence or other evidence bears out. And I think that's what really caught him. We have some of that video that I want to show to our viewers now.
Thomas Randolph:
[00:33:02]
And I've already started to run. And then I just reached up just like that, grabbed it, stuck it in my pocket, came around just like that. And about that time, he's right up on me, just right up on me. And we actually touched right about here. And he's short. He's short. And when he -- I don't know if he gave me an elbow. But as we came around like that, I was kind of coming out. I was actually going to try to be slow, you know, and look out.
But it just happened too quick. We came up and he kind of banged into me about right here, and then he went over to about right here. And somewhere along here I bit my mouth or something, trying to say something like what the fuck or something? And he looked kind of like, I don't know if he was looking here to see if there was somebody else or what.
And there was -- he had on a sweatshirt, and I don't remember if I've seen the handle in the sweatshirt, if I've seen the handle down his pants. But he was doing something going for something down in here. And as we got up in here and he kind of rushed up on me a little bit and that's when I just pushed him, boom, boom, boom. And he started going out toward the shed. I don't know how many times I shot him, but I just kept right on going.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:34:16]
So that's what I'm saying about how just that he's overconfidence. I think what we're seeing is this man's narcissism play out. And I also think this is what we're seeing is a person who's got away with it before that's now becoming more and more emboldened. True?
Natalie Whittingham-Burrell:
[00:34:33]
I totally agree. And another aspect of that walk through, I'd like to point out, and this is not unique to me, I've seen other people point this out, his lack of any emotion to indicate his wife had just been murdered four days ago. He was so focused on this is the story I'm going to tell you and I'm going to sell this performance to you. He's the center of attention. He's got the camera on him and he's a bit animated in court as well. So it seems like he quite likes the attention.
He's not a grieving spouse. And I don't know about anyone else watching. I'm married. If my spouse was murdered, I couldn't be in the same house he was murdered in, much less give a walkthrough of how I found his body. So all of that is just that video is not going to be great for him. And that's why I tell my clients to zip it and don't make any statements to the police.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:35:29]
Yeah. No, excellent point. I'm so glad you pointed that out. At points, I think you can even see him grinning. I mean, it's not just that he's trying to be officiously helpful with police and show them how everything took place. It's like you said, it's like he's enjoying the attention in this performance while he's talking about where he found his wife dead just days or hours earlier. You're right. Anybody who had nothing to do with it, you would think would be an absolute basket case having to talk about those events.
Natalie Whittingham-Burrell:
[00:36:03]
Yeah, absolutely.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:36:05]
Pretty incredible stuff. Well, like you said, opening statements have already begun or are continuing as we're recording this. So we will continue to update everyone on this case. But in the meantime, that is our show. Natalie, thank you so much for coming on this week. Where can people find out more about you?
Natalie Whittingham-Burrell:
[00:36:23]
First of all, thank you so much for having me and thank you to your audience for being welcoming to me. So you can find me on Twitter at @natlawyerchick. You can find me on YouTube as @natalielawyerchick. You can find me on Instagram as @natalielawyerchickyoutube. Thank you all so much for checking me out. We do some great legal commentary over their live streams, short form videos, just a bunch of variety of all the legal topics that you'd like to cover.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:36:49]
Fantastic. We will definitely check it out. And I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @joshuaritteresq or at joshuaritter.com. You can find our Sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcasts. And we want to hear from you. If you've got 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.
