Q&A with Philip Holloway 06.23.17
22:30 Share

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Whether you love true crime or comedy, celebrity interviews or news, you call the shots on what's in your podcast queue. And guess what? Now you can call them on your auto insurance too, with the Name Your Price tool from Progressive. It works just the way it sounds. You tell Progressive how much you want to pay for car insurance, and they'll show you coverage options that fit your budget.

Get your quote today at Progressive.com to join the over 28 million drivers who trust Progressive. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and Affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law. It's Sam from San Antonio, Texas. You've planted some doubt and some little seeds and some, you know, speculation in the last couple of episodes. And I wonder if you're at all concerned or have concerns about how some of these

things that you've provided speculation on with various callers who are hearsay and rumors and whatnot, what kind of effect that might have on a potential jury in this case. Keep up the good work, man. Enjoyed it. Thanks. Reasonable doubt is a doubt for which a reason can be attached. And if any of these ideas that are floating around in the public or that have been discussed on the podcast actually exist,

have any kernel of truth to them, okay? And I think a lot of things do have truth to them. There's certainly a lot of rumor, there's a lot of speculation and things like that that will never make their way inside a courtroom, obviously. But if the defense can make use of any of this information and plant the seed of doubt in the minds of just one juror,

In a trial, it can create a hung jury at a minimum. But if it's enough of a reasonable doubt that everybody on a jury has reasonable doubt, then it would mandate an acquittal. The other part of this is that

to the extent that there's pretrial publicity and a lot of this information is out there in the public forum, so to speak. And if people are talking about it, they're listening to it on podcasts, they're talking about it on social media, it can affect a potential jury pool. And I've said all along that even without this podcast and without the media attention and without the issues that have been raised in the podcast,

There's no way that this trial would ever take place in Irwin County. It's going to have to be moved out of Irwin County because if you move it to another county, then you're going to get away from a lot of the local rumor mill issues. And that's going to be very important to making sure that due process is protected and everybody's right to a fair trial is protected.

Hi, this is Deborah Lau from the Dallas area. Although it was touched upon in Monday's episode, not much has been said recently about the burnt house under which you crawled and where the dogs hit on. But is there any other info to be garnered from this location, do you think? Or do we just have to wait for the completion of the trial and the story that's going to be told by Bo and Ryan? Thanks so much. We really have enjoyed listening to the podcast.

It appears that the house that Payne dug under is probably not relevant to the trial of the case because it appears that anything that was found underneath there, for example, animal bones, that's going to be something that at the time was certainly very interesting and was worth looking into. But if it's not relevant to the case, then it's not going to make its way into the trial.

If it turns out that Snapdragon or anything else that was visited in the first part of the podcast before the arrest, if it turns out that any of those things become relevant to the actual case, then yes, by all means, that could certainly become part of a trial. And it may very well happen that some of those initial leads and things that were followed up not only in the podcast but by law enforcement, it may very well turn out that some of those things

do become relevant. And if so, they become part of the trial, bearing in mind that this assumes that there will be a trial. I've always felt all along that there may not be a trial in this case.

that perhaps there was some deals in place that were there all along. I have some reason now to question my own original feelings about that. And I'm wondering now more and more if this thing isn't shaping up like it's going to be a trial, not only for Bo Dukes, but for Ryan as well. And if that's the case...

It's certainly going to be very interesting to see how, if at all, all of these things that were looked into early in the case play out in the courtroom.

Hey guys, quick question. If they were really hosting bonfire parties out in the orchard and they're burning the body at the same time, wouldn't the body smell if you were burning flesh? And wouldn't people catch on to that? Or are we assuming that everybody at the party knew about it? Anyway, enjoying the podcast. Thank you very much. Bye-bye. Working under the assumption that other people were present when the body was being burned,

The issue is whether or not there would be any specific scent associated with the burning of flesh. Given my own experience of having cookouts where we would roast pigs or cook steak or things like that,

I don't think there's any unique smell to the smell of burning human flesh. And if you also factor in that this may have been something that had been burning for a few days or some period of time before any third parties may or may not have been present.

And you throw in the issue of whether any accelerants were used to possibly change the overall smell of the fire. I don't think that a casual observer who may not be aware of what was being burned, if anything other than wood was being burned, I don't think they would necessarily have any reason to notice that there was anything unusual about that fire, other than the fact that it was burning without the necessity for fire.

Yes, go! Go!

You can do more without spending more. Learn how to save at Cox.com slash internet. Cox Internet is connected to the premises via coaxial cable. Cox Mobile runs on the network with unbeatable 5G reliability as measured by UCLA LLC in the U.S. to H2023. Results may vary, not an endorsement of the restrictions apply. Save on O'Reilly Brake Parts Cleaner. Get two cans of O'Reilly Brake Parts Cleaner for just $8. Valid in-store only at O'Reilly Auto Parts. O, O, O'Reilly!

I was just wondering if we knew whether Brooke had been presented with an opportunity to lie to law enforcement, because now that Bo has been charged with everything, her story doesn't really seem to match up. Thank you. Love the show and looking forward to hearing from you.

I cannot imagine an investigation of this case that would take place without every single person who might have any knowledge of it being interviewed. I would be shocked if Brooke had not been interviewed by the GBI. I would be shocked if they didn't talk to her to try to corroborate anything that she may have been told by Beau or anybody else for that matter. So if she's not telling the truth, if she's saying one thing one day and another thing another day,

All of that's going to be part of the GBI's determination as to how credible she is and how credible other witnesses are.

And then it's also going to be a question for the prosecuting attorney as to whether they want to call someone as a witness. Because if someone has credibility issues, you've got to make a decision about whether or not you want to have that person's ass in the witness chair subject to cross-examination where a skilled cross-examiner can pick apart every prior inconsistent statement that she may have made.

Hey, this is Matt calling from Utah. I have a quick question about the Bo Dukes indictment. Was he indicted because he violated his immunity offer? And could he have been indicted but still keep the immunity offer? I just remember from past episodes hearing that he was not worried about being arrested. I'm just curious if this is proof that he has somehow violated that and if all of the

previous deals that he's made through his confessions and working with the police, if those are all off the table. I love the show, and I cannot wait to hear next week's. The fact that Bo's case was in fact presented to the grand jury could be interpreted really in two ways. The first way is that it was simply part of the ordinary process. You notice the charges didn't change. They're exactly the same charges that were referenced in the arrest warrant.

Most of the time, the district attorney will file an indictment in a case, and that's what happened here. So you could look at it just like it's a normal part of the process. The other way of looking at it is that if you've got a deal in place with the prosecutor and you're a cooperating witness,

What would make sense if I'm representing somebody who's a cooperating witness is I would waive grand jury. In other words, I would tell the DA, don't bother sending it to grand jury. You have my permission or consent to just simply file what's called an accusation, which is a formal charging document, just like an indictment is.

But it fast-tracks things, and it really makes it much more simple to get the case into court. Another interesting thing about this indictment is that they added some language in the count regarding tampering with evidence that is a sentence enhancer. It enhances the sentence from three years up to 10 years as a possible maximum because they allege that evidence was tampered with in order to conceal essentially a murder.

Now, that language was not in the arrest warrants. The arrest warrants were silent about that. So by the way that they indicted it, they basically have turned this into a case where if a judge were to sentence him after a conviction and wanted to stack the charges consecutively, he could be facing up to 25 years in prison.

So it's not at all a stretch to think that based on the way the indictment was worded and the way that things are playing out now, that the district attorney is really going after Bo Dukes and going after him hard. And the best explanation for that would be that if he had some kind of deal, it's now off the table. And the only way it would be off the table is if he himself violated it.

This is Janet calling from Franklin, Tennessee. I was wondering, I can't remember if I heard this on the podcast or if I read it on Dusty Bassey's blog, or maybe it was both, but I remember Dusty saying that there was a credible source that told him that Ryan had either kidney disease or failing kidneys or something like that and may not have all that long to live. I just wanted to know if you have found out if that's true or if you know any more about that.

that he might be taking the fall for everybody else involved. Thought that was an interesting point and wondered if there was any more to it. Thanks very much. Keep up the good work. Bye. The legal issue presented by any terminal illness that a defendant might have is whether or not they're physically able to stand trial.

One must be physically and mentally capable of standing trial and participating in your own defense in order for there to be a trial. We saw a recent example of this in the last couple of years in Atlanta in what's called the Atlanta Public Schools Cheating Trial, where the school superintendent, along with a number of other educators, were indicted for

But because she had a terminal illness and was so weak, she was not able to participate in the trial. So everybody else was tried. She was not because of her physical illness. She actually wound up dying later and was never tried. But if he has a serious terminal illness that prevents him from being able to participate in his own defense, that could very well become a legal issue in the case. Hey there, I was wondering, do you guys think that Cheryl went to that party that night?

I feel like that would explain why her car was dirty. And also, I've always thought it was really weird that she said she went home to watch a videotape of the pageant that didn't exist. Even before someone said they didn't think the tape existed, I thought it was really weird to give that level of detail for leaving a party. I feel like when people are telling a lie, they tend to give bits of information and details that are unnecessary. And that's exactly how I felt the first time that Payne mentioned that Kara was going home to watch a video. Thanks. I love the show.

The issue, or the question rather, of whether or not Tara may have gone to a party or a party at the Pecan Orchard

is potentially an alternative theory of how things happen. And if it's something that has any evidentiary support to it, it's something that could be used by the defense in challenging the district attorney's presentation if the district attorney's presentation in court in their case in chief does not include that.

So if there's any evidence to support that idea and it can be raised by the defense, it certainly can go to the issue of reasonable doubt. And as discussed before, reasonable doubt in the minds of one juror, just one, is enough to hang a jury. We saw that recently in the Bill Cosby case. It was just at least one juror who had reasonable doubt raised.

And it takes a unanimous jury verdict to reach a conviction. So if it plants the seed of reasonable doubt in the minds of just one juror, it could be a problem if it doesn't fit with the state's case in chief.

My name is Melissa. I am from Nashville, Tennessee, and I'm loving the podcast. I found it really interesting in the last episode that Nelson Puck was related to Ryan Duke. I just wanted to know how this relation could affect the case. Is it a matter of a conflict of interest?

Since he was a deputy sheriff during the time of the investigation and, you know, it's heavily involved, but it was also related to now a convicted person in the case. I was just wanting to know how that was going to affect anything or if it could affect anything. Thanks so much. Bye bye. Well, it's important to remember, first off, that nobody's been convicted and everybody's presumed to be innocent.

unless and until they're proven guilty in court beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether or not a deputy sheriff who may have been involved in the case has some family relationship to a defendant does not necessarily create an automatic conflict of interest to the point that someone needs to not have any involvement in the case. The rules of professional ethics, for example, that govern attorneys who have a conflict of interest are

is much different and doesn't apply necessarily to law enforcement. And there's really no reason to think that if there is a family relationship,

that that alone would be enough to cause someone who is in law enforcement to not properly investigate a case. So there's nothing in and of itself wrong with a family relative being in law enforcement when that law enforcement agency is involved in the prosecution of a particular person. But once again, if there's any question that arises about whether or not that family relationship caused

things to be handled differently or to be handled in a less than proper way

then that, again, is one more thing that could be used by the defense to try at least to raise reasonable doubt in the minds of any particular jury if there's ever a trial in this case or in a trial if there is one against Bo Dukes. But the bottom line answer is that a mere family relationship does not in and of itself create a conflict of interest so that a law enforcement officer could not participate in

in an investigation or even in the trial of a case. If it's something that's relevant for cross-examination, fine, but there's nothing about the family relationship in and of itself without something more that causes it to be improper.

Hey guys, this is Deanna from Charleston, South Carolina. My sister and I love your podcast, Keep It Up, it's great. We even drove through Osceola just to kind of put a visual with everything. Yeah, but my question was is that if we do think the theory from the GBI is correct about Ryan punching...

Tara in the temple and that killing her, wouldn't that go against some of the signs of struggle, like the necklace? I'm just a little bit confused as to, does that mean to say that she just woke up and he immediately punched her and then took her out? Or what exactly, can you extend a little bit about that theory and what you guys think about signs of struggle or whether or not those signs of struggle are actually evidence of what went on that night? Thanks so much. Keep it up.

It's important to keep in mind that because of the gag order and other things, the GBI and law enforcement have not really given us enough details to know whether or not they believe there was, in fact, a struggle.

And if the evidence suggests that there was a struggle, but the state's case says that there wasn't a struggle, or if any statement made by a perpetrator or perpetrators says that there was not a struggle, then that creates a conflict in the evidence.

And if it's properly used by the defense in their case, the changing narrative, if you will, the conflict in the evidence is something that can be pointed out by the defense during the trial of the case to show that it did not happen the way that the state says it happened. And that can also go to the credibility of any witnesses. So if the physical evidence is

doesn't match the state's case in chief, that could become fertile ground for a skilled criminal defense lawyer to show that witnesses may or may not be telling the truth and to suggest to the jury that things didn't happen the way that the district attorney says that they happened. So in theory, that could be another point that they could go ahead and argue that there's reasonable doubt and that the jury should acquit.

But again, since we don't know what the prosecution's evidence is, we don't know if they're going to present evidence of a struggle to a jury. We don't know if there's going to be a conflict in the evidence. ♪

Thanks for listening, guys. Today's episode was mixed and mastered by Resonate Recordings. If you want to improve the quality of your podcast or start a podcast of your own, go to resonaterecordings.com and get your first episode produced for free. This episode was recorded at Industrious Atlanta, Ponce City Market. For $250 off your first month's office rent, visit industriousoffice.com slash vanished. And be sure to stay tuned for K7 is next Monday.

June 26th, and episode 22 on July 3rd. Thanks, guys. I'll see you soon. I just had a few drinks. I'm only driving home. I've done this before. I'll be fine. Right? Right? Right? Right?

Driving high or drunk is a selfish choice that puts all of us at risk. Plan for a sober ride, ride share, or metro. D.C. police are arresting impaired drivers, so drive sober or get pulled over. A message from the D.C. Highway Safety Office, Metropolitan Police Department Chief Pamela A. Smith, and everyone you'll save by driving sober.