We're sunsetting PodQuest on 2025-07-28. Thank you for your support!
Export Podcast Subscriptions
cover of episode Bonus Episode: Law and Order

Bonus Episode: Law and Order

2023/12/13
logo of podcast Bad Bad Thing: The Blackstone Sisters

Bad Bad Thing: The Blackstone Sisters

AI Deep Dive AI Chapters Transcript
People
B
Barbara
G
Gretchen Ford
J
Johnny Jones
S
Steve Castro
旁白
知名游戏《文明VII》的开场动画预告片旁白。
Topics
Johnny Jones: 本案调查中,大部分嫌疑人愿意与警方合作,但他们提供的信息可能存在不实或片面之处。侦查员会告知嫌疑人拒绝配合的后果,以促使他们重新考虑。Jill Blackstone案中,受害者Wendy Blackstone血液中的一氧化碳和氧气含量升高,但并未达到危及生命的程度。现场急救人员使用的脉搏血氧仪只能测量指尖血氧饱和度,并非精确的血液一氧化碳水平。Jill Blackstone在户外呼吸新鲜空气后,血液中的一氧化碳水平可能有所下降。Wendy Blackstone血液中的一氧化碳饱和度约为20%,同时还检测到安定药。Wendy Blackstone的医生否认给她开过任何止痛药或抗焦虑药。Jill Blackstone接受了药物检测,但结果不详。Bentley犬在被安乐死前病得很重,尸检显示其全身严重烧伤,肺部有明显的一氧化碳中毒迹象。三只狗都曾服用过曲马多,但其在狗体内的残留量和服用史尚不清楚。Jill Blackstone在获释后第二天将Bentley犬安乐死。现场发现的便利贴上写着详细的指示,而非搬家清单。这些便利贴内容表明这是一起蓄意谋杀,而非意外事故。 Steve Castro: 三只狗都曾服用过曲马多。Bruce犬被警方带走以保护其安全。现场发现的便利贴内容详细,并非搬家清单。没有证据表明Jill Blackstone的裤子或毛巾在草坪上,现场发现的是一件浴袍。在屋内或垃圾桶中均未发现棉花糖。 Gretchen Ford: 本案中家庭关系的恶化是案件的关键因素。她本人并未参与此案的认罪协议谈判,该协议的达成是由于多种因素,包括受害者家属的陈述和被告人的健康状况。如果此案进行审判,被告人无疑会被判犯有一级谋杀罪。即使被告人因压力过大而精神崩溃,陪审团也不会同情她夸大和编造的负担。照顾者不能因为疲惫而杀死亲属。此案中最有力的证据是Jill Blackstone的陈述。如果Jill Blackstone的辩护是计划谋杀自杀但意外幸存,而不是她所说的从未想过要杀死Wendy,那么她可能不会获得较轻的判决。即使Jill Blackstone声称这是一场自杀协议,并且Wendy要求她保密,审判结果也不会改变。辩护律师的论点存在矛盾,无法支持谋杀自杀的说法。没有证据表明Jill Blackstone整夜昏迷在草坪上。检方能够在一定的时间范围内证明犯罪行为的发生。Wendy Blackstone血液中的一氧化碳含量并非致命水平,但吸入的烟尘和其他物质导致了窒息。没有证据表明Wendy Blackstone患有心脏病。所有证据都得到了妥善保存。反复的调查请求是此类案件的常见情况。如果她是第一位接触此案的检察官,她可能会根据现有证据提起诉讼,但进一步调查加强了案件。家庭内部的矛盾对案件的进展影响不大。 Barbara: 对本案的讨论和分析

Deep Dive

Chapters
The podcast episode features an interview with lead detective Johnny Jones and her partner Steve Castro, who discuss the reaction to the podcast and the case. They also introduce the prosecutor, Gretchen Ford, who joins later to provide insights into the case.

Shownotes Transcript

Translations:
中文

Welcome to this bonus episode of the Blackstone Sisters. We've asked lead detective Johnny Jones and her partner Steve Castro to join us to answer some of the listener questions. And then we're going to be able to talk with a very special guest, someone vital to this case, who's never spoken about it publicly before, the prosecutor,

Gretchen Ford will be joining us in a little bit. So first, Janine and Steve, welcome back. Thank you for coming here. And what's the reaction been like? What have you been hearing about the podcast and the case? Well, thanks again for having us. I've been getting positive feedback and I've listened to it myself and I actually thought you did an amazing job hosting. But I think a key way to look at this to see how successful it is, and I was telling you earlier,

I have three daughters, 30, 21, and 18, a bit more. The 21 and 18-year-old found it very interesting. And if you can get some young teenagers to really buy in, they really, really enjoyed it. Most importantly, were they proud of dad?

I don't know about that, but no, they were. Great. And Janine, what about you? Are you getting reaction from people that didn't know you were on this case or that really appreciated hearing a full story about it? Because very little of it, you know, bits and pieces were covered in the traditional media. And this is such a deep dive. Right. And because this case was the way that it ended, I

I didn't get a lot of people I didn't know talk to me, but I was kind of looking at reviews and things like that. But mostly like Steve, my family was very interested in it and started to, we had a big long text going back and forth to each other about things that they, I guess they didn't

know what we do for a living. I have no idea, but they finally thought, mom, wow, you and your partner, you really do ask a lot of questions and you're so patient. And I think that was what I heard the most was, gosh, you were so patient about that. I said, well, there were reasons for that. And I'm sure we'll probably get into that. But again, also, thank you for having us. And you put everything together perfectly when it came to what

We wanted people to hear and what we wanted people to continue to be either intrigued or interested in. Let's start with this question first. I think a lot of people were intrigued by how willing Jill Blackstone was to talk to you for so long, almost three and a half hours. What percentage of suspects that you guys have talked to talk as much as Jill Blackstone did during an initial interview?

You know, that's a good question. I think in my experience, and I did this for retired now 34 and a half years, I honestly think 65 to 70% of the suspects, I do. I think they want to talk. Now, it doesn't mean you're going to get the truth, but it's either going to be a lie or a self-serving statement. But I think they do want to talk in my experience. Now, the ones that don't, it's because they're repeat offenders and they've had a defense attorney before tell them, listen, do not say a word.

But the way I've always treated that is when I interview a defendant and he doesn't want to speak to me or he tells me, hey, I wasn't there. It wasn't me. I tell them, and that's fine. You have every right not to speak to me. But just know that this case is going to go to a jury. And if they ask, hey, what did the defendant say? He said he wasn't there. He said it wasn't him, even though there's video DNA and the whole bit. So when I say that, they rethink it a little bit.

And at that point, they may want to talk. Yeah, you let them know what could happen in the future that may want, yeah, they'll rethink that. Next question. What were Jill Blackstone's carbon monoxide levels when she was taken to the hospital? Paramedics said her pulse oximetry was fine, but she told people her levels were so high she should have been dead too.

So which was it? Her carbon monoxide level and her oxygen in her blood was elevated, but not to the extreme to where she couldn't be treated for it, obviously. When it came to what they use at scene when it comes to paramedics, these are very –

They're good calculations for what kind of device they are that they use, but they go on fingers and then they don't really get into actually a blood level. So that's what we would deal with. So everything that was done was absolutely on the mark and what the paramedics described and testified to. But when it comes to the nitty gritty of what we're looking for, we're going to look at like levels like that when it comes to this type of a crime.

So it sounds like her levels could have lowered as well because she was outside in the oxygen, breathing air for a while. She was in the perfect place for what she said. She woke up in the front lawn and, you know, in the fresh air. So it was a perfect place for her to put herself or place herself when it came to getting relieved from the actual carbon monoxide.

Next question, Wendy's levels. What were Wendy's levels of carbon monoxide? I don't recall what they were exactly, and I believe that the coroner testified in regards to what they actually were. But it was a combination of what I recall, 20% saturation level of carbon monoxide poisoning, and then having the Xanax.

that act almost like a synergist to slow down her central nervous system to make her breathe slowly, or slowly, I should say. And I think that was the combination, but I don't know exactly what her level was. Speaking of Xanax, that seemed like an unusual finding, an interesting finding, that Wendy had not only carbon monoxide, the 20% levels,

But that she also had a lot of Xanax in her system. And the question is, did Wendy have a history of taking Xanax? We do have, I'm going to ask you that in a second, but we do have a segment of an interview with Wendy's friend, Wanda. She heard that possibly Wendy had Xanax in her system and she wanted us to know this. Which she would not take. And I know this for a fact because one day she would get migraines, Wendy would get migraines.

And when she did, she would be up for several days just having a really hard time. And one day we were doing crafts. She was doing her bracelets and we were doing stuff. And she had a headache. And she's like, you know, I'm going to have to put this down. And so I'm like, why don't you take a nap? She goes, I can't. It just hurts.

So I said, you know what? Here, take half a Xanax and then I'll make you sleepy. And then she cut me off right there. She said, are you trying to kill me? What's wrong with you? These pills. And she's like, these pills are so addictive and they're so bad for you that you even have. I want you to take them and throw them away right now. Just get rid of them. Get rid of them because they'll kill you. Eventually, these are going to get you in there. And they were like to her. They're a major drug thing and major bad.

Yeah, so for her to have taken them, Janine, did she have any kind of history? You interviewed doctors? I did a telephonic interview with her doctor that was her active doctor at the time when she was killed, and he basically said –

I have never given Wendy Blackstone anything for pain or for anxiety. In fact, she was very adamant about that. I know that she had seen him for a disorder that she had and took medication for that, but nothing along the lines of any type of a pain analgesic or even, you know, any pain medication that she wanted to take. That was something that he was very adamant about.

And Jill did have a prescription for Xanax. Next question from one of our listeners. Was Jill tested for Xanax? I'm sure in the hospital she was given a test for what her levels were with everything. Because let's not forget also that Wendy Blackstone, even though it wasn't found in her system, per Jill's statement, that she gave her alcohol that night too. So I think that combination, we need to make sure that we add the alcohol with the Xanax than with the carbon monoxide poisoning. But

I don't think, I don't remember what it was, but it was something that was tested because before we went and interviewed her, we wanted to make sure what she had in her system, at least when we were there. But we weren't really privy to anything that was taken before. And the follow-up here, again, a very astute listener, wouldn't she, Jill, have taken Xanax too if she, in fact, had really intended to kill herself?

Like Johnny had mentioned, I'm sure there was the blood screening that was done. Did she take any? I don't remember. I don't recall. You know, it doesn't necessarily mean that she would. It could have been. She definitely wanted to relax Wendy, for sure. That's the combination of the alcohol as well. But it's possible that she wanted to relax just as much because obviously they're going to go through a very traumatic experience, Wendy unknown, unbeknownst to her, of course. Yeah.

Next question. How sick was Bentley the dog before Jill put him down? And do you think Jill wanted Bentley euthanized to destroy evidence? Well, Bentley was very bad. At the time that the first responders, the fire department, got there, I mean, they opened up the garage door and Bentley, because he started to –

get some air, some oxygen, started to convulse. So right there, they're trying to treat that dog who's convulsing in front of them and having seizures. They have another dead dog, Izzy, that's lying next to Wendy. And then they had also the bigger dog, Bruce, the Rottweiler mix, that was starting to stumble around. So that was hard for them.

And I think it's hard for anybody when it came to seeing that type of a scene. And Bentley had a necropsy, right? He did, yes. And the veterinarian that did the autopsy on Bentley found the severe burns around his whole body that he had. His snout had burn marks inside of his mouth.

or on his gum line, had burn marks where he was probably trying to bite it, whatever it was that he felt was the cause of him dying at the time. Maybe the coals that fell out? You know, dogs are like that. Sometimes they bite their owners to wake them up. Sometimes when they know that they're feeling, you know, like...

They're coming to their demise. They act differently and, you know, they're different from us. So they try to do things. They bark. They cry. They scratch. They bite to get out of where they're at. He could have been biting. I just – my opinion was looking at the types of pictures that I saw, it was like the outside of the snout and the inside of his gum had linear marks on it like the grill. So I'm thinking, gosh, this poor dog was probably –

tipped over the grill and started biting at the hot, you know, the hot steel. It was very sad.

to see the photographs, and it was very hard to read the report on it. But the doctor, the veterinarian, did a very good job and said that even the inside of Bentley, when he looked at him, his lungs definitely showed signs of having carbon monoxide poisoning and a slow death. So he was most likely sick, very sick, before Jill put him down. Steve, did Jill want Bentley euthanized to destroy evidence, do you think? Like if he would have been tested...

Would they have found a tramadol or some kind of a tranquilizer in the dogs? Or was it too late because that stuff leaves the system? All those dogs, they were treated with tramadol, I found out. So they always had tramadol in their system. Okay. Yeah, I remember something to that effect, but I wasn't 100% sure. And so just like John Ian said, since they all were treated with that. So is it likely that Jill might have – because the day after she was released, after the first arrest –

Day after, I believe it was. She went to the vet, correct? It was the day after. In fact, Steve and I had to go late afternoon to go. I wanted to go. When we heard, we got a phone call about it and ran over there. And she had already euthanized Bentley, and she was just out of being released from jail and from county custody.

But I think what was, if you remember when we talked to the director, she had advised us of the veterinary clinic. She said she came in here and the first thing she said was she threw up her arms and said, I'm free. And then asked about Bentley. And it appeared with what she discussed with us, she knew Bentley was very, very bad. I don't know if that dog would have recovered, but that dog was still alive.

And she wanted him euthanized and signed the copy to do so. And that's something else that we collected at the time was the full report on Bentley because we knew that we wanted for that dog to have an autopsy done on him.

I think you just answered the next question, which was, was Izzy tested for drugs like tranquilizers? She. Well, as far as we know from talking with the people, with Wanda and with things that I read throughout this investigation, when it came to notes and emails and things that all three of her dogs, because they were rescue dogs, I believe she was giving them tramadol for pain because humans can take that too. That's a narcotic, analgesic, so.

To say, oh, did these dogs have a high level of tramadol in them? I'm not really sure how long they would have it in their system or if they were used to it either. But vets only treat dogs and animals by symptoms. They don't really go into detail like they do doctors.

As for humans, so it was, we got everything and handed it over to the veterinary specialist that went ahead and checked out Bentley for us. Next question, what happened to Bruce, the only survivor, which I can actually answer because Wanda, Wendy, and Jill's friend told us, quote,

Follow-up question to that. Did you take Bruce away from Wanda to keep him away from Jill? That was done. Yeah, sure. Yeah, we went over there to pick up – Wanda got Bruce first from – and we went over there and took Bruce into protective custody, as you can call it, that. And we knew the only place for him to stay to where we could make sure that he was going to either recover –

Or obviously if we needed to do anything more with him, but just to see how fast he could recover and check on him, but to make sure he's protected from Jill or anyone that would help Jill, friend-wise, that may not understand what we knew at the time about how these dogs were treated and abused.

Next question. Could all those post-it notes in the house that Jill put up have been for moving? Weren't they moving out soon? Steve, all those little post-it notes that this is for so-and-so, this is for... Yeah, and I want to make this very clear because we didn't have a chance to read exactly the notes. And I want to make this very clear to the audience because this will take away any doubt that...

In regards to what the defense attorney was saying about an accident. Okay. So I'm going to read you a couple notes here just so we're very clear on what was at the scene. So one of the notes on one of the trash bins was enter carefully. There is a garage door opener on the wall to the left of the side door mounted on the wall. Both parties have do not resuscitate orders necessary.

Can be found in binder inside. Two keys to a Lexus and the remote control for the driveway gate are inside. Jill Blackstone, brown hair. Wendy Blackstone, red hair. Gas in house and garage have been turned off valves. Let me just continue a little bit more. I don't want there to be any doubt here. Very detailed, yeah. Please do not call animal shelter for my dogs. Call one of the following to make arrangements for dog pickup and cremations.

Cal Pet Crematory, directly at, it's got a phone number, Dr. Tracy Reese, we know about Tracy. Lorena Dewey has a so-and-so number. Callers and tags go with Tracy Reese. Ashes to be returned to Dr. Tracy Reese. My estate will pay the bill for their cremations. They do not have Trupanion Pet Insurance, which covers cremation. If someone can submit the claim, and it has Bentley's tag, Bruce and Izzy,

And the last one is, I have a do not resuscitate and living will. Under no circumstance do I want to be resuscitated or kept on life support. My sister, Wendy Blackstone, shares the same wishes. Now, it goes on a little bit more, but I just want people to be clear what we're reading here. These are not just, this is what you're going to find. These are the instructions of what to do.

Okay, this is not like you'll find a big screen TV, please handle with care because we're moving. It's not anything like this. This is exactly what it is that we saw and found. And the little notes inside that said this goes to Wanda, this goes to June, whatever. Absolutely. It's very, very clear on what those notes meant. Past tense, things were, you know, going to know this when he was loved. There was...

You know, a small little sticky note that said that. And everything that was written to the person she wanted to handle everything was absolutely past tense. It was as if they were not going to be there. And, of course, it said about Wendy not going to be there either. Yeah. Yeah.

Next question, if Jill was going to kill herself but accidentally survived, wouldn't she have taken down those notes and the ones you just read, Steve? Wouldn't she have ripped that off the trash bin out front? And in other words, it would have looked more like an accident that way. That's correct. That's why this wasn't an accident. It's not even close to being an accident. This is, in my opinion, and again, we talked about this during the podcast. I think that Jill actually did try. And I think two reasons. One is...

I can't do this anymore. She was completely upset with her life, the way it was going, being the caregiver of Wendy. But I think in a way, she also wanted to kind of stick it to her parents, like saying, this is the result of you not helping out, which is not true, by the way. There was conditions that the parents would take back Wendy and Jill, but she didn't want to see it that way.

So that's why I think there's a little bit of both. That's why to me, it's it's possible that she just inhaled some fumes just to make it look like she attempted. I think, you know, fight or flight. I think she was in on it. And then when she saw what was going on at that point, she said, I'm out of here.

And she takes off. Again, that's – it could go 50-50, but I'm open to that opinion. Yeah, yeah. And as we discussed in the podcast, you do have differing opinions because, Janine, you think it is possible that maybe she was going to completely – that she was going to kill herself. I don't know that for a fact. I can only give you my opinion on it. No. I think she staged it. And the reasons why are – if she was –

going to do this with her sister and wanted to do this with her sister. And now you've got one sister who's now incapacitated, dying, basically. Why not stay? She's saying that she went out and somehow fell, but she had different scenarios and different statements to different people about exactly what happened. One was, oh, Wendy wanted some water.

Oh, I was going to go get the marshmallows. Oh, it was my lupus. I tripped and fell and she couldn't put herself or at least didn't want to put herself in places that she told other people. And I don't believe it because her sister died. Her dog was still alive. Why go and euthanize Bentley?

Wait. I mean, if you're so wanting to live and you now reached a conclusion of I'm here and Wendy's gone and oh my gosh, this is just terrible, but yet I don't know what happened, but please save my dog. I mean, she didn't even care about her dog, you know, and there were three. I think she just wanted to wipe the slate clean, honestly, and move forward. And then probably, unfortunately, have her parents to try and pick up the pieces and not know exactly what happened. That's why it was so important to

to look at everything and take everything. Those sticky notes, okay, she woke up. Where's she going to put them? She doesn't have too much time. She's called her friend, or maybe she did it ahead of time or what have you. If she had time to do that, she didn't. And for me, does she think that maybe that that was a good thing? I personally don't because all that showed me was that it was not an accident. It was never going to be an accident. And I believe the first time that we went and submitted the case,

with the head DA, DA Morris is his name, and Van Nuys. We showed him those notes because he said, well, how do we know this? Wendy didn't want to go with her sister. How do we know that you don't have something written out from Wendy somewhere? And we said, you're right, correct, we don't. But we do have this. And we showed what Jill wrote, and we showed what she said she wrote.

And at that point in time, Morris did agree and say, you're right, this isn't an accident. And that's where that was left at with Jill Blackstone. She literally said, this was just an accident. I couldn't do it. And in my mind, immediately was, no.

Yeah, you did do it. And it's not an accident because you don't accidents are unforeseen. They're not preplanned. So that was always my take on it. You had a great line. You don't premeditate. You don't premeditate an accident. And that's correct. And when you talked about do suspects talk most of the time, it's self-serving. Well, that's what Jill's Blackstone statement was completely self-serving.

Having said that, one thing is clear, and we've always agreed on this, and there's no disputing this. Wendy did not want to die. So she was murdered, no question, and premeditated, especially. She had this thing set up. So that is clear. Again, I'm just 50-50 on Jill herself, but the main person here that we're talking about is the one who lost her life, who didn't want to lose her life, and that was Wendy. And her three dogs. And the three dogs, yes.

Next question. Danny Davis, Jill's attorney, defense attorney, talked about Jill's pants or towel being on the front lawn, the white pants. The listener wants to know, doesn't that lend itself towards the theory that Jill really did pass out while she was getting marshmallows, or maybe that she did crawl inside the house after she called her friend? Well, if we would have found a pair of pants, I would maybe agree to that, but that entire house was searched.

searched hampers. I searched the outside. I know that there were not just me, but there were two other detectives there with me, Steve and Detective Timo Elig. And none of us found a pair of pants. So I don't know where her pants were. We never saw them. I'll put it to you that way. So I don't know where she would have put them. What was the white blob of clothing or towel that Danny Davis... Oh, that was a robe out front. That's just a robe. And we actually, that's in custody. That was something that we did

take as evidence. Could that lend itself towards a theory that Jill was crawling into the house, that she really had passed out, was crawling in, her robe came off and was found in the bedroom and that's why she was half-dressed when you guys found her? I still don't know. I can't even answer that question. I don't know why she was half undressed. I have no clue as to why that happened. That's how the paramedics found her and stated that. But that at the time for us, we did not know

Because the paramedics got there first. By the time that officers got there, patrol officers in uniform got there first, she was already on a gurney. She was covered up. Nobody knew anything about her being naked until we heard it after the fact of – or else it would have been asked, definitely. But we didn't know at the time because she was already taken to the hospital. Well, and I tried to get to the answer to that question too. And you saw what I – in, I think, episode five, you heard –

that when I asked Danny Davis, what about that fact that Jill was found half-dressed and he had that really odd comment? Oh, the rape of... That she was raped by Wolverine. How insulting. Very uncomfortable. First time I've been left that speechless because, first of all, who makes jokes like that? And secondly...

It just was so out of left field, and we've never been able to get that question answered. Such an unnecessary thing to even remark about. I don't even know how he got there with it. Yeah. No idea. This is probably my favorite question that I wish I would have asked you guys initially, but...

Were there marshmallows anywhere in the house? No. In the trash? No, not in the fridge. I know it seems like they're all nice and small. These murder investigations are not. It takes a long time, and you have to photograph everything. And when I heard...

One of the officers said that she said she was getting marshmallows. And then another officer had stated, well, no, she said she wanted to get a glass of water. And then there was a remark about I'm doing this to get back at my parents or make my parents recognize me in some way. Maybe this will bring attention to the fact that I needed money from my parents. Yeah, for that, that was very important for me to say, OK, well, all right, what's three things? Was there a glass of water anywhere? No. You know, was it?

Was there any marshmallows? No, there were no marshmallows. They weren't in the refrigerator. They weren't in the drawers. They weren't in the trash can. Not a bag. Nothing on a stick that they tried to grill. No, and remember, that's key because that's what she had told us. So, okay, let's confirm what she says. And so we went there specifically looking hard and didn't find it. Yeah. We're going to take a short break. And then when we come back, Gretchen Ford will join us. She's a very special guest. We're very lucky to have her. And we'll be right back.

All right. Well, welcome back. We are so lucky to have Gretchen Ford with us here. She's been working with the L.A. District Attorney's Office for over 30 years. She's brought 64 cases to verdict, tried approximately 60 other felony cases. I've worked with a lot of prosecutors. Gretchen has a stellar reputation. And she also has a very interesting second career that I just wanted to mention because I think this is so cool. You're also a street artist.

She has painted several huge, beautiful wall murals around Los Angeles and Compton, Watts, I think West LA. So thank you for bringing your vast breadth of experience to the table because you're a very caring and wonderful DA. Thank you for all of your service. And I want to start off, given that you have all this vast experience, how did this case start?

Or did this case stand out from all your other cases? It is one of the most interesting cases that I've had. And you had mentioned something about 64 cases. I've tried 64 murders to verdict. So this would have been number 65. I have not seen a family dynamic that went quite so badly as this. I think that there are common issues in this case that many people face as they get older with parents who are not well or siblings or even children. And it's the stresses of that.

really were significant in everyone's view of the case, but the way the defendant handled it was a complete deviation from what anyone would expect. So I think that that really struck me and really everyone who looked at the facts. Yeah. Here's the first question from one of our listeners.

Several people wish that Jill's sentence, Jill Blackstone's sentence, would have been longer. Why did you agree to a plea deal? I actually did not. I was not able to be involved with the case at that point. I had to take a leave of absence for personal reasons. And I actually stayed on the case and delayed other matters for quite a while. And we could not get it off the ground because of COVID and some biological testing that didn't amount to anything that the defense had requested.

So it left my hands, and it was, I think, decided at a pretty high level. It wasn't necessarily the DA who took the plea in court who decided it. I would have liked to see a longer sentence, but I do understand that consideration was taken of a statement made by the victim's family, her parents, and perhaps her sister, and also the defendant appeared to be in very poor health.

She had suffered from lupus for quite a while, and it seems that Parkinson's was also becoming an issue for her. She just got diagnosed with Parkinson's, right? And that seemed believable. Her appearance had changed a great deal. So I was not part of the negotiations, but those are factors, and they're significant. And her lack of a prior record in addition.

Next question. What do you think would have happened if this case had been taken to trial? Oh, there's no doubt she would have been convicted of first degree murder. It was a very, very strong case. I never would say that in advance of a case because I feel like it's unlucky. But since the case has been resolved, it was extremely strong. And I think a jury would have been very angry by the time they were done listening to her statement. Yeah. But would a jury maybe also have been a little empathetic?

for her caregiver fatigue, for all she had done. If she could have stuck with that one story, then yes. I think that if she had just stuck with a story that she just couldn't take it anymore and she thought that she had to do this for her sister. But unfortunately, she sort of tried out a whole bunch of scenarios in the interview and never chose one. She wanted her friends and other people to corroborate that she was under too much pressure, but she tried out other stuff too. And

And I think, too, though, even if she simply snapped because of the pressure, the jury would not like finding out the degree to which she exaggerated and fabricated the burden that her sister was imposing upon her. It really wasn't as she was saying to the detectives. The detectives had quite a lot of evidence right up front, right before even the first time they brought it to the DA's office.

But the follow-up that they could never have had some of this information until later would never have been available. But they learned, for example, that the defendant's statement that her sister was childlike and unrealistic, completely inaccurate. She was up to the minute on what things cost, how things worked, who was in office, all that sort of thing, which Jonine had to get all of these – I think it was actually 6,000 pages of emails between her and a correspondent back on the East Coast –

to really get the sense of that. So that's a nice piece of evidence that was added. In addition, though, part of the bigger picture is, is it okay for a caregiver to just snap and kill a relative? And the answer is no. It just isn't. I mean, sometimes you have to walk away. You could leave this woman alone in the house. Wendy was perfectly capable of being alone in the house. You could take your break. And she

She didn't do that. You can't just kill a healthy person who doesn't want to die because it's grown tiresome. That would happen every day if it were considered a good idea, and it isn't. I'm going to sneak this question in here since we have you here. And thanks again for showing up because we really appreciate having your wisdom on this. What would your best evidence have been, do you think? Oh, the statement does it all because in the statement we see that she intended – we see that she planned this.

She mentions that she went to the – I think it's in Osh. Now, it used to be Orchard Supply, but anyway –

She talks about going there shortly before to get charcoals and goes on and on about the charcoals, and that raises a lot of red flags right there. Her story about luring her sister into the garage for a party and putting her on blankets on the ground and all of that doesn't make any sense. At one point she admits shutting the doors with these two fires burning, and the nonsense that she talks about what she was doing with the ashes makes no sense. She admits to every aspect of a homicide and the motivation for it.

She just gives competing theories, which is confusing to everybody. These sort of DNR letters, et cetera, are a red herring, I guess. And I think that just hearing that interview, and I think a person might have to listen to it a few times and ideally have a transcript to sort of pinpoint aspects that you want to emphasize. Every element of murder is there, as well as a bunch of bogus defenses that cancel each other out. You could just about convict her on that. But it is very helpful that

that the detectives found evidence to contradict much of what she said in defense of her actions. Next question. If Jill's defense had been, I was going to commit a murder-suicide, but I accidentally survived, as opposed to what she said, which was basically, I never would have killed Wendy. I was just thinking about it.

Would Jill Blackstone have received a lighter sentence? Probably that defense would not have worked for her. I think it's a great question because that's the kind of thing we talked about all the time, the law of murder-suicide. And the thing about that is we don't even have to get into that because there was never any indication the victim wanted to commit suicide. You can't kill someone and say, I think that they wanted to commit suicide, although they never said it. And one of the things that Janine followed up on was she was asked by Mr. Nissen, who was one of the supervisors over this case –

to read all the 6,000 pages of emails to see if there were ever any suicidal ideations. But that was not, strictly speaking, necessary because at the end of the interview, the defendant conceded that her sister did not want to commit suicide. So we don't have to go down that road because you can't make up somebody else's suicidal intent.

So, no, it would not have worked. You could probably get a jury to believe that a woman who's going blinder and getting deafer is very unhappy, but we can easily refute that. She was a very happy woman anyway. What if Jill would have said this was a suicide pact and Wendy asked me to keep it private and not let anybody know and make it look like it was all my idea? Would that have been a different outcome at trial?

Are we saying we would have that statement but not the three-hour, 40-minute statement that we do have? Are we adding it to that or is it the only thing we have? That is a good question. I can't ask the listener. But let's assume that you didn't have the interview and Jill said to Johnny Jones and Steve Castor, our officers here, oh my gosh, this was supposed to be a suicide pact and Wendy begged me not to tell my parents that she wanted to be a part of it. Actually, it would be a little harder to prove, but I think we would prove the same thing because

We know that the defendant had been complaining about the expense and the exhaustion of caring for her sister. We know that there'd been, and now I know more about it, emails back and forth that were very angry about her not getting help. There are many people who could be asked about

what Wendy's real state of mind was. And Wendy was very, very happy. I mean, she'd adjusted to walking with a cane when it was necessary. She was optimistic. I think that a murder-suicide pact would not have really played all that well with her friends. But it does make it more difficult because such a thing could happen. And I think that's one of the difficulties with filing the case initially. Well, and even if she had come out, if Jill Blackstone had come out strong with that, oh, we were both going to kill ourselves and Wendy said, don't tell my parents.

You, Steve and Janine, you still would have interviewed her and done everything that you did. You wouldn't have just accepted that. Absolutely. Yes. But let me tell you, of course they would have. But if she declined to speak with him after making that statement that you got from a listener, they would have to look at the facts. Did she really try to kill herself? And the answer is no.

She was very anxious to talk about – this is an interesting contradiction for the defense. The defense wanted to argue that it's unclear what killed the victim who stayed in the garage, but that his client clearly had carbon monoxide poisoning. Those two facts don't go well together. His client got out of the garage, and hours later, he wanted to argue that she was still suffering from carbon monoxide, but yet he would not concede that carbon monoxide played any role in the death of the victim.

So just looking at the difference between their two physical states, you cannot argue that it looked like a genuine murder-suicide when the victim was made so unable to defend herself. She had her glasses and hearing aid taken away from her. She couldn't even navigate back to the house without the glasses, and she was in general unable to defend herself.

probably even appreciate what was happening to her with the carbon monoxide. And then you have the other, you have the defendant who shuts the door and leaves that area and gets into the fresh air probably very rapidly. That doesn't really fit with the murder-suicide cases in California. You have to basically be in the same level of peril and just by accident you survive. This brings up another question from me. And I'll ask all three of you. Who believes that Jill actually spent the night passed out on the lawn before she called Tracy Reese at

1130-ish. I have no reason to believe it. I have no reason to believe she had any lengthy exposure to carbon monoxide. What the firemen described, the firemen paramedics, were not symptoms of carbon monoxide poisoning. They were an attempt to appear like symptoms of it. Her speech, it was not as they would expect for someone who had that type of poisoning. I think she simply...

spend some time waiting for her sister to die. And keeping her dogs quiet. Janine, do you think she was outside all night long? I think she went in and out is what I think she was checking to see. And when she made sure that her sister was dead and

Her dogs were, one was dead for sure. I'm sure she saw that. And then the two that were probably just laying there still because they're barely breathing, she went back out and got herself some fresh air and called her friend. Steve, do you believe she was out there all night? You know, I always follow the evidence. And because there's no evidence really that supports that she was in, out, in, out, I say there's a chance that that could have happened. I don't know 100%.

But what I do know is that she exited that garage and left her sister in there. Next question. Danny Davis, defense attorney. When I interviewed him, Gretchen, I asked him what would he bring up in court and what would his best defense be? We have a little clip from Danny Davis, and this is what he would have wanted you to answer. They don't have any notion what time she died, what day she died.

And it's clear from the evidence of preliminary hearing they don't know the nature of the cause and can't say that any amount of carbon monoxide in her sister was even fatal. And right now, one of the key pieces of evidence to that would be Wendy's blood taken from her to determine the level of carbon monoxide in her sister. Which they did, correct? Well, you would think if they did and she died of that...

that it would be at a lethal level when it wasn't. She did not die of carbon monoxide poisoning? No. 22% is not fatal. That's walking and working. You can get in a car and think about flying an airplane. The blood, the crime scene, the specimens taken from poor Wendy's body after this happened. And I'm going to let them explain to the judge beforehand why that evidence is gone.

How would you have answered that in court? There's been a lot of discussion of this on the record at the preliminary hearing and at other hearings. The biggest thing is probably the cause of death, but starting with the first thing asserted by defense counsel, I believe he said that we could not prove the date on which the homicide occurred. We actually do know within perhaps a 12 to 14-hour window or maybe slightly longer because I think that the victim sent an email shortly before the supposed barbecue began in the evening maybe,

perhaps 4 or 5 in the afternoon, something like that. And the call was made by the defendant about the circumstances a little afternoon the next day. So I think very often our pleadings indicate a crime happened on or about a certain date. There's no legal requirement that we know the exact date. We often don't. So that's the first part of the question. The next part of the question seemed to be about the percentage of carbon monoxide in the victim's blood. I recall the numbers being not 22% but 20%.

And that is usually not a lethal level. That's true. And what I've had to say on the record many times, and the coroner's also testified to this, when you measure someone's

concentration of CO1, carbon monoxide, and it's from inhalation of barbecue briquettes. It's an indication of other particulate matter that's also being issued forth by the briquettes that is not measured. For various reasons, we have tests to measure a concentration of carbon monoxide, but not of soot and other materials that are part of the combustion of

of charcoal briquettes. And so I actually outlined something that the coroner had said because she said it in very technical language. But essentially you're inhaling a lot of garbage which will cause you to asphyxiate or no longer be able to get oxygen. And there's no way to measure that soot, et cetera. And so firemen, when they walk into a fire, say it's a commercial building and they're breathing in all kinds of smoke, it can be extremely dangerous. And they may never know what they inhaled because they can't be tested for it. So that was just a sign. It's just a sign that she inhaled

some smoke from the briquettes, but that alone, if it were only carbon monoxide, she probably would not have died from it at her age, being otherwise healthy.

There was also the accusation from Danny Davis that you didn't know the nature of the cause. We just talked about that, but also that she might have had a heart condition and you never checked to see if it was never checked to see if Wendy could have died from a heart attack. Oh, I love this question because there's a big legal answer at the end of it that's very unfavorable to the defendant. So I'll put that up front. There can be contributing causes of death. OK, first of all, I have no information. She had a heart condition. Her doctor said she was in perfect health besides the

and the hearing. And she also had, well, let's just stick with that. Her MD said she was always in good health and he would mistreating her. No indication of a heart condition whatsoever. And that was fully examined with the coroner. And in fact, we went deep into the coroner's department and dug up all kinds of

what defense counsel inexplicably referred to as buckets of biological evidence and no indication of any other situation. However, if for some reason she had a heart condition that was triggered by being asked to sit on the floor of the garage, there's no question though that a contributing cause of death would be carbon monoxide. All it has to do is play some role in making the death more likely. So we really needn't even

ask ourselves that question anymore, but it was thoroughly investigated. And if there was a heart condition, I know nothing of it.

And then there was the final accusation of Danny Davis saying the blood, the crime scene specimen from poor Wendy's body. Let them explain why that evidence is gone. It's not gone. We spent months litigating this. And in the end, it was a waste of taxpayer money because Mr. Davis got thousands and thousands of dollars to investigate this. We went to the coroner's department. We looked at tissue samples. And this, I'm sorry, I'm not, I haven't looked at my nose on this and it's been a couple of years. The

The tissue samples that he insisted be made into slides, et cetera, could never have yielded the type of evidence that he wanted. They were not going to yield evidence.

anything about any concentration in her blood. They were a completely different type of cell. And if you want more details on that, I'll get them. But it was his misunderstanding. And then he just dropped the whole thing. Everything was preserved in the absolutely textbook way it's supposed to be done by LAPD. Well, and also it brings to mind the fact that as she wasn't found within hours of her death, a lot of substances in a body will dissipate.

I don't know that that is true with carbon monoxide. I've asked the question, but I don't have the answer in mind right now. And from the research I've done is that the best solve for carbon monoxide poisoning is oxygen. So the minute you get oxygen in your system, your levels dissipate. But since she didn't get oxygen into her system before dying, I don't know that she would have metabolized anything.

This is the most difficult question of all. And we should point out that you weren't the first prosecutor who was approached. Janine and Steve took their case to one prosecutor. You were charged with doing more investigating. You did more investigating. You were charged again with finding even more investigating.

This may have proved frustrating. You guys are way too professional to ever probably talk about that. I mean, how frustrating was that? It's not. It goes with the territory of what, I mean, we're talking about murder.

So if they ask for something, you're going to get it if you can find it. And if it's something that you don't find, you better do a very good job saying that because that's what they expect us to do. And we understand that. I mean, Steve's been a homicide detective for over 20 years. You know, I just started my last like six, seven years or so. But didn't you think the evidence that you had the first time you went to the DA was plenty to charge her?

I thought it honestly it was, but I understand where they were coming from. I'm not going to name any attorneys, but just recently before that, there was a murder in which the alleged suspect was a wife of the husband, which was a tennis official. And things got tricky when they did an autopsy.

And so at that point, the district attorney said, hey, let's make sure we have all our ducks in order. So we need to get the exact cause of death as well as other things in

And so we completely understood that. And sometimes it takes a little while to get all the information. Sometimes it could be cell phone records. Sometimes it could be other technology, other forensics, whatever the case may be. So we were open to that idea. And I'm glad that we were and that John Ian went above and beyond to continue pursuing the evidence. And I also commend Gretchen because there was some

Other attorneys at the time that weren't too sold, but Gretchen saw right through it. And I can't say enough about the work she did. Which brings up the question, Gretchen, had you been the first prosecutor approached with this case, would you have filed charges? If you can answer that. I think I probably would have felt I could file charges based on the statement and the fact that it appeared to be carbon monoxide. But I do think it's very helpful to know the concentration and to have the coroner's

about it because I had not dealt with that issue many times and I wanted to make sure that there wasn't some other potential cause of death. And so I really did need to know more. And really what happened was very good for the case because the detectives found a whole lot more stuff that strengthened the case. And I do want to say, as far as how things went, it was assigned to two fairly somewhat junior trial attorneys who were very hardworking. They

The division they were in at the time was so incredibly busy that I would see them nights and weekends working, and I don't know that they could ever make the time to really listen to the tape in enough detail. And I actually had to listen to it on a drive on a vacation. We just don't have time in that division to always listen to a tape that long and fully analyze it. Thousands of bits of evidence. Yeah, evidence. So there you have it. Yeah.

Speaking of evidence, the parents of Jill and Wendy Blackstone didn't talk to you, Janine and Steve, very much. When I went there to Bayonne to locate Jill Blackstone. So they didn't reveal what we revealed in Episode 6, which came from the FBI forensics search, which were these very intense and dramatic emails that flew back and forth between the family. And you became aware of them and submitted them.

Gretchen, how important were those, the dynamic that was really going on between the family? If the DA's office had seen those emails that flew back and forth from day one, if the parents would have admitted, hey, there was some big drama going on because the parents kept that all secret. If all of you had known that, would this case have moved more quickly, turned out differently? I would say not, only because you're dealing with a family. And when

When it comes to a family, things get said all the time and sometimes can get volatile just in words alone. So those are hard things to prove to a jury that somebody meant something they said or didn't mean it at the time because there's so many other emotions going on when it comes to a family tragedy like this. So the family drama would have been interesting to know about but wouldn't have been pivotal. Well, yeah.

For me, I personally, when I started reading it, I wanted to know as much as I possibly could because this was a time for me that I don't get to really know my victims that well usually. I have to go through family. So to have this type of evidence to read, especially with Wendy Blackstone, just to see how smart she was and how –

what her relationship was with her family versus Jill's. I think that helped when it came to explaining, yeah, when he didn't want to die. So with that, I don't see it that way, but counsel might. No, I have to agree. It doesn't change anything.

I assume there was some fighting. I did not believe a lot of the negative things that the defendant said about her family. And I do want to actually make a point about that because I didn't reach out to the family. And I think that Jonine and I discussed it and she might have advised or I just concluded that it wasn't a good idea to do that. If I had reached out to them, I would have to confront them with negative things that Jill had said that I believed were probably not accurate but sort of trying to build a narrative. And I didn't feel comfortable doing that. I don't know if they have now –

listen to the entire transcript, but she makes allegations about them that seem to me possibly exaggerated. And actually, the emails confirm that the parents are very concerned. I found in the picture they were a very good, respectable, caring family, and that Jill exaggerated their stinginess towards her. And I just didn't want to bring that forward. And I couldn't see them helping with the case. I wouldn't expect them to help me prosecute their other daughter. After the preliminary hearing, Judge Joseph Brandolino...

had a great comment, and it kind of felt like he summed up the case. We're going to take a listen to that, and then I want to ask you guys if that was an indicator of what might have happened had there been a trial.

As she placed signs and notes around the home to think about murder-suicide, did not go through with the plan, but later had a fun barbecue with her sister. In the court's view, that version of events strains credulity. I think a reasonable inference can be drawn that the defendant planned what was to be a murder-suicide, with the suicide going awry, but the murder being successful.

And that was an actor, by the way, reading what the judge said. All right. So she was going to kill an unwilling victim who did not wish to die. That's murder. And she might have contemplated suicide for herself. We don't know. I think we don't know. I think the detectives and I have discussed at great length how much Jill wanted to live, what her plans were for her future.

I don't think we can know if she really – These are just our opinions, not fact. Yeah, yeah. And as we mentioned in the podcast, she's the only one who knows the truth of what happened at that last minute. There was a moment when both sisters were in the garage alive and then Jill left. And what happened in that moment? Was Jill seriously going in to get something and to come back or was she – did she change her mind? I do have to say the fact that she lied so much about what happened during the barbecue –

As far as I know, most of what she said was a lie. There was no indication of hamburgers having been purchased or eaten. Well, purchased, but I took photographs of what I found in the trash of the paper plates. And normally when you eat a hamburger, you put something on it. You put mustard, mayonnaise, pickles, whatever, cheese. But I just noticed that all the paper plates, and I thought it was, like I said, again, something additional to look at. They just had the actual...

the blood stains around them from the hamburgers. I found one plate that had like a little speck of ketchup or something on it. Maybe the steak sauce that was found, the bottle, empty bottle in the, yeah. But I just thought, where's all the, where's everything that gets thrown away when you're making a good hamburger? And she said that how Wendy loved hamburgers, things like that to me, I like, you know, and I,

In her stomach, there was, again, like we said, we talked about a timeframe of when she died versus when she was alive. But we did have that one text that she sent to her friend about lighting the barbecue and getting ready to start. And again, this is not something that's really admissible, but I found in the autopsy with Dr. Kennedy, her stomach component, she had just some brown fluid in her stomach.

And that was it. And I'm not stating that she can't, she doesn't metabolize fast.

Because we can't, we don't know. Like I said, everybody metabolizes differently, but there was just nothing in there. And I, and maybe Steve can also agree with this. Usually with autopsies, when you know somebody's eating, you just find something. There's usually something in there. And I was just so taken aback by that. But again, it's not admissible. It's just something that I knew of. And I thought, wow, I've seen, I've done this before. I've been in

before I was a police officer. So I was really shocked by that. Like, wow, not even a crumb. But it's nothing, like I said, it's, again, nothing that can be used for evidence. But to me, it was just...

I don't think that marshmallows she spoke of were ever found. Yeah, we were discussing that before you came in. Something else, though, too, is all the lies or the ridiculous statements that she made about the ashes and not knowing anything about charcoal when she had twice in recent times been told that you cannot burn it indoors. That does not seem to me that the plan of someone who's suicidal. If you're suicidal, I assume you just want to end your life.

But she had all kinds of... I think that's a good way to look at it. And also, let's not forget the email from Wendy about the trial run of the cookie. I mean, that's important. The black and white cookie. Absolutely. I mean, there was an attempt here just to see probably how this works. And obviously, Jill wasn't going to participate in that. So you have to consider all these things. This thought that Jill had about...

ending Wendy's life goes back a little bit. And you can't forget that because that's an important part. Yeah, that was very, a surprise to read, Jenny. And you pointed that out to me, like both of you said, did you read the black and white cookie email? Well, when you have a friend of the family, I looked that up real quick and that was shocking. Is that they want you to have that email. That's, you know. Speaking of friend of the family, I think about the fact that Tracy Reese would give tramadol to Wendy.

Jill in substantial amounts so that Jill could use it to sedate her dogs, for example, if people were coming to do work on the house. And you had said the plates were pretty much clean, no crumbs from a bun or anything like that. Not in the garbage, not on the plates, nowhere. Well, a person wonders if maybe somebody got slipped a Mickey in a hamburger, someone of a canine nature. I don't know, but the evidence makes that a possibility to be somewhat sedated. Yeah, yeah.

Last few questions here. When will Jill get out of prison? How much time will she actually have served? I can't log into the computer that lets me answer that right now. Okay, so we don't know the answer to that. I have to do my work a little better and find out. Unless you have a guess? I did look that up, and I want to say she may be getting out in 2025 or 2026.

I think she received a seven-year sentence with some time served. So I would have to look it up. I still have the ability to do that. All right. I'll come back to you for that one, and I'll check back with you. There was an interesting comment that I wanted you all to react to that I thought was from a little bit flippant perhaps. But this listener said, if only Jill Blackstone had put the treadmill in the garage instead of Wendy and the dogs.

Which speaks to invasion of privacy and alone time. And I'm asking you not in your professions now, but from a personal perspective, you know, is that how much of a role did that caretaker, caregiving fatigue, lack of privacy, how much of a role did that play in all of this?

She discussed it a lot and she brought up a lot of things that she was irritated with. But then on the other hand, she also would say how much Wendy was loved and how much she cared for her. So in regards to us doing an interview with her, she knew who we were.

She knew who she was talking to. She knew her audience when it came to us. So I don't – I'm going to say that she was definitely irritated about the situation with the treadmill because she stated it and remarked about some things that she could not do privately with –

Wendy being in there on the treadmill and barging in. But again, I don't really factor that into what actually happened or what she was wanting to happen. I share that as well as I thought it was pretty telling that

She kept saying in the end, you know, this was just a horrible accident. It was a horrible accident. And she did say during the interview expressed, you know, that she can't do anything. She even had told Wendy, how do you vision our life going forward? And she said this, and she wasn't happy with that answer, but I think it was very telling at the end when it was asked of her, you know, if you could say something to Wendy, what would it be? And I remember she talks about this being an accident and,

Why not, Wendy? I am so sorry. This was a horrific accident. I should have done a better job of looking. I should have done. There was none of that. It was zero. I'm sorry. Yeah.

Speaking of which, final question here, and I'll start off by offering my thoughts. What is the saddest thing about this case? And I think of everything that I went through and read and of everybody that I talked to, it was the fact of Jill saying in the interview to you guys that she and Wendy never said I love you to each other, which I found astonishing because these are sisters who've lived together for decades. They clearly loved each other.

And maybe that is one of the core aspects of this is that communication was a problem. Jill couldn't communicate effectively that she wanted to be alone. So what do you all think is the saddest thing about this case? Obviously that Wendy lost her life, but... To me, the saddest thing about it is that the real Wendy, who I think comes through in the emails and through her friends' descriptions, is not the person who's described in the interview at all.

And she actually was probably not a difficult roommate. I understand that caretaker fatigue is a very significant problem and it was probably a strain in this case. But Wendy was actually much more independent and helpful and she was her sister's biggest cheerleader. And her sister seemed to – the defendant seemed to need a cheerleader. This fictional Wendy is not a fair portrayal of the victim. And to me what's sad is I feel like if we could ask Wendy now, what do you want to have happen to your sister? She would –

probably forgive her because she loved her sister so much. And that really hurts to think about. Well said. Any thoughts of you guys? What's the saddest part? Well, I think she, Gretchen absolutely stated exactly what we saw at the very beginning. And when you walk in and there's one thing, obviously as detectives and that we see with human beings, but when you see, I'm sure Denny Davis is going to like this a lot because, you know, I'm going to talk about the dogs, but I have never,

See, I've never had a case like that where I walked in and saw someone dead. I've seen a lot of human beings that have been killed and murdered and dead.

But I've never seen an animal dead next to them. And then, thank God, I think I didn't see these poor animals suffering when they opened up the door and that air hit them. The one Bentley started to convulse. For me, I can't even imagine the family's devastation for this. And it's a tragedy. And it's not a... That's why this case is important. It's not a big win for detectives or for the county or anything. This is...

This is just a tragedy that should have never happened. Wendy didn't have any options for that. She had nothing.

She's innocent, and those dogs were very innocent. And it's hard for me to believe that Jill Blackstone just didn't intentionally want everything to go away and start anew. That is, to me, what I think is so very sad. I don't know how anyone would be able to turn the corner on that after doing something like that. Steve, your thoughts about the saddest? The saddest part to me is that

The way Jill painted it, and then obviously it wasn't true, is that there were options. Family was willing to take Wendy and Jill, just not the dogs. That's an option. Jill chose to think that, no, Wendy would not go back to New Jersey. She preferred to die. That's what her words. Right, which was like a flip comment that she made. It sure was. And there were definitely options. Figure of speech. Family was willing.

that she decided this was the best option. Thank you so much for being here and most of all for A, for your service and B, for being the voice for Wendy Blackstone.