Return to Transcripts main page

Crime and Justice With Ashleigh Banfield

Teen And New Bride Hire Hitman To Kill Dad; Married Politician Has Sex Affair With Teen Girl. Aired 6-8p ET

Aired July 25, 2018 - 18:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[18:00:00] UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Thank you. OK. That is it for us. "Crime and Justice with Ashleigh Banfield" is up right now.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Search warrants full of new evidence in the complex murder case of Ted Shaughnessy. Ted`s son Nicholas told an investigator he

owed his mother $30,000 and the two had gotten into an argument about it the same week his dad was shot to death.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Everyone grieves differently. It didn`t seem to faze him.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Republican town committee member, John Landry with a wife and two kids at home was leading a double life.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This morning Mr. Landry appeared in front of Judge Alexander.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Charges stem from an alleged relationship with a girl he met online when she was 12 years old.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Landry does, he strenuously disputes these charges.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Flashing lights outside. Inside, a bloody steak knife on the kitchen table. Jacqueline Souza called 911 to say her fiance

was bleeding in their kitchen. She thought her groom to be was having an affair.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That part is where it gets into something that I am not used to seeing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Road rage. Taken to the extreme. Brooklyn residents are shocked after a traffic dispute spirals out of control. And police are

still looking for the suspect.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JOEY JACKSON, CNN PRIMETIME JUSTICE GUEST SHOW HOST: A pleasant good evening, everyone. I`m Joey Jackson, in for Ashleigh Banfield, and this is

"Crime and Justice." So, tonight in Texas, investigators are sharing scorching new details about the 19-year-old son of a Jeweler. You see him

there. Now they say that he hired someone to murder his dad. All this with the help of his new bride. That is Theodore Shaughnessy who was

riddled with bullets. You know, those bullets were right in the middle of the night by an apparent home intruder. And his son Nicholas was charged

with solicitation to commit capital murder.

Now, police are saying that he could have made millions if his parents ended up dead. Now we`re learning why Nicholas may have needed the money.

Because police say that he and his new wife had almost nothing in their bank account, even though he allegedly took a $30,000 loan from his parents

who were notorious for loving their son. Listen to this.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SHARON LINSALATA, FRIEND OF THE SHAUGHNESSY FAMILY: They were a wonderful family. Absolutely wonderful. Ted and his wife used to come in when their

son was real little. He would get into the racing with his son. Ted was pretty proud of Nick. He was pretty proud.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Joining me now, Tony Plohetski, he is an investigative reporter with the Austin American Statesman, Jarrod Smith, Brad Vinson, they are the

attorneys Johnny Leon, who is also charge in the murder for hire plot. And defense attorney, I call him triple B, that is Bad Bob Bianchi. Bad is in

good. All right. So, let us talk this over, let me just go to you, sir Plohetski, if you could just take us through, brief us on what is going on,

what do we know?

TONY PLOHETSKI, INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER, AUSTIN AMERICAN STATESMAN: Well, this all happened in the early morning hours of March 2nd in the

Shaughnessy home which is in south western Travis County. Authorities believe that intruders entered the Shaughnessy home, that Ted Shaughnessy

was shot. Cory Shaughnessy, his wife, was shot at multiple times, she was not struck and did survive. And then it took about three months before

investigators formally brought charges against the Shaughnessy son, Nick Shaughnessy and his wife Jacqueline Edison.

And this is really the case that has captivated the community here in Austin over the past several months. And again, these new facts coming out

today, these new allegations, coming out from a search warrant affidavit that does reveal more information about a possible motive that Nick

Shaughnessy may have had. Really widening the lens in this case.

JACKSON: Yes, you know, we were discussing that motive, Tony, regarding the money and the fact that they didn`t have any in the account. Before we

get into that. I`m going to go to the attorney shortly, but brief us on the issue of the intrusion. Is in fact, is there evidence that there was

an intrusion? That would be question number one. And then number two, I want to follow it up with, you said, there was a bit of a delay between the

time it occurred and then months later, there was the arrest. What was that all about?

PLOHETSKI: Yes, two things. In terms of how this home was entered, it was entered from a bedroom window, according to what law enforcement officials

have said, but there were no other signs of a forced -- of force being used to enter this home. There were also very curiously, no other items of real

value missing from the home at the time. In terms of why it took investigators several months before filing charges against Nick

Shaughnessy, this has been described to me as a very expansive investigation that has relied upon cell phone technology, as well as other

technology, as well as interviewing multiple witnesses, multiple people, according to court records, that Nick Shaughnessy approached in the weeks

before his father was killed. According to court records, soliciting them to carry out these murders.

[18:05:22] JACKSON: Well, that is a good segue, Tony Plohetski. Because I want to now go to the attorneys, Jarrod Smith, Brad Vinson. Let me start

with you, Jarrod, with regard to evidence, what, if any, evidence is there out there that exists as to your client?

JARROD SMITH, ATTORNEY FOR JOHNNY LEON: (Inaudible) Johnny looks forward to his day in court. There are some things I can answer it in an

appropriate time, but we do believe when the appropriate time comes, we`ll be able to tell our story.

JACKSON: Well, let me ask -- I`m sorry, go ahead.

SMITH: As far as evidence, I think Nick is the focus of this investigation. He is at the center of everything. I mean, everything

revolves around him. You got multiple C.I`s here, you have a source, and you got all this GPS evidence, the window that you were taking about a

minute ago, is Nick`s window that was used to enter the house. You know, that`s -- you know, I think the focus of the investigation here is Nick.

You know, we`re doing our own investigation. And as far as any evidence regarding our client, we`re not seeing anything right now that proves

anything other than his innocence.

JACKSON: Now that may be the focus of the investigation, but the viewers should know that your client is charged, right. So if your client is

charged, obviously he is a focus as well. So now the issue becomes, as it relates to your client, why do you say, if you do, that your client wasn`t

involved in this case?

SMITH: There`s not going to be any evidence to put our client at the scene. And we do believe he will be exonerated when the facts come out.

Right now, my partner Brad said, we`re doing our own investigation. Johnny has a team of lawyers working with him, it is not just me and Brad. It`s

also former court of criminal appeals Judge Charlie Baird, who is a defense attorney now, well respected in the Austin area, who is on this case. We

have multiple investigators, we have other experts. And whenever we`re able to tell our story. Remember, Johnny was just arrested just a couple

weeks ago. These search warrants that you mentioned earlier just got unsealed in the last day or so. So, once more evidence comes about, we`ll

be able to talk to you guys more, but we do believe that our client will be exonerated at the end of the day.

JACKSON: So, Jarrod, you mentioned, when you get an opportunity to tell your story. Let me give you that opportunity, what is your story and why

and why is your client, or why should your client be exonerated as you continue to mention?

SMITH: Because he didn`t do it. There`s not going to be any evidence to point to him that he did do it. There has been some allegations in the

probable cause affidavit that says he had a relationship with Nick. I wouldn`t cast that as a relationship. I would say that he knew Nick, just

like I know tons of other people, it`s not illegal to know somebody, but I don`t believe that there is going to be evidence to put our client at the

scene that night. Also --

JACKSON: Sure, go ahead.

SMITH: (Inaudible) -- the focus here, just like my law partner Brad Vison said, needs to be on Nick. This person is clearly maniacal. I am not a

doctor, but he could be a sociopath. He is going out almost asking any single person he meets at clubs, at apartments, everyone else, to go kill

his parents. There`s a ton of evidence against Nick. I don`t know if he was able to find someone or not. I don`t know if Nick was one of the

shooters or not. Those are the things that will be for us to find out later on as the case progresses.

JACKSON: Now, I know you, Jarrod, and you Brad, want to point to Nick, obviously, right, because he is a person who could be the ringleader here,

but again, I want to remind you, you`re here because your client is charged. I want to explore briefly the nature of the relationship. You

mentioned it`s not illegal to know someone, it is certainly it is not, but what was the relationship? Were they friends? If so, for how long? Did

they go to school together? Did they hang out after school together? How long did they know each other and what was the nature of that relationship?

SMITH: They lived in the same community. I think they knew each other from being out and about places there, restaurants, clubs, and things like

that. I don`t think it was a friendship or anything like that. I think that based on what we`ve discovered so far and what we`ve read, it was just

an acquaintance-type situation. So that is what we`re seeing right now, as far as the relationship between the two of them.

Also, our client right now, he has not been charged with murder or capital murder. He is charged with solicitation, the same charge that Nick is

charged with.

JACKSON: Absolutely, but that carries a significant sentence, does it not?

SMITH: It`s a first-degree felony in Texas, absolutely.

JACKSON: OK. And at the end of the day, there`s been no one charged with the actual murder at this point, is that right?

SMITH: That is correct.

JACKSON: OK. Stand by momentarily. I want to get triple B ahead that is Bad Bob Bianchi. Now Bob, before I go to you, I want to cue up a sound

bite for you. All right, I want you to listen to the soundbite and I want you to react to it and tell me what you think.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

CALEB MILLER, NEIGHBOR OF SUSPECT: He basically told me his father was murdered, so I felt, terribly awful for him as a normal person would.

[18:10:04] Something I found a little odd is that he sent me the police report in Austin, like what happened. Everyone grieves differently, but it

didn`t seem it phase him. The overall absurdity of the situation is just bizarre.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: So Bob, people often talk about how people grieve. And just talk about that from an evidently perspective. I mean, people do grieve

differently when they see or learn that someone else has died. Is that right, so what does that mean to you?

BOB BIANCHI, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You`re right, Joey. And it really depends a lot on the kind of grieving and whether or not it makes sense to the

police. And we used to try do expend ourselves, go backwards and say, while this story sounds really squirrelly, it doesn`t sound right, but

maybe they`re grieving, maybe they`re not just getting it right, but sometimes you just have the instinct that says somethings not right here.

Like, for example, a ripped-up note that has a diagram of a crime scene, you know, on it, potentially and C.I.`s that are coming forward and

indicating information that only that people who are perpetrating the crime could know and the police later backing that up with objective evidence

that shows a C.I. was being accurate. That is what they are trying to do.

JACKSON: C.I.`s and confidential informant, and those are people who may have inside information, that work with the police. When you say, we sued

to do something, you were a former prosecutor, correct?

BIANCHI: Sure.

JACKSON: The prosecutor?

BIANCHI: That is right. And with a C.I., you have a confidential informant, you have to be very careful, they have motivations a lot of time

to lie, they can find out information through the press, but I have pretty good confidence here, that they would not have gotten an arrest affidavit,

probable cause affidavit and gone forward on third-parties that they believed were tangentially involved if they didn`t believe they were in

fact involve, but again as a lawyer say, we have a way for that evidence to be proven in a court of law.

JACKSON: Always do. Tony Plohetski, you are still here?

PLOHETSKI: I am.

JACKSON: Tony, if I can ask you, what`s the most compelling piece of evidence that they have now, if we know, as it relates to Nick and as it

relates to Mr. Leon?

PLOHETSKI: Well, law enforcement has really, according to what they`ve told us, they`ve assembled a trove of information, if you will. We`re

talking about text messages that were exchanged between he and people he, according to law enforcement, was soliciting to carry out this murder.

JACKSON: Are you talking about Nick, Tony? I am sorry you are talking about he, as in Nick, he as in Johnny Leon?

PLOHETSKI: I`m talking about he as the Nick.

JACKSON: OK.

PLOHETSKI: As well as information with regard to him accessing the security system at his parent`s house, disabling it for a period of time

around the time in the immediate aftermath of the murder. So authorities really have described a trove of information against Nick Shaughnessy in

this case.

JACKSON: And quickly, Bob Bianchi, based upon, we know his mother`s standing by him. Does that mean anything to you in this case?

BIANCHI: No it doesn`t. It`s not unexpected that family members are going to support, even if somebody`s done a horrible thing. That happens all the

time, Joey.

JACKSON: Absolutely and going back to the lawyers, if I can, for Johnny Leon, last word, why do you think your client, Brad, will be vindicated at

the end of the day here?

BRAD VINSON, ATTORNEY FOR JOHNNY LEON: He didn`t do it. He is innocent. He is not involve, you know, I think that there`s a whole lot of other

people here that need to be looked at. As we discussed, there`s multiple confidential informants. What are their motivations? Why are they, you

know, coming forward with this stories, what are they worried about? Those were the things, I think our guy is not the guy.

JACKSON: And Jarrod, what are expecting back in court? What are your next steps here? Are there any pending motions?

SMITH: Yes. We`ve been in the process of filing a number of discovery motions. There`s going to be a court date on Monday, but there`s a good

chance that it will get reset, because the case (inaudible), but we look to be in court very soon.

JACKSON: We appreciate both of you taking the opportunity to state things about your client and to exonerate them very much. So, we will see you

soon. Bob Bianchi, stays with me. Tony Plohetski, I appreciate you as well.

A former town council member in Connecticut, a steward of the community. Well, he is accused of meeting a girl online, ten years ago, when she was

only 12 years old. That is next.

[18:15:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JACKSON: So, John Landry spent three terms on the City council and for 17 years married to his wife. Police say that he also spent four years

talking to an under-age girl online, it started when the victim was just 12 years old. And she thought she was talking to another teen, but

prosecutors say it was John Landry behind the keyboard all along. And it was also John Landry who met her in person the very moment that she became

legal.

He reportedly had her sign a sex contract, you heard me right, and agreed to be friends with benefit. But after the duo had a disagreement, the

victim started getting text from mysterious woman pressuring her to have sex with Landry, and police think it might have been Landry the whole time,

doing all of this, harassing her, even as he raised his two daughters.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[18:20:00] OLIVIA GERMANO, LOCAL RESIDENT: That is the worst part of it, is that his children have to suffer for whatever his decisions were. And

his wife. Because apparently from what we know, she really did not know any details. And I feel for her.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Indeed. Now joining me now, John DePetro, a New England radio talk show host, Bobby Chacon, a retired FBI special -- very special agent

and of course defense attorney, triple B, Bad Bob Bianchi all of here.

So, let us talk about this. John DePetro, set this up, what is going on, this is the bizarrest of bizarre stories. He is a City councilman, I

understand he resigned from his position on the City council, rightfully so, he is posing as a woman, he is posing as a man, he meets her when she

is 12 online and then meets her in person at 16. Make sense of this for us, please.

JOHN DEPETRO, NEW ENGLAND RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: You know Joey, there is no way to make sense of it. First of all, he was considered a rising star,

married, nice family, very outgoing, gregarious, and it did raise eyebrows when he suddenly resigned, seemingly out of nowhere, but this, the more you

learn about it, there were different rumors, that there was something obviously else going on.

I first heard a rumor months ago that there was something involve an affair with a young girl, but Joey, this is a different form of predator. And

what is so frightening here, is that the laws have not caught up with this type of crime. This is someone -- this goes beyond just a stranger meeting

someone online. I mean, for four years he stalked out this young girl. He was 32. She was 12. Four years. And then after that, it wasn`t even

enough. Another level of being a predator is then pretending to be a female, a third person, this Jessica Monroe, befriending this poor young

girl, pretending to be a friend of John Landry at the same time, taking advantage of her, getting information from her, and then basically, if

we`re to believe this entire plot, which again the police have done a fantastic job on this, then using this as blackmail to horrify this girl,

terrify this girl.

You know, as much as we can talk about the dangers of meeting strangers online, Joey, this is another level. This is another level of predator,

where you then absolutely terrify someone. And I`m going to share your secrets with your family, and I`m going to tell your school. I feel so

terrible for this young girl, but what is so tragic, is we`re talking about misdemeanors at this point. The crime far outweighs what John Landry has

been charged with.

JACKSON: Absolutely. And you know, you cued this up very nicely, John DePetro. Because I want to turn to you triple B. Before we get to Bobby

on the investigation, so, let me just ask you, on the issue of the misdemeanor charges, why misdemeanor charges, why at the state level, and

as you and I were talking about, the federal charges could be draconian?

BIANCHI: Joey, I am glad you asked me this question. Here`s a public service announcement for everybody out there. This was a preliminary

investigation in my opinion. If they get the electronic data evidence together and they showed under the federal law that there was a use of a

facility, that could be a cell phone, that could be a computer, whatever, any electronic data device, where they induce, entice, coerce anyone under

the age of 18, OK, you can be to engage in sex, you can be charged with a sentence that carries life in prison. And so to your guest`s point, the

reason that is important, you don`t have to have the sex.

JACKSON: The inducement.

BIANCHI: Just the idea that you`re inducing online because they look at those people as predators, more dangerous than people and no one -- if

those facts turn out to be correct.

JACKSON: Always a (inaudible) to be, correct. Now before getting to Bobby. Let me stick with you for one moment. You`re a former federal

prosecutor. Why are these just misdemeanors, why not at the federal level, to this point? This guy, let us just make it to be clear, he is a former

city council person. He began this activity of inducing her when she was 12, met with her, yes, had sex with her when she was 16, which is on a

legal age in this particular jurisdiction, but where are the feds on this?

BIANCHI: Right. I was a state prosecutor, but I worked with the feds on many cases like this. And joint investigations. Typically they`re handled

as state charges, but if the federal law has the better ability to be able to prove a case. For example, when she is 16, if that is the age of

consent in the state, the state prosecutors may be toothless, but the federal prosecutors have those statutes that are different, because a minor

is considered under the age of 18. So, what they are going to do, the state prosecutors will get together with the federal prosecutors, if they

believe that this guy was inducing her, was manipulating, cultivating, predatorily, they are going to probably want to bring it at federal charges

and bigger state charges.

JACKSON: Yes, I`m just surprised, Bob on that point, because this is a politician, right? Talk about leading by example, you talk about someone

who`s known and a pillar in the community that they were not more involved. And John DePetro in setting this up, talking about misdemeanor charges now,

you and I know misdemeanors carry a year or less in jail. And it just doesn`t seem to square with the significance in this particular case.

[18:25:06] BIANCHI: Mark my words, Joey, something more is coming down the pipe.

JACKSON: You think so? Yes. Bobby, on that point, of something coming down the pipe, talk to us about the investigation, talks to us about the

emails, about the texts, about the involvement of the authorities, what they do, how they do it, the piecing together of the case.

BOBBY CHACON, FORMER FBI: Well, that is exactly right. I mean, it`s going to have to be one of those types of cases, because in this case, John was

right. The state laws just haven`t caught up with this type of behavior. And you have, in a way, because he started grooming this victim very early,

when she was 12 years old. And Bob was right in some of his terms there. He was -- this is pedophilic grooming behavior, for a 32 year-old man to be

grooming a 12 year old girl, with the intention of as soon she turns legal, he is going to have sex with her. I think that the victim in this case, is

not, you know, she may not even see herself as a victim.

And you see some of her statements that she made to police, you know, as if it was consensual. Well, consensual takes on a different meaning when a

32-year-old man is enticing a 12-year-old girl and he spends years grooming her like that. I`m not so sure that the definition of consensual shouldn`t

be looked at in this type of case.

JACKSON: Yes.

CHACON: I mean, this can`t really be considered consensual if he started at 12 years old grooming her to have sex with her. This is pedophilic

behavior. Now, we will get all of the electronic data, we will match up everything, but it comes down to the case where, will the victim, will the

prosecutor be able to put a victim on the stand that looks like she is been victimized? I mean, most people should see it. This should not be looked

at as a consensual relationship in any way.

JACKSON: I`m with you on that, Bobby, to be clear. And we have this issue of grooming, right, when they`re young and impressionable, and she is at 12

years old. Just, you know, not cool at all. We do have a statement, however, from the former Republican City councilman`s attorney, and I just

want to read you what the statement says with regard to him and his client and him believing that his client is innocent in this particular case. And

it reads, Mr. Landry maintains that he has not engaged in any criminal activity. He looks forward to his day in court when he will leave an

opportunity -- excuse me when he will have an opportunity to confront the evidence and witnesses in this matter. We wish to correct the perception

that John engaged in any form of communication with the complainant while she was a minor. John also denies that he ever posed as Jessica Monroe.

And that, of course, as we started the story at the outset, talking about whether he posed as an actual woman who would say, hey, have sex with him.

So John DePetro, back to you, what`s next in this particular case, moving forward?

DEPETRO: Well, Joey, everyone`s trying to absorb on just how shocking this is and the level of it. And another point I want to point out, is juts the

element of pressure on a minor, this element of having her -- it seems like so bizarre and twisted, but you know, predatory behavior, talk about

pressure, trying to convince her that she had to fulfill this sexual contract.

JACKSON: That is nuts.

DEPETRO: That had all these different provisions and the other Party wasn`t notified, it was nullified and continuing to remind her of that,

this is a high level, sophisticated level of being a predator. And using personal information under a third-Party guise to go after this young girl.

Right now, she is 22 years old. He is 42 years old. Seem to be some problems on the home front. There`s a moving truck out. One of my

listeners told me, out in front of the house. So seemingly, that the wife and the children have had enough of this. He can claim all he wants it was

all consensual, but I think Joey, when everything comes out this, was just overbearing. This girl, you know, that is exactly right, I don`t know if

she realizes exactly, how much she was victimized, pressured, blackmailed, extortion, to the highest degree, someone who was put in the public trust.

It`s a horrendous bizarre story and again, another example of why we have to be so careful with who we meet online.

JACKSON: No doubt about that. You have to be very careful about that. John DePetro, we appreciate you. Real quick, Triple B, do you think this

ends in federal charges, yes, no, why?

BIANCHI: I think that when they get all this electronic data, like Bobby`s agency used to do, given the position that he has --

CHACON: It`s over.

BIANCHI: -- if the state charges are anemic, that is you don`t have a lot of teeth.

JACKSON: And they are now, because of the misdemeanor.

BIANCHI: And as your guest -- John is saying, that they don`t have the state laws that had caught up, you can see this go federal because he is

too high public profile person not to.

JACKSON: That is to (inaudible) people from doing it. That is the bottom- line and this demeanor is just don`t do that. I am sorry they don`t. All right, thank you all. Appreciate you very much.

Now, when cops say a 33-year-old Colorado man argues with his fiance about inviting someone to their wedding, well, guess what happens, it ends in

murder with a kitchen knife found near his body. We are going to unpack that that story. That is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[18:35:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JACKSON: A bride-to-be in Colorado, well, she just might have to cancel the wedding. Why? Because she is accused of killing the man that she was

supposed to marry. Now, according to documents obtained by local radio station KRDO, Jacqueline Souza stabbed her fiance Brandon Watkins to death

with a steak knife. You see them there. And that was after an argument about that big day, the wedding day. This is from CNN affiliate KKTV.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (voice over): Neighbors can`t believe there was a murder in the house next door.

He was stabbed.

BOB SPURGIN, NEIGHBOR: Oh, OK, I didn`t know. That part is where it gets into something that I`m not used to seeing or we just wished had never

happened.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE (voice over): According to arrest papers, 31-year-old Jacqueline Souza called 911 to say her fiance Brandon Watkins was bleeding

in their kitchen. When police got there, they found him dead on the kitchen floor, the bloody knife on the kitchen table. She told investigators she

thought her groom-to-be was having an affair and he actually wanted to invite the other woman to the wedding.

ANTHONY HERNANDEZ, NEIGHBOR: To find out that that type of emotion can lead to that type of result, it`s sad.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JACKSON: Tough one. Joining me now, "Crime and Justice" producer Bernice Man, Bobby Chacon is back with us, a retired FBI special agent, and of

course my friend, defense attorney Bob Bianchi, triple V (ph), Bob Bianchi.

So Bernice, let me start with you. What is going on here, please? Was this believed to be just an argument over infidelity? What was happening that he

ended up with a steak knife in his chest?

BERNICE MAN, CRIME AND JUSTIVE PRODUCER (via telephone): Police responded to a 911 call saying that there was an unknown, urgent medical assist. When

they got to the house, they found Brandon Watkins with traumatic injuries.

The suspect said that they were out drinking earlier, they got home, and they had been arguing, that the victim, Brandon Watkins, wanted to invite

the victim -- I`m sorry -- someone that he had an affair with to the wedding.

JACKSON: Wow! So based upon one -- simply because this person wanted to invite someone who he had an affair with to the wedding, there was a steak

knife plunged in his chest? Is that what I`m hearing from you, Bernice?

MAN (via telephone): That`s right. The thing is the suspect, according to documents that we obtained from KRDO Radio, the suspect did give police

three different stories about how this all played out.

JACKSON: OK. You know, that`s interesting to know. Let me turn to you, Triple V (ph), Bob Bianchi, asking you the question. First of all, I`m a

little perplexed. And here is why. This is charged as a murder case. Now, let`s just break this down for those at home. Murder, not necessarily --

it`s a second-degree murder case, right? No element of premeditation is necessary, but certainly it goes to the issue of intentional killing or

knowing you`re killing someone.

Why isn`t this manslaughter, which is the heat of passion case? We learned about this in law school, right? Heat of passion is, you did what? And then

you kill someone. And the distinction here is a big one because second- degree murder, she`s in jail for life. Heat of passion, four to 12 years.

BOB BIANCHI, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: That`s a great question, Joey. So, the murder charge by the prosecutor in charge is the highest charge that they

believe is provable ethically and that is that she formed an intent, for however small a period of time it is, it doesn`t have to be a long period

of time.

JACKSON: Right.

BIANCHI: There was an argument. She was upset. You got motive all over the case. She has given four different stories. She reacts and she kills him.

And the prosecutor is arguing this was an intentional thing.

Now, down the road at trial, in reality, what will happen, is the lawyers will ask the judge to charge passion provocation. What does that mean? It

basically means that that element of intent is going to be lower because you have to meet certain things. It has to be a reasonable provocation.

She, in fact, had to be provocative and she had no opportunity to cool off --

JACKSON: Right.

BIANCHI: -- essentially are the elements. And ultimately a jury is going to come to a conclusion. Huh, is this the kind of thing that I think is

objectively reasonable under these circumstances? Was she in fact impassioned? And if they say that, it reduces the second-degree murder to a

manslaughter charge, a much lesser sentence.

JACKSON: You know what, very well explained, Bob. But here is my problem. My problem always with prosecutors, you were one, is that I believe they

overcharge. The bottom line is that this seems to me to be the classic case of heat of passion. The reality is she`s pissed off.

We heard Bernice Man, our producer, explain. He is having infidelity. She goes bananas, grabs a steak knife and kills him. To me, that`s evidence,

no, it doesn`t excuse it, let`s be clear to the audience, it doesn`t excuse your crime, but it`s not a classic murder.

BIANCHI: Go ahead, sorry.

JACKSON: No, no, no. We`re debating it. We`re debating it.

BIANCHI: I never want to interrupt the man.

[18:40:01] But here`s the reason as a prosecutor I would not charge it. Because she had the opportunity to cool off. This argument is going on from

a bar where they`re drinking and I understand it, there is a context here.

JACKSON: Right.

BIANCHI: All the way to the house. There was multiple opportunities that she could have regained her composure --

JACKSON: Or get more pissed off.

BIANCHI: It could be. But you know where she`s going to lose, because no jury in my mind is going to say that it is reasonable, when you are

agitated and you are angry even over something like this, about who`s going to get invited to a wedding, it`s not reasonable to plunge a knife into

your fiance.

JACKSON: And I want to be clear. I agree with you on that. There is nothing reasonable about killing someone over their infidelities. Nothing.

But the reality is classic textbook example. I`m sorry for being redundant, audience, but I feel very strongly about this.

Prosecutors should charge what the case is. If the case is that I`m passionate, I didn`t mean to kill you, but I`m passionate, I`m upset, I`m

just so annoyed I kill you, then that`s manslaughter, four to 12 years. It`s not murder with your life in jail. That`s how I feel about this.

BIANCHI: One last count.

JACKSON: Please.

BIANCHI: Here we go. That`s true, what you`re saying, so long as the jury finds that it was an objectively reasonable provocation. And on that prong,

that`s where she`s going to lose, because it`s not reasonable to do that under the circumstances. If you find your wife or your husband in bed, when

you got a gun, and you just react and shoot, that`s a problem.

JACKSON: The problem is, to jurors, no murder is reasonable. Bobby Chacon, let me go to you on the issues of the investigation. You know, you heard

this debate between Bob Bianchi and myself over, you know, sudden heat of passion over murder.

BOBBY CHACON, RETIRED FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Right.

JACKSON: What investigative tools will be looked for to show that distinction between whether it was heat of passion or whether it was just

murder?

CHACON: First thing I would do as investigator is talk to her friends. Did she know he was having this affair? Did she complain about it? So this

isn`t something she may have found out that night. There may be texts of her complaining to her girlfriends about him wanting to invite his former

lover or even his current lover she is suspected at to the wedding.

They may be able to establish through talking to her friends, talking to her family, his family, that she knew all along about this affair. She

didn`t like it. She wasn`t happy about it. But this wasn`t a heat of the moment thing. She hadn`t just found out about it. What they were arguing

about, was not about the affair that night. They were arguing about whether this woman should be invited to the wedding.

So apparently, this affair was known to her. It wasn`t a spur of the moment thing where she`s just learning about this affair. This is something she

had time to digest and she was really, really angry that he was almost insisting on inviting her to the wedding. So that may change that heat of

passion thing. This is not --

JACKSON: Yes.

CHACON: Like you said, this is not something where he just walked in to the bedroom or she just walked in to the bedroom and saw him and a lover in

bed. This is something she`s known about. This is something that she`s able to have been digest. It`s just reasonable I think that you could do it as a

lesser included offense or certainly I think that murder too could be here.

JACKSON: I got you, bobby. Yeah. Now, very good points made by both you. And Bob Bianchi, I`m just of the view that we should call it as we see it.

But if the facts are, as you say, then certainly I think there`s a case for second-degree murder. Thank you both. Stay right there.

So, when a road rage incident spirals out of control in Brooklyn, it was more than just fists that were flying. We`ll show you the rest of the

shocking video soon as we return. That`s next.

[18:45:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JACKSON: I could attest that Brooklyn, New York has always had a reputation for being tough. But a shocking road rage incident brought the

point really home with a dramatic video from YouTube you`re about to see. The traffic dispute turned physical when one of the men swung a box cutter

at the other. Eventually he took the man`s keys from the ignition and sped off in a white Hyundai.

But the other man found himself sandwiched in between the black and white vehicles and thrown into the air. He was taken to the hospital with some

bruising, cuts to the hip, cuts to the hand. And tonight, police are looking for the suspect who left his bumper behind.

Joining me and back with me, Bobby Chacon. He of course is a retired FBI special agent. And Bob Bianchi, Triple V (ph), defense attorney

extraordinaire.

So, Bob, let me begin with you. First of all, as a general matter, I know people get crazy out beyond the road. My position, let him go. Let him go.

It`s not worth it because it could lead to something like this.

So I guess the big question in this case, we have this debate before, what charge do you think the prosecution in this particular case, what charge

would be viable once they catch this road rage guy?

BIANCHI: First of all, Joey, you are right.

JACKSON: Yeah.

BIANCHI: You got a guy like this, you got to get away, because that guy could have easily been killed.

JACKSON: Absolutely.

BIANCHI: But given that, what could be charged? It could certainly be a theft, it could be a robbery, because something was actually taken.

JACKSON: The keys.

BIANCHI: The keys were taken during the commission of a robbery.

JACKSON: Yes.

BIANCHI: And it certainly can be an attempt to cause bodily injury or serious bodily injury, aggravated assault. In other words, you got some

very, very serious charges. Thank god he wasn`t killed because if he was killed, that would have been upgraded into a homicide.

JACKSON: A hundred percent. And on that issue, before I go to Bobby on the investigative part of the case and the bumper left behind and how they are

going to track this guy down, you know, why not attempted murder? I ask you, knowing you were a former prosecutor and you tried to do the right

thing.

[18:50:03] We`ve had many discussions about people who you want to charge and you`re going to try to charge them right. Right? In this case, when you

look at the video, look at how he sandwiches this guy in between the car, and it looks like he`s trying to run him over. Look at that. So, I mean, it

looks like his intent is malicious here, that he wants this guy harmed. Is that a stretch?

BIANCHI: Joey, we want to make sure we charge them with the appropriate offenses --

JACKSON: OK.

BIANCHI: -- and not overcharges.

JACKSON: Not attempted murder.

BIANCHI: And here is why.

JACKSON: OK.

BIANCHI: Attempted in the law (ph) requires --- I don`t want to get too heavy (ph).

JACKSON: Specific --

BIANCHI: -- purposeful activity.

JACKSON: OK.

BIANCHI: And I`ve tried a lot of attempted murder cases, attempted aggravated assault. It is very difficult in circumstances like this that

are unfolding very quickly to prove the state of mind --

JACKSON: Right.

BIANCHI: -- of the guy in the car, that it was his desire, his intention, his attempt to kill a person as opposed to just flee from the scene.

JACKSON: So let me just push back for one minute then I will get Bobby in here on how they are going to find this guy. You start off, right, Bob,

where you have this initial fight, he`s swinging a box cutter at him, so you know he has intent to harm him at that point.

BIANCHI: Right.

JACKSON: That carries over where he now gets into his vehicle and in his car, he doesn`t just drive away, he tries to sandwich the guy almost

harming him. I mean, look at that there again, just real quick, to you at home. He is trying to kill the guy by smashing him in between cars. That`s

how outraged he is. That`s what his intent is.

And look, this is coming from a defense attorney, I think an attempted murder is not a stretch here. But, Bobby, on the issue of actually finding

this guy who left the bumper behind, what are police in Brooklyn doing right now, the NYPD, in order to determine who he is, where he is, bring

him back so that the appropriate charges could be filed against him?

CHACON: Well, the first and most obvious one is the license plate on the vehicle. It`s blurred out on the video, but I`m sure they`ve got that

license plate, There`s plenty of witnesses there. They got his physical description. If the car isn`t registered to him, it`s registered to

somebody that knows him. This wasn`t a case where he might have gotten a different car, different plate because he was out to do some criminal

activity.

This was a spur of the moment thing that happened, this dispute between them. So most likely, that`s either his car or a friend`s car or a

relative`s car. Hopefully, they will be able to identify through that. And I think that the more coverage like this you get, this has been largely

covered now in the New York area, that car is going to need repairs.

I mean, if you see how hard he goes after that guy, when he veers his car, the two left wheels of that car, of his own car, come off the ground.

JACKSON: Absolutely.

CHACON: That`s how hard he`s driving after that guy. So this significant damage to the car, that is now going to have to be repaired. So whoever car

it was, it`s going to have to bring in for repair.

I mean, the publicity alone, covering the story like we are here, is one of the things that`s going to kind of get this guy caught. That, plus the

license plate, plus his physical description, this may be a neighborhood that people know him in.

But I`m with you, I think the minute that car started moving, it was going to the left. He was trying to kill that guy. And remember, thank god that

he wasn`t killed because we`ve had cases like this, which did end in death.

JACKSON: Exactly.

CHACON: I think there was an NFL in New Orleans a couple years ago where a shooting happened on a road rage incident and it ended in death. So it`s

not uncommon that something like this could end in a death. And so you have to take these things very seriously. You have to charge them very

seriously, you know, because they do end in death.

JACKSON: Yeah, without question. I think we can all agree on, right, just drive away, walk away. You know, it could get really crazy out there. But

stay safe, everybody. Stay safe. Bobby, don`t go anywhere. Triple V (ph), go nowhere.

Next, a New Jersey man, just seconds away from being hit by an oncoming train and one of New Jersey`s finest springs into action. We`ve got the

body cam and we`re going to show it to you. That`s next.

[18:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JACKSON: One more thing. Dramatic video of a New Jersey police officer saving a man from an oncoming train. Perth Amboy rookie officer Kyle

Savoia`s body cam captured his heroic work. Take a look.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

KYLE SAVOIA, POLICE OFFICER (voice over): Hey, bud! Hey, move! Hey, bud, move! Stop the train! Stop the train! Buddy, move! Move! Move! Move! Move!

Train stopped. Sit down. Are you OK?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where did you come from? Thank you.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JACKSON: Amazing and job well done. Other officers notify New Jersey Transit which slowed down train and it`s safe to say that it saved this

man`s life. The next hour of "Crime & Justice" begins right now.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE (voice over): Antonio Armstrong Jr. always said an intruder killed his parents.

[19:00:02} New evidence supports that theory, his defense argues. A woman told Houston police that former NFL player, Antonio Armstrong Sr. was

involved in a prostitution ring and had received death threats.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This type of information should have been turned over much, much sooner.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Republican town committee member Jon Landry, with a wife and two kids at home, was leading a double life.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: This morning Mr. Landry appeared in front of judge Alexander.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The charges stem from an alleged relationship with a girl he met online when she was 12 years old.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Mr. Landry does extraneously disputes these charges.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Flashing lights outside, inside, a bloody steak knife on the kitchen table. Jacqueline Souza called 911 to say her fiance was

bleeding in their kitchen. She thought her groom to be was having an affair.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: That part is where it gets into something that I`m not used to seeing.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Road rage, taken to an extreme. Brooklyn residence are shocked after a traffic disputes spirals out of control. And police are

still looking for the suspect.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JOEY JACKSON, HLN HOST: A pleasant good evening, everyone. I`m Joey Jackson in for Ashleigh Banfield.

And this is the second hour of CRIME & JUSTICE.

Tonight, a Houston teenage is accused of killing his mom and his dad. Now prosecutors are saying that he took a gun to his parents` heads while they

were sleeping, before staging the house to look like an intruder killed the both of them.

But Antonio Armstrong Jr., who also goes by A.J., has always insisted that he is not guilty. And now there could be a whole boat load of evidence

explaining why someone else would have and could have come after his parents. Because according A.J.`s defense team, Antonio Armstrong Sr.

might have been involved in a prostitution ring, thereby getting death threats before he was killed.

Even though the former NFL player seems to have been an upstanding man, a fitness coach, and even a pastor.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KAY SHORTER, MOTHER OF ANTONIO ARMSTRONG SR.: He is just that loving, kind, gracious young man. And my Dawn, she was the same way. She was so

giving and caring and loving. Antonio would have said to me if he was here, Mama, are you coming to church today? I have to, it`s what I do,

it`s what I believe, it`s my life, my conviction. I raised my children in the church. I raised them to pray and study the word of God and do the

will of the Lord. That`s what Antonio did. That`s what Dawn did.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Joining me now, Jeffrey Boney, he is an associate editor of the Houston Forward Times. Bobby Chacon, a retired FBI special agent, Rick

Detoto and Chris Collings, they both represent and attorneys for Antonio Armstrong Jr., and of course defense attorney Bob Bianchi, BBB, bad bob

Bianchi.

Now, let me go straight to you, if I can, Jeffrey Boney. Set us up here. What`s going on in this particular case? Where are we?

JEFFREY BONEY, ASSOCIATE EDITOR, HOUSTON FORWARD TIMES (on the phone): So a stunning new set of developments have come forth in this capital murder

case involving then 16-year-old teenager Antonio Armstrong Jr., as well as some startling new allegations that the attorney that you just mentioned

believes should exonerate their client of the July 2016 shooting deaths of his parents, former NFL player Antonio Armstrong Sr. and his mother, Dawn

Armstrong.

Defense attorney tell the press conference that they are filing a motion. And basically, they are claiming that newly shared evidence that they say

was suppressed by the Harris County district attorney`s office supports their theory that an intruder broke in and killed his parents, instead of

him. And according to those court documents that were filed by the defense attorneys, a woman by the name of Maxine Adams came to HPD months after the

murders claiming to have very specific details and information to prove that the father, Armstrong Sr., was allegedly involved in a prostitution

ring.

She also describes what happened. She gave HPD officers names, phone numbers, told HPD that there were death threats made against Armstrong Sr.

She also stated that she had knowledge of him changing his life insurance policy based on these death threats.

So according to the motion, the Harris County DA`s office informed the defense that an interview with the woman took place, but said that the

matter had been quote "investigated and was not credible."

So about a year-and-a-half after the interview, however, the DA`s office gave the defense an electronic zip file with about 50,000 pages of phone

records and the recording of the interview from Adams, all of which the defense said they did not know existed.

JACKSON: That is insane. Jeffrey Boney, that is an excellent setup. Very much appreciate you.

Let me go to those attorneys right now to sort this out. I mean, a year- and-a-half later, I just can`t fathom that.

So Rick Detoto, Chris Collins -- Rick, let me start with you, first. You know, I was always under the impression that at least the defense gets

discovery, that is information, so that you can adequately prepare any defense you may have. That information, of course, is even more compelling

when it`s called exculpatory, right, it seems to suggest someone else did it. Can you tell us what happened here, as to how you got this so late?

[19:05:20] RICK DETOTO, ATTORNEY FOR ANTONIO ARMSTRONG JR.: Absolutely. It`s a basic tenet in our law that the defense is supposed to get all the

evidence when they are supposed to get it, early on in the case.

We received an allegation by this woman over two years ago, that Antonio Armstrong Sr. was involved in this. We were told that it was not credible

and that it was investigated. Eighteen months, about three weeks ago later, we get an audio recording of interview of this lady by the Houston

police department.

In that interview, there`s very details od accusations of what happened, people involved, phone numbers, exactly how the phones worked, who did it

and where they did it. But the most important and most compelling thing that you set up in your promo, is that, we believe someone else did this.

And this lady told HPD 18 months ago that he was receiving death threats and as a result of that, he changed his will. So it`s very disturbing.

And we are trying to figure out what is going on.

JACKSON: Chris Collings, why now? You know, why is it that this was thrown onto your lap well into the case? Wouldn`t this be information that

could have been handed over to the defense early on? And what is the prosecutor saying as to why they did not do so?

CHRIS COLLINGS, ATTORNEY FOR ANTONIO ARMSTRONG JR.: Well, to take your last question first, the prosecution is sort of fumbling, if you will, on

what their story is, as to why we are just now receiving this information. The facts are hard to argue, the dates all are suggestive of the fact that

the Houston police department, specifically the homicide investigation team, had this information a long time ago. They sent somebody out to

investigate the witness who came forward, but lo and behold, no notes, no police report, no anything written was ever documented of that interview.

So -- and this apparently happened twice.

JACKSON: That`s insane.

DETOTO: Joey, so you understand, the state is the organization that gave us the information initially. They have told us in their own pleading that

HPD knew about it, Houston police department, specifically the homicide investigator, and that their office knew about it through an email. So

they have admitted back in December of 2016, that they knew about this information through that filing.

JACKSON: Yes. You know, Rick, that`s troubling to me, only because, look. Everybody wants a fair fight and justice means and demands that you have

that fair fight. And essentially, if there`s information out there, which exculpates, as we lawyers call it, seem tends to exonerate your client,

it`s something you should have.

If I could just pivot, though, Rick, to the remedy that you are looking for, it seems that you have filed a motion asking for the case to be

dismissed. You know, how do you think that motion will go? And let me just push you on this issue. Certainly, there hasn`t been a trial here, so

wouldn`t a remedy of just giving you additional time to investigate be more appropriate than just dismissal?

DETOTO: That`s a valid argument. The easy way out is to say, look, guys, you should have more time to investigate this. But think about it this

way. This stuff took place at least 18 months ago. It`s not like we can just call up somebody and say, hey, you know, we heard you are involved in

a prostitution ring. Oh, yes, sir, let me tell you all about it. That`s not how to works.

We have to get cell phone records. We have to find out who is involved. We have all kinds of stuff to do. Are the cell phone records still around

from 18 months ago? Are these people going to talk to us and admit as to what happened?

The investigation is stale. The information is old. So we may be precluded from conducting that investigation. And if we are precluded for

conducting that investigation, his constitutional rights were absolutely violated and there`s no way to cure that even with time.

JACKSON: Well, Rick, let me push back on this, because I want to know whether he is in custody or out of custody. But we lawyers know there`s

something called an adverse inference charge. And that is, in the event that information is not available to you when you go to look for it, it is

presumed that that information will be helpful. So why not have the judge say, look. I`m going to delay this case to the extent that there`s not

information out there that would help your case or otherwise be available. I`m going to tell the jury that they can hold that inference against the

prosecution and for your client?

DETOTO: Absolutely. And that could be a fallback position for us. But as you know, my job is to be a zealous advocate for my client and push the

envelop. So we are going present this evidence.

One of the things we don`t know is exactly what happened. I don`t thing the state knows exactly what happened. So we are asking for a hearing so

we can see the gravity of exactly who had what and who knew about it? Did HPD homicide know about it? And then when we had everything, we will make

that argument. But we are reaching for the maximum. We believe this fits in with the theory and we believe his constitutional rights are violated.

JACKSON: Indeed. Is he in custody or out of custody?

[19:10:02] DETOTO: He is out on bond.

JACKSON: OK. So he`s out on bond. And the reason I ask that is because prejudice to your client, right. I mean, certainly, anyone charged with

something, they are prejudiced by that. I mean, that you know, that you have the stain on you of being accused of something, but it`s not like he

is in custody at this point.

Moving, Chris, to the issue of the actual defense here. My information is that there`s no evidence of anyone being an intruder on the home. How is

that something that you intend to overcome at trial?

COLLINGS: Well, the state`s theory is, as you said, there was an alarm system on the house and the doors were all locked. A.J., our client, came

downstairs, had to disarm the alarm system to allow the police to come in. So the state`s theory is, since that happened, he must have done it,

because he and his younger sister, who was asleep at the time, are the only other ones in the house. And, you know, we all know that alarm systems

aren`t a hundred percent, you know, foolproof. They have got so many problems with them and we are prepared to address specifically the alarm

system with this particular house, that clearly the state didn`t look into well enough and we are prepared to address that.

JACKSON: Rick Detoto, stand by. Chris Collings, stand by. I will give you the last word.

But BBB, let me go to you, Bob Bianchi. How strong do you believe the case is at this point against him, notwithstanding this new information that

there may be this prostitution ring?

BOB BIANCHI, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You may find my opinion about this odd. I think they got a strong case based on the fact that he said there was a

masked man in there, and an intruder, and yet the alarm was on and he had to disable it. I think they have a strong case.

But I got a bigger issue about the scourge of prosecutors who are not turning over information. This gentleman is right, if he can prove the

attorney, that this information prejudiced his client because the information is - I mean, cops want information immediately to act upon it,

because they say it`s important for their investigation.

We have a problem in this country. When I was the boss, when I was the prosecutor, the first thing I said to my staff, you open your file with the

exception of your notes. You let the defense see everything you have in there, may be good, may be bad. Our job is not to decide that. That`s for

a jury to decide. And if you don`t do that, you lose your job.

But Joey, I have actually had cases as a defense lawyer where they didn`t feel a videotape of a shooting scene wasn`t exculpatory, in other words,

didn`t exonerate my client, but when we finally forced them and got it, they had to dismiss the case against my client.

JACKSON: That`s a big deal.

So Bobby, very briefly, going to you. On the issue of the investigation here, what about the investigation points to the guilt of A.J.?

BOBBY CHACON, A RETIRED FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Well, you know, I don`t know. I`m not in the details of the prosecution`s case of how strong it is, or

how - I mean, I researched this with respect to the brady motion and with respect to the discovery that was just dumped on these defense attorneys

shortly before trial, you know.

And Bob`s right. I mean, you know, you often you hear the police didn`t turn this over to the defense. It is not because as an investigator, I

would set up a war room in the prosecutor`s office. It was the prosecutor that always told me what to turn over and he directed all of that to be

turned over. Discovery was an obligation of the prosecution. I just brought over everything I had you know. And the FBI, we typed up

everything.

JACKSON: Right.

CHACON: I`m shocked that there`s no report of these interviews that this detective did, you know, 18 months ago. There should be at least two now

reports for two different interviews, if not more investigative reports. And so, those should have all been turned over. We certainly in the FBI

always put too much on writing. It all got turned over, out of an over abundance of caution.

JACKSON: Indeed. Don`t mean to interrupt you. I just want the last word from the attorneys.

Last word, why is he innocent, 30 seconds or less?

DETOTO: He is innocent because he hasn`t been proven guilty. He needs to be tried by a jury of his peers and all this evidence needs to come out.

There`s a lot more that you guys don`t know about there in the background that will be presented at trial. So this is part of what fits into the

defensive theory and we believe absolutely that A.J. is innocent.

JACKSON: Thanks so much for coming on the program. Best of luck to you both. We appreciate you.

DETOTO: Thank you, sir.

JACKSON: Thank you.

In Connecticut, a former town councilman while he is accused of carrying on a decade-long relationship with a girl that he allegedly met online when

she was only 12 years old. That`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:19:30] JACKSON: So Jon Landry spent three terms on the city council and 17 years married to his wife. But police say that he also spent four

years talking to an under-age girl online. It started when the victim was just 12 years old. And she thought she was talking to another teen. But

prosecutors say it was Jon Landry behind the keyboard all along. It was also Jon Landry who he met her in person the very moment that she became

legal. He reportedly had her sign a sex contract, you heard me right and agree to be friends with benefits.

But after the duo had disagreement, the victim started getting texts from a mysterious woman pressuring her to have sex with Landry. And police think

it might have been Landry the whole time, doing all of this, harassing her, even as he raised his two daughters.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

[19:20:19] OLIVIA GERMANO, LOCAL RESIDENT: That`s the worst part of it, is that his children have to suffer for whatever his decisions were and his

wife. Because apparently from what we know, she really did not know any details and I feel for her.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Indeed.

Now joining me now, John DePetro, a New England radio talk show host, Bobby Chacon, a retired special, very special agent and of course defense

attorney BBB, Bad Bob Bianchi. All of you here.

So, let`s talk about this, John DePetro. Set this up. What is going on? This is the bizarrest of bizarre stories. That he is a city councilman. I

understand he resigned from his position on the city council, rightfully so. He is posing as a woman. He is posing as a man, he meets her when

she`s 12 online and then meets her in person at 16. Make sense of this for us, please.

JOHN DEPETRO, NEW ENGLAND RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: You know, Joey, there is no way to make sense of it. First of all, he was considered a rising star,

married, nice family, very outgoing, gregarious. And it did raise eyebrow when is he suddenly resigned seemingly out of nowhere.

But this, the more you learn about it, there were different rumors, that there was something else going on. I first heard a rumor months ago that

he was something involve with an affair with a young girl.

But Joey, this is a different form of predator. And what`s so frightening here, the laws have not caught up with this type of crime. This is someone

- it goes beyond just a stranger meeting someone online. I mean, for four years he stalked out this young girl. He was 32. She was 12. Four years.

And then after that, it wasn`t even enough. Another level of being a predator is then pretending to be a female, a third person, this Jessica

Monroe, befriending this poor young girl, pretending to be a friend of Jon Landry at the same time, taking advantage of her, getting information from

her, and then basically, if we are to believe this entire plot, which again the police have done a fantastic job on this, then using this as blackmail

to horrify this girl, terrify this girl.

You know, as much as we can talk about the dangers of meeting strangers online, Joey, this is another level. This is another level of predator,

where you then absolutely terrify someone. And I`m going to share your secrets with your family, and I`m going to tell your school. I feel so

terrible for this young girl. But what is so tragic is we are talking about misdemeanors at this point. The crime far outweighs what Jon Landry

has been charged with.

JACKSON: Absolutely. And you know, you cued this up very nicely, John DePetro. Because I want to turn to you, BBB before we get to Bobby on the

investigative part.

So let me just ask you, on the issue of the misdemeanor charges, why misdemeanor charges, why at the state level, and as you and I were talking

about, the federal charges could be draconian?

BIANCHI: joey, I`m glad you asked me this question. So here`s a public service announcement for everybody out there. This was a preliminary

investigation in my opinion. If they get the electronic data evidence together and they showed under the federal law that there was a use of a

facility, that could be a cell phone, that could be a computer, whatever, any electronic data device, where they induce, entice, coerce anyone under

the age of 18, OK, you can be -- to engage in sex, you can be charged with a sentence that carries life in prison. And to your guest`s point, the

reason that that`s important, you don`t have to have the sex.

JACKSON: The inducement.

BIANCHI: It is just the idea that you are inducing online because they look at those people as predators more dangerous that people that no --

another if those facts turn out to be correct.

JACKSON: Always if they turn out to be correct.

Now, before getting to Bobby, let me stick with you for one moment. You are a former federal prosecutor. Why are these just misdemeanors? Why not

at the federal level, to this point? This guy, let`s make it to be clear, he is a former city council person. He began this activity of inducing her

when she was 12, met with her, yes, had sex with her when she was 16, which is on the legal age in this particular jurisdiction, but where are the feds

on this?

BIANCHI: Right. I was a state prosecutor, but I worked with the feds on many cases like this and joint investigations. And typically, they are

handled as state charges. But if the federal law has the better ability to be able to prove a case. For example, once she is 16, she is 16. If

that`s the age of consent in the state, the state prosecutors may be toothless, but the federal prosecutors have those statutes that are

different, because a minor is considered under the age of 18.

So, what you are going to do, the state prosecutors will are going to get together with the federal prosecutors, if they believe that this guy was

inducing her, was manipulating, cultivating, predatorially, they are going to probably want to bring federal charges and bigger state charges.

[19:25:03] JACKSON: Yes, I`m surprised, Bob, on that point, because this is a politician, right. You talk about leading by example. You talk about

someone who is known and a pillar in the community. That they were not more involved. And John DePetro setting this up, talking about misdemeanor

charges now. You and I know misdemeanors carry a year or less in jail. And it just doesn`t seem to square with the significance in this particular

case.

BIANCHI: Mark my words, Joey, something more is coming down the pipe here.

JACKSON: You think so?

BIANCHI: Yes.

JACKSON: Bobby, on that point, if something coming down the pipe, talk to us about the investigation. Talk to us about the emails, about the texts,

about the involvement of the authorities, what they do, how they do it, the piecing together of the case.

CHACON: Well, that`s exactly right. I Mean, it`s going to have to be one of those types of cases because in this case, John was right. The state

laws just haven`t caught up with this type of behavior. And you have, in a way, because he started grooming this victim very early, when she was 12

years old. And Bob was right in some of his terms there. This is pedophiliac grooming behavior, for a 32-year-old man grooming a 12-year-old

young girl with the intent that as soon as she turns legal, he is going to have sex with her.

I think that the victim in this case is not, you know, is not -- she may not even see herself as a victim. And you see some of her statements that

she made to police, you know, as if it was consensual. Well, consensual takes on a different meaning when a 32-year-old man is enticing a 12-year-

old girl and he spends years grooming her like that.

I`m not so sure the definition of consensual shouldn`t be looked at in this type of case. I mean, this can`t really be considered consensual if he

started at 12 years old grooming her to have sex with her. This is pedophilic behavior.

Now, we will get all the electronic data. We will match up everything. But it comes down to the case where will the victim, will the prosecutor be

able to put a victim on the stand that looks like she has been victimized? I mean. most people should see it. This should not be looked at as a

consensual relationship in any way.

JACKSON: N o, I`m with you on that, Bobby, to be clear. And we have this issue of grooming, right, when they are young and they are impressionable,

and she`s at 12 years old. Just, you know, not cool at all.

We do have a statement, however, from the former Republican city councilman`s attorney, and I just want to read you what the statement says

with regard to him and his client and him believing that his client is innocent in this particular case.

And it reads, Mr. Landry maintains that he has not engaged in any criminal activity. He looks forward to his day in court when he will leave an

opportunity, well, excuse me, when he will have an opportunity to confront the evidence and witnesses in this matter. We wish to correct the

perception that John engaged in any form of communication with the complainant while she was a minor. John also denies that he ever posed as

Jessica Monroe.

And that, of course, as we started the story at the outset, talking about whether he posed as a woman who would say, hey, have sex with him.

So John DePetro, back to you. What`s next in this particular case, moving forward?

DEPETRO: Well, Joey, everyone is trying to absorb just how shocking this is and the level of it. And another point I want to point out, it is just

-- the element of pressure on a minor, this element of having her -- it seems like so bizarre and twisted, but in the predatory behavior, talk

about pressure, trying to convince her that she had to fulfill this sexual contract that had all these different provisions, and if the other party

wasn`t notified, therefore was nullified. And continuing to remind her of that, this is a high level, sophisticated level of being a predator.

And then in using a personal intonation, under a third-party guise, to go after this young girl. Right now, she is 22 years old. He is 42 years

old. There seem to be some problems on the home front. There`s a moving truck out. One of my listeners told me, out in front of the house. So

seemingly, that the wife and the children have had enough of this.

He can claim all he wants it was all consensual. But I think, Joey, when everything comes out, this was just overbearing. This girl, you know,

that`s exactly right, I don`t know if she realizes exactly how much she was victimized, pressured, blackmailed, extortion, to the highest degree,

someone who was put in the public trust. It`s a horrendous bizarre story and again, another example of why we have to be so careful with who we meet

online.

JACKSON: No doubt about that. He had to be very careful about that.

John DePetro, we appreciate you.

Real, quick, BBB, do you think this ends in federal charges, yes, no, why?

BIANCHI: I think that when they get all this electronic data, like Bobby`s agency used to do, given the position that he has --

JACKSON: It`s over.

BIANCHI: -- if the state charges are anemic, that s they don`t have a lot of teeth --

JACKSON: And they are now, because of the misdemeanor.

BIANCHI: And as your guest, that John is saying, that they don`t have enough state laws caught up, you can see this go federal because he is too

high public profile a person not to.

[19:30:02] JACKSON: Got to deter people from doing it. That`s the bottom line. And misdemeanors just don`t do that. I`m sorry they don`t.

All right, thank you all. Appreciate you very much.

Now, when cops say a 33-year-old Colorado man argues with his fiancee about inviting someone to their wedding, well, guess what happens, it ends in

murder with a kitchen knife found near his body. We`re going to unpack that story, that`s next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[19:35:] JACKSON: A bride-to-be in Colorado, well, she just might have to cancel the wedding. Why? Because she is accused of killing the man that

she was supposed to marry. Now, according to documents obtained by local radio station KRDO, Jacqueline Souza stabbed her fiance, Brandon Watkins,

to death with a steak knife. You see them there. And that was after an argument about that big day, the wedding day. This is from CNN affiliate

KKTV.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Neighbors can`t believe there was a murder in the house next door.

He was stabbed.

BOB SPURGIN, NEIGHBOR: Oh, OK, I didn`t know. That part is where it gets into something that I`m not used to seeing or we just wished it never

happened.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: According to arrest papers, 31-year-old Jacqueline Souza called 911 to say her fiance Brandon Watkins was bleeding in their

kitchen. When police got there, they found him dead on the kitchen floor, the bloody knife on the kitchen table. She told investigators she thought

her groom-to-be was having an affair and he actually wanted to invite the other woman to the wedding.

ANTHONY HERNANDEZ, NEIGHBOR: To find out that that type of emotion can lead to that type of result, it`s sad.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

JACKSON: A tough one. Joining me now, CRIME & JUSTICE Producer Bernice Man; we have Bobby Chacon with us, a retired FBI Special Agent; and of

course, my friend, Defense Attorney Bob Bianchi, Triple B, Bad Bob Bianchi. So, Bernice, let me start with you. What is going on here, please? Was

this believed to be just an argument over infidelity, or what was happening that he ended up with a steak knife in his chest?

BERNICE MAN, HLN CRIME & JUSTICE PRODUCER: Well, Joey, police responded to a 911 call saying that there was an unknown, urgent medical assist. When

they got to the house, they found Brandon Watkins with traumatic injuries. You know, the suspect said that they were drink -- out drinking earlier,

they got home, and they had been arguing, that the victim, Brandon Watkins, wanted to invite the victim -- I`m sorry -- the one -- someone that she --

he had an affair with to the wedding.

JACKSON: Wow. So, based upon one -- simply because this person wanted to invite someone who had -- he had an affair with to the wedding, there was a

steak knife plunged in his chest? Is that what I`m hearing from you, Bernice?

MAN: That`s right. And the thing is the suspect, according to documents that we obtained from KRDO radio, the suspect did give police three

different stories about how this all played out.

JACKSON: OK. You know, that`s interesting to know. Let me turn to you, Triple B, Bob Bianchi, asking you the question, first of all, I`m a little

perplexed, and here`s why, this is charged as a murder case. Now, let`s just break this down for those at home, murder, not necessarily -- it`s a

second-degree murder case, no element of premeditations necessary, but certainly, it goes to the issue of intentional killing, or knowing you`re

killing someone. Why isn`t this manslaughter, which is the heat of passion case? We learned about this in law school, right? Heat of passion is, you

did what? And then you kill someone. And the distinction here is a big one because second-degree murder, she`s in jail for life. Heat of passion,

four to 12 years.

BIANCHI: Right. That`s a great question, Joey. So, the murder charge by the prosecutor, they`re going to charge the highest charge that they

believe is provable ethically, and that is that she formed an intent, for however small a period of time it is, it doesn`t have to be over a long

period of time.

JACKSON: Right.

BIANCHI: There was an argument, she was upset, you`ve got motive all over the case, she`s given four different stories, she reacts, and she kills

him, and the prosecutor`s arguing this was an intentional thing. Now, down the road at trial, in reality, what will happen, is the lawyers will ask

the judge to charge passion provocation. What does that mean? It basically means that that element of intent is going to be lowered because

you have to meet certain things. It has to be a reasonable provocation. She, in fact, had to be provocated, and she had no opportunity to cool off,

essentially, are the elements. And ultimately, a jury is going to come to a conclusion, huh, is this the kind of thing that I think is objectively

reasonable under these circumstances? Was she, in fact, impassioned? And if they say that, it reduces the second-degree murder to a manslaughter

charge to a much lesser sentence.

JACKSON: You know what -- very well-explained, Bob. And -- but here`s my problem, my problem always with prosecutors, you were one, is that I

believe they overcharge. The bottom line is that this seems, to me, to be the classic case of heat of passion. The reality is, she`s pissed off. We

heard Bernice Man, our producer, explain. He`s having infidelity. She goes bananas, grabs a steak knife and kills him. To me, that`s evidence

not -- it doesn`t excuse it, let`s be clear to the audience, it doesn`t excuse your crime, but it`s not a classic murder.

[19:40:11] BIANCHI: You`re -- go ahead, I`m sorry, Triple J.

JACKSON: No, no, no. We`re debating it. We`re just saying --

(CROSSTALK)

BIANCHI: It`s Joey Jackson, I never want to interrupt the man. But here`s the reason as a prosecutor, I would not charge it. Because she had the

opportunity to cool off. This argument is going on from a bar where they`re drinking and I understand that there`s a context here, all the way

to the house, there was multiple opportunities that she could have regained her composure --

JACKSON: Or, get more pissed off.

BIANCHI: It could be, but you know where she`s going to lose, because no juror, in my mind, is going to say that it is reasonable when you are

agitated and you are angry, even over something like this, about who`s going to get invited to a wedding, it`s not reasonable to plunge a knife

into your fiance.

JACKSON: Definitely not. And I want to be clear, I agree with you on that. There`s nothing reasonable about killing someone over their

infidelities, nothing. But the reality is, is the classic textbook example, I`m sorry for being redundant, audience, but I feel very strongly

about this, prosecutors should charge what the case is. And if the case is that I`m passionate, I didn`t mean to kill you, but I`m passionate, I`m

upset, I`m just so annoyed, I kill you, then that`s manslaughter, four to 12 years. It`s not murder with your life in jail. That`s how I feel about

it.

BIANCHI: OK. One last count, Triple J.

JACKSON: Please, please.

BIANCHI: Here we go, that`s true what you`re saying, so long as the jury finds that it was an objectively reasonable provocation. And that`s -- on

that prong, that`s where she`s going to lose, because it`s not reasonable to do that under the circumstance. If you find your wife or your husband

in bed out of nowhere and you`ve got a gun and you just react and shoot, that`s a passion provocation.

JACKSON: The problem is, to jurors, no murder is reasonable. Bobby Chacon, let me go to you on the issues of the investigation. You know,

you`ve heard this debate between Bob Bianchi and myself over, you know, sudden heat of passion, over murder. What investigative tools will be

looked for to show that distinction between whether it was heat of passion, or whether it was just murder?

BOBBY CHACON, FORMER FBI SPECIAL AGENT: Well, sure, first thing I would do as an investigator is talk to her friends. Did she talk to you, did she

know he was having this affair? Did she complain about it? So, this isn`t something she may have found out that night. She may -- there may be texts

of her complaining to her girlfriends about him wanting to invite his former lover or even his current lover, she suspected that, to the wedding.

So, they may be able to establish through talking to her friends, talking to her family, his family that she knew all along about this affair. She

didn`t like it, she wasn`t happy about it, but this wasn`t a heat of the moment thing. She hadn`t just found out about it. What she -- what they

were arguing about was not about the affair that night, they were arguing about whether this woman should be invited to the wedding.

So apparently, this affair was known to her, this wasn`t a spur of the moment thing, where she`s just learning about this affair. This is

something she had time to digest and she was really, really angry that he was almost insisting on inviting her to the wedding. So, that may change

that heat of passion thing. This is not -- like you said, this is not something where he just walked into the bedroom or she just walked into the

bedroom and saw him and a lover in bed. This is something she`s known about, this is something that she`s able to digest. And it`s just

reasonable, I think, that you could do it as a lesser included offense or certainly, I think, that murder two could be here.

JACKSON: I got you, Bobby. Yes. No, they`re very good points made by both you and Bob Bianchi. I`m just of the view that we should call it as

we see it. But if the facts are, as you say, then certainly, I think there`s a case for second-degree murder. Thank you both. Stay right

there.

JACKSON: So, when a road-rage incident spirals out of control in Brooklyn, it was more than just fists that were flying. Well, we`ll show you the

rest of the shocking video soon as we return, that`s next.

[19:45:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JACKSON: I could attest that Brooklyn, New York, has always had a reputation for being tough, but a shocking road rage incident brought the

point really home with a dramatic video from YouTube you`re about to see. Now, the traffic dispute turned physical when one of the men swung a box

cutter at the other. Now, eventually, he took the man`s keys from the ignition and sped off in a white Hyundai. But the other man found himself

sandwiched in between the black and white vehicles and thrown into the air. He was taken to the hospital with some bruising, cuts to the hip, cuts to

the hand, and tonight, police are looking for the suspect who left his bumper behind.

Joining me and back with me, Bobby Chacon, he of course is a retired FBI special agent and Bob Bianchi, Triple B, defense attorney extraordinaire.

Bob, let me begin with you. First of all, as a general matter, I know people get crazy out there on the road. My position, let them go. Let

them go. It`s not worth it because it could lead to something like this. So, I guess, the, you know, the big question in this case, and we had this

debate before, what charge do you think the prosecution in this particular case, what charge would be viable once they catch this road rage guy?

BIANCHI: Well, first of all, Joey, public service announcement, you are right. If you got a guy like this, you got to get away because that guy

could have easily been killed.

JACKSON: Absolutely.

BIANCHI: But given that, what could be charged? It could certainly be a theft, it could be a robbery because something was actually taken. The

keys were taken during the commission of a robbery.

JACKSON: Well, the keys. OK. Yes.

BIANCHI: And it certainly can be an attempt to cause bodily injury or serious bodily injury, aggravated assault, in other words, you`ve got some

very, very serious charges. And thank god, he wasn`t killed because if he was killed, that would have been upgraded into a homicide case.

[19:50:08] JACKSON: A hundred percent. And on that issue, before I go to Bobby on the investigative part of the case and the bumper left behind, and

how they`re going to track this guy down. You know, why not attempted murder? I ask you knowing you were a former prosecutor and you try to do

the right thing, we`ve had many discussions about people who you want to charge and you`re going to try to charge them right, right? In this case,

when you look at the video, look at how he sandwiches this guy in between the car and it looks like he`s trying to run him over. Look at that. So,

I mean, it looks like his intent is malicious here that he wants this guy harmed. Is that a stretch?

BIANCHI: Joey, we want to make sure we charge them with the appropriate offenses and not overcharge them.

JACKSON: OK. Not attempted murder. OK.

BIANCHI: And here`s why, a (INAUDIBLE) law requires -- I don`t want to get too (INAUDIBLE)

JACKSON: A specific intent.

BIANCHI: Purposeful activity.

JACKSON: OK.

BIANCHI: And I`ve tried a lot of attempted murder cases, attempted aggravated assault, it is very difficult in circumstances like this that

are unfolding very quickly to prove the state of mind of the guy in the car that it was his desire, his intention, his attempt to kill a person, as

opposed to just flee from the scene.

JACKSON: So, let me just push back for one minute, then I`ll get Bobby in here and how they`re going to find this guy. You start off, right, Bob,

where you have this initial fight, he`s swinging a box cutter at him, so you know he has intent to harm him at that point.

BIANCHI: Right.

JACKSON: That carries over where he now gets into his vehicle, and in his car, he doesn`t just drive away, he tries to sandwich and smoosh the guy,

almost harming him. I mean, look at that, there again, just real quick to you at home, he`s trying to kill the guy by smashing him in between cars.

That`s how outraged he is, that`s what his intent is, and that look, this is coming from a defense attorney, I think an attempted murder is not a

stretch here. But, Bobby, on the issue of actually finding this guy who left the bumper behind, what are police in Brooklyn doing right now, the

NYPD, in order to determine who he is, where he is, bring him back, so that the appropriate charges could be filed against him?

CHACON: Well, the first and most obvious one is the license plate on the vehicle. You know, it`s blurred out on the video but I`m sure that they`ve

got that license plate, there`s plenty of witnesses there, they got his physical description. If the car isn`t registered to him, it`s registered

to somebody that knows him. This wasn`t a case where he might have, you know, gotten a different car, a different plate because he was out to do

some criminal activity. He`s actually -- this was a spur of the moment thing that happened, this dispute between them. So, most likely, that`s

either his car, a friend`s car, relative`s car. So, hopefully, they`ll be able to identify through that, and I think that the more coverage like this

you get, this has been like largely covered now in the New York area, you know, that car is going to need repairs. I mean, if you see how hard he

goes after that guy when he veers his car, the two left wheels of that car, his own car, come off the ground. That`s how --

JACKSON: Absolutely.

CHACON: -- how hard he`s driving after that guy. So, there`s significant damage to that car that`s now going to have to be repaired. So, whosever

car it was is going to have to bring it in for repair. I mean, the publicity alone, covering the story like we are here is one of the things

that`s going to kind of get this guy caught, and you know, that plus the license plate, plus his physical description, this -- you know, this may be

a neighborhood that people know him in. But I`m you, I think that the minute that car started moving, it was going to the left, he was trying to

kill that guy. And remember, you know, it is -- thank you God that he wasn`t killed because we`ve had cases like this which did end in deaths.

JACKSON: Exactly.

CHACON: I think it was an NFL player in New Orleans a couple of years ago where -- you know, where a shooting happened on a road rage and it ended in

death. So, this -- it`s not -- it`s not uncommon that something like this could end in a death. And so, you have to take these things very

seriously, you have to charge them very seriously, you know, because they do end in death.

JACKSON: Without -- yes, without question. I think we could all agree on, right, just drive away, walk away. You know, could get really crazy out

there, but stay safe, everybody. Stay safe. Bobby, don`t go anywhere, Triple B, go nowhere.

Next, a New Jersey man just seconds away from being hit by an oncoming train and one of New Jersey`s finest springs into action. We`ve got the

body cam and we`re going to show it to you, that`s next.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, bud! Hey, move.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

[19:55:00] (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

JACKSON: "ONE MORE THING," the other day, a rookie police officer in New Jersey was able to finish his shift knowing he saved a life. Today, many

are calling him a hero.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Hey, bud! Hey, move! Hey, bud, move. Stop, the train. Stop, the train. Buddy, move, move, move, move, move. Sergeant,

be advised, train stopped (INAUDIBLE) moves. Sit down. Are you OK?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Where did you come from? Thank you.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JACKSON: Amazing. Perth Amboy rookie police officer, Kyle Savoia`s body cam captured his heroic work. Now, the officers notified the New Jersey

Transit which slowed down that train. We`ll see you back here tomorrow night at 6:00 Eastern Time. You can listen to the show any time, you can

download on the podcast on Apple Podcast, iHeart Radio, Stitcher, TuneIn, or wherever you get your podcast for your CRIME & JUSTICE fix. Thanks so

much for watching. "SOMETHING`S KILLING ME" begins right now.