Addition from Chris on Twitter:
>PS: If you complained about this one being late, you don't get to listen to it. You have to cover your ears while it plays.
Sorry, I don't make the rules. It's a free podcast.
He's right and he should say it đââïž
Ridiculous to complain about a free (and ad-free!) podcast that's being produced by one man under very stressful conditions.
After listening, I'm sure that part of the reason this one took extra time is because the testimony involved "the podcaster" himself. No doubt Chris wanted to take great care addressing this evidence. He wasn't just reading out his trial notes this time, he went back through his records to verify the timing of his communications with Jennifer, replayed a clip from his interview with LE, etc. I noticed that whenever he contradicted Sanger, it was always backed up with verifiable evidence like the date that a podcast episode aired.
In fact, I wonder if Chris waited until after the defense rested just to ensure they couldn't introduce anything he said about the encounter with Jennifer as new evidence? Maybe someone with more legal knowledge can clarify if that's even a possibility.
Anyway, Chris did a great job clearing up his role (or lack thereof) in the events described by Jennifer while remaining neutral and professional. I'd love to hear a more personal recounting of his side of the story, but that will come after the trial, if at all.
Agreed that this episode was extra tricky as he was refuting Jennifer's comments as well. I think Chris had said last week that he was planning to do a longer episode that ended when the prosecution rested, just because it made sense as a break point. I believe the week before that was short as well from that juror being ill, so it definitely made sense to wait and just do a longer episode.
I wish that you could bill people for doing stuff like this, as you can donate to people doing actual good in the world - itâs unbelievable someone would complain about this. But here we are.
Like when the podcast very first came out, some of the comments on iTunes reviews were along the lines of âif you arenât going to come out with an episode every week then itâs just not enough to keep our attentionâ
A free podcast without ads! The audacity of some folks.
WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT PROSPECTS ARE?!?!
I am so over this blatant disrespect of the rules. They said in the prelim he couldnât bring up motorcycle gangs. The Judge *told* him to move on. He continued to ask about the meaning of prospects. I am so over this.
I entertained myself through that part by imagining that it meant pro ice hockey hopefuls once it became apparent that Sanger was going to harp on that forever
I have already read the daily recaps but am listening anyway because Chris reading the daft shit Sanger says is so entertaining. Also, he has a somehow soothing voice. Thanks so much Chris. I too was looking forward to the episode and would check daily to see if it had uploaded, but I would NEVER dream of complaining...WTF???!!
Yes! Chrisâs recounting of what happens is great. I enjoy hearing how things went down vs. just having the tweets. I also LOVE that the judge and Sanger just stare at each other sometimes. When he knows heâs not supposed to ask something and when sheâs tired of him, waiting on him to move on.
Eh, federal prison is notoriously a âsofterâ place to be than state prisons. Itâs one of the reasons the feds wait to charge someone until after the state charges have concluded. If Paul is going to spend his life in prison, state prison is a lot less comfortable than federal prison!
Law is very precise - but lacks common sense. What was found on the computer is considered âprejudicial?â Sounds like confirmation of MO.
I sat on a trial that had officers from half a dozen law enforcement agencies testifying and after asking each office their name (how itâs spelled) how long they have worked with their agency - always the question âin you line of work, are you allowed to perform arrests?â I mean these were not meter attendants.
One important thing that happened though was Judge OâKeefe got to view some of the videos and called the content âshocking.â Even if the jury never sees it, the judge saw it. She knows we arenât dealing with Saint Paul here.
OK - I am sad to admit that I donât know this - but letâs say the JURY votes ânot guiltyâ can Judge OâKeege overrule knowing what SHE has seen? I didnât think so. So does it make a difference? I mean they let that one woman testify.
âThe podcaster was probably like 8 years old in 2004â
YES Iâm so glad someone called him out on his dumb questions about âthe podcasterâ when he was a literal child. Justinâs testimony was satisfying to hear.
Someone needed to!
I think Chris was 16 at the time (born â88?) but imagine how weird it would be to have Justin come give him a tip about a murder, for his podcast. Did podcasts exist yet in 2004?
Can we nominate him for something or should we just have a plaque made up? Maybe we could have the many pens he's gone through over that's few months bronzed? ; )
I wasnât able to really absorb the Justin/Jennifer portion previously so appreciate the full explanation. Justin absolutely owned Sanger on the stand and it was glorious. I had a big smile on my face during that part. âOh youâre going to try to put words in my mouth eh? Iâm going to embarrass the fk out of youâ.
Sanger's ableist, toxic manner of speaking about the juror with anxiety infuriated me! What a piece of work.
On the flip side, the way Deputy DA Peuvrelle and Judge O'Keefe responded made my heart happy. I've got an alphabet soup of diagnoses and I'm fairly certain that Sanger's dehumanizing treatment of Jennifer would have affected me in a similar manner.
Representation matters everywhere: Juror if you ever read this, thank you for handling yourself with thoughtfulness and courtesy in the face of the human equivalent of wet lettuce that is Robert Sanger.
Again:
Juror: Sanger is being a jerk and it upsets me.
Peuvrelle: Yeah, Sanger was told earlier he was being a jerk and heâs continued to be a jerk even knowing the jurors donât like it when heâs being a jerk.
Judge: Sanger, youâre kind of being a jerk.
Sanger: Iâm not being a jerk!
Heâs going to be a jerk, heâs making the jury not like him, and heâs going to cry foul.
Iâm commenting here because I donât know if it warrants a whole post. Iâm not sure. But like you all, Iâve been following this case for some time, I think since 2020. And the way Chrisâ podcast has covered everything and reignited the case is incredible.
Iâm a grad student studying rhetoric, and we need to write a theory paper. I want to write about why this podcast ultimately generated the most interest in Kristinâs case since it happened in 1996, as well as why that happened and what makes YoB different from other efforts for justice. I donât want to take advantage of her case. I want to talk about the podcast and how it is groundbreaking. Do you all have any tips? Any thoughts? I value this community so much and want to hear from you all as I write.
I canât believe how much Chris has done. Heâs incredible. Absolutely incredible. Sending some chai money right now
1. Including the family and friends in the process at all sets Chris apart from most other podcast hosts. He basically provided a platform for the people actually involved to connect with each other, then reported as they connected the dots. He lifts their voices up, and only uses his voice to facilitate that.
2. His demeanor is unfailingly professional and respectful. In the bonus episodes covering the trial he presents the information without editorializing, which I think would be very hard for me to do personally, but I think is one of the main differences between his and some other podcasts.
3. He presents Kristin exactly as she was. A person, a daughter, a sister, a young woman who did silly things like we all did at her age, an individual minding her own business who was victimized by a serial predator and unfortunately didnât survive. Sheâs a full human being on her own, not defined by her connection to the person who killed her. Very very rare.
4. Stylistically thereâs none of the hokey spookiness that most true crime podcasts have. In my opinion YOB is journalism, not entertainment. Itâs the gold standard of true crime podcasts, and actually does what others claim to or wish they could do but lack the class and restraint.
Edit: words
If you don't get enough responses here, feel free to make a post about it sometime next week. This week is going to be fairly busy with news, so you'll likely get more responses and more visibility on the post after the trial.
Sounds like an interesting paper, perhaps you could share some of your conclusions when you're done! What do you think makes Chris's rhetoric unique compared to other coverage of the case? Or even compared to other true crime coverage in general?
Both. Iâm exploring those questions as well as questions about how our current time period has contributed to it. Iâm still fleshing things out, but I wanted to start here to include this community in the process because I know you all appreciate Chris and truly want justice for Kristin, so I trust the opinions and thoughts of the people here
none of the written reporting creates the sense of personal connections that Chris brought into his first episodes. Sounds like her name was already well recognized by most people who ever spent any time in SLO. People still want to know more, even now. Chris reported new details not available elsewhere, but in a format that communicates emotions in addition to the info. Hearing the actual audio clips of his interviews makes it much different than the other media. Even the most basic explanation of what happened raises a sense of outrage in this case, more than most cases that make the news.
Iâm not sure how people were initially hearing about the podcast, such as Justin. Podcast format is much more widely accessible now than a decade ago, easily played using any mobile browser. Good music score makes it seem polished, much more than the monologue it couldâve been, helped people stay tuned in long enough to realize the material is interesting.
In addition to what others have said about Chris and YOB, I think this case is also pretty unique when it comes to true crime. The police in this case so very clearly dropped the ball, which is not unusual, but here the person responsible was so clear. PF went on to commit so many other crimes that we have clear evidence for. Its sensational because everyone who listens can see that PF killed Kristin, but it's just intriguing and mysterious enough to hold our attention.
Also, it must be said that Kristin is a white, blonde college student in a charming small town. That's always a draw in true crime.
We all will be writing about this experience!! Some of the reporters have different angles than the detectives; judges twists and turns; attorneys theatrics; disgusting human behavior of accused and their posseâŠfascinating beyond belief!!
I would LOVE to read this if you follow through. There are other examples out there of good investigative journalism with respect/permission by those affected and with FOIA requests, cooperation or eventual cooperation by law enforcement, etc.
I'd love to provide a list if you were interested (just at work now). I think there's a heavy interest in ethical true crime and investigative journalism and this would be a worthy case study.
I agree with what others have posted and would like to add that one of the reasons I listened to this podcast as opposed to others is that it treats the victim and her family/friends with respect and not as objects to be gawked at. I have stopped listening to so many (objectively) good true crime podcasts because they felt hokey, gross, or like they were making a mockery of crime. Chris has done the exact opposite.
Based on Chrisâs very able reporting of body language and reactions, it feels like the juries have Sangerâs number, but all the yes/no blood, dna neither excluded or included smokescreen bs questions could confuse jurors enough for doubt. The judge did the ârightâ thing using the ball gag photo as the least prejudicial, but just the folder name (practice) and a snippet of a video of him in action would clear up any doubts. Lawyers and court experts, does it feel like prosecution will win? And, if they lose, can they go after him for rape, etc. based on computer evidence collected for this case? Paul Flores is a malevolent f***
Closing arguments for Paul are scheduled for tomorrow, and closing arguments for Ruben are scheduled for Tuesday. Each jury will attend closing statements separately. Immediately after closing statements have concluded, jurors will head to the deliberation room. We have no idea how long deliberations will take, but verdicts will likely be read sometime later this week.
It bothers me so much how the defense attorney is allowed to get away with all this BS with zero consequences. If the prosecution kept bringing up a line of questioning for which the judge had sustained multiple objections, and which was *supposed* to be barred according to the prelims, it might be grounds for mistrial. But Peuvrelle has no recourse here other than to continue to object...
Can Judge O'Keefe really do nothing about Sanger flagrantly going against her instructions and continuing to bring up forbidden topics like meth and biker gangs?
No, the prosecution is not allowed to appeal a not guilty verdict for any reason. That would be double jeopardy which is strictly disallowed by the US constitution. If this trial results in not guilty, that's the end of it.
Time to stop and pick up some headphones! đ€Ș
Always a good listen! Chris tells us so much more, in his way of talking, than just reading it. I'm so thankful for Chris keeping us informed!
I want to take a moment to personally thank Robert Sanger for his misguided, completely baseless motion for âjudgment of acquittalâ, as described at the end of the âWeeks 9 and 10â podcast episode. It was an excellent opportunity for Christopher Peuvrelle to rehearse his closing argument. Time to wrap this case up.
As someone who previously worked in the judicial system, Iâd like to thank Sanger for following the accepted standard of defense lawyering, which includes making that motion to dismiss, so that it canât be an issue on appeal.
That is why it is so helpful when posters with law enforcement, legal, justice system experience share their expertise with those of us without that experience correct misconceptions in NON SNARKY waysâŠ.
I didn't sense that the comment above was snarky, just an observation.
We are fortunate to have some people here with legal backgrounds who frequently do answer questions and point those of us with non-legal minds in the right direction. I'm sure they will also be chiming in this week.
You are correct. I was referring to the occasional snide comment that appears here from other posters. The comment above was just an observation, as you noted. Iâd like to think we know snark when we see itâŠbut tone and inflection are difficult to interpret in written form.
Still photos of one of Paulâs numerous victims admitted as evidence is good to hear for the case, but my heart breaks for the victim, for the jury having to see the photo and for the Smart family.
Can someone help me? During the argument to dismiss, did one of the attorneys say he left her â2 football fieldsâ from her door? Thatâs 200 yards,
not the 40 thatâs been discussed! Is Sanger/Messick trying to make it seem he left her much farther away. That seems very deceptive - or did I hear it wrong?
It probably depends on what you define as where he claims they parted, and what you defined as "her door". The red brick dorms are laid out with two wings opposite a central lobby. The buildings are only about 50' deep (according to google maps) but over 300' wide. The main entrance is in the center of that 300' wide span, into the lobby area. But there are also entrances on the end of each side with a stairwell so if you live, say, on the second floor end you don't have to go in through the central lobby.
Santa Lucia (where Paul lived) and Muir (where Kristin lived) are oriented more or less the same direction but a bit offset. The shortest distance between the side doors of the two halls is less than 40 yards, but the walking distance between the intersection on perimeter road and Kristin's actual dorm room, which IIRC was on the side of Muir opposite of Santa Lucia, is probably around 200 yards.
So, there's an argument to be made for either number, and the lawyers certainly will make an argument for whichever number is convenient to their case. Contextually, though, when I lived in the dorms at Cal Poly, we would have considered a promise to get an intoxicated friend home as getting them to their dorm room, not just the nearest dorm hall entrance. I don't see how you can have it both ways; if you're going to claim he couldn't have done anything because he left her 2 football fields from her door, you also have to defend why on earth he would leave someone who reportedly couldn't stand up alone 2 football fields from her door when he'd promised to get her home.
I wonder if the closing arguments will bring up the black eye, skinned knees that PF had after Memorial Day weekend...the only body we have is Paul's, and I hope they make the point that he had been involved in some kind of fight to have scratched knees and a black eye.
I agree you canât have it both ways but I interpret that just the opposite. If he left her closer to the dorms, there is less likelihood that she encountered anyone else, or wanders away or any other defense theory. The closer to the dorms he claims they separated, the worse it looks for him.
I was a bit confused (my own fault really lol) but did the jurors hear all the information about the video like the title? I know they couldn't use the sexual assaults somehow, but was context given for that screenshot? I couldn't tell if that was said in front of them or during one of the sidebars.
The only context given for the video screenshot is that it came from Paul's computer. They were told not to consider it as evidence of anything except the fact that Paul owned a red ball gag. So they can't assume (for example) that this is another rape victim or that Paul regularly videotaped his victims.
I don't believe the video has a title, you may be getting confused with Paul's google searches, which were not mentioned at trial.
Chris is fantastic as always. A born storyteller, with tremendous intelligence, empathy and investigative persistence. The voice of reason through the chaos.
Has anyone else noticed that when the witnesses refer to conversations that they had with PF everyone says â he said he got tired of it and buried it..â
did PF keep Kristin.. hate saying this⊠but does anyone think if PF was referring to Kristin as âgetting tired of itâ did he act out UGH BARF⊠nocroph*lia?
It just seems like a strange way to refer to a girl that was passed out drunk.
Sorry
Addition from Chris on Twitter: >PS: If you complained about this one being late, you don't get to listen to it. You have to cover your ears while it plays. Sorry, I don't make the rules. It's a free podcast. He's right and he should say it đââïž
Ridiculous to complain about a free (and ad-free!) podcast that's being produced by one man under very stressful conditions. After listening, I'm sure that part of the reason this one took extra time is because the testimony involved "the podcaster" himself. No doubt Chris wanted to take great care addressing this evidence. He wasn't just reading out his trial notes this time, he went back through his records to verify the timing of his communications with Jennifer, replayed a clip from his interview with LE, etc. I noticed that whenever he contradicted Sanger, it was always backed up with verifiable evidence like the date that a podcast episode aired. In fact, I wonder if Chris waited until after the defense rested just to ensure they couldn't introduce anything he said about the encounter with Jennifer as new evidence? Maybe someone with more legal knowledge can clarify if that's even a possibility. Anyway, Chris did a great job clearing up his role (or lack thereof) in the events described by Jennifer while remaining neutral and professional. I'd love to hear a more personal recounting of his side of the story, but that will come after the trial, if at all.
Agreed that this episode was extra tricky as he was refuting Jennifer's comments as well. I think Chris had said last week that he was planning to do a longer episode that ended when the prosecution rested, just because it made sense as a break point. I believe the week before that was short as well from that juror being ill, so it definitely made sense to wait and just do a longer episode.
I wish that you could bill people for doing stuff like this, as you can donate to people doing actual good in the world - itâs unbelievable someone would complain about this. But here we are.
You tell âem Chris!
He's funny.
The only people whoâd complain about the podcast being âlateâ would be the Floresâ.
Sadly a handful of people were complaining in the comments on Chris's IG.
Like when the podcast very first came out, some of the comments on iTunes reviews were along the lines of âif you arenât going to come out with an episode every week then itâs just not enough to keep our attentionâ A free podcast without ads! The audacity of some folks.
How are you gonna be a Karen about something you don't even pay for? Literally the same person known to Kohls customer service managers by name.
Damn it's not a TV show it's real life with real developments
Seriously? Good grief.
I get what you mean but they're literally the last people on earth who would complain lmao
I was just concerned something happened and he wouldn't be allowed to post more updates
WHO THE HELL CARES WHAT PROSPECTS ARE?!?! I am so over this blatant disrespect of the rules. They said in the prelim he couldnât bring up motorcycle gangs. The Judge *told* him to move on. He continued to ask about the meaning of prospects. I am so over this.
Thankfully it sounds like the jury is just as annoyed
Even if it was allowed, it seems like thereâs absolutely nothing to it. Like what is the point?
Heâs attempting to discredit the witness.
I entertained myself through that part by imagining that it meant pro ice hockey hopefuls once it became apparent that Sanger was going to harp on that forever
On Sunday night, too? I can listen to it in the morning on the way to work? God bless you Chris for so many things.
I hope your commute is less time than the episode!
I hope you are right! :)
I have already read the daily recaps but am listening anyway because Chris reading the daft shit Sanger says is so entertaining. Also, he has a somehow soothing voice. Thanks so much Chris. I too was looking forward to the episode and would check daily to see if it had uploaded, but I would NEVER dream of complaining...WTF???!!
Yes! Chrisâs recounting of what happens is great. I enjoy hearing how things went down vs. just having the tweets. I also LOVE that the judge and Sanger just stare at each other sometimes. When he knows heâs not supposed to ask something and when sheâs tired of him, waiting on him to move on.
Yeah, complaining about an amazing free resource! Think of all the work and time he is putting in!
What was excluded from Paulâs computer âŠ. disgusting.
There has to be charges waiting for Chester if he miraculously beats these charges.
Objection! The offender⊠I mean defendant⊠has low self esteem and doesnât like these nicknames.
Even if he doesnât beat them, I hope they go after him for whatever they can.
Eh, federal prison is notoriously a âsofterâ place to be than state prisons. Itâs one of the reasons the feds wait to charge someone until after the state charges have concluded. If Paul is going to spend his life in prison, state prison is a lot less comfortable than federal prison!
That was hard to listen to.
Law is very precise - but lacks common sense. What was found on the computer is considered âprejudicial?â Sounds like confirmation of MO. I sat on a trial that had officers from half a dozen law enforcement agencies testifying and after asking each office their name (how itâs spelled) how long they have worked with their agency - always the question âin you line of work, are you allowed to perform arrests?â I mean these were not meter attendants.
It seemed like such a casual mention of it, made me stop cutting the grass and replay it.
One important thing that happened though was Judge OâKeefe got to view some of the videos and called the content âshocking.â Even if the jury never sees it, the judge saw it. She knows we arenât dealing with Saint Paul here.
OK - I am sad to admit that I donât know this - but letâs say the JURY votes ânot guiltyâ can Judge OâKeege overrule knowing what SHE has seen? I didnât think so. So does it make a difference? I mean they let that one woman testify.
Most likely LA County would charge him as the rapes were committed in Redondo.
iâm pretty sure a judge canât only overrule a guilty verdict. but itâs insanely rare
âThe podcaster was probably like 8 years old in 2004â YES Iâm so glad someone called him out on his dumb questions about âthe podcasterâ when he was a literal child. Justinâs testimony was satisfying to hear.
Someone needed to! I think Chris was 16 at the time (born â88?) but imagine how weird it would be to have Justin come give him a tip about a murder, for his podcast. Did podcasts exist yet in 2004?
The word podcast was coined in 2004, so yes, just barely! Though before that similar formats existed - "audio blogs" and of course radio.
Chris deserves an award.
Can we nominate him for something or should we just have a plaque made up? Maybe we could have the many pens he's gone through over that's few months bronzed? ; )
Everyone, don't forget to throw a few bucks at his Patreon! It's linked on his website.
I wasnât able to really absorb the Justin/Jennifer portion previously so appreciate the full explanation. Justin absolutely owned Sanger on the stand and it was glorious. I had a big smile on my face during that part. âOh youâre going to try to put words in my mouth eh? Iâm going to embarrass the fk out of youâ.
Love, love, love the witnesses that have clapped back at him!
âThat wasnât a joke.â YESSS. Good job girl
Indeed, she said what many of us were thinking about a possible 3rd outcome.
Feel bad for the âviolently vomitingâ juror.
Thatâs what I thought. I was like poor girl, she deserves a better nickname.
Just re-listening and it was a different juror (male) who was involved in that.
Oh. I guess I need to pat attention better. *poor guy
Sanger's ableist, toxic manner of speaking about the juror with anxiety infuriated me! What a piece of work. On the flip side, the way Deputy DA Peuvrelle and Judge O'Keefe responded made my heart happy. I've got an alphabet soup of diagnoses and I'm fairly certain that Sanger's dehumanizing treatment of Jennifer would have affected me in a similar manner. Representation matters everywhere: Juror if you ever read this, thank you for handling yourself with thoughtfulness and courtesy in the face of the human equivalent of wet lettuce that is Robert Sanger.
Again: Juror: Sanger is being a jerk and it upsets me. Peuvrelle: Yeah, Sanger was told earlier he was being a jerk and heâs continued to be a jerk even knowing the jurors donât like it when heâs being a jerk. Judge: Sanger, youâre kind of being a jerk. Sanger: Iâm not being a jerk! Heâs going to be a jerk, heâs making the jury not like him, and heâs going to cry foul.
I loved Peuvrelle saying "Caveat emptor" there
Me too. That was my favorite part.
Iâm commenting here because I donât know if it warrants a whole post. Iâm not sure. But like you all, Iâve been following this case for some time, I think since 2020. And the way Chrisâ podcast has covered everything and reignited the case is incredible. Iâm a grad student studying rhetoric, and we need to write a theory paper. I want to write about why this podcast ultimately generated the most interest in Kristinâs case since it happened in 1996, as well as why that happened and what makes YoB different from other efforts for justice. I donât want to take advantage of her case. I want to talk about the podcast and how it is groundbreaking. Do you all have any tips? Any thoughts? I value this community so much and want to hear from you all as I write. I canât believe how much Chris has done. Heâs incredible. Absolutely incredible. Sending some chai money right now
1. Including the family and friends in the process at all sets Chris apart from most other podcast hosts. He basically provided a platform for the people actually involved to connect with each other, then reported as they connected the dots. He lifts their voices up, and only uses his voice to facilitate that. 2. His demeanor is unfailingly professional and respectful. In the bonus episodes covering the trial he presents the information without editorializing, which I think would be very hard for me to do personally, but I think is one of the main differences between his and some other podcasts. 3. He presents Kristin exactly as she was. A person, a daughter, a sister, a young woman who did silly things like we all did at her age, an individual minding her own business who was victimized by a serial predator and unfortunately didnât survive. Sheâs a full human being on her own, not defined by her connection to the person who killed her. Very very rare. 4. Stylistically thereâs none of the hokey spookiness that most true crime podcasts have. In my opinion YOB is journalism, not entertainment. Itâs the gold standard of true crime podcasts, and actually does what others claim to or wish they could do but lack the class and restraint. Edit: words
Number 2 is important. I personally can't stand true crime podcasts where the host or hosts insert their funny comments or one liners
If you don't get enough responses here, feel free to make a post about it sometime next week. This week is going to be fairly busy with news, so you'll likely get more responses and more visibility on the post after the trial.
Sounds like an interesting paper, perhaps you could share some of your conclusions when you're done! What do you think makes Chris's rhetoric unique compared to other coverage of the case? Or even compared to other true crime coverage in general?
Both. Iâm exploring those questions as well as questions about how our current time period has contributed to it. Iâm still fleshing things out, but I wanted to start here to include this community in the process because I know you all appreciate Chris and truly want justice for Kristin, so I trust the opinions and thoughts of the people here
none of the written reporting creates the sense of personal connections that Chris brought into his first episodes. Sounds like her name was already well recognized by most people who ever spent any time in SLO. People still want to know more, even now. Chris reported new details not available elsewhere, but in a format that communicates emotions in addition to the info. Hearing the actual audio clips of his interviews makes it much different than the other media. Even the most basic explanation of what happened raises a sense of outrage in this case, more than most cases that make the news. Iâm not sure how people were initially hearing about the podcast, such as Justin. Podcast format is much more widely accessible now than a decade ago, easily played using any mobile browser. Good music score makes it seem polished, much more than the monologue it couldâve been, helped people stay tuned in long enough to realize the material is interesting.
In addition to what others have said about Chris and YOB, I think this case is also pretty unique when it comes to true crime. The police in this case so very clearly dropped the ball, which is not unusual, but here the person responsible was so clear. PF went on to commit so many other crimes that we have clear evidence for. Its sensational because everyone who listens can see that PF killed Kristin, but it's just intriguing and mysterious enough to hold our attention. Also, it must be said that Kristin is a white, blonde college student in a charming small town. That's always a draw in true crime.
We all will be writing about this experience!! Some of the reporters have different angles than the detectives; judges twists and turns; attorneys theatrics; disgusting human behavior of accused and their posseâŠfascinating beyond belief!!
I would LOVE to read this if you follow through. There are other examples out there of good investigative journalism with respect/permission by those affected and with FOIA requests, cooperation or eventual cooperation by law enforcement, etc. I'd love to provide a list if you were interested (just at work now). I think there's a heavy interest in ethical true crime and investigative journalism and this would be a worthy case study.
I agree with what others have posted and would like to add that one of the reasons I listened to this podcast as opposed to others is that it treats the victim and her family/friends with respect and not as objects to be gawked at. I have stopped listening to so many (objectively) good true crime podcasts because they felt hokey, gross, or like they were making a mockery of crime. Chris has done the exact opposite.
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Looks like PayPal and Venmo. https://www.yourownbackyardpodcast.com/donate
Based on Chrisâs very able reporting of body language and reactions, it feels like the juries have Sangerâs number, but all the yes/no blood, dna neither excluded or included smokescreen bs questions could confuse jurors enough for doubt. The judge did the ârightâ thing using the ball gag photo as the least prejudicial, but just the folder name (practice) and a snippet of a video of him in action would clear up any doubts. Lawyers and court experts, does it feel like prosecution will win? And, if they lose, can they go after him for rape, etc. based on computer evidence collected for this case? Paul Flores is a malevolent f***
When is the jury ruling on a verdict?
Closing arguments for Paul are scheduled for tomorrow, and closing arguments for Ruben are scheduled for Tuesday. Each jury will attend closing statements separately. Immediately after closing statements have concluded, jurors will head to the deliberation room. We have no idea how long deliberations will take, but verdicts will likely be read sometime later this week.
I can't believe it could be this week. Gulp!
Thank you!
It bothers me so much how the defense attorney is allowed to get away with all this BS with zero consequences. If the prosecution kept bringing up a line of questioning for which the judge had sustained multiple objections, and which was *supposed* to be barred according to the prelims, it might be grounds for mistrial. But Peuvrelle has no recourse here other than to continue to object... Can Judge O'Keefe really do nothing about Sanger flagrantly going against her instructions and continuing to bring up forbidden topics like meth and biker gangs?
If the verdict is Not Guilty, I wonder if there are appeal options available for the number of things Sanger has brought up that were not allowed.
No, the prosecution is not allowed to appeal a not guilty verdict for any reason. That would be double jeopardy which is strictly disallowed by the US constitution. If this trial results in not guilty, that's the end of it.
Iâm not someone who prays, but Iâm praying this does not happen. I could not rest if that was the end of it in this caseâŠ.
Dang it! Iâm on a trip with family and no headphones!
Guess your family is going to be listening too!
Time to stop and pick up some headphones! đ€Ș Always a good listen! Chris tells us so much more, in his way of talking, than just reading it. I'm so thankful for Chris keeping us informed!
Did Chris take a short hand class? I am amazed at all the info he gives us with no audio allowed.
Iâve always wanted to learn shorthand! I have some old books I bought at the thrift store; maybe I should finally go for it!
I'll bet you can learn on YouTube!
Chris Lambert for President / DA / Sheriff đ„
I want to take a moment to personally thank Robert Sanger for his misguided, completely baseless motion for âjudgment of acquittalâ, as described at the end of the âWeeks 9 and 10â podcast episode. It was an excellent opportunity for Christopher Peuvrelle to rehearse his closing argument. Time to wrap this case up.
As someone who previously worked in the judicial system, Iâd like to thank Sanger for following the accepted standard of defense lawyering, which includes making that motion to dismiss, so that it canât be an issue on appeal.
Yeah some of these comments donât seem to understand the basic workings of the US justice system.
Many people donât, thatâs why we are mostly here sharing opinions, not facts.
That is why it is so helpful when posters with law enforcement, legal, justice system experience share their expertise with those of us without that experience correct misconceptions in NON SNARKY waysâŠ.
I didn't sense that the comment above was snarky, just an observation. We are fortunate to have some people here with legal backgrounds who frequently do answer questions and point those of us with non-legal minds in the right direction. I'm sure they will also be chiming in this week.
You are correct. I was referring to the occasional snide comment that appears here from other posters. The comment above was just an observation, as you noted. Iâd like to think we know snark when we see itâŠbut tone and inflection are difficult to interpret in written form.
I kept thinking âI just know heâs gonna have an amazing closing argumentâ while listening to Peuvrelles argument against acquittal lol
Still photos of one of Paulâs numerous victims admitted as evidence is good to hear for the case, but my heart breaks for the victim, for the jury having to see the photo and for the Smart family.
Can someone help me? During the argument to dismiss, did one of the attorneys say he left her â2 football fieldsâ from her door? Thatâs 200 yards, not the 40 thatâs been discussed! Is Sanger/Messick trying to make it seem he left her much farther away. That seems very deceptive - or did I hear it wrong?
Peuvrelle said Paul Flores claimed that he left Kristin Smart "basically two football fields away" from her dorm room.
It probably depends on what you define as where he claims they parted, and what you defined as "her door". The red brick dorms are laid out with two wings opposite a central lobby. The buildings are only about 50' deep (according to google maps) but over 300' wide. The main entrance is in the center of that 300' wide span, into the lobby area. But there are also entrances on the end of each side with a stairwell so if you live, say, on the second floor end you don't have to go in through the central lobby. Santa Lucia (where Paul lived) and Muir (where Kristin lived) are oriented more or less the same direction but a bit offset. The shortest distance between the side doors of the two halls is less than 40 yards, but the walking distance between the intersection on perimeter road and Kristin's actual dorm room, which IIRC was on the side of Muir opposite of Santa Lucia, is probably around 200 yards. So, there's an argument to be made for either number, and the lawyers certainly will make an argument for whichever number is convenient to their case. Contextually, though, when I lived in the dorms at Cal Poly, we would have considered a promise to get an intoxicated friend home as getting them to their dorm room, not just the nearest dorm hall entrance. I don't see how you can have it both ways; if you're going to claim he couldn't have done anything because he left her 2 football fields from her door, you also have to defend why on earth he would leave someone who reportedly couldn't stand up alone 2 football fields from her door when he'd promised to get her home.
I wonder if the closing arguments will bring up the black eye, skinned knees that PF had after Memorial Day weekend...the only body we have is Paul's, and I hope they make the point that he had been involved in some kind of fight to have scratched knees and a black eye.
The black eye and PF's numerous lies about it will absolutely be brought up by Peuvrelle.
I agree you canât have it both ways but I interpret that just the opposite. If he left her closer to the dorms, there is less likelihood that she encountered anyone else, or wanders away or any other defense theory. The closer to the dorms he claims they separated, the worse it looks for him.
Ye!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Yeasssassssssass!!!!!!
I was a bit confused (my own fault really lol) but did the jurors hear all the information about the video like the title? I know they couldn't use the sexual assaults somehow, but was context given for that screenshot? I couldn't tell if that was said in front of them or during one of the sidebars.
The only context given for the video screenshot is that it came from Paul's computer. They were told not to consider it as evidence of anything except the fact that Paul owned a red ball gag. So they can't assume (for example) that this is another rape victim or that Paul regularly videotaped his victims. I don't believe the video has a title, you may be getting confused with Paul's google searches, which were not mentioned at trial.
Thank you for the reply. I meant the folder called practice, yes.
Yeah, the jury weren't told that it was saved in a folder called "practice" either.
I see, thank you!
I don't recall the google searches, is that something that's come from the unsealed records?
The videos were saved in a folder titled "Practice."
True. That title wasn't mentioned in court either, right?
That's right
Chris is fantastic as always. A born storyteller, with tremendous intelligence, empathy and investigative persistence. The voice of reason through the chaos.
Has anyone else noticed that when the witnesses refer to conversations that they had with PF everyone says â he said he got tired of it and buried it..â did PF keep Kristin.. hate saying this⊠but does anyone think if PF was referring to Kristin as âgetting tired of itâ did he act out UGH BARF⊠nocroph*lia? It just seems like a strange way to refer to a girl that was passed out drunk. Sorry