01x03 - A Dangerous Notion

[bunniefuu]

[TV static drones]

[bright tone]

[ominous music]

I went out to my deck
and just sat down.

And then I heard
bang, bang, bang, bang, bang.

g*nshots.

I saw a movement
from off to my left,

and then I saw a head
looking around, you know,

to see if anybody was watching,
I guess.

I'm going to ask you
to point at that person

and tell me what they're wearing.

-Okay.
-Yeah.

Black jacket.

This new witness, for the
first time in any proceeding,

identified Dana Chandler
from the crime scene.

You're on your deck,
and before midnight,

you hear these g*nshots, correct?

Correct.

And before midnight,
you see this person

-around at the house.
-Yes.

No question
in your memory, correct?

Um, well, I mean, there's
always a little question,

but no, I mean,
that's what I recollect.

But the stories she told
could not possibly be true.

A normally quiet
Topeka neighborhood

turned into a crime scene
Sunday afternoon.

It's the day Chandler
was sentenced for k*lling

her ex-husband, Mike Sisco,

and his new love, Karen Harkness.

Chandler was sentenced
to life in prison,

but soon that verdict would
be called into question.

The Kansas Supreme Court
was critical of Spradling

in the prosecution of Chandler.

The court overturned

Chandler's two
m*rder convictions.

Live from the
Shawnee County Courthouse.

The retrial of Dana Chandler
is back in session today

after that three-day recess.

It was actually out of session...

Ms. Anderson,
do I understand,

all this comes to light
in the last 10 or 12 days?

-Is that fair?
-That's fair.

Okay.

I had a client come in,
and we were talking.

One of us brought up
this case because

it had been on the news,
and she mentioned

that she knew the daughter.

Your client says, oh,
I happen to know Hailey

because I went to church
with her.

-Is that right?
-Yeah. Yeah.

Right.

And you say, oh,
I have information.

I saw a person
on a certain night, correct?

Well, not exactly
like that, but yes.

And the client then
reached out to Hailey.

You then met with the police,
and they talked to you,

and then you agreed to meet
with our investigator.

And that all happened
last week, right?

-Yes.
-Right.

-You called 911 that night?
-Yes.

Your memory is you would have
called no later than 12:15.

Maybe not. I mean, yeah.

Yes, probably.

It would have been by then.

There's no question.

You were in your bedroom
by 1:30 a.m., correct?

Yes.

So what you saw, what you heard,

what your memory is
on all of that

happened hours before that,
didn't it?

It happened earlier than that.

I don't know if
it was hours, but yeah.

-Yes.
-It was by midnight?

Yes.

Ms. Anderson,
is it possible that

you might be off a little bit
on the times of the day

that this event happened?

-You mean the sh**ting?
-Yes.

I could be off?

I mean, I suppose it's possible

because I didn't have a clock
right there.

Her account is that she calls 911

after hearing the g*nshots

just a little bit
maybe after midnight.

Well, there's no record of that.

So you looked
for a phone call for July 6

before midnight, is that right?

-That is correct.
-And did you find a call?

I did not.

You looked for calls by
Ms. Anderson by her landline?

-Correct.
-A cell phone?

-Correct.
-Address?

Correct.

In other words,
we're searching soup to nuts

to see if we can find
a July 6 phone call

-by Anderson, correct?
-That's correct.

And again, there wasn't
any call, was there?

No, sir.

There's no record of a 911 call.

There's no record of police
responding to a call from her.

But the prosecution
decided that they were

gonna put her on,
even though they had

in their possession
a documentary record

that established that the story
she was gonna tell

was just not true.

Would you please introduce
yourself to the jury?

Detective Lance Green.

Were you involved
in the new information

from Terri Anderson?

I was.

How long did you
meet with her for?

-About a half an hour.
-Okay.

And she gave you information
allegedly seeing something

on July 6 between 10:30 p.m.
and midnight, correct?

It was 11:30 to midnight,
but on July 6, yes.

Okay.

Were you aware that
Karen and Mike were

-at the casino until 1:30 a.m.?
-Yes.

So the information that
Anderson gave you that

she heard, saw something
on July 6 at 11:30

is inconsistent with what you
know other evidence tells us.

-Is that fair?
-Yes.

This is a pretty
important witness,

if she's telling the truth,
isn't it?

Sure. Yeah.

There's no other witness that
places Dana Chandler in Kansas

except for this witness, right?

Not that I'm aware of.

[tense music]

You're not gonna be in front,
but you might be at some point.

Sometime between


you hear the g*nf*re and you see

who you believe to be
Dana Chandler.

That can't really be true,

because at 11:30 or 12:00,

Mike Sisco and Karen Harkness
were very much alive.

♪♪

-God, I don't know.
-Maybe it was later.

I don't know.

I mean, I'm second-guessing
myself right now,

and I'm thinking, could...
you know, could I have

misremembered something?

I wish the prosecutors
would have shown me this

prior to me testifying.

Would it have affected
your desire to testify?

I would have asked
to be excused. [laughs]

I would not put myself out there

if I was going to tell
a blatant lie about anything.

Doesn't that trouble you, though?

It does trouble me.

I mean, God.

Through it.

I didn't see any formal training.

Why should I have to sit
in a courtroom and watch

a prosecutor put a surprise
witness on the stand

that he knows full well
is going to tell a story

implicating Dana Chandler
that cannot possibly be true?

Dana Chandler may have
k*lled her ex-husband

and his girlfriend,
and maybe she deserves

to f*cking pay a price for that.

But, like, fairness
is f*cking paramount.

They rested their case
without presenting

a scintilla of evidence that
she committed this crime.

-Absolutely.
-Not a scintilla.

And then they get
to essentially reopen it

and bring in a surprise...

I can't even call her
an eyewitness.

She wasn't a witness to anything.

She's a fake witness.

I mean, we're throwing
BS flags right and left here.

That this happened in the first
trial was bad enough.

But who would think that
they would do the same thing

Jacqie Spradling did?
This is 2.0.

I mean, this is déjà frickin' vu.

[somber music]

♪♪

The evidence in this case
shows that the defendant

clearly hated Karen and Mike.

She was obsessed,
she was jealous,

and she was angry about it.

It's all in God's hands.

That's what the defendant
was saying after Mike

and Karen were k*lled.

Ladies and gentlemen,
now it's in your hands.

We see time and time again
the police ignored evidence.

They didn't follow the evidence.

They just followed their bias.

If somebody said
something bad about Dana,

they just accepted it.

Witnesses just get up
on the stand

and say whatever they want.

Terri Anderson's
a perfect example.

It's insulting.

That's the kind of evidence
they're asking you to rely on.

It's really like out of a movie.

If this wasn't so serious,
it would be laughable.

There is reasonable doubt
at every turn.

And we ask you to return a
verdict not guilty, not proven.

Thank you.

So after about
a month of legal combat,

the jury was given
their instructions

and went off to deliberate.

The Dana Chandler retrial,
they had a full day

of jury deliberations today.

Jury deliberations have dragged

into another day in the double...

The jury is out, you know,
one day, two, three.

Now it gets a little interesting.

It's clear that they're,
you know, at odds.

The judge, you know,
keeps on sending them back

for further deliberations.

Five full days
of jury deliberations

have ended with still no verdict.

Jury deliberation in
the retrial of Dana Chandler

resumed today, but there is
still no verdict.

27 News reporter
Max Dutton has been...

And then after six days,
a result had arrived.

[apprehensive music]

♪♪

Jury comes in.

Dana Chandler is there.

The families of the two people
who were k*lled are there,

as they had been throughout.

Members of the gallery,
I would ask that you just

please refrain from any outbursts

at this time.

On behalf of myself, my staff,
the State, and the defense,

we wanna tell you how much
we appreciate the hard work

that you've put into this.

The foreman is asked,
have they reached a verdict?

I understand that
the jury is unable to reach

a unanimous verdict at this time.

Is that correct?

But really?

A hung jury?

The breakdown was seven for
conviction, five for acquittal,

and indeed, a mistrial
was declared.

Well, after six days
of deliberations,

the jury could not
reach a decision

in the Dana Chandler
double-m*rder retrial.

The jury...

Unable to come to a decision,

and a hung jury was announced.

Anybody willing to talk?

Willing to talk?

Willing to talk?

Any chance?

Later date?

Explain to me what got you there.

What got me there was doubt.

The prosecution never proved
beyond a reasonable doubt

that she committed the crime.

They could never
put her in Topeka.

They couldn't put her in Kansas.

So I couldn't vote
that she was guilty.

When the prosecution
put on the late witness,

did you judge
the prosecution harshly

for having even put her on?

The defense, at best,
on their closing arguments,

it seemed a Hail Mary.

Now what's next?

A status hearing
September the 29th.

Shawnee County DA can, of course,

either go ahead to retry the
case or dismiss the charges.

♪♪

Almost 20 years,
the State of Kansas

had been coming
for Dana Chandler.

But the case has
always been a thin one.

I still, to this day,
can't get my head around

that she could make
that kind of journey,

that she could have acquired
that kind of weaponry,

that she could have
shot so expertly,

that she could have
gained access to a home

without leaving behind
any evidence, a perfect crime.

It would have been a tall order

for a criminal mastermind.

It seemed impossible

they would choose
to try her a third time.

Thank you.

The court at this time will
call case number 11 CR 1329,

State versus Dana L. Chandler.

The court is in receipt
of the defendant's motion

for judgment of acquittal,

as well as the State's response.

The State has indicated their
intent to retry this case.

The court does find that
there was sufficient evidence

presented for a reasonable mind
to conclude

beyond a reasonable doubt
that Ms. Chandler

committed the crimes alleged.

In fact, 7 of the 12 jurors
did indicate to the court

and counsel that they would
have voted to convict

based upon
the evidence presented.

Therefore, the court
would deny the motion

for judgment of acquittal.

Before we proceed...

If people thought the last
chapter had been written,

well, somebody
ordered up rewrite.

The district attorney
decided indeed,

he was gonna seek
to try her a third time.

As we found out today,
so the prosecution's

gonna get, you know,
a third crack at this thing.

11 years after
Dana Chandler's arrest,

a decade after her conviction,

four years after those
convictions were overturned,

this most recent trial
ended in a hung jury.

But there's a new court date,
a new trial set,

a new 12 people
to give it their all.

Let's find out.

[gentle music]

♪♪

Today is Friday, February


to the courthouse
for opening arguments

this morning at 9:00
in State v. Dana Chandler.

[tense music]

And then on the eve of
Dana Chandler's third trial,

I think we entered
the pantheon of f*cking

all-time true-crime sagas.

Literally, as opening
arguments are about to begin,

the judge summons her defense
lawyers to her chambers

and informs them that
Dana has fired them

and will proceed
as her own defense attorney.

My name is Dana Chandler.

I have been accused of
committing a double homicide.

My ex-husband, Mike Sisco,
and his girlfriend,

Karen Harkness, were m*rder*d
on July the 7th of 2002.

You will hear testimony that
I have maintained my innocence

throughout this proceeding,
and you will hear no evidence

that I was in Topeka

on July the 6th or 7th of 2002.

And I thank you all
for being here,

for taking your time
to hear the case.

Thank you.

I don't have a lot
of words to say.

Dana stood up and said,
Dana Chandler pro se.

And we were just shocked,

um, beyond words.

So in deciding to represent
herself in the third trial,

a jury was actually gonna hear
from Dana Chandler

for the first time, right?

She had never testified
in her first trial.

She had never testified
in her second trial.

But now, whether it's
through her own questioning

of witnesses or her opening
statement, closing statement,

they were gonna hear from
the woman accused of k*lling

her ex and his girlfriend.

Is it your testimony
that you don't know

whether that's an accurate
police report or not?

Well, I can see that it's not
accurate because I've obviously

made an error on that.

She knows her case
better than anyone.

And so I thought, well, maybe
this is actually fairly clever.

Mike Sisco did not tell you

that he was afraid of me, did he?

I do not recall him
saying that, no.

Dana was doing
something very wise.

She would ask him
just very simple question.

In your investigation,
did you uncover any evidence

that put me in the state
of Kansas?

Were there my fingerprints
in the house?

No.

Were there any
of my hair in the house?

No.

Was there any DNA in the house?

No.

Did you conduct
an investigation to determine

whether or not I'd ever owned,
purchased, or possessed

a 9-millimeter firearm?

We could not find any evidence

that you had purchased a g*n.

You've done
a thorough investigation

and with all negative results, right?

Nothing that connected me
to the homicides

of Mike and Karen.

No, that's not correct.

But there's a difference
between knowing your case

and arguing it effectively.

What else was there?

At that time,
it was based on the fact

that we had two
dead bodies that had been shot

at Karen's house.

The past conflict
with, yes, question.

The past conflict
with Ms. Chandler

between her and Mike Sisco
and with Karen Harkness.

Emails between
Ms. Chandler and Hailey

describing Mike being a monster

and Karen being a wh*re,

that type of hatred

contributed to my belief
of the evidence.

Did you or did you not
receive any leads

for other suspects besides me?

For example, Jeff Sutton?

I wouldn't call it a lead.

It was a suggestion
by a person by the name

of Eileen Umbehr,
who was married to Keen Umbehr,

who was a former trash man
at Alma

that had a disagreement
with Jeff Sutton.

So when this person came to me
with this crackpot theory

that he had been involved
supposedly for insurance money,

we investigated that,
determined there was

a long-standing feud
between these two parties,

Keen Umbehr and Jeff Sutton.

And it was a personal vendetta
of Keen and Eileen

to go after Jeff Sutton.

He was easily eliminated
as a suspect in this case.

So whether he had
a 9-millimeter is...

Watching her conduct
her own defense,

it was sort
of incredibly impressive

and also just, you know,
profoundly embarrassing.

I'm looking at what's been marked

as Defendant's Exhibit 3009.

It's a PowerPoint presentation
that I've prepared.

It's okay. Just move it.

Move to admit
Defendant's Exhibit 3009.

-Objection. Objection.
-Objection.

Objection, lack of foundation.

Objection, hearsay, relevance,
and lack of foundation.

I need to the right to be heard

Before you make a ruling, please.

Because I have a...
a note here from Colin Bath.

The sentence...
the answer 2-7 to 25,

that all stipulations are off.

I need to be heard, please.

And of course,
Dana's daughter, Hailey,

testified again.

No. True.

I felt like you always
put us in the middle

of the relationship.

Is this a good setting to explain

our personal relationship?

You're blaming me
for a lot of your actions.

And you're making me...

like, this is about me.

And you're talking about how much

I have been a mess and rebellious

and not listening and...

and being a problem.

And I was a problem
for my dad and Karen.

And that's why
you needed to interfere

with my dad and Karen's lives
so much, because of Hailey.

In that courthouse,
with a daughter

testifying against her mother,
it just felt

like a room of broken people.

Thank you.

Once Dana Chandler announces that

she's gonna represent herself,

there's a laundry list
of questions you have, like,

how is she gonna handle this?

How is she gonna handle that?

As it turns out, all minor
things to worry about,

'cause she was going
for f*cking crazy...

I don't know if there's
something beyond a Hail Mary.

[apprehensive music]

♪♪

She decides she's gonna
put herself on the stand.

-Start by stating my name.
-My name is Dana Chandler.

I, as everyone know, have been
accused of a double homicide.

As a human experience
in the courtroom,

I was like, okay,
maybe this isn't a bad idea.

Because what she does is, she
actually tells her life story.

Just to give you a little
information about myself,

I was born... I think, it's been
shown... in Clovis, New Mexico...

-There she is.
-[laughs]

And moved to Colorado,
where I met Mike Sisco.

Are you video...
are you videotaping me?

Yeah.

And we had
our first child, Hailey.

Let me see the video camera.

-Oh, why? [laughs]
-Because.

And then we had Dustin.

[laughs]

An extreme close-up.

And I was not happy.

I started drinking wine
in December of '98,

and I... and I really
had been abusing alcohol

for quite some time.

And it was starting
to take a toll on me.

Mike and I's relationship
was so broken

and toxic that I could
not get sober in Lawrence.

So I'd go to AA, and then
I'd have to deal with Mike.

And our relationship, like I say,

was so toxic that
I would relapse.

And I kept relapsing.

Could it make a jury
less inclined to think

that this woman
was capable of brutal

and calculated killings

carried out
with surprising weaponry?

Maybe.

But now, having put herself
on the stand,

having told the story
of her alibi,

she's subject
to cross-examination.

Ms. Chandler, are you ready?

I'm ready.

And it was withering.

Because in her testimony,
she says,

I only ever told one story.

You've testified
that you told Detective Volle

the same thing that you told
Jeff Bailey, correct?

Yes.

You told this jury the same thing

you told Jeff Bailey
and the same thing

you told Detective Volle, correct?

-That's correct.
-My statements were consistent.

The story of this alibi
is what I told

Detective Richard Volle.

He's misremembering it if he
says I told a different story.

I told one story, and this is it.

Now, Ms. Chandler,
you testified

that you were confused
during the interview

with Volle about what day
he was talking about.

-Correct?
-Yes.

When he says,
what did you do on July 6?

You started talking about
stores that you went to.

And then when he went on
to say, what did you do

after that, and you said
you went home,

and you stayed home all night.

I didn't say I went home.

I didn't say that I went home
after running the errands.

Richard Volle started leading
the exam... the interview,

and asked me.

He just assumed
I went home and asked me,

what did you do
when you got home?

Well, I hadn't got home
until July the 7th,

the following day.

You thought he was
skipping to the next day?

When I got home on July 7, yes.

As this detective is trying
to figure out where you were at

on July 6th and 7th,
it completely slipped your mind

to tell him that, oh, yeah,
I drove four hours

west out of Colorado.

No, it didn't slip my mind.

Are you sure of it?

I may have said, um, well...

Do you wanna change
your testimony?

I'll give you a chance
to do that.

The prosecutor
actually has a transcript

of the parts
of that interview with Volle

that were, in fact, recorded.

And she tells a different story.

You drove through
Idaho springs on I-70

out to Glenwood Springs.

That's your testimony that
you gave to this jury,

and that's what
you told Jeff Bailey.

-Correct?
-Yes.

Right.

Now, when Sergeant Volle
is asking you

what you did the next morning,
you're telling him

you woke up in Glenwood Springs

and drove back to Dillon?

No, I didn't drive
back to Dillon.

It's either Denver,
and you drove an hour

to Dillon, or Glenwood Springs,

and you drove an hour to Dillon.

Which one is it?

I... I got...

I woke up at 6:00
in Glenwood Springs...

And drove from 10:00 from
Glenwood Springs on the rest

of my drive in the mountains.

-But you told...
-you told Detective Volle

you woke up,
you left at 10:00 a.m.,

and you went to Dillon.

And if you're confused
on what day,

you must have meant you
woke up in Glenwood Springs

and drove to Dillon, correct?

I was confused about
that part of the... you know,

because Richard
really had asked me,

what'd you do when you got home?

And I'm in the 7th, and then...

and I'm trying to get it
straight in my mind what...

Ms. Chandler,
let me ask it this way.

Was there a time you woke up at


Um, no.

That's what you just
told Detective Volle

-on that recording.
-That's right.

So what you told Detective Volle

is not consistent with what
you told Jeff Bailey, is it?

I would... that's true. Yes.

And it's not consistent with
what you told this jury, is it?

Um...

I don't remember
exactly what I said,

but I do know that what I...

Did you testify
to this jury that you

woke up in Glenwood Springs
at 10:00 a.m.

and drove back to Dillon?

No.

So would you agree what you told

Detective Volle
is different than what

you testified to this jury?

As far as the part where I was

confused from the afternoon...

Ms. Chandler,
is it different?

Yes.

So when you were testifying

and you accused Sergeant Volle
of making all this up,

what he said is actually what
you told him, isn't it?

That is what was my statement
in Mark Bennett's office, yes.

And after getting home
and seeing that search warrant

and realizing that your story
wouldn't hold up in court,

you gave Jeff Bailey a
different version, didn't you?

I absolutely did not.

And you've had 23 years
to figure out

what story to tell this jury.

-Is that true?
-That's absolutely not true.

[tense music]

Let me ask you just one question.

She does tell two stories about
where she was over those days.

Yeah, I'd rather
not comment on that.

Correct?

I... I really don't
wanna comment on that.

[chuckles] What do you
mean you don't wanna comment?

-I just don't.
-I... I just...

I don't wanna... I just don't.

-Mm.
-You can't have it that way.

Oh, oh, well, I... I mean,
you... you have to respect

if I don't want to comment
on that.

I don't want to, you know.

I just don't, you know.

I mean, I just don't.

But we're talking about
Eileen Umbehr, right?

-Mm-hmm.
-Champion for justice.

-Right.
-Truth-teller.

-I... I know.
-I am just saying that,

you know, there...
there's not clar...

enough clarity for me to...

to speak to that.

♪♪

So.

The defendant's story is
all over the map, literally.

When you look at this case,
it's easy

to jump to assumptions.

Is this revenge?

Obsession? Jealousy?

What is this case really about?

Why are Mike and Karen dead?

And the evidence shows
one simple answer...

control.

That is why Mike Sisco and
Karen Harkness are dead today,

because the defendant
couldn't control it anymore.

And now you're in control.

You control everything
at this point.

And I'm asking you
to find the defendant

guilty of these crimes,
because the evidence

overwhelmingly shows that
she committed these crimes.

You are all to presume
that I am innocent.

And I am innocent.
I did not k*ll Mike Sisco.

I did not k*ll Karen Harkness.

[sighs]

As part of that concept, the...

my liberty, my freedom
is hanging in the balance.

There's no evidence
I was in Topeka, Kansas,

on July 6th or 7th of 2002.
I wasn't.

There's no evidence
that I ever owned,

purchased, or possessed
a 9-millimeter firearm.

I submit to you that the State
has woefully failed

to meet its burden, to prove
beyond a reasonable doubt

that I k*lled Mike Sisco
or Karen Harkness.

[tense music]

♪♪

With the closing arguments done,

the jury was sent to deliberate.

Relatives of Mike and Karen
retired to a private room.

Keen and Eileen sat quietly.

And then after just three
hours, the verdict was in.

In the District Court
of Pottawatomie County, Kansas,

State of Kansas, plaintiff,

versus Dana L. Chandler,
defendant,

we, the jury,
find Dana Chandler guilty

of m*rder in the first degree
as charged in count one.

Verdict form, count two,
we, the jury,

find Dana Chandler guilty
of m*rder in the first degree

as charged in count two.

Okay, members of the jury,
is this your verdict?

Dana sat in her chair and
turned her back to the jury,

maybe to send a message of her
disdain for the whole process.

But she was facing her family.

Dana Chandler gets
slapped with two counts

of first-degree m*rder.

Dana Chandler case
has spanned decades

and received national attention.

Dana Chandler is headed
back to prison after a jury

found her guilty today.

The next step is to move
forward with sentencing,

and Kagay says that
Chandler has every right

to appeal the conviction,
and his team will be prepared

just in case she does.

[water running]

[fan humming]

Today, we don't interact
with Dana on any level.

And the reason for that is,
it was a huge mistake

for her to represent herself.

I don't like seeing Dana in jail

for a crime, a horrific crime,
that she did not commit.

It hurts my heart.
I pray for her every night.

But, you know,
I'm still disappointed,

and maybe... I'm not sure
anger is the right word.

I think the word
I'm looking for is, I'm... I'm...

I'm hurt.

You know, I did so much work.

And then for her at the
very end to represent herself,

and in doing so, forfeited
all the decades of work,

not only Eileen and I have
done, but in the second trial,

and the third trial, that they
were all prepped, ready to go.

It's... it's... it's a mind...
it's like a blender,

just right into your emotions.

Just zzz!

It's hard to take.

It's like she made the biggest
mistake of her life,

and there was no turning back.

-It's like she did something...
-Ir... irreversible.

[somber music]

♪♪

Obsession.

It's a wicked little human trait.

Looking back on it all,
maybe at its heart,

in all of its sprawling
f*cking tentacles,

is the dangers of certainty.

Every character in this drama

has chased their own
sort of certainty.

The cops from the get-go,

certain the Dana Chandler
was the k*ller,

blind to any other possibility.

"I could k*ll him.

I thought about k*lling him."

Keen and Eileen chasing

their own personal certainty...

The real k*ller of Mike
and Karen is still out there.

That they not only knew
Dana Chandler was innocent,

but they knew who had actually
k*lled Mike and Karen.

I think this case is
a character assassination.

The certainty of Dana Chandler

that she knew her case best.

Dana's biggest mistake
was that she thought

innocence was a defense.

And it's not.

My own sort of certainty that,

well, I could get
to the bottom of it.

That's what I've done
my whole life.

Later date?

Certainty, in the moment,
it feels empowering

and satisfying, right,
because you have the answer.

You don't need anything more.

It's a dangerous notion.

And now at the end
of a third trial,

I think I know who did it.

But for the life of me,
I can't tell you how.

["Prisoner's Song" playing]

♪♪

♪ I'll be carried
to the new jail tomorrow ♪

♪ Leaving my poor
darlin' alone ♪

♪ With the cold prison bars
all around me ♪

♪ And my head
on a pillow of stone ♪

♪ Oh, please meet me tonight
in the moonlight ♪

♪ Please meet me tonight
all alone ♪

♪ Oh, I wish I had someone
to love me ♪

♪ Someone to call me
their own ♪

♪♪

[bright tone]