01x02 - Person of Interest

[bunniefuu]

[TV static drones]

[bright tone]

[phone line ringing]

[intriguing music]

♪♪

A normally quiet
Topeka neighborhood

turned into a crime scene
Sunday afternoon.

Mike Sisco and Karen Harkness

were found dead in Harkness'
Southwest Topeka home.

As the investigation continues,

police are looking for clues.

♪♪

OK, how else could someone
get in that house?

I guess the sliding glass
door is...

what, the door is in the back.

I mean, I guess someone
could potentially break that.

I mean, I haven't been there.

I don't even know what the...

-There's no damage.
-There's no damage.

I've been... I was
a prosecutor for a long time.

And if I was going
to go in that house,

just thinking about it, if I
was there when they got home

and they went in the garage
and the last thing...

I mean, you know,
closing the garage door is

the last thing you do
when you walk in the garage

into the entrance way.

And I would just stand
outside the garage

till they walked
in the front door.

When they closed garage door,

I'd step over that beam
and be inside.

Now, whether that's how anybody
got in there or not...

Most murders, generally speaking,

are committed by someone
that you know.

When the obituary came out,

we see that Karen's daughter
was married

to a man named Jeff Sutton.

Jeff Sutton used to be
the county attorney here.

I've often said, if we had
never met Jeff Sutton,

we would have read
about this tragic m*rder,

and we would have said,
pass the raisin bread.

I mean, you know,
it's as tragic as it is.

You can tell a tree by its fruit,

and his fruit was rotten.

There was just something
gnawing in our hearts

that said
we just couldn't let it go.

And the only thing we could do
is collect more information.

Eileen started putting together

the pieces of the puzzle.

He had a history of violence,

access to the home,
expertise with weapons.

There were a lot more reasons

to look at him instead of Dana.

We believe that he's
an under-investigated

person of interest.

That's the most we can say.

We're just convinced that nobody

has really looked at him

the way he should have been
looked at.

Everybody believed
they'd got the right person,

except for us.

Keen and Eileen's
case against Jeff Sutton

would come to be compiled
in a 200-page dossier.

And she gives it the quite
spectacular name

"[person of interest]."

I'm not a detective or anything,

but it really doesn't take one
to put the pieces together.

Exhibit A, exhibit B, exhibit C1,

exhibit D, exhibit...

Page after page,
meticulously organized.

Jeff Sutton causes
concern over g*ns.

This is when Jeff Sutton
was arrested

for throwing a man
through a plate glass window

during a bar fight.

Those charges were
eventually dismissed.

But then there was
the time he practically

ran over a construction worker.

She was holding one
of those stop signs,

and he didn't want to wait.

He proceeded to chew her out.

He threw a full f*cking
bottle of Pepsi at her.

She was 61.

I think he's dangerous.

It's a big reason why
I've done what I've done.

They posit a motive,
because Karen Harkness

came from a prominent family.

Greed, the oldest motive
in the book.

I mean, everybody
knows that you...

you look to see who benefited
from that person's death.

Karen's dad was a big-time
Topeka businessman.

Karen had a trust fund.

This is the home
that Jeff and Erin Sutton

owned and actually still own.

And then after the murders,
they purchased this one.

He knew Mike and Karen had
gone to the casino that night

and they'd be back late,
maybe hammered.

He would have had
access to the home

where the murders took place.

His wife had a key.

I don't say anything
about Jeff Sutton

that isn't backed up
in newspaper reports

or court cases.

Over the years,
Pen Pal and Trash Man

gave their growing
dossier on Sutton

to every law enforcement
agency in the state of Kansas.

You have no new voice messages.

She got no response.

This is the model of weapon
we believe was used to k*ll

Mike Sisco and Karen Harkness.

It's a 9-millimeter Norinco U*i.

To say this was a unique set
of armaments for any k*ller

would be an understatement.

Holy f*ck.

You'd have to be a g*n nut
to find something like this.

And that was exactly
what Jeff Sutton was.

Sutton was certified
by the A*F to buy

and sell high-powered
weapons and ammunition.

Back when he was a prosecutor,
he brokered a bizarre deal

with the local sheriff

in which he could take
confiscated g*ns

from their inventory
in lieu of payment for work

on their cases.

It was in the papers.

Here is the lede, though.

Trash Man believes
one of the g*ns

missing from the local
sheriff's inventory

was an U*i machine g*n.

And in fact, a sheriff's deputy

told Trash Man she had seen
Sutton with just such a g*n.

According to police reports,
Karen was shot first.

Boom, boom, boom, boom, boom,
five shots.

He took a step or two to his
left, shot two more times,

then several more steps
and shot Mike

as he was between
the wall and the bed.

No misses.

That's extraordinary.

That would indicate to me the
person who shot Mike and Karen

had experience with this g*n.

As it happens, the only
piece of DNA evidence

ever collected at the m*rder
scene was a single hair

burned into a shell casing.

Prosecutors waited until the
eve of trial to test the hair

and maybe for good reason.

The hair did not match
Mike, Karen, or Dana,

but perhaps it matched
Jeff Sutton.

Keen had a theory that could
tie Sutton to that hair.

You see, when you sh**t
from an automatic r*fle,

the shell casing
spits out to the right

and falls to the ground.

But if you're holding
the g*n left-handed,

well, something
different happens.

I wanted to test the theory
to see,

by sh**ting left-handed,

is it possible that a hot shell
could hit the right arm

and pull an arm hair off?

[g*nshots]

Let me f*cking see your arm.

Does that sh*t hurt?

-Yeah, it hurts.
-It's burned.

So a left-handed sh**ter
could theoretically have

a casing graze the right arm,
singe a limb hair,

and fall to the ground.

[g*nshots]

But for their Jeff Sutton
theory to be viable,

Jeff Sutton needed
to be left-handed.

And of course, Pen Pal dug up
an old newspaper article

with a picture of Sutton
signing his oath of office

as a prosecutor.

He signed it left-handed.

Nuts?

Maybe.

Persuasive?

Well, a judge thought so.

Turns out,
in the state of Kansas,

a citizen can go before a judge

and submit what amounts to an
affidavit of probable cause

to have some other citizen
investigated for a crime.

Doesn't have to be
a police officer.

Doesn't have to be
a prosecutor... a citizen.

Well, let's say Keen
or Eileen Umbehr.

They submitted person of interest

as an affidavit of probable cause

to get Jeff Sutton's DNA,

so it might be matched
to the limb hair

that had been found
on the shell casing

on the carpet of the bedroom
where Mike

and Karen had been k*lled.

Newly released documents
show a judge

allowed Dana Chandler's
defense to collect

DNA evidence
from a man who they call

an alternative suspect.

Judge Robert Fairchild
approved a request

from Chandler's
defense team to collect

three cheek swabs from one
of Harkness' family members.

The defense wants to see
if the DNA matches

a hair found on a shell casing
that did not

match Chandler or the victim.

OK.

OK, Jeff, marker, soft sticks.

I just want to start
by saying thank you for coming.

You are a character
in a terribly sad,

as yet unresolved, m*rder case.

Does Keen Umbehr
know we're here today?

I'm sure he does.

Is he here today?

He is not.

It sounds like there was beef
between the two of you.

He had a beef with me.

I never had a beef with him.

He plays a role,
potentially, in you not staying

in the office of prosecutor.

You didn't have
a problem with that?

Turns out, Sutton was the target

of some of Trash Man's
early efforts at muckraking.

He'd gone after him,
alleging Sutton

had engaged in double billing
and other ethics violations

when he was
the county prosecutor.

The Kansas Supreme Court
censured Sutton

for two of the violations.

Keen and Eileen
had come to believe

that Keen was at risk

of physical harm
from Jeff Sutton.

Keen Umbehr has been
carrying his animus towards me

for close to 20 years.

That's not healthy,
and that's not normal.

Keen and his wife, Eileen,
have quite publicly

put out now for years

what amounts to a prosecution
brief against you.

Are there truths in some of
the stuff they have in there?

There are truths, right?

Have I always done
the right thing?

Not always.

I'm not proud of that.

It just is what it is.

But they're... they're barking
up the wrong hole if they

think that I m*rder*d Karen.

But a judge had found
the key numbers,

affidavit of probable cause
was persuasive.

Tell me your reaction to that.

I thought it was comical,
in all honesty, because I have

zero reservation that the DNA
that they took from me

would match anything
at the crime scene.

It's just part of his
dog-and-pony show.

I want to talk a little bit
about Mike and Karen.

We were with them all the time.

There was nobody
in the world that Erin

loved more than her mom.

She has been crushed by this.

And every time it's revisited,
it opens the wound,

and she just doesn't want it.

This is devastating to her.

Describe the Saturday night,
July 6th,

you and Erin and your night.

I was in bed
with Karen's daughter.

There can, in my mind,
be no more powerful alibi

than her saying,
Jeff Sutton was in bed with me.

I went to sleep with him.

I woke up with him.

I was with him the entire time.

How about the situation
Dana Chandler is in,

whose conviction has now
been revealed to have been

won by a malicious prosecutor?

What are we to feel about her?

She's a damn m*rder*r.

That's what we feel about her.

The prosecution chose to continue

to pursue this matter
irrespective

of the other trial, right?

She will get her day in court.

Let me do this because I must.

Jeff Sutton, did you k*ll
Mike and Karen?

No.

[ominous music]

♪♪

Could it not be argued
that this 200 pages

is simply a circumstantial case?

Don't you worry
that you're doing to him

what you think prosecutors
and police and "48 Hours"

did to Dana?

Yeah, I actually do.

I'm very aware that.

That's exactly what I'm doing.

But I don't worry about it
enough to keep quiet about it.

I have a whole lot more evidence

that points to Jeff Sutton.

And yet nobody will listen.

Nobody will look at him.

Made me cry to say that.

I'm sorry.

Because nobody else is listening.

Nobody's listening.

Nobody cares.

Ah.

And, you know, I told you I've
come to love Dana Chandler.

It's not just how wrong
this all is,

how so many things
have gone right

for Dana Chandler,
how the Supreme Court

can reverse unanimously.

And that's not enough
to get this case dismissed.

All agencies locking arms,
joining forces

to stick with their one theory
that Dana Chandler

committed this crime.

It's... it's insane.

How can people be so inhumane?

How can they be so cruel?

How can they care so much
about their careers

and their reputations

and care so little
for one woman's freedom?

How can they care?

Why don't they think about
their mother, their sister,

their aunt, their grandmother?

How would they like them
locked up for nothing,

for doing nothing,

for... they know it too, Joe.

They know the truth.

They know she's innocent.

They know they've got nothing,
putting her in the state,

in the house.

But they still want to retry her?

Shame on them.

[somber music]

Anyway.

♪♪

The results of Jeff Sutton's
DNA swab had come in.

Hidden in a court document
for Dana's upcoming retrial

was a brief line,
but its effects were powerful.

The DNA didn't match.

For the better part
of two decades,

the Holy Grail you guys
had been chasing

was to somehow get a DNA sample
from Jeff Sutton.

You believed that hair
could settle the case.

We still believe it.

Joe, don't you understand?

We still believe that hair
could solve this case.

Guys, the detective who was
leading it had a theory

from the get-go
and closed his eyes to any

other evidence that might have
pointed him elsewhere.

Mm-hmm.

Do you worry that you
are making that very mistake?

And they focused
on Dana Chandler,

in spite of the fact
that they couldn't

put a weapon in her hand,
in spite

of the fact
that she has no history

of violence
or any weapons expertise

or lived 540 miles away.

They engaged in tunnel vision
without any credible evidence.

Our case against Jeff Sutton
is based on facts.

An assemblage of facts
is not evidence.

It's an assemblage of facts.

Let's just say,
because anything's possible,

should there come a day
in which satisfactory evidence,

new witnesses,
or potential confession

would show that Dana Chandler
indeed had k*lled

Mike Sisco and Karen Harkness,
that what you regard

as the impossible, with a lot
of good reason, is, in fact,

true, could you survive that?

♪♪

♪♪

If you had told me that I
would experience excitement

in a Topeka, Kansas, hotel room,

I wouldn't have liked my odds.

But I think that's
what I authentically feel.

Father, we pray that your will

will be accomplished in this
trial for Dana Chandler.

We pray that for each
and individual juror

would see the truth.

Tomorrow, shortly
after noon Kansas time,

the retrial of Dana Chandler
is going to begin.

We pray that after the trial,

the truth could come out
in full view.

It'll be a verdict, in many ways,

decided by which side
tells the best story.

We pray that, Father,
in Jesus' name.

It's all in God's hands now.

Everyone's been telling
their version of the story

going on 20 years now.

Show up, and watch
the Red Sea cave in on him.

From the moment that
Mike Sisco and Karen Harkness

were m*rder*d, their families
were telling the story

that Dana Chandler did it.

[g*nshots]

And the Umbehrs were telling
their story that no, no, no.

It's the son-in-law who did it.

And CBS came
and they told their stories.

The local police detectives
had their stories.

And I'm trying to tell our story.

The one advantage we have is,

we haven't written an ending yet.

♪♪

Good afternoon.

You're going to hear evidence
that law enforcement

made efforts in this case.

They tried to collect DNA.

They tried
to collect fingerprints.

They tried to collect hair.

State's not going to spend
a lot of time on that case.

Science is not going
to solve this case.

This case is not based on DNA.

This case is not based on hair.

This case is not based
on fingerprints.

This case is based on jealousy,
rage, and obsession.

On July 7th of 2002,
Dana Chandler was nowhere

near Topeka, let alone Kansas.

She was in Colorado,


from the Harkness residence.

There is no evidence that she
was in the Harkness residence,

no evidence she was in Topeka.

There's no evidence she was
in the state of Kansas.

The government
is asking you, because they

believe her conduct
is not normal,

that she must be the k*ller.

And they're going to ask you to
find her guilty based on that.

I suggest to you
this is a textbook case

of why we have
presumption of innocence.

The burden is on the government,

and the burden is
beyond reasonable doubt.

Thank you, Counsel.

And are you ready to proceed
with your first witness?

We are, Your Honor.

So when you looked at
the prosecution's witness list

for the second trial,
it was the same

cast of characters as round one,

family members that would
talk sh*t about Dana.

Mike and I took Hailey
to the soccer game,

and Dana showed up.

She was yelling that Mike
is a r*pist, he r*ped me.

Mike told me that
the patterns of harassment

had increased
and that he feared for he

and Karen's lives.

What did your mom tell you?

She would receive harassing,
constant,

menacing messages.

She would say things like,
Mike still loves me.

She would call her a wh*re.

Coworkers of Karen who would
talk about how scared

and beleaguered she was
under a f*cking blizzard

of phone calls from Dana.

And when she rounded the corner,

she was just shaking so bad
that she was weak at the knees

and I helped her to her desk.

And I said, oh my God,
what is wrong?

She said she had
been up all night

receiving phone calls from Dana
and she was very afraid.

She told you she was afraid?

Very afraid.

They have a telephone expert.

I could see multiple instances

where Mr. Sisco's
or Ms. Harkness' phones

were called repeated times
within a short period of time.

How many calls were made
on February 27th?

There were 22 calls
between 5:18 AM and 5:49 AM.

There was nothing new.

There was no, you know,
smoking g*n.

There was no dispositive
piece of evidence

that established her guilt.

But now Dana's defense lawyers
had in front of them

a detective who, by their lights,

had committed perjury
in the first trial.

Do you solemnly
swear the testimony

you're about to give
is the truth,

the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?

-I do.
-Thank you so much.

Have a seat, please.

Good afternoon, sir.

Would you please
tell us your name?

Richard Volle.

In 2012, you were
present at the trial.

Yes.

Will you tell the jury
what a protection from abuse,

or a PFA, is, please?

And you were questioned
by ADA Spradling, correct?

Yes.

And she asked you about
a protection from abuse order,

didn't she?

She did.

It's essentially a document
provided by the court

or signed by the court
that says you are not able

to have contact
with another person.

The question, did Mike
get a protection from abuse?

Did Mike get
a protection from abuse?

-Yes, he did.
-Against who?

Against the defendant.

That was your testimony?

Yes.

That was not true, was it?

Technically, no, it's not true.

-Not technically.
-It wasn't true.

There was no PFA order
signed by a court, was there?

-There was no PFA.
-Right. Signed by a court.

-No.
-Right.

That was not true, was it?

No, that was not true.

It was incorrect.

The detective was also asked
about his interview

with Dana Chandler
just days after the k*lling

in which
she offered up her alibi.

Sergeant Volle,
did you ask Ms. Chandler

about her whereabouts
on the weekend of the homicide?

Yes, I did.

Did she tell you
anything about July 6th?

Yes.

She had stopped at
a King Soopers grocery store,

and she'd stopped
at a Target store,

and she had stopped
at an AutoZone.

Did she tell you what
she purchased at AutoZone?

She said she'd bought
a cigarette lighter.

Did you ask her if she made
any other purchases

at AutoZone?

Yes.

She did not mention
the 5-gallon gas cans to you?

No, she did not.

She said after that was done,
she went and filled up

her car at a gas station.

Then she said she'd gone home

and arrived about mid-afternoon.

I did not know exactly
what time it was.

She said she'd stayed
at her house,

had no guests or phone calls,

and that she turned in
about 9:00.

Sunday, July 7th,
did she tell you

where she was at on July 7th?

Yes.

"I woke up around 6:00
in the morning."

And then she said she'd left
in her car around 10:00

and drove west on I-70
through Dillon, Colorado.

She'd traveled to a trail
just south of Granby

and stopped and went
for a hike on a trail.

She said she hiked
for about an hour or two,

and that was
about 2:00 to 3:00

when she got back on the road.

She said she drove
to Estes Park on Highway 34.

She didn't stop,
rather continued on

through there to Loveland.

And then she returned home,
arrived between 6:00 and 7:00.

You made an attempt to tape
record that interview, correct?

That's correct.

The interview
is about 2.5 hours long.

Is that correct?

-According to my notes, yes.
-Right.

But the tape is only a little
less than an hour, correct?

That's correct.

And would I understand
your testimony to be

that it was discovered
that the tape ran out?

-Yes.
-OK.

We have to rely
on your notes or your report.

You do have to rely
on I'm telling the truth.

It's kind of a remarkable
moment, right?

Maybe the most
significant interview

they're going
to conduct in a case

with the woman they believe
k*lled these two people,

and the recording runs to the
end of one half of the tape.

They failed to turn
the tape over to record

the rest of her interview.

It is certainly a loss
for the investigation.

But within weeks
of Dana Chandler's interview

with Detective Richard Volle,
in which she

lays out her first account
of her alibi,

she tells a different story...

not to the police
but to a friend.

Did you later talk to someone
by the name of Jeff Bailey?

Yes, I did.

In speaking with Jeff Bailey,

did you learn that
Dana Chandler had told him

where she had been that weekend?

Yes.

She told me
that she needed $50,000,

which, a little surprising,

and that... asked
her why, of course.

And she said she was accused
of the m*rder of Mike

and, I believe she said,
the lady... lady friend.

Well, I asked her what happened.

Why are you a suspect?

And she said she didn't think
they accepted her alibi.

I asked her where she was,
and she said she was camping

in the mountains in Colorado.

I said, well, you're fine.

Who were you camping with?

And she said she was alone.

And I asked her where she went.

And she said she went
around the state,

that she'd gone I-70 west
through Glenwood Springs,

which would take you
through Vail,

and r*fle, she mentioned,

which was west
of Glenwood Springs.

She mentioned Craig up in the
northwest part of the state

and in Steamboat Springs,
which is east of Craig,

and Fort Collins.

I asked her where she camped,

and she said
she slept in her car.

Do you know whether or not
she ever told the police

where she was at that weekend?

She told me that the story she

was giving me was the truth,
but she didn't think the police

would believe it, so she'd
given them a different story.

-Thank you, sir.
-I have no further questions.

You've talked to the police
at some point in time

about this information, correct?

I did.

Did they ever ask you to type up

or write out a written statement?

-I don't recall.
-Right.

Have you seen notes in your own
writing about what you wrote...

Not in my own writing.

Have you seen anything
typed up like an email

that you typed about
what you recall in 2002?

-I don't know.
-All right.

Don't recall.

Have you heard a recording
played for you

about what you told
the police in 2002?

-Recording?
-Yes.

-I have not.
-Right.

And so what they're
asking you to do

is recollect something
that happened 20 years ago.

Is that fair to say?

Today that's correct.

-That's right.
-OK.

I think their ambition
was chiefly

to show what a f*cked-up, sloppy,

lazy investigation it had been.

They had created tunnel vision
very early on

that she could be
the only suspect.

There was a circumstantial case
had had, you know,

parts of it f*cking eviscerated.

♪♪

New at midday,
court is back in session

for the m*rder retrial
of Dana Chandler.

13's Phil Anderson is live

from the Shawnee County
Courthouse

with what's taken place
so far this morning.

The big news this morning
is testimony from Hailey Seel,

Chandler's daughter.

Good afternoon.

Would you please
tell us your name?

Hailey Seel.

And, Ms. Seel,
who is Mike Sisco to you?

He's my dad.

And who is Dana Chandler to you?

♪♪

She's my mom.

Hailey, when did you learn
that your dad had been k*lled?

On July 7th.

Did you talk
to your mom that night?

-Not that night.
-OK.

When's the next time
you talked to your mom?

It was the next day on July 8th.

I called her and I said,
my dad and Karen

have been shot and k*lled.

And she said, oh, I... somebody
called and told me that,

but I thought
it was a prank call.

And I said, no, Mom,
they've really been k*lled.

It really happened.

Were there police officers
there when you did that?

Yeah.

Were police officers
asking you to ask

certain things of your mom?

They might have.

I might have you call her

just to find out where she's at.

That's what I was
thinking about doing.

I really was going
to do that earlier today.

I just haven't.

I'd rather you wait until we
were there so I could listen.

-Is that OK?
-That's fine.

OK.

Ms. Seel, do you recall
giving a statement

to Detective Volle
at the law enforcement center

on July 8th of 2002?

Yes.

During that video, there
was reference to you making

a phone call to your mom.

Do you remember hearing that?

Yes.

And Detective Volle asked,
you know, I'd like to be there

for that phone call, correct?

Yes.

And do you recall
making that phone call

subsequently later that day?

Yes.

And do you remember
Detective Volle

-being there with you?
-Yes.

We'll use the phone here
to call, so...

OK.

You actually talked to Dana
through Hailey

on the 8th of July, didn't you?

Yes.

You asked Hailey to call
her mom and talk to her,

-didn't you?
-Yes.

And it was a 25- or 30-minute
phone call, correct?

-Yes.
-That you monitored, correct?

Yes.

And the purpose was to try
to get more information

about Dana, wasn't it?

Yes.

And Hailey
was how old at the time?

-17.
-OK.

And did you help Hailey provide
information, like what to ask

and what to say to Dana?

I don't recall.

We've already had the first
death notification call,

and we've failed
to record that, haven't we?

Yes.

We had a July 11th
interview with her.

We failed to record
over half of that, didn't we?

Yes.

And this call here
is 30 minutes long.

And it was recorded, wasn't it?

I don't recall.

Look right here.


and Dana recorded.

Do you see that?

Yes.

Where is that tape, Detective?

I don't know.

Have you ever seen it?

I don't know.

Did you do a report on this?

No.

You didn't even do any notes
about what Dana said, did you?

-No.
-Right.

There is no record of you
making this call at all,

except for these questions
you had given to Hailey.

-Is that right?
-I don't believe there is.

All right.

Can you tell us
how this important evidence

was lost or destroyed?

I don't know that there was
any importance to it.

Well, not to you, maybe.

There might be to Dana Chandler.

Because you asked her
for 30 minutes.

Essentially, you had
a surrogate asking questions

about her, didn't you?

Hailey was talking to her, yes.

Right.

-And I asked...
-or I gave Hailey

some questions to ask her.

And the whole purpose was
to get information from Dana.

-Yeah.
-Right.

One might argue
it was lost or destroyed

because it didn't help you.

Tell us how it got destroyed.

For a cop working
a double homicide

of considerable notoriety
in Topeka,

he is one poor record keeper.

It's only their word
against hers,

and their word seeks
to damn and incriminate her.

So Dana's defense lawyers
were doing, you know, I think,

a pretty effective job of
highlighting the deficiencies

in the prosecution's case.

I think most people had them,
you know,

ahead on the scorecard.

But then all of a sudden,
there was an announcement

and everybody was like,
what the f*ck's going on?

There was a rather surprising

development this morning

after weeks of testimony
in Dana Chandler's retrial.

The jury has temporarily
been dismissed,

perhaps for a few days.

No reason was given
for the retrial

being in recess for the second
day in a row on Friday.

A sign on the fourth floor
courtroom where the retrial

is being held said that
the case would be in recess

until 9:00 AM Tuesday.

Court is back in session
for the m*rder retrial

of Dana Chandler
after a five-day break

that included a completely
unexpected recess.

What was going on
was the latest crazy twist

in the case.

[tense music]

The prosecution had announced
that it had found...

Do you solemnly swear...

A new witness.

Good afternoon.

Would you please
tell us your name?

Terri Anderson.

There had been previous
proceedings in this case,

and you were not called to
testify in those proceedings,

were you?

No.

I want to ask you
about July 6th of 2002.

Did you go home that night
to your apartment?

Yes.

I went home at 10:00,
and I went out on my deck.

There were fireworks
off in the distance.

It's still
Fourth of July weekend,

so I didn't really think
anything of it.

But then a few minutes
had passed,

and then I heard bang,
bang, bang, bang, bang.

g*nshots.

I saw a movement
from off to my left.

And I looked
and then I saw a head.

Did you see the person's face?

I did briefly.

Did you know the person?

No, I had no idea who it was.

Do you see that person
in the courtroom today?

Yes.

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

and tell me what they're wearing.

-OK.
-Yeah.

Black jacket.

[pensive music]

♪♪

[bright tone]