tried to destroy. now, this guy is such a super criminal that, where does he go to destroy that? he goes to the kansas law enforcement training center, which is full of what? former cops. and he gets somebody to help him destroy those things. now, if you wanted to destroy those things, there are innumerable farm ponds. if you wanted to get rid of that, you throw it into a farm pond and nobody will ever find it. in fact, the state s whole investigation, said the defense, was at beast incompetent, maybe worse. brett and attorney wachtel claimed that vashti s car disappeared from the crime scene for three days, even though the whole seacat yard was supposed to have been sealed off, a crime scene. they showed the jury a series of photos taken from different vantage points, which the defense argued made it look like the car had been moved in the days after the fire. this neighbor lived right across the street from the seacat driveway. when you first observed the driveway, was the volksw
meanwhile, elsa is now the first category 1 storm of the season. it s now headed to the u.s. and expected to hit florida early next week. now back to dateline. brett seacat, unable to pay a lawyer to represent him, was lucky in one particular way his court-appointed defense attorneys just happened to be veterans of murder cases. val wachtel and roger faulk, who opened. my grandmother used to love to put together jigsaw puzzles. a man who understood perfectly well that the puzzle didn t always go together the way the prosecution tried to make it look. there s a second side to this story, and that is that vashti seacat, depressed and confronted with either losing her career or
that driveway ever again? three days later. three days later. but you didn t see if i understand your testimony, you didn t see anybody bring it back. no. i think he was telling the truth. if i thought he was lying, i wouldn t have put him on. to me, it implies that the investigation itself is faulty. how do you let somebody get into the crime scene and drive it away? so, it was either gross incompetence or intentional. in my opinion, it would be both. and if that happened, then what other mistakes did they make? there s something about the investigation that stinks. just smelled bad, said wachtel, that the state claimed it found gasoline on brett s pants, when the defense expert
they say guilty, i m just going to get all this off my chest and i m going to feel good. but then there s this big part of you that realizes, at the end of the day, it didn t bring her back. the truth is, everybody was just as hurt. no one won. so, you think, why am i not feeling better? because what got better? he is behind bars, and he needs to be behind bars. but the lives that it affected will forever be affected. lawyer val wachtel all but said, i knew it, because i don t think mr. seacat got a fair trial in kingman, kansas, and i will never think that. but it was brett who insisted on being tried in his hometown and in his lawyer s view, he paid the price. and i m certainly not blaming the jury, right? it just to me, it became
reginald carr. do you recall telling the detective, i never really got a look at his face because he kept it pretty much hidden? i don t know if those were my exact words or not. val wachtel argued that h.g. was not credible because she had been unable to make a positive identification of reginald carr at a preliminary hearing a few months before. as you look at mr. reginald carr sitting here today, does he look to you substantially the same as he did at the preliminary hearing? he s more shaven right now. when you were asked to identify reginald carr at the preliminary hearing, were you able to see his eyes? he had on glasses. are you able to see his eyes now? you can, but glasses are there again. are his eyes substantially the same as they were at the preliminary hearing? yes.