found and that any one will ever be convicted of the the murders of these four young girls? let s ask our panel. guys, thanks for being with us this evening. now, steve, they say that this case where scott and springsteen were convicted that there is no evidence connecting them to the scene of the crime other than a confession. do you think there is additional evidence here? your honor the fact of the matter is that the one suspect, murderer by the way, not a crook, is is specific in the number of shots and how the shots were fired. how would this person know this part of the crime if they weren t at the scene? judge jeanine: do you agree with that, guys? when i was listening to the defense attorney i thought what he was going to be saying is
program. i have no doubt someone will make a call. they should know what is up on the screen. somewhere that from? a hotel? is that a group that, you know. you know, you got to think, honor it is someone in the circle of influence. whether cell phones or computers are tracked you could find out who the person is and match the photograph and identify the individual and get them in for questioning. judge jeanine: it is 2008. she had a cell phone no doubt about it. and who took the photograph. so it comes into what the counselor said here had to be a close circle of friends. if you look it is not only the photograph but there is a sketch, right. the sketch that was given from people who said there was a man in the neighborhood at that very time. so connect the dots. judge jeanine: no doubt. no doubt. doctor, final word here?
it? why are you blaming the police for coercing him? is a five day interrogation and he gave a written statement. you are looking at maybe the written statement or transcription of the written statement itself. he says those things. the analysis that needs to be looked at are they using the right method of interrogation and are they using it properly. they fed him and led him. judge jeanine: he didn t confess when was 18 years old and all of a sudden they have to say we going to take this to the grand jury and he confesses. how is it that he knew that the 13-year-old was not dead on the first shot? that after he did what he did to her that he had to shoot her again? my question is based upon the court review or based upon any one saying how did this guy know she wasn t dead? how did he know to do what he
interrogation that he got scared and basically he told them what h they wanted to hear and he believed he was involved involvement. come up with a judge jeanine: how is it that he was threatened. it was is a subtle threat and to give context to this. this case was tried in 2002. i missed the threat but here was what the threat was. he was told look we know you are involved in the crime and that is going to happen you know what a grand jury is we will take you to a grand jury and we are going to tell them what we know and you know that if you lie to them you are are going to go to jail or prison. judge jeanine: what i don t understand. is he when came in aa cording to the court record said that i have now confessed to my father and my best friend patrick davidson before he actually confessed to police. i mean doesn t that have a ring of truth to it it? i already told my father i did
how does a guy know that she didn t die from the .22 to her head? unless he was at the crime scene. as far as the fifth person was concerned if there was a fifth person that doesn t take them out of the picture not at all. the defense is going to say two things. a, he was fed that information and b, he had reason to know what that information was or acquire it later on. and therefore they are going to use that. judge jeanine: as the a. i will come back and say prove to me it was said because it was on videotape and you objected because it was a videotape. next, your help is needed. it could lead to the killer of a former model. why not make lunch more than just lunch?