Up and Vanished - Trial Update: Ryan Duke + Q&A

Episode Date: May 24, 2019

Philip Holloway leads us through the legal reasoning behind Ryan Duke's latest trial postponement. To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

experience basketball like never before with bet mgm an authorized gaming partner of the nba ready to shoot your shot we've made the bet mgm experience more immersive and fun for all types of basketball fans being on the sidelines is one thing this season experience basketball on the foul line exciting state-of-the-art live tracking technology and dozens of sportsbook selections await you at BetMGM Sportsbook. Tap into every game on your mobile devices. Get up off the sideline and drive to the basket yourself. No matter which team starts popping off, you'll find out why there's truly nothing like laying up a W with the king of sportsbooks. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. Must be 19 years of age or older. Ontario only. Please play responsibly. If you have

any questions or concerns about your gambling or someone else close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866-531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. Hey guys, Phillip Holloway here. Next month on June 5th, the second season of my criminal justice podcast, Sworn, will be premiering on a new podcasting app called Luminary. We looked into some of the biggest problems and pitfalls in the criminal justice system and spoke with people who are fighting for a better system every day. If you go to luminary.link slash sworn, you can sign up now and get three free months to listen. That's luminary, L-U-M-I-N-A-R-Y dot L-I-N-K forward slash sworn for three months free. Hi guys, Philip Holloway here. In the last episode, we talked about Bo Duke's trial in Wilcox County, where he was convicted and received 25 years in prison for charges related to lying about his role and what he knew about Tara's murder and her disappearance. So even though Ryan Duke was the first one charged with anything related to Tara's disappearance and death,

Bo Duke is actually the first person who has been convicted of anything and sent to prison. Remember, Bo Dukes still has additional charges pending in two other Georgia counties. He's charged in Ben Hill County with directly assisting Ryan Duke with helping to destroy Tara's body by burning it in the pecan orchard. Now, those charges are bad enough, but in Houston County, Georgia, he's charged with allegedly sexually assaulting two different women on New Year's Day 2019. Those charges involve rape, they involve kidnapping, they involve aggravated assault. Those are heavy charges in Georgia. If he's convicted, he will never see the light of day again as a free person. So now the question becomes, just how did Bo's trial affect Ryan's upcoming trial?

Well, as many of you know by now, Ryan Duke's trial has been postponed yet again. You might be wondering just what's going on here. So I'm going to try to provide some clarity and give you my take on the situation. Ryan's attorneys have utilized a rare, a very rare legal mechanism. It's rooted in a Georgia case called the Waldrop decision. Ryan's defense team came up with a novel theory. They came up with something that legally, I think, was really interesting. All murder cases in Georgia, if they're appealed, that appeal goes straight to the Georgia Supreme Court. The Georgia Supreme Court is the highest court in the state, and as such, it has general supervisory power over all other lower courts.

There are certain types of appeals that can occur prior to a trial. It's called an interlocutory appeal. It's also discretionary. If the judge makes a ruling that the defense doesn't like, they can ask the judge to appeal that. And the judge can say no. If the judge says yes, then the Supreme Court would also have to say yes. So you'd have to get the trial court and the Supreme Court to both agree to the appeal being done pretrial. But in this particular case, they did try that.

They tried the interlocutory appeal. The judge did not permit this pretrial interlocutory appeal. The judge did not permit this pretrial interlocutory appeal. So they went straight to the Supreme Court on, let's just call it for lack of a better word, an emergency basis. And they said, look, you guys have told us before through prior rulings that in extraordinary cases, you guys at the Supreme Court have this power, this inherent power to do the right thing. And so they relied on this case from several years ago where the Supreme Court said that, you know, in the rare exceptional case, you can file an appeal directly with the Supreme Court. And that's what they did. And that's what they did.

So the emergency motions that went to the Supreme Court in this case, they came from the trial court's denial of funds for investigators and defense experts. They're not seeking attorney's fees. They're seeking money to pay for all the other things. You can hire the best carpenter in the world, but if that carpenter doesn't have a hammer and nails and tools, they can't build a house. And it's the same thing for a lawyer. You can hire the best lawyer in the world, but if that lawyer doesn't have the tools that he or she needs, they can't do their job. And so it's really hard to separate the attorney from the rest of the things that the attorneys use to defend somebody. They were

wanting money to pay expert witnesses. We know we're going to have to have experts in this case. A big part of their defense is, you know, this is a false confession. That's at the heart of at least a big part of the defense. In order to convince a jury that a confession is a false confession, jurors are going to have to be educated that false confessions are a real thing. And to do that, they're going to need experts. I think it's important for people to understand that these are really critical issues. pro bono counsel, whether or not that person is nevertheless still entitled to have access to state funds for the other things related to their defense. One thing that is commonly misunderstood about this appeal is just what's going on right now

in the Supreme Court. So the merits of Duke's motion in the trial court, that being his application for funds for witnesses and investigators, the merits of that, whether or not he should or shouldn't get the money, in other words. That issue is not directly on appeal right now. What is on appeal is whether or not this emergency avenue of appeal should still exist in the state of Georgia. It's purely a legal question. Waldrop v. Head basically says that if it's an exceptional case and the issue is of such great concern and gravity and importance to the public and there's no other timely opportunity for appellate review, then parties can sometimes take advantage of this very, very limited type of an appeal.

And so the real question right now is whether or not this is going to be a viable avenue of appeal, not only in this case, but for the future in all cases to come. So if the defense can keep this road open, they can then ask the Supreme Court to turn to the merits of their argument, which is we need money. We need money. He's got a right to money and he's indigent. Nobody knows when Ryan's trial is going to take place because we don't know what the Supreme Court's going to do. They may say to the defense, well, we agree these are important issues, but the bigger point is we're not going to let you do this kind of an appeal. You're going to have to wait and see if there's a conviction and then you can make this

part of your appeal after a conviction. Lawyers don't like to put their eggs in the appeal basket. If they think that they've got a bad ruling pre-trial and they think they've got a shot at getting it reversed, they don't want to wait till after a conviction. They want the funds now because if they want to have a trial, they want to do their best. They want to have investigators. They want to have expert witnesses. They want to give it their best shot at trial. They want to have expert witnesses. They want to give it their best shot at trial. If they rule that he does, then that's a game changer.

And it's a game changer because now you're going to have more witnesses in the case. You're going to have the defense hiring experts. You're going to have the defense employing investigators. And you're going to give them some resources which will allow them to better prepare for trial. So we've got at least one round of appeal to wait on the Supreme Court for, and we may have a second round. And depending on how the Supreme Court rules, it could delay it for four, five, six months, or it could delay it for two or three years. We really just don't know because we've got to wait and see what happens at this point. If the Supreme Court says to the defense, no, we're not going to allow you

to use this special kind of an appeal anymore. You're going to have to go try your case and come back to see us if there's a conviction. If that happens, the trial could be late summer, early fall of 2019. On the other hand, if they are allowed to address the merits of the appeal, that being the question of whether or not he gets state money, then that appeal could last several more months itself. It was really interesting to note that when the judge says, all right, I'm going to go back in chambers and think about this. During the time that he was in recess, literally during that time, this order from the Supreme Court came down that put the brakes on the case. Trial judge had already said, no, I'm not going to allow this pretrial appeal. We're going to go ahead with

the trial. So everyone is getting ready for trial. And they really did not want to put the brakes on it. And it was almost surreal. It's almost like the Supreme Court was watching the same live stream that we were all watching and said, wait a minute, we need to issue this order before this judge goes forward. But it looked like he was about to do something that would have been most unwise, which was to go forward and try to have hearings. Because if you have a trial while you don't have jurisdiction to have a trial, then the trial is a nullity. It has no legal effect. to have a trial, then the trial is a nullity. It has no legal effect. We really don't know when there's going to be a trial because it depends on whether or not this appeal is going to be allowed to proceed first. The Supreme Court may rule in a few months. They may rule that, well, you're just going to have to wait and let us address this issue on appeal if there's a conviction.

And if that's the case, then the trial court would be free to go ahead and schedule a new trial date. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court rules that this Waldrop v. Head case is going to remain good law in the state of Georgia, then they will then turn to the merits of the appeal and decide whether or not Ryan should have access to state money. So we really don't know when there's going to be a trial. Get ready for Las Vegas style action at BetMGM, the king of online casinos. Enjoy casino games at your fingertips with the same Vegas strip excitement MGM is famous for. When you play classics like MGM Grand Millions or popular games like Blackjack, Baccarat, and Roulette with our ever-growing library of digital slot games, a large selection of online table games, and signature BetMGM service, there is no better way to bring the

excitement and ambience of Las Vegas home to you than with BetMGM Casino. Download the BetMGM Casino app today. BetMGM and GameSense remind you to play responsibly. BetMGM.com for T's and C's. 19 plus to wager. O-N only. Please play responsibly. If you have any questions or concerns about your gambling

or someone close to you, please contact Connex Ontario at 1-866- 531-2600 to speak to an advisor free of charge. BetMGM operates pursuant to any operating agreement with iGaming Ontario. Hey, I'm Tom Power. I'm the host

of the CBC podcast, Q with Tom Power. I get to talk to artists from all over the world, writers, musicians, actors, directors, all kinds of creative people. And we try to have the conversations you have with really, really good friends. The conversations you have when you share a love of something, about ideas, when you want to hear about everything. I feel really lucky to have these conversations. Cue with Tom Power. Available now on Spotify. So to reiterate, Ryan's pro bono lawyers, they're seeking money, the funds that they feel that Ryan is entitled to because he's indigent,

because he's a financially disadvantaged person. Now, the defense has gotten some pushback from the prosecution on this. The prosecution basically says that Ryan has waived his rights to public funding for things like experts, transcripts, and investigators when he opted out of the services of the Georgia public defender system in favor of the merchants and the pro bono legal team. However, the merchants, even though they're private attorneys, they are not being paid. They are outside Georgia's public defender system. Ryan is still indigent. The fact that private attorneys are representing him has not changed the fact that he's indigent. So this presents the real legal issue that the Georgia Supreme Court has been asked to tackle as an initial preliminary sort of appeal. Normally, before a party can appeal a judge's pretrial ruling, they've got to get permission from the judge to do it. And in this case, the judge has said no. The trial judge says,

you're not going to be able to appeal my ruling pretrial. we're going to go ahead and go to trial. And if there's a conviction, then it can be part of the appeal later. However, the defense team says, we're not going to take no for an answer. We're going to use this Waldrop decision and we're going to file an appeal directly with the Supreme Court because, as Waldrop says, this is just the emergency type of an exception that allows us to go around the judge and go directly to the Supreme Court. So as an initial matter, the Supreme Court said, yes, you do meet the criteria of the Waldrop case. So we want you guys to come up to Atlanta. We want you to argue about not whether or not Ryan gets money, but whether or not the Waldrop type of an appeal should still be allowed in Georgia.

So on May 7th, 2019, the Georgia Supreme Court held its first hearing other than the gag order involving the Tara Grinstead case. This appeal was not about whether Ryan actually gets the money, but whether Ryan can ask the Supreme Court using this mechanism to give him money. In this next recording, you'll hear Justice Keith Blackwell of the Georgia Supreme Court. It seems to me, I understand that the state, the prosecutor's office, often doesn't get involved a lot in these funding issues that are oftentimes between the defense and the trial court to sort out. But it does seem to me that the state has a powerful interest in not necessarily having it decided one way or the other but in having it decided right before trial I understand from the briefing that this is a case of this very high profile and it's very important to a lot of folks down in in your part of the state. And I understand the desire to move on with the trial. And so in that sense,

a delay is bad, but it strikes me from the state's perspective that what's even worse is if you were to get a conviction, the possibility you might have to trial this again at some point. It seems to me that the issue on funding is a very murky one. It's an issue of first impression, and it does seem to me a little odd that you would decide that because an accused is not exercising his right to have appointed counsel under Gideon, that he therefore must forfeit his right under Akey to have assistance with respect to experts, particularly because one of those arises under the constitutional guarantee of effective assistance of those arises under the constitutional guarantee of effective assistance of counsel and the other is a distinct right of due process.

Seems odd to me you would forfeit one constitutional right just to exercise another. So it seems to me that if this court concludes that we cannot under Waldrop review this case, that y'all might all want to have another conversation when this goes back down about how this gets resolved. So I think the sound that you've just heard is perhaps the most important sound of the entire hearing. Here you have Justice Blackwell saying, look, folks, we don't know if this Waldrop type of an appeal is going to be around much longer. But regardless, we think it was kind of silly for the judge in the trial court to deny these funds. And I think he's also kind of sending a message, you know, you folks need

to get together the parties, the defense and the prosecutor, and maybe agree that either the judge should certify this appeal so that we can decide the funding issue directly or get together and agree on some way to provide these funds because it's much more important to have a proper trial than it is to have an unconstitutional trial that you have to do over again. So I think Justice Blackwell is clearly trying to send a message here. And Justice Blackwell is right. He was a prosecutor in the same office where I was at one period in my legal career. And prosecutors normally don't get involved in these funding decisions between courts and defense counsel when defense counsel make these requests, because that's a matter of defense strategy. And it's typically not a good idea for prosecutors to get involved in it. So Justice Blackwell seems to

be kind of scratching his head a little bit and I think he might be speaking not only just for himself but maybe for several if not all of the justices on the Supreme Court. But that's just my opinion. The court will rule and of course we'll be out with that information when it happens. Now that I've given you a rundown of what's happening in Ryan's case, I'd like to take some time to answer some of your questions. Let's get to it. Yes, this is Lindsay Collin from North Carolina. Love the show. My question is going to be for Phil. Just read this morning where Beau was sentenced to 25 years for his part in concealing Tara's death,

and Ryan has been asked for a delay in the trial. killing Tara's death and Ryan has been asked for delay in the trial. My question is, how is this going to hurt Ryan's defense since now they're coming back trying to say that Beau was actually the actual killer, but he's now been convicted of just concealing the crime. So what is this going to do to the defense you suspect plead out or are they still going to be able to use that defense? Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you. Great question, Lindsay. It's important to remember that the case against Ryan Duke is entirely independent of the charges Bo Dukes was convicted of in Wilcox County. It is true that in Bo's Wilcox County trial, the state alleged that Ryan committed a murder and the jury convicted Bo of lying to the GBI about the murder as alleged. Now, that does not prevent Ryan's defense team from trying to pin the murder on Bo Dukes when Ryan's case finally comes to trial.

Whatever the Wilcox County jury may have believed happened regarding the murder is not binding on another jury. Yes, this is Amy from Holly Springs, Georgia. And my question is, do you believe that the Ryan Duke confession will stand up in court? It seems like it was leaked by someone in the GBI, but was taken down. But parts of it were still up, where he was crying and talking about how tiny Tara Grinstead's body was. So I was just curious on that, because if it stands, I would imagine that would be pretty much the nail in his coffin of being convicted. Thanks for all the hard work. Regarding Ryan's statement, and for purposes of this question, let's just call it a confession.

When the GBI talked to Ryan on the day of his arrest, at least some of it was recorded, but not all of it. And we really don't know why it wasn't all recorded. What was leaked, however, was leaked by Bo Dukes. And it was a summary of what was alleged to have been said, prepared by the GBI case agent. Written summaries in and of themselves aren't particularly useful. What is useful is the actual words someone uses when they speak to the police. In other words, a recording. If you've listened to season one of Sworn, you may remember cold case investigator John Dawes. When he was talking about the things that he looks at when taking on a cold case, he says he's not so much interested in written summaries of interviews.

He wants to see and hear the actual recorded words. Written summaries can be slanted. In other words, they are written up and prepared by the case agent, in this case, someone who clearly has an interest in the outcome of the case. So that's not to accuse anybody of anything underhanded, but the mere written summary doesn't carry a lot of weight. At least in this case, though, for at least part of the interview, a written summary is all that we have because, as I said, the entire thing was not recorded. The bottom line is there's no way to challenge the accuracy of a written summary, especially if there's not a complete recording to match it up to. My name is Rachel calling from

Albany, New York area. I had one question that was kind of stuck in my brain for a little while after hearing about the fact that the GBI, I think you said it was, mentioned in like a public press conference or an interview that Ryan had never been may not be, would that be an example of possibly a Brady violation in terms of like Tara's family needing to or having the right to have access to whatever the updated information is about the ongoing case and the investigation? Because I feel like there's, it may just be a matter of it's kind of sheisty in real life, but there's no rule against it. But I feel like any information that came through to the investigators should have been accessible, whether it was offered up readily available, or whether it was something that the family had to specifically ask for. But I feel like that information, especially considering it was 12 plus years

ago that they had sort of been tipped off about this person having involvement, should have been something that was immediately accessible information to the family or the family's lawyer. But I don't know if that's exactly a violation, a Brady violation. don't know if that's exactly a violation, a Brady violation. Thanks, Rachel. Let me make one thing perfectly clear. Ryan was on law enforcement's radar. Bo was on their radar. The circumstances of Tara's disappearance and her murder were, in fact, on the GBI's radar. Despite what the GBI said at the press conference, this was all on their radar. Bo was indicted and later convicted for lying to the GBI in 2016 about all of this. So clearly, that 2017 press conference was at best inaccurate. This was all on their radar before that press conference. On top of that, the Irwin

County Sheriff's Office has admitted that this general scenario, anyway, was on their radar all the way back to 2005. How much heartbreak could Tara's family have avoided if the left hand had actually known what the right hand was doing over the course of all these years during this investigation? It's really sad. This also came out at Bo's trial. This also came out at Bo's trial. The original case agent testified and admitted that this general scenario was something that they had in their possession in this file all the way back to shortly after it happened. But due to all the moving parts, it just never was top of mind. Now, you asked about something called a Brady violation. The Brady rule requires prosecutors to hand over evidence that is exculpatory, that points to the innocence of someone rather than guilt. This issue of who was

or wasn't on anyone's radar isn't necessarily a Brady violation, but many people have expressed that it makes the investigation look sloppy. And it also triggers the running of the statute of limitations, which is something that we have discussed extensively, which is why I don't expect Bo Dukes to ever be convicted in Ben Hill County for his direct role as alleged in Tara's death and disappearance. And this is also why I don't think Ryan can legally be convicted of many of the charges he's facing. Murder, however, has no statute of limitations. Finally, just to touch on another point you raised, believe it or not, Tara's family doesn't have any legal rights to access the investigative materials directly. Now, in all likelihood, they are in communication with

the prosecutors and law enforcement, and I'm sure they're being kept up to date with the proceedings and the investigation. They've likely been told a lot about the evidence, but victims and their families don't directly have unfettered access to investigative case files. Hi there. Thank you for all of the hard work that you're doing on this case. I had a question about Bo's immunity. I thought that he originally had an immunity deal, and now that he's being brought up on charges on all of these different counts, I'm wondering what happened to that. Thank you. Bowden is the lead prosecutor, by the way, in the state of Georgia versus Ryan Duke. He was not the prosecutor in Bo's trial. But anyway, District Attorney Paul Bowden testified at Bo's trial. So it does seem clear, at least at some point, Bo had some hope of benefit at the time he made statements to law enforcement about what he says Ryan's involvement was in the case. That hope of

benefit can be used to discredit his information if he ever becomes a witness. Clearly, if he was a cooperator early on, he did something to screw it up for himself because the state has publicly said that he has no deals. Not at this time. Hi, my name is Amber. I'm calling from South Florida. And so my question would be, if Brian is now saying that he had some type of relationship with Tara before the night of the incident, wouldn't we be able to request phone records for both of their cell phones, or I'm guessing a house phone. I'm not sure if Ryan had a cell phone or not. But wouldn't we be able to get those phone records and trace them back,

see if they ever had any type of communication before that night? Because he's saying, at least initially, he was saying it was random and the incident was random. And so if it was random, then they wouldn't have any type of communication before that day. But if they do have communication, then that would prove that they did have some type of relationship. And I'm not really sure how that helped, but at least we could get to some type of truth with some type of physical evidence showing if they were in communication or not, and if this really was random or not. Hi, Amber, and thanks for the call.

The short answer is yes. Phone records, cell phone, and landline would be expected to be available. At least back in 2005, they would have been available. Whether or not they're available now and perhaps were overlooked is an open question, but I think they would have been available to law enforcement back in 2005. In all likelihood, I think they have all of Tara's phone records and they have a good idea who was calling her and who she was calling during the relevant time period. This is Breanne from Nashville. My question is, does Ryan Duke's trial still have the potential

to bankrupt the town of Osceola, or does that really just depend on where things go from here and where they end up having the trial? Thanks. Yes, Breanne, this case already has cost Irwin County a hell of a lot more than they're accustomed to in criminal cases. This case has, of course, taken on a life of its own and is like nothing Irwin County or, frankly, any other county in the country has ever seen. Even if there is ultimately no change of venue, and I still think that there's a possibility that that could be the case. I still think venue could be changed. Cost is a practical consideration that I have no doubt has been discussed among local leaders, but in the end

it doesn't matter. They are going to have to spend the money. If they're going to afford any accused due process, it costs whatever it costs. So they're going to have to spend the money if they want to prosecute this case. If they don't have the money, they're just going to have to come up with it one way or another. I do wonder, though, how much considerations of cost may have factored into Ryan now having no access to public funds to pay for expert witnesses or investigators. I hope the answer is not at all. I hope that cost considerations are not top of mind for anybody making decisions. I hope it's fundamental fairness and due process because everybody wants the trial to be done in a constitutional fashion. If you recall, the DA originally did not oppose the

motion for change of venue, yet the motion was in fact denied. Later on, after it was denied, the district attorney withdrew his support for change of venue. Regardless, the price tag for this trial is enormous. Hi, my name is Catherine, and I was wondering, in this past episode, it was mentioned that Heath Dyke's DNA was mixed with Tara's DNA in her house. When was that discovered and why is this just now being mentioned? Thanks, bye. Yes, Catherine, according to testimony, Heath Dyke's DNA, his genetic material, was on Tara's bedding. It was collected by law enforcement, as was Tara's blood. Now, in and of itself, that does not implicate him in any crime.

It is interesting, though, from an investigative perspective, and it should have interested the investigators at the time. We know Heath Dykes and others were persons of interest. Presumably, the DNA connection was known to law enforcement early on. That, combined with his business card being found at the scene and the multiple phone calls that have been widely reported, would have led investigators to at least take a look at him. Nonetheless, at some point, he was apparently cleared. What we don't know, and it has just not been expressed, at least not publicly, is why or how he was cleared. But in any event, he has apparently been cleared. Hey guys, this is Peter Hurd from Long Island, New York. I have a two-part question.

First, in hearing Mr. Holloway's explanation of everything that went wrong at the bond hearing, and then his hope or wish that the actual trial would proceed according to what he calls rules of evidence, here's a question. Were there any actual rules or laws broken at the bond hearing? Does the defense have any legal recourse regarding the information that was brought out or their readiness to discuss it? Or is it all just subjective and the judge can decide, hey, I want to hear all this so I can make a decision? Now, the second part is, if that's the to hear all this so I can make a decision. Now, the second part is, if that's the case and there is nothing to be done and it's just up to the judge's discretion, why did he do it?

Is it reasonable that he would want to hear or need to hear all that information to make a decision regarding bond, or was he, this judge, was this judge just sensationalizing this case even more. Thanks a lot. Really like the show. Thanks, Peter. As many will recall, I am of the opinion that the bond hearing for Ryan Duke ran completely off the rails and turned into a legal free-for-all where all sorts of information, perhaps unnecessary information, came out in open court. Things that would never have seen the light of day in a trial because the rules of evidence wouldn't have permitted it. A bond hearing is supposed to be about whether the defendant is a flight risk or whether the

defendant is a danger to the community or whether if he's granted bond he's likely to commit a crime and if he's likely to come back to court. Things like that. The burden of proof at a bond hearing is on the defense to satisfy a judge that the defendant meets those legal criteria for bail. But in this case, the district attorney decided to call the case agent, Agent Shadel, as a witness to offer his subjective opinion that Ryan should not be granted bail, which is really irrelevant in this context, at least in my view. But the prosecutor did it for whatever reason, and so the defense was handed a golden opportunity to turn a bond hearing into a freewheeling deposition. Keep in mind, in Georgia, we don't get depositions in criminal cases. There's

never really much of a pretrial opportunity to question a witness under oath about the facts of a case, at least not in criminal cases. They effectively turned this into a deposition. They got into a lot of the details of the investigation that had nothing to do with the issues that are relevant to Bond. They got into all the local rumors that happened to be documented in the GBI case file, things that have nothing to do with what actually happened. Now, it was an

unexpected opportunity for the defense, and they took full advantage of it. I still think it was a mistake, though, for the prosecutor to put this witness on the stand to provide the defense with that opportunity. As to the last part of your question, while I think the judge could have reined things in just a bit, the judge was not trying to sensationalize anything. This case is just sensational all on its own. The judge was simply letting the lawyers be lawyers and letting the chips fall where they may in the courtroom based on the strategy of each side. So I don't think the judge was trying to sensationalize anything more than it already is.

I think the district attorney's effort to use the lead case agent as a witness in a bond hearing simply backfired. Hi, this is Sophie calling from Los Angeles. I have listened to this podcast at a pretty shocking rate since my friend mentioned it to me two or three weeks ago. So I have some questions about cars. First of all, we heard John McCullough say that Bo told him that he went with Ryan in his truck to Tara's house to help him bring his body to the orchard, whereas Brooke said that Ryan alone borrowed his car to go back to Tara's house. Were these differing accounts picked apart in this recent trial, and do you expect them to be scrutinized in future ones? Along this vein, we have the state of Tara's car with dirt in the tires and the seat pushed back, as well as Brooke's statement to Payne before where she let it slip that they drove her car.

All of this still doesn't fit into any of the stories that I hear being told. Do you think we may get any closure on this piece of evidence, namely Tara's car, in the future? The other only main discrepancy I have besides for these are the differing claims of punching versus strangulation, which I'll be curious to see how those are analyzed in court. But that's all for now, and thanks so much again for all your hard work. Can't wait for the next episode. Bye-bye. You know, Sophie, there are all sorts of discrepancies all over the place,

not just discrepancies about Bo's truck and who was driving it and when they may have been driving it, and not just about whether or when Tara's car may have been driven or by whom, but on countless things. You really need, I think, a giant flow chart to keep up with all of this. Unfortunately, Bo's defense counsel in his recent trial did not really cross-examine many witnesses on much of anything, let alone details of Tara's disappearance and murder. To be fair, from the defense perspective, Bo's trial was not about whether law enforcement got those details right, so I can sort of understand why there was as little cross-examination as there was.

It wasn't Bo's lawyer's job to effectively defend Ryan in the context of Bo's trial. I do, however, expect any inconsistencies that there may have been to be vigorously explored by Ryan's defense team whenever the time comes for Ryan's trial. They certainly have a lot to work with in terms of evidentiary discrepancies, whether it be physical evidence or inconsistencies in various statements by various witnesses. Hey guys, my name is Meg. I live in Atlanta. I was calling to see if, Phillip, if you have an opinion on how you feel Bo Duke's trial went, and if you believe him, and if you think all of this information that we now know will hurt or help Ryan Duke's case. help Ryan Duke's case. Anyway, I'd be curious to know what you thought and how it will play out for or against Ryan in the next phase of this. Hi Meg, the answer to your question is yes. I have an opinion about Bo's trial. In fact, I have several opinions, most of which I prefer for now to keep to myself. I will say this though, Bo's trial was

surprisingly fast. You know, they selected and picked a jury, a local jury from Wilcox County, which is a neighboring county to Ben Hill County. And it's very close to where all of this is supposed to have occurred and really, really close to where Tara's body was apparently burned. There was no effort to change venue. I have no idea why there was no effort to change venue. But this trial was lightning fast under the circumstances. They managed to pack a miniature murder trial into a false statements trial as well, and they did it all within one week's time. Since Bo was accused of lying about a murder,

they basically had to prove to this jury's satisfaction, at least, that a murder took place. The defense didn't push back much on the details of the murder, as we've talked about. Many witnesses were asked only a few questions on cross-examination. make Tara's family, in my opinion, sit there and hear from experts who collected bone fragments from a burn site and hear all sorts of this very painful evidence. I think they maybe over-tried that aspect of the case, and it was very painful to see Tara's family witnessing this evidence come out at trial. It's all going to come out later at Ryan's trial, and I think that they could have done with a lot less of it in this case, but that's just my opinion. At Ryan's trial, it's going to be a different situation.

All of that stuff is going to be necessary, and again, I don't think it was absolutely necessary to be presented in so much detail in Bo's Wilcox County trial. By presenting so much of their case against Ryan in the context of Bo's trial, the district attorney gave Ryan's lawyers a sneak preview and a detailed one at how Ryan's trial may unfold. Ryan's lawyers were present in the courtroom for much of Bo's trial, and I'm quite sure they were taking good notes. They may even be able to get official transcripts of witness testimony so that if, during Ryan's trial any of these witnesses change their testimony in any way, any inconsistencies in their testimony can be used against them. It's called impeachment by prior inconsistent statement and it's a way to attack the credibility of a witness who testifies in court. On balance, I think it was perhaps a strategic mistake to try Bo in Wilcox County

before trying Ryan in Irwin County for murder. That has never made much sense to me because they just gave Ryan's defense a free preview of things to come. It's sort of like one NFL football team being able to spy on their opponent's practice prior to the Super Bowl. Hi, my name is Omar from Houston, Texas. The evidence and the stories that are coming out about the case don't really seem to mix very well together. Like, some things seem to contradict other things. So my question is, do you guys believe that the truth will come out

and what evidence might be needed for the truth to come out? Because so far all we have is a confession and Bo Duke's story, which seems a little far-fetched at times and very real at times. So yeah, that's just my question. Do you guys believe the truth will come out and what evidence might be needed for the truth to come out? Thank you. Thanks, Omar. The answer to your question, in my opinion, is no. Unfortunately, I don't think we will ever know the truth, at least not all of it. I think that all we will ever know for certain is that these two people, one way or the other, were involved in her disappearance and her murder and the destruction of her remains. I don't personally think much of anything beyond

that will ever be conclusively proven. I could be wrong. I hope I am. But there will always be questions about who the actual killer was. And I think there will always be questions about exactly how Tara died. There will always, I think, be questions about when Tara died, why she died, and also whether or not anybody else could have been involved. I certainly hope I'm wrong. I hope we get answers to all of these things. And I hope that Tara's family can find peace in the end. Hi, guys. So I was wondering, in the last episode, it sounded like Beau's statement that he made to the court pretty much admitted that everything the state said was correct, even though the defense kept saying there's no evidence, etc.

I'm wondering if Bo's statement helps the state in Ryan Duke's upcoming case. Thanks so much. It's true that Bo did express regret or something he called regret. I won't dignify it by calling it a true apology, but what he said at sentencing did not firmly corroborate the state's theory of what they say happened to Tara. It lacked a lot of detail about who exactly did what, when, and for what purpose. It certainly did nothing to reconcile any of the seemingly endless inconsistencies that exist basically everywhere throughout this case. Besides, let's face it, Bo has zero credibility. If Bo says the sky is blue, I would not believe him. So I don't think there's

anything that Beau can say that will conclusively ever clear any of this up, ever. Hi everyone, I'm Emma, and I'm a high school student from New Jersey. In regards to Beau's trial, was he tried for the New Year's rape too, or could he possibly be facing more time in addition to the 25 years? Thanks so much for the podcast, and it's part of the reason that I'm going to a criminalistics program as part of my high school next year. I'm very excited about it. Thanks. Bye. Thanks for the call, Emma. I'm always glad to hear from young people who are just beginning their life's journey in the criminal justice field. If we've played any part in your inspiration in this regard on behalf of the entire Up and Vantage team, let me say that we are honored.

Now, to your question, yes, without a doubt, Bo's future is definitely not a bright one. As you pointed out, he still has to face the rape and other charges from New Year's Day in Houston County, Georgia. Rape is just one of the charges that he's facing. And in Georgia, that is referred to as one of the seven deadly sins. It is considered a capital felony, which means he's facing a life sentence if he's convicted. But there's more than one victim and there's more than just a rape charge. So let's just say that if he's convicted, the chance that Bo Dukes ever leaves prison alive is, I think, zero. Good luck with your studies, Emma, and please keep in touch with us. Hi, my name is Michael. I'm from Northern Virginia, and I'm loving the podcast

This and Monster. And I'm a little confused, though. How can they go to trial with Beau Dukes online about a crime that Ryan Duke committed and still move forward. It seems to me like if Ryan Duke is acquitted of the charges in his trial, then it might give the ability of Beau Dukes to appeal his sentence here. I don't know. It just seems like kind of a chicken before the egg type thing. Anyway, thank you guys, and have a great day. Keep up the good work. Bye-bye.

Michael, you're not alone. It's definitely a challenge to keep all of this straight. Bo's recent trial was about Bo's lies. When Bo sat down and talked to the case agent in Wilcox County in 2016, and he did not tell the truth, that constituted a separate and distinct criminal offense. The conversation between Bo Dukes and Agent Shadel of the GBI was about Tara's disappearance and murder, but the criminal charges that resulted from that conversation were about Bo not being truthful. So, in his subsequent trial, the state had to put up

evidence related to Tara's death to prove the falsity of Bo's statements. Nothing in Bo's Wilcox County trial, however, is binding on any other jury whatsoever. Ryan's trial will have to stand on its own legs, so to speak, and both sides start back at square one. This is Cheryl from Northern Virginia. My question is about John McCullough. And this is Cheryl from Northern Virginia. My question is about John McCull is asking is whether any such person could face criminal charges for not coming forward. The short answer to that is no. Merely keeping quiet about a crime that someone else committed is not a crime. Someone would have to actively interfere with an investigation in order to be charged with a crime. Thanks, guys, for calling in.

Great questions. We don't know the exact date of the next hearing or, of course, the trial at this time, but we'll be watching carefully. We'll be updating you along the way. Follow me on Twitter at philhollowayesq. Follow Up and Vanished on Twitter. Follow us on social media and we will keep you up to date.

See you next time. Up and Vanished is an investigative podcast produced for Tenderfoot TV by Payne Lindsay, Mike Rooney, Christina Dana, and me, Meredith Stedman. Executive producers Payne Lindsay and Donald Albright. Additional production by Resonate Recordings, as well as Mason Lindsay. Voice over by Rob Ricotta. Our intern is Hallie Badal. Original score by Makeup and Vanity Set. Our theme song is Ophelia, performed by Ezra Rose. Our cover art is by Trevor Eiler. Special thanks to the team at Cadence 13.

Visit us on social media via at Up and Vanished. Or you can visit our website, upandvanished.com, where you can join in on our discussion board. If you're enjoying Up and Vanished, please tell a friend, where you can join in on our discussion board. If you're enjoying Up and Vanished, please tell a friend, family member, or coworker about it. And don't forget to subscribe, rate, and review on Apple Podcasts. Thanks for listening. Thank you.