Jan. 20, 2026
The Colts Neck Murders Trial: Defense Attorney Says Best Opening Argument By A Prosecutor… EVER
Apple Podcasts 
Spotify 
Castro 
RSS Feed It’s week 2 of the trial against Paul Caneiro, accused of brutally killing his brother Keith, his wife and their two young children back in 2018. Criminal defense attorney Alison Triessl has been following the trial closely and talks with Amy and T.J. about the prosecution’s overwhelming case so far and what she thinks of the defense’s “the third brother did it” theory. Hear who Triessl believes has to take the stand for the defense, in order for Caneiro to even have a shot at freedom.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
00:00:02
Speaker 1: Welcome everyone to this episode of Amy and TJ Presents. We are following the Colts Neck murders trial. Last week we gave you all basically an overview of what Week one was like in this long anticipated trial. This is almost eight years in the making, from when these horrific murders happened in this rural New Jersey town to actually now getting to trial. We have Paul Canaro charged with the murders of his own brother, Keith Canaro, his wife Jennifer, and their two children, eight year old Sophia and eleven year old Jesse, and then setting fire to their home and his own home to cover up the crimes. This is such a difficult case to hear, but obviously so many people want to get to the truth and to help us. As we've been following this case each day, we have criminal defense attorney extraordinary Alison treesel with us once again to help us go over what we've seen and heard so far and what her legal expertise thinks about what's happened so far. Alison, TJ and I are so excited to have you back on the podcast.
00:01:19
Speaker 2: Thank you. I love being here and this is a hard one to hear right. This is a story about two brothers that at some point were the best of friends, they were business partners, they care deeply for each other and their families, and wow, did this go horribly wrong. I have to start by saying that of all the opening statements in my thirty years that I've heard that I've been a part of, none has been more explosive than the one given by the Da Nicole Wallace. In this case, it was riveting. It was concise, it made sense, it wasn't too long, It laid out their case, and if in fact what she said is true, it was one of the most sinister, sinister murders ever committed. And this is a family, This is a family. So I mean, what stood out to me is when she talked about the killing of the niece, the forty five pound niece, the seventeen stab wounds of the niece, and then the lengths that you go to light the house on fire, that those children didn't immediately die, that there was smoke found in their lungs to indicate that they were alive after those brutal stabbings. So whoever did that? And the people obviously contend that it was Paul Knaro, the brother, and that he had every motive, including many dollars signs to do away with the entire family. It is one of those cases where you're shaking your head saying, wow, if this is true, that this is a case of greed of despair and a family just ripped apart.
00:03:27
Speaker 3: Alison, you talk about how emotional and devastating, how sinister the crime is. That's on the prosecution side. That's what they have going for them. Is there anything you heard from the defense? I know they maybe have an uphill climb, but what did you hear from them that makes you think maybe they have a decent case to put on.
00:03:46
Speaker 2: Well, I'm not going to use word decent, okay, because I'm going to be straight with our listeners, right. I mean, there are times where I say, wait a minute, we got something here, let's talk about it, Okay. What their theory at this point, before they have put on their case through their through the defense attorney at opening was that the police did a really shoddy job, that they rushed to judgment, that there was a third brother that also stood to make a substantial amount of money if this entire family was wiped out because Keith Canaro's blind trust if something happened to his entire family would be split between Paul and the third brother, Corey, and Corey was not involved in the business, and Corey was never thoroughly investigated. So their argument thus far seems to be blame it on the police. The police. The police did not thoroughly investigate this case, and therefore there are potential other suspects that were never questioned. They the police put blinders on the immediately honed in on Paul, and therefore it is their fault that there isn't somebody else sitting here as the defendant in this.
00:05:10
Speaker 3: Case, Alison, Generally, among defense attorneys pointing the finger at another suspect, is that usually something that is looked at favorably or unfavorably with we have a name for.
00:05:21
Speaker 2: It, and is some other dude did it? Some other dude did it? So, yes, TJ. That is not unusual. It is not unusual.
00:05:30
Speaker 3: And you know smart does it work?
00:05:35
Speaker 2: Well? Sometimes it works? But is it smart? Well? When you what else do they have?
00:05:41
Speaker 3: Right?
00:05:42
Speaker 2: What else do they have? They have to say it wasn't him, and they have to say that if the police and law enforcement would have done their homework, they would have found the true culprit. It wasn't him, But I will tell you that it wasn't just the opening statements so far. When I heard the phone call from Keith to Paul, where he and this is the day before, okay, where he says, where's the money, Paul? What did you do with the money? Paul? And I'm talking about the money that was supposed to be paid for the premium for this blind trust that only Paul had control over.
00:06:29
Speaker 1: It was like seventy eight thousand dollars, Get right, take right.
00:06:32
Speaker 2: But there had also been a previous dipping into the funds, allegedly for twenty five thousand dollars that went to went to Paul's a school event that was clearly not for the trust to go to his children, to go to Keith's children. And then we hear from the accountant and the accountants on the stand, and the accountant is talking about how it was discovered how there was some cooking of the books according to the accountant. That the accountant said that he routinely reviews all the checks that go to make the premiums. And it appears from what the countant is testifying to that Paul was very methodical in covering up making those payments, when in fact those payments to the life insurance company had never hadn't been made for months and months.
00:07:34
Speaker 1: Allison, as you detail the evidence that the prosecution is putting forward, that is, or at least from what I heard, part of the defense's defense, what do you make of their claim that the overwhelming evidence in his case is just too convenient, and that's what their argument is to point the finger at the other brother, Corey, to say he then would have had the most to gain financially, because if you take one brother out and his entire family with the murder, you take the other brother out by pinning said murders on him. Now you get it all here, we go, ready.
00:08:14
Speaker 2: Sometimes it is what it is, and sometimes a defendant is just so sloppy that they leave a you know, handsel Gretel trail of crumbs left.
00:08:27
Speaker 3: To the crime.
00:08:29
Speaker 2: So here there is some real physical evidence that the that the prosecution is presenting that the defense has to contend with. I don't like the idea of the burnt fire cannisters right there in Paul's home. I don't like Paul's the he if the prosecution is correct, he attempts to burn down his own house and what remains is clothing, clothing with the young girl's DNA on the clothing. Now, Corey has to be some incredible magician magician to stage a crime where he they have a video, the last known recording of Paul is going toward his DVR, and then the DVR is essentially cut. Those things are very hard to invent. And you know there is an idea that could you be set up? Well, my goodness, this Corey is something else if he's able to accomplish all of that, and TJ, you're looking at me. But sometimes sometimes facts are what they are, and you leave a trail of evidence behind because you are slow and because you don't you think when you when you burn the house. So we're to understand, okay, we're to understand that Corey goes over, somebody else goes over, lights the Porsche on fire, lights one of the brother's houses on fire, the other brother's house on fire, and there's just simply no evidence of that thus far.
00:10:31
Speaker 3: Okay, tell me, then, Alison, where has the defense scored any points?
00:10:38
Speaker 2: Okay? So I did listen a little bit to the to the accounts testimony, and they're going after this sale of Ecoscar, and there was an offer allegedly this is the business that was a fifty to fifty business split between the brothers, and there was an offer to sell it for eight hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Apparently Key says yes, I'm for it. Paul says, let's hold off. And the prosecution was trying to argue that Paul was simply greedy and you know, all of this is swirling around and here goes one of his you know, streams of income. But the defense said, well, this conversation is not just an isolation, and in fact, you the accountant told them, you know, we may be able to get a better offer. There are reasons to keep negotiating. Because the prosecution had isolated just one sort of email exchange where they said, look, eight fifty is a really good deal. You should take it. Well, in previous conversations that the that the defense raised, they said, wait a minute, you actually said to them we may be able to do better, or something to that effect. So it's actually more of a building a case as a defense attorney, where you're poking holes at Everything that the prosecution says is definitive is definitive. And as Amy brought up, what are they going to go after? They're going to go after a Come on, people, this is just way too convenient. This is just way too convenient. And jurors, there's something called the CSI effect right where they say, we want DNA, we want a case, we want all of this proven to us, handed to us on a silver platter, and a defense says it ain't there.
00:12:46
Speaker 3: Well, that's what they do on the show. They wrap it up in an hour. Case closed.
00:12:51
Speaker 2: So in thirty years, I've had exactly zero cases wrapped up in an hour. You know, some go my way, don't, but I can assure you that between the last commercial break and the rolling credits, the case isn't over.
00:13:08
Speaker 3: Yeah.
00:13:08
Speaker 1: And so look, we're obviously seeing this tremendous amount of evidence, from the timeline of the car movements to those final calls we heard at least Keith's end of it, from the surveillance video, the bank account issue, what and we know we've seen this in trials. Obviously, the defense doesn't have to put any witnesses forward. They don't have to necessarily even present a case. They've just been trying to do so with the cross examination. But can you imagine who the defense would call, what their defense could be if they so choose to put on a defense.
00:13:44
Speaker 2: So I think that if they're going to put on a defense here, it's going to be a couple of areas. One that Paul's family was not in financial straits. They were not in financial disaster, okay, so that he did have other streams of income. I would also put on someone maybe his wife, not sure, but somebody who says Paul adored his brother. Paul adored his niece and nephew. They had a very close relationship. He would never, under any circumstances kill all the family. He wasn't like that. These these brothers were extremely extremely close. That Corey was strained from the family essentially is where I would go with that. But that's it. That's essentially where you're going to go. What physical evidence can he dispute. He's got a problem with the little girl's DNA on his pants, That's that's a problem. He's got a problem with the timeline and the the video of him approaching the DVR and then it being disabled. He's got a problem with that. He's got a problem with his own timeline on where he was and his whereabouts. Maybe the the wife can give a stronger alibi for him, saying that he was in fact home. So things like that, amy they'll try and attack, but the theme, it's very hard to attack a theme when the day before we hear from the decedent's own voice the anger, the frustration, the hurt when he realizes that his brother has stolen this money that went that was to go to his children in the case he died, in the case, that something happened to him, and that not only was it stolen, that he had lied to him for months and essentially cooked the books when the accountant took a look at it.
00:15:47
Speaker 3: You listened off a few things, right, It's a problem, and these things are a problem for one side or the other in the case. Is it a problem at all for the prosecution? Do they have to overcome it all? The idea that this guy sitting here in v sweaters with glasses on, who doesn't have some criminal history, who seemed to be a good family guy, can stab his eight year old and eleven year old niece and nephew. You're going to have to prove to meet this guy is some kind of fricking monster.
00:16:12
Speaker 2: Yeah, so that is incomprehensible for most of us, Right, He's not somebody that's sitting there that has long terminal history. Tatta up? You know someone who? I mean, he looks he looks like a good guy. He looks like a guy that you know I'd sit down and have a conversation with. Why not. He's got those nice room glasses, you know, he looks he looks good. But remember Leslie Abrams and did a heck of a job dressing up the Menendez brothers with those little sweater vests. And it didn't it didn't preclude a conviction in that case. Yeah, you do you think I'd pull that one out? Had to to.
00:16:47
Speaker 3: You know, I forgot. I just pictured them again and I'm like, oh, yeah, they were presented in that way. I just struggle with the girl is a big reality.
00:16:57
Speaker 2: The brutality.
00:16:59
Speaker 3: How is that? But is that something the prosecution knows they have to overcome with a jury. It's hard to get my head around this man stabbing a child seventeen times that's related to him.
00:17:11
Speaker 1: I was going to ask the exact same question, babe, because I had the same thought, like as.
00:17:16
Speaker 2: A jury why, but they have a why.
00:17:19
Speaker 3: Seventy eight grand is not a big enough why for me?
00:17:22
Speaker 2: Stab your not why.
00:17:24
Speaker 3: That's why it was that he's losing his life. That's what they said.
00:17:28
Speaker 2: Three million dollar life insurance policy. And this is why. Let me explain the kids part in that. So Paul has to in order for Paul and Corey to collect. Not only does Keith have to die, who then the beneficiaries his wife? So his wife has to die. If the wife dies, the money goes to the children. If the children die, both of them, then it goes to Paul and Corey. And that's three millions. That's a lot of money.
00:18:06
Speaker 3: They said they would have to split it, right, that three million? And their argument is that a case for Corey given that if he frames his brother Paul, then he gets the whole three million? Is that not any reasonable anywhere close to reasonable doubt?
00:18:25
Speaker 2: I want to hear what the defense has to say. I want to hear what evidence they have to prove that Corey was in the vicinity. I want to hear how they explain how Corey could have planted the clothes and the and the gas, you know, in the gas canisters.
00:18:44
Speaker 3: He didn't immediately shoot me down. That's a win for question was a win?
00:18:51
Speaker 2: I want to hear. I want to hear and look, you know I'm somebody as you know that. Look I'm a defense attorney. I poke holes and things. I questioned things. I say to myself, all right, if I'm the attorney here, where am I going? What can I prove? What? You know? What are the weak points? And here the problem? You're right, just overcoming the brutality of people that you love and you've helped raise, and you were you were at their baptisms, and you were at their birthday parties and they called you uncle whatever. Okay, that is very hard for a jury to wrap their head around. However, however, they are dead. These children did die. And if the prosecution proves their case, they don't have to prove a motive, but they did they explain the motive. They don't have to prove a motive, but they did say, this guy's got three million dollars or half of coming to him. If everybody in Keith's family is wiped.
00:20:04
Speaker 1: Out, ooh, I am going to be and I think we all are going to be privetted to the defense because it almost seems like to TJ's point, with the brutality, I'm also thinking, like, if you're planning to kill your brother and his entire family, isn't there a less gruesome, horrific way to do it other than to stab your eight year old niece seventeen times and once in the eye.
00:20:29
Speaker 3: That is so hard to get around.
00:20:31
Speaker 1: So how important then, I would think, given that what you just said, getting his wife or getting his daughters up on that stand to talk about what a good guy he is is really kind of maybe even the only way you would possibly feel like you would struggle with finding a guilty perth.
00:20:49
Speaker 2: That's right, And I don't think that his attorneys will put him on I don't think that they could subject him to a cross examination. So what you can get that relationship been and the love that he had in through the wife for his adult daughters.
00:21:07
Speaker 1: All right, Well, we will be watching Alison Treesel always so interesting to get your expertise, your legal opinion on what we're watching. We're constantly as we're following these trials, and we have them up all day every day. We're riveted, but we always say beforehand. This is coming from no legal mind. This is just what I think a juror might be thinking. But it's so great to actually talk to someone who does have said legal mind. So we appreciate you walking down this journey with us my love viewers sake as well, so they don't have to hear our uninformed opinions.
00:21:43
Speaker 2: My pleasure.
00:21:45
Speaker 1: Thank you, Alison Triesel, and we will be talking to you soon
Speaker 1: Welcome everyone to this episode of Amy and TJ Presents. We are following the Colts Neck murders trial. Last week we gave you all basically an overview of what Week one was like in this long anticipated trial. This is almost eight years in the making, from when these horrific murders happened in this rural New Jersey town to actually now getting to trial. We have Paul Canaro charged with the murders of his own brother, Keith Canaro, his wife Jennifer, and their two children, eight year old Sophia and eleven year old Jesse, and then setting fire to their home and his own home to cover up the crimes. This is such a difficult case to hear, but obviously so many people want to get to the truth and to help us. As we've been following this case each day, we have criminal defense attorney extraordinary Alison treesel with us once again to help us go over what we've seen and heard so far and what her legal expertise thinks about what's happened so far. Alison, TJ and I are so excited to have you back on the podcast.
00:01:19
Speaker 2: Thank you. I love being here and this is a hard one to hear right. This is a story about two brothers that at some point were the best of friends, they were business partners, they care deeply for each other and their families, and wow, did this go horribly wrong. I have to start by saying that of all the opening statements in my thirty years that I've heard that I've been a part of, none has been more explosive than the one given by the Da Nicole Wallace. In this case, it was riveting. It was concise, it made sense, it wasn't too long, It laid out their case, and if in fact what she said is true, it was one of the most sinister, sinister murders ever committed. And this is a family, This is a family. So I mean, what stood out to me is when she talked about the killing of the niece, the forty five pound niece, the seventeen stab wounds of the niece, and then the lengths that you go to light the house on fire, that those children didn't immediately die, that there was smoke found in their lungs to indicate that they were alive after those brutal stabbings. So whoever did that? And the people obviously contend that it was Paul Knaro, the brother, and that he had every motive, including many dollars signs to do away with the entire family. It is one of those cases where you're shaking your head saying, wow, if this is true, that this is a case of greed of despair and a family just ripped apart.
00:03:27
Speaker 3: Alison, you talk about how emotional and devastating, how sinister the crime is. That's on the prosecution side. That's what they have going for them. Is there anything you heard from the defense? I know they maybe have an uphill climb, but what did you hear from them that makes you think maybe they have a decent case to put on.
00:03:46
Speaker 2: Well, I'm not going to use word decent, okay, because I'm going to be straight with our listeners, right. I mean, there are times where I say, wait a minute, we got something here, let's talk about it, Okay. What their theory at this point, before they have put on their case through their through the defense attorney at opening was that the police did a really shoddy job, that they rushed to judgment, that there was a third brother that also stood to make a substantial amount of money if this entire family was wiped out because Keith Canaro's blind trust if something happened to his entire family would be split between Paul and the third brother, Corey, and Corey was not involved in the business, and Corey was never thoroughly investigated. So their argument thus far seems to be blame it on the police. The police. The police did not thoroughly investigate this case, and therefore there are potential other suspects that were never questioned. They the police put blinders on the immediately honed in on Paul, and therefore it is their fault that there isn't somebody else sitting here as the defendant in this.
00:05:10
Speaker 3: Case, Alison, Generally, among defense attorneys pointing the finger at another suspect, is that usually something that is looked at favorably or unfavorably with we have a name for.
00:05:21
Speaker 2: It, and is some other dude did it? Some other dude did it? So, yes, TJ. That is not unusual. It is not unusual.
00:05:30
Speaker 3: And you know smart does it work?
00:05:35
Speaker 2: Well? Sometimes it works? But is it smart? Well? When you what else do they have?
00:05:41
Speaker 3: Right?
00:05:42
Speaker 2: What else do they have? They have to say it wasn't him, and they have to say that if the police and law enforcement would have done their homework, they would have found the true culprit. It wasn't him, But I will tell you that it wasn't just the opening statements so far. When I heard the phone call from Keith to Paul, where he and this is the day before, okay, where he says, where's the money, Paul? What did you do with the money? Paul? And I'm talking about the money that was supposed to be paid for the premium for this blind trust that only Paul had control over.
00:06:29
Speaker 1: It was like seventy eight thousand dollars, Get right, take right.
00:06:32
Speaker 2: But there had also been a previous dipping into the funds, allegedly for twenty five thousand dollars that went to went to Paul's a school event that was clearly not for the trust to go to his children, to go to Keith's children. And then we hear from the accountant and the accountants on the stand, and the accountant is talking about how it was discovered how there was some cooking of the books according to the accountant. That the accountant said that he routinely reviews all the checks that go to make the premiums. And it appears from what the countant is testifying to that Paul was very methodical in covering up making those payments, when in fact those payments to the life insurance company had never hadn't been made for months and months.
00:07:34
Speaker 1: Allison, as you detail the evidence that the prosecution is putting forward, that is, or at least from what I heard, part of the defense's defense, what do you make of their claim that the overwhelming evidence in his case is just too convenient, and that's what their argument is to point the finger at the other brother, Corey, to say he then would have had the most to gain financially, because if you take one brother out and his entire family with the murder, you take the other brother out by pinning said murders on him. Now you get it all here, we go, ready.
00:08:14
Speaker 2: Sometimes it is what it is, and sometimes a defendant is just so sloppy that they leave a you know, handsel Gretel trail of crumbs left.
00:08:27
Speaker 3: To the crime.
00:08:29
Speaker 2: So here there is some real physical evidence that the that the prosecution is presenting that the defense has to contend with. I don't like the idea of the burnt fire cannisters right there in Paul's home. I don't like Paul's the he if the prosecution is correct, he attempts to burn down his own house and what remains is clothing, clothing with the young girl's DNA on the clothing. Now, Corey has to be some incredible magician magician to stage a crime where he they have a video, the last known recording of Paul is going toward his DVR, and then the DVR is essentially cut. Those things are very hard to invent. And you know there is an idea that could you be set up? Well, my goodness, this Corey is something else if he's able to accomplish all of that, and TJ, you're looking at me. But sometimes sometimes facts are what they are, and you leave a trail of evidence behind because you are slow and because you don't you think when you when you burn the house. So we're to understand, okay, we're to understand that Corey goes over, somebody else goes over, lights the Porsche on fire, lights one of the brother's houses on fire, the other brother's house on fire, and there's just simply no evidence of that thus far.
00:10:31
Speaker 3: Okay, tell me, then, Alison, where has the defense scored any points?
00:10:38
Speaker 2: Okay? So I did listen a little bit to the to the accounts testimony, and they're going after this sale of Ecoscar, and there was an offer allegedly this is the business that was a fifty to fifty business split between the brothers, and there was an offer to sell it for eight hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Apparently Key says yes, I'm for it. Paul says, let's hold off. And the prosecution was trying to argue that Paul was simply greedy and you know, all of this is swirling around and here goes one of his you know, streams of income. But the defense said, well, this conversation is not just an isolation, and in fact, you the accountant told them, you know, we may be able to get a better offer. There are reasons to keep negotiating. Because the prosecution had isolated just one sort of email exchange where they said, look, eight fifty is a really good deal. You should take it. Well, in previous conversations that the that the defense raised, they said, wait a minute, you actually said to them we may be able to do better, or something to that effect. So it's actually more of a building a case as a defense attorney, where you're poking holes at Everything that the prosecution says is definitive is definitive. And as Amy brought up, what are they going to go after? They're going to go after a Come on, people, this is just way too convenient. This is just way too convenient. And jurors, there's something called the CSI effect right where they say, we want DNA, we want a case, we want all of this proven to us, handed to us on a silver platter, and a defense says it ain't there.
00:12:46
Speaker 3: Well, that's what they do on the show. They wrap it up in an hour. Case closed.
00:12:51
Speaker 2: So in thirty years, I've had exactly zero cases wrapped up in an hour. You know, some go my way, don't, but I can assure you that between the last commercial break and the rolling credits, the case isn't over.
00:13:08
Speaker 3: Yeah.
00:13:08
Speaker 1: And so look, we're obviously seeing this tremendous amount of evidence, from the timeline of the car movements to those final calls we heard at least Keith's end of it, from the surveillance video, the bank account issue, what and we know we've seen this in trials. Obviously, the defense doesn't have to put any witnesses forward. They don't have to necessarily even present a case. They've just been trying to do so with the cross examination. But can you imagine who the defense would call, what their defense could be if they so choose to put on a defense.
00:13:44
Speaker 2: So I think that if they're going to put on a defense here, it's going to be a couple of areas. One that Paul's family was not in financial straits. They were not in financial disaster, okay, so that he did have other streams of income. I would also put on someone maybe his wife, not sure, but somebody who says Paul adored his brother. Paul adored his niece and nephew. They had a very close relationship. He would never, under any circumstances kill all the family. He wasn't like that. These these brothers were extremely extremely close. That Corey was strained from the family essentially is where I would go with that. But that's it. That's essentially where you're going to go. What physical evidence can he dispute. He's got a problem with the little girl's DNA on his pants, That's that's a problem. He's got a problem with the timeline and the the video of him approaching the DVR and then it being disabled. He's got a problem with that. He's got a problem with his own timeline on where he was and his whereabouts. Maybe the the wife can give a stronger alibi for him, saying that he was in fact home. So things like that, amy they'll try and attack, but the theme, it's very hard to attack a theme when the day before we hear from the decedent's own voice the anger, the frustration, the hurt when he realizes that his brother has stolen this money that went that was to go to his children in the case he died, in the case, that something happened to him, and that not only was it stolen, that he had lied to him for months and essentially cooked the books when the accountant took a look at it.
00:15:47
Speaker 3: You listened off a few things, right, It's a problem, and these things are a problem for one side or the other in the case. Is it a problem at all for the prosecution? Do they have to overcome it all? The idea that this guy sitting here in v sweaters with glasses on, who doesn't have some criminal history, who seemed to be a good family guy, can stab his eight year old and eleven year old niece and nephew. You're going to have to prove to meet this guy is some kind of fricking monster.
00:16:12
Speaker 2: Yeah, so that is incomprehensible for most of us, Right, He's not somebody that's sitting there that has long terminal history. Tatta up? You know someone who? I mean, he looks he looks like a good guy. He looks like a guy that you know I'd sit down and have a conversation with. Why not. He's got those nice room glasses, you know, he looks he looks good. But remember Leslie Abrams and did a heck of a job dressing up the Menendez brothers with those little sweater vests. And it didn't it didn't preclude a conviction in that case. Yeah, you do you think I'd pull that one out? Had to to.
00:16:47
Speaker 3: You know, I forgot. I just pictured them again and I'm like, oh, yeah, they were presented in that way. I just struggle with the girl is a big reality.
00:16:57
Speaker 2: The brutality.
00:16:59
Speaker 3: How is that? But is that something the prosecution knows they have to overcome with a jury. It's hard to get my head around this man stabbing a child seventeen times that's related to him.
00:17:11
Speaker 1: I was going to ask the exact same question, babe, because I had the same thought, like as.
00:17:16
Speaker 2: A jury why, but they have a why.
00:17:19
Speaker 3: Seventy eight grand is not a big enough why for me?
00:17:22
Speaker 2: Stab your not why.
00:17:24
Speaker 3: That's why it was that he's losing his life. That's what they said.
00:17:28
Speaker 2: Three million dollar life insurance policy. And this is why. Let me explain the kids part in that. So Paul has to in order for Paul and Corey to collect. Not only does Keith have to die, who then the beneficiaries his wife? So his wife has to die. If the wife dies, the money goes to the children. If the children die, both of them, then it goes to Paul and Corey. And that's three millions. That's a lot of money.
00:18:06
Speaker 3: They said they would have to split it, right, that three million? And their argument is that a case for Corey given that if he frames his brother Paul, then he gets the whole three million? Is that not any reasonable anywhere close to reasonable doubt?
00:18:25
Speaker 2: I want to hear what the defense has to say. I want to hear what evidence they have to prove that Corey was in the vicinity. I want to hear how they explain how Corey could have planted the clothes and the and the gas, you know, in the gas canisters.
00:18:44
Speaker 3: He didn't immediately shoot me down. That's a win for question was a win?
00:18:51
Speaker 2: I want to hear. I want to hear and look, you know I'm somebody as you know that. Look I'm a defense attorney. I poke holes and things. I questioned things. I say to myself, all right, if I'm the attorney here, where am I going? What can I prove? What? You know? What are the weak points? And here the problem? You're right, just overcoming the brutality of people that you love and you've helped raise, and you were you were at their baptisms, and you were at their birthday parties and they called you uncle whatever. Okay, that is very hard for a jury to wrap their head around. However, however, they are dead. These children did die. And if the prosecution proves their case, they don't have to prove a motive, but they did they explain the motive. They don't have to prove a motive, but they did say, this guy's got three million dollars or half of coming to him. If everybody in Keith's family is wiped.
00:20:04
Speaker 1: Out, ooh, I am going to be and I think we all are going to be privetted to the defense because it almost seems like to TJ's point, with the brutality, I'm also thinking, like, if you're planning to kill your brother and his entire family, isn't there a less gruesome, horrific way to do it other than to stab your eight year old niece seventeen times and once in the eye.
00:20:29
Speaker 3: That is so hard to get around.
00:20:31
Speaker 1: So how important then, I would think, given that what you just said, getting his wife or getting his daughters up on that stand to talk about what a good guy he is is really kind of maybe even the only way you would possibly feel like you would struggle with finding a guilty perth.
00:20:49
Speaker 2: That's right, And I don't think that his attorneys will put him on I don't think that they could subject him to a cross examination. So what you can get that relationship been and the love that he had in through the wife for his adult daughters.
00:21:07
Speaker 1: All right, Well, we will be watching Alison Treesel always so interesting to get your expertise, your legal opinion on what we're watching. We're constantly as we're following these trials, and we have them up all day every day. We're riveted, but we always say beforehand. This is coming from no legal mind. This is just what I think a juror might be thinking. But it's so great to actually talk to someone who does have said legal mind. So we appreciate you walking down this journey with us my love viewers sake as well, so they don't have to hear our uninformed opinions.
00:21:43
Speaker 2: My pleasure.
00:21:45
Speaker 1: Thank you, Alison Triesel, and we will be talking to you soon