Hawaii Doc Found GUILTY, Husband Arrested Over Missing Wife in Bahamas, and Horrifying Murder of Athena Strand, with Terry Bentley Hill

Welcome to MK True Crime. I'm Phil Holloway. I'm a criminal lawyer. I'm a former prosecutor, and I'm a former police officer. And I've said this before about the show. I've said that I know a great true crime show when I see one, and today is an exceptional show. This may be the very best and most packed show we have done here at MK True Crime. So let's get right to it and tell you what is on our docket for today. We start in Hawaii with the attempted murder trial of Dr. Gerhard Koenig. He's been convicted now. This trial came to a dramatic end this week. We'll give you all of the details on closing arguments, the verdict, and more. And a man who claimed his wife, quote, fell into the water while on a trip in the Bahamas was just arrested. We'll bring you all those details, and later on in the show we'll be joined by Texas attorney Terry Bentley Hill. She will join us to talk about absolutely devastating case of murdered seven-year-old Athena Strand. The killer's last-minute guilty plea before his trial was set to begin this week and more. I'm very pleased to be joined today by my co-host and my friend Ashley Merchant, a criminal defense lawyer from Atlanta, Georgia. Ashley, you know, we've been watching this trial out of Hawaii. The Gerhard Koenig trial very closely here on the show for a couple of weeks now. And as I said, now we've got a verdict in the case. This is, of course, being the anesthesiologist accused of trying to push his wife off a cliff. Let's take a look. Dr. Koenig, can you stand as the clerk of the court reads the verdict of the jury? We, the jury in this case, find the defendant guilty of attempted manslaughter based upon extreme mental or emotional disturbance dated for 826 by the four person. You know, Ashley, we've talked about this here on the show quite a bit. And, you know, I think that the consensus between me and you and Dave and even our guests on this topic, we have all sort of believed that there would be a conviction. We believe that the jury would believe there was an intention to kill, but he was convicted not of attempted murder, but of attempted manslaughter. Right, right. And this is one of the things that we see a lot of times with jurors. We see them when I call split the baby, you know, go down the middle, meet in the middle. And there's a lot of reasons that jurors do this, Phil. One of them is that they could have felt bad for him. And I mean, their verdict that says it was based on his extreme mental or emotional disturbance tells us that they probably did feel somewhat bad for him and tells us that they did not think that he went there with the plan to actually kill her. And I think one of the, you know, one of the things that sort of buttressed that was the emotional element of this, you know, it didn't seem well planned out for someone who was a methodical doctor, you would have expected something a little more planned out if he actually had tried to kill her. But a lot of times it's nothing more than a jury actually just trying to meet in the middle and trying to have a resolution. And they've deliberated for eight hours. I mean, that is a long deliberation. That's a really long time, especially when there wasn't particularly a great deal of scientific evidence to talk about. You know, and the closing arguments, I mean, the prosecution, they were arguing that she's credible and, you know, the defense essentially is arguing the opposite, that she's deceptive, she's unreliable. You know, none of that was surprising. And I think the jury's verdict really spoke to that. Yeah, I agree. And I think it's, it's like, you know, they, they sort of like did the King Solomon thing and tried to split the baby because her, her account, the wife's account of what happened and his account were very different. And so I think on the facts of the actual criminal act itself, I think the jury sided with the wife, right? But on the law, the jury sort of bought into the defense claims that he was under some type of emotional distress such that it would justify lesser included charge of manslaughter or attempted manslaughter. And this, of course, based on his claims that she had had this, really not really a physical affair, but at least an emotional affair with a coworker. Look, we've got some sounded video from the closing arguments. In fact, let's listen to sought one, which is part of the prosecution closing. This deals with the witness accounts that contradict Dr. Gerhardt's claims on the attack. Amanda Morris, the first person on the scene. Amanda sees the defendant over aerial. She sees the defendant with this rock in his hand and she sees the defendant hit her. How the defender responses, nothing. He just looks at her. Aerial's also corroborated by Sarah Bucksbaum, the second woman on the scene, the second hiker who intervened. Sarah looked the defendant in the eye. Sarah made eye contact with the defendant and told you how that made her feel. It made her feel unsettled. Defendant is contradicted by Amanda and Sarah. Somehow Aerial finally let go of his private parts and then he just stands there and looks. He's not on the ground writhing in pain. Does that make sense? He says that she held on so hard that he couldn't escape. Does it make sense that afterwards he would just stand there and stare? No. Yeah, Ashley. What's your take on that part of the closing by the prosecutor? I mean, they did what they needed to do. They did a good job trying to explain that Aerial was credible, trying to explain that her version was corroborated and anticipate what the defense was about to say. I think one of the strongest things was when they talked about, and I think we've got that in Sought 2, where Gerhardt was thinking logically during after the attack. And that was something that they needed to show for premeditation. It didn't work, but it seemed to be powerful. And I think we've got that in Sought 2. Plan A, the push. The intent was to kill. When plan A didn't work, the defendant moved on to plan B. Plan B, injector with the syringe. Knock her out. Pusher off the cliff. The intent behind plan B was to kill. Plan C, when the first two plans didn't work, beater with the rock. Knock her out, drag her over, or just simply kill her outright. The defense's logical thinking is important here. It shows the defendant, when plan A didn't work, he moved to plan B. Plan B didn't work, he moved to plan C. And when he got caught, he fled the scene, he hid the evidence, and he hid himself. That shows the defendant was using logical thinking. The defendant was solving problems as they came. He was not acting under extreme mental or emotional disturbance. You don't actually act. Oh, sorry. No, I was just saying, I think where that argument, the only evidence of the syringe was her testimony, that he maybe tried to stab her with a syringe full of, he's an anesthesiologist who knows what maybe was in there, but that wasn't located. So they weren't able to corroborate her testimony with any physical evidence, but I think if they had found a needle and a syringe full of some type of drug that would kill her or knock her out, that probably would have led to a different verdict. 100% agree. I think we would have seen a guilty verdict across the board, guilty to the indictment. I think the lack of the syringe was a really big issue. I think when you contrast, and we're going to listen in a minute to some of the defense closing argument, when you contrast the prosecutions versus the defenses, you see what this case really is about. And it was about credibility, because we know that they both had injuries. We know they both were fighting. I mean, that was obvious. We could see that with our own eyes. We knew what happened. This wasn't really a who done it. So it came down to credibility, who's story do you believe more? And as much as we feel bad for Ariel, she didn't come across particularly sympathetic on the stand. She had a lot of lack of emotion, which I think a jury kind of expects to see more emotion. And the defense did a really good job in their closing arguments. And I think it may be why they got the verdict that they did about that, about her lack of emotion. And also one thing that I think was particularly strong was that she had this history of some deceptive behavior. And even though it probably wasn't a big deal, it sounded like a big deal when they argued it. And they were talking about her hiding texts, they were talking about the affair, and that she lied to the police about the affair, which I think was huge. And we've got that in Sot 3. Many examples of deceptive behavior that makes her unreliable. We heard about her deleting the text messages to hide it from her husband, to hide the extent of a relationship. That is inherently deceptive to do that. It shows that that's inherently deceptive. Now, the affair, the relevance of the affair is primarily that she lied about it to the detective. The context is shown in the relationship in January, February, and December, but the relevance is she lied about it to the detective. And that is incredibly important when it is she said, he said, and his proof boundaries will die. Let's look at this. He said, well, she describes it to the detective as just some flirty text messages. He says, well, there's nothing in the text messages about sex. Well, she deleted most of them, so we don't really know what's in there. Actually, there's not a good look. It makes me think of something. There's a judge that you and I used to practice in front of who is deceased now, but this judge used to say, he would say that a person who won't lie about an affair is not worthy of belief. So I think that sometimes when a jury is presented with this argument that she's being deceptive and she's hiding things, there's at least an explanation for it. But contrary, look, I'm going to disagree with you slightly on some of this. I think that she came across as being credible. I believed her testimony. I even believed her claim about the syringe, but hey, I wasn't on the jury. And of course, you know, being in the courtroom and assessing someone's demeanor live and in person and being able to see them and hear them with your own eyes and ears can make a big difference. But, you know, the defense goes on to talk about, you know, her lack of emotion, something you mentioned. So let's go ahead and take a look at that in Sot 4. Her demeanor. They say, oh, she was very mad or a fat guy and just told it. Ask yourself, if someone's describing what should have been the most horrific thing they've ever been through, bloody murder, someone's trying to stab you with a syringe, a monster's trying to throw you off a cliff. When you're recounting that, you might get a little emotional, not at all. And she's not just someone who doesn't get emotional because we saw her get emotional when we showed her the card. When she read the birthday card, she got emotional. I submit to you that was probably guilt, but whatever it was, she knew it was genuine and she showed an ability to show emotions. You know, so my, my, what I think was the strongest part of their closing is what we're going to listen to in a minute, which was something that really struck me when I saw, when I first heard about the case, I couldn't wait to see what the injuries were. Not that I couldn't wait like in a good way, but you know, I was interested in what the injuries were going to be because I saw the rock, I heard the allegations and I thought there was going to be some significant trauma to this poor lady. Let's take a, when you talk, can we, let's take a look real quick at the police body cam and we can, we can talk over that, but I didn't mean to interrupt you. Go ahead. No, no, definitely. If we can take a look at that, the police body cam VO. But during the defense's closing, they did a good job of explaining that if he was trying to kill her, if he was trying to use deadly force, she had a scalp laceration and a broken thumb and that that is not really a good indicator of this severity because you know, you see blood, but blood you can have from a very minor injury. So, you know, there's definitely blood, but in the end of the day was that blood indicative of how injured she was. And you know, we see that on the, on the screen right now, the blood, but then they talked about it in their closing arguments at SOP 5, where her injuries were really just a bad cut and a fractured thumb. You know, Dave and I own the show earlier this week, we were talking about the, the rock in question, right? And how this particular rock, when it was viewed in the courtroom, it looked to me like it had a pretty good size. It wasn't like a giant boulder, but it wasn't also a little pebble either. And so when you talk about the assault with a deadly weapon, right, when you, you've got a rock, which is not necessarily an inherently deadly weapon, like maybe a firearm or a sword or something like that. But when you use it offensively, if it's, you know, if you're, if you can call serious injury or death with it, to me, you know, that shows the intention to do that. Now, look, I grant you that the scalp area, particularly the forehead and the skin, like if you see a boxing match and there's a cut over a boxer's eye, it tends to bleed a lot. There's a lot of blood. And so from a medical perspective, the defense's argument there, you know, it does hold some water. And I imagine the jury took something away from that. And I think it made a difference. In fact, let's take a look at SOT 5, which they talk about those injuries. Look, I'm not saying it wasn't a bad cut. And look, I'm not, you know, nobody wanted her to have that cut. I'm not saying it's not, you know, I'm just saying the level of force he used, you can see it was a, it was, he talks about chunks missing from his scalp. No doctor said that it was, it was soft tissue. You heard from Dr. Arden, very credible man that apparently for 14 grand is going to sacrifice his integrity. Obviously, he's not going to do that. He told you that blood is not a good indication of the severity. The blood is not a good indication of severity. No skull fractures, no soft tissue. The tip of her thumb, he said it was just a very tip. And sure, after the first hit, he puts her thumb, it hits hit, just to tip his fracture. We heard about that. All three doctors agree. No substantial risk of death and no serious bodily under, under law. All three said that. Well, coming up, we've got her sentencing in August, you know, or his sentencing, I'm sorry, August 13th. And I believe he's facing up to 20 years in prison. So he could get some substantial time even for this lesser, you know, lesser charge that he was convicted of. You know, were you and I practicing in Georgia listening to that defense argument where he basically makes the argument, you know, just the tip of the thumb was crushed or anything. So in Georgia, I mean, I think you probably would agree with me on this, that in some counties that would be enough to earn you an aggravated battery conviction, which does carry 20 years, you know, I know, I know. I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if the state's asking for 20 years, because typically on sentences, you know, they ask for it based on the conduct they think, even if they didn't get a guilty verdict that they think that they should have gotten a guilty verdict on. And a lot of time judges do, you know, give an enhancement because of that. It's an unfortunate part of this whole overcharging, which I wanted to talk about in my closing argument a little bit. Well, it's still a very big victory, I think, for the defense because he was facing a life sentence. If you're stressed out about getting out of debt, it's go time. This is one of those moments where timing matters. And let me tell you about done with debt 2025 was a record year for them, people who collectively had more than 102 million in debt, turned to them for help. And right now may be the best time to negotiate settlements done with debt tracks credit card and loan company behavior. They are experienced at knowing who's negotiating and when and what it takes to get you the biggest reduction possible. Whether you are carrying 10,000 or 500,000 in debt, this may be the best chance you'll get all year. So consider scheduling a free consultation. It only takes a few minutes. Imagine waking up without that weight on your shoulders and doing it without taking out another loan or filing for bankruptcy. Done with debt helps you through the debt relief process. So you keep more of your paycheck every month. Go to donewithdebt.com right now. That's donewithdebt.com. Actually, let's move on to this case out of the Bahamas, where I just came back from I was doing some diving down there earlier this month or actually last month actually with my son. We have the case involving Lynette Hooker, age 55 years old. She disappeared on the night of Saturday, April 4th while in the Bahamas on a trip with her husband, Brian. So this couple, they documented their life on their yacht on social media using the handle The Sailing Hookers, I thought was very interesting and clever. That was funny. Yeah, but Brian has reported that Lynette fell overboard while they were on the dinghy going from Hope Town to Elbo K, which is where their yacht was docked. So the issue here is, you know, what's going on with it? And as we have come to find out, he has now been arrested. So we've got the typical thing when there's an injury or when somebody goes missing or there's a death police always look to the immediate family and the people that are closest to the victim. So are you surprised with the fact that police are now focusing on the husband? No, not at all. Because if anybody did it, it would be him. I think the real question here is, did a crime actually happen? You know, because it's unfortunate, but anytime we have an accident, a tragic accident, we always wonder, did somebody cause it? Sometimes an accident is just an accident. Nobody caused it. But I think what the police are doing is they're thinking that, well, maybe this was more than an accident. And so if that's the case, it's got to be him because he's got the opportunity. So they know he's got the opportunity. Now they're going to be looking for some motive. Why would he have wanted her dead? And, you know, we were handed that on a silver platter by her daughter who said, oh, they had had some problems. He had been making threats. You know, there were some issues. He choked her out. He did some violent things. And so that's handing them motive on a silver platter, which is going to make him the prime suspect. Very well have just been an accident. Well, Brian apparently reportedly alerted others to Lynette's missing status when he he returned to, I guess, the shore the next day. Now look, when I was diving there recently in the Bahamas, even the small dive boat had a radio, but I don't know what the explanation is for him not getting on a radio, but he reportedly goes back to shore the next day. And he's his explanation for his delayed report and the return to shore was that he says that Lynette reportedly had the dinghy keys when she went overboard. And so he couldn't start the boat after they became separated. I don't know about you, but that certainly looks and sounds very suspicious if it's true. And of course, as you mentioned, the daughter had her suspicions. In fact, we've got sought six, which is the daughter who says to CBS News that Brian, in fact, always had the keys and she shared a voice note. Let's take a look and listen. Her daughter, Carly told us their life wasn't as picture perfect as it looks. It's always been kind of rocky. Their relationship has been a lot of fighting and drinking lately. So I'm just kind of questioning what actually went on in the dinghy. Royal Bahamian police say Brian told investigators Lynette fell from the eight foot hard bottom dinghy with the keys to the boat shutting off its engine and was carried away by strong rip currents. Does it add up? No, it does not. Brian's always driving. So he basically is in charge of the key. So the fact that my mom had it doesn't make any sense. Carly said Brian left her this voicemail claiming authorities had found a flotation device he threw to her mother. Hello honey, I just got a call from a book counselor I can rescue and I found a flotation device that I threw to mom when she fell overboard. And so they haven't found her yet. Actually, does the dinghy story hold water? You know the the the worst fact for me is this keys, you know, because when my husband and I like we like to go out on a boat and when we do key drives, I never drive. So I could imagine, you know, if something happened, that would be an accurate statement. It's very unlikely I would ever have the keys. I don't even know what boat keys look like or where they go. So, you know, if that's true, if what she's saying is true, then that fact is going to be pretty bad. You know, but why would she have the boat keys? I mean, that that's the one fact that I think hangs me up the most. The rest of it, though, you know, she had said that her parents drank a lot. The the seas were rough. I mean, a lot of stuff happens out there. You're in a dinghy. Why are they in a dinghy in this bad weather? I mean, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. But I do think you're going to have a hard time getting around that key story. I think one of the most common ways to to prove that something may not be true is you look to how the statement was released to the public. So anytime there's a statement that's probably written by a lawyer that's released on Facebook, I immediately call it into question. And let me read to you what this Facebook statement said. I am heartbroken over the recent boat accident in unpredictable seas and high winds that caused my beloved Lynette to fall from our small dinghy near Elbo-K in the Bahamans. Despite desperate attempts to reach her the next day, I guess, the winds and currents drove us further apart. We continue to search for her and that is my sole focus. Our family is deeply grateful for the Bahamian people's assistance, especially that of the Hope Town volunteer fire and rescue team. Royal Bahamas Police Force, Royal Bahamas Defense Force and the U.S. Coast Guard who have worked tirelessly in an ongoing effort to bring Lynette back to us. Thank you to everyone for keeping Lynette in your thoughts and for your support of our family during this difficult time. It's it's one of these things where if they never find her and I'll just say her body, right? If they never find her body, it would be almost impossible to prove that that claim on Facebook is not true. Right, it would be. And that is going to be very difficult. I think this is this is not even a he said she said. You know, if they don't find her body, they don't have any evidence of wrongdoing or foul play. That's going to be a problem. My guess is that they're searching for some type of motive, maybe financial. And that's one of the reasons that we see financial issues in these cases that we do watch all the way to trial happen all the time. You know, maybe there were some financial issues. There was a life insurance policy. I'm sure that that's the type of information the police are looking for. Because otherwise there's nothing to take this away from two people who could have been highly intoxicated out on a very rough sea in a dangerous situation. And you know how it is. If there's high winds and there's rough seas and you're on a dinghy and you're drunk, you could easily, easily fall over. And if she did have the keys, yeah. And if she had the keys, it would make sense because the boat's not going to work when she takes the keys. I mean, that makes perfect sense. So, you know, if it's reasonable for her to have the keys, I don't think that's going to be enough. They're going to have to have something much more significant. And what we know now is that they believe they have some type of probable cause to question him. And so he's being questioned. I mean, they're doing an investigation. I'm sure they're looking for all those financial motives and we'll be hearing more about that. In the upcoming days. So he was taken into custody by officers of the Royal Bahamas Police Force this past Wednesday night in connection with this disappearance. And police have said that they, you know, they haven't charged him with anything, but they said they brought him in for, quote, additional questioning based on some probable cause we have. And so who knows, maybe he's going to break under the questioning. Maybe he's going to confess all over himself. Or maybe he's just going to keep his mouth shut and not say anything else. If he has a lawyer, that's what his lawyer told him to do. No doubt. But look, they're looking at the boat. They're looking for anything, as you mentioned, around the edges or even maybe in their life, electronic evidence, digital footprint kind of stuff. And they're looking at the at the yacht itself. And so look, I don't know what they could possibly find. Maybe they'll find something, but maybe they won't. But if they don't find anything, this may be a forever mystery. You know, but look, we also have this Rex Hewerman case, right? We've talked about the Long Island, the Gilgo Beach killer Rex Hewerman. He's pled guilty, actually. What's going on there? I mean, we knew this was coming. You know, we heard hints about it. We talked with Arthur Adalla last week about it. You know, you and I about how everybody thought he was going to be entering a guilty plea. And it finally happened. You know, this Wednesday, April 8th, he actually pleaded guilty. He pled to three counts of first-degree murder. He pled to four counts of intentional murder. And he also admitted to killing another young lady in 1996. He was not charged with her murder, though, as part of the plea deal. I think this was very interesting. He said he's going to cooperate with the FBI's behavioral analysts unit as part of the deal as well. So they're going to essentially use him and use his brain for science. I mean, you know, that's the profiling unit. So I think that's actually really helpful. The fact that he's agreed. Let's hope that he does do that. But we have footage of him actually answering the questions when the judge did the allocution when they were asking him. And that's at SOT 7. Mr. Hewman, before I swear you when the allocution is taken, I had some questions to ask of you. They're obvious and simple questions, but I have to ask them. Okay? Yes, Your Honor. How old are you? 62. Do you read and write English? Yes. Have you discussed this case with your attorney? Yes, I have. Have you had enough time to discuss this case with your attorney? Yes, I have. After discussions with your lawyer, you feel it's in your best interest to plead guilty rather than go to trial. Yes, Your Honor. Are you satisfied with the manner in which your attorney's representing this case? Yes, I am. I must say that the attorneys on both sides of this case have been excellent, unbelievable lawyers. Do you understand that by pleading guilty to a charge, that is the same as you had gone to trial and found guilty of that charge? Yes, Your Honor. Do you understand that by pleading guilty, you're waiving a number of very important rights? Yes, Your Honor. All right. Now these rights include your right to a trial by jury or by the court, your right to have the prosecution produce evidence and witnesses to prove you're guilty on a reasonable doubt, your right to cross examine those witnesses, and your right to testify on your own behalf, or to remain silent, your right to call witnesses or submit evidence on your behalf. Do you understand those rights? Has that just explained it? Yes. Do you understand that by pleading guilty, you're giving up those rights? Yes, I do. Well, I think it's important to mention, Ashley, the names of the victims, in addition to Karen Vergada, who he admitted to killing, but he was not charged with her death. The victims include Melissa Bartholomew, Megan Waterman, Amber Costello, Maureen Braynard Barnes, Jessica Taylor, Valerie Mack, Sandra Castilla. Now a lot of them were said to be sex workers and several were young mothers, but look serial killers are well, look academically, they're very, you know, interesting sort of criminal and the the fact that he's going to, I guess he's supposed to anyway, cooperate with the FBI's behavioral analysis unit. Maybe there's some opportunity there, and I'll talk about this more in my closing, maybe there's some opportunity there to learn something about serial killers. Right. And I think that's that's the hope, you know, they wanted to save the families from going through this, going through the trial, but hopefully we can learn something. Sentencing is set for June 17th, and he is expected to receive several life sentences, multiple sentences of 25 years to life. So he will probably never see the light of day. Well, keep it right here. Right. I guess, I guess I say that. It's like the old days when it's like, don't change the channel, but stay tuned here to MK True Crime, because we're going to keep on top of that story, along with all of these others as they work their way through the court system. Coming up next, stay with us because we have a very interesting and it's very sad and shocking next segment coming up out of Texas. It's one of the most awful murder cases I've ever discussed, but we'll get into that with Texas criminal defense attorney, Terry Bentley Hill. She's going to join us to discuss the sentencing trial of Tanner Horner. Horner pled guilty to the 2022 murder of seven year old little Athena Strand earlier this week. And now a Texas jury will decide his fate. Does he get the death penalty or is it life in prison? Stay tuned. Let's be honest, America is more dangerous than ever. Violent crime is on the rise, and you cannot afford to wait for help. Sure, you could use a firearm, but in today's America, defending yourself with deadly force will land you in court. You'll spend years and your life savings trying to prove you did the right thing. According to FBI data, 99.9% of all altercations do not require lethal force. And that's exactly why smart Americans are turning to Burnah. Burnah is proudly American hand assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana. These less lethal self defense launchers are trusted by hundreds of government agencies, law enforcement departments and private security companies. Over 600,000 burner pistols have been sold, most to private citizens who refuse to be victims. Burnah launches fire, rock hard kinetic rounds and powerful tear gas and pepper projectiles capable of stopping a threat from up to 60 feet away. No background checks, no waiting periods, and Burnah can ship straight to your door. Take responsibility, protect your future, visit burnah.com right now or your local sportsman warehouse. That's burnahbyrna.com or your local sportsman warehouse. Visit now and be prepared to defend. Welcome back to MKT True Crime. Joining us now is Texas criminal defense attorney, Terry Bentley Hill. Welcome to the show, Terry. It's so good to see you. Thanks for being here. Thank you for having me. I appreciate it. So, Terry, you've been providing expert legal commentary on the sentencing trial of Tanner Horner, which is happening in your neck of the country in Tarrant County, Texas. And so just to bring our audience up to speed on the case, in November of 2022, Tanner Horner, who is a former contracted FedEx driver, he abducted seven-year-old Athena Strand from her home while he was delivering her Christmas present. Her body was found two days later. Horner initially pled not guilty, but in a surprise move on Monday morning, right as the trial was about to get underway, he changed his plea to guilty. Let's watch. You understand that if you plead guilty, this absolves or relieves the state of having to prove you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to the jury. You understand that? Yes, sir. At some point in the future of this trial, I would give the jury a set an instruction to find you guilty and they would find you guilty and that would take care of the first phase of the first case of the first phase of the trial. Do you understand that? Yes, sir. The jury is then allowed or the jury will be allowed, if I accept your plea, to listen to all of the evidence at one time and then all of that evidence would be used by them in determining the appropriate punishment. Do you understand that? Yes, sir. Okay. Are you pleading guilty because anybody forced you to plead guilty? Yes, sir. Are you pleading guilty because anybody has promised you anything to plead guilty? Yes, sir. Are you pleading guilty because people have given you any hope of parole or hope of pardon or persuasion to plead guilty? Yes, sir. Are you pleading guilty freely and voluntarily? Yes, sir. So I just want to catch our viewers up a little bit on what's going on here because I think it gets confusing why, you know, we have a plea, what was going to happen, why are we having a trial if we have a plea. So this was essentially a death penalty case. Yeah, and he was supposed to start a jury trial this last Monday, but he decided last minute to enter a guilty plea. And so now the jury is actually going to determine whether or not he gets life in prison or the death penalty because in the states that allow the death penalty, a jury has to vote for it and they have to have to find that out. And so just a little background for our viewers. This case originated back in November of 2022. And his initial story was that he struck this little girl with his delivery van while he was backing up. He said he kidnapped her, strangled her allegedly out of fear that she would tell her father about the incident. That's what he said initially. But apparently we just have found out when he did this allegation that that's a total lie. The trial, though originally it was in Wise County, but it got moved to another county, Terrant County, which I believe, and you can tell us, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe they're both really close to each other. But that was because they didn't think he could get a fair trial in Terrant County. Are those, or in Wise County, are those counties really close to each other, Terri? They are. And I think that's a great question. That's kind of confusing to me too. I mean, the television stations are in Dallas, Fort Worth and Boyd, Wise County gets that broadcast. So I don't know, I'm sure that they originally called 300 jurors. They immediately were able- That's it? Yes. Can you believe that? Does that seem low? Yes. That seems so low. And they eliminated 60 immediately. And then they started the individual voidire, which for a death penalty case is very standard, because they are seeking the death penalty. So it took them five weeks to get these jurors and alternates. Wow. Wow. Well, yeah, and what happens in a death penalty trial is the jurors have to be what's called death qualified, which is a whole different ballgame than a regular jury. You have to have a jury that's actually willing to impose the death penalty, or we're considered, I guess, is what the law says. But essentially, we've got jurors when we're picking, when we're doing voidire, that have a moral issue with even sitting in judgment. And so that's even greater when you've got the death penalty. Yeah. So that's why I was so surprised, only 300. Me too. I think it's probably telling that they only struck 60. So you must be in a part of the country that tends to like to impose the death penalty, I'm guessing. Well, you know, Texas is known to be the death penalty state. And we have executed since 1976, 598 people. So yeah, I think basically what these people had to convince the judge and the lawyers during, we call it voidire here in Texas. That's what we say in Atlanta too. I'm from Florida, so we've got to do everything different. They've got to convince them that they can consider the full range of punishment that would be life in prison without parole or the death penalty. Okay. Okay. Well, I just want to kind of walk our viewers through what's happened. You know, the first day, I know you've been following everything. So the first day of the sentencing trial. So we know that the judge took the guilty the surprise guilty plea, and then he explained what that meant. We just we just heard that what it meant to me to Tanner Horner, that he would essentially have a jury decide the sentence. And then we had the prosecution's opening statement. Yes. And I know we're going to hear it. Yeah. So this is apparently a very powerful prosecutor James Stanton, I believe his name was. And his, I mean, his opening statement was really powerful. He talks about how the jury is just going to hear lies. And the only thing that Tanner Horner told the truth about was that he killed her. So if we can listen to sot nine, and then I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. Okay. We have lies and lies and lies. It is hard to keep up with. The only thing he told the truth about was he killed her. So you're going to hear multiple stories. None of them are true. What's the story that was told in the beginning that he hit her for the truck that he somehow freaked out because he thought he was going to lose his job, or she was going to tell him he picked her up, still freaked out and killed her. That is an absolute lie. Yeah, I mean, it's powerful so far. It is. And let me tell you what really brought chills is he compared the defendant to Satan, basically, and this is the verse that he used. It's out of second Corinthians 11, 14. It's for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light when referring to the defendant. So I knew a bombshell was coming because they've been on the lawyers and officers, anyone who has anything to do with this case, there's been a gag order that the judge ordered. So all we've heard all along is that he was delivering her barbies for Christmas and that he accidentally backed up and hit her and that he was afraid of getting in trouble, making her dad mad. And so he brings her into his van and then murders her. And so that's all we've heard. But now we're hearing through testimony all of the lies. What has happened? And it's phone chilling. It truly is. And we've got other things going on that we can address too that the defense, basically, their job is to try to keep him alive, right? Right. So it's like, I equate it to an oncologist, you know, you're trying to keep him alive. Yes. I got a question for you. So look, you're right that the defense strategy, anytime you have a death penalty case, as you can actually know, it's to keep the client alive. But now we don't have to refer to him as an alleged murder. We know that he's a murderer and we've got lots of audio and video that we're going to be sharing with our audience here in just a few moments. But to address more of the prosecutor's opening statement, you know, you pointed out that going into this, all we would have known was that the defendant was claiming this was an accident and that he hid it from the cops to keep, you know, the dad from getting mad or whatever. So that's all we do. But but the prosecutor has revealed certain evidence. And one of the things that he said in his closing argument that I thought was very powerful were the first words out of this man's mouth to little Athena. Let's take a listen to slot 10. First thing Tanner Horner says to Athena when he picks her up, puts her in that truck, he leans down and he says, Don't scream or I'll hurt you. He says that twice. You're going to hear it. We're going to put it on screen for you. That's the first thing out of his mouth. He made good on it. Yeah, I said that up for us. Tell us how they how they know this. What is the evidence that they have that this is what happened? They have video evidence and those his FedEx van is has a video camera in that van. What's interesting is the prosecutor in his opening statements did say, we have video. We know how this happened. But then the video went away because it was covered up. He said, but we have the audio and we can hear exactly what went on in that truck and we can also figure out what a 240 pound van can do to a 67 year old child. I mean, it was a powerful opening statement. Yeah, we've got some of that. Let me catch it. We've actually got that for slot 11. Let's go ahead and run that. Tanner Horner shows up. So it was package leads with a thing. Now, I'm going to put you as close as you can be without actually being there that day. We have video and we're going to show it. Now, you may be thinking, wow, maybe we have video of the whole thing. Nope. Somebody covered up the camera. They don't want you to see. Guess what? Audio is still running and you're going to hear it. You're going to hear what a 250 pound man can do to a 67 pound child. And when I say it's horrible, I mean it. I've been doing this 25 years and I promise you buckle up. Powerful. Powerful stuff. I don't know that I want to hear it. I know. And he went on and this was just one of the worst parts. He went on to talk about how her DNA was places that you shouldn't find it in a DNA. Seven year olds. Yes. I mean, I can't even imagine what the jurors were saying. I think we've got that at slot 12. What does punishment look like? We have DNA. Not only do we have initial DNA from Athena that has 10 or 100 DNA under a fingernail. We also have DNA, 10 or 100 DNA in places where you shouldn't find DNA on a seven year old. So Terry, that was powerful that we hear that there's DNA in places that shouldn't be. So what have we heard from Mr. Horner this whole time about any sexual assaults? He's denied it every time they've asked him or even implied that she could have been sexually assaulted or they've never used those words, by the way. But it's interesting when he was in the police department doing this interview with the Ranger, the Texas Ranger, he said, I know what you're going to ask me. I know what you're going to ask me. And the Ranger said what he said, I didn't do it. I didn't sexually assault her. So was he charged with any of those with anything? Okay, that's interesting. Yeah. Yeah. That's that's a very good point to actually he was in the indictment. He was not charged with sexual assault. But they are wondering. Yeah, because like with death penalty, you know, they're always have to have some aggravators. And so I figured that would have been some of one of the aggravators that maybe we had. So maybe it wasn't sexual assault, but it was extremely inappropriate, but didn't rise the legal level of sexual assault or something like that. It's awful. I can tell you this, that some of the, you know, extraneous offense testimony is going to come in. And it has to do with some charges regarding, yeah, sexual assault claims against him. So we may find out that she was of course, capital murder in Texas is any the death of a child under the age of 10 or aggravated kidnapping too. So that but but I am curious and I don't know the answer to this about the sexual assault of this of this baby child because she was found without any clothes on. And of course, he denied that that was one of his lies. Right. Well, it doesn't sound like you can believe anything that he said. Right. And we got a little bit of a glimpse into the defense's opening statement. And again, I got to remind our viewers this is a death penalty case. So, you know, they're trying to gain sympathy. And when I hear the opening of the state, you know, he's either a very sick man, you know, he's a sick man either way, but he's either like sociopathic or he's got some significant illness because there's no other explanation. So that's what it sounds like, you know, the defense is arguing that he was autistic, possibly had something called Asperger's. I'm assuming that they're going to be putting up evidence of that that he suffered. So I sort of heard some interesting things, you know, that his mom was a stripper and she drank. But the thing that I thought was really interesting was lead poisoning that he's got some high 24 times the amount of lead poisoning. I think we've got that at at sought 13. But Terry, when after we play that, I'm really curious about how lead in your area, how that's going to come. Because I think Aaron Brockovich and I'm just curious how that's going to play to a Texas jury. So let's play sought 13. And then I want to hear that. The terms we had Asperger's, which is now considered a form of autism and smack in disorder. So the range is really, there's some loud words and social issues, things like that all the way to the unethical function. That's what they call it. Tanner received services throughout his school life, with a 18. Tanner, unfortunately, is also suffered in various mental illnesses throughout his life. In fact, he knows he's received treatment for and some of those are ongoing. We'll hear about those and what issues he has there. And finally, you will hear evidence that Tanner at some point, presumably during his adult middle years, was exposed to a massive amount of lead. That team shows he has 24 times the amount of lead that the person should have. I don't know. I don't know. Like, it's, I mean, this is bizarre. Like the things that we're hearing and that we started hearing from witnesses, this is just absolutely one of the most bizarre scenarios, you know, and we'll talk about, let's talk about some of the witnesses. Okay. So we heard from his stepmom or her stepmom, I'm sorry, Athena's stepmom testified, told the jurors that Athena was living with them and, you know, had just started school. She was playing, I mean, just made it sound like just a normal family day, you know, said just kids in the country. And then in SOT 15, we've got the stepmom and the jury being shown a picture of Athena in Horner's van. This is awful. This is what she looked like the last time. Yes. Now, let me just ask you, would she have had any reason to be inside of what appears to be a van or truck at that time? No. That was your honor speculation? Oh, right. Would she have had any reason to be in a truck with that individual that's depicted in that picture? No. Okay. Did you give her permission to be in that truck? No. Did you give her permission to be taken a ride with that individual in that picture? No. What's your reaction when you find out that Athena's no longer with us? I lost it. I just don't know how you're going to react to something like that. Can I just say that that is, that might very well be the most chilling and horrifying piece of evidence that I have ever seen in my career. And I believe me, I have seen quite a lot, but that is a very, very, very powerful bit of evidence. I can't even imagine the horror that the stepmother must be going through to have to testify about it. Let me just parenthetically point out this is all happening, as we mentioned in Texas, right? It's in Wise County. And so this is something that is a personal case for our producer, Natasha, who's given us permission to talk about this. In fact, we have, if we can skip ahead to, we have some video. It's the one without the sound that Natasha took, which shows where this child was found. And you mentioned that she was found on cloth, but we can take a look at where she was found just dumped on the side of the road, like a piece of garbage. And you know, it makes me just wonder if ever there was any case that just screamed for the death penalty, it must have to be, must be this case. The facts are going to be incredibly difficult to overcome in this case. And under Texas law, you can, you can consider the facts of this case when considering the jury considering whether or not, how to answer the two special issue questions that they will have to answer at the end of all this. The first one has to do with future dangerousness. In other words, will this person, because of the, the, the crime that he has committed, is he more likely to commit a crime against society again? And society, well, of course he's going to be in prison, at least the minimum for the rest of his life, right? But they are considered society, the inmates, the jailers, whatever, so they can take that into consideration. So is he a future danger based on a number of facts, but certainly the, the, the facts of this case, if the jury unanimously, unanimously answers yes, they go to the second question. And the second question is really one that the Supreme Court more recently has said is imperative to, to bring into death penalty cases, because the death penalty is preserved for the worst of the worst, right? So they, the Supreme Court says you have got to consider all, all testimony regarding mental health, childhood trauma, living circumstances, whatever mental health conditions, you have to consider all of that. And let me tell you right now, this trial is going to go on for a long time, because I know that the defense has 19 expert witnesses on its witness list. They may not call, no, they may not call them, but I promise you they are going to give it a college try to try to convince this jury that he is not responsible because he has Asperger's or autism and that he couldn't, he couldn't make the right decisions. Let's get into that. He's told us that he's not a psychopath, right? Are we supposed to take him at his word? Let's listen to shot 16. I started panicking. Possibly. Is she going to have any like credit or anything like that on her? I mean, like, it kind of throw in theirs as possible. No. Okay. I'm not some psychopath. Um, so I think what we heard next from the next witness might change everyone's view of that. And this is the craziest part to me. So, so Texas Ranger, um, Job Espinosa testified and he was assigned to Wise County. He was the lead investigator of this case. And he describes the interrogation room and taking Horner out to look for little Athena's body and the wild goose chase they go on. But this is the crazy part to me. He switched tactics because they couldn't find her and decided to talk to zero, who is Horner's alter ego. So he told the jurors that Horner's eyes, literally, he told them rolled back into his head and he began to tell them exactly where Athena's body was at Bobo's crossing, the location where she was found, right where she was found. Right. Yep. Turn by turn, he took her to the Ranger. Turn by turn. Eyes rolled back like, like a different person. And let's give that man, let's give that man an Oscar, right? And he can pick that up on his way to the death house in Texas. Um, as our, our producer points out, this is like some Norman Bates-ish stuff, right? I mean, what in the world is going on? But is he, is he faking it or is it real? Let's check out site 17. Do you change tactics when you're out there at the bamboo and your question, Tanner? Yes, I do. At that point in my investigation and throughout the course of the interviews with Mr. Horner, I knew that I was going to have to play his game. And I knew that I was going to have to address him as zero in order to find Athena. When I address, tell him that I'm, know what I've been missing is that I've been talking to the wrong person, that I needed to be talking to zero. Uh, his demean- physical demeanor changes. Um, his head goes into a sideways motion. His eyes roll into the back of the head and he pretends to turn into zero. At that point, I asked him to take me to Athena and he says that he will and we get into my pickup and he directs me to Bobo's crossing. Yeah, zero did it, you guys. It's zero. Yeah, it's dissociative identity, you know, disorder. If nothing, I mean, nobody said that. I've read there, there are at least 114 motions that have been filed and I haven't seen anything about that. No. Oh my god, no disclosure that says, you know, we're going to have this. Wow. Is he claiming, like in there, in the defense opening or has there been any claim that, as far as you know, that, that he, he's, he's got some multiple personality disorder or any shit like that? No, well, before we got, we've got to hear sought 19, which is zero himself talking to the police. Because he made me come out. He made me tell you. Oh no, he's not. You did the right thing and we needed to get her on. That's the only way to do it. Why do you want to talk to me? Zero, you've been more helpful than Tanner, for that matter. Tanner was really honest, but you helped me. So I wanted to know why you took advantage of Tanner. Tanner was honest and he was really helpful. But he wouldn't let Tanner tell me where she was at. I had to talk to you to get the truth. Tanner made me tell where she was. And Ellen, by the way, where she was, as we talked about that's at Bobo's Crossing. And before we let you go, we've got to run sought 18, which is our producer, Natasha, who actually visited the location and shot this video and describes where little Athena was found. This is where Athena was found. This is called Bobo's Crossing in Boyd, the Trinity River. It's right there. And as you can see, a busy, busy road right here. People continue to leave stuffed animals and anything pink here for her. I pass this bridge pretty much every day. So I'm always thinking of Athena. Well, as Natasha, I'm sorry. You know, he threw her in the river and it's just a miracle that they found her. This is one of the most horrifying cases that we've ever talked about on any program, anywhere. And we'll of course have to stay with it here. Yeah, stand by. I think we're in for some horrific details. Well, thank you so much for being here. And hopefully we'll have you on again. To talk about this case, it's awful, but it's something that we're all going to be listening to for the next couple of weeks. It sounds like. So stay tuned, everyone. Up next, we've got our closing arguments. Making of changing your wireless provider, consider Pure Talk. Pure Talk is a wireless company with values. Pure Talk is veteran led. So helping veterans is their North Star. They've donated over a half a million dollars to America's Warrior Partnership, a fantastic organization that is on the front lines of preventing veteran suicide and Pure Talk's creating American jobs with a U.S. only workforce. Sure, it'd be a lot cheaper to send those jobs overseas like other companies do, but they're committed to delivering the best possible experience for their customers. And Pure Talk service is fantastic. They give you the same towers, the same network, the same 5G coverage as one of the big guys, but for a fraction of the price. Choose to do business with a company that shares your values. Now pound 250 and say Megan Kelly to switch to Pure Talk. That's pound 250 and say Megan Kelly to switch to America's wireless company. Pure Talk. Welcome back to MK True Crime. I'm Phil Holloway along with my cohost Ashley Merchant, and it's now time for the part of our show that we really like. And it's called our closing arguments. And Ashley, we'll start with you. What's on your mind? All right. Thanks, Phil. Well, when I was listening to the Koenig verdict and thinking about what the jury deliberated for those eight hours, I couldn't help but thinking, I couldn't help but thinking about a concept. The concept is overcharging. And I think this is a perfect example of it. This is one of the biggest games that is played in our criminal justice system right now, every day. The state overcharges cases that they probably can't win, or maybe they think they could, they have a shot, but it's not really the appropriate charge because of the exact same thing that we just saw in the Koenig trial. There's not enough evidence of intent. It's somewhere in the middle. The truth almost always lies somewhere in the middle. But what happens? The state loads up the case with the most serious charges that they possibly can get a grand jury to justify, sometimes barely justify, knowing full well that they don't expect to get a win on all of them. Why? Because they don't have to. Because they know they just need leverage. Now fast forward the case to trial. The jury looks at this inflated, overbuilt case and says, you know, something feels off here, something happened, but I don't think that he tried to kill her. I don't think it was that much. And what do they do? They compromise. They convict on something lower. They split the baby. Both Phil and I mentioned that term earlier in the show because that's what happens almost every day. Juries split the baby. And the state walks away, like it's a win. They got a conviction that maybe they wouldn't have gotten otherwise, or most likely they get a sentence they never would have gotten otherwise. Because if the state had actually charged what the conduct was, it would have resulted in a plea deal to a much lighter sentence. And the system would have worked much more efficiently. But let's be honest about what really happens. It's not justice. It's anchoring. They start with a number that's really high. They start with a crime that's really high. And then a jury says, oh, well, somewhere in the middle feels much more reasonable. It clogs the entire system. Courts get backed up. Juries get burnt out. Defendants sit in jail much longer than they need to. Instead of resolving cases fairly, everything gets dragged out. And the system really is collapsing under the weight of all of it. It's not really about the truth anymore or justice. It's about pressure. It's about starting at a higher opening number so that you can win. So that you can win when you split the baby. And that's what we saw with the jury in the Conan case. And that's what we see every day in cases like this that go to trial. Good stuff. Well, thank you very much, Ashley, for that. Look, I don't know if you have noticed, but here in Atlanta, at least for the time being, we have the serial killer exhibit that is available to check out. And if you have the opportunity to do that, I would suggest that you do that. Because what I want to talk about right now is serial killers. Now, I've been a student of the criminal justice system for a long time. My undergraduate degree is in criminal justice. And of course, practicing criminal law for as many years as I have, it's just something I consider myself to be a continuing student of criminal justice. And that includes the psychological and social forces that underlie the motivations of serial killers. So what would that possibly be? So the question becomes, what complex interplay of factors would transform an individual into a repeat or serial killer? So the research in criminology and forensic psychology identifies several primary drivers for many as the pursuit of dominance and the power that they get in it serves as a central motivator. Then you have the act itself of taking a life. Of course, it's a criminal act. It's a horrifying thing, but it provides these people with a profound sense of control in an otherwise unpredictable and oftentimes chaotic existence. This assertion of authority fulfills their deep seated need to master their environment and those within it. Others are driven by sensation seeking behavior, the neurological reward that's associated with the kill, including the adrenaline surge and the intense emotional arousal at the moment of death. This creates a compelling thrill in many of these individuals and it reinforces the repetitive behavior. In certain cases, this is further compounded by sexual gratification, where violence and mortality become intertwined with sexual impulses. Then of course, there's traumatic childhood experiences which frequently factor into the equation. Patterns of abuse, neglect or emotional deprivation can distort normal empathic development and that's what we see here is the lack of empathy. So this plants the seeds for deviant pathways. Now we have some individuals who exhibit innate neuropsychological deficits such as a lack of empathy or impaired moral reasoning which may predispose them to these violent acts and without remorse. And perhaps the most disturbing realization emerges from empirical studies that show serial killers oftentimes present as socially integrated individuals. They can maintain appearances of normalcy, they can blend seamlessly into the fabric of everyday society. The BTK killer is such an example and this raises a profound question for behavioral science. Under what conditions might this latent capacity for such deviance surface within an individual? The environmental or biological triggers that could awaken these individuals is something that needs a lot of additional study. We have Rex Huerman, for example, the Gilgo Beach killer that we talked about earlier in the show. He's agreed to cooperate with the FBI's behavioral analysis unit to further explore this question. Now we will likely never be able to prevent serial killers from coming into existence but hopefully through continued research law enforcement can develop new and better tools for catching them. That's it. That's my closing for today. I want to say thank you to all of you. If you haven't liked or subscribed to MK True Crown please do so. Of course we're available on YouTube everywhere you get your podcasts and on the Megan Kelly channel on Sirius XM channel 111. Thanks Ashley and thanks to all of you and of course thank you to Terry Bentley Hill, our guest today and we hope everyone has a great rest of your day and a great weekend. See you here next time at MK True Crown.