TRANSKRIPT 🔗
WEBVTT
1
00:00:00.200 --> 00:00:03.319
Welcome to the debate. Today, we're looking at one of
2
00:00:03.359 --> 00:00:10.160
the toughest situations in criminal justice, really the Nobody cold case,
3
00:00:10.640 --> 00:00:14.519
and we're focusing on the disappearance of alyss Attorney, seventeen
4
00:00:14.599 --> 00:00:17.679
years old, back in two thousand and one. It started
5
00:00:17.719 --> 00:00:21.960
as a runaway case but eventually became this huge homicide
6
00:00:21.960 --> 00:00:26.320
investigation focusing on her stepfather, Michael Turney, right.
7
00:00:26.359 --> 00:00:28.960
And this case really highlights a critical tension, doesn't it.
8
00:00:30.359 --> 00:00:33.079
The question we need to wrestle with is you know,
9
00:00:33.200 --> 00:00:38.799
when you have what seems like overwhelming circumstantial evidence, behavioral
10
00:00:38.840 --> 00:00:42.679
evidence all pointing to one suspect, should that pattern be
11
00:00:42.880 --> 00:00:46.600
enough or is the lack of physical evidence nobody, no
12
00:00:46.759 --> 00:00:52.079
crime scene, Is that a necessary a justifiable legal barrier
13
00:00:52.280 --> 00:00:54.200
to getting a conviction exactly?
14
00:00:54.640 --> 00:00:57.920
And I'll be arguing that the just the massive amount
15
00:00:57.960 --> 00:01:01.399
of evidence, the pattern uncovered in the Attorney case is
16
00:01:01.479 --> 00:01:04.480
strongly pointed to guilt and motive, and that makes the
17
00:01:04.519 --> 00:01:07.519
acquittal in twenty twenty three, well, it feels like a
18
00:01:07.519 --> 00:01:11.000
painful example of the system not delivering justice for Alyssa.
19
00:01:11.560 --> 00:01:15.799
And I'll be taking the position that the acquittal, however disturbing,
20
00:01:15.799 --> 00:01:20.519
the circumstances surrounding the case are was actually legally sound.
21
00:01:21.760 --> 00:01:24.400
It reinforced that very high standard of proof we need
22
00:01:24.400 --> 00:01:27.439
for a criminal conviction. It protects you process even when
23
00:01:27.439 --> 00:01:28.560
suspicion runs deep.
24
00:01:29.000 --> 00:01:32.480
Okay, so let's start with why Alyssa supposedly leaving in
25
00:01:32.560 --> 00:01:34.879
May two thousand and one felt wrong from the get go.
26
00:01:35.480 --> 00:01:38.879
The police initially called it a runaway situation, but that theory, well,
27
00:01:39.000 --> 00:01:41.920
it had holes, big ones. Alyssa left her cell phone
28
00:01:41.920 --> 00:01:46.799
behind her car, all her stuff, makeup, jewelry, clothes, and
29
00:01:46.840 --> 00:01:50.239
maybe most importantly, she left almost eighteen hundred dollars in
30
00:01:50.280 --> 00:01:56.599
savings untouched. That just doesn't scream planned departure, you know,
31
00:01:56.719 --> 00:01:59.920
even with that note they found, which police later thought
32
00:02:00.159 --> 00:02:01.519
probably forged anyway.
33
00:02:01.959 --> 00:02:04.519
Yeah, those facts certainly cast a lot of doubt on
34
00:02:04.599 --> 00:02:08.039
the whole runaway idea, and that's why the case was
35
00:02:08.159 --> 00:02:12.680
eventually reopened as a homicide investigation. But to get a conviction,
36
00:02:13.280 --> 00:02:16.840
the state has to prove the specific act of murder happened.
37
00:02:16.639 --> 00:02:19.960
Right, But this state argued that the behavior around the
38
00:02:20.000 --> 00:02:23.919
disappearance gave the context for that act. Michael Turney, he
39
00:02:24.080 --> 00:02:27.560
was the last person reported to have seen Alissa picked
40
00:02:27.560 --> 00:02:31.159
her up early from school, apparently after some kind of argument.
41
00:02:31.759 --> 00:02:35.000
Then when the investigation got going again in two thousand
42
00:02:35.000 --> 00:02:38.800
and eight, the police uncovered this pattern of well, really
43
00:02:38.879 --> 00:02:44.319
controlling and frankly disturbing behavior. Surveillance cameras all over the house, right,
44
00:02:44.680 --> 00:02:49.120
and these contracts. Alyssa was apparently forced to sign incredibly
45
00:02:49.159 --> 00:02:53.360
invasive stuff about her conduct, even sexual conduct. Plus you
46
00:02:53.439 --> 00:02:57.520
had friends mentioning allegations of abuse. This level of secrecy,
47
00:02:57.759 --> 00:03:00.919
this control, that's the kind of thing that fills in
48
00:03:00.960 --> 00:03:03.080
the gaps in a no body case, doesn't it.
49
00:03:03.280 --> 00:03:07.280
I see why you're emphasizing that control, that documentation. It's
50
00:03:07.280 --> 00:03:11.439
certainly unsettling, but I'd frame the legal outcome very differently.
51
00:03:12.120 --> 00:03:15.000
That level of control. No matter how sinister it seems,
52
00:03:15.240 --> 00:03:18.520
it doesn't equal a murder conviction. The focus really has
53
00:03:18.560 --> 00:03:21.319
to stay on the high standard of proof. The state
54
00:03:21.400 --> 00:03:24.599
has to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. And
55
00:03:24.599 --> 00:03:28.280
that's precisely why Michael Turney was acquitted through that rule
56
00:03:28.280 --> 00:03:30.080
twenty judgment in twenty twenty three.
57
00:03:30.439 --> 00:03:33.439
And maybe we should just clarify what that rule twenty
58
00:03:33.520 --> 00:03:34.800
means for people listening.
59
00:03:34.960 --> 00:03:38.840
Absolutely good point, so for anyone not familiar with Arizona law.
60
00:03:38.919 --> 00:03:42.560
A rule twenty judgment is basically a directed verdict of acquittal.
61
00:03:43.080 --> 00:03:45.280
The judge grants it before the defense even puts on
62
00:03:45.360 --> 00:03:48.759
its case. It means the judge decided the prosecution just
63
00:03:48.840 --> 00:03:52.120
hadn't presented enough evidence to even possibly sustain a conviction.
64
00:03:53.120 --> 00:03:56.800
The defense argument was blunt, no body, no crime scene,
65
00:03:57.039 --> 00:03:59.120
no evidence to suggest that a murder took place.
66
00:04:00.159 -->
Load full transcript
00:04:02.599
But see, that's where we really hit the core of
67
00:04:02.639 --> 00:04:05.960
the issue, isn't it. It feels like prioritizing a kind
68
00:04:05.960 --> 00:04:11.159
of legal rigidity over the just the overwhelming human reality
69
00:04:11.240 --> 00:04:13.639
that all this circumstantial evidence points to.
70
00:04:14.120 --> 00:04:17.680
Or are we prioritizing protecting the innocent, which is, you know,
71
00:04:17.720 --> 00:04:20.600
a fundamental principle of our legal system. Look, the things
72
00:04:20.639 --> 00:04:24.079
found with Michael Turney are genuinely terrifying. The homemade bombs,
73
00:04:24.240 --> 00:04:28.279
nearly twenty firearms, silencers, that manifesto talking about a mass
74
00:04:28.319 --> 00:04:31.600
murder plot. Yeah, it wasn't a direct enough link shown
75
00:04:31.639 --> 00:04:35.879
between those devices, that planning and a list is specifically
76
00:04:35.920 --> 00:04:38.519
disappearing to support a murder conviction.
77
00:04:38.800 --> 00:04:40.879
Okay, let's dig into that a bit more. The weight
78
00:04:40.920 --> 00:04:43.480
of that behavior and intent, because I think maybe the
79
00:04:43.560 --> 00:04:47.360
judge was well too restrictive and separating those contexts. That
80
00:04:47.399 --> 00:04:50.360
two thousand and eight search turns up the bombs, that guns,
81
00:04:50.480 --> 00:04:53.839
the manifesto planning mass murder at a union hall, and
82
00:04:53.959 --> 00:04:58.160
crucially that document also mentions hiring assassins to kill Alyssa
83
00:04:58.199 --> 00:05:00.800
and dump her body in California. How can you just
84
00:05:00.839 --> 00:05:03.160
cut that context out when you're looking at the suspect's
85
00:05:03.199 --> 00:05:08.680
capacity for extreme secret violence and planning, or just his
86
00:05:08.759 --> 00:05:10.399
state of mind about Alyssa herself.
87
00:05:10.639 --> 00:05:14.639
Well, that evidence definitely shows he's a dangerous individual, absolutely
88
00:05:15.319 --> 00:05:20.199
capable of planning horrific violence. But legally speaking, establishing a
89
00:05:20.240 --> 00:05:23.759
capacity for violence isn't the same as proving causation in
90
00:05:23.759 --> 00:05:26.920
a specific murder case. My worry is that using the
91
00:05:26.959 --> 00:05:30.199
bombs and the manifesto as proof of murder, well, it
92
00:05:30.319 --> 00:05:34.240
risked convicting someone based on a disturbing psychological profile, not
93
00:05:34.360 --> 00:05:38.079
on actual evidence that he caused her death. The explosives
94
00:05:38.160 --> 00:05:41.120
charges were separate precisely because the state couldn't beyond a
95
00:05:41.160 --> 00:05:45.079
reasonable doubt connect his violent intentions towards others or his
96
00:05:45.120 --> 00:05:48.680
weapons stockpile to the specific act of causing Elisa's death.
97
00:05:48.879 --> 00:05:53.759
But Okay, you have this long history, documented history of
98
00:05:53.800 --> 00:05:58.399
emotional control, these bizarre contracts, and then you find this
99
00:05:58.600 --> 00:06:03.399
confession basically of a deeply violent inner world in that manifesto,
100
00:06:04.120 --> 00:06:07.879
a world that specifically mentions a plot against the victim.
101
00:06:08.000 --> 00:06:10.879
Surely in a nobody case, that pushes you over the
102
00:06:10.959 --> 00:06:14.399
threshold for substantial evidence of motive and intent. I mean,
103
00:06:14.439 --> 00:06:18.399
we've seen other places successfully prosecute nobody cases based on motive,
104
00:06:18.439 --> 00:06:21.759
financial gain, things like that. Why couldn't Arizona make that
105
00:06:21.879 --> 00:06:24.480
stick here? With all this evidence of volatile intent.
106
00:06:24.959 --> 00:06:28.639
I'm just not convinced because the state never produced forensic
107
00:06:28.720 --> 00:06:33.160
proof at a crime. Alyssa's murder even occurred. The corpus delecti,
108
00:06:33.439 --> 00:06:36.759
the body of the crime itself was missing. If we
109
00:06:36.800 --> 00:06:41.439
start letting circumstantial evidence of say, emotional control, or completely
110
00:06:41.480 --> 00:06:44.879
separate crimes like possessing bombs count as proof of murder,
111
00:06:45.079 --> 00:06:49.000
then we're essentially lowering the standard. We'd risk convicting people
112
00:06:49.000 --> 00:06:53.519
for being secretive or disturbing, not for actually provably committing homicide.
113
00:06:54.000 --> 00:06:57.639
The judge explicitly couldn't find evidence that the defendant caused
114
00:06:57.759 --> 00:07:01.360
or the defendant engaged in conduct that resulted in Alyssa's death.
115
00:07:01.800 --> 00:07:06.600
Disturb behavior, however, extreme just doesn't legally bridge that specific gap.
116
00:07:06.959 --> 00:07:09.879
But what about the fact that Alissa wanted to leave,
117
00:07:10.199 --> 00:07:13.560
She wasn't happy, She wrote an essay calculating the drive
118
00:07:13.560 --> 00:07:17.120
to California, asked her boyfriend to go with her. Doesn't
119
00:07:17.120 --> 00:07:21.040
her desire to escape actually strengthen the scenario where Michael Turney,
120
00:07:21.319 --> 00:07:24.920
this highly controlling person we've established he was, might have
121
00:07:25.040 --> 00:07:28.240
reacted violently to stop her. It puts him right there
122
00:07:28.319 --> 00:07:31.199
in the middle of a potentially explosive confrontation.
123
00:07:31.600 --> 00:07:34.240
Or it puts Alyssa in the context of someone highly
124
00:07:34.279 --> 00:07:37.759
motivated who might have just succeeded in walking away. Maybe
125
00:07:37.759 --> 00:07:40.480
she got help from someone else. Entirely, we just can't
126
00:07:40.519 --> 00:07:44.240
assume murder simply because a confrontation was possible. The evidence
127
00:07:44.279 --> 00:07:48.040
needs to be legally conclusive, not just morally compelling.
128
00:07:48.240 --> 00:07:52.360
Okay, let's shift to the
second point here, this tension
129
00:07:52.480 --> 00:07:57.040
between public pressure and due process, because we really can't
130
00:07:57.079 --> 00:08:00.240
ignore that the arrest the charge in twenty twenty it
131
00:08:00.279 --> 00:08:03.720
was hugely driven by the incredible work of Alyssa's sister,
132
00:08:03.839 --> 00:08:08.199
Sarah Turney, her podcast Voices for Justice, her social media
133
00:08:08.279 --> 00:08:13.319
campaign it was monumental, right, and that activism brought out
134
00:08:13.399 --> 00:08:17.560
key evidence like that secret recording where Michael promises Sarah
135
00:08:17.600 --> 00:08:19.800
all the honest answers on his deathbed.
136
00:08:20.160 --> 00:08:23.959
That's a really powerful point about advocacy, No doubt, Sarahtorney's
137
00:08:23.959 --> 00:08:27.360
dedication absolutely revitalized this case after it went cold for
138
00:08:27.399 --> 00:08:30.959
nearly two decades. But have you thought about the potential
139
00:08:31.040 --> 00:08:33.879
risks when a prosecution seems to be pushed forward mainly
140
00:08:33.919 --> 00:08:35.679
because of public outcry.
141
00:08:35.440 --> 00:08:38.639
The risk of what though that justice might actually be served?
142
00:08:39.120 --> 00:08:42.799
I mean, this campaign shows that sometimes the system needs
143
00:08:42.840 --> 00:08:46.639
that external push, especially for complex cold cases where the
144
00:08:46.639 --> 00:08:51.320
official investigation just stalled. The system failed Alissa for twenty years.
145
00:08:51.720 --> 00:08:54.840
Public pressure forced it to look again at behavior that
146
00:08:54.960 --> 00:08:56.759
was suspicious from day one.
147
00:08:57.000 --> 00:09:02.159
The risk I see is well prosecutorial overreach, action driven
148
00:09:02.200 --> 00:09:06.639
by popular demand maybe rather than absolute legal certainty. The
149
00:09:06.679 --> 00:09:09.039
fact that the state proceeded to trial without is the
150
00:09:09.080 --> 00:09:12.759
defense put it a shred of physical evidence. It does
151
00:09:12.840 --> 00:09:16.039
raise the question of whether it was initiated under intense
152
00:09:16.080 --> 00:09:19.679
public pressure, and the rule twenty acquittal kind of confirms that.
153
00:09:20.120 --> 00:09:25.120
Relying so heavily on emotional testimony, historical behavior patterns no
154
00:09:25.159 --> 00:09:28.200
matter how disturbing they are, simply didn't meet that high
155
00:09:28.200 --> 00:09:31.799
constitutional bar for conviction. The legal system has to be
156
00:09:31.840 --> 00:09:36.440
somewhat insulated from being swayed entirely by public opinion, even
157
00:09:36.480 --> 00:09:38.480
when that opinion is understandable.
158
00:09:38.720 --> 00:09:43.879
But that insulation, that shield. In this instance, it protects
159
00:09:43.879 --> 00:09:47.440
a man who showed this overwhelming capacity for secrecy and violence,
160
00:09:47.799 --> 00:09:50.919
a man who refused to
cooperate with the investigation from
161
00:09:50.960 --> 00:09:54.759
early on, and that non cooperation is directly linked to
162
00:09:54.840 --> 00:09:58.320
why finding physical evidence was so hard for the prosecution.
163
00:09:59.480 --> 00:10:03.480
Justice needs answers for Alyssa, for her family, and it
164
00:10:03.480 --> 00:10:07.000
feels like the system prioritizes a very rigid definition of
165
00:10:07.039 --> 00:10:11.480
evidence over actually getting those answers. Now Michael Tourney is
166
00:10:11.519 --> 00:10:14.440
free to sue the police to talk about clearing his name.
167
00:10:14.679 --> 00:10:16.559
I think I come at it from a slightly different
168
00:10:16.600 --> 00:10:21.559
philosophical place. The legal system it can't promise closure, It
169
00:10:21.720 --> 00:10:25.159
just can't. What it must promise is justice according to
170
00:10:25.200 --> 00:10:30.279
its established standards. The judge's finding that substantial evidence doesn't exist,
171
00:10:30.639 --> 00:10:33.440
it means that legally, we don't have a definitive answer
172
00:10:33.480 --> 00:10:36.919
about Michael Turney's guilt through the criminal courts, even Turney
173
00:10:36.960 --> 00:10:40.200
himself said after the acquittal, the only way his reputation
174
00:10:40.320 --> 00:10:44.399
recovers is if they find Elisa. That just highlights how
175
00:10:44.440 --> 00:10:48.320
the lack of resolution hurts everyone involved. The only thing
176
00:10:48.360 --> 00:10:51.720
that can truly solve this definitively is new physical evidence,
177
00:10:52.080 --> 00:10:53.879
not lowering the standard for conviction.
178
00:10:54.159 --> 00:10:57.519
So the alicsa attorney case really throws into sharp relief
179
00:10:57.600 --> 00:11:01.799
the challenge the profound difficulty of finding justice when an
180
00:11:01.799 --> 00:11:05.799
investigation maybe starts off on the wrong foot. The runaway
181
00:11:05.879 --> 00:11:11.360
theory and crucial physical evidence is just gone missing. But
182
00:11:11.600 --> 00:11:15.759
the sheer volume of circumstantial evidence around Michael Turney's control,
183
00:11:16.000 --> 00:11:21.399
his secrecy, that documented violent inner life, it remains incredibly persuasive.
184
00:11:21.799 --> 00:11:25.159
It leaves you weighing that powerful pattern against the very
185
00:11:25.240 --> 00:11:27.240
strict requirements of the courts.
186
00:11:27.120 --> 00:11:31.120
And the acquittal. It really underscores that necessary line the
187
00:11:31.200 --> 00:11:35.440
legal system has to draw between suspicion, even very strong suspicion,
188
00:11:35.799 --> 00:11:39.399
and guilt that's proven according to law. The facts are troubling,
189
00:11:39.840 --> 00:11:43.279
no question, the money left behind, the suspect not cooperating
190
00:11:43.360 --> 00:11:46.519
the manifesto. But the Rule twenty judgment reflects just how
191
00:11:46.559 --> 00:11:49.799
hard it is legally to prove someone cause the death
192
00:11:49.799 --> 00:11:53.559
without forensic evidence, this case really lays bare that ongoing
193
00:11:53.600 --> 00:11:57.399
conflict between maybe our moral certainty based on compelling circumstances,
194
00:11:57.799 --> 00:12:00.600
and the high legal bar set to prevent wrongful convictions.
195
00:12:01.080 --> 00:12:04.960
And the reality is without finding ALYSSA, these competing views
196
00:12:05.000 --> 00:12:08.720
of the evidence, these different interpretations, they're likely just going
197
00:12:08.759 --> 00:12:13.559
to continue. It leaves so much still unresolved and certainly
198
00:12:13.600 --> 00:12:17.279
open for more exploration, both legally and publicly.