Become a Creator today!Start creating today - Share your story with the world!
Start for free
00:00:00
00:00:01
E203: The Murder of Jessica Briggs and Conviction of Anthony Sanborn Part 1
4.5k Plays2 years ago
On May 24th, 1989, the body of 16-year-old Jessica Briggs was pulled from the waters of Casco Bay in Portland, Maine. For some time afterward there were no names suspects; that is, until law enforcement honed in on Briggs’ ex-boyfriend— Anthony Sanborn, also 16. Despite the fact that no forensic evidence from the scene matched Sanborn, there were three witness statements that would seem to provide motive AND put him at the scene. Based upon those statements, although Sanborn continued to state his innocence, he was convicted. Decades later, with the Innocence Project involved, a new investigation was launched and Sanborn was granted a post-conviction hearing. What private investigator Kevin Cady uncovered would turn everything on its head. Join me as I go through the case piece-by-piece with Bob Motta, host of Defense Diaries and co-host of The Docket.
Special thanks to Kevin Cady for allowing me to interview him for our coverage. Your insight and expertise were invaluable.
If you love what you heard from Bob, and I know you did, check out his pods here: https://defensediaries.com/ Please consider subscribing and leaving a 5-star review.
Please also consider supporting Coffee and Cases by joining us over on our Patreon page! Are you up-to-date on all our regular content? Get access to monthly mini-episodes as well as one full solved case per month by joining today! Be a part of the C & C Fam by going to https://www.patreon.com/coffeeandcases to register!
BlendJet Offer: Use my special link (https://zen.ai/coffeeandcasesblendpromo) to save 12% at blendjet.com. The discount will be applied at checkout!
Motley Fool Offer: Save $110* off the full list price of Stock Advisor for your first year, go to fool.com/coffeeandcases and use promo code coffeeandcases and start your investing journey today!
*$110 discount off of $199 per year list price.Membership will renew annually at the then current list price.
Cure Hydration: Try Cure today and feel the difference for yourself! Use my special link (https://zen.ai/coffeeandcasespod20) for 20% off your order, coupon activated at checkout!
Nom Nom: Try Nom Nom today; go to https://trynom.com/coffeeandcases and get 50% off your first order plus free shipping
Recommended
Transcript
Introduction to the Podcast
00:00:36
Speaker
Welcome to Coffee and Cases where we like our coffee hot and our cases cold. My name is Allison Williams. And my name is Maggie Dameron.
00:00:45
Speaker
We will be telling stories each week in the hopes that someone out there with any information concerning the cases will take those tips to law enforcement. So justice and closure can be brought to these families with each case. We encourage you to continue in the conversation on our Facebook page, coffee and cases podcast, because as we all know, conversation helps to keep the missing person in the public consciousness, helping keep their memories alive. So sit back, sip your coffee and listen to what's brewing this week.
Guest Introduction: Bob Motta
00:01:14
Speaker
For our episode this week, I am joined by Bob Motta, a fact that I am thrilled about. So, Bob, why don't you tell us just a little bit about your pods, all your projects you have going on, your legal expertise, and where our listeners can hear more from you.
00:01:33
Speaker
So yeah, my name is Bob Motta, and I am now a recovering criminal defense attorney. Did that game for about 20 plus years, trial lawyer, criminal defense side, actually was partnered with my wife, Alison Motta, who is now a co-host on one of the shows that I'm going to tell you about and is an absolute
00:01:55
Speaker
powerhouse for you gals out there that are listening and frankly, guys too. But anyone who loves powerful women, I got one for you on our pod.
Transition from Law to Podcasting
00:02:05
Speaker
But so we did that for 20 years, a couple of years ago, actually right around the, you know, the pandemic, when a lot of us got started, because they shut the courts down. So that allowed me to step back for a minute.
00:02:18
Speaker
reset, which was huge for me mentally. Um, it was first time in 20 years where I could kind of step away from the court system and the clients and everything and really kind of just reset my mind. And I knew I was getting burnt out, you know, as I was progressing, uh, you know, I kept telling, I also, I'm like, man, it's a tough gig and you know, you're not doing your clients any favors if you're not feeling it anymore. Um, you know, so I had told her,
00:02:47
Speaker
Look, I'd kind of like to, you know, maybe try podcast. And so I had to ask her, you know, did she think you were crazy at first? No, she didn't get her permission. She did. Well, it was it wasn't even permission as much as I wanted her blessing because
00:03:05
Speaker
Like I said, she was my law partner and that meant that I would be stepping away from the practice and leaving a huge load on her, which is frankly unfair. And I wanted to make sure that she was good with it. And I made her the solemn promise. I said, look.
Focus on Victims and Investigations
00:03:22
Speaker
I'm going to go forward with this podcast. I'm going all in full bore go into this thing and I want to do everything in my power to, to, you know, make it a hit. And she said, I'm with you, you know, cause she's like that. She's got my back, you know, she's my partner, soulmate, all that good stuff. She's, you know, she's the hero of the story in my world. So she was like, go for it. Do it.
00:03:46
Speaker
I was like, all right. And so out of that, the defense diaries was born. And basically, you know, I had this first source material because the kind of the backstory was my dad was John Wayne Gacy. Yes, the awful, horrible human being serial killer, killer clown guy was his trial attorney. And my dad, a long time ago, had given me all of his taped interviews preparing that guy for trial. And I had sat on him and I didn't know what to do with him. And I tried to,
00:04:17
Speaker
license them out to a guy named Joe Berlinger, who was a documentarian, and we couldn't work out a licensing deal. So I was like, you know what, I'm just going to go forward with the pod. And I called my buddy Darren up who was a sound engineer, but typically for music. And he, you know, I said, Hey, man, you know, would you mind or you have any interest in producing a podcast? He's like, I've never listened to one.
00:04:43
Speaker
I'm like, all right, well, here's a couple throwing on. Crash course, yeah. Yeah, yeah. And he was starving to death. It was the pandemic. The music scene down in New Orleans was shut down. That was his bread and butter. So for him, it took him all of five minutes to hit me back up. He said, I'm in. That's awesome. From there, we started the Gacy season. And I said, look, I don't want this to be about Gacy. I know we have the tapes.
00:05:11
Speaker
And we'll play those, but I want this to be about the victims. I want this to be about the investigation. I want it to be about the arrest and the trial, the things that you never hear about because everyone focuses on him and I didn't want to do that. There's plenty of stuff out there about him. And, you know, I'm no Gacy fan boy. So I'm like, I want to focus on what I don't know.
Role of Defense Attorneys
00:05:32
Speaker
And in 40 years of following the case, obviously closely because my dad was his lawyer.
00:05:38
Speaker
I had never heard anything about any of these 33 young men that were killed. So that became a focus and it was an amazing experience. It really was. It was like what we uncovered on how they got them was crazy and it's mind blowing. Really. I don't know how it's still not national news, but it will be. It's just cause I was a small pod, you know, it's like, and it's, it's not a theory. It's a fact that I uncovered.
00:06:04
Speaker
with Darren and we were just like, man, it was crazy. So that defense diaries is the main pod and it's pretty good. We're a couple of seasons in.
00:06:13
Speaker
You're being modest. It's fantastic. Fantastic. Oh, well, thank you. Thank you. It's, you know, and it's a deep dive. So it's not for everybody because when I see deep dive, I'm not talking about 12 episodes. I'm talking like Casey's 36 Garcia's 44 there, you know, but their personal stories for me, like Garcia, my second season is a case that I tried with Allison and my father, another brutal, horrific case. But we were the defense attorneys on it.
00:06:43
Speaker
And we're trying to give people kind of the insider view of what it's like to try a case like that. You know, but at the same time, I'm super objective, you know, it's like.
00:06:55
Speaker
My goal with the pod is to try to explain to people, look, you may have a misconception of what defense attorneys are and what they, what their role is in the judicial system and the criminal justice system. And I'm trying to clear that clear the air because a lot of people are like, I hate defense attorneys, but they don't really know what we do. You know, it's like people like on its face, people like, oh, prosecutors, they're the good guys are trying to put the bad guys in jail.
00:07:22
Speaker
And the defense attorneys are scumbags because they're trying to defend them. And I just try to clarify that that's not really what's going on at all. Yes, there's cases and trials, but what it's all about really is the Constitution of the United States and that that's the backbone of our country.
00:07:39
Speaker
And what defense attorneys really do is they defend that against everybody, you know, including prosecutors and the police, because remember the constitution, and I'm not going to get on the soap box for too long, trust me. But, you know, I mean, the constitution was written for, it's a rule book for the government as to what they can't do to us, the citizens. So police aren't enforcing the constitution. They're not, you know, I mean,
00:08:05
Speaker
That's the defense attorneys that are doing that are protecting it. If the police violate somebody's fourth amendment rights, if we don't call them on it, then they can do it whenever they want. If we call them on it and then we file a motion to suppress and say, okay, well yeah, you violated this guy's fourth amendment rights. You didn't have a right to search his home or his vehicle and they get that evidence suppressed while they feel that. And then the next time they're out doing their job, they do it properly.
00:08:35
Speaker
you know, so because without those teeth, you know, and the problem is, you know, if we're not policing the police, no one is, right? Yeah, there's internal affairs. But that's a different thing. You know, in terms of Fourth Amendment violations, where we're protecting the Constitution for all of us, all of us that don't commit crimes, all of us that
00:08:53
Speaker
you know, don't want our doors be able to, you know, to be able to be kicked in by the government. You know, I mean, it's like, that's why it matters. So, you know, I try to kind of explain that, but I really try to make it interesting. I think that I do. Oh, you absolutely do. Yeah. Yeah. So, you know, and then I wanted to do something episodic. It was driving me crazy that I was covering these old cases and like every, the entire true crime world is exploding. Like there was just so much going on. Yeah.
00:09:22
Speaker
making me nuts.
Discussion on Current Cases
00:09:24
Speaker
So out of that was born the docket. And I ended up bringing Allison, my partner and my wife in as my co host. And right now, actually, we're covering, we're doing a deep, deep, deep dive on the Stephen Avery case. And it happened to coincide, we were actually starting that before the convicting a murderer thing came out.
00:09:45
Speaker
Oh, really? You know, I watched making them. Yeah, yeah. So coincided. We were we're six episodes in. I actually didn't know that was coming out. So like the timing of it was actually kind of perfect for us because that's going to be 10 episodes and ours is probably going to be 35. Wow. Because Alice and I are both on the fence with the Avery case. I don't know. I don't know if he did it or not. I there's a world he absolutely could have done it. There's a world where he absolutely couldn't, you know, didn't do it. And, you know, the only way that I'm going to figure it out
00:10:15
Speaker
is not by watching, making a murder or not watching, but you know, they have agendas. They do. We don't have an agenda. We're just going in. We're going to review all the evidence with our listeners as we go. And we're not going to cherry pick. So it's going to be the most comprehensive thing ever done. I guarantee it. So if you're into that case or you love deep dives, you can find us anywhere or pods everywhere.
00:10:37
Speaker
I just started the YouTube channel where I'm going to be, you know, kind of giving my legal analysis, kind of what I do on court TV and law and crime, but in long form. So yeah, that's it, but pods are everywhere. Apple, Spotify, all the good spots. So there's my spiel.
00:10:52
Speaker
Yeah, that's great. Well, you know, it is your legal expertise. That is precisely why when I heard this case that I'm going to tell you about, I knew that I needed your perspective. I do not come to this with that background knowledge that you have. And so as I start delving into the details, you will soon see why, Bob, I needed you on this episode. Okay.
Background of the 1989 Case
00:11:19
Speaker
I'm ready for it. Or as I say on my pod, I'm here for it.
00:11:22
Speaker
I also had the opportunity for this particular case to speak with retired police detective turned private investigator, Kevin Cady, who I'll introduce our listeners to in the context of the case here in just a bit. But I will go ahead and preface by saying that a lot of the background information on this case comes from his involvement in it and the information that he was able to share with me.
00:11:49
Speaker
And you know this, Bob, when you look at news articles, they're frequently very cursory in terms of the information that they provide. And beyond that, they can often be wrong. Oh, absolutely. Yeah. And like, especially if they're reporting on something that's happening in court, that's where I find that a lot of the mistakes are made from reporters just because they may not understand exactly what's going on. So they're
00:12:16
Speaker
then going and writing something that isn't necessarily accurate. They're not trying to be untruthful. They're just not kind of understanding exactly the process, so sometimes it gets lost in translation. Right. And if I end up saying anything wrong or I call something the wrong thing, please
00:12:36
Speaker
correct me so that way we are clear. I'm sure you'll be fine, Allison. I hope so. The case we're going to be talking about is set in Portland, Maine.
00:12:48
Speaker
which is I would say a medium-sized city, a little over 60,000 in the population when our case is set, which was 1989. It is situated, I don't know if you've ever been to Portland, but it's on a peninsula that extends into Casco Bay. It is picturesque.
00:13:08
Speaker
What is called the Old Port Waterfront actually still has an operational fishing wharf and in the late 80s warehouses were there as well as it being a naval port. So despite that picturesque locale, this town, I mean it's on the ocean, lighthouses and all, there was a fairly large population of homeless and runaway youth
00:13:34
Speaker
in Portland. According to Kevin Cady, these young people were ones who they would often ride their bikes around the city all day and night, and they slept just wherever they found a spot. Sometimes it was on friends' couches. Sometimes it was a hidden spot on a wharf. Sometimes they were sent to the Maine Youth Service Center, though the Youth Service Center
00:13:58
Speaker
obviously seemed like a last resort. It was one of those places where if you had a juvenile record, you were often sent there. And of course it had rules and regulations and curfews. So a lot of these, the homeless and runaway youth, they would either run away from the center or attempted to break out of the center. And I'm bringing this up because most of the individuals that we're going to be talking about were part of
00:14:26
Speaker
what Kevin Cady, the private investigator, called Portland Street Kids. That's a little background. One of the kids, his name was Anthony Sanborn Jr. Everybody called him Tony. Tony in 1989 was 16. He already had a criminal history.
00:14:45
Speaker
I don't want to say minor, but seemingly minor stuff, mostly stolen cars. He had a pattern of stealing taxis when the taxi driver had forgotten to take the key out of the ignition. Okay.
00:14:58
Speaker
He was liked by most everybody. He ran around in a large group of friends and acquaintances. And one of those friends was a girl named Jessica Briggs, who was also 16. And two 16 year olds, boy and girl, they attempted a relationship. But like a lot of young love, Bob, it only lasted a couple of weeks. It happens.
00:15:22
Speaker
I know, I know. I'm telling you this because the breakup happens about two months or so before what this case hinges upon. Okay. So according to Katie,
00:15:36
Speaker
What led to the breakup was that, and of course I again will specify this information is coming from that private investigator Kevin Cady's conversations with Tony Sanborn. So it is one sided, right? We understand that. But he said that while he and Jessica were dating that a car pulled up to his house with Jessica in it.
00:16:01
Speaker
And the person driving the car was a man who worked at the Maine Youth Service Center. Jessica gets out of the front seat, walks up to Tony's front door, and he recognizes this man from the Youth Service Center. And he asks Jessica, what are you doing with him? And he alleges that she told him that she was turning tricks.
00:16:24
Speaker
for this center worker to make money. And Tony said that's why he had broken up with Jessica was because of that. You know, he says, I don't want my girlfriend being with anybody else.
00:16:35
Speaker
I mean, that's kind of a legit reason to end a relationship, right? Yeah, right. I mean, I'm not sweating them. Right, right. But despite them no longer being a couple, they did continue to hang out in that same crowd of acquaintances, that large crowd.
The Investigation and Prosecution of Tony Sanborn
00:16:53
Speaker
From my understanding, like I said before, the breakup happened a couple of months
00:17:00
Speaker
before Jessica Briggs's body was pulled from the waters of Casco Bay.
00:17:08
Speaker
In the time after the breakup, Jessica, who was also known to law enforcement, she was trying to get her life back on track. So she and Tony break up and she says, you know what, I need to get my life together. So she had left the Maine Youth Center and she was living with the family of a friend. She was busing tables at DeMilo's floating restaurant on the waterfront. But unfortunately, she was never given the opportunity to
00:17:36
Speaker
prove that she had turned her life around. On the morning of May 24th, 1989, employees at an industrial dock found a pair of women's shoes, a pack of cigarettes, and a single earring beside a pool of blood that led to the water.
00:18:00
Speaker
After being alerted, law enforcement sent divers who dredged the waters of the harbor, Casco Bay, from which they pulled Jessica Briggs's body, which they had found under the dock that is now called Main State Pier, but it was then occupied by Bath Iron Works Dry Dock.
00:18:20
Speaker
An autopsy bomb revealed that she had been killed sometime late in the evening of May 23rd or the early morning hours of May 24th. She had been stabbed to death. And based upon a black eye and other defensive wounds, she had been beaten as well. And whomever had committed the crime
00:18:43
Speaker
had been incredibly violent. The gash on her abdomen had nearly eviscerated her and the cut on her throat from ear to ear had nearly decapitated her. No murder weapon was found ever. But there was some DNA evidence, though obviously 1989 testing is still
00:19:09
Speaker
in its infancy, you know, we're dreaming of the possibilities of it in terms of, you know, compared to what we have today. But there were two semen samples either on or in Briggs. There were blood samples taken. Remember they, the dock workers noticed blood on the pier and those samples from the scene, the blood part of it actually didn't belong to Briggs.
00:19:37
Speaker
So we're thinking, okay, well this is likely the perpetrator. And there was also male hair that was found between her fingers. So we do have some evidence. So, sounds like there's decent evidence actually. Right, right. Sounds like it could be a mixed bag a bit though.
00:19:56
Speaker
In the early stages of the investigation into the murder, even up to a year afterward, there were no named suspects. In fact, law enforcement conducted hundreds of interviews with individuals whom they felt may have information pertinent to the case. And according to defense attorney Amy Fairfield, who will be a major player here in a bit,
00:20:20
Speaker
She noted to reporter Kelly Wheel, there was, quote, no shortage of suspects who may have actually killed Jessica Briggs, end quote.
00:20:32
Speaker
Eventually, however, Bob, and this is where we're going to get into the case. And in some ways, inexplicably, law enforcement zeroed in on Tony Sanborn. By this point, which was about a year after Jessica Briggs's murder, Tony had been in other trouble. One of the other members of Tony's crowd decided that he wanted to know what it was like to kill someone.
00:21:00
Speaker
and that friend of Tony's followed through. Tony's involvement in that murder was that the friend who had committed the murder gave Tony brass knuckles that he had used in that murder and Tony had hidden them.
00:21:19
Speaker
detectives, they sought Tony out. They said, you know, we know you're involved. If you testify against your friend, you know, any involvement you had will basically just will forget about it. But rather than testify against his friend, Tony had fled. Law enforcement were able to track him down to Florida.
00:21:42
Speaker
And in the interview, once they found him, that law enforcement conducted, obviously it was videotaped. And Kevin Cady actually told me about it since he had seen the video of this interview with law enforcement. And he said that at first,
00:21:59
Speaker
They're talking to him about this murder that his friend committed. They're asking him about the brass knuckles and he's answering very matter-of-factly. But then the conversation shifts to the murder of Jessica Briggs.
00:22:15
Speaker
And Katie told me that in this video interview, that Sanborn's demeanor just completely shifts. So he goes from those matter of fact answers to it clearly dawning on him that law enforcement think he was involved and committed the murder of Jessica Briggs. And in this videotape, he's immediately adamant that he is innocent.
00:22:43
Speaker
And when they say, well, we're taking you back to Maine, he says, okay, I will come with you, but I will gladly take a polygraph test in every state on the way back to prove my innocence. Interesting. I don't know. Yeah. How do you take that comment? I mean, is that, do you think that's a comment that somebody who's guilty might say, or do you think that makes them seem more innocent to you?
00:23:13
Speaker
Well, considering we're talking about a 16 year old kid at this time, you know, we're not talking about a grown man. Um, my, I mean, my gut, if he's the one volunteering to do it and he probably has no idea that in a vast majority of states, polygraphs are not admissible. Right. Um, you know, in a court of law, at least they are a useful tool for law enforcement. If I was the cop,
00:23:42
Speaker
I would think, well, you know, maybe this kid didn't do it. You know what I mean? Because him coming right out front, professing his innocence immediately, as soon as
00:23:53
Speaker
he gets the feeling, okay, are they looking at me for this? Because from law enforcement's perspective, you've got to get, and let me ask you a question. Had they spoken to him prior to him leaving for Florida or no? Not concerning Jessica Briggs's murder. Okay. So now did he have, because look, from law enforcement's eyes, when somebody after,
00:24:23
Speaker
Anytime a crime occurs and anytime somebody close to the victim, whether it be currently or in the past suddenly vanishes, that person becomes a target for law enforcement because it appears to be, you know, consciousness of guilt, right? So I could see why the cops would want to talk to him for certain. Now, Sanborn may have have all kinds of reasons why he wanted to leave. He could have been like tired of that scene up there.
00:24:51
Speaker
Maybe he had family down in Florida. I don't know that background, but there's a multitude of reasons why he could have left other than he was running away because he had murdered his ex-girlfriend. So yeah, I mean, to me, it would have weight. I would think if the kid is denying it adamantly during the interrogation or the questioning initially, and then volunteers to do
00:25:18
Speaker
as many lie detectors as possible. I'll put the strap me up, like give me the polys. I'll do them all day, every day. I, you know, I mean, you kind of get, cause you see in a lot of different interviews.
00:25:34
Speaker
It's rare for somebody that ultimately ends up being convicted as the perpetrator that early on in the process that they're saying, yeah, I'll take a poly. Where they're volunteering, where they're not having law enforcement ask them to do it. They're volunteering to do it. Yeah, I mean, if I'm law enforcement, I'm thinking, well, I mean, because it's always a gut call initially.
00:26:00
Speaker
Exactly. So I would give it weight if I, if I were the cops that early on in the investigation without, cause what, what year did the homicides take place? 1989. Yeah. Right. So this is like pre.
00:26:15
Speaker
Pre DNA the way that we know DNA now right right you know so. Yeah it's interesting alright so keep going. You got me sucked in here I wanna hear that okay great Tony Sanborn was actually he was 17.
00:26:30
Speaker
by the time the juvenile petition was filed alleging that he committed the murder of Jessica Briggs. And after the hearing at the juvenile court, because of the brutality of the crime, he was bound over to the superior court to be tried as an adult.
00:26:52
Speaker
He appealed the bind over, but to no avail. Bob, the juvenile court said they believed that they had probable cause to believe he was guilty. By the time Tony Sanborn went to trial, he was 19.
00:27:08
Speaker
And despite the fact that there was no physical evidence that would link Sanborn to the crime. So neither of the semen samples matched Tony Sanborn. The hair in Jessica Briggs's hand was not consistent with Tony Sanborn. And even the blood that was found at the scene that didn't belong to Briggs also did not belong to Tony Sanborn.
00:27:34
Speaker
Jeez. Yeah, the prosecution led by former Assistant Attorney General Pam Ames believed that they knew the motive. They argued that Sanborn was angry with Briggs, perhaps still about the breakup or about something else. And that was why he had been so brutal in killing her that there was passion or rage behind it. During the trial,
00:28:01
Speaker
Tony Sanborn's father testified that Tony had been in the family's apartment on the evening of March 23, and that Tony had arrived home around 830pm. And his father stated that he had gone to bed not long after.
00:28:19
Speaker
and had gotten up the morning of the 24th around 9.30 AM. So dad's testimony says he was there at 8.30 PM. I saw him again the next morning at 9.30 AM. Well, the prosecutor says, did you check on him during the night to know he was home?
00:28:36
Speaker
And of course, he hadn't because who does that? And so he says, well, no, my son sleeps in the bedroom on the third floor. There's no ladder. He doesn't have a key to the home. But he was, in the trial, obviously forced to acknowledge that it could be possible that Tony had snuck out, left the door unlocked, and then let himself back in when he returned from committing a murder.
00:29:06
Speaker
So for their quote unquote proof of Sanborn's guilt, because remember there's zero physical evidence to link him to the crime, prosecution relied on the testimony of three individuals, one being the state's key witness, all of whom, all three of these individuals, and we'll talk about each one, linked Tony Sanborn to the murder.
00:29:32
Speaker
So I'll quickly go through those testimonies that they provided during Sanborn's trial. One witness was Tony Sanborn's sometime roommate, a man named Gerard or Jerry Rossi. On the stand, he testified that on three separate occasions, Sanborn had admitted to him that he had killed Jessica Briggs and that Sanborn had then warned him not to tell anyone.
00:30:01
Speaker
Rossi said, quote, he asked for some money. She refused. He got upset. He was about to walk away, turned around and stabbed, grabbed her by the hair, slashed with his left hand and stabbed her 11, 12 times, end quote.
00:30:18
Speaker
The second testimony that was damning for Sanborn came from Glenn Brown, who was one of Sanborn's friends. He told police that Sanborn and Briggs had rekindled their relationship the night before the murder, but that they had argued and Jessica had left. Well, obviously this gave motive that Tony was mad and he was looking for her.
00:30:44
Speaker
Tony's friend, Glenn Brown, then said that Tony bought a knife that day and that he was quote unquote looking for Jessica and he had made a written statement to police to that effect. The third and most important, the key witness for the prosecution was a 13 year old Portland kid
00:31:07
Speaker
named Hope Katie, who testified that not only did she know both Tony Sanborn and Jessica Briggs, but she had actually witnessed Sanborn commit the murder. She told law enforcement that she was concealed in a position on a nearby pier, that she saw the murder take place and identified Tony Sanborn as the killer.
00:31:32
Speaker
She stated that she heard them arguing, but that she wasn't close enough to hear the exact words that they were saying to one another. And although Hope Cady was initially reluctant to speak with law enforcement and had even walked out of the station during one interview with law enforcement, Assistant Attorney General Pam Ames called her a quote, very credible witness, even though she's only 13.
00:31:59
Speaker
After nine days in court, Tony Sanborn, then 20 years old at that point, was convicted in 1992. He was sentenced to 70 years in prison. And post-trial juror interviews revealed that it was Hope Cady's eyewitness testimony that ultimately swayed them in their decision to convict. Now, nine days seems very short to me.
00:32:29
Speaker
It is is that average no i mean it depends it's like it always depends on the number of witnesses right so. And it depends on whether or not the state.
00:32:44
Speaker
you know, had like in this case, they didn't have any forensic evidence. Right. So I mean, that may factor in shortening the time frame. You know, you get these cases where they seem to go on for weeks. It's because you have, you know, you've got the witnesses coming up to authenticate and lay foundation and all your experts. And so that can take forever. And those testimonies like they can take a day, you know, if they're putting an expert on to try to explain DNA or things like that. So we didn't have that here.
00:33:14
Speaker
Essentially, we just had eyewitnesses and fact witnesses getting up there. Depending on, do you know, did Sanborn testify on his own behalf? Do you know? I do not know if he did. I did not read that he did, nor did Kevin Cady mention that he did. I'm guessing that he did not. That would be my hunch.
00:33:37
Speaker
Yeah, my that's the safe. That's a safe guess. You know, I mean, typically in a case like this where it's clearly all circumstantial evidence. There's no direct evidence except for this eyewitness. Right. You know, eyewitnesses, number one, are not reliable.
00:33:54
Speaker
And, you know, this kid was 13. You know, and kind of a street urchin, you know, like not that I'm casting shade on street urchins, but in terms of reliable witnesses, I wouldn't consider a 13 year old who's decided for whatever reason to like run away from home and kind of go live on the streets of Portland, Maine to be hugely reliable. Like, I mean, typically there's a reason
00:34:22
Speaker
why a kid's gonna run away from their family at that age. And that's usually because they've kind of flown off the deep end a little bit in terms of whatever they're getting into, whatever they're hanging out with, they're not looking at things clearly and kids are impressionable. So yeah, it's a short, for something that's gonna put away a guy for life potentially, yeah, it's a short trial.
00:34:51
Speaker
We're gonna talk a little bit about Hope Katie here in just a moment. My daughter and I love smoothies, but what we don't love are smoothie bar prices. With our Blendjet 2 Portable Blender, we can make smoothie bar quality drinks for a fraction of the price.
00:35:12
Speaker
Blendjet 2 is portable, so you can blend up a smoothie at work, a protein shake at the gym, or even a margarita on the beach. And it's small enough to fit into a cup holder, but powerful enough to blast through tough ingredients like ice and frozen fruit with ease. Even better, Blendjet 2 is whisper quiet, so you can make your morning smoothie without waking up the whole house. Plus, it lasts for 15 plus blends and recharges quickly via a USB-C.
00:35:39
Speaker
You guys have heard me say it before and I'll say it again. Best of all, the Blend Jet 2 cleans itself. Just blend water with a drop of soap and you're good to go. Plus they have so many trendy colors to choose from. The hardest choice will be which design you want to rock.
00:35:53
Speaker
We also want to introduce you to the Orbiter Drinking Lid. The Orbiter Drinking Lid balances a leak proof design with one hand use convenience and a modern minimalist design. The Orbiter Drinking Lid is so easy to use you only need one hand. BlendJet's patent pending design allows you to open and drink by simply rotating the lid with your thumb. Just when we thought the BlendJet 2 couldn't get any better, it did.
00:36:17
Speaker
Now you can blend anywhere without spilling everywhere. So what are you waiting for? Go to blendjet.com and grab yours today. And be sure to use the promo code coffeeandcasesblendjet to get 12% off your order and free two-day shipping. No other portable blender on the market comes close to the quality, power, and innovation of the BlendJet 2. They guarantee you'll love it or your money back.
00:36:42
Speaker
Blend anytime, anywhere with a BlendJet 2 portable blender. Go to blendjet.com and use the code COFFEEINCASESBLENDJET to get 12% off your order and free two-day shipping. Shop today and get the best deal ever.
00:36:58
Speaker
I don't know if it's been the same for you, but it feels like the price of everything keeps rising and my bank account keeps shrinking. Even when I had money passively sitting in investment accounts, those funds rarely rise at the rate of inflation, leaving me feeling like I was in the same boat. All of my money was going somewhere, but never coming back to me.
00:37:17
Speaker
The age of stock picking is here, with towering inflation and elevating interest rates. Sticking your money in a passive market fund just isn't going to get you what it used to. But it doesn't mean you have to abandon the market. There are still ways to invest for the future. You just need to know where to look, which is where The Motley Fool comes in. The Motley Fool Stock Advisor Service highlights two stocks each and every month for members to add to their portfolios. And it literally has paid to listen to them.
00:37:44
Speaker
Historically, their average stock recommendation is up over 400% as of April 10, 2023. And listeners of Coffee and Cases can now access Motley Fool Stock Advisor for just $89 for their first year. That's a full $110 off the list price. What are you waiting for? Visit fool.com forward slash coffee and cases to start your investing journey today.
00:38:11
Speaker
Did you know that dehydration is the leading cause of daytime fatigue? I was shocked to learn that even mild dehydration can cause headaches, muscle weakness, and brain fog. But luckily, there's a solution. Cure. Cure believes that hydration should be simple and effective, but also clean and natural. That's why they use only the highest quality plant-based ingredients and avoid any artificial or harmful additives.
00:38:36
Speaker
They're committed to transparency and honesty. All of their ingredients are clearly listed on their website and packaging, and they're always happy to answer any questions or concerns. Ready to combat dehydration? Track your today and feel the difference for yourself. Use code COFFEEINCASES for 20% off your order. During Sanborn's time in prison, Bob, over the course of the next 27 years,
00:39:05
Speaker
He continued to vehemently deny any involvement in Jessica Briggs's murder and to an attempt to an appeal.
00:39:14
Speaker
In that time, he also tried to be productive despite his circumstances. And this, I'm saying that based on letters from prison workers, as well as others who came to know him. So he wrote the local jails newsletter while he was awaiting trial. And once he was in federal prison, he taught adult literacy, as well as leading a group of men in a
00:39:40
Speaker
long distance dad program to help them maintain relationships with their children while incarcerated.
00:39:48
Speaker
While incarcerated himself, Toni Sanborn also married a woman named Michelle, whom Sanborn had known from his youth. She was also a girl who hung out with the Portland Street kids, despite the fact that her father worked in law enforcement.
Re-investigation and Involvement of the Innocence Project
00:40:03
Speaker
But she actually aided Sanborn in working toward an exoneration, and she was finally able to get the Innocence Project involved in Sanborn's case.
00:40:13
Speaker
they managed to arrange for a post conviction review. I'm guessing because of obviously advancements in in DNA testing and other items that ended up coming to light. So Sanborn's wife, Michelle, also hired a legal team, Fairfield and Associates. And that legal team happened to employ a private investigator, Kevin Cady, the one who I spoke with to gain information for this episode.
00:40:44
Speaker
Now, before I tell you about Katie and about the discoveries that he made. Now, is Kevin Katie, let me ask you, is he related to the witness Katie? I'm going to tell you about that actually. Um, so he, uh, I have a statement from, from him explaining this here in a moment, but his father's side of the family, he said he, he wasn't ever really close to, you know, like distant relatives and those cousins.
00:41:14
Speaker
became the adoptive parents of Hope Katie for a brief time when she was young.
00:41:23
Speaker
But he said- That's how she got the name. Yes, yeah, yeah. Before I tell you about his discoveries, I wanted to make sure that I understand this correctly. So from my understanding, a post-conviction review, this is when someone who's convicted of a crime has new testimony or evidence that has an impact on the original conviction, maybe that's
00:41:50
Speaker
significant enough that a new trial might be needed? Is that correct? Yeah, because typically the way the process goes is you go through your direct appeal first, and that goes to the appellate level. And if that's rejected, you then can go, you know, obviously you can go to the Supreme Court of the state, and you try to appeal there. And then if that's denied,
00:42:15
Speaker
you know, your next move is you can try to go federal and you can try to have the U.S. Supreme Court or, you know, a district court look at it or a circuit court in terms of the appellate level, depending on what state you're in. And, you know, if those all get rejected, then you're left with what they call post conviction relief act petitions. And that's what this is. And yeah, like typically you need
00:42:41
Speaker
newly discovered evidence that was either someone has come forth with a recantation or you've discovered something that wasn't discovered, whether it be a new witness or in the case of the advancements in DNA, you come up with some new results that weren't available back at the time that they may have done DNA testing back then because the advancements are like light years.
00:43:05
Speaker
ahead of what they would have been in 1989. So yeah, for all those various things, like your post conviction work is typically your last resort in terms of trying to get something overturned. So yeah, but your overall explanation was correct. Okay.
00:43:22
Speaker
So Kevin Cady, he had previously been a Portland police officer himself with only minimal involvement in the Briggs case when it happened. He retired in 2010 and became a private investigator in Maine through the state police. He concentrated on defense investigations and worked for Fairfield & Associates, which is the firm that would represent Sanborn in this post-conviction review.
00:43:50
Speaker
Now, obviously, you noticed the similarity in the last name, Kevin Cady and the state's key witness in the Sanborn trial, Hope Cady, and the two, like I said, are distant relatives. Her adoptive father was Kevin Cady's cousin, but he told me that, because we talked about this exact thing, that he didn't have any contact with her nor with her father in the years prior to nor after his work on this case.
00:44:19
Speaker
But it wasn't that potential connection that made Sanborn's wife Michelle initially nervous to have Kevin Cady on board. It was instead that Kevin Cady was retired Portland PD, which was a group that she felt kind of had it out for Tony. And here is what Cady had to say about that assignment.
00:44:46
Speaker
What's kind of interesting about Michelle Lincoln, Michelle Sanborn, is when I was introduced to her as the investigator, and I don't think she really, she maybe would say she knew who I was just because I was a Portland PD, but she was adamant that I not be involved in the case because I was connected to Portland police.
00:45:13
Speaker
And I said to her, I had a meeting with her, and I said, listen, here's who I am. I will look at this case. I will follow wherever it takes me. I'm going to be objective, and I promised her that I would be objective in following wherever this went. And reluctantly, she agreed to have me stay
00:45:37
Speaker
on the case. I think today, if you talk to her, she'd probably say, she's, you know, well, I saw Michelle and Tony last month when I was in Maine. I went to their house and sat with them for the afternoon and kind of caught up on how they're doing and where they're at. So I think they're happy that I stayed involved. Right, right.
00:45:59
Speaker
So, you know, Katie obviously is experienced and he can handle the difficulty of that particular position, which I mean, granted must be a difficult position. A hundred percent. You know, I mean, you've got the, you've got the pressure from law enforcement coming down on you. You know, it's like a thin blue line thing. So, you know, yeah.
00:46:19
Speaker
Also experienced was the judge assigned to the case. It was Judge Joyce Wheeler. Wheeler was appointed to the bench in 1994 at the district level, promoted to Superior Court in 2005.
00:46:34
Speaker
She had actually retired in March 2015, but she was reappointed to active retired status in May 2015. And that is when she was assigned this case. And Sanborn actually had a 21-day review.
00:46:54
Speaker
in Cumberland County Superior Court. Now, that is a long time, it seems to me. I mean, we're talking nearly triple the length of his original trial for this post-conviction review. Right. Yeah. And I mean, sometimes that's how long it takes, because if you're in that position and you've been fighting for so long, it takes
00:47:25
Speaker
literally the moving of mountains to get anybody from the judicial side to buy what you're selling. So in terms of the post-conviction work, they're going to try to put together
00:47:38
Speaker
as thorough an investigation as they can. They're going to try to accrue as many witnesses as they can in order to try to make it clear, like, look, either one of two things, either he's actually innocent and, or that the trial wasn't fair, you know, that there were misrepresentations in the trial. You know, so, yeah, I mean, it's not surprising because, I mean, when you look at it from the perspective that's very well, maybe his last shot,
00:48:06
Speaker
Right. You know, they're gonna let it all hang out, you know, so that's why you get these, sometimes these hearings that are really extended in time. Yeah. So the claims that were made by Sanborn's defense team were that number one, witnesses had been coerced. And number two,
00:48:25
Speaker
that evidence had been withheld from trial.
Witness Testimonies and Coercion
00:48:29
Speaker
In fact, of Sanborn's prior conviction, Amy Fairfield, she's the defense attorney, she stated, quote, acting as a united front, two detectives and a prosecutor waged a campaign of intimidation and deal making in order to manufacture the testimonial evidence they needed to put Sanborn on trial, end quote.
00:48:56
Speaker
little tunnel vision. Right. That investigators quote, built their case brick by brick based on what they wanted to be true rather than on the evidence they actually had before them. End quote.
00:49:12
Speaker
And her statements were based on the information that came to light through the process of Kevin Cady's investigation and the Innocence Project's investigation. So that's what I'll go ahead and tell you about. But in response, just so you know, the state argued that, and this was according to an article for Maine Public Radio,
00:49:33
Speaker
Sanborn had been a, quote, reasonable suspect to pursue because he was Briggs's ex-boyfriend and he could be placed around the pier the night of the murder, end quote. They went on to maintain that Hope Cady's allegations of coercion were vague.
00:49:53
Speaker
and that they exceeded the statute of limitations. And the original state's attorney, Pam Ames, said that the details that Hope had given of Jessica Briggs's murder that she said she witnessed were consistent with the medical examiner's report.
00:50:11
Speaker
And again, this is according to Maine Public Radio. Ames stated, quote, there is no way she could have written that statement in her own words, unless she was there, end quote. Well, I mean, of course there is one other possibility other than her actually witnessing the murder as the state argues. And that other possibility is precisely what Sanborn's defense was alleging that Hope Katie had been fed the information.
00:50:39
Speaker
Right. Ames, of course, argued that she never threatened to witness nor promised them anything in return for their testimonies. She went on to note that she found it odd that the recanting of Hope Cady's testimony was coming 25 years after the fact and only after she had been contacted by people
00:51:03
Speaker
like Kevin Cady, and groups like the Innocence Project who were associated with Fairfield and Associates. But Sanborn's was a case that would be heard again.
00:51:16
Speaker
In this next bit, Bob, I'm going to tell you about the information that was revealed at the bail hearing, kind of interspersed with information that the private investigator, Kevin Cady, told me he discovered. So initially, even before Kevin Cady was involved, the Innocence Project tracked Hope Cady to Florida, and they asked to speak with her.
00:51:41
Speaker
And according to my interview with Kevin Cady. The Unisys project had an investigator, it's Lorena Negroni, and she did a lot of legwork prior to us becoming involved. And I'm not sure if the Unisys project like pre-investigates and figures out, is this something we want to take on because we have a lot of requests from, you know,
00:52:06
Speaker
people in prison to be looked at. So, the bottom line is, Lorea came up with a lot of information. She went to Orlando, Florida and met with Hope Katie. One of the things that she got from Hope Katie was
00:52:24
Speaker
Hope asked why she was knocking on her door in 2016, and I'm kind of paraphrasing, because I know that this is sort of the way the conversation went, that Lorena said, well, Tony Sanborn's doing 77 years for murder. He was bound over as an adult, as a 16-year-old, and she said, oh, my God, you've got to get him out. Now, that's as far as that conversation went. We ended up going back down to Orlando, and
00:52:53
Speaker
re-interviewing Hope Katie, you know, in 2016.
00:53:01
Speaker
She assumed that when he got out when he was 20, 21, you know, whatever, you know, juveniles, they left them out of prison and everybody forgets what happened because you were a juvenile when it happened. That's what she thought. And when she found out that he was actually still in prison on this charge, I think that compelled her to come forward and tell what, that when she was 13, she lied and set the record straight.
00:53:31
Speaker
So it was then that Hope Cady spoke of the threats and intimidation that she said she felt during Sanborn's original trial. In the bail hearing for Sanborn, which happened in April 2017,
00:53:48
Speaker
Hope, Katie, this time, testified to that claim stating that detectives had told her what to say during the original trial. And from the timeframe, Bob, of 1989 to 1992, so from the murder until the trial, Hope had been homeless and vulnerable at many points during that span.
00:54:13
Speaker
Her adoptive parents had turned her back over to the state because they said they couldn't control her behavior. And as a ward of the state, she had gone to a home and sporadically been back on the streets as a homeless kid.
00:54:29
Speaker
And the following are portions of Hope Cady's testimony at the bail hearing. So this is with the defense lawyers. They began by asking if Hope lived in one place between May 89 and October of 92. And she stated that she was in and out of foster homes and residential homes. Defense, it's fair to say you were pretty vulnerable back in 1989. Hope, yes.
00:54:58
Speaker
Defense, how old were you on May 24th of 1989? 13. So how did it come to pass that you were at the murder scene and had witnessed it? They basically told me what to say. So she testified that she had been tracked down and taken to the police station on multiple occasions and questioned for hours at a time.
00:55:27
Speaker
She continues in her testimony defense. Do you even know where the homicide actually took place? Hope, no. Do you recall on February 25th of 92 meeting with Detective Daniels for a couple of hours? Hope, I don't know the exact date. Man, see, this is the thing.
00:55:54
Speaker
Here's the thing that that's what you get with a 13 year old witness. You understand? It's like that, that's what you get when you put a child on and she like, she had no idea what the ramifications of her getting up there and testifying against this kid were going to be. None. You know, like 13 year old kids in the eighties are not thinking about, okay, well these cops are pressuring me.
00:56:22
Speaker
They want me to say this. I don't want to be in trouble with them because she's already worried about her own self because she's on the streets. You know, it's like, and they, they, they wrangle her up and they, they feed her this story and she's not the, cause like when people hear this, you know, the first thing that you think is like, man, what would possess her to testify against this guy or this kid?
00:56:47
Speaker
which is ultimately going to end up putting them in prison. Like they're just not thinking of those consequences at that age or just not. They don't understand the judicial system. Adults barely understand the judicial system. So, you know, cause like, like when people, it's true. Like when you're, when you're like, as you're going through this story, that will be the first thought that enters into everybody's head.
00:57:11
Speaker
Like as soon as we start hearing about this recantation, the first thing is like, wow, like why, why would she have done that to begin with? Like that is such a cruel, cruel thing to do to somebody, you know, and like, that's why it was enlightening. And to go to, to investigator Katie's question, yes, the Innocence Project absolutely vets everything heavily.
The Case Review Process
00:57:33
Speaker
before they end up taking it, like heavily. Oh yeah. Cause they get, you have to imagine how many letters they get from inmates. I'm innocent. I'm innocent. I'm innocent. I'm in it like thousands and thousands. They vet, they vet the heck out of them. So yeah, they've done a ton of legwork. They've reviewed the entire record. They've, they've done Foyas they've gotten, they've tried to reach out to whoever was handling it at the time. They get the copies of the discovery.
00:58:03
Speaker
they dig in and at that point they will determine, all right, this looks like one that we need to get involved with. So yeah, they do a huge amount of work prior to accepting any cases. That's a fact. Yeah. And I mean, she ends up saying, you know, we, we look for reasons. She ends up telling the defense attorneys, they said, you know,
00:58:26
Speaker
Do you remember that you were told that you were going to go to court and testify? And she says, yes. And he says, describe the conversation. And she says, scary. And he says, why was it scary? And she said, because I didn't want to do it. And then he says, well, why didn't you want to do it? And she says, because I wasn't involved in it. He basically, these are her words, he just basically said, here is what you need to say.
00:58:56
Speaker
And then they ask about the prosecution. They said, how was Ms. Ames towards you? And she says, I really don't remember lots of it. She was just kind of there.
00:59:06
Speaker
And then they said, you know, did she take you through trial prep? And she says yes. And they said, did she tell you that you were going to, what you were going to say at trial? And she says yes. And then, you know, they're saying what was, what she was saying for you to testify to, was that similar to what the detectives told you that you were going to testify to? And she says yes. And
00:59:30
Speaker
you know it's part of this i get is trial prep i understand that but like you said she's 13 and she's basically saying now with an adult yeah that she felt so much pressure in fact they she said
00:59:47
Speaker
At first, these are her words again, at first, I didn't want to talk to them. And then they kept hounding me and telling me that they knew this and they knew that and basically tried to put me, well, they put me in the middle of it. And he said, the defense said, put you where? And she said, in the middle of the investigation.
01:00:08
Speaker
And I asked Kevin Cady what she meant by the telling me they knew this and they knew that. And he said that
01:00:17
Speaker
Hope Katie was on bail, juvenile bail, well, for what was it, juvenile petition. I don't think juveniles make bail, but they sort of make bail for an aggravated assault when she was 13. We're going back to when she was 13 and they brought her in and she tells us when we were in Orlando and then later that she was told by the detectives that
01:00:44
Speaker
We want to know what you saw come up with the story. Tell us what happened. I don't know how they put it. They told her that you're going to do 20 years in prison. She's telling us this. I don't know if this was, you're going to do 20 years in prison unless you tell us what happened. That's what I'm saying. There's always that. That's always in the background and things like this. Wow. Telling that to a 13 year old.
01:01:14
Speaker
That's unbelievable. I mean, and like to go to the aims thing, the prosecutor thing, I want to believe because the way that it works is that the cops do the investigation.
01:01:27
Speaker
You know, it precedes the arrest because the prosecutors aren't getting involved till post arrest. So I'm assuming that what went down initially with these detectives and this kid happened outside of the purview of the prosecutor. The prosecutor would not have been sitting in on these interrogations. And, you know, like you said, there is going to be trial prep. And all that we have as attorneys is the police reports.
01:01:55
Speaker
Now, obviously the state has access to their cops because they're talking to them, but these cops certainly aren't going to be saying, yeah, we squeezed this kid. We basically coerced this kid into testify. We fed this kid information. They're not telling the prosecutor that. So I'm hoping that this prosecutor, at no point has she become privy to this. Exactly, exactly. That she was legitimate. I read an article after you kind of told me about it and it was like,
01:02:25
Speaker
that that prosecutor still stick into her guns. Like the original prosecutors. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Which is so frustrating to me. Yes. After testifying for the defense at the bail hearing,
01:02:40
Speaker
was Hope Cady's assigned social worker, Margaret Bragdon. They had issued a Clifford order to view Hope's juvenile case file, and Bragdon was ordered to answer questions and not assert confidentiality. So she basically referred back to her narrative logs that she had kept when Hope Cady was assigned to her.
01:03:02
Speaker
And here's kind of snippets of her testimony in that bail hearing. So the following was a line of questions based on those narrative logs from March 14th, 1990. So that was right before Tony St. Bourne's trial. The defense says, so you're waiting for Hope, who is at the PD with Detective Daniels and Young. Yes.
01:03:26
Speaker
Okay, and you report, Detective Portland PD, Detectives Young and Daniels, Jessica Briggs investigation, they questioned her for about two hours, parentheses four to 630 yesterday, so March 13th, 1990. She got angry because they were rude. Detective Young called her a, according to Hope, and she refused to cooperate at this point. Does that, that's correct.
01:03:55
Speaker
Wow. Bragdon had, according to what she had told Kevin Cady, asked to be present during the interviews with law enforcement since Hope didn't have a parent to be present. But Kevin Cady alleges that they told her that she was not allowed to be present during those interviews. Wow.
01:04:18
Speaker
defense on March 14th 90. You go on to state according to a statement made to me. Hope says she saw Michelle Lincoln hit Jessica and she has told me the police wanted her to give Tony's last name but she doesn't want to. She had seen Tony Sanborn and Jessica arguing the night she was murdered but it was too far away for her to hear what was said. Did you write that down? I did. Okay and why is that?
01:04:44
Speaker
Again, it's to try and help Hope process what was happening, and again, remind her that she needed to be somewhere safe. Defense, you also note that, I remain surprised that the police have never contacted me. Bragdon, I was more than surprised. I was the one that reached out to them initially." End quote.
01:05:10
Speaker
So she's the one who reaches out to police to even mention Hope's name. The defense asked, they said, you know, you noted that Daniels, which was one of the detectives, talked, this is on February 25th of 92, talked to Hope for over three hours and that she came out of that
01:05:32
Speaker
interrogation and interview with law enforcement, pale and shaken. She had PTSD. Are you kidding me? Yeah. Yeah. And those were her words. She said pale and shaken. And she says, yes, that that's exactly what happened. They then asked her, you know, you knew Hope when she was 13. Do you question if Hope was actually there?
01:05:57
Speaker
and Bragdon said, this is hard because we're taught to believe, first of all, whatever the kid says, like with sexual abuse and that sort of thing. So I was believing hope. I've come now that I know more information, which I didn't have before. It's my feeling that she probably did not.
01:06:17
Speaker
And if I might go on with that a little bit, hope was that that time was struck. She was 13. She was struggling to be a cool street kid and be tough. And in some ways, this was a wonderful war story. And I think there may be some of that in it, but that's my own judgment, my own perspective. But I'm not sure that she saw what happened. End quote. Well,
01:06:43
Speaker
Yeah, then they start asking her, you know, how did she act towards the detectives? And Bragdon says she was extremely fearful. And again, this is even during the cross-examination, she says, no, she was fearful of the detectives. And basically that she had documented that Hope said the detectives told her what to say. But Bob, it wasn't just that now
01:07:10
Speaker
stating that she had been coerced into her testimony. That is interesting or discovered during this investigation. The renewed investigation actually revealed a very real problem with Hope Cady as an eyewitness.
01:07:24
Speaker
Hope was a homeless kid, and I would run into her periodically, and I would stop and talk to her as a homeless kid in Portland before all this stuff. What I ended up doing was going to visit with her adopted mother, Nola Katie, and I sat with her at her house, and my questions were,
01:07:50
Speaker
Did the police ever talk to you? No. Did the defense ever talk to you? No. Did the attorney general's office representative ever talk to you or a victim advocate or anybody ever talk to you about Hope Katie and her testimony in this
01:08:06
Speaker
trial back in you know was it 92 and she said no that I was the first person to reach out to her in regards to this whole thing she said I'm gonna tell you that Hope Katie did not see what she says she saw especially from two peers over overnight and she said and that's because Hope Katie back then and as far back as
01:08:31
Speaker
first grade or second grade. It was like first or second grade when she was the mother for her, that Hope was legally blind. She was determined to be legally blind with a nystagmus, some sort of rare degenerative eye issue.
01:08:52
Speaker
that she needed to have glasses, used glasses. I never knew her to wear glasses. And she said, so I'm telling you, she's legally blind. And that's like, oh my God. Because one of the big things about Hope Katie is when I took the case on, I talked to Tony's defense attorney back then. One was Ned Chester and the second one was Neil Duffet. And Neil Duffet was a former
01:09:21
Speaker
assistant district attorney in Cumberland County and I worked with him when I was a cop and then I worked as a defense investigator for him. What convicted Tony? You lived through the trial, tell me what convicted him and he said Hope Katie's testimony, Glenn Brown's testimony were the two and then there was this Jerry Rossi. It was Glenn Brown and it was Hope Katie was the person he felt and
01:09:48
Speaker
And I think after talking with jurors, you know, post-conviction during the, you know, you're able to talk to the jurors and say, you know, why did you come up with this decision? So it was okay. So we kind of focused on hope more than anyone to find out, okay, well, this is your testimony. And during the trial, the Assistant Attorney General Pamela Ames
01:10:15
Speaker
brought up her eyesight during direct. And she said, I hope you've developed, and I read it, I read it, you've developed eye problems, is that true? Hope said yes. Is this before 1989 or after 1989? And she says, after 1989. And there was very little, I don't think that the defense
01:10:44
Speaker
I think it just went over their heads. They never delved into it. They never asked about it. But she put it out there and I think just in case. And so it was brought up. But in fact, she developed eye problems, you know, when she was first. Right. Oh my God.
01:11:05
Speaker
God. But in in the bail hearing with hope again on stand, she was asked directly about her vision. And she said she admitted that she had bad vision since she was young, but that she either kept losing her glasses or she would just refuse to wear them because she hated them. And the defense asks her. So when you drew a drawing for Detective Daniels, do you recall that at the youth center? And they said, in that drawing, you depicted where you were.
01:11:35
Speaker
Did somebody assist you with that drawing? And she says the detective did.
Conclusion and Call to Action
01:11:41
Speaker
kids blind, like legally blind. Wow, what a railroad job. Holy smokes. When Hope's caseworker, Margaret Brackton is on the stand, the defense, obviously they make it a point to ask her about Hope's eyesight. And they said, and this will be very important, I feel, defense said on February 25th, you note, Detective Daniels
01:12:05
Speaker
is going to make hope testify. Is that correct? She says that's correct. And he said, you wrote, Daniels is talking to AAG regarding this for subpoena. Something definitely wrong with her optic nerves in both eyes need to pinpoint what she can see and how she sees. Correct? And she says that's correct. And they said, and this was relayed to Detective Daniels. And she said, yes, it was.
01:12:36
Speaker
And they said, so, okay, he knew that she had eye problems. Is that right? And her caseworker says, that's right.
01:12:46
Speaker
So Bob hopes eyesight was 2,200, which meant that at best with corrective lenses, she could see 20 feet, 20 feet away. But we're hearing she doesn't wear her glasses. We know that the murder took place in the middle of the night and she testified that she had witnessed it from two piers away. Yes. Man.
01:13:13
Speaker
Yes. Man, that is brutal. That is brutal. Yeah. So they, they show Margaret Bragdon there, they establish, you know, she rides the ferry, the Casco Bay ferry every day. And they, you know, verify that, is this what it looks like? And they say, yes. And they said, so Hope puts herself all the way over here. And she says, yeah, that's right. And they said, and she's,
01:13:37
Speaker
you accept this representation. And she says, and this is where they're saying the murder happened. And Margaret Bragdon says yes. And they say, do you know approximately you're on the fairies fair mile? What's basically the distance? And she says, I would say at least 50 feet between each water port, at least 50 feet. And then you have the docks in between.
01:14:02
Speaker
And she says, I would say it would be hard for anybody to see that far. And they say somebody with 2,200 vision. And she says, definitely not. And it's night. Right. And it's night. Yes. That's crazy. For the rest of what happened in the post-conviction hearing and to hear other potential perpetrators, check back tomorrow for part two.
01:14:26
Speaker
In the meantime, if you have any information to share concerning the Briggs murder, please contact the Portland, Maine Police Department at 207-874-8479.
01:14:40
Speaker
Again, please like and join our Facebook page, Coffee and Cases podcast to continue the conversation and see images related to this episode. As always, follow us on Twitter, at casescoffee, on Instagram, at coffee cases podcast, or you can always email us suggestions to coffeeandcasespodcastatgmail.com. Please tell your friends about our podcast so more people can be reached to possibly help bring some closure to these families. Don't forget to rate our show and leave us a comment as well. We hope to hear from you soon.
01:15:09
Speaker
Stay together. Stay safe. We'll see you next week.
01:15:35
Speaker
If you've been listening to our show for more than one episode, then you probably know about my love for animals. What I don't often talk about is the difficulty of meeting all their nutritional needs. Trust me, not all dog food is created equal, but we're about to solve that problem for you. It's called Nom Nom.
01:15:51
Speaker
In Nom Nom, you can actually see proteins and vegetables like beef, chicken, pork, peas, carrots, kale, and more. And ordering it is the easiest way to take the guesswork out of feeding your dog the best. Nom Nom meals are pre-portioned for your dog's exact caloric needs.
01:16:09
Speaker
Isn't it time to feel good about the food you're feeding your dog? Order Nom Nom today. Go to trynom.com slash coffee and cases and get 50% off your first order plus free shipping. And Nom Nom comes with a money back guarantee. That means if your dog doesn't love fresh, delicious meals, Nom Nom will refund your first order. No fillers, no nonsense, just Nom Nom.