Michael Leonard

So there is a big question mark already about the reliability of this eyewitness.

And then when you get to the hypnosis part, which is just ridiculous, almost unheard of.

I mean, I've never been involved in a case or heard of a case in my 30 or so years where hypnosis has ever been used, let alone found to be credible.

And so to make an identification under those circumstances, it's just so improbable and no court would allow that, which goes to the great point you made in your show,

Really, the big problem was the non-disclosure of that.

OK, so even if that were to have happened, the hypnosis, of course it had to be disclosed.

The prosecutors had an obligation to disclose that.

And that's just a clear breach of their ethical duties.

That alone should have been a basis to overturn the case and grant him a new trial.

I'm running out of words.

I don't want to keep saying remarkable and absurd.

I need a new word for your listeners, but

Absolutely incredible.

I mean, again, not only the fact that in what jurisdiction would a car impounded as evidence be released to anybody, first of all, let alone someone who's potentially involved in the crime, right?

Never would happen.

And then secondly, to have that person then engage in activities, which are certainly suggestive of a cover-up,

and would make that individual a suspect, but would also eliminate all sorts of forensic evidence that could have been gathered from the scene.

I just run out of words to talk about that.

And then to make it worse is the nondisclosure, right?

To not disclose that and to not disclose that she was possibly facing criminal charges.