Randy Kessler

I don't know what the technology shows yet.

All we've heard is hearsay from the victim's stepdaughter and what she heard from somebody else.

So once it's all vetted and fleshed out, that may be

the proverbial nail in the coffin or the smoking gun that so far doesn't exist.

First thing I would do is hire somebody much smarter than me that understands this technology and can point out to me all the flaws and all the potential pitfalls.

And then after that, I would say, are we gonna trust some technology that is, you know, weird science and, you know, unfortunately the rest of the story makes a jury want to buy it, I think, because everyone wants a drama like this.

Everyone wants to know this guy who seems to have been abusive in his past and there are allegations that he's choked his other child and he's, you know, hurt his wife and threatened to throw her off the boat.

That's not enough to convict, but this piece of technology evidence

scares me as a defense lawyer, because that could be what the jury needs to be able to say, okay, now there's some proof.

Because except for that, there's no proof.

So I'd check out the technology.

I'd have an expert that's well-versed in it, somebody who's equally competent as the state's best expert to go to battle.

But I'd have to see what they say and what they tell me before I can even develop a strategy.

It would scare me as a defense lawyer.

Absolutely.

Right, that opens the door.

Without that, they're not looking at him as carefully.

They're thinking it's a loving couple that are living this dream life, boating across the world.

and all of a sudden there's trouble in paradise.

And you've got somebody who's very credible.