We’re wrapping up Brandon Woodruff’s case - Hilarie, Dan, Po, and Andrew will discuss where Brandon’s case is now as well as the details of the case that still keep them up at night.
For more information, you can visit freebrandon.org, or you can go to the Free Brandon Facebook Page @ www.facebook.com/freebrandon.
For more information about this and other cases we've covered, follow us on Instagram @ICHHstories.
Hi guys, it's Hillary here. Just a quick note. This series does deal with a lot of tough subject matter that may be difficult for some listeners, so please keep this in mind when and where you choose to listen to these episodes. Last episode, we had a candid conversation regarding the challenges the people in the LGBTQIA plus community face across our country, and specifically how those prejudices affected Brandon himself. Additionally, we featured interview clips from our chat with Scott Pogancy, who grew up as a gay man in Texas and became impassioned to find justice in this case. On this episode, we're going to wrap up our look at Brandon Woodruff's case and explore possible alternative suspects to where Brandon's case is now. But before we do that, I just want to be very clear why I picked Brandon's case. When we learn that someone was convicted most likely because of their sexuality, I was deeply affected by that. I mean, it was two thousand and five, fine, a long time ago, but this shit is still relevant in our news cycle now. It feels like it could have happened yesterday. All the prejudices I had hoped that we could get passed in the early two thousands. It is all still ripe in our modern day environment, and so this case is very near to mean Because I am an LGBTQIA plus advocate and I'm an ally and if we don't raise our voices against these injustices and systemic issues, people will continue to be prosecuted unfairly. And I don't think anyone should have to live in a place where they have to hide who they are or be scared that because of who they are, they won't get what our Constitution's supposed to guarantee, the right to a fair trial. As we wrap up Brandon's case, my sincere hope is that we all continue to challenge our judicial system and ask questions and rise up when we have something to say, because the real question isn't whether Brandon is innocent or guilty. The question is was he given a fair trial? That should concern all of us. I'm Hillary Burton Morgan, and this is true crime story. It couldn't happen here? All right, you guys, welcome to another episode of It couldn't happen here. I'm Hillary Burton Morgan, and you know our team. We have Andrew Dunn, Poecutcheons, Dan Flaherty. Thank you guys for joining us. Before we really get into things this week, I just wanted to ask you kind of a blanket question because I know I get feedback. I wanted to know if people reach out to you and give you feedback. You know, your friends, your family, just people who watch these kinds of shows. What do you hear from them?
Oh? Yeah, we get strangers who call, We get people who are involved who call. We get friends and family who talk to us. You know. I mean I always post, and most of us post on the socials when these things come out and people comment, and certainly there's some shows I've done that have gotten a huge amount of public reactions, sometimes changing people's minds and other times vitriol. I think that what we all want here is not to change people's minds, not to change anyone's minds. What we want to do is open people's minds to looking at things, maybe a little differently, and to not be afraid to challenge certain narratives, and to encourage and help them think critically about what they're seeing.
And leaving it open ended allows for the intelligence of the viewer. I just I don't know. I get bothered when people coddle viewers and treat them like they're stupid, because I know my fan base is bright. They are problems. So they are thinkers, they are people who engage with one another, and they're involved in advocacy. And so if we were to spoon feed them a narrative, I just, I don't know. I think it's condescending. So when we leave it open ended, they're bright enough to come to their own conclusion.
Yeah, we never want to tell somebody what to think, you know, it's just encouraging them to think just.
That about it. Yeah, all we want to do is put it on your radar.
And for us, I mean for a lot of the stories that we tell, we don't know what happened. I mean I don't know, you know, I wasn't there, and so all I could do is raise questions. We tell stories where there is a question of whether justice has been served, or questions about how it was handled, or questions about the system.
I think it's only fair to leave it open or not a jury. We're journalists and we can only present what we're given. And in the end, if it's overwhelmingly feels like someone is innocent or should not be in jail, then that is a parent. That's a parent in what we present. And if somebody in a more complicated case feels conflicted about it, and it's reflected in that in the ending, probably we feel conflict too on some ways. Because we can't advocate specifically for something that we don't know the absolute truth about.
We can advocate for the system, yes, to better itself at every turn. So when we make a complaint, it is not this person's innocent or this person is guilty. When we make a complaint, it is that we are operating within a system that is hesitant to self correct. We are operating within a system that does not want to reflect on their own.
Errors or correct their own errors.
And that is what we have a problem with.
And I do want to say something really quickly. You said, we can only present what we're given, and that's not what we do. We can absolutely curate for an opinion. What we try really hard to do is gather as much evidence and as much information and as much very worrying opinions about somebody about the case from people that are involved in it, and then present them in a balanced way, and that's what we do. And I don't think that we're leading somebody in one way or the other. I think we're very balanced about how we go about it, and we try really hard, and we point out the problems that we see, and we are conflicted about some of them because we don't know some of them. We have better ideas of what we think, but we still never say unequivocally what happened, because how could we?
And so, in your opinion, if Brandon Woodruff's trial happened today in twenty twenty three, with the advances we have in DNA, with a different understanding of what it is to be gay in a small town, or maybe not a difference given current legislation, But do you believe he would be convicted in twenty twenty three.
Possibly, it's up to the jurisdiction and the jury. You can certainly, I mean, right today, we have plenty of cases that are happening right now. I mean, I think that some of the things that we're done in assumptions that were made would be quite I think some of the DNA and things like that would potentially be clarifying. I think the way they dealt with this crime scene would probably be very different. So there could be ways that the investigation in the trial went differently. But I could not say in this day and age whether he would or wouldn't be convicted. I mean, I've seen stuff happening.
Brandon was convicted on circumstantial evidence, but people get convicted on circumstantial evidence all the time.
I think what really hits for me is that when we walked away from this shoot, which we did well over a year ago, I walked away thinking there's no way Brandon would be convicted in this day and age. And then this landslide of legislation happened in the South, in rural communities, specifically in Texas, and I can't say that anymore. And it's terrifying, you know, we have backslid.
Can I just say one thing is to separate what bothers me the most about Brandon being the suspect is there's actually no illustration of anything in his life where he is murderously angry at both of his parents. I mean, there's nothing. There's also nothing that points him out in any of his life or from any of the things that we've heard about him, and in our interview that he's a bizarre psychopath who snapped one day.
Well, I mean the Estheringtons were talking about him killing baby kittens, So there was stuff that was pointed out of him being a violent person. But there's no evidence of any of that.
But it's not just evidence. There's no other sources other than the Etherrington's.
I think what you're saying, Andrews, that there's nothing that shows that kind of animosity towards his parents. I mean, I think I haven't heard anybody say that he had a contentious relationship in any way with his parents.
Right, except for the arrest warrant that he had been saying he hated them online and he hadn't.
Right, which was pretty quickly keeping showing de bunk.
Right, except that he was in jail.
Motive, Yeah, there's no motive.
There's no DNA and there's no motive, or there's no forensic evidence and there's no motive.
Right, So we have no motive, no forensic evidence, and these are the conclusions we're coming to. There's something I want to ask each of you, after all of these months of us working on this case, do you have any working theories on what you think happened here.
I mean, this one's a hard one. What's fair And what I like to do is say on every case is also say, Okay, this person is claiming they're innocent. We're looking into the possibility of them being innocent. Let's think about it as if they did it. I think it's really important and Dan and I do this, and I do this a lot, is say okay, if they did do it, you know, when we don't have actual physical evidence proving that somebody else did it. If they did do it, let's piece it together. We've pieced together a lot of it, and a lot of it looks hard, but it doesn't look impossible.
The question is working theory. Po I think you're about to get a lot of dodges here, Hillary, Well, I mean.
Because you guys committed from a different place. I've always said I'm not a journalist, and i am not a lawyer, and I'm not law enforcement. I'm a lady from a town that's small that wants to go to other small towns and cover these stories. And for me, from the very beginning of this entire case, the thing that bothered me so much was that Dennis and Norma were seated so close together on that couch, it was the most unnatural positioning for a long time married couple to be in.
The whole crime scene is really weird and it felt hostagy to me. And the fact that they walked through it in the dark freaked the heck out of me.
Right, they videotaped that crime scene in the dark, so I mean they could have knocked things over, they could have missed things, they could have messed up key evidence anything.
And like just Nole's storytelling about what happened there didn't feel true to me.
The idea that this couple that's been married for like twenty years is seated right on top of each other and that they were somehow caught off guard by their son who showed up with a gun and a dagger. That does not ring true. Think about how you sit with your spouse in your house when you're settling in for the night, and those are the tiny things that it becomes very important to put yourself in the shoes of the victims of the people who are being talked about and theorized about. I don't know any married couple that sits that way.
Well, I mean, let's be fair, I know, married couples that drape all over each other. They weren't draped all over each other. It was more proper. That's what was weird about it. It was more city ap proper feeling. I mean from bodies that are strewed about.
I think these are. I mean, the fact that they were sitting next to each other is a fact, right, But you could read into it two different ways. Right to look at it as the way you're looking at it, which it seems unnatural for them to be sitting that close to each other. Somebody else looks at it saying, they look like they're very comfortable sitting there. And I think the spit cup in Dennis's hand supports that in some way that it wasn't just you know, you stand over there. He was sitting in there with his spit cup in his hand, you know, not like, oh my god, I'm a hostage. It's somebody. I'm just sitting here casually chewing tobacco watching TV. You know. So I think you can look at the same facts and interpret them two different ways. But I think that's sort of why there are so many questions with this. I mean, I think that it makes sense that if you look at the evidence and you read the circumstantial evidence a certain way. Brandon is the most likely suspect, and it makes sense that they would go to that direction, But that doesn't mean that that's the only interpretation of that evidence.
Yeah, but there's also evidence that we haven't even touched yet, and honestly, it's always really bothered me. So there were some other materials that were discovered at the crime scene, Dan, can you tell us about this?
Well, this is interesting, you know, digging into the case materials and looking to see what evidence was collected. There's not necessarily a record of all the things that were collected. The investigators ask Charla about things that they found at the house, but I don't see that collected as evidence.
So you've got a discrepancy discrepancy.
Already, Like I don't like we were looking for, like what did they find? And so they were asking Charla about her parents' lifestyle. The things that they asked Charla about were pornographic videos that were in plain sight, flavored condoms that were out in the open. I don't see that coming up too many other.
Places, right, Okay, So this is Charla's first interview with law enforcement. And as a reminder for you guys at home, Charla is Brandon's older sister. So let's listen to that clip.
Now we've talked about your relationship to your parents and your and your relationship to your brother, let's talk about your parents' relationship with one another. Do you think that there's a possibility again, you might not know, and you may be able to tell me no right off the bat. Is there a possibility that either won of your mother or your dad could have been having an affair or something like that with the you know, or swinging or ya. I know that that's kind of a you know, the g uh a weird deal, But could they have been involved in something of that nature to where they had you know.
I'm not gonna lie. There was one time in life that I can friend in my parents and I asked them straightforward and I said, are you I asked them both, are you having an affair? And they both straight up looked me downe the eye and they said nope.
Now, w what made you think that they were having an affair?
Because my mom would stay at work for ever and ever and ever and ever and never mom uh.
And that was back in the fourteen to sixteen.
Year here where when you didn't wanna be at home either, right, okay?
And so so she would never I mean, and she's always gone, always gone. And my dad I all even talk about was just different girls and his offens se the flirt, okay, And so I was ask them both stead on, you know, and all they did is they turned around and asked me if I was having an affair with my teachers at school, why did ask that.
I have annoida?
I think they just thought that it was the most stupidest thing that I could have ever asked them. And they just thought of like the most stupidest thing they could ever ask me.
Does that make sense?
Yeah, I how I guess.
So, you know, it's a cause I asked them. They look if we didn't die and said no, and then they're like, in this sarcastic, stupid way, They're like, well are you?
And I was like told, you know, like okay, what about as couples though, was swinging or doing something like that? Because there was there was stuff found at the residents, some pornography and some things like that that were that was found there. Well, exactly, I've got a flavored or something like that, you know, just strange.
I've never seen that at the health ever.
I don't know, man, this is something that has always kind of stood out to me because it's weird and it's uncomfortable, and law enforcements trying to do their job and figure out motive, but they're having to ask some very awkward questions, and they're asking the daughter of the victims about this swinging lifestyle. So it's not just brandon sexuality that becomes a topic in this case, but also the sexuality of his parents. What would lead them to think that the materials there were used with other people as opposed to just with each other.
I don't know, it's interesting, right, I've seen this in a couple of different criminal investigations where they find a condom at the crime scene and the investigators were like, there's a condom here, so there must have been an affair. As if married people don't use condoms.
Yeah, I mean, we know what early forties, you know, they're young.
They don't want to have kids again, they watch porn. Lots of couples watch porn. I think it was less accepted back then.
Well, the difference is you can get it on your phone now, and before you used to have to go and have a physical copy.
You had to buy I had to go into it was the walk of shame. You had to go into a porn store. It was a very seedy place.
And so for them to have this collection is not a big deal. I think the point that was being made was that this collection was out in the open, knowing that their son had just been in their house hours before, right, and that along with the condoms being out in the open, was weird.
It is weird. I mean, if Brandon was walking through their house, you know, that would be a real interesting family where their parents are just leaving porn and condoms rolling around the house for the kid to see.
And they asked Charlie about it. They asked if that was something that was often out in the open, and she says no, she had never seen.
That, so it was something unusual. They do ask about it, So it's weird if they'd ask about it if it wasn't there. But we don't have evidence it was there because it's not in any of the photographs that we got from the police files.
That's so weird.
And this is the frustrating aspect for us. These other items that are being found, yet we have no crime scene photos of them.
I mean maybe photos were taken of them and that we didn't receive them. Somewhere along the way they got taken out of the case files. I don't know. We just don't know.
To Brandon, probably would have been kept.
Maybe they weren't pertinent so they weren't part of discovery and they were Yeah.
Yeah, think they could have been destroyed or deleted. I mean maybe they I don't know, but this is the frustration.
Have been there and they were taken out of the case file because they weren't pertinent to the person they thought who they were going to prosecute.
So Andrew, what should law enforcement do?
I mean we only get a partial picture, and the partial picture from law enforcement is angled at the person that is their suspect. But do they make available these other omitted items.
Usually when you have crime scene photos, all of the crime scene photos are there. They don't usually give you a select number unless there's reasons for later. What they put in trial. What they show is exhibitions, aren't every single photo they took. But when they take crime scene photos, they take pictures of everything they think is pertinent at the crime scene when they're doing their job, right.
So generally, when I get a package of crime scene photos to sort of process through for the show, that's what we've selected producorially, right, But generally, if I go back to the original source files, that's right. There's lots of irrelevant photos of things we don't even here's a.
Coffee cup, here's a coaster, here's some shirts, And it doesn't make sense until you've conducted the investigation on day one, day two, day three. When you're photographing everything at the crime scene, you don't know what's going to be important later, so you have to shoot everything right. So we don't have the photos, but we know they ask Charla about her parents' relationship to one another and the possibility of an affair. Do we know if they ever questioned anyone directly about an affair.
Not that we know of. That doesn't mean that they didn't, but we don't see any record of them talking to anyone that they might have possibly had an affair with.
Well, did they explore any other possibilities, like literally anyone else that could be responsible for this?
You know, they did explore possibilities of could this be some other person, not a family member, you know, someone connected to the family in some other way that they had problems with. But I don't think anything ever came of that.
I think that once you go beyond the small circle of people who may have known them and the people who everybody knows knows them and their interactions, you know, how do you investigate that? How do you look like anybody?
Does?
You go find out, you fingerprint, you look at their phone records, you do all the normal policing. But I mean, yes, but I think that look, Noel said when he walked in there the next day, he paints a picture that he said, they figured out right away it was a crime of passion. It was somebody who knew them and who was angry that somebody had to know their way around the house the picture painted. I mean, yes, it's now him talking about it. But it seems like it was very clear on the first day that they decided that that was the likely scenario.
Right when Norma called the investigators even before these autopsies were complete, she told them they should look at Brandon exactly.
And so the big clues are that stabbing. Yeah, the overkill, right, I mean, they could have whoever killed them could have just shot them both and be done with it.
And no sign of breaking in it.
Okay, repeated stabbing makes it seem personal.
And to that point, if they're swinging with someone and it goes wrong, is that a potential situation for overkill, for a strong connection.
Or if it doesn't go wrong with somebody's a psycho and that's part of their kink.
I think these are all plausible possibilities. But if everybody is saying it's somebody who is known to them.
Yeah, but no breaking in enry, there's an overkilled crazy stab stab stab, and that it looks like somebody washed up. They must have known their way around the house. Those are three big things, right.
But if it's somebody they just met outside of their circle of friends, if it's a totally random person who comes into their life, it's very difficult for law enforcement to actually solve those particular crimes. We have seen this time and time again, and you can read about in plenty of cases where if the killer is not known to the family or any of the friends, they're going to go on for years without even being detected. And in this case, you know that's a hard thing to solve. It's actually almost impossible.
A random home invasion is a tough case to solve.
But he's talking more about you know, if there was some a new body man, if there was some swinging going on and it was some sexual thing, that they would come in, I mean, or if it was somebody who mistook the house and came in. But then there would be more breaking an entry. I mean, yeah, there are.
But you know what if somebody knocked on my door and I felt safe in my neighborhood and said, I have a flat tire, can you help me out? I might let them into the house. I'll let them, you know, let them use the phone. You know, people are the.
Boston Strangler pretended to be a handymancher, you know what I mean. Like, there's a reason people put their guard down and say, oh, yeah, come in, no big deal.
But they choose not to.
I mean, maybe they choose not to really look at that that well or that closely. Because of all this.
You know, it's easier to look at Brandon.
Sure well, people are accusing him right away.
So in this case, we do have the possibility to look at other people because we have these like clues. We have these items like the porn and the condoms that I don't feel like they were thoroughly investigated. You know, we have this suggestion of a possible affair or swinging. But what else in this case can we look at and draw conclusions from in terms of potential other suspects. What about the history of this house that they just moved into. What do we know? I mean, Brandon mentioned something about workers at the house.
What Brandon was saying which is pretty valid, which is that there were workers and builders, They were getting ready to build stuff, They had built some things to move their horses over. There were a lot of strangers coming in and out of and around that property. That said it wasn't a robbery.
It's hard to know what was missing.
Your point about the workers in and out is important. You know, when you're making a move, you're trusting so many strangers in your personal space.
We know somebody whose loved one was murdered because the construction person downstairs was making noise, yes, and there was a confrontation and she ended up dead. Yeah, so it is not something It's not a leap outlandish to think, hey, we should look at all these strangers wandering around that said, the overkill, the lack of breaking an entry, the lack of robbery.
Can I just say that I think that this kind of discussion is very behind the scenes.
Yeah, well it is because if we only get forty two minutes, it's how much do we speculate in that forty two minutes?
Right?
And it can seem wildly insensitive, sometimes callous, But the intention is not necessarily to criticize people.
Well, I know what you're saying, because if we are frustrated that Norama and Dennis were characterized as being unaccepting of a gay lifestyle, if we're upset that law enforcement and the community just assumed that they would be upset with their son being gay, it is also hard for us to say, like, maybe they were swingers. Maybe, you know, we're still making characterizations about victims who aren't here to speak for themselves, and so when we hypothesize stuff like that, it's not coming from a place of judgment. I don't care if someone's a swinger. I don't care if they look at porn. What I care about is getting to the truth. And if information and evidence could point to another person being involved, why does Brandon become the only person that, as far as we can tell, becomes a suspect. It's a question that still bugs me. Why just Brandon. But we can't go back in time. Right, Brandon is in jail. He's been there since two thousand and five, where he has lost his chance at adulthood from behind bars and he's all alone. And you know, when I met Scott Pogancy, the podcaster that you guys heard from in the last episode, I was really concerned to hear what Brandon's life in prison is like.
Now.
He tries to keep busy, like he's allowed in the craft shop, so he is able to do like leather work, and you know, he made me like a gun case to you know, put my gun in.
He made me a little.
Key chain, says Scott on it, you know, leather. So he tries to, like I said, he tries to keep out of prison. He tries to keep his mind out of prison, so as often as he can, and.
He'll go in and work in the in the craft shop or you know, he pretty much just keeps to himself. And that's the That's one of the saddest things to me when I think about it, is you know, he'd yeah, and he's in a place where he's surrounded by three thousand people, but he's alone.
Brandon has a life sentence, which means he could be stuck in prison forever, but there are people who are trying to help him. Let's talk a little bit about the Innocence Project of Texas. How did they first get involved?
It was actually, Scott, tell you about the work that you've done. How long have you been working on this case, and how has that affected his case.
It wasn't until twenty seventeen that I really decided we really need to put this into kind of a video documentary format. That's when I really started investigating the case, looking over all the documents with a fine tooth comb and really starting to put together timelines and witness statements and things like that. So in early twenty twenty one, I was actually I was going to be filming a reenactment for part of the film, and I put a mass call casting call, and Richard Ray, who was a reporter here in Dallas Fort Worth for almost forty years, he responded to it and said, you know, thanks for the invite, but I really don't think that this is something that I want to do. And I've lived in Dallas Fort Worth a long time, so I immediately recognized him and I was like, oh, wait a second, I didn't know that this was that Richard Ray. And so we started talking back and forth and he asked me about the project. So being in the media for a long time, he knew some people and he started making some calls and we were finally able to connect with Mike Ware of the Texas Innocence Project to talk about the case. The way that the Innocence Project of Texas worked is the case is that they take on they assigned to certain law students as part of their graduating and so Mike said, yeah, let's take a look at this and see if there's anything to it. So he assigned the case to one of the law students and she was blown away by everything that happened in this case and she said, absolutely, we need to take on this case one hundred percent. Mike called us back and said, hey, guys, we're all in on this case. And I got to tell you that was one of the happiest days of my life.
So that's big. I mean, what was it specifically about this case that the Innocence Project of Texas thought they could help with do we know.
I don't know if it was one thing specifically, but I do know the big thing is getting the hairs tested that were enormous hand.
They can't take on every case. What they try to do is take on a case that has untested DNA that they can then go back into and test. And in this case, there is this DNA. There was a bunch of hair in one of her hands that they believe is hers. But there's this one hair and you can see it in the crime scene photographs that is different. And what we've heard is that they combined them all, which is a kind of a crazy red flag for US as far as evidence gathering. But that one single hair is very, very different. And what we've been told is that they can't go test all the hairs. It's very very expensive, so they have to figure out what that one hair is since it's supposedly combined. But that one hair is a thing.
I don't know why they haven't tested all of those hairs.
Test all the hairs, no, but it costs like thousands and thousands per hair, I know, but people fight twenty years to get one batch of DNA, it's just backloads, it's expensive. Every state has different protocol.
Aren't all the hairs now mixed up?
That's what we've been told. What we've been told is that they just bagged all the hair together in one and so they wouldn't be able to find that one hair. That's the story that we've been told as to why it hasn't been tested.
But if you tested every single hair in that bag and ninety nine point nine percent it came back as Norma's, and there was one hair mixed in with the blood on her hand that came back not belonging to Norma, it would lead one to believe that whoever had that hair was the person who committed this crime.
I mean, that's like hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of testing. Who's going to test one hundred thousand on a convicted guy that has a very circumstantial claim to innocence as much as they have a circumstantial claim to guild. You know, once somebody's convicted, post conviction law is incredible. You have people where there's confessed killers, where there's DNA that's clear and bright, they'll just say, oh, well, they were not the only one there at the crime. You have so many cases where getting a person out is insane. It takes forever. They block it and block it. And the way that you address it in post conviction crime, it's not a pile of things. Circumstantial doesn't work in post conviction. It has to be one unequivocable thing or three unequivocable things that show unequivocably that they didn't do it. So a confession from somebody else who had the time, time, motive, and opportunity DNA that proves that that other person did it. I mean, you need a whole plethora of stuff to get the guy out that got convicted. Who's going to put up two hundred thousand dollars to test all that? It costs so much money, Like who pays for that right?
So that's the fight. The Innocence Project of Texas wants to get that hair tested because that hair could change things for Brandon. If that hair belongs to someone who is not Norma and who is not Brandon, they might just know who Norma was defending herself from. And so all of these people helping Brandon Scott, the Innocence Project of Texas, his grandmother Bonnie. They have hope. We hear hope from Catherine, Brandon's lawyer.
I wouldn't give up hope completely. There's always hope. I'm grateful that the Innocence Project of Texas has has gotten involved in it, because if anyone can get some traction on this for Brandon, it would be them. They've done some amazing work in other cases in similar scenarios where there was a rough to judgment.
And we also hear hope from Bonnie.
I've always had hope that they're going to take a closer look. And I've always had hope and I still have hope.
It's hard.
You are.
You are a strong person, but it's it's really hard. It's hard, and I feel like you have to put on a good front for everybody. Do you feel like you can't let him see you cry.
I don't guess he's seen me cry. Yeah, you know, he might have seen me cry in court. I don't know. He probably did then, but I haven't. When I go to visit him, I don't cry. You know, got to be strong for him.
I also have hope for Brandon. I have to because that means I have hope for a judicial system, Explain to me what does at stake for you? You know, you've got what for me.
In my life, but more certainly, I mean my life is you know, is here on earth. But at the same time, my parents there's judged. When we say that judge has not been heard of course, that I haven't occurred for me, that I haven't deserved, for my grandmother, really for even the family that believes that, you know, I could have been responsible. If you knew my parents, you knew there would be definitely no reason why I'm going to ever hurt them, harm them, and definitely certainly not kill them. But at so at the end of the day, because my family being quote my dynamic for my father and my mother, there's no nothing for them either right now, even though they're not here, they still they're not ju I mean, they did not want to get killed, and they finally didn't deserve for you know, everything that happened to me then and right now the people I really do feel out there. So that's a lot of the thing to me, you know, that gets my live, But the other lives that I've been in and I get.
Find a whole situation that's it for our deep dive into Brandon Woodruf's case. But for more information, you can visit Freebrandon dot org, or you can go to the Free Brandon Facebook page at facebook dot com slash Free Brandon. That's it for this week's episode of True Crime Story It Couldn't Happen Here. But we'll be back next week to answer some questions from our listeners, and in the weeks that follow, we'll be right here digging into our next case, which takes place in Andre, North Carolina.
Yeah, you think about them all the time. You know, there's several cases where they stay inside you and you think about them, and you think about the people who you've got to know and the people who are affected by these things that have happened.
Join us next week as we continue to roll up our sleeves and dig in. Thank you so much for joining us. If you haven't watched Sundance TVs True Crime Story It Couldn't Happen Here, you can catch all of our episodes streaming on AMC Plus. For more information about this and other cases we've covered, follow at ic HH stories on Instagram. True Crime Story It Couldn't Happen Here was produced by Mischief Farm in association with Bungalow Media and Entertainment, Authentic Management Productions and Figdonia in partnership with Sundance TV. Executive producers are me Hillary Burton, Morgan Liz Accessor, Robert Friedman, Mike Powers, and Meg Mortimer. Producers are Maggie Robinson Katz and Libby Siegel. Our audio engineer is Brendan Dalton, with original music by Philip Ridiotes. We want to say a special thank you to everyone who participated, but especially the family is impacted by our cases.