The Murder of Faith Hedgepeth: The Trial of Miguel Enrique Salguero-Olivares: Day Three: The Body

[00:00:00] [SPEAKER_04] I am in love with Miracle Balm from our new sponsor, Jones Road Beauty. Now, let's be clear, I'm not the biggest makeup wearer in the world. Sometimes I skip wearing makeup because it just doesn't feel good. It's too cakey, it looks bad or off, and sometimes I'm just in way too much of a rush to apply it well. But when I put on my Miracle Balm, it looks natural, fresh, effortless. I put it on and I could head out to dinner with friends or a little date night with Kevin, or we could go to court. I love how lightweight it feels and I love that it gives me a bit of a glow.

[00:00:28] [SPEAKER_04] It's just this kind of clean, natural look that I love. I adore how it enhances my skin instead of just hiding it. Also for me, it's just so convenient, I could put it on really fast. Like one day after we were super busy with the podcast, Kevin and I went out for dinner in a movie, the new MST3K reboot. So even though I didn't have a lot of time, I put it on and loved the way I looked. It took about like five minutes at most. Also, clean beauty is a must for me.

[00:00:51] [SPEAKER_01] This formula is packed with ingredients that love your skin with no phthalates, sulfates or BPA.

[00:00:58] [SPEAKER_04] No clogging, no clumping, just convenient beauty. Miracle Balm requires no brushes. Use it as a highlighter, a bronzer, a blush, lip tint, whatever you want. They'll have you glowing up in 60 seconds. They did for me. Oh, and definitely try their minimalist defining mascara too. The formula leaves your lashes so soft and feathery, no clumps, and it's the most natural looking definition. Modern day makeup that's clean, strategic and multifunctional for effortless routines.

[00:01:22] [SPEAKER_04] For a limited time, our listeners are getting a free full-sized mascara on their first purchase when they use code MSheet at checkout. Just head to jonesroadbeauty.com and use code MSheet at checkout. After you purchase, they will ask you where you heard about them. Please support our show and tell them our show sent you. I'm Anya, and today in this episode of The Murder Sheet,

[00:01:44] [SPEAKER_04] we're going to be delving into the third day of an ongoing trial for the murder of Faith Hedgepeth in North Carolina. Content warning, this episode contains discussion of rape and murder, as well as graphic descriptions of a crime scene. Before we talk about what happened at the courthouse in Durham County, North Carolina today.

[00:02:08] [SPEAKER_04] On September 7, 2012, 19-year-old Faith Hedgepeth, who was then a sophomore at University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, was found brutally beaten and killed in an apartment that she shared with a roommate in Durham County, North Carolina. That case went unsolved for a number of years until September 16, 2021.

[00:02:34] [SPEAKER_04] That was when police announced the arrest of a man named Miguel Enrique Salguero Olivares. And finally, it seemed like we might get answers, but for Faith's family, they had to wait a number of more years, and we are only just in trial now. So, these things get delayed. And today we're going to be talking about the third day of that trial. And I think the theme for today, if we're going to try to put a theme on different days,

[00:03:02] [SPEAKER_04] is we got even deeper into the crime scene with some experts who processed it. And then we learned from the medical examiner who examined Faith's body what happened to her and the brutality of this crime. So, we're going to be talking about that today. And just as a warning for those of you who might feel uncomfortable with that, this is going to be one of those episodes where we do discuss things that are more disturbing and graphic. And so, just be warned.

[00:03:31] [SPEAKER_04] My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[00:03:34] [SPEAKER_01] And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet. We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:03:46] [SPEAKER_04] And this is The Murder of Faith Hedgepeth, the trial of Miguel Enrique Salguero Olivares, day three, the body.

[00:04:40] [SPEAKER_04] So, Ms. Tamika Price, who is a evidence technician for the Chapel Hill Police Department, continued her testimony today. The person who did the direct examination for that is Brooks Stone. He is an assistant district attorney from Durham County. As you watch the trials, you start to kind of maybe get a little bit of a sense of at least a lawyer's trial personality, if not their actual personality, right?

[00:05:10] [SPEAKER_04] Kevin, it's, you know, when you're in trial, there's a level of performance to it, right?

[00:05:14] [SPEAKER_01] There's certainly a level of performance. But the thing to remember is that lawyers are human beings. A trial is a high-stress, high-pressure environment. It's pretty difficult, if not impossible, throughout a long trial not to let your own real actual personality come through at least a little bit from time to time.

[00:05:34] [SPEAKER_04] And your trial personality probably says something about your real personality, I would think, because if you're going to be playing to your strengths, that's going to come from you even if, yeah. I always feel like lawyers are kind of like the theater kids grown up. But instead of having fun, it's like, let's talk about some really depressing stuff. But, yeah, I don't know. That's my take. You were a theater kid. I was a theater kid. I don't know if you were a theater. You weren't like that. Like, you did plays in high school.

[00:06:03] [SPEAKER_01] I did plays in high school. I still enjoy the theater. Yeah.

[00:06:06] [SPEAKER_04] There you go. So, with Brooks Stone, I got to say, this guy just strikes me. He's kind of delightful to watch in a very grim trial. The word that comes to mind when I see him at every step of the process, oh, hello, Nick. Thanks for joining us. You're a little bit late. The thing about Brooke Stone that just kind of screams from this core TV live stream is he's a very chipper person, it seems like.

[00:06:33] [SPEAKER_04] Like, he's always very, very, like, smiling and kind of, like, upbeat. So, I don't know. It's kind of, he seems, I mean, it's interesting. But I like his style. I mentioned I also like the style of James Rainsford, who is the defense attorney. He has kind of this world-weary style. Some of the different attorneys, I really haven't run into anyone where I found them off-putting. Angela Garcia LaMarca, I talked about her opening.

[00:06:58] [SPEAKER_04] It's very, it was very emotional but forceful and very much leaning into why this is so important. Lisa Coltrane has this very matter-of-fact, direct, you know, keeping things moving style. And I think any of those things can work. I also like the judge in this case, Keith O'Gregory. He seems to be keeping everything running. So, it's nice to see a trial where everyone's behaving professionally and kind of keeping things moving.

[00:07:24] [SPEAKER_04] You don't, you don't, I mean, it can be fun, I guess, for some people when there's someone acting really over the top. But I just find that personally extremely off-putting. So, that's just me. So, anyway, Brooks Stone, Mr. Stone, was direct examining Miss Price. And she talked further about some items that she collected from the scene.

[00:07:45] [SPEAKER_04] She mentioned a pen, blue and gray underwear, blue wine bottle, a panty liner, a used tampon, a tank top, a white bag that had been on the bed. These pieces of items and, you know, stuff that would just be potentially, you know, trash or detritus in any other situation becomes meaningful when they happen to be there when someone is brutally murdered. Because those things might have some evidence on them.

[00:08:14] [SPEAKER_04] They might be able to extract answers from any item at the scene. But one thing you and I have learned talking with crime scene investigators is, you know, sometimes our perceptions on what they should do maybe don't really align with best practices. Like, we've heard this a lot. Like, we're not going to take every single thing. Because, like, we have to basically identify what is most likely to be fruitful in terms of giving us evidence.

[00:08:42] [SPEAKER_04] What is a killer likely to have touched, for instance. And if the crime scene is outdoors, we're not going to, like, pluck every single blade of grass in the, you know, in the whole field. We're going to be going to the spots that it seemed like something happened. So, there's that. So, I think keep that in mind.

[00:09:01] [SPEAKER_04] But also keep in mind that mistakes, when they're committed, especially in crime scene technicians' land in that vast kingdom, can signal to a jury that, oh, this was sloppy or, oh, something went wrong. So, we're going to hear some back and forth ultimately with the defense over this, over mistakes, errors.

[00:09:24] [SPEAKER_04] And we, as people at home, but certainly the jury is going to have to weigh, what is a notable mistake that maybe speaks to the investigation? And does it matter for this case? We often talk about appeals and trials. And, Kevin, I'm going to ask you something we've talked about on the show many times. If I am accused of murder and I go on trial, am I owed a perfect trial?

[00:09:53] [SPEAKER_01] No. No one is owed a perfect trial. Well, the thing to remember, as I've said often before, is that any endeavor that is done by human beings is bound to be in some way imperfect because human beings are imperfect. Even when we have the absolute best of intentions, we're going to make mistakes. So, no, you're not entitled to a perfect trial.

[00:10:21] [SPEAKER_01] I'm not sure if anyone has ever had a perfect trial. What you are entitled to is a fair trial. What that means is people, after the trial, will look at the trial. They would look at the potential things that were done that might be considered errors or imperfections. And they will try to evaluate, is this an error that would have affected the outcome of the case?

[00:10:49] [SPEAKER_01] If this had been done correctly, in other words, might it have changed the verdict? And if the answer is, yes, this is something that could have changed the verdict, then the convicted person is entitled to a new trial. If, on the other hand, it is not an error that would have changed the verdict had it been done correctly, then that is considered a so-called harmless error. And that's the end of it.

[00:11:17] [SPEAKER_04] Well said. And I think, obviously, that's talking about the law, that's talking about jurisprudence and whatnot. Let's take a step back from that. That, the legal realm can be very lofty. But I think, to a certain extent, at least in my mind, a similar principle does exist when we're talking about police investigations. When I'm looking at a police investigation and I'm seeing mistakes, first of all, I'm not surprised.

[00:11:43] [SPEAKER_04] Because I don't have a view of the police or police-related entities around crime scene technicians and whatnot, whether they be law enforcement or civilians. I don't see them as superhuman. I don't see them as the magical people who are on TV, who computer enhance, and then they see, like, a clear license plate. I don't see them as, I see them as people. And they might be skilled people.

[00:12:12] [SPEAKER_04] They might be incompetent people. I don't know them. So, I have to be looking at it just with the idea that, of course, there will be mistakes. Because as any of us who had a job know, you're working on a team project. Is it going to turn out perfect? No. Like, that's impossible. I wrote a lot of articles in my time working in a newsroom. I'm sure some of them had typos in them. Maybe you can even go find them. I don't know. So, there's that.

[00:12:39] [SPEAKER_04] But then we have to look at the errors. And we have to look, does the number of errors, is the quantity, and the importance of those errors, does that add up to perhaps some kind of concerns or even doubt in the integrity of the investigation? Does it seem like things were so incompetent that it's just botched the case? That's one thing I'm looking at. And certainly, there are cases where you can absolutely say the answer to that is yes.

[00:13:08] [SPEAKER_01] Yes, obviously, there are.

[00:13:10] [SPEAKER_04] That happens. It does happen. And then in other instances, it's like, yeah, this is a serious mistake or it's something to note or it's something for certainly the defense attorney to make a big deal about. But it doesn't really change the outcome and it doesn't change the evidence that does exist. And I think a lot of things oftentimes, in my view, fall into that category of like, yeah, it's reasonable to complain about, but it doesn't really matter at the end of the day. And sometimes I feel like when people are more like conspiratorial or contrarian in their views,

[00:13:38] [SPEAKER_04] they tend to really focus on this stuff. And I think oftentimes it is just noise. And it's like, that's interesting and it's perhaps worth talking to to a degree, but it really doesn't erase the evidence against this particular person. So that's something to keep in mind as we talk about Tamika Price and some of her testimony and another evidence technician we'll hear from later.

[00:14:02] [SPEAKER_04] So she's, a lot of this is not visible to me watching it at home because a lot of the more graphic images were not shown on orders of the judges as, you know, is appropriate because...

[00:14:17] [SPEAKER_01] Completely appropriate.

[00:14:18] [SPEAKER_04] Yeah. Faith deserves privacy even in death in my view. But Ms. Price is talking through images. We're seeing, you know, the used tampon in one shot. We're seeing red blood stains, you know, in the corner of the room. One picture shows these kind of blood-soaked pillows on the bed. You can see blood spatter on the walls, sort of indicating this attack.

[00:14:47] [SPEAKER_04] This picture is of the white bag that is kind of being referenced. I'm not stupid, bitch, jealous. And it's all in kind of this block letter scrawl. It's not, you know, people... Somebody actually, one of our patrons asked this, like, could they do crime scene? And could they do handwriting analysis on that? And I don't know. I'm not an expert in that.

[00:15:16] [SPEAKER_04] I imagine the block letters would probably make it harder, but maybe you could still do that. Maybe if someone has any sort of insight or expertise in that, I'd be very curious to know. I think it's a great question. We love looking good and saving money. So we love our wonderful sponsor, Quince. The clothes they make are comfortable, affordable, and they don't go out of style. They're those wardrobe staples you'll reach for again and again. We certainly do.

[00:15:40] [SPEAKER_01] I recently got a pearl snap denim western shirt and denim blue that I wear all the time now. For everyday and for fancier events and get-togethers, it's breathable and comfortable, which is a huge deal for me. And I know as the weather cools, I'll be returning to my Quince sweaters, namely my Australian merino wool cable crewneck sweater and my Mongolian cashmere crewneck sweater. Those are so soft and so perfect for the fall. Their Mongolian cashmere sweaters start at just $60. Check them out.

[00:16:11] [SPEAKER_04] Seriously, get them and we can all match. I love my 100% European linen fit and flare midi dress in chili red and navy blue. I got two of them because I love them so much. The fit is so good. I think they're so cute and I've gotten a lot of compliments wearing them, so love that. And as Kevin said, I can't wait until it's a bit colder out so I can break out my Mongolian cashmere sweaters. That's the great thing about Quince, though. You want to wear these pieces again and again. These are classic pieces.

[00:16:36] [SPEAKER_04] And you're going to want to get even more because these are 50 to 80% less than similar brands because they cut out the middlemen. Refresh your wardrobe without breaking the budget.

[00:16:45] [SPEAKER_01] Find your next fall favorites at Quince. Download the Quince app for app-exclusive offers or go to Quince.com. Get free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK, too. And when Quince asks where you heard about them, let them know it was the murder sheet. It is the best way to support the show. We'd like to give a big thank you to Vinted, the sponsor of this episode.

[00:17:09] [SPEAKER_04] For those of you who haven't seen backgrounds of our lives, the clutter has gotten out of hand at our house. So I've decided to make an effort to do some serious cleaning. One of the places I'm starting is in our bedroom closet. I can't believe all the clothes I had in there that I'd probably frankly never wear again. They were taking up a lot of space. But I didn't want to just be wasteful and throw them away. That didn't seem right. And they have a lot of life in them.

[00:17:32] [SPEAKER_01] That's when we found out about Vinted, a great way to turn the clothes in our closet into money.

[00:17:37] [SPEAKER_04] And also clear up closet space for new clothes.

[00:17:41] [SPEAKER_01] Vinted is a second-hand market app that makes it easy for everyday sellers like us to sell our pre-loved fashion items. I love that this app is free to download and there are no seller fees. That means we get to keep everything we earn.

[00:17:58] [SPEAKER_04] Vinted makes it so easy to list items. They even help you after an item sells by creating prepaid shipping labels. It couldn't be simpler. And that just makes me want to list more and more items. It makes me feel so much better to have a less cluttered closet.

[00:18:13] [SPEAKER_01] And these days, it also helps to be able to earn some extra money, especially when Vinted makes it so easy. That's Vinted. V-I-N-T-E-D. See what's hiding in your closet. You might be surprised how much you can earn with Vinted. Download the Vinted app for free to start listing with no seller fees.

[00:18:33] [SPEAKER_04] Fall means darker days and chilly air. But if you or your partner sleep hot, it can be tricky to get your bedding set up just right. And we all know that health and wellness starts with good sleep. For Kevin and I, that means it starts with amazing, comfortable bedding from our sponsor, Bull & Branch.

[00:18:48] [SPEAKER_01] Stay cozy as the temperatures drop with Bull & Branch. You never sleep hot again. These sheets are going to help you make your bed feel like the coziest, most relaxing place in the world. Somewhere to snuggle up as the winds blow. Their signature sheets are the key ingredient. But they also provide temperature-regulating comforters, cozy and breathable blankets. You are going to want to upgrade your entire bed.

[00:19:11] [SPEAKER_04] We certainly did. Our first foray into Bull & Branch was their signature hemmed sheet set in Dusty Rose. Love the color. Love the matching waffle bed blanket. We actually ran out and bought a second set. These ones are sand-colored. That way, we will never have to go back to regular bedding.

[00:19:26] [SPEAKER_01] Once you try Bull & Branch, you will understand. It's like bedding from a really nice hotel, woven specifically for airflow, not just softness. So you will feel cozy, not hot. We have been getting amazing sleep on these.

[00:19:40] [SPEAKER_04] Plus, I don't know what magic or sorcery they're doing for this, but the more we wash them, the softer they get. I've never had that before. Seriously. Check them out. You're going to melt away. You're going to take your bedtime routine to the max. Bull & Branch sheets are the official pick of the murder sheets from here on out.

[00:19:56] [SPEAKER_01] Upgrade your sleep with Bull & Branch. Get 15% off your first order plus free shipping at bullandbranch.com slash msheet with code msheet. That's bullandbranch. B-O-L-L-A-N-D branch.com slash msheet. Code msheet to unlock 15% off. Exclusions apply.

[00:20:14] [SPEAKER_04] But it doesn't look like someone's normal handwriting in other words. You have a picture of what was inside the bag, a biscuit wrapped in foil. You have images of a white polka dot tank top that come out of this whole thing. And you also have pictures of Faith. And this is where it gets tough. And these are described, but they're not shown. I'll kind of try to get into what is seen based on what's being talked about in trial.

[00:20:43] [SPEAKER_04] There's a picture of her with the comforter pulled back. She had been sort of, her, the lower part of her body had been concealed with this black comforter. But then it is pulled back to show her more clearly for the crime scene investigators. There's photographs of her with the top pushed above her breasts. Blood stains visible on her. There's a picture of, you know, her body sort of between the desk and the side of the bed.

[00:21:12] [SPEAKER_04] Her, you know, she's exposed. She's left exposed and beaten and bloody. You see blood on her ear and face apparently. You're seeing blood congealed inside her left elbow. You're seeing just the aftermath of this really horrific and brutal attack. There's pictures that show the context in which her body is found. Bloody pillows. A cell phone on the top of the pillow. That's her cell phone that is collected.

[00:21:41] [SPEAKER_04] And I was interested when they're talking about these graphic photographs and showing them. Salguero Olivares was, you know, sort of seen. Like, Court TV will cut back to him sort of shaking his head, looking concerned, his hand on his face. I don't believe in really judging people based on their facial expressions during a high-stress environment like a trial. Or certainly not drawing heavy conclusions on them.

[00:22:09] [SPEAKER_04] You know, I just don't feel like that's super helpful. I'm not saying no one's allowed to talk about it. Not at all. I'm just saying, like, for me, I'm looking at the evidence. That being said, I find his whole presence incredibly off-putting. Like, yeah. Like, it... Him shaking his head just seemed like... It seemed like this tweet. Let me pull up the tweet. This is what came to mind.

[00:22:35] [SPEAKER_04] Reading Mein Kampf and shaking my head the whole time so the people on the bus know I disagree. It felt phony and performative to me. But let me tell you something. If I was in a really highly stressful situation, I would probably be thinking about things like, what do I do with my hands? Or how sad should I look? Or how upset? Or, you know, what do I do? Like, you have a camera in your face. You're being accused of doing this.

[00:23:05] [SPEAKER_04] I don't put a lot of weight on my own feelings about how he's acting. That's all I'm saying. Even though I do have them. Like, we can all have feelings about certain things. And then just maybe set them aside. Because maybe they don't really matter that much. And there's certainly many cases where someone can act in a way that some of us might find off-putting. And then there turns out that that's not really a thing. I mean, I think people were saying the same thing about Karina Rosario's, her whole, you know, 911 call.

[00:23:34] [SPEAKER_04] People were like, this is off-putting because she's not acting how I think I would act. And I think that is, we're going to have those human reactions because I think our brains are literally wired to be assessing behavior for threats. And if we see something that doesn't add up, our brain is screaming threat, you know. And that's the way we are. We can acknowledge that. But we don't have to necessarily, like, lean all the way into, like, I get a bad vibe from this guy.

[00:24:01] [SPEAKER_04] Because it should be about the evidence, not vibes. So I'm flagging that to let you know, like, I'm guilty of that, too. I mean, I'm sure you do that, too, Kevin. Like, you know, we analyze and we say, hmm. It's just that I think it's usually better to set that aside. So during the direct examination, Mr. Stone kind of gets from Ms. Price a bit of her process. Why is that important for the jury? Why not just talk about the straight-up evidence? Why do we need to know about, like, how she's doing things?

[00:24:28] [SPEAKER_01] Well, when you're talking about something like this, the results you offer are really only as good as the process you use. If you use a faulty process, if you make mistakes in your process, if you are sloppy in your process, you're not going to get results that the jury should have faith in, not going to get results that the jury should rely in.

[00:24:54] [SPEAKER_01] If, for example, I'm testing something for DNA, and before I test it, I rub it through my hair or things of that nature.

[00:25:05] [SPEAKER_04] Why would you do that, Kevin?

[00:25:07] [SPEAKER_01] I'm not going to get good results. So it's important that the jury be told, here's how we got these results, because this is why you can have faith in them. And on the other hand, it's also appropriate for the defense in situations like this to say, well, we don't think the process is quite right. Here are things we think you should have done differently.

[00:25:27] [SPEAKER_04] So when we're talking about crime scene investigation, what are some parts of the process that you would want to hear about that would make potentially you have faith as a member of the jury and as somebody who's frankly studied this for a long time?

[00:25:42] [SPEAKER_01] I want to hear how the evidence was documented. I want to hear how it was collected. I want to hear what precautions were taken so that it was not tainted.

[00:25:54] [SPEAKER_04] That's exactly right. And this is what Ms. Price talked about. She talked about, you know, her one of the big things we talked about this in our last episode, one of the big things that the CSI is supposed to do, one of the main aspects of their job is photograph the scene as it is, as much as close to what it was. You know, sometimes things get moved around because there's an emergency or because they're trying to save someone's life.

[00:26:18] [SPEAKER_04] But, like, document the scene as kind of close to perfection as possible so that they have that later to show the jury. And she talked about how she was not moving around anything. She was just taking a picture before it's moved. If something needs to get moved, you need to take a picture first because then at least you're documenting it even if it has to be moved. You have her talking about wearing gloves. That's very important.

[00:26:48] [SPEAKER_04] You don't want to be contaminating the whole scene with your own touch DNA if you are a CSI. You want to be preventing that. And you also want to be preventing cross-contamination, which can occur if you're just wearing the same pair of gloves and you're touching this, touching that. You might be getting blood all over the place for all you know. You might be getting somebody's DNA all over the place. It's, you know, it can happen. One way to prevent that, you put on new gloves every time you're touching a new item.

[00:27:17] [SPEAKER_04] You're constantly swapping out gloves. That is what Ms. Price said she was doing. So she was following those standards and just taking a lot of pictures. So she's describing things in a way that's, okay, good. That is what she should be doing. She talked about, again, through some of the even more graphic images, one photograph that I did see that they did show is the bloody stain on the mattress.

[00:27:46] [SPEAKER_04] And it's disturbing to look at. There's no body or anything, but you know what you're looking at and it's horrifying. You have her describing sort of a close-up image of Faith's injuries to her face. Her hands at some point are put in brown paper bags. That, of course, is also to preserve DNA. If there's signs that Faith fought back, there could be DNA under her fingernails, touch DNA, something like that.

[00:28:14] [SPEAKER_04] She talked about how, again, Faith was sort of had a black eye, blood near her chin. At one point, Ms. Price described feeling Faith's head and described that there was an area on the side of her head that was, like, soft, which is horrifying, but sort of indicates how she was killed. So this was an interesting moment, and I'm going to actually play it right now.

[00:28:41] [SPEAKER_04] So what we see is we see Ms. Price putting on gloves as she prepares to sort of take evidence out. This is something that you see people do in trials once in a while. They'll actually break out the evidence out of its seal. She unwraps the paper bag around the bottle, takes out the bottle. Mr. Stone is looking on.

[00:29:08] [SPEAKER_00] All right. This time, I would move to publish the contents of states of the 57 and 57A by having the witness hold the item and walk back and forth in front of the jurors. Any objection? No, you're on. Allowed?

[00:29:26] [SPEAKER_04] Now she's going to do just that. She's going to walk back to the jury and show them the bottle and walk slowly down the jury, giving them an opportunity.

[00:29:51] [SPEAKER_04] And then you also see the defendant, Salguero Olivares, looking on, writing notes with a pencil. So that was what we saw from Ms. Price. What did that remind you of, Kevin? Or what did you think about that?

[00:30:08] [SPEAKER_01] It reminded me of kind of similar moments that we've seen in other trials, like in the Delphi trial where evidence is taken out very carefully because, again, it's very important that the jury know that the evidence has not been contaminated.

[00:30:24] [SPEAKER_04] Tell us about those times in Delphi that we saw that. And what did, what kind of impact do you feel that has on a jury?

[00:30:31] [SPEAKER_01] I think it has tremendous impact on a jury because just watching it being unwrapped kind of underscores the care that has been taken to preserve that evidence. It's more than just words. You're seeing it in front of you with your own eyes.

[00:30:48] [SPEAKER_04] I can say that in Delphi, one moment that stood out to me was you had Lieutenant Jerry Holman of the Indiana State Police take out, put on gloves, unbox a Sig Sauer handgun that belonged to that child murderer, Richard Allen. And because the case involved essentially a handgun being used in the crime but not as the murder weapon, what was important was that the jury get to hear it being racked

[00:31:18] [SPEAKER_04] because that was something that was involved in the case. And we heard Lieutenant Holman rack the gun. And I remember just like, wow, that is a loud and frankly scary sound. And that was, I think, what they wanted us to get out of it because that ended up being important for the facts of that case. And in this case, we're seeing this bottle being shown around. And it's not as clear when I'm watching it,

[00:31:44] [SPEAKER_04] but it's testified to that there is blood on this. There is blood on this bottle. This bottle, the state believes, was the thing, the object, the blunt object used to bash Faith to death and to brutally assault her. So the jury is seeing this and they're not just seeing a bottle. They're seeing the remaining smears of blood.

[00:32:10] [SPEAKER_04] They're seeing this in the context of looking at all these pictures of what happened to Faith and the aftermath of the attack in her room as photographed by Ms. Price. So yeah, I think this is a powerful moment for that jury because it kind of brings that all together. So that was not the only item Ms. Price took out at the behest of Mr. Stone. She also, I believe, at the behest of Mr. Stone,

[00:32:38] [SPEAKER_04] she also showed other items like a blue wine bottle, boxer shorts, things like that to the jury. This stuff has all already gone through the North Carolina State Crime Lab. And so now they have it and now is the time to show it to that jury. I mean, I just want to say too, I feel so bad for this jury today because, I mean, I'm not seeing what they're seeing,

[00:33:04] [SPEAKER_04] but it's brought me, it brings me back to, yeah, Delphi where we saw some horrifying stuff. And I don't know, it's like you have this panel of everyday citizens plucked out of their lives and dropped into a horror show, essentially. It's a really important thing, our jury system. I believe in it strongly.

[00:33:29] [SPEAKER_04] I think it's the way things should be and I support it. I think that's what our founders intended. But it can be traumatic in itself to just see some of this stuff. And so I think, you know, my heart goes out to them today because I imagine they were seeing a lot of stuff that may linger with them for the rest of their lives.

[00:33:53] [SPEAKER_04] Now, one thing about the Bacardi bottle that is important to note that the defense is definitely going to have something to say about is that in the photograph shown, it's very clearly not photographed in situ or in the scene. It is photographed at the police station. So why is that a bit surprising, Kevin, given that we're talking about the potential murder weapon here?

[00:34:19] [SPEAKER_01] You would expect it to be photographed at the scene so people could see exactly in what condition it was in and where it was located when it was discovered before anybody moved it.

[00:34:31] [SPEAKER_04] Right. And when I heard that, before even hearing the defense cross-examination, I was like, oh no.

[00:34:39] [SPEAKER_01] Here we go.

[00:34:39] [SPEAKER_04] Here we go. Like, that seems like a problem. Now, a couple things. It's not just because it turns out that now they think that is the murder weapon doesn't mean that they initially would have deduced that. But again, it speaks to thoroughness, I think. And it speaks to best practices being followed. One thing that came out through all of this is that Miss Price started as a crime scene technician

[00:35:08] [SPEAKER_04] on July 24th, 2012. This crime happened September 7th, 2012. She was still in training when this happened. So she is processing the scene, but she is under the direction of another, a former Chapel Hill PD forensic evidence technician named Shalia Thea Quick. And that's one thing to note here because I feel like that may factor into some of what happens.

[00:35:38] [SPEAKER_04] One thing the defense wanted to focus on for a while outside of the bottle was a report that Miss Price wrote on September 10th, 2012. And in that report, she reveals that when she examined the bathroom of this small apartment, she found an area on the door frame that looked to her like it could be a bloodstain. And she described it as a bloodstain.

[00:36:07] [SPEAKER_04] And she was asked by the defense, have you changed your opinion on that? No. Answer is no. She still thinks it was a bloodstain. She swabbed it and they lost the swab. This is a problem because it speaks to the thoroughness. What happened was later on, she and Miss Quick realized that there was no entry for that swab in the computer system. They go looking for it. They search everywhere.

[00:36:34] [SPEAKER_04] They search their van, all the places it might be, and they're not finding it. And this was an issue apparently the defense had brought up pretrial about missing evidence, lost evidence. So this is kind of bringing all that right before the jury and saying, okay, what do you make of that? Is that a shocking loss? Is this something that you feel like is a bad thing but fits into what you might expect mistakes could be made?

[00:37:04] [SPEAKER_04] Or is it not a big deal at all and who cares?

[00:37:07] [SPEAKER_01] I think it's not a huge deal. As I say, nothing is perfect that human beings do. We are fundamentally flawed. We make mistakes. We don't do things all the time as carefully as we would like.

[00:37:21] [SPEAKER_04] To me, it's definitely something that I don't blame the defense for making a huge deal about. I think that is a good idea for them to do from their perspective. I think that's kind of it. You know, I see why they're making a big deal about it.

[00:37:35] [SPEAKER_01] Of course, it's their obligation to do whatever they can to cast doubt on this case.

[00:37:40] [SPEAKER_04] Yeah. And saying, hey, these forensic technicians are so sloppy they lost entire swabs. But, like, do I believe that this swab would have likely changed the outcome of everything? No. I think I see the connective tissue between this and the defense emphasizing that Karina, the roommate, was in the bathroom for so long. And, like, maybe she left the blood because she's the perpetrator.

[00:38:07] [SPEAKER_04] But I guess, for me, like, so much of that just seems conjecture and, like, a couple of small things adding up to a huge kind of, like, logical leap.

[00:38:26] [SPEAKER_04] Because there's so many things to me that point away from Karina being involved in this as far as, like, what you would expect of, like, her being covered in blood or clothing belonging to her being covered in blood. And being, like, there's just, also, I mean, just everyone testified to them being closest sisters and getting along extremely well. And, like, it just, I don't know.

[00:38:50] [SPEAKER_04] That being said, the defense does not have to prove someone else did it in order to save their client. And it can be a good strategy to really underscore the mistakes police made and make a big deal about it to say, like, listen, can we really trust this evidence? Can we really trust how thorough this was? Especially as people are weighing, I mean, these jurors are weighing a big decision. This could send this defendant away for life.

[00:39:17] [SPEAKER_04] I mean, Salguero Olivares is facing, I would imagine, pretty substantive, you know, prison sentence if he's convicted of this.

[00:39:26] [SPEAKER_01] It's a pretty big decision these jurors have to make. And certainly in conversations we've had with jurors on important cases, it's something they take very seriously. It's not an easy thing to do to sit in a courtroom and look at the defendant and know that if you decide a certain way, maybe this person will never take another breath of free air again.

[00:39:50] [SPEAKER_01] Maybe this person's family is never going to enjoy life with him as a free man ever again. That's a very heavy responsibility. Ultimately, it's very easy to say that, well, you know, as jurors, you shouldn't think about that. You should just think about deciding the facts of the case and let the sentence be up to the judge. But realistically, that is something that's going to be on the mind of these jurors.

[00:40:15] [SPEAKER_04] And to me, it's like with this situation, I think to me the swab is a pretty big mistake. I don't know that it really matters in the long term, but it would definitely make me be like, okay. At the same time, I don't think that means that everyone involved is an incompetent, you know, is incompetent because I think stuff does happen. So it doesn't make me look at Ms. Price as like, oh, you messed everything up.

[00:40:44] [SPEAKER_04] You know, I just think it can happen. It's unfortunate, but, you know, that's kind of life. So the other big mistake, as far as the defense is concerned, is that the Bacardi bottle was not photographed in situ. According to Price's testimony, she said the Bacardi bottle was almost kind of rolled in the black comforter, almost like the killer had bashed Faith with it and then like rolled it up all together with her body.

[00:41:11] [SPEAKER_04] And that they got it out. So it kind of rolled out as a result of that. But they still should have photographed it like where it came out. And she's not sure why that didn't happen. She acknowledged that that's not what should have happened, though. I thought she handled herself well on the stand. She had a lot to offer as far as taking us through the crime scene. And then there were these issues that were brought up. There were other issues. There was a...

[00:41:40] [SPEAKER_04] One of the investigators wanted Faith's cell phone brought to him very quickly as it was on the pillow. She brought it to him. And that kind of was a problem for processing it later because he would have gotten his DNA on it. And they had to end up... Like, they basically couldn't really process it as much as they might have been able to. Otherwise, had she not done that... Again, she's new. I kind of put that more on the investigator than her. I don't know.

[00:42:11] [SPEAKER_04] I think there were issues here. I think she handled herself well as far as addressing all those things. And saying, I should have done this differently. I should have documented this better. They were criticizing her by not noting in her report some of these issues. And she didn't get defensive. She was just basically like, yeah. Like, you know, I messed up with that. I would do it different. I tried my best, but there were some issues. So she didn't...

[00:42:38] [SPEAKER_04] She didn't like fall apart in front of the jury, I don't think. But these issues were highlighted. The next witness to come up was her supervisor, Ms. Quick, former supervisor. She was a former forensic technician. And the prosecution, like, only really talked to her for like a minute. Like, it was a pretty quick direct examination. Then the defense cross-examined her.

[00:43:03] [SPEAKER_04] And they were asking about, hey, where is this missing swab? She talked about the process of realizing it was missing, realizing, you know, basically what happened was the North Carolina Bureau of Investigation at some point came in to help Chapel Hill PD with the case. And then they were like, hey, can we have this swab? And they were like, sure. And then they were like, we cannot find it. And they looked for it, searched everywhere, evidence room, their truck, you know, wherever. And they couldn't find it.

[00:43:32] [SPEAKER_04] The defense wanted to highlight that. One can understand why. And I think it's worth highlighting. Next was Dr. Lauren Scott. So Dr. Lauren Scott is an associate chief medical examiner with the North Carolina Medical Examiner's Office. North Carolina is a state, apparently, now we know, that is on a medical examiner system as opposed to a state like where we live, Indiana, which is on a coroner system. Medical examiners are physicians.

[00:44:00] [SPEAKER_04] And they operate out of a more centralized system where there's like a chief medical examiner and then all these various medical examiners are hired on and then tasked with doing autopsies for various places in the state. A coroner is not, does not have, they can be a physician, but they don't have to be. They're often funeral home directors, funeral directors.

[00:44:25] [SPEAKER_04] They might be emergency medical technician, paramedic. They could be anyone. They're an elected position in Indiana. And we do have forensic pathologists here, but those are sort of brought in on special cases as opposed to the chief medical examiner doing it. Dr. Scott actually started practicing medicine in the very year she did this autopsy, which was 2012. So she was new.

[00:44:51] [SPEAKER_04] She had worked in pathology specifically since 2007, and she is now a board certified expert in forensic pathology. When you talk to people who know this sort of thing, that's the person you want examining the body. They have the most expertise. The autopsy occurred very quickly after the murder was discovered September 7th. September 8th, the autopsy happens in Chapel Hill.

[00:45:17] [SPEAKER_04] So what Dr. Scott testified to was that Faith incurred the following injuries. Blunt force injuries made by some kind of object, which caused, you know, the skin to be almost cut and split open. And that resulted in these, you know, lacerations on her face or her temple area, her scalp. And she had a lot of bruising on her face.

[00:45:46] [SPEAKER_04] She had a lot of bruising on her back, her arm. And she also had like scrapes on her knees. She had bleeding within her brain and she had bleeding around the brain. The jury was apparently shown some of these pictures that were taken of Faith at the medical examiner's office. I imagine that was utterly horrifying.

[00:46:13] [SPEAKER_04] And Dr. Scott sort of narrated and talked us through some of those things. The black eyes she had, the laceration on her forehead, you know, her, her, her, all of her injuries. And how the right side of her skull was even fractured by the extent of this. But all that being said, while we can tell a lot about the injuries that Faith incurred,

[00:46:40] [SPEAKER_04] there's limitations on what we can conclude about that, at least as far as Dr. Scott is concerned. Let's hear from Dr. Scott now. And Dr. Scott, for the record, was direct examined by Special State Prosecutor Lisa Coltrane, who, again, I feel has been very good in these direct examinations. So let's listen to Dr. Scott here.

[00:47:03] [SPEAKER_03] Based upon your training and experience as a forensic pathologist, what, if anything, could you tell about the weapon that was used to inflict the injuries upon Faith?

[00:47:12] [SPEAKER_02] The injuries were blunt force injuries, meaning they were made with some instrument that did not have a sharp or cutting edge. This obviously encompasses a lot of different types of things. I cannot be more specific. There is no scientific way to say any more than it was a blunt instrument without a sharp cutting edge.

[00:47:33] [SPEAKER_03] Would it be at least consistent with a thick glass bottle?

[00:47:36] [SPEAKER_02] That would be one type of instrument that we'd be consistent with that, yes.

[00:47:41] [SPEAKER_03] Are you able to pinpoint a time of death?

[00:47:44] [SPEAKER_02] Again, there is no scientific way to determine an exact time of death. Unfortunately, all the television shows make it seem like we can do that, but in real life, there is no scientific way to determine that.

[00:47:57] [SPEAKER_03] Dr. Scott, during autopsies, are sexual assault examinations performed?

[00:48:02] [SPEAKER_02] Sexual assault examinations are performed. The examination is performed, and every autopsy to sexual assault kit is taken when indicated by law enforcement request or by observations we make during the autopsy.

[00:48:16] [SPEAKER_04] All right. So surely this is a massive disaster for the state, right, Kevin? Because she's not able to say, yes, the bottle is what killed her. She has to say, scientifically, I can't tell you. I just can tell you it's a blunt instrument. Surely that is just catastrophic, right?

[00:48:31] [SPEAKER_01] No, it's expected. People who work with science tend to be very particular with their language and very careful about how they phrase things.

[00:48:42] [SPEAKER_04] Which is what we want.

[00:48:43] [SPEAKER_01] It's exactly what we want.

[00:48:45] [SPEAKER_04] Do we want people who are positioned as experts on the stand overstating things and then turning out to be wrong later? No. That's how we get junk science coming into the court. What we have here instead is a professional woman who is forthright and saying, I can't say for certain. It would be unscientific. But she is noting that it is consistent with the bottle. And the jury can make the leap between the bottle being in the running

[00:49:14] [SPEAKER_04] and the bottle being covered in blood. So, yeah. I think sometimes when I see discussions of crimes online, I see people kind of missing the forest for the trees in instances like this. Or they're like, oh no, they can't tell. And it's like, they don't need to. They don't need to. Right? I mean, the jury can have common sense.

[00:49:39] [SPEAKER_04] We heard her talk a little bit about the sexual assault element of this case, a really horrifying element of this case. And she was asked, essentially, were there injuries to indicate sexual assault? And she noted that blood was found. But, of course, we know that Faith Hedgepeth was menstruating at the time of her death.

[00:50:05] [SPEAKER_04] So, that's believed to be associated with that and not any specific injuries. She said that there were no lacerations or contusions, so cuts or bruises in the uterine area of the body. But she did note that none of those injuries were observed.

[00:50:28] [SPEAKER_04] But anyone who perhaps, you know, follows cases like this one where there is a sexual element can tell you that someone could be forcibly raped and not be injured in that part of their body. What is more relevant here is the presence of the sperm and DNA of a male offender.

[00:50:56] [SPEAKER_04] Now, I'll be curious to see what the defense does with this. I imagine they might be trying to argue, hey, maybe she had consensual sex with this man. Or at least we can't rule that out. And I think in some instances that would be certainly effective, right? If the suspect were someone that we could look at and say, okay, he actually did have a personal relationship with Faith, and this is how they knew each other,

[00:51:22] [SPEAKER_04] and he might be someone that she would want to consent to have sex with. That could be important. And then maybe it's like the timeline's wrong and whatever. But they're going to have to, I think they'd have to get there and kind of explain all that, frankly, in order for that to work. Because, yeah. Lack of injuries does not mean no rape. What are your thoughts on any of this?

[00:51:46] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, I agree. I share your curiosity to see what the defense is going to do with this. They have some interesting options, some which are potentially risky. I'll be curious to see what happens next.

[00:52:02] [SPEAKER_04] Yes. Dr. Scott was cross-examined by the defense. They wanted to know how quickly can someone die from blunt force trauma. Dr. Scott answered it could be seconds, could be minutes. And they wanted to know, like, are you sticking by seconds? And she said yes. So, yeah. And they also emphasized the lack of injuries, lacerations, uterine area, things like that. So that was pretty much what happened at trial today.

[00:52:31] [SPEAKER_04] Very forensically oriented day. Very troubling day. And I'll be curious to see. They're going to pick this back up Monday. And we'll certainly be watching and trying to analyze this and present it to you all in a way hopefully we can all follow. But, again, let's just think about Faith Hedgepeth. And, I mean, it's so sad to me that she was 19 back in 2012. Now, all these years later, she'd be, like, a full-fledged adult probably doing some cool stuff.

[00:53:01] [SPEAKER_04] And she had to miss out on all of that because somebody decided that seemingly their own selfish needs were more important than her life. Which is the kind of crime that really galls me. So, yeah.

[00:53:17] [SPEAKER_01] Thanks so much for listening to The Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail dot com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[00:53:36] [SPEAKER_04] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[00:54:01] [SPEAKER_01] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for The Murder Sheet. And who you can find on the web at kevintg.com.

[00:54:11] [SPEAKER_04] If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.