The Miramar Murders EP5 | The Verdict | Forensic Files

[studio music] [music playing] Pablo was convinced Gene Klimeczko will never come to court and say anything bad about me.
He won't do it. CHUCK MORTON: 125. So this is the video itself. Do you recognize the person in that video?
GENE KLIMECZKO: Yes. CHUCK MORTON: Could you point to it and describe who that person is.
That's Pablo. CHUCK MORTON: Pablo Ibar? GENE KLIMECZKO: Yes. CHUCK MORTON: The same man you've identified
here in the courtroom today? Yes. CHUCK MORTON: I don't have any further questions, Judge.
[siren] I think it's the elevator, I think, Judge. The fourth floor. [laughing] Other than that--
I didn't mention my bailiff is telepathic. He can sense-- No, I'm listening to the radio.
[laughing] BAILIFF: If I was like that, I'd be working in Vegas, Judge. [music playing]
In my mind, that's the lie detector test just going crazy, and I'm hoping some of the jurors
thought the same exact thing. HILLIARD MOLDOF: They're lying. They're all lying.
But back then I think he really said anything. When they first come to him, and they go, who's in here,
they were saying to him, show us your shoes. They thought he was in the murder, and he's been-- just came out of prison two weeks before.
He'd just come home when this thing happens. So they're looking at his sneakers.
He knows why they're looking at his sneakers. I think he was involved, so a scared guy says anything.
Oh, it's them, it's them, anybody. No, don't look at me. Look at everybody else.
REPORTER: --former roommate, there is no question. HILLIARD MOLDOF: Well, I don't know
if this should be on camera or whatever, but I think he was there. I think he did the murder.
Not inside the house-- outside. [intriguing music] So there's been a theory thrown out there.
There's a car that comes. Four people are in it. Two people go into the house. Two people wait outside.
The one guy with the shirt goes outside, brings them the keys to the Mercedes. Those two guys who were waiting leave in the Mercedes,
and the two murderers leave in whatever car they came in. And who Gary Foy saw were not actually the murderers.
They were the other people. FRED HADDAD: I don't think there's any question there was a third person.
They were focused on what they had. Once that they got that flyer together, there was never anything they were going
to do to investigate much else. They figured they had what they needed. Manzella causes a lot of doubt in everyone's mind.
PAUL MANZELLA: And that's still the mystery to this particular case. How did they get here?
I mean, unless they walked here, there's no other means of transportation to get here.
That's still a mystery. Who got them here? Because there was no car left behind if they did bring a car,
so we don't know which of the persons brought them here. We could have suspected that it was Rincon.
It was suspected that it was Klimeczko. Anyone that may have lived at that Lee Street address
very well could have driven them here. JUDGE: Cross-examination. Mister Morton? Sir, just one other thing.
Did you receive or get any rewards for the information that you gave to the police?
Yes. CHUCK MORTON: From whom? GENE KLIMECZKO: Crime Stoppers. CHUCK MORTON: How much?
GENE KLIMECZKO: I think it was a thousand dollars. CHUCK MORTON: How did that come about?
After the statement, one of the detectives mentioned there's a Crime Stoppers reward out for this.
If you call them, you can get the reward. So I did. There you go. No further questions.
JUDGE: Thank you. JOE NASCIMENTO: Referring to the 2012 transcript, volume three of four, page 330.
Call the following questions and answers. Question. OK, and I asked you, did you ever
try to collect a Crime Stoppers reward of a thousand dollars in this case in return for giving testimony to the police
that night? Answer. No. Question. And did the police tell you that you could get that reward
that night if you would help them the next day and give a statement? Answer. No, they did not.
So when you testified in 2012, was that a lie? I was with the impression it's anonymous.
[intriguing music] JOE NASCIMENTO: From day one, they offered him something. He accepted it, and then they all agreed to keep
it a secret for 25 years. Under oath, he denied ever being given anything by the police.
The police denied ever giving him something. Chuck Morton denied it ever happened.
So is it possible that the truth is that he made up that story to the police? Well, we know he was paid the next day.
We know he was addicted to drugs at the time. We know he didn't have any money. So for the detective to go up to him
and say, look, this is what we need you to tell us, and we'll make sure you get this Crime Stoppers money--
CHUCK MORTON: Klimeczko certainly knew something about the case and the people involved.
He took various positions. He must have been going through some sort of turmoil himself.
His loyalty to his friends, and I think in the long run, his sense of conscience and justice to the family
won out over his initial loyalty to Pablo Ibar. Isn't it true that your use of drugs
absolutely obliterated your memory during that time period? No, it's not true. Isn't it true you've testified to that several times?
Yeah, I've already admitted here that I lied in previous court proceedings to do with this case in order to try and protect Pablo and Seth.
JOE NASCIMENTO: And throughout all of those times, the defense attorneys in the case
made allegations and called you a drug addict, right? Yes. They called you a liar?
Kind of like you're doing. [laughs] Right, yes. JOE NASCIMENTO: You never in '97 or 2000 or '99
said, you know what? I'm gonna tell the truth now. You continued in your lies, correct?
Correct. JOE NASCIMENTO: Because you say that you were protecting my client, the guy who had kicked you out of his house,
accused you of stealing. You were protecting him, correct? At one time, I loved Pablo.
We were great friends. JOE NASCIMENTO: And you came into a courtroom similar to this, raised your right hand, swore to the oath,
looked at a jury, and lied to them? [laughs] Yes, I did. JOE NASCIMENTO: OK. [music intensifies]
And it was just so incredibly difficult when you're dealing with a witness who comes to court
and says, everything I said before was a lie. Now I'm telling the truth. Because every time I confront him with a lie,
he's just gonna say, yeah, that was a lie, but now I'm telling the truth. And how do I combat that?
How do I rebut that to the jury? ALEXIS SUCHARSKI: I think it was just him growing as a person
and realizing that telling the truth about things is important because he, I guess, was a troubled kid,
and you do crazy things then. So I guess as you go get older, some people realize what they need to do.
Klimeczko became very, very, very problematic, and he's picking Pablo out on the video
and saying, that's him. And plus you have the enhanced videos and the enhanced pictures.
I think it became difficult. I think Klimeczko really hurt us. You could ask questions differently on some things.
I can't say because it's not my-- I don't want to criticize anybody. I wish Fred cross-examined Klimeczko because he
would have tore him up. There was a decision made to have me cross-examine Klimeczko
at the very last minute, which was horrible for me because I hadn't prepared for it.
So there was a long two days of preparing for that. I think Fred would have been a better personality
for that because Fred would have just been like, you're a liar. And he may have even said, in court
because he gets away with that. Four lawyers is a horrible thing. Initially Alan Ross was gonna handle
probably a little bit more-- a majority of the witnesses at trial. The idea was Fred was gonna handle Klimeczko and Manzella,
and Benji and I would help. It was perfect. We were all in the same office. We all knew each other.
We knew how we worked. There was no learning curve. Personalities were in clash.
Obviously things changed dramatically when Alan passed away, obviously, and somehow
very quickly it just changed. And no one talked about it. It just happened, and what happened
is then no one stepped up to be the leader because no one allowed anyone else to step up to be the leader.
And we had an overly-involved client and a way too involved family. But so much of our time was spent repeating things
and discussing things, and it was impossible to get to a decision. WOMAN: I told him the same thing.
JOE NASCIMENTO: So I don't think anyone would have ever been permitted to step up and say,
I'm the leader of this team. I don't think Pablo would have ever let that happen because what he did, unknowingly--
I don't think he did it on purpose-- is he would play us against each other. And he didn't do it on purpose, I don't think, but it just--
it didn't facilitate an effective team. We cannot be effective giving over so much power.
If I had-- give me back 25% of the time that I spent and wasted on talking about the same issue
over and over again with family and friends and Pablo, just give me 25%, I would be ecstatic to have
that time to work on the case. JUDGE: Do you have another witness to call? We do not, Judge.
JUDGE: Have you had a chance to talk with your client about his decisions? JOE NASCIMENTO: We have.
All right. Mister Ibar, please raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth?
HILLIARD MOLDOF: Yes, sir. You go ahead and stand up. Are there any other witnesses that you wanted your attorneys
to talk to about the possibility of giving evidence that they haven't talked to yet?
Do you follow what I'm saying? Yeah, I follow what you're saying. OK. Are there any objects, whether it's documents,
photographs, things like that, that you wanted to put into evidence that they have not?
How are we going to get everything into evidence? JUDGE: That's up to you. I don't give advice on how to put things in evidence.
But what I don't want to have happen is that the trial's over with, and you say, Judge, I wanted to put A, B, and C
into evidence, and they didn't. So I'm trying to find out that now before you rest your case.
When you rest your case, Mister Ibar, you're saying, I'm done. I'm not putting on any more testimony.
I'm not putting on any evidence. There's nothing wrong with that decision. I just want to make sure that I'm reminding you,
this is what happens in the past, that you put on an alibi defense, saying I couldn't have done this crime.
I wasn't even there. And I've not heard that evidence in this case. Is it your decision not to put on that evidence?
Yes, sir. JUDGE: All right. Your attorneys have a responsibility to give you their best advice, but the responsibility
for making the decision of whether to testify or not is always the client's, not the lawyers.
Have you had time to talk to your attorneys about these decisions? Yes, sir. JUDGE: OK, what's your decision, Mister Ibar?
Do you wish to testify, or do you wish to maintain your silence? I'm not testifying.
JUDGE: OK, you wish to maintain your right to remain silent. With the advice from my counsel.
[somber music] BENJAMIN WAXMAN: This was a strategic decision about whether or not to present the alibi--
one of the most important decisions in the case. But it was a decision that Pablo made
with the advice of his four attorneys, and Tanya would have done anything. She was ready.
She would have testified. She would have done everything that she needed to do. And what we had to do is determine the risks.
Do I believe that her story is true? I do believe her story was true, but the question is,
is how would it have come out to the jury, the presentation of that alibi testimony?
And that's a huge risk, but it's a decision that was made. JUDGE: As I mentioned to you yesterday,
the attorneys will have the opportunity to present closing arguments to you. We've reached that time.
The attorneys will now present their final arguments. CHUCK MORTON: You know, the more things change,
the more they stay the same. [serene music] This case has been part of this court system since 1994.
Lots of things have changed since then. KEVIN KULIK: None of the evidence-- none
of the corroborating evidence-- shows that Mister Ibar was even there. That's because he wasn't there.
He didn't commit this crime. Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't going away.
And the sun has come out in the form of DNA, but things still remain the same because the DNA
is just one aspect of corroborating Mister Ibar's guilt. KEVIN KULIK: The prosecutor and I agree that the DNA
essentially resolves the case. We have the shirt, and we have the DNA tests. And all of the DNA tests taken from five different points
on the shirt are positive. We can identify the person on the shirt-- unknown number one.
And that's what this case was all about. Who are the people on this tape? That's how we got here.
It's still the same. It's still in evidence, and it's still running. KEVIN KULIK: Detective Manzella had one guy who
looked similar to a video, and he decided right at the start to go after this guy and exclude all of the other evidence
in the case. This is the guy. This is the guy that we're going to charge with the crime.
The case never changes from that time because they had no case, and they had to solve this crime.
Based on the wall, based on the evidence, consider this case. You'll find beyond a reasonable doubt
Mister Pablo Ibar committed this crime. And based on the law and the evidence, don't let this man get away with murder.
KEVIN KULIK: At the conclusion of all of the evidence in the case, the only logical verdict
that you'll be able to render in this case, finally, not guilty on every count. Thank you.
JUDGE: All right, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, during deliberations, jurors must communicate
about the case only with one another and only when all jurors are present in the jury room.
Yes, ma'am? If it does go into the weekend, we don't deliberate on the weekends?
JUDGE: You don't stop deliberating until you reach verdicts. Period. Saturday, Sunday, Monday.
It doesn't matter. It's not a vacation. It's work. It's a lot of hard work. OK, anything else?
I thank you very much. You may now retire to deliberate your verdicts. [somber music]
We don't like to think about what is or isn't going to happen. Our job is to present the evidence as best we can.
Our evidence, our job, is to make sure the jury gets that evidence. Anybody can get exonerated.
Anybody can get convicted. We had our own feelings about the evidence and how strong we felt that it was,
but it's, again, that's the jury's consideration. CHUCK MORTON: It's gonna be tough.
It's gonna be hard. We've gotta go through this again. But I think the evidence is still there,
and we've gotta pursue it. And that's justice for the family. We've gotta keep going.
DEBORAH BOWIE: I don't know what a fitting punishment is. I'm not god. But I do know that Pablo Ibar is where he is
because he put himself there. He could have made a totally different choice that Sunday morning.
There was no reason to kill them. So who knows? I will prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
No matter what happens, I mean, I've already lived through all of this. Whatever happens, I'm prepared.
BRYAN BONN: It's probably good to have no expectations. My guess is everything is on the table.
In other words, it's open. Anything can happen at this point. We've seen it. JOE NASCIMENTO: When I lay down last night to go to bed,
I just envisioned the various scenarios of what's gonna happen. I envisioned the jury walking in the room and saying not guilty
and what's that celebration look like. I envisioned being in Spain and celebrating with all the people
that have supported us. I've envisioned having dinner with Pablo at a steakhouse here
in South Florida. And then I think about the other alternative, and how is it going to impact me if we lose?
BENJAMIN WAXMAN: I've been with Pablo for 12 years. There's nothing more important that's ever happened in my life
than this case, this trial. I just think we gave it everything we could, and it's now in the jury's hands.
I want I want Pablo to go home to his family. I want the torture for his family, for him, to end.
I want the torture for the families of the victims to end. It ends. It ends if he's found not guilty.
It ends for everybody. Go far. Go far. Hut. Get the ball. Yes. Oh, you-- [chatter]
Incomplete. [chatter] ... I can't pass it. Let's go. TANYA IBAR: You just don't know what
those 12 people are thinking. I'm frightened. How are we gonna get through this?
Am I going to come home with my husband that we can be with our family and our children?
Or am I going to have to come home and explain something else? And I don't think people realize how hard
or how much that scares me of how am I gonna do that. [sentimental music] My dad's in jail which I just don't like it.
I want my dad back really much. JAVIER IBAR: It feels like nobody's there for me.
Other people have their dads, and I don't. Sometimes I feel sad, but happy because he's
coming home one day. It's gonna be fun when he comes home. Mommy never told me the whole story.
She only told me one story. It's like this tells me the story. Hey, Google, what is Pablo Ibar?
On the website sun-sentinel.com they say Pablo Ibar spent 16 years on death row, convicted--
the mic's off. Ever every kid has a father that really cares about them, and they have a lot of fun with them.
And I wish I could have that. I can't. And now I'm 11, and now I feel like I'm growing without him.
I just want him home. [cries] I want him home. There's no easy question with the children.
We did what we thought was best. We love each other, and you start to realize that life is moving forward.
I'm not getting younger, and I think that our love is so great. To not allow our love to continue
on in life for generations, it was just not fair in my mind. We chose that we would have a child
in this terrible situation, and was it selfish to do this to them? Yeah, it was.
For that, I do feel bad because they don't deserve that, and they didn't choose that.
We did. [cries] So that does hurt me for them. If he doesn't come home, that does.
I, in a way, hate myself for that, to doing that to them. But that being said, I also believe,
even though my kids don't have their dad home, they are loved-- not only by me, by Pablo.
And they love Pablo. That's a big controversy over those children. I don't know.
People keep saying that because of the children, he shouldn't get the death penalty.
But my dad got the death penalty, and nobody asked me if I was gonna be OK when I was 10.
KEVIN KULIK: There's a 99% chance that there'll be a verdict today. It's a very difficult case, a very complicated case.
It took a long time to try. It all comes down to the jury. Right now, I would say we have a chance with this one, this one,
this one, this one, and in the back, this one, this gentleman. So the issue is, do those people overcome the other ones?
I thought that the clerk from Dade County would be our best juror. She's gonna be independent and make the decision
that she wants to make. She certainly is not gonna be afraid to give a not guilty verdict on a case.
She looks at us a lot. She seems to be very pleasant. It's not the kind of thing that you would do if you're
about to execute somebody. The only gentleman I haven't talked about is this gentleman right here, the bald-headed guy,
because we can hardly see him. He's very difficult to read. He seems to be having a wonderful time.
He listens very intently to every argument with a smile on his face, and he nods as everybody
is speaking on both sides. So you've got me. I don't know. [suspenseful music] All right, we're back on the record.
State of Florida versus Pablo Ibar, case number 94-13062 CF10B. Mister Ibar is present with counsel.
State's present. For obvious reasons, no matter what the verdicts are, somebody is gonna be very unhappy.
Somebody is gonna be very happy. You have a right to be present during any kind of court proceeding unless you disrupt the proceedings.
So if anybody cheers or claps or jeers or hisses or makes any noise or reacts physically in any way to the verdicts,
you'll be immediately escorted out of the courtroom. Do not disrupt the proceedings.
Please respect the process. Stay ready? PROSECUTOR: Yes, sir. JUDGE: Defense ready?
KEVIN KULIK: Yes, Judge. Bring in the jury. All right, let the record reflect the jury
has re-entered the room. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, have you reached verdicts on all charges?
Yes, we have. JUDGE: Please hand the verdict forms to the court deputy. All right, the verdicts are in legal order.
The verdicts read as follows. In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida, case number 94, Judge
Dennis D. Bailey, State of Florida, plaintiff versus Pablo Manuel Ibar defendant,
verdict count one. We the jury finds as follows as to count one on the charging document, the defendant is guilty of murder
in the first degree as charged in the charging document. Verdict as to count two, we the jury
finds as follows, as to count two alleged in the charging document, the defendant is guilty of armed
burglary of a dwelling. As to count three, we the jury finds as follows, as to count
three alleged in the charging document, the defendant is guilty of armed robbery with a firearm.
As to count four, we the jury finds as follows, as to count four alleged in the charging document,
the defendant is guilty of attempted armed robbery with a firearm. So say we all, this 19th day of January, 2019,
at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County, Florida. Signed by the foreperson. Ladies and gentlemen, as I explained previously,
that if the jury came back with guilty as charged, there would be a second phase of your responsibility.
So you are not excused as jurors at this time. Obviously, the rules about communication and investigation
remain in place. You can not talk to anybody about the work you've done in this case, about your opinions on the evidence,
about the attorneys, about the arguments, about anything involving this case. Do not discuss this case with anyone, not with each other.
Remember, the only time you can talk to each other about this case is inside that jury room.
All right, Mister Ibar as a jury of your peers having found you guilty on all counts as charged,
I judge you to be guilty on all counts as charged. The court will set the penalty phase to begin on February 25,
2019, at 9:00 AM. Court's in recess. Thank you. [somber music] Thank you. My god.
[phone ringing] JOE NASCIMENTO: It was predictable. Looking back now, we always knew this could be the result.
If you asked many of our colleagues who are familiar with the case, they would have told you
this was going to be the result. But we never allowed ourselves to come to that conclusion.
You don't have the ability to look back and say, well, these are the reasons why we should lose.
You can think back and be like, there were a lot of just inferences and coincidences and just
pieces of evidence that alone don't do the job but together pile up and make it difficult to overcome.
So I didn't think it was going to come out not guilty in that moment, but it could have been a hung jury.
They could have reached their end Friday night, go to sleep, come back in the morning, let us after you've thought about it,
If you're willing to go any further. No, I'm not. All right, we're done, Judge. We're deadlocked.
That, to me, was a real possibility. BENJAMIN WAXMAN: I was fully prepared to hear not guilty.
I just was fully prepared, and I was prepared to hear it the other way. But that's what I thought it would be.
My fear is-- I still fear this, and we have to find a way to navigate it-- to maintain the relationship and the trust of the family
as we go into the stage of the case where we're attempting to save his life and to navigate the questions and concerns that are going
to be lodged at us over the next couple of weeks as it relates to our representation of him
over the past three years. [somber music] It's a very interesting situation and scenario
that we are going to find ourselves in because it will be their natural reaction to question strategy
decisions, perceived failures. We lost. They are going to-- they've already begun to,
and they will question every decision that's been made. And we expect it. I expect it.
It's predictable. I didn't ask a question I should have asked. I didn't object to something I should have objected to.
We didn't call the alibi. On advice of counsel, we didn't call the alibi. Maybe we should have called the alibi.
And it's going to turn into-- it's natural. Things are gonna be our fault. I mean,
nobody's gonna talk about how well they think I did on the DNA. BENJAMIN WAXMAN: I'm gonna talk about that.
You are, but nobody's gonna talk about how well the cross-examination of a certain witness went
because that's all for nothing. Our perceived success of during the various stages of the trial
are all for nothing at this stage. TANYA IBAR: They attorneys did not want to use the alibi,
and they still really felt that it was not going to be beneficial. And in the beginning, I fought very hard in saying
that, yes, we should do this. We should do this. It's crazy. This is the truth. Why shouldn't we say the truth?
This is what I talk about the justice in this. They felt that the jurors would be affected if somebody didn't
believe me or believe my family, that everything else that we have put up, they would have just then totally ignored.
I don't think people really want to hear the truth. Why am I still sitting here today?
Why have I given up my life to live this life? For what? Because I know the truth.
It haunts me. It haunts my sister. When she found out the verdict, she was hysterical, screaming.
I should have testified. I should have told the truth. It haunts her. He's out there, OK?
Yeah. You know what I'm saying? Why are you still going through this? Why do you wanna live this life?
Why do you want to put your family-- I've done this to my family because I've stayed with him,
so I've put everyone through this. This is because of me, so I have a responsibility.
So it is. It's hard. It's hard to see what I've done to everybody, what I've had to put everybody through, what I've had to put--
just everything. It's very hard when you know a man, when you have seen with your own eyes a man who is not guilty,
and to have to go through such a life, is one of the hardest things in the world.
It's not right. I saw him, I will stand in front of any court, sacrifice whatever it would be, to do that.
And it's very hard sometimes. And I know that, yes, Tanya is my sister, but I wouldn't lie for the death of somebody who has suffered.
I mean, we wouldn't want to do that for anyone's family, but I know the man I saw in that room.
It's sometimes it feels like you're being suffocated because you want to scream.
You want to scream so loud, and what's so upsetting is that nobody listens. [intriguing music]
If it's the truth Monday, it's the truth Monday now, and it's gonna be the truth Monday in the year 2022
because it's the truth. So it doesn't evolve. You don't all of a sudden have a memory moment where you
remember the love of your life. Oh, my god, he was with me. That's not believable.
We didn't hear anything about Tanya. I met her. She was coming to the trial in the very beginning,
but she was just the girlfriend who started dating him apparently after he was arrested.
And it wasn't until seven years later that Tanya miraculously remembered that she was with him when her family went to Ireland.
What word do you want me to use? Pathetic? I don't know what the word is. I don't have the mentality.
There's some word they give to women like that who fall in love with men who are incarcerated.
I don't know. I don't understand it. The fact that Tanya would go through the elaborate attempt
to make up an alibi-- let me say this. If you have to lie for someone, that means they're probably guilty.
If I have to lie to say you were with me when I know you were not-- I'm not a psychiatrist, but she definitely needs to go see one.
She's angry. She's hurt, and I feel bad because that hurt has caused her to become an angry person.
And she loves her sister. I have sisters. I love my sisters. I would die if that was my sister on that tape.
So can I be mad at her because of her anger? No, I can't. I have no right to be angry with her.
Does it upset me that she thinks Pablo is that person? It does because I know that man.
And he didn't do this, and he didn't do that to her sister. MICHAEL IBAR: So what do you think about the trial ...?
What do you think happened with the jury? Who do you think was on our side maybe?
And who-- Well, that Black lady, but I think with the glasses, that young lady, when they saw the video,
she was-- [chatter] The one who was standing up. Yeah. MICHAEL IBAR: Obviously there was somebody on our side.
They didn't come back with a verdict right away. I don't know how many. PABLO'S FATHER: First this first.
MICHAEL IBAR: First is the penalty phase. They're still gonna decide whether he gets a life
sentence or a death sentence. PABLO'S FATHER: That's what I mean. We have to be strong.
MICHAEL IBAR: I mean, I know how difficult the road ahead is. People have to understand.
It's even dramatically harder than it was before. Yeah. MICHAEL IBAR: Because now it's a second trial.
It's really, really difficult. He asked me, am I ever gonna get out of prison? I don't know what to say to him,
I want to make him feel better. I want to like give him hope, and I try to. But it's like I don't want to just be a fan
and talk fantasies to him. What am I supposed to say? Yeah, you're going to get out?
I hope. [somber music] I pray. We're gonna fight, but there's a chance that he will never get out of prison.
[suspenseful music] [music intensifies] [phone ringing] Hello? JOE NASCIMENTO: Hey, Mike. MICHAEL IBAR: Hey, Joe.
TANYA IBAR: Joe? JOE NASCIMENTO: Hey, Tanya. Let me get Benji on. TANYA IBAR: OK.
JOE NASCIMENTO: All right. BENJAMIN WAXMAN: Hey, Joe. JOE NASCIMENTO: Hey, Benj. BENJAMIN WAXMAN: All set.
JOE NASCIMENTO: I've got Mike and Tanya. Are we putting Fred and Kevin, too? BENJAMIN WAXMAN: That's so.
I'm trying to tune Kevin in. I'm putting you on hold, so you do what you got to do
and then just merge the call. BENJAMIN WAXMAN: OK. All right. [phone ring] Waxman.
BENJAMIN WAXMAN: OK, we've got Fred. Fred? FRED HADDAD: Hey, guys. BENJAMIN WAXMAN: We've got Kevin.
Kevin? [chatter] JOE NASCIMENTO: So the reason I wanted to talk to you guys is 8:35 this morning one of the jurors called Judge Bailey
and told him he regrets the decision that they made. TANYA IBAR: Holy-- But he wouldn't tell me who.
[suspenseful music] He wouldn't tell me if it was a male or a female. We saw the jury struggled.
We thought there was a holdout, maybe more. This juror must have been battling with this all weekend,
and immediately first thing in the morning called Judge Bailey. What we have here is we have a juror
who is looking to go back on the verdict or at least expressing their displeasure
or concern about it. All right, so just so-- I'm gonna talk to Pablo, but my intention, Kev and Benj
and Fred, is to prepare a motion for interview, very brief, just cite the rule, a motion to compel the identity
of the juror that the judge had a conversation with because he won't tell us who it is.
I think he absolutely has to identify the juror that he had contact with So a motion to compel the ID, a motion to interview,
a motion to continue deliberations, I think, has to be filed. And then once he denies it all, we have to move for a mistrial.
[music intensifies] KURT COLLINS: After the verdict, I put a lot of thought into it,
and I felt like I was kind of caved into the pressure to conform because I really felt like I
was really the only juror that was kind of adamantly on the not guilty side. And so I went home, and I realized--
I kind of did a lot of thinking and really agonized about it. I was very anxious.
I was very depressed basically that whole weekend. [somber music] I wasn't sure if Pablo was innocent or not,
but I didn't feel like there was enough evidence to say that he was guilty definitively
and felt like I didn't give the verdict that I should have. [music continues]

When all hope is lost for Pablo’s defense team, a juror changes their mind. Pablo Ibar was arrested on a charge of triple homicide - but his guilt comes into question when investigators discover video footage of the massacre. The heinous crime becomes the first murder case ever to be caught on camera, and Pablo's story hits the mainstream. This captivating docu-series recounts the harrowing investigation and trials that followed.

Brief Summary

Pablo Ibar's trial reveals witness inconsistencies and emotional turmoil for his family amid a guilty verdict.

Key points

The Video Identification. Gene Klimeczko identifies Pablo Ibar in a crucial courtroom moment.
The Crime Stoppers Reward. Gene Klimeczko reveals he received a reward for his testimony, raising questions about his credibility.
The Alibi Decision. Pablo Ibar decides not to testify, a pivotal moment in the trial.
The Emotional Toll. Family members express their fears and hopes as the jury deliberates.
The Verdict's Weight. The complexity of the case comes down to the jury's decision.
Guilty Verdicts Announced. The jury finds Pablo Ibar guilty on all counts, leading to a tense courtroom atmosphere.

Episode highlights

Episode quotes

I think he was involved, so a scared guy says anything.

A witness reflecting on fear and involvement in a crime.

2:50WatchFeb 19, 2024

Tension

75/ 100High tension

More from True Crime Files

Solve the Crime

Read a real case one clue at a time, then see how your call held up against the investigators.