The Miramar Murders EP6 | The Sentence | Forensic Files

[audio logo] [music playing] [banging] [music playing] FEDERICA MOGHERINI: Thank you very much.
Every human life matters no matter how it is used, no matter how many mistakes a person makes.
We believe that a state should never dispose of the life of a human being. We believe that the response to a crime
must never be another crime. We have moved beyond the idea of an eye for an eye,
and we believe in justice, not in revenge. And I'm convinced that little by little,
we can get closer to a common goal of a world where crime is met with justice and not with vengeance
and where human life is finally a universal value universally respected and protected.
I thank you very much. [applause] KURT COLLINS: The whole system is-- I don't know-- it needs to be massively reworked.
And when I called I spoke to the judge's assistant. I told her that I regretted my decision
and felt like I was kind of pressured into giving a guilty verdict. I-- I just felt like--
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. Yeah, I just I wasn't sure. BENJAMIN WAYMAN: I believe that a juror who now wishes
to rescind their verdict of guilt is a juror that's gonna be pro-life, right. So that's a juror we have in our pocket,
and we just need to be sure that-- and I want to make sure that we handle this in a way
and I'm not-- I'm not saying it's even possible but handle in a way to ensure that we don't lose this juror.
PERSON 2: Right. PERSON 3: Well, you can't. I mean, if you lose a juror, you lose the verdict, don't you?
BENJAMIN WAYMAN: No. If something happens to a juror or if they express that they
can't be fair and impartial during the penalty phase for whatever reason at this point, all that happens
is we take that juror out and you implant a alternate. That's why the judge told the alternates we
may need you still, so you can't talk to anybody about the case. You can't research the case.
You can't do any of that. PERSON 3: We don't want to run the risk of losing her obviously for penalty phase?
ALEXIS SUCHARSKI: You can't-- you can't-- you can't take back your verdict. That's your answer.
So to want to take it back is kind of crazy, but you should have thought of that.
I should have thought about that. [music playing] BENJAMIN WAYMAN: This juror I feel bad for him.
He had no one to turn to. He can't talk to anybody about the case. So he goes on Reddit anonymously,
doesn't disclose details to try to just put it out there in the world. Like, I feel bad.
He's clearly a pro-life juror. He's clearly a juror who has regret. He did not want to find Pablo guilty.
He was bullied. He understands that now that this was not his decision. So what are the chances of him voting for death when he didn't
even think Pablo was guilty? So he's pro-life, and all we need is one. So one person that's pro-life and Pablo gets
saved from the death penalty. [music playing] CHUCK MORTON: Social media has really
changed the law in this area. It's so easily accessible now that you never know what a juror is doing, and all you can do
is rely on a juror's honesty and integrity. You can't control it. And when you find it out, you find out
that they're not abiding by what the court has instructed them, yes, that's a good reason not to leave them on a jury.
We don't want that to happen. He needs to be on this jury. He needs to sit in the penalty phase.
He is one of Pablo's jurors, and he needs to remain that way. [music playing] JUDGE: Good afternoon, sir.
Good afternoon. JUDGE: You're Kurt Collins, one of the jurors in this case? Yes.
JUDGE: In the instructions it deals with the communications with the outside world and includes
electronic communication, correct? Yes. JUDGE: All right. Let me show you exhibits 19 and 20.
I need to ask you if you posted these on the internet. [music playing] I did. JUDGE: You communicate with any other juror in this case
about the matters you posted on the internet? No, I didn't. JUDGE: Have you had any contact with any other juror
in this case since you reached the verdict on a Saturday? No. JUDGE: In any way, whether electronic or verbally
or texting or communication, any at all? No. JUDGE: We're going to go ahead and let you go, sir.
Give the jury badge back to the court deputy and you need to take your card to the jury room,
and I appreciate your service. Thank you. OK. KURT COLLINS: I thought that I would
have a chance to kind of explain my feelings, but I never did. And they just dismissed me without even talking about it.
I feel pretty strongly that they're going to hand down a death penalty. The-- Are you going to give me another unfair hearing?
Are you going to give me another unfair-- Mr. Ibar, you have been allowed-- JUDGE: Mr. Ibar--
They want to do every time they want to do it. This is not fair. You've been-- you've been against me from day--
You've been remarkably-- you've been remarkably composed throughout every proceeding we've ever had. - No, we've not.
No, we've not. - Pablo-- No, we've not because this-- You have been-- you have been composed.
Another-- it's another instance of your bias against me, sir. JUDGE: Thank you. I've asked you from day one to recuse yourself from my case.
[music playing] Tired of it. [music playing] Yeah, so here we are and never thought we would be here.
So now it's time to straight out a-- plan some strategy and figure out the best way to--
to go forward with the penalty phase. ALBA JOHNSON: There's two minds, right. One is you accept the jury's verdict.
The other one is we don't accept the jury's verdict even though. We respect the jury, we don't accept the verdict
because he didn't do it. [music playing] Susie Johnson is the mitigationist, the person
that we brought on to our team to help develop all of the family mitigation and to come up
with a list of mitigators that we presented in some way to the jury. And she's been very active behind the scenes,
and she's a critical part of our team. [music playing] JUDGE: All right, welcome back ladies
and gentlemen of the jury. You have found the defendant Pablo Ibar guilty of three counts of murder in the first degree.
The punishment for these crimes is either life imprisonment without the possibility
of parole or death. The state and the defendant may present evidence relative to the nature of the crime and the defendant's
character background or life. You are instructed that this evidence, along with the evidence that you've heard during the guilt
phase of this trial, is presented in order for you to determine, number one, whether each aggravating
factor is proven beyond a reasonable doubt, number two, whether the aggravating factor found to exist
beyond a reasonable doubt are sufficient to justify the imposition of the death penalty, number three,
whether aggravating circumstances are proven by the greater weight of the evidence, number four,
whether the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating circumstances, and, number five,
whether the defendant should be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole or death.
Is the state ready to proceed with an opening statement? KATYA PALMIOTTO: Yes, sir. - Please do.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Katya Palmiotto, and I have been a prosecutor for a little
over 13 years at this point. When Mr. Sinclair came on the case, I think I was asked to assist maybe a year
or so before we went to trial. Just it was amazing. [music playing] What do you know about the real Pablo Ibar?
He tortures. He terrorizes. And he murders. That's the real Pablo Ibar. And that's what you've seen in this case.
That is the Pablo Ibar whose sentence you have to determine. And there is not a mitigating circumstance in this world that
pales in comparison to the heinous, atrocious, and cruel way that he executed Marie, Sharon, Casey.
And once you've decided that the aggravating factors outweigh the mitigating circumstances, you then
have to decide what's the appropriate penalty, and the only penalty that's appropriate for his actions on
that day is the death penalty. Thank you. [music playing] BENJAMIN WAYMAN: People may hear about the Miami-Dade robbery
and say, oh, if he did that, then he must have done the homicides in the Miramar case.
But I don't believe that, and that's the reason why we protect juries from that kind of information
because it overwhelms them with the sense that, well, if you do one thing, then you
must have done something else. DISPATCH: Shots have been fired inside-- He was sentenced for that, by the way,
right, where they tied up an entire family. One of them was a pregnant woman. They shot and killed this family's dogs, both of them.
Someone in that house had gotten away into another room and called the police. The police arrived.
The guys in the house-- one of them was Pablo Ibar-- get into a shootout with Miami-Dade police,
and he's arrested. But the jury, they don't know that. There was a lot of moving of the people around.
They were looking for something, looking for money, arguing with the people, and then there
was a guy in the bathroom who was hiding who called the police. And when the police come, they all run out the back,
and then they're caught. KATYA PALMIOTTO: So July 14, 1994, tell me what happened that alerts you out of sleep?
My bedroom was next to the front window, and I heard a knock at the door. What happens when you open that door?
They pushed past me. I almost got knocked down, and they came in with a shotgun and put it to my head.
KATYA PALMIOTTO: Does this person that comes in, does he have anything over his head?
NATALIA L PEZ: He had a black ski mask. Did you learn that the identity of the person with the ski mask and the shotgun
was Francisco Rincon? Yes. KATYA PALMIOTTO: Did someone else come in after? NATALIA L PEZ: Yes.
The second person. KATYA PALMIOTTO: What did you notice about that person? NATALIA L PEZ: He had a t-shirt over his face
from his nose down, like, tied. I couldn't see in the back, but it wasn't covering his hair.
KATYA PALMIOTTO: Did this person have a weapon of any kind? NATALIA L PEZ: Yes. KATYA PALMIOTTO: What kind of weapon did this person have?
He had a handgun with a laser, which later I learned it was a Glock. KATYA PALMIOTTO: He has a shirt wrapped around his face.
That was a way that he used to conceal his face. Well, what happened in the Miramar murders?
You have a guy on video with a shirt around his face, right, so that alone is absolutely damning.
The similarities, one could argue, are very bad. Pablo had a shirt wrapped around his face,
and he was carrying a gun, a pistol, that Francisco had a shotgun and he was wearing a mask,
and that they immediately just started grabbing the people, putting them on the floor, right.
So if there's anybody on the jury who thinks maybe I wasn't 100% sure that Pablo is the one who committed
the Miramar murders, so I'm not going to give him the death penalty. When they hear that, he's involved
in this Miami-Dade home invasion and there's guns and a shirt wrapped around his face,
that person may say to themselves, you know what, I thought I wasn't sure about Miramar,
but now I'm sure. Now I'm give him the death penalty. KATYA PALMIOTTO: What happens once you're on the floor,
shotgun in your face? NATALIA L PEZ: I'm telling him not to please hurt my baby,
and he's saying to just shut up. So you're 8 and 1/2 months pregnant, pretty big at this point?
Yes. You are laying on the floor, literally on the floor like this, right, except to the side.
NATALIA L PEZ: Yes. Yes. KATYA PALMIOTTO: With hands like this. NATALIA L PEZ: Yes. DEFENSE: Judge, I object.
She's just-- JUDGE: Overruled. Next question please. So what happens next? NATALIA L PEZ: One of the guys with the shirt around his face
walked right over to the kitchen and got a butcher knife. KATYA PALMIOTTO: So he goes to get a butcher knife,
and what does he do with that butcher knife? He put the butcher knife on my stomach and said, I'll show
you how babies born [muted]. [music playing] KATYA PALMIOTTO: There are any other conversations
about the four of you on the floor and what they're going to do. All I hear is, let's get them over with.
Let's get them over with. NATALIA L PEZ: Yes. KATYA PALMIOTTO: Do you know who said that?
The guy with the shirt around his face. KATYA PALMIOTTO: Did you learn the identity of that person?
WOMAN: Yes. Is that Pablo Ibar? Yes. KATYA PALMIOTTO: I don't have anything further, Judge.
JUDGE: All right. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate your testimony. You may step down.
KATYA PALMIOTTO: The purpose of why we put that testimony on, to show that this is an individual that not only has
a propensity for violent, violent crimes, but this is an individual that does not value human life.
What that jury felt, more than what they heard, is what they felt during that testimony,
they will not forget. And it will infect them when they're deciding, do I give the death penalty in this case?
SUSY JOHNSON: How do we neutralize it? Is there a way to either neutralize it or make it less--
LAWYER 1: Damning? - Yeah. SUSY JOHNSON: Have you thought, or have we thought of just listing mitigation
factors and then we figure out who can help prove each factor? LAWYER 1: Yeah. We should definitely do that.
Yeah. LAWYER 2: He was a good kid, went away to college, played football, went and played jai alai.
He wasn't a kid in the streets gang banging, doing the type of thing. I think that needs to be at least thrown out there
to the jury because they have no real insight to who he-- who he was. All they know is he went to--
SUSY JOHNSON: Somebody has to do the history. Yeah. LAWYER 2: You know, we have other issues going on right now
between the lawyers and the family about what the next steps are that could cause conflict
that they may not feel comfortable with, you know, one of us doing it. So everything is going to be couched in our failure.
And for the family, it's going to be difficult for them to go back to that level
of comfort and trust. SUSY JOHNSON: Whatever feelings everybody's having, we can
have a discussion for the next three years. But now it's all about saving Pablo's life.
Like, OK, whatever. Here's where we are now. Correct. [serious music] JUDGE 1: When we were last in session,
the state put on evidence. And they rested their portion of this type of hearing.
We're now going to turn to the defense. Does the defense wishes to produce any evidence at this time?
LAWYER 1: Yes. The defense calls Candido Ibar. Candido, why is Pablo such an important part of your family?
First of all, he was my first son. That's number one. And then he was always very popular.
He was always very familiar with everybody. He still is. So that's where he is. LAWYER 1: Can you tell the jury what
value Pablo has that they should exercise mercy on his life? Well, I think Pablo's value is very important for all family.
And I really asking from the bottom of my heart to you guys can do, the best you guys can do to help him.
LAWYER 1: OK, I have no further questions. [wistful music] LAWYER 2: I find it--
it's going to be difficult to go through a penalty phase without calling Tanya. LAWYER 1: I agree with that.
LAWYER 2: The jury didn't hear the alibi. In penalty phase, she's going to be cross-examined on it.
And I did it because I know he was innocent. He was with me. I've known it for 24 years.
I've stood by his side. This has been my life. It's been horrible, but I have no choice.
I cannot abandon this man because I know, 100% in my heart, where he was. LAWYER 1: And it's very--
LAWYER 2: This may cause that lingering doubt, that holdout juror to say, oh, shit,
you know, maybe we got this wrong. And it's very easy for her to explain why she didn't testify.
LAWYER 2: Yeah. LAWYER 1: The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of the alibi
coming out in penalty phase. I like that. [wistful music] LAWYER 3: The judge is clearly erring
on the side of the government on almost every issue. You know, you're essentially acting as a second prosecutor
in the room, and you're deciding against us on pretty much every issue. He believes what the prosecutor has been saying.
You've got to give a fair trial to the state and a fair trial to the defense. That trial is for Pablo Ibar.
That's it. LAWYER 4: The judges, with their experience in the courtroom, they should decide the legal issues
so that if you're not comfortable with the issues, if it's not something you're prepared to handle emotionally,
intellectually, then there's plenty of opportunities to do other work. Tell the jury a little bit about yourself.
Again, my name is Tanya Ibar. I am the wife of Pablo Ibar. I'm a registered nurse, and I've been married
with Pablo for 21 years now. And I have two children. In 2000, he asked me to go on with my life.
He asked me that I didn't deserve this and that I should move on and live a normal life.
And I told him that choice was mine. And I chose to stay in this. He didn't want me to go through this.
Pablo is a selfless person. And I truly believe in him. And I stayed for a reason.
I've been in this because he has made me the person that I am today. He gives me the ability to get up every morning, to fight.
And I've learned not to judge people just because of their situations-- doesn't make them who they are.
They can still be good people, and we are. And I know it's so hard for all of you
to understand this choice that I have made, but I have truly made it for a reason.
And I do. That man is my life. I was 16 when this came about. I'm 41 years old now.
I'm going to show you what's been marked as defense exhibit D for identification.
Do you recognize this? I do. That's a card that Pablo sent you? Yes. LAWYER 2: Tanya, I'm going to ask you to just take a minute.
I'm going to ask you to read the card to the jury as best you can. If you need to take some time, please do.
"Tanya, real love is constructed by two people who belong together, not by two halves that need each other
so they can feel complete. Life is a long journey, full of flowers and rocks. And there is good.
And there are bad moments, and happiness, and sadness, and laughter, and tears. I'm grateful that you have chosen
to walk this journey with me. We've constructed a true love, one that cannot be broken because it is real.
Our love is the only thing I truly need in my life. It makes a difference. I am thankful for you.
I love you with all of me. We can make it because we have something that most couples don't.
And that is real love. Happy anniversary. I love you." LAWYER 2: Thank you, Tanya.
I have no further questions. JUDGE 1: Thank you. Any cross-examination? KATYA PALMIOTTO: No.
JUDGE 1: Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate it. Please step down. Can I just say one thing?
No, ma'am. OK, thank you. SUSY JOHNSON: I actually think his childhood was a little bit rougher than we think because Dad
was running around-- you know, Dad was in and out, making kind of poor investments.
Mom was working in that electric light bulb company or whatever. And he was kind of protecting and being
there for his little brother. So I think that he had more of a parental role. MICHAEL IBAR: So we grew up together.
He was my older brother by four years so I looked up to him tremendously. He's a phenomenal athlete.
So that was hard to have to live up to. Pablo was amazing at everything. So it's a little tough for me, trying to keep up with that.
But he was just like a father, basically, to me, in a way. My father I love very much, but my parents
divorced when I was young. And my father was off playing jai alai. Wasn't in the state as I got a little older.
So Pablo, for me, was like the go-to father figure. He taught me how to ride a bike, to talk to girls,
to be a man, basically. Between the age of 18 and 22, my brother was incarcerated.
My mother passed. So I really was lost. My brother was the main influence in having
me get my life together. And he had a way to motivate me to get my act together.
And I owe a lot of that to him. LAWYER 1: And can you look at the jury and tell them whether you think the world is a better
place with Pablo in it for you? Yeah, there's absolutely no question that-- I promise you, I would not be here to plead or defend him
and I wouldn't have my sons involved with his life if he was some evil person. I would love him as my brother, but I wouldn't be here.
Just not comfortable for me to parade my family around like this. And it's only because of the great person that he is.
I love my brother very much. And I wish you all could know him even a little bit,
of the way that I do. Obviously, you can't. But he's a good man. He's been in jail for a long time.
And he will never get out of jail. And I respect the decision made. But he is a good influence on this world.
The world would definitely be-- it would be a tragedy for him not to remain as such.
And he's affected so many lives, and he would continue to affect so many lives if he's allowed to.
And that's all. JUDGE 1: Thank you, Mike. [emotional music] MAN: Jury's entering.
Alexis Sucharski wrote, "Over the past 25--" years, I've quietly sat back and listened as his character
and lifestyle have been questioned as if this was his fault. As a child, regardless of his lifestyle,
I always felt important, extremely loved, and as though as I had the best dad anyone could ask for.
I think about this tragic experience and how I completely shut down afterwards. My innocence was taken, and the child inside was destroyed.
My grades fell in school, and I became angry. I've spent the following years trying
to put the pieces of my broken life back together, which has been hard given the inability to put
this event behind me that is continuously tugging at the thread holding me together.
Every happy moment in my life that he isn't here to be a part of has a black cloud hanging over it.
No matter his choices, my father did not-- "--deserve to have his life end this way."
We 100% agree with that. This is the effect that death on a family member has. People make bad decisions in life.
They do good things and bad things, but it doesn't mean that her daddy didn't love her
and that she didn't experience the horror of this. Margaret Edwards is the mother of Marie Rogers.
She wrote, "Marie was loved by many because she cared--" --about many. She helped classmates with her homework-- with their homework,
with family issues, or with whatever was ailing them. She selfishly kept the family unit together
by assisting with the care and upbringing of her younger brother Kareem. I could always count on her to assist me with household
chores and errands. She was a daughter that any mother would be proud of. I love and miss my daughter tremendously.
Her death has made me realize how fragile and vulnerable-- "--vulnerable we are as human beings."
Kareem, Marie's brother. "Her murder left a rippling effect that altered her family, friends, and the community
forever. Marie's daughter--" --Simone, was two years old at the time of her murder,
was yearning for her mother for countless months and expressed through wailing and moaning, which
was inconsolable because we all knew she cannot express her pain. She could not understand her loss.
And most soberingly, we could not provide her with the person who she so longed for most
and needed most-- "--her mother. Simone is an innocent. Simone doesn't deserve any of this.
But she was made to suffer because of the death. Children are innocent, but they suffer.
That a vote for the death penalty is a vote to continue the trauma. It's a vote to continue bringing this case up again.
It's turning the heat up on the case. It's going back in time 25 years as opposed
to a tiny step in the other direction, reducing the anger, reducing the hate. Why should we do more of it, 25 years later?"
"Isn't it time to start to put this past us just a little bit?" Deborah Bowie, Sharon Lynn Anderson's sister.
"There was not a day in my life--" DEBORAH BOWIE: --in my life that I did not have my sister's shoulder to cry on
or counsel to rely on. Sharon was the kind of person who saw the glass as half full.
She was optimistic. She never allowed negative things to change her perspective on life.
She was the first person I told I was pregnant with my first child, even before I told my then husband.
Our mitigation witnesses all testified to the same thing with regard to their relationship with Pablo.
If you vote for life, you allow things to heal. You reduce the anger. You reduce the hate.
I would submit to you that the only logical decision that each individual juror should make in this case
would be for life. Thank you. LAWYER 1: I think Kevin captured that in his closing argument
as he talked about, to the jury, you can sentence this man to death, and you will continue the hate and the despair
that all of the people in the courtroom feel, Pablo's family, the victims' families.
I felt that he was speaking to everyone. I think he was speaking to Alexis and to Kareem
and to the victims' families. But I think he captured it and said, or we can take a slight step to the good
and put an end to this. - Both sides ready? - Yes, sir. Yes, Judge. All right, bring in the jury.
MAN: Jury's entering. All right, let the record reflect the jury has re-entered the room.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, have you reached verdicts? - Yes, we have. JUDGE 1: Please hand the verdicts to the court deputy.
All right, the verdicts read as follows. In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit
in and for Broward County Florida Criminal Division, State of Florida versus Pablo Ibar, defendant.
Judge Dennis D. Bailey. We the jury finds as follows as to Pablo Ibar in this case.
We the jury unanimously find that the state has established beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the aggravating
factor that Pablo Ibar was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence
to another person. Yes. We the jury unanimously find that the state has established
beyond reasonable doubt the existence of the aggravating factor that the murder was committed
for the purpose of avoiding or preventing a lawful arrest. Yes. We the jury unanimously find that the state has established
beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the aggravating factor that the murder was especially
heinous, atrocious, or cruel. Yes. We the jury unanimously find that the state has established
beyond a reasonable doubt the existence of the aggravating factor that the murder was committed
in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner, without any pretense of moral or legal justification.
Yes. We the jury unanimously find the aggravating factors are sufficient to warrant
a possible sentence of death. Yes. Section A, jury verdict as to death as to count one,
having unanimously found that at least one aggravating factor has been established beyond a reasonable doubt,
that the aggravating factors are sufficient to warrant a sentence of death, and the aggravating factors
outweigh the mitigating circumstances, we the jury unanimously find that Pablo Ibar
should be sentenced to death. No. Dated this 22nd day of May, 2019, in Broward County, Florida, signed by the foreperson.
First of all, thank you for your time and consideration of this case. This has been a very long, arduous case for everyone.
[emotional music] Did we feel that death is what was appropriate? Yes, we did. And that's why we were seeking death.
But we respect the jury's decision, and we are satisfied with the three life sentences
that he received. And justice was done. LAWYER 5: It's not about saying I want revenge or not want revenge.
Revenge did not play a part of this, for any of us. I did not become a prosecutor because I
was seeking revenge on people. I'm just glad that I was part of the team that was
able to bring justice to this. If there's anything that I could say about this is that I feel really sorry for everyone involved
in this particular case who has had to suffer through such a tremendous tragedy and
such a horrendous, awful crime. [classical music] JUDGE 4: I think that there's more
issues than a normal appeal. I think the judge made a lot of controversial decisions,
including his decision to remain on the case. I probably have not had this many in a single case.
The judge was making errors that I thought were reversible. JUDGE 2: You have admitted that this sequence
of inappropriate behavior violated Canon 1, Canon 2A, Canon 3B1, Canon 3B4, and Canon 3B7 of the Florida
Code of Judicial Conduct. LAWYER 6: I think Pablo will win on appeal. I think he'll get a new trial.
He's got great grounds on several issues to succeed. It'll be another 10 years before he gets another trial.
I certainly won't be trying it. I'm going to die in a courtroom, I hope. But I don't know when.
Oh. Are you taping me again? Dammit. [classical music] LAWYER 1: I don't have all the answers.
You saw all the doubts, all the corruption, all of the mishandling of evidence. And you saw that Pablo may be innocent.
And then the Miami Dade robbery and thinking maybe he did do it, and it caused you to backtrack again.
And there's no real answer that kind of answers all of the questions. And we'll just never know.
[wistful music] LAWYER 2: There's no-- no happy ending for anybody. A man just got life without the possibility of parole.
He will never step foot outside again. I'm not confident or over-confident enough to say
that I did everything right. What could we have done better as a team? I don't think we capitalized on all of our talents
appropriately. I think our numbers hurt us more than helped us. So I think it's an ongoing process that it's
going to be neverending for me. I'll never be satisfied with my involvement in this case.
Looking back, that's one of the things, realizing that no matter what the result in this case
was, there was no end or happiness for anybody. I told myself when this case was over
and the trial was over, after going through that, that was a very traumatic experience and very--
it beat me down. I've now recovered, but I told myself I was done. I'm done with this case.
I need to move on now. And here I am. Once you get sucked into this, there's no way to get out.
LAWYER 6: I think that Joe and I should have tried it alone. If Joe and I had tried the case, it would been quite a bit
different I can't badmouth another lawyer, but I think if Joe and I tried it, it would have been different.
[wistful music] I don't care how many lawyers he had. He was convicted. So whatever your million dollars paid for from Spain,
it didn't pay for your freedom, did it? He was surrounded by a bunch of people, right?
And we were represented by the state. And the jury convicted him. So all the money in the world can't hide the truth, right?
You don't have to believe in the death penalty. He's not innocent. So I would say to the people in Spain,
save your money for a legitimate cause, for people who really need your help. There are innocent people in the world who are tortured,
who are accused of crimes. But Pablo Ibar is not one of them. TANYA IBAR: Not having the death penalty
was, again, such a relief for us. It's not a winning thing. But we have to focus now on the fact
that he is going to stay alive until God chooses to take him. It's difficult because you had so many, you know, dreams
and hopes. And you had all these plans of, you know, we were going to go back to Spain.
We were going to start a life there. We were going to meet new people and be amongst the people that supported us and gave
us the power to do what we did. The only way I think I can do that is by continuing to fight, to stay positive,
to never give up. And I ask that the people of Spain continue not to give up. It's just when you think that you can't do no more is
when you need to do even more. And I feel in the end that push is what's going to help bring Pablo home.
BRYAN BROWN: Yeah, it's in this area if I remember. I'm not a vindictive person.
I'm not an angry person. I'm not the kind of person that wants to see anyone wrongly convicted.
If you're asking me about reasonable doubt, I would say I've had my own questions.
I've had my own-- I don't even want to go so far as to say doubts. I don't know.
All I have is an opinion. I suppose it would be a nice gesture to get some flowers out
here at some point. ALEXIS SUCHARSKI: Mm-hmm. Or a vase. Right. This is it. Mm-hmm.
To even think about it being over would be crazy. I mean, what-- it's something that we
haven't known for 25 years. We've been dealing with this, you know? I hope that it's over after this.
I know-- I think it might be easier if I knew what happened, like why they came there, closure on that, you know?
At least there would be a reason behind the craziness. It's just one of those things, like you'll never know.
We have no idea why they really went there. [wistful music] [folk music]

The trial goes to sentencing and Pablo is again faced with the death penalty. 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

The episode covers Pablo Ibar's case, jury deliberations, emotional testimonies, and the decision against the death penalty.

Key points

Federica Mogherini's Speech. Mogherini emphasizes the importance of valuing every human life and justice over revenge.
Kurt Collins' Regret. Juror Kurt Collins reveals his regret over the guilty verdict he felt pressured to give.
Tanya Ibar's Testimony. Tanya Ibar passionately defends her husband Pablo, sharing their deep connection and love.
Brotherly Love. Michael Ibar reflects on his brother Pablo's influence in his life, describing him as a father figure.
The Impact of Loss. Alexis Sucharski shares the profound effects of losing a loved one, emphasizing the emotional turmoil it caused.
A Plea for Understanding. Deborah Bowie speaks about her sister's optimistic nature and the void left by her absence.

Episode highlights

Episode quotes

Every human life matters no matter how it is used.

Federica Mogherini speaks on the value of life.

1:44WatchFeb 21, 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.