The trial highlights the irreconcilable tension between psychological determinism and moral accountability in the face of absolute tragedy. It forces us to confront whether a broken history can ever truly mitigate the weight of an unforgivable act.
Installez notre extension pour rechercher instantanément dans n'importe quelle vidéo
“She Fought Until the End” | Haunting Closings & Verdict for Tanner Horner in Athena Strand TrialAjouté :
Tanner Horner is proof why parents hug their children a little tighter.
He's proof of why children are nervous to go play outside.
>> We are finally in the last stretch of this trial, the trial for justice for Athena Strand. Tener Hero's defense brought in its final expert witness, basically trying to show how his childhood shaped who he eventually became. But then the state hit back with something completely different. A rebuttal witness from Tanner's own past.
Not a psychologist, not any expert of any sort, just someone who has childhood memories. Childhood memories that include Tanner. And the memories are not good memories. They are bad memories that indicate Tanner was a monster long before he ever met Athena Strand. After that, it was over. No more witnesses, no more experts. Both sides rested and just like that it went from weeks of defense testimony to a short rebuttal, a short but powerful rebuttal. We'll go over it all and then we jumped straight into closing arguments. Two ideas of what justice means in this case were laid out one last time, but neither was focused on guilt. That much has been decided.
The idea of justice in this case is whether Tanner would be sentenced to live or die. One side, the defense side, focused on trauma, development, and mitigation, while the state focused on Tanner's intent, his danger, and the irreversible harm that he has caused.
And then it all came down to the jury's final decision, a verdict. Again, life or death. And in the courtroom for that verdict were Athena's loved ones, her whole family, including her little sister, who now grows up without her big sister, Athena. But before we get into the closings, let's go through what happened on Monday.
The defense brought in their final witness, forensic and clinical psychologist Dr. Jolie Brams. And her role here was basically to help the jury understand who Tanner was before all of this happened. Not to give him a diagnosis. Right out of the gate, she made that really clear. She said she was brought in to specifically evaluate Tanner's developmental history and how it impacted his functioning prior to the offense. So, she's not here to assess future risk or to diagnose, but still she said she spent about 12 hours actually interviewing him. But it wasn't just him. She pulled from everywhere. His mom, grandma, brother, friends, aunt, fiance, even a special ed teacher. These are called collateral interviews in a in the forensic field.
Something evaluators do to get the whole picture of someone's life. Her whole point was that to understand someone, you have to look at the environment they grew up in, including those who surrounded him and their varying experiences. She also went into her background a bit, basically establishing that she's spent decades working with kids in hospitals, juvenile systems, forensic settings, and her main takeaway from all of that experience is you can't just reduce someone to a label. At one point, she literally said, "A person is not just a diagnosis." and that you have to look at the full trajectory of how they got to where they are. And that is true. That is what forensic psychology is. A big chunk of her testimony focused on early childhood and attachment. She explained that kids need consistency, stability, and responsive caregivers to develop normally. And according to her, Tanner didn't really have that. She described his childhood as chaotic with his mom dealing with incarceration and substance abuse and just overall instability in the home. She also introduced the term brain neglect. She wasn't saying there was constant physical abuse, but more like emotional and developmental deprivation.
Basically, the kind of environment where kids brains just don't get what it needs to develop properly. And then she made a comment that I think probably stuck with the jury. So, there's times when I talk to Tanner, I literally can believe I'm talking to a six-year-old in terms of inappropriate comments, not sexual ones, just inappropriate comments, laughing when he shouldn't, blurting things out, all of those things. It's almost as if I'm talking to a big man who is 6 years old. She also talked a lot about how he struggled socially. She said that during school he felt like an alien or a robot trying to be a human being. She said he was bullied, didn't really form normal friendships, and instead kind of escaped into music, movies, and fantasy. Over time, that lack of real social connection affected how he understands other people and how they see him. But she was also very clear about something important.
Tanner has a normal IQ. This isn't about intellectual disability at all. She kept emphasizing that you can have neurodedevelopmental issues without having a low IQ and that's what makes this more complicated. She spent a lot of time talking about autism spectrum traits too, especially what's considered level one autism. She said people at that level can look totally fine on the surface. they can work, have relationships, seem functional, but still be struggling a lot internally.
And she made a comment that could be seen as controversial, saying level one autism to me is worse than more serious autism because people who seem higher functioning often get less support and kind of fall through the cracks. In her view, Tanner can function in structured situations but still had major issues with emotional regulation, adapting to things, and reading social situations.
She said he leaned heavily on avoidance, like disappearing into music or movies or marijuana, but that didn't actually fix the anxiety or depression underneath. Trauma was another big piece of this. She testified that Tanner experienced sexual abuse as a child. She said she would not diagnose him with PTSD, but she believes it had long-term psychological effects. At one point she explained, "It can lead to sexual exploration. It can lead to depression.
It certainly did for Tanner." And even as some symptoms got better over time, she said the memory and emotional impact is still very troubling to him today.
They also went through his police interrogation. She described him as not really understanding what was expected of him or how what he was saying would come across. She said he seemed confused, focused on immediate things, and couldn't really grasp the bigger picture of what was happening. And when she was asked if he was being manipulative during the interrogation, she pushed back on that. I think in his own incapable way, he was trying to not tell the truth to the to the officers, but he admitted he admitted what happened to Athena. He did say what that that he was responsible for her death.
He did say that, but then he tries to either delay what's going the inevitable. Um, try to come up with some type of excuse or something about what happened. I mean, you have someone here who's just incapable. This was not a criminally minded lying. This was this was some type of ineffective storytelling that anybody who would interview him would know would not be true.
>> How is this not a manipulation?
It's a sign of autism. It's a sign of of of what he has on. Was it what is he manipulating? He admitted what he did.
Eventually, I hate to talk about this.
It's very painful to talk about, but they eventually found a thing in his body. Eventually, he got them into the area. What is he getting from that manipulation? What is he gaining? He's gaining nothing. He There's nothing to gain. My question watching the interrogation was, is this a fantasy? Is this him trying to like be in law and order? Is this is this Tanner's just way that you're supposed to talk to the law enforcement like this? It seemed almost like he was movie scripting like this was this was something that if you're caught, this is how you act. But it had no end. There was no purpose to what he was doing.
>> So when you're talking about manipulation, generally does a manipulation have a purpose to the end?
>> It has gain generally at the end.
Whatever you're whatever you're manipulating for. And in this particular case, there was no gain at the end.
>> I didn't see any gain at the end. Um, what I saw was someone struggling to make sense about what happened and struggling to understand, which he did not, what is going to happen to him. To him at that point, it was just let me go home and see my son.
I don't think that he understood the gravity of what was going on or how the police and law enforcement, those Texas Rangers would perceive him.
>> And then there was the whole zero persona.
We've actually been doing a huge refresh lately, not just around the house, but also for our filming spaces in Dr. John's office, which you will see soon.
We used Article to completely furnish his office, and I am honestly so excited for the rebuild. What I love about Article is that everything feels really elevated and intentional without being overwhelming. Their pieces have that clean, modern look, but they still feel warm and functional for real life. We got Dr. John a new desk and chair, and it completely changed the feel of the space. It finally feels polished, comfortable, and actually designed for how much time he spends working and researching in there. And the whole process was really easy. The quality is incredible, shipping was smooth, and everything just fit together beautifully. Article is offering our listeners $50 off your first purchase of $100 or more. To claim, visit article.com/hidden and the discount will be automatically applied at checkout. That's $50 off your first purchase of $100 or more. Visit article.com/hidden for $50 off your first purchase.
Bram says she does not believe he has disassociative identity disorder. She described Zero more as a coping mechanism.
>> In these videos, we see Tanner take on the persona of Zero.
>> I know.
Does taking on this persona make any sense to you?
>> It it makes diagnostic sense.
Absolutely.
>> Why is that?
>> Because you see this in a lot of people like Tanner is this. That's the lack of integration. The lack of integration. He cannot say I did this. He said it happened. Okay. He said zero was involved in this. Zero. Okay. Is there really a zero? I don't think that there's a zero that walks around with him all the time. Is it something that he that he has a zero in his life that he turns to when things get bad that he talks to that's sort of a part of him that's not integrated? Yes. And I think in this very s stressful situation when you have to talk about something that is so horrendous I believe that this was his artistic way of being able to talk to law enforcement that Tanner her himself is not integrated. Tanner could not do this. He had to put some of this aside. I don't think that this is a fantasy. I think this is the same thing as when your four-year-old breaks something and you ask them if they broke it, they have an imaginary friend or say somebody else did that. You know, you know, this little guy did this. This is this is this is the developmental fixation that we have with Tanner. So, you know, I don't think he's got there's no such thing anywhere as multiple personality. I don't think he has dissociative disorder. I don't think that he really has another person. I think you're looking at someone who is remarkably impaired and extremely immature for adulthood.
>> So, in taking on the persona of zero, it sounds to me that that was just his way of being able to tell the police the truth.
>> That's what I would that would be my my testimony. Yes.
>> And this is exactly what my co-host forensic and clinical psychologist Dr. John also suggested. My first observation would be that the all the detectives think he's pretending and they see it as a device or a way to communicate with him. So if he's going to if he's going to create this persona, this fictional this alter ego or this fictional persona, um they want to they want to access that because that because Zero will talk to them whereas Tanner Horner won't. Yeah. Right. So they're going to play along as much as they can.
I think they're all kind of I think they're all kind of shaking their heads and rolling their eyes when they're doing it. Like I I don't think they although they're taking it seriously. It seems like everyone sort of believes it's not true.
>> Um I would say as far as like the majority of viewers as well as the detectives that are testifying, I haven't heard anyone from his past talk about dissociative disorder, which is essentially what this is. Can you tell us like are there people that experience this? You know, what what is he doing? The rolling back the eyes, the twitching his head. They're saying he like goes into a trance. So like maybe I know you haven't like assessed Tanner.
So like it seems like everybody thinks he's acting, but but what is this? Can you see something like this in real life in general terms? It's like detectives explain how they like summon Zero. Like they'll say, "Zero, come out." out and he like pushes his head and rolls back his eyes and kind of it's like the incredible Hulk transformation. So what is asso disassociative disorder? Maybe let's just like understand what could be possible and not in talking about him.
>> So it used to be it used to be called multiple personality disorder or now it's called dissociative identity disorder and it it's possible dissociative identity disorder. So it is I will say this it is the term dissociative implies that it is dissociative right it's it's going into another state >> and and so is it possible that those elements you just described about rolling his eyes back and is it possible that he's dissociating it is it is possible um I think you know early on Detective Espinosa actually asked him he said something like are were you having an auto body experience. That's what he's doing there unknowingly is alluding to the fact that this could be dissociative.
It's interesting because there's there's a forensic psychologist who's now deceased. She's brilliant and she wrote a book called Prologue to Vi Violence.
Wish she was still alive because her writing was amazing. But Abby Stein Abby Stein interviewed a number of criminals in prison, violent criminals. um many of them murderers, not all, but violent criminals. And she found that almost every one of them had some dissociative component in their murders.
>> Right. It's it's really interesting research. It's it does suggest that many murders do and and someone with his background, someone with his trauma. So often times there's there's a correlation between trauma and dissociation. And so someone with his background, it wouldn't be atypical for that person to dissociate, especially when there's a lot of stress.
>> Could there be a dissociative component to that crime? Absolutely.
Is it is it likely? Is it possible that it could be a different identity? It's possible, but unlikely. It's unlikely in the sense that dissociative identity disorder is very rare >> and oftentimes it involves not always but oftentimes it involves the term multiple personality means more than one right but oftentimes it involves more than two. So, so the fact that there's only one again possible, but if you think of like kind of the classic cases like Cibil, Cyibble had like nine I think I forget the exact number but but the famous book Cibil is about dissociative identity disorder.
Oftentimes people with the disorder will have multiple personalities meaning more than more than certainly more than one often more than two. to have one seems like more of a ruse. It seems like something more of a fiction that he invented to deal with this particular scenario.
>> And so the question then is what would the motive be? Is it that he actually is disassociating? Like as in he's saying to himself, I don't want to have to talk to the detective, so I'm going to disassociate and tell them that they're talking to zero. Or is he saying this will get them? this is just another excuse like I ran over her or I hit her or there was some other dude in the car.
Is this just like an absolute 100% ruse?
Do you know what I mean? Like so like is there some truth to it that he's disassociating because he doesn't want to deal with it or is he thinking this is another excuse so that I can maybe not have consequences and and they'll think that I didn't do this?
>> How about all the above? So the best example I can give you is Ted Bundy.
Okay, >> Ted Bundy. This is this is fascinating, right? Ted Bundy. Ted Bundy did a number of interviews. I I there's a there's a Netflix documentary. I believe it's called Confessions of Ted Bundy, the Ted Bundy tapes or something like that. But Ted Bundy did a number of interviews with a journalist by the name of Steven McCod.
And it what's fascinating about the the what's fascinating about those interviews is that Bundy when when when MacOD would speak to him in the first person when he would when he would address him as Ted and ask for his first person personal experiences his subjective experiences Bundy wouldn't tell him anything.
>> Bundy refused to talk to him. So he the journalist Macau tried to mix it up a bit and he started addressing him in the third person, right? What would Ted Bundy say about this or or not even that? What would what would someone who went through this say about this? Right? That and when he when he addressed him in the third person, Ted Bundy started opening up.
>> It's really interesting.
>> And the reason I think Ted Bundy did that is number one, he didn't want to acknowledge guilt. So if he's talking in the first person, he's he's going to have to say, "Yeah, I did that."
>> He's just disassociating from himself.
He can like talk >> Yes.
>> without the shame and the guilt and >> Exactly. He doesn't have to acknowledge guilt and he can detach from his emotions. It's safer for him.
>> That's a good way to say it. Detach.
>> He's detaching so it's safer. It gives him a safer space to talk about it. So it's not as if it's actually him.
>> Yeah. what it does for Bundy and what it does so that I think that's the analogy that works. I think what it does what it did for Bundy and what it does for Tanner is it allows them both of them to maintain this curated image of themselves as morally good human beings >> as morally good people incapable of murder. So, it's a defensive maneuver that allows them not to deal with the reality of what they did. It allows them to maintain this perspective again, this kind of like I said, kind of this this curated image of of this morally curated image of themselves as good human beings. In fact, >> you know, children do that, too. Um, you know, you can say to a three-year-old that has chocolate all over their face.
>> Yeah.
>> Did you get into the cookies? No. you you know well somebody did who did I don't know somebody else did I mean is that's kind of like detaching a little bit >> right it was our neighbor kid >> it was you know it's a detaching a little bit >> right it's the same thing right because the child doesn't want to acknowledge guilt and they don't have to deal with the emotions of shame right >> from being caught it's very similar >> you can find that episode linked and now Dr. Rams is saying similar on the stand.
She said, quote, I don't think that there's Azer that walks around with him all the time. And she explained it as more of a fragmented part of his identity. She also mentioned he tends to latch onto superhero type identities like Marvel characters as a form of escape. Not that he literally believes he is them, but legally she made a point the defense clearly wanted on the record. She said, "Tanner does not meet the criteria for antisocial personality disorder." And she also pushed back on the idea that only people with certain diagnosis commit crime, saying, "There is not a person among us who has not done some antisocial things." That was a quote. Interesting.
But probably the most important thing she kept repeating, none of this is an excuse. She said it very plainly.
quote,"None of my testimony in any way should be employed as an excuse for what happened." This was all about explaining him not justifying anything. And she doubled down on that at the end, saying, "This has nothing to do with justification. It has to do with understanding the person who is before the court." End quote. And then the prosecution got up for cross. And this is where they really started poking at how she put all of this together. They went straight at her methodology, pointing out that she didn't actually write her own full report and leaned a lot on findings from other experts.
Well, Bram didn't dodge that. She agreed and said that was part of the agreed process in this case, but she did push back on the idea that she was just repeating other people. Her argument was that she was pulling everything together, basically synthesizing a ton of different sources into that bigger picture that was requested of her. The state also brought up Tanner's behavior in jail, specifically that he's been housed in segregation. They were kind of implying if he has all of these issues, why does he seem relatively stable in custody? And Brams acknowledged that yes, on the surface, his adjustment looks stable. But she added an important caveat. Segregation is a very controlled artificial environment. There's limited interaction, limited demands, and a lot of structure. So, it can actually hide or minimize behavioral problems that might show up in a more normal setting.
And then they went into the actual crime, especially the abduction and what looked like planning behavior. One of the big points they hit was the camera being covered in the truck. They were clearly trying to get her to agree that this showed intent or awareness, but Rams would not go there. She said that she could not speculate on what Tanner was thinking at the moment and that trying to assign intent to specific actions like that would not be clinically valid from her perspective.
However, she did say this. Take a listen.
>> Senator Corner knew exactly what he was doing when he kidnapped Athena, didn't he?
>> I don't know that. I did not ask him about the offense.
>> He knew exactly what he was doing when he said sexually assaulted her.
>> If he's assaulting her, he knew sexual assault. I will agree with that.
>> And he knew exactly what he was doing when he choked her and he beat her to death.
>> I know. I think that that is true. I think he knew that would cause her great harm, if not death.
>> On redirect, the defense kind of pulled her back to her main point, which is this idea of interpretation versus assumption. She agreed that a lot of what people are saying about that abduction video is based on inference and not something you can directly see, especially once the camera gets blocked and you're basically filling in the blanks as one listens. She also circled back to Tanner's coping style, saying it's consistently avoidant across the board, whether it's a zero persona, fantasy, music, or just completely checking out. She described a pattern of escaping stress instead of actually dealing with it headon. By the time she wrapped up, she brought it back to what she sees as the key distinction in all of this. In her opinion, Tanner is not intellectually disabled and he does understand harm, but she described him as someone dealing with significant neurodedevelopmental issues on top of trauma instability and really underdeveloped coping skills. and she closed it out basically the same way she started, reminding the jury what her role is here. This isn't about excusing anything. It's about explaining. In her words, "My role is to present who this man is and how he became the person he is."
Lately, I've been trying to pay more attention to the little monthly expenses that quietly add up because it's honestly wild how much money can disappear on autopilot. And phone bills are one of those things where people just assume expensive means better, but that's really not the case anymore. That is why Mint Mobile stands out. They offer premium wireless plans starting at just 15 bucks a month with high-speed data and unlimited talk and text on the nation's largest 5G network. And I like how easy it is. You can keep your phone, keep your number, activate your eSIM in minutes, and avoid all the contracts and extra nonsense. It just feels smarter to stop overpaying for something you use every single day. And if you like your money, MintMobile is for you. Shop plans at mintmobile.com/hheadidden.
That's mintmobile.com/hheadidden.
Upfront payment of $45 for a 3month 5 gigabyte plan required. It's an equivalent to $15 a month. New customer offer for first three months only. Then full price plan options available. Taxes and fees extra. See Mint Mobile for details.
After lunch, the state started its rebuttal. Their first witness was Timothy Fitzpatrick with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. He's the director of classification, which basically means he oversees how every convicted felon in Texas gets processed, assigned, and managed once they enter the system. And his background is long.
He started as a correctional officer at just 18 and worked his way up through pretty much every rank you can think of.
Sergeant, lieutenant, captain, major, assistant, warden, and now he's over this massive division with more than 2,000 employees. He's dealing with inmates coming in from all 254 counties across Texas. When he started explaining the system, it was very step by step.
From the moment someone is convicted, the state takes over everything. He walk them through this 30-day intake process where they verify paperwork, calculate the sentence, check medical and mental health needs and then decide where that person is going to go. Texas has over 100 prisons and every single inmate gets placed based on that classification. And it's not just about where you're housed.
His division decides everything. Jobs, housing, type, movement, transfers, even release processing. He described it as handling incarceration from A to Z. Then he broke down the classification system which is called the G scale. It goes from G1 to G5. G1 is the lowest level, usually non-violent inmates, sometimes even working outside the fence. G2 is generally shorter sentences. G3 is 50 years or more, including life. And he made it clear capital murder automatically starts at least at G3.
Then G4 and G5 aren't about your original crime. Those are based on how you act inside prison. Fighting, breaking rules, refusing orders. That's what bumps you up. One thing that really stood out in his testimony is how unpredictable prison life actually is.
He said inmates do not control where they live, who they live with, or even if they stay in the same facility. The state is constantly moving people around, like 1,500 to 2,000 inmates a day. So your housing, your settlement, your routine, all of that can change at any time. And that unpredictability, it is important. When the prosecution asked if that kind of constant change can lead to problems, he basically said yes. If someone reacts to stress with violence, that's a serious issue.
>> Any behavior where uh the result of um their actions is violence, uh that's going to be a significant concern. uh it's a concern for my staff. It's a concern for the other prisoners uh that are incarcerated around that individual.
So uh yes, the the the manner in which somebody uh reacts to their environment, especially if that reaction is violent in nature, that is going to be a concern.
>> And then secondarily, um in the prison system, you said there's I think you use the term infraction. Is that right?
>> Yes, sir. And can you just give us a the the 10-centent version of the types of things that may be infractions?
>> Sure. So, you have on the low end things like um they're not in the right um not in the right area, right? Or they're not listening to um an order that's given to them from a correctional officer or they're being disrespectful towards staff, things of that nature. uh all the way up to significant contraband possession, cell phones, drugs, weapons, um escape attempts, serious assaults, homicides. Um there it it's the full array. Again, kind of going back to just the way it is here in society. Uh all those infractions that I listed, it's the same thing within prison with of course more structure and expectations on the way they behave uh and manage uh their behavior within prison.
And it you said talk about drugs. Not to speak of the prison system, but there's still drugs in our Texas prison system.
Correct.
>> That is a fact of life. Yes, sir.
>> And for example, I asked you before, if an inmate is caught committing one of those infractions by a guard and their default because of whoever they are is to resort to violence, does that cause any problems?
>> Yes, it does. And to to your question, go ahead.
>> I was going is that the same thing you describe for somebody who reacts to stress and change? Is that the same type of problems?
>> Yes.
>> Yes.
>> Now, um kind of dispelled a couple of myths here. Um is it true that there is a a typical predator versus prey person or inmate in the prison system? Is is that is that true?
There is no mold um for for me or anyone in a correctional setting to say this person will or will not be a predator or prey. No.
>> He also kind of broke down what dayto-day life actually looks like when it's probably not what a lot of people picture for G2 and G3 inmates. They're not walking around in shackles all day.
They move in groups, eat in big dining halls, go to programs, work jobs, and have recreation time. Meals might be in groups of 25. Visitation can be contact visits where families can hug. And inmates can spend money on commissary about $105 every 2 weeks on food, hygiene stuff, even things like small electronics or fans. And access to things like medical care, education, religious services, jobs, that's not based on the crime itself. It's based on classification level and behavior. So inmates can work in kitchens, maintenance, trades, or prison industries. They can take classes through the Windham School District and even use tablets in limited ways. But the state kept bringing it back to risk.
Prison is stressful by design. You don't control your environment. Things are always changing. And because of that, monitoring behavior is huge. If someone cannot handle that stress and becomes violent, it affects everyone. It affects staff, other inmates, it affects the whole system.
And then they switched gears to death row, specifically at the Allen B.
Pollinsky unit. And this is where things get way more locked down.
>> I was a a captain over death row at that facility. It is in Livingston, Texas.
And so let's talk about a little bit of differences here. Um with regard to housing at the Palinsky unit in Livingston, um is it the two different types of housing that we have in the normal uh prison system or is it one type of housing?
>> It is different and is one type.
>> Okay. And then with regard um I'm going to ask you some of the similar questions here. Sure. with regard to the movement of inmates within that unit. How does that differ from uh the regular say you're a G2 or G3 inmate serving time?
So like I explained earlier for that movement going to and from the dining hall and things of that nature. There is nothing like that within the death row environment. So, uh, anytime before someone is going to be taken out of their cell, uh, within death row, they are completely searched, strip searched.
Uh, they are then, uh, made, they redress, uh, restraints are applied, the door is open, and they're escorted out of their cell with, uh, two correctional officers at all time taking them where they need to go, and they stay uh, they remain restrained the entire escort.
>> And, uh, I'm going to kind of go through this quickly here. you you um is that the same for transport, medical, things of that nature? Does that remain the same for that?
>> Yes, transport's completely different.
They will never be on a bus. Uh anyone assigned to death row is going to be um in a van, a secure van by themselves with vehicles in front of and and possibly behind uh following and chasing that vehicle. Uh much higher level of um security oversight for types of transports. for your question about medical. Uh someone in G2 and G3, they get essentially uh what you and I would know as as in a doctor's appointment, right? They get a little slip with their time. They show that slip to the correctional staff and they walk down to the unit medical department. Uh you contrast that with death row. Uh those individuals again are restrained and escorted uh to that medical appointment.
There's no one else around. the hallways are cleared uh and that staff remains with that individual the entirety of uh the medical or mental health appointment. So they are not going down there alone.
>> We talked about structure, routine and change. Um talk to us about the difference between between structure, routine and change between normal prison unit and the Pinsky unit in Livingston.
>> Sure. So death row uh by nature is far more structured. uh it is um uh they they remain at that facility for the entirety of their incarceration uh up until that sentence is carried out. Um the structure of their movement is much different as I just explained. Uh so it is uh it is very different compared to the general population movement. Uh the living area they are in the cell by themselves. Uh there's not a cellmate that's assigned to their cells. So, uh, everything about it is is far more structured and a lot higher level of of management and oversight.
>> He also talked about how classification decisions are made overall, saying it's a holistic process. They they look at everything, criminal history, age, medical needs, mental health, behavior, and that all goes into where someone ends up and how they're managed. One key point he made for this case is that capital murder inmates cannot be G2.
They start at G3 at minimum and then their behavior in prison can move them up or down over time. Those classifications get reviewed regularly about every six months if something changes. On cross on cross he pushed back on the idea that classification is just based on the crime and then stays that way forever. He said that it's constantly being reassessed even at higher custody levels. inmates can still have jobs, interact with people, and move through structured programs if they follow the rules. At one point, he made it clear this is not just about punishment. It's about managing risk and keeping people safe, staff, inmates, visitors, everyone. Public safety is the priority. That is really where his testimony sort of finished and landed.
It it wasn't about Tanner specifically.
This was about the system highly structured, constantly changing. It's built to manage thousands of people in an environment where stress and potential for violence are always there.
When the state called its second rebuttal witness, it turned into something much more personal and emotional. I mentioned this witness at the beginning of this episode, and the witness was only identified as Billy.
This was someone who grew up closely to Tanner and was raised alongside him in the same extended family environment.
And Billy Billy testified that he is considered Tener's cousin. They have spent a lot of time together as children, especially between roughly 2000 and then 2004 when they were living near each other and frequently on the same property. He described a childhood that was not structured or stable, but instead shaped by addiction, instability, and chaotic adult supervision. He told the jury that during those years, the children in the household would often play together near Lakew Worth Lake, walking just a few minutes from Tanner's grandma Jackie's house to a wooded area by a boat dock.
That place, he said, was where they would normally hang out, climbing rocks, exploring, and playing in makeshift areas like piles of sand near the water.
But Billy also described Tanner as unpredictable even back then, which then came to the central and most serious part of his testimony. Billy told the jury that around 2004, when they were still children, that Tanner sexually assaulted him.
>> What happened on that day >> about the whole sex assault? Yes.
>> All right. It started off as we were all going to go play down at the park as usual.
We ended up walking down the street.
Tanner wanted to go to the boat dock. We ended up going off into the little wooded area of the boat dock. Tanner immediately pulled out his started mating. He told me to get down and start sucking it. I was scared of Tanner at the time. So I did. And when a little bit of time goes by, he tells me to bend over. He tried to put it in. it would not fit, I guess. So, he turned around and he had me suck it some more and then he finished by masturbating next to the tree.
>> At this point, why why were you scared of Tanner at that time?
>> Because he would like to pretend play Dragon Ball Z, which ended up him just beating us up and kneing us in the stomach.
And >> I was scared of him.
>> The us was that his brother?
>> Mhm. Okay.
He made it clear that he was afraid of Tanner at the time, not just because of what happened during that incident, but because Tanner had previously beaten him and was physically larger and more aggressive than he was. Billy also testified that this was not an isolated incident in his memory. He told the court that another assault occurred later around 2007, again involving Tanner exposing himself and assaulting him. Was there um another sexual assault incident?
>> Yes.
>> And again, we're going to kind of I I know dates sometimes are, but do you recall the date on that sexual assault incident?
>> Uh same year paranormal activity came out, the very first one, 2007.
>> Okay.
>> He woke up to him masturbating above my head. He pretended like he was asleep. I backed off in the corner. Uh he continued to act like he's asleep. Then he laid back down, covered up, and I just stayed there till I made sure he was asleep, and I went back to sleep.
>> Now, at this point, I think you were probably around 12, 13 years old.
>> Mhm.
>> And what with the 2007 incident?
>> Mhm. After that second incident, he said there were no further sex assaults, but their contact didn't completely stop. In fact, one of the more complicated parts of his testimony was that their lives remained loosely connected even after the abuse. Billy said that because of instability in his own home, his parents would still drop him off at Jackie's house where Tanner was present. He also said he spent time there with Tanner and others like a friend named Cody. The emotional weight of his testimony continued when Billy explained what brought him to the prosecution in the first place. He said he initially tried to contact the defense, but ended up reaching out to the state through a Facebook post he made just a few weeks before trial. And in that post, he wrote that he believed Tanner's claims about Zero were fake and he directly accused Tanner of sexing him and beating him as a child. When asked why he decided to come forward after so many years, Billy said, quote, "The fact that he killed the kid, and it's the truth needs to be told." End quote. Billy also testified that after the alleged assaults, Tanner made a comment that stuck with him for years.
>> It was 4th of July. Um Tanner's grandmother had parked her van at the fireworks stand. It ran out of gas because I guess she was sitting on a hill. It wouldn't start. It rolled back back, Cody gave us a ride home to his house. And in the car on the ride home, Tanner had mentioned he'd wondered what it would be like to kill somebody.
>> At the time, Billy didn't fully process it. But after Tanner's later case became public, he said that memory resurfaced in a very different way. The defense, however, spent a significant portion of cross-examination challenging Billy's timeline and credibility. They pointed out that school and residence records might change the years he was recalling, suggesting Tanner may have been living in different places than Billy remembered during that time. But Billy acknowledged that his own memory was based on recollection rather than any documents and agreed that if those records were different, it could change the timeline slightly. The defense also circled back to their family environment. Billy confirmed that both his family and Tanner's households were dealing with serious substance abuse issues at the time, including heroin and meth use, not any minor substances. He testified that Jackie, Tanner's grandmother, was often overwhelmed by those circumstances when struggled to manage the household and raise the children. One of the more dramatic moments in cross-examination came when Billy described witnessing a violent domestic incident. He said that he, Tanner, and another child were inside the home when Tanner's mom, Melissa, entered the house holding a butcher knife and chased someone named Eddie outside.
He described that scene as chaotic and frightening, which reinforces the unstable environment he said they were growing up in. After that incident, he said that Tanner ended up moving back in with his grandma. The defense also explored Billy's own background, including a prior conviction in 2015 for solicitation of a prostitute. Billy confirmed the conviction, but stated clearly that it did not involve a child and said he has no history of kidnapping, sex assault, or murder himself, despite growing up in the same environment as Tanner and even being abused by Tanner. During his testimony, Billy also acknowledged that Tanner has struggled with mental health issues, including a suicide attempt.
>> The time that you knew Tanner, was he ever depressed?
>> Not that I know of. He was just over energetic.
What about style?
>> There was one time in my life when I stayed the night with him and I woke up to Jackie taking him to the mental ward for a suicide attempt.
>> Do you remember was that overdose or cutting? What was that?
>> Uh I believe it was right after he got his shack is the bedroom in the backyard.
>> Despite all of the challenges raised on cross, Billy remained firm when asked on redirect whether he was confident about what he said Tanner had done to him. He answered yes and said that while dates might blur over time, what happened itself is clear in his mind.
>> Why come forward now?
>> I figure the truth needs to be told. He deserves to pay for everything that he's done.
>> Objection, your honor. Courts ruled on this and the motion was sustained. The jury will disregard the last statements.
>> Up next, Dr. Michael Aramula took the stand. He's a boardcertified forensic psychiatrist who has worked on hundreds of criminal cases and he had been brought in specifically to evaluate Tanner and review the evidence of what happened to Athena. From the very beginning, his testimony felt like it was building toward one central question. How dangerous is this man?
Really, how dangerous is he? He started by walking the jury through his background. He explained that he holds two doctoral degrees, one in pharmacy and one in medicine, and completed specialized training in forensic psychiatry. Over the years, he's evaluated thousands of patients and worked both defense and prosecution sides in criminal cases. Then he got into how he became involved in this case. He was contacted back in early 2023, reviewed records, and eventually conducted a court-ordered evaluation of Tanner on February 27th, 2026, right there in the courtroom with deputies present. He explained that he always starts these evaluations by making things clear to the person he's interviewing. He told Tanner he was not there as a therapist, that the evaluation was court-ordered, and that anything said could end up in a report or in testimony. He also made it clear Tanner didn't have to answer anything he didn't want to. And according to him, Tanner was mostly cooperative at first, but that changed as the interview went on.
>> Um, so I want to kind of just have you tell me sort of in general about the level of cooperation that the defendant gave during that interview for the evaluation.
>> So, generally speaking, he was uh pretty cooperative. Uh there were but there were some areas that um he was not cooperative with and so we had to take a break and then with each successive break he became uh less cooperative and uh worked up and so I didn't pursue the last time that he didn't want to talk about something I just let it go. And so if he didn't want to talk about something, did he avail himself of the opportunity to go and discuss it with his counsel?
>> The last time. Um, >> objection, your honor. May we approach?
>> Sure.
>> Aramula didn't just rely on interviews or secondhand summaries, though. He told the jury he went through extensive records, including mental health, medical, and investigative files along with statements from family members and others close to Tanner. But the biggest piece, the one he kept coming back to was the video and audio evidence. He estimated spending around 30 to 40 hours watching footage, including recordings from inside the FedEx truck before, during, and after the crime, as well as police interviews. From there, he started laying out his findings and he described a background of childhood neglect and instability, saying Tanner grew up in an environment that wasn't stable with signs of abuse and dysfunction. He noted a history of anxiety and depression. There had been talks from other experts about autism spectrum disorder. And while this doctor didn't formally diagnose it himself, he said he was willing to accept that diagnosis from others. However, he did not believe autism explained what happened here. In fact, he pointed to the video evidence itself as proof of the opposite. So with regard to what occurred in the particular uh video um on the day what we'll call the abduction video did you see his ability to adapt to change u based upon changing circumstances?
>> Yes.
>> Can can you kind of explain that to the jury what you saw?
So after he initially abducted her and um was not talking much with her, then he started asking her questions about her family, school, things like that. Um and it it at least by my observation, uh Athena seemed more calm by that. So that was an ability on his part to understand the situation, what was going on and change his approach as opposed to just picking her up and throwing her in the back of the truck. So um that was something that I caught. Um and then um under that immense stress of having started that crime, he uh was persistent in what uh in his activities with her basically.
And after the crime was committed and the body was disposed of, did you see his ability to change again?
>> Um, yes. As far as uh not being detected, um, covering up what he did, those kind of things. Yes.
>> So, um, were those things consistent with autism spectrum disorder or something else?
It was not consistent with somebody who wanted sameness for example or couldn't problem solve under that kind of stress and and again my presumption and he said it was stressful that uh taking the life of a human being is stressful.
Okay. So I didn't see uh any him struggling with those kind of issues of lack of problem solving. He was still trying to go undetected.
That theme carried into his discussion of planning. Rambula said the behavior he observed did not look impulsive. It looked deliberate. He described how Tener drove to a secluded area that he appeared to be familiar with, even warning Athena at one point that it's going to get a little bumpy, which suggested he knew exactly where he was going. to Arumbula that indicated awareness and preparation, not confusion or panic. And then the testimony went into personality traits. He described what he called personality pathology, including antisocial traits like aggression and impulsivity along with borderline features such as sensitivity to abandonment. He referenced past behavior, including a suicide attempt after a breakup as an example of that emotional instability. At one point he told the jury he has really big issues with his temper. He's always had that been physically destructive and concluded that there were signs, clear signs of antisocial personality pathology. But the most intense part of his testimony came when he began talking about sexual behavior.
>> All right. So talking about the evidence in the facts in this case uh specifically related to the assault or kidnapping, sexual assault, torture and murder of Athena Presley and run strand.
Do you see evidence of sexual devian on the part of the defendant?
>> Yes.
>> Can you explain that for the jury? So when I reviewed the um the audio recording, it was very clear to me that he abducted her primarily for sex because soon after he drove to the secluded spot that he had picked out, that's when he started engaging with sex in sex with Athena. It's basically oral sex. He was teaching her how to do it, telling her what to do, threatening her, uh those kind of things. The things that I heard in audio recordings of victims in these cases, read about in investigative uh reviews of the victims in sexually violent predator hearings, all the same thing. Uh so that's what stood out to me. Um so that's interest abnormal.
And then the amount of suffering that Athena went through while he was victimizing or that has some features of sadism. Sadism is where somebody either physically harms somebody or emotionally harm somebody and it's part of the sexual uh experience. So there were two areas that caught my eye. U looking through that interview and then correlating it with the transcript.
>> He also pointed to elements of sadism not as a formal diagnosis but as a behavioral pattern.
>> He acknowledged a prior history of Sato masochism and asphixia that's uh basically choking during sex uh due to uh other women who encouraged him to participate.
>> Okay. So he's saying that he has been involved in what is sato massochism.
>> Um that's where the use of uh pain the introduction of pain and humiliation into sexual activity uh for some individuals heightens uh sexual gratification. So um spanking um hot wax sometimes people use needles um in uh let's see in his case he reported uh um inflicting cigarette burns uh during sex. So clearly the experience of pain gets mixed in with sexual pleasure.
And then he also talked about exfixia.
What is exfixia?
>> It's uh choking.
>> And you understand that he plead guilty to strangling and Athena and expiation?
>> Yes.
>> Uh a person that uh does this in a sexual manner is that do they normally do that to cause death >> in a normal manner?
>> No. in a in a normal manner or legal manner. Espixia does heighten sexual uh pleasure, let's put it that way, as long as you can keep the person.
In other words, you don't knock them out.
>> So, I'm not encouraging anyone to do that. But that's basically it in a nutshell.
>> Okay. So, he he admitted to you that he had used choking during sex in the past. Is that right?
>> Yes.
>> Okay. Now, with regard to uh other sexual behaviors, did you listen to the testimony outside the presence of the jury of the previous hearing of his former girlfriend and mother of his child?
>> Yes.
>> And what if any uh testimony that she gave that uh influenced you in this area? What was added uh listening to that reading the testimony that was different in the records or add in other words added to the records was she just >> I will object to hearsay >> over go ahead.
>> Okay. I really knew about the issue of dominance. Uh he liked to dominate her.
He was rough. Uh she had to set limits at times but she consented to it until she said stop and then he did. Uh there was some role playing involved as well.
Uh what they uh did participate in is him playing that as if he was her father big her daddy and she was his little girl or princess. And so they used to role play like that um as a part of their sexual activity.
>> Uh there were ropes. Uh she was not um excited too excited about that and didn't want to participate. He had talked with her about hog tying her. She said no. Those kind of things. So clearly he has an interest in things, but he abided by her refusals and didn't go further, but the interest was still there.
>> He also described the threats, the degrading language, and the violence captured in the recordings. He recalled statements like calling her names, telling her to be quiet, and even making a comment that she didn't know when to give up. According to Arumula, the level of control of fear and suffering involved pointed to something far far beyond a spontaneous act. with regard to the way that he talks to her on the video related to this idea of sadism.
Um, can you explain your find or your opinions related to the things that were said by the defendant to Athena Strand during the time uh between the time that he kidnapped her and the time that he ultimately killed her.
So what I heard were statements were threats. Um if you scream or if you say anything I will hurt you later is I will kill you. Um he often called her [ __ ] when she um came too so to say. Uh he was clearly very angry about that. Um I remember a comment uh what part of shut up don't you get [ __ ] those kind of things. So very degrading towards her uh after he had nearly beat her and strangled her to death.
>> Even as she is dying, does he make a statement to her about whether she's given up?
>> Right. Yes. Like she didn't she didn't know when to give up.
>> The uh talk about Tanner's reasons. Did he explain to you his reasons for covering the front-facing camera during the interview >> with me? Yes.
>> What did he say to you?
>> Uh, just basically to cover up his drug use during work.
>> Now, since you have reviewed the videos, there were were there times where he was actively preparing and then smoking marijuana on those videos >> using a vape? Yes.
>> A vape pen. Yes.
>> And uh but did you ever see any evidence of any type of cocaine use at all?
>> No.
>> Um with regard to premeditation, do you have an opinion about whether or not this was a premeditated act? not necessarily with regard to Athena herself with but with regard to a child on that date.
>> Um based on the evidence uh yes I can answer that.
>> We object.
>> At the same time he was careful to clarify that he was not diagnosing Tanner with a paraphilic disorder or pedophilia under DSM5 criteria. That became important later because the defense tried to use that against him.
the fact that he did not diagnose Tanner as a pedophile. But his position was basically this. Even without a formal diagnosis, the behavior itself still was important and it still says something about risk. He also referenced other information, including allegations involving additional victims and testimony from family members, saying these suggested a pattern of what he called sexual versatility, meaning multiple outlets and escalating behavior. In his words, "These kinds of patterns don't just appear overnight.
They've been brewing for some time."
When asked about premeditation, Dr. Aramula had this to say.
>> Other than just covering the front-facing videos, what other evidence did you review that pre makes you feel that this could have been premeditated?
>> All right. So, the word I use is planning, and that's what I'm looking for uh in my fellowship training. Um, I remember in the investigative records that he had gone to the site before he took Athena to the site and that made sense because in the audio he's telling her, "Okay, it's going to get a little bumpy now." So, he knew where he was going. Um, I asked him about why' you stop at that spot. He said it was secluded. So, he obviously selected that. Uh, I talked about grooming earlier. uh when he changed how he was talking with her to help her calm down uh to gain her trust so to say, cooperation. That's what people who have some sexual deviants do to their victims before they uh exploit them. That's part of the planning as well. And then obviously walking her through what to do, uh how to do it, uh not to yell, that's all part of planning.
Okay. According to what he's thinking, >> first thing that you said, you said he visited the site. What what site are you talking about?
>> The site where uh he stopped the FedEx truck basically.
>> Where he turned off the engine?
>> Yes, sir.
>> And sexually assaulted the theme.
>> Yes.
>> He had visited that site previously to that.
>> That's what I recall in the records.
Yeah.
>> And then he brought it all together with what was probably the most important part of his testimony. future danger or risk. When asked directly, he said, quote, "Based on the evidence, there is a probability that Mr. Her will commit violent acts and constitute a continuing threat to society." End quote. He explained that this opinion was based on everything he had reviewed, behavior, attitudes, the recordings, and expert reports. He even addressed the idea of whether prison would make a difference.
Not to rehash everything, but I'll just succinctly say he's had issues with controlling himself pretty much all his life. Uh for a number of reasons that got worse as he got older. Uh it culminated in this. Uh other experts have said he has issues with executive dysfunction, controlling his anger, emotional regulation, and impulsivity. That's all involved in this. So whether he's in prison, I've been in prison quite a number of times just to visit and interview people. Um it's like a little society. All right?
So it doesn't really matter the setting cuz he's going to come across in prison more or less people that he would probably come across in society because he has a mental health issue history.
He's going to go to the clinics. There are texts there. They're almost, at least for me, my experience, most of them are females, techs, nurse practitioners, therapists, um, and there are female guards of course. So, uh, it's a replica of our community, but it differs obviously.
The type of people that live there are uh, also very aggressive, threatening.
It's stressful, at least from the people I've talked to.
Now I want to talk to you about incidents specific to you. You said that when you did your interview with the defendant.
It was you, the defendant, and three guards in this room. Correct.
>> Yes, sir.
>> Uh can you explain the situation that happened with regard to when you were questioning the defendant related to whether or not he sexually assaulted the Presley Monroe Strand?
>> Okay.
So that was towards the end of the interview and he had been getting he we had taken some breaks because he didn't want to answer questions and that's okay. Um, but he was becoming a little bit more worked up. And this last question, um, he was, uh, I was looking at the transcript and he was kind of critiquing me that that transcript was the DA had made up and it was had inaccuracies and blah blah blah, and he didn't do anything to Athena, uh, etc., etc. And then I responded to him. I heard everything he told her and it just stopped him. He was very upset. He his st the went right through me. Uh it took me a back because I wasn't expecting that. And then I the rest of the interview I didn't challenge him after that. Um cuz I could sense his anger.
>> Was it inongruous with what you'd had up until that point?
>> Yeah. I as I said there was some increasing irritability when um he refused to talk about certain subjects and then he would come back and say I needed a break. That's fine. I understand that. But this one um was different. Uh I was not expecting that type of anger from him.
>> And then came cross-examination. The defense questioned how thoroughly he reviewed records, pointing out that he admitted to scanning some Facebook posts rather than reading everything in detail. He pushed back, explaining that some records were repetitive and did not require the same level of attention.
They also focused on how much time he spent on the case, breaking down his billing to about 81 hours at $350 an hour. He did not dispute that and explained again that a huge portion of that time was spent reviewing video evidence. And from there, the defense zeroed in on his use of the term sexual devian, emphasizing that it's not recognized in the DSM5. Well, he agreed, but said that the DSM is a tool and doesn't define the entirety of clinical understanding. Lee also pointed out that many of the sexual behaviors he referenced like role playing or rough sex are not illegal if consensual and he agreed to that too. They pressed him on the fact that he did not diagnose Tanner with sexual sadism or pedophilia and suggested his conclusions were based too heavily on this single offense. He pushed back saying the video was a primary source but not the only one and that his conclusions came from a culmination of everything. The defense also challenged his interpretation of planning, suggesting the location could have simply been part of Tanner's normal delivery route. Dr. Aramula acknowledged that possibility, but stuck to his point that familiarity of the area still showed awareness and control over the situation. He explained that if Tanner didn't know where he was going, he wouldn't have been able to warn Athena about the road conditions ahead.
Finally, they tried to undermine his claim that Tanner would be dangerous in the future by pointing out his behavior in custody. They noted he had no disciplinary writeups and had interacted with staff without incident. While he agreed with that, aside from one incident related to self harm, but that did not change his opinion. His view was that a structured environment does not automatically eliminate someone's violent tendencies. And then we get to Tuesday. Before the attorneys got into closing arguments, the judge gave the jury their instructions, Tanner has already pleaded guilty to capital murder. So now it's all about punishment. And the jury is the one who has to make that call, life or death.
The judge basically told them, "Your job now is to decide between two outcomes, life in prison without parole or the death penalty." They have to answer what are called special issues, which are very specific legal questions that guide their final decision. Before even getting into those, the judge reminded them how serious this process is. This is not something they can rush or treat casually. They can't flip a coin. They can't go with chance and they cannot just cave to pressure in the room.
Each juror has to come to their own decision but also be willing to talk it through with everyone else. It has to be a real discussion and exchange of opinions and at the same time they are told not to abandon what they truly believe just to go along with the group.
Then came the first big question the jury has to answer. Basically, do they believe Tanner would be a continuing threat? In legal terms, is there a probability that he would commit future acts of violence? The rules around this are strict. For the jury to answer yes, meaning they think he is a future danger, it has to be unanimous. Every single jury has to agree. But if they're going to answer no, they don't need all 12. At least 10 jurors have to agree on that. And if even one juror has reasonable doubt about whether he's a future threat, that juror is supposed to vote no. The judge also told them to look at everything when answering this.
Not just the crime itself, but Tanner's background, his character, everything they've heard throughout the trial, both good and bad. They only move on to the second question if they all unanimously say yes to that first one. If they don't, that's it. They stop there. If they do move on, the second question is about mitigation. Basically, is there anything about Tanner, his life, his background, or the circumstances of the crime that would justify giving him life without parole instead of death? Again, there are specific voting rules. To answer no on mitigation, meaning there's nothing that justifies a life sentence, that has to be unanimous. But to answer yes, meaning at least some jurors believe there are mitigating factors, they only need 10. And the judge explained what mitigation means in plain terms. It's anything that might make the jury feel like the punishment should be less severe. So, anything that reduces moral blame, even slightly. The judge made clear that if the jury finds there are enough mitigating circumstances, Tanner will be sentenced to life without parole. The judge also touched on some of the evidence they heard the state brought up other alleged bad acts, not just the crime he was convicted of. The jury is told they can only consider that if they truly believe beyond a reasonable doubt that those acts actually happened. Another big point, Tanner did not testify. And the judge told the jury that they are not allowed to hold that against him in any way.
They can't talk about it. They can't consider it. Nothing. And finally, the judge reminded the jurors about Tanner's statements to law enforcement. Those recorded interviews can be considered, but only if the jury believes those statements were made voluntarily and meet the legal standard. And now with all of that in mind, the jury was about to hear closing arguments that will try to shape how they answer those questions. Prosecutor Staint started by grounding the jury in something they all experienced during selection. He reminded them that when they were qualified, they talked about the death penalty, and he acknowledged something important right away. People are often reluctant about it and they should be.
This is something that is supposed to be reserved for the worst of the worst.
Then he started listing what those worst cases look like. Intentional acts, cold, calculated planning, premeditation, victims who can't defend themselves, children, sexual assaults, situations where there is no mercy to be found. And then Staintton landed the point. He said, "Cases like this are exactly why Texas still has the death penalty."
>> Cases where there's no mercy shown to the cases like this.
This is what and the reason why that Texas keeps the death penalty here. This is why this is the type of case.
And I'm going to tell you, Tanner Horner is proof why parents hug their children a little tighter.
He's proof of why children are nervous to go play outside.
He's proof of why there is evil in society and we can never turn our back.
This is the kind of case that has consequences outside the courtroom. Then Staintton talked about Athena being born on May 23rd, 2015 and immediately contrasted that with how close she was to future milestones she will never reach. She was so young and had so much life ahead of her. He talked about what she would have been. graduation as a Paradise Panther in the class of 2033, birthday parties that would have been full of pink. And then he starts asking rhetorical questions about her life, who she would have married, who her first boyfriend would have been, what her wedding shoes might have looked like, what her career could have been. He is forcing the jury to sit with the idea that this was a whole life that never got to happen. I personally was reminded of her you can be anything Barbies that were delivered that day. Then he brought it back to the central point that this case requires a difficult choice but sometimes the hardest choice is the right one. And while prosecutors are trained to bring passion or fire and brimstone into arguments like this, he said he is not going to do that in the traditional sense because in his view the evidence itself already does the heavy lifting. Dayton told the jury that what they saw on the screen is already more powerful than anything he could say. No argument he could make would ever come close to what they have already seen and heard. And from there he shifted into the evidence itself. He started talking about planning and premeditation.
He pointed to specific behavior like Tanner covering the camera on more than one occasion. To him that shows intention and awareness. you know, when you talk about we talk about planning, it's not not all just pre-planning. It's it's the understanding of what you're going to do after. Um, you know, for somebody that is, uh, having some form of catastrophe and and and inability to think or solve problems, um, out of all the random roads you could have chosen to go and salt Athena, you drive right to it. You know the road, you know what's going on, you know the bunks, you know what's there. You don't pick some random road. You go to where you know it's excl secluded. That's planning.
That's not somebody having a catastrophe and can't doesn't know where they are.
Okay.
>> Then he made a very direct statement about what he believes Tanner understood at the moment.
>> We know what he wants and we know what's coming.
Didn't know what was coming. He knows what's coming.
That's not the eyes. That's not the look of someone who doesn't have a plan, doesn't have motivation, that hasn't thought this out, that hasn't fantasized about this. That's the look of a predator right there.
>> Saint transitioned into the physical evidence and focused heavily on DNA. He said the only acceptable outcome would have been if Tanner's DNA was excluded from the samples taken from Athena. But that is not what the evidence shows.
Tanner's DNA was present in and on Athena's body. And there's no reason for that other than if he sexually assaulted her. From there, he shifted into the violence of the crime itself.
>> When we talk about the murder and what happened, you guys heard it.
And I don't want anybody to ever forget what kind of warrior that little girl was.
I don't know if anybody could have could have withstood what she withtood over and over again. I I don't I don't know anybody that could have withstood that. Um he can choke her, he can beat her, he can do it over and over again, but what do we know? We know the end result was right here.
This is what it took.
That's what it took to beat the life out of her.
And I think that is key to this entire case. If the facts were not bad enough, if the sexual assault wasn't bad enough, the level of violence that one person can inflict on a child, including stomping them with a pair of shoes.
And I wonder where that tread lag print came from anymore because we know.
>> Then he turned toward the defense arguments before they got to respond.
>> Defense is going to get up here after me. They're going to have some things to say as well. That's how it works. Okay.
Um, but what I anticipate is going to be a continuation of what you've already heard.
His brain's broken somehow.
He's got all these conditions. He's got all these ailments, all these things. He may have some or part of those.
Apparently, according to Dr. Yan, he even got low tea.
We even got the lead paint guy. I don't know about the lead paint guy. I don't know if it works or not. I don't know if his little homemade zapper works or not.
I honestly don't know. But what I do know is this. If you're going to come in here and try to convince us that somebody has all this lead in their system, it's causing all the problems, why do you test anybody else?
I mean, if you want us to believe you and all this stuff's going on, why don't you test the other people in the house?
I don't I don't think you want to know the answer. That's why you don't do it.
So, we when we get up here, there's going to be a lot of talk about second chance.
There's going to be a lot of talk about, you know, maybe mercy. There's going to be a lot of talk about um, you know, you know, his deficits and disabilities and things of that nature. But let's remember this.
Everything they're telling you is an excuse.
You know how I know it's an excuse? Cuz it took six or seven experts and half a million dollars to come up here and tell you it's not an excuse. That's how you know. If you've got to work that hard to try to prove that some kind of excuse, we know what the answer is. They're trying to get you to excuse his conduct.
They're trying to get you to be less angry or less blamew worthy on somebody for their conduct.
I submit to you the truth and the facts and circumstances are what's most important.
What he did is most important. Now in looking at all of this, if you want mercy and you want somebody to consider giving you life when you gave no life here, when you gave no mercy here, what does it start with? I like to think it starts with the truth.
I like to think it starts with not lying. I like it thinks to start with, you know, if you have experts and you're being interviewed, not continuing to fabricate stories, not continuing to lie to you, not continue to try to cover, not continue to try to shade this or change the narrative.
I think that the the difference between wanting mercy and earning it are two separate things. So now, now what you've heard for the past two weeks is that person driving that vehicle, you can see it right here. this person right here driving this vehicle. You've heard for the last two weeks about every form of ailment one could possibly have. And you heard about the last two weeks how that that person can't cope, has stress, has the inability to do basically anything on the earth whatsoever and essentially um is is incapable of doing anything.
If you have any doubt about that, watch the eight minutes of this video right here from when he pulls in to Athena's driveway until he covers up the camera.
If you have any doubt about somebody's ability to do and participate and be out in the world, watch that video because it's real, real clear. That's an individual who knows what they're doing.
That's an individual who's hunting.
That's an individual who's looking around and understanding what's around them. That is an individual who is absolutely lethal. That's an individual who targeted somebody, found somebody, tricked somebody, got him into the vehicle. You all saw when he took his hand and he put it over her mouth. He knows what's coming. You all saw right here.
You all saw right here.
Bungee cords trying to tie somebody up.
You all saw that this is not an individual that's on some form of stress fuel catastrophe and the cocaine nonsense. Come on.
Just another lie. Just another lie.
But guess what? When you know that you've been caught covering up the camera and you know you've been caught, what do you do? You come up with another lie that fits your narrative. That's what you do.
And that's what's happened in this case is lie upon lie upon lie.
>> And then he circled back again to the defense theories saying they will argue stress. They will argue brain issues.
They'll argue other conditions. But he insisted those are just attempts to explain away responsibility after the fact. He said that many people have disabilities. Many people are diagnosed with something and many people come from difficult backgrounds but they do not commit acts like this. In his view, those factors cannot be used to excuse what happened here. Then he moved into the idea of future danger. He said that the jury has seen enough to understand what Tanner is capable of. He framed it as a pattern of violence and sexual harm, and he warned the jury not to assume that confining him will change that risk. As he approached the end, Stton brought it back to mitigation. He said he does not see anything in this case that reduces moral responsibility in any meaningful way. The severity of what happened outweighs any background explanation.
>> The only sentence in this case that gives justice to her is answering those two questions. Yes and no.
>> Thank you, Judge. In the first part of the defense's closing, defense attorney goal basically echoed what the state had said earlier about jury service that most of them probably didn't even want to be there at first, but showed up anyway because it was their civic duty.
And then he reminded them that Tanner has already pleaded guilty to capital murder. And under Texas law, once someone is convicted of capital murder, the only punishment options are life in prison without parole or the death penalty. He pushed back on the idea that they should be comparing this case to other capital cases like mass murders or murders of police officers or judges.
His point was basically that the law doesn't ask them to rank tragedies or decide which is worse in a moral competition. In his words, Texas law is already satisfied with life without parole or capital murder in any case, even the worst imaginable ones. From there, he shifted into the punishment phase instructions. He explained that this part of the trial wasn't about deciding what happened at all, but about what punishment fits. He told the jury this was supposed to be their individual moral judgment, even though they still had to deliberate together. He pointed out language in the judge's instruction, saying that each jury must decide the case for themselves, but only after discussing it with the others and considering the evidence impartially.
Gobble made a big point of saying that those terms are not clearly defined and are supposed to be interpreted by the jury. He told them things like probability, criminal acts of violence, and continuing we're all up to their understanding, not something the prosecution gets to define for them. He reminded them that society in this context really means prison society, not the outside world. And then he stressed the burden of proof. Again, he said the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tanner would be a continuing danger in prison. And he argued they simply had not done that. In his view, the prosecution spent a lot of time talking about lying, but that didn't actually prove future dangerousness. He said they leaned into this theme that Tanner lied, but argued that people lie in all kinds of situations and it doesn't automatically make someone deserving of a death sentence. There's nothing about lying on here.
Frankly, go back to creation. Lying was human's first reaction to getting caught doing something bad.
Deputy Amy handled every piece of physical evidence in this case, handled every photograph.
She did something wrong and she lied and she lied again and she lied again and made it all worse.
This isn't about lying.
Ranger Espinosa told you he lies as an interrogation technique. He lied in this case to get the information he wanted. This case isn't about lying. You don't get the death sentence for lying. Then he switched to this idea that the state had tried to suggest sex assault through DNA evidence and medical findings. And he strongly pushed back on that. He pointed to the medical examiner's own findings, that there were no injuries consistent with sexual assault. He listed out parts of the report, saying there was no trauma to Athena's privates, and that everything was described as unremarkable. He also went into the DNA testing in detail, arguing that the prosecution misrepresented what the results actually meant. He explained that terms like sperm cell fraction in the reports were not definitive indicators of semen or sexual activity, but just labeling for sample tracking.
He said the lab even clarified that those terms don't necessarily identify the source of DNA. He pointed out that early testing in April 2023 indicated that Tanner was excluded as a contributor in one of the DNA profiles and argued that no one even did the proper testing to confirm whether semen was present in the first place. He indicated that the lab itself noted that if semen testing was needed, additional steps should have been taken, but they weren't. He then said later reports basically repeated earlier findings with some wording changes which he argued was misleading rather than new evidence. His overall point was that the DNA evidence was being overstated and did not prove that Athena was sexually assaulted. And for the record here at Hidden True Crime, we couldn't disagree with his argument more. She absolutely was assaulted in every way.
But after that, he brought the focus back to the main legal issue, which was whether Tanner would be a continuing threat in prison. He brought up an expert who had studied violence predictions in inmates and testified that predicting future dangerousness is actually very unreliable. Global explained that research shows certain factors can increase risk like being very young when first incarcerated, how low education or gang involvement or prior violence in prison can affect things. But he stressed that none of those apply to Tanner. He said Tanner was older when he went in, had a high school diploma, wasn't in a gang, and he had no disciplinary issues while in custody. So according to him, the prison system already has the tools to manage inmates serving life sentences, including strict classification levels, movement rules, and supervision. He said that there are thousands of staff, inmates, and visitors in the system every day, and that the entire structure is designed to prevent violence. In his view, that meant even if Tanner were incarcerated for life, the system itself is built to manage that risk. Finally, he closed this part by pointing to the jury's own observation of Tanner during the interrogation videos. He argued that what they actually saw did not match the prosecution's portrayal of him as dangerous in custody.
Gobble described him as compliant, calm around officers, and not resisting during transport or interactions. He reminded the jury again that the burden was entirely on the state to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Tanner would be a continuing threat inside prison. And he ended by saying they should go back to their oath and the law itself and that under that standard, the evidence just did not support a death sentence. He framed it as a case where regardless of how terrible the crime was, the legal requirement for death simply had not been met. In the second half of the defense closing, Miss Anderson took over and focused specifically on special issue number two, which is basically the mitigation question, meaning whether there is any reason the jury should choose life instead of death. She explained that they only even get to this second special issue if every single juror had already agreed that the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Tanner was a continuing threat in prison. So, this whole section only matters if they had already answered that first question. Yes. And from there, Anderson went into mitigation and basically built the entire argument around Tanner's life history, especially his childhood development. She told the jury that they had to understand child development to understand who Tanner became and what led him there. Anderson started from the very beginning, even before he was born, saying his mother drank heavily during pregnancy and also used cigarettes and marijuana. She pointed to the diagnosis of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, saying it was a neurodedevelopmental condition that affected emotional regulation and cognitive development.
She said that this diagnosis was supported by testing and imaging and wasn't really disputed. She then moved into his early childhood environment, arguing that his development was shaped by instability and a lack of consistent caregiving. Anderson said children learn safety and emotional stability from parents, but in Tanner's case, that was not consistent. Even though she acknowledged the mother loved him, she argued she didn't have the ability to provide stability because of her own struggles with addiction and incarceration.
Anderson told the jury that as a baby, Tanner was left in the care of a 10-year-old for long stretches of time, even overnight. She described that as a major developmental issue and said it contributed to him not having proper emotional security. She introduced early behavioral signs, describing Tanner as a child who acted very differently from others. She mentioned things like impulse behavior, sensory issues, and even strange habits like eating coins, which she tied to expert testimony suggesting ADHD traits.
Then Anderson switched into social development in school life. She explained that Tanner struggled to connect with other children in daycare, saying he was often rejected and isolated. that led to testing and a diagnosis of Aspberers, which she noted is now simply considered part of autism spectrum disorder. She said that this was a lifelong condition that affects communication and social interaction.
And she pointed out that he received special education services in school, including support from teachers, psychologists, and speech pathologists.
Then Anderson talked about instability in adolescence. She described Tanner bouncing between homes, schools, caregivers, even rehab facilities with his mother. She argued that this constant instability made it hard for him to develop coping skills or emotional regulation. She moved into what she called a major traumatic event, claiming that when Tanner was about 10 years old, he accidentally started a fire while playing with his cousin. But during this cha phase of development, that was when one of the worst things that had happened to Tanner occurred.
When he was 10 years old, he and his mother were living on a farm and he and his cousin said fire. They were playing and this fire got out of control. Well, his mother did the right thing, sent him down to the landlord to apologize for what had happened. So rather than accepting the apology and saying, "No harm, no foul. I'm so glad you did this.
Thank you for apologizing." What did the landlord do?
He anally raped Tanner.
All because he accidentally set fire to a field.
And we know that the records reflect that he had issues in school during that time period. The medical records reflect that he had issues with uh hemorrhoids and constipation. All of those are indicative of that type of trauma.
We also know that he had difficulty admitting that and talking about it to to the experts that were involved in this case.
And that's not uncommon either. After that, Anderson continued through his teenage years, saying he still struggled socially and academically, but received some support through school services.
She argued that when those supports were discontinued, he lost structure that had been helping him function. She described adolescence as a period where identity formed and argued that Tanner's autism made that especially difficult. She quoted his own description of feeling like an android in a world of apples, meaning he felt fundamentally different from everyone around him. Anderson also said that during this stage, he still lacked consistent emotional support at home, named both his mother and grandmother loved him, but were overwhelmed by their own struggles. And then she moved into adulthood and argued that Tener never fully developed coping skills. She said he defaulted to avoidance, escaping into things like music, anime, and movies instead of dealing with stress directly. Anderson acknowledged he did receive intervention over the years like speech therapy, and school support programs, but argued those were inconsistent. Her phrase was basically use it or lose it, saying that without reinforcement at home, those skills faded. She described his early adult life as unstable too with job changes, financial struggles, and relationship stress. She talked about him becoming a father, but still not having stability, saying the family moved around frequently and struggled financially. She also talked about stress at work, including a delivery job where route changes created anxiety and disruption. She framed that as another layer of stress he could not handle.
And then Anderson switched into the day of the offense. She told the jury Tanner made a terrible decision that changed everything. She said he saw Athena during a delivery, used cocaine, panicked, and believed she might report him, which caused a chain reaction of fear in his mind. She argued there was no planning or premeditation, and pushed back on a prosecution's claim about preparation, like covering camera lenses. We don't forget Athena.
We don't because on November the 30th, 2022, Tanner did something that changed the lives of all of us. Every single person in this room has been affected by Tanner's actions.
On that day, Tanner delivered the packages to Athena's house. Barbies and he got out, delivered the package, decided to snore a little cocaine because he had had insomnia, was tired, was, you know, had all these other issues. And she saw him and he thought that she was going to tell on him and if she told he would lose his job. If he lost his job, he would lose his car. If he lost his car, he wouldn't be able to have transportation for the baby. if he didn't have transportation for the baby, something could happen. He couldn't do this. It just kept snowballing in his mind.
Now, there was no planning.
There was no premeditation.
There was, you know, no preparation. He kept hearing about all of these stickies being put on the lens cover. But let me ask you this. If you were planning to abduct a child, would you cover the lens cap before you did it or after you did it? It doesn't make sense. And that's where their assertions fall apart. It does make sense that he would have covered a lens cap to hide the fact that he was vaping weed. It does make sense that he would hide the lens cap or cover the camera lens if he was snorting some cocaine. It does make sense that he would do all of that, but it doesn't make sense that he would wait until after she was in the van to cover the lens cap.
Next, Anderson addressed mental health and developmental conditions directly.
She argued that autism, fetal alcohol exposure, ADHD, and other issues were not excuses or justifications, but explanations for behavior and decision-making. She said the defense was not trying to excuse what happened, just explain how it could happen. She described Tanner as someone who catastrophized, meaning he would take small problems and spiral them into extreme outcomes. She used the example of him believing Athena seeing him do drugs would lead to losing his job, his car, and eventually his ability to care for his child, which she said led to panic and irrational decision-making.
Anderson pointed to interrogation footage and said experts believed his behavior during questioning reflected his diagnosis. She argued his lying was not unique or unusual in a psychological sense and compared it to common human behavior under stress. She talked about confession, saying Tanner did ultimately admit to the crime and led police to Athena's body. She argued that even that confession fit into how he processes information and emotion. From there, she moved into the themes the jury had discussed during selection.
Responsibility, remorse, or rehabilitation. On responsibility, she said Tanner had taken responsibility by pleading guilty and confessing. On remorse, she argued that people express grief differently than that autism can affect emotional expression, meaning his lack of traditional emotional display did not mean lack of remorse. She pointed to statements made during interrogation and has written apology.
his apology. Remember that one as evidence of remorse. Right on rehabilitation, she said Tanner had participated in programs in jail, engaged in religious study, formed positive relationships with other inmates. She said the structure is something that helped him function throughout his life, including school work, and now incarceration. Anderson argued that prison life would actually provide the structure he needed to remain stable and safe and pointed to his lack of disciplinary issues in custody as that evidence.
At the end, Anderson brought it back to the jury's responsibility. She reminded them of their oath to follow the law and said, "Texas law never requires the death penalty, even in the worst cases."
She explained the two special issues, again focusing on whether Tanner would be a continuing threat and whether there were mitigating circumstances that justified life instead of death.
Anderson appealed to the juror's sense of individual conscience. She told them mitigation could be anything personal to them and urged them to talk through the evidence, their lives, and their perspectives before deciding. She ended by saying this. And I honestly I I don't envy you. I can't imagine being in your position and having to make this decision that you're about to make. It's probably going to be one of the most important decisions you will ever make in your life because you hold a man's life in your hands. And your decision, it'll define who you are.
And are you going to be merciful?
Are you going to be benevolent? Are you going to be vengeful?
Because mercy isn't earned. Mercy is freely given. That's why we call it mercy.
Then ask yourself, do you really stand for life?
And if you can answer that question, then I want you to raise your hand and I want you to vote your conscience and I want you to vote for life. And that's why we are asking you to sentence Tanner to life without the possibility of parole. Thank you. In the state's rebuttal, prosecutor Stanton told the jury that in addition to Tanner's life, they also hold in their hands justice itself. And this was the moment they had to decide what that looked like. He framed it like a moral crossroads, basically asking them what kind of verdict they were willing to stand behind. He also pushed them to think about mercy versus vengeance and whether anything they had seen actually showed remorse from Tanner. Yeah. Anything that had showed remorse from Tanner. And from there he went after the defense's argument about jail behavior. The defense had leaned on the idea that Tanner had adjusted well in custody. But the prosecutorm pushed back on that. He said it was expected that someone facing a jury and a life or death sentence would behave well in jail. In his view, that kind of controlled environment did not tell you who a person really was. He told the jury the real evidence of character came from what someone did when they were there without consequences holding them back, not how they acted under supervision.
And then he moved straight into future dangerousness. He said he did not believe someone like Tanner should ever have access to other people again, even inside a prison system. He made it clear he was talking about prevention, not comfort or dayto-day adjustment.
In his view, life in prison was not about how someone gets by. It was about whether there is any chance of harm ever happening again. After that, he turned to remorse. to remorse. He questioned why the defense needed psychologists and complex explanations to talk about something he thought should be obvious.
He argued that remorse should not require interpretation or expert testimony. To him, it should be something clear in behavior, not something you have to decode. He then brought up what he called shifting stories and continued lies, saying Tanner had changed his explanations even years after the crime into 2026.
He argued that kind of inconsistency showed a lack of accountability. In his view, it was not acceptance of responsibility. It was ongoing manipulation. He took aim of what the defense had called the catastrophe theory, where multiple life factors were used to explain Tener's behavior. Stay dismissed that as just another layer of excusem. He said the evidence did not show a chain reaction of uncontrollable circumstances.
Instead, he argued it showed deliberate predatory conduct. His tone sharpened as he described the crime directly. He said Tanner targeted a child, removed her from safety, sexually assaulted her, and killed her. He made it clear he did not think psychological explanations could soften what he actually did. Take a listen. This part was really powerful.
But the problem is what the problem with this whole catastrophe theory is the expert up there, Dr. Ryan. This Anderson just did the same thing. You said you went from A to Z.
Wait a minute. Did he go from A to Z?
No, he didn't. He said, "You're pretty.
Take off your shirt.
Take off your clothes."
That's not a toz stopping off in the middle to sexually gratify yourself on the child you just kidnapped.
That's not catastrophe.
That is a true predator. Someone who stripped a child away from their home, took pleasure and sex assaulting them and killed her. That is not catastrophe.
Cuz that's the whole thing. That's why every expert up here ignored that one part.
Why Miss Anderson ignored that one part.
You can't explain it with catastrophe theory. you just stopped off in the middle of your catastrophe and did this.
That's not what we're talking about here. That is true evil is what that is.
>> He also defended law enforcement conduct during the interrogation. He said he did not see anything improper in how officers questioned Tanner and he framed Tanner's behavior during that time as strategic rather than emotional or confused. In his view, it looked like someone trying to manage the situation, not someone overwhelmed by it. And from there, he switched into a broader theme of selfishness. He told the jury everything in the evidence pointed back to Tanner's self-interest.
He contrasted that with the victim, focusing on what Athena lost and what she would never experience.
He then addressed mitigation headon. He argued that the defense was essentially taking life stress, personal struggles, and diagnosis and turning them into explanations. But he said those were not excuses and should not reduce responsibility.
Ston shifted back to what he said was the central question, future dangerousness. Take a listen.
>> Every single expert that got up here, every single one told you they would have never predicted this. They would have never predicted he would have hurt this little child. They would have never predicted that he would have assaulted her. They would have never predicted this whatsoever.
They were wrong. Absolutely wrong. And every one of them admitted it that they were wrong. So, anybody who comes up here and tells you today that they can somehow predict the lethality of this man at a later date is wrong. Here's what we know. We know he has a capacity for maximum violence. He has a capacity for victimization.
He has a propensity for assault.
Now, all of those we know. I don't need an expert to tell me that. I can look at the autopsy report.
I can look at the pictures. So, when you talk about future danger, look at the facts. Look at what he's capable of.
Look at what he's done. and don't don't think that there's not some other victim out there waiting.
>> He rejected the idea that anyone could confidently say Tanner's violent behavior would never happen again.
Instead, he said the only way to guarantee safety was to ensure there was no opportunity for it to happen at all.
And then he went back to mitigation and asked what could possibly what could possibly reduce responsibility in a case like this? His answer was that nothing nothing meaningfully could given the nature of this horrific crime. Near the end, Statton Stone turned more absolute.
He said Tainer had forfeited certain freedoms because of what he did to Athena and that consequence belonged to his actions alone. He closed out by returning briefly to mitigation one more time. Everyone has struggles, he said, but most people do not respond with violence. And finally, he ended by returning to the idea of justice for Athena.
>> And the level of pain, the level of um abuse that he has inflicted upon this this this little girl in this family are unfathomable.
the level of lies, the multiple different versions of whatever truth it is, that video, everything you saw, it's important. Athena is important.
Justice for her is important.
And justice in this case has one result.
I want to thank all of you for being here. um been away from your uh families, being away from your work. Um I appreciate your effort in this case.
It's been a long month. Um and I'm going to wait your verdict. Thank you.
>> After that, the case was handed to the jury for deliberation, and it only took them about 3 hours to make their final decision. But before we hear their verdict, I did just want to comment on the fact that Athena's little sister, Ry, was there sitting on her mother's lap to hear the verdict. She had not been there throughout the trial for obvious reasons. And honestly, I hope she's still too little to fully grasp that she was in the same room as the man who killed her big sister. But also, I think her being there was really powerful and a reminder that Athena should be here, too. There was also this cute moment when Ry said hi to the judge.
>> Hey guys.
>> But now, let's listen to the verdict.
Answers to special issues. Special issue number one, whether there is a probability that the defendant would commit criminal acts of violence that would constitute a continuing threat to society. The answer, we the jury unanimously find beyond a reasonable doubt that the answer to special issue number one is yes. Signed by the presiding juror. Special issue number two, whether taking it into consideration all the evidence, including the circumstances of the offense, the defendant's character and background, and the personal moral culpability of the defendant, there is a sufficient mitigating circumstance or circumstances to warrant that a sentence of life imprisonment without parole rather than a death sentence be imposed.
Answer: We the jury unanimous unanimously find that the answer to special issue number two is no. signed by the presiding juror. Does either side desire a poll?
>> No, your honor.
>> No, your honor.
>> Miss Anderson, Mr. Goel, is there any legal reason why Senate should not be pronounced?
>> No, your honor.
>> Mr. Horner, if you'd stand, please. It's the order of the court that you Tanderland her been a judge to be guilty of the offense of capital murder is found by the jury. Jury having answered the special issues making it mandatory that your punish punishment be death. It is therefore the order of this court that your punishment be death before the hour of sunrise on a date date to be determined by this court upon a mandate of affirmance issued by the Texas court of criminal appeals at the state penitentiary in Huntsville, Texas. You will be caused to die in accordance with the rules and regulations established by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice until you said Tanner her dead. Said execution pre procedure shall be determined and supervised by the director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. The clerk of this court shall issue a death warrant in accordance with this sentence directed to the dire director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for that purpose.
clerk shall deliver such warrant to the sheriff of this county and to be by him delivered to the director of the department of criminal justice together with you and you will remand to the custody of the Taran County Jail to await transportation to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice at Huntsville, Texas and the execution of this sentence. I will sign this death sentence as required by law.
Your appeal of the finding of this guilt by the jury and their determination of the answers to the question in the sentence are automatically appealed to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Austin, Texas.
You will be appointed a lawyer to represent you on direct appeal and your lawyer will receive a copy of the record of this charge of this case at no charge. You have the right to have a second lawyer to represent you on rits of habius corpus. It's a separate matter from your direct appeal. Do you wish to have council appointed for your writ purposes?
>> Yes, sir.
>> Okay. Then I will appoint you uh lawyers uh writ lawyers for that. Miss Anderson, Mr. Goel, if you will remain on his case pending your his decision uh and we have all the appellet paperwork filled out. I have received his uh acknowledgement certification of the right to appeal and I appreciate you doing that. And then one family member gave a victim impact statement. Athena's uncle Elijah.
>> He may speak from wherever he feels the most comfortable.
>> There are no words that truly capture the devastation that Tanner caused us and our family.
What he took from this world is not just a child.
He took a light, a future, and a piece of every single person who loved you.
He took a granddaughter, a daughter, a niece, a cousin, and a friend.
She would call me Uncle Elijah cuz she for the longest time couldn't say the Elijah part of my name.
It was the best thing to see her running up to me with her arms open yelling Uncle Elijah.
And that's one of my last memories I have of her.
And now I get to never hear that again.
I think it was more than a headline.
She was laughter, curiosity, kindness, and blessings.
And she had a dreams that she will never get to chase.
Birthdays that she will never celebrate.
in a life she'll never get to live because of his actions.
Our family has been left with an emptiness that can never be built.
I have three daughters. Two that get to got to meet her and grow with her and one that will never be.
And he took that away from them as well.
a cousin and a friend.
He stole a sense of safety from all of us in our family.
Me and my wife just got comfortable enough to let our kids play outside. And that's even in our backyard, not close to the road.
He's robbed us of safety, peace, and our trust in the world.
And forever changed who we are as a family.
And we are left to care to grief that never fades.
We are left with questions that will still never have answers.
And we are left trying to honor the beautiful little girl whose life was taken in the most senseless and horrific way.
Tanner Horner, I want you to hear this directly.
You did not just take a life. You destroyed a family.
You took a little girl who trusted the world and repaid that innocence with violence.
You chose to cause pain that will last generations.
You say you found God, but what you did to Athena stands in direct opposition to everything that you now claim to believe.
In Matthew 18:6, it says, "If anyone causes one of these little ones to stumble, it would be better for them to have a millstone hung around their neck than to be drowned."
That is how seriously harm against a child is judged.
And you will be judged. You will face the wrath of God.
But I want you to know that you are nothing.
You are a footnote in Athena story. Her name will forever be remembered. Her name will forever be celebrated and everyone will forget you.
You wanted your 15 minutes of fame. You got it. And no one's going to remember you after this.
>> So that's it. Tanner her has been sentenced to death. There will be appeals as there always are and this process is far from over. But in this moment, a jury has spoken and a measure of justice for Athena has been delivered. This has honestly been one of the hardest trials that we have covered here at Hidden True Crime. There were moments when even talking through the evidence felt impossible. I'll be honest. And when the details of what happened were almost too much to process. It's cases like this that force us to confront that real evil exists, that human beings are capable of evil acts.
But there is also a reason to bear witness, to follow a case like this all the way to the end to ensure that Athena's story isn't carried by her loved ones alone. It matters that people know her name and that they understand what was taken because at the center of all of this is a little girl who showed unimaginable strength. Athena fought and was a warrior in her last moments and it's not lost on me that Athena in Greek mythology is the goddess of wisdom and war and Athena fought like a warrior.
The goddess Athena represents the strategic, disciplined side of war, and she fought until the very end for all the jurors to hear and bear witness to.
Her family has fought too for that justice that has now been served. In learning about Athena, we were given a glimpse of who she was, her spirit, her light, her strength, and the life she should have had ahead of her.
Now with this verdict, there is at least some sense of closure. Not an end to the pain at all, but a recognition of the truth and the weight of what was done.
And maybe in that there is the beginning of peace for those who loved her. Athena deserved a full and beautiful life. What she endured should have never happened.
But she will not be forgotten. And the world will be a little safer when Tanner her is no longer in it.
Vidéos Similaires
BREAKING: Judge Kathleen Issues Emergency Arrest Warrant After Trump Defies Order
Frontora
2K views•2026-05-29
8 Hidden Things About Mackenzie Shirilla Netflix's 'The Crash' Didn't Show You
MarvelousVideos
2K views•2026-05-28
MP Garnett Genuis warns Canada’s MAiD system has ‘gone too far’
WesternStandard
187 views•2026-05-28
Trump Impeachment STORM IGNITES as 29 Judges Vote for Conviction!!
DanielBriefDaily
2K views•2026-06-02
THE STREISAND EFFECT AT BARBARA STREISAND’S HOUSE! - First Amendment Audit
KULTNEWS
1K views•2026-05-30
EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts
floridadefenseteam
404 views•2026-05-29
OFFICE HOURS: The Theft of Black Brilliance... AI and Intellectual Property (w/ Lisa E. Davis)
marclamonthillnetwork
2K views•2026-05-29
सुप्रीम कोर्ट में 5 जजों का शपथग्रहण समारोह #supremecourt #judges #oathceremony #shorts #ytshorts
Bharat24Liv
4K views•2026-06-02
