Transcript (en)

I don't believe he drowned. I believe he was killed. But I'm a judge that has to weigh all the evidence. Preliminarily, that's what I see. You don't leave your friend on an island, seeing that he has left his phone, and not at least go back. You came there with him. You left him there, you say, because he wanted to stay. But you notice that he's left his phone. How was they're going to get home in the first place? Wouldn't he need his phone in order to call his transportation? Or they should have known some of that. He would have said, I'm going to get home by such and such way. Hey man, I'm not coming. Y'all go ahead. I got a young lady. Okay, man. Is she going to bring you home? How are you going to get home? You don't ask any of those questions? So you must have asked those questions. If you didn there more evidence that I believe contributed to the reasonable suspicion So I with the prosecutor How about that so far So you won have to say that the judge is making conclusions without getting the evidence The prosecutor has found enough evidence to create a reasonable suspicion that a crime occurred. And now they're going to interview everybody and come up with some answers on whether to indict. So I'm there with the prosecutor so far. Take it to the grand jury. Now, I have to wait until what the grand jury comes back with before I support any charge or any lack of charges. So you feel like it was foul play? Yes. Yes. It doesn't make sense. And it creates a presumption. When you don't have an explanation and someone ends up dead and you hear contradictory or stories that really aren't credible because they make no sense. And you hear the same story from three free people who knows they may have told two or three different stories. We don't know. We will know when that grand jury comes back. So that's the case in that situation, in that scenario.