For the first time, the jury hears from the people who were together on the night Pizza Joe's was robbed.

Friends.

Witnesses who all describe the same evening—but not exactly the same way.

What began as a day at Willow Lake ended inside Melanie Engle's apartment, where a group of young adults gathered after swimming. At first, their stories seem remarkably ordinary. Swimming. Friends. Searching for runaway cats. Police knocking at the door.

But as the testimony unfolds, the details become far more complicated.

Melanie Engle walks jurors through the timeline of that evening and the two searches of her apartment that followed. Her mother explains how a gun and ammunition were ultimately discovered—not by investigators during their initial search, but while cleaning the apartment after police had already left.

Then comes one of the prosecution's most significant eyewitnesses.

A man who testified he saw the robber's face from just twenty feet away under a streetlight.

Yet his original description left out some of Austin's most recognizable features.

In this episode, I don't ask you to decide who is right.

Instead, I ask you to pay attention to the details.

Because sometimes the most important testimony isn't found in what witnesses remember years later...

It's found in what they wrote the very next morning.

As always, I'll leave the conclusions to you.

Join me as we continue following the evidence—one witness at a time.

Detective John Greaver spent nearly two days on the witness stand explaining how the State built its case against Austin Burke. But every investigation must eventually face its toughest test: cross-examination.

In Part Two of this special episode, we slow down and examine what Detective Greaver acknowledged when the defense began asking difficult questions.

What leads were investigated... and which weren't?

What evidence confirmed the State's theory... and what evidence couldn't?

From Willow Lake to phone records, crime scene evidence, witness statements, and forensic testing, this episode revisits the investigation through the detective's own testimony. Along the way, we'll look at the questions that remained unanswered and the admissions that became part of the trial record.

This episode isn't about second-guessing an investigation. It's about understanding it.

Because in a courtroom, the search for truth doesn't end when an investigation is complete.

Sometimes...

it begins when the detective takes the stand.

For the first time in this series, we're stepping away from the chapter-by-chapter format to focus on one witness whose testimony shaped nearly every part of the State's case.

Detective John Greaver wasn't just another witness. He was the lead investigator. The detective who interviewed witnesses, executed search warrants, collected evidence, and ultimately built the case against Austin Burke.

In this special episode, we slow down and examine Detective Greaver's testimony on its own. Rather than revisiting every witness, we'll explore how the investigation came together through the eyes of the detective leading it—and what was revealed when that investigation was tested during cross-examination.

Along the way, we'll revisit key decisions, witness statements, phone records, crime scene evidence, and investigative choices that have been discussed throughout this series. We'll also look at what was confirmed, what couldn't be confirmed, and the questions that still remained after nearly two days of testimony.

Whether you believe the investigation was thorough, incomplete, or somewhere in between, understanding Detective Greaver's testimony is essential to understanding this case.

Because before you can understand the verdict...

you have to understand the investigation.

The prosecution's case continues as the jury begins hearing from experts, investigators, and witnesses whose testimony was meant to strengthen the State's theory. But does the evidence actually support the stories the jury has already heard?

In this episode, we examine testimony about cell phone records, firearms, DNA, and a recorded jail call. You'll also hear from Jessica Simms, whose testimony raises new questions about changing timelines, shifting memories, and how information may have spread through the same close-knit group of friends.

As each witness takes the stand, a pattern begins to emerge. Some evidence confirms basic facts. Other evidence leaves important questions unanswered. And in several instances, the State's own witnesses acknowledge limitations that the jury may not have fully understood.

By the end of the day, the prosecution has presented nearly every category of evidence imaginable—friends, forensic scientists, phone analysts, police officers, a jailhouse informant, and a recorded jail call.

Only one witness remains.

Next week, we're doing something a little different. Detective John Greaver's testimony spans more than 180 pages of the trial transcript and serves as the foundation of the State's entire case. Rather than rushing through it, we're giving his testimony an episode of its own.

Before you can decide whether this investigation was thorough, flawed, or somewhere in between, you first have to understand the detective who built the case.

After two episodes filled with alleged confessions and conflicting witness accounts, the prosecution finally begins presenting the evidence jurors had been waiting for.

In this episode, we hear from the officer who discovered Brandon Sample's abandoned Malibu, Brandon's father as he recalls the last time he saw his son alive, and Detective David Morris as he documents the recovery of Brandon's body and the investigation that followed.

As the testimony unfolds, new questions begin to emerge.

Where exactly was Brandon killed?

Why were no shell casings recovered?

What happened to surveillance footage that may have helped establish key timelines?

And how much of the prosecution's case is built on evidence versus interpretation?

The episode concludes with the testimony of Hayle Roupe, a young witness who claimed Austin Burke confessed to the murder. But as her testimony is examined more closely, questions arise about where information originated, how stories spread through a close-knit group of friends, and whether personal memories had become intertwined with conversations that happened afterward.

For the first time in the trial, jurors begin hearing about physical evidence.

The question is whether that evidence strengthens the state's case—or creates even more questions.

Join me as we continue our deep dive into the trial of Austin Burke and the investigation into the death of Brandon Sample.

By the end of the day, the prosecution finally had what it had promised the jury during opening statements: witnesses who claimed that Austin Burke had confessed.

Nathan Moats, Rickey Roupe, and Deidre Keener each took the stand and told jurors what they believed happened to Brandon Sample.

The problem?

Their stories didn't always match.

Josh White said Brandon dropped him off around 12:30 AM.

Nathan placed Brandon and Austin at Mason Street around 1:00 AM.

Deidre placed Brandon with Austin again around 4:00 AM.

The jury heard confessions.

But they also heard conflicting timelines, evolving stories, and witnesses connected through the same social circle.

This episode isn't about proving who lied.

It's about asking how a jury is supposed to evaluate testimony when the people who were there that night cannot agree on what happened.

After nearly nine months of investigations, motions, media coverage, and preparation, the trial of Austin Burke finally begins.

In this episode, we take a detailed look at the opening statements presented to the jury and the first witnesses called to testify. Prosecutors lay out the timeline they believe proves Austin's guilt, while the defense argues that the state still lacks the evidence needed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

You'll hear how both sides introduced the same case in dramatically different ways, the promises they made to jurors, and the evidence they claimed would support their version of events.

We also examine the testimony of Josh White, one of the last people known to have seen Brandon Sample alive, along with testimony from Meredith Loges and Brittani, whose statements would become important pieces of the prosecution's narrative.

As always, we'll compare the testimony to the evidence, explore inconsistencies, and ask an important question:

When the trial finally began, was the jury hearing facts, assumptions, or something in between?

The courtroom doors are open.

The testimony has begun.

And for the first time, twelve jurors are hearing the story that will determine Austin Burke's future.

After nine months of investigations, interviews, arrests, media coverage, and legal battles, Austin Burke's case finally reaches trial.

But before a single witness testifies, before opening statements begin, and before any evidence is presented, twelve strangers are selected to decide his future.

In this episode, we examine the plea offer Austin rejected, the process of jury selection, and a little-known part of many criminal trials: the jury view. Jurors left the courtroom and spent more than three hours visiting locations connected to the State's theory of the case—including the bike trail, Pizza Joe's, Melanie Engle's apartment, Austin's home, and Pamela Roupe's apartment.

As I reviewed the trial transcripts, I found myself asking new questions. What happens when jurors experience a case outside the courtroom? What information was still being exchanged as the trial was beginning? And what does a "jury of your peers" really mean?

This episode also steps away from the legal process to focus on the human side of trial. While attorneys prepared their cases and jurors prepared to hear evidence, Jamie Sell was preparing for something else entirely: the possibility that her son might finally come home.

The investigation is over.

The courtroom is ready.

And the story that will decide Austin Burke's future is about to begin.

Wrong Ride Home: Beyond the Book is hosted by Donna Waters and is based on her book, Wrong Ride Home.

Episode 11 takes listeners into the months before Austin Burke's trial, where the pressure surrounding the case was already building long before a jury heard the first witness.

In this chapter, we examine the decision to combine two separate cases into one trial, the motions filed by the defense, media influence before trial, plea agreement pressure, and the growing concern that public perception may have started shaping the outcome before opening statements ever began.

This episode also explores something rarely discussed in true crime: the emotional and financial weight carried by families during criminal proceedings. From subpoena costs to media headlines to the fear of losing everything publicly, Jamie Sell found herself trying to survive a system that never seemed to slow down.

As Austin moved closer to trial, the case became bigger than evidence alone. It became about narrative, pressure, fear, and the difficult question of whether fairness can truly survive once public opinion has already formed.

Before a jury ever heard the evidence… was the trial already loading against him?