[ APPLAUSE ]
>>> WELCOME BACK, EVERYONE.
NANCY SEAMAN HAS BEEN IN JAIL
FOR THE PAST 14 YEARS FOR
KILLING HER HUSBAND.
FOUND GUILTY OF MURDER IN THE
FIRST DEGREE AND SENTENCED TO
LIFE WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF
PAROLE.
I GOT A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH HER
ON THE PHONE EARLIER THIS WEEK.
AND I STARTED BY ASKING HER TO
DESCRIBE THE EVENTS THAT LED UP
TO HER HUSBAND'S DEATH THAT
FATEFUL DAY.
WATCH.
>> THERE WAS A KNIFE ON THE
KITCHEN COUNTER BUT I -- IT
WASN'T UNTIL I GOT INTO THE
KITCHEN AND THE ARGUMENT ENSUED,
THAT HE CUT ME ON THE HAND WITH
THE KNIFE.
AND THAT WAS WHEN I REACHED
ACROSS THE COUNTER TO GRAB MY
COFFEE CUP AND MY KEYS.
AND HE JUST TOOK THE KNIFE AND
GLANCED IT ACROSS MY HAND.
AND IT STARTED TO BLEED.
THAT'S WHEN I KIND OF WENT INTO
SHOCK.
SO, I JUST -- I PANICKED AND I
JUST RAN.
>> HE FOLLOWED YOU INTO THE
GARAGE AND PUSHED YOU DOWN.
AND WHAT HAPPENED NEXT?
>> I WAS ON THE GROUND AND I
CRAWLED TO THE BACK OF THE
GARAGE AND HE CAME AFTER ME.
I WAS FEARFUL BECAUSE THE SIX
PRIOR MONTHS HAD BEEN SO
ABUSIVE.
AND WHEN HE PINNED ME TO THE
GROUND, I TWISTED MY BODY AND I
REACHED FOR SOME LEVERAGE TO
PULL MYSELF AWAY FROM HIM.
I WENT TO REACH FOR THE HANDLE
OF THE GENERATOR, THERE WAS THE
HATCHET LAYING ON TOP OF IT.
I FELT THE HANDLE OF IT.
I GRABBED IT AND I JUST SWUNG IT
ACROSS MY BODY WITH A LOT OF
FORCE.
AND WHEN HE FELL ON ME, THAT
FEELING THAT HEAINESS OF HIS
BODY FELT LIKE A CONTINUING
ATTACK.
I FELT THAT BEFORE WHEN HE'S
BEEN ON TOP OF ME.
AND I JUST PANICKED.
>> PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW TWO
THINGS.
NUMBER ONE, WHY DID YOU BUY THE
HATCHET THE NIGHT BEFORE, THE
VERY HATCHET YOU USED TO KILL
HIM?
AND NUMBER TWO, WHY DIDN'T YOU
CALL THE POLICE IMMEDIATELY TO
TELL THEM WHAT HAD HAPPENED?
>> OKAY.
ANYONE WHO KNOWS ME, KNOWS WHY I
BOUGHT THE HATCHET THE NIGHT
BEFORE.
FOR 31 YEARS, I DID ALL OF THE
YARDWORK AT THREE OF OUR HOMES.
I BOUGHT THAT HATCHET BECAUSE I
HAD NOT DONE MY REGULAR FALL
MAINTENANCE ON THE YARD.
MEGYN, I DIDN'T NEED TO BUY
ANYTHING.
I HAD WRENCHES AND TIRE IRONS.
I HAD ACCESS TO GUNS.
NO ONE IS GOING TO BELIEVE THAT
IT'S LOGICAL FOR A WOMAN TO BUY
A HATCHET AND ENGAGE IN A
FACE-TO-FACE CONFRONTATION WITH
SOMEONE WHO IS GOING TO
OVERPOWER HER.
IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
>> WHY DIDN'T AFTER YOU KILL HIM
DID YOU CALL THE POLICE
IMMEDIATELY?
>> IT NEVER ENTERED MY MIND AND
I'LL TELL YOU WHY, BECAUSE OF MY
TWO PRIOR EXPERIENCES WITH THE
POLICE.
LONG AGO, ON SOME SUBCONSCIOUS
LEVEL, I HAD ELIMINATED THEM AS
A COURSE OF HELP FOR ME.
>> BUT NOW, YOU HAVE A DEAD BODY
IN YOUR GARAGE.
>> IT'S LAYING ON THE FLOOR FOR
THREE DAYS.
THE QUESTION THAT PEOPLE ASK IS
WHY DID I CLEAN EVERYTHING UP.
FOR 31 YEARS, I DENIED THE
REALITY.
I CLEANED UP THE EVIDENCE.
>> THE PROSECUTION SAID YOU DID
A LOT FOR SOMEONE IN A STATE OF
SHOCK.
YOU WENT TO WORK, YOU BOUGHT
CLEANING SURPRISES, YOU CLEANED
UP THE MESS IN THE GARAGE.
YOU WRAPPED HIM SO TIGHT, HE WAS
LIKE A MUMMY.
THEY SUGGEST THESE ARE NOT THE
ACTIONS OF SOMEBODY IN SHOCK,
BUT SOMEBODY TRYING TO COVER UP
A CRIME SHE KNOWS SHE'S
COMMITTED.
>> THAT WOULD BE FINE, EXCEPT
THAT IS WHAT I DID FOR 31 YEARS.
I PUT EVERYTHING BACK THE WAY IT
WAS.
I HAD TRIED TO CONVINCE MYSELF
NOTHING EVER HAPPENED.
>> WHY WHEN THE POLICE SHOWED
UP, DID YOU TELL THEM THAT BOB
HAD GONE ON A TRIP TO FIND
HIMSELF AND THAT YOU WERE IN THE
PROCESS OF AN AMICABLE
SEPARATION?
>> I WAS CONVINCED MYSELF, I HAD
TO CONVINCE MYSELF THAT BOB WAS
JUST AWAY.
I HAD TO CONVINCE MYSELF THAT
THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN.
IF I HAD NOT SLIPPED INTO DENIAL
AS I DID, I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE
COMMITTED SUICIDE.
>> HOW HARD WAS THAT TO HEAR
YOUR SON, JEFF, TESTIFY AGAINST
YOU?
>> I WASN'T SURPRISED.
HE ABSOLUTELY IDOLIZED HIS
FATHER.
HE DIDN'T JUST LOVE HIM.
HE IDOLIZED HIM.
AND JEFF SAID THIS IN AN
INTERVIEW AFTER THE TRIAL.
HE SAID, HOW CAN I LOVE MY
FATHER IF I BELIEVE HE DID THIS
TO MY MOTHER?
SO, YOU SEE HOW DIFFICULT THAT
WOULD HAVE BEEN FOR HIM TO
RECONCILE THOSE TWO THINGS.
>> FOR THOSE WHO WOULD SAY,
LOOK, THE JURY HEARD ALL THIS
AND DID NOT FIND THIS CREDIBLE.
SO, WHY MESS WITH THEIR VERDICT?
WHAT SAY YOU?
>> I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE
SCARIEST THING A PERSON CAN GO
THROUGH IN LIFE IS A JURY TRIAL.
THERE WERE NO JUROR MEMBERS THAT
HAD EXPERIENCES WITH DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE, HAD ANY RELATIVES THAT
HAD DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, OR
ANYTHING ELSE.
SO, I'M LOOKING AT SUPPOSEDLY A
JURY OF MY PEERS WHO HAVE NO
IDEA WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
THE FACT THAT I KEPT THE ABUSE A
SECRET FOR 31 YEARS DIDN'T BODE
WELL FOR ME.
>> NANCY, DO YOU FEEL GUILTY?
DO YOU FEEL GUILTY WHEN YOU
THINK ABOUT BOB'S MURDER?
>> YES.
I'M RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS DEATH.
I DID NOT PLAN TO DO IT.
BUT NEVERTHELESS, HE IS DEAD, A
LIFE WAS LOST AND I AM
RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.
AND EVERY, SINGLE DAY, I THINK
ABOUT THAT.
I THINK ABOUT THE LOSS AND THE
PAIN I'VE CAUSED FOR HIS FAMILY
AND MY SON.
I'M TERRIBLY ASHAMED OF HOW THIS
TURNED OUT BECAUSE I WORK SO
[ APPLAUSE ]
>>> WELCOME BACK, EVERYONE.
SO, LYNN BRONSON WAS AN
ALTERNATE JUROR ON THAT JURY
THAT CONVICTED NANCY SEAMAN OF
FIRST-DEGREE MURDER FOR KILLING
HER HUSBAND OF 31 YEARS.
IT TOOK THE JURY SIX HOURS TO
DECIDE NANCY'S FATE.
AND LYNN SAYS THERE'S A REASON
FOR THAT.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
>> FOR NOW, THEY HEARD NANCY'S
TESTIMONIAL.
I HAD EASIER WAYS OF DOING IT.
I WAS A DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VIC
TIM.
YOU HEARD THE JUDGE SAYING THE
JURY DIDN'T HEAR A LINK BETWEEN
THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE EXPERT
SYSTEM AND NANCY SPECIFICALLY.
COULD THAT CHANGE THE WAY YOU
SAW THE CASE?
>> FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, NO.
I WOULD HAVE KEPT THE SAME
PROCESS BEHIND WHAT WE FELT.
WHY WE FELT WHAT WE FELT.
>> WHY?
WHY WERE YOU SURE IT WAS
FIRST-DEGREE?
>> FIRST AND FOREMOST, THE WAY
SHE -- JUST THE ACTIONS THAT
TOOK PLACE AFTER THE FACT.
SELF-DEFENSE I CAN UNDERSTAND.
WE'RE NOT HERE TO DISPUTING
WHETHER OR NOT SHE WAS ABUSED.
BUT WHAT WE'RE DISPUTING WAS DID
SHE PLAN THE MURDER?
AND I BELIEVE SHE DID.
SHE GOES TO HOME DEPOT ON A
STORMY NIGHT IN DETROIT AND ENDS
UP BUYING A HATCHET TO DO
YARDWORK.
IN THE RAIN?
OKAY.
AND THEN, AND THEN, SHE
CONTINUES TO GO THROUGH HER
TESTIMONY NEVER ONCE DID SHE
CRY.
BEING A FEMALE MYSELF, I WOULD
THINK THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN SOME
LEVEL OF TEARSHED TO SHOW
REMORSE.
THAT NEVER HAPPENED.
FURTHERMORE, SHE REALLY --
SELF-DEFENSE IS ONE THING.
BUT HITTING SOMEBODY 38 TIMES
WITH A HATCHET AND WITH A KNIFE,
WHEN MOST -- HOW MANY TIMES DOES
IT TAKE TO KILL SOMEBODY?
>> THEY DESCRIBE THAT AS
OVERKILL, RIGHT?
THAT WOULD SUGGEST SOME SORT OF
EMOTION THAT IS INVOLVED IN IT.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT WAS NOT
SELF-DEFENSE OR WAS.
WHAT ABOUT THE MOTIVE?
WHAT DID YOU THINK HER MOTIVE
WAS?
AS THE JUDGE POINTS OUT, SHE HAD
BOUGHT A CONDO.
IT SEEMED LIKE SHE WAS
EXTRICATING HERSELF FROM THE
MARRIAGE.
WHY WOULD SHE KILL HIM THEN?
EXPERTS WILL TELL YOU A DOMESTIC
VIOLENCE VICTIM IS MOST IN
DANGER WHEN SHE SAYS SHE'S
LEAVING.
THAT'S THEIR POINT.
HE GOT ANGRY AND ATTACKED HER AS
SHE SAID.
>> WE'RE NOT HERE TO DISPUTE
THERE WAS VIOLENCE IN THE HOME.
SHE PLANNED THE MURDER.
SHE THOUGHT THROUGH IT.
THE FACT SHE HAD BLEACH AND
STUFF TO CLEAN UP AFTER SHE
KILLED HIM.
SHE PAINTED WALLS.
SHE CLEANED THE GARAGE.
SHE TARPED HIM UP.
IT'S JUST -- TO ME, NOTHING WAS
ADDING UP IN HER TESTIMONY.
YOU KNOW, HEARING THE TESTIMONY
OF OTHER INDIVIDUALS, IT REALLY
JUST MADE ME FEEL LIKE, AGAIN,
FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, SHE WAS
GUILTY OF FIRST-DEGREE MURDER.
>> JUDGE, ONE OF THE FACTS WE
DIDN'T GET TO IS NOT ONLY DID
NANCY BUY THAT HATCHET AND THE
HATCHET WAS USED, BUT SHE WENT
BACK TO HOME DEPOT AND
SHOPLIFTED A SECOND HATCHET
AFTER THE MURDER AND USED HER
ORIGINAL RECEIPT FROM THE FIRST
HASH
HATCHET TO RETURN THE STOLEN
HATCHET, WHICH LOOKS LIKE SHE
HAD CONSCIOUSNESS OF GUILT.
IT LOOKS LIKE CONSCIOUSNESS OF
GUILT.
>> YEAH.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I MADE A COMMENT MYSELF THAT SHE
WAS A VERY UNSYMPATHETIC
WITNESS.
SHE WAS VERY RIGID.
SHE WAS VERY IN SELF-CONTROL.
SHE SHOWED NO EMOTIONS.
I NEVER MET NELLES UNTIL
YESTERDAY.
BUT I WAS TELLING HIM, IF THAT
WAS MY WIFE ON THE STAND, YOU
WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND
HER BECAUSE SHE WOULD BE SOBBING
AND CRYING SO MUCH.
NANCY WASN'T THAT WAY AT ALL.
BUT I COME BACK TO ONE THING --
NOT JUST ONE THING, BUT SEVERAL
THINGS.
SHE'S GOING TO FILE FOR DIVORCE.
THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
DID YOU BELIEVE THAT?
DID YOU BELIEVE THE TESTIMONY
SHE BORROWED $10,000 FROM HER
FATHER TO BUY A CONDO?
DID YOU BELIEVE THAT?
>> YES.
>> DID YOU BELIEVE THAT THE TWO
SONS WOULD NOT TELL HER FATHER
BECAUSE IF THEY DID, HE WOULD GO
INTO A COMPLETE RAGE?
>> NO.
>> OKAY.
YOU ACCEPTED JEFF'S TESTIMONY
BUT NOT GREG'S.
>> I ACCEPTED BOTH OF THEIR
TESTIMONY.
>> ONE WAS ONE WAY.
>> AND I BELIEVE THAT JEFF SAID
THAT.
>> JUST ON THE BALANCE OF THE
EVIDENCE, JUDGE, SHE'S SAYING --
SHE'S THE JUROR.
THE JUDGE GETS TO CONTROL THE
PROCESS.
I'M NOT ARGUING, I'M JUST ASKING
A QUESTION.
>> I KNOW.
BUT IT'S SCARY TO HAVE A JUDGE
CONFRONT YOU LIKE THIS.
LYNN IS DOING US A FAVOR BY
BEING HERE.
DON'T SCARE HER.
>> IT'S SCARY FOR ME KNOWING I
REVERSED A JURY VERDICT.
IT WAS BOTHERING MY CONSCIENCE.
>> WHAT ARE THE ODDS?
>> I GO BACK TO THE FACT THAT
SHE WAS LEAVING THE HOME.
>> I GOT IT.
BUT WHAT ARE THE ODDS THAT
GOVERNOR SNYDER IS GOING TO DO
ANYTHING ABOUT THIS?
>> I HAVE NO IDEA.
>> GOVERNOR GRANHOLM DID NOT.
>> DID SHE ASK FOR COMMUTATION?
>> SHE DID.
>> I DIDN'T KNOW THAT.
>> SHE DIDN'T DO THAT.
NOW, GOVERNOR SNYDER -- WE'LL
SEE, RIGHT?
SHE'S PUSHING FOR IT.
I WILL TELL YOU THAT WE DID
REACH OUT TO ANOTHER JUROR.
YOU WERE AN ALTERNATE JUROR.
WE REACHED OUT TO ANOTHER JUROR.
THIS PERSON DIDN'T GIVE THEIR
NAME.
BUT TOLD US THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM
WITH THE VERDICT.
THEY SAID THEY WOULDN'T HAVE A
PROBLEM IF SHE WERE RELEASED.
YOU KNOW, THEY DIDN'T VIEW HER
AS AN ONGOING THREAT TO SOCIETY.
THAT'S FOR YOU.
I WANTED TO TELL YOU, AS WELL,
WE REACHED OUT TO THE PROSECUTOR
WHO TRIED THE CASE AGAINST
NANCY.
HER NAME IS LISA.
AND SHE'S NOW A JUDGE, TOO.
SHE WRITES TO US THAT NANCY
SEAMAN'S GUILT WAS DECIDED BY 1
JURORS WHO REJECTED HER BATTERED
SPOUSE DEFENSE.
HER CONVICTION WAS LITIGATED FOR
YEARS AT ALL LEVELS OF THE STATE
AND FEDERAL COURTS.
I FULLY SUPPORT THE JURY'S
VERDICT AND THE DECISIONS OF THE