This case was eerily similar to the Darlie Routier of Rowlett Texas case. In both cases the mothers brutally stabbed their sons to death then staged the scenes to make it appear that an intruder had committed the crimes, they both self-inflicted superficial wounds, and claimed to have fought off the intruders. In both cases, the evidence was overwhelming that there had been no intruders. As always, the claims of shoddy police work by the defense team were used but in the Julie Rea case, Richard Caudell, the Illinois State Police Crime Scene Investigator was a lawman with decades of outstanding service and was considered to be one of the top criminal investigators in the region. Contrary to claims that he did not do a thorough investigation, Caudell spent hundreds of hours on the case, leaving no stone unturned, and like the Routier case, all of the evidence pointed to Julie Rea as the killer of Joel Kirkpatrick. Caudell died of cancer in January of 2003, so he was not there for the retrial of Julie Rea after Tommy Lynn Sells confessed to the killing. If you do your research, you will find that Sells confessed to around 70 murders but about 50 of them were found to be false confessions. Many suspect the author Dianne Fanning of sending Sells descriptions of various murders that he would confess to in order to beef-up his body count to sell books about Sells. Sells' version of what took place was physically impossible unless he was able to run at 50mph for several miles, it was beyond ridiculous. The phony confession of Sells and the jury's inability to believe that a meek, innocent looking little woman could have butchered her own son won Julie Rea an acquittal, so she walked free. When she divorced her second husband that had stood with her during her retrial, he was made to sign an agreement that he would not disclose any personal information about Julie that she had revealed to him during their marriage. I am sorry but I could not listen to this further than 45:41 because it was quite obvious that you are not looking at this case objectively. A good investigator must not go into an investigation with their mind closed or allow themselves to let their emotions sway them from the path leading to the truth. Yes, Julie is quite good at putting on an act and she probably has convinced herself by now that she did not murder her son, but all of the real and overwhelming evidence says otherwise.