It has been said that every person must experience the piercing sting of unrequited love. Much like a caterpillar wrestling out of its cocoon, romantic heartbreak can serve as a crucible, forcing growth and guiding one toward a new dawn. Yet there's another, murkier prospect. When love isn't reciprocated, it can plunge some people into shadowy depths, where passions become wild storms and obsession takes hold. In their darkest forms, these unchecked emotions might even be the spark that ignites acts of violence or cruelty. At the heart of this emotional maelstrom, stands the story of the Hollywood therapist, Amie Harwick. Let's dive in. [TV Host] - Welcome back to Good Morning, La La. [TV Host] - If you're looking to manifest your mojo this week, [TV Host] - you might want to speak to this woman, [TV Host] - Dr. Amie Harwick. [TV Host] - She's a licensed marriage and therapy, family therapist. [TV Host] - But she's really a sex therapist. Not gonna lie. [TV Host] - So how are you? I'm good. Thanks for having me today. Dr. Amie Harwick was a prominent mental health therapist based in Los Angeles, known locally for her work in the area of relationships and psychotherapy. She was considered by many someone who cared deeply about people and improving their lives. Amie was born in Sellersville, Pennsylvania, in 1981 and graduated from North Penn High School. Following a stint as fitness director at Bally Total Fitness, she launched a workout video called "Fit to Rock." She also collaborated with the Discovery Channel as a fitness expert. She relocated to Los Angeles in 2001 and eventually earned her bachelor's degree from California Polytechnic State and a master's from Pepperdine. Later, she achieved a doctorate from the Institute for Advanced Study of Human Sexuality, specializing in psychotherapy. By age 38, Amie had become a licensed marriage and family therapist and authored The New Sex Bible for Women. She had a robust online presence, frequently appearing in magazines, podcasts and news segments. Amie also ran her own YouTube channel. In one video, she spoke about common misconceptions concerning the role of a sex therapist. Hi, this is Dr. Amie Harwick, and today this video is going to be all about what is a sex therapist. I get this question all the time. People don't know what I do or have all these misconceptions about what sex therapy is. So right now I'm going to break it down and tell you what it is I do and what it is a sex therapist does. Let's start with a common misconception. Number one, a sex therapist has sex with their clients. Nope. A sex therapist cannot have sex with their clients. I can't even really touch my clients. Legally and ethically, a marriage and family therapist is not based on touch. So even if I want to give my clients a hug or pat them on the back, I typically don't because it's talk therapy. And that's just not within the legal, ethical guidelines of what I do. Amie was not just focused on her career success, she genuinely cared about the people she encountered. Deep in her heart, she held a passion for uplifting women. She founded Foxy Feminists, a group in Los Angeles designed to connect women to job opportunities and mutual support. Beyond her professional commitments, Amie had a spark for photography and dreamt of becoming a professional shutterbug someday. In 2017, at a party thrown by a local producer, Amie met Drew Carey, the comedian and host of The Price is Right TV game Show. The pair immediately clicked and soon had their first date at Disneyland. After a period of dating, they became engaged. Amie even appeared on the 2018 Valentine's Day edition of The Price Is Right, where Drew made a special announcement. I'd like to introduce you to my brand new lovely fiancee, Amie. Unfortunately for the celebrity couple, the Hollywood pressures were too much to overcome, and they broke off the engagement in November of that year. In social media posts, Drew reflected positively on their time together. After the relationship ended, Amie remained hopeful and paved a fresh path. Yet little did she know she would soon face a grave challenge from a familiar face struggling to leave the past behind. It was Valentine's Eve of 2020, and Amie was in a reflective mood. She reached out to Drew Carey for the first time since their breakup with a text that read, "Hey, I know we haven't talked in a while, but I've been doing a lot of thinking about, you know, forgiveness. And I would love to get together with you and talk." Carey responded, "Yeah, I would love to do that. I love you." Carey, in a relationship at the time, felt that Amie's message was in the spirit of friendship and forgiveness, and the two agreed to meet after the Valentine's Day weekend. That rendezvous would never take place. After enjoying a show at the Globe Theater with friends on Valentine's night, Amie arrived home at 1:02 a.m.. Moments later, a chilling blood curdling scream echoed from the third floor, jolting her roommate, Michael Herman, awake. After spending several minutes but failing to find his phone, Herman dashed out of the house and borrowed a neighbor's cell phone to urgently call the police at 1:08 a.m.. After a few minutes, a frantic Herman called 911 again. Officers arrived 5 minutes after the initial call and encountered Amie's roommate on the street. [OFFICER] - Is there anybody else inside the house? My roommate. [OFFICER] - Just your roommate by herself? Yes. [OFFICER] - You didn't check on her? Dude, I heard screaming. I didn't know if that guy had a gun or a knife. I came running, I couldn't find my phone. [OFFICER] - So is there somebody else inside? Yes! I think there's ... [OFFICER] - Okay, sir, do me a favor, do me a favor, calm down. [OFFICER] - Calm down. [OFFICER] - Other than your roommate, is there anybody else inside the house? I don't know. I don't know. [OFFICER] - So you didn't see anything? No, I just heard her scream and it sounded as if she was thrown to the ground. I've been calling for her through those windows, nobody's answering. Nothing. [OFFICER] - Let's get an additional unit. [OFFICER 2] - We still have to do a search [OFFICER] - Yeah, I know, but [OFFICER 2] - (unintelligible) [OFFICER] - Yeah, I know. [OFFICER] - 6815, can I get an additional unit to respond, please. [RADIO TRAFFIC] [OFFICER] - So you left your key and did not notice it ... Yes, I mean, I can hop the fence, my keys are left in the house, I mean I was in the middle of a sleep. [OFFICER] - So why is this ... [OFFICER] - Why can't we get in here? Because it's locked! Because she came home and ... [OFFICER] - Listen, listen, listen ... sir ... [OFFICER] - You need to relax a little bit so that we can get all the information, okay? Okay. Okay. I'm in the middle of a sleep. I don't know how many people are in there? I don't know if he's got a weapon or what? I'm trying to knock on neighbors' doors, nobody's answering. I don't have a phone. I keep walking by ... [OFFICER] - Sir, take two deep breaths for me, alright? Relax. We don't have a lot of time. [OFFICER] - Well, I mean, you locked all your stuff in there. How are we supposed to get in there? [OFFICER] - So, sir, how are we supposed to gain entry into this place? I guess hop the fence with me. We'll go around back, the back door's open. Let's go. [OFFICER] - So, where's your key at? Inside. Downstairs. The back door's open. [OFFICER] - So. So you came out and came up this way? Yes. [OFFICER] - Hey partner, we're gonna have to jump it. [OFFICER] - We're trying to find a better place [OFFICER] - so we could jump it. [OFFICER] - How long ago did you last hear from her? We'll have to go right here. [OFFICER] - Can you hold this ... The officers climbed the fence and began to search the premises. Within seconds, they made a gruesome discovery in the back patio. Amie Harwick lying on the ground with significant trauma to her head, neck and torso and struggling to breathe. According to police, her wounds were consistent with a fall from the third-story balcony. She was transported to a nearby hospital by ambulance but succumbed to her injuries shortly before 3:30 a.m. As officers methodically swept the home. A trail unsettling evidence drew them steadily upward from the second floor of living area to Amie's third floor bedroom. Scattered rosary beads and bloodstains on the bedroom door hinted at a desperate struggle. Officers followed the trail of beads to the balcony, where they discovered a syringe filled with a suspicious brown substance. The syringe was submitted for forensic analysis and later found to contain a lethal dose of nicotine. As investigators processed the crime scene, a pressing question emerged. Who would want to kill Amie Harwick and why? Through interviews with people close to Amie, one name came up repeatedly - Gareth Pursehouse. Amie Harwick and Gareth Pursehouse first met at a nightclub in 2010, and the two began a relationship in 2011. Although the six foot four Gareth's wholesome appearance contrasted with the rocker types she usually dated, they initially bonded over a mutual love of photography. Professionally, he was a successful software engineer with over $1,000,000 net worth. In addition to his main job he took on photography projects. Outside of work and his passion for outdoor sports, he had a penchant for telling jokes. In fact, Gareth dreamed of making it big as a standup comedian. He got his chance to gain some traction when he entered his name in a bucket and was randomly chosen to perform a one-minute comedy skit on the popular "Kill Tony" podcast. His opportunity was short lived, however, as he didn't exactly set the stage on fire So I have bad news for the people, for the entertainers over there I have bad news for the entertainers over there. The best day of your career is going to be the days after you die. When, like, paintings skyrocket in price. Can I continue, can I? It's close. [HOST] - Go ahead Gareth, go ahead. The paintings, agh, skyrocketing. Skyrocket in price. Redbox starts hoarding some movie from 1962. But what about the porn talent? What happens with them? Is it just Redban and Holmes singing "She was so underappreciated in her time!" All right. All right. There you go, Gareth, You did it. Doing the age old broken method of trying to roast the people that the audience is here to see. It's good. Unfortunately for Amie, this wasn't Gareth's worst day. Their relationship ended in 2012 after she endured physical and verbal abuse, leading her to file a restraining order against him. Court records revealed she accused Gareth of multiple violent acts, including punching, kicking and strangling. In a 2012 incident, he smashed ten picture frames on her door, only to return the next day, taping flowers to the door and playing music from outside her apartment. In addition to episodes of violence, Amie reported stalking, break-ins, menacing text messages and continuous harassment of her and her neighbors. After being granted a restraining order, she severed all ties with Gareth and focused on rebuilding her life. During their preliminary investigation into Amie's murder, detectives acquired Ring camera footage from her home that placed Gareth at the crime scene during the attack. 13 hours after the initial 911 call was made, Gareth was arrested outside his residence in Playa del Rey on suspicion of murder. Bail was set at $2 million, which he posted three days later and was released that evening. His freedom did not last long as he was apprehended again the following day on a no-bail warrant and formally charged with first degree murder and residential burglary. There was an added circumstance of lying in wait which qualified him for the death penalty, although there hasn't been an execution in California since January 17th, 2006. Gareth entered a plea of not guilty and was held in custody pending trial. Meanwhile, detectives continue their investigation to build the strongest possible case for prosecutors. After a judge denied a defense motion to dismiss the case in March 2022, Hehordered the district attorney and defense team to proceed to trial. Opening arguments in the trial of California versus Gareth Pursehouse were heard on August 29th, 2023, Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. the evidence in this case is gonna show that Dr. Amie Harwick was murdered by defendant Gary Pursehouse because he was obsessed with her. she rejected his advances. Not only that, she cut off all contact and to punish her for that he broke into her house on Valentine's day. He broke in there with a syringe loaded with a lethal dose of nicotine. And then he waited until she got home. You're also going to hear that that particular poison isn't readily detectable as it wasn't for the LAPD. At the end of this case I want you to hear all the evidence, in this case, hear everything the defense has to say, and at the end of this case We're going to ask you to come back with a verdict of guilty as to the residential burglary and the murder of Amie Harwick and the special circumstance of laying and wait during the commission of this murder. Thank you. I have so much I need to say. Please give me a chance to say it. So I could have just said it. Please. Please. Can we meet again? It feels the same as when I wrote that long list of what I would miss about you and heard nothing back. Just reaching out into the darkness, trying to stop falling. I wish I could do something more. Reaching out to you is a crippling action that I had actually contemplated over the past few months. Just to say to you the word help, admitting to you how hurt I am, It's so embarrassing and painful, which demolishes me even more. Please don't vanish on me. Please, please don't let me go through that again. Please call me. These are the messages that Gareth Pursehouse sends Amie Harwick after unexpectedly running into her, after having not seen her for nearly eight years. Running into her out of the blue on January 16, 2020, sent him into a deep, debilitating depression that he was not able to overcome. He was begging with her for help. He was begging and pleading her, pleading with her for a chance to talk to her. The evidence will show that running into her at that event sent him into it a thick fog of depression and made him feel that the only way he could get relief from that was to go to talk to her. The ultimate answer that you, ladies and gentlemen, are asked sorry, the ultimate question that you will be asked to answer is what Gareth Pursehouse intended to do when he broke into her house on the 14th of February in 2020. The evidence will show that he was reacting from within his fog of depression and that he was going to talk to her. Throughout the trial, testimonies poured in from a diverse group of witnesses, including experts, law enforcement officers and those acquainted with both Amie and Gareth. As the evidence unfolded, One looming question took center stage What could have driven Gareth to allegedly harm Amie nearly eight years after their separation? Investigators revealed that on January 16th, 2020, Amie was set to appear on a mental health and counseling panel at the Xbizand adult industry business conference and awards show. Amie was accompanied by her friend and colleague, Dr. Hernando Chaves. They were invited in recognition of the low-cost mental health services they provided to workers in the adult industry. While waiting in line for Amie's turn for red carpet photos, Chaves left to get drinks, but was soon alerted to a disturbance involving Amie. When he returned to the line he found Amie face-to-face with her ex, Gareth Pursehouse, who was working the event as a photographer. Chaves testified to what he observed that evening, [PROSECUTOR] - Tell us what is shown here. that is the walkway. So if to the right of that photo is the red carpet. And this is to the left of it. And it's this walkway between the ballroom and the red carpet. So in that walkway, there are a number of drink stations and doors that lead into the ballroom. So on either side, you have the red carpet to the right and the ballroom to the left. This is from the opposite side of the line. [PROSECUTOR] - And did anything happen at this point? Um, and so when we arrived, the first thing we did as we were in line, I had a few friends who were right in front of us. I took a drink order. I said, "I want to buy everybody a drink," and took the order. And once I got that order, I walked down this path and that's listed and I got in line for the bar. [JUDGE] - His question was did anything happen? [PROSECUTOR] - I think it's okay, Your Honor. [PROSECUTOR] - I think this is an explanation. [JUDGE] - So you want you want a chronological order explanation? - Yes [JUDGE] - All right. [PROSECUTOR] - So then you went to the bar to get this drink order. [PROSECUTOR] - And where did you leave Amie when you went to the bar? She was in line with the friends that I had that we had met, that we found there. So she was with other people. [PROSECUTOR] - And how long were you at the bar area before something happened? Approximately 10 minutes into me waiting in line at the bar, I received two phone calls from a friend. [PROSECUTOR] - What's the name of this friend? I'm sorry? [PROSECUTOR] - What's the name of the friend? Ashley Jemison. [PROSECUTOR] - Can you spell that. Uh, A-S-H-L-E-Y ... J-E-M-I-S-O-N. [PROSECUTOR] - Alright. Does this person go by other names? She has a stage name as well. [PROSECUTOR] - What's the stage name? Stage name is Aubrey Kate. [PROSECUTOR] - And what happened at this point? The first phone call, when she called, I couldn't hear. There was a lot of loud commotion. It was chaotic, so I couldn't understand. And I hung up. And then 30 seconds later, I received another phone call from from her as well. And all I could hear amongst the chaos were the sounds that were sort of the loud sounds was, "Get the F over here." [PROSECUTOR] - What did you do? I immediately went back to the line. [PROSECUTOR] - And when you went back to the line, how far away was the line from the bar? We were, I was probably 25 yards away from that that portion of where they were at in the line. [PROSECUTOR] - Once you went back to the original location, what did you see? It took me a couple of minutes to kind of weave through the different people that were standing there and blocking my route. When I got there, I saw Amie and the defendant were walking away from the line together. [PROSECUTOR] - When you say "the defendant," you see the person you saw there that night here in court today? Yes. [PROSECUTOR] - Will you please point him out for the jury. [PROSECUTOR] - Describe what that person is wearing today. He's wearing a blue suit and glasses. [JUDGE] - What color shirt, sir? Uh, white shirt. [JUDGE] Okay, he identified the defendant. [PROSECUTOR] - And as you approached them, [PROSECUTOR] - did you hear anything being said? initially, seeing them walk away? I first checked in with my friend who called me and she told me, this guy is freaking out on your friend. So I then walked over to where the two of them had walked to ... [PROSECUTOR] - When you say "the two of them" ... Dr. Amie and Gareth Pursehouse. [PROSECUTOR] - And as you walked over there, what, if anything did you hear? As I was walking towards them, the only words I heard was, "You ruined my life, you bitch." And as I got closer, they both stopped. They both looked at me and I checked in with her and said, Is everything okay? And she said, Everything's okay. I'm going to be right here talking. And so I went back to the line and waited for her. I also said, I'll wait in line for you. And so I waited and kept her place. [PROSECUTOR] - Now, let's go back to the statement. [PROSECUTOR] - And ... what was the statement again? You ruined my life, you bitch. [PROSECUTOR] - Looking here at people's [PROSECUTOR] - photograph C of this exhibit, [PROSECUTOR] - do you recognize who was shown there? Yes. [PROSECUTOR] - and who is that? That's the defendant, Gareth Pursehouse. [PROSECUTOR] - Is that the way he looked at the Xbiz awards show on January 16th? Yes. I remember the red shirt and the jeans, yeah. [PROSECUTOR] - And so how would you describe when you see his face, [PROSECUTOR] - when he said, you ruined my life, bitch? They were profiled, so they were looking at each other as I was walking up so that they did not see me as that. I heard that. [PROSECUTOR] - Were you able to see what his demeanor was when he said, [PROSECUTOR] - "You ruined my life." It was hostile and angry and elevated. And then when they both made eye contact that I was walking over, they both like put it back together. He calmed himself down very quickly in that moment. [PROSECUTOR] - And then what happened? after I checked in and she shared that she was going to be there and talking, I went back to the red carpet and waited for about 45 minutes until I got closer to the entrance to the red carpet. And in the meantime, I was checking over at the two of them, talking periodically, every minute or 2 minutes. [PROSECUTOR] - Why were you doing that? I was concerned. [PROSECUTOR] - What were you concerned about? The angry, hostile statement if someone calls your friend a bitch that was alarming to me. That was that raised a red flag for myself and I wanted to make sure she was okay. [PROSECUTOR] - So you kept view of her? Yes. She was in the line of sight the entire time I was in in the line [PROSECUTOR] - How far away was she from you? 30 to 35 yards. [PROSECUTOR] - And did you see anything happen [PROSECUTOR] - during that time when you're watching her from that distance? Obviously, I could not hear anything else because I'm so far away, but I could observe non-verbal movements for both of them. I noticed she had her hands clasped together in her lap for her to have her two hands were collapsed together, and she was seated in a way that was kind of leaning into the conversation. So she was, in my opinion, non-threatening and trying to just look to calm the defendant. Gareth Pursehouse had much more animated movements with the hands, so there was times where they the hands went on the head, times when the hands covered the face, and then were in his lap, then bending forward into his lap. And there was just more movement to reinforce whatever was being said. [PROSECUTOR] - And how would you describe her demeanor [PROSECUTOR] - once she left the defendant and met up with you? Totally changed. [PROSECUTOR] - What does that mean? She went from initially coming into the show excited, talkative, enthusiastic, you know, full of energy as she we all typically know her if you're in her life. And when she walked up to me, she was almost like a ghost. She was very stoic. I keep thinking back to the word that was felt right and it felt like she was on autopilot. She was just coasting and moving through the motions of walking and taking pictures and talking. But ... [DEFENSE] - Objection. Narration at this point, Your Honor. [JUDGE] - That'll stand. [JUDGE] - Counsel, your next question. [PROSECUTOR] - Was she able to take pictures on the red carpet? She did, yes. Gareth was described by numerous witnesses as visibly upset, shaking, and teary-eyed. Ashley, the friend Chaves referred to in his testimony, was also called to the stand and was asked to describe the incident from her point of view. [PROSECUTOR] - So I want to be more specific about the defendant. [PROSECUTOR] - Could you see his body language from where you were? Mm-hmm. Yes. Yes. [PROSECUTOR] - Could you tell me what that body language was? Just his arms were kind of like up and just very serious with the situation. [PROSECUTOR] - So let the record reflect, Your Honor, that the witness raised both her left [PROSECUTOR] - and right arms, moving around her hands in circular motions. [PROSECUTOR] - So you demonstrated [PROSECUTOR] - kind of this movement I just described for the record. Would you say he was moving his arms erratically? Yes [DEFENSE] - Objection, leading ... [JUDGE] - Sustained. [PROSECUTOR] - Could you describe what other body movements he was doing while he was speaking with Amie? [PROSECUTOR] - From that distance? I just kind of seemed like his arms are like kind of going up very angrily and was just very upset. [JUDGE] - Objection overruled. This is how it appeared to her based on his body language. [PROSECUTOR] - Now, I know you had met [PROSECUTOR] - Amie for the first time that night. [PROSECUTOR] - Did that interaction [PROSECUTOR] - between the defendant and Amie cause you any concern? [DEFENSE] - Objection, relevance. [JUDGE] - Overruled. Um, can you repeat the question? [PROSECUTOR] - Sure. [PROSECUTOR] - I know you just met Amie for the first time, [PROSECUTOR] - but despite just meeting Amie for the very first time, did that [PROSECUTOR] - interaction with the defendant and Amie cause you any concern at that time? No. [PROSECUTOR] - Did you end up calling your friend Hernando at any point [PROSECUTOR] - while you were with Amie? [DEFENSE] - Objection, leading. [JUDGE] - I'll allow it. [PROSECUTOR] - Yes? [witness nods affirmatively] And why would you call Dr. [PROSECUTOR] - Chaves while you were observing this interaction between the defendant? Because he told me to stay with her while he went to go get us drinks. And then all of a sudden this happened and I don't know, I felt bad for her because she was in a very awkward position and it seemed like they might have just broken up or something. Definitely felt like it was an ex boyfriend, but it seemed like it was something fresh and new. And I know that she walked away, so I knew that she was uncomfortable. So I was trying to call my friend back to help the situation. I didn't really know her. [PROSECUTOR] - And did you get in contact with Dr. Chaves only by cell phone? [PROSECUTOR] - I'm sorry, only by phone call, or was it by text as well? I believe I texted him because he didn't answer the phone. [PROSECUTOR] - And do you remember what you said to him [PROSECUTOR] - in order to get him to come back? I said, I think your friend needs you. [PROSECUTOR] - Based on that statement, [PROSECUTOR] - did you feel that she needed help? If I was in that situation, I would want help. [PROSECUTOR] - And in your opinion, it appeared that he had like [PROSECUTOR] - just broken up? Yes. [PROSECUTOR] - Now, did Hernando come back to the area where you were standing? He did. [PROSECUTOR] - Did you tell him what you had observed between [PROSECUTOR] - the defendant and Amie? - Yes. [PROSECUTOR] - Did you point out to him where they kind of walked off to? [PROSECUTOR] - I'm sorry? Yes. [PROSECUTOR] - Now once Dr. Chaves came back, what did you do at that point? I left to go get my makeup retouched up before the award show started. [PROSECUTOR] - Did you see Dr. Chaves at all for the remainder of the night? No. [PROSECUTOR] - Did you see Amie at all for the remainder of the night? No. [PROSECUTOR] - And did you see the defendant at all for the remainder of the night? No. [PROSECUTOR] - Thank you. Nothing further, Your Honor. Ultimately, Chaves pulled Amie away from Gareth and they returned to the Xbiz red carpet for pictures. While Amie appeared outwardly composed and even smiled for the camera, Chaves noticed a change in her demeanor. She seemed anxious and preoccupied. Then, as the night ended, Amie was confronted by Gareth again. He asked to speak with her and she requested some privacy from Chaves to address the matter once and for all. After their conversation, Amie and Chaves went to a cafe where she discussed her unsettling chat with Gareth. According to Amie, Gareth admitted that he was still consumed by thoughts of her and the impact their breakup had on his life. During their second exchange that night, Amie told him, "How do you want to end this? We are not going to be friends, but we don't have to be brutal enemies." During their talk, Amie expressed forgiveness for his past actions, but when she declined a hug, Gareth became emotional and left. According to an article by the Cut, Amie was afraid of his obsessive thoughts and went to the police, but they did not take the matter seriously. The report further states police were questioned about Amie's allegations but chose not to comment. The following day, Amie told the people closest to her about her concerns, including one of her friends, Robert Coshland, who testified about it in court. [COURT CLERK] - Do you solemnly state that the testimony you're about to give [COURT CLERK] - in the (unintelligible) before this court shall be [COURT CLERK] - the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, [COURT CLERK] - so help you God? Yes, I do. [COURT CLERK] - Thank you. Please have a seat. [COURT CLERK] - Please state and spell both your first and last name. Robert Coshland ... R-O-B-E-R-T C-O-S-H-L-A-N-D [PROSECUTOR] - Looking at photograph 10G, [PROSECUTOR] - Do you recognize who is depicted on that photograph? Yes, I do. [PROSECUTOR] - And who is that? That is Amie Harwick. [PROSECUTOR] - And what was Amie Harwick to you back in 2020? Amie was my best friend. [PROSECUTOR] - You say your best friend. [PROSECUTOR] - How long have you known her? I met her in 2012 and we became friends in 2013. [PROSECUTOR] - When you say she was your best friend, what does that mean? I talk to her every day. I pretty much told her everything. We texted every day and I saw her often, once a week, sometimes as many as four times a week. [PROSECUTOR] - Was she someone important in your life? Very much so. [PROSECUTOR] - And obviously, you know about her death on February 15th, 2020? Yeah. [PROSECUTOR] - When was the last time you saw her before that date? I saw her several days before I believe it was Tuesday, whatever day that was. We went to the movies. [PROSECUTOR] - Uh, did you have a conversation with her [PROSECUTOR] - on January 17, 2020? I had a conversation with her most days, so ... [PROSECUTOR] - Around January 17, 2020, [PROSECUTOR] - did she discuss an event that had occurred to her [PROSECUTOR] - the day before. Yes. [PROSECUTOR] - What did she tell you in that regard? She called me and told me that she had run into Gareth and that she was very concerned about that interaction. She told me that she saw him and he came over to her and was yelling at her and reciting texts from like eight years ago and for the narrative and also first prior ruling regarding leaving town for leaving for Germany. Okay, good. Because I'm sure [PROSECUTOR] - You were saying [PROSECUTOR] - that she was telling you what happened to her [PROSECUTOR] - at this event on January 16, 2020, including that [PROSECUTOR] - person was reciting those old text messages to her. Yes. And she told me that he hadn't moved on with his life and seemed to be very obsessed with her still and that she was very worried about that direction. [PROSECUTOR] - Did she indicate to you [PROSECUTOR] - whether she was scared of Gareth's presence? - Yes. [PROSECUTOR] - What did she tell you in that regard? She said to me that "if anything happens to me, it would be Gareth that did it." [PROSECUTOR] - And have you previously testified to that statement? I have. [PROSECUTOR] - And after telling you that, did she try to take some kind of action [PROSECUTOR] - So you would know where she would be at different points in time. I suggested that perhaps we share a location so I could see where she was at any given time. And she agreed. So we used the "Find-My-Phone" feature on my case. [PROSECUTOR] - And were you then able to track her phone wherever she moved? Yes. It took a couple hours for us to figure out how it worked, but afterwards, yes. Yes. [PROSECUTOR] - Why did it take a couple hours to figure that out? [DEFENSE] - Objection, foundation. [JUDGE] - Overruled. You can ask him. Like I said before, she hadn't used it before, so I don't know, like, technically. [PROSECUTOR] - Okay. [PROSECUTOR] - And is this is this happening on or about January 17th [PROSECUTOR] - for 2020 or a few days after January 17th, 2020? We had it sorted out in the aftermath of the 17th. [PROSECUTOR] - Did you and her discuss [PROSECUTOR] - anything else as far as security at her home? Yes. I suggested she buy a gun and we talked about video cameras and a security alert system. [PROSECUTOR] - Where did she as far as the suggestion to get a gun, how did you respond to that? She said maybe, but she objected that it was okay. [PROSECUTOR] - You said what? - She said maybe. [PROSECUTOR] - And you also suggested what else to her? Getting a security system and cameras. [PROSECUTOR] - And do you know if she did that, then? Yes, she did. [PROSECUTOR] - How do you know that? Because we talked about it and I referred an installer and she bought the system and installed it. [PROSECUTOR] - Did she buy the Nest camera system? Correct. That's what I had. [PROSECUTOR] - Were you the one that installed the system for her? Yeah. [PROSECUTOR] - Did you set the settings for her Nest camera for her? I did that. [PROSECUTOR] - When did you hear [PROSECUTOR] - about the passing of Amie Harwick? [DEFENSE] - Objection, relevance. [JUDGE] - Overruled. After I had gone to interview with Detectives Masterson and Colonza they left the room for a bit and then came back they informed me. So it was the morning of the 15th. I don't know what time. [PROSECUTOR] - Would this be February 15, 2020 at around was your interview with them on February [PROSECUTOR] - 15, 2020, at the Hollywood station around ten in the morning? It was thereabouts. [PROSECUTOR] - And so they stepped out of the room and what happened? After the interview they sat down for a few moments and then, or minutes, and then came back and informed me. [PROSECUTOR] - What was your reaction to that? [DEFENSE] - Objection, relevance. [JUDGE] - Sustained. [PROSECUTOR] - Did you tell them during that interview on who to focus on? I did. [PROSECUTOR] - You can answer that. - I did. [PROSECUTOR] - Who did you tell them that they should focus on? [DEFENSE] - Objection. Hearsay. [JUDGE] Overruled, but you told this to the police officers? Yes. Okay. Yes, Yes. I told them that they should focus on Gareth. I did not know his last name. [PROSECUTOR] - And why did you tell him that? Because of the conversations that she and I had had previously. [PROSECUTOR] - After Dr. Amie Harwick's passing, [PROSECUTOR] - did you and your friends get together that day or a day after that? Soon after the January incident with Gareth, Amie obtained pepper spray and hired a locksmith to change her door locks. As the hours passed, Amie slowly felt a little more confident about handling the situation with Gareth. However, just as things seemed to begin to calm down, she received an unexpected text message from an unknown number that read "I interneted your number. Recognize it now that I see it. If I'm allowed to text ..." Amie was troubled by the messages as she had not provided Gareth with her new number. Gareth followed up his text with "Not sure if you're done because you said how do we finish this now last night? But if we can meet again?" Amie replied, "I think it was really good that we were able to speak last night. I'm sure there's a lot more that you want to process and say to me, but I think that was a lot for both of us. I hope you were able to hear me last night when I said that I was sorry for anything that caused you suffering and that I forgive you for the things that you did to me. I think right now it's best to have some space, and I don't mean that in a negative way. The past is sad and triggering for both of us. I think we ended our talk last night well. We can be civil from a distance, respect each other and move forward with our own lives." Although Amie stopped replying after that, Gareth continued to text her. She hoped that with additional time and distance he would finally accept the clear boundaries she set and realize she had no desire to rekindle their past relationship. Less than one month later, Amie was murdered. Given the weight of the evidence against Gareth, his defense team faced an uphill battle. Their trial strategy involved challenging the reliability of witnesses, questioning the integrity of the evidence, and highlighting even the smallest inconsistencies. Their primary goal was to sow enough doubt to potentially influence the jury's decision. For example: [DEFENSE] - Did you tell the first officers who responded [DEFENSE] - that "Amie was yelling the entire time. She was upstairs yelling [DEFENSE] - when I ran out of the house?" Yeah, I don't remember that specifically. [DEFENSE] - And today you testified [DEFENSE] - that she was not screaming the entire time, [DEFENSE] - is that correct? Yes. [DEFENSE] - The second responders that came. [DEFENSE] - Did you tell them that you heard muffled screams? [PROSECUTOR - I would object if he was asked these questions. [JUDGE] - Well, the question isn't whether [JUDGE] - he was asked the question, but whether he told them [JUDGE] - whether it was because of a question that was posed or he told them on his own. [JUDGE] - The court will allow it. There was a lot of questions from a lot of people. You know, I can't remember ... specifically. I remember in general telling them what had happened several times to different people. [DEFENSE] - And you recall specifically telling them there were muffled screams? No, I don't remember specifically telling them in those words. I just don't. I'm sorry. [DEFENSE] - Do you recall saying several times [DEFENSE] - throughout your [DEFENSE] - encounters with law enforcement on February 15th [DEFENSE] - that Amie was screaming the entire time and you heard her screams [DEFENSE] - as you ran out of the house? [PROSECUTOR] Compound as to various law enforcement officers. [JUDGE] - The Court will allow it. It sounds like you're asking me the same question over and over, but I don't remember telling them specifically that I heard her screaming the entire time. I just don't remember saying that specifically. [DEFENSE] - And your recollection today is [DEFENSE] - that she was not screaming the entire time section? [PROSECUTOR] Objection - argumentative. [JUDGE] No, overruled. Is that your recollection today, sir? Yeah, no, there was like a one period where it was like dead silent for a little bit. Like. And I'm pretty sure I told the detectives that. [DEFENSE] - So if I asked you, did you tell the detectives that? [DEFENSE] - What would your answer be? My answer would be ... I'm pretty sure I ... [JUDGE] - Told them what? [DEFENSE] - told them she was screaming the entire time. Oh, you were going back to that? - Yes. I just told you, it's asked and answered. I don't remember specifically telling them that, but I could have. [DEFENSE] - Okay. [DEFENSE] - But if that's what you [DEFENSE] - told them your testimony today contradicts that, correct? [JUDGE] - That's been asked and answered. He stated [JUDGE] - as he sits here today, she wasn't screaming the entire time, is that correct? Yes, that's correct. [DEFENSE] - Thank you. Under direct examination, laboratory testing expert Dr. Alan Wu confirmed the presence of a lethal dose of nicotine in the syringes found at the crime scene and in Gareth's home. During Dr. Wu's cross-examination, the defense targeted the concerning findings by questioning the testing process and the report's details. They pointed out the lab lacked a certain accreditation and some report parameters seemed to be missing without asking why. The idea was to subtly insinuate potential flaws without explicitly saying so. Toward the end of the clip, observe the defense's reaction when the expert pushes back and delves deeper into an argument. [JUDGE] If you could raise your right hand, sir. [COURT CLERK] - Do you solemnly state that the testimony [COURT CLERK] - you're about to give in the (unintelligible) [COURT CLERK] - before this courtroom is the truth, [COURT CLERK] - the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? I do swear. [COURT CLERK] - Thank you. [COURT CLERK] - Please state and spell both your first and last name. Alan Wu ... A-L-A-N ... W-U. [COURT CLERK] - Thank you. [PROSECUTOR] - Good afternoon. Good afternoon. [PROSECUTOR] - Please tell the jury what it is that you do for a living. I am a professor of laboratory medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and I am one of the laboratory directors at the Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. [PROSECUTOR] - And can you briefly describe your education [PROSECUTOR] - for this position? I have bachelor's degrees in chemistry and biology, a doctoral degree, Ph.D. degree from the University of Illinois in analytical chemistry, and postdoctoral training in clinical chemistry. [PROSECUTOR] - Can you briefly describe your training and experience in chemistry. Well, I'm trained to operate clinical laboratories in hospitals and medical centers. [PROSECUTOR] - And how many years have you been doing that? 41. [DEFENSE] - And I think you answered this in kind of a big picture way, but I just want to ask [DEFENSE] - very specifically that your lab does not have [DEFENSE] - that ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation? That's correct. [DEFENSE] - And one of the number, one of the two numbers [DEFENSE] - that you need to know to determine purity is density, right? Yes. [DEFENSE] - And in terms of the equation that you use, that you included in your report, [DEFENSE] - density is the bottom denominator of the equation. Yes. [DEFENSE] - Concentration is on top. Yes. [DEFENSE] - So to be confident that you are calculation [DEFENSE] - regarding purity is correct, you need to have an accurate density. Yes. [DEFENSE] - And even a slight inaccuracy can change the purity number significantly. Well, it would have to be an egregious error in the density, which would be difficult because most fluids have a density of about 1.00. Nicotine is in a fluid. It has a slightly higher density, but not more than 1% difference. So even if it had, if we had used the wrong density, the estimate would only be off by a percent or so. [DEFENSE] - The balance you use to measure [DEFENSE] - density, it can only go out, and I'm talking [DEFENSE] - about the instrument, it can only go out two decimal places, right? Yes. [DEFENSE] - There are density meter instruments that go out three, right? And even four. Yes. [DEFENSE] - And you have those types of instruments in your lab? We do. [DEFENSE] - Your report didn't include a measure of uncertainty. Correct. [DEFENSE] - And it also didn't include method validation parameters. Correct. [DEFENSE] - Um, the calibration curve wasn't run in triplet ... sorry, triplicate? That's correct. [DEFENSE] - And I think that on direct you mentioned your own error rate, [DEFENSE] - but I don't think that that was included in the report, or was it? It was not. [DEFENSE] - Is that a synonym of "error bar?" Yeah. Yes. Okay. [DEFENSE] - And so neither were included in your report. That's correct. [DEFENSE] - The report didn't include sample prep information. I think we did include it. We even showed a picture of the sample actually being weighed on the balance itself. [DEFENSE] - And ... [DEFENSE] - ... nothing further. [JUDGE] - Okay. [JUDGE] - Thank you, Doctor. [JUDGE] - You may step down. In the next clip, the defense seeks to portray the police as having mishandled Gareth's booking procedure, suggesting they were insensitive and unprofessional. [DEFENSE] - Good afternoon again. Good afternoon. [DEFENSE] - Now, so when you first ... when Mr. Pursehouse first [DEFENSE] - arrived at Piper Tech (LAPD facility), he was accompanied by two uniformed officers. Yes, ma'am. [DEFENSE] - And they had transported him from another location [DEFENSE] - to Piper Tech so that you could meet them there [DEFENSE] - and supervise the photography of Mr. [DEFENSE] - Pursehouse. Is that correct? Exactly. [DEFENSE] - And who had authorized this photographing of Mr. Pursehouse? It was a recommendation by the lead detectives. It's something you normally do in situations such as this. [DEFENSE] - Do you normally ask detainees [DEFENSE] - to be strip searched in that way? It depends on what the person's detained for, but strip searches are normal with violent felonies. [DEFENSE] - So who authorized a strip search in this case? I'm not privy to the booking approval regarding who authorized a strip search, but I wouldn't call this a strip search. That's prior to booking. This would be photographing the person whether they have injuries or not. [DEFENSE] - Okay. [DEFENSE] - And were you okay ... [PROSECUTOR] - Objection. The witness hasn't completed his answer. [JUDGE] - Were you finished, sir? I was almost finished. [JUDGE] - Alright, go ahead. Depending on the situation, of course. [DEFENSE] - So ... you had Mr. Pursehouse remove his underwear for photographs? I directed him to. Yes. [DEFENSE] - And several photographs were taken of his naked body. Yes. [DEFENSE] - And the area where his underwear would normally be. [DEFENSE] - Did you find anything of any significance in that location on either the buttocks, [DEFENSE] - his penis, or any area that would have been concealed [DEFENSE] - by underwear? I did not. [DEFENSE] - But you continued to photograph that area anyway. Well, when you say area, it was an overall photograph of his whole entire body to show a lack of, or to determine whether or not there was an injury. [DEFENSE] - Would you have expected to find injuries on his penis area? [PROSECUTOR] - Objection - argumentative. [JUDGE] - Well, it calls for speculation. Sustained. [DEFENSE] - When you told Mr. Pursehouse what you were going to be doing in terms of photographing him, [DEFENSE] - did you describe it to him as a full body scan? [PROSECUTOR] - Objection, relevance. [JUDGE] - I'll allow it. I didn't use that verbiage, but I 100% explained the process to him to alleviate any of his fears. He was very inquisitive and I took the time to answer each of his questions. [DEFENSE] - You don't recall using the term "a full body scan?" No. [DEFENSE] - Would that be inaccurate to call it a full-body scan? It's just verbiage I wouldn't have used in this situation. After all the evidence was presented and each witness testified it was time for the parties to give closing arguments. The prosecution presented their case with conviction, arguing that on Valentine's night, Gareth, fueled by rejection and anger, broke into Amie's home and waited for her to arrive. Upon her return, he brutally assaulted her before throwing her onto the third floor balcony to her death. To support their case, they relied on the medical examiner's conclusion that Amie died from blunt force trauma with strangulation as a contributing factor. DNA from underneath Amie's fingernails and her surroundings matched Gareth's DNA. They reiterated that syringes containing a lethal amount of liquid nicotine were found at the crime scene and at Gareth's residence. The prosecution also displayed video evidence of Gareth at the crime scene at the time of the assault. Countering the prosecution's narrative, the defense argued that Gareth. captured on video at Amie's house with gloves and a rope, was just there to talk. They claimed he intended to end his life with the nicotine syringe if she declined to reunite with him. The defense suggested Amie's fall was an accident, possibly while evading Gareth, and said he suffered from a debilitating depression, implying diminished responsibility. Once briefed, the jury deliberated for two days before reaching a verdict. Would the prosecution's strong evidence prevail, or had the defense introduced sufficient doubt? [JUDGE] - Juror number one, is it correct that the jury has a verdict? [JUDGE] - You can hand the verdict forms over to the bailiff, please. [JUDGE] - Alright. Mr. Clerk, if you would read the verdicts [JUDGE] - onto the record, please. [COURT CLERK] - In the Superior Court of the state of California, county of Los Angeles, [COURT CLERK] - department 107, case number BA485380 [COURT CLERK] - people of the state of California versus Gareth Pursehouse. [COURT CLERK] - As to count one ... We the Jury in the above entitled action [COURT CLERK] - find the defendant, Gareth Pursehouse, guilty of the crime of murder in the first degree [COURT CLERK] - in violation of Penal Code Section 187, subsection eight. [COURT CLERK] - A crime as charged in count one of the information. [COURT CLERK] - We further find the allegation that Gareth Pursehouse intentionally killed [COURT CLERK] - Amie Harwick by means of lying in wait within the meaning of Penal Code [COURT CLERK] - Section 190.2, Subsection A, subsection 15, to be true, [COURT CLERK] - dated September 28, 2023. [COURT CLERK] - Juror number one, foreperson. [COURT CLERK] - As to count two, [COURT CLERK] - We the Jury in the above entitled action find defendant Jared [COURT CLERK] - Pursehouse guilty of the crime of burglary in the first-degree [COURT CLERK] - in violation of Penal Code Section 459. [COURT CLERK] - A crime as charged in count two of the information. [COURT CLERK] - We further find the allegation that a person was present in the residence [COURT CLERK] - during the commission of the burglary to be true. [COURT CLERK] - Dated September 28, 2023. [COURT CLERK] - Juror number one, foreperson. [COURT CLERK] - Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, are these your verdicts, [COURT CLERK] - So say you one so say you all? [JURORS RESPOND] - Yeah. Yeah. Yes. [JUDGE] - Would either side like the jury polled? Gareth is set to be sentenced on December 6th, 2023. He faces a maximum life sentence in prison without the possibility of parole.