Bombshell Twist in Naked Teen's Mysterious Death Case

It will soon be 2 years since. 19-year-old Noah Presgrove was found. dead on the side of a rural road out in. Oklahoma, naked except for his shoes. And this was just minutes away from a. rockous Labor Day celebration with. friends. Now, as a legal battle between. Noah's family and those same friends. heats up, Noah's own best friend has. filed official paperwork saying that. maybe Noah brought his death upon. himself. Welcome to Sidebar, presented. by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

[Music]. Labor Day weekend marks two years since. a wild dayslong party out in Oklahoma. came to a sudden halt when one of those. partygoers disappeared from the party. and was found by a trucker on a rural. road not far from the home where he and. his friends were celebrating a birthday. We're talking about 19-year-old Noah. Presgro was referred to as Noah Nichols. in legal paperwork. He was found dead. along a highway. This was in Terrell, Oklahoma. He was reportedly in the fetal. position, naked except for a mismatched.

pair of shoes. Some of his jewelry and. even his teeth were scattered nearby. His injuries were shocking to say the. least. His neck was broken. His skull. was split open. Many of his teeth were. broken. And Noah, who is this star. athlete in Comanche, Oklahoma, had. graduated from high school a few months. before he was reportedly planning to. join the military with his cousin. This. is according to family members. interviews with People magazine. He had. his whole life in front of him and now. you have this. An autopsy documented.

Noah's horrific injuries, but didn't. provide a lot of information about what. could have caused the damage to his. body. And despite his family believing. that he was beaten to death and dumped. along the road, the Oklahoma Highway. Patrol is not investigating this case as. a murder. They've previously categorized. the situation as suspicious in public. statements, but really haven't provided. much info at all. No one has ever been. arrested or charged in connection with. Noah's death. And frustrated with this.

lack of information from authorities, Noah's estate filed a wrongful death. lawsuit against multiple people. allegedly involved with this party, seeking at least $75,000. But aside from monetary compensation, it. seems that Noah's family is really. hoping to learn more, to learn details. about the night that he died by forcing. depositions, getting evidence, learning. more, discovering, and maybe it's the. depositions from Noah's friends as well. as from law enforcement that will. provide that information. And as I.

mentioned, there are a lot of people. connected to this case. And the lawsuit. names seven people in one corporation. Again, none of these people have been. criminally charged with any wrongdoing, but they are listed here. They are Avery. Joe Combmes, also called Avery Joe. Newton, the birthday girl who co-hosted. the party. Jack Newton, this is Noah's. best friend since childhood. Caleb. Newton, Jack's dad, who's accused of. letting his son and others ride on a. four-wheeler despite being intoxicated. Carter Combmes, this is Avery Joe's. sister and Jack's longtime girlfriend.

The two recently announced on social. media they're expecting a child. together. There's Stevie Howard, Avery. Joe, and Carter's mom, who apparently. owned the trailer where much of the. party took place. There's Johnny Trout. Wiloxin Jr., the man who owned the. property where the trailer was. There's. Logan Jernigan, another friend who. helped organize the party. And the. corporation listed in this suit is Val. Petrol LLC, which owns a convenience. store called Napal in Marlo, Oklahoma. So, the lawsuit contends that Jack. Newton, despite being underage, was.

reportedly able to buy alcohol for the. party there. And the lawsuit also names. John or Jane Doe's A through Z, meaning. they're, as you have yet, unidentified. people who may have been involved in. Noah's death and who may be liable, who. could be named as defendants at a later. time. And remember, it's being alleged. that over the course of several days, people came and went from this party, possibly as many as 40. So, this lawsuit. claims that there was a civil conspiracy. to provide alcohol to underage. individuals and to keep giving them.

alcohol despite clearly high levels of. intoxication. The complaint reads, "Despite being underage, deceited, meaning Noah was promised and provided. copious amounts of alcohol if he. attended the party. Defendants provided. the deedent with alcohol over the course. of multiple days, even after he was. already intoxicated. During the party, defendant Caleb Newton permitted. Decedant to drive or ride his. all-terrain vehicle while intoxicated. Decedent was involved in an all-terrain. vehicle accident and sustained injuries. Now, friends have reportedly said that.

the ATV just tipped over, that Noah. wasn't really hurt. He was really just. dirty. And Carter and another girl. allegedly helped him shower off. This is. according to reporting from the Daily. Mail. And then apparently gave him a. pair of Jack's basketball shorts to. wear. quote, "Toward the end of the. party, defendants Jack Newton and Avery. Howard were seen verbally fighting with. the seedant." According to the Daily. Mail, Noah apparently wanted to go sleep. in Avery's bed, but she said he had to. sleep on the floor. And they claimed. Noah walked off in a hurry. He was.

angry, presumably going outside to cool. off, and that was reportedly the last. time he was seen. quote, "At or around. 3:41 a.m. on September 4th, 2023, at. least some partygoers began to notice. that the scenant was no longer. physically present at the party." And. 3:41 is a very specific time. It's. actually related to a Snapchat photo. that was posted by another woman at the. party named Jasmine Milan. And in it, she's got kind of this seemingly awkward.

smile, and the caption says, "Well, Noah's missing." Now, Milan later. addressed the photo on Facebook, saying. it was meant as a joke at the time and. that she didn't know that any harm had. actually come to Noah. Two hours after. that photo was taken, or posted, I. should say, Noah's broken body was found. along the highway around a mile away. from the party spot. The lawsuit states. the was beat to death by one or more of. the defendants. Now, the complaint, to. be clear, doesn't say who exactly they. believe was involved in this alleged.

beating, but the complaint continues, "Defendants breached their duties of. care to deed him by providing him with. alcohol, by continuing to give him. alcohol even after he was observedly. intoxicated, by driving deedant around. on an all-terrain vehicle while. intoxicated, and by selling alcohol to a. minor who purchased alcohol for deedent. to consume. either intentionally or. accidentally the defendants killed. deedent. So that lawsuit was filed in. June. In July, a judge approved a. subpoena that requires the Oklahoma.

Highway Patrol to turn over documents. related to Noah's death. The Comanche. Times reports that the investigative. file contains a trove of information, including all photographic audio and. video evidence, statements from. witnesses, and any lab analysis or. forensic findings. And then earlier this. month, a few of the defendants responded. to the lawsuit with what's called an. answer. Filings came from Val Petrol as. well as Caleb and Jack Newton. We're. going to talk about it because most of. the Newton's filings contain, you know, answers to the claims made in the.

original complaint. That's what you see. in an answer. It's like confirming. information, affirming it, uh, denying. it, saying you need more information. So, you kind of see that throughout. For. example, the document reads, "Regarding. paragraph 1 of plaintiff's petition, defendants admit Noah Nichols was a. resident of Stevens County in September. 2023. Defendants deny all other. allegations." And they do that for every. line in the lawsuit, which takes up. almost 11 pages. But at the end of the. filing, defendants Caleb and Jack Newton. offer up eight affirmative defenses that. they say could be used to show they are.

not liable, they are not responsible for. Noah's death. So, to talk about the. latest legal developments and how family. members and friends are dealing with the. upcoming anniversary of Noah's death, I. want to welcome on two special guests. I'm joined by civil attorney Perry. Fallick and Nick White, US senior. investigations reporter for. dailymail.com. Thank you both for coming. on. Uh Nick, I'll start with you. Before. you even dive into the legal filings, I. just want to talk about the case and the. investigation as a whole because it's. kind of one of those mysteries that.

really pulls you in. It doesn't let you. go. It it's it's really disturbing to. say the least. Have you spoken with any. family members, friends, people involved. in the case? >> I mean, I've been following this since I. think April last year, which was um when. it all really kicked off. I mean, we. sort of created this um the national. attention of this story. It was very. local before that. Um so that's the. extent of my involvement since then. So. I've talked to like dozens of people. since then. Um, some of the family I've.

talked to, people who are like friends. who were related to the case, some of. the people who were actually were there. at the time and were involved in it and. some of the witnesses. So, there's a lot. of people who um were talked to. primarily last year because this story. kind of um there was nothing that was. happening since probably late last year. until the um lawsuit was filed in June. So, a lot of people have um been sort of. carrying this for almost two years, like. you say, but um they've had a lot of um.

as it sort of went along, people were. less interested in talking about it as. they sort of wanted to move on and they. realized that perhaps, especially soon. as the lawsuit was even being talked. about earlier this year, um before it. was actually filed, that they maybe. would better not talk too much in. public. Hey, real quick. I want to give. a shout out to Morgan and Morgan for. sponsoring today's Law and Crime YouTube. takeover. Now, Morgan and Morgan is a. firm with over a thousand attorneys. You.

know why they're so big? You know why. they have so many? Because they win a. lot. They have recovered over $25. billion for more than 500,000 clients. Think about that. In the past few. months, a client in Florida received $12. million after the insurance company. offered just $350,000. Out in Pennsylvania, a client was. awarded $26 million. That is 40 times. the insur's $650,000 offer. Another. client in Pennsylvania received $29. million after being offered only. $500,000. And even if you think your. case isn't worth millions of dollars,

why not just start a claim and fight for. what you deserve? Morgan andorggan makes. it so simple. You can start a claim from. your phone in just eight clicks. So if. you're injured, you can easily start a. claim at forthepeople.com/youtube. by clicking the link below or scanning. the QR code on screen. And what stood out to you about that? I. mean, there's so many different players. in this case, but what stood out to you? What was the main theme you were getting. from your conversations with the. different people and the different. players in this case?

>> It really depends on who you talk to. I. mean, everyone has an opinion about how. he died. Uh, and no one actually knows. except the people who, you know, may. have been there when it happened. And. there's a lot of different um. possibilities that have been. investigated. Uh I mean the first one. was that he was hit by a truck and that. was quite quickly dismissed. But there. are some people who's who are like. closer to the case, some of his friends. who still hold that being a possibility. Um I think because it it absolves anyone.

of blame besides Presgro himself. But. there's a lot of there's a lot of. theories. There's a whole lot of people. um especially people who are like locals. in the town or the family as you saw in. the lawsuit. Their theories that he was. beaten to death deliberately or. accidentally. like whether they meant to. kill him or not, they leave that open. Um, but other people will say that he. fell off the side of a truck. So, there's a lot of different theories that. that are going around, a lot of. hostility that's been sort of simmering. mostly on Facebook groups um over the.

whole course of this time. And it really. once there was a national spotlight on. it, a lot of um I guess people came out. of the woodwork talk about it. A lot of. people who are not involved in the case. were talking about it and it kind of got. to this pressure cooker situation where. a like the two sides about it because. it's almost like the family and a lot of. the town's people and just random people. who are interested in in the case are. all sort of lined up saying the friends.

that were at the party know too much. They must have they must have seen. something. Maybe they're hiding it. Maybe they did it. and they have the. most sinister possible um idea for how. it could have happened. Whereas from my. conversations with say Jack Newton who I. talked to last year um and some of the. other people on the parents and so on, they're all saying, "Well, look, we. don't know. We weren't there." Jack. maintains he was asleep from say 1:30. onwards and Noah didn't disappear for.

another hour and a half, two hours after. that. then he only found him on the road. when he left at 6:00 a.m. So that's. that's his claim that he doesn't know. what happened, but he can't think of. anyone who would have a reason to kill. him or or even beat him up to the point. where he died. So there's sort of a lot. of hostility about people saying, "Look, if you don't know, if you know what. happened, why don't you tell us?" And. then them saying, "Well, I don't know. what happened, so I can't tell you." And. that's been the conflict for the past.

probably 18 months. >> Perry, before we go into this uh answer, what do you think of the lawsuit. generally? I think it's a unique lawsuit in the. from the perspective of and I I watched. a lot of your other coverage and the. prior coverage on this from law and. crime and and I think it's true that you. know because there are no criminal. charges filed and there's no ongoing. criminal investigation the family felt. this was their best option to get. information and one thing I thought was.

interesting is that and I don't know how. it is in Oklahoma but generally in a. civil so you don't have to name a. specific amount amount of money you were. suing for. But the $75,000 struck stuck. out to me as extremely low based on the. circumstances and what the potential. damages in this type of suit could be. But it makes sense from the perspective. of this is a family who lost their son. under very suspicious circumstances and. they're just trying to get information. So from that perspective, casting a.

broad net, suing numerous people, which. would potentially allow you to take. multiple depositions of the defendants, it makes sense from that standpoint, and. it's not something you see every day. >> Yeah. And sometimes a lawsuit can. provide uh information that people are. looking for. So I want to talk about a. few of the most interesting affirmative. defenses that were presented uh in this. filing or maybe defenses. You have. number one, plaintiff's petition fails. to state a claim upon which relief can. be granted. So basically even if you. take everything as true there's no cause.

of action here. There's no reasonable. argument for getting any sort of. damages. Number two, the seedant was. negligent and his negligence. approximately caused or contributed to. his accident and damages if any and. deedants negligence is comparatively. greater than defendants negligence. Therefore plaintiff is not entitled to. recover their alleged damages. And that. is also kind of similar to number four. on the list. Defendants owed no duty of. care to the deedent. Harry cold when I. read it from a legal filing. Uh, what do. you make of those three defenses?

Failure to state a claim, didn't owe a. duty. He contributed to his own. negligence. >> Well, first off, I want to make clear. what affirmative offenses are and what. they aren't. So, it could be spun in a. lot of high-profile cases. I understand. why it is spun this way, and plaintiffs. attorneys will do it, too, and use it to. their advantage when they can in a. high-profile case. But, an affirmative. defense is essentially a defendant. reserving their rights. And something I. thought was interesting here that I. don't know if I've ever really seen. before, at least I haven't seen it in a. New York case, is that the the last.

paragraph of the affirmative defenses. that these lawyers put in the answer. very clearly lays out what affirmative. defenses are, that they're reserving. their rights uh so that they are not. waved. Because a lot of times if you. don't put these affirmative defenses in. an answer, you may wave your right to. assert them later. and they state in the. last sentence that they will withdraw. them at the appropriate time, which. would generally be right before trial or. after all the evidence has come in. So, I don't normally, as a plaintiff's. attorney, don't normally like to give a.

tip of the hat to a defense attorney, but I do think that's a smart thing to. put in here um to really lay out, hey, we're we're not blaming the plaintiff. per se. We're saying that if the. evidence bears that out, if the facts. ultimately show that he was at fault, that is a potential defense we're going. to assert. So there from And then moving. on to the specific affirmative defenses, they're pretty standard. So failure to. state a claim is basically something. you're going to see in every affirmative. defense. Um what I think is telling here.

is that the defendants could have. instead of filing an answer could have. filed what's referred to as a pre-answer. motion to dismiss. So, if they truly. thought that the plaintiffs in their. complaint hadn't even made out a claim. on on the pleadings on the on its face, they could have instead of answering, they could have moved to dismiss and. they didn't do that here. The second one. is more interesting because in Oklahoma. they have what's called a modified. comparative negligence rule or a 50%. rule where it says that if a plaintiff. is found to be 50% or more at fault, he.

can't recover. So if he was negligent, if the evidence or the facts ultimately. prove that Noah was at least 50%. responsible, the defendants here are. saying then they don't have a case and. we're going to move to dismiss on those. grounds. So that's a very interesting. one where for example in New York is a. where I practice is a pure comparative. negligence state where. >> you could be 80% responsible for your.

own accident and still recover that. other 20%. So Oklahoma is a very. different situation than what goes on in. some other states that practice pure. comparative negligence. >> And I appreciate you breaking that down. I think that's an important point. I. should also say that the father and son. uh also claim that this could have just. been a terrible accident. It says the. accident was an unavoidable accident, casualty, and misfortune which occurred. without negligence on the part of the. defendants. You go to number five. defendants at all time relevant. exercised ordinary care to prevent. injury to themselves and others and had.

a right to assume deedent would obey the. law. Now Perry, before I go to you, Nick, based on these defenses, does any. of this add up from what you've seen in. your investigation about what may or may. not have occurred? >> I mean, a lot of um like I said, a lot. of options are on the table as to what. actually happened. And since the only. people who know are the people who were. there who may or may not be Jack and. Caleb Caleb claims he was never there. there at all and he's basically says I.

don't know why I'm involved in this. I. was never there. Um and he also claims. the ATV is was basically Jack's property. even if maybe he legally owns it. I'm. not sure. They sold it last year. Um and. so they um basically they're basically. saying that look a lot of things. couldn't happen to him could have. happened to him. We don't know. Um but. either way, it's not our fault. Um and. we'll see what happens with the evidence. there because they're um and a lot of.

the others have basically held through. the entire like time this has happened. that they don't know what happened to. him. He wandered off and that's the last. time we saw him. Anything could have. happened, but we we didn't have anything. to do with it. So that's going to be so. they're sort of basically saying we have. nothing to hide. Um, but you know, we. didn't have anything to do with it, >> right? Uh, Perry, one of the things that. stuck out to me about that last part is, right, many of the people at this party. were under the age of 21. They were.

drinking heavily. When you're talking. about exercising ordinary care, right, exercising uh ordinary care, all the. defendants were exercising ordinary care. to prevent injury to themselves and. others and had a right to assume the. seen would obey the law. Does that feel. like a stretch? Am I looking at this the. right way? >> Well, it depends. So, first of all, I. looked at Oklahoma law and they don't. really they do have a social host law. that would apply to drinking alcohol or. serving alcohol to underage minors, but. it doesn't appear to me that there is a.

civil um counterpart counterpart to that. law. That law, the penalties under that. law are mostly criminal in nature. So, and I think it's telling because I don't. believe that in this complaint, the. plaintiff's estate brought any type of. cause of action under the social host. law. They tried, they're alleging a. civil conspiracy, and I think maybe. trying to fit it under there. Um, it. could also fit under a pure negligence. theory, but that would really only apply. to people who have additional duty. So. that would be the homeowners, the.

parents, people who were so in a in a. position of responsibility based on the. location of the party. So they so you. know that's why in the in the lawsuit. they named the Commeses, they named the. the mother who had her trailer on the. property because those people are in a. position where they do owe a duty of. care to people they invite onto their. property and they do owe a duty of. ordinary care. Now, we're talking about. Caleb and his dad. If his dad had no.

ownership of that property and whether. or not he was at the party, he doesn't. really have a duty to Noah from that. standpoint. Now, the only duty may arise. from this ATV and whether who owned it. and who didn't own it and how much the. accident did or didn't contribute to his. death. So, maybe there is a hook there. And at this stage, before any. discoveries happen, basically what they. allege in the complaint should be. enough. Although I wouldn't be surprised. if some of the other defendants when. they ultimately respond to the. complaint, you may get at least one or.

more pre-answer motions to dismiss that. I discussed earlier instead of just pure. answers. Even if those motions to. dismiss are not to get rid of the whole. case, but mere maybe just to narrow down. some of the claims or knock out certain. allegations that don't have enough. factual support behind them at this. stage. So, I do think there is something. there based on the defendant and what. their responsibility was to Noah and. especially if you're an adult and you're.

at a party like that where you know. there's people drinking but I you know. underage any underage people you do have. a duty to to those individuals. >> and it brings me to number six where it. says deedent with full knowledge of the. risks inherent in consuming excessive. quantities of alcohol including the risk. of injury or death volunt voluntarily. chose to participate and therefore. deedent knowingly and voluntarily assume. the risk. And the filing also argues. that claims of punitive damages are. unconstitutional under the fifth. amendment and the 14th amendment. Uh so.

fifth amendment of the US constitution. 14th amendment. Um basically damages. they have to be reasonable. They have to. be proportionate. And as I mentioned, uh, Val Petrol also filed an answer to. the complaint, offered its own. affirmative defenses, saying the. plaintiff failed to show that Val Petrol. owed a duty to Noah, violated Oklahoma. laws on the sale of alcoholic beverages, had any direct connection to Noah's. death. Uh, Perry, your reaction to that. and these filings overall, what should. we be thinking about? Well, so speaking.

about the the petrol answer, I do think. there's merit to that based on the. little amount that's in the complaint. Normally, anytime there is a a drram. shop act referred to a lot of time or a. social host law where it applies to. commercial establish establishments who. are selling alcohol to people, it's. normally intended to protect a third. party. So in this situation, it's unique. in that there's no allegation that Noah. bought the alcohol from this. establishment, right? There were other. individuals who went there, purchased.

the alcohol. Those people then it's. about how drunk those people were and. then causing injury to a third person. So in this situation, for example, a. drunk driving accident, if a bar overs. serves an individual, and that. individual then goes out and gets in an. accident with a third person and injures. them, that third person who's injured. can in theory in in states that have. these type of drram shop social host. laws could sue the establishment, the. commercial vendor that sold the alcohol.

That's not really what we have going on. here. Noah was consuming alcohol. voluntarily by all accounts. There's no. information that he was being forced to. drink. So, if his intoxication caused. his injury, >> I don't see any any claims or any basis. to hold the originator of the alcohol. liable under these facts. So, >> I understand why they're bringing that. into play. I understand the parents are. casting a wide net to, like I said at. the beginning, because they're trying to.

get information here. So, that all makes. sense to me. But ultimately, I I don't. know what the hook is to the Val petrol. or the gas station that sold the. alcohol. >> That's a good point. I I hear you. Um. Nick, to wrap things up here though, just going back to it, law enforcement's. position has been what? That they're not. investigating this as a murder, right? Um and correct me and and what should. people do if they feel like they have. information that might help in an. investigation in some way? So, what is.

law enforcement's position at this. point? And if people do have more. information, what would you encourage. them to do? >> I mean, law enforcement has been very. tight lipped the entire investigation. I. unusually so I would say if I compare it. to other, you know, death investigations. and that they have revealed basically. nothing until we until the collective. media forced their hand in revealing the. autopsy report months and months after. it would usually be made public or even. provided to the family, which it wasn't. Um, they've said they're not. investigating as a murder. And you can.

interpret that as meaning that they. haven't ruled out manslaughter. Um, but it depends on what they meant. when they said that. They could also. have be assuming it was an accident. Um, but there's no real way to know that. because they won't tell us. They won't. tell anyone. Uh, they've changed. investigators since then now as well. Um, so it's really hard to know what. they're thinking and how hard they've. been working on this. They've said that, you know, we're still working on this, still an open investigation whenever you. ask them, but they won't tell you. anything new or any developments about.

it. So, it's hard to know what their. actual thoughts are beyond that they. don't think it was murder. Um, the. family doesn't just doesn't agree with. this. Um, and neither do a lot of people. who've been following the case, but. that's just where um the police have got. to their facts. Um, yeah. So, I don't um. it's hard to know what's actually going. on in their heads. >> and and and if people have more. information um encouraged where to go or. what to do or. >> Yeah. Every every time this has come up,

it's been the families pleaded for. information for a very long time. They. can call the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. >> and tell them what they know, which I. mean really that needed to have happened. two years ago almost. But if they've got. something weighing on on them, I mean, this is really the time before this. lawsuit potentially spirals out of. control. >> Perry Fallick, Nick White, thank you. both so much for coming on. Appreciate. it. And that's all we have for you right. now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank. you so much for joining us. And as.

always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you. should get your podcasts. I'm Jesse. Weber. I'll speak to you next time. [Music].