Legal War Erupts in Nolan Wells Mystery Death

There is a lot of new drama in the Nolan. Wells case. Reverend Al Sharpton, an. advocate for the Nolan Wells family, received a legal letter basically. accusing him of defamation, and he is. fighting back. So, as we analyze what to. expect there, we got our hands on. letters from the Wells family lawyer to. the local DA about the examination of. Nolan's body and his cell phone. So, there is a lot to discuss and we're. going to break it all down for you right. now. Welcome to Sidebar presented by Law.

and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. There is a lot that we got to talk about. that's happening in the Nolan Wells. case. We haven't covered it in a little. bit and now there's a lot that we have. to focus on. So, Reverend Al Sharpton, who is an advocate for Nolan Wells. family, is being accused in a legal. letter of defamation and his team is. firing back. There's this back and forth. communication that we're going to talk. about and and separately there is. communication regarding Nolan Wells cell.

phone and the independent examination by. the family that we have to talk about. So, a lot to get into. Now, before I do, so Nolan Wells, of course, is an. 18-year-old college football player who. died after a July 4th boating trip to. this barrier island known as Horn Island. in Mississippi. His body was found 2. days after he disappeared July 6th. His. family has been demanding answers. They. hired their own attorney, Ben Crump, to. conduct an independent investigation as. the authorities, namely specifically the.

Jackson County Sheriff's Office, conduct. their own investigation. And the results. of the state's official autopsy, the. toxicology report, they haven't been. released. The case is expected to go to. a grand jury under Mississippi law for. potential criminal charges, but we don't. know for sure how Nolan died, the. circumstances of his death, what caused. his death, or even if a crime has. officially been committed. But as you. know, there has been a lot of public. comments about this case. And now it is. moving into the legal arena. And as you.

see this, there is a question. Are we. seeing bits of the narrative, pieces of. what actually happened coming to light. So before we get into this, I also have. to tell you, look, we've been covering. Nolan Wells for a while now. This is a. very big case that we follow here on. Sidebar. We cover a number of big cases, but we're kind of limited in how much we. can show you here on Sidebar. You know, we only have the 30, 40 minutes, and. there's a lot of documents. There's a. lot of information. So, what we did, we. have the case file section on the Long. Crime Plus app, and we're basically. opening up the evidence vault to you.

So, you can inspect raw body cam. footage, 911 calls, crime scene photos, full trial tapes, all firsthand. You. also get adree streaming of all your. favorite Long Crime and Court TV shows. And by the way, we got a special Labor. Day offer for you. So, you use my promo. code sidebar and you'll get your first. 30 days of Long Crime Plus free. The. offer ends September 7th. So, head on. over to Long Crime Plus. Use code. sidebar to subscribe today and check all. this out. Okay, back to Nolan Wells. I. want to get into this now very public.

fight. It is getting really ugly and. specifically through a legal letter that. was just sent well a few I should say a. few weeks ago to Reverend Al Sharpton. and we got his response too and then. we'll get into the phone issue. So. Sharpton has been an advocate for Nolan. Wells family and Nolan's purported. friends Warren Hudson, Jax Patalo, Morgan Seymour. We've talked about them. before here on the show. Through their. legal counsel are now going after Al. Sharpton. And later on, we're going to. bring on renowned New York attorney Rich.

Showenstein, talk all about these. potential defamation claims. But I want. to read you some of this letter. Okay. Quote, "We represent Warren Jax and. Morgan. This letter will serve as our. only pre-suit demand regarding your. defamatory statements about these. completely innocent young men. This. letter should come as no surprise to you. since you recently welcomed a lawsuit. against you, boasting at the National. Association of Black Journalists. Convention, but I will say this on. stage. I want them to sue me first. You.

also stated, "I want to depose your son. If you sue, the plaintiffs are deposed. and let's go to civil court, any kind of. court you want to go to because you. can't make this make sense." And then. they go on to say, "We're happy to grant. your wish. Unless you comply with the. demands set forth in this letter, we. will imminently be filing suit against. you. However, we are pleased that you. too welcome depositions. Goes on to say, smearing the reputation of innocent. young men mourning the loss of their. friend to score cheap political points. will prove far easier than explaining.

yourself under oath. Indeed, you will. find dealing with us to be an altogether. different experience than indulging in a. slanderous rampage applauded by the. fawning sickopants in the echo chamber. of your inner circle. On July 14th, 2026, you appeared on TMZ Live and spoke. about events surrounding the tragic. death of Nolan Wells. Speaking about the. investigation into Nolan's death, you. stated, "I was uh first of all stunned. at the fact that this young man uh is. going out, he black, they white, and a.

day later, this mother and them start. searching for him. No one comes forward, and then they find out after two days uh. that they claim his body was washed up. and that they had given his cell phone. and his keys to one of the three. friends, saying he didn't want to go. back from Horn Island with them." You. then stated, "Have they brought these. three young men in for questioning under. oath?" You again left no doubt who you. were referring to when you stated, "How. does anybody say that, oh no, race. played no role unless you know the three. guys and the three guys were. forthcoming?" Continuing your racist.

vitrial, you further identified your. targets when you stated, "You got to. look at the possibility of racism at. different levels. One, were any of the. three guys racist?" You later asked, "Have they interrogated the three young. men?" There can be no doubt that you. were intentionally referring to Warren, Jax, and Morgan. Your remarks were. intended to accuse them of infamous. crimes, publicly claim them as criminal, identify them as enemies, endanger them, and subject them to threats, ridicule, and scorn. Then on August 19th, 2026, on.

what would have been Nolan's 19th. birthday, you hosted an online vigil, ostensibly to honor his legacy. However, being that you are a megalodonesque. devourer of reputations, you could not. resist the urge to launch more attacks. against Warren Jackson Morgan. There you. made the following defamatory statement. He had friends in the community in Ocean. Springs and as one would do with. friends, holidays you spend together. On. the 4th of July of this year, he and.

three young white male friends, people. he was acquainted with, decided to go to. Horn Island because that's where a lot. of the festivities happen. Hours later, the three friends came back and he was. not with them. And that is where the. mystery happened. When his parents. recognized he was not back at a certain. time, they started calling around and. they found that he had not come back. with the three friends. And that's where. it gets cloudy. What the friends knew, when they knew it, why they didn't hand. over the cell phone over right away when. it was clear he was not back with them,

the keys, all of that needs to be. litigated. quote, "Not only were these. remarks delivered in exceptionally poor. taste at what was supposed to be a. vigil, you knew full well that these. fine young men did not even have Nolan's. phone to withhold in the first place. You also knew that Nolan did not travel. alone to the island with Warren, Jackson, and Morgan. He was with 29. other people. You dishonored Nolan by. using a vigil as a platform to smear his. best friends. Contrary to the multiple. lies in your defamatory statements, the.

truth is that Warren Jax andor Morgan. did not touch Nolan's cell phone or keys. on July 4th, 2026. Warren Jax and or. Morgan did not lie about Nolan's cell. phone or keys. Warren Jackson and or. Morgan did not admit to having Nolan's. cell phone or keys because they never. even touched his cell phone or keys. On. July 4th, 2026, Warren Jax and or Morgan. did not access Nolan's phone. Warren Jax. and or Morgan did not breach Nolan's. phone. Warren Jackson or Morgan did not. erase anything on Nolan's phone. Warren.

Jackson or Morgan like many other Nolan. friends did come forward contacting not. only Nolan's family but also the Coast. Guard and even returned to Horn Island. to search for Nolan. Warren Jax andor. Morgan did not have any knowledge. whatsoever of the tragic death of Nolan. Wells. And Warren Jax andor Morgan did. not have anything whatsoever to do with. the death of Nolan Wells. You falsely. accuse these three completely innocent. young men of extremely serious. wrongdoing that constitutes multiple. felonies under Mississippi law, including but not limited to murder.

Nonetheless, emboldened by decades of. unaccountability, you consider yourself. untouchable with a green light to pedal. your abhorrent and damaging lies as you. stand at top the gilded soapbox which. you have fashioned into a throne. Your. evidence-free motus operandi is most. reminiscent of the carnival barkers, elixir salesmen, and huers who prayed. upon the gullible and naive of America's. 19th century country fairs. Yet, even. these carnival barkers, elixir salesmen, and huers would find your uniquely.

potent snake venom too much to stomach. You are a human circus. Wow. So the letter then provides a timeline. of what they claim are facts in this. case. Now I'm not going to go through. the whole narrative, but there is this. part that I want to call out. It says, quote, "Between the Triton and the. Tideline, there were 24 occupants and. thus 24 witnesses. None of these 24. individuals saw Nolan in either boat. because Nolan was not in either boat.

Every one of these witnesses have spoken. to authorities and verified that Nolan. Wells was not on any of the subject. three boats when they returned to the. mainland. As you can clearly see, Al. Nolan is not in the boats. And they come. and they attach a photo as well. Hey, so. real quick, Megan Kelly has this new. true crime series. It's called MK. Confidential. I don't know if you know, she's like a true crime obsessive. So, she made this show that she always. wanted to listen to. And also, I don't. know if you know this, Megan practiced. law for nine years, and she covered a.

lot of these trials while they were. happening. So, she's working the actual. record, not the internet's version of. it. One case a week, five episodes, new. one every weekn night. The lineup is. exactly what you'd expect. John Ben. Ramsey, Shandra Levy, the DC Snipers. Plus, there's cases you might not even. heard of. So, click the link below to. watch on YouTube or find it in the Megan. Kelly show feed wherever you listen. It's right there in that feed. you go. start a case and then come back and in. the comments just tell us like which. case really stood out to you. Which is. the one that resonated with you? Be. curious to hear. And then the letter.

attempts to show that these young men. contacted Nolan's family, specifically. Nolan's mom, Christine. Quote, Warren. told Christine that Nolan did not return. with the group. And Christine confirmed. that he had not returned home and she. had not heard from Nolan since the. evening of July 3rd. Warren advised her. that Nolan's cell phone had remained. with the group on the return from the. island and was secured in Redacted's. vehicle. Warren also told Christine that. he would call the Coast Guard out of an. abundance of caution. Without the. assistance of Warren Jackson Morgan, the.

investigation into Nolan's whereabouts. would not have started as soon as it. did, and we would all be further from. getting to the truth. And then you get. into the legal analysis section of this. letter. You will presumably attempt to. escape liability for their disgusting. accusations against Warren, Jax, and. Morgan by claiming opinion. In. Mississippi, false statements, whether. written or spoken, which tends to injure. one's reputation, and thereby expose. them to public hatred, contempt, or. ridicule, degrade them in society, lessen them in public esteem, or lower.

them in the confidence of the community, are liable for defamation. And then they. go into the law and defamation. To. establish a claim for defamation, an. ordinary plaintiff must prove a false. and defamatory statement concerning. another, an unprivileged publication to. a third party, fault amounting at least. to negligence on the part of the. publisher, either actionability of the. statement irrespective of special harm. or the existence of special harm caused. by the publication. And then they talk. about defamation per se. So like on its. face, it's a particular statement that.

you don't even need to show what the. harm is. It's so bad. On its face, it's. so harmful. And to give you an example, and they include this in the letter, words imputing the guilt or commission. of a criminal offense involving moral. turpitude and infamous punishment. Quote, "Hence, an accusation that Warren. Jackson Morgan were in any way involved. in the murder of their friend, hindered. a prosecution, or tampered with physical. evidence certainly involves moral. turpitude and infamous punishment under. Mississippi law." here. Your statements.

create an effect on the listener that. asserts Warren, Jax, and Morgan were. colluding to hide evidence and or. obstruct the efforts to find Nolan at. the very least, and that they murdered. Nolan at the very worst. Your assertions. are grossly disproved by the truth. Your. statements are negligent at the bare. minimum, and your refusal to accept the. facts that are publicly available. constitute actual malice. actual malice. under the law is like you make a. statement knowing it's false or with. reckless disregard for the truth. Okay,

so what do they want? Quote, "So here's. the deal. Al, Warren, Jackson, Morgan. hereby formally demand that you. apologize for, retract, and delete every. false and defamatory statement about. them." So then you get a response. You. get a response from Al Sharpton's team. Okay? And it says, "The demands are. rejected. research has not disclosed any. reported decision in which a plaintiff. has recovered on a defamation claim. against a minister based on remarks. delivered during a prayer service. The.

letter asks that this case be the first. It goes on to say, "Reverend Sharpton. did not insert himself into this. family's grief. He was asked. He is an. ordained Baptist minister and he stands. with Christine Wells Wley and Elmore. Wley in that capacity as he has stood. with families in that capacity for. nearly 50 years. He has remained in. continuous communication with the family. throughout and he has deferred to their. judgment at every point at which their. judgment governed. The record shows it. asked directly on July 14th whether race.

played a role in Nolan's death. Reverend. Sharpton did not answer the question on. his own account. He said he did not know. that race played a role and did not know. that it did not and then explain the. family's position that they did not wish. to allege race but did not wish the. question be taken off the table. He said. that because the family had said it. It. is worth stating plainly what the letter. asks. It asks Reverend Sharpton to. apologize to three young men for having. asked why an 18-year-old died. It asks. him to retract questions that Nolan's.

own mother raised on national television. 4 days before he repeated them. It asks. him to delete a prayer vigil. And it. asks this allegedly on behalf of clients. who have themselves established a public. fundraising campaign, sat for recorded. media interviews, criticized Nolan's. mother publicly, and released their. private communications to the press. While the family, whose son is dead and. whom Reverend Sharpton is accused of. exploiting, has asked him for none of. it. They have not asked him to stop.

They have asked him to keep going. The. letter repeatedly asserts that Reverend. Sharpton accused Messers Hudson, Patalo, and Seymour of murder, hindering. prosecution, and evidence tampering. But. nowhere in 19 pages does the letter. identify a statement in which Reverend. Sharpton accused any of them of. committing any of those crimes. Instead, the letter argues that Reverend. Sharpton's words create an effect on the. listener from which those accusations. supposedly arise. That formulation is. revealing. The accusation on which the.

threatened claims depend is not. contained in Reverend Sharpton's words. It is supplied by council through. inference. Then it goes on to say the. letter cannot create a defamatory. meaning by removing the context that. defeats it. So it says the letter quotes. Reverend Sharpton stating that something. is a miss here. It stops immediately. before the criticism of the sheriff for. announcing that no foul play was. suspected almost immediately after Nolan. Wells body was recovered. The letter's. own factual narrative substantially.

corroborates the statements it calls. false, meaning the threatened claims. have an additional problem. The letter's. factual resuscitation establishes much. of the substance it purports the. dispute. The letter acknowledges that. Nolan's telephone remained with the. returning group secured in a third. party's vehicle until after midnight. when individuals arrived at Mr. Patel's. residence seeking its return. It further. acknowledges that when Nolan's father. later sought Nolan's keys, they could. not initially be located. Another.

individual had to be contacted and the. keys were ultimately found in Mr. Patalo's bedroom. Thus, according to the. letter itself, Nolan's telephone and. keys were not immediately returned and. members of his family had to locate. them. That is materially the substance. of what Reverend Sharpton said. And then. they go to the you know the term of. actual malice which by the way is a. higher standard to proven in defamation. Consist constitutional actual malice. does not mean hostility, carelessness, inadequate investigation or even an. unreasonable failure to investigate. It. requires proof that the defendant.

published with subjective knowledge of. falsity or subjective serious doubt. concerning truth. The response goes on. to say, quote, "The letter identifies. nothing approaching that standard. There. is no allegation that Reverend Sharpton. knew any challenge statement was false. None that he entertained serious doubts. about its truth. None that he. disbelieved the sources on which he. relied. None that he possessed contrary. information and deliberately disregarded. it. The letter alleges an inadequate. investigation and repeatedly seeks to.

relabel it actual malice. Calling it. actual malice does not make it so. And. then it says, "If the men, these young. men file the lawsuit threatened in the. letter, Reverend Sharpton will seek. dismissal at the earliest available. stage and invoke New York's protections. for speech on matters of public concern. wherever procedurally available because. they say that he lives in New York." And. then there's this part where he. basically goes on the offensive. Quote, "Council's own publications present a. defamation problem. The fundraising. campaign identifies Reverend Sharpton by.

name and tells the public that he quote. invent and spread false narratives and. lies and that he operates under the. guise of seeking justice and that he. exploits tragedy to squeeze as much. money out of it as possible. The. campaign then asks the public for money. to fund litigation against him with the. proceeds directed to Taylor and Cox law. firm PA. The fundraiser does not merely. criticize Reverend Sharpton. It accuses. him of knowingly inventing lies and. exploiting a dead 18-year-old and his. grieving family for money. Those are.

factual charges. They are false and. spare us the suggestion that this is. protected opinion. Okay, so this is. where I bring on trial attorney. litigator Rich Shoenstein to make sense. of all this. Rich, thank you so much for. coming on. Uh I know you had an. opportunity to look at these letters. I. mean, I I guess the big question is. first, what do you make of the intent to. sue letter? How do those letters work. exactly? Is that standard that you send. an intent to sue letter before you. actually file a lawsuit?

>> Well, I wouldn't say it's standard. It. is a strategy that we use sometimes and. you have to consider it in the context. of the overall strategy what it is. you're trying to accomplish. Um, example, this notice of intent to sue. letter is plainly written partially as a. press release. It's not just a letter to.

Al Sharpton and his lawyers. It's a. letter that they know the press is going. to pick up that we're going to be on a. podcast talking about and it is written. as much for us as it is for Sharpton. And that can be part of the strategy if. you were in a public facing dispute. >> It's pretty ugly, too. I mean, they call. him Al and multiple times. It's it's. personal because I mean, I think it's. they're trying to show we're angry at. what you're doing. And and by the way,

to have a 19-page letter that disputes. his alleged characterizations and puts. out their own timeline, their own. specific detailed timeline of events. If. people are trying to search for the. truth of what happened here, I think. that says something, doesn't it? >> Yeah. So, I think the letter though is. at cross purposes because I understand. them putting their own timeline and. defending their clients and making good.

points about their clients that they. weren't alone with Nolan Wells, that. they didn't have his phone, trying to. clean up some of the factual statements. that have been made about him. I get. that. But then when they spend the. letter name calling and attacking. Sharpton personally and you know making. these big boy threats against him. >> Human circus is a human circus. >> Yeah. Which that does a disservice. If.

you want me to take the letter seriously. where you're defending your clients and. putting out a timeline, then you can't. be doing this juvenile name calling in. the rest of it. That's a different. letter. So, I I had a problem with those. two things being included in the same. piece. >> Well, let's talk about the substance. here. Do they make a viable claim for or. claims for defamation? whether it's. through a negligence standard, whether.

it's through an actual malice standard, whether it's defamation per se, that as. I talked about before, that the. statement in and of itself, you could. say how harmful it would be. What do you. make of their actual defamation claims. or potential defamation claims? Well, I. think that the central point in this. defamation claim would be were they. statements of fact by Sharpton or were. they. either opinions or calls for action? And.

I think that Sharpton would say and does. say that that that he was making a call. for action that he was saying, "Hey, the. authorities should be investigating this. thing. let's make sure that they're. looking at everybody, including these. other kids, and that he was simply. standing up for the family and the. victim, in trying to make sure that an. adequate investigation is done. And he. says in his response letter, "You're.

pulling my statements out of context. to highlight a few things to make it. look like I was making statements of. fact. I wasn't making statements of. fact. I was saying that in my view based. on what we know we ought to be looking. at this more carefully and I think. probably Sharpton has the better of that. argument but you know it it could be lit. it could be litigated. >> first of all from a legal point of view.

he doesn't have to name them right he. doesn't have to list their names. specifically no if he's a reference. right the letter makes that point you're. clearly pointing to these three young. men. And I think they and I think that. point is is in their favor that he can. refer to them without spelling their. names. >> How significant is it that they're. including these purported texts with. Christine Nolan's mother and the. photographs and creating a timeline. because they want to assert we had.

nothing to do with this, you know, or. and we were proactive in trying to find. out where Nolan was. How significant is. that? Um because again, and I'm going to. get into this in a little bit, we. haven't seen a lot of evidence or even a. full timeline from investigators in. this. So, I find this kind of. significant that they're including what. is potential evidence in an. investigation. They're putting this out. there, their own version of it or, you. know, text messages or photos. How. significant is that to their claims?

>> Well, I don't you know, the defamation. claim wouldn't be decided on the facts. in the first instance. So whether or not. they were involved isn't something that. could be addressed at the outset of a. lawsuit. You would just say, is this a. defamation claim? Uh but on the broader. point where the attorneys are trying to. defend these three kids publicly, I. think they're making a strong showing. that they were very involved in trying.

to find Nolan Wells immediately and that. they were in contact with his mother. They were in contact with law. enforcement. They returned to the island. to look for him. I find that to be a. pretty strong argument in their favor. >> And we'll get into one more defense and. or defenses from Sharpton in a second um. his claim for defamation. But to me, and. this is something I've mentioned before. and I think it's really illuminated. here. If they had something to do with.

this, they would remain quiet. No. If. they really had something to do with. this, why proactively litigate it? Why. put out your own statement of facts when. there's a possibility it could be. disputed? There's a possibility it might. not be true. there's a possibility this. could affect you criminally. If they're. proactively moving forward with. litigation and there's discovery and the. exchange of information, to me, it. signals we have nothing to hide. We have. no no involvement, nothing to do with. hiding evidence or being involved in.

what happened to Nolan. I mean, that's. what signals to me from taking this. position. >> Yeah, I think that's a fair point. If. you actually move forward with. defamation litigation, then you are. creating a fact issue as to whatever was. said about you and you are putting that. not only in court but in civil court. where there's discovery and there's more. room to to uh investigate it. I mean, we're kind of seeing that play out, you. know, in the Karen Reed case where.

that's turned some defamation litigation. and now there's big discovery fights. So. I think that's a decent argument that if. you bring that kind of defamation claim, you are strongly saying I did not do. this. >> Let me ask you this. His defense or what. appears to be defenses, does he have. protection as a minister and does he. have protection under New York law. basically saying if you I I can have. this dismissed under specific New York. law, these kind of public comments that.

I made. Does either of those avenues. provide him legal protection from a. defamation claim? >> I don't think he's protected as a. minister. You can't being a minister. If. you stand up and you slander somebody, you can still be sued. I don't think you. have uh you know the cover of the cloak. for that. Um, now he does have basically. the New York version of anti-slap. litigation and he can bring an.

affirmative action against those that. are trying to silence him if he's making. legitimate points, but that doesn't. protect him if he is really defaming. people. But yeah, there is there is. legislation. uh here uh that that and and I think in. one of the other states that's relevant. to this that he pointed to in his letter. and a lot of times people in defamation. suits get that kind of response. We just.

saw that by the way in Justin Baldon and. Blake Lively. Justin Baldoni brought a. defamation claim and he ended up having. to he's ending up having to pay a. portion of her attorney's fees, which is. the only thing that either side has won. in that litigation. >> Yeah. Yeah, that's a good point. That's. a really, really good point. Um, what. about his potential proactive defamation. claim against them? I mentioned it. before, the the the fundraising campaign.

where it allegedly identifies Sharpton. by name, telling them that he is. spreading lies and false narratives. Does he have a viable defamation claim. against them through this fundraising. campaign? >> Yeah, he might because it's not. privileged. It's not if if they said. that in a pleading in court, it would be. privileged. It would not couldn't be. defamation. I mean, if you say something. in a complaint or an answer or briefing, that's privileged. But when they say it.

in connection with fundraising publicly, or when they say it in an attorney. letter that they thereafter leaked to. the press because they're using it, as I. said, as a press release, there could be. a claim that those statements are. defamatory as to Sharpton. And I'm sure. if either side actually brings. litigation here, the other side will. counter claim.

>> Okay, I want to put this to the side and. we'll see if this advances to a. litigation and we'll cover it here on. sidebar. But there was another big. development that I want to get your. opinion on. So let me just th go through. it. Okay, this is about Nolan's cell. phone and there was a question about the. family working with law enforcement. authorities to examine Nolan's phone. This mutual inspection. So, there was. this August 13th letter that was sent to. the office of the district attorney, Angel Meers Marath. Okay. And this is. from Nolan Wells uh family lawyer. It. says, quote, "We agree that examination.

of Nolan's phone was discussed during. the July 15th meeting and that our team. undertook to follow up concerning that. process. During that discussion, however, we agreed to a jointly. coordinated forensic examination of the. phone that include the use of the. digital forensics lab at Mississippi GF. Coast Community College as well as. possible FBI involvement. Subsequent. correspondence with your office. reflected our continued willingness to. proceed through a mutually agreeable. procedure. To date, Nolan's parents.

remain willing to facilitate an. appropriate forensic examination of. Nolan's phone, including FBI. involvement, according to our agreement. on July 15th. However, your letter sent. to Eric Herz on August 12th at 12:51. p.m. Eastern Standard Time, set a. deadline for the Onsl to deliver the. phone to your office by August 14th at. 9:00 a.m. This is not practicable for a. number of reasons. First, the date and. time you propose provided less than 48. hours notice. Moreover, the onslies were. outside Mississippi when your letter was.

sent and are not scheduled to return. until after the deadline you. unilaterally imposed. Second, the. parties never agreed to simply deliver. the phone to your office. Third, the. parties have not yet agreed upon a. forensic protocol. It goes on to say, with respect to the independent. investigation, the legal team has. reviewed the tips received and has. followed up with persons whose. information appeared relevant. At. present, that process has not identified. additional witnesses whom the legal team. reasonably believes possess information. germanine to potential criminal activity.

that warrants referral to your office. That's significant. Regarding Dr. Mitchell, now this was the doctor who. did the independent examination of. Nolan's body for the family. We. appreciate that you will make available. Nolan's body parts that were not. previously sent to Dr. Mitchell. As. reflected in your July 29th. correspondence, your office previously. stated that Dr. Mitchell would have an. opportunity to examine Nolan's complete. body in advance of any grand jury. testimony. Now, that's part of that. letter. There's another letter from.

August 17th, again from Nolan Wells. family lawyer to the DA's office. It. says, quote, "With respect to Nolan's. phone, the family's prepared to make the. device immediately available for the. joint coordinated forensic examination. previously agreed upon by the parties. In the interest of expediency, we. request that your office choose any time. from Tuesday, August 18th through. Friday, August 21st to conduct the joint. forensic examination. It says, "We also. hope to promptly move forward with Dr. Roger Mitchell's examination of Nolan's. body parts that were not previously made.

available to him." Dr. Mitchell is. available Wednesday, August 19th through. Friday, August 21st to complete the. independent autopsy. Now, before we go. any further, Rich, I want to go to you. There's a lot to make of this. this. I. mean, I think there's a lot of people. that say, "I've never seen kind of a a. the family holding on to what could be a. potential piece of evidence and having a. joint examination by authorities." Yet, authorities would need, I would assume, a warrant to get that phone anyway. There'd have to be some evidence that a. crime was committed. I mean, it seems.

like the family could hold on to it if. they want. But this is interesting to. see this correspondence on that point. alone. >> Yeah. So, first of all, the phone should be. examined because this is still a. investigation and the phone. um I understand that he left it behind. when he went on the island, but it could. have relevant evidence. The first thing. that should happen with a phone when it. is. has potential evidence is it should be.

imaged. you get a uh technology vendor. who basically makes an electronic. duplicate of the entire phone. And one. of the reasons you do that is to. preserve the evidence. So because things. can happen to a phone, a phone can be. dropped, a phone can be lost, but you. can make an electronic snapshot. of the phone. And I'm surprised it. appears that hasn't been done yet. And.

then I would think the phone ought to be. made available or the snapshot ought to. be made available to law enforcement to. do whatever examination they feel. appropriate. It's odd to have the. victim's family negotiating. with law enforcement for how the. evidence is going to be examined. I. mean, think about that. In in any. context, do you have you heard of a. victim's family negotiating with law.

enforcement on how an investigation is. going to be done? >> It seems to me there is a level of. distrust and it seems to me there is a. level of distrust that was built upon. the idea of authorities initially saying. there's no foul play. So, they want to. make sure that this is done thoroughly. and which is why I believe they've hired. Ben Crump to put a spotlight on this. But what's interesting as well about it. is this is all about whether any, you. know, messages were deleted. Was there. tampering with the phone in any way? Does the phone, the messages provide a. timeline of what happened to Nolan? I. mean, that's part one. And then you get. into the idea of the independent.

examination of Nolan's body because, as. we reported here on Sidebar, according. to Ben Crump, Dr. Mitchell's report was. kind of limited. He couldn't tell cause. and manner of death because there were. certain body parts I believe the throat. the neck from Nolan that were missing. presumably because the state examiner. had was doing additional testing on them. or they were trying to see if you know. that could determine drowning or. something like that but there seems to. be uh this recognition that he might be. able to examine those body parts.

>> Yeah. So so that's more complicated. You. know the the phone. >> once you make that image of it. >> multiple people can examine it. >> Yes. >> So the prosecutors can examine it and if. you don't trust the prosecutors you can. hire your own forensics people to do. their own examination and you can. examine away because you've handed over. an image. More complicated with body. right because you can't make a duplicate. of the body. the body parts or the body. parts and I don't know what condition.

they are in. Um but but that's it's. concerning that there is a dispute about. that. Final point. So there was this. press release from the DA on August 18th. and it said in part, "As district. attorney, I do not have the same freedom. to share information publicly that. private individuals may have. For. example, I do not have the freedom to. release letters I've sent in this. investigation, discuss witness. cooperation um or the testing of. evidence. I cannot control which facts.

or bits of information are shared or. whether that information is being shared. in context, twisted or misconstrued. Public commentary does not make the. speaker transparent. Just like. exercising restraint consistent with the. law does not make the process corrupt. The fact that something is said does not. necessarily mean it's actually true. Prosecutors are held to the highest. ethical standard under the law, as we. should be. There is nothing more to be. shared at this time. I caution the. public about assigning trustworthiness. to things they read and see online. I.

also ask rather than those individuals. demanding that I step outside the bounds. of the law and make public statements, we all step back, allow the process to. work, and allow us to do the job we were. elected to do. I stand firmly on the. rule of law and my ethical obligations. That is what the people of Jackson. County elected me or selected me to do. rather. I will present the grand jury. with a thorough, complete, and fair. investigation into the death of Nolan. Wells. Rich, why make that statement? >> Because you're you're saying publicly.

what should be obvious. And and I agree. with this statement and I think this is. a point that comes up a lot because we. have these. investigations that go on and everybody. wants to know wh what's happening? What. have we found out? What have we looked. at? What's the evidence say? What did. the witnesses say? And the prosecutor is. saying, "I can't tell you that. I'm not. allowed ethically to get up on a podium. every day and give you an update of the.

investigation. That's not what I'm. supposed to do, right? And I can't. respond if someone like Al Sharpton is. talking about it or the lawyers for the. witnesses are talking about it. I can't. respond to that stuff publicly because. my job is to investigate and if there's. something to present to the grand jury. or charges to be brought to move forward. with that process, not to inform the public on an.

incremental basis. And I think the. prosecutor here put out the statement to. make that point publicly because we're. very critical on these investigations. and really they shouldn't be giving. updates. They they they should be. investigating. >> Yep. Um look, this is uh unique case. Unique case with both what's happening. uh with the investigation, what is. happening behind the scenes, what you're. seeing publicly. It's getting ugly.

We'll continue to follow it. Rich. Showenstein, always appreciate you. coming on and always appreciate your. insight. Thank you, sir. >> Always glad to be here. See you, Jesse. >> 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 get your. podcast. You can also check us out on. NBC's Peacock as well. If you want to. follow me, ex Instagram, my NewsNation. show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through. Friday, 11 p.m. Eastern. I'll see you. next time, everybody.