Black Male Juror Lone Holdout Allegedly REPUBLICAN, & Charlie Kirk Family May SUE Over UVU Security

Hey everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome. to the Megan Kelly show. We have an. incredible Kelly's court today. Man, do. we have a full docket this morning? Just. before we came to air, Charlie Kirk's. family took the first step in filing a. lawsuit against Utah Valley University. over the security failures that led to. his murder on September 10th of last. year. Oh my god. I mean, I've wondered whether they would. do this for a long time now. I mean,

there are serious questions about why so. little was done to keep him safe. Truly, and now those questions are being asked. by his family directly as they point the. finger at the university. So, we'll get. into it. This raises a bunch of issues. It is a public university. Sometimes. those are provided with immunity. Sometimes they it's waved. We'll talk. about that. And you can bet that the. university is going to point the finger. right back at the Turning Point security.

team. Um, that would be a question of. aortionment, but we're going to get into. all of it. Uh, it was a. just it raises so many awful memories. and the lawsuit reveals a lot that we. didn't know about what Turning Point had. done with respect to the university to. tell them he he's a target. Please be. sure he's safe. What about the rooftops, etc.? So, we'll do those details um in.

just a bit. Okay. But we are beginning. today with the hold out juror in the. Lindsey Clansancy case who is now. speaking out uh at least indirectly. There is a guy named Ray Marcel who. hosts a YouTube channel called Fugitive. TV. And Ry says he spoke with a hold out. juror for about an hour yesterday about. both the Clansancy case and about this. juror's past, as has now been, you know, repeated in the Boston Globe and.

elsewhere. Um, now he wanted to verify. that he spoke to this juror and he. showed a picture of the juror's summons. in the case. Now, Ray Marcel has named. the juror. He's named him and he's said. his name repeatedly and he's also put. out a picture two pictures of the juror. because he says the juror well I he. doesn't want people making donations. um to I guess fakers who are saying they.

are the juror. Look I don't know I I. believe this guy Rey Marcel has spoken. to the actual juror because he's got a. picture of his actual juror sum summons. and he's got pictures of the juror. I'm. just gonna for now hedge my bets and. I'll just refer to him as Michael. Okay, that's his first name, but I'm gonna. skip the last name because it's not. important for me to say it here. I do. believe Ray Marcel has been in touch. with him, but until the juror comes out. himself and confirms. that it's him, I'm going to stick with.

just a first name. Uh he wrote, Ray. Marcel, this is Lindseay Clancy, juror. Michael. He sent me these photos. do not. send anyone any money that is not him. because there are definitely some fakers. on the internet right now purporting to. be the hold out juror. Now Marcel says. that Michael told him there's far more. to the story about these domestic abuse. allegations against him um from his now. ex-wife. This goes back six years. We.

shouldn't be talking about this at all. We shouldn't be. This is harassment of a. juror who did nothing other than answer. the call to civic duty. This is so. wrong. I'm sorry that this has been. crammed down our throats by these. activist other jurors who took aim at. this guy. Piled on like a bunch of. bullies and then NBC Boston joined in by. unearthing these allegations in his. past, the Boston Globe. Now every. publication is out with it and this.

guy's having to deal with it. And we. understand, we believe that the. prosecution and defense teams are likely. dealing with it, too, because they've. just brought on a new lawyer. There's. definitely going to be another hearing. And Kevin Readington, the defense. lawyer, is uncharacteristically. silent about the matter of this juror. and his so-called past. So, you can bet. he's getting ready to do something about. it because there's no way he'd be saying. nothing if if he, you know, weren't.

actively going to use it. That's my own. take. Uh, okay. So, this Michael has. allegedly told Rey, this guy Ray Marcel, that um that incident with his ex-wife, keep in mind what NBC Boston reported. was that back in 2021, that Michael allegedly assaulted his. ex-wife or his wife at the time, and. that his 13-year-old nephew called the.

cops on Michael, that Michael's mother. was yelling ing you're evil as he. allegedly did this to her and that the. wife was disgusted and filed for divorce. and then then then they got a divorce. Well, Michael seems to be saying there's. more to that story and says he was. actually the one who filed for divorce, not his wife, after learning that she. was an illegal immigrant. Now, we. understand that Michael is a legal. immigrant from Haiti. um regarding that.

2021 incident with his nephew and all. that that um would later lead to a. restraining order because it got renewed. where the where the the nephew 6 years. later came out to say that Michael. allegedly assaulted him because he. blamed him for calling the cops after. that incident with the wife and that the. nephew got a restraining order against. Michael. Uh, Michael tells Marcel that.

this nephew, for what it's worth, is far. bigger than Michael is. He says that the. nephew's 6'2 and he's only 5'7. And he. says, "Not everything that has been. reported is accurate." Again, this is. none of our damn business. It's none of. our business. What are we going to do. about that other juror? All right. What. are we going to do about the nutcase. chef who's got all those problematic. allegations in her past which didn't. result in criminal charges, but we're.

going to do this to everybody? Let's. drag everyone's life through this same. microscope and excoriate anybody who. votes away we don't like for whatever. their past sins are. This is just so. wrong. I I object to even talking about. this. I'm doing it because of what's. being done to him and because he now is. trying to battle back against the. smears. So, we'll talk about his his. battle. Yeah. Okay. It's like this is.

just crazy. All right. Now, obviously, if this guy assaulted his wife and his. nephew, no one's making any excuses for. that. But the the the point is simply, A, we shouldn't be talking about this. and B, if we are going to talk about it, there is apparently more to the story. than we have heard from NBC Boston. Now, Marcel reports that he spoke with. Michael about what happened in that jury. room. And here is part of what he.

reported. Watch. He said that from day. one, he said eight of them were going. for Lindseay Clancy not guilty. That was. on day one. And then on and eight were. going not guilty. Two were for guilty. and two didn't know. They didn't make up. their mind. Now that was on day one. He. told me that the eight that on day one. were going for a Lindsay not guilty. He. said to him those eight felt he felt.

like they were activists. He felt like. they were activists is what he told me. And every day he said they would vote. Every day they would vote. He said the eight that felt that Lindsay. was not guilty were trying to convince. the other four, hey, Lindsay's not. guilty. >> Oh, wait a minute. So, you're telling me. he wasn't the only hold out? Nutcase,

crazy man who wouldn't apply the. reasonable doubt standard. You're. telling me that at least four of the. jurors when they first started. deliberating really were considering and. at least two had preliminarily decided. to find her guilty. So maybe this guy. isn't quite as much of a lunatic as the. other jurors now say. This guy, Ray Marcel, who did the. interview, also pointed to a possible. reason why the other jurors, who truly.

have presented themselves like a bunch. of far-left nutcase activists, were so. upset with the hold out. Michael, watch. >> Very well spoken person. Very well. spoken. Um, very nice, very kind, Catholic. And you want to hear something. very funny? We started talking. He. thinks he knows why he might be getting. targeted.

He's a Republican. >> Uh-oh. >> He is a black Republican. He has. conservative views. He believes he might be getting targeted. because of that. because the media and the reporters, as you would see, they kind of have left. views. He was in a juror panel with people of. the Democratic party. Now, we don't know.

if that is the reason, but we talked. about it and then as soon as he told me. that he was Republican, it just common. sense. I said, "This makes sense now. Hell hath no fury like a white liberal. dealing with a black Republican. It is. unforgivable. to white libs. The crazy ones, not. normal, but like the the really far-left. progressive people. Cannot tolerate a.

black Republican. They see them all as. Uncle Tom's. How many times have we seen. this from Clarence Thomas on down? It is. like the worst sin you can commit as a. black American is to not go along with. liberal dogma in the eyes of some nuts, the activist class over on the far left. So, is it so hard to believe that if. they know that? I mean, that's the link. that wasn't established. Did the jurors. know that? Um, does the media know that?

I haven't bothered to go pull this guy's. voter registration to see if it's. knowable. Uh, nor did I see that in the. original reports by NBC Boston, but it's. possible he told those juries, sorry, those jurors on the jury about his. politics. Um, or maybe they just gleaned. it from like the sensible comments he. kept making. I don't I don't know. But. there's still a lot to dissect here. because he spoke directly to that jury.

questionnaire and how he figured it out, which I'm going to play in one second. Let me bring in my panel first. Uh, today we've got Mark Garagos and Matt. Murphy, attorneys and hosts of the. podcast In the Well. It airs every. Friday on the MK True Crime channel, which you can find at mktrime.com. or just go to YouTube or wherever you. get your podcasts. If you type in MKrime. and hit subscribe, you're going to get. in the well as long along with our other. uh two crime shows. So, don't miss it. You you will be missing quite a lot of.

goodness. Don't miss a moment. Subscribe to this. show on YouTube and follow me on Insta, Facebook, and X. We are still a couple. of months out, but the midterms are fast. approaching. And make no mistake, if the. house flips, and it's likely to, it is a. big deal for our economy. That. uncertainty is one of the many reasons. to consider diversifying with gold from. Birch Gold Group. The question really, if you're not in gold, is why not? At. this point, in the three months leading.

up to the 2024 presidential election, the price of gold jumped over 12%. Why? Because it's a hedge against. uncertainty. If you don't own gold, consider talking with Perch Gold. Just. talk to them. They're going to discuss. your goals around gold and explain how. precious metals can fit into your. savings. They can even help you convert. an existing IRA or 401k in whole or even. in part into an IRA in gold for no. additional money out of pocket. When the.

machines take over, we're going to need. some hardcore currency buried in the. backyard. I'm not sure it should be the. dollar. Gold could be a very good. option. Text the letters MK to the. number 989898 and get a free info kit as. well as some very solid information. The. midterms are going to be here before you. know it. So don't wait. Text MK to. 989898. Guys, great to see you. This one's so. juicy. And man, do I have a good panel. and you two to to get into this. Let me. tell you what he said about the jury.

questionnaire because this is where. people have gone. Did he did he fill out. the jury questionnaire? Honestly, Garagos, this is so up your alley in. what we talked about two weeks ago with. Michelle Nice in the Scott Peterson uh. trial. The question is, did Michael honestly. complete the jury questionnaire, which. certainly would have asked about prior. arrests, alleged crimes committed, or. interactions with the legal system. Here. is uh Ry Marcel talking about that in ST.

6. >> On the questionnaire, did he lie or. didn't he lie? He told me he didn't lie. He told me he checked the box that he. was supposed to check. Have you ever. been arrested? And he says he knows he. checked it because he had to describe. what happened after he checked that. So. he checked it and described what. happened. He said he got on the stand. and I guess the prosecutor asked him.

questions. The prosecutor questioned him. and then guess what? After that he was. selected. So in his words, he said no, he didn't lie on a questionnaire. He was. questioned by the prosecution and was. selected. >> Okay, Gargo. So if that's true, he. filled out the form and the prosecutor, it makes perfect sense, right? The. prosecution would be the one to be like, "Uh, so Michael, what's the story with. your uh alleged arrest?" And it sounds.

like he answered it to the satisfaction. of the prosecutor. And I'll bet you. Readington was like, "I'm not going. there. He sounds like he'd be a good. jury a juror for me, which he turned out. not to be. >> So, the Matt and I discussed this last. week. It's why I've wanted to Matt Matt. had said he just got out of the water. and he wanted to talk and then I had to. uh be cut off to listen. But the. normally a pro that is a prosecutor's. first perempter strike. So, I don't.

Yeah. >> I mean, it it is so counterintuitive. But can I tell you something? It fits in. with what I've been calling this entire. case. It's upside down world. Almost. never do you have one juror holding out. for guilt. Number one, almost never do. you have, and we saw it with Gail King. and her kind of her brain uh stroke uh. during the interview because I for lack.

of a better for lack of a better term. It didn't I she didn't use the word. process, but I I know that's what was. happening. She was trying to process. >> going to have to sit. >> like a febot from juror is a black man. have to sit. >> I mean, it's just wait a second. black. man hold out for guilt that you know it. was just did not compute. >> records scratch. >> right and then the idea of a defense. lawyer Kevin Readington having to. lambaste the hold out when you've spent.

your entire career I I was telling Matt. I think I have probably I stopped. counting at 20 hung juries and most of. them were either 11 to1 or 10 to2 almost. exclusively. And I don't think a single one maybe one. was uh this kind of a situation where it. was for in favor of not guilty. It's. almost inevitably. um uh for guilt and there's one last.

person who was holding out. In fact, Matt famously there was a woman in Frank. Fel's court in Orange County after 18. weeks of trial in that courtroom in. Matt's backyard. that one lone woman. held out uh on 56 counts. It was the. most insane thing I've ever seen. I. don't even know what kind of pressure. you're under. But I would push back on a. couple of things as I love to do with. you when I listen to your monologues. >> Yeah. >> Um. >> I don't I the idea if you've if you've.

talked to jurors afterwards and my my. father who was my idol used to say the. same thing, they'll drive you crazy if. you talk to them after the trial. Um, I. still do it, but it does drive you. crazy. It's usually the first, the. second, the third vote in a case that is. that has large consequences, um, is can. change. And that's part of the dynamic. Part of the reason for jury selection, at least what I do, is I'm looking for.

when I pick a jury, I'm looking for a. one person who's going to be the general. and one person who's going to be the. lieutenant because that's who ends up. determining it. Jury selection is not to. get 12 jurors that you want. It's. basically to get two that are going to. that are going to make your case back. there when they get there. Also, that. goes and fits in with closing argument. Closing argument is not to cinch the. deal. It's to give your jurors the. arguments they need in order to persuade.

the others. So, it doesn't surprise me. when he says there was a split. It. doesn't surprise me on anything else. But I will tell you what has happened um. since these interviews is some of the. stuff that the jurors who were voting. not guilty said I it has led me to. believe more that the prosecution's got. a better argument that this guy was not. violating his oath when he even though. there have been people who said it's. disgusting about rubbing about tying the.

exercise band around the bottle. Frankly, I think that there's a. compelling argument that that was. dealing with the evidence and that was. somebody who was deliberating. And you. can have to the note itself, you can. have a doubt and it does not necessarily. uh kind of rise to the level of. reasonable doubt. So I mean that's his. answer. The one thing you just said. which I didn't know and I I've been. saying that if this juror comes out and. says, "Hey, I'm Catholic and mortal sin.

really got me and I couldn't get past. that." That changes everything for Kevin. Readington and for Lindy Lindy Clancy. But other than that, um, this is. fascinating. But I I think anybody who. excoriates jurors after the fact, that. just violates my line to kind of red. line in the sand. it. This is so crazy that this is being. done to this guy. Just so the audience. knows, Mark's making a reference to the. fact that one of the other jurors said, "Oh, this guy, Michael, so bad, one of.

the things he did during deliberations. was to take the exercise bands that were. used by Lindsay to kill her children.". And he and he wrapped one around a water. bottle. And we just thought that was so. horrible. And actually, this guy, um, Rey spoke to that, too. Marcel, he said. he asked the holdout juror about that. and uh that the hold out juror actually. spoke to it with Marcel. Here's here's. how that went. >> We even talked about the water bottle, how he tied the string around the water. bottle. He said he did it to set an.

example. He did it to set an example and. show people this is what the string was. used for. Imagine the water bottle as. their little necks. That's exactly why he did that to the. water bottle. And he even said he. explained it. So he doesn't know why. some of these people are acting like he. didn't explain what he did with the. water bottle. He said some of the things. that they're talking about him is either. not the whole truth, the halftruth, or.

just plain out lies. >> Okay. So, Matt, could you weigh in on this because this. Have you ever seen anything like this. where there's a pile on by the other. jury members of the one hold out after. the verdict and then the media is all. over the guy like he's the one who. strangled three children? >> You know, Megan, some mornings I wake up. and it's like this is a day Megan Kelly. is going to get me in trouble, you know? And I'm so glad that Mark is on the show.

today because this this broke right. after we finished our our our taping. last week. And. no, Mark is exactly right. I I have. never seen anything like this. I don't. think anybody's ever seen anything like. this. This is this is Mark calls it his. red line. It's it's outrageous what. they've done to this guy. But if I could. just weigh in and probably regret it. later. Um, one of the things that Mark. that Mark did not just say, um, is Mark.

like me, you know how Gail King's head. exploded? Like I thought Femot from um, Austin Powers, remember at the end when. their heads blow up because you can't. process the information. Um, look, Mark. and I have done the majority of our. cases in Southern California, and. despite what you see in Real Housewives. or the OC, Orange County is only 36%. white, whatever that means, like white. jurors. And I, you know, I tried 133.

jury trials in Orange County, Megan, and. I never had a single black man vote. against me at the end. Not one. And what. you see over and over again is you see. these these young idealistic kind of. public defender straight out of law. school who come in and they buy into. this media narrative that every black. man in America has some some. insurmountable chip on his shoulder and. wants to subvert the the justice system.

and they can't sit there like the same. question is asked of every juror. Can. you put aside any preconceived notions. or any preconceived experience you've. had and decide the case based on your. common sense, the law, and the facts as. presented? Every juror's asked the same. question. And this idea that a black man. can't do that. Um, you see these young. public defenders and and this is a a. little bit technical here, but a lot of. judges use what are called six-packs. where you have the 12 12 seats with the. prospective jurors and then you'll have. six alternate or perspective alternates.

sitting in front of them. So, you can. see the next jurors that are coming up. that are going to be selected as you. exercise your preemptary challenges. And. the you see this over and over again, this kind of soft racism where they will. kick juror after juror after juror. because you can see the black man coming. up and then they'll they'll impanel them. using their last perempter. And I mean. this is this is something I I hope I'm. not giving away I hope I'm not giving. away any.

>> any playbook here, but you see that over. and over again, Megan, where. inexperienced defense lawyers, not just. public defenders, but they buy into the. narrative. been like, "Oh, that guy's. going to be for me for sure." Mark will. not be surprised at all. I cannot tell. you, Megan, how many times that guy has. been the four person of my jury, coring. other reluctant jurors into a. conviction. And I did I did vertical. prosecution for 21 years, um, sexual. assault and homicide. Not one case in.

133 jury trials in Orange County, um, did I have a black man vote against me. at the end. Not a single time. So Mark. wasn't surprised. >> I'm just gonna have to sit with that for. a minute. >> Yeah, sit with that. >> I have to sit with that. >> You want to sit with that process? >> Let me tell you, let me tell you why. >> I can process it. And I'll tell you why. Because I'm I'm I've disavowed my. whiteness. Um like like the other clip. we had from that woman. What did she. say? I'm a non-practicing white. That's.

that's what the white young woman said. like some millennial or Gen Z or she's. like I I'm also upset about this but I'm. white but I'm a nonpracticing white. So. So anyway, that's what that's what I'm. going to be from now on so that I can. check all the boxes and I get all the. minority hiring and benefits. I'm going. to tell my children to check the box. nonpracticing so we can check whatever. box we want. That people have gone crazy. over the race issue and the fact that. the hold out is a black man and god. forbid a black conservative. As I said. at the top, the most controversial thing.

you can be in America. But here's what I. want to know, Mark. What what can be. done now? Like because you know Kevin. Readington's wheels are spinning. You. know, how can I because he just brought. on this defense lawyer to the defense. team who's going to argue double. jeopardy. And that's kind of an. interesting argument because there. wasn't a verdict. It that's the whole. the whole thing is that it was a. mistrial. But I think he's getting ready. to argue because he didn't want the m.

the mistrial unlike the Karen Reed case. where they agreed to a mistrial. Um he did he didn't want the mistrial. So can he argue with this new defense. lawyer that the judge did an. insufficient examination of the hold out. juror? Now, it turns out the hold out. juror had a restraining order, which I'm. not sure if he disclosed that. He that. wasn't hit specifically. The prior. arrest was hit specifically. Um, and.

that should have been disclosed and it. wasn't. And therefore, he shouldn't have. been on the jury and you would have. found that out had you vadered him more. carefully, judge. And therefore, the. proper remedy was to bounce that 11 that. 12th juror, which you didn't do, and I. had 11 willing to v vote for me. And. therefore, double jeopardy somehow. attaches. So they brought on, I believe, the same lawyer who made the argument in. Karen Reed that the jury had found her. not guilty on one of the murder charges. before they went to the lesser included,

which they were hung on um. >> behind closed doors. They had agreed no. to second uh degree and no to something. else, but but we'll we'll vote um or and. then they got hung on on uh. manslaughter. >> Correct. and and apparently the judge in. the Reed case refused to pull the jury. or ask them if they had reached a. verdict and so they were unsuccessful on. that. In fact, uh shameless plug for In. the Well, we had Allan Jackson on on our.

last episode and we talked to Allan. about that and then Matt as he loves to. do then raised R the Reiner case and and. it was fun. But in this case, >> you guys have been getting amazing. bookings just given who you are because. you're celebrity lawyers and uh it's. crazy. I I look up I'm like who now who. do they have? >> So the. >> Mark's the celebrity. >> I was going to say I'm the lawyer. He's. the celebrity. He's the one the fan girl.

director. The the interesting part about. this double jeopardy is there's actually. two arguments that I'm sure they're. going to make. One is they're going to. say that when the prosecutor injected. mortal sin the first time and then their. witness the second time. The first time. Readington did not move for a mistrial. and he publicly said, "I don't want to. try this again." The second time he did. move for a mistrial after the expert.

witness volunteered the mortal sin. and. the expert witness is presumed to have. known what came before him because. experts are allowed and frankly it's. necessary that they're familiar with the. evidence that's been testified to. So. they're going to then say that the. prosecutor deliberately wanted the. mistrial so they could get a doover and. that that is barred under a Supreme. Court case called Oregon v. Kennedy. The.

second argument they're I think they. should they will make is the one you. just said. Was there manifest necessity? And manifest necessity is did the judge. have to do it? When the defense does not. ask for the mistrial or say we have no. objection or reconsent when it's a also. by the way this is a unicorn situation. because this is another upside down.

world because you almost always in fact. I laughingly Matt knows this he's heard. me say this so many times I had to go to. the court of appeal to get a published. decision to get law in California that. says a mistrial hung hung jury is better. than a conviction because it is. I mean, it's it seems axiomatic, but it is. So, he did not consent to it, which is a. very rare occurrence. And they're going. to argue because he didn't consent. There was no manifest necessity. The.

judge screwed up is what the argument is. going to be. And he was once the she was. once in jeopardy and they cannot. prosecute again. I frankly think this. may because everything else about this. case makes zero sense in terms of what. usually happens. This may be the one. case where somebody wins a once in. jeopardy or the best one I ever had was. a case in Vanise many years ago where I. had the judge writing after the mistrial. to the head prosecutor. I I granted the.

mistrial by Garagus because of. prosecutorial misconduct. As soon as I. put that note in exhibit, I got a. misdemeanor on a life case, which Matt. knows means they waved the white flag. And I there I suspect also, and I'll add. one more thing, and then want Matt to. weigh in. When people thought, including. me, that Kevin Readington had had a mini. stroke or a Gail King brain um. dysfunction when he. >> when he asked Trump to pardon um her.

Look what ended up happening. Trump was. questioned. Trump said there's, you. know, federal doesn't work, but there's. no winners and they ought to resolve the. case. Basically, if Kevin did that. intentionally, it's genius cuz he got. exactly what he needed, which was. permission from the president to Tim. Cruz, who was reportedly a um a staunch. Republican, make this case go away.

>> Interesting. Wait, I the manifest. necessity requirement saying that um. there's a statutory right against an. unreasonable, substantial, or serious. interference. No, sorry. Okay, I'm I'm reading my. packet here. The manifest necessity, like the the the declaration of the. mistrial has to have been by manifest. necessity, but the case law on manifest. necessity seems extremely clear that if. the jury can't reach a verdict, you've. got it. And it doesn't matter whether. the defense attorney wants to go along.

with it. Matt, >> yeah, I think Mark's Mark's analysis on. on what they're going to do appelletwise. is exactly right. I think that what the. court is going to do with that, though, I think the court's going to look at. this and they're going to say, Kevin. Reington, you had every opportunity to. to vire this guy. Um, you had all the. you picked him. Um, and this is the. process. This is a guy who held out and. that's the way it works. And I I don't. know if they want to open the floodgates. to the idea that um that a that a juror.

who's not go along with the rest um. means that somehow we've got to we've. got to flush the case um or anything. like that because of the exact same. reasons Mark just explained at the. beginning and that is the vast majority. of these you know 102 11:1 hangers are. are for the prosecution. It's it's 10. jurors that want to convict or 11 jurors. that want to convict. I just I I think. that um the remedy here is a new trial. and that's what they're getting anyway.

theoretically. Um I think that. >> Well, yes. No, that that's that's Can. can you just restate that because my one. of my questions is let's say Kevin. Readington is right that somehow Michael. is a problem. I don't know why Michael's. a problem, but let go let's say he. didn't disclose the restraining order. He disclosed that there was a prior. arrest 6 years ago in connection with. the alleged abuse of an of his wife that. then was dropped and that's all he. discloses. And he doesn't disclose and. you know presumably Readington and the. prosecutor will attest to this that he's.

currently under a restraining order. because of his alleged beating up of the. nephew. Um and then Readington is. jumping up and down saying we would have. wanted to know that. Both parties would. have wanted to know he was under a. current restraining order and we. wouldn't have allowed him to sit on this. jury and therefore normally the end of. that sentence is we deserve a mistrial. but he already has a mistrial. Like. there's the the appellet court, the. trial court and then the appellet court. will both be limited in the remedies. they can give him. And coming up with a.

verdict of not guilty by reason of. mental defect after everyone's gone home. is not on the list. you know, it ain't. it ain't going to happen. Um, in in my. view, my I'll call that shot. And look, Kevin Readington Kevin Kevin Reington. picked the guy, you know, and and I've. never seen I've never seen a defense. lawyer go out in open court and accuse a. juror of committing a felony um in in. open court like that. I don't I don't. think Mark has ever seen that either.

And then what we've seen afterwards, you. know, in this silence, Megan, um your. take is interesting there. There's. another potential interpretation of how. quiet Kevin Readington is is being right. now. And that is he's a little over his. skis in my opinion. I and I don't know. if this is true, but yesterday I read. that he's been he's been having uh. contact with Turtle Boy, who was a. fixture in the Karen Reed case, who was. charged, I believe, with felony. conspiracy to intimidate witnesses. And. I just saw an exchange yesterday between.

the two of them. And again, I haven't. verified. don't know if it's true, but. if he's communicating with a guy that. has been accused of actively subverting. the criminal justice system, Kevin. Readington has crossed that red line in. my view that Mark was talking about and. he's he may be silent because this might. have gotten away from him a little bit. Um I'm sure he's going to have plenty. more to say, >> but he's got if that's. >> he's one of the ones that disclosed the. name. >> He's one of the ones that disclosed the. name of the jury. name and apparently he. was in contact with Kevin Reington that.

invites a state bar investigation that. and look and I don't know but um look. that that he may be quiet because if. there's any truth to that there's there. was a text exchange purported to be. between the two of them which by the way. was the most cringy. like like back and forth ass kissing by. Kevin Readington if it's true I hope. it's not but look being a criminal. defense lawyer Megan is one the most. sacrosanked important jobs in the. American system of justice. And Kevin.

Readdington, love him or hate him, did. an outstanding job for his client. Um, I. wasn't a fan of his closing argument. I. don't think he should have called out. the juror, but his opening was. excellent. And that's a that's that's an. esteemed thing to do. That's very. important in the criminal justice. system. And if he has then finished that. and his next move is to cover with some. dude who has been accused of subverting. the criminal justice system in another. homicide case. Um that's a that is a. suddenly low move. And I'm not saying. me, but a lot of people could look at. that and think Kevin Readington is kind.

of a scumbag if that's true. Okay. So, and I don't know if it is, but that's. that may be why he's being quiet right. now. Um that's another interpretation. I. don't know enough to weigh in personally. on it, but that's another potential. take. And and I'm with Mark on this. This is upside down world. Um, and. you've got an esteemed a criminal. defense attorney who just did exactly. what criminal defense attorneys are. supposed to do, zealously defending his. client. And if he's gone from that to to. potentially intimidating the future jury.

pool or trying to dock somebody for for. disagreeing with the law according to. Kevin Readington, if that's true, he. could be in trouble. And um yeah, and I. don't know what's going on in. Massachusetts, but I guarantee there's. people in the state bar that are that. are looking at that. There's some raised. eyebrows. If he's if those text messages. that I read yesterday are real between. Kevin Readington and frigin Turtle Boy. Um he may have he may have. you know, bigger things to worry about. than just this trial right now. And and.

one more thing that. >> are the here are the. >> I'm sorry, just one more thing. A lot of. people think that it is that it is a. lawyer's job to defend their client and. that is the paramount job of a defense. lawyer. Your primary ethical duty is as. an officer of the court and it's to the. integrity of the process. Your client. comes second to that. And this is and. Mark knows this, I know this, and Kevin. Readington ought to know that too. So I. hope all of those Let def defense. lawyers suborn perjury. That's why you. can't as a defense attorney put your. client on knowingly let him lie because.

your first duty is to the integrity of. the court. That's right. Not to getting. your client one of the reasons. >> Wait, let me let me just read the text. messages that you're referring to that. we don't know whether these are true or. not or real. But um there's this is. circulating online purportedly from. Kevin Readington to Turtle Boy. Kevin. Readington allegedly writing, "Looks. like you had a this is from July 22nd. Looks like you had a great rolling. rally." off the record. You do a great. job. Much much respect. You create. Karen's innocence. I I think he means.

Karen Reed. No one else. Created and. showed. And then the response. purportedly by Turtle Boy is well, thank. you, but I think her attorneys have done. a great job, too. Readington allegedly. agreed. I know Dave Yianetti well, great. guy and attorney, but make no mistake, you have created this more than. reasonable doubt. You are an incredible. investigative reporter, not kissing your. butt, lol. You are amazing. And then uh. again allegedly from Kevin, I think we. got off on the wrong foot as they say. I. have come to amaze at your skills as an.

investigative reporter and agree you do. not get the credit you deserve, which I. think will change soon. I wish you would. help me with Lindsay Clancy case. Then. the next day, Turtle Boy purportedly. responds, "Kevin, I wrote positively. about the Lindseay Clancy case. It was. the hardest story I've ever had to. write. Patrick Clancy is the strongest. person I've ever seen." Followed by. Karen Reed. But thank you. So, if that's. real, it does raise the question about. whether. Turtle Boy got the name of this juror. from Kevin Readington, possibly as a.

thank you for his quote help with the. Lindsey Clancy case. And if so, he could. be in a lot of trouble because the name. of that juror is still under I don't. know if we can say under seal, but it's. definitely being kept kept private and. confidential by this judge. an order. that he's just extended given the abuse. that's taking place right now of this. juror in particular. >> Yeah. Look, it's that's it's just gross.

for lack of a better term. I I if I hope. it's not true. I hope it's not true. >> It's not right. I'm going to I'm going. to defend him and I'm going to I'm going. to take the what I think uh is. >> Garagos has his own incriminating text. with some potential juror start. My. friend Mark, let me tell you, has never. had an exchange kissing the ass of some. blogger like or vlogger or whatever you. call him in his career. I will I as Mark. defends him, I'm going to defend Mark.

There's just no way. I'm just hoping and. I believe that Kevin, what happened with. Kevin was he came out of there, he had. invested so much into this case. He was. so um hyped up or amped up that he. probably to to borrow Matt's term was. over his skis in terms of what he was. saying. I think he regrets what he said. and that's why he's pulled back. I don't. think I mean the you have to just. understand how just kind of inside out.

upside down this situation is it makes. zero sense for anybody who has practiced. for any period of time doing criminal. defense. It's so. >> I get it. I get it. You you you said. that. But wait, I just want to say two. other things. That post, that exchange, alleged exchange that I just read was. from July 22nd, 2023 during the Karen. Reed. So that was that was not during. this case. It was obviously.

forward-looking and Lindsay Clancy was. already under arrest and it was posted. by Turtle Boy. So it's not like some. third party. This is Turtle Boy saying, "Hey, here's my exchange with Kevin. Readington." Um, and Kevin Readington. has not weighed in on it. Uh, and this. was posted just yesterday. So, I will. we'll see. Time will tell what happened. there. I want to keep going because. there's this what I think is a copycat. case. A lot of folks have said that of. Corey Walsh. Now, Corey Walsh is an.

Illinois mother and she had four has. well, she has three other children. She. had four. She killed her 2-year-old boy, forgive me, viewer warning, but by. hanging him to death. and she was. reportedly very very intensely focused. on the Lindsey Clansancy case. And now. we're getting more details about what. allegedly happened. TMZ is reporting uh. that she rambled to police about having.

gotten a breakfast sandwich at. McDonald's in the afternoon and started. singing a tune from the Wizard of Oz. about the yellow brick road after she. allegedly killed her 2-year-old son. Barrett on September 1st. Um, she she. then said that she went to a Mickey. De's, that's how she put it, for a. breakfast sandwich in the afternoon. Of. course, people said you can't get a. breakfast sandwich in McDonald's in the. afternoon. But the point is simply, this. is, I think, obviously, her team trying. to make her sound just out of it. Maybe.

she really was out of it. Her attorney, Robert K, reportedly told the judge all. this about the Mickey De's sandwich and. the uh yellow brick road song while. speaking to investigators that she was. allegedly, her defense lawyer says she. was in and out of consciousness as she. was taken away by EMTs. She was. incoherently speaking to paramedics, telling first responders they quote. looked like her daughter. During an. ambulance ride, she started rattling off. fruit names. Her defense said the. defense is claiming she had a psychotic.

episode. Um, she did have an. eight-month-old baby similar to Lindsay. Clancy, Matt, but her eight-month old. baby was not killed. He was actually I. don't know if it was a boy or girl, but. the baby was left on the floor upstairs. The two older children who were just. school age, they're all very young, came. home from school in the middle of this. event and ran to the neighbor. the. neighbor came over and saw poor Barrett. in this condition. You can use your imagination and um got.

him down, tried to perform CPR. I mean, I my heart goes out to that neighbor. That that's a trauma from which that. neighbor will never recover. And it was. too late for that boy. But now here we. go again. Here we go again, Matt. Though. I will say, having looked at it, the. standard for proving not guilty by. mental defect in Illinois is a lot. tougher than it is in Massachusetts. >> Yeah, that's right. It's a different. It's a different standard. Um, >> but did you see the shooting to segue. for a second uh Megan with in Time. Square with that woman, the crazy woman.

with the knives who killed that poor. that poor woman? Did you. >> psychotic episode? >> The her brother the very first thing her. brother said uh when he was interviewed. was she's got postpartum and it turns. out her son was either 23 years old or. 28 years old, something like that. So, this is a this is going to be a thing. We're going to see this as a defense. over and over again. Hopefully, this. isn't a copycat situation. Hopefully, this is a woman who's who's suffering. from, you know, some.

disconnection from reality and some. psychotic state or whatever that that. and she wasn't inspired by Lindsay. Clansy. That would be that would be. horrible. But look, in Illinois, um, it's they use the Mcnotton rule. That is. it's the same as in California. It's one. that Mark and I have have dealt with our. entire careers. And that is a much. tougher standard. And the difference is. >> you summarize it Matt for the audience. >> So the McNotton rule says basically you. can be mentally ill but the mental. illness must be such that you do not. understand the nature and quality of.

your actions when you kill. In other. words, you're howling at the moon. The. example we always use is devil pops up. on your shoulder and says go over there. and kill that person or I'm going to. blow up the world. That means the person. the the defendant still knows it's a. human being that they're killing. They're criminally responsible under. those circumstances. So if the devil. says go stab that banana over there, that space alien, they don't understand. that it's a human being. And when they. do it, they're not criminally. responsible or they're legally insane. Massachusetts uses what's called the. Mcool rule, which has a third prong, and.

that says you can, if you're suffering. from mental illness, even if you know. right from wrong, if you're unable to. control your conduct to the requirements. of the law, you can still be found. criminally not responsible is the. language that they use. So they they've. taken away the term insanity. So that's. the difference. So it gives a whole a. completely different kind of trial in in. places that follow Makuru, which is I. Massachusetts is the only one I know of. >> How does this likely go when you when. you're getting out into the ether, she's. she's naming off fruit names and she's.

she's calling the paramedics. Oh, you. look just like my daughter. And she's. singing the Wizard of Oz tunes. And she. her alleged reason for killing her child. was that she said he she thought he was. the devil and the antichrist. Um I mean. I got to like maybe she actually did. think that. Like I don't know. And if. you if you can prove she actually. thought that I mean obviously the child. wasn't but like if you can prove she. actually thought that is that a not. guilty by reason of mental defect in.

Illinois? >> Arguably. But I I think what really. happens in these cases, we sometimes. glom on to them and say they're copycats. obviously because it's the first thing. the brain does. But to some degree I. I've had the unfortunate happen stance. over 40 years of dealing with many many. people who have mental health. challenges. What they do is they glom on. to in a in a very real sense whatever is.

kind of in the news ether or cultural. ether. Uh Wizard of Oz is not, but. Lindsey Clancy clearly is. So I can go. back over the last 40 years and I can. tell you when there's somebody's in the. throws of one of these psychotic. episodes, whatever is in the news tends. to trigger with them. I'm sure you get. Megan more than your share of people who. are obviously disturbed, who are fixated.

on something and that fixation starts to. become part of their ideation and I'm. hoping that that's what this is. It sure. resonates more to something like that, especially when you throw in the Wizard. of Oz. >> It's dark. I mean, that's one of the. downsides of this case having become so. public, the Lindsay Clancy case, not to. mention the pink shirts and all the, you. know, empathetic coverage of poor. Lindsay, where I do think these, you. know, suggestible disturbed mothers out.

there are suddenly considering this as. an option. Um, okay. I want to end on. this, Garagos. You and I have talked. about the Menendez brothers many times. and it just broke that and they're your. clients that they're getting a parole. hearing in March of 27 and this is much. sooner than anybody expected them to get. because apparently the rule in. California is you have to go three years. in between these hearings. But we you. and I just last talked about this in. 2025 where they had a parole hearing and.

and it didn't work out even though you. told me they were going to be home with. you by Thanksgiving but they weren't. So. what so what Thanksgiving 2027 is it. back on? What's the story here? >> Okay, so in California there's a rule. that when you have the parole hearing, if you get a denial, the parole board. can do it for 3 years is the minimum, which is what they got. And in my. defense, the parole hearing that they. got was within 2 months of when we got.

them re-sentenced. So understand that. they had uh a resentencing in May where. they were eligible for parole. The. governor had already given them a. suitability hearing which hasn't been. done for a while. Converted into a. parole hearing. Boom. So they got the. three-year denial. If you are. infractionfree. and you're basically doing all of the. programming which you are s suggested to.

do by the parole hearing board, they get. to advance it halfway through. Hence why. 18 months from last August they're going. to get their next one. I. >> All right. In 30 seconds or less, are. they going to get parrolled? >> I believe they should. I mean, you saw. yesterday that the um district attorney. of Los Angeles said, "I'm not going to. uh seek the death penalty on Nick Reiner. precisely because what you and I talked. about, Megan, that the family would not. want it or didn't want it. And if the.

family here is unified, every single. living member of the Menendez family. wants them out. It's time.". >> All right. In 20 seconds or less, Matt, do you agree they're going to get. parrolled or they should be? Well, eventually the the California Board of. Prison terms is going to pearl them. I I. think but that's really Mark is the Mark. knows everything about that case. I've. got opinions, but um but that's Mark's. case. Um but yeah, I in my experience. with BBT, yes, they're going to they're. going to get out after Gasone did what. he did.

>> I'm just going to say I'm I'm not going. to Geragos's for Thanksgiving. Matt, I'll see you November of 27. That's a. deal. Thank you guys. Hey, thanks for watching today's full. episode. If you're new here, throw us a. subscribe. See what you think. Stay in. touch. There's plenty more goodness. where this one came from. As always, we. really do value your feedback. So, email. me, too. Meganme. kelly.com or just leave a comment down. below. I do read them. I meander over. and I scroll through and I find them.

very entertaining and really appreciate. the feedback. But in any event, join the. community by becoming a subscriber so. you miss nothing. We value your support. We may not always agree on positions, but as you know, I'm very open-minded to. people who disagree with me. That's how. I learn. So, thanks. And thanks for. trusting us to always talk about it. openly, honestly, and with provocative. conversations. Feeling sluggish, bloated, not quite like yourself. Life. constantly bombards us with silent. threats. Processed foods, artificial.

light, non-stop stress, all of which can. disrupt gut health, drain energy, and. weaken immune health. When that happens, it's not that your body is broken. It's. that it might be missing the right. inputs. That's why I want to tell you. about Armra cholesterol. It's packed. with more than 400 bioactive nutrients. that they say can work at a foundational. level to fortify gut health, support. immune health, fuel recovery, and. promote whole body vitality. Strong gut. integrity can support metabolism, skin, and hair health, and even performance.

and recovery, which is why colostrum has. long been valued by some elite athletes. as well. If you're looking to take back. control of your health from the inside. out, you should consider Armra. And. they've got a special deal going for you. right now. Just go to armra.com/megan. or enter Megan to get 30% off your first. subscription order. That's a. rmr.com/megan. We're back now with Kelly Score, which. fits with our latest MK Confidential. series this week featuring the story of. Casey Anthony. We are calling it.

pathological for good reason. Here's a. quick look at last night's episode. Friday, June 27th. Casey is supposed to. come back. Instead, she is allegedly now. in Jacksonville, seeing whether she and. her dear friend Jeff Hopkins have a. future, and her car has developed. problems as well. She claims Jeff does. not want her driving the 141 miles to. Orlando in it, so he has put it in the. shop. That same Friday, the White.

Pontiac Sunfire, registered to Casey's. parents, runs out of gas on East. Colonial Drive in Orlando. Casey, who is. not in Jacksonville, pulls the car into. the lot of a payday loan store called. Amscott, parks it next to a dumpster, and leaves. She tells Tony her father. will come and get it. She does not tell. her father about it. Oh, this like it's incredible what.

happened in this case and reliving it. You you can't believe this case went how. it went. So, we're delving deep into it. Gotten great viewer feedback. Everybody. loves MK Confidential. Thank you all so. much. We are in the eighth of eight. weeks on this ongoing series which will. then launch and morph into something. different after the eight weeks because. there's only so many resources in the. day. But um we love that you guys all. love it so much. Three more episodes out.

each week night this week. Catch it. while you can on the MK YouTube channel. and podcast feeds. Joining me now on. some additional legal cases are Dave. Aaronburgg, co-host of the MK True Crime. Show, and former litigator, not to. mention uh along with former litigator. and Rumble creator Viva Fry. Uh guys, welcome. Great to see you again. There's. a lot to go over, but we I think need to. start with this unbelievable Charlie. Kirk lawsuit. I mean, to me, it seemed. like just a matter of time before some.

sort of litigation was filed, whether it. was by Charlie's team against, forgive. me, his security guards, um, or TPUSA. and Charlie's family against UVU. It. just seemed to me as a former litigator, someone was going to be on the receiving. end of that finger of blame because. clearly while the the shooter is. responsible for Charlie's death, um he. wasn't well protected that day. He was.

not well protected. It's not one of. those situations where you looked at it. and you said, "Well, I we're only human, you know. I mean, there's only certain. things we can protect against." No, th. this was foreseeable. You know, Charlie. was shot and killed in September. of 2025. and it had been 14 months earlier that. Trump was shot from a rooftop in a. similar looking situation where it. almost had an amphitheater feel um by a.

young man of virtually the same exact. age as Tyler Robinson and so on. So, it's like, of course, it was I mean, I. almost everybody's first reaction after. they got over the shock and horror that. Charlie had been murdered was from the. roof. Really? Like, how how was that. mistake made? So, what's just happened. is. his family has filed what's called a. notice of claim, and that's a notice. that you are getting ready to sue. you. are getting ready to file a civil.

litigation against UVU, Utah Valley. University and several of its uh top. executives, its president, its head of. security and some others have been named. along with its campus police force um. saying that there was that there were. negligent behaviors uh in preparing for. Charlie's visit and um Dave there saying. that among other things because they go. through you know how this was the duty. of the school to keep him safe. They. understood it was a very charged.

political environment at the time from. the two well the multiple attempted. assassinations of Trump to what happened. in Nancy Pelosy's husband to what. happened in Minnesota with those two. state lawmakers. And then they alleged. the following in their notice of claim. Turning Point USA passed along a student. concern about the risk posed to Mr. Kirk. by accessible rooftops on campus. Specifically, TPUSA texted, "Hello, Chief Long," the campus ch uh police. chief. We received this message today. from the student group. Quote, "There is. student roof access pretty close to.

where Charlie Kirk will be set up at. Utah Valley, the Sorenson Student. Center, as a couple of staircases that. go up to the walkways on the roof." When. a TPUSA official informed Chief Long of. the concern, and asked, quote, "If this. is true, it would be nice to either have. a controlled access or allow one of my. guys to be there as well, if possible.". Chief Long responded by saying, quote, "I got you covered." Chief Long's text. message did not invite or even allow. TPUSA to take any steps to secure the.

risk of unsecured rooftops. So, what do. you make of it? >> Good to be with you, Megan and Viva. Yeah, this is a legit lawsuit. They're. going to run into the sovereign immunity. hurdles, but as far as the facts, the. family is arguing that indeed the. officials ignored warnings from TPU USA. security team about the rooftop. And. it's more than that. It's also that the. school did not conduct a meaningful risk. assessment. They didn't secure a. perimeter. They didn't even use metal. detectors apparently. That should.

surprise people. They didn't monitor. campus security cameras in time. And it. was so bad as far as the number of. police there that Charlie Kirk had to be. transported to the hospital in a private. vehicle rather than an ambulance. So, they were totally caught flatfooted. I mean, not to get really dark here, Viva, but even when I took my tour, there was an ambulance outside of every. venue. Look, >> just god forbid something happened. It's.

I don't mean to I mean, it's very dark. That was like the one when we planned. the security. That was the one thing. that I was like, "Oh my god, that's. serious." But all the security team said. that's what's done in responsible. security planning. you know, yes, god. forbid something were to happen to. myself or one of my guests, but also, God forbid something were to happen to. one of the audience members. Like, we. wanted something there and and at one. tour stop, somebody had a medical event. and we used the medical services. But I. I see the point, which is where was the.

ambulance, you know, and Dave's right, they're alleging they did not conduct a. meaningful risk assessment before. approving the outdoor location. Police. did not have a written security plan for. the tour event. the parties did not have. a security briefing before the tour. event where the risks associated with. unsecure rooftops on campus um were. discussed. I mean, so it's it one. wonders what exactly was done. >> It it's not just that it's um you know, it was not unforeseeable. It was.

predictable. It had happened barely a. year earlier. And you know, when they. say the the notice of claim alleges that. there were only six police officers for. a crowd of two or three thousand people, I it's it's not it's just dereliction of. duty. It's it's criminal negligence. It's civil negligence. Uh and I know. what people are going to say. They're. going to say, "Well, at the end of the. day, the buck stops with Charlie. security team, and if it was that, you. know, a weak of a perimeter or unsecured. roofs or you didn't get the proper. assurance, you don't let him take the. stage." That's a fair argument. And you.

know that's something that his security. team is going to have to live with and. answer to for the rest of their. professional careers. But at the end of. the day when they say yeah we got you. covered a you know whether or not it's. negligence to rely on that assurance. How the hell do they leave the sole. rooftop unprotected? This is as bad as. the Pac-Man perimeter in Butler, Pennsylvania, where you literally had. carved out the the the the best vantage. point from which to take the shot in. Butler. And then you say, well, it's.

it's negligence of the Secret Service to. let Trump take the stage when there's an. identified threat. All of that, but this. is beyond the pale. And when you want to. get to the conspiracy theories and and. it's so beyond the pale that you say. people say you can't be this this bad by. accident, so there has to be some. deliberate conduct to it. You can't. blame people for feeling that way. When. people have advanced knowledge of. something going to happen, making social. media posts, and the campus security. doesn't secure the most obvious vantage. point from which to take a shot, which. leads people to say, "Oh my goodness, it.

must have been impossible to get to. This must have been a professional. sniper job. Somebody's, you know, scaling walls." This was you step over a. fence from what everyone has testified. to, and you're on that roof that was. unsecured with a clear line of sight in. an open auditorium like a sitting duck. So suit itself is obviously well the. suit the notice of claim is well. grounded. People are going to say well. the buck ought to stop with Charlie. security team. They must be on and yada. yada yada. Bottom line a lot of people. have a lot to answer for in terms of how. the security lapse inexplicable security.

lapse was allowed to occur. >> And we'll deal with this question of. sovereign immunity and whether this. school has it in one second Dave but. just staying on the principal notice of. claim for a minute. Um the head of. Charlie's security team is a guy named. Brian Harpool. He went on Shawn Ryan uh. last year or I think it was last year. and he was raising this exact issue that. he and his security team had asked about.

securing the rooftops in dealing with. UVU's police force and that they were. assured the police force had it. Here's. that soundbite. Sot 19. >> on Monday before. this correspondence went to Chief Long. Hello, Chief Long. We received this. message today from the student group. Um. there is a student roof access pretty. close to where CK will be set up at the. Utah Valley. Uh the Sorenson uh center.

has a couple of staircases that go up to. walkways on the roofs. He comes back and. the s for edification the Sorenson. center was the building in front of the. Lucy center. And so he and he comes back. he says you want access to the roof and. came back and said uh I was told. students have access above us. If this. is true, it would be nice to either have. it controlled access or allow one of my.

guys to be there as well if possible. He. comes back and his last correspondence. was I got you covered. So there it is um pretty clearly I got. you covered Dave. Now, you know, Brian. Harpool has been the subject of a fair. amount of scrutiny and some revulsion in. response to that soundbite, you know,

from people saying that wasn't good. enough, that you should have made sure. you you were getting paid to make sure. it was covered. Um, and I understand. that. There's obviously a frustration. I. think all of Charlie's guys really loved. him and as Viva says will have to live. the rest of their lives with the with. what happened to him. And I've known. I've met some of them and they're. they're good and lovely men who I I mean. they'd give anything to have a doover on. that day. But.

to to the point of this threatened. claim, that's a terrible text for UVU. >> It is because it destroys the. unforeseeability defense. The single. biggest shield for a university in a. liability lawsuit is arguing we couldn't. have foreseen something like this would. happen. But if private security flag. this unsecured elevated viewpoint that. overlooks the open air quad here and. then they brush it off. I mean saying I. got this isn't enough. Did you do.

anything about it? Not your words, your. actions. then the danger becomes. entirely foreseeable and that can. actually punch a hole in the inevitable. sovereign immunity defense because it. moves it away from a discretionary. decision to pure negligence or. recklessness in the way that they acted. >> Okay. So that that's very interesting. because UVU is a state university viva. and state universities generally or. state entities across across the country.

generally have sovereign immunity from. lawsuits and the reason for that is that. if they're forced to pay it's the. taxpayer who is forced to pay and. therefore we've made decisions as states. and in some cases the federal government. that we don't we don't want that we. don't want the taxpayers of Utah on the. hook for millions of dollars because. some effectively civil sergeant serve. servant made a terrible decision at UVU. that day. But sovereign immunity does. have some exceptions. So the general. law, the Governmental Immunity Act of.

Utah, we pulled it uh reads in part, "A. governmental entity, its officers and. its employees are immune from suit and. immunity is not waved for any injury. approximately caused by a negligent act. or omission of an employee committed. within the scope of employment. if the. injury arises out of or in connection. with or results from the exercise of. that behavior, especially a. discretionary function. And so what Dave. is saying is if you can argue this was. worse than negligence, this was worse.

than a negligent act or a negligent. omission and it wasn't a a discretionary. function that was being performed here. You might be able to get around the. sovereign immunity defense that. absolutely UVU is going to raise if this. case gets filed. I do think that's going. to be a challenge. It's a high bar to. get around sovereign immunity and you. know to prove active malfeasants here as. opposed to just negligent fools uh who.

didn't adequately bank on the risk of. what would happen. I don't it'll be a. challenge but I don't I don't know if. it's an insurmountable one necessarily. What do you think? >> Well, they'll argue it. How about you. take it one step further and and suggest. that this might have been deliberate. Like if someone says, "I got you. covered." And then does jack squat to. actually cover that which they said they. have you covered for. Forget negligence. Argue that it was deliberate misconduct.

>> or or you can go just reckless in. between negligence and intentional is. reckless. And we're I think you could. you have a good argument where there to. to tell the security force we've got it. and then not do it. I mean it yeah you. could make the case. >> You have Butler, Pennsylvania that. occurred earlier. They know that it's a. risk. They know that it's an MO. They. raise it to the attention of the. security at UVU. They allegedly prevent. or don't allow Charlie Kirk's own. security team to to deal with the. threat. They say, "We got it covered.".

And then literally leave it open in the. most negligent of voice. Now, I. appreciate people are going to go back. and say it's up to Charlie security team. to say if it's not secured, we're not. letting him out there. But people in the. chain of human error have to look back. to that incident that happened in South. America with the woman bungee jumping. off a bridge and they. >> Oh, that was awesome. >> You have five people involved and they. literally threw her off the bridge cuz. not one person decided to say where is. the rope attached to and at the end of. the day you're going to look at the. security team and they're going to say. it's their bottom line decision to say.

where is this ro rope attached to? Is it. a good knot? Is it secure? Set that. aside. In the sequence of events, you. can see how these things get lost in the. shuffle, so to speak, but someone has to. answer it for it at the end of the day. because it was a risk that was brought. to their attention and the risk. materialized in the most awful of. manners. And so they don't just get to. wash their hands of it and say, "Well, you know, no duty to care, you know, sovereign immunity. It wasn't. negligence." No, it it clearly was at. best. I I just do ask the question. whether or not it was something far more.

sinister in terms of people deliberately. leaving an access point for the easiest. of shots to occur while assuring the. security team that they had taken care. of all of the weak spots. >> I mean, I get it. Charlie was extremely. controversial. He wasn't exactly beloved. by the university set. Um, and I don't. know whether there was an active. dereliction of duty on anybody's part. Like they just didn't give a damn what. happened to him because you pointed it.

out a a minute ago, Viva, getting on. that roof could not have been easier. I. mean, truly, it if you wanted to set. Charlie up for a catastrophic event, you. wouldn't have done anything differently. You really wouldn't have. The Ryan. Enton, a great reporter with NewsNation, he went to that rooftop uh right around. the preliminary hearing. Dave and he. filmed himself getting on on top of. there. It's easy as as pie. Here's the. video of him doing what the shooter is. accused of doing.

>> The um courtyard where the shooting. happened is right back there. But this. is all, you know, public area where. people walk around. If you just go up. these stairs right here, I'm going to. walk up the stairs. You're suddenly. up here. This is a. This is a walkway here. Okay. So, you. can get between buildings here. Um, and. on this side, it's now gated off. This.

was not gated off before the Charlie. Kirk assassination, but it is now gated. off. Basically, what investigators say. Tyler Robinson did is this gate wasn't. here, so he just walked right over to. that short little uh gate that you see. over there, that that more permanent. gate. And then all you had to do is just. go right on top of that, which would. anybody could do. It would just take a. second. And then walk out on the roof. and right over there on the edge would. be a direct view, just the perfect line.

of sight to where Charlie Kirk was. speaking. And the so-called fence that he would. have had to go over for the listening. audience is maybe three feet tall with. rails on it, like wide open rails, maybe. three rails and a foot in between each. rail, almost inviting you to place your. foot on the rail, swing your other leg. over, and pop right onto the rooftop. >> Yeah. And there are accounts that. students frequently partied up there. They hung out up there. There's trash, beer bottles up there. And so this was.

an unsecured, unmonitored high vantage. point overlooking the main quad where. thousands of people had gathered. So I I. I must say this and I I respect what. Viva is saying, but you know, after. being in government for so many years, it's just so much easier just to say. it's incompetence than it is a. >> Yeah. bank on ineptitude, >> right? Then a calculated here's a plan. Because what does a police the local. police chief inside the school get out. of it by letting someone kill Charlie. Kirk on his watch? I think he gets.

lawsuits. He gets to lose his job. He. gets possible uh just never get to work. again in the security area. So I don't. think it benefits anyone uh to have this. done. I just think the easiest. explanation is pure incompetence. >> See. >> the It's stunning when you when you read. like all the stuff about what they what. they didn't do. You know, I read some of. it, but they they also alleged this in. the notice of claim. Uh placing a. politically controversial figure like. Charlie in an outdoor event in the quad.

surrounded by tall buildings and other. elevated observation platforms is. accurately described as walking him into. a fishbowl. The UVU parties could have. declined to approve the tour event in. the outdoor quad location or could have. moved the venue indoors or to a more. secure location as it had done for. controversial speakers in the past. Nevertheless, the UVU parties approved. the event to be held at an outdoor. venue, dramatically increasing security. risks, but did not dedicate resources.

necessary to address the enhanced risk. this approval created. And they spoke. about how Viva that they write about how. the the parties they only assigned six. cops from the campus police to the. outdoor tour event um that ultimately. had about 3,000 in attendance. The chief. uh and the campus police Jeffrey Long. requested approval from the UVU. president to allocate more than six. officers, but the president declined. They denied. Astrid Tuminez denied the. request. Then they failed to ask for.

assistance from outside police forces. such as the ORUM or Provo police. They. write that the ORM police with whom the. UVU has law enforcement cooperation. agreements didn't receive a call for. assistance until after the. assassination. I mean, my god. And and. it's like, look, I understand this is. exactly the kind of thing that one's. security team would be thinking about. Why do we want to have an outdoor event? It's surrounded by tall buildings. It's.

going to be like a fishbowl. Um, let's. do it inside. And you know, I know. that at least at other times, Charlie. was the one who wanted it outside. because he wanted the passer by to hear. the debate and possibly be engaged by it. and come over and be persuaded, you. know. So all of that will be relevant. and will be raised. But there are teams. of people who are assigned the.

responsibility of keeping an onampus. speaker like Charlie Kirk safe. And in. this particular instance, yes, it's the. his security team and the campus police. And in your normal negligence case or. civil case, alleging something higher. than negligence, worse than negligence, it would just that would just be about. aortionment, Dave, right? like who out. of the 100%. um responsible for securing the venue, how much was Charlie's team responsible. and how much was UVU responsible? And.

that would typically be a jury question. >> Yeah, it depends on the law of Utah. whether they have that aortionment. Some. states have it where every person even. not on the ballot gets to be aortioned. some percentage of blame. Others it has. to be 50% plus one. So it depends on on. whether uh Utah's adopted what standard. But it will be a part of any civil. litigation that Charlie Kirk's own. security team at least deserves some of. the blame. So you can count on that. I.

think what's going to happen, Megan, is. that they're going to claim sovereign. immunity and then there'll be some. litigation where there's an attempt to. get around it and then the university is. going to cut a check. I think that the. state of Utah University will eventually. settle. It's much easier to get this out. of the media than to deal with this for. years to come. Viva, they the the business of the text. message to the head of Charlie's team. saying, "We've got you covered." To me,

it's almost like the good Samaritan, you. know, a guy, he's drowning in the lake. and you're and and the good Samaritan. sees him drowning. Now, the good the. would-be good Samaritan actually has no. legal duty whatsoever to rush in there. and try to save him. None whatsoever. All the law is very clear on that. You. can watch him drown and do nothing about. it. But if you choose to go, then. certain duties do generally attach. And if you say, "I've got it." And you. run into the water and then you get. close and you're like, "Just kidding.".

And and you watch him drown and others. didn't go because you went now that this. is like something that would appear on. the bar exam. you know, can the good. Samaritan in these circumstances be held. liable for effectively waving off other. good Samaritans? And so I think that's. kind of what we're looking at here where. the head of the campus police said, "We've got you covered." And if he had. said, "We definitely do not have that. covered." I don't think there's any.

doubt that Charlie's security team would. have either canled the event, insisted. it moving doors, or done something about. the rooftops. >> No. Here. Well, the set set aside the. legal issues as whether or not they get. this dismissed on sovereign immunity. Assume this gets to the merits or. deposition. And my question is, all. right, what did you do after that text. message? You said you got him covered. What did you do next? If the answer is. strictly nothing, I mean, you you've got. a big problem. If the answer is I. delegated this to Mr. Miss X, Y, and.

Zed, well, what did they do about it? When when Dave says, you know, it's easy. to attribute this to incompetence. And. by and large, you know, when we. entertain, you know, conspiracy theories. in our heads, you understand what you. can substantiate and what is just as. easily explained by human stupidity, human incompetence, human negligence. But when you view Charlie Kirk as a. future president and and many people. did, when you view this as a future a. preemptive presidential assassination, as I do, well, you know, people will. turn a blind eye just to maximize the.

potentiality of something terrible. happening to that prospective future of. these, you know, United States of. America. when it came to Trump, you. know, a a who who suffered what radical. consequences for the egregious lapses of. security that identified a threat, lost. that threat in the crowd minutes before. Trump took stage. Trump still takes the. stage. Who who suffered any meaningful. consequences as a result of that and by. the grace of God that could have been. the end of of Trump uh before he becomes. president. So, you know, people will. turn a blind eye to the extent that they.

can. I I do wonder if there were. activists somewhere in there who said. maybe he doesn't get killed. Maybe. something bad happens and you know we. don't like him because he spreads hate. as that jackass lawyer said during the. arguments there. You know people will. turn up blind preliminary hearing and. it's not it's not action. It's inaction. People can sort of justify inaction but. okay it's one of two things. It's. egregious incompetence negligence uh. false warranties and representations. where they tell the security team no you. don't get to go there. We've got it. covered. You don't get to have a drone. in the sky. you're not allowed. We'll.

take care of it. Don't worry about it. This is not so much a good Samaritan. This is security at the university that. is bound to provide security to the. individual. Um so, you know, it's. incompetence at best. But what came. after that, we got you covered. Because. if the answer is a big fat goose egg or. something worse, they've got a very. >> It appears to be a goose egg. >> A goose. It could be worse. >> There weren't drones. There wasn't a. guard up there. They had security. cameras rolling which show the shooter.

climbing onto the rooftop with. absolutely no interference running over. taking aim and shooting Charlie. Um. nothing nothing virtually nothing uh was. done to secure well not not virtually as. far as we know absolutely nothing. >> was done to secure the rooftop. almost. seems like it was facilitated to give. any perspective shooter the perfect. vantage point from which to take this. shot which is another thing where not to. get into the conspiracy theories uh. which has been a source of a lot of. debate here you know exploding mics uh.

armed drones being deployed from. low-flying planes why go through any of. that when you literally have the. unsecured roof at 120 yards why would. you need to do something so wildly uh. riskier uh less you know more difficult. to execute when you literally have a. roof unsecured and you know it. It's. easily accessible. It's nothing that you. have to scale, you know, rock climb 514s. to get to. This was a rooftop that. everyone had access to that was. unsecured. They knew it was a risk and. they by all accounts obviously failed to.

secure it. The only question is is it. grotesque incompetence or something. potentially more sinister? >> Yeah. Does it rise above negligence and. was it discretionary? are those are the. two things that are going to determine. whether sovereign immunity protects Utah. Valley University from this lawsuit and. it would be decided before they have one. lick of discovery. I mean that's. something that a judge would decide on. the papers, >> right? That. >> to say it's a block right up front, >> right? And that's that's when the check. would be written. If the judge rules. that there is not sovereign immunity to.

block a lawsuit, >> then it's on. >> Then it's on. And I think that's what. the university is going to wait on. And. I think ultimately a judge would rather. not preempt the lawsuit and would just. let it play out. And that's when the. university and the state I think will. say, "Okay, let's settle this.". >> Mhm. I will say this, um, there was a. case Richie Leaders versus Emory County. School District, Utah, 1993. A student had warned school officials. that other students had repeatedly. assaulted him. The principal promised to.

address it, but the student was. subsequently beaten in an unsupervised. uh gym. His parents sued, alleging. negligent supervision and failure to. protect, and the Utah Supreme Court. found that the district was immune from. the lawsuit. So, in that case, there had. been prior violence against the student. The student had warned the school that. an additional attack was likely. They. did promise that they would protect him.

They didn't. He was hurt. And in that. case, uh, the Supreme Court of Utah said. the district is immune notwithstanding. all that. So, these are some of the. cases that will come up as it plays out. on the merits or on the papers at least. before we get to the merits. Guys, thank. you. We're Don't go away. We're not. done, but we are going to take a quick. break. Oh, it's a heavy discussion. It. brings up the worst things. Just the. absolute worst things. Um, what is there to say? no matter what. they get. You know, the the claimants. named in this notice of claim include.

Erica and Charlie and Erica's two. children, potentially Charlie's family. of origin. And while I'd love to see those two. children get a check from the insurance. company insuring Utah Valley University, what good does it do? You know, they. they do they they need to be taken care. of. They need college education. Well, actually, they don't. Charlie would. probably be against that, but they need. some sort of education and they need.

life expenses as they go forward to be. covered. But. what good does any of it do? What good. does money do? We've all heard those. radio ads about owing money to the IRS. They try to scare you and push you into. calling out of fear. But Tax Relief. Advocates takes a different approach. If. you owe the IRS 5,000, 50,000, or even. 500,000 bucks, TRA has real solutions to. fix your tax problem. Do not freak out.

and don't lose hope because TRA can. often reduce or yes, hear me out, completely eliminate what you owe. How. would that be? Their focus is on taxes. and helping people and businesses. resolve IRS problems. They're experts at. this. They have more than a thousand. five-star Google reviews and an A+. rating from the Better Business Bureau. You no longer have to fear the IRS. Generous relief programs exist right now.

that can give you a clean slate if. you've got somebody to help you navigate. the system. So act today. All right. Go. to t.com. That's t.com or call. 8005756845. Again, the number is 8005756845. Tax relief advocates. Real solutions for. real people. In the US, a break-in. happens every 26 seconds. Most systems. only alert you after an intruder is.

inside. That makes no sense. By that. point, the damage is done. These grab. guys, they get in and they get out in. like 2 minutes. You got to scare them. off before they get in. That is how. Simply Safe sees it. And that's how. Simply Safe created its product. With. their new outdoor camera series 2 and. advanced AI, Simply Safe doesn't just. sit there and watch as bad guys break. into your home. It acts. If a threat is. detected, US-based live agents can.

intervene to deter intruders before. before they cross the threshold. Going. on vacay? You can check your feed and. know that professionals are monitoring. your home. Plus, the setup is a breeze. Get your system running in under 30. minutes. No long-term contracts. Simply. Safe is prepared to earn your business. every day rather than trying to lock you. into a trap. It's elite protection that. fits your life, not the other way. around. Simply Safe has an exclusive. discount for you. Right now, get 50% off.

your new system by visiting. simplysafe.com/megan. That's half off at simply spelled s i m. p l i.com/megan. There is no safe like simply safe. Guys, this is a bizarre case involving a. former player for the Atlanta Falcons, a. reality TV star who starred on The Real. Housewives of Atlanta, in addition to. another program that was her own Bravo.

spin-off, Don't Be Tardy, Kim Zoliaak, and their 15-year-old son, who is now in. some serious trouble. Um, he is being. accused of sexually assaulting a girl. his age, I think a year younger than he. is, 14, at a gym. Here's Kim, and. there's the son in the background, and. she's she's getting a divorce from her. former Atlanta Falcons player husband, whose name is Croy Beerman. The young.

the child who she's made public, and his. name is publicly associated with this, is Croy KJ Beerman Jr. So he um here's the first incident. Okay, it's come out that there that. there was a first incident involving. this KJ. He was charged in a juvenile. sexual battery matter involving another. young person. His lawyer has said, "Hold. your horses here." That was basically.

two kids being morons on camera. And. that is now nowhere near the terrible. incident that now the lawyer for the the. new girl is making it out to be or the. prosecutors handling the new girls. allegation are making it out to be. But. I'm getting ahead of myself. That's just. a little bit bit of background. April. 2026. is what we're dealing with now. So page. six reports that the alleged victim. describes herself as the best friend of.

KJ's girlfriend. So, the defendant in. this case is 15 and his girlfriend has a. friend who is the alleged victim in this. in this case. Per US Weekly, which got. the police report, uh prosecutors. alleged that KJ, then 15, sexually. assaulted a teenage girl who was 14, in. a changing area at Lifetime Fitness in. Alpharetta, Georgia. The victim. reportedly had a regular chiropractic. appointment at the gym. Though he wasn't. in the office that day, she opted to. work out. Later, while eating in the.

gym's cafe, she saw a friend, later. identified as KJ, 15, entered the. facility. She called out to him. They. began talking, at which point KJ. allegedly asked if she wanted to go into. the co-ed sauna with him, per the police. report. The victim told police that she. and KJ had been friends for some time in. high school. She also described him as a. flirty and joking person. According to. this 14-year-old at the time, uh, young. woman, KJ was making jokes and flirting. with her as they walked to the family.

locker room. So, clearly, she agreed to. go into the co-ed sauna with him. Once. they arrived in the room, KJ allegedly. asked the victim to kiss him multiple. times. Quote, he grabbed her by the. waist and started kissing her neck and. grabbing her butt with his hand and an. open hand and kissed her lips. read the. report claiming KJ also touched her. private area on the outside of her pants. and she quote froze. The young woman. stated she told KJ no multiple times uh. and that he said something to the effect. that she was lucky he wasn't making her. do it. He then allegedly pulled down his.

pants to expose himself and put his unit. into the victim's mouth. The victim. claimed that KJ tried multiple times to. have sexual intercourse with her by. trying to pull down her pants. She. stated there was nowhere for her to go, that he had pulled her toward him, always keeping his hands on her body. Also alleged allegedly slipped his hands. into her shorts. She kept trying to get. away. She finally succeeded. The victim. reluctantly attended school the. following day, but left after seeing. KJ's girlfriend, her friend, and told.

her grandmother what had happened at the. gym. She also told police she had. previously kissed KJ. consensually is quote is the quote. According to officers, KJ and the victim. were both seen on surveillance video. going into the family dressing room. About 20 minutes later, the victim. exited the dressing room and headed. toward the lobby while KJ made his way. to the sauna alone. Test results. concluded there were was no presence of. male or human DNA in the victim's. private area and mouth that did not. belong to her. Now, he's been arrested.

on aggravated sodomy and aggravated. sexual battery charges and is being held. um in the Metro Regional Youth Detention. Center, but is being this is being uh. prosecuted in adult court even though. he's only 15. And um that's one of the questions here. The defense is trying to get this. treated as a juvenile case because if. it's not, this kid faces a mandatory. minimum of 25 years. No parole, no.

probation. His lawyer says it's diffult. difficult to comprehend that a 14 or. 15year-old child can be held in. detention for a month or longer, simply. waiting for a bond hearing. They did get. a bond hearing eventually, and it was. set at $200,000, which is no joke. But. this is a real he said she said and the. alleged victim. She came to court trying. to get Bond denied. Here's a bit of that. in S 21. >> I am only 15. I should be worrying about.

school, my friends, and normal things. people my age worry about. Instead, I. have had to deal with the fear, stress, and the consequences of something that I. never thought I would have to face. The. backlash I'm already facing has been. unbearable. I have lost friends. My. peers think that I'm disgusting and. people make making an already difficult. situation even harder. But what scares.

me the most is that this has gone beyond. people just talking. I have already. received threats from individuals saying. that if he is released, he will come. after me. DMs, messages to my friends. and family, and post threatening me. because of me coming forward. The. thought of him being released scares me. more than I can put into words. If he is released, I am afraid the. threats, calls, emails, and backlash.

will become even worse. Uh the judge did allow bail, Viva, and. he's been released on bail pending um. pending trial. He clearly comes from a. very messed up family. I mean, that. seems clear. I'm just going to show you. one one other thing before I get you to. weigh in. This was an incident from. December of 2023 via TMZ in which the. kids called the police and you see this. former Atlanta Falcons player Croy.

Beerman screaming at the officers about. some of the problems in the family s 20. >> we're just having an argument. >> about what. >> about our life. >> okay what what happened why it's. >> our life it's destroyed because this. right here does nothing but fuel her I'm. not doing This. This is narcissistic behavior. I'm not. doing this. >> I'm just trying to figure out what going. on. >> There's nothing to do. You shouldn't. even be here.

>> Who called you? >> Your kids. >> Who? What kid? >> You have kids? I don't know. Whoever's. in the house. >> We've been outside this whole time. >> What? What? What? What was the argument. about? >> Our life. What? Our life. >> AND IT'S DESTROYED. >> WHY? WHY IS IT getting so heated? >> CUZ OUR LIFE IS DESTROYED. What don't you understand? THERE'S NO MONEY. THERE'S NO HOUSE. SHE. WANTS WE'RE WE'RE GETTING DIVORCED ONE.

DAY AND WE'RE NOT THE NEXT. >> SHE OTHER MEN. WHAT DO YOU WANT? >> Just calm DOWN. >> CALM DOWN. BUT I DON'T HAVE A LIFE. >> WHAT'S GOING ON, MR. >> I just like he's just been screaming at. me for like 2 hours like a crazy like a. crazy person. What? >> Not great. >> Hell is going on? Sorry, it's terrible. I I was just looking up the definition. of of um aggravated sodomy because I had. to make sure that it involves unlawful. or coerced oral or anal sex. Um so it.

would explain the charges against the. kid. It's weird. You hear a story like. this, you got they're all allegations. It's all he he says, she says. you're. dealing with some preconceived uh. notions or or you know assessments that. this kid's coming from a messed up. house. Who would have thought that. having a you know a football player. father and uh that as a mother might you. know instill the wrong lessons of what. consent means and what romance I mean.

who who the hell knows what this kid. learned uh from these people that are. his parents that he thought was you know. how you deal with girls that you might. have a crush on. Uh flip. >> this is the mother by the way. Okay, sorry. This is this this was one of the. stories that was mildly new to me. These. are not things that you these are these. are grotesque and and and ugly stories. to deal with. Just on the one hand, you. you will never know what actually went. down unless there's there is not going. to be video footage from inside the the. sauna. But Megan, is this a story also. where they found some very problematic.

things to put it mildly on the kid's. cell phone? >> Yes. But that too is something that I'm. confused about because the um the. defense lawyer is really hitting that. hard, saying that is not what the. prosecution has purported it to be. Here. is here's the DA uh deputy DA Caitlyn. McGillicuy speaking about what they. previously found on the defendant's cell. phone. SAT 23. and these incidents. Um.

there were videos uh found on this. defendant's cell phone. Uh those were. kept in a hidden folder on his cell. phone. Um and they do penetrated sex. with a juvenile family member under the. age of 12. Uh the victim in that case. was identified was interviewed. Um what. I think is important for the court to. understand about the nature of that is. that this these acts occurred over a.

range of time. There was not just one. act, one video. Um it they display. multiple encounters. And there's also. some predatory um I would say derogatory. characterized language used by the. defendant towards the victim in those. videos. So, in case you missed it, she said the. videos found in the defendant that the. 15-year-old's hidden files on his cell. phone included quote penetrative. sex with a juvenile family member,

suggesting there's incest on there. But. his lawyer uh spoke, Jason Sheffield. spoke with Page Six after the hearing. and said characterizations made in court. regarding the prior juvenile matter. involving KJ Beerman grossly. misrepresent both the facts and the. ultimate resolution of that case. He. insisted quote that matter arose from. inappropriate crude behavior involving. two middle schoolers. It did not result. in an adjudication. for statutory rape, sexual intercourse,

or any comparable offense. I mean, Dave, I wouldn't expect him to have even. remained in the household if he were. molesting like a a family member. So, I'm not sure what to make of that. prior incident. And I'm not sure what to. make of the current one either because. the the defense lawyer has come out and. suggested that this alleged victim. has made other false allegations. Listen.

here to his lawyer Jason Sheffield uh in. court on September 11th 22. As for a statement on fire or false. allegations, I have evidence and I have. witnesses and I believe under our our. current case law that is admissible. evidence. It's no longer subjected to. the reasonable probability of falsity. standard. It's subjected to 401 and 403. And because the report that was issued. had so much to do with the credibility.

of the alleged victim and it had. extensive information about the way that. she, you know, described these offenses, I thought it was reasonably necessary to. level the playing field to talk about. that particular evidence. Dave, like if that's where this goes, that she's got a history of making this. stuff up, that she was good friends with. his girlfriend, that it was more of a. Sunday morning regret than it was an.

active sexual assault, that's a decent. defense. We've seen that defense work in. other cases. But how does a jury go. about figuring that out? Well, the use. of the prior alleged act is used to keep. him in the adult system and to keep him. locked up at home with strict bond. requirements that he otherwise wouldn't. get. And then it's up to the jury in. this trial. And I think he will be tried. as an adult because that's the default.

where he is. And because of this prior. case, I think that he's going to be. tried as an adult here. And then it's. going to be up to the judge to determine. whether to allow the prior alleged. misconduct to come in. We don't know the. extent of it because it's all in the. juvenile system. There's all these. privacy rules in place. So, it's not. going to just be a pure he said, she. said because I think the state is going. to get some of this prior bad acts in. And they have something on the cell.

phones. We don't know exactly what it. is. We've heard some talk here about. this awful stuff in the hidden files, but apparently there may be some. evidence on the cell phones that talk. about what he allegedly did here in this. matter, not stuff in the past. And then. the main issue though, the main witness. is going to be the victim here. And if. they could put her on trial, if they. could shred her credibility, then. ultimately the case could fall apart. But it's not purely a he said she said. because of the other stuff that we just.

mentioned. H I mean her leaving the facility Viva. right after it happened I don't there'll. be scrutinization of that did she look. upset you know what did she text him. immediately thereafter like all of her. behavior will will come under the. microscope but you got to keep an open. mind because if she if it's true it's. just an allegation that she's made prior. false allegations it's a complete. gamecher. >> these cases are are they're ultimately.

they're grotesque I mean and also They. highlight I I would not want to be a. young person in today's day and age and. certainly not a young person in a public. school or you know the the schooling. system or in a family situation where. they don't not just teach you right from. wrong but proper behavior that will keep. you out of trouble regardless of of who. turns out to be the liar in this case. Yeah. There's there would probably be. zero doubt that this kid is learning not. the best lessons in life and morality. from his parents. It it doesn't mean he.

went in there. >> from Yeah. Now, that being said, if it. turns out that what he's got on his. phone is what was described, you got to. I mean, I appreciate it'll be derogatory. because it's going to be potentially. evidence of another crime potentially. that might have nothing to do with this. Something is going wrong in all of this. The girl saying that she wants him. locked up in the interim is also. something of a red flag because if what. he did is what she says she did, locking. this kid up at 15 for an extended period. of time seems very uh punitive and. malicious given he hasn't been convicted.

of anything. So, but it's just this is. this is a cluster f of a situation. Just. raise your kids properly, teach them the. right lessons, and let them know that. what you what you record on your camera. could be evidence of a crime and people. don't seem to appreciate that. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. And honestly, stay the hell away. from reality TV. Quickly, Dave, give you. the last word. >> The last word. When that guy was going. crazy on body cam outside his house, did. you really think telling him to calm. down was going to work? >> Yeah, that that never works on anyone in. the history of mankind. Great to see you.

both. Thanks for being here. Tomorrow, we're back with Emily Jashinsky. See you. then.