Blake Lively's Legal Fees Ploy, and Horrifying Henry Nowak Video Released, with MK True Crime Hosts

Hey everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome. to the Megan Kelly show. We got a mega. Kelly's court today where we are going. to bring you the latest on multiple. major cases of serious interest. Jury. selection is underway right now in the. Carmelo Anthony murder trial. The teen. accused of stabbing 17-year-old Austin. Metaf at a track and field meet in Texas. in April of last year. You remember this. case? It has potentially a racial. element. The uh defendant is black. The. victim was white and the black teen was.

in a tent that was populated by a. different school. Austin Metafe. allegedly went to him to say, you know, move out of our tent. He said, "Make. me." And the next thing you know, uh, Carmemelllo Anthony stabbed him in the. heart with a knife. Um, that's what this. case is about. Now, he's going to mount. a defense of some sort. I have no idea. how or what it will be. He seems to be. suggesting it's going to be. self-defense. We'll get into it. [snorts] And we now have the shocking.

footage of 18-year-old British student. Henry Novak dying while handcuffed. The. police tried to withhold this. They. would not release this during the course. of the trial. Well, now that's over and. it's finally been released. This poor. kid lays dying trying to tell cops that. he has been stabbed five times and that. he cannot breathe. And the police. officer looks at him and says, "I don't. think you have, mate." And he dies. He.

drowns in his own blood. And for that, absolutely nothing has happened to these. police so far. One has been allowed to. retire early. That's it. They say an. investigation's underway. What's taking. so long? This this case has been out. there for quite some time. How long does. it take to figure out he was stabbed? They didn't get him emergency help. And. if the shoe were on the other foot, because the person who stabbed Henry.

Novak is a brownskinned seek in England. And you're not allowed to say that. they're the perpetrators of anything. You see here, the victim too was a white. man, which is the most evil thing you. can be in England and still in our. country, which is why they let him. die. I'm sorry. It's just so. infuriating. They let him die as he. begged for help. And they did that because they took the.

word of his murderer, that he, Henry, was the asalent, that he had harassed. the actual perpetrator based on his seek. religion or his brown skin, and that. really the roles were reversed with no. evidence. They had an eyewitness call in. that suggested it was the opposite, that. Henry was in fact the victim. Henry was. the one who was down. Henry had five. stab wounds. and still they they took the other kid's.

word, other man, his word. They didn't. even handcuff that other man at any. point. It's just it's so egregious what. has happened over there. They knelt in the street over the George. Floyd death in the UK. For Henry Novak, nothing. These police officers let him. die and then the community has let them. get away with zero accountability. The. cops who should and do owe a higher duty.

of care to its citizens, to their. citizens, those like Henry and those. around Henry who expect more of the. people they pay for for safety and. security services. This case is just. it's so disturbing. So, we'll have the. latest because now Henry's family. speaking out as is the family of the. perpetrator. Digua is the last name. Uh, so we've got a lot to get to with Phil. Holloway, Ashley Merchant, and Dave. Aronberg, the hosts of the MK True Crime.

Show. They're all going to be here. together uh later, fresh off their trip. to Las Vegas for Crime Con. That's fun. But we have got to start today with the. latest in the Blake Lively versus Justin. Baldoni legal saga. You thought it was. over? Think again. The two sides last. month announcing a lastminute. settlement, one in which Blake Lively. got absolutely nothing. Nothing. She. obviously did not want to go to trial. She shouldn't have gone to trial. It was.

going to be very unpleasant for her on. that stand. We all witnessed her claims. fall apart since the day two two years. ago plus a year and a half when she. filed them. It's been a humiliation for. her because virtually nothing she. alleged in that complaint has panned. out. and we've seen evidence that it. actually went exactly the different a. different way. So, she bailed on the. claim and we didn't have a trial and. that's a good thing. However, the. settlement she argues did allow her to. continue pursuing attorney's fees and.

damages which she said says should be. trebled meaning tripled under California. [clears throat] law. And in addition to. that, she wants a separate award of. punitive damages, which are meant to. punish a party when they do something. truly egregiously wrong. Now, she makes. this argument under a California law. signed by Gavin Newsome back in 2023. that was inspired in the wake of the Me. Too movement. It's called the Speak Your.

Truth Act, and it makes certain. communications about sexual harassment. privileged. The thinking was that a lot. of alleged sexual harassment victims. won't come forward because they expect. the man or it could be the woman could. be reversed who they are accusing to. then slap them with a defamation lawsuit. to try to up the ante and that this is. silencing too many women and that we.

have to change the stakes on these. retaliatory defamation claims brought by. sexual harassment defendants. or were effectively discouraging the. sexual harassment victims from doing. anything about it. Okay. So, the Justin. Baldon did respond to Blake Lively's. claims with the defamation claim. Um, and it was dismissed a year ago, but and. so there was a question right from that. moment about whether he was going to. have to pay all of her not just costs.

When you win a lawsuit, you generally. get your costs, you know, the the price. of filing the lawsuit and so on, but not. legal fees. We don't do that here. That's a UK thing where where a loser. pays your attorney's fees and it's a. massive deterrent to bringing a. frivolous lawsuit, but that's not how we. do it here in the United States. However, this law does do that. It it allows. individuals. um who filed a sexual harassment lawsuit. and then got faced with a counter claim. for defamation and then get the. defamation claim dismissed to get their.

attorney's fees, which will be. substantial in this case. and other. damages. And then, as I point out, those. can be tripled, meaning tripled, and you. get punitives potentially, too. To quote. California Civil Code section 47.1B, 47.1 is the short form for this law. Quote, "A prevailing defendant in in any. defamation action." It's kind of. confusing because here Blake Lively is. the defendant. As in all of these cases, you got the. sexual harassment plaintiff who then.

becomes the defendant in the cross claim. brought by the man she su she sues for. defamation. All right. So in in as you. hear me read this picture Blake Lively. as the defendant, a prevailing defendant. in any defamation action brought against. that defendant for making a. communication that is privileged under. this section shall be entitled to their. reasonable attorneys fees. and costs for. successfully defending themselves in the.

litigation, plus tribal damages for any. harm caused to them by the defamation. action in addition to punitive damages. available under section 3294 or any. relief otherwise permitted by law. That's quite a mouthful and if you can. believe it, it is actually more. complicated than it sounds. So, lawyers. for Belon and Lively went into a New. York federal court yesterday. I mean, it's an interesting case in and of. itself because what what are they doing. here? Like Blake Lively lives in just.

north of New York City. I believe she. lives in Bedford, New York. Baldoni. lives in California. The the movie was. made, I think, in New Jersey. Um, so and. it's using California law. So, why is a. New York federal judge deciding this. unique California law that hasn't even. been on the books that long nor. challenged in many cases to determine. things like is it constitutional? If. it's constitutional, who has the burden. of proving that um she's entitled to any.

damages whatsoever? What are the burdens. at issue in the case? Um, can I issue a. damages award to her now that the case. has gone away? Is there any like live. proceeding in front of me? This is one. of the things the judge was asking. Now. that the parties have already settled. this and if we have a factual. determination to make about her legal. fees andor whether um there was behavior. in this case that amounted to malice,

which is one of the requirements I'll. explain. Who makes that finding? Do I make that. finding as a judge or is it contemplated. by this statute that a jury makes this. finding? And how am I, this, you know, judge in New York federal court supposed. to determine any of this? This is. California's weird law, not mine. And I. never even passed the California bar. exam is is basically what this judge is. saying. So, it got really complicated. And on top of that, we had an. extraordinary development in the wake of. I mean this case has become very.

farcical and you guys know that and any. fair audience knows that as we when we. first look at this case we looked at it. very open-mindedly. We said that on the. air have no no dog in the hunt for. Justin Baldoni whatsoever. Um if. anything I found him kind of odd with. all of his weird you know feminist. statements. He just seemed a little odd. to me. But I my point is simply I didn't. know him and I had nothing for or. against either one of them. However, all. you had to do is pay attention to this. case to see.

her claims fell apart almost instantly. I mean, direct allegations fell apart by. independent witnesses. For example, she. claimed they brought some guy in to play. the doctor when she was delivering a. baby who had zero acting experience and. was just one of Justin's best friends. just so he could get a look at her lady. parts. Well, it turned out she had on. biker shorts for the scene. There was no. getting a look at her lady parts by. anybody. And the guy who played the part. of the doctor was a repeated and.

respected stage actor whose usual gig is. really respected Shakespeare plays and. so on. He has done a couple of films. So, it wasn't odd that he was brought. in. He wasn't just some like loser. friend of Justin's who wanted to get a. peek at Blake who was wearing biker. shorts. That's just one. We could be. here all day if we did it. My point is. simply, her claims were specious at. best. And now there is a real question. about whether she should be entitled to. her legal fees when her sexual.

harassment claim against him was also. thrown out. His defamation claim, counter claim against her was thrown. out, but her sexual harassment claim was. also thrown out. The only thing that was. left standing that they almost went to. trial on was her claim that after she. raised sexual harassment with Baldoni. and his team that they then retaliated. against her by unleashing this alleged. campaign in the press to hurt her. reputation. And she could have gone to.

trial on that. She decided not to. And. that's for you to decide why she didn't. think she could make that case in front. of a jury. So now she's back having. proven nothing, having willingly walked. away from this entire case, having seen. her sexual harassment ca case thrown out. as was his cross claim for defamation. and seeking we have no idea how much. money. I mean, it could be over $100. million for all I know if you take her. exorbitant legal fees and then triple. them and then add in punitive damages. I.

have no idea what she's claiming they. are going to be, but this is going to be. a substantial number she wants after the. case is over, settled, and none of her. claims on the merits have ever been. heard. So something extraordinary. happened yesterday after they had this. argument and it was the woman who was. the architect and driving force behind. this California law who happens to be an. attorney herself and a professor of law.

posted on social media that this was. never her vision that somebody like. Blake Lively would be allowed to use. this law potentially against someone. like Justin Baldoni, which we found very. interesting. So, we reached out to her. and asked her if she'd come on and she. agreed. So, she's here. She's a lawyer. She's an adjunct professor of law at. Southwestern [music] Law School. Her. name is Victoria Burke and she is indeed. the architect of and the woman behind. this law. Don't miss a moment. Subscribe.

to this show on YouTube and follow me on. Insta, Facebook, and X. Think about. this. In 2006, 20,000 bucks equaled. roughly 33 ounces of gold at spot price. At today's prices, those 33 ounces would. be worth about $165,000. Smart Americans should consider. diversifying a portion of their savings. into precious metals. So, let me tell. you about Burj Gold Group. For thousands. of years, gold has been a store of.

wealth. And today, it can be a crucial. part of any balanced strategy. Birch. Gold can help you convert an existing. IRA or 401k into a tax sheltered. retirement account in gold. Just text MK. to the number 989898 to receive your. free info kit on gold. There's no. obligation, just useful information with. an A+ rating with the Better Business. Bureau and tens of thousands of happy. customers. Let Birch Gold help you. diversify with gold for peace of mind. Text MK to the number 989898 now.

>> Victoria, welcome to the show. Thank. you, Megan. >> It's great to see you. Um, [music] so a. very extraordinary effort on your part. Let me just start with just a little bit. of your backstory. I don't want to put. you on the spot, but this this one was. near and dear to you for personal. reasons. >> Yes. I this bill was intended it was. made by me who's a survivor intended to. protect survivors when speaking out. because I myself had been drugged and. sexually assaulted by acquaintance in.

2019 and I had gone to the police and I. pursued all the legal channels that I. could and at the time some of the. evidence was lost of the blood and the. video evidence had been like not. recovered in time. it was lost and it. was going to be very hard to move. forward with the case. And I was talking. to a friend of mine from law school and. she said, you know, be very careful. speaking out or tell anyone, don't use. his name, don't use any identifiers. because you could be sued for.

defamation. And I was confused because I. thought current defamation laws, you as. long as you're speaking your truth or. opinion, you should be protected. and. she said, "Please look at see what. happened in the wake of me too that. there's been a tremendous surge in. retaliatory defamation lawsuits and you. know you could be hit with one." So I. was curious and I started researching. I'm like, "Oh, this is really. interesting because this was not covered. in the press and I was noticing many.

cases were saying it was having a. chilling effect on survivors coming. forward." And I had previously been on. American Bar Association committees. where I drafted legislation. And I. thought, I wonder if I could just adjust. the defamation laws to protect survivors. when they come forward. So I spent a. year and a half researching. cases and statutes. And I worked on. drafting it and I vetted the bill by. various advocacy groups. And then in the.

summer of 2022, I proposed it to members. of the California legislature and within. a year it was passed into law. But we. did work with the ACLU to fine-tune my. original drafting to make sure there's. still access to courts. That was very. important to us for anyone falsely. accused to still be able to have access. to courts and prevail like let's say. Depp v. heard which you know a lot of. times people would bring up to me like.

what about that case and I would say as. you know Johnny Depp prevailed by. showing malice he would have prevailed. under this law as well just to point. because what you did is. you said okay you can bring a responsive. defamation case if you're let's just go. with it's a man who's a defendant. because that's the case here you can. bring a defamation lawsuit if you're a. man who gets sued for sexual harassment. and you feel this is defamatory and it's. untrue. You you we're not saying you can. never bring a claim, but we are going to.

raise the evidence that is required of. you to prove a defamation claim to to. proving that that sorry, you were going. to raise uh yeah that the defamation. standard is going to require you to. prove that her claims were brought with. malice. Is that is that how it works? >> The change was this because they're both. public figures. The standard was always. going to be malice. Baldoni would always. have to show that she. >> Well, in the in the Baldon case, like.

for civilians, >> it conformed it to be malice because. that's what most anti-SLAP statutes also. use is malice. So, we conformed them all. to use mal so it would be more even. across the board. >> Okay. So, just to make it super clear. for the audience, this is confusing. I'm. sorry. If you're a civilian, you're. meaning you're not a public figure and. you file a claim for defamation against. somebody because they said something. publicly that was very nasty and untrue. about you, you generally don't have to. prove malice to recover for defamation. Um, you can prove that it was false um. and that they said it publicly and that.

it, you know, hurt you that there are. damages as a result. But you don't have. to prove this higher burden of and they. said it with malice, which generally. means with knowledge that it was false. or with reckless disregard for whether. it was true or false. I would have to. prove that if I sued anybody for. defamation because I'm a public figure. So I'm very hard to defame. And believe. it or not, this is a good thing. I don't. love it. This is a good thing in America. because we believe in free speech and we. don't want people to easily be able to. start slapping everybody with defamation.

lawsuits and chilling their speech. So. we really do require a lot before you. can recover. And that's a good thing. But and in this case, Blake Lively would. have had to show, let me reverse it. again. I'm getting confused myself. Justin Baldoni would have had to show. malice on on Blake's part anyway because. Blake is a public figure or because. Justin's a public figure. So, he can't. sue anybody for defamation either unless. he proves malice. But in any event, the. statute requires that everybody in this. situation have to prove malice. So, you. put malice in there. And that is one of. it's important because it's one of the.

things they were arguing over yesterday. Who has to prove the malice? Does like. Blake in recovering her fees have to. prove that she didn't file the sexual. harassment claim maliciously? Or does. Justin have to prove that she did file. the lawsuit maliciously, which is why. he's suing her for defamation? Now, let. me just table all that because it's a. complex legal debate that people aren't.

going to really fully understand. they. are going to understand that you as the. architect of the law who believes in. this law came forward and made this post. yesterday which I found interesting too. and you wrote first you write I thought. my bill um I never thought my bill would. be in the eyes of a storm with all eyes. watching as the architect of the bill I. strongly believe in the. constitutionality of my bill because. that was one of the things Baldon's team. argued like not even sure this is. constitutional um and then he wrote. unhappy with it being weaponized as a PR.

redemption tool by Blake Lively and her. team. Honestly, I don't think the judge. should grant attorneys fees in this. matter. So, why do you think it's being. weaponized as a PR redemption tool by. Lively and team? >> I received a communication from her. attorney that mentioned that Blake was. going to be moving 47.1. nationally, >> that she wanted your law to become a. national law. >> She is aware. they would be aware that.

I've already moved it to four states. It's been now enacted in four states and. I have introduced it in 15 states this. legislative session. So, I have for. years been working on moving it. nationwide. I acquired three extra. states last year and I'm moving forward. with different states. It takes multiple. years for different states, but I. received a communication from her. attorney that Blake was intending to now. move 47.1 nationwide, including she. would be moving it to New York. And I.

responded, um, I'm already doing that and can you. please check with me before going. forward because my whole strategy was to. fly this under the radar because we. basically usually don't have much. opposition. And I said, "There's often. times your client is compared to Amber. Heard." And so I would prefer you check. with me and just stick with like. mentioning the California part without. mentioning it's being moved nationwide. because I was worried that this is going.

to become just a PR campaign. for her and it wasn't going to be about. survivors anymore. It was going to be. about like I didn't want her to turn my. bill into the Met Gala. >> Yeah. Right. So well said. And so what. did what was their response? >> I from what I understand is her attorney. wrote me back and said, "Thank you for. your perspective and that she still move. forward without me being included in. additional communications and meetings. about moving the bill in New York." It.

came to light that this spring her. attorney was having meetings that I was. unaware of with one of the advocacy. groups. once a week where she was assisting in. reddrafting the bill and I understood. that she added or contributed to an. additional paragraph and I kept asking. to see the additional paragraph. It was. never sent to me, but I understood it. was something to protect the attorneys.

who would be um you know like the. equivalent of like Blake's attorney. And. so I asked for that portion to be. removed from the bill language because I. felt the, you know, focus should be on. survivors purely because attorneys have. insurance. and I wasn't. >> right. Like why why drag them into it? >> I wasn't understanding why she was part. of the conversation. and I wasn't. >> and so. what is it about this particular case. that makes you think Blake should not.

get attorney's fees under 47.1? Well, for two points, I was like, last year. when it was dismissed, it was dismissed. procedurally. So, I wasn't understanding. if if the case is dismissed, how are you. awarding damages when a jury hasn't. heard or a judge hasn't heard the facts, whether or not malice is there? So, I. was confused like how can you award it. without, you know, factf finding? And I. was also confused cuz initially when I. heard the settlement had been reached, I.

was like, "Okay, that's off the table. They're done with this now." And I. thought for sure they would have. resolved that as well during that. settlement. And then to hear us. continuing on it, I was puzzled by that. So in other words, Justin's got to prove. that she behaved maliciously in bringing. this lawsuit in order to recover for. defamation. And you were wondering like. when did that happen? Because as I said. in the intro, both of their claims got.

dismissed on the papers. Her her sexual. harassment claim and his defamation. claim. And there's been no proof of. malice one way or the other. >> As I understand, her sexual harassment. claims have been dismissed. So I was a. little bit confused why this is still. pending and ongoing. So, I was concerned about these. >> and how did you how did you envision it? Cuz this seemed to be something the. judge was really wrestling with. yesterday. He's like he was kind of like. you're back. Didn't you like didn't you.

settle this case and like we we decided. not to do this and we didn't impanel a. jury which I would normally use to. determine something like malice and like. damages awards and we actually didn't. even go forward with certifying experts. which is what you'd also do before a. trial. you'd have an expert witness. certified. Um, and he said, "We didn't. do any of that because you said you were. settling the case." So, I don't even. have expert witnesses that I can call or. whose testimony I can look to and. there's no jury here to evaluate. So,

tell me how you envisioned and and he. says the case is over. So, like. shouldn't this have been handled before. I dismissed the case? So, how did you. envision this, you know, this would have. gone down? How should this have gone. down? In my opinion, if the case is. dismissed on a different basis, it stops. at that point where it is dismissed and. the procedural point and it went away. and it should not continue after the. case has been dismissed the damages. part. >> So if she wanted to file this motion,

she should have done it in your view. prior to the dismissal of the case. >> Well, it she had used as a defense. She. had used multiple defenses to my. understanding. The first was a. procedural one about where she spoke the. communication happened to be in a. privilege um place and that's what she. >> filing a human right uh human rights. campaign or complaint with the. California um HR group. >> right and that defense does not include. attorney fees and her second defense was.

47.1 which does include attorney fees. trouble actual damages and potential. punitive punitive is not guaranteed it's. potential So that would be but my. understanding if he dismissed it under. one completely and chose not to discuss. it because Judge Lyman chose not to. discuss it. Um number two he did not say. I'm dismissing it for three reasons. He. said I'm dismissing it for one. So I thought we're one and done then. But then here we are.

Do you think this is about her trying to. look like the victor when, you know, clearly they settled for no money and. people pointed that out and she took a. bit of a PR black eye? >> Well, I have a bit of a concern that. this bill is really meant to protect. survivors who are having meritless cases. brought against them when they don't. have money to defend themselves. And it. was supposed to make someone discouraged. from bringing forward a meritless suit. And I do worry about my bill being.

misused and for, you know, just for PR. and what it could be gained from that. when it it really matters so much to. survivors to be able to have these. protections that so many of her claims. were dismissed. I'm just I I'm at a loss. for words. >> Mhm. Because my understanding was the. thinking behind 47.1 was a lot of these. women have no resources, no power, no.

connections, and in so many. circumstances, they're going after a man. who has far more power, more resources, and more connections than they do. So, it's a it's almost like a David and. Goliath situation. And this was an. attempt by you to try to even that out a. little bit so that women, it could be a. man again, but like generally women. wouldn't feel so scared to stand up for. their rights. But in this situation, she is the one who has more power, more.

money, more connections, can afford. lawyers way more easily than Justin. Baldon can, and he managed to get her. entire claim against him thrown out. So, it's like there is a real question about. whether the fundamental purpose of 47.1. to allow the fees and the trouble. damages and the punitives has any. application here whatsoever. You you. nailed it, Megan, about the concern for. most survivors is that these can be. these a lot of times they're weaponized.

defamation lawsuities used to silence. them because when someone receives it, they realize it might take five, six or. seven figures to defend in multiple. years and it's always cheaper to go. quiet. So the concern was if you have to. go forward and defend it and you. prevail, then only if you prevail to. show that you did not have malice, you. would recover your attorney fees. So at. least you'd be made whole in any damages. that you might had like missing work or.

something to that effect. And also the. purpose that I believed in was to. incentivize attorneys to take these very. difficult cases. And you know, so that's. been my main concern with the bill. >> And when you say you prevail, I imagine. her lawyers will say, "Well, she did. prevail because she got the defamation. case against her dismissed." Is that not. good enough? >> For 47.1, it would not be. You would. have to show malice in order to um. receive any attorney fees. That would. have to be established.

And right now, we have not seen that. It. would have to be argued or a whole new. case. And I don't know how you make a. lie of a case that was dead. >> Who would have to show malice by whom? >> In this circumstance, the plaintiff, Valdoni, would have to show that Blake. was motivated by malice, did this with. malice behind her sexual harassment. lawsuit. So, if he's able to show that. she had a motivation other than her. concerns for sexual harassment, if you.

know, if he can't show, you know, she. did this maliciously and she honestly. believed this was happening to her, then. she would potentially prevail. But if he. is able to show that she had ulterior. motives or some other definition of. malice behind her wanting to go forward. with this, you know, sexual harassment. case, then he would prevail. >> Got it. And then this is back to the.

problem of they they never had testimony. on this. They haven't had a hearing. They haven't had a trial. >> So it's like she just wants this. reimbursement. My own belief is to make. it look like she won something from him. even though she walked away for not even. one dollar and she took a PR hit because. everybody said it's it's basically an. admission that she has no claim. She. knows she's going to lose if she goes. forward to trial. So last question. If. if the judge in this case Judge Lyman is. listening to this um what do you want. him to know?

>> I would say use hesitation on awarding. something that has not had fact proven. of malice. you would still have to go. forward and listen to that because that. was the intention of the bill. >> and to do it in this case I would. suggest can undermine survivors as. opposed to advance their cause. >> It it is interesting. The whole purpose. was to protect survivors that were in a. place of being silenced because they had. no power. >> Yeah. And and that's not Blake Lively.

>> Yeah. Well, I thank you for coming on. and and explaining your post. It's been. fascinating and I know uh we'll see he. he didn't seem like he was getting ready. to strike down the constitutionality of. your bill. That that's that's probably a. challenge that some California judge. will get to deal with on another day. But my own take on it was this judge. does not seem inclined to let her go. down this particular lane. Victoria, all. the best. >> Thank you, Megan. >> Yeah, thanks for telling your story, too, and for doing something about it. Our friends from MK True Crime react.

next. and we take [music] up the Henry. Novak case as well. Stand by. 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. Megan megnancell.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. You're busy, but let me. tell you about Daily Look. It is the. number one highest rated premium. personal styling service for women. Daily Look is a gamecher, ladies. You.

get your own dedicated personal stylist. to curate a box of clothes based on your. body shape, preferences, and lifestyle. I mean, a real personal stylist, not an. algorithm. And you get the same stylist. every time to build continuity. She. knows what's already in the closet that. the two of you are building together. So, head to dailyook.com and use the. code Megan to get 50% off your first. order. You can try on up to 12 premium. pieces per box in the comfort of your. home, saving you time and effort.

Whether you need something effortlessly. chic for spring brunch or a polished. look for the office or school drop offs, Daily Look has got you covered. Buy what. you love, send back the rest. You will. get free shipping both ways. It's time. to get your own personal stylist with. Daily Look. Head to dailyook.com to take. your style quiz and use the code Megan. for 50% off your first order. Once. again, that's dailyook.com for 50% off. And make sure you use our promo code. Megan so that they know we sent you. One. last time, dailyook.com, promo code.

Megan. Here to react to the Baldonian. lively saga, plus all the other major. legal news, including this McKenzie. [music]. Sharilla case that it seems everyone is. talking about are attorneys and hosts of. the MK True Crime Show, Phil Holloway. and Ashley Merchant. Go and subscribe on. YouTube and all podcast platforms at. mktrime.com. They are fresh off a trip to Crime Con. in Las Vegas over the weekend. That's. why we had to wait until Tuesday to get. them on because Monday they everyone was. in bed. Oh yes. Um [laughter] welcome.

guys. Great to see you. Uh very. interesting to have the architect of the. law come out and say it's being misused. by Blake Lively here. She has no. business bringing this Ashley. And. interesting detail on how Blake Lively's. team reached out to her. >> Oh yeah. to try to work with with Blake. who wants to be the one to spearhead. taking this national so she can bathe. herself in stolen glory wi-i which is my. guests not hers this is exactly what we.

thought she was doing she is using this. for publicity she wants this case to. drag on and on so she can remain. relevant it's not shocking and it's. that's exactly what your last guest was. telling us you know she wants to go on. this public tour where she's taking over. this law, this law that had a very good. purpose, you know, a good basis, was. actually there to try to level the. playing field. And that's really what. attorneys fees do. You know, attorneys. fees clauses in these statutes, they're. really for one of two purposes. It's. either to curb really, really bad.

conduct, which is why we see that malice. language in this law, or it's to really. make the level playing field. And that's. what your last guest was talking about. You know, it's really hard for survivors. to find lawyers to take these cases. And. so they want to sort of level this. playing field, give a little bit more. incentive to lawyers to take these. cases. That's not what we have here. We. have Blake Lively who is definitely. misusing this law, trying to remain. relevant, trying to remain in the. headlines as desperately as she can. She. just needs to walk away at this point.

>> Yeah. You know, Phil, it becomes really. clear if you think about something like. the Duke lacrosse case, you know, where. Crystal Mangum, the the alleged victim. in that case, made the whole thing up. and we know that, you know, she's. admitted it. But she had these three. lacrosse players very much in the. crosshairs. They were charged criminally. with rape. I mean, it was about as. serious as a heart attack. And you know, that's why the law is controversial that. Victoria put through because those guys. would absolutely in in a civil matter if.

she sued them have said, "We're we're. 100% counter claiming against you for. defamation.". And they would have under her bill. potentially recovered if they could. prove she filed her claims against them. with malice. Now, those guys would have. had zero problem proving that because. she made the whole thing up. What what. what other motive could there be? Of. course, it was malicious. Baldoni is if. this if he's actually forced by this. judge to have some sort of an. evidentiary hearing or like posttrial.

trial. I don't even know what they're. suggesting. The judge didn't either. He. would have to prove that break that. Blake brought this maliciously. I. actually think he could do it too. >> You know, Megan, in law school, there's. a class titled Annoying Cases and. Annoying Litigants should just go away. And I think that's where this case is. now. This is now in the realm of utter. ridiculousness. Lively is, as others. have said, in my opinion on a fake uh. victory tour. You know, this whole thing.

about this treble damages statute. Um, as Ashley kind of pointed out, it can. over complicate things and sometimes. people commit sexual harassment and. sometimes people falsely accuse others. of it. And you know, anytime you have. these treble damages statutes, you just. invite this kind of weaponization. But. let me just say this about the what I. thought was a settlement. I heard our. friends Matt Murphy and Mark Geros doing. a a great segment on their program on. the MK True Crime Channel about this.

settlement, and I thought, great, this. case is over. But apparently, it's not. Apparently, we're going to have to have. another trial uh about the settlement. So, uh, I was always taught that when. you negotiate and draft a settlement, you're supposed to settle everything. It. should be complete. You should have. complete releases of all of these things. so that these kinds of complicated. questions would not remain because you. don't really get the benefit of having a. settlement if you still have to keep. going back to court over and over again.

Even as the trial judge has recently. said to Lively's attorneys, you know, they've said, "Look," he said, "look, your client just has the power to just. make this go away." And I think even the. judge, quite frankly, is getting a. little bit sick of this case. And I. think we all are just ready for it to be. over with. Maybe they can reach some. kind of secondary compromise, and this. time get the settlement done, right? sign a complete release and just have. these people who clearly hate each other. just go their separate ways.

>> I know she doesn't have a claim and she. knows it. She's trying to turn a a loss. into a victory based on these exorbitant. claims for attorney's fees times three. And the judge yesterday, Ashley, just. reading the tea leaves here, does not. seem inclined to give her what she. wants. He first he asked um what he was. asking like what well what happens if. the sexual harassment claim has been. thrown out as as he as he did in this. case like she she didn't prevail on her. sexual harassment case. So like how does.

that factor in? Then there was the. question of he he was saying aren't the. defendants entitled to a jury trial on. the damages issue? Like you want me to. just come in here and and what what is. the judge supposed to treble? He's. supposed to treble, meaning triple her. actual damages from his defamation. claim, >> right? And. >> what what is that? >> And the amount we have no idea. >> Yeah, we don't. And we also have I mean. we've got a constitution that says it. can't be excessive and it sounds like. what she's asking for is excessive. I. think what you have with this judge is. you have a judge that knows what he.

wants to do and he literally left the. court and told his law clerks, figure. out how I can get rid of this. That is. what he's doing because he knows he. wants to make it right. He knows that. this is ridiculous. He knows, like Phil. said, all of the claims should have been. settled and, you know, they probably all. imagined they were settled or close. thereof and he just wants it to go away. because quite frankly, there's other. things that they need to do. And cases. like this are why we can't have a good. functioning legal system where we can. have cases that actually go to court in. a timely fashion. And he's probably just.

frustrated, like most of America is. frustrated at Blake Lively continuing on. this path when she needs to just walk. away. And I think that's what we're. going to see him do. I think we're going. to see this judge try somehow to get, you know, say, "Hey, this needs to go to. another court. This need, you know, this. isn't right." Something to get. >> I agree with you. He did not seem. inclined to indulge this nonsense at. all. He was like, "How isn't this a. matter for the jury? There's no jury. because you settled. The case is done. I. already told you to go away. I dismissed. her sexual harassment claim on a 12v6.

motion. Whatever. I dismissed her claim. earlier. How is she supposed to prove. damages now that we don't have a trial? Do you want me to have a mini trial. after I've already dismissed the case? Wouldn't they be entitled to a jury and. not a judge to hear? Like he is raising. all these very practical concerns and. also the question of frankly is this law. even constitutional? I mean obviously. Victoria Burke argues for her law and I. understand why. But there is a real. question about whether you can muzzle. defendants. Again, think about the Duke.

Lacrosse defendants. Like why would they. have to prove malice in that case? Why? They would argue, "What do you mean? She's a civilian. We're civilians. We're. not public figures. That's not the. standard set out by New York Times v. Sullivan. I should be able to bring a. defamation. I should not be burdened or. hampered or deterred from bringing a. valid defamation case simply because the. person who's defaming me, instead of. saying like, "I'm a rude jerk who. doesn't pay his bills," is saying. something even worse, which is that I. raped her. like how does that make the.

burden on me higher in my cross claim. for defamation? So, that's going to play. out at some point, but I don't think. it's going to happen in front of this. judge. I think some California judge or. maybe some judge in one of these other. states where she's getting the laws. spread will have to deal with that. I do. predict Blake Lively is going to be. severely disappointed on this one. And. it's looking like yet another big loss. for her. Okay, I want to keep going. Um, Carmemelllo Anthony, the case I. mentioned in our in our intro, uh, out. of Texas, this young black teenager who.

goes to a track meet at another school. and bumps into a young white teenager. named Austin Metaf. There were something. like between nine and 12 schools on site. for this big track meet. And Carmemelllo. Anthony for one reason or another, it's. still not clear to me which what the. reason was, winds up under the tent that. where the Austin Metaf school was. hanging and someone told him to leave. Certainly at some point Austin said.

leave and he had a bag and he allegedly. said to Austin, make me and grab the. bag. And Austin did place hands on him. allegedly in some way to remove him. Um, and he pulled out a knife and stabbed. Austin Mechaf in the heart, killing him. within minutes. He didn't even live to. the hospital. His he died in the arms of. his identical twin. He was a football. star. He was on his way to college. He.

had his entire life in front of him. and. it was snuffed out in an incredibly. stupid, pointless instant. And now they. are picking a jury in Texas, Phil. And. it appears pretty clear from what little. we've heard from the defense team for. Carmelo Anthony that they are going to. argue this was self-defense. I presumably because Austin Metaf did. apparently, we believe as of today, lay.

hands on Carmemelllo Anthony after. Carmelo told him, "Make me." You. >> Yeah. Well, the defendant in this case. started setting up his defense u pretty. much immediately because the police. reports uh quote him as saying things. like, "I was protecting myself." Um and. he said, quote, "He put his hands on me. I told him not to." So yeah, he's he's. setting up for some type of a. justification or selfdefense. type of defense to the crime. But here's.

the problem for him. You can't be the. person who instigates any type of a. altercation or you can't provoke this. type of confrontation and then legally. or properly avail yourself of. self-defense. you know, um you can. defend yourself clearly if someone. wrongfully puts their hands on you, but. you're not allowed to just use more. force than is necessary anyway. But I I. do think that going back to what I.

believe are the facts of this case that. show that Carmelo Anthony was the uh. person who started this whole thing, I I. don't think he's legally going to be. able to prevail on a claim of. self-defense if if we have a fair jury. And of course, that's something I know. we're going to talk about because you've. got people outside the courthouse now. that are protesting in favor of both. sides, and you've got to wonder uh is. this a case where you're going to have a. jury um that is pure and that can reach. a a proper decision.

>> Well, the the particular. jurisdiction where this is going to be. held, Colin County, uh 2024 election. results, interestingly, went 54% for. Trump, 43% for Harris. It's 54% white. It's 0.7% black, 16% Hispanic or Latino, 18% uh Indian, it says. I don't know if. they mean Asian or American. Um but it's. predominantly white. And so, you know,

you're probably going to have a jury. that reflects that general makeup. Um, not sure exactly how that will play, but. certainly should play better than the OJ. trial played in uh, Los Angeles for, you. know, a jury that was predominantly. minority and had a grudge against the. cops. Um, Phil mentions the thing about. provoking Ashley. The thing is, Carmelo. Anthony could argue that he was provoked. by potentially by Austin putting hands. on him. Number one, Phil's right. The.

force you use after somebody lays hands. on you cannot be disproportionate. deadly force cannot be used just because. somebody places hands on you. Even if. it's a push or a shove or like a try to. pushing you out of the tent, that's not. going to work. But but even let's say. he's going to say, "I thought he had a. weapon or something like that." That the. if you provoked him into laying those. hands on you, you can't win on a. self-defense defense. >> Right. Right. It's going to be a very. difficult case for the defense. Um, I.

think we have a little bit of a hint as. to what they're going to argue in some. of the statements. He hasn't made a lot. of statements, but the defense lawyer. did make a statement that I've looked at. a couple times. He said something about. the state's not going to be able to. disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that. this was self-defense. So, I think even. he has recognized that this isn't what. we would call a perfect self-defense. It's a very messy self-defense, but I. think he's going to put it up anyway. And honestly, I don't think he has a. whole a lot of other options other than. for him to, you know, present this to. the prosecution and plea for mercy,

which is what he should have done. because he murdered this kid. I mean, he. definitely murdered this this poor child. who should be graduating high school and. getting ready to go off to college. Um, you know, should be enjoying his last. summer before college and instead his. parents are mourning his loss. I mean, it is murder and I don't think a jury is. going to cut him any sympathy. the fact. that he walked up to this tent where, you know, this is a you got to think. about the situation. It's a it's a track. meet where there's lots of different. tents. Everybody is there under their.

own school's tent. We look at it through. a race lens, but these are events where. you don't really go up to, you know, your opponent and go and hang out with. them. Yeah. Like you don't do that. You. don't go. >> You say get out, >> right? Like that's I mean that's not. racist. >> Try going to a Giants game and sitting. on the wrong side. This happens at every. sporting event. >> That's exactly what I'm thinking. It's. like you're going in the the locker room. of your opponent and being like, "Hey, let's hang out." What do you expect? And. so, you know, if this guy laid hands on. him, so I mean, laying hands on him does. not mean that this kid was in reasonable.

fear of an immediate bodily injury, a. serious bodily injury. You can't just be. scared that you're going to get pushed. You have to be scared that you're going. to die or you're literally going to lose. your limbs or something super super. significant. And you know the law, all. the different reasonable doubt laws in. all the different states are always. debated and they have little nuances. You know, do we use the word reasonable? Do we use objective stuff like that? Juries don't care. They don't care about. that. They know what self-defense is and. they know what it's not. And you know, they're going to apply their common. sense and they're going to know that. this kid did not need to be under this.

tent and they're going to know that he. did not need to pull out a knife when it. whether or not this guy put hands on him. or not, that did not warrant him pulling. out a knife. Why did he have a knife in. the first place? I mean, that's if I was. on the jury, that's what I would want to. know. What did his parents teach him to. bring a knife to a track meat? A high. school track meet. >> He went there looking for trouble. >> And how could Austin Mechaf had have. ever anticipated that? That like you're. not these kids are anticipating at most. a fist fight or like some shoving, but. like not a knife in the heart. immediately. And that's what they said.

Here's here's what the police report. says. Police officer Cortez Eduardo, I. gave the suspect, meaning Carmemelllo. Anthony, instructions to keep his hands. in the air during this time. time the. suspect said verbally out loud, "I was. protecting myself." While the suspect. sat on the ground, I advised that I had. the alleged suspect. The suspect then. responds and says, "I'm not alleged. I. did it." As we were walking to the squad. car, the suspect was emotional and said, "He put his hands on me. I told him not. to." It should also be noted that the.

suspect asked me, "Is he going to be. okay?" while he was in the back seat. The suspect was crying hysterically, says another police officer. And one. other police officer writes um that. writes that a witness told him Austin. had told Anthony he needed to move out. from under the team's tent. Anthony. grabbed his bag, opened it, reached. inside, and proceeded to tell Austin, "Touch me and see what happens." No one. really thought Anthony really had any. weapons in his bag, and Austin proceeded. to touch Anthony. Then Anthony told.

Austin to punch him and see what. happens. A short time later, Austin. grabbed Anthony to tell him to move. Anthony pulled out what the witness. recalled as a black knife and stabbed. Austin once in the chest and then ran. Austin began grabbing his chest and. telling everyone to get help. He was. dead shortly thereafter. There's more. I. want to tell you about an allegation. already of jury tampering because. they're in the midst of selecting the.

jury by the defendants team or its. supporters. We'll explore that right. after this break. Don't go away. Missed. calls and slow follow-ups are silent. killers. That is how businesses leave. money on the table without even. realizing it. That's why today's episode. is brought to you by Quo, spelled Quo, the business communications system built. so that you never miss a call. Your. entire team can handle calls and texts. from one shared number, meaning no more.

dropped conversations. Everyone sees the. full thread, replies are faster, and. your customers actually feel. prioritized. Quo works wherever you are. on your phone or computer. You keep your. existing number. You add teammates in. minutes and sync your CRM effortlessly. It's currently the number one rated. business phone system on G2. Trusted by. over 90,000 businesses to stay. professional and reachable. Everything. you need is in one clean view. It gives. your team the full context needed to. provide a personalized experience every.

single time. Money's on the line. Say. hello with Quo. Try Quo for free. Plus, get 20% off your first six months when. you go to quo.commk. That's quo.commk. Back with me now, Phil Holloway and. Ashley Merchant. And joining all of us. is [music] the third co-host over at the. MK True Crime Show that uh Ashley and. Phil host, Dave Arinberg. You can go and. subscribe and listen to all their great. legal content at mktrime.com.

Dave, welcome to the party. Uh so we are. in the midst of talking about Carmelo. Anthony and this case against him. What. we've seen so far is um. the defendant again who is black. The. victim is white is. not him directly but through his. surrogates trying to make this about. race. There is a pernitious man. connected to the Carmelo Anthony family. um whose name is uh standby. I have it.

here. Dominique Alexander. And Dominique. Alexander has been making irresponsible. statements all along about race in this. case. And now Dominique is under the. same gag order the rest of the. witnesses, parties, lawyers, etc. are, but does not seem to be abiding by it. Um, last June, just as a reminder, this. guy Carmelo an Carmemelllo Anony's. spokesperson, that's how he describes. himself, do Dominic Alexander, uh, of.

the Next Generation Action Network, uh, his name is Dominique, but he's a man. Last June, he asked supporters to stand. with Carmelo Anthony and family in the. fight against white supremacy after. Carmelo Anthony was indicted. There is. zero evidence that this has to do with. race. Zero. Um, and now let me give you. guys a flavor for what he's doing this. week. Monday, this guy who's under the. gag order tweets out on his ex feed uh, as the trial begins, it's imperative.

that the public receives facts and not. incomplete narratives, etc. For months, many media outlets and commentators have. repeatedly described this case as an. altercation between Carmelo Anthony and. Austin Metaf. However, public statements. and reporting following the incident. have indicated that there were three. individuals involved in the encounter. Carmemelllo Anthony, Austin Medaf, and. Hunter Medaf. Well, that's new that the identical twin. was somehow involved in the altercation.

Why does that matter? He writes, "Because facts matter. Accuracy matters. Context matters. In America, every. person is entitled to a fair trial. And. that requires the public to understand. the facts as they're presented, not as. they're simplified for headlines. I. mean, the question I have, Dave, is if. if Hunter was involved, why didn't. Carmelo Anthony mentioned that at any. point? Why isn't that in the police. report from any independent witness? And. they spoke with a lot of them. Nobody. said that Austin, the identical twin, was anywhere near this actual.

altercation, though he was there in time. to hold his dying twin brother in his. arms. >> Such a tragedy, Megan. And what you can. say in the court of public opinion is a. lot broader than what you can say in. court. So they're not going to be able. to use that as a defense. But there is a. gag order as you correctly said. And. because there's a gag order, I think. this guy could be sanctioned because the. gag order applies to the family and to. those who speak for the family. So he's. in a slight gray area. He's going to. probably say that he is totally.

independent. He has first amendment. rights, but it does seem like he has. some connection to the family. If that's. the case, then he could be sanctioned by. the court. >> Yeah, we did look it up and uh per the. local CBS outlet, they write that this. gag order does explicitly extend to. family members and those who speak on. behalf of families. And that's how this. guy has been describing him all along. himself. He also went on on Monday to. say the following, write the following. As the trial approaches, we know there.

will be falsehoods, misconceptions, misinformation, and outside noise. surrounding this case. Yes, we do know. that because you're doing it, Dominique. But the Next Generation Action Network. remains focused on one truth. Rights are. not just for some, they're for everyone. Due process is not just for certain. people. A fair trial is not just for. certain communities. Phil, they are. getting ready to play the race card and. they're going to play it hard. >> Well, they're not getting ready to. They.

already are. And you know, here's the. thing. He's not wrong. I mean, everybody. has a right to a fair trial. Of course, the defendant, the accused person always. has a right to a fair trial, but as. we've talked about on on our show, Megan, uh the public at large has. rights, too, when it comes to trials. And the public, the community, the. citizens of any jurisdiction or a state, they are always themselves collectively. victims anytime a crime is committed.

That's why indictments end with the. language such as uh these actions are. against the good order, peace and. dignity of the state and things like. that. So the public has a right to a. fair trial. And so that means you have a. right to a jury that is not tampered. with. You have a right to a jury that. can walk into and out of a courthouse. every day without being blasted by. protesters uh with agendas. And I'm. talking about protesters for either. side. The jury is unfortunately going to.

have to be sequestered in this case. because otherwise uh honestly I think. that you have the real risk of the. jurors themselves being intimidated. They may feel that if they don't vote a. certain way that somehow uh they can be. threatened or otherwise put in some type. of jeopardy. So we've got to make sure. this judge protects the jury. And I. think he will because the judge seems to. be no nonsense. He's reminding the. jurors, uh, for example, that, you know, if they talk about the case, if they. research the case, they can be fined,

held in contempt, and he's warning them, do not violate my orders. And the same, I think, can be held true for the. judge's warning to those who violate his. order to not tamper with this jury. >> Megan, I want to follow up on that. >> So, there's an allegation of tampering. I'm going to give you the floor. Uh, but. let me just give fill that out because I. I teased it. Um there's an independent. journalist named Sarah Fields who. weirdly was targeted by Carmelo's. anony's family early on um in this case. They didn't like her reporting on it. It's like what? She's entitled to report.

on it. We're all entitled to report. That's how this works. In any event, she. was in the courtroom for the first day. of jury selection yesterday. And she. reported the following quote, "I. witnessed sheriff deputies escorting an. African-American woman out of the. courthouse hallway. She was wearing a. pink shirt with lace sleeves. Carmemelllo's supporters were wearing. purple and pink. Uh, deputies were. accusing her of jury tampering. I later. learned she was allegedly connected to.

the Anthony family and had reportedly. been caught recording members of the. jury pool. We haven't seen any more. reporting on it than that, Ashley, but. that that would be a hard no to be. videotaping members of the jury pool to. possibly what? Follow up with them later. to see, you know, to pressure them to do. something else. Who knows, >> right? And that's going to backfire. I. mean, if there if it's members of. Anony's family or his supporters that. are doing this to the jurors, the jurors. are going to feel uncomfortable, and. that's definitely going to translate. back in that jury room. They're going to.

all feel that. Um, I wanted to follow up. on Phil's point because I think it's one. of the best points um about this these. people that are really tampering and. really violating the gag order. It's. going to result in sequestration. That's. what the judge is going to end up having. to do. the more that they we have these. falsehoods that are tweeted out and we. have people trying to make this about. white supremacy when it's not and trying. to just really ignite anger and violence. on the street there and you know infect. the jury with that. What's the result? The result's going to be sequestration. And what happens when we have. sequestration? We have a jury that is.

much more likely to convict. There's. tons of studies on that. You sequester a. jury. Yes. You sequester a jury and they. work stronger together as a block and. there's a lot less likelihood of any. disscent. So if you had a hold out for. example, they're going to be much more. likely to all work together because they. start working as a unit. They get up in. the morning as a unit. They eat together. as a unit all their meals. So they. become more of a unit and there's a lot. of studies that that is way more um. prosecution than pro-defense. So as the. defense, we always argue against that.

We don't want sequestration. >> Yeah. Dave is the former prosecutor's. like, "What's wrong with me?" Yeah. >> Well, the the other part of it is that. the jurors want to go home. So they're. likely to say, "Okay, fine. I I'll go. along with the group with the majority. Just go let me go home to my family. >> What would you do, Dave, if you if you. walked into a courthouse for a an. explosive case like this? I mean, for. sure, this is a very, very hot case. where they've already injected race. I. mean, I'm mentioning this guy, Dominique. Alexander, because he's been all over. the place. The family hired him. He's.

not just like some, you know, friend. who's like piping off on his own. The. family hired him. This is early on in. this case. I'm going to play this and. I'm going to show you what's happening. outside the courthouse this week. Um he. got out there on April 17th, 2025. This. is right after it happened. And gave a. presser and Carmemelllo Anony's mom is. right behind him as he's doing this. nonsense. Watch and listen to ST 10. >> Black people in America, while the current occupant. sits at 1600 Pennsylvania, black people.

in America don't have to pull the race. card, is what we live as a reality every. day. is what we have to teach our children. We don't want to, but we have to. We don't like to, but if we want to. sleep at night, we got to. I ain't pulling no race card. I live it. I'm reminded all the time that I'm a.

black man in America. >> Oh, Lord. All right. So, we had that and. we There's a bunch of those, by the way. We could spend the next half an hour of. me playing Dominique Alexander and his. racial grievances. On behalf of the. family, for listening audience, the mom. and the dad of Carmelo Anthony are. holding each other behind him, listening. to all of that. Obviously fine with it. Now, you show up to be a jury and of. course it starts as a jury pool. Everybody's been there. You get the. summons to appear for jury service and. you show up. You're a potential juror. until you're actually selected. That's. what they're doing this week. And this.

is what they see here. Sat five outside. of the court. I decree. IS FREE. I don't. I. >> Okay. Um there's that. There's. protesters, well supporters for Austin. Metaf as well. We've got video here of. they're outside. They have a large. banner and their banner reads Justin for.

Austin Metaf, which seems pretty benign, but I declare, I decree, Carmemelllo. Anthony is free. Not even sure what that. means, but this is what the jury is. going to have to walk through. All the. jury pool members understanding this is. like the gauntlet that's going to await. them and and telegraphing. There's extra. scrutiny on this case. You're going to. get it. You're going to get it either. way. So, what do you do as the. prosecutor or the defense attorney in. that situation? Well, the judge issued. the gag order, but you can only do so.

much because people have the First. Amendment right. But you want to at. least keep the protesters far enough. away from the courthouse where they. don't intimidate the jurors. You know, you saw this also in the Karen Reed. case. You had all these people wearing. pink in solidarity with Karen Reed. And. it's hard to argue that it doesn't. affect the jurors. Those jurors have to. go home to that community and they're. going to have to answer to their. neighbors why they found the beloved. defendant guilty. And so that's why it. is tough. It's intimidating and judges. can only do so much with gag orders and.

orders of removing people from the. courthouse a certain number of feet. But. ultimately because we have the first. amendment, it is something that. prosecutors fear so much jury. nullification. I think that's what the. defense is hoping for here that even. though the evidence here is really. strong and really there's such a weak. claim of self-defense. You can't take. out a knife and stab someone to death. for pushing you and you can't be the. instigator and then claim self-defense. But you still have the prospect of jury. nullification. We may have seen it in. the OJ Simpson case and we could see it. here.

>> The saying the little chance always. remind me of back in I think it was. 2011. They sent me down to Texas to. cover the indictment of Tom Delay who. was in the Republican majority. leadership and he got indicted for I. think money laundering around his. campaign fund something something. involving the finances and um they they. were protesting and they were chanting. behind me and I remember the anchor I. think it was Chef Smith said what are. they chanting behind you Megan and I was. very serious back then and not at all.

really in touch with my sense of humor. but I remember repeating they are. chanting Tom Delay is a stinker He'll be. headed to the clinker. [laughter] Back. to you, show. And he he was convicted. [laughter]. So they weren't they weren't wrong. >> The power of a local DA. >> So are we all in. >> Yeah. It the power of a local district. or No, you took down the powerful. speaker of the house. Yeah. >> That that's true. Yeah. Well, so are we. all in agreement that Carmemelllo. Anony's.

>> got a very difficult task in front of. him? that lawyer like the odds are. overwhelming that he's going to be. convicted. I don't know. >> I'm concerned about a stealth juror. That's what I'm afraid of. >> You know, we the judge asked. >> like the lady who got them on tape. >> Well, the see the judge asked uh the. entire panel an interesting question. Uh. the judge says despite our flaws, we are. the greatest country in the world. Do. you agree? Yeah. >> Several jurors apparently disagreed. um. reporting is that a few potential jurors.

say that we are not the only great. country and one juror says our country. has a long and complicated history and. so this is a relatively small community. and so what I wonder I don't think. there's going to be jury nullification I. don't think there's going to be an aqu. quiddle but I think the more the more. likely scenario would be a hung jury if. you have one or two people that uh. intentionally sort of work their way. onto that jury by not answering. questions truthfully just so that they.

can outur. what did you make of that? Yeah, go. ahead. >> Sorry. I would argue that would also. still be jury nullification because even. if you have one juror who's hung on. this, it's hard to ignore the evidence. The evidence is what it is. And the only. way in my mind that you would find him. not to be to be not guilty or to be hung. as a hung juror would be saying that I'm. going to ignore the evidence. I'm going. to ignore the law and self-defense and.

I'm going to refuse to go along with the. conviction because I don't like the. direction our country is going. I don't. like the fact that you have a a. defendant who is in a position of of of. being really in a in a state in their. mind where they are the victim, not the. other way around. Did do we have I I am. interested in that judge's question and. and where like where did that come from? That seems like an odd jury question to. me, but I could be wrong. Um, but what. did you make um what do you think the.

where was I? This is an important. question, Ashley, and I just lost it. about. >> um the self-defense claim and how he's. going to argue that he had a reasonable. fear that somebody was coming for him. He's got Oh, I know what it was. Doesn't Carmemelllo Anthony have to. testify? >> Oh, yeah. This is a self-defense. >> He I mean, he doesn't have to have to, but he I mean, if I were his lawyer, I. would tell him, you've got you can't. have a self-defense claim without. testifying. I mean, technically, he. doesn't have to, but he's never going to.

be able to be successful on self-defense. if he doesn't testify. And I think a lot. of the um you know the things that we're. seeing about this being white supremacy. or this being racist is really going to. backfire even if we have a stealth juror. because these people if they're walking. past all of these signs and they're. seeing all this protesting on a daily. basis as the jurors they're expecting. something significant to come out in. that courtroom. And you know jurors. Megan always think that we're hiding. something from them. That's every single. juror I've ever had has always said we. feel like we didn't get the whole story. right we are. I mean we're hiding. unreliable evidence. And so if they see.

that and then they go in and they don't. hear a single word about racism where. there's no evidence of racism, they're. going to be left remaining thinking. where, you know, where is that? Why are. we not hearing that? Um and I think. they're going to hold that against the. defense if the defense because the. defense does there if they present an. evidence, present a defense, they've got. to present some evidence of that. defense, even if they do it through. questioning the state's witnesses. And. the juryy's going to want to hear. something. you know, they're going to. want to hear from proof that this is. racist or that this really was.

self-defense. So, I think they've got a. really uphill battle. >> What do you make of that question, Phil, that you just told us about that the. judge asked the jurors? >> It's it's an odd question. Uh, you know, it's I I wonder if it was something that. the parties agreed upon to have the. judge um answer to ask them. it. Normally judges uh if they're going to. ask questions, it's going to be very. basic things and then you're going to. let the individual lawyers do their do.

their own questioning during the vi the. jury selection process. Um I don't. understand quite frankly where it it. came from. I agree with you, Megan. It. is odd, but it did do one thing. It it. elicited people's opinions uh sort of. about the the state of the of the. nation. And I think if the judge is. trying to flesh out whether there's any. um racial bias on behalf of any of the. jurors because jury selection is. supposed to weed out all bias, including. racial bias. If that was the purpose of.

the question, I think maybe he did get. at some of it, but it's a little bit. vague. Uh I think it was a strange. question. I would not have wanted it. asked if I were the prosecutor or the. defense council in this case because I. really don't understand what it means. And I think in order to get to to what. it means, you're going to have to ask. too many questions. >> It's like a proxy for. >> are you a Republican or a Democrat? I. mean, that's I feel like But are you. allowed to ask that flat out, Dave? Like. when you do Vadier, can you say what.

what's your party registration. >> if a judge allows you to [laughter] do. so? Judges get more discretion than the. party. So I this won't be overturned on. appeal based on the judge's question, but it is surprising when the judge asks. for it. Um, I I I like to push it as far. as until the judge reigns this back in. where you ask like what news outlets do. you watch knowing that if you are a. consumer of Fox News or the Megan Kelly. show, you probably think differently. than someone who's watching MS Now. And. so that's a way to get at it. But the. judge did the work for the parties.

because that that question will elicit. those kinds of answers. My big concern. is not really what the judge asked. I. just want to make sure I hope that the. judge allowed the parties to use their. for cause challenges. Meaning that when. the lawyers try to knock off jurors, they have a certain amount of of what. are called perempter challenges, which. means I can get a jury out for any. reason as long as it's not a bad reason. It's not because of race, etc. Uh I hope. that the judge would allow the parties.

to invoke what's called a for cause. challenge. I'm going to strike that. juror because there's a good reason for. it based on their answer to the judge's. question. As long as that was done. properly, I don't think that an appeals. court will overturn a conviction here. >> I think if you want really wanted to get. to somebody's party affiliation, I mean, you could do so much. You could you. could be like, "How do you feel about. the following like four things? The. color orange, gold, McDonald's, and a.

ball the ballroom. >> You [laughter] can look it up. Whatever. you you. >> we used to just ask people what kind of. bumper stickers they had on their car. I. don't think people really drive around. with bumper stickers nearly as much as. they used to, but that was a good way uh. because seems like people uh who are. inclined to use bumper stickers. They're. either going to be on the far uh left or. the far right. Uh, and so I think that's. a good way. But I think the judge is. honestly, to me, I think he's trying to. to weed out the possibility of people.

who have alter ulterior motives for. trying to get on that jury. That's what. I think. >> Yeah. My favorite bumper sticker ever is. uh it read, "I want to die quietly in my. sleep like my grandpa, not kicking and. screaming like the passengers in his. car." [laughter]. >> Oh, no. >> I've seen that. Terrible. Yeah, you. know, Megan, nowadays when you do jury. selection, you go online immediately and. you look for their social media post. So, you may not even need to ask them. questions. Yeah. You go on their. Facebook and you see, oh, this person.

likes. >> true like so hard to figure it out. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> That's gold. God. Yeah. I was practicing. dark in the back in the dark ages when. we didn't have social media. So, yeah, that's you're right. What a great tool. >> We can see how often they keep going. I. mean, all those things. >> That is so helpful. Um, let's talk about. this. this twit McKenzie Cherilla. >> Have you guys watched this movie yet on. on um Netflix? >> Oh, yeah. We did a show on it last week. It's nuts.

>> It's called The Crash. And it's about. this young woman, Mackenzie Sharilla. from Strongsville, Ohio. and she was. dating, she was in high school. She was. dating this young man and he was in her. car and so was his friend. Her boyfriend. was Dominic Russo. Her the boy the. friend was Davien Flanigan and she. crashed her car. She was driving it. She. was the only one wearing a seatelt. The.

car had been going 100 miles an hour uh. in the early morning hours one day and. she crashed it into some structure. Both. boys died. She was the only one who. lived and again the only one with a with. a seat belt. The car is I mean in. tatters. There's like nothing left to. it. And the this new Netflix show, The. Crash, shows a bit about how things got. very complicated around this, you know,

seemingly just awful car crash very. quickly. Here's a bit from the trailer. 24A. >> That split second. changed all of our lives forever. >> It didn't add up. It was hard to comprehend that she could. just drive into a wall. >> I would never see her purposely wanting. to hurt them. [music].

>> This was clearly a toxic relationship. >> We needed to get a full picture of who. Mackenzie Sharilla was. >> You can go yourself. >> The most significant [music] piece of. evidence. There was no breakin. This was [music] not an accident.

What took place inside that car? [music]. And on top of all that, it's come out. that she was extremely abusive toward. her boyfriend. Verbally abusive and. possibly more than that. Um she was. ultimately convicted. Was it mur? It was murder. Right. She. was convicted of murder uh of both of. these boys and she went away to jail. where she's been for over a year. And.

now we get reports that um first of. [clears throat] all one appeal has. failed but she's pursuing a separate. appeal now that is going to go up to the. Ohio Supreme Court. Um there is a. question about whether she was. adequately assisted by council in. meeting a filing deadline for among. other things. And you know she's only. what 17 years old. She was 17 when she. did this. So, she's been sentenced to. life in prison, but a with a minimum of.

15 years before she can be considered. for parole. So, she could get parole. But the news is not only is she inching. closer to an appeal or actually having. an appeal heard, but the latest drop. shows that her behavior in jail, you. guys, has been absolutely awful. law and. crime was reporting on this and she has. been violating the rules in jail. seemingly every other day. She it's it.

varies from more minor things like like. cinching or like somehow tailoring her. jails sweatshirt so that it's tight and. kind of saucy looking on her which is. not allowed. uh to having video calls. with a woman in which they show each. other their breasts and sex toys um to. provocative behavior with the guards. Uh. raising her voice to the guards, being. extremely nasty to the guards according. to the guards. Um and.

I guess just generally behaving badly. and stealing things. She's accused of. stealing things like from the commissary. and and so on. She denies that. But Law. and Crime and Anette Levy was argu was. interviewing a guy who advises people. who are going to jail on how to behave. And his number one takeaway was don't do. that. That that stuff will all factor. into whether or not you're going to get. parole. As I think she and her family. are convinced, Ashley, that she will. like they think she's in there wrongly. They maintain this was an accident.

She's got some disorder relating to her. blood pressure that causes her to black. out and that's what happened here. and. that she's really just this sweet, misunderstood teenager. >> You hit the nail on the head. Dave and I. had a psychologist on last week and we. got to ask that psychologist to kind of. analyze um McKenzie. And it was. interesting because she had actually. listened to hundreds of hours of jail. calls. And so, especially between the. family, between her parents and her, and. it was really interesting because she.

really blamed the family and said that, you know, that this this girl, I mean, obviously Mackenzie is to blame, but. that the parents had never taught her. consequences and that she really didn't. understand consequences. And I think. that's what we're seeing now. You know, even in jail, she doesn't get it. She. doesn't get consequences. She can't. follow the rules. She can't conform to. behavior. Um, and it's really going to. hurt her when she does go up for parole. because I don't think anybody's letting. her out anytime soon. Although, you. know, I have my opinion on whether or. not she did have good trial counsel. I. think she didn't because they had what's.

called a bench trial instead of a jury. trial. And, you know, you never wave. that. You don't wave a jury trial. I. mean, unless you have some really, really, really good reasons to do that. And so, you know, >> she wasn't likable. >> She was not likable, but at least you. could maybe get a hold out like Phil was. talking about earlier. Maybe you got a. stealth jury. at least it's a chance. where you know this judge I mean she. wasn't likable to the judge she wasn't. she wasn't going to be likable to a jury. um and then they had this POTS defense. you mentioned you know this blood. pressure thing which was just crap. honestly and it was like she'd come up. with it last minute and whispered it to.

her mom hey you know maybe I can get off. if I say I had you know a POTS episode. where it made no sense cuz if you had. pots you wouldn't have the gas pedal. fully depressed and to go 100 miles an. hour you had to literally have the gas. pedal all the way down so I mean it's. just a hot mess it is literally the girl. is just a hot mess and two kids lost. their lives and it is awful because she. clearly drove them into a wall. >> I I have to say, Phil, to me this person. is a sociopath. She she killed two. innocent boys, didn't have any guilt.

over it from what anyone could see. And. that's exactly the kind of person I. never want to be released. It's one. thing if you're a sociopath who somehow. has learned to manage your absolute lack. of empathy or emotion and you're not. running around hurting people, but on if. you're a sociopath and you've murdered. two people, you should stay in jail. forever because you cannot be trusted. You what's going to stop you from. murdering the next couple? >> So, my scientific wildass guess is that. she probably does have some sociopathic.

uh tendencies, maybe an outright. disorder. I also see a healthy dose of. narcissism. Uh you can see that in the. social media post. You can see that in. the reporting uh by our friends at Law. and Crime related to what she is doing. while she's uh incarcerated, not obeying. the rules. It's all about her her. But. there's also another piece of this that. we see oftentimes. I know the three of. us see it in our practices with uh young. people sometimes they well often times. if not always they don't understand or.

they can't comprehend risk the element. of risk or the idea of it until the. human brain uh is like 25 or 26 years. old. And when you see young people. abusing substances and things like we've. seen in this case, it can actually delay. that um that development of the brain. and the ability to understand risk. And. to to follow up on something Ashley said. about whether or not the there's going. to be a new trial or there should be. based on what we call ineffective. assistance of counsel, I agree that.

waving a jury trial is always a gamble. because you only have to then if you're. the prosecutor, you only have to prove. it to one person versus 12. But there's. another piece of this. If you're going. to present a medical defense, which is. what apparently this was, uh they did. not have a medical expert. So, I don't. know how you could effectively try to. present such a defense uh without having. a an expert. And so, um I think that if. there is going to be a new trial, it.

would have to be uh a ruling by the. appeals courts based on whether or not. the trial council was effective. And if. they if they're ineffective, if she has. ineffective assistance of counsel, that. violates her sixth amendment. But on the. facts of the case, I think the evidence. is very clear the conviction should. stand. Yeah. And and here's what they were. trying to avoid. She's she can do the. I'm sweet, I'm innocent, I'm only 17 act. for a while and then you see some of the. tapes that they had thanks to the social. media recordings and or also just.

recordings on her boyfriend's phone. Here's a sample of how that would have. gone over. It's uh 24B. >> Dom, open the door. >> Kenzie, I can't open the door. I can't. sit here and fight. I like we got to go. to dinner if I could see my. grandparents. Like I can't I can't. >> You're not going to dinner if you don't. open the door. I'm going to let you know. that right now. You're going to come. open this door right now or there's. going to be a serious problem. >> Okay, ready? I'm going to count to 10. The door's going to open. Okay, you're.

going to open the door and stop hiding. behind the door like a little. >> Stop waiting for the door. Maybe I can. come outside and talk for a second. >> No, we're not fighting outside. You're. going to open the door right now. >> Why? Why are we fighting outside? >> One minute now. Actually, >> wait. My mom's trying to call me. Like I. I I got to. >> No, if you hang up on me, we're done. I'm leaving, >> Kenzie. There's nothing I could do. Like, there's I can't. >> There is. Stop being a little. >> I can't let you in my house with how. you're acting. Like, it's as simple as. that. >> Okay, I'm going to break into your house.

then, >> dude. What? Bro, what the actual. >> If you do not let me in the house that I. sleep in every night, we are done. The some of the text messages that were. introduced in the trial were uh her. writing to Dom, I told you it's my way. or the highway. I would watch your back. from now on and your house and your car. and your life and [clears throat] any of. your friends. And Dom responds, "Kenzie, this isn't right, and you know it." Just.

just two, three days ago, they released. additional texts. This is from March. 2022 in which um the boyfriend allegedly. texted that McKenzie quote hit me and. quote thrive tried to throw a rock at me. later that month. He also warned her. that she was quote driving like a maniac. according to the documents. I mean they. they had this girl dead to rights. Dave, that's I think why they decided to go.

for the judge and maybe just throw. themselves on the mercy of like an older. man who might have mercy on this. 17-year-old girl in the way juries. probably wouldn't. I don't know. That's. my guess that they thought this older. male judge might feel some speck of. empathy for her or might bite on the. blood pressure thing. But her be her bad. behavior in the prison dovetailes. perfectly perfectly with her bad. behavior in life. And I would be remiss. if I didn't point out it's her parents'. fault. >> Yes,

>> it is. The the mother is a complete. enabler. If you watch this show on. Netflix, >> the mother and the father. The father I. mean the only ones who came off Yeah. the only ones who came off worse than. McKenzie in that show were her parents. who just enabled her, explained away all. of her issues. Uh they came across so. terribly and they're still standing by. their daughter claiming that she is. innocent and that the system is rigged. against her. uh because apparently the. boyfriend's family are well connected. It's awful. Uh one small correction, the.

trial judge was an older woman and. perhaps she thought that she would get a. yeah better shake from her. But you. know, although the trial judge was tough. and she dressed down Mckenzie's mother. when Mackenzie's mother tried to explain. it all away, she still only gave her 15. years to life concurrent. She could have. given him given her consecutive, but she. did it concurrent for the two deaths. And that means she could still. conceivably get out on parole after 15. years in. Although the way she has been. acting, she's trying to be an influencer.

behind bars. I think that means she's. going to stay in. >> Yeah. I mean, she could be out in her. young 30s, which is shocking having. taken two innocent lives. >> If she behaved. >> All right. Want to keep going. >> If she behaved. >> Yeah. If she behaved, which she doesn't. seem she doesn't seem capable of. >> Um, I want to do Henry Novak next. Actually, we'll take a quick break and. then we'll come back and we'll discuss. that case in which the family is now. speaking out. And finally, finally, [music]. we have the video of his last moments.

Viewer warning. It's coming up next. If. you are heading into summer without a. medical emergency kit, you are taking a. risk most people don't even think about. until it's too late. Summer colds linger. and can turn into sinus infections that. last for weeks. Getting sick right. before vacation can derail everything. And when you are traveling, finding a. doctor and pharmacy is stressful. But. let me tell you about the medical. emergency kit from the wellness company. It's like an urgent care and a pharmacy. right at home. It includes essential.

prescriptions like amoxicylin and. generic Zpack to treat a wide range of. common and serious illnesses. No waiting. for your doctor. No hours at urgent. care, no pharmacy lines, no co-pays. Just match your symptoms to the right. prescription in your guide book or call. their tele medicine doctor standing by. Start on your med sooner and feel better. faster. Order yours online in minutes. and it's shipped right to your door and. save 45 bucks with our promo code MK at. urgentcarekit.commk.

That's promo code MK at. urgentcarekit.commk. This one over in the UK [music] has been. horrific. This poor kid, Henry Noak, was. on his way home in the evening and was. attacked by um a man who happens to be. seek and it is relevant because he's. walking around London with an enormous.

sword or three on him. Uh we have video. that we released exclusively last week. or before the verdict that showed him on. another day walking with a sword that. was as long as most people's leg just. casually affixed to his hip walking down. the streets of London. You know, it's. this is a lot to allow somebody in the. name of religion. And this guy had. multiple weapons on him where you're not. allowed to conceal, carry, or otherwise. carry a gun. This is the video showing.

now. He's got like a sword like like an. like one of the swords that you use when. you're sword fighting in in college. athletics and he's casually just sort of. walking around London with it. The we. now have a picture of the actual sword. that he used to stab Henry, but they had. some sort of um in I don't know. confrontation. Henry said something to. him, something like you're a bad man, aren't you? And it turns out that this. guy, the defendant was saying, his name. is Vic Vikram Digua, I'm a bad man. Like.

he was asserting it affirmatively. And. he stabbed Henry. He stabbed him five. times. He stabbed him in the in the lung. and he stabbed him in the in his legs as. he was running away. So, this poor kid. tried to run and eventually they called. 911, which is 999 over in Great Britain, and a witness said like that this kid. had been stabbed. When they got there, they treated Henry like he was the. asalent. And this victim, vicram, who.

was fine because Henry hadn't laid a. hands on him, said he was the victim of. a racial crime. There had been profiling. and he was hurt and didn't say, "I. stabbed him." Henry while dying said, "I've been stabbed." And these police. officers refused to believe him. Within. minutes, he'd be dead, drowning on his. own blood in his lungs. It's despicable. Every single cop on that scene should be. fired. Vicram Digua has been found. guilty, thank God, of murdering Henry.

And all along, they have not shown us. the videotape. There's videotape because. Henry was videotaping it. And then. there's also body cam tape. Um they they. have refused to release it. Henry's dad, Mark, right before they released the. tape came out with some scathing. comments. Here's a flavor of that in SAT. six. >> Henry had been stabbed multiple times. and as his chest filled with blood, he. tried to escape.

He was chased, abused, and filmed by. Vikram Digua and others. With his final. words, he told officers that he could. not breathe. He told them he had been. stabbed. In fact, Henry told officers that he. could not breathe nine times. He told them he had been stabbed four. times. The response from one officer was, "I. don't think you have, mate.".

The police have said they were misled by. the murderer and that the scene when. they arrived was complex. Unfortunately, it seems to us the truth is much. simpler. The police were told by our son himself. and by a member of the public who called. 999 that they heard someone shout that. they had been stabbed. But the police did not believe them. Henry was pulled across the gravel, his.

hands forced behind his back, and he was. placed in handcuffs. Instead of being treated as a dying. victim, police formally arrested Henry. for assault and read him his rights. That was the last thing he heard. Henry did not die with dignity. He did not die with the care he. deserved. He lost consciousness before. anyone believed him. The way he was. treated was inhumane and degrading.

>> Wow. That dad's got superhero strength. to stand there and be able to say all of. that. The mom is standing next to him. crying. Henry's little sister standing. there upset next to I mean I just it's. it's the the worst nightmare. Um then. they did release the footage and it is. it is disturbing. I found this genuinely. disturbing. You can hear his his pleas. for help and this like completely. callous police force that just refuses.

to take it seriously for for no reason. we can discern other than my judgment. their presumptions about the respective. races and who must be evil and who. isn't. And they had it exactly wrong. So. viewer warning on SAT 8 here. >> What's your name, mate? >> Huh? Has. anyone been hurt other than him? >> Yeah, me. I grabbed my brother. He's. took my turban off. Started grabbing my. head. Are you injured?

>> Yeah. Yeah. I've got swollen eye, a. little bruis. >> All right. Just step back a little bit. for me. >> Someone flag these down. >> All right, let's get you out of there, shall we? >> I was in bed. >> Grab his other arm. running around the corner. >> What's happened to you? All right. >> You've been stabbed. Whereabouts?

>> Don't think you have, mate. >> That's what And then you got nothing. >> I don't think you have, mate. >> Put the hand in the cuff, mate. This is like. >> saying he's been stabbed. >> Where do you think you've been stabbed? >> In the face.

>> Oh, no. But we have to check, don't we? >> In the face. >> Should we keep you on your side, mate? We. >> had a red re then. >> same to him keeping him on his side. [snorts]. >> We were sat up when we had him in but he. didn't like it. >> What's your name mate? At the moment you are under arrest. That's for assault. So you do not have. to say anything may harm defense if you. do not mention question which you later. line of court. Anything you do say may.

be given an evidence. All right. >> It's going to be sick I think. I just want you to call it. >> Yeah. Um, we've got this male. He's been. beat up. [snorts]. >> Um, are we able to get an ambulance, please? >> His pupils aren't even reacting.

>> It's so awful. He was he was dying. And. now finally finally there is a question. about what should happen to the police. officers. The case has been referred to. the police watchdog the independent. office for police conduct. Uh the. temporary deputy chief constable Robert. France has apologized saying I'm sorry. that Henry couldn't be saved that night.

I'm sorry that he was handcuffed and. arrested in the moments before he lost. consciousness. When his killer made that call to police. and he called the police, not the. ambulance service, he lied on that call. He lied when police attended the scene. He continued to lie as Henry's condition. deteriorated. That's not good enough, Phil. that this. is a known risk when you approach a. crime scene like this that possibly.

you know is a stabbing that someone. could be lying to you. Yeah. >> And and on one you used to be a cop and. your mind has to be open to the fact. that it might be the one with the brown. skin and the one with the white skin. might just happen in this circumstance. to be the victim. >> You know when I put my ex cop hat on. Megan a couple of things come to mind. First off, knives obviously can kill, but so can the woke mind virus. And that. seems to be what has infected uh. certainly the police officers that I.

think we saw on that video, if not many. others u not only in the UK, but. elsewhere across the the globe and even. here in the United States. There's no. reason in my view to uh handcuff uh that. man that way. Even had he not been. stabbed, he's complaining of injuries. He's not presenting any kind of threat. And I think the first duty of law. enforcement on the scene is to to render. aid where it needs to be rendered. Uh. and not to just sort of make snap.

decisions on who may or may not be. telling the truth. If you arrive on. scene and someone's injured or. complaining of an injury, uh you need to. go ahead and and deal with that in a in. a responsible way. And honestly, uh, someone that I know who's in law. enforcement in the UK, um, shares with. me that their belief and and I agree. with it is that those officers, um, are. guilty also of of a crime. I think. they're guilty of uh, some type of. negligent homicide and I think they. should be prosecuted. They should be.

sitting in a jail cell alongside the uh. the defendant who is guilty of an. absolute brutal um murder with that. knife. The whole thing is is just it's. un it's unspeakable. It's indefensible. And I'm sorry. I'm glad they apologized, but that's not enough. There's not. enough. There needs to be we need. vengeance here. We need some type of. accountability for those police officers. because. >> that man's death is is on their hands. Imagine.

if the races were reversed. There would. be riots in the street. There were Kier. Star Dmer who only said one word about. this yesterday. I think he he said. nothing. Nothing after the tape was or. the incident became public while they. were on trial. Nothing. Well, finally he. says something about it. But he was. quick to kneel for George Floyd. They. had protests in London after George. Floyd. But but here because the races. were what they were, they did nothing.

Here's a political commentator Carol. Malone on GB News making similar point. S we should call this out for what it. was. If if Henry Novak had had a brown. or a black skin, there would have been. uproar about [clears throat] this. If it. had been a white person that that killed. a black or a brown person, there would. have been national uproar. Every member. of this government would have been. screaming about it from the rooftops. Look what they did with George Floyd. The last thing, it's interesting. Henry's last words were I can't breathe.

They were George Floyd's last words. He. couldn't breathe either. It's the media. as well. Every other TV station bar this. one has ignored this. Almost every paper. has ignored this. The only political. party that has that has actually. acknowledged what is going on here is. reform. Nobody. >> Your thoughts? >> My thoughts are that the police knew. this man was dying. You could see in the. video that you showed his hands. I mean, they had to know that. And so, it. doesn't matter the color of his skin. It. doesn't matter what the other person is. saying. He is clearly dying. And I think.

the problem with the police is that they. are quick to cuff someone when they. don't need to cuff someone and they're. quick to just rush to judgment. This man. was not fighting. He wasn't trying. I. mean, originally he was trying to get. away, but when the police were there, he. was completely compliant. You don't see. him doing anything. So, absent officer. safety reasons, there is absolutely no. reason for the police to put this man in. custody. And I think we just jump to. that because they immediately believed. this guy. They immediately believed him.

Um, and I mean, he's not even carrying. the type of weapon that's allowed. You. know, there's a law in in Britain that. you're allowed to carry a weapon if it's. for religious purposes, but the weapon. that he had was not even the right type. of weapon. I mean, it's essentially a. knife that he was carrying. The police. should have seen that and should have. taken that into account. And then maybe. this poor kid, this child, because he. was a child, would not have died in. police custody with the last thing he. heard being that you're being arrested. It's just it's awful. >> What do you think, Dave? Should the cops. face charges?

>> Yeah. Yes. Yes. This was absolutely. disgraceful. And I I have to give some. responsibility here to Kier Starmmer. This is Kier Starmer's Britain, you. know. [clears throat] He he is Neville. Chamberlain 2.0. I mean, this is uh this. is just an extension of how he treats. those who march in the streets every. week uh calling for jihad uh who who uh. call for violence against Jews. And now, as a result, Jewish students are told to. hide their identities on university. campus in Britain. Jewish schools have.

to close periodically for security. MPs. are given bodyguards because of the. threats from these radical groups. And. what does Kristarmmer do? He appeases. And I got to believe that the police. officers here took their cues from the. leader because they were more concerned. >> Can you guys stay just for a couple of. extra minutes? I know you you have to. run, but if you can stay, I want to. continue this, but I got to go hard. break in 10 seconds. All right, I. promise I'll only keep you like 3 to 5. minutes max on the opposite end. Don't. go away. This is too important. >> His murderer, however, was afforded. decency. He was believed. He was not.

handcuffed when arrested. He was not. handcuffed when transported to the. police station. As far as we understand, he was never handcuffed at all. And as Vicram Digua himself told the. court, whilst under arrest for Henry's. murder, police even took him to the. kitchen so he could choose his food. >> That's the father of victim Henry Novak, who was murdered by Vikram Digua, who's.

been found guilty. the father in an. extraordinary display of dignity calling. out the police and Kier Star Dmer's. government uh to some extent on their. cold callous behavior toward his dying. son. Welcome back to the Megan Kelly. show. We're back with the hosts of MK. True Crime, Ashley Merchant, Dave. Aaronburgg and Phil Holloway. Dave, pick. it up where you left off on the subject. of Kierce Dmer because just to remind. the audience now he there is a picture. here of him kneeling kneeling post.

George Floyd. So he felt totally fine. getting down on one knee and stirring up. racial controversy after that death who. of somebody who wasn't even his. constituent. But when Henry gets. murdered back in December of 2025 from. that day day to yesterday he said. nothing. He didn't even do the pabum of. we're deeply sorry for his family's loss. and we'll let the legal process play. out. you know, the the benign we're.

sorry for what's happened here. Stand. by. Nothing. He waited until the whole. thing was over and then came out and. said, "This is an awful shocking case. Henry's loved ones have gone through the. trauma of a long trial and endured. Henry's killer making up appalling. claims about their son who was. thoughtful, kind, and deeply loved.". That's that's really not the trauma. Like, the trauma is that Henry's dead, but okay, he took a shot. It's right. that the police are being investigated. and we must end the cycle of tragedy by.

tackling the horror of knife crime. Henry's family, friends and university. and the city of Southampton will. continue to feel his loss. Our thoughts. will always be with them. Okay, keep. going, >> Megan. Most of the police officers are. still on duty. They're still on the job. I mean, that's crazy. I mean, I do. >> all but one, I think. >> Right. I I wonder if it's the one who. said, you know, mate, about the stabbing. didn't believe him. Um, when it comes to. >> I don't know. >> Yeah, but that's crazy. I do think I. agree with Phil and Ashley that yeah, you could charge them possibly with.

cultable negligence uh homic uh. manslaughter. There are things you can. charge them with just like the officers. in the George Floyd case were charged. with crimes. Even the ones who were. there stopping the crowd from moving in. and assisting uh the main guy. Uh you. know, appeasement is what I was talking. about when it comes to Kier Starmer. That's a a political strategy and it's. not a victimless one. Neville. Chamberlain appeased Hitler and that led. to war. And when it comes to cure. sturmer stmer, he has domestic.

appeasement. You could argue that that. type of appeasement, that culture he's. created, helped lead to an innocent. 18-year-old dying in the streets in. handcuffs, gasping for air while the. police were coddling his murderer. It. really is disgraceful. Dave, we just were in contact with our. friend Lawrence Fox who's been on the. program many time uh many times and he. [clears throat] along with two others. were going to go to the Oxford Union in.

London and debate the uh now head of. their I think of the debate team. The. the one guy got ejected because he was. so insensitive. But this woman is a. Muslim Palestinian who she wanted to. have the debate of Islam's role in the. UK. You know, is it too big? Is it. consistent with the values of a western. democracy? She wanted to have that. debate and was of course going to be. arguing, yes, it is. It's fine. You. know, it it is consistent. And these.

guys were going to argue the opposite. And they were going to have this debate. at Oxford Union like they have so many. other debates. And it was shut down by. police. The police wouldn't allow Oxford. to have it. And Oxford, of course, folded like a cheap tent because they. won't even let them debate it. You can't. even have the debate even when it's. introduced by a Muslim woman. P.S. We. are working on hosting that debate for. them right here in America where you're. still allowed to have these back and.

forths. Thank God. But imagine, especially in the wake of this murder, you can't we can't even have the debate. You're not in the UK, but we just saw. Jen Weaguer and his cousin their visas. were allowed or were not allowed. They. they couldn't enter the UK to go on with. Piers Morgan. They were going to discuss. not even it wasn't even about like. Israel Palestine. It was because of. their prior statements about that. conflict that they weren't allowed in. I. mean, like this is crazy. The the.

crackdown on free speech in Great. Britain and you that's what you see. seeping into that confrontation between. an innocent Yes. happens to be white kid. and a guilty happens to be brown man. >> Yeah. Yeah. Well, they don't have the. first amendment in Great Britain. It's. always easier to sue someone for. defamation there than it is in this. country. Uh, but I agree with you that. when you stop people from having. conversations, that leads elsewhere. because where is that going to go? That's not going to end the debate. It's.

just going to lead to violence because. there's no way to talk it out. I'd much. rather talk it out. And when you do have. that conversation here on your show, I'd. love to come on and be a participant in. some of these conversations. >> Oh, yeah. We'll have you. We're It's. like well underway and we're going to. have the debate here that they banned in. the UK, which is just disgraceful. It's. disgraceful. I mean, honestly, I I was. saying to Piers Morgan yesterday, like, we're about to celebrate our 250th over. here. It's almost like you the UK would. like to create another spin-off, right?

Like, there's going to be some folks. over there who are like, "We're out. too." Like, what? No one wants to live. like this where you can you have to shut. down all discussions that help people. connect or get their arms around these. difficult issues. and to the point where. you shut down a dying man's please for. help because you can't get it in your. head that he might actually be the. victim and the sick guy standing over. there might be the perp and in fact they. were asked um this police officer this. this uh deputy I mentioned deputy chief.

constable Robert France who spoke. finally he was asked whether he believed. his officers had been scared of being. accused of racism. uh in that moment you know that's why. theyh behaved the way they did. And he. said they had been deceived by Diga's. repeated lies about what had taken. place. But again, you know, Phil, that's. so infuriating. It's your job as a. police officer to understand that no one. on a scene at a scene like that has a. presumption of honesty.

>> They were deceived obviously by a killer. and a liar, but they were also deceived. by suicidal empathy and the consequences. of unchecked mass migration. Because. what you see uh if you know if you if. you take uh one society and move it to. another geographic location on the globe. uh then you displace another society and. another culture and you know people's. national heritage uh goes with it and. and that's kind of what we're seeing.

take place in Great Britain and other. places around Europe and even certain. parts of the United States. And so, uh, law enforcement, I think, if you take it. back to the 10,000 ft level, law. enforcement has to make sure that they. play it straight. They call balls and. they call strikes. They cannot be. influenced by cultural pressures. They. can't be influenced by wokeism and the. woke mind virus. They when they roll up. on the scene, somebody calls for help. They need to call balls and call strikes.

objectively and without favor or. presumptions towards either side. And. when you've got somebody who is. complaining and telling you they've been. stabbed, then you damn well better take. them seriously because uh if not, you. may wind up sharing the cell with the. person who sat who st who did in fact. stab them because I think what they did. was a crime. I think it was criminal. negligence. I think every single one of. them involved should be sitting in a. British prison. >> Yeah. They they accepted the.

responsibility. Then they showed up as. fiduciaries and they let Henry die. All. hell is breaking loose in the UK as we. have this discussion. They're what, five. hours ahead of us. Depends on the time. of year whether it's five or six. And um. I want to show you what's happening. There are protests starting now outside. of the police headquarters in. Southampton um where these officers are. protesters demanding justice and uh they. say it's over a thousand so far who are. there to demand action following the. murder of Henry Novak. They began around.

6 p.m. this evening British time to hold. a moment of silence for the teenager. with shouts of shame on you also being. heard. Uh they are reporting at GB News. that there's a strong police presence at. the protest as well monitoring. Uh let's. take a look at how that is and then I'll. tell you the latest news about the cops.

Mom's standing in the wrong position. here. >> Just jammed in like sardines outside of. this police station. Can barely move. People are angry. I've been pushed. I've been pushed.

>> I've been pushed up the stairs. >> I've been pushed up the stairs. >> People are kicking off about not being. able to come up the steps. >> They got to make more room for this. crowd. Somebody's going to get trampled. >> Shoving them down. >> Well, the police are trying to create a. perimeter that includes these stairs, but the people need the room.

They're trying to prevent a breaching of. the police station. I assume that's what. we're seeing there, Ashley. And now we. get word that uh Per Sky News, another. one of the police officers involved in. the arrest of Henry Novak has resigned. According to Hampshire police, we. already had news that one was allowed to. quote retire. That was the word used. Now this is another one. We believe. though they have an identified name so. can't be sure that another one has been. allowed to quote resign. This is not.

right. They should all be fired. Why why. should they be given the dignity of a. peaceful exit with a resignation or. retirement? You know you cuff cuffs is. one thing but the dignity of a resigning. as opposed to your ass is fired and you. should be praying that you don't get. arrested, >> right? or some type of a public tribunal. where their conduct is actually. examined. They have to answer for it. I. mean, I think that would be something. that the people deserve to see, these. cops actually having to answer publicly.

for what they've done. But I also blame. the media in the UK because they really. have not covered this. And, you know, this has been something that's sort of. been allowed to to go unnoticed to a lot. of folks until now. You know, it's it's. being brought out, but we're having to. bring it out. I mean, where's the. British press? Where is their outrage? It's just it's more recent. Um, you. know, but that's another person that's. to blame. >> Yeah. As as we heard that one. commentator pointed out. And if you. don't, as the press give voice to what. everyone is feeling, you create more.

rage. You create just more unbridled. anger. >> It's unfair. >> It's biased. It's completely biased. >> That That's clearly dep prioritizing. white lives. That's really I mean we we. all got mocked with the white lives. matter thing like that made you racist. if you said that and it's like I if you. went out there and chanted that right. now they'd still turn on you. They'd. still call you a racist. Well, guess. what? They do. They do matter. Henry. Novak's life mattered. And those cops.

need to be fired and charged and there. has to be absolutely no quarters spared. for Vicram Digra and his disgusting. mother who hid the murder weapon and was. also found guilty. Um thank you for. sticking around late. I know Phil and. Dave just had a piece out and you got to. go too, but it's it's been great. Thank. you for all the great work over at MKT. True Crime. >> All right. Well, thank you for having. me. >> Uh, all right. To be continued. Wow. We're taking your thoughts on the Henry. Novak case. Email me. Uh, it's Megan.

Kelly.com. My god. We'll stay on it. Tomorrow we are back with the results. Maybe uh they take forever. They are. like a third world country in. California. So, we may have some. indication of how the vote went at the. al of the LA mayor's race and the. gubernatorial level. And our guest is. perfect. It's Adam Corolla. So, no. matter what's in the news, we have the. perfect guest. And we'll see you all. then.