Black Male Clancy Juror Lone Holdout is Allegedly REPUBLICAN, and Charlie Kirk Family May SUE Over UVU Security, with Geragos, Murphy, Aronberg, and Frei | Ep. 1399

29:26And frankly, it's necessary that they're familiar with the evidence that's been testified to. So they're going to then say that the prosecutor deliberately wanted the mistrial so they could get a do over and that that is barred under a Supreme Court case called Oregon v. Kennedy. The second argument that I think they should they will make is the one you just said was their manifest necessity and manifest necessity is did the judge have to do it when the defense does not ask for the mistrial? or say we have no objection or we consent. Also, by the way, this is a unicorn situation because this is another upside-down world because you almost always, in fact, I laughingly, Matt knows this, he's heard me say this so many times, I had to go to the Court of Appeal to get a published decision to get law in California that says a mistrial-hunged jury is better than a conviction because it is.

30:31I mean, it seems axiomatic, but it is. So he did not consent to it, which is a very rare occurrence. And they're going to argue because he didn't consent, there was no manifest necessity. The judge screwed up is what the argument is going to be. And he was once in the she was once in jeopardy and they cannot prosecute again. I frankly think this may because everything else about this case makes zero sense in terms of what usually happens. This may be the one case where somebody wins a once in jeopardy or the best one I ever had was a case in Van Nuys many years ago where I had the judge writing after the mistrial to the head prosecutor.

31:15I granted the mistrial by Garragus because of prosecutorial misconduct. As soon as I put that note as an exhibit, I got a misdemeanor on a life case, which Matt knows means they wave the white flag. And I there I suspect also and I'll add one more thing and then want Matt to weigh in. When people thought, including me, that Kevin Reddington had had a mini stroke or a Gayle King brain dysfunction when he when he asked Trump to pardon her. Look what ended up happening. Trump was questioned. Trump said there's, you know, federal doesn't work, but there's no winners and they ought to resolve the case, basically.

31:58If Kevin did that intentionally, it's genius because he got exactly what he needed, which was permission from the president to Tim Cruz, who was reportedly a staunch Republican, make this case go away. Interesting. Wait, the manifest necessity requirement saying that there's a statutory right against an unreasonable, substantial or serious interference. No, sorry. OK, I'm reading my packet here. The manifest necessity, like the declaration of the mistrial has to have been by manifest necessity. But the case law on manifest necessity seems extremely clear that if the jury can't reach a verdict, you've got it.

32:42And it doesn't matter whether the defense attorney wants to go along with it, Matt. Yeah, I think Mark's Mark's analysis on what they're going to do appellate wise is exactly right. I think that what the court is going to do with that, though, I think the court's going to look at this and they're going to say, Kevin Rennington, you had every opportunity to to voir dire this guy. You had all that you picked him. And this is the process. This is a guy who held out and that's the way it works. And I don't know if they want to open the floodgates to the idea that that a that a juror who's not going along with the rest means that somehow we've got to we've got to flush the case or anything like that because of these exact same reasons Mark just explained at the beginning.

33:27And that is the vast majority of these, you know, 10 to 11 to 1 hangers are are for the prosecution. It's it's 10 jurors that want to convict or 11 jurors that want to convict. I just I think that the remedy here is a new trial. And that's what they're getting anyway, theoretically. I think. Yes, no, that's that's. Can you just restate that? Because one of my questions is, let's say Kevin Reddington is right that somehow Michael is a problem. I don't know why Michael's a problem, but let's say he didn't disclose the restraining order. He disclosed that there was a prior arrest six years ago in connection with the alleged abuse of his wife that then was dropped.

34:07And that's all he discloses. And he doesn't disclose. And, you know, presumably Reddington and the prosecutor will attest to this, that he's currently under a restraining order because of his alleged beating up of the nephew. And then Reddington is jumping up and down saying we would have wanted to know that. Both parties would have wanted to know he was under a current restraining order and we wouldn't have allowed him to sit on this jury. And therefore, normally the end of that sentence is we deserve a mistrial. But he already has a mistrial. Like there's the appellate court, the trial court and then the appellate court will both be limited in the remedies they can give him.

34:43And coming up with a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental defect after everyone's gone home is not on the list. No, it ain't going to happen. In my view, I'll call that shot. And look, Kevin Reddington, Kevin Reddington picked the guy, you know, and I've never seen I've never seen a defense lawyer go out in open court and accuse a juror of committing a felony in open court like that. I don't think Mark has ever seen that either. And then what we've seen afterwards, you know, in this silence, Megan, your take is interesting. There's another potential interpretation of how quiet Kevin Reddington is is being right now.

35:24And that is he's a little over his skis, in my opinion. And I don't know if this is true. But yesterday I read that he's been he's been having contact with Turtle Boy, who is a fixture in the Karen Reed case, who was charged, I believe, with felony conspiracy to intimidate witnesses. And I just saw an exchange yesterday between the two of them. And again, I haven't verified. I don't know if it's true. But if he's communicating with a guy that has been accused of actively subverting the criminal justice system, Kevin Reddington has crossed that red line, in my view, that Mark was talking about.

35:56And he's he may be silent because this might have gotten away from him a little bit. I'm sure he's going to plenty more to say. But he's got if that he's one of the ones that disclosed the name. He's one of the ones that disclosed the name of the jury. And apparently he was in contact with Kevin Reddington. That invites a state bar investigation. that and look and i don't know but um oh look that that he may be quiet because if there's any truth to that there's there's a text exchange purported to be between the two of them which by the way was the most cringy like like back and forth ass kissing by kevin reddington if it's true i hope it's not but look being a criminal defense lawyer megan is one of the most sacrosanct important jobs in the American system of justice.

36:43And Kevin Reddington, love him or hate him, did an outstanding job for his client. I wasn't a fan of his closing argument. I don't think he should have called out the juror, but his opening was excellent. And that's an esteemed thing to do that's very important in the criminal justice system. And if he has then finished that and his next move is to cavort with some dude who has been accused of subverting the criminal justice system in another homicide case, that is a suddenly low move. I'm not saying me, but a lot of people could look at that and think Kevin Reddington is kind of a scumbag if that's true.

37:16OK, so and I don't know if it is, but that's that may be why he's being quiet right now. That's another interpretation. I don't know enough to weigh in personally on it, but that's another potential take. And I'm with Mark on this. This is upside down world. And you've got an esteemed a criminal defense attorney who just did exactly what criminal defense attorneys are supposed to do, zealously defending his client. And if he's gone from that to to potentially intimidating the future jury pool or trying to dox somebody for for disagreeing with the law, according to Kevin Reddington, if that's true, he could be in trouble.

37:53And yeah, I don't know what's going on in Massachusetts, but I guarantee there's people in the state bar that are that are looking at that. There's some raised eyebrows. If he's if those text messages that I read yesterday are real between Kevin Reddington and friggin turtle boy, he may have he may have, you know, bigger things to worry about than just this trial right now. And one more thing. Here are the here are the I'm sorry, just one more thing. A lot of people think that it is that it is a lawyer's job to defend their client. And that is the paramount job of a defense lawyer. your primary ethical duty is as an officer of the court and it's to the integrity of the process your client comes second to that and this is and mark knows this i know this and kevin reddington ought to know that too so i hope all of those that's why they don't let defense lawyers suborn perjury that's why you can't as a defense attorney put your client on his hand knowingly let him lie because your first duty is to the integrity of the court that's right not to getting your client one of the reasons wait let me let me just read the text messages that you're referring to that we don't know whether these are true or not, or real.

38:55But this is circulating online, purportedly from Kevin Reddington to Turtle Boy. Kevin Reddington allegedly writing, looks like you had a, this is from July 22nd, looks like you had a great rolling rally. Off the record, you do a great job. Much respect. You create Karen's innocence. I think he means Karen Reed. No one else. Created and showed. And then the response purportedly by Turtle Boy is, Well, thank you, but I think her attorneys have done a great job too. Reddington allegedly agreed. I know Dave Yannetti well, great guy and attorney, but make no mistake, you have created this more than reasonable doubt.

39:31You are an incredible investigative reporter, not kissing your butt, LOL. You are amazing. And then again, allegedly from Kevin, I think we got off on the wrong foot, as they say. I have come to amaze at your skills as an investigative reporter and agree you do not get the credit you deserve, which I think will change soon. I wish you would help me with Lindsay Clancy case. Then the next day, Turtle Boy purportedly responds, Kevin, I wrote positively about the Lindsay Clancy case. It was the hardest story I've ever had to write. Patrick Clancy is the strongest person I've ever seen, followed by Karen Reed.

40:04But thank you. So if that's real, it does raise the question about whether Turtle Boy got the name of this juror from Kevin Reddington, possibly as a thank you for his, quote, help with the Lindsay Clancy case. And if so, he could be in a lot of trouble because the name of that juror is still under, I don't know if we can say under seal, but it's definitely being kept private and confidential by this judge, an order that he's just extended given the abuse that's taking place right now of this juror in particular. Yeah, look, it's just gross, for lack of a better term. I hope it's not true. I hope it's not true.

40:49I'm going to I'm going to defend him and I'm going to I'm going to take the what I think is. Garagos has his own incriminating text with some potential juror shitster. That's what I've just gleaned. Garagos, let me tell you, has never had an exchange kissing the ass of some blogger like or vlogger or whatever you call him in his career. I will. As Mark defends him, I'm going to defend Mark. There's just no way. I'm just hoping and I believe that Kevin, what happened with Kevin was he came out of there. He had invested so much into this case. He was so hyped up or amped up that he probably, to borrow Matt's term, was over his skis in terms of what he was saying.

41:33I think he regrets what he said, and that's why he's pulled back. I don't think I mean, you have to just understand how just kind of inside out, upside down this situation is. It makes zero sense for anybody who is practiced for any period of time doing criminal defense. It's so I get it. I get it. You said that. But wait, I just want to say two other things. That post, that exchange, alleged exchange that I just read was from July 22nd, 2023 during the Karen read. So that was that was not during this case. It was obviously forward looking and Lindsay Clancy was already under arrest and it was posted by Turtle Boy.

42:18So it's not like some third party. This is Turtle Boy saying, hey, here's my exchange with Kevin Reddington. And Kevin Reddington has not weighed in on it. And this was posted just yesterday. So we'll see. Time will tell what happened there. I want to keep going because there's this, what I think is a copycat case, a lot of folks have said that, of Cori Walsh. Now, Corey Walsh is an Illinois mother, and she has three other children. She had four. She killed her two-year-old boy, forgive me, viewer warning, but by hanging him to death. And she was reportedly very, very intensely focused on the Lindsay Clancy case.

43:01And now we're getting more details about what allegedly happened. TMZ is reporting that she rambled to police about having gotten a breakfast sandwich at McDonald's in the afternoon and started singing a tune from The Wizard of Oz about the yellow brick road after she allegedly killed her two-year-old son, Barrett, on September 1st. She then said that she went to a Mickey D's. That's how she put it, for a breakfast sandwich in the afternoon. Of course, people said you can't get a breakfast sandwich at McDonald's in the afternoon, But the point is simply, this is, I think, obviously her team trying to make her sound just out of it.

43:41Maybe she really was out of it. Her attorney, Robert Kerr, reportedly told the judge all this about the Mickey D's sandwich and the Yellow Brick Road song while speaking to investigators that she was allegedly, her defense lawyer says she was in and out of consciousness as she was taken away by EMTs. She was incoherently speaking to paramedics, telling first responders they, quote, looked like her daughter. During an ambulance ride, she started rattling off fruit names, her defense said. The defense is claiming she had a psychotic episode. She did have an eight-month-old baby, similar to Lindsay Clancy, Matt, but her eight-month-old baby was not killed.

44:21He was, actually, I don't know if it was a boy or a girl, but the baby was left on the floor upstairs. The two older children, who are just school age, they're all very young, came home from school in the middle of this event and ran to the neighbor. The neighbor came over and saw poor Barrett in this condition. You can use your imagination. And got him down, tried to perform CPR. I mean, my heart goes out to that neighbor. That's a trauma from which that neighbor will never recover. And it was too late for that boy. But now here we go again. Here we go again, Matt. Though I will say, having looked at it, the standard for proving not guilty by mental defect in Illinois is a lot tougher than it is in Massachusetts.

45:03Yeah, that's right. It's a different standard. But did you see the shooting, to segue for a second, Megan, in Times Square with that woman, the crazy woman with the knives who killed that poor woman? Psychotic episode. Her brother, the very first thing her brother said when he was interviewed was she's got postpartum. And it turns out her son was either 23 years old or 28 years old, something like that. So this is going to be a thing. We're going to see this as a defense over and over again. Hopefully, this isn't a copycat situation. Hopefully, this is a woman who's suffering from some disconnection from reality and some psychotic state or whatever.

45:46And she wasn't inspired by Lindsay Clancy. That would be horrible. But look, in Illinois, they use the McNaughton Rule. That is, it's the same as in California. It's one that Mark and I have dealt with our entire careers. And that is a much tougher standard. And the difference is you summarize it, Matt. Yeah, sure. So the Macnaughton rule says basically you can be mentally ill, but the mental illness must be such that you do not understand the nature and quality of your actions when you kill. In other words, you're howling at the moon. The example we always use is devil pops up on your shoulder and says, go over there and kill that person or I'm going to blow up the world.

46:21That means the person, the defendant still knows it's a human being that they're killing. They're criminally responsible under those circumstances. If the devil says, go stab that banana over there, that space alien, they don't understand that it's a human being. And when they do it, they're not criminally responsible or they're legally insane. Massachusetts uses what's called the McCool Rule, which has a third prong. And that says you can, if you're suffering from mental illness, even if you know right from wrong, if you're unable to control your conduct to the requirements of the law, you can still be found criminally not responsible is the language that they use.

46:55So they've taken away the term insanity. So that's the difference. So it gives a whole, a completely different kind of trial in places that follow McCool rule, which is Massachusetts is the only one I know of. How does this likely go when you're getting out into the ether? She's naming off fruit names and she's calling the paramedics, oh, you look just like my daughter. And she's singing the Wizard of Oz tunes. And her alleged reason for killing her child was that she said she thought he was the devil and the Antichrist. And I mean, I got it like maybe she actually did think that. Like, I don't know.

47:32And if you if you can prove she actually thought that, I mean, obviously the child wasn't. But like, if you can prove she actually thought that, is that a not guilty by reason of mental defect in Illinois? Arguably. But I think what really happens in these cases, we sometimes glom on to them and say they're copycats, obviously, because it's the first thing the brain does. But to some degree, I've had the unfortunate happenstance over 40 years of dealing with many, many people who have mental health challenges. What they do is they glom onto, in a very real sense, whatever is kind of in the news ether or cultural ether.

48:18Wizard of Oz is not, but Lindsey Clancy clearly is. So I can go back over the last 40 years and I can tell you when there's somebody's in the throes of one of these psychotic episodes, whatever is in the news tends to trigger with them. I'm sure you get, Megan, more than your share of people who are obviously disturbed, who are fixated on something. And that fixation starts to become part of their ideation. And I'm hoping that that's what this is. It sure resonates more to something like that, especially when you throw in the Wizard of Oz. It's dark. I mean, that's one of the downsides of this case having become so public, the Lindsay Clancy case, not to mention the pink shirts and all the, you know, empathetic coverage of poor Lindsay, where I do think these, you know, suggestible disturbed mothers out there are suddenly considering this as an option.

49:16Okay, I want to end on this, Garagos. You and I have talked about the Menendez brothers many times, and it just broke that, and they're your clients, that they're getting a parole hearing in March of 27, and this is much sooner than anybody expected them to get. Because apparently the rule in California is you have to go three years in between these hearings. But you and I just last talked about this in 2025, where they had a parole hearing, and it didn't work out, even though you told me they were going to be home with you by Thanksgiving, but they weren't. So what? So what? Thanksgiving 2027?

49:51Is it back on? What's the story here? OK, so in California, there's a rule that when you have the parole hearing, if you get a denial, the parole board can do it for three years is the minimum, which is what they got. And in my defense, Hence, the parole hearing that they got was within two months of when we got them resentenced. So understand that they had a resentencing in May where they were eligible for parole. The governor had already given them a suitability hearing, which hasn't been done for a while, converted into a parole hearing. Boom. So they got the three year denial. If you are infraction free and you're basically doing all of the programming, which you are suggested to do by the parole hearing board, they get to advance it halfway through.

50:45Hence why 18 months from last August they're going to get their next one. All right. In 30 seconds or less, are they going to get paroled? I believe they should. I mean, you saw yesterday that the district attorney of Los Angeles said, I'm not going to seek the death penalty on Nick Reiner precisely because what you and I talked about, Megan, that the family would not want it or didn't want it. And if the family here is unified, every single living member of the Menendez family wants them out. It's time. All right. In 20 seconds or less, Matt, do you agree they're going to get paroled or they should be?

51:23Well, eventually the the California Board of Prison Terms is going to parole them, I think. But that's really Mark is the Mark knows everything about that case. I've got opinions, but but that's Mark's case. But yeah, in my experience with the BBT, yes, they're going to they're going to get out after Gascon did what he did. I'm just going to say I'm not going to Garagos for Thanksgiving. Matt, I'll see you in November of 27. That's a deal. Thank you, guys. Feeling sluggish, bloated, not quite like yourself. life constantly bombards us with silent threats, processed foods, artificial light, nonstop stress, all of which can disrupt gut health, drain energy, and weaken immune health.

52:02When that happens, it's not that your body is broken, it's that it might be missing the right inputs. That's why I wanna tell you about Armour Cholestrum. It's packed with more than 400 bioactive nutrients that they say can work at a foundational level to fortify gut health, support immune health, fuel recovery, and promote whole body vitality. Strong gut integrity can support metabolism, skin and hair health, and even performance and recovery, which is why colostrum has long been valued by some elite athletes as well. If you're looking to take back control of your health from the inside out, you should consider Armra.

52:35And they've got a special deal going for you right now. Just go to armra.com slash Megan or enter Megan to get 30 % off your first subscription order. That's A-R-M-R-A dot com slash Megan. Reese Witherspoon here, checking into my favorite hotel in Paris. Bonjour. Bonjour. I'm traveling with my Wells Fargo Autograph Journey card, so I earn rewards wherever I book travel. Five times points with hotels, four times with airlines, three times on restaurants and other travel, and one point on other purchases. Phew, that was a lot. I need to lie down. Is the room ready? Visit wellsfargo.com slash autographjourney.

53:14Terms apply. There is so much NFL on ESPN right now. Monday night football, plus pregame and postgame. NFL live, NFL primetime. Everything you need to stay on top of every game, every week. Unbelievable. And now NFL Network is on the ESPN app. More football, more coverage, more ways to watch. Football's on, all season long, on ESPN and streaming on the ESPN app.

53:50We're back now with Kelly's Core, which fits with our latest MK Confidential series this week, featuring the story of Casey Anthony. We are calling it pathological for good reason. Here's a quick look at last night's episode. Friday, June 27th, Casey is supposed to come back. Instead, she is allegedly now in Jacksonville, seeing whether she and her dear friend Jeff Hopkins have a future, and her car has developed problems as well. She claims Jeff does not want her driving be 141 miles to Orlando in it, so he has put it in the shop. That same Friday, the white Pontiac Sunfire, registered to Casey's parents, runs out of gas on East Colonial Drive in Orlando.

54:38Casey, who is not in Jacksonville, pulls the car into the lot of a payday loan store called Amscot, parks it next to a dumpster, and leaves. She tells Tony her father will come and get it. She does not tell her father about it. Oh, this, like, it's incredible what happened in this case. And reliving it, you can't believe this case went how it went. So we're delving deep into it. It's gotten great viewer feedback. Everybody loves MK Confidential. Thank you all so much. We are in the eighth of eight weeks on this ongoing series, which will then launch and morph into something different after the eight weeks because there's only so many resources in the day.

55:23But we love that you guys all love it so much. Three more episodes out each weeknight this week. Catch it while you can on the MK YouTube channel and podcast feeds. Joining me now on some additional legal cases are Dave Ehrenberg, co-host of the MK True Crime Show, and former litigator, not to mention, along with former litigator and Rumble creator, Viva Fry. Guys, welcome. Great to see you again. There's a lot to go over, but we, I think, need to start with this unbelievable Charlie Kirk lawsuit. I mean, to me, it seemed like just a matter of time before some sort of litigation was filed, whether it was by Charlie's team against, forgive me, his security guards, or TPUSA and Charlie's family against UVU.

56:12It just seemed to me as a former litigator, someone was going to be on the receiving end of that finger of blame. Because clearly, while the shooter is responsible for Charlie's death, he wasn't well protected that day. He was not well protected. It's not one of those situations where you looked at it and you said, well, I mean, we're only human. You know, I mean, there's only certain things we can protect against. No, this was foreseeable. You know, Charlie was shot and killed in September of 2025. 25, and it had been 14 months earlier that Trump was shot from a rooftop in a similar looking situation where it almost had an amphitheater feel by a young man of virtually the same exact age as Tyler Robinson and so on.

57:03So it's like, of course it was, I mean, almost everybody's first reaction after they got over the shock and horror that Charlie had been murdered was from the roof? Really? Like, how? How was that mistake made? So what's just happened is his family has filed what's called a notice of claim, and that's a notice that you are getting ready to sue. You are getting ready to file a civil litigation against UVU, Utah Valley University, and several of its top executives, its president, its head of security, and some others have been named, along with its campus police force, saying that there were negligent behaviors in preparing for Charlie's visit.

57:48And Dave, they're saying that among other things, because they go through how this was the duty of the school to keep him safe, they understood it was a very charged political environment at the time from the multiple attempted assassinations of Trump to what happened to Nancy Pelosi's husband to what happened in Minnesota with those two state lawmakers. And then they alleged the following in their notice of claim. Turning Point USA passed along a student concern about the risk posed to Mr. Kirk by accessible rooftops on campus. Specifically, TPUSA texted, hello, Chief Long, the campus police chief.

58:22We received this message today from the student group. Quote, there is student roof access pretty close to where Charlie Kirk will be set up at Utah Valley. the Sorensen Student Center, as a couple of staircases that go up to the walkways on the roof. When a TPUSA official informed Chief Long of the concern and asked, quote, if this is true, it would be nice to either have a controlled access or allow one of my guys to be there as well, if possible, Chief Long responded by saying, quote, I got you covered. Chief Long's text message did not invite or even allow TPUSA to take any steps to secure the risk of unsecured rooftops.

59:02So what do you make of it? Good to be with you, Megan and Viva. Yeah, this is a legit lawsuit. They're going to run into the sovereign immunity hurdles. But as far as the facts, the family is arguing that indeed the officials ignored warnings from TPUSA security team about the rooftop. And it's more than that. It's also that the school did not conduct a meaningful risk assessment. They didn't secure a perimeter. They didn't even use metal detectors. Apparently, That should surprise people. They didn't monitor campus security cameras in time. And it was so bad as far as the number of police there that Charlie Kirk had to be transported to the hospital in a private vehicle rather than an ambulance.

59:42So they were totally caught flat footed. I mean, not to get really dark here, Viva, but even when I took my tour, there was an ambulance outside of every venue. look just god forbid something happened it's i don't mean i mean it's very dark that was like the one when we planned the security that was the one thing that i was like oh my god that's serious but all the security team said that's what's done in responsible security planning you know yes god forbid something were to happen to myself or one of my guests but also god forbid something were to happen to one of the audience members like we wanted something there and and at one tour stop Somebody had a medical event and we use the medical services.

1:00:24But I see the point, which is where was the ambulance? You know, and Dave's right. They're alleging they did not conduct a meaningful risk assessment before approving the outdoor location. Police did not have a written security plan for the tour event. The parties did not have a security briefing before the tour event where the risks associated with unsecure rooftops on campus were discussed. I mean, so it's one wonders what exactly was done. It's not just that it's, you know, it was not unforeseeable. It was predictable. It had happened barely a year earlier. And, you know, when they say the notice of claim alleges that there were only six police officers for a crowd of two or three thousand people, it's it's not it's just dereliction of duty.

1:01:10It's it's criminal negligence. It's civil negligence. And I know what people are going to say. They're going to say, well, at the end of the day, the buck stops with Charlie's security team. And if it was that, you know, a week of a perimeter or unsecured roofs, or you didn't get the proper assurance, you don't let him take the stage. That's a fair argument. And, you know, that's something that his security team is going to have to live with and answer to for the rest of their professional careers. But at the end of the day, when they say, yeah, we got you covered, A, you know, whether or not it's negligence to rely on that assurance, how the hell do they leave the sole rooftop unprotected.

1:01:45This is as bad as the Pac-Man perimeter in Butler, Pennsylvania, where you literally had carved out the best vantage point from which to take the shot in Butler. And then you say, well, it's negligence of the Secret Service to let Trump take the stage when there's an identified threat, all of that. But this is beyond the pale. And when you want to get to the conspiracy theories, and it's so beyond the pale that you say, people say, you can't be this bad by accident. and so there has to be some deliberate conduct to it. You can't blame people for feeling that way when people have advanced knowledge of something going to happen making social media posts and the campus security doesn't secure the most obvious vantage point from which to take a shot, which leads people to say, oh my goodness, it must have been impossible to get to.

1:02:29This must have been a professional sniper job. Somebody's, you know, scaling walls. This was you step over a fence from what everyone has testified to and you're on that roof that was unsecured with a clear line of sight in an open auditorium, like a sitting duck. So a suit itself is obviously, well, the suit, the notice of claim is well grounded. People are going to say, well, the buck ought to stop with Charlie's security team. They must be on and yada, yada, yada. Bottom line, a lot of people have a lot to answer for in terms of how the security lapse, inexplicable security lapse was allowed to occur.

1:03:00And we'll deal with this question of sovereign immunity and whether the school has it in one second, Dave, but just staying on the principal notice of claim for a minute. The head of Charlie's security team is a guy named Brian Harpool. He went on Sean Ryan last year, or I think it was last year, and he was raising this exact issue that he and his security team had asked about securing the rooftops and dealing with UVU's police force and that they were assured the police force had it. Here's that soundbite, SOT-19. On Monday before, this correspondence went to Chief Long. Hello, Chief Long. We received this message today from the student group.

1:03:48There is a student roof access pretty close to where CK will be set up at the Utah Valley. the Sorensen Center has a couple of staircases that go up to walkways on the roofs he comes back and the sort of for edification the Sorensen Center was the building in front of the Lucy Center and so he and he comes back he says you want access to the roof and came back and said I was told students have access above us. If this is true, it would be nice to either have it controlled access or allow one of my guys to be there as well, if possible. He comes back and his last correspondence was, I got you covered.

1:04:37So there it is. Pretty clearly, I got you covered, Dave. Now, Brian Harpool has been the subject of a fair amount of scrutiny and some revulsion in response to that soundbite from people saying that wasn't good enough, that you should have made sure. You were getting paid to make sure it was covered. and I understand that. There's obviously a frustration. I think all of Charlie's guys really loved him and as Viva says, will have to live the rest of their lives with what happened to him and I've met some of them and they're good and lovely men who, I mean, they'd give anything to have a do-over on that day but to the point of this threatened claim, that's a terrible text for UVU.

1:05:29It is because it destroys is the unforeseeability defense, the single biggest shield for a university in a liability lawsuit is arguing. We couldn't have foreseen something like this would happen. But if private security flagged this unsecured elevated viewpoint that overlooks the open air quad here, and then they brushed it off, I mean, saying I got this isn't enough. Did you do anything about it? Not your words, your actions. Then the danger becomes entirely foreseeable. And that can actually punch a hole in the inevitable sovereign immunity defense because it moves it away from a discretionary decision to pure negligence or recklessness in the way that they acted.

1:06:15Okay, so that's very interesting because UVU is a state university viva. And state universities generally, or state entities across the country, generally have sovereign immunity from lawsuits. And the reason for that is that if they're forced to pay, it's the taxpayer. who is forced to pay. And therefore, we've made decisions as states and in some cases, the federal government that we don't want that. We don't want the taxpayers of Utah on the hook for millions of dollars because some effectively civil servant made a terrible decision at UVU that day. But sovereign immunity does have some exceptions.

1:06:52So the general law, the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah, we pulled it, reads in part, a governmental entity, its officers and its employees are immune from suit and immunity is not waived for any injury proximately caused by a negligent act or omission of an employee committed within the scope of employment if the injury arises out of or in connection with or results from the exercise of that behavior, especially a discretionary function. And so what Dave is saying is if you can argue this was worse than negligence, This was worse than a negligent act or negligent omission. And it wasn't a discretionary function that was being performed here.

1:07:34You might be able to get around the sovereign immunity defense that absolutely UVU is going to raise if this case gets filed. I do think that's going to be a challenge. It's a high bar to get around sovereign immunity and to prove active malfeasance here as opposed to just negligent fools who didn't adequately bank on the risk of what would happen. It'll be a challenge, but I don't know if it's an insurmountable one necessarily. What do you think? They'll argue it. How about you take it one step further and suggest that this might have been deliberate? If someone says, I got you covered, and then does jack squat to actually cover that which they said they have you covered for, forget negligence.

1:08:20or argue that it was deliberate misconduct. Or you can go just reckless in between negligence and intentional is reckless. And I think you have a good argument. We're there to tell the security force we've got it and then not do it. I mean, yeah, you could make the case. You have Butler, Pennsylvania that occurred earlier. They know that it's a risk. They know that it's an MO. They raise it to the attention of the security at UVU. they allegedly prevent or don't allow charlie kirk's own security team to to deal with the threat they say we got you covered and then literally leave it open in the most negligent of ways now i appreciate people are going to go back and say it's up to charlie's security team to say if it's not secured we're not letting him out there but people in the chain of human error have to look back to that incident that happened in south america with the woman bungee jumping off a bridge and they oh that was you have five people involved and they literally threw her off the bridge because not one person decided to say, where is the rope attached to?

1:09:20And at the end of the day, you're going to look at the security team and they're going to say, it's their bottom line decision to say, where is this rope attached to? Is it a good knot? Is it secure? Set that aside. In the sequence of events, you can see how these things get lost in the shuffle, so to speak. But someone has to answer for it at the end of the day because it was a risk that was brought to their attention and the risk materialized in the most awful of manners. And so they don't just get to wash their hands of it and say, well, you know, no duty to care. you know, sovereign immunity.

1:09:47It wasn't negligence. No, it clearly was at best. I just do ask the question whether or not it was something far more sinister in terms of people deliberately leaving an access point for the easiest of shots to occur while assuring the security team that they had taken care of all of the weak spots. I mean, I get it. Charlie was extremely controversial. He wasn't exactly beloved by the university set. And I don't know whether there was an active dereliction of duty on anybody's part. Like, they just didn't give a damn what happened to him. Because you pointed it out a minute ago, Viva, getting on that roof could not have been easier.

1:10:28I mean, truly, if you wanted to set Charlie up for a catastrophic event, you wouldn't have done anything differently. You really wouldn't have. Ryan Enten, great reporter with News Nation. He went to that rooftop right around the preliminary hearing, Dave, and he filmed himself getting on on top of there. It's easy as as pie. Here's the video of him doing what the shooter is accused of doing. The courtyard where the shooting happened is right back there. But this is all, you know, public area where people walk around. If you just go up these stairs right here, I'm going to walk up the stairs. you're suddenly up here.

1:11:11This is a walkway here, okay? So you can get between buildings here. And on this side, it's now gated off. This was not gated off before the Charlie Kirk assassination, but it is now gated off. Basically what investigators said Tyler Robinson did is this gate wasn't here, So he just walked right over to that short little gate that you see over there, that more permanent gate. And then all you had to do is just go right on top of that, which would anybody could do. It would just take a second and then walk out on the roof. And right over there on the edge would be a direct view, just the perfect line of sight to where Charlie Kirk was speaking.

1:11:57And the so-called fence that he would have had to go over for the listening audience is maybe three feet tall with rails on it, like wide open rails, maybe three rails and a foot in between each rail. So almost inviting you to place your foot on the rail, swing your other leg over and pop right onto the rooftop. Yeah. And there are accounts that students frequently partied up there. They hung out up there. There's trash, beer bottles up there. And so this was an unsecured, unmonitored, high vantage point overlooking the main quad where thousands of people had gathered. So I must say this, and I respect what Viva is saying, but after being in government for so many years, it's just so much easier just to say it's incompetence than it is a – Yeah, bank on ineptitude.

1:12:43Right. Then I calculated here's a plan, because what is the police, the local police chief inside the school get out of it by letting someone kill Charlie Kirk on his watch? I think he gets lawsuits. He gets to lose his job. He gets possible just never get to work again in the security area. So I don't think it benefits anyone to have this done. I just think the easiest explanation is pure incompetence. It's stunning when you read all the stuff about what they didn't do. I read some of it, but they also allege this in the Notice of Claim. Placing a politically controversial figure like Charlie in an outdoor event in the quad, surrounded by tall buildings and other elevated observation platforms, is accurately described as walking him into a fishbowl.

1:13:30The UVU parties could have declined to approve the tour event in the outdoor quad location or could have moved the venue indoors or to a more secure location as it had done for controversial speakers in the past. Nevertheless, the UVU parties approved the event to be held at an outdoor venue, dramatically increasing security risks, but did not dedicate resources necessary to address the enhanced risk this approval created. And they spoke about how Viva, they write about how the parties, they only assigned six cops from the campus police to the outdoor tour event that ultimately had about 3 ,000 in attendance.

1:14:05The chief on the campus police, Jeffrey Long, requested approval from the UVU president to allocate more than six officers, but the president declined. They denied. Astrid Tuminez denied the request. Then they failed to ask for assistance from outside police forces, such as the Orem or Provo police. They write that the Orem police, with whom the UVU has law enforcement cooperation agreements, didn't receive a call for assistance until after the assassination. I mean, my God. And it's like, look, I understand this is exactly the kind of thing that one's security team would be thinking about. Do we want to have an outdoor event?

1:14:49It's surrounded by tall buildings. It's going to be like a fishbowl. Let's do it inside. And, you know, I know that at least at other times, Charlie was the one who wanted it outside because he wanted to pass her by to hear the debate and possibly be engaged by it and come over and be persuaded, you know? So all of that will be relevant and will be raised, but there are teams of people who are assigned the responsibility of keeping an on-campus speaker like Charlie Kirk safe. And in this particular instance, yes, It's his security team and the campus police. And in your normal negligence case or civil case, alleging something higher than negligence, worse than negligence, it would just that would just be about apportionment, Dave.

1:15:41Right. Like who out of the 100 percent responsible for securing the venue? How much was Charlie's team responsible and how much was UVU responsible? And that would typically be a jury question. Yeah, it depends on the law of Utah, whether they have that apportionment. Some states have it where every person, even not on the ballot, gets to be apportioned some percentage of blame. Others, it has to be 50 percent plus one. So it depends on whether Utah's adopted what standard. But it will be a part of any civil litigation that Charlie Kirk's own security team at least deserves some of the blame. So you can count on that.

1:16:21I think what's going to happen, Megan, is that they're going to claim sovereign immunity and then there'll be some litigation where there's an attempt to get around it and then the university is going to cut a check. I think that the state of Utah University will eventually settle. It's much easier to get this out of the media than to deal with this for years to come. Viva, the business of the text message to the head of Charlie's team saying we've got you covered. To me, it's almost like the Good Samaritan. You know, a guy, he's drowning in the lake, and the Good Samaritan sees him drowning. Now, the would-be Good Samaritan actually has no legal duty whatsoever to rush in there and try to save him.

1:17:05None whatsoever. All the law is very clear on that. You can watch him drown and do nothing about it. But if you choose to go, then certain duties do generally attach. And if you say, I've got it, and you run into the water, and then you get close and you're like, just kidding, and you watch him drown, and others didn't go because you went, now this is like something that would appear on the bar exam. You know, can the Good Samaritan in these circumstances be held liable for effectively waving off other Good Samaritans? And so I think that's kind of what we're looking at here, where the head of the campus police said, we've got you covered.

1:17:46And if he had said, we definitely do not have that covered. I don't think there's any doubt that Charlie's security team would have either canceled the event, insisted it move indoors or done something about the rooftops. Well, set aside the legal issues as to whether or not they get this dismissed on sovereign immunity. Assume this gets to the merits or deposition. And my question is, all right, what did you do after that text message? You said you got them covered. What did you do next? If the answer is strictly nothing, I mean, you've got a big problem. If the answer is, I delegated this to Mr., Miss X, Y, and Z, well, what did they do about it?

1:18:22When Dave says, you know, it's easy to attribute this to incompetence. And by and large, you know, when we entertain, you know, conspiracy theories in our heads, you understand what you can substantiate and what is just as easily explained by human stupidity, human incompetence, human negligence. But when you view Charlie Kirk as a future president, and many people did, when you view this as a future, a preemptive presidential assassination, as I do, well, you know, people will turn a blind eye just to maximize the potentiality of something terrible happening to that prospective future of these, you know, United States of America.

1:18:56When it came to Trump, A, who suffered what radical consequences for the egregious lapses of security that identified a threat, lost that threat in the crowd minutes before Trump took stage. Trump still takes the stage. Who suffered any meaningful consequences as a result of that? And by the grace of God, that could have been the end of Trump before he becomes president. So, you know, people will turn a blind eye to the extent that they can. I do wonder if there were activists somewhere in there who said maybe he doesn't get killed. Maybe something bad happens. And, you know, we don't like him because he spreads hate, as that jackass lawyer said during the arguments there.

1:19:32You know, people will turn up a line. And it's not action. It's inaction. People can sort of justify inaction. But OK, it's one of two things. It's egregious incompetence, negligence, false warranties and representations where they tell the security team, no, you don't get to go there. We've got it covered. You don't get to have a drone in the sky. You're not allowed. We'll take care of it. Don't worry about it. This is not so much a good Samaritan. This is security at the university that is bound to provide security to the individual. So, you know, it's incompetence at best. But what came after that?

1:20:03We got you covered. Because if the answer is a big fat goose egg or something worse, they've got a very. It appears to be a goose egg. It could be worse. There weren't drones. There wasn't a guard up there. They had security cameras rolling, which show the shooter climbing onto the rooftop with absolutely no interference, running over, taking aim, and shooting Charlie. Nothing, nothing, virtually nothing was done to secure. Well, not virtually. As far as we know, absolutely nothing was done to secure the rooftops. It almost seems like it was facilitated to give any prospective shooter the perfect vantage point from which to take the shot, which is another thing where, not to get into the conspiracy theories, which has been a source of a lot of debate here, you know, exploding mics, armed drones being deployed from low-flying planes.

1:20:52why go through any of that when you literally have the unsecured roof at 120 yards? Why would you need to do something so wildly riskier, less, you know, more difficult to execute when you literally have a roof unsecured and you know it, it's easily accessible. It's nothing that you have to scale, you know, rock climb 514s to get to. This was a rooftop that everyone had access to that was unsecured. They knew it was a risk and they, by all accounts, obviously failed to secure The only question is, is it grotesque incompetence or something potentially more sinister? Yeah. Does it rise above negligence?

1:21:29And was it discretionary? Are those the two things that are going to determine whether sovereign immunity protects Utah Valley University from this lawsuit? And it would be decided before they have one lick of discovery. I mean, that's something that a judge would decide on the papers to say it's a block right up front. Right. And that's when the check would be written if the judge rules that there is not sovereign immunity to block a lawsuit. Then it's on. Then it's on. And I think that's what the university is going to wait on. And I think ultimately a judge would rather not preempt the lawsuit and would just let it play out.

1:22:01And that's when the university and the state, I think, will say, OK, let's settle this. I will say this. There was a case, Richie Ledfers versus Emory County School District, Utah, 1993. A student had warned school officials that other students had repeatedly assaulted him. The principal promised to address it, but the student was subsequently beaten in an unsupervised gym. His parents sued, alleging negligent supervision and failure to protect, and the Utah Supreme Court found that the district was immune from the lawsuit. So in that case, there had been prior violence against the student. The student had warned the school that an additional attack was likely.

1:22:46They did promise that they would protect him. They didn't. He was hurt. And in that case, the Supreme Court of Utah said the district is immune, notwithstanding all that. So these are some of the cases that will come up as it plays out on the merits or on the papers, at least before we get to the merits. Guys, thank you. Don't go away. We're not done, but we are going to take a quick break. Oh, it's a heavy discussion. It brings up the worst things, just the absolute worst things. What is there to say? No matter what they get, you know, the claimants named in this notice of claim include Erica and Charlie and Erica's two children, potentially Charlie's family of origin.

1:23:29And while I'd love to see those two children get a check from the insurance company, insuring Utah Valley University, what good does it do? You know, they need to be taken care of. They need college education. Well, actually they don't. Charlie would probably be against that, but they need some sort of education and they need life expenses as they go forward to be covered. But what good does any of it do? What good does money do? We've all heard those radio ads about owing money to the IRS. They try to scare you and push you into calling out of fear. But tax relief advocates takes a different approach.

1:24:10If you owe the IRS$5 ,000,$50 ,000, or even$500 ,000, TRA has real solutions to fix your tax problem. Do not freak out. And don't lose hope because TRA can often reduce or, yes, hear me out, completely eliminate what you owe. How would that be? Their focus is on taxes and helping people and businesses resolve IRS problems. They're experts at this. They have more than a thousand five-star Google reviews and an A-plus rating from the Better Business Bureau. You no longer have to fear the IRS. Generous relief programs exist right now that can give you a clean slate if you've got somebody to help you navigate the system.

1:24:55So act today. All right, Go to tra.com. That's tra.com or call 800-575-6845. Again, the number is 800-575-6845. Tax Relief Advocates, real solutions for real people. In the U.S., a break-in happens every 26 seconds. Most systems only alert you after an intruder is inside. That makes no sense. By that point, the damage is done. These grab guys, they get in and they get out in like two minutes. You got to scare them off before they get in. That is how SimpliSafe sees it. And that's how SimpliSafe created its product. With their new outdoor camera series two and advanced AI, SimpliSafe doesn't just sit there and watch as bad guys break into your home.

1:25:45It acts. If a threat is detected, US-based live agents can intervene to deter intruders before, before they cross the threshold. Going on vacay, you can check your feed and know that professionals are monitoring your home. Plus, the setup is a breeze. Get your system running in under 30 minutes. No long-term contracts. SimpliSafe is prepared to earn your business every day rather than trying to lock you into a trap. It's elite protection that fits your life, not the other way around. SimpliSafe has an exclusive discount for you. Right now, get 50 % off your new system by visiting simplysafe.com slash Megan.

1:26:24That's half off at simply, spelled S-I-M-P-L-I, safe.com slash Megan. There is no safe like Simply Safe. Reese Witherspoon here, checking into my favorite hotel in Paris. Bonjour. Bonjour. I'm traveling with my Wells Fargo autographed journey card, so I earn rewards wherever I book travel. Five times points with hotels, four times with airlines, three times on restaurants and other travel, and one point on other purchases. Phew, that was a lot. I need to lie down. Is the room ready? Visit wellsfargo.com slash autographjourney. Terms apply. There is so much NFL on ESPN right now. Monday Night Football, plus pregame and postgame.

1:27:13NFL Live, NFL Primetime. everything you need to stay on top of every game every week unbelievable and now nfl network is on the espn app more football more coverage more ways to watch football's on all season long on espn and streaming on the espn app

1:27:37hey everyone it's me megan kelly i've got some exciting news i now have my very own channel on Sirius XM. It's called the Megan Kelly channel and it is where you will hear the truth unfiltered with no agenda and no apologies. Along with the Megan Kelly show, you're going to hear from people like Mark Halperin, Link Lauren, Maureen Callahan, Emily Jashinsky, Jesse Kelly, Real Clear Politics, and many more. It's bold, no BS news only on the Megan Kelly channel, Sirius XM 111 and on the Sirius XM app.

1:28:12Dave Ehrenberg and Viva Frye are back with me. Guys, this is a bizarre case involving a former player for the Atlanta Falcons, a reality TV star who starred on The Real Housewives of Atlanta, in addition to another program that was her own Bravo spinoff, Don't Be Tardy, Kim Zolziak and their 15-year-old son, who is now in some serious trouble. He is being accused of sexually assaulting a girl his age, I think a year younger than he is, 14, at a gym. Here's Kim, and there's the son in the background. She's getting a divorce from her former Atlanta Falcons player, husband, whose name is Croy Bierman.

1:28:59The young, the child who she's made public and his name is publicly associated with this is Croy KJ Bierman Jr. So he, here's the first incident. Okay. It's come out that there, that there was a first incident involving this KJ. He was charged in a juvenile sexual battery matter involving another young person. His lawyer has said, hold your horses here. That was basically two kids being morons on camera. And that is nowhere near the terrible incident that now the lawyer for the new girl is making it out to be, or the prosecutors handling the new girl's allegation are making it out to be. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

1:29:44That's just a little bit of background. Now, April 2026 is what we're dealing with now. So page six reports that the alleged victim describes herself as the best friend of KJ's girlfriend. So the defendant in this case is 15 and his girlfriend has a friend who is the alleged victim in this case. per Us Weekly, which got the police report. Prosecutors allege that KJ, then 15, sexually assaulted a teenage girl who was 14 in a changing area at Lifetime Fitness in Alpharetta, Georgia. The victim reportedly had a regular chiropractic appointment at the gym. Though he wasn't in the office that day, she opted to work out.

1:30:28Later, while eating in the gym's cafe, she saw a friend later identified as KJ, 15, enter the facility. She called out to him. They began talking, at which point KJ allegedly asked, if she wanted to go into the co-ed sauna with him, per the police report. The victim told police that she and KJ had been friends for some time. In high school, she also described him as a flirty and joking person. According to this 14-year-old at the time, a young woman, KJ was making jokes and flirting with her as they walked to the family locker room. So clearly she agreed to go into the sauna with him. Once they arrived in the room, KJ allegedly asked the victim to kiss him multiple times.

1:31:08Quote, he grabbed her by the waist and started kissing her neck and grabbing her butt with his hand and an open hand and kissed her lips. Read the report claiming KJ also touched her private area on the outside of her pants and she quote froze. The young woman stated she told KJ no multiple times and that he said something to the effect that she was lucky he wasn't making her do it. He then allegedly pulled down his pants to expose himself and put his unit into the victim's mouth. The victim claimed that KJ tried multiple times to have sexual intercourse with her by trying to pull down her pants.

1:31:41She stated there was nowhere for her to go, that he had pulled her toward him, always keeping his hands on her body, also allegedly slipped his hands into her shorts. She kept trying to get away. She finally succeeded. The victim reluctantly attended school the following day, but left after seeing KJ's girlfriend, her friend, and told her grandmother what had happened at the gym. She also told police she had previously kissed KJ consensually, is the quote. According to officers, KJ and the victim were both seen on surveillance video going into the family dressing room. About 20 minutes later, the victim exited the dressing room and headed toward the lobby while KJ made his way to the sauna alone.

1:32:21Test results concluded There was no presence of male or human DNA in the victim's private area and mouth that did not belong to her. Now, he's been arrested on aggravated sodomy and aggravated sexual battery charges and is being held in the Metro Regional Youth Detention Center. But this is being prosecuted in adult court, even though he's only 15. And that's one of the questions here. The defense is trying to get this treated as a juvenile case because if it's not, this kid faces a mandatory minimum of 25 years, no parole, no probation. His lawyer says it's difficult to comprehend that a 14 or 15-year-old child can be held in detention for a month or longer simply waiting for a bond hearing.

1:33:11They did get a bond hearing eventually, and it was set at$200 ,000, which is no joke. But this is a real he said, she said. And the alleged victim, she came to court trying to get bond denied. Here's a bit of that in SOT 21.

1:33:49My peers think that I'm disgusting and people make making an already difficult situation even harder. But what scares me the most is that this has gone beyond people just calling me. I have already received threats from people saying that if he is released, he will come after me. DMs, messages to my friends and family and posts threatening me because of me coming forward. The thought of him being released scares me more than I can put into words. If he is released, I am afraid that threats, calls, emails, and backflash will become even worse. The judge did allow bail, Viva, and he's been released on bail pending trial.

1:34:39He clearly comes from a very messed up family. I mean, that seems clear. I'm just going to show you one other thing before I get you to weigh in. This was an incident from December of 2023 via TMZ in which the kids called the police. And you see this former Atlanta Falcons player, Croy Bierman, screaming at the officers about some of the problems in the family. Sat 20. We're just having an argument. About what? About our life. OK, what happened? It's a life. It's destroyed. Because this right here does nothing but fuel her. I'm not doing this. This is narcissistic behavior. I'm not doing this.

1:35:22I'm just trying to figure out what the argument is. There's nothing to do. You shouldn't even be here. Who called you? Your kids. What kid? You have kids? I don't know. Whoever's in the house. We've been outside this whole time. What was the argument about? Our life. Our life. And it's destroyed. Why is it getting so heated? because our life is destroyed what don't you understand there's no money there's no house we're getting divorced one day and we're not the next she's f***ing other men what do you want just calm down what's going on Mr. Eman he's just been screaming at me for like two hours like a crazy person like a crazy person what Not great.

1:36:14What the hell is going on? Sorry, it's terrible. I was just looking up the definition of aggravated sodomy because I had to make sure that it involves unlawful or coerced oral or anal sex. So it would explain the charges against the kid. It's weird. You hear a story like this. They're all allegations. It's all he says, she says. You're dealing with some preconceived notions or assessments that this kid's coming from a messed up house. Who would have thunk that having a football player father and that as a mother might instill the wrong lessons of what consent means and what romance? I mean, who the hell knows what this kid learned from these people that are his parents that he thought was how you deal with girls that you might have a crush on?

1:37:03This is the mother, by the way. OK, sorry. This was one of the stories that was mildly new to me. These are not things that these are these are grotesque and ugly stories to deal with. Just on the one hand, you will never know what actually went down unless there's there is not going to be video footage from inside the sauna. But Megan, is this the story also where they found some very problematic things to put it mildly on the kid's cell phone? Yes, but that, too, is something that I'm confused about because the defense lawyer is really hitting that hard, saying that is not what the prosecution has purported it to be.

1:37:42Here is here's the D.A., Deputy D.A., Caitlin McGillicuddy, speaking about what they previously found on the defendant's cell phone, SOT 23. In these incidents, there were videos found on this defendant's cell phone. Those were kept in a hidden folder on his cell phone. And they do depict penetrative sex with a genome family member under the age of 12. The victim in that case was identified, was theoretically interviewed. What I think is important for the court to understand about the nature of that is that these acts occurred over a range of time. There was not just one act, one video. They display multiple encounters.

1:38:31And there's also some predatory, I would say derogatory, so I would characterize it as language used by the defendant towards the victim who knows the video. So in case you missed it, she said the videos found in the defendant, the 15-year-old's hidden files on his cell phone included, quote, penetrative sex with a juvenile family member, suggesting there's incest on there. But his lawyer spoke, Jason Sheffield, spoke with Page Six after the hearing and said, characterizations made in court regarding the prior juvenile matter involving K.J. Beerman grossly misrepresent both the facts and the ultimate resolution of that case.

1:39:11He insisted, quote, that matter arose from inappropriate, crude behavior involving two middle schoolers. It did not result in an adjudication for statutory rape, sexual intercourse, or any comparable offense. I mean, Dave, I wouldn't expect him to have even remained in the household if he were molesting like a family member. So I'm not sure what to make of that prior incident. And I'm not sure what to make of the current one either, because the defense lawyer has come out and suggested that this alleged victim has made other false allegations. Listen here to his lawyer, Jason Sheffield, in court on September 11th, SOT 22.

1:40:01As for a statement on prior false allegations, I have evidence, I have witnesses, and I believe under our current case law that is admissible evidence. It's no longer subjected to the reasonable probability of falsity standard. that it's subjected to 401 and 403. And because the report that was issued had so much to do with the credibility of the alleged victim, and it had extensive information about the way that she described these offenses, I thought it was reasonably necessary to level the playing field to talk about that particular evidence. Dave, like if that's where this goes, that she's got a history of making this stuff up, that she was good friends with his girlfriend, that it was more of a Sunday morning regret than it was an active sexual assault.

1:40:54That's a decent defense. We've seen that defense work in other cases. But how does a jury go about figuring that out? Well, the use of the prior alleged act is used to keep him in the adult system and to keep him locked up at home with strict bond requirements that he otherwise wouldn't get. And then it's up to the jury in this trial. And I think he will be tried as an adult because that's the default where he is. And because of this prior case, I think that he's going to be tried as an adult here. And then it's going to be up to the judge to determine whether to allow the prior alleged misconduct to come in.

1:41:37We don't know the extent of it because it's on the juvenile system. There's all these privacy rules in place. So it's not going to just be a pure he said, she said, because I think the state is going to get some of this prior bad acts in and they have something on the cell phones. We don't know exactly what it is. We've heard some talk here about this awful stuff in the hidden files. But apparently there may be some evidence on the cell phones that talk about what he allegedly did here in this matter, not stuff in the past. And then the main issue, though, the main witness is going to be the victim here.

1:42:13And if they could put her on trial, if they could shred her credibility, then ultimately the case could fall apart. But it's not purely a he said, she said because of the other stuff that we just mentioned. I mean, her leaving the facility, Viva, right after it happened, I don't there'll be scrutinization of that. Did she look upset? You know, what did she text him immediately thereafter? Like all of her behavior will will come under the microscope. But you got to keep an open mind, because if she if it's true, it's just an allegation that she's made prior false allegations. It's a complete game changer.

1:42:51These cases are are they're ultimately they're grotesque. And also they highlight, I would not want to be a young person in today's day and age, and certainly not a young person in a public school or, you know, the schooling system or in a family situation where they don't not just teach you right from wrong, but proper behavior that will keep you out of trouble, regardless of who turns out to be the liar in this case. There would probably be zero doubt that this kid is learning not the best lessons in life and morality from his parents. it doesn't mean the look of it now that being said if it turns out that what he's got on his phone is what was described you gotta I mean I appreciate it'll be derogatory because it's gonna be potentially evidence of another crime potentially that might have nothing to do with this something is going wrong in all of this the girl saying that she wants him locked up in the interim is also something of a red flag because if what he did is what she says she did locking this kid up at 15 for an extended period of time seems very punitive and malicious given he hasn't been convicted of anything.

1:43:53But it's just, this is a cluster F of a situation. Just raise your kids properly, teach them the right lessons, and let them know that what you record on your camera could be evidence of a crime and people don't seem to appreciate that. Yeah. Yeah. And honestly, stay the hell away from reality TV. Quickly, Dave, give you the last word. Yeah, the last word. When that guy was going crazy on body cam outside his house, did you really think telling him to calm down was going to work? Yeah. That never works on anyone in the history of mankind. Great to see you both. Thanks for being here tomorrow. We're back with Emily Jashinski.

1:44:25See you then. Thanks for listening to The Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.

1:44:50Be a happy homeowner and leave your window replacement to Renewal by Anderson. For a limited time, buy one window or door and get the second 40 % off, plus$200 off your entire purchase with a minimum of four and special financing. Visit RenewalByAndersonHome.com today. Looking for a little extra fun? Chumba Casino lets you play for free with daily login rewards and a cheeky little welcome bonus when you sign up. Explore hundreds of online social casino games and jump in whenever it works for you. No routines, no pressure, just entertainment on your terms. That's Chumba. No purchase necessary. VGW Group Voidware prohibited by logs.

1:45:35See terms and conditions for details. 21 plus.