Crime Wire Weekly 8/7/26 | More Arrests in Nolan Wells Case, New LA Crime Laws, Alexee Trevizo Shocking Win

Another packed episode with some wild crime related stories coming your way today! KJ and Jim talk Louisiana’s newest crime laws just took effect August 1st, and the changes are already reshaping how cases are handled across the state. Meanwhile in Tangipahoa Parish, Border Patrol somehow loses two handcuffed men, and a Livingston Parish Sheriff’s Office deputy was involved in an unrelated shooting just miles away.

A bizarre Alabama double killing appears connected to a decade of strange Facebook posts. Updates keep coming on the In-N-Out Burger mass shooting. A man is behind bars for allegedly sparking wildfires in Spokane. Defense attorneys in the Madison Brooks trial are fighting to keep the color pink out of the courtroom. And in the “Lustful Lawbreakers” file, bathroom sex leads to yet another arrest. Also this week: the Lindsey Clancy trial is underway, and a third person has been arrested in the Nolan Wells case for making threats to kill. In Overtime The True Crime Time Machine takes us back to the Hatfield-McCoy feud. A man walks free after a Kentucky child murder case collapses. Alexee Trevizo scores a major win at the Supreme Court. And a YMCA camp counselor is arrested for the third time on SA charges.

#truecrime #breakingnews #crime #news #podcast  #InNOutBurger #nolanwells #SpokaneWildfires #louisiana 

Speaker 1: All right, folks, welcome back to Crime Whire Weekly. Got

a slew of topics coming your way today. We're going

to cover some of the new crime laws that went

into effect on August. First, that if you're a Louisiana resident,

you need to know about the border patrol. Also in

Louisiana lost track of two handcuffed men in tan Shapeo Parish.

One of those guys still at large. An LPSO sheriff's

deputy was forced to use lethal force after an interstate

pursuit crossing two Louisiana parishes. We're going to talk about that.

In Alabama, a bizarre killing of two after decades long

Facebook post would have made you think these people were friends.

Very bizarre. We have an up to the minute information

on the tragic in and out Burger Mass shooting that

occurred just a few days ago. A man has been

arrested for arson in the massive Spokane, Washington fires. Yeah,

have you been seeing all the It's terrific.

Speaker 2: I know bits and pieces, but when I saw how

many people and then there's mandatory evacuations, It's like, Okay,

this is getting this is getting out of control.

Speaker 1: Yeah, it's horrible. The defense in the Madison Brooks trial.

They were attempting to ban pink in the courtroom. Now,

the Madison Brooks trial is a Louisiana case. We'll talk

about it in a little while, but we're going to

tell you why they were attempting to ban it and

what the result of that was. We've got another lustful

lawbreaker segment. I'm not even going to tell you what

it's about. You'll have to wait around and listen. We're

also going to talk about the Lindsey Clancy trial.

Speaker 2: Yeah, I've been following that one. Yeah, and you know,

there's a lot of components to that one. That's it

depends on the mindset, your end, I think, because people

are very polarized by that one.

Speaker 1: What is she in trouble for?

Speaker 2: She's the one who strangled all three of her children

to death with the exercise.

Speaker 1: Bands and then no, well, I mean until the case

is the trial is well.

Speaker 3: I'm not saying we know she did the questions more

about why she did it actually, So yeah, it's pretty

it's pretty seriously a lot of people are polarized by

this one.

Speaker 2: We'll talk more about it though.

Speaker 1: All right, We're going to talk about a third arrest

that has been made in the Nolan Wells case over

threats to kill witnesses. In over time, we're going to

bring you another segment of the True Crime Time Machine.

A man in Kentucky has been released after killing a

child and serving less than ten years in prison.

Speaker 2: And we actually covered that a long time ago on

this show that that could happen, and now we've we're

seeing it come to fruition.

Speaker 1: Alexei I always struggle with her last name, Treviso. I

don't know why I struggle with that, but she has

won big in the Supreme Court in Colorado.

Speaker 2: Indeed she has.

Speaker 1: We're going to talk about her. The YMCA, a camp counselor,

has been arrested for the third time for child sexual assault.

Speaker 2: Things that make you go hmm. To be once accused

of something makes you kind of go ooh, but three times, Yeah,

it's a pattern.

Speaker 1: You got to hear this, and so we're going to

jump right into it. But as you can see, man

as far as topics, we're covering it all today. All right,

let's start off in Louisiana and Kelly. The way we're

going to do this one is I'm gonna mentioned the

law that has taken place on August first, So we're

dropping this a few days after August first, but I'm

going to mention the law, mention what it means, and

then we'll just comment back and forth as we go along.

So the first law that has changed, I don't know

if it's changed or just been really it's just been introduced.

And this has everything to do with technology is the

new deep fake laws that have been passed. Louisiana passed

several new laws to add criminal penalties for using AI

to produce child pornography and to protect K through twelve

students from deep fake material. Act eight ninety two expands

the definition of child sexual abuse material into state law

to include images created with AI, and Act to eleven

prohibits the use of a child's image to train AI

to produce child pornography. Ninety six also further prohibits the

use of deep fake material against students enrolled in K

through twelve schools, which I believe we covered a case

where that actually happened. So what do you think about

that one?

Speaker 2: I think it's good. I think we should be doing

this right now, not a minute too late. And I

think of this Obviously this is horrific that people would

do that, But I think of it in kind of

the same realm as like nil that deals with our athletes.

Speaker 1: How I expect that.

Speaker 2: Well, let me explain. You know, name, image or likeness.

You know, they're mad because they want to make sure

that no one uses their name, image or likeness and

takes you know, they should get paid. You know, I'm

trying to say, for whenever that stuff is using, they

don't want people using it without them getting paid. Right,

you can't just in IL what did I say?

Speaker 1: You said it in I l okay, But.

Speaker 2: In this case, I think of it along those same lines,

like you own like you are, the ownership of your

own face and of your own body. In these kids

don't have, you know, they should be able to not

have someone make something that looks like them, even if

it's fake and it be distributed and people go, oh, well,

you know it's not real, so it doesn't really matter.

It does matter because you're implying you're doing it to

make it look like these children and so oh and

it's also pornography, right, they're naked. No, I know, but

I'm saying, if I agree with it, anybody, because there

is an argument that people say, well, if it's not real,

couldn't it be considered as like art or something. No,

because it's meant to emulate something real that is illegal,

and that's the whole thing here, And so I agree

with that. I think it's a great law, and I

think that it's going to get more and more finite

as criminals are going to do what they do and

we're going to find we're going to find out that

it'll have to be amended probably a couple of times

too well.

Speaker 1: And technology has changed, you know, you got to change

with technology. That's what this law is all about. A

few years ago, you couldn't just deepthake somebody. I'm telling

you can take a picture now, and not only a picture,

a video of someone and manipulated to look absolutely real.

You can't tell the difference. And a lot of what

spurred this was a case where a high school student

actually got in a fight with another student and was

kicked out of school because this other student made a

deep fake image of her naked and it had spread

all over snapchat. That's what spurred a lot of the

law that is coming out now, where when these students

are enrolled in school. If you're caught doing that, you're

going to be in a lot of trouble. Whether you're

a minor or an adult doesn't matter. But then, of

course you also have people faking child pornography and then selling.

Speaker 2: It, and I think that anybody who's willing to purchase

it should have a talking to.

Speaker 1: Oh well, that's against the law as well. Possessing child

pornography is already against it, right.

Speaker 2: And so this just says though in that law, didn't

it just say it's illegal.

Speaker 1: It's considered that deep fakes are looked at just like

real child boriography, whether they are.

Speaker 2: And I also would challenge our schools or whomever that

students need to be made aware of this law change.

I think it's important and that they understand the seriousness

of it, because failure or lack of knowledge of the

law is not an excuse, right, you know.

Speaker 1: I agree with that all right. Next one is protecting

the way they labeled it is restaurant workers, but it's

any retail establishment. It doesn't have to be a restaurant.

It can be your local antique shop. Louisiana will get

tougher on people who attack front counterstaff, staff and Restaurant

Workers Act eight ninety two enhances criminal penalties for assault

and battery when the victims are employees of food and

retail establishments. The law comes after a Bat and Reach

couple was accused in March of shooting a rest owner

rather over a mistake in their food order.

Speaker 2: I agree with that too, because with cell phones and

stuff today, you know people are filming and you're seeing

it more and more that people are throwing drinks at

them and swinging on them behind the county and get

on TikTok long enough and you'll see it.

Speaker 1: Yeah.

Speaker 2: So again I agree because that's nonsense that shouldn't even

be happening.

Speaker 1: Right, and the stiffer penalties hopefully will make a big difference. Look,

as someone that worked in retail for a long long time,

you got some idiots out there that will absolutely freaking

act like total jerks if they don't get the answer

they're looking for. And in some cases, at like this

Bat and Rooge couple, they shot someone over a mistake

on a freaking food order. I mean, it's just absolutely crazy.

Speaker 2: Calls are made because of the knuckleheads, not because of

the Yeah, the average one.

Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a law because something happened somewhere along the

line to cause it. Hazing Education Act three and nine

requires the State Board of Regents to develop a policy

on hazing prevention and reporting with the colleges and schools.

It requires students UH to directly receive anti hazing educational

material and for the Louisiana public and private schools that

receive state funds to maintain a database of reported haiti

hazing incidents. This is named after Caleb Wilson, who was

a Southern University student died last year in a fraternity

hazing incident, and the Act was a result of legislative

task force that worked to address hazing and educational institutions

across the state. And I remember Caleb Wilson was also

a band member in Southern University's band, which is world renowned.

You see it in the Rose Bowl and everywhere else.

They can, they can throw down, they can.

Speaker 2: And they're fun, they're fun to watch. But you know,

this has been happening more and more, which is just

you know, you'd think this would be like once in

a blue moon type thing, but like remember Max Gruber,

and there's there was another one too that in recent

years here on our on our campuses that I mean,

you shouldn't be dying to be a part of something, right,

And you know you can't say, oh, I didn't know

that was gonna happen, Well it did. I mean, when

you bring someone to the point of death, like, that's

insane to me that it would go that far.

Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely, it's a good law to have, you know,

in the in the past, especially when I was younger,

I used to think, well, they made the choice to

drink four thousand beers. But when you make it a

requirement and you're dealing with college age students, it's a

little bit different. Your mind frame is a little bit

different because you think you're gonna live forever and you

think you know that it's so important that you belong

to this fraternity. If they told you jump off a building,

a lot of people would do it. So as I aged,

I matured a little bit on that, just a little.

I do, really, just a little, And I do realize

that the importance of having these hazing laws won a

little closer to home. JV's law, which honorsam Spring's resident

Jody Mann and her mother, was actually in here recently

doing a podcast. The twenty year old was killed after

being hit by a car while walking home, and Judy's

law requires law enforcement to notify other area agencies of vehicles, descriptions,

and other information on hint and run crashes. It also

requires a hearing before bond can be set in such

cases which an arrest is made.

Speaker 2: Gotcha, Yeah, and that poor mom. I mean, she's been

all over our local news. If you're not from here this,

you know, you fight so hard, you've lost. She lost

something very precious to her, her daughter, and she was

an innocent victim in that. And to be hit on

the side of the road and then someone just keep

going is I don't know, man, that's that's pretty callous.

Speaker 1: So what do you think about the law?

Speaker 2: I think it's good, But you know, so your jurisdiction

is gonna dictate kind of where your communication goes. And

so it does make sense when we have got when

you've got bordering a agencies that are next to each other,

that if there was a hit and run that they

need to be on the lookout for those vehicles. It's smart.

I think it makes sense. I don't know. My question

would be as far as how that's done because radios

like in dispatch and all it to your police officers,

they don't go along jurisdictional lines, you know, so I

don't I would.

Speaker 1: I would think it would be like an amber alert

type situation, but just for law enforce I would guess

there goes out on everybody's.

Speaker 2: Yeah, like I was gonna say, it had to be

on their cat, in their in their in their units.

Maybe it'll pop up and they can be looking for them.

I think it's good. It's smart and it I don't

know how it works exactly, but it's.

Speaker 1: New so well. In the In the other side of

that law is actually what really is intriguing to me,

and that is the requirement now of a hearing before

bond can be set. See prior to this law, UH,

when you had a hitting, uh hit and killed incident

like this, Uh, there's an automatic bond. There's an automatic

number there and it it doesn't matter the circumstances. If

it's twenty thousand dollars bond, you don't even have to

see a judge. It's twenty thousand dollars bond to get out.

Now they were required to have a hearing before bond

is set, which means that the judge who is setting

bond is going to get all the information so as

it should be.

Speaker 2: Someone died, that's right. This isn't like you hit a

poll and did property damage. Someone lost their life, you know,

So I concur I think that's a good one too.

Speaker 1: All right. Child grooming laws, So a new law states

that if the child is under seventeen and the offender

is at least four years older, seduction, emotional manipulation, threats, promises, coercion, enticement, isolation,

or extortion with the specific intent to commit a sex

offense against the child is guilty of indecent behavior with

the juvenile. And I may have a different opinion on

this than you.

Speaker 2: I'd like to hear yours say that this is probably

my favorite of all of them, because you'll see it

time and time and time and time again, that grooming

is an extremely predictable pattern. That's why predators do what

they do. It's very obvious that they will befriend the child,

integrate themselves, and then test the waters before the abuse occurs.

It happens like clockwork that they isolate and do these

things to these children. So what happens is someone may

see the grooming behavior, but if it is not illegal.

Now there's checkpoints to this. It's not just someone points

and says, I mean, there's checkpoints to this. But if

you've been around people long enough, and you've been around

sex offenders in the capacity of law enforcement or whatever,

you know what they're doing, but you can't do anything

about it because it's not illegal. It's not illegal to

give gifts to your neighbor's kid. It's not illegal to say,

come sit on my lie.

Speaker 1: Just gifts to your neighbors kid doesn't mean you're trying

to groom them.

Speaker 2: Right, But that's why I'm saying it's totality of circumstance.

There's tick marks that are going to have to be

met here, text messages, there's other things that they're that

they're going to be looking at. But what happens here

is if you cannot go, if you can't address the

fact that a child is being groomed, because it's not

illegal to groom, but we we recognize that that is

absolutely going to result in a victim. Why wait until

we get a victim when we could have saved the kid.

That's just reactive, that's not proactive. And so I think

I agree with it. I like it. I would like

to know exactly what the what the specifications are for that,

because the law doesn't like you know your market directly,

it does say like seduction and all that kind of stuff.

But you can be guaranted, you can guarantee that if

that is picked up on, I think it's a good thing.

Speaker 1: Okay, So what I'm going to say on this is

I love the spirit of the law. I think a

lot of these things, unfortunately, are going to be hard

to prove in court. There are some cases where they're

absolutely probable. Like AJ said, if there's a bunch of

text messages out there, you know, things that that are

not based off of perception, yeah, absolutely those would be provable.

I think that it's going to be hard to prove.

For example, if someone gave someone a gift and there's

no other trail there and a parent things, but a

parent might think that yeah.

Speaker 2: But it doesn't meet the muster of of the law. Okay,

I mean it doesn't.

Speaker 1: I agree, That's exactly what I'm saying. In some situations,

this is going to be very hard to prove. But

I like the spirit of the law and we'll see

how how it works out. I'm certainly offer anything that

protects children. Well, oh, I'm sorry, Well, I'm just trying

to move on to the next lene.

Speaker 2: I would want to add one line though, and tell

you any minutes in that started with the Catholic church

and a victim in the Catholic church is where that

started from. And they were talking to one of the

legislators and was like, you know, if I could have told,

you know, the things that were happening, and people knew

I had said the things that were happening, but it

was kind of like it was just kind of like

a gray area. And he said the words, well, what

if why isn't grooming illegal? And that is what got

that lawmaker thinking, wait a minute, wait a second. Yeah,

this was like very obvious what was happening to this kid?

And so that's where it came from. So I'm with you.

I like the spirit of the law.

Speaker 1: And of course not all Catholics groom people. We want

to make we want to make that quietly. All right,

let's go to the next one. Balloon releases. This is

a popular ritual for morning and celebrating the life of

someone that had died obviously, and now a new law

is considering that intentional lettering. The law also applies to

anyone who organizes a blame release at which twelve or

more balloons are release. So if you release eleven apparently

okay for this, I look, I agree with it one

hundred percent because it's it is especially a bad thing

for animals and the wildlife out there. You wouldn't believe

the amount of birds that choke on balloons.

Speaker 2: Not only that, but very expensive livestocks, very expensive live

stock is lost to this, and I think that's probably

where this is really being pushed from, because you know,

you lose a couple hundred dollars cow behind a balloon

that says rest in peace, you know, well goli and

then the farmer is the one that's taken the hit

for that. And so I agree, and I do like

though that they do give a limit, because that would

mean that if you accidentally let go of a balloon

or if you you know, in groups, or you know,

if some were lost in the in the mayhem, then

you could be charged.

Speaker 1: And right, it has to be an intentional relie. You know,

if your daughter's holding a balloon with Mickey Mouse.

Speaker 2: And they start slamming kids.

Speaker 1: Yeah, well it wouldn't be in Louisiana if it was

in Disney.

Speaker 2: Well, that's true.

Speaker 1: You know, if she lets go of a balloon or he,

they're not gonna get arrested for that or anything or

get a fine for that. And the twelve or more

is only when as it relates to someone organizing the

balloon release. So you can't release one intentionally in Louisiana. Now,

are you're gonna get at least fine? I mean, you're

not gonna get brought to Angola, But we'll see how

that goes.

Speaker 2: Serial balloon let goer.

Speaker 1: Yeah, and I'll cover one more here because we're kind

of laboring it now. But notification when an inmate is

wrongly released. So Act one sixteen requires the public to

be notified when prisoners are wrongfully released from a parish

prison facility, jail, or state correctional facility. Now, this law

comes after backlash to former Orleans Paars Sheriff Susan Hudson

for last year's ten inmate jailbreak and other incidents of

improper inmate release. And that happens more, y'all might think, well.

Speaker 2: It makes sense though, Like if an inmate escapes Angola,

which I know that's different, but like they're going to

notify the immediate area because there's houses and people that

live there. And I think that that's common sense that

you would alert people that someone is out that should

not be out.

Speaker 1: Well, I think this law actually relates more to victims,

so not all the time when someone's wrongfully released or

victims net.

Speaker 2: A function should be autobiz that.

Speaker 1: Yeah, And there were a few victims of these ten

guys that were released from the Orlean Sheriff's office and

they found out via the news. They didn't find out

via the Sheriff's department or whoever would alert people to that.

And and there these were guys that were wanted for

murder an attempt at murder that were waiting trial. And

so you would think if they tried to kill somebody,

they call that person, Well, now they have to.

Speaker 2: Yeah. I hate that we're being super Louisiana centric, it

seems like, but this one's kind of important because we're

going to stay right here in Ponchatula, Louisiana would right

down the road from US. But one of two barefoot,

handcuffed men who ran from US border Patrol agents Monday,

has been captured after allegedly trying to enter an occupied

home near Ponchatoula. While authorities continued searching for the second suspect,

the Tangipaho A pair of Sheriff's office identified the captured

man as twenty six year old Edwin Gonzalez Avalez of Honduras.

Sheriff Sticker said canine teams tracked Avalez sent for about

thirty minutes before pushing him out of the woods near

Betico Creek Trailer Park, and he was taken back into

custody around three pm. The sheriff's office is still looking

for thirty one year old Elvin Martinez, who was last

seen on a trail camera in the Robert area, which

is right here again, just a few exits down the road.

The Tangobaha Sheriff's office said that the canine teams tracked

Martinez along Highway one ninety and that's whenever the scent

was lost. The agency's search was called off after midnight

and handed off to Border Patrol personnel. The incident began

around six forty five am when Border Patrol agents stopped

vehicle along eastbound I twelve near the Tangipahoa and Saint

Taminy Parish line. Three Hispanic men in the vehicle were detained,

but the driver and the front seat passenger ran from agents.

According to the Sheriff's office, one ran north of the

interstate while the other headed south. Both were barefoot and

handcuffed in the front when they took off. Deputies, federal

agents and the Louisiana State Police spent several hours searching

the wooded areas and the nearby creeks. Now During the search,

a nine to one one call reported seeing a handcuffed

man trying to enter a mobile home on Dusty Lane

in the Betico area. Two children were inside with their

father and another man. According to the children's mother, and

this is a quote, my ex husband and the kids

were still sleeping, but the suspect knocked on the door,

thinking it was somebody that they probably knew. They opened

the door and noticed that there were handcuffs and tried

to shut the door. He tried to push back into

the house and I'm not too sure what happened from there,

but he took off running. That is scary, That is

really scary. Sheriff Stickers said. The encounter left the family

and the sun surrounding community. Shake and our homes are

our fortresses and our place of security. To have a stranger,

especially one in handcuffs, walk into their property and much

less take their residence or try to enter their residence,

it's unsettling, to say the least. According to Sticker, I'm

glad we were able to capture this individual in a

timely manner and hopefully put the community's fear at rest.

Anyone who sees Martinez should not approach him and should

call nine one one immediately tpso said US Border Patrol

will provide additional information about the traffic stop and the

circumstances surrounding the escape.

Speaker 1: Yeah, and that dude is the second guy is still

on the least as of this recording. Anyway, you know

the problem with this is not that Okay, Border Patrol

arrested two guys who were working a construction site and

they were illegal aliens and they went and pulled you know,

pulled over, pulled them over. However, they got them handcuffed

them and they escaped. When you break into a house,

or attempt to break into a house that has occupants,

first of all, if that would have been my house.

That dude would have sprung a leak in a heartbeat,

multiple leaks, and so that's where it becomes really scary,

really dangerous. So these weren't just some innocent guys who

were handcuffed and trying to get away from you know,

big brother here. They when you involve innocent citizens and

you do stuff like that, you become very dangerous. And

they're lucky whoever's house they broke into wasn't packing, yeah,

because they would have been or at least one of

them would have been absolutely dead. Hopefully they'll catch the

other one. Mind boggling to me that someone can escape

with handcuffs like that and still be on the run.

Speaker 2: I was actually going to.

Speaker 1: Sure he doesn't have them on anymore.

Speaker 2: I was actually going to address that those deputies had

just or officers had just detained them, and that's why

they were handcuffed in the front, and that was out

of a courtesy. If you're handcuffed in the back, you

don't have the balance and it makes things much more difficult.

I bet you from now on that courtesy will.

Speaker 1: Not get policies about to change.

Speaker 2: Yep, got a handcuff in the back, all right.

Speaker 1: Let's but let's stay in Look, Tangi Parish had a

bad day because this happened the same day, And we're

going to start off in Livingston Parish and make our

way to Tangibahoe Parish and a Livingston Parish Sheriff's office

deputy shot and killed a fleeing suspect. This occurred this

past Monday morning. This prompted a partial closure rather of

I fifty five and an investigation by the Louisiana State Police.

According to the Louisiana State Police, at an LPSO deputy

attempted to stop a car in relation to a criminal investigation.

Quote unquote, if you're like my wife, you're saying, well,

what are they stopping for? I don't know. I have

no idea. He thinks I got all this inside info.

They don't tell me nothing.

Speaker 2: And they were I believe they were chasing him.

Speaker 1: They were chasing him. She wanted to know why they

were attempting to stop him. The driver, fifty year old

John E. Granger, the third of Robert and that's Robert

louis He refused to stop in a pursuit that started

near Aubany, Louisiana, which is in the Livingston Parish ended

on southbound I fifty five north in the I twelve interchange,

with Granger crashing into another car. Granger then ran from

deputies into a wooded area. I don't advise doing that,

an lpso Sheriff Jason Ard said in a video posted

to social media. Well, instead of me quoting him, I'm

gonna let you here quickly. It's just real short. Here's

that clip.

Speaker 4: I'm just checking in. I'm on I fifty five. I

know you've heard about the officer and Bob shooting. My

deputy is okay, everything is good.

Speaker 5: This is just one of them scenes when I have

the process.

Speaker 4: This actually took place and started in all Benny with

a vehicle pursuit. You can see we have the vehicle

there and basically what we know right now is that

your deputy.

Speaker 5: Pursued this vehicle. This vehicle left the interstate.

Speaker 4: He actually decided to go down that area back there,

and doing so.

Speaker 5: He wound up crashing into another vehicle. He then ran

on foot.

Speaker 4: Deputy chased him. Deputy had to tase the suspect. Suspect

fought through the taser disarm the deputy of his taser.

Speaker 5: After doing that.

Speaker 4: He basically started tasing the deputy as they were having

a physical altercation. Deputy then did what he had to

do to survive in this incident. So right now, deputy

is okay, you know our suspect is in the hospital.

Speaker 5: And the physical condition, and we'll just.

Speaker 4: Ask you just to stay tuned and as we get

more information, we'll give you that information. It's very important

for us to work through these crime scenes and make

sure that we do our due diligence, and in this investigation,

Louisiana State Police.

Speaker 5: Are on the scene.

Speaker 4: They will be doing the investigation for us because we're

now in Tangentose, Paris, and it just works better that way.

So thank you for all the prayers, thank you for

staying tune, and.

Speaker 5: Again we'll get back with you as soon as we

have more information.

Speaker 1: So, as you heard, the deputy deployed taser and the

suspect did what Jason Arbor Sheriff Jason Arbor referred to

as fought through that taser, disarmed it from the deputy,

and began using the taser against the deputy, at which

point the deputy then shot Granger. The deputy did sustain

minor injuries. Granger was taken to the hospital where he

later died, and the driver, incidentally the granger hit, was uninjured.

Speaker 2: Good. I'm glad that that person was okay. And I'll

say this, there's been a lot of questions and speculation

and all of that about you know, oh my gosh,

you know, how did he get the taser from him?

I'm gonna tell you how. I wasn't there, and I

don't have any information other than basic knowledge of he

gets the guy after he's done a bunch of different

things wrong. Then he's following that, you know, that that

course of action that you're supposed to take on the

continuum of force. He showed presence, he had his lights.

He gets the guy, he crashes, he pulls over, he

pulls the taser. He's you know, he's a taser. Taser, taser, taser, taser.

He hits. But what people may not realize is that

whenever a taser is deployed, even if the prongs aren't

don't hit right, they can still like dry stun you

with it. Still. It doesn't mean that it's just inactive.

They can still dry stun you. So here you are

fistfighting some guy. I'm assuming I haven't. There's been no

release of tape or anything. But he says there's a struggle,

so they're fighting.

Speaker 5: You.

Speaker 1: Well, he fought through that taser, right.

Speaker 2: Fought through the taser, which I would be willing to

bet was dry stunning him. And then finally he drew

his weapon. The guy didn't stop and he got popped.

That's how it goes after.

Speaker 1: He was getting tased. I mean, and that's kind of

my question when you have a taser, Kelly, because you

would know when you have a taser and you shoot

that taser, what I'm thinking is, Okay, you got one

prong there and it comes out, it hits the person

you know, in the buttocks or somewhere, and you tase them.

First of all, tasers don't always work some people. It

just don't affect him for whatever reason.

Speaker 2: It depends on your body. It depends on your body

mass and everything.

Speaker 1: But my second question is does it have more prongs

or is it just one prong on one shot.

Speaker 2: So the model that this deputy had, as far as

I would know, is it two prongs come out? You

get hit with two, and.

Speaker 1: That's what's two separate wires.

Speaker 2: Yes, and that's what's conducting that current. So if the

suspect was like hit with one and the other one missed,

then he's not getting the full taste. Didn't the suspect

get tased first with a partial Didn't somebody say that

in another.

Speaker 1: According to the quote from the sheriff, the deputy to

pullyed the taser and the suspect fought through the taser.

Speaker 2: Yeah, so this is what then.

Speaker 1: Started tasing the deputy. So how did they had? My

question to you, listen to my question. That's the dry

How many wires do you have?

Speaker 2: Because if it's a cartridge and then you refire to

light them back up? Okay, okay, So what it sounds like.

Speaker 1: To me, you shoot more than once? You can shoot

it someone more than once with the taser.

Speaker 2: Well, you're just lighting him back up, like the prong

is in you and then you're just lighting them back up.

Speaker 1: But if I then disarm you with the taser and

then I shoot you with the taser, how's that possible?

Speaker 2: That's because that's not what I think happened. I think

that the cartridge would be taken out and then he's

dry stunning him with it. It's like a it's a

dry star guy and so so I'm thinking a prong

hitting hit the bad guy, okay, and then he fought

the taser off of him, but he could still pop

you with that taser. He's just not shooting you with

a with a new.

Speaker 1: So the electricity is still coming. He said that the

guy that fought through the taser and then tas the

deputy was basically using the taser on his skin. That's

what I like, a stun gun, I as.

Speaker 2: I'm assuming that's what this is. I mean again, I

don't I don't know what model. I don't know.

Speaker 1: Well, you know, a regular firearm has bullets. Yeah, so

I didn't know if a taser had more than one

one shot. If you will, one bullet in it that

can hit somebody and tase them.

Speaker 2: I think the one that this deputy would have had

would have been a cartridge that goes in and then

when you fire, it's a two prong that comes out.

But you you want to get a solid two You

have to get both wires in the in the guy

to get the full effect of If you only hit

him with one wire, you got a problem.

Speaker 1: I got you. Well, there you have it.

Speaker 2: Now I haven't done taser training in a long time.

So you know, if it's a newer model or something,

then I'm wrong and y'all can cheat me out on them.

All right, all right, let's go to reform Alabama.

Speaker 1: Okay, reform Alabama? Yeah, all right, and Alabama with reform?

Speaker 2: Are you man? I don't know anything. You've been everywhere.

I hadn't been anywhere.

Speaker 1: I've been there, but I'm familiar with that.

Speaker 2: An Alabama man accused of brutally killing a US Army

veteran and his wife inside their home had publicly praised

the couple and their family for years on social media,

including a post that but he did just right before

their deaths. George Birmingham, forty six years old, was arrested

early on the early morning of July the twelfth, and

later charged with capital murder, two counts of murder, second degree, burglary,

drug possession, and resisting arrest, and connection with the deaths

of Justin Elrod forty three and Lena Elrod forty two.

The couple was found dead around twelve fifteen am inside

of their home after authorities responded to reports of a burglary.

Court documents alleged that Birmingham killed Justin l Rod by

striking him or stabbing him around the head and the

body with a metallic object, and killed Lena Elrod by

beating her in the head with an electric reciprocating saw

that sounds like a nightmare.

Speaker 1: Wow.

Speaker 2: Authorities said the killings occurred before a burglary of the home.

Birmingham is being held without bond on the capital murder charge.

Facebook posts show Birmingham had portrayed the l Rods as

close friends for roughly a decade. Posts mentioning the couple

date back nearly ten years, and in a June sixteenth post,

less than a month before the killings, Birmingham wrote about

a hypothetical Mars colonization trip, enlisted friends and family that

he would take, including Justin and Lina. No one listens

better than him and no one is more fun to

argue with than her, he wrote, closing with I love

you guys. He added that he was very thankful for them.

In February of twenty seventeen, Birmingham shared a GoFundMe campaign

to help cover medical expenses for one of the l

Rod children, writing that the family was very dear to

his heart. That May, he hosted a benefit comedy show

to raise further funds for the family. In a twenty

eighteen post, he referred to some of my favorite ladies.

That was a quote alongside a photo that included one

of Elrod's daughters. Authorities have described Birmingham as an acquaintance

of the couple, but a daughter of Lena l Rod

and so this would have been Justin's stepdaughter said that

Birmingham had been close with the family for years, that

his wife ran a cleaning business with Lena, and he

was best friends with Justin. So Justin Elrod served in

the US Army as a military police officer and was

deployed to both have Guesstan and Iraq. After leaving the military,

he worked as a federal correctional officer in Aliceville and

then Friends and family members described him as humble, hard working,

and just an all around nice guy. Aliceville Mayor Terrence

Wyndham said el Rod was the last person that I

would think that something like this would happen to, noting

that he had survived military service and prison work, only

to die in this manner. Coworkers expressed ongoing shock at

the loss. The Pickens County Sheriff's office asked the public

to keep the victims' families and the first responders who

discovered the scene in their thoughts. The Elrod family requested

that memorial donations be made to the Wounded Warrior Project

in Justin's memory. And we want to give our shout

out to listener Cindy Schwartz for sending us that story.

Speaker 1: Yeah, so on this one, just a couple of things

I want to say. First of all, when I heard

this story, it was one of the strangest stories I

had ever reviewed. Because this guy, y'all, wrap your mind

around this, for the last ten years, has been acting

like he's besties with these people and you don't hopefully

you're not going to kill your bestie, right. Not only that,

I had a picture in my head. It's funny how

perception is, but I have had a picture in my

head of what these people looked like. And if you're

watching the Patreon right now, you see what they look like.

And that picture was, you know, maybe a smaller guy

and all of those sorts of things. This dude, this

military guy, is absolutely jacked. He is a big dude.

And the guy that actually killed him is a bigger dude.

One of them though, was very healthy, and one of

them is just jacked with muscle on top of muscle.

So they haven't come out with what spurred this as

far as there had to be something going on somewhere,

because the daughter of the guy that killed him says, oh, no,

they weren't only friends. There was a working relationship between

the wife and this person's wife apparently, or this person's relative.

So we're going to try to keep you pasted on it.

But what a strange you know, ten years worth of

Facebook post loving these people and you kill them.

Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know why my brain went to the

fact that I think that this guy and you know,

you just make up this an area in your head

of how you think this could have happened when you're

looking at people. But because of the fitness of the husband,

I'm more inclined to think that that the killer kind

of snuck him that's why, you know, like he wasn't

prepared for that. And then the tool he used to

kill the wife seems like something he just grabbed out

of out of proximity, like it was right there and

he could use it.

Speaker 1: Yeah, because that's a strange it's very so.

Speaker 2: Maybe then she came in on it, saw it and

he was like, oh, got to get rid of that witness.

Speaker 1: Yeah, strange, I don't know. I mean, that guy's a

big dude. That's a big dude right there. He's he's

what sixty how many inchest does it say he is tall?

Because of course God forbid me sixteen sixteen sixty six inches?

So what does that in feat? Well it's actually that's

like five six So he's short God, but he's stout.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 1: So well, anyway, hopefully we'll get in for more information

on that. Now we're gonna go to Twin Falls, Idaho,

and you know, one of the most trending stories in

the country right now, horrible, horrific A gumman open fire

at a crowded in and out burger restaurant in Twin Falls.

This was Saturday afternoon this past Saturday. He killed three

people and wounded seven others before dying of a self

inflicted gunshot wound. The attack occurred around two twenty nine

PM at the In and Out Burger on Blue Lakes

Boulevard in Twin Falls, and it opened just a week

earlier to this incident. On July twenty fourth. It was

part of California based chain's expansion into Idaho. The restaurant

sits in a busy commercial area. Twin Falls Police Chief

Matthew Hicks identified the shooter as twenty four year old

Chad Williams. Hicks said investigators believe Williams acted alone. He

died nearby from what authorities determined was a self inflicted

gunshot wound after being confronted by an off duty Idaho

State Police trooper and an armed private citizen who returned fire. Quote.

We believe their actions helped drive the suspect away from

the scene, preventing more casualties. And I can't agree with

that more. The armed civilian has been identified in multiple

reports as Jordan Selenas who is thirty five oh Kimberly, Idaho.

And if you've seen the video of this guy, he

looks like he just stepped off of the Yellowstone TV

show or something, But actually he was a healthcare worker, y'all,

and caregiver. Selena said he drew a suppressed pistol engaged

the gunman after arriving for lunch here in gunfire. Police

have not I've officially identified the off duty trooper. Of

the seven people injured, tube retreated and released, three were

listed in stable condition and two remaining critical condition. This

is as of the latest update, and those figures are

described as preliminary. Now tell you a little bit about

those who died. Ashley Garbay, who is twenty three of Stockton, California,

an in and Out associate and manager who had traveled

to Twin Falls to help train workers, and she ends

up dead sadly. Christopher Klanch who is fifty nine of Hagerman, Idaho.

He worked at what's known as the Residance Ranch Recovery

Center and he helped others with sobriety. Relatives said he

was an avid in and Out fan and had been

excited by the Twin Falls location and wanted to get

there early on. Dan Schultz, who was sixty six from

Salt Lake City, Utah. He and his wife, Rennette, were

visiting Idaho over the weekend on their way to a

family reunion. They were charging their electronic car in a

nearby nearby the In and Out location when the shooting

broke out. Dale's wife, Rennette, is being treated for extensive

shoulder injuries following that shooting, and of course Dale passed away.

Among the wounded was Terry Dudley, a local taxi driver

who was shot while charging his electric vehicle nearby, probably

in the same area as the Schultz were, and he

was wounded. There were several other people wounded they have

not identified yet, and a motive remains under investigation. Nobody

knows why the hell this guy did this. The only

thing we know as of this point is that he

attended the College of Southern Idaho from August of twenty

two to August of twenty twenty three, but he didn't graduate,

and he worked briefly as a student senator before being

impeached for lack of engagement.

Speaker 2: Yeah. So, uh, it's hard. You know, I have an opinion,

but I'm sure to drive it this quickly is silly,

but it sounds like this is gonna be that typical thing. Unfortunately,

stay typical. Where this guy goes off to college, he

starts withdrawing from social life, he becomes recluse. I bet

there's going to be online metadata that they're gonna find

of him going through some you know, crazy thoughts and

being part of weird groups or something. And then he

goes out and he's going to go make his mark

by shooting people at an in and out burger.

Speaker 1: Well, this is all speculation.

Speaker 2: It is absolutely, absolutely speculation. But he didn't know anybody there,

so this had to be some sort of internal personal

problem that he went and he took out on innocent

victims and bystanders. And it sounds like he's shooting everywhere.

He's he's shooting taxi drivers, and he shoot, you know,

like people that are just near by. I don't know,

you're a coward. Whatever the reason is, it's not good

enough to do that to people. Yeah, I'm not impressed.

All right, Let's go to Spokane, Washington. A thirty seven

year old Spokane man has been arrested on suspicion of

first degree arson in connection with the Old Trails Fire,

one of three major wildfires that have destroyed hundreds of

structures and forced tens of thousands of residents to evacuate

the county. Aaron Farranacci I believe is how you would say.

That was taken into custody around five pm Monday without

incident after detective served in a rest warrant and a

search warrant at his residence. In the twenty eight hundred

block of West Elliott Drive. The sheriff announced this on Monday.

Faranacci is being held at the Spokane County Jail on

one million dollars bond. The Old Trails Fire started Saturday

morning near the intersection of North Old Trail Road and

West I don't even know how to say this word.

Euc led euslid, euclid. I'm ignorant today. I don't know

how to say that. Another road, and then north of

Airway Heights. It rapidly spread through Riverside State Park and

into neighborhoods in the northwest Spokane area, and it became

the largest and most destructive of the three blazes in

what officials are calling the Spoken Complex Fire. I'm gonna

say this real quick too. I was getting notifications on

my phone about mandatory evacuations for this. Were you, No,

I don't know why I was getting those. Preliminary estimates

put structural losses in the hundreds, with figures ranging from

around six hundred and forty to more than seven hundred

billion buildings destroyed or damaged across the complex, and many

of them are homes tens of thousands of people. Estimates

have ranged from about sixty five thousand to sixty seven

thousand were under evacuation orders. According to the investigators, a

witness reported seeing a man acting suspiciously and kneeling in

the grass near the fire's eventual ignition point on Saturday.

The same witness later contacted Airway Heights Police after seeing

that man again and noticing spoke smoke. Officers located Fernichi

roughly a mile to a mile and a half from

the origin, detained him and questioned him. They then released

him at that time so that resources could follow and

focus up on the rapidly growing fire. But what's weird

to me is what he was in possession of when

they let him go. Because he was found in possession

of waterproof matches and a butane lighter. That's odd to

me that he was let go. I don't know why

he didn't remain detained. Spokane County Sheriff's Office Major Crimes

detectives working with the Washington Department of National Resources fire

investigators later determined that the fire originated at the exact

location where the witness had observed Pharnici kneeling. Evidence of

the scene was consistent with ignition by a match or

a lighter. Authorities obtained a warrant Monday, and they arrested him.

It is a continuing and ongoing investigation. He emphasized that

the citizen tips and awareness were critical to the relatively

quick identification of the suspect. Fernicci, who is a Spokane resident,

has a prior felony manslaughter conviction in Arizona, stemming from

a twenty ten incident in Mesa in which he fatally

shot his father following a domestic dispute. He has no

prior arson convictions, though officials noted that he had previously

been contacted regarding arson related behavior. Investigators have not linked

him to the other two major fires in the area,

the Autumn Lane and the Fairview fires, which causes still

remain under investigation. During questioning, Fernietzsche reportedly told authorities they

quote didn't know the whole story end quote. That was

according to the sheriff, the fires remain a major priority,

with low or zero containment reported in the day's following

ignition amid challenging winds and dry conditions. Washington Governor Bob

Ferguson has described the situation as likely the worst natural

disaster and spoken.

Speaker 1: History unbelievable that one person can be responsible for all

of that. And I know everybody out there Lessening has

seen at least some of the footage of the devastation

going on right now in Washington. And with fires, it's

different than any other sort of event because these fires,

which obviously this person started, but sometimes they're just wildfires.

It's just dry and hot and something sparks. And in

this case, you know, you're talking sixty plus thousand people affected.

And when your house burns down, it's totally gone. It's

different than like a flood, where at least, you know,

I can speak from experience, at least you got sticks,

you know, a shell of your house to start with.

I mean, everything is totally destroyed in a situation like this.

So somebody that would do something like that is to

me about as low as you can get.

Speaker 2: He murdered or you killed your own father and then

you went and destroyed.

Speaker 1: Yeah, and apparently in that situation it was considered justified.

I don't know anything about that case, but I mean,

he's out, and so that makes me think that if

he killed his own father, maybe there was something behind that.

I don't know, if there was some justification for it. Apparently,

if he was out, I would assume I don't know.

Speaker 2: I don't think that what he did was you know,

obviously he doesn't care. Obviously he doesn't care about other people.

Speaker 1: All right, let's go into lustful Lawbreakers. All right, we're

gonna get to Saint Petersburg, Florida for a really bad

young lady. A nineteen year old woman was arrested this

past Saturday after she allegedly spat in the face of

a restaurant manager while being escorted out of a downtown

Saint Petersburg establishment. And I know what you're saying, Well,

she spat in someone's face. House that a Lustful Lawbreakers segment. Well,

the reason that she spat in this restaurant owner's face

is because she got caught engaging in sex in the bathroom.

Speaker 2: Oh yeah, well that's the in one place i'd want

to be great. Yes.

Speaker 1: According to police, Hailey Surball was confronted by employees of

What's none as Shish So Crispy this is around one

am last Saturday for having sex in the bathroom at

the restaurant. When staff members were guiding her toward the exit.

She turns and she spits in the face of an

employee who was the restaurant's general manager. The spit was

visible on the victim's face and multiple witnesses observed the act.

According to the arrest warrant, she was charged with misdemeanor battery,

which it surprises me that she's caught having sex in

the bathroom, why is she not charged with that too?

But missdemeanor battery was what she was charged with and

was booked into the panelas county jail, later released on

one thousand dollars bond. In court records indicate that she

faces other pending felony cases. Prior to this stuff going on,

She was previously arrested last chair in connection with an

auto burglary and being an accessory after the fact to

an aggravated assault with a firearm. She was also she

also accepted pre trial diversion programs after an arrest for

criminal mischief involving the slashing of a car tire. So

this Carl's decision making is not the best. As you

can see, there's no indication that the manager who was

spit on. Rather, if there's no indication that, yeah, the

manager who was spit on has any charges related to

the incident. She was identified solely as the victim of

the battery, so apparently she didn't fight back, but even

if she did, they wouldn't have charged her for that.

Now you may wonder what shesh show Crispy is that?

And I did because I'm like, what kind of name

is that? It's a popular Asian fusion restaurant that expanded

from a food truck concept into a full brick and

mortar location in downtown Saint Petersburg, and apparently it has

a rather the lorch bathroom.

Speaker 2: A big bathroom in an aphrodisiac on the plate, because

I mean, what are we doing that The bathroom at

the dad Gum Asian Fusion is where we're you know,

getting down.

Speaker 1: I speak for yourself, Well, hey, you.

Speaker 2: Know, do your thing. But this her history aggravates me.

This is why I was never allowed to be a judge,

because I would be slamming her. She's been slashing tires,

banging in the bathroom. Slammed she should be because she's

making she's already.

Speaker 1: Been slammed in the bathroom. That's make it slam in

court next.

Speaker 2: Okay, all I'm saying is that kind of that kind

of person gets on my nervous because you're just being

a you're being a foolish, lustful lawbreaker.

Speaker 1: Girls up Kelly's recording. It's really late in the day,

which is why the patron members haven't got this. Still

late in the day. So Kelly's recording later got foolish

villains and loves lawburkers.

Speaker 2: She's got to be all confuzzled over here, all right,

So we're going to come right back here to baton rouge.

But this case has made national news and so this

update is kind of interesting. So the Madison Brooks case

that is huge in our area. It's been a long

time coming that this would go to court. So Judge

Gail Ray ruled Thursday to allow spectators to wear pink

to the courthouse in support of Madison Brooks at the

trial of her accused rapist, Desmond Carter. Now that's kind

of a something people didn't expect, you know. There was

a lot of talk online of your shirt color is

going to be what we're having to rule on. Well,

an attorney for Carter had filed a motion to block

Madison Brooks supporters from wearing pink during the upcoming trials.

While Judge Ray denied the motion to ban the pink

out t shirts with Brooks picture, signs and badges. Those

will be prohibited. So Carter is one of three suspects

facing charges in the rape of Brooks before her death. Carter,

who was seventeen at the time of his arrest, will

be tried as an adult for first re rape and

third degree rape. If convicted of first degree rape, he

faces a mandatory sense of life in prison without the

possibility of parole. Third degree carries a penalty of up

to twenty five years in prison. Carter's trial is set

to begin August seventeenth, after failed attempts to dismiss the charges.

Other pretrial motions considered were being considered, including a motion

that two charges create double jeopardy for Carter because the

first degree in the third degree rape reference the same act.

Anyone attending the trial, including Brooks's family, will be allowed

to wear pink in the courtroom. The judge is quoted

as saying pink is often used in merchandise for the

Madison Brooks Foundation, which is a nonprofit that was founded

by her mother. The defense argued that plans for spectators

to wear pink were a quote plot to intimidate the jury.

Speaker 1: Of course they would. So yeah, I got no problem

with that, if you know, if you if you want

to show support for the family in this tragic incident.

I got no problem with anybody wearing pink. I don't

think that's gonna quote unquote intimidated jury. They're gonna know

who the supporters are because apparently you sit on one

side when you're the supporter, on the other side when

you're the other person supporter. And Jim Chapman didn't know

that and went to a trial and got ugly looks

all the time because apparently I was sitting with who

the prosecution deemed the enemy. But that's a story for

another day. Now, in this case, I didn't have a

problem with it, and I would have been shocked if

the judge would have not allowed that. And I'll take

that a step further and say, I've seen many trials

where people wear the picture of the person and you know,

justice for and whoever that person is. I would think

there's precedent in this case.

Speaker 2: I worldy God, there is, and I think that the

judge made a good decision here. So here's here's the deal.

Whenever you are in the the you're an observer of court. Okay,

it is probably not in good decision to wear shirts

that would have a victim's face on it, even though

you want to. I know, emotionally it's a knee jerk

thing that I can't well, you know why can't I.

But I think it's a smart decision that that is

not allowed by a lot of judges because what it

does do is raise an appeal opportunity based on the

very fact that you wearing that could adversely, the argument

would be, would adversely affect the jury in terms of

emotion or or you know whatever. I remember very vividly

speaking with Max Shachter, whose son, you know, was killed

by the Parkland shooter, and when they were told that

they couldn't wear shirts that had you know, their son's

picture on it, it really enraged him. You know that

my son's dead and I can't represent him. But I

understand why. It's actually to save you from further problems

if you know, you don't want to give them a

reason to be able to make an appeal because of

an unobjective courtroom experience which you are supposed to be

given by law, and the Constitution. So pink, I don't

think is explicitly implied to Madison Brooks. Lots of people

like pink, and I think maybe I'm going too deep

with it, but a color does not represent just one

person in this world, but a shirt with her face

on it would, And so I do agree. I think

that's why the judge made the right decision. You can

wear pink, just nothing with her face or logo or

anything that may somewhat influence the jury or give an

opportunity to raise an appeal. I think the judge again

is saving these people from themselves in a way by

making it as objective and neutral as possible, so it

won't give this guy the opportunity to get some type

of appeal out in the event that he is convicted.

So good, good move.

Speaker 1: Yeah, so big case in Louisiana's actually going down in

just a couple of weeks, very close to as a

matter of fact, some of the accused or from despair.

So oh yeah, we'll bring you the dates on that one.

Now let's get into another case that's close to home.

And if you listen to my podcast, you're no stranger

to this one. I've dropped four episodes on this particular case,

and that is the Nolan Wells case. A third person

has been arrested for allegedly threatening witnesses in Nolan's Nolan

Wells case one month after his disappearance. And I'm just

going to be clear here wasn't just witnesses. It was

the mother who is also a judge, a sitting judge

of one of the boys that was involved in this

case named Warren So that that led to an arrest,

and they have several more that have now been arrested.

This case is out of control. It has fueled a

lot of attention on Well's friends and their actions surrounding

his disappearance, and his family as well as all these

boys have faced a ton of criticism and online abuse

with no provable anything evidence wise. As of yet now,

no one has been charged y'all with anything on wells

disappearance or death. In the latest update, Edward James Porter,

who was forty, was arrested on charges of transmitting threatening communications.

On Thursday, July thirtieth, Joseph Demarci, who is a twenty

seven year old California resident, arrested for the same thing

pretty much and Michelle Edwards of Cincinnati, Ohio has also

been arrested on the same charges for calling in bomb threats. Now,

these people didn't know each other. This is all just

threats getting called in and messages voice messages threatening the

lives of these people. And it's got to stop. It

is doing nothing to get to the bottom of what

happened to Knowen Wells, it's only creating division. And uh,

guess what these people are fighting back. They have a

go fundme. It's not called go funme, it's Gifts and Go,

which is like the uh I guess the uh the

the sister Well, it's the competition of GoFundMe and gifts

and Go right now, in just a couple of days

in relation to these boys, has raised almost three hundred

thousand dollars for these young men to fight back against

all the defamation that they are getting right now as

it relates to this case in their view. And so

it's it's it's a pretty uh hot case right now,

and the threats are out of control.

Speaker 2: Yeah, and let me tell you, the people that are

calling in.

Speaker 1: These threats are uh idiots.

Speaker 2: They're not only idiots, but I want to tell you

they exemplify exactly what the numb nuts that that don't

think about anything. They just make up their own decision

about what must have happened, with no rhyme or reason

other than what the media is putting out there. And

pundits are out there arguing these what ifs with no

evidence whatsoever. And so I'm getting frustrated with this case

because all we know, okay, all we know is a

black kid. If you watch the news, a black kid's dead.

White kids must have done it just because he was

black and they were white, and don't we don't really

know anything else. And it's mind blowing to me that

people would go to the extent of making up their minds.

It must have been malice. It had to have been malice.

I think that you have to be a racist within

your own soul to go after somebody like that with

no evidence. You are the problem, calling in bomb threats

and all of that. Let's go to Plymouth's, Massachusetts. The

murder trial of Lindsay Clancy, the former Massachusetts General Hospital

labor and delivery nurse accused of strangling her three young

children in twenty twenty three, is ongoing in Plymouth Superior Court,

with testimony focusing on the events of the killings and

her mental state at the time. Clancy, who is thirty five,

has pled not guilty to three counts of first degree

murder in the deaths of her children, Cora, who was five, Dawson,

who is three, in Callan who was eight months. Prosecutors

dropped three related strangulation charges ahead of trial, calling them

redundant to the murder counts. If convicted of the first

degree murder, she faces a mandatory sentence of life in

prison without the possibility of parole. Authorities alleged that on

January twenty fourth, Clancy sent her husband or her then husband,

Patrick Clancy, out of the house to pick up some

takeout and some medication. While he was gone, she strangled

the three children with exercise bands in the basement of

the family home. She then cut her wrists and her

neck and jumped from a second story window, suffering a

spinal cord injury that left her paralyzed from the waist down.

She remains in a wheelchair and has been held at

is This Tewksbury Hospital. On that Patrick Clancy discovered the

children upon returning home and made a frantic nine to

one one call that was played in coreps, during which

he is heard yelling she killed the kids. Jurors have

also her testimony about the scene, the children's injuries, and

Clancy's own medical treatment after the fall. The central issue

at trial is whether Clancy was criminally responsible. Her defense attorney,

which is Kevin Reddington, argues she was suffering from postpartum

psychosis and was over medicated at the time, claiming she

heard a voice telling her it was her quote unquote

last chance to kill the children so she could kill herself.

The defense points to her history of seeking medical health treatment,

including a voluntary stay at McLean Hospital in the weeks

before the killings and a complex regiment of psychiatric medications.

Prosecutors contend Clancy acted with deliberate premeditation and extreme atrocity

and cruelty. They argue she intentionally cleared the house by

sending her husband on errands, and carried out the killings

swiftly and rationally rationally. Assistant District Attorney Buckingham has told

jurors that this was a case of was not a

case of a woman in the throes of psychosis, but

one of intentions action. Jury selection began July twentieth, with

a panel of twelve jurors and six alternate seated upon

opening statements and testimony that followed This included multiple days

from Patrick Clancy, which was the ex husband, medical personnel,

and others. The trials expected to last several weeks and

has included emotional moments such as the playing of the

nine one one call and descriptions of the children's final moments.

Clancy has appeared in court in a wheelchair. The case

has drawn significant attention to issues of postpartia, mental illness,

maternal mental health treatment, and criminal responsibility.

Speaker 1: And I'm not gonna say a whole lot about this

for a couple of reasons. Number One, I'm a guy

and I can't relate to postpartum depression. I know it

exists because I know some people that suffer from that.

So I'm not going to give comments on something that

I don't understand. And I'm main enough to admit I

don't understand that horrific, tragic, can't imagine it, of course,

But I'll let you do the comment on this.

Speaker 2: Yeah, So obviously the trial's not over. We only know

what we know from the trial. What I can tell

you is that the divide on this case is huge.

There is a huge divide between people, and it seems

to be, in my humble opinion, that we lost three children. Okay,

three children died, and a lot of people cannot get

past that statement to even want to listen to the

evidence that's being placed. And I'm not saying it's not right.

I mean, of course we should mourn these three children.

They're innocent victims. I just do think that what's been

presented so far at trial has been pretty eye opening.

Pretty eye opening one so.

Speaker 1: Is because I haven't followed this case. Is this lady

denying she did this or she's saying there's a rason

them for why I did this.

Speaker 2: She's saying that she was in psychotic not just depression.

Speaker 1: That she was she's admitting to killing.

Speaker 2: Yeah, there's not a question that she killed the okay,

and she's admitting to that. Yeah, pretty m okay. The argument,

I mean, she pled not guilty, but I think it's on.

Speaker 1: The by reason of or not guilty, like I didn't

do it. That's that's the question I'm trying to. I

don't mean in the ruption yet, but the question I'm

trying to get to is is she pleading not guilty

by reason of insanity because she had or by reason

of postpartum depression, or is she denying she even killed

these children? I mean to me, that makes the difference.

As as a follower the case, I guess.

Speaker 2: She she's arguing. She's not arguing that she didn't do it.

She is arguing that she's not criminally she's responsible she

did this, But her argument is that she was in

this postpartum psychosis and taking multiple medications. And I'll give

you a little insight real quick. So the prosecution is

saying that that her suicide attempt was a fake attempt

at suicide. I'll tell you this, that's the most real

attempt at suicide I've ever seen in my life that

you would uh make yourself permanently disabled, shatter your spine.

I saw the you know photos. It's a pretty freaking

convincing fake attempt.

Speaker 1: Well, Marta shot himself in the head and they said

it was a fake.

Speaker 2: This is yeah, this one's and there's also there's also

something weird about it because based on all of the

testimony to this point, Okay, the doctors and nurses are

like and EMTs are kind of like she she couldn't talk.

I mean, she was out of it. She was not responsive,

you know type stuff. But her husband said that she

told him the kids were in the bay. But the

medical people are like, nah, she couldn't talk. So there's

a lot of stuff that's very I don't know, it's

eye opening.

Speaker 1: Well, and that's why it's important that you follow trials.

And that's why I'm a big proponent of cameras in

courtrooms because of things like that. You wouldn't know those

facts unless you have a good reporter that's reporting all

of them, unless you can do things like you're following

this case, you're watching it on court TV. Right there,

you have it.

Speaker 2: I'm trying to be very we.

Speaker 1: Would all love to be able to do that.

Speaker 2: When I watch a trial, I'll just say this. I

used to just watch a trial and me up in

my feelings, like when I was younger, But after some

experiences in life in trials that were just travesties, I

now think if that were me on trial, how would

I want someone to listen to what I was saying?

And I would want them to listen to everything that

was being said to be objective to listen, don't come

in with a pre preconceived notion about anything, start with

a clean slate and nothing on your mind, and only

work with the evidence that is presented to you. That's

the fair thing to do.

Speaker 1: I agree, and I think that's on buy sides. How

that's a whether you have the prosecution or the defense.

A case like a Nolan Wells case, people need to

watch that trial, and it's important that that be televised somewhere,

not to sensationalize anything, but there's so much division involved

in that case. If you could make up your own mind,

but you got to see all the facts, and that's

the only way you're going to see them all.

Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean to the point too, that people can

have an agenda. Obviously, both sides will have an agenda

a trial. But just to give another example, the prosecution

is saying that she was doctor shopping to get all

these pills because she was thinking about doing this. But

when I was listening to the evidence, that's not what

I heard. What I heard was that there was a

practice with multiple providers in it. One provider left, actually

left the practice, and so so she was moved to

a different provider. That's not doctor shopping in my opinion,

that's you're being moved to a different doctors the other

one doesn't exist anymore. In that practice, it makes sense,

so use it, you know. And that's just to date. Guys,

don't jump all over me more have it may have

broken since this has been dropped, but I'm just saying,

you know, using your own brain is powerful.

Speaker 3: Uh.

Speaker 2: You sleep good at night when you listen, and you

don't just take other people's opinions.

Speaker 1: Right, and not relying on other people's reporting, which can

be inaccurate, as we're seeing in a lot of cases lately.

So I guess stay tuned for that one. Aren't you

going to do an episode on that or something?

Speaker 2: Absolutely? But I will not go a hardcore until I

have everything and I and I know people don't like that,

but I think it's part of the problem when you

jump the gun.

Speaker 1: Well what if what if you report just what's.

Speaker 2: Occurring now that I am willing to do.

Speaker 1: You know, I would imagine you've got enough of the trial.

Speaker 2: I do a few, I have some notes and make

the people.

Speaker 1: All right, I'm not gonna I ask you any final

thoughts because we're about to jump into overtime, all right, folks,

we are in overtime, and we're going to start off

in the true crime time machine. All right, We're going

to go back to August second, excuse me. August seventh

of eighteen eighty two. Now, what began as a heated

argument over a small debt on election day along BlackBerry

Creek erupted into a savage knife and gun fight that

left one man dying and so at the stage for

one of the most prolific feuds in history. That's right,

the hat Field in.

Speaker 2: McCoy's Hatfield and McCoy's.

Speaker 1: That's right.

Speaker 2: That sounds like a band.

Speaker 1: You've never heard of a hat Field in McCoy I

guess not. Oh my gosh, y'all hear that she's never

heard of the Hatfield in McCoy's.

Speaker 5: Are you shocked?

Speaker 2: Are you bullying?

Speaker 1: You shot me every week?

Speaker 2: No?

Speaker 1: That's like, that's the most famous feud in history. I'm shocked. Okay.

On August seventh of eighteen eighty two, voters and local

families gathered at BlackBerry Creek powling near the home of

Jerry Hatfield. This was in Pike Creek, Kentucky, just across

from the Tug Fork in West Virginia whiskey, of course

flowing freely. It is Kentucky after all. And Tolbert McCoy,

who was son of Randolph McCoy, accused Elias bad Lias

was his nickname Hatfield. They should come up with something

better than that of still owing him about a dollar

seventy five. That's right, a dollar seventy five for a

fiddle he sold years earlier. That's a good price for

a fiddle. Words were exchanged. Tolbert's younger brother's, nineteen year

old farmer and fifteen year old Randolph Junior backed him up.

Local police officers and others briefly calmed the situation. Now

Later in the day, Ellison Hatfield, brother of the powerful

West Virginia Clan leader Anderson Hatfield, awoke from a drunken

nap and joined the confrontation. Insults flew. According to accounts,

Tolbert declared himself hell on Earth. Ellison answered with a

sharp retort, and a fistfight broke out. Tolbert drew a

knife and repeatedly stabbed Ellison in the abdomen and stomach.

The younger McCoy brothers piled on with their own blades

and Ellison, unarmed and bleeding, heavily grabbed a rock in

a desperate attempt to fight back. At that moment, Farmer

McCoy pulled a pistol and shot Ellison in the back.

Ellison Hatfield collapsed with some two dozen stab wounds and

a gunshot injury. He was carried away mortally wounded, and

the three McCoy brothers were taken into custody by police

intending to transport them to the jail. Devil Hatfield that

was his name, Devil Ants Hatfield. He quickly organizes a posse.

The group intercepted the prisoners before they got to jail.

They took them from the constables and ferried them across

tug Fort into Western Virginia Territory. The brothers were held

under guard with a grim condition. Their lives depended on

whether Ellison survived. Ellison Hatfield died of his wounds on

August ninth. That night or that night, the Hatfield party

brought Talbert, Farmer and Randolph back to the Kentucky side

of the river, and the three young men were tied

to Paul Paul bushes near the river bank and executed

by gunfire. More than fift ty shots were fired, their

bodies left were left where they fell. The killings of

the three McCoy brothers on the heels of Ellison's death

marked a decisive escalation. What had been a simmering conflict

over livestock land and a fiddle and personal insults transformed

into open violence that would claim more lives in the

years ahead and draw national attention. Kentucky authorities later issued

indictments on twenty hat Fields, including devil Ands, but the

accused largely remained beyond the reach of Kentucky law because

they were in West Virginia, and the events of August

seventh in the subsequent days of the eighth and ninth

of eighteen eighty two became one of the most notorious

chapters in the decades long Hatfield McCoy feud. The bloodshed

on BlackBerry Creek that election day remains an illustration of

how quickly a personal or could explode in the lasting,

deadly family warfare in Appalachia. And all that occurred one

hundred and forty four years ago.

Speaker 2: Today, if I got shot fifty times over a fiddle,

I would be so mad.

Speaker 1: Dude, they if they still feud to this day, there

are like tenth generation Hatfield and McCoys that still fight

each other at Kentucky. Can y'all believe Kelly's never heard

of the hat Field of McCoy's. It's a freaking movie for.

Speaker 2: Okay, when did it come out in the seventies?

Speaker 1: No, like everybody's heard of the Hatfield McCoy's except Kelly.

Speaker 2: Okay, Well I didn't hear. Well, now you know, Well,

now I know, but I will tell you this. That

guy's name was Devil. Do you know I had a

name devil Ants? Do you know I had a neighbor

named Vicious?

Speaker 1: That is a true story that has nothing to do

with the true crime time.

Speaker 2: You're saying Vicious and Devil. I mean the names are

pretty hardcore.

Speaker 1: All right, let me go to myr got for us her.

Speaker 2: I'm gonna shoot you all straight on this one upon intended.

This thing has me has me pretty damn mad. Okay,

So we're gonna go to Louisville, Good Kentucky, the.

Speaker 1: Same place where were just at.

Speaker 2: Well, let's listen to this, guys and let this really simmer. Okay.

Ronald Xantis, the man that was found not guilty by

reason of insanity in the twenty fifteen stabbing death of

a six year old boy. His name was Logan Tipton,

but he was convicted of assaulting the boy's family. He

was released from a Kentucky prison on July twenty ninth

of twenty twenty six as a freeman with no supervision. Further,

he stabbed a six year old. This has irked me

since I first heard this case. Exantes, who's forty two,

completed his adjusted twenty.

Speaker 1: Stab He just killed the six year old.

Speaker 2: Well, killed the little boy. I thought he stabbed him.

Speaker 1: That well he did, Yeah, but he killed him.

Speaker 2: Yeah, I know. But my point is that it's a

six year old, right, you know what I'm saying. This

is a baby, and this guy's walking free. I don't

know how his family is holding it to get so. Exantis,

who was forty two, completed his adjusted twenty year sentence

at the Kentucky State Reformatory in Oldham County. Kentucky Justice

and Public Safety Cabinet spokesperson Morgan Hall confirmed the release, stating, quote,

pursuant to state law passed by Kentucky's General Assembly, Ronald

Lexantis has served the sentence that was issued by the

Woodford Circuit Court and has been released. He is no

longer in the custody of the Department of Corrections. The

Kentucky Parole Board did not release Xantis, and he was

not released early, obviously making the point that he served

a sentence that's why he was let out. So in

December of twenty fifteen, Exantis drove from Indiana to Kentucky,

entered the unlocked Tipton family home, took a kitchen knife,

and then fatally stabbed Logan Tipton multiple times in the

head while that little boy was sleeping. He also stabbed

Logan's father, Dean Tipton, and two sisters during the attack.

A Woodford Circuit County jury in twenty eighteen returned a

split verdict not guilty by reason of insanity on the

murder and first degree burglary charges, but guilty for mentally

ill on two counts of second degree assault and one

count a fourth degree assault. He was sentenced to twenty

years in prison for all of the assaults. So it's

important to note that the Parole Board Kentucky prole Board

had repeatedly denied him discretionary parole, but he was first

released on October first of twenty five under Kentucky's mandatory

re entry supervision program because he accumulated good time credits,

educational credits, and the time that he served. Within days

of that release, he traveled to Marion County, Florida, and

on or about October the ninth, he was arrested for

failing to register as a convicted felon within the required

forty eight hours of arrival, a violation of his supervision

conditions like this guy can't even follow the basic rules

to be let out early. He was returned to Kentucky,

where the prole board revoked his mandatory re entry supervision

in November of twenty five and ordered him to serve

out the remainder of his sentence. His final release on

July twenty ninth carried no parole, no probation requirements whatsoever.

Officials noted that sentence credits reduced the original maximum serve

out date of November twenty thirty five by nearly nine years.

This case drew national attention and contributed to the passage

of Logan's Law, which reformed aspects of the insanity defense,

split verdicts, and mandatory re entry supervision and sentencing for

certain violent Offenses. Attorney Kelly Kearney acknowledged the release and

the concerns it raised for the Tipton family in the community,

stating her office had taken every lawful action available. The

Department of Corrections noted it lacks authority to hold someone

beyond the expiration of a valid court imposed Senate. But

I got to say something real quick, Jim. I know

you're ready to pop off, but I have to say something.

If he was too crazy to be found guilty of

the murder, how to HELLI it too crazy to be released.

Speaker 1: I don't understand that they released people that are found

not guilty by reason in saying the unfortunately, and he's released.

Speaker 2: That's wrong.

Speaker 1: I agree one hundred percent. What do you think should

have happened?

Speaker 2: I think that if he was too crazy, okay for

the conviction of the murder, then you take his ass

and you put him in a mental hospital. You already

gave him one chance. He broke that.

Speaker 1: I mean, I'm asking. I'm not saying that. Disagree.

Speaker 2: I mean, it's kind of a short, short sighted way

of me saying it. But ultimately, yes, I think that

he's a very dangerous person. He went and killed a

complete stranger and tried to kill the rest of the family.

Speaker 1: Yeah, he could have had for Andy.

Speaker 2: Youah, I'm not saying he's not crazy. I do think

there's something very wrong with him. So to that point,

what the hell are you talking about mandatory re entry?

There is there should be no mandatory so we're giving

him all of the benefits, and I understand that that's

what happened. I'm not blaming the Department of Corrections and

I'm not blaming law enforcement or anything, but there is

a problem here, and I think that Logan's law I'd

like to I'm gonna go actually read up on that one,

because this is this is not right. He already broke

parole within twenty four what was it, twenty four hours

forty eight hours of the first time that he was released,

But then you're still going to give him the nine

year shortened sentence on credits. That should not have been

an opportunity. He broke the conditions, right, why the hell

were you still allowing him nine years? That little boy's

still dead, believe it or not. He never got to

live his life. The family was destroyed, and then this

fucker gets to go walk around freed and it makes

me angry. That's miscarriage of justice if I ever saw it.

That's it all right.

Speaker 1: Let I agree. Let's go to Santa Fe, New Mexico,

and the New Mexico Supreme Court is ruled that body

camera footage of Alexi Treviso can not be used as

evidence in prosecuting her for the death of a newborn

child of her of her newborn child, saying physician patient

privilege remained even though police in Trevine's mother were in

the room when the doctor asked Treviso if the newborn

baby who was found dead about the newborn baby who

was found dead in a trash can. Prosecutors argued that

physician patient privilege was waived because police and the mother

her mother were in the room when the doctor told

Treviso about the dead newborn quote. The state's argument urges

us to adopt a per se law that whenevery third

person is present who is not necessary for care, that

while the patient communicates with the doctor, you essentially are

waiving your confidentiality, regardless of that person is of the circumstances.

We reject the argument is inconsistent with state law case law.

Rather in the policy interest underlying the physician patient privilege.

Now staff had started running tests on Treviso and giving

her morphine for her pain when she allegedly left the

hospital room to use the restroom. When she returned, she

got back into bed, and a member of the staft's

cleaning crew went to clean the bathroom and noticed a

trash bag felt heavy. When she looked inside, she finds

the body of a newborn baby that ended up being

Treviso's baby. Police arrived after the hospital called them and

said we may have a crime here. Trevisa was in

the middle of receiving medical treatment when police walked into

the hospital room wearing body cameras. A doctor is seen

on body camera video telling Treviso they discovered a dead

baby in the bathroom. She said, quote, I'm sorry. It

came out of me. I didn't know what to do.

Trevisa's mother asked how big the baby is. When a

nurse informs her the baby appeared to be full term,

Treviso allegedly said, quote, nothing was crying. Treviso allegedly confirmed

to her mother that she put the newborn in the

trash bag. She has maintained that the baby was still

born and laid explained she held the baby and there

was no movement, no breathing, nothing. She was released from

the hospital after getting treatment and allowed to go home

and continue going to school, but she was arrested on

May tenth of twenty twenty three in charge of first

degree murder after the autopsy report came back showing the

newborn had air in his lungs and evidence of a

hemorrhage consistent with hypoxia. Treviso's charges were filed based on

a conversation in the bodycam video, as well as hospital

security camera video that showed her walking in and out

of the bathroom where the newborn was discovered, and the

bodycam video and security camera video now cannot be used

as evidence.

Speaker 2: Yeah, I wasn't I read the ruling on this too,

because I was kind of confuzzled by it. But I

now understand how the you know, how they came to

this ruling. So you know, you don't forfeit your privilege,

you know, your doc her patient privilege just because some

people come into the room. And part of the argument here,

well law right, it's hippa. But part of the problem

here too is that the doctor invited the officers to

come into the room. The doctor was like, come here,

and then turned around and basically the doctor started kind

of interrogating her from what I understand, from what I

have seen and understand, and the doctor basically was like,

we found a dead baby in the you know, like

she kind of believed that that might have been what

just happened. So the issue here becomes the girl. The

little girl, the mom of the baby didn't get the

opportunity to decline because the doctor told the cops to

come in. The cops came in, and then she was

asked a question, and then she was also under the

effects of narcotics because they had been given her that

a grave level of pain for having just given birth

and these other things, and so you know, you don't

get blanket, you know, the doctor. I feel like the

doctor made the mistake here, but the cops didn't realize

what was going to be uttered like a spontaneous utterance

type thing. But because of the way that it worked out,

what should have happened was the doctor should have been

a mandatory reporter. That's the argument here that people are

raising that, well, wait a minute, how can you say

none of this can be evidence can be used because

you know, a doctor is a mandatory reporter if that

baby was in the trash can and then right, But

they didn't do it right because the doctor the police.

I know, but this is the problem. The doctor called

the police. The police then should have started their own investigation.

But because the doctor was in the room told them

to come in, they walked in, and then the doctor

starts questioning the little girl before she's even been mirandized

or she's been anything. Then the prosecution is trying to say,

well that that's patient privilege is out is out the

way because you know, of all the people that were

already in there. But the doctors, the one who told

them come here, I think that she killed this baby.

They never they knew.

Speaker 1: But the police are the ones that the honest is on.

They should have stopped right there and said, before you

say anything, you have the right to remain silent. A

good police officer is not going to let you just

start talking because they know anything you say before you

read your miranda rights is inadmissible in court because you

can say I didn't know I had a right to

remain silent. Yeah, all of that, So all of that

should have occurred.

Speaker 2: But I don't blame the cops because this is how

it went though. The doctor tells cops, this is the girl.

Come see. The cops walk in. But then the doctor

and before the cops even gets.

Speaker 1: Well, the doctor starts asking questions, but before she responds

that that police officer has the opportunity to say, wait

before you say anything else.

Speaker 2: She didn't ask a question though. The doctor just was like,

there's a dead baby they found in the trash can.

She made a statement, and that's when the little girl

goes it just fell out of me. It wasn't crying,

and the cops are.

Speaker 1: Like, oh, okay, well they can't stop her and say

wait before you say anything.

Speaker 2: They can't.

Speaker 1: You have the right now say that again.

Speaker 2: They can. But if you look at the if you

look at the timeline of how it went down, they

didn't arrest her right then. They then started doing their

investigation as like it was supposed to go. Then whenever

they went and made the arrest, it was done later

on because they used yeah, because they used the video

and they used the body cam and they used everything,

so it looked like it was sign steel delivered. But

because of the patient privileged thing, that's where she's gonna

get get the upper hand, and I got to tell something.

Speaker 1: I actually it just makes the video. It makes the

bodycam inimissible. It doesn't make the case in amissible. Like

they can still use statements and all the sense. They

just can't show her bodycam, you know, footage of that incident.

Speaker 2: Well, but they also said you can't use the they

can't use the hospital footage. It knowed that. But they're

still going to have the witnesses, the people that found

the baby in all that.

Speaker 1: That's a big yeah, especially the hospital video.

Speaker 2: Yeah, but what if there was in and out of

if there were no other pregnant people on the floor

at that time, Like you can use deductive reasoning here

a reasonable human being, you know. But I think what

her defense is. I really do think that they're going

to do this. I would is I would say that

she's how old seventeen right, something like that, that you know,

someone she got scared and she someone of I don't

think the first degree murder is going to be the

charge that's going to stick, because they're going to say

anyone with her same level of experience and or you know,

mindset and all that may have made that poor decision

as well, and I just don't think that's going to

meet the muster of a first degree murder because she

didn't have the baby till she was in the hospital.

I don't know why they didn't charge it with second

degree is when I'm getting that.

Speaker 1: But if she if the baby had air and their lungs, yeah,

but then killed them.

Speaker 2: Yeah, But I don't think killed him. Well, we don't.

Speaker 1: He was a boy, We don't.

Speaker 2: But what I'm saying is her experience as a new

mother that just grabbed that she might have thought the

baby wasn't breathing or you know, they can argue that

that she thought the baby was not breathing. They could

argue that like that's why she panicked and didn't know what.

Speaker 1: To do, okay, and playing devil's advocate there. If I'm

a doctor on the other side of that, I can say, well,

the baby was breathing and had air in its lungs.

You can tell one a baby's breathing.

Speaker 2: A seventeen year old. If that baby was struggling to

breathe and wasn't doing well and she just gave birth,

I think.

Speaker 1: In them the baby was struggling to breathe. Nobody else

is saying that nobody knows. Well, they're showing it. The

autopsy is determining all of that was operating ads expected. Yeah,

but when you come out, do you not cry?

Speaker 2: Not all babies know?

Speaker 1: Oh okay, no.

Speaker 2: Well that's three.

Speaker 1: Okay, the three I sat in the delivery room for.

We're crying like hell.

Speaker 2: They took mine over there and we're having a beat

her among the back.

Speaker 1: Of course, she got a clear lungs okay.

Speaker 2: And so that's what I'm saying. Her level of experience

is zero, and she's seventeen. She has this baby. Now,

I'm not saying it's right.

Speaker 1: I'm just saying the defense, we're showing both sides, right.

Speaker 2: I think that the defense may could have a better

argument there to say that she just didn't have any experience,

and she thought the baby was dead and she panicked.

That's why she put.

Speaker 1: Have you followed this case.

Speaker 2: I've read the the appeals and things in it, the

Supreme Court rulings, not to a t, but enough, okay,

I have I mean, I.

Speaker 1: Knew about it when it first uh when it first

came out, I reported on and on another podcast, But uh,

I didn't do a big deed dive into it. I

had a TikToker I used to produce that actually did

a whole episode on it. Uh, and she was in

belief that this girl's piece of shit and killed her baby.

I don't know. I don't know enough about the case,

but I'm gonna dig into it. I'm curious.

Speaker 2: Yeah, that one's in because I'm just going to tell

you all three personal experience matters, and that's why jury's

have so many people on them. But of all three

children that I gave birth to, you, not one came

out crying.

Speaker 1: Well, let me ask you this, and I'm about to

change your home mind right here. Let me ask you this.

If you had a baby in a bathroom and you

were in a hospital, why would you throw the baby

in the trash?

Speaker 2: I wouldn't.

Speaker 1: Why would anybody? Why would an innocent person that did

nothing wrong not run out of that bathroom with the

baby panicking and saying, oh my gosh, I just had

this baby and he's not breathing in help. You're in

a pre natal hospital.

Speaker 2: Yeah, do you know why she was at the hospital.

Why it wasn't for pregnancy.

Speaker 1: I understand that, but you had a baby in the hospital.

Speaker 2: I know, but I'm just we're playing Devil's advocating. Okay,

So I don't agree that you should throw your baby.

I want to be clear about that. You shouldn't put

you on I'm not.

Speaker 1: I'm not saying you do. But let me finish. She

had the baby in the bathroom, and she made a

decision to throw the baby in the trash and put

stuff on top of it to hide the fact that

she had the baby. An innocent person doesn't do that, right,

I'm asking, I'm an innocent person that did nothing wrong.

Speaker 2: Well, I don't know about that, So I'm I'm thinking though,

in the mind of a seventeen year old girl, that's

where I'm at. I'm not thinking at this as a

forty year old woman with lots of life experience behind me,

and there's a lot of unknowns here. I don't even

know if she knew she was pregnant because she went

to the hospital with severe back pain. Well, back pain

is an obvious sign of labor. Her mother was with her.

Her mother was with her, so whenever they go and

she has the baby, the mom's own statement of how

big was the baby. Mamas lends me to believe that

the mom didn't know that she was having it, Like,

is it a newborn? Is a is it a a?

You know? Did she have a miscarriage? But how big

is the baby? Why would my mask that?

Speaker 1: Okay, So because maybe the mom didn't know, And I

truly believe she knew because I do remember seeing pictures

of her in high school and you could see she

was pregnant. She started wearing giant sweaters, and I think

she knew. I mean, only she knows if she really knew,

But I believe that if you're pregnant and you're that

far along, you know it.

Speaker 2: Yeah she knew.

Speaker 1: Okay.

Speaker 2: So again I'm just playing Devil's advocate here that there

are people that go and have babies. I know a

girl that went to the hospital because she had such

heartburn she couldn't get over it, and she had a

baby because her baby was one that.

Speaker 1: Nobody's debating that that's possible. What I'm saying is an

innocent person doesn't have the baby and then throw it

in the trash and pile things on top of it, right,

So why would you do that?

Speaker 2: So That's what I'm getting at. So a seventeen year old.

It'll be interesting to see what they argue in that.

We got to keep up with this one. A seventeen

year old goes in the bathroom, has a baby. Whether

she knew she was pregnant or not, Okay, she has

that baby. Her experience in that moment is zero because

she doesn't hasn't had a baby before. And so she's

and the baby's not crying, and she's looking at it,

and she's like, why isn't the baby crying? And she

she could have paniced, She really could have panicked. And

so she's like, oh god, it's gonna look like I

did something, you know. Oh my god. I don't get it.

And I'm not saying it's right, but the defense could

raise that.

Speaker 1: I don't I understand. I just my opinion is I

don't think that's what happened.

Speaker 2: But she was pregnant, then why would she do it?

Speaker 1: Anyway, I'm not saying the mom knew. I'm not saying

the mom knew. I don't know if the mom knew

or not. I'm saying she clearly knew. Yeah, I don't

debate what you're saying about her panicking. But just because

you panic you're still guilty of murder.

Speaker 2: But if she if she truly believed that baby wasn't

breathing and her mother didn't know she was pregnant, in

a seventeen year old mind, she might go, crap, it's dead.

What I don't know what to do and then puts

it in the trash can because her mother doesn't know

she's pregnant and the baby is dead, and she's she's

doing an immature thing to try to solve her problem.

Speaker 1: That's where you're that's where you're losing me completely. Though

you're saying a seventeen year old mind. Seventeen year olds

know the difference between writing and wrong. Seventeen year olds

know they shouldn't throw a baby in the trash Here,

you're to me, you're acting like she was eleven. No,

I'm acting like she her damn near an adult.

Speaker 2: I'm acting like she may fear her mother's reaction if

she has that baby. Sure, and okay, so if she's

a friend, these are all if y'all, we don't know

if her mother, we don't know anything. This is again

speculation and we're just talking it out. But what I'm

saying is I you know talk seventeen year olds very

long time, and I'm telling you, this stuff that comes

out of their mouth is wild. Sometimes you're like, I

have girls that didn't even know that they don't pee

out of the same hole that they give birth to.

And one of those girls was pregnant seventeen years old. Yeah,

I'm telling you. So if she did not know, if

on the if these are a lot of ifs. But

if her mother didn't know she was pregnant, and because

if they were at the hospital and she's there for

back pain, wouldn't her mother tell the hospital she's pregnant?

Speaker 1: But Kelly, nobody again is debating whether or not her

mom knew is to me absolutely irrelevant whether or not

she was scared of her mom. What we want to

know here is did she kill that baby?

Speaker 2: Right?

Speaker 1: I believe she did. That's okay, And I believe she

did because when she had that baby, she didn't bring

the baby out of the bathroom and say I just

had a baby. Scared or not, you still killed the baby.

Speaker 2: But if she and this is the argument I'm making,

if she truly believed in her same level of experience,

she doesn't have experience having babies and.

Speaker 1: If she nobody was till they do.

Speaker 2: Okay, But if she thought that that baby wasn't breathing,

I'm not saying it was the right choice. It was

not the right choice. Clearly it wasn't right. But if

she was holding this baby that she just had in

the bathroom and she thought it wasn't breathing, so in

her mind, oh my gosh, he's dead. She also said it.

So I don't even if she looked at the genitalia,

because she didn't ever say he it's a little boy.

But if she and she thinks he is dead, oh

my god, and her mother didn't know she was pregnant,

in her mind, she might say, well, he's dead. I mean,

I can't bring him back. Let me just do this

and then I'll just try to wash my hands of it.

There's a nuts Okay, Well, there's a cheerleader that hid

her pregnancy and was doing cheerleader stunts and then put

to the air. No, put the baby in a shoe

box in her closet.

Speaker 1: It's not different also a cheerleader.

Speaker 2: Yeah, but it's not unheard of that people do. Girls

to have done weird things because they didn't want people

to know that they were pregnant. I'm not saying it's

the right thing to do, but if you want to

raise reasonable doubt, you could argue based off of her

own statements, which that it can't be used. Now, By

the way, when she said it wasn't breathing.

Speaker 1: I don't think you need to I don't think you

need to use this statement. I think a good prosecutor

is going to get in there and say, when you

have the baby, why did you not go out and

say something's wrong with this baby? Right? Why did you

throw it in the trash and then try to hide it?

She tried to hide it. She then went back in

the bathroom and cleaned up all the blood. She tried

to hide it.

Speaker 2: She did the wrong thing, But why did she try

to hide it? Is the question I'm asking, is all

I'm asking. I think that the defense is going to

bring that up, and.

Speaker 1: Well, I think, you know, I think her mom didn't

know and she didn't want her mom to know. Yeah, so,

but that still doesn't make her not guilty of murder.

Speaker 2: If she thought the baby wasn't breathing.

Speaker 1: Come on, Kelly, you really believe that, Yeah?

Speaker 2: Under morphine on morphine she said it I understand.

Speaker 1: I want to know what y'all think about this one,

so comment, because of course we post all these on

the Facebook page. Comment and let me know what you

think on this one. Because I think she clearly knew

that baby was breathing. I just don't leave that. That's

just my personal being. Kelly could be right.

Speaker 2: We don't have enough evidence either way right now.

Speaker 3: So I don't know.

Speaker 1: But I use common sense sometimes, and my common sense

tells me that maybe I'm wrong. I'm not saying them right.

Speaker 2: Maybe I've been around.

Speaker 1: We'll see how many people think that.

Speaker 2: Maybe I've been around too many seventeen year old girls

for a long time.

Speaker 1: It could be too I don't but I've been around

two of them, and they knew, They sure as how

knew right from wrong, and they sure knew when a

baby was breathing or not. They could certainly tell that.

So that's just my seventeen year olds. I don't know.

Maybe there's some idiots out there, but.

Speaker 2: I don't know. I don't. I mean, you can take

a breath and it still be agonal breathing, so that

breathing doesn't always mean effective, clear chest up, chest down breathing.

Because in the hypoxia, I know, but in the hypoxia,

I just think they will have an argument she shouldn't

have done it. I totally agree she's going to be

guilty of something, but I don't know that the first

degree murder charge. I think they should have gone on

a lot, were charged to seal that fate, is what

I'm trying to say. I think they overcharged.

Speaker 1: Oh yeah, well yeah, they would have had a better chance.

But maybe whoever it is that prosecutor says I can

prove this.

Speaker 2: They're gonna get a plea deal, They're gonna.

Speaker 1: Hear this case. And here my point I just brought

up and say, that's a dang good point. We're running

with it.

Speaker 2: Well, I think what you said is captain obvious that

the that that it's not right to put the baby

in the trash can.

Speaker 1: I think that's but the action of putting the baby

in the trash can speaks to guilt, speaks to know

when you're guilty. You don't try to hide a crime

you didn't know you committed, Kelly, But she did try

to hide a crime you know you committed.

Speaker 2: But her argument is that the baby she thought was

already dead. That's her argument, that's what she said, Well,

I mean, that's.

Speaker 1: A just an insane argument to me, because it's still

a crime. Even if she thought that, it's still a crime.

But if you thought the baby was already dead, why

didn't you bring it out and say the baby's dead?

Speaker 2: Because she didn't justify throwing it in the trashcause.

Speaker 1: She didn't want her mother because she thought the baby

was already.

Speaker 2: I think if that baby was screaming, crying, okay out loud,

screaming and crying, that she would have been more inclined

to walk out with that baby. If the baby was

not screaming and crying and was newborn, breathing but not

reacting like.

Speaker 1: So you throw it away instead of no, I'm not

saying I just had a.

Speaker 2: Stillborn I think that she thought in her young mind.

I think the argument is going to be that she thought, well,

I can't bring him back if he's not alive, is

what I'm saying. The defense's argument is going to be

because first degree murder is intent, and if she said

in the room, in that spontaneous utterance it wasn't breathing,

I don't you don't know whether what she's saying is

true or not. You really don't.

Speaker 1: Know, no, which you can know if the baby was breathing.

And that's when you would get the experts up there,

doctors that are for me no way more than you

and I do about this stuff.

Speaker 2: I believe that baby would breath and they would.

Speaker 1: Sit up there and either they're going to say, uh,

you know, maybe you couldn't really tell her. They may say, oh, no,

this this, Maybe you could tell it was breathing. There's

ways maybe that they would know that. I don't know.

Speaker 2: I believe, I believe that the baby was breathing. I

want to say that. I'm just curious if the mother

knew because the totality of the circumstance, those teenagers, like

teenagers in high school, try to hide all sorts of

weird stuff.

Speaker 1: Yeah, but murder.

Speaker 2: It's not murder though, if she thought the baby was

dead in her mind. And that's where intent is that

The whole point is, you're not You have to you

have to prove intent to kill for a first degree

murder charge. And what I'm saying is I think that

there's room for I think there's room here for some

reasonable doubt.

Speaker 1: That's what I'm saying all right, Well, we're going to

ask the lesseners. Are you on team Jim or team Kelly?

On that? We want to know if I lease them

would be pissed.

Speaker 2: I don't know what the question is you're asking.

Speaker 1: The question is do you where are you at on that?

Do you agree with Kelly that there's some sort of

reasonable doubt possible here? Or do you agree with Jim

that she knew she knew that what she was doing?

Speaker 2: All right, So that's where I ask, do you think

that there could be room for reasonable doubt or do

you think that it's so it's signed, sealed, delivered?

Speaker 1: All right? Any final faults? Kelly? Heck no, my brain.

Speaker 2: My brain is cooked. But hey again, go check out

go check out his Nolan Wells on on exposed, Go

go follow that, uh that saga that he's covering, and

then you can go on my you're clicking your pen

really loud, okay, and you can go mine and and

you can or can't.

Speaker 1: I don't know. She's gone. All right, y'all, we'll see

you next time. I'm Jim Chopping, I'm your host of crime.

Speaker 2: What h