A Summer Dive Into In The Well, with Mark Geragos, Matt Murphy, and Megyn Kelly

Hello, and welcome to In the Well.

The MK True Crime Channel is taking a summer break this week, but we wanted to share a very special episode featuring yours truly. Marc Eragos and Megan Kelly, enjoy and we'll be back next week. Hope to see you all then. Going back to the bullet.

This is one of those things that's been driving me crazy. Megan, this whole time that a fence filed a brief, where they basically suggested to the world that the bullet didn't match. And I've got the quote written down, but they write that. That's something that a fence can do, whatever.

And the prosecution came out and they got in trouble because they not only said it was inconclusive, but they went on TMZ with Mark's buddy, Harvey Levin, who got him in trouble. And he said, we are very confident in the rest of our evidence and the judge said that that violated the balance of the court order. And he kind of slapped him on the wrist and he said,

"Well, we're not going to dump the death penalty on that."

“The best way I think to think about this bullet,”

this was a large bullet that fragmented upon entry. OK, I don't know if this was a frangible round, they haven't made that public yet, but there are certain bullets that are designed to disintegrate. Some are used for hunting. They call them "Varmet rounds."

I've never heard of a 30-out six-barmet round, but they must exist.

And that's never been made public. The best way to think of it, Megan, is like, if you have been murderous in, and you have the killer who picked up like a wine glass, for example. And you know that there's a fingerprint on the wine glass, and then the wine glass shatters in no million pieces.

You're going to get an inconclusive result for that, too. And a bullet is similar, the way they do, the ballistic comparisons, that's kind of how that works. You can't get a fingerprint off shattered glass. What nobody's really been talking about is that there are more than one way--

there's more than one way to belastically match a firearm. And one of them is with expended shell casings. And he's cycled the casing.

“The casing found at the scene matched the rifle.”

OK, so it's not just the bullet, and that rifle has his DNA on the trigger. So there's plenty of forensic evidence, and Megan, you're exactly right. One of these experts is going to say exactly that. I examined it. And that wasn't the bullet, and it couldn't have been--

you couldn't have been fired from that gun. We're going to see something like that. Are there this beige or-- And in the White House trial? The fence is going to come right back.

And they're going to say, of course, his DNA is on that gun. They used that gun before. That was a gun from his house. And of course, they're casings that match it. Because he wasn't the one who planted the casing.

Somebody else threw the casings there. If you've got George Zinn who's over there confessing and at the front, just coincidentally, you think it's a long stretch to have somebody throw some casings. I mean, none of that.

“I get the fact that the inconclusive bullet”

is something that people have run with. But I promise you that the prosecution, in you know this, Matt, that's why he went on to TMZ. He was worried. He is worried that the public has taken that and run with it.

And that's a significant significant doubt if you get-- by the way, as you know, if you've got a battle of the experts, what a jurors do with that. I can't tell you how many times they tell me how we discounted the experts and we didn't come to that conclusion.

So yeah, it's exactly right. I mean, it'd be a lot more helpful for the events if they didn't have the alleged confessions, you know, the text messages to Lance Twigs, the Discord messages, and whatever he may or may not have said to police.

There would be a lot more helpful if they just had a bullet that couldn't be conclusively matched. But they have more than that. I will show you this sound bite from Rob O'Neill who I adore. And he is, of course, a former Navy SEAL sniper,

who not only shot Osama bin Laden in the face, but has been on some of our most daring and dangerous missions as part of SEAL Team 6 for the past 20 plus years, prior to his retirement.

And here's what he said, this is not--

he has no dog in this hunt. And this is what he said about this wound on Charlie and this gun. Just for me, I mean, it was off it right from the beginning for me, from-- do we not guard rooftops anymore?

There's been assassinations, assassination, that tempts all over the world around me looking at rooftops. And then when I was sent the video with the same message where they said Charlie Kirk was just shot. When I watched that horrific video,

he was obviously dead before he hit the ground.

That was not an entry wound that we saw. We saw an exit wound. So where does that bullet come from? We don't bleed like-- and I've shot guys closer than the camera was.

An entry wound doesn't look like that an exit wound does. I could play you 20 videos like that from gun experts. Yeah, I love that guy too. I can tell you right now he's wrong. I watched that video.

That's an arterial bleed from an entry wound. They recovered the entire bullet on the inside just and it's heavily fragmented and damaged.

“So love him, I think he's American hero.”

He's dead wrong on that one.

And he's never-- he's never tried or presented this type of evidence

in front of a jury or a slog through-- No, I'm glad to hear you disagree. I think that's what we're here for. But what about Matt, you've heard many people believe that a 30-out six in that gun and that level bullet

would never have not had an entry-- an exit wound. That the fact that there was this alleged surgeon who said, oh, Charlie's got like a Superman-like spine. He was so strong that his bone stopped it. That's why there wasn't an exit wound.

And many people just said immediately, that's utter bullshit that we don't believe that. Mark Ergos, my friend, has seen probably more autopsy than I have after 17 years in homicide. Bullets do weird things.

And this thing fragmented, they recovered the whole thing. And when you hit bones, bullets break apart. And I don't care if it's a 30-out six. That's the thing.

They'd never released what kind of ammunition it was.

But this was an antique rifle. If this was antique ammo to boot, who knows? But there is no mystery here other than speculation and kind of nonsense. I mean, you see this all the time in homicide case

is Megan, where sometimes the bullets go right through. And it looks like they're pristine. Sometimes they will hit a bone and shadow and stand side. Sometimes the little around spin around-- man call over to the place and study human body.

We part of our just to go watch the autopsy's on our homicides. And it is-- you'd be amazed the things the different bullets will do. And then we go, that's a mouser, it goes in mouser 98. That is a rifle that was designed well over a hundred years ago. It's still-- and that's a really old one.

But they still make those.

Because it's a simple design and it works.

But ammunition, depending on the ammunition, they design certain rounds to break apart. To shoot coyotes, it's literally called varmine ammunition. And there's no-- it's not like they got in there and couldn't account for the weight or the grains.

Apparently, it's all inside his body. It hit his spine. Viva's right of his dead instantly or very close to it. Thank God. But yeah, this is the kind of stuff that conspiracy theories.

And these are a bunch of people who haven't witnessed autopsy's, haven't seen him. But let's pull out a human body before. And the only person who might have seen more of them than me is probably my friend, Mark Erdogan,

right there at the bottom. No, it's-- Do you go to Met Mark? Yeah, the Met's as usual is spot on. And the issue of what a bullet will do.

In fact, I have cross-examined. I can't tell you how many ballistic experts. And when they talk about, they shoot bullets into water. They shoot bullets.

“You should see how they testify as to how they test guns.”

Now, they test casings and things of that nature. And I have used exactly what Matt has said as a-- as fodder for cross-examination, saying-- by the way, lay the foundation. Have you ever been to an autopsy?

Have you seen what bullets do? For you to say that you can try to recreate it by shooting it into a long, trough of water, or something else, is just complete and utter nonsense. Because it's almost as if I've actually

had ballistic experts admit to me that bullets have a mind of their own. I mean, they-- I've actually had that statement repeated back to me on cross-examination. That doesn't mean, however, that the defense is going to not

run with that. The defense has an obligation to run with that. The defense has an absolute duty, self-ass advocacy, to kind of plumb the depths of that, because God only knows what is going on here.

“I mean, this has not been, I think, Matt would probably admit--”

if this were-- he wouldn't admit that he's ever had this situation down in Orange County. But he probably, if I was out with him at CrimeCon in Vegas,

for doing stuff like this before. Because this is not-- what do you mean? Do he stuff like what? This is not a primer on a really good investigation number one. And I don't want to be the armchair quarterback's second guessing.

But this once again has all the earmarks of some people in over their head, at least initially. There was a lot of things that were done here

“that I think are going to come out during this preliminary hearing”

and the defense it's going to bring out as to what investigators did or didn't do. Megan, I want to hear more on that. But people I want you to weigh in.

When I hear people say, a 30-out six would always leave an exit wound.

It's impossible, inconceivable that it wouldn't. And then I say, Martin Luther King, Jr. And then people like, well, I don't believe that report either, because you're believing, feds a lot, but if you believe that that bullet actually killed Martin Luther King.

So you're having an argument with people who basically push unfalseifiable theories where, if you say, and always leaves an exit wound, there's probably a few soldiers from World War II that can testify that a 30-out six doesn't always leave an exit wound.

Then you say, Martin Luther King got shot in the face. And if they believe it, they say, oh, well, that hit his jaw bone. OK, so a jaw bone can stop it, but not a spine or a spine. Well, not the spine of Corbin, not the spine bones. And then you say, well, I don't believe the Martin Luther King got shot in the face

with the 30-out six either.

So therefore, I stand by my-- it could never have been a 30-out six.

Anybody saying that? And I'm not a gun expert. I'm not an ammunition expert by any means. I was a lawyer for 13 years.

“My question has always been, do you know the condition of the ammo?”

If you don't know the condition of the ammo, you are not in a position to definitively say, how the ideal ammo would perform, and what it would do to a human body? So this is big. They finally arrested this guy. We've been waiting for it since her body was in the trunk of his car,

but Matt, up until now, they hadn't been able to link him to the crime, at least not in a way that they felt was sufficient for charges to be brought. Do we know what changed? Well, what they did is they conducted an investigative grant jury, Megan, which is really interesting.

Mark and I were talking a little bit about this yesterday. Essentially, there's two functions for a grant jury. One, you can see an indictment. The other is you can actually use granturaries subpoenas to bring in reluctant witnesses that don't want to speak to the police,

and essentially force immunity on them, and make them talk. And Mark knows the DA involved in this. I don't know her, but apparently she's a heavy hitter, according to Mark, and they've been working this case up for a long time. This is advanced prosecutor work,

and they apparently have put together this case. The complaint itself tells quite a story, with lying and weight and stabbing and killing a witness, and it makes it appear as if they've got the goods here to show that he killed her because he was engaged in a sexual relationship with her.

They knew each other or began seeing each other when she's only 13 years old, which is 288 out of the California penal code. And it all kind of fits. I know Mark has some different theories on it. Mark probably has a better inside track on the case than I do,

but this is very, very interesting. And he's in kind of an understatement, he's in a lot of trouble. He's 21 currently, so by any measure, you know, having sexual relations with a 13-year-old would be illegal. So yeah, that's the alleged motive.

But what we, what we last heard Mark was, it was April 23rd, 2025 that he invited her to his home in the Hollywood Hills. Celeste was her name, Celeste Rivas, and she arrived there.

She was never seen again, but then on September of 2025,

that's when her remains were found in the trunk of a car that was registered to him. And so we kind of knew that they were having an affair. That there wasn't like proof positive of it, but it seemed very clear from their little videos together.

They were definitely friends. They were with a lot, with each other a lot. But, you know, getting from that to he's the one who put her in the trunk of that car is, that's where cases are made or fall apart. Well, that's right, is usual about a lot of things.

And in this case, he's right about the fact that the DA involved, that's silverman is a, the say she's tenacious as an understatement.

“I think, though, that there is a lot more going on here,”

and let me kind of set the stage for it, because I don't know that I've ever seen this all from before. Not only did they have a medical examiner, we know today, or yesterday, when the published reports were that the exam was released, and there was information as of December of last year,

was a use of a sharp instrument that there were fingers that were severed, and they had a toxicology that at least showed the presence of drugs. You combine that with the fact that what's being reported today also, if true, is that there was child porn, meaning images of females who were under 18 on David's phone. All of that would have been known to the DA last year,

which leads you to, well, it was the, why did the LAPD go in months ago, get rebuffed first, and then, since successfully later, muzzle the medical examiner to the point where the medical examiner,

something I've never seen before, came out publicly and pushed back against that.

Put on his website, a statement saying, you know, that this is not transparent, that this should happen, not once, but twice did he do that. And then yesterday, after the DA asked that the medical report that he released, he thanked his partner agencies. I'm going to wildly speculate here that what happened was they arrested him on Thursday,

“so that I think the LAPD did that, though that they could force the DA to file this case.”

They did not have a criminal complaint, they did not have an indictment when they arrested him. There's this weird violation. I think constitutional violation, where you can arrest somebody other Thursday and not put him before a magistrate until a Monday, which is beyond what the Supreme Court says for 48 hours. That forced the DA to come in heavy and filed this case on Monday. The defense did something, I think, very astute.

They said, that's fine. You can dump terabytes of information on us. We're ready for trial, which was in contrast to what happened in the Reiner case, where they dump terabytes of information in the public defender said, hey, I need two or three months. I don't have enough time. I think that this, the balls back in the DA's brought in the DA may go get an indictment at this point.

Matt, what do you make of that? That she was dragged to a kicking and screaming by cops who were like it's time. You know, I had a conversation with Harvey Levin on TMZ about this. And of course, that's Mark's Mark's partner on another podcast, which is sort of funny.

You'd call me. Well, Mark is always right. You're always right. And Harvey's always wrong.

By the way, Harvey even called me a slut. His words for doing, making Kelly true crime with that. I was telling you that. I told them that Mark was cheating on him.

“She's Harvey is one to talk. I have another ransom note. How many 50,000 podcasts can I tease it on?”

Yeah, I was slut shame. So I'll leave it at that. Yeah. Well, yeah, you are. I'm worried that you're flooding it out. I will be eating. I will be eating it out of my can to lure you away from that man just so we can set the record straight. So. Yes, Matt. So we, yeah, we Harvey and I went back and forth a little bit on that. And he was actually very pleasant, Megan. I'd never been on the show before.

But I took sort of the day. I took a counter position. And he agrees with Mark on this. You know, I, um, I think I've had some deals with Nathan Hachman and it's all mine have been

very positive. This is, it is unusual. I've never seen it done quite that way, but I think you can.

And they've got, you know, they've been working on this thing for months and months. And I think that one move certainly is refusing to wait a time. But on the other hand, there's a thing in California called Prop 115. Where you can just throw on, you can put on hearsay statement to a established probable cause, all the, all the DNA needs to do here is basically call the lead and maybe one or two other witnesses regarding what happened in front of the grand jury and they get the ball

“over the net on that. And then they're just in the discovery phase. That's what I would do if I was”

now, um, you kind of, you know what I want to know what I would do back, Matt. And I, you and I discuss this. There's this little known provision in the penal code called 866. California Supreme Court said, if you're going to go and try and just put on a bare bones prelim, the only way we're going to say that that gives you due process is if the defense can make an offer to the court and say we're going to call witnesses because we don't think you're telling the whole truth. And that's what I would

do. If they tried a bare bones, what we call 115 prelim, which by the way, Murphy pioneered down in Orange County. I can't tell you how many times he hoisted me on a 115, uh, battard of prelim, but 866 is if you can convince the judge, then your witness, you can put the witness on, I don't think the DA's ready to put these witnesses on and subject them to the cross examination. We'll see soon enough. Yeah, I mean, and maybe it's just me, but it doesn't seem like that

he's not getting out. He's going to have additional charges filed against him. And I don't know if they can prove murder, but it's very, very bad that he was having sex with a 13-year-old girl, who is now dead and dismembered in the back of his car. That alone would be pretty circumstantial, but I'll bet you there's more. So yeah, well, I read the corner reports yesterday, and one of the interesting things about this is that she was essentially the decomposed

very advanced and so she was basically a skeleton inside the car, but they left her tube top on,

and there were cuts in the tube top indicating and I'll bet you anything that there's going to be

“when we get the full report, there's going to be nicks on the ribs underneath that. So I think”

they're going to be able to prove murder, I don't know if they're going to be able to prove that he was the killer or not, but he's certainly under the theory that their advancing was the one that's stood again, and Mark has had this experience, and I have two, Juries, if you get in child pornography, that case you are basically on third base, and all you need is a base head prosecution wise, because the jury will hate him so much for just touching the child pornography. And it fits,

look, that's corroborative to this idea that they were having a sexual relationship, and also if that's true, and of course we haven't seen it yet, I think that the vast majority of public sympathy for

this guy is going to evaporate overnight, if that's true, hopefully we'll never see those images.

If anybody has it, yeah. Listening to those people in the previous segment, as I'm sitting in

“the greener one, we're going to come on in the septum rings and all that, the railing against”

federal law enforcement, these are some of the people that are most dedicated to getting sex offenders arrested, putting them in prison, and then ultimately deporting them if they're not here legally. And in 2023, ICE arrested 4,396 offenders. It's a part of their job. That was the last year of Joe Biden, and nobody said a friggin word because back then, shockingly we all kind of agreed. It's a bit of a bipartisan issue. We're going to protect kids who aren't political at all.

Children deserve the protection of all adults, regardless of what side of the political aisle they are. So in 2024, last year, first year of President Trump, ICE arrested 16,552 sex offenders. And that is their priority. They've had a special operation, the state of Florida, called Operation Durpegg. And that's the federal law enforcement officials, the women and men that

do that are critical to protecting our kids. And these people that think it's a good idea to block

their cars, they have no idea who they're going after. They prioritize sex offenders and violent fonts and gang members, but particularly given how many there are these federal agents in ICE and other federal agencies prioritize sex offenders. And there should be no rational debate about that. So somebody that goes and drives their car. I wonder if they said, I wonder if Tom Homing came out in Christy Nome and said, we're making an announcement. We are now for the next six months,

“only targeting child sex offenders, only child sex molestators or mut molesters. What would they do?”

I mean, it would be a very interesting experiment to see whether the same, you know, Karen Antifa's would stay out there. You know, I think they probably would because they're so these people are so crazy. I don't know if it's the septum rings that's making a mad because every time you think it's like, they got a ring hanging out of the nose. It is related to being extremely homely. It is. Maybe so. I don't know, but it's, but as a, like, as a prosecutor, it is

maddening to me because I know the work that ICE agents are doing as a sexual assault prosecutor. And same thing with the FBI, they devote a tremendous amount of resource to that. And the idea that somebody is blocking them again, they're like, they think they're doing good. I think they're motivations. I want to believe that they're, that they think they're doing the right thing, but they're so friggin stupid because they don't understand what ICE is actually attempting to

accomplish. And at the end, the people who benefit are their own children. It's, it is maddening. I mean, yes, exactly. I don't understand how a mother could get out there and try to stop these arrests of these molesters. I want to keep going because I don't have enough much time. I've got to ask you about Renee Goods wife. We played the video earlier of her antagonizing that cop. And now we know from his own camera on his iPhone that she was the one who said drive, baby drive. She told the

wife to do it. And we also know that the two of them had been working together to train to antagonize

could there be charges against Renee Goods wife? Yes, there could be charges against her wife,

and not even for for the aiding and evading or the encouraging of driving forward. But this is, she keeps being referred to as a protestor and from a purely legal breakdown. Okay. She comes from Colorado. I've read that she's a paid protestor. I haven't seen the evidence on that or not. But when you get together with a group of people, including just one other person in your car and you decide you're going to go out and you're going to impede federal agents attempting

to arrest violent felons or sex fenders. That is, that's a conspiracy. It's two more people agreeing to go and commit a crime. And if it's federal agents and you cross-day lines, it is a, it is a federal felony. It's a conspiracy to do that. So before we even get to what she was yelling in the car, that by itself is is really problematic. Protesting in my mind is you're standing on a corner with a, with a bullhorn waving flags or signs that you've written with your Sharpie.

That's, wait a minute though Matt, I don't know if she crossed eight lines. They lived in Colorado. Then they moved to Canada after Trump was elected according to the reports. And then moved

“to Minneapolis. I think, I guess Canada wasn't all it's correct up to be. But does that change?”

Things wouldn't have had severe a section anyway because it was a federal office. They would absolutely have jurisdiction anyway. There's multiple theories to get there. And I, and I don't know, again, I haven't, I've only seen what the rest of us have. What's been released on mine. I haven't been able to read any, you know, I don't think any real documents have been released yet. But here's another thing just to keep in mind a lot of

the analysis on this. I, I defend police officers now. Again, that's, that's the, the bulk of my proud of that as you know. And the, a lot of the, a lot of the discussion out there is what was, what was this woman thinking when she was driving forward? What was she thinking? Sure, in which she wasn't trying to kill him. Legally, there's a case called Graham V. O'Connor. It's a 1989 U.S. Supreme Court case that talks about how we analyze use of force by police officers.

And it is a seminal, it's a seminal case in American jurisprudence. And essentially, it stands for the proposition that it must be viewed from the position of the police officer when he or she perceived the threat. Okay. Did they reasonably present it? It is, it's a mix. It's a really good question. Only a lawyer would ask that. It is a mix of the objective and subjective circumstances. Okay.

“And it is, I remember that from criminal procedure. That's right. It is just explaining to the audience”

what that means. Yeah. So it's known as the, it's, this is the, it's the 2020 hindsight rule. It colloquially. That's what this case is known. And that is, we don't pick apart the actors with thoughts of that particular police officer. You have to look at it objectively. What would a reasonable police officer in the shoes of that officer feel as far as perception of a threat? And she drove her car forward. We got, I saw that. Like, she actually hit him with her car. So it all blows

down to any, any shooting of a, of a mother is, is tragic, right? That's, that is, that is sad. But the legal analysis of that is, what when a reasonable police officer in the position of that federal agent feel as this woman in that federal agent had personally been dragged by another car within the last year and severely injured. Right. So it would be relevant. So it is, and it's a mix of that officer's individual experience, their fear of what's going on along with the objective

circumstances that the officer is faced with. And there, there was a great clip. I don't know if you saw this, the, the chief of Chicago PD of all places. And I was kind of surprised. He went on a rant

“talking about how, if you're blocking federal agents intentionally, that's how people get ambushed.”

Like, anybody, any of your viewers, whoever they were. It was great. We found out it was from October, but it was, the point was totally well taken. Right. But there was, there's another supreme court case

that says, it doesn't matter if, if the shooting, if the first bullet was justified,

because cops are trained to shoot to kill. If, if they're firing their gun, they're trying to kill. There's no shooting in the leg nonsense like we see in the movies. But there's another supreme court president that says, you, you don't start evaluating the second and the third bullet when they all come together like that. That's not, because there are a lot of people saying, oh, but the second shot and the third shot mat are the reason to charge this guy.

Yeah. That's, that, the, number one, that is, that's exactly what this Supreme court prohibits. Okay. That, that is hindsight 2020. That's dissecting something in a rapidly evolving situation. That person has to make split second decisions for their own safety and the safety of other officers.

And the safety of other, quote unquote, protesters too. So it's a split second thing. And the, the

next thought here, again, is, what's the end game? You know, there's a, there's a thing known as officers created jeopardy, which is something I've been dealing with on a case. I haven't a homicide

with a homicide for shooting the gang member in 2018, because the guy with high on meth sitting

in a stolen car, murder suspect going to separate case. All of a sudden, reaches for what anybody would think was a sought-off shot kind, later it turns out to be a BB gun. And BLM gets involved, and they took a principled stand. Jackie Lacy, who's a friend of mine, former TAVLA, took a principled stand refused to file because he was innocent, George Gascon comes in, files that case, now you got a guy who is a model police officer, number one in his academy class,

father of two kids, literally coach, one of the best cops I've ever worked with in 33 years, and he gets charged with a homicide, imagine this, for those circumstances. And I, and I, and I'm going to win it one way or another. We have a new DA Nathan Hawkman who who is solid. Okay,

“but, and I, I, I, I'm hoping they're going to dismiss it, but, but what is the end game here?”

The, you've got the governor, you've got the mayor, all calling for this, for this agent to be

prosecuted with murder and first of all, there's a whole procedure that they're going to have

to survive in order to do that, where, where it's called a federal removal order. A federal judge gets to make the call whether or not he was acting reasonably, essentially, in conformity with his duties, which I think that's going to be tough for any prosecution to get around. But these people they keep talking, freaking Tim walls, and all these people, it's, we don't do mob justice in America or we're not supposed to anyway. And the mayor who keeps blabbing like, I, I think that

they, at the very least, if they're ever successful in getting a murder prosecution again, some, there's no way that's going to be in Minneapolis, and it's going to be in some other county like we saw on coberter, where they, where they have to remove it from the local area.

“But it is, what's the next up? So, do we just start prosecuting our cops?”

Is that the idea? So, and, and so if you have a democratic president, who's trying to get sex offenders or, or, or small and fraudsters out of the country, then it's okay. But if it's a Republican, then we don't like, then also the same agency. And now, thank God, the feds have taken control of the investigation, taking a look at the two men featured in this, um, leaving Neverland, quote unquote documentary. Wade Robson was, they both met Michael when they were children. Wade was,

this Michael Jackson look alike from Australia, who got folded into Michael's orbit. I think you want to contest and met him and, um, might have appeared in like a, a music video with him. And went on to become a well known choreographers, stayed close with the Michael Jackson, estate with Michael himself, who said very, very nice things about Michael his whole life,

actually testified under oath that Michael never laid a hand on him, both in the 1993,

accusations that one didn't go to trial, but did testify or told the sheriff nothing, absolutely nothing with me. And then in 2003, in your case, Mark was again a witness for Jackson under oath, nothing, nothing, nothing, then comes this documentary again in quotes, leaving Neverland. And he has a very different story. Here is part of it. This is viewer warning, disturbing. And and I must say, for the record, we took out the most disturbing parts, just because it's very

dark, but you can imagine it, um, so at seven. And then him guiding me to do the same thing with

“him, so moving my hands, um, to touch his penis, uh, which, you know, was erect. And I remember him”

putting my hands on his head when he was down there. I don't know if we get the, the, um, the feeling of his hair. I was rough almost like a, um, like a brillo pad, like this roughness, and he's down there and, you know, with his, his mouth on, on my, you know, seven-year-old penis. Okay, Mark, so I have to say, when I watched the, the movie, I was horrified and I found him very credible. And then I started to research him and let's just say, less so. So he,

sued at the Jackson estate, reportedly after he found out that he was not going to get this job with Cirque du Soleil and their production of Michael Jackson, uh, like they, Cirque du Soleil had licensed some Michael Jackson songs and they were sort of rehabilitating the MJ name. And he thought he was going to get a role with them and didn't, and reportedly had some sour grapes over it. And then loan behold said I was a victim too. And filed a lawsuit against the estate. And in the deposition testimony, he had to

give in the context of the civil case was asked, did you ever write anything about these allegations

a whole book alleging that he'd been molested. The defense team demanded the copies of it.

My information was he did have to produce what he had. And that took a motion and a judge ordering it and he wiggled out. He tried to wiggle out of doing it. And then they actually got some of the metadata from the drafts from the publishing companies. They went the defense team to publishing companies saying, did you get a pitch to book about Michael Jackson by Wade Robinson? And they did. And they got their hands on other versions of the book and his story differed version to version.

“And then there was testimony of him earlier that made clear. He didn't remember the details.”

But by the time he got around to this documentary, again, in quotes, his memory was crystal clear for all of the abuse allegations, all of which left me with a lot of questions with all du respect to this man. Because I don't know whether this happened and I don't want to attack somebody who may have been molested. But I just have to be honest, did not find this story credible at all when it was said and done. Your thoughts? Well, the the experience I've had with leaving

Neverland is famously, they have a clip of me coming out and saying, I'm going to land on you like a ton of bricks or something along those lines. The implication being is that I was coming out and attacking the we have this month. Well, no, I'll show this down by this is from the documentary

“leaving Neverland. It's you, Sutton. A news clip of Margaragos, who initially represented”

Michael in 2003 in the criminal case, is manipulated to appear as if he's threatening an accuser after Michael's arrest. We will land on you like a ton of bricks. We will land on you like a hammer. If you do anything to besmirch this man's reputation, anything to intrude on his privacy in

any way that's actionable, we will unleash a legal torrent like you've never seen.

In fact, he was talking about a completely different legal case in which he and Michael were secretly videotaped on board a charter aircraft. To disclose those two video cameras, which also apparently had audio on them were surreptitiously placed in there, were recording attorney client conversations. So just to make clear, Mark, that was there was a rebuttal to leaving Neverland called lies of leaving Neverland. It's on YouTube now and that was one of the lies they were

pointing out that they perceived in the documentary as regards you, keep going. Correct. And that was one of, it was so offensive to me when leaving Neverland came out because of what I had described there in the press conference in real time and what I was so angry about was they had filmed my conversations with him attorney client, which are sacrosing and they were marketing it. In fact, Greta Van Custard was the one who called me the next day saying this guy this lawyer has got the

tape and he's shopping it for a million bucks and I called the lawyer said if you lost your mind

and he said well this is my client's lottery ticket I went into court and immediately got a court order before I could execute the court order to go get it. The FBI was there. They seized it from the lawyer and this guy was indicted who had done the surreptestious tapings. So it was a wild situation to them take that and manipulate it. One of the reasons sometimes these documentaries drive me crazy because it's great to tell a story and documentaries can be some of the most effective

storytelling there is. But you shouldn't really manipulate the facts to the point that you've just

“literally tell a story that is not true and that's why I was so good. No then then it's a”

docudrama and not a documentary and that's yeah so they did that if they played fast and loose like that with you what did they do with these other two men who are featured in it and I just think I don't know whether those those facts are fatal to Wade Robbins claim which has been resurrected because California passed one of those laws like New York did where claims that were out of time and were sort of dead claims could be resurrected for a brief period of time if they related to

sexual abuse and Wade and James Savichuck took advantage of that and got their claims against the M.J. estate resurrected they go on to this day as a result. But I do know that as a journalist or a storyteller doing a documentary you must include the credibility problems in your documentary

a failing it is a fatal flaw in the presentation. By the way if you're in a jury trial and this

“happened as they say that this kind of manipulation happened you would get a jury instruction that”

says a witness who is willfully false in a material part of his testimony he or she can be and should be disbelieved in others. I was thinking this morning it's funny Megan that I

before I did this I was watching the closing argument in Harvey Weinstein's third trial here in

New York and then Manhattan Court. Mark Agniflow was giving it I ran into speaking of podcast Arthur Raidala who tried it the second the second time and he sends his regards and I was thinking as I sat there about this the accuser in this third trial and such damage goods no matter what you you say given the testimony given the medical records see accuser is clearly has mental health issues that are off the charts so the argument becomes when you're analyzing it did the abuse cause

this or is the are the mental health chicken or egg is it the mental health that is causing

the person to make the accusation and those kinds of determinations should be left up to jurors in the courtroom and viewers in documentary to your point why ignore things that could be credibility issues let people decide based on a full some record as opposed to a skewed argument or kind of a rhetorical device. Yes absolutely there was in that lies of leaving neverland they pointed out this

“thing I just mentioned about how Wade's deposition reveals that he had to ask his mom to remember”

details about the alleged abuse and that was at an earlier point in time than when he's with leaving neverland remembering them all he's got great details he's a good storyteller he can really take you there if you watch the documentary again in quotes boy he really adds a lot of color none of which he remembered years earlier when he was under oath and asked to tell this story so it's there are a lot of questions James safe chuck he made equally disturbing allegations in the

peace leaving neverland the knock against him is that he was reportedly facing a serious lawsuit that hit right before he sat down for that documentary and was facing some financial some serious financial threats and that would have incentivized his filing a civil suit as he did and participating with this quote documentary and again that may not move you at all but it should be disclosed by a filmmaker in any event here's James safe chuck in part again with a viewer warning on the disturbing

nature of what he's going to say inside eight. At the train station there's a room upstairs and we would have sex up there too what happened every day it sounds sick but it's kind of like

when you're first dating somebody right and you do a lot of it so it was very much like that

he liked and if I rubed his nipples so we would do stuff and then any end when he wanted to ejaculate he would he would finish himself you'd be in the hotel room and he would pretend like somebody was coming in and you had to get dressed as fast as possible without making noise

“so I'm not getting caught when it's a big I just kind of fundamental he was very much a secret”

and he would tell me that if anybody found out his life would be over and my life would be over he did say there that he remembers the abuse in Michael Jackson's train station he had like a you know like I'm just going to say you know you mentioned Matt Murphy in my podcast partner Matt handle in fact Matt and I faced off on a number of sex crime prosecutions and Matt and I'm going to channel him and say that he would say that some of those things have the kind of insignia or

indicia of what he has seen repeatedly and what I've seen coming at clients who are accused as well so

statutes which you referenced which are these statutes that revive statutes of limitations that are

already expired they actually started when the in the criminal context and there was a case stodder where they said you can't prosecute somebody criminally when you're going to take away their liberty after the statute is expired but they left open the issue on these civil cases and some of these civil cases and these look back statutes present real problems from my standpoint when you're trying to re-litigate these later on years later when somebody didn't have notice right it doesn't

look like the defendant is dead and now you've got the estate and you've got and you don't see it

happening against somebody who's a to quote my other podcast and close friend Adam Corolla you never

see people coming after the empty bags so there is that as well so it really is a conductor yeah it reminds me of the Christine Blassey Ford situation against Brett Kavanaugh where it's like how is the guy supposed to defend himself 30 years later on you know what he did or did not do on a particular day now in that case where you're dealing with a form where they would be Supreme Court justice so it just so happened he did have detailed day planners even from his

“time as a teenager so Garagos I haven't heard your take on the Nancy Guthrie case what is it?”

not that not that different from my friend and partner Matt Murphy this sheriff I think you know all roads lead to the sheriff and I think that you know it's not a surprise that I have some criticism of law enforcement but in this particular case this may be kind of a blueprint for how you don't investigate a case how you don't handle the messaging around a case and it's a tragedy anyway everybody has their heart goes out to it but this sheriff has just been a trochist my opinion

do you have any theory of Garagos that's given your lifetime in you know criminal defense work on whether this was a likely kidnapping a likely murder you know and then I always look the body

I always thought that the focus on the family first which I understand and I get but I thought

that being a bicostal elite and living between LA and New York I missed what people were saying initially who were on the ground there that look this is you're very close to the border these

“things happen I think there was another I will call it similar case but something that had kind”

of the earmarks of an abduction and that it probably was a stranger abduction for money at a certain point and it's spiral data control because of the super sizing of the case itself. Interesting okay so Matt Murphy you have been covering this from the beginning and yesterday here on our show we dropped a bit of a bomb shell ourselves where we found video of Nancy Guthrie's bedroom which aired on the today show in 2013 and we were stunned to see it ourselves we're putting

together this Nancy Guthrie bit and we were doing some deep research and there it was in 2013 there's Nancy look at the standing in her bedroom this is in the house from which she was taken back in 2013 though and it shows her bed it shows the nightside table it shows the window right next to the bed very tight quarters there and in this long back and forth she did with the today show anchors on the set of the today and to me I wondered whether law enforcement even knew this existed because

you and I after having looked at this could credibly convince law enforcement that we knew what Nancy bedroom what Nancy's bedroom look like how it was set up and if we wanted to write let's say demand for ransom in bitcoin and send it in and sound credible we might take a detail from the outside of the house that was readily identifiable to anybody like the floodlight that was dangling and couple it with a few details from the inside of Nancy's bedroom which we had seen thanks to

so a little bit of research prior to sending our notes and convince somebody that we were the kidnappers well that's right I mean there's as they say the internet lives forever right and

“you know I think the number one I totally agree with Mark that all roads lead back to this sheriff”

and in look I want to be fair mega but this has been a clown show from day one you've got

on a on a big murder case out of Orange County and they were top notch there are absolutely

professional I don't know what has happened to Pima County since then what were probably a bunch of cops fled and did not like working for him and that he's lost a lot of his works well who's yeah who

“did ever get that based on the performance that we've seen I mean it's just I mean I think Mark”

put it perfectly it's it's just it's so sad but yeah all so many of these I think all of them but but if not every single one of them most all of these ransom notes were all fake all the stuff to Mark's find Harvey Web and I think those were all fake and then Nancy got through home

video adds to that possibility that's my point is like did they know the sheriff know that

because they were like oh they had a detail like where her watch was I mean I could easily say her watch was on the small bedside table right next to her bed with the old style sort of lantern looking lamp speed away from a window that was over a bookshelf that had electronics on it I mean I I guarantee you chef Nanos did not know about that video and could easily have bought the whole thing as credible evidence that this guy had been in her room well Chris Nanos demonstrated

the entire nation that he didn't know what a DNA mixture was in one of his interviews which when he said the lab is having problems with the mixture in Florida which is there's some lab director who's pulling his hair out or her hair out when he hurt when they heard that which is just it's absurd so this guy's you know I don't know how old he is I don't know I don't know what the deal is but that it's just there there are hardworking you know women and men and law enforcement

on the ground level on this they probably haven't slept a full eight hours since this thing started

“and they're being misheard I think the family's being misheard and you know you call in the media”

you get to expect you know the loony's are going to come out and say the vampires abducted or you get a lot of well-meaning people that are going to come in with tips trying to help

that almost never go anywhere and mark and I've dealt with a million of those where it's like

I heard noises down the street and it turns out it's the red cones and the trash can again or I heard a lady screaming but it could be my neighbor's wife you know you deal with all those you get her to vote resources to those and now in the modern era we have scammers who attempt to take advantage and profit from the apple-plected grief of families who are going through the worst thing that a family can go through and and at the at the helm of this you know sinking ship

is this guy that keeps taking into the microphones although I think he's stopped doing that a little bit he's doing one-on-one interviews and and now he's coming back blasting the media on stuff he brought the media in at the very beginning of this and I've got no criticism of that but it's like dude you get a get it prepared to answer some questions know your evidence and take a little bit of heat and criticism that goes with the job. I mean honestly every missing

person their family in this nation would give anything to have the kind of media coverage of the case that Nancy Guthrie has received the media is a blessing not a curse there's some downside of it I don't deny that but it's way more upside and having this much media attention on the case

“because they they require 400 officers that's how we got 400 officers on Nancy Guthrie it wasn't”

just because Savannah was the daughter it's because the media was constantly out there constantly peppering them with demands for more information so please spare me on the media blame and I don't love the media even just because I'm a part of it I wouldn't say this if I didn't actually believe it.