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

Welcome to the Megan Kelly Show live on Sirius XM channel 111 every week day at Kneast. Hey everyone, I'm Megan Kelly. Welcome to the Megan Kelly show. We have an incredible Kelly's court today. Man, do we have a full docket? This morning, just before we came to air, Charlie Kirk's family took the first step in filing a lawsuit against Utah Valley University over the security failures that led to his murder on September 10th of last year. Oh my God. I mean, I've wondered whether they would do this for a long time now. I mean, there are serious questions about why so little was done to keep him safe, truly. And now those questions are being asked by his family directly as they point the finger at the university. So we'll get into it. This raises a bunch of issues. It is a public university. Sometimes those are provided with immunity. Sometimes they it's waived. We'll talk about that. And you can bet that the university is going to point the finger right back at the turning point security team. That would be a question of apportionment, but we're going to get into all of it. It was a, oh just it raises so many awful memories. And the lawsuit reveals a lot that we didn't know about what turning point had done with respect to the university to tell them he he's a target. Please be sure he's safe. What about the rooftops, et cetera. So we'll do those details in just a bit. Okay, but we are beginning today with the holdout juror in the Lindsey Clancy case who is now speaking out at least indirectly. There is a guy named Ray Marcel who hosts a YouTube channel called fugitive TV. And Ray says he spoke with a holdout juror for about an hour yesterday about both the Clancy case and about this jurors past at as has now been, you know, repeated in the Boston Globe and elsewhere. Now he wanted to verify that he spoke to this juror. And he showed a picture of the jurors summons in the case. Now Ray Marcel has named the juror. He's named him. And he said his name repeatedly. And he's also put out a picture two pictures of the juror because he says the juror. Well, he doesn't want people making donations to I guess fakers who are saying they are the juror. Look, I don't know. I believe this guy Ray Marcel has spoken to the actual juror because he's got a picture of his actual juror summons. And he's got pictures of the juror. I'm just gonna for now hedge my bets. And I'll just refer to him as Michael. Okay, that's his first name. But I'm going to skip the last name because it's not important for me to say it here. I do believe Ray Marcel has been in touch with him, but until the juror comes out himself and confirms that it's him. I'm going to stick with just a first name. He wrote Ray Marcel. This is Lindsey Clancy juror Michael. He sent me these photos. Do not send anyone any money that is not him because there are definitely some fakers on the internet right now, purporting to be the hold out juror. Now Marcel says that Michael told him there's far more to the story about these domestic abuse allegations against him from his now ex-wife. This goes back six years. We shouldn't be talking about this at all. We shouldn't be. This is harassment of a juror who did nothing other than answer the call to civic duty. This is so wrong. I'm sorry that this has been crammed down our throats by these activist other jurors who took aim at this guy piled on like a bunch of bullies and then NBC Boston joined in by unearthing these allegations in his past, the Boston globe. Now every publication is out with it and this guy's having to deal with it and we understand we believe that the prosecution and defense teams are likely dealing with it too because they've just brought out a new lawyer. There's definitely going to be another hearing and Kevin Reddington, the defense lawyer is uncharacteristically silent about the matter of this juror and his so-called past. So you can bet he's getting ready to do something about it because there's no way he'd be saying nothing if he, you know, weren't actively going to use it. That's my own take. Okay, so this Michael has allegedly told Ray, this guy Ray Marcel, that that incident with his ex-wife, keep in mind what NBC Boston reported was that back in 2021 that Michael allegedly assaulted his ex-wife or his wife at the time and that his 13 year old nephew called the cops on Michael, that Michael's mother was yelling your evil as he allegedly did this to her and that the wife was disgusted and felt for divorce and then then they got a divorce. Well, Michael seems to be saying there's more to that story and says he was actually the one who filed for divorce, not his wife. After learning that she was an illegal immigrant and we understand that Michael is a legal immigrant from Haiti regarding that 2021 incident with his nephew and all that that would later lead to a restraining order because he got renewed where the nephew six years later came out to say that Michael allegedly assaulted him because he blamed him for calling the cops after that incident with the wife and that the nephew got a restraining order against Michael. Michael tells Marcel that this nephew for what it's worth is far bigger than Michael is. He says that the nephew six two and he's only five seven and he says not everything that has been reported is accurate. Again, this is none of our damn business. It's none of our business. What are we going to do about that other juror? All right. What are we going to do about the nutcase chef who's got all those problematic allegations in her past, which didn't result in criminal charges, but we're going to do this to everybody. Let's drag everyone's life through this same microscope and excoriate anybody who votes away we don't like for whatever their past sins are. This is just so wrong. I object to even talking about this. I'm doing it because of what's being done to him and because he now is trying to battle back against the smears. So we'll talk about his battle. Okay. It's like, this is just crazy. Now, obviously, if this guy assaulted his wife and or his nephew, no one's making any excuses for that, but the point is simply a, we shouldn't be talking about this and b, if we are going to talk about it, there's apparently more to the story than we have heard from NBC Boston. Now, Marcel reports that he spoke with Michael about what happened in that jury room and here is part of what he reported. Watch. He said that from day one, he said eight of them were going for Lindsey Clancy, not guilty. That was on day one. And then on and eight were going not guilty, two were for guilty and two didn't know they didn't make up their mind. Now, that was on day one. He told me that the eight that on day one were going for a Lindsey, not guilty. He said to him, those eight felt he felt like they were activists. He felt like there were activists is what he told me. And every day he said they would vote every day, they will vote. He said the eight that felt that Lindsey was not guilty were trying to convince the other four, hey, Lindsey's not guilty. Oh, wait a minute. So you're telling me he wasn't the only hold out nutcase crazy man who wouldn't apply the reasonable doubt standard. You're telling me that at least for the jurors when they first started deliberating, really were considering and at least two had preliminarily decided to find her guilty. So maybe this guy isn't quite as much of a lunatic as the other jurors now say. This guy Ray Marcell, who did the interview also pointed to a possible reason why the other jurors who truly have presented themselves like a bunch of far left nutcase activists were so upset with the hold out Michael watch very well spoken person, very well spoken, um, very nice, very kind, Catholic. And you want to hear something very funny? We started talking. He thinks he knows why he might be getting targeted. He's a Republican. Uh oh, he is a black Republican. He has conservative views. He believes he might begin targeted because of that. Because the media and the reporters, as you could see, they kind of have left views. He was in a juror panel with people of the Democratic Party. Now, we don't know if that is the reason, but we talked about it. And then as soon as he told me that he was Republican, it just common sense. I said, this makes sense now hell have no fury, like a white liberal dealing with a black Republican. It is unforgivable to white lips, the crazy ones, not normal, but like the really far left progressive people cannot tolerate a black Republican. They see them all as Uncle Tom's. How many times have we seen this? From Clarence Thomas on down, it is like the worst sin you can commit as a black American is to not go along with liberal dogma in the eyes of some nuts, the activist class, over on the far left. So is it so hard to believe that if they know that, I mean, that's the link that wasn't established. Did the jurors know that? Does the media know that? I haven't bothered to go pull this guy's voter registration to see if it's knowable. Nor did I see that in the original reports by NBC Boston, but it's possible. He told those juries, sorry, those jurors on the jury about his politics, or maybe they just gleaned it from like the sensible comments he kept making. I don't know, but there's still a lot to dissect here because he spoke directly to that jury questionnaire and how he figured it out, which I'm going to play in one second. Let me bring in my panel first. Today, we've got Mark Garagos and Matt Murphy attorneys and hosts of the podcast in the well. It airs every Friday on the MkTrue Crime Channel, which you can find at mkTruecrime.com or just go to YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. If you type in MkTrue Crime and hit subscribe, you're going to get in the well as long along with our other two crime shows. So don't miss it. You will be missing quite a lot of goodness. We are still a couple of months out, but the midterms are fast approaching and make no mistake if the house flips and is likely to. It is a big deal for our economy. That uncertainty is one of the many reasons to consider diversifying with gold from Birch Gold Group. The question really if you're not in gold is why not at this point. In the three months leading up to the 2024 presidential election, the price of gold jumped over 12%. Why? Because it's a hedge against uncertainty. If you don't own gold, consider talking with Birch Gold. Just talk to them. They're going to discuss your goals around gold and explain how precious metals can fit into your savings. They can even help you convert an existing IRA or 401K in whole or even in part into an IRA in gold for no additional money out of pocket. When the machines take over, we're going to need some hardcore currency buried in the backyard and I'm not sure it should be the dollar. Gold could be a very good option. Text the letters MK to the number 989898 and get a free infocate as well as some very solid information. The midterms are going to be here before you know it's a don't wait. Text MK to 989898. Guys great to see you. This one's so juicy and man do I have a good panel in you to get into this. Let me tell you what he said about the jury questionnaire because this is where people have gone. Did he? Did he fill out the jury questionnaire? Honestly, Garagos, this is so up your alley and what we talked about two weeks ago with Rochelle Nees and the Scott Peterson trial. But the question is, did Michael honestly complete the jury questionnaire, which certainly would have asked about prior arrests alleged crimes committed or interactions with the legal system. Here is Ray Marcel talking about that in sat six on the questionnaire. Did he lie or didn't he lie? He told me he didn't lie. He told me he checked the box that he was supposed to check. Have you ever been arrested? And he says he knows he checked it because he had to describe what happened after he checked that. So he checked it and described what happened. He said he got on the stand and I guess the prosecutor asked him questions to prosecute a question to him. And then guess what? After that, he was selected. So in his words, he said, no, he didn't lie on the questionnaire. He was questioned by the prosecution and was selected. Okay, Garagos. So if that's true, he filled out the form in the prosecutor, it makes perfect sense, right? The prosecution would be the one to be like, so Michael, what's the story with your alleged arrest? And it sounds like he answered it to the satisfaction of the prosecutor. And I'll bet you Reddington was like, I'm not going there. He sounds like he'd be a good juror for me, which he turned out not to be. So the Matt and I discussed this last week. It's why I wanted to Matt and said he just got out of the water. He wanted to talk and then I had to be cut off to listen. But the normally a process, that is a prosecutor's first preemptory strike. So I don't, I mean, it is so counterintuitive. But can I tell you something? It fits in with what I've been calling this entire case. It's upside down world. Almost never do you have one juror holding out for guilt. Number one, no, almost never do you have, and we saw it with Gail King and her kind of her brain stroke during the interview. Because her lack of a better, for lack of a better term. It didn't, yeah, she didn't use the word process, but I, I know that's what was happening. She was trying to process, going to have to stick a fan bot from the heart. Sure is a black man. I have to sit. I mean, it's just wait a second. Black man hold out for guilt. That, you know, it was just did not compute records. Right. And then the idea of a defense lawyer, Kevin Reddington, having to lambace the hold out when you've spent your entire career. I was telling Matt, I think I have probably I stopped counting at 20 hung juries. And most of them were either 11 to one or 10 to two, almost exclusively. And I don't think a single one, maybe one was this kind of a situation where it was for in favor of not guilty. It's almost inevitably for guilt. And there's one last person who was holding out in fact, Matt famously, there was a woman in Frank Fassel's court in Orange County after 18 weeks of trial and that courtroom and Matt's backyard that one lone woman held out on 56 counts. It was the most insane thing I've ever seen. I don't even know what kind of pressure you're under. But I wouldn't push back on a couple of things as I love to do with you when I listen to your monologue. Yeah. I don't, I, the idea if you've, if you've talked to jurors afterwards and my, my father who was my idol used to say the same thing, they'll drive you crazy. If you talk to them after the trial, I still do it, but it does drive you crazy. It's usually the first, the second, the third boat in a case that is that has large consequences is it can change. And that's part of the dynamic part of the reason for jury selection, at least what I do is I'm looking for when I pick a jury, I'm looking for a one person who's kind of be the general and one person who's going to be the lieutenant because that's who ends up determining it. Jury selection is not to get 12 jurors that you want. It's basically to get two that are going to, that are going to make your case back there when they get there. Also, that goes and fits in with closing argument, closing argument is not to cinch the deal. It's to give your jurors the arguments they need in order to persuade the others. So I doesn't surprise me when he says there was a split, it doesn't surprise me on anything else, but I will tell you what has happened since these interviews is some of this stuff that the jurors who were voting not guilty said, it is let me to believe more that the prosecution has got a better argument that this guy was not violating his own. Even though there have been people who said it's disgusting about rubbing, about tying the exercise band around the bottle, frankly, I think that there's a compelling argument that that was dealing with the evidence and that was somebody who was deliberating. And you can have to the note itself, you can have a doubt and it does not necessarily kind of rise to the level of reasonable doubt. So I mean, that's his answer. The one thing you just said, which I didn't know, and I've been saying that if this juror comes out and says, Hey, I'm Catholic and mortal sin really got me and I couldn't get past that. That changes everything for Kevin Reddington and for Lindy, Lindy Clancy. But other than that, this is fascinating, but I think anybody who excoriates jurors after the fact that that just violates my line to kind of red line in the sand. This is so crazy that this is being done to this guy, just so the audience knows Mark's making a reference to the fact that one of the other jurors said, oh, this way, Michael is so bad. One of the things he did during deliberations was to take the exercise bands that were used by Lindsay to kill her children. And he wrapped one around a water bottle. And we just thought that was so horrible. And actually, this guy, Ray spoke to that too, Marcel. He said he asked the whole dog juror about that and that the whole dog juror actually spoke to it with Marcel. Here's how that went. We even talked about the water bottle, how he tied the string around the water bottle. He said he did it to set an example. He did it to set an example and show people, this is what the string was used for. Imagine a water bottle as their little necks. That's exactly why he did that to the water bottle. And he even said he explained it. So he doesn't know why some of these people are acting like he didn't explain what he did with the water bottle. He said, some of the things that they're talking about him is either not the whole truth, the half truth, or just plain out lies. Hmm. Okay. So Matt, what could you weigh in on this? Because this, have you ever seen anything like this where there's a pile on by the other jury members of the one holdout after the verdict? And then the media is all over the guy like he's the one who strangled three children. You know, Megan, some mornings I wake up and it's like, this is a day Megan Kelly is going to get me in trouble. You know, and I'm so glad that Mark is on the show today, because this, this broke right after we finished our, our taping last week. And no, Mark is exactly right. I have never seen anything like this. I don't think anybody's ever seen anything like this. This is, this is Mark calls it his red line. It's outrageous with a ton of this guy. But if I could just weigh in and probably regret it later, one of the things that Mark, that Mark did not just say is Mark, like me, you know, how Gail King's head exploded. Like I thought Fem bot from Austin Powers. Remember at the end when their heads blow up because you can't process the information. Look, Mark and I have done the majority of cases in Southern California. And despite what you see in Real Housewives or the OC, Orange County is only 36% white, whatever that means, like white jurors. And you know, I tried 133 jury trials in Orange County, Megan. And I never had a single black man vote against me at the end, not one. And what you see over and over again is you see these, these young idealistic kind of public defender straight out of law school who come in and they buy into this media narrative that every black man in America has some, some insurmountable chip on his shoulder and wants to subvert the, the justice system. And they can't sit there like the same question is asked of every juror. Can you put aside any preconceived notions or any preconceived experience you've had and decide the case based on your common sense, the law and the facts has presented. Every jurors asked the same question. And this idea that a black man can't do that, you see these young public defenders. And this is a little bit technical here, but a lot of judges use what are called six packs. We have the 12 seats with the prospective jurors. And then you'll have six alternate or prospective alternates sitting in front of them. So you can see the next jurors that are coming up that are going to be selected as you exercise your preemptory challenges. And the, you see this over and over again, this kind of soft racism where they will kick juror after juror after juror because you can see the black man coming up and then they'll, they'll unpanel them using their last preemptory. And I mean, this is, this is something I hope I'm not giving away. I hope I'm not giving away any, any playbook here, but you see that over and over again, Megan, where inexperienced defense lawyers, not just public defenders, but they buy into the narrative and say, oh, that guy's going to be for me. For sure, Mark will not be surprised at all. I cannot tell you, Megan, how many times that guy has been the four person of my jury corralling other reluctant jurors into a conviction. And I did, I did vertical prosecution for 21 years, sexual assault and homicide, not one case in 133 jury trials in Orange County. Did I have a black man vote against me at the end, not a single time. So, no, I'm just going to sit with that for a minute. Yeah, sit with that. You want to sit with that? Let me tell you, let me tell you why I can process it. And I'll tell you why because I'm, I'm, I'm, I've disavowed my whiteness. Like the other clip we had from that woman, what did she say? I'm a non-practicing white. That's, that's all the white young woman said, like some millennial or Gen Z or she's like, I, I'm also upset about this, but I'm white, but I'm a non-practicing white. So, so anyway, that's what, that's what I'm going to be from now on so that I can check all the boxes and I get all the minority hiring and benefits. I'm going to tell my children to check the box on non-practicing. So we can check whatever box we want. People have gone crazy over the race issue. And the fact that the holdout is a black man and God forbid a black conservative, as I said at the top, the most controversial thing you can be in America. But here's what I want to know, Mark. What, what can be done now? Like because you know Kevin Reddington's wheels are spinning. You know, how can I, because you just brought on this defense lawyer to the defense team who's going to argue double jeopardy? And that's kind of an interesting argument because there wasn't a verdict. That's the whole, the whole thing is that it was a mistrial. But I think he's getting ready to argue because he didn't want the mistrial, unlike the Karen Reed case where they agreed to a mistrial. He did, he didn't want the mistrial. So can he argue with this new defense lawyer that the judge did an insufficient examination of the holdout juror? Now it turns out the holdout juror had a restraining order, which, I'm not sure if he disclosed that. He, that wasn't hit specifically. The prior arrest was hit specifically. And that should have been disclosed. And it wasn't. And therefore he shouldn't have been on the jury. And you would have found that out. Had you've auditioned more carefully judge. And therefore the proper remedy was to bounce that 11, that 12th juror, which you didn't do. And I had 11 willing to vote vote for me. And therefore double jeopardy somehow attaches. So they brought on, I believe, the same lawyer who made the argument in Karen Reed that the jury had found her not guilty on one of the murder charges before they went to the lesser included, which they were hung on. Behind closed doors, they agreed, but they noticed second degree and notice something else, but, but we'll vote. Or, and then they got hung on, on manslaughter, correct. And, and apparently the judge in the Reed case refused to pull the jury or ask them if they had reached a verdict. And so they were unsuccessful on that. In fact, Shane was plugged for in the well. We had Alan Jackson on on our last episode. And we talked to Alan about that and then Matt, as he loves to do, then raise right the right or case. And it was fun. But in this case, you guys have been getting amazing bookings just given who you are because you're celebrity lawyers. And it's, it's crazy. I look up. I'm like, who, now who do they have? So the, Mark's the celebrity, I was going to say, I'm the lawyer. He's the celebrity. He's the one, the pan girl author. The, the interesting part about this double jeopardy is that it's actually two arguments that I'm sure they're going to make. One is they're going to say that when the prosecutor injected mortal sin the first time and then their witness, the second time, the first time Reddington did not move for a mistrial. And he publicly said, I don't want to try this again. The second time he did move for a mistrial after the expert witness volunteered the mortal sin. And the expert witness is presumed to have known what came before him because experts are allowed and frankly, it's necessary that they're familiar with the evidence that's been testified to. So they're going to then say that the prosecutor deliberately wanted the mistrial so they could get a do over and that that is barred under a Supreme Court case called Oregon v Kennedy. The second argument that I think they will make is the one you just said, was there manifest necessity and manifest necessity is did the judge have to do it when the defense does not ask for the mistrial or say we have no objection or we consent when it's a, also by the way, this is a unicorn situation because this is another upside down world because you almost always. In fact, I laughingly Matt knows this. He's heard me say this so many times. I had to go to the court of appeal to get a published decision to get law in California that says a mistrial hungry is better than a conviction because it is. I mean, it's it seems axiomatic, but it is. So he did not consent to it, which is a very rare occurrence. And they're going to argue because he didn't consent there was no manifest necessity. The judge screwed up is what the argument is going to be, and she was once in jeopardy and they cannot prosecute again. I frankly think this may, because everything else about this case makes zero sense in terms of what usually happens. This may be the one case where somebody wins a once in jeopardy, or the best one I ever had was a case in VNIs many years ago where I had the judge writing after the mistrial, too, they've had prosecutor. I granted the mistrial by Garragus because of prosecutorial misconduct. As soon as I put that notice in exhibit, I got a misdemeanor on a life case, which Matt knows means they waved the white flag. And I, their eyes is spacked, also, and I'll add one more thing and then want Matt to weigh it. When people thought, including me, that Kevin Reddington had had a mini-stroke or a gale king brain dysfunction. When he asked Trump to pardon her, look what ended up happening. Trump was questioned. Trump said there's, you know, a federal doesn't work, but there's no winners, and they ought to resolve the case, basically. If Kevin did that intentionally, it's genius, because he got exactly what he needed, which was permission from the president to Tim Cruz, who was reportedly a staunch Republican, make this case go away. Interesting. Wait, the manifest necessity requirement, saying that there's a statutory right against an unreasonable, substantial, or serious interference. No, sorry, okay, I'm reading my packet here. The manifest necessity, like the decoration of the mistrial has to have been by manifest necessity, but the case law on manifest necessity seems extremely clear that if the jury can't reach a verdict, you've got it. And it doesn't matter whether the defense attorney wants to go along with it, Matt. Yeah, I think Mark's analysis on what they're going to do, appellate-wise is exactly right. I think that what the court is going to do with that, though. I think the court's going to look at this and they're going to say, Kevin Reddington, you had every opportunity to, to, or dire this guy, you at all, that you picked him. And this is the process. This is a guy you've held out. And that's the way it works. And I don't know if they want to open the floodgates to the idea that a, that a juror who's not going along with the rest, means that somehow we've got a, we've got to flush the case, or anything like that, because of these exact same reasons, Mark just explained at the beginning. And that is the vast majority of these, you know, 10 to 11 to 1 hangers are, are for the prosecution. It's, it's ten jurors that want to convict, or eleven jurors that want to convict. I just, I, I think that, um, the remedy here is a new trial. And that's what they're getting anyway, theoretically. Um, I think that- Well, yes. No, that, that's, that's, that's, can you just restate that because my, one of my questions is, let's say Kevin Reddington is right, that somehow Michael is a problem. I don't know why Michael's a problem, but let's, let's say, he didn't disclose the restraining order. He disclosed that there was a prior arrest six years ago in connection with the alleged abuse of a, of his wife, that then was dropped. And that's all he discloses. And he doesn't disclose, and, you know, presumably Reddington and the prosecutor will attest to this, that he's currently under a restraining order because of his alleged beating up of the nephew. Um, and then Reddington is jumping up and down, saying we would have wanted to know that both parties would have wanted to know he was under a current restraining order. And we wouldn't have allowed him to sit on this jury. And therefore, normally the end of that sentence is we deserve a mistrial. Right. But he already has a mistrial. Like there's the, the appellate court, the trial court, and then the appellate court will both be limited in the remedies that they can give him and coming up with a verdict of not guilty by reason of mental defect after everyone's gone home is not on the list. No, it ain't, it ain't going to happen. Um, in, in my view, well, I'll, I'll call that child. And look, Kevin Reddington, Kevin Reddington picked the guy, you know, and I've never seen, I've never seen a defense lawyer go out and open court and accuse a juror of committing a felony, um, in, in open court like that. I don't, I don't think Mark has ever seen that either. And then what we've seen afterwards, you know, in this silence, Megan, um, your take is interesting. There, there's another potential interpretation of how quiet Kevin Reddington is, is being right now. And that is, he's a little over his skis, in my opinion. I, and I don't know if this is true, but yesterday I read that he's been, he's been having, uh, contact with Turtleboy, who was a fixture in the Karen Reed case who was charged. I believe with felony conspiracy to intimidate witnesses. And I just saw an exchange yesterday between the two of them. And again, I haven't verified. I don't know if it's true, but if he's communicating with a guy that has been accused of actively subverting the criminal justice system, Kevin Reddington has crossed that red line in my view that Mark was talking about. And he's, he may be silent because this might have gotten away from him a little bit. Um, I'm sure he's going to plenty more to say. But he's got, if that, he's one of the ones that disclosed the name. He's one of the ones who disclosed the name of the jury. And apparently he was in contact with Kevin Reddington. That invites a state bar investigation that, and look, and I don't know. But, um, look, that, that, he may be quiet because if there's any truth to that, there's, there's, there's a text exchange purported to be between the two of them, which by the way was the most cringy bike, like back and forth, ask kissing by Kevin Reddington if it's true. I hope it's not. But look, being a criminal defense lawyer, Megan, is one of the most sacrosanct important jobs in the American system of justice. And Kevin Reddington, Love Emor, Haydom, did an outstanding job for his client. I wasn't a fan of his closing argument. I don't think he should have called out the juror, but his opening was excellent. And that's a, that's, that's an esteemed thing to do. That's very important in the criminal justice system. And if he has then finished that, and his next move is to cavort with some dude who has been accused of subverting the criminal justice system in another homicide case, um, that's a, that is a suddenly low move. And I'm not saying me, but a lot of people could look at that and think Kevin Reddington is kind of a scumbag if that's true. Okay. So, and I don't know if it is, but that's, that may be why he's being quiet right now. Um, that's another interpretation. I don't know enough to weigh in personally on it, but that's another potential take. And, and I'm with Mark on this. This is upside down, world. Um, and you've got an esteemed, a criminal defense attorney who just did exactly what criminal offenses are supposed to do, zealously defending his client. And if he's gone from that to, to potentially intimidating the future jury pool, we're trying to dock somebody for, for disagreeing with the law according to Kevin Reddington. If that's true, he could be in trouble. And, um, yeah, I don't know what's going on in Massachusetts, but I guarantee there's people in the state bar that are, that are looking at that. There's some raised eyebrows. If he is, if those text messages that I read yesterday are real between Kevin Reddington and friggin turtle boy, um, he may have, he may have, you know, bigger things to worry about than just this trial right now. And one more thing. Here are the, I'm sorry, just one more thing. A lot of people think that it is, uh, that it is a lawyer's job to defend their client. And that is the paramount job of a defense lawyer. Your primary ethical duty is as an officer of the court. And it's to the integrity of the process. Your client comes second to that. And this is, and Mark knows this. I know this and Kevin Reddington ought to know that too. So I hope all of those are why they don't let defense lawyers to born perjury. That's why you can't, as a defense attorney put your client, because your first duty is to the integrity of the court. That's right. Not to getting your client. One of the reasons. Wait, let me, let me just read the text messages that you're referring to that we don't know whether these are true or not real. But there's, this is circulating online purportedly from Kevin Reddington to turtle boy, Kevin Reddington allegedly writing looks like you had a, this is from July 22nd. Looks like you had a great rolling rally off the record. You do a great job must much, much respect. You create Karen's innocence. I think he means Karen Reed. No one else created and showed. And then the response purportedly by turtle boy is well, thank you. But I think her attorneys have done a great job too. Reddington allegedly agreed. I know Dave, you're netty well, great guy and attorney, but make no mistake. You have created this more than reasonable doubt. You are an incredible investigative reporter, not kissing your butt. LOL. You are amazing. And then again, allegedly from Kevin, I think we got off on the wrong foot as they say. I have come to a maze at your skills as an investigative reporter and agree you do not get the credit you deserve, which I think will change soon. I wish you would help me with Lindsay Clancy case. Then the next day turtle boy purportedly responds, Kevin, I wrote positively about the Lindsay Clancy case. It was the hardest story I've ever had to write. Patrick Clancy is the strongest person I've ever seen, followed by Karen Reed. But thank you. So if that's real, it does raise the question about whether turtle boy got the name of this juror from Kevin Reddington, possibly as a thank you for his quote, help with the Lindsay Clancy case. And if so, he could be in a lot of trouble because the name of that juror is still under, I don't know if we can say under seal, but it's definitely being kept kept private and confidential by this judge and order that he's just extended given the abuse that's taking place right now of this juror in particular. Yeah, look, it's, that's, it's just gross. For lack of better term. I hope it's not true. I'm going to defend him and I'm going to, I'm going to take the, what I think is more. >> Garagos has his own incriminating text with some potential jerk shitster. That's what I've just learned. >> Garagos, let me tell you, has never had an exchange kissing the ass of some blogger like or vlogger or whatever you call him in his career. I will, as Mark defense him, I'm going to defend Mark. There's no way. >> I'm just hoping and I believe that Kevin, what happened with Kevin was he came out of there, he had invested so much into this case. He was so hyped up or amped up that he probably to borrow Matt's term was over his skis in terms of what he was saying. I think he regrets what he said and that's why he's pulled back. I don't think I mean, you have to just understand how just kind of inside out, upside down this situation is, it makes zero sense for anybody who is practiced for any period of time doing criminal defense. It's so good. >> I got it, I got it. You said that. Wait, I just want to say two other things. That post, that exchange alleged exchange that I just read was from July 22nd, 2023, during the Karen Reed. So that was, that was not during this case. It was obviously forward looking and Lindsey Clancy was already under arrest and it was posted by Turtle Boy. So it's not like some third party. This is Turtle Boy saying, hey, here's my exchange with Kevin Reddington and Kevin Reddington has not weighed in on it and this was posted just yesterday. So I will see time will tell what happened there. I want to keep going because there's this, what I think is a copycat case. A lot of folks have said that of Cory Walsh. Now Cory Walsh is an Illinois mother and she had four, well, she has three other children. She had four. She killed her two year old boy, forgive me, viewer warning, but by hanging him to death. And she was reportedly very, very intensely focused on the Lindsey Clancy case. And now we're getting more details about what allegedly happened. TMZ is reporting that she rambled to police about having gotten a breakfast sandwich at McDonald's in the afternoon and started singing a tune from the wizard of Oz about the yellow brick road after she allegedly killed her two year old son Barrett on September 1st. She then said that she went to a Mickey D's. That's how she put it for a breakfast sandwich in the afternoon. Of course, people said you can't get a breakfast sandwich in McDonald's in the afternoon, but the point is simply, this is I think obviously her team trying to make her sound just out of it. She really was out of it. Her attorney, Robert Care reportedly told the judge all this about the Mickey D's sandwich and the yellow brick road song while speaking to investigators that she was allegedly her defense lawyer says she was in and out of consciousness as she was taken away by EMTs. She was incoherently speaking to paramedics, telling first responders, they quote, looked like her daughter during an ambulance ride. She started rattling off fruit names. Her defense said the defense is claiming she had a psychotic episode. She did have an eight month old baby similar to Lindsay Clancy Matt, but her eight month old baby was not killed. He was actually I don't know if it was a wear girl, but the baby was left on the floor upstairs. The two older children who are just school age, they're all very young, came home from school in the middle of this event and ran to the neighbor. The neighbor came over and saw poor bear it in this condition. She can use her imagination and got him down, tried to perform CPR. I mean, my heart goes out to that neighbor. That's a trauma from which that neighbor will never recover and that it was too late for that boy. But now here we go again. Here we go again, Matt, though I will say having looked at it, the standard for proving not guilty by mental defect and Illinois is a lot tougher than it is in Massachusetts. Yeah, that's right. It's a different, it's a different standard. But did you see the shooting to Segway for a second, Megan, with in Times Square with that woman, the crazy woman with the knives who killed that poor, that poor woman, did you psychotic episode? The her brother, the very first thing her brother said when he was interviewed was she's got postpartum and it turns out her son was either 23 years old or 28 years old, something like that. So this is, this is going to be a thing. We're going to see this as a defense over and over again. Hopefully this isn't a copycat, the situation. Hopefully this is a woman who's who's suffering from, you know, some disconnection from reality and some psychotic state or whatever that and she wasn't inspired by Lindsey Clancy. That would be, that would be horrible. But look, in Illinois, they use the McNaughton rule. That is, it's the same as in California. It's one that Mark and I have dealt with our entire careers and that is a much tougher standard. And the difference is, you summarize it, Matt. Yeah, sure. So the McNaughton rule says, basically, you can be mentally ill, but the mental illness must be such that you do not understand the nature and quality of your actions when you kill. In other words, you're hell in at the moon. The example we always use is devil pops up on your shoulder and says, go over there and kill that person or I'm going to blow up the world. That means the person, the defendant still knows it's a human being that they're killing. They're criminally responsible under those circumstances. If devil says, go, step that banana over there, that space alien, they don't understand that it's a human being. And when they do it, they're not criminally responsible or they're legally insane. Massachusetts uses what's called the McCool rule, which has a third prong. And that says, you can, if you're suffering from mental illness, even if you know right from wrong, if you're unable to control your conduct to the requirements of the law, you can still be found criminally not responsible is the language that they use. So they've taken away the term insanity. So that's the difference. So it gives a whole, a completely different kind of trial in places that follow McCool rule, which is, Massachusetts is the only one I know it. How does this likely go when you're getting out to the ether? She's naming off fruit names and she's calling the paramedics. Oh, you look just like my daughter and she's singing Wizard of Oz tunes. And she, her alleged reason for killing her child was that she said she thought he was the devil and the antichrist. I mean, I got it, like maybe she actually did think that. Like, I don't know. And if you, if you can prove she actually thought that, I mean, obviously the child wasn't. But like, if you can prove she actually thought that, is that a not guilty by reason of mental defect in Illinois? Arguably, but I, I think what really happens in these cases, we sometimes go on to them and say their copycats, obviously, because it's the first thing the brain does. But to some degree, I've, I've had the unfortunate happenstance over 40 years of dealing with many, many people who have mental health challenges. What they do is they blow on to in a, in a very real sense, whatever is kind of in the news, ether or cultural ether, Wizard of Oz is not, but Lindsey Clancy clearly is. So I can go back over the last 40 years and I can tell you when there's somebody's in the throes of one of these psychotic episodes, whatever is in the news tends to trigger with them. I'm sure you get Megan more than your share of people who are obviously disturbed, who are fixated on something. And that fixation starts to become part of their ideation. And I'm hoping that that's what this is. It sure resonates more to something like that, especially when you throw in the Wizard of Oz. It's dark. I mean, that's one of the downsides of this case having become so public, the Lindsey Clancy case, not to mention the pink shirts and all the, you know, empathetic coverage of poor Lindsey, where I do think these, you know, suggestible, disturbed mothers out there are suddenly considering this as an option. Okay, I want to end on this, Gerogos. You and I have talked about the Menendez brothers many times and it just broke that, and they're your clients, that they're getting a parole hearing in March of 27. And this is much sooner than anybody expected them to get because apparently the rule in California is you have to go three years in between these hearings. But we, you and I just last talked about this in 2025 where they had a parole hearing and it didn't work out. You know, you told me they were going to be home with you by Thanksgiving, but they weren't. So what, so what Thanksgiving 2027? Is it back on? What's the story here? Okay. So in California, there's a rule that when you have the parole hearing, if you get a denial, the parole board can do it for three years is the minimum, which is what they got. And in my defense, the parole hearing that they got was within two months of when we got them resettance. So understand that they had a resettancing in May where they were eligible for parole. The governor had already given them a suitability hearing, which hasn't been done for a while, converted into a parole hearing boom. So they got the three year denial. If you are infraction free and you're basically doing all of the programming, which you are suggested to do by the parole hearing board, they get to advance it halfway. through. Hence why 18 months from last August, they're going to get their next one. All right, in 30 seconds or less, are they going to get paroled? I believe they should. I mean, you saw yesterday that the district attorney of Los Angeles said I'm not going to seek the death penalty on Nick Reiner precisely because what you and I talked about, Megan, that the family would not want it or didn't want it. And if the family here is unified, every single living member of the Menendez family wants them out. It's time. All right, in 20 seconds or less, Matt, do you agree they're going to get paroled or they should be? Well, eventually the California Board of Prison Terms is going to parole them. I think, but that's really, Mark is the, Mark knows everything about that case. I've got opinions, but that's Mark's case. But yeah, in my experience with PBT, yes, they're going to get out after Gaskone did what he did. I'm just going to say I'm not going to garagoses for Thanksgiving. Matt, I'll see you in November of 27. Thank you guys. Feeling sluggish, bloated, not quite like yourself. Life constantly bombards us with silent threats, processed foods, artificial light, non-stop stress, all of which can disrupt gut health, drain energy, and weaken immune health. When that happens, it's not that your body is broken. It's that it might be missing the right inputs. That's why I want to tell you about ARMRA colustrum. It's packed with more than 400 bioactive nutrients that they say can work at a foundational level to fortify gut health, support immune health, fuel recovery, and promote whole body vitality. Strong gut integrity can support metabolism, skin and hair health, and even performance and recovery, which is why colustrum has long been valued by some elite athletes as well. If you're looking to take back control of your health from the inside out, you should consider ARMRA. They've got a special deal going for you right now. Just go to armra.com/magan or enter Megan to get 30% off your first subscription order. That's armra.com/magan. We're back now with Kelly's Core, which fits with our latest MK Confidential series this week featuring the story of Casey Anthony. We are calling it pathological for good reason. Here's a quick look at last night's episode. Friday, June 27th, Casey is supposed to come back. Instead, she is allegedly now in Jacksonville, seeing whether she and her dear friend, Jeff Hopkins, have a future, and her car has developed problems as well. She claims Jeff does not want her driving be 141 miles to Orlando in it, so he has put it in the shop. That same Friday, the white Pontiac Sunfire registered to Casey's parents runs out of gas on East Colonial Drive in Orlando. Casey, who is not in Jacksonville, pulls the car into the lot of a payday loan store called Am Scott, parks it next to a dumpster, and leaves. She tells Tony her father will come and get it. She does not tell her father about it. Oh, it's incredible what happened in this case and reliving it. You can't believe this case went how it went. So we're delving deep into it. It's gotten great viewer feedback. Everybody loves MK Confidential. Thank you all so much. We are in the eighth of eight weeks on this ongoing series, which will then launch and morph into something different after the eight weeks, because there's only so many resources in the day, but we love that you guys all love it so much. Three more episodes out each weeknight this week. Catch it while you can on the MK YouTube channel and podcast feeds. Joining me now on some additional legal cases are Dave Ehrenberg, co-host of the MK True Crime Show and former litigator, not to mention, along with former litigator and rumble creator, Viva Fry. Guys, welcome. Great to see you again. There's a lot to go over, but we I think need to start with this unbelievable Charlie Kirk lawsuit. I mean, to me, it seemed like just a matter of time before some sort of litigation was filed, whether it was by Charlie's team against, forgive me, his security guards or TPUSA and Charlie's family against UVU. It just seemed to me as a former litigator. Someone was going to be on the receiving end of that finger of blame because clearly while the shooter is responsible for Charlie's death, he wasn't well protected that day. He was not well protected. It's not one of those situations where you looked at it and you said, well, I mean, we're only human, you know, I mean, there's only certain things we can protect against. No, this was foreseeable. You know, Charlie was shot and killed in the September of 2025 and it had been 14 months earlier that Trump was shot from a rooftop in a similar looking situation where it almost had an amphitheater feel by a young man of virtually the same exact age as Tyler Robinson and so on. So it's like, of course, it was, almost everybody's first reaction after they got over the shock and horror that Charlie had been murdered was from the roof. Really? Like, how, how, how was that mistake made? So what's just happened is his family has filed what's called a notice of claim and that's a notice that you are getting ready to sue. You are getting ready to file a civil litigation against UVU, Utah Valley University and several of its top executives. It's president. It's head of security and some others have been named along with its campus police force saying that there was, that there were negligent behaviors in preparing for Charlie's visit. And Dave, they're saying that among other things, because they go through, you know, how this was the duty of the school to keep him safe. They understood it was a very charged political environment at the time from the two, well, the multiple attempted assassinations of Trump to what happened in Nancy Pelosi's husband or what happened in Minnesota with those two state lawmakers. And then they allege the following in their notice of claim. Turning point USA passed along a student concern about the risk posed to Mr. Kirk by accessible rooftops on campus. Specifically, TPUSA texted Hello Chief Long, the campus police chief. We received this message today from the student group, quote, there is student roof access pretty close to where Charlie Kirk will be set up at Utah Valley, the Sorenson Student Center as a couple of staircases that go up to the walkways on the roof. When a TPUSA official informed Chief Long of the concern and asked, quote, if this is true, it would be nice to either have a controlled access or allow one of my guys to be there as well, if possible. Chief Long responded by saying, quote, I got you covered. Chief Long's text message did not invite or even allow TPUSA to take any steps to secure the risk of unsecured rooftops. So what do you make of it? Good to be with you, Megan and Viva. Yeah, this is a legit lawsuit. They're going to run into the sovereign immunity hurdles. But as far as the facts, the family is arguing that indeed the officials ignored warnings from TPU USA security team about the rooftop. And it's more than that. It's also that the school did not conduct a meaningful risk assessment. They didn't secure a perimeter. They didn't even use metal detectors apparently. That should surprise people. They didn't monitor campus security cameras in time. And it was so bad as far as the number of police there that Charlie Kirk had to be transported to the hospital in a private vehicle rather than an ambulance. So they were totally caught flat-footed. I mean, not to get really dark here, Viva, but even when I took my tour, there was an ambulance outside of every venue. Just God forbid something happened. I mean, it's very dark. That was like the one when we planned the security. That was the one thing that I was like, oh my God, that's serious. But all the security team said, that's what's done in responsible security planning. You know, yes, God forbid something were to happen to myself or one of my guests, but also God forbid something were to happen to one of the audience members. Like we wanted something there. And at one tour stop, somebody had a medical event and we used the medical services. But I see the point, which is where was the ambulance? And Dave's right, they're alleging they did not conduct a meaningful risk assessment before approving the outdoor location. Police did not have a written security plan for the tour event. The parties did not have a security briefing before the tour event where the risks associated with unsecure rooftops on campus were discussed. I mean, so it's one wonders what exactly was done. It's not just that it's, you know, it was not unforeseeable. It was predictable. It had happened barely a year earlier. And you know, when they say the the notice of claim alleges that there were only six police officers for a crowd of two or three thousand people, it's it's not it's just dereliction of duty. It's it's criminal negligence. It's civil negligence. And I know what people are going to say. They're going to say, well, at the end of the day, the buck stops with Charlie security team. And if it was that, you know, a week of a perimeter or unsecured rules or you didn't get the proper assurance, you don't let him take the stage. That's a fair argument. And you know, that's something that his security teams can have to live with and answer to for the rest of their professional careers. But at the end of the day, when they say, yet we got you covered, a, you know, whether or not it's negligence to rely on that assurance, How the hell do they leave the sole rooftop unprotected? And this is as bad as the Pac-Man perimeter in Butler, Pennsylvania, where you literally had carved out the best vantage point from which to take the shot in Butler. And then you say, well, it's negligence of the secret service to let Trump take the stage when there's an identified threat, all of that. But this is beyond the pale. And when you want to get to the conspiracy theories and it's so beyond the pale that you say, people say, you can't be this bad by accident, so there has to be some deliberate conduct to it. The lame people for feeling that way, when people have advanced knowledge of something going to happen, making social media posts, and the campus security doesn't secure the most obvious vantage point from which to take a shot, which leads people to say, oh, my goodness, it must have been impossible to get to. This must have been a professional sniper job, somebody's scaling walls. This was you step over a fence from what everyone has testified to and you're on that roof that was unsecured with a clear line of sight in an open auditorium like a sitting duck. A suit itself is obviously well, the suit, the notice of claim is well grounded. People are going to say, well, the buck ought to stop with Charlie security team. They must be on it. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bottom line, a lot of people have a lot to answer for in terms of how the security laps, inexplicable security laps was allowed to occur. And we'll deal with this question of sovereign immunity and whether this school has it in one second day, but just staying on the principal notice of claim for a minute. The head of Charlie's security team is a guy named Brian Harpool. He went on Sean Ryan last year, or I think it was last year, and he was raising this exact issue that he and his security team had asked about securing the rooftops and dealing with UVU's police force and that they were assured the police force had it. Here's that sound bite sought 19 on Monday before this correspondence went to chief long. Hello chief long. We see this message day from the student group. There is a student roof access pretty close to where CK will be set up at the Utah Valley. The Sorenson center has a couple of staircases that go up to walkways on the roofs. He comes back for edification, the Sorenson center was the building in front of the Lucy center. He comes back and says you want access to the roof and came back and said I was told students have access above us if this is true. It would be nice to either have it controlled access or allow one of my guys to be there as well if possible. He comes back in his last correspondence was I got you covered. So there it is pretty clearly I got you covered Dave. Now, Brian Harpool has been the subject of a fair amount of scrutiny and some revulsion in response to that sound bite from people saying that wasn't good enough. You should have made sure you were getting paid to make sure it was covered. And I understand that there's obviously a frustration. I think all of Charlie's guys really loved him and as Viva says we'll have to live the rest of their lives with what happened to him and I've met some of them and they're good and lovely men who I mean they'd give anything to have a do over on that day but to the point of this threatened claim, that's a terrible text for you VU. It is because it destroys the unforeseeability defense. The single biggest shield for a university in a liability lawsuit is arguing. We couldn't have foreseen something like this would happen but if private security flagged this unsaccured elevated viewpoint that overlooks the open air quad here and then they brushed it off. Saying I got this isn't enough. Did you do anything about it, not your words, your actions? Then the danger becomes entirely foreseeable and that can actually punch a hole in the inevitable sovereign immunity defense because it moves it away from a discretionary decision to pure negligence or recklessness in the way that they acted. Okay, so that's very interesting because UVU is a state university Viva and state universities generally are state entities across across the country generally have sovereign immunity from lawsuits. And the reason for that is that if they're forced to pay, it's the taxpayer who is forced to pay and therefore we've made decisions as states and in some cases the federal government that we don't we don't want that. We don't want the taxpayers of Utah on the hook for millions of dollars because some effectively civil servant, servant made a terrible decision at UVU that day. But sovereign immunity does have some exceptions. So the general law, the governmental immunity act of Utah, we pulled it, reads in part, a governmental entity, its officers and its employees are immune from suit and immunity is not waived for any injury proxamely caused by a negligent act or omission of an employee committed within the scope of employment. If the injury arises out of or in connection with or results from the exercise of that behavior especially a discretionary function. And so what Dave is saying is if you can argue, this was worse than negligence. This was worse than a negligent act or negligent omission. And it wasn't a discretionary function that was being performed here. You might be able to get around the sovereign immunity defense that absolutely UVU is going to raise if this case gets filed. But I do think that's going to be a challenge. It's a high bar to get around sovereign immunity and, you know, to prove active malfeasance here as opposed to just negligent fools who didn't adequately bank on the risk of what would happen. It'll be a challenge, but I don't know if it's an insurmountable one necessarily. What do you think? They'll argue it. How about you take it once that further and suggest that this might have been deliberate? If someone says I got you covered and then does Jack squat to actually cover that which they said they have you covered for, forget negligence or argue that it was deliberate misconduct. Or you can go just reckless in between negligence and intentional is reckless. And where I think you have a good argument. We're there to tell the security force, we've got it and then not do it. I mean, yeah, you could make the case you have Butler Pennsylvania that occurred earlier. They know that it's a risk. They know that it's an MO. They raise it to the attention of the security at UVU. They allegedly prevent or don't allow Charlie Kirk's own security team to deal with the threat. They say we got you covered and then literally leave it open in the most negligent of ways. Now, I appreciate people are going to go back and say it's up to Charlie's security team to say if it's not secured, we're not letting him out there. But people in the chain of human error have to look back to that incident that happened in South America with the woman bungee jumping off a bridge. And they have five people involved and they literally threw her off the bridge because not one person decided to say where is the rope attached to? And at the end of the day, you're going to look at the security team and they're going to say it's their bottom line decision to say where is the rope attached to? Is it a good knot? Is it secure? Set that aside. In the sequence of events, you can see how these things get lost in the shuffle, so to speak. But someone has to answer it for it at the end of the day because it was a risk that it was brought to their attention and the risk materialized in the most awful of manners. And so they don't just get to wash their hands and say, well, you know, no, no duty to care, you know, sovereign immunity. It wasn't negligence. No, it clearly was at best. I just do ask the question whether or not it was something far more sinister in terms of people deliberately leaving an access point for the easiest of shots to occur while assuring the security team that they had taken care of all of the weak spots. I mean, I get it, Charlie was extremely controversial. He wasn't exactly beloved by the university set. And I don't know whether there was an active dereliction of duty on anybody's part. Like they just didn't give a damn what happened to him because you pointed it out a minute ago, Viva, getting on that roof could not have been easier. I mean, truly, if you wanted to set Charlie up for a catastrophic event, you wouldn't have done anything differently. You really wouldn't have. Ryan Enten, a great reporter with News Nation, he went to that rooftop right around the preliminary hearing, Dave. And he filmed himself getting on top of it. It's easy as pie. Here's the video of him doing what the shooter is accused of doing. The courtyard where the shooting happened is right back there. But this is all, you know, public area where people walk around. If you just go up these stairs right here, I'm going to walk up the stairs. You're suddenly, up here, this is a, this is a walkway here, okay? So you can get between buildings here. And on this side, it's now gated off. This was not gated off before the Charlie Kirk assassination, but it is now gated off. Basically, what investigators to Tyler Robinson did is this gate wasn't here, so he just walked right over to that short little gate that you see over there, that, that more permanent gate. And then all you have to do is just go right on top of that, which would anybody could do. It would just take a second. Walk out on the roof and right over there on the edge Would be a direct view just the perfect line of sight to where Charlie Kirk was speaking And this so-called fence that he would have had to go over for the listening audience is maybe three feet tall With rails on it to like wide open rails maybe three rails and a foot in between each rail So almost inviting you to place your foot on the rail swing your other leg over and pop right onto the rooftop Yeah, and there are accounts that students frequently partied up there they hung out up there There's trash beer bottles up there, and so this was an unsecured unmonored high vantage point over looking the main quad where thousands of people had gathered So I must say this and I respect what Viva is saying But yeah after being in government for so many years It's just so much easier just to say it's incompetence than it is a Yeah bank ineptitude right then I calculated here's a plan because what is a police the local police chief inside the school Get out of it by letting someone kill Charlie Kirk on his watch. I think he gets lawsuits. He gets to lose his job He gets possible Just never get to work again in the security area. So I don't think it benefits anyone to have this done I just think the easiest explanation is pure incompetence It's stunning when you when you read like all the stuff about what they what they didn't do You know, I read some of it, but they they also led you this in the notice of claim Placing a politically controversial figure like Charlie in an outdoor event in the quad surrounded by tall buildings and other Elevated observation platforms is accurately described as walking him into a fish bowl the UVU parties could have declined to approve the tour event in the outdoor Quad location or could have moved the venue indoors or to a more secure location as it had done for controversial speakers in the past Nevertheless, the UVU parties approve the event to be held at an outdoor venue dramatically increasing security risks But to not dedicate resources necessary to address the enhanced risk this approval created and they spoke about how Viva that they write about how the the parties they only assign six cops from the campus police to the outdoor tour event That ultimately had about three thousand in attendance the chief on the campus police Jeffrey Long Requested approval from the UVU president to allocate more than six officers but the president Declined they denied Astrid to minnes denied their request Then they failed to ask for assistance from outside police forces such as the Orom or Provo police They write that the Orom police with whom the UVU has law enforcement cooperation agreements didn't receive a call for assistance until after the assassination. I mean My god, and and it's like look I understand this is exactly the kind of thing that one's security team Would be thinking about why do we want to have an outdoor event? It's surrounded by tall buildings. It's gonna be like a fish bowl Let's do it inside and You know, I know That at least at other times Charlie was the one who wanted it outside because he wanted to pass or buy To hear the debate and possibly be Engaged by it and come over and be persuaded, you know, so All of that will be relevant and will be raised But there are teams of people who are assigned the responsibility of keeping an on-campus speaker like Charlie Kirk Safe and in this particular instance. Yes, it's his security team and the campus police and in your normal negligence case or Civil case alleging something higher than negligence worst than negligence It would just that would just be about a portion mint Dave right like who out of the 100% Responsible for securing the venue how much was Charlie's team Responsible and how much was UVU responsible and that would typically be a jury question Yeah, it depends on law of Utah whether they have that apportionment some states have it where every person even not on the ballot gets to be apportioned Some percentage of blame others has to be 50% plus one so it depends on on whether Utah's adopted what standard but It will be a part of any civil litigation that Charlie Kirk's own security team At least as sort of some of the blame so you can count on that I think what's going to happen Megan is that they're going to claim sovereign immunity And then there'll be some litigation where there's an attempt to get around it and then the university's going to cut a check I think that the state of Utah University will eventually settle it's much easier to get this out of the media than to deal with this for years to come Viva they the the business of the tax message to the head of Charlie's team saying we've got you covered To me, it's almost like the good Samaritan, you know a guy He's drowning in the lake and you're and and the good Samaritan sees him drowning now The goods the would be good Samaritan actually has no legal duty whatsoever to rush in there and try to save him none whatsoever They'll all the laws very clear on that you can watch him drown and do nothing about it But if you choose to go then certain duties do generally attach and If you say I've got it and you run into the water and then you get close and you're like just kidding and you watch him drown and Others didn't go because you went now that this is like something that would appear on the bar exam You know can the good Samaritan in these circumstances be held liable for effectively waving off Other good Samaritans and so I think that's kind of what we're looking at here where the head of the campus Police said we've got you covered and if he had said we definitely do not have that covered I don't think there's any doubt that Charlie's security team Would have either canceled the event insisted it move indoors or done something about the rooftops No, here will the set aside the legal issues is whether not they get this dismissed on sovereign immunity Assume this gets to the merits or deposition and my question is all right What did you do after that text message? You said you got them covered? What did you do next if the answer is strictly nothing? I mean you've got a big problem if the answer is I Delegated this to mr. Miss X Y on set. Well, what did they do about it when Dave says you know It's easy to attribute this to incompetence and by and large you know when we entertain You know conspiracy theories in our heads you understand what you can substantiate and what is just as easily explained by Human stupidity human incompetence human negligence, but when you view Charlie Kirk as a future president and and many people did when you view This as a future a preemptive presidential assassination as I do well, you know People will turn a blind eye just to maximize the potentiality of something terrible happening to that Perspective future of these you know United States of America when he came to Trump you know a Who who suffered what radical consequences for the egregious lapses of security? That identified a threat lost that threat in the crowd minutes before Trump took stage Trump still takes the stage Who who suffered any meaningful consequences as a result of that and by the grace? Yeah, no one that could have been the end of of Trump before he becomes president So you know people will turn a blind eye to the extent that they can I I do wonder if there were activists somewhere in there Who said maybe maybe he doesn't get killed maybe something bad happens and you know We don't like him because he spreads hate as that jackass lawyer said during the arguments there You know people will turn up like that preliminary and yeah, and it's not it's not action It's in action people can sort of justify in action, but okay. It's one of two things. It's egregious incompetence negligence False warranties and representations where they tell the security team. No, you don't get to go there We've got it covered. You don't get to have a drone in the sky. You're not allowed. We'll take care of it Don't worry about it. This is not so much a good Samaritan. This is security at the university that is bound to provide security to the individual So you know, it's incompetence at best, but what came after that we got you covered because if the answer is a big fat goose egg or something worse They've got a very it appears to be a goose egg. It could be worse There weren't drones. There wasn't a guard up there They had security cameras rolling which show the shooter climbing onto the rooftop with absolutely no interference Running over taking aim and shooting Charlie Nothing, nothing virtually nothing was done to secure well not not virtually as far as we know Absolutely nothing. It was done to secure the roof. It almost seems like it was facilitated to give any perspective shooter the Perfect vantage point from which to take this shot which is another thing We're not to get into the conspiracy theories Which has been a source of a lot of debates here. You know exploding mics Armed drones being deployed from low-flying plants. Why go through any of that when you literally have the Unsecured roof at a hundred and twenty yards. Why would you need to do something so wildly? Risky or less let you know more difficult to execute when you literally have a roof Unsecured and you know it. It's easily accessible. It's nothing that you have to scale You know rock climb five four teens to get to this was a rooftop that everyone had access to that was Unsecured they knew it was a risk and they by all accounts obviously failed to secure it The only question is is it grotesque incompetence or something potentially more sinister? Yeah, does it rise above negligence and was it discretionary or those are the two things that are going to determine Whether sovereign immunity protects Utah Valley University from this lawsuit and it would be decided before they have one lick of discovery. I mean that's something that a judge would decide on the papers right now to say It's a block right up front. Right. And that's when the check would be written. If the judge rules that there is not sovereign immunity to block a lawsuit, then it's on. Yeah. I think that's what the game is going to wait on. And I think ultimately a judge would rather not preamp the lawsuit and would just let it play out. And that's when the university and the state, I think we'll say, okay, let's settle this. Mm-hmm. I will say this. There was a case, Richie Ledfers versus Emory County School District, Utah in 1993. A student had warned school officials that other students had repeatedly assaulted him. The principal promised to address it. But the student was subsequently beaten in an unsupervised gym. His parents sued alleging negligent supervision and failure to protect. And the Utah Supreme Court found that the district was immune from the lawsuit. So in that case, there had been prior violence against the student. The student had warned the school that an additional attack was likely. They did promise that they would protect him. They didn't. He was hurt. And in that case, the Supreme Court of Utah said the district is immune, notwithstanding all that. So these are some of the cases that will come up as it plays out on the merits or on the papers, at least before we get to the merits. Guys, thank you. Or don't go away. We're not done. But we are going to take a quick break. Lots of heavy discussion, it brings up the worst things, just the absolute worst things. What is there to say? No matter what they get, the claimant's named in this, notice of claim include Erica and Charlie and Erica's two children, potentially Charlie's family of origin. And while I'd love to see those two children get a check from the insurance company, ensuring Utah Valley University, what good does it do? They need to be taken care of. They need college education. Well, actually, they don't. Charlie probably needs some sort of education and they need life expenses as they go forward to be covered. But what good does any of it do? What good does money do? We've all heard those radio ads about owing money to the IRS. They try to scare you and push you into calling out of fear. But tax relief advocates takes a different approach. If you owe the IRS $5,000, $50,000 or even $500,000, TRA has real solutions to fix your tax problem. Do not freak out. And don't lose hope. Because TRA can often reduce or, yes, hear me out, completely eliminate what you owe. How would that be? Their focus is on taxes and helping people and businesses resolve IRS problems. Their experts at this. They have more than 1,000 five-star Google reviews and an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau. You no longer have to fear the IRS. Generous relief programs exist right now. That can give you a clean slate if you've got somebody to help you navigate the system. So act today. All right, go to TRA.com. That's TRA.com or call 800-575-6845. Again, the numbers 800-575-6845, tax relief advocates, real solutions for real people. In the US, a break in happens every 26 seconds. Most systems only alert you after an intruder is inside. That makes no sense. By that point, the damage is done. These grab guys, they get in and they get out in like two minutes. You got to scare them off before they get in. That is how simply safe sees it and that's how simply safe created its product. With their new outdoor camera series too, an advanced AI, simply safe, doesn't just sit there and watch as bad guys break into your home, it acts. If a threat is detected, US-based live agents can intervene to deter intruders before before they cross the threshold. Going on VK, you can check your feed and know that professionals are monitoring your home. This setup is a breeze. Get your system running in under 30 minutes. No long-term contracts simply safe is prepared to earn your business every day rather than trying to lock you into a trap. It's elite protection that fits your life, not the other way around. Simply safe has an exclusive discount for you. Right now, get 50% off your new system by visiting simplysafe.com/megan. And now I have my very own channel on SiriusXM, it's called the Megan Kelly channel and it is where you will hear the truth unfiltered with no agenda and no apologies. Along with the Megan Kelly show, you are going to hear from people like Mark Halperin, Lake Lauren, Morgan Callahan, Emily Doshinsky, Jesse Kelly, real clear politics and many more. It's gold, no BS news, only on the Megan Kelly channel, SiriusXM 111 and on the SiriusXM app. Dave Ehrenberg and Viva Fry are back with me. Guys, this is a bizarre case involving a former player for the Atlanta Falcons, a reality TV star who starred on the Real Housewives of Atlanta in addition to another program that was her own Bravo spin-off, Don't Be Tarty, Kim Zolziak, and their 15-year-old son who is now in some Sirius trouble. He is being accused of sexually assaulting a girl, his age, I think, a year younger than he is 14, at a gym. Here's Kim and there's the son in the background and she's getting a divorce from her former Atlanta Falcons player, husband, whose name is Croy Beermann, the young, the child who she's made public and his name is publicly associated with this is Croy K.J. Beermann, Jr. So he, here's the first incident. It's come out that there was a first incident involving this K.J. He was charged in a juvenile sexual battery matter involving another young person. His lawyer has said, hold your horses here. That was basically two kids being morons on camera and that is nowhere near the terrible incident that now the lawyer for the new girl is making it out to be the prosecutors handling the new girl's allegation or making it out to be. But I'm getting ahead of myself, that's just a little bit of background. April, 2026 is what we're dealing with now. So page 6 reports that the alleged victim describes herself as the best friend of K.J.'s girlfriend. So the defendant in this case is 15 and his girlfriend has a friend who is the alleged victim in this, in this case per us weekly, which got the police report, prosecutors alleged that K.J. then 15 sexually assaulted a teenage girl who was 14 in a changing area at lifetime fitness in Alfa Reda, Georgia. The victim reportedly had a regular chiropractic appointment at the gym, though he wasn't in the office that day. She opted to work out later while eating in the gym's cafe. She saw a friend later identified as K.J. 15, entered the facility. She called out to him, they began talking at which point K.J. allegedly asked if she wanted to go into the co-ed sauna with him, per the police report. The victim told police that she and K.J. had been friends for some time. In high school, she also described him as a flirty and joking person. According to this 14 year old, at the time, young woman, K.J. was making jokes and flirting with her as they walked to the family locker room. So clearly she agreed to go into the co-ed sauna with him. Once they arrived in the room, K.J. allegedly asked the victim to kiss him multiple times. Quote, he grabbed her by the waist and started kissing her neck and grabbing her butt with his hand in an open hand and kissed her lips. Red the report, claiming K.J. also touched her private area on the outside of her pants and she quote, "Froze." The young woman stated she told K.J. no multiple times and that he said something to the fact that she was lucky he wasn't making her do it. He then allegedly pulled down his pants to expose himself and put his unit into the victim's mouth. The victim claimed that K.J. tried multiple times to have sexual intercourse with her by trying to pull down her pants. She stated there was nowhere for her to go that he had pulled her toward him, always keeping his hands on her body, also allegedly slipped his hands into her shorts. She kept trying to get away. She finally succeeded. The victim reluctantly attended school the following day, but left after seeing K.J.'s girlfriend, her friend, and told her grandmother what had happened at the gym. She also told police she had previously kissed K.J. consensually, is the quote, "According to officers K.J. and the victim were boasting on surveillance video going into the family dressing room about 20 minutes later, the victim exited the dressing room and headed toward the lobby while K.J. made his way to the sauna alone. This results concluded there when there was no presence of male or human DNA in the victim's private area and mouth that did not belong to her." Now he spent arrested on aggravated sodomy and aggravated sexual battery charges and is being held in the Metro Regional Youth Detention Center, but is being, this is being prosecuted in adult court. Even though he's only 15, and that's one of the questions here. The defense is trying to get this treated as a juvenile case because if it's not, this kid faces a mandatory minimum of 25 years, no parole, no probation. His lawyer says it's difficult to comprehend that a 14 or 15-year-old child can be held in detention for a month or longer, simply waiting for a bond hearing. They did get a bond hearing eventually, and it was set at $200,000, which is no joke. But this is a real, he said, she said. And the alleged victim, she came to court, trying to get bond denied. Here's a bit of that in slot 21. I am only 15, I should be boring about school, my friends, and normal days, people my age worry about, is that I can actually be able to fear, stress, empty consequences of something that I never thought I would have to face. And people may be in an already difficult situation, even harder. But what scares me the most is that this is going to be a young person's family. I have already received threats for individuals saying that if he is released, he will come after me. He is. Let's just do some of my friends and family and folks threatening me because of me coming forward. The judge did allow bail, Viva, and he's been released on bail pending trial. He clearly comes from a very messed up family. I mean, that seems clear. I'm just going to show you one other thing before I get you to weigh in. This was an incident from December of 2023, via TMZ, in which the kids called the police and you see this former Atlanta Falcons player, Croy Bierman, screaming at the officers about some of the problems in the family. It's not 20. We're just having an argument about what about our life. Okay. What happened? What is life? It's destroyed. Because this right here does nothing but fuel her, and not doing this. This is narcissistic behavior. I'm not doing this. I'm just trying to figure out what there is nothing to do. You shouldn't even be here. Who called you? Your kids. Who? What kid? You have kids? I don't know. Whoever's in the house. Yeah. What else? What? What? What was the argument about? What? Our life. In a f*cking destroyed. Why is it getting so heated? Because our life is destroyed. What don't you understand? There's no money. There's no house. She wants more. We're getting divorced one day. We're not the next. Okay. What the f*ck other man? What do you want? Just calm down. Calm down. I'm about to go to the f*cking house. What's going on with this? Like a crazy person. What? Not great. Hell is going on. Sorry. It's terrible. I was just looking up the definition of aggravated sotomy because I had to make sure that it involves unlawful or a coarse oral or anal sex. So it would explain the charges against the kid. It's weird. You hear a story like this. You got it. They're all allegations. He says, she says, you're dealing with some preconceived notions or assessments that this kid's coming from, a messed up house, who would have thought that having a football player father and that as a mother might instill the wrong lessons of what consent means and what Roma. I mean, who the hell knows what this kid learned from these people that are his parents that he thought was how you deal with girls that you might have a crush on. This is the mother by the way. Okay. Sorry. This was one of the stories that was mildly new to me. These are not things that these are grotesque and ugly stories to deal with. On the one hand, you will never know what actually went down, unless there's there is not going to be a video footage from inside the sauna. But Megan, is this the story also where they found some very problematic things to put it mildly on the kid's cell phone? Yes, but that too is something that I'm confused about because the defense lawyer is really hitting that hard, saying that is not what the prosecution has purported it to be. Here is the deputy DA, Caitlin McGillacutty, speaking about what they previously found on the defendant's cell phone, sought 23. And these incidents, there were videos found on this defense cell phone. Those were kept in a hidden folder on the cell phone, and they took its penetrates act so that you know, family members are under the control. The makes of the net case was identified, was randomly interviewed, but I think is important to understand about the nature of that, is that these acts occurred over a range of time. There was not just one act, one video, these play multiple encounters. And there's also some praise for me, I would say the Roberts phrase heard by the language, used by the defendant, and in terms of it, then he knows it. So in case you missed it, she said the videos found in the defendant of the 15-year-olds hidden files on his cell phone included, quote, "penetrative sex" with the juvenile family member, suggesting there's incest on there. But his lawyer, Jason Sheffield spoke with page 6 after the hearing and said, "Characterizations made in court regarding the prior juvenile matter involving KJ beermen grossly misrepresent both the facts and the ultimate resolution of that case." He insisted, quote, "that matter arose from inappropriate crude behavior involving two middle schoolers. It did not result in an adjudication for a statutory rape, sexual intercourse, or any comparable offense." I mean, Dave, I wouldn't expect him to have even remained in the household if he were molesting like a family member, so I'm not sure what to make of that prior incident. And I'm not sure what to make of the current one either, because the defense lawyer has come out and suggested that this alleged victim has made other false allegations. Listen here to his lawyer, Jason Sheffield, in court on September 11, 22. "As for a statement on prior false allegations, I have evidence, I have witnesses, and I believe under our current case, well that is admissible evidence. It's no longer subjected to the reasonable probability of falsity standards, it's subjected to oral 140, and because the report that was issued had so much to do with the credibility of the alleged victim, and it had extensive information about the way that she described these offenses, I thought it was reasonably necessary to level the playing field to talk about that particular evidence." Dave, like if that's where this goes, that she's got a history of making this stuff up, that she was good friends with his girlfriend, that it was more of a Sunday morning regret than it was an active sexual assault. That's a decent defense. We've seen that defense work in other cases, but how does a jury go about figuring that out? Well, the use of the prior alleged act is used to keep him in the adult system and to keep him locked up at home with strict bond requirements that he otherwise wouldn't get, and then it's up to the jury in this trial, and I think he will be tried as an adult because that's the default where he is, and because of this prior case, I think that he's going to be tried as an adult here, and then it's going to be up to the judge to determine whether to allow the prior alleged misconduct to come in. We don't know the extent of it because it's on the juvenile system. There's all these privacy rules in place, so it's not going to just be a pure, he said, she said, because I think the state is going to get some of this prior bad acts in, and they have something on the cell phones. We don't know exactly what it is. We've heard some talk here about this awful stuff in the hidden files, but apparently, there may be some evidence on the cell phones that talk about what he allegedly did here in this matter, not stuff in the past, and then the main issue, though, the main witness is going to be the victim here, and if they could put her on trial, they could shred her credibility, then ultimately the case could fall apart. But it's not purely a, he said, she said because of the other stuff that we just mentioned. >> I mean, her leaving the facility Viva right after it happened, I don't, they'll be scrutinization of that. Did she look upset, did she text him immediately thereafter, like all of her behavior will come under the microscope. But you got to keep an open mind because if it's true It's just an allegation that she's made prior false allegations. It's a complete game changer. These cases are, they're ultimately their grotesque and also they highlight, I would not want to be a young person in today's day and age and certainly not a young person in a public school or the schooling system or in a family situation where they don't not just teach you right from wrong but proper behavior that will keep you out of trouble regardless of who turns out to be the liar in this case. There would probably be zero doubt that this kid is learning not the best lessons in life and morality from his parents. It doesn't mean that they're in there and from the up, now that being said, if it turns out that what he's got on his phone is what was described, you got to, I mean I appreciate it'll be derogatory because it's going to be potentially evidence of another crime potentially that might have nothing to do with this. Something is going wrong in all of this. The girl saying that she wants him locked up in the interim is also something of a red flag because if what he did is what she says, she did locking this kid up at 15 for an extended period of time seems very punitive and malicious given he hasn't been convicted of anything so, but it's just this is a cluster of the situation, just raise your kids properly, teach them the right lessons and let them know that when you were caught on your camera could be evidence of a crime and people don't seem to appreciate that. Yeah, and honestly stay the hell away from reality TV, quickly Dave give you the last word. Yeah, last word, when that guy was going crazy on body cam outside his house, did you really think telling him the calm down was going to work? Yeah, that never works on anyone in the history of mankind, great to see you both. Thanks for being here. Tomorrow we're back with Emily Gisinski, see you then. Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show, no BS, no agenda and no fear. (upbeat music)