Lindsay Clancy Jury DEADLOCKED, Sandusky Accuser Recants, and Fake NFL Player Fraud, with Mark Eiglarsh and Jonna Spilbor | Ep. 1389

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM Channel 111 every weekday at noon east. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show. Kelly's Court is back in session on the docket today with reporting that Prince Harry and Meghan Markle's marriage may be on the rocks. This is coming to us from multiple sources. They deny it, but wait until we tell you exactly who's reporting it. What would happen if the couple got into a child custody battle? There are reports now that she's actually planning on staying in Montecito and he wants to live over in the UK with the kids and have them go to UK school. But we already saw this happen with a famous actress who was in LA and got into a big custody battle with her European husband. And we'll tell you how that went and how it might be relevant here if these reports are true. Plus, a hearing to decide whether Tyler Robinson will stand trial in Charlie Kirk's murder begins this hour. But we are going to begin today on this show with Lindsay Clancy. At 10 a.m. this morning, the jury going back into the courtroom after an hour of additional deliberation announcing they are deadlocked. The judge not issuing a formal Allen charge, as it's known, where you basically have to launch into, a bunch of admonitions to the jury about like the deliberations and how they should keep going and so on. But a more informal urging of them to go back in there and continue deliberating. Watch. Well, members of the jury, I've got your question. And the question is, after many hours of deliberation, we are unable to come to a unanimous decision. I brought you back out because I know that this was a long trial. All right. I know there were over 80 witnesses. There were over 300 exhibits. And but because of that, I'm going to ask you to go back out, keeping in mind all the instructions that I gave you to go out and to continue your deliberations at this time. All right. And so with that, I'm going to ask you to go back out. Like I said, keep in mind the instructions I gave you reviewing the evidence. And I'd ask you to. I'm going to ask you to resume your deliberations at this time. OK, thank you. Out they went. That was two hours ago. They're probably having lunch now. And we just we don't know what the split is. You know, there are 12 jurors. There are alternates as well. But what's the split? Is it six six? Is it ten two? Is it eleven one? No idea. Can the holdouts for whichever side, let's say there's a majority for, you know, murder one. Can those who are in the minority and the holdouts be persuaded? Or is it a situation where arms crossed, heels dug in? Nobody is budging, period. And if so, what does that mean? What does a mistrial, which is what the judge would have to declare, mean for Lindsay Clancy? So by my count now, they've been deliberating for over 20 hours. Do we believe that giving them more time might make a difference? Yes. Joining me now, Mark Eichlarsch and Jonas Bilboer. They are the hosts of Positively Legal, which comes out every Wednesday as part of our MK True Crime channel. Go ahead and subscribe to MK True Crime on your podcast app or on YouTube. You just type in MK True Crime on Apple, Spotify or YouTube and it will come up. Everyone's talking about weight loss injections because the results can be so dramatic. They work by lowering blood sugar and reducing appetite. But what if you're looking to lose weight? But are not interested in painful weekly injections, especially when you hear about some of those intense side effects. That's why doctors created a weight loss supplement called Lean. And the results could be remarkable. Lean says the studied ingredients in their product have been shown to lower your blood sugar, burn fat by converting it into energy and to curb your appetite and cravings. So you are not as hungry. But listen, Lean is not for the casual dieter with only a few pounds to lose. The doctors at. Rick House Nutrition created Lean for frustrated dieters with 10 or more pounds to lose. You could get started with 20 percent off and free rush shipping. Adding Lean to your healthy diet and exercise plan. Visit TakeLean.com and enter MK for your discount. That's promo code MK at TakeLean.com. Mark, Jonna, welcome back. Do we, Jonna, think that this, you know, please get back in there. Or a possible Allen charge, which you can explain, could make the difference in making them reach a verdict when they haven't been able to thus far. You know, ordinarily, I would say it does make a difference. And, you know, I don't have the exact figures, but frequently when a jury does receive an Allen charge, which is basically what the judge gave a mini one, this rah-rah, get back in there, try a little harder and come out. We don't want to waste the last five weeks of your lives. Come to a verdict. Usually it works. But. In this case, Megan, the thing that I find a bit unusual is there was so much evidence and they really, the jury came back with only one question. They wanted to see a couple of pieces of evidence, the knife in particular and the prescription bottles. And then that was it. It's been radio silence. But for that. So it's not like they're wrestling over something and we can read the tea leaves. They've been quiet. So I don't know. I can't say in this case that going back. And doing it for a little while longer is going to make a difference. I predicted a hung jury in this case just because the issues are so weighty. We're not dealing with 12 lawyers. We're dealing with 12 lay people. And this is a tough one. Three dead kids. I'm not encouraged that they're going to come back with a verdict. Yeah, I'm not either. I mean, this is kind of an ideal case for a hung jury in a way, Mark, because it's the facts are not really in dispute. What's in dispute is are we going to treat? Are we going to treat her like a criminal or like an insane person? That's really it's like an interpretation when all is said and done. It's really an opinion. It's not exactly. I mean, it's not supposed to be beyond a reasonable doubt. Did they prove that she knew right from wrong when she behaved this way and that she could conduct herself within the balance of the law? And was it premeditated and was it heinous and awful? So there are legal elements that they have to prove. And the prosecution says it did. But at bottom, isn't really it's like, what's your call? Did she was she insane enough that we should put her in a mental institution or not insane enough such that we should put her in a jail? OK, I have so many thoughts. OK, you just raised so many more issues. So let me try to shotgun them out. First and foremost, this is only about what bars she'll be looking out at. You know, we talk about prison and we talk about a mental institution. She'll be there for decades, if not the rest of her life. Secondly, we hope we hope. Yeah, well, second, then it's not going to be not guilty. All right. So so secondly, and I mean, not guilty, purely not guilty. So it'll either be not guilty of insanity or hung. Thank you for raising it, because we should point out that is an available option to the jurors. But you get guilty on first degree, second degree or manslaughter, but not guilty like you didn't do it. Goodbye. Have a great life or not criminally responsible. Not guilty. We're letting her go is available the same way me winning the lottery while I get struck by lightning is available. It's not going to happen. OK, so anything is possible. All right. So first, we start off with jurors who are reflective of the thoughts of people in society. Right. They're random people. Look at the random people on social media split almost down the middle on this. She is a mother murderer. No, she deserves mercy. It's just so split. Then you have opening arguments. And most people, if they don't decide right away, they certainly lean towards a side. And it's hard. It's hard to get them off of that side. So by the time they go back to the jury room, they're etched in stone. They're in their positions and they find it probably deplorable that they're being yelled at by their fellow jurors as to why they're not coming off their position. I consider them to be remaining in that position. They're going to stay entrenched. And I'm going to announce something that I probably shouldn't. But I've actually reached out to the defense lawyer and I told him if they're going to retry this case, that I believe in the cause enough that I would. And I've actually reached out to the defense lawyer and I told him if they're going to retry this case, that I believe in the cause enough that I would. responsibility and they did not prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. They must find her not guilty by, you know. No, it's a good, it's a good point. The biggest boon the defense had in this case, Jonna, was the fact that Massachusetts law is weird when it comes to the assertion of whether you're insane, whether, whether you, you know, are, it's weird. I'll choose my own words. Thank you. Anyhow, it's, it's strange because in every other jurisdiction, virtually, when you assert an insanity defense, the burden shifts to you as the defense lawyer that you have to prove, you know, the prosecution has to prove the crime was committed and that you met the elements, you know, it was heinous and all the premeditated and all that. But then the defense has to prove, yes, but we have a defense and the defense is legal insanity. And in Massachusetts, it's all, all the burdens on the prosecution. But let me ask you this. What, what is a win for Lindsay Clancy here? Because- This lawyer, Kevin Reddington, has been saying, why would I want a mistrial? We don't want to go do this all over again. And I think he thought he was doing pretty well and that the prosecution really didn't have its act together for most of this trial. And he didn't want a mistrial, but most criminal defense attorneys consider a mistrial next best thing to a not guilty. So what do you, what, how does a mistrial play and what is a win for the defense? That's a really great question. I love this question. So in this case, though, I think a mistrial is more of a win for the defense because as they often do, it would open the door for some additional negotiation, right? The prosecution doesn't want to put 85 witnesses on the witness stand again. The county doesn't want to pay for another three, four, five, six experts again. At the same time, you can't let three dead children just go unpunished. So I think in that, in that sense, they might try to strike some sort of deal. And the other interesting aspect is I asked myself, because for some reason I missed this and Mark, I don't know if you did, Mark, and during that five weeks, where's Lindsay Clancy now? Because I don't think she's behind bars. I believe she's in some sort of psychiatric facility. That's where she is now. Like wouldn't they strike some sort of deal that would at least keep her there? And I don't know. And then if she ever got sane, maybe move her to the hospital. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Maybe move her to a nine by 10 cell. I don't know. So I think it is more of a win for the defense if it is a hung jury because it opens the door for negotiation. But I'm sure Mark begs to differ. What do you think, Mark? What's a win for Lindsay Clancy? That she's not convicted of murder or any crime. And so I would call that a win. It's not what you want, but it's still the prosecution failed to get what they wanted. And so like John has said, maybe it puts them in a posture where they could, maybe consider working it out. But I don't see it. It's like asking the jurors to work out their deliberations right now. They're in completely different camps. You've got prosecutors who think that she is a murderer. They mocked her suicide attempt. They thought she had planned this. I mean, they didn't they didn't approach this the way I would have. Again, if I'm prosecuting this case, I would have been more sympathetic that she does suffer from mental illness, but that legally you must find her guilty because there's evidence to show that she knew right from wrong and could have. Conformed her behavior to the law. You could have played it more subtle. Similarly, the defense didn't have to crucify every single witness and claim that everybody did something wrong. And even the police at the 11th hour, he threw under the bus. He didn't need to do that. It wasn't necessary. Yeah, of course. A defense lawyer in Massachusetts understanding the the politics in that state is going to play the card of all cops are bad. And that was dirty pool because this wasn't a question about what the cops did or didn't do at all. We know she did it. It's about her mental state. It didn't fit. You lose credibility. Want an outside villain? Go go to the medical community. You could try that at least in a good faith way. But the cops, Mark, and even the treating psychologist and even that one who's right out of school. Oh, my goodness. You could have gotten from these witnesses what you want without having to crucify them. And that could actually absolutely backfire. I guarantee you, some of these jurors did not dig his chili, that some of the things that he did, they probably found offensive and maybe not intellectually honest. And I think that there's a way that he could have been truer to the facts of the case without being a bully in some respects and or delivering a closing argument. Now, it doesn't take away from the passion that I liked from him. And I like that he didn't just, you know, lay down. There's a lot of things I like about Reddington. I think he's great. His closing arguments went on way too long. And he could have gotten from these witnesses what he wanted. But most importantly, the final words that came from his lips when the judge asked him, how much time does he need? He goes, 30 minutes, you know, and I went, what? He's asking for 30 minutes. I write my closings first and then everything is connected to the closing. Sounded like that was an afterthought for him. Like, well, I've already done my work. Let me just give some remarks and wing it out there. That's not what you do. Nobody seems to have been impressed by Kevin Reddington's closing. I have yet to find the layperson or the lawyer who thought it was excellent. But they did. I mean, Dr. Tufts was a mess, I thought. I mean, she was fresh out of school, fresh out of residency, and she only saw Lindsay Clancy by Zoom. And I agreed with, I mean, she deserved a rough crash. No question, but the manner in which you do it. Lay hands on your patient. Especially, again, like I was telling the audience, she reminds me of this pilot I had on a plane who was like, she had a top ponytail. This girl, her name was Maddie, the pilot. And the ponytail was up there and fluffy. And we had this terrible landing. I'm like, oh my God, I have a 12-year-old flying the plane. I mean, that's who Dr. Tufts reminded me of. You don't want this person practicing medicine on you or flying you, but whatever. But Kevin Reddington did score a lot of points during the course of the trial, Jonna. And some interesting analysis I heard earlier today, I think it was on Court TV, was that that's a reason for him to want a verdict here. Because the prosecution wasn't that impressive in the course of this trial. They did a good closing, but they weren't that impressive. And they will now, I believe they will try her again if this is a hung jury, because of the three dead children. This is not some small crime you can just kind of move past. Like, well, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Well, whatever. No, no, no, no, no, no. And so I think if it's a hung jury, they'll try her again. And this time the prosecution will have learned from its mistakes. So I actually think the odds of an outright conviction will go up if there's a second trial. It'll go up probably because they will swap out the lead prosecutor who really- As they should. Very, very sleepy during the course of the trial. But the closing argument did what closing arguments, I think, are supposed to do on the prosecution side of this. It sewed everything together perfectly, like you would expect from the defense. Like, it was linear. It made sense. It was delivered with a very feminine energy, which I think is going to resonate with the majority women on that jury. Like, the closing, I think, was a nine out of 10 on the prosecution side. But they'll swap out. They'll swap out the prosecutor. The reason why Reddington, for example, resonated so much is because when you're on the defense side, you get to do the cross-examination of the prosecution's witness. That's sexier. That's easier. That lets you be, I mean, Mark, you described it as he was kind of a bully, and maybe that didn't resonate. But that's exactly what sucks people in, because you get to do the magnanimous, you know, figurative punching in the face, like he did with that inexperienced doctor, who really is probably going to change careers at this point, because she really got beat up badly. On the stand by him. And that's the easier, and dare I say, I don't want to say it's fun. None of this is fun. We're talking about three dead kids. But that allows a defense attorney, an attorney, to really show his or her chops. And that's what Reddington did. Wait, can I just tell you a quick story on MK Confidential, which is our summer crime series we're taking on big crimes, and we're doing five-part series on them Monday through Friday. You can catch the second installment of Scott Peterson tonight at nine on YouTube or podcast. We've been boning up on that. In great detail. And one of the details I saw in prepping for that series was our mutual friend, Mark Garagos, who defended Scott Peterson, was in court and the star witness, does everyone remember who the star witness of the Scott Peterson case? You got it. So Amber Fry got up there and testified against Scott Peterson, and it was absolutely freaking devastating. And the judge looked at him and he said, no questions. And the judge said, excuse me? Yes, you got it immediately. The judge said, excuse me? And he said, I'm just kidding. I was just trying to lighten the mood. That's great. That's a tactic, right? It's like he actually is trying to lighten the mood for all sorts of reasons there. And while Lacey's mother, Sharon Rocha, did not appreciate that at her daughter's, you know, the murder trial of her daughter, he was smart to do it, Mark. You know, so John has got a point about the role of defense. So let me make sure my point is clear because I've made witnesses, not even metaphorically, but literally. literally cry. So I know how to do a blistering cross. What I'm suggesting is I teach my law students. You start off with first and foremost, do I need to vigorously cross-examine this witness or do they help me or can they help me? That's the first thing, because you get more flies with honey. You get from them what they're willing to give to you without having to badger them. Certain people, however, you move up the ladder of disdain and you go, you know, certain people deserve it. Certain people you can't live with. I have snitches that are testifying against my client. I eviscerate them. They deserve the jurors expect it. But certain witnesses like professionals move up the ladder of disdain. Think about it. I mean, snitches are like at the top almost. But but some of these doctors, you could he would spend like an hour and a half going after them. And ultimately, I feel like I could have in 10 minutes gotten from them everything he tried to get through cross-examination. He could have gotten. A lot of these forgive the interruption, Mark. Let me show you a little. We pulled a little of Reddington versus Dr. Tufts. Let's take a look at it and then you pick it up in the back end. Do you know why she went to the ER? Because of depression. So was she treated at the ER? Did they make any to your knowledge as her doctor make any recommendations? I'm not sure what they told her, but they ultimately they ultimately discharged her. They didn't admit her. When you looked at the records from South Shore Perinatal Clinic, what did they indicate about suicidal ideation, worrying about suicide, close to suicide, anything? I didn't have access to those records. You're going to keep your voice up so everybody can hear you. You what? I did not have access to those records because we're a completely separate clinic. Seriously, she's visiting with you as a patient and you can't access it. Do you have access to her medical records is what you're telling this, Jerry? I did not have access to them, no. Could she have signed a release, a HIPAA form? Yes, she could have. And you could have got the records? Yes. But you didn't? I did not feel like it was necessary because she provided all the relevant information about her treatment there. Yeah, no, that was perfect. I have nothing. That was a moment. That was great. She deserved that. Her testimony was ludicrous that she didn't take the next step. The client deserves it. There's no question I would have done that exactly the way he did. She deserved it at that point. That was kicking a puppy, Mark. That's what that was. Really? You had a problem with that? He knew that she didn't review the records to say, keep your voice up. We didn't hear you. That was so Matlock or Perry Mason bullshit. That didn't need to happen. That part of it. And, you know, the fact that this doctor also testified that she didn't hug Lindsay Clancy because it was a virtual visit. Who picks the method of a visit, right? The client did. The patient did. So he really kicked a puppy on that one. It scored points. But was it necessary? I don't think so. Well, if it's scoring points, I'm OK with hurting someone's feelings. If it's going to backfire and the jurors are going to go, well, wait, that doesn't make sense. That example, though, that was a good one. That was a time where I went, hold on. She should have gotten all the records. She should have had her sign a little HIPAA waiver. You know, if you're treating someone, you don't rely exclusively on a mentally disturbed woman who might have a motive to hold back certain information. It's incumbent upon you to get everything. That point needed to be made. And he did it. And I give him credit for that. I feel like I want to I want to hear from Nancy Grace on this case in particular, because, you know, she she was a. Lifelong prosecutor before she got into television. She was a DA down in Georgia and she never lost a case. Never. I mean, that's that's not easy to say. And you can see why, you know, she was on the right side for her, for her personality. Right. Like just excoriating. And she herself is a crime victim. Her fiance was murdered and she came on the show and talked to us about it. So she's got much more of a prosecutorial bent for obvious reasons. Right. And here she was talking about the hell that those babies were put through. What what a ligature strangulation does. And I'm just going to say like this, that the D.A., the prosecutor in this case did get into what the kids went through in her closing. We played some of it yesterday with a viewer warning. I'll issue one again here. This is Nancy Grace's version. Top five. I see that I'm going to have to lay out the facts that nobody wants to look at. I don't like it. I'm sure the jury doesn't like it. But I'm not sure, Sean, if you've ever been on the scene of a ligature strangulation. This isn't like a suffocation. This isn't like a manual strangulation. When there is a ligature strangulation, that ligature, such as a stocking, a wire, a cord, an exercise band is pulled so tightly around the victim's neck that when it's. Finally removed, the neck is shrunken down, shrunken down like that because of the manual force used to murder those children. Yeah, that was that was good, too. And you know what? There was more room for the prosecutor. There was more. There was room for the prosecutor to lay into those facts even more in closing. Johnny gave her like a nine. I gave her like a seven, which was better than her opening, which was like a four. But I. I definitely felt that there was more room to get into what she really did here, not to create sympathy, not just to to to to get them angry, which would have been the collateral benefit, but because it was relevant to her thought process. You go through the decisions that she made. Then came the next child and she took I mean, you could have gone into great detail to show about the choices that she made and how she could have then made a decision different than what she chose. She was choosing and making conscious decisions throughout this alleged psychotic episode, which conveniently only lasted 18 minutes. That's right. And never heard the voice before. Never heard the voice after sent the husband out of the house on an extra long run. Googled the drive that he would have to take to go to the restaurant that was farther away from the ones that they would normally send him to and was conscious enough of, you know, her had the presence of mind to take a phone call in the middle of the murders from the husband. Have a 14 second. 15 second exchange didn't sound like a frothing at the mouth. Maniac was able to keep together to keep the ruse going about everything at home. It just I think there's a very, very strong case for ordered thinking, not insane, disturbed off and yes, depressed, but not psychotic and not legally. I have a question. I have a question. OK. But we heard from Dr. Resnick and another expert, at least from the defense side. Resnick, nobody touched. Right. He they try. They ask questions. He was unimpeachable to me. He was as credible as as Walter Cronkite delivering the news. OK. He hired gun. Well, no one argued that. No one argued that. So the jurors on their own are going to say we're going to disregard these experts. Understand these are jurors who range from extremely bright to those who are qualified to disinfect bowling shoes. And they know better than Resnick, the guy who testified in the Yates, Oklahoma City bombing. He consulted on Casey Anthony. I mean, the guy's pedigree goes way back. They know better than him. So how does that not create some internal reasonable doubt when you've got these experts? No one argued he was a paid whore. Good argument. I would have made that up on the prosecutor, but no one did. The prosecution had a word about a word about disinfecting bowling shoes. It is you're starting at the bottom, but you're moving your way up. You could eventually be tending the lanes. It's a starter job. It's often done by high school students. You could own the bowling alley. Forgive me for all your viewers who disinfect bowling shoes. You were going to say, John. The prosecution had equally good experts who said precisely the opposite, which is what this case was going to come down to, a battle of the experts, the hired guns. And that's why we are today on Tuesday with 12 people who can't decide what's happening because half of them could agree with Resnick and the other half could agree with the prosecution witnesses who said absolutely not. She knew what she was doing. She knew the difference between right and wrong. And just like you pointed out, Meg, I have the same thing. Like, she was so orderly and organized when one of the experts and I don't know if it was Resnick. So forgive me. One of the experts said, hey, you can be psychotic. You can have a break with reality, but act like you're not having a break with reality. And that's like saying you could be five foot two and 400 pounds and still be skinny. Like, it makes no sense to me. Because you know better. What's your expertise, Jonna? I've got expertise in a lot of things. Well, I'll tell you this. I trust you more than I do fellow jurors. So they know better. They're going to pick which experts they think are more credible. It doesn't matter what they know. Yes, that's literally their job. It matters what they analyze, what they accept and what they discard. How do you? I mean, it's all fine and good for the three of us to sit here blubbering, talking heads on a little screen. They're the ones with actual power. It actually is their job to evaluate the dueling experts. That's scary. The ones with the power wrote a note to me once saying, federal case what dose spelled d-o-s-e unamos mean they couldn't spell unanimous the judge had just defined it i swear to god i still have the note i still have the note you picked them that's you know most the four person the leader of the of the 12 idiots couldn't spell does and didn't know what unanimous meant having just been defined by the judge so you tell me these people can pick out which experts are more credible i was a sophomore in high school and we were in my journalism class and the teacher stood up at the blackboard when we still had blackboards you two remember and said she never wanted to see these this on a test again here we go writing it here we go i she never want to see this appear on a test again what can't see it i can't see it can't see it um p-u-l-l-e-t space surprise that's great that's great so there are dumb people everywhere everywhere and some are deciding just wait i want to yeah it's crazy i i wanted to get to some so a lot of our audience has been watching this case carefully both of us have been watching this case carefully and we've been watching this case carefully both on mk uh true crime and on our show and they are not this is not something that like our audience is in agreement on from you know what i've read in the mail and listened to on the after show because emily jashinsky hosts our after show on sirius xm from for the people who listen live and i wanted to play a little of what we're hearing from the from the viewers to this show i trust them more than i trust anybody uh on how they're viewing this and i'll start with michelle in nashville who called in yesterday sat three well let me preface this with i've been a nurse for 50 years and i've been i've worked with patients like lindsey this poor woman obviously didn't get the care she needed but she never should have been left alone i mean i believe i blame her husband i blame her family because that poor woman was crying for help and you know somebody was talking about she should have known better not to take all those drugs you know you're in a different state if you have a patient who's crying for help i've read brooke shields the story about her postpartum i mean it you're a different person you know you're not a sane person and it is true that the day that she killed the children she was feeling better because they make that final decision of what they're going to do and all the pain is gone and and so i'm just praying that she gets a non-guilty verdict and gets and gets into get some really good help not to mention how the medical people totally failed her totally i mean who does that kind of stuff with psychiatric patients you know our medical system is gone down the hill i can tell you that i've been in it a long time and lately i can't believe what goes on but anyway i pray she gets off because this was a tragedy but it was caused by all the people around her who didn't take good care of her i mean it's pretty good pretty good argument jonna i mean that's you listen to nancy grace and you you want to see this woman punished and you you listen to guests or you know listeners like michelle right um and say you know what yes i see that side too because why wasn't she given lithium admitted to a hospital like mandatorily admitted to a hospital and separated from her children as soon as she told the mother and the i am having thoughts of harming the children and because the follow-up kept it kept being did she say she had a plan no oh then we're good then leave her for hours on like that that maybe it's 2020 hindsight i don't think so i think at the moment any of us would be like hell no i don't care how much i love my spouse they're talking about having dreams of hurting the children and that will be the end of the alone time with the children until we've had three medical professionals certified that this person is of zero danger to them the three of us sitting here know darn well that if our spouses or significant others did what lindsey did said the things that lindsey said we would have wrapped them in a straitjacket ourselves driven them to an institution you know send me a postcard when we figure it out but you're going to be separated from the children i mean small sidebar mark was dehydrated the other day megan and his wife called 9-1-1 like she was dehydrated she was dehydrated she was dehydrated she was taken seriously okay that's a true story it was on our podcast so we would have we would have jumped in yeah the reason why uh what's his face patrick didn't jump in and the mother-in-law didn't jump in and the mother didn't jump in i think is twofold sometimes you're so scared perhaps they were in denial and they did not want to believe that it could rise to that level so you put your head in the sand we can't blame the family members for what she ultimately did but i do agree with your caller that many of us are in denial and we don't want to believe that it could rise to that level many people would have done something more plus when you are reporting to a doctor look i fill out forms all the time i want to you know get my hormone straight do this straight do i i don't even tell him my actual birthday megan so part of it is on the patient i shave five years off the year all the time i lie about my weight or five pounds off the scale exactly so you have a responsibility as the patient to be honest and she didn't want to be honest for the very reason we are talking about it because she didn't want to be separated from the children from her kids so she lied and that was a mistake it's true i i have found recently that i i've engaged in actual arguments with my physicians over my height like i i want to argue that their numbers cannot possibly be correct i i know how tall i am these numbers are not reflected do you so i just want to argue like as if it's not knowable as if the the thing on the wall isn't always correct in any event yes we we do not always give the physicians the correct information and you're right she was definitely misleading and the prosecution did a good job of also showing she was not taking the medication that these doctors were prescribing her that they found all these pill bottles almost entirely full so it it is also very easy to blame these doctors because everybody's been disappointed at one point or another by the medical community but i wanted to say one thing i don't know mark to me there's something happening here the husband well i don't think he had anything to do with this whatsoever but he does seem like weak sauce to me and i think like a more robust partner would have said you're not getting any alone time with the children at all for the foreseeable future like period and i do think it's kind of a a reminder because we've tried to make men into these feckless weaklings in so many relationships and the bluer the state the more of them you find because i think a lot of conservative men are just hard nose on this they just they're not convertible into that type of man um not all but i think most this i think there's a segment of the population that's convinced themselves they have to defer to the wife and if you challenge the wife there's something like non-feminist about it or somehow like you're out of your lane and i think what we needed here was a strong male partner and father to say i i will protect these children and you will not be alone with them not until you are all better okay so here are my thoughts yes you're right hindsight's 2020 that clearly should have happened period however we're not in their shoes there's a presumption that you want to get her access to the kids because she loves her kids and every time he's seeing um all right you know are you doing better how you doing he gets the sense that she got the job done there's no question that in hindsight she should have been somewhere else clearly they failed but i don't know you know when you're in that moment and somebody is seemingly doing well and those thoughts are in the past and they somehow just had them but now they don't have many more you're not keeping your loved one in a you know in a padded room forever you're going to try to get them back to doing what they love to do and the kids who miss them and a husband who needs to work um and you believe you convince yourself that everything's fine and i think patrick's taking quite a beating when he was well intended and the one thing missing for the public was when he took the witness stand prosecutors didn't say you know and they should have how do you feel how are you feeling right now let him emote what it really meant otherwise he looked like the tin man up there like he doesn't have emotion so he must be somebody was involved i i didn't look like the soft-hearted sweet man that he probably is that's a good point john i want to play you one more from one of our uh listeners patty called in she's from north carolina and she raised something i've heard from a lot of the audience in emails to take a listen to your thought too well i'm concerned a little bit about the lack of um of the attention that needs to be brought to all the ssri inhibitor drugs that were given to her and there was one comment he made um where he said akashic reaction and that's a very real thing mike said that the ssri inhibitor experience with that is when they loaded my younger sister up with those FSR inhibitors and she had an occasion reaction and she committed suicide and so um those drugs maybe she was having postpartum maybe not but there was some kind of a psychotic break I think whether it was drug induced possibly and could very well be with all those drugs because they can build up in a person's system and then when she said my heart's beating out of my chest she was having the trouble breathing the racing that's exactly what my sister described when they doubled her dose and then she committed suicide within a week after that so I'm thinking that can you excuse what she did was horrible but I could also say that the drug companies need to be looked at and the doctors those psychiatrists you got it that was Patty North Carolina but she speaks for a lot of people who are very skeptical about the over prescription of these SSRIs which in almost every school shooter incident we have seen the guy was on them you know and we're like not allowed to talk about it you're only supposed to say they're amazing and that they're going to cure your depression and here you have yet another person who was on them one after the other who killed her three children and I think there is a segment of the population that's like I've kind of had it with ignoring the role that these drugs may have played yeah and there definitely is something to that and look you know the drug companies kind of escape liability from all this because you we hear the side effects on the commercials right this may cause this that and the other thing and suicidal tendencies and all these horrible side effects and as long as they put the public on notice they tend to get a pass when the horrible side effects take effect and that probably played into this but also was she taking them as prescribed or wasn't she taking them as prescribed because we had talked about this too on the on the positively legal podcast like nobody shoved the pills down her throat and then rubbed her her throat like a dog to make her take the pills and and does that cut both ways because remember one of the questions that the jury had was they wanted to see the pill bottles did they want to see the pill bottles to see that they were full and therefore she wasn't taking them so the defense of her mind was so messed up from this cocktail of drugs didn't hold water because she wasn't so this is a very interesting issue agree i'm also personally i'm very anti-prescription medication for almost everything i barely take an advil but some people need them i get it you're in doug brunt yeah well we're on the same page i i i try not to take anything but that's wine he's the same except wine i have to say yes we're into wine but i i'm fine with prescription medication but i don't like ssris and i would i would i would do everything in my power not to take one and i would do everything in my power to keep my kids off of them i know in colleges now my kids are high school but um in colleges now it's like the first line of defense a dear friend of mine her daughter was at a university went to like the you know the the health department whatever saying like i'm not feeling that well so boom gave him a prescription you know for like one of these and my friend was like oh hell no but it's crazy how they give them out like candy like there's you know they're they're there's no downside and clearly there is all right i want to keep going i want to keep going enough on clancy we'll see um we got another hour plus live together maybe we'll get some news gotta talk about the possibility of a harry megan divorce so when i first heard musings that there was a real possibility it was lady c who was on maureen callahan's show was reporting that she had heard there's another woman that harry is having either an actual affair or an emotional affair with unconfirmed and i'm sure denied but that this lady c is part of the royal family or distant but she's cool and she's interesting and she's got some interesting reporting uh on these on these two and everybody royal anyway that was something i said i i have no idea whether it's true i buy it but i have no idea whether in fact it's happening then comes the announcement of the reverse mexit and dan wooden who i trust implicitly because he's a real reporter he's got actual royal sources he broke mexit that they were leaving and he broke many other details about these two he comes out and then allison bashoff who writes for the daily mail who's also got very very solid sources so take a listen to dan and allison and this report from the other day sat 33 bashoff also revealed sources close to the couple have confirmed the physical separation is very much on is very much long term we all know this is the beginning of the end so how long are the kids going to be in these schools and the friend said well you know this is the duration this is until archie and linda but finished school so i'm like well okay this is 15 years then um what about megan and the friend said to me oh well megan's already plotting out in her diary when she's going to be in the uk and which week she's going to need to be in california and they're all going to spend the holidays in california so they'll still really be californian in some way and i thought okay so what this is as you say as you correctly said and you called it um is this is harry and the kids are now basing themselves in the uk um and megan will will be in you know traveling internationally okay one more rob shooter who's also got good royal sources reports the marriage is in deeper trouble than anyone realizes he reports that um insiders say forget the mansion the money and the royal titles the real war will be over archie and lillibet publicly they remain married neither has announced a separation but sources claim that privately the relationship has deteriorated dramatically with megan increasingly convinced there is nothing left to save harry may still be looking for a way back to the uk and the kids are going to be in the uk and they're going to be back but megan is not as source tells naughty but nice that's his um sub stack in which he reports um they the couple you know reportedly is telling everybody that they're as happy as can be and you know nothing this isn't about that uh and so on but it does raise an interesting issue yeah go ahead mark sorry i have to interrupt and i wouldn't normally ask this question because i'm asking it at my own peril since you selected this topic but i'm sure there's a few other listeners like myself who are wondering why do you think that's the case and i'm sure there's a few other listeners who gives a shit why do we care about harry and the wife's divorce i don't care why do we care tell me tell me why because here on the show we have a practice of studying sociopaths and we definitely believe that she is is that what it is yeah sorry she makes crappy candles that's our yeah so we're talking about them because you don't like candles crappy jam you don't like her she they they helped kill the queen mark no i don't like her she helped hasten the queen's death prince philip her husband's death she blew up a very nice family that was issue that we had troubles i mean they had some dysfunction but she blew it up she stole a prince she takes no responsibility for anything she's done and then every time she gets called out for a bad behavior she plays the race card so no i don't like her watch suits she was good in suits no i saw a little suits involuntarily because my children actually thought it was a good job you need to listen to and i can see she was actually kind of decent for those she should have stuck for those like you and jonna who really want to give it to her go right ahead you need to listen to the nerve with uh our friend exactly and you'll be into this topic you're talking yourself right out of this segment mark iglash jonna my question to you so if these two actually were to split this actually does raise a very interesting question now because had they split you know a week ago when everybody was still living in california i think we all would have understood california law would apply and presumably there'd be a a favor a presumption given that the children should stay in california and not go to the uk where archie was born but lilibet wasn't born and they haven't been raised there but now they're both getting enrolled in uk school at at least for now reportedly both parents are moving to the uk though they're keeping that montecito mansion and you heard dan wooden and allison's reporting and so if this thing breaks up in a year or even two years what happens then with the custody of those children so if it's a fight it is going to be a problem because the the very oversimplified rule is jurisdiction follows the kids and in order to establish jurisdiction when you're talking about child custody it generally has to be for a period of six months so when when say when clients call me for example and they're they're fixing to file for divorce and they want to know these questions like where are we going to file this what what do i do now well if you're planning to some people will leave the house like they haven't filed anything but they might physically separate if you physically separate the kids with you and they better stay under your roof for six months because that's where you're going to end up filing for custody if that's the case and it sounds like based on your reporting and the other reporting of others that the jurisdiction is going to be in the uk which maybe they're agreeing to so it won't be a fight but if it is that's where mega marco is going to be having her custody battle i agree with you i think it's going to be the uk i think agreeing to go over there if if there's anything happening i'm going to go over there and i'm going to go over between these two as approaching the end of the marriage is a mistake on her part it's a mistake to let the children go there unless she wants to get stuck going there uh i give you the case of kelly rutherford who starred on um gossip girl she got married she had her child in la she our second child in la but she was married to a german dude when they separated they tried to do 50 50 custody long story short his visa was revoked and he had to stay in monaco and after all this legal wrangling she had to move to monaco she she had to move there she said she didn't have the money and so on It was a nightmare that went on for her in the legal courts. If they're separating, Meghan Markle needs to stay here with the children. I hope they're doing well. I wish them the very best. And I hope no one cares what you think. I hope the kids are doing well. I got to go. I have an ad to read. We'll be right back. Our sponsor, the Electronic Payments Coalition, says Washington politicians are always getting in your wallet and that now they're messing with your credit card. They see your credit card and the security it offers are under attack. And that Senators Dick Durbin and Roger Marshall want to change the nation's payment system to benefit corporate megastores like Walmart and Target at the expense of everyday Americans. Credit cards can keep your payments secure and provide rewards that families use and rely on to help make everyday purchases more affordable. The Electronic Payments Coalition says the Durbin-Marshall mandates would let corporate megastores cut corners on credit card processing, routing transactions over cheaper, untested networks with weaker security. Find out more at GuardYourCard.com and consider telling Congress to guard your card. Before we get to our next Kelly's Court case, I wanted to tell you about our new MK Confidential True Crime series this week. It is called The Double Life of Scott Peterson. And last night, we began with the story of that double life and his lover, Amber Fry. Here's a clip. The next day, a friend of Lacey's drives Amber Fry to Sharon's home. Sharon says she's hoping to fill in some gaps as far as what happened between Amber and Scott. She asks a few questions about dates and timing and occasionally glances at a calendar on her desk. Meanwhile, Scott Peterson continues calling Amber. The day after her press conference, he calls to tell her how proud of her he is. I was so proud of you. When you did that, it was amazing. Just, you have an amazing character. I pulled over and threw up when you cried. I was listening to the radio. It was so hard to hear. But it was just so amazing. Your strength. It's incredible. Honestly, like, a lot of people are unfamiliar with this story, this case, because they were very young when it happened back in 2002 or otherwise. It's, you know, occupied, but it is one of the most riveting crime stories in modern American history. That's him calling his, she doesn't like the word mistress because mistress implies a knowing participation with a married man, and she did not know he was married, but lover, whatever. He's calling his lover, who he's been cheating on his pregnant wife with, after she comes forward to the police. She had no idea that he was married. She had no idea that. Now, toward the tail end of their month of seeing each other, his wife has suddenly gone missing. She was, of course, murdered. And she realizes it's the man that she's been seeing who is married, contrary to his denials to her, and has been lying to her. So she holds a press conference saying, I'm cooperating with law enforcement. I didn't know he was married, and I'm really sad for the family. And he calls her up and praises her. Like, like he's, you know, Lacey's dad, genuinely so upset that Lacey's missing and so proud that she called him out publicly on his lies. This is, just to go back into it is so crazy, you guys. Like, those of us who lived it could use a refresher, and it just, it touches on a lot of emotions, a lot. And those of you who didn't pay that much attention to it when it first happened, I think will be truly riveted. Find new episodes every day this week. All right? It's 9 p.m. Eastern. Each episode is about a half an hour, and we air them on the Megyn Kelly YouTube channel and on our podcast feed. So you can either just listen to the audio, or you can watch it on YouTube. But either way, check it out, The Double Life of Scott Peterson. And we are back now with Jonna Spilbor and Royals expert Mark Eichlarsch. They are the hosts of Positively Legal. You can go and find their show every Wednesday on MK True Crime on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts. Okay, there's a lot actually to go through still, and I want to start next with Jerry Sandusky. This is another one of those cases that if you didn't live it when it broke in 2011, you might not remember who the heck that is, but this was a huge news story at the time. Huge. I was at Fox News, and Jerry Sandusky was the longtime junior athletic football guy. Hold on. I pulled his actual title. Defensive coordinator at Penn State. He started as a defensive end for Penn State's football team in 63 to 65. Then he was an assistant coach under the legendary Joe Paterno from 1969 to 1999. 30 years. In his 23 years as defensive coordinator, he was largely credited with making Penn State football into linebacker U. This is from the Center County Encyclopedia of History and Culture. So this guy was a legend in his own right. In 1977, so not that long into his famed tenure as the defensive coordinator, he founded something called the Second Mile, which was recognized by President George H.W. Bush as one of the greatest examples of volunteerism in America. And they worked with over 100,000 young people across Pennsylvania, multi-million dollar budget. And they said that. And they said that they worked specifically with children from troubled families. They were trying to help youth from troubled families. Now, if you are a pedophile, the odds are very good you will either find a job or a hobby or volunteer work that surrounds you with young children. I mean, we've seen it in case after case after case. Jared from Subway, a disgusting pervert pedophile, convicted. And in prison right now, but not for long. He's actually supposed to get out in the next few years. What did he do in his spare time? Oh, he went, he volunteered, talking about heart health at middle schools and grade schools. They will do what they need to do to get access to children. It's very sad, but it's true. And if they can add to that recipe, children from troubled families, broken families, divorce, special needs brothers or sisters, what have you, so much the better, because you have distracted parents who might not be paying that close attention. That's the pedophile's bet. I'm not saying that's a true fact, but that's the pedophile's bet. They tend to target disadvantaged children. It's just disgusting on every level. So Jerry Sandusky was doing this with, I don't know what the total number was. At trial, there were between 10 and 12 children. He was ultimately convicted in the cases. He was convicted in the cases of 10 children accusing him of child sexual assault. And he's in prison right now and maintains his innocence. Now, this is so wrong. Well, what has happened this week? Why are we talking about this all these years later is one of the accusers has gone back on his story. So he's recanted. There were 10 victims in all who accused him officially at trial. And this person is preparing to recant his testimony. According to, court documents obtained by The Athletic, which is an offshoot of The New York Times. Sandusky, now 82, is due to appear in court in Belafonte, Pennsylvania, September 8th for an evidentiary hearing after a judge granted his request to review evidence that the accuser recognized as R.R. or Victim 10 in court proceedings has recanted or substantially disavowed his trial testimony. In a signed affidavit dated June 30th of last year, Victim 10 said he felt pushed to change his story. His testimony, quote, evolved, he said, after, quote, leading questions, intense investigative pressure and psychological manipulation. I was misled repeatedly during the process, particularly by the prosecutor, Joe McGettigan, who, by the way, is now dead. The alleged victim says, I now regret my role in facilitating what I've come to view as a deeply flawed prosecution. He goes on to say, I was led to believe that failing to testify in the manner prosecutors expected would allow a danger. A dangerous man to escape justice. Later saying he was unsure that his statements, quote, would be used to secure a de facto life sentence for Mr. Sandusky. He says he was coached during the pretrial meetings, one of which lasted approximately 10 hours, where he was asked repeatedly to reframe his account until his responses aligned with what appeared to be the desired testimony by the prosecution team. I asked the courts and any fair-minded reader, quoting here, to consider that my testimony may have reflected not willful falsehood. The tragic convergence of memory, uncertainty, professional suggestion, prosecutorial coercion, and my own vulnerability. According to the filing from Sandusky's attorneys, victim 10's estranged wife is also now weighing in, prepared to testify that victim 10 initially denied being abused by Sandusky. The prosecutors, the lead guy, of course, is dead, as I just told you, but the prosecutors with the AG's office said that woman's opinion 13 years after the defendant's trial, pondering what she thinks may or may not have really happened to victim 10 when he was 10 years old, or any other Sandusky child victim for that matter, is irrelevant and inadmissible. But it does look like this former alleged victim now says he wasn't. The AG's office released a statement on Friday saying the defense will be requesting a new trial during these proceedings based primarily on a highly suspect recantation that was offered by the defense. Jerry Sandusky is now weighing in himself, speaking from prison to ABC Philadelphia in an exclusive to them. And here's a bit of that conversation. Let's play 30 and 31 back to back. Watch. In an exclusive interview by phone from state prison in Somerset County, Jerry Sandusky says money was the driving factor in the allegations against him and his conviction on 35 counts of sexual abuse of 10 victims. For everybody, and they incentivize the accusers and let them without their leading. The accusers in the beginning, they couldn't make allegations. New attorneys for the 82 year old are expected to argue in Center County Court next month that Sandusky received ineffective counsel. But more importantly, prosecutors Joe McGettigan and Frank Fina coached the victims into making false allegations. One victim is expected to recant his accusations. Court filing. These allegations by the defense say the victims' accusations were the result of investigative pressure and psychological manipulation. Okay Mark, so where does this lead us? Because it's a dream for Sandusky that this one alleged victim is doing this, but the nine others aren't. Okay, well, let's start with the one. What he's alleging, you have to assume, okay, there may be some evidence to support it. The judge doesn't know. So I think it's proper evidence. Okay, Mark, so where does this lead us? So I think it's proper and necessary to conduct that evidentiary hearing, same way they're doing in the Koberger case. You know, let's let's see whether there's any truth to this or not. And then the judge will make a factual finding as to whether there's any merit to this at all. But the bigger picture, I'm like thinking metaphorically, like, OK, you bring me soup at a restaurant and there's like one fly in it. I'll swat it away and then eat the soup. But if there's like 10 flies in it, I ain't going to eat any of that. In this case, it's not just one kid. So even if you discount this, you've got nine, at least others behind him who aren't recanting, who are saying this really did happen. And the prosecutors didn't manipulate me and nobody committed any type of fraud in inducing me to give statements. So I don't think it's going to disturb the underlying case, the underlying conviction. John, the problem for Sandusky is for every victim 10 out there, there's a victim one. And his name we now know is Aaron Fisher. He sat down with Chris Cuomo when Chris Cuomo was at ABC and co-hosting 2020. He's a little older in this clip. The abuse happened to him, he says, when he was 10 to 12 by Jerry Sandusky. And he was victim number one at the criminal proceeding against Jerry Sandusky. He recants nothing. Watch. I laid down so many, so many. I laid down so many different hints and clues for her to catch on. But you weren't able. His mom. To say. No. This guy is a monster. He's sexually assaulting me. I couldn't do it. Why? Embarrassment. Fear of not being believed. Then when Aaron turned 15, he finally told Dawn something. That Jerry kept pulling him out of class. Dawn was shocked. And. Called the school demanding answers when she met with the principal, Karen Probst. The next morning, her worst fears were realized. Aaron was melting down in the office. And then the principal went on to explain that Aaron had said that Jerry had done something sexual to him. How did that hit you? Like a rock. And I immediately told them that we need to call the police. What do they say? They tell me to go home and think about it. That's the victim's mother. Unbelievable, by the way. Chris Cuomo. Did a very nice job on that interview. I watched the whole piece. And one more for you, Jonna. There's a man by the name of Matthew Sandusky who has the same last name as Jerry Sandusky, the defendant, because. What'd you say, Robert? Because he was adopted by Jerry. And there's that's no accident. That's no accident. He gave a long interview to Oprah and admitted that he thinks he was targeted by Sandusky. And adopted by him for the very purpose of getting him under his wing so that he could molest him when he wanted. Here's part of his interview to Oprah Winfrey in 2014, Sat 32B. I mean, he just progressed through, you know, going up my leg at summer camps, being in your shorts, throwing you, grabbing on your genitals as he throws you to eventually I would come over and play racquetball with him. And this is probably 12 years old. Yeah. And so he's progressed to full on being in the locker room after we had played racquetball. We, you know, we had to take a shower. That's just mandatory. You had to get the sweat off you. You had to get clean. That's where a lot of during those times is when a lot of the sexual abuse really happened. So what are we having a hearing for? Truly? Well, he is lawfully entitled to a hearing. Right. He's entitled to have this evidentiary hearing. But it's even if he wins, I don't know what the win is going to look like because of the other nine victims and the other nine convictions and the other nine probably now adults who are not going to recant. So it's just going to be a pyrrhic victory. I guess it's going to help him, Jerry Sandusky, somehow to to be able to put this forward and see what a judge is going to do. But it's not going to change his sentence. It's not going to change anything. And I find the timing of this. And very interesting from the recanting victims standpoint, because, number one, he received five point five million dollars from Penn State, I guess, when this all happened. So that's what will happen with that money, which I'm sure is now gone. Number one. Number two, the person who is at the heart of the accusation, the person who put the pressure is dead. So he cannot testify and defend himself. So, you know, you're going to be pointing in an empty chair saying that person made me do it. Is that going to open up a whole other? Can of worms or is it going to fall flat? We're going to have to wait and see, because I honestly, this case is was sort of dead and buried. Right. And now all of a sudden this comes up. It's just the timing is very suspect and the outcome isn't going to change anything. All right. Here's I'll just play devil's advocate. I think Jerry Sandusky is is a disgusting, perverted pedophile. That's what I think. That's my opinion. And it's backed up by the guilty verdict against him and the now not. Nine victims who were involved in the criminal case against him. But I've been following this case long enough to know that some people who I consider not nuts believe that Jerry Sandusky is innocent and that this was a railroad from the start. It got. It got started. The snowball against Jerry Sandusky after a junior coach at. Penn State, Mike McQueary was his name, came forward later. He didn't like it, but it broke publicly after it happened. But he saw something in 2001 when he was going into the Penn State showers. He saw forgive me, but it was it was graphic and it was described and it sounded pretty clear, testified that there was a boy up against the wall facing the wall. Jerry was. He was directly behind him in a very close position. Quote, I did not see any. Forgive me. Insertion did not hear any protests, screaming or yelling, but described the sounds of what sounded like molestation, sex, you know, nonconsensual, obviously, since this is a minor, a 10 or 12 year old boy that was on the, you know, that that was in front of him. So. It's disgusting. It's it's horrifying. But McQueary came forward with that. And. And the reason three officials at Penn State were ultimately criminally convicted on their own in this case is because they were all mandatory reporters and they didn't. They there are emails between the two, the three of them going back and forth like I'm not comfortable with the way we we initially said we were going to handle the situation, which was to report that they had received this report from Mike McQueary to authorities. Instead, you know, this guy was part of the legislature. The legendary Penn State football program under their most legendary. coach ever, Joe Paterno. And, you know, maybe we need to give him the chance to explain and maybe like rehab for him, which is just completely contrary to law. And all three of them would wind up convicted and having to spend a couple of days in some cases or a month or two in prison. And but that's what happened when this guy McQueary came forward in 2001 or two to the university, because to his credit, he did go forward to say, holy shit, I just saw this in the in the locker room. But later, his story changed a bit, like some of the details changed up or he got a little bit too animated in offering, you know, things he allegedly said he saw, but then would have to admit he didn't actually see. And this, Mark, led people to say, like, we've got to actually look a lot more carefully at this whole story. And a lot of and I'm not sure if it's all of, but a lot of these victims in the criminal justice system, a lot of these victims in the criminal case did also file civil lawsuits against Penn State, which was very deep pocketed. They wound up paying some huge amount, 100 million dollars out on this. And as we've often seen in these cases, the defense of the people who support Jerry Sandusky is it's a money grab. You know, like the one guy made the allegation, the alleged victim in the McQueary case, you know, the one was in the shower, did not testify against him. And so, you know, Sandusky and actually later came out and said, oh, nothing happened. We were just towel snapping, which I don't believe for one second. I believe McQueary saw what he said. He was disturbed enough. He went to his bosses and ratted out this guy who was legendary in his own right, Sandusky. There's no way he mistook towel snapping for that anyway. But my point is simply there there is there are points to be made on the Sandusky might not have done this side of the ledger. I reject them, but we should discuss them. Surprise, surprise. There always are. That's that's what we do as defense lawyers. There are always arguments on the other side. And if there aren't ones that are readily available, we'll create them. So was there towel snapping? Yeah. After he sodomized them in the shower. So they're probably both occurred. To Jonna's point, if this guy got the first accuser who's now recanting, if he got over five million dollars, OK, for every action, victim 10, a victim 10. Sorry. So for every action, there's a reaction. Give it back that you weren't victimized. You want to come out right now under oath and swear that they manipulated you, that you really were not a true victim. Give the money back. What'd you buy with those things? Have a judgment against them. Get that money back. Mark, can I tell you what about the fact? But wait, can I ask you, Jonna, what about the fact if I'm Sandusky's lawyer? I am going to blow up victim 10's allegations that he was, quote, coached during the pretrial meetings that he he says there was prosecutorial coercion, that the prosecutors wanted certain testimony and made sure that they got it. He claims that he was told that the trauma may have fragmented his memory and that he could, quote, safely. Affirm details that he did not fully recall. I mean, he and leading questions, intense investigative pressure, psychological manipulation, misled repeatedly, particularly by this now dead prosecutor. And so if you're Sandusky's attorney, you're going to get up there and say, what are the odds that this guy, McGettigan, only did that to victim 10? Like we need we need a full evidence here. You've got to open this whole case back up. I want to talk to victim one, two, three. I didn't know any of this when I defended my client. And I want to say, look, what if there is a pattern of this guy, McGettigan? I mean, what a name for a prosecutor, you know, go doing this to child after child about their alleged, you know, abuse again when everybody knows there is potential money on the table. This is not, you know, a crime where there's not going to be a civil. I mean, there was a very deep pocket behind Sandusky. I mean, employing him for the majority of time he was doing this. And a lot of them were brought onto Penn State property, which. OK, so first things first, victims one, two through nine are going to be fearful that if let's say let's play devil's advocate, let's say, you know what? Yep, it was I was coerced, but I don't want to give back my chunk of the hundred million dollars. So I'm going to zip it and shut up and not say anything and not come forward. Number one. Number two, you've got to remember when you're prosecuting a case, those victims and the district attorneys that are talking to them, there is no attorney client privilege. Were there tape recordings of the conversations? If McGettigan is doing something untoward, there won't be. Usually you're not going to have conversations like that unless they're recorded, unless there's a third party in the room. Why? Because if your victim recants, you want to be able to say that. No, no, no. This is what was said. So you're going to want that protection and there's no privilege there now that this guy's dead. He can't even tell you if he if not that he would tell you where he buried any bodies, but he's not going to be able to stand up for himself. So who else was in the room when these kids came forward and had their conversations? Where are the private investigators that sat there and took these statements? I mean, they're going to be gettable, assuming they're not pushing up daisies themselves. So there is some investigation that can go on here, by Sandusky's new lawyers. And that should probably happen before the hearing happens. Yeah, Megan, let me jump in on this because it would be unfair. Let me just say this. It would be grossly unfair to open up the evidentiary hearing to the other nine victims unless and until first there's the kind of evidence that come out now for victim number 10. Unless you have that kind of evidence, you don't then re-victimize them and put them through the cross-examination, bring them to court again. They had the courage to come forward when they needed to. Back then, he was convicted. Lest you have them coming forward and saying affirmatively, I'm ready to testify about how the prosecutor, you know, made me do this and frame Sandusky like the Mona Lisa, then you leave them alone. Here is more from Sandusky from the prison interview with Philadelphia Six ABC. And he said, he's talking about these accusers being connected to his charity, the Second Mile, and what he thinks the motivation was here. Watch. Sandusky's victims were all connected to his charity for troubled youth, the Second Mile. Each one of them had issues. Each one of them were involved in our program because of some issue. Even Sandusky's adopted son testified the former Penn State coach sexually abused him. He had financial problems, right? He saw an opportunity. Today, the Pennsylvania Attorney General's office released a statement saying the defense will be requesting a new trial during these proceedings based primarily on a highly suspect recantation that was offered by the defense. I've been made out to be a monster. My whole life was centered around. We had an open door for people. Welcome them into our lives. Try to help from them. Okay. I find that so despicable that, oh, they were all troubled. They were all troubled. This is what they do. That's why they target the troubled child. Because not only are their parents dealing with like the stress and the distraction of a divorce or a broken family or a kid who's on the spectrum or some sort of massive challenge. Um, but then they get to turn around and say troubled kid. I mean, who are you going to believe the troubled kid or me, this storied football coach at Penn State trouble for him is that shit no longer works. The reason Penn State had to pay out a hundred million dollars mark is because they had some 35 plaintiffs suing them. The numbers are way bigger than the 10 who testified at that trial. And I don't know what this one victim's doing alleged victim number 10, I have no idea what this person's doing or whether what he's saying was done to him by the prosecutor is true, but there's, I just, there's no universe in which I buy that scores of alleged victims all made it up. Yeah, me too. And, uh, so my question to this guy, number 10 is, are you mistaken now? Like you were mistaken then which, which one is more, which one are we going to believe? I don't think it gets to the point where the judge credits, what he has to say. You have a prosecutor who's, passed away and he can't defend himself. I don't know that it's so convenient by the way, isn't it? Dead guys don't tell tales. He can't explain anything. So you could just shit all over him and say whatever you want. So I don't know that this really goes anywhere. And ultimately there's this concept in the law called harmless error. So if there's nine others, and even if they knew this information at the time, and they could allege that the prosecutor, you know, didn't do everything by the book, I think the appellate court would say that wouldn't have changed the outcome of this case. Megan, can I give you the Hollywood version of this story? Here's the holiday. we're writing a fiction novel here's what it is victim 10 wants more money so he connects with sandusky's team like hey you got 5.5 million dollars before we got another 5.5 if you'll come forward and say all that shit that you said 13 years ago wasn't true this is the hollywood version folks this is not fact i'm not making up facts i'm just saying is it possible that he's been bought by some other side now that the prosecutor is dead if i were writing the script for hollywood i might include something like that and here's a less hollywood version a realistic version is believability and accuracy are two different things maybe for some reason because he is extremely troubled to some extent he believes that what he said initially wasn't accurate but who's to know what's true now right i mean now the guy's got no word that that we can rely upon so i don't think that it goes anywhere if you listen to victim one's interview with chris cuomo and then cuomo interviewed his mom too who we we saw in that clip when she was talking about her dissatisfaction when she went to the school um she he asks her why would you let your son spend so much alone time with the grown man you know so so frequently over the course of two years and she said she thought that he was being recruited for sports uh apparently her son was a big runner he's still a big runner when he gave the interview to cuomo and this is a big guy at penn state not not in the track and field department but you know who cares you're one step removed if you're over at the football field um and she believed that he her son was talented i mean this is just so awful it's so cynical what is done to these poor families like your your son's and she believed it she believed that that's why she let him i don't know what the full extent of the time spent with sandusky was but it sounded like cuomo had had some skepticism about the decision making on her part and um you know i'm sure she she has to live with that every day like you just absolutely not when it comes to any overnight with your your minor child and a grown up uh and some you know one-on-one excursion or staying over at his house the michael jackson case is coming to mind and she's like i don't know what to do with it i don't know what to do with it and i have to tell you the michael jackson case came came to mind when i was listening to this young man for two reasons the obvious and also because sandusky's basement as victim one uh described it was like a lair for children he was talking about the pool table and the ping pong and the shuffleboard and all the games and you know it is one thing if i guess you have a bunch of kids that you're raising and like your basement looks like that it's another when you're jerry sandusky and you spend all of your time around you know college football players and they have their own fraternities and places to hang out i know it's just the whole thing is gross it ruined joe paterno's legacy it did so much damage to penn state and it ruined the lives of countless children who don't need this can of worms coming back open all right let's take a quick break we'll come back mark mentioned kohlberger we did get a ruling unbelievably that guy's getting a new evidentiary hearing in court and he's getting a new evidentiary hearing in court and he's getting a new evidentiary hearing in court where we are going to start having evidence on that crazy motion he filed with his own handwriting and we'll tell you what he's saying about his lawyer i have got to talk to you about cozy earth's bamboo stretch knit pajamas i love mine they are silky smooth and buttery soft and you can feel it the second you put them on they are naturally temperature regulating and breathable so they keep you completely cool without ever waking up hot or clammy they are crafted from viscose from bamboo with just the right amount of easy stretch the fit's relaxed so you look completely put together even while sipping your morning coffee or answering the front door or doing some small in-home errands plus there is no real risk in trying them out because they offer an easy return and exchange window if the fit is not right and everything is backed by a warranty head to cozy earth.com use my code megan for up to 20 off home and sleepwear that's code megan which will get you up to 20 off on home and sleepwear and if you see a post-purchase survey be sure to mention that you heard about cozy earth right here from the mk show we are still a couple months out but the midterms are fast approaching and make no mistake if the house flips 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 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 of course if you don't own gold consider talking to birch gold they're going to discuss your goals and explain how precious metals can fit into your savings they can even help you convert an existing ira or 401k in whole or in part into an ira in gold for no additional money out of pocket just text the letters mk to the number 989898 and get a free info kit and some solid information the midterms will be here before you know it don't wait text mk to 989898 hey everyone it's me megan kelly i've got some exciting news i now have my very own channel on sirius xm it's called the megan kelly channel and it is where you will hear the truth unfiltered with no agenda and no apologies along with the megan kelly show you're going to hear from people like mark halperin link lauren maureen callahan emily joshinsky jesse kelly real clear politics and many more it's bold no bs news only on the megan kelly channel sirius xm 111 and on the sirius xm app mark eiglars and jonah spillbar are back with me now we are keeping an eye on the tyler robinson preliminary uh hearing that's happening right now out in utah where this judge who was so overly indulgent i thought of the tyler robinson defense teams many many hours of you know argument testimony whatever he's back on the stand remember he kicked it to september 1st and now he's been on the stand this thing was supposed to start at 12 it's 137 eastern supposed to start at 12 eastern time let's take a listen to what he's saying there shall be no electronic media coverage of any juror prospective juror or the face of any minor kut yeah he's still on this he's been the whole time he's been on the bench he's been talking about media media media all the rules of the media there was that one snafu when they had the preliminary hearing where one thing was shown um it was tyler robinson's handwriting but it was showing like a confession that we already knew about and actually it turned out that that exact handwriting had already been produced in discovery and had been attached as an exhibit so it actually wasn't a big surprise but we we pretended like it was like this terrible sin by the prosecution and the media whatever just get on with it there's no doubt that there is preliminary that there is probable cause to hold tyler robinson over zero doubt at all this isn't a finding of guilt yes it's will he have to stand trial what like the ridiculous indulgence of this farce is kind of fucking annoying and i've got to say mark and cruel to the family listen in the real world these motions are handled in a day judge says there's probable cause let's move on to low standard it's not proof beyond a reasonable doubt he's turning into this whole thing into a circus it's unfair to anyone who gives a crap about this tragedy and it's it's cruel it's just not right it's i said during the hearing and i say again this judge is giving lance ito vibes jonna yeah you know like he's he's gonna complain about the trial he can't make a damn decision mark's exactly right usually these things are like an hour if that two minutes and especially when you have multiple confessions the defense is not arguing that their client didn't do it hello they're not arguing that um and you've got dna and you've got all the stuff like again you can dispute the specifics how reliable is dna could it have been all that will happen at trial right the the job here is so minuscule the bar is so low what in god's name are we doing for purposes of probable cause 95 of this is unnecessary it's unheard of to have a mini trial as a preliminary hearing and i think this judge is giving off the judge ito vibes and kind of going overboard really to the benefit of the defense is because the death penalty is on the table and the same reason that the defense is doing all this the same reason they put on this dog and pony show they are simply angling to get the death penalty off the table and if they are at any point successful i would expect that we would have some sort of plea and we could stop this charade because if there's ever been a case where a defendant is dead to effing rights it's time for robinson yes i agree and i like this judge at first i liked him because i liked his demeanor i liked his professionalism i liked the way he treated both sides he seemed fair and now i don't think he's going to be able to don't like him because you know the road to hell with pays with good intentions. He wants to do everything so nice, nice that he's allowing the defense to present everything, and it's going on and on and on at great expense emotionally and financially to anyone, to everyone involved. Yeah, I mean, the poor citizens of Utah that have to pay for this farce. Can we see the judge one more time? I just want to take a look at him for one. I'm looking for one thing. Let me just see him. Let me pop it back up. You know who he looks like? Stephen Moore of Fox News. You know the commentator on business and econ? He looks like Stephen Moore. You guys may not know who I mean. I'm going to get a split screen of those two people and put it on the board. He looks just like him. And I think he's actually also, Stephen Moore, a Trump advisor now. Okay, we'll continue to check back in there. But speaking of things that, you know, should have been a lot simpler than they're going to be, Brian Kohlberger actually got some place with that handwritten request for an evidentiary hearing. And we're going to have one. Now, it's not going to happen until next June. But he's not only going to get a status conference one day out of jail, but an actual evidentiary hearing on his motion. Two days out of jail. Yay for him. Two pieces of news around it. He's got a new private attorney from Idaho named Gregory Rauch, R-A-U-C-H, who's a private defense attorney assigned to represent him since he's now claiming that he was the victim of ineffective assistance of counsel from Ann Taylor. Who definitely was a lot of things, but I don't think ineffective is on the list. But that's just one of his bullshit claims to get a new trial, withdraw his guilty plea, which is what he's asking to do. But now, more interestingly, this guy, Jason Goldman, a New York-based attorney, is joining his team. And this guy has already gone on the record saying, our main priority right now is to scrutinize the constitutional issues surrounding Brian's plea. But he said this. Some. Of the circumstances surrounding that plea and what occurred in the critical days leading up to it deserve careful, independent judicial scrutiny. Some of those circumstances surrounding his plea are already part of the public record. Others are not. We will let the evidence in the filing speak in due course. Stay tuned. So they are planning on going in there and expanding on his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, which is really what this all boils down to, where Brian argued his lawyer didn't tell him the truth about. What? What life on death row was going to be like, the size of the cells. This is just ridiculous. But here we go, Jonna. We're going to indulge this guy. And I mean, this is all for naught. Is it? I mean, is there any chance based on this bunch of bullshit, this guy gets a new trial? I hate to be the one to break it to you, Megan. This is not all for naught. And here's why. Blame. Let's blame the prosecutors. And let's blame. The judge, because they allowed this guy who probably is some sort of evil genius to get away with pleading guilty without allocuting. He admitted nothing. He did not have to say who we killed, how we killed, when he killed, why he killed every other defendant in this country has to admit what they did before a judge can accept a guilty plea, except for Brian Koberger. So now I disagree. If this is successful. Mark, he doesn't have any admission on the record to doing shit. OK, I disagree. I disagree. You don't think it's going to happen. You don't. I disagree. He did ask him, are you pleading guilty because you are guilty? And he said, yes. But now one of Koberger's complaints is he was told your guilty plea doesn't have to be truthful. That's one of the ways in which he was allegedly. So I think the world of my positively legal co-host, which, you know, again, the show is about to end. The show comes out on Wednesday. Watch it. John is not always right. And I'm always here to correct her when she gets it wrong. OK, so number one, this is going to go nowhere. Number two, let me be very hard for you to stay positively legal. Oh, we do. We don't. It's tongue in cheek. We do a positive one. I'm positively legal. She curses a lot. OK, you're positively fed up with Mark. That's where I am. Go ahead. So let me explain. I disagree with John. Not every defendant has to admit what they did. Maybe in her little small town where she practices my jurisdiction. The judge, New York, some small town in here. What the judge needs to do is merely have a factual basis to accept the plea, not that a person says, I'm guilty. I did it. It doesn't have to be that way. So I disagree with her. Also, as you pointed out, Megan, he did admit that he did this. And I don't think there's going to be any proof that from any of any credible proof other than from his own mouth that they forced him, threatened him, coerced him. Got him to admit his responsibility when he didn't. You know, so, John, I disagree. All right. So hang on. All right. I want to keep going. Oh, she's going to correct the record quickly because I want to get in that last case. OK, OK. You want me? All right. Good. So we'll move on. No, we'll be back. There's always some. There's always more on that case. I want to talk about Dajon Love, who has been running around many states, many states. I can't I can't keep track of them all. I can't keep track of them all. He's alleging that he is a San Francisco 49er. He set up this whole social media profile of himself in 49er gear. And he's been going woman after woman saying he's a 49er and getting them to give him money. You know, he's going to invest it. He's going to help them get an apartment. He's going to help them get a nice car. But somehow they have to front the first payment. They have to front the first payment by giving it to him. And he had a he's 35 years old. He allegedly had an 18 year old accomplice in this named Taylor Chan, who started doing this for him or helping him with this a few years ago when he would have been 13 or 14 when the scheme scheme began. He was here's some of the specifics here. Hold on. He pretended to be a 49er and then developed romantic relationships with many of the victims actually got in romantic relationships. With them, told him he wanted to settle down. He wanted to build wealth with them by investing together, said he was a wide receiver. He publicly posted photos and videos of himself dressed in team gear, pretending to train along with posts allegedly stolen from real NFL players presented as his own. There were more than eleven hundred dollars in purchases from a custom football helmet company, plus purchases from businesses selling realistic fake cash and social media followers likes and views. Oh, it's all a fraud, say the prosecutors. He had other identities that he sometimes use, including saying he was related to the Green Bay Packers quarterback, Jordan Love. And the the victims, if they started asking too many questions or had no more money to invest, got blocked. He would then block their numbers. It's so crazy. One woman, victim A.T., they dated for about a month. He told her that the young kid with him could invest her money in an expedited account that would double her money and she'd get a six hundred dollar check every week or two. She gave him twenty grand and then twenty grand in cash, too. One was transferred into his account. One went cash and sent an associate of his five grand for a total of forty five thousand dollars toward the expedited account. But A.T., the woman never received any of the six hundred dollar checks he promised. He showed her what he purported to be account statements, showing her investment growing. Whenever she asked about the lack of the checks, he created excuses. In the end, she lost about eighty seven thousand dollars. And to me, it reminded me of this. Sat thirty six from the great movie. Catch me if you can. Welcome to Miami Mutual Bank. How may I help you? My name is Frank Taylor. I'm a co-pilot for Pan Am. I'd like to cash this check here and then I'd like to take you out for a steak dinner. And then we feed the checks into the maker machine, which is a special agent. And then we code the account numbers on the bottom of the checks. And where are these numbers? They're right here. They're right here. See? They're called routing numbers. So where do the checks get routed to? I don't exactly know. Nobody ever asked me that before. Great movie. My point being, Jonna, is kind of a tale as old as time. Yeah, it sure is. And look, I'm not condoning what this guy did. But I have to tell you something. I giggle a little at this story because part of my research showed that he was so committed to this role, pretending to be a professional football player, that if you Googled him, he actually showed up as a professional football player. googled him he actually showed up as a professional football player megan i can't get a fucking fake review removed from google without an actual god and an army of lawyers and this guy you google him and he shows up he's a 49er so i gotta get videos for that it does here's video he had he posted of him pretending to sign his nfl contact contract this was obtained by outkick let's watch that my boy jay love signing this contract how you feel i'm ready you ready for the season sign that bad boy who you signing with who's your decision nine mark You know, the Niner game. Yes, sir. Signed a contract, iced up, you know what I'm saying? We good to go. Let's get ready to start the season. Anything you got to say for the fans? Lookout number seven, last name Love, 6-5-2-10. I'm out, dude. Wide receiver. Yes, sir. Damn. I mean, points for commitment to the con, Mark, I guess. That he did, which makes him dangerous. So where does this go? You know, it's in federal court. $1.3 million sounds like a lot of money. But for federal court, that's a small amount. He's probably facing a couple of years. It's nonviolent. He'll wind up pleading out. He'll owe $1.3 million, which the government will never see a nickel of. He'll wind up in a camp, most likely, with no bars, no nothing. Most of my clients don't complain about the federal camp. He'll be released early, most likely, and go to a halfway house. And then he'll be on probation. Alternatively, he could have worked, you know, at a drive-thru and made minimum wage, which is what he's qualified for. So living the high life, you know, and spending a little bit of time at a camp, and then coming back out and doing it again, I think that that's his choice. And, you know, that's the direction he goes. It's like so many of these fraud schemes. If they would have just put any of this effort into a legit job, God only knows what they could have accomplished. Yeah. But instead, no. Here's another example. He's telling his Instagram followers how the NFL works. Watch part of this, dot 38. Okay, so I'm on my way to get my mom. I know I get a lot of fans who want to know how football works or how I got involved in the league and stuff like that. I know it's difficult now since switching teams and stuff like that. Oh, my God. But I just want to give some context because I know a lot of people don't understand how the NFL works. Is this for the people who want to understand more about my story? And get another side of the story outside of just getting drafted into the NFL? Oh, we're going to hear plenty of his story. And then he's going to be taken away in handcuffs. Beware. Buyers, beware. And everybody out there, some rich man who swoops into your life and asks you to start paying for things is a scammer. Run. Run in the opposite direction. Mark and Jonna, great to see you. We'll check you out on Positively Legal, my friends. See you tomorrow. Thanks for listening to The Megan. Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear.