0:00

Most people on the left were

0:02

anti the independent council that was Ken

0:04

Starr tried to gouge Clinton, but now

0:06

aren't cheerleading when his draft Smith coming

0:09

after Trump. And if you don't see,

0:11

as you said, the irony in that, maybe

0:13

you're you're rooting for one side too hard.

0:31

Hey, everybody. Welcome to the Chris Formo project.

0:33

Remember, it's collaboration I need you.

0:35

I want you. This is for you.

0:37

Subscribe, follow, appreciate it. Buy

0:39

that free agent merch. You're a free agent.

0:42

Right? Own it. Own being an independent.

0:45

Own being a critical thinker. Okay? The

0:47

free agent merges there. We're gonna use the money to do

0:49

good things. Just about there,

0:51

I've made a couple donations on your behalf

0:53

already, but I'm gonna start using

0:55

this money and we'll start talking about it more. Now,

0:58

True Crime. Blowing up in

1:00

the podcast space. Why? Depth.

1:03

Podcasts play to depth. Discussions

1:05

of trials and cases and issues and

1:07

controversies, the convergence of theories,

1:10

divergence of theories work very

1:12

well with time. And

1:14

here, you have it. I want to start

1:16

doing more true crime with you because it's an area

1:18

I understand very well and I've covered. As

1:20

long as I've covered anything else, literally almost

1:22

quarter century. So I

1:25

am a lawyer by training. I've been around big

1:27

cases as as long as I've been

1:29

in this business. And one of

1:31

the best is Mark Errigus. And

1:34

he has had big cases for a

1:36

long time. He's a household name

1:38

when it comes to criminal defense. And he too

1:40

is fascinated by the evolution of

1:42

true crime. And how popular it is and

1:44

how it is different than how

1:46

crime used to be seen, how it's

1:48

changed culture, how so

1:51

listen to a man himself, counselor

1:53

Mark Garrigus rhymes with

1:55

Asparagus.

2:08

Got a new advertiser. Kinda big

2:10

on it. Why? My wife? My

2:13

wife is big on

2:15

bedding. Right? You probably will do do No.

2:17

No. A lot of guys like betting also.

2:19

It was never a big deal for me. My

2:21

wife talked to us about

2:23

us. Talk to me. She sat you all down. She

2:25

sat down the family. All of you it down, a

2:27

crisp, crazy crisp, cognitive

2:29

crisp, emotional crisp, and that's how

2:31

I can know about Cozira. Cozy

2:34

Earth makes beddings and they have an expanding

2:36

product line, but they make

2:38

their sheets with a hundred percent

2:41

viscous Bamboo. Okay?

2:45

Viscous bamboo. Soft?

2:48

Yes. Luxurious is the

2:50

word that they use. Fine. Definitely

2:53

will help you with your sleep. But

2:55

here's the deal for me. There's no question

2:57

that it it passes the test from a comfort perspective

2:59

for me. But using

3:02

Bamboo is so much more sustainable than

3:05

the other types of textiles that

3:07

people use. Bamboo is easy to grow,

3:09

you can grow it anywhere, grow so fast.

3:12

Okay? And it's not as precious

3:14

as a lot of the other raw

3:17

ingredients you know, natural

3:19

ingredients that are used to create textiles.

3:22

So you can get cozy

3:24

Earth bamboo sheet set available

3:26

in white and I think six colors.

3:28

They even come packaged in a stylish

3:30

reusable cozy earth tote.

3:33

With thousands of five star reviews,

3:35

it's no wonder that Cozy Earth has become the

3:37

bedding of choice for a lot of interior

3:39

designers and celebrities, like my wife.

3:42

So go to cozy Earth dot com slash

3:44

chris right now, and be sure to enter

3:46

my promo code. It's just Chris, my

3:48

name. You do that at the checkout

3:50

and you'll save thirty five

3:52

percent. Whether it's their best selling

3:55

sheets, luxury, ultra

3:57

comfortable loungewear or premium

3:59

waffle bath collection. Delicious.

4:02

You'll absolutely love shopping

4:04

at Cozy Earth. And don't forget to check out

4:06

their limited edition linen

4:09

bamboo bedding. Different

4:11

feel, different look cool. Cozy

4:13

earth dot com slash

4:15

chris. Thirty five percent off.

4:18

Who loses? No one.

4:23

Council would thank you so much for joining me. I

4:25

appreciate it. My pleasure. We have a

4:27

long history, so I could figure

4:29

Why not come and doobly podcast? I

4:31

thought it was a great idea. Well, I love

4:33

having you and you are a

4:35

historical figure when

4:37

it comes to this country's profound

4:41

interest in true crime. Many,

4:43

many big cases will talk about a couple

4:45

of them. But It's

4:47

really exploded in the podcast

4:50

space and digital media.

4:52

Why do you think that is that in

4:54

this new form of media, there

4:56

is such intense interest

4:58

in one of the oldest genres of

5:01

storytelling that we have. You know, it's

5:03

it's very interesting to me. It used

5:05

to be that if you were a criminal

5:07

defendant or

5:09

somebody accused in the true crime

5:11

space, that I used to call

5:13

the cable and people magazine

5:15

kind of the access to the evil for

5:17

equipmental defendant. There was always

5:19

that fascination. I mean, I would

5:21

talk to people people at

5:23

people magazine, and they would tell me

5:25

that the difference in a cover story

5:28

on the newsstand. You

5:30

could directly tie to a true crime

5:33

story as opposed to a celebrity

5:35

puff piece. So there's always been that

5:37

kind of fascination. The in the

5:39

podcast world, all

5:41

you gotta do is take a look at

5:43

the charts. I do it on occasion, the

5:45

Apple charts. And it's amazing

5:47

to me the true crime

5:49

fascination and serial

5:52

and, you know, it's now actually

5:54

making of a murderer and how

5:56

that podcast. It's now kind of

5:59

gotten into the courtroom where

6:01

you know, in cereal, there was AAI

6:04

don't know if I would call it an exoneration, but

6:06

clearly -- Right. -- there there was a

6:08

motion putting trial making of a murder change

6:11

some minds, not totally, but and

6:13

with Peterson, the there's a

6:15

newfound fascination with it. Will

6:18

know sometime in February if that

6:20

translated into a

6:22

new trial or not. So Scott

6:24

Peterson charged convicted,

6:27

sentenced in the death of his wife and unborn

6:30

child that was an active

6:32

participant in the initial

6:34

search For her, did media,

6:36

did a very famous slash infamous interview

6:38

with Diane Sawyer, one of the best in

6:40

the business, a mentor of mine.

6:42

You were involved all along the

6:44

way, do you believe he deserves to have

6:46

his conviction thrown out and get any

6:48

type of reassessment funny

6:50

you mentioned the Diane Sawyer interview

6:52

because I was doing a lecture the other day, and I

6:54

said there's nothing more painful to

6:56

a criminal defense lawyer to

6:58

watch your client's interview get

7:00

played at your trial, and there's

7:02

nothing you can do about it. But as

7:05

an aside, I was talking about how it

7:07

was with SPF that the

7:09

the lawyers are telling him to shut

7:11

the up and hear

7:14

And by the way, he ends up getting indicted

7:16

in record speed in the southern district

7:18

by the Fed. Coming back to your question,

7:20

does he deserve a new trial? Yes. You

7:22

know, what happened was the Supreme

7:25

Court of California unanimously

7:28

granted the appeal

7:30

on the penalty phase. And

7:32

the reason they did that is because we were objecting

7:34

at the time that the judge

7:37

was using the wrong standard. If somebody

7:39

said I'm against the death penalty, he didn't

7:41

ask the next question, which

7:43

was, can you set that aside and

7:45

still judge and follow the law? He wouldn't

7:47

do that. He was automatically dismissing

7:50

jurors who were anti death

7:52

penalty. So that ended up you

7:55

skew the jury to

7:57

get all pro death penalty,

7:59

which Studies have shown that

8:01

tends to be pro prosecution as well. So

8:03

then he should only get a new sentencing

8:05

phase. Shouldn't it? Gabe, that's what we got.

8:07

He got a new sentencing phase By

8:09

the way, I don't think that

8:11

should be the law. I think if you use

8:13

the wrong standard and you

8:15

skewed the jury pool, that

8:17

should go to the guilt phase, but that's

8:19

not apparently the wall. Well,

8:21

hold on. Let's take a beat on it. Here we are in a

8:23

podcast, which means I'm not gonna cut you for a

8:25

commercial anytime soon. What are you talking

8:27

about? Why if they get the sentencing

8:29

part wrong? Would you vacate

8:32

the guilt or innocence aspect

8:34

of the case? Because what you did

8:36

is you skewed the jury

8:38

pool, the veneer, from

8:40

the get go. You only had

8:42

people who believed in the death

8:44

penalty and wanted to

8:46

give the or didn't have a problem giving

8:48

the death penalty. And you took

8:50

away people who had problems with

8:52

the death penalty. Look, the most important

8:54

part of any trial, I don't care

8:57

civil, criminal, misdemeanor, felony,

8:59

is jury selection. I mean, most cases

9:02

ninety five percent of the time are

9:04

over injury selection. I know

9:06

there's a lot of Lawyers who will tell you

9:08

it's after opening statement? It

9:10

it isn't. It's who you pick

9:12

as a juror. And by the way, let

9:14

me tell you why. You can

9:16

be the greatest order in the

9:18

world. You can be Clarence

9:20

Darryl Redux, but the fact

9:22

is in any whether it's two

9:24

week trial, two month trial,

9:26

the one year trial, you're not

9:28

gonna change somebody the prison

9:30

to which they look at life. All you

9:32

have to do is take a look at our

9:34

political wars here nowadays.

9:36

And it's very hard to

9:38

talk to somebody and get them

9:40

to change their mind. And that's the same

9:42

thing with shares. So if you

9:44

start a case with people who

9:46

are predisposed to and

9:48

don't have a problem with the death penalty,

9:51

and you eliminate people

9:53

who have misgivings about the

9:55

death penalty, you have ceded

9:58

a pro prosecution jury.

10:00

And if you say that they used the wrong

10:02

standard, which the court unanimously

10:04

did, then I think that

10:06

infects the guilt phase as well.

10:08

Interesting argument, I'll let you decide at home.

10:10

Send the comments to Garrigous, Rhimes with

10:12

Asparagus. Now, a few questions.

10:15

Sure. One is easy for you to answer,

10:17

but I will tell you in advance and you

10:19

probably know this already. It is one of

10:21

the least satisfying answers

10:23

that a member of the bar gives to

10:26

laypeople, those who are not members of

10:28

the bar, not lawyers. Does

10:30

it bother you? Should I guess? Yeah.

10:32

Guess what it is. The question

10:34

is, how do you sleep at

10:36

night if you have a

10:38

client that you know is guilty?

10:40

And you end up getting them an

10:42

acquittal or you're arguing for an

10:44

acquittal. Yeah. Especially this guy

10:46

that we're talking about right now. I

10:48

will tell you that and

10:50

this is not original with me.

10:52

It was something imparted

10:54

to me by my father who was a

10:56

hard charging homicide prosecutor in

10:58

his bank. The time you lose sleep,

11:02

is when you have somebody that you think is

11:04

innocent. And I know that it's not a

11:06

popular sentiment, but I

11:08

sat there for the better part of a

11:10

year I knew the evidence. I at

11:12

the time, not now, but I knew

11:14

the evidence in real time better than anybody,

11:17

clearly better I think that

11:19

and then the public did.

11:21

And I will tell you that there was

11:23

never evidence sufficient

11:25

beyond a reasonable doubt to

11:27

convict Scott. I just didn't see

11:29

it. Now, there was some

11:32

kind of resonance

11:34

with white professional

11:37

women. And the resonance was they

11:39

were, yeah, I could talk to

11:41

somebody. I would be at the gym in the morning and before

11:43

going to trial. And they would

11:45

they'd say, what about this? And I'd say, well, best not

11:47

really true. It didn't happen that way. And

11:49

what about this? And, you know, he

11:51

was talking to his lover and and

11:53

telling her that he was in Paris. And then I'll

11:55

explain, well, the reason he was doing that

11:57

is he knew that once Amber came

11:59

on her surface, that all

12:01

lies are gonna be on here. I mean, they'd stop

12:03

surfacing for Lacey. And you could

12:05

explain everything. And then at the end, I would

12:07

always get the same response. Well,

12:10

well, I had an ex just like him,

12:12

and I could see it. And you can't argue

12:14

with that. That's just something that's

12:16

that's visceral, then I can't get that

12:18

you can't get around. I totally get the

12:20

idea that a

12:22

hundred guilty men should go free

12:24

an innocent man doesn't go to prison.

12:26

And I actually believe that, but I

12:28

also get why it's so frustrating because

12:31

sometimes you just know. I mean, look, the most

12:33

basic standard is very difficult

12:35

for a criminal defense attorney to deal with, but you

12:37

understand both sides of the ball very well. Is

12:39

that well, if it wasn't him, who was it?

12:42

Because the common standard with this,

12:44

even what we're looking at right now out in

12:46

Idaho with those four students that

12:48

were butchered. Forget about the

12:50

fact that that is a very passionate

12:52

crime, which usually suggests some type of

12:54

intimacy or familiarity with the people and the

12:56

person who did it. But the

12:59

monster scenario is a

13:01

very, very, very helpful to

13:03

creating reasonable doubt, but it's

13:05

very rare a homicide

13:07

scenario. The idea that it's a serial

13:09

killer or a one off monster

13:11

who's in the midst, very

13:13

rare over nine times out of ten. If you have to find

13:15

out who did it, it was someone who knew who

13:17

was killed. Well, by the way, you hit on

13:19

something that I'd said

13:21

for years. If you have to,

13:23

in your closing be arguing reasonable

13:26

doubt and just reasonable doubt.

13:28

Even though that's the standard, even though the

13:30

jitters say that's what they're going to

13:32

appear to, They

13:34

want they want an alternative explanation.

13:36

Yes. And that's not a

13:38

arguably reasonable doubt, generally,

13:40

is not a winning strategy. Even

13:42

though it's supposed to be in law school, but

13:44

people want satisfaction, especially

13:47

when they have to live with the

13:49

determination. I would have, I

13:51

don't have any documentation of this.

13:53

But during the KC Anthony

13:55

trial, when they went for the

13:57

death penalty, after

13:59

all of the confusing information about

14:02

the father. I could

14:04

tell just looking at those people, they were not

14:06

gonna give her the death penalty because they had some

14:08

questions. And even if it didn't go to what happened

14:10

to the child, they have to live

14:12

with the decision to kill somebody. And

14:14

that's asking a lot of somebody

14:17

convicting somebody, they can always put it off on

14:19

the proof, and this is what it was. And even if I

14:21

had doubts, this is what the prosecutor said, and

14:23

everybody else in the room said that's

14:25

different than the death penalty. I'll

14:27

also tell you this at home. Garrigous

14:29

rhymes with asparagus was the first lawyer

14:32

I had ever dealt with on television

14:35

who respected the difference of

14:37

Zelis representation as manifested

14:39

in the context of saying,

14:42

my client didn't

14:44

do this. My client

14:46

is innocent and

14:48

they cannot make this case.

14:50

They are not making this case against

14:52

my client. Now that to me

14:54

has always been actually tingles when I

14:56

say it, which is odd. It also could be cold in

14:58

here. But that matters,

15:00

okay, especially as a journalist who's also

15:02

a lawyer. Garragas would say, and it

15:04

wasn't a tell, didn't mean that he thought his guy was

15:06

guilty, but there's a difference between him and saying,

15:08

I'm telling you, this man and woman is

15:10

innocent. Okay? They did not

15:12

do this. When he would say that,

15:14

that meant that he had a case to put on.

15:16

That he was gonna say it wasn't this guy. I don't

15:18

know who it was. I think it was this guy, but it

15:20

wasn't my guy. Versus lawyers

15:22

who routinely will say,

15:24

my client is innocent and not only

15:26

they know the guy is not innocent, but

15:29

they are pretending. And

15:31

I think that exceeds the bounds of

15:33

Zelis representation. I don't think a

15:35

lawyer should say this

15:38

person is innocent when

15:40

they mean not guilty. Correct.

15:42

And that confuses I think that

15:44

confuses people. I mean, you're gonna be It

15:47

reminds me of the difference between when

15:49

people say I got robbed

15:51

or I got burglarized. I mean, there's

15:53

a there's a difference there's

15:55

a difference that should not be missed.

15:57

And and it's the same thing with

15:59

innocent night guilty. Part of

16:01

the the beauty of

16:03

the system is that

16:05

the criminal defense lawyer, who I

16:08

originally was so attracted to

16:10

criminal defenses, I'm old

16:12

enough to remember when

16:14

criminal defense was a

16:16

noble way, you

16:18

know, to fight the government. The government

16:20

was coming after your client, you were

16:22

there. And mind you, people

16:24

talk for years, I've heard

16:26

about, well, you know, high priced

16:28

defense lawyer or you you've got

16:30

other resources yet. It's

16:32

a rare if not almost non

16:35

existing case where the

16:37

defense has better

16:39

resources than the

16:40

prosecution. The prosecution has

16:43

virtually like the old George

16:45

Allen joke when he was

16:47

with the RedSkins is

16:49

Edward Bedding Williams who's one of the great

16:51

trial lawyers said I gave him a blank

16:53

checkbook and he's already exceeded it.

16:55

That's kind of the philosophy, if

16:57

you will, of the prosecution. It's not their

16:59

money. It's the taxpayers' money.

17:01

So they just go for it. Can you

17:03

imagine if prosecutors had

17:05

a budget? Yeah. They deal with a budget. I mean,

17:07

they just it's unlimited. And it's

17:09

also

17:09

dangerous. You know, it's supposed to be part of

17:12

prosecutorial discretion. It's

17:14

can you bring up the evidence that

17:16

will make this case beyond a reasonable

17:18

doubt? And is it in the public

17:20

interest to do so? And I think that

17:22

second part gets neglected, it gets completely perverted in our

17:24

political process, where,

17:26

you know, people these are all these

17:29

investigations. I you know, I've I'm very clear

17:31

on this. I know it's in the

17:33

constitution oversight. I don't think

17:35

politicians investigating politicians is a good

17:37

thing. I don't think it creates

17:39

consensus in society. You

17:41

almost never have a slam dunk, and we

17:43

see what's happening now with ping ponging

17:45

investigations where the same

17:47

people who were outraged about the kinds of questions they

17:49

were about president Trump, and I wanna ask the exact

17:51

same kinds of questions about Biden. Nobody

17:53

sees the irony in it. That tells you the

17:55

game is broken. Now, here's good

17:57

news for us. I'm not gonna I'm not gonna stay in

17:59

you with politics because you're better

18:01

than that. But even though you are member

18:03

of the media now that you bought those magazines. What do you think

18:05

I wasn't gonna see that? Boy,

18:08

you used to come after me about the and

18:10

the media this and then media that And you know what really

18:13

surprises me about this so called

18:15

media and I'd be like so cold. What else could you

18:17

call it? Now you're in it. I

18:19

I made it be because it's so frustrating

18:21

to some degree. I mean, look at what

18:23

has happened. What used to

18:26

be kind of you talk about real crime or true

18:28

crime, whatever way you wanna characterize it. I

18:30

used to get so upset about

18:33

the I I probably can't even say it anymore, but

18:35

the bleach blonde former prosecutors

18:38

who are opining about the

18:40

cases. And that kind of

18:42

a second guessing when they don't really know the evidence and

18:44

they've not tried a case. I get

18:46

that. But that is now kind of

18:49

infected, that same kind of Your

18:53

Presbyterian cheerleading has infected

18:55

both sides of the

18:57

political aisle, and you talk about the

18:59

irony from Trump to Biden, I've been

19:01

saying, you know, because I one of the

19:03

cases that changed the trajectory of my

19:05

career was when I represented Susan

19:07

McDougal in the nineties who's

19:09

the Urstwhile business partner of

19:11

Bill and Hillary Clinton, and

19:13

I was railing about independent

19:16

councils back then it was Ken Starr

19:18

and just passed away. And

19:20

now We've got the same

19:22

thing in reverse. And by

19:24

the way, most people on the left were

19:26

anti the independent council that was Ken

19:28

Starr trying to gouge Clinton. But

19:31

now aren't cheerleading when is

19:33

Jack Smith coming after Trump? And

19:35

if you don't see, as you

19:37

said, the irony in that Maybe you're you're rooting

19:39

for one side too hard. But look, I'm

19:41

completely transparent. I mean, this, you know, is

19:43

my podcast. It could be whatever I want

19:45

and anything I don't want it to be. It doesn't

19:47

have to be. But being back on

19:49

TV at News Nation, my show is for

19:51

independence. I say that. I think the party system is a

19:53

problem. I think I could make that case,

19:55

dispositively and easily. It's

19:57

always been attacked throughout our

19:59

history started as factions and then

20:01

parties and and leaders have been against

20:03

it forever. It's not in the constitution. It's not an

20:05

animal of law. It's just our culture.

20:07

And I think it's a NASA model a more perfect union. And

20:09

I think if people leave the parties, we'll be better

20:11

off. So I'm fine attacking them and I'm getting a lot of shit

20:13

forward right now. And that's okay. That's okay.

20:16

I'm I'm willing to take that heat because it's evenly

20:19

distributed. And I mean, that's hard on my

20:21

mail, but it's okay in terms of what

20:23

you should be worried about, which is are you

20:25

being fair? Now there is a

20:27

development that and by the way, that's

20:29

where I learned about Council Geragos was

20:31

back in the nineties when, you know, he doesn't

20:34

appear to age. But Clinton was the first

20:36

thing I ever covered in this business.

20:38

And it was a morass. And the

20:40

interesting thing is one of the few things Republicans

20:42

and Democrats have really agreed

20:44

on in both counselor and my

20:46

life was they want to get rid of that independent

20:48

counsel statute because they

20:50

said the guys could go wherever they want,

20:52

do whatever they want. But now I think it's

20:54

coming full circle, and the only way to

20:56

do these investigations is literally

20:58

by getting a garagas. Okay? Say, hey, do

21:00

me favor. Will you do some public service for a year? Will you

21:02

investigate this for us? Because, you know,

21:04

they don't know his political affiliation. He doesn't

21:06

care about politicians. Let him

21:08

tell us Let's

21:10

someone that you respect who knows the

21:12

system. Let them

21:14

investigate whatever it is. No political

21:16

affiliation because otherwise you'll never

21:18

get consensus. But there was something that my daughter told me

21:20

about True

21:22

Crime. She loves True Crime. She's nineteen twenty.

21:24

She doesn't wanna be a lawyer. At

21:26

this point, which is good. Mark's daughter is a

21:29

very well established criminal defense

21:31

attorney in New York City. She

21:34

said that the big problem that you would have in trials,

21:36

because she knows this at nineteen, is

21:38

that they'd say, well, I saw on TV that you

21:40

should have DNA evidence that shows us, and that that

21:42

was really hard. For people. They would

21:44

expect instant answers because of what they saw in

21:46

law and order. But with this digital

21:49

wave, now people

21:51

get how difficult it is and that

21:53

you're not gonna get a fast thing, and they're

21:55

almost all circumstantial. And I think

21:57

it may help the jury

22:00

process that if they're into true crime in the

22:02

podcast, they're getting a much

22:04

more realistic take on

22:06

how hard and subtle the process is

22:08

than they did from TV? Well, it's

22:10

interesting to take a look at

22:12

what Barry Scheck and his

22:14

group have done for exonerations,

22:16

DNA exonerations. To my

22:18

mind, you could give credit

22:20

to that for giving people

22:23

pause on the death penalty. I think that

22:25

that was one of the reasons. I

22:27

think that you're starting to

22:29

see with these podcasts

22:31

and true crime. People are starting to say,

22:33

well, wait a second here. And doing what there's

22:35

one to do here. And Jabber is

22:37

not to be I've always complained

22:40

about stealth jurors who have an

22:42

agenda, but a juror

22:44

supposed to be why the as I

22:46

explained to them where we pick it, you're

22:48

supposed to be a judge of the facts. You're

22:50

pretend you're wearing a robe for the facts. The

22:52

judge will give you who's up there on the

22:54

bench will get to the law, but you're to be

22:56

on the facts and of being a

22:58

judge on the facts is to be

23:00

skeptical. You're supposed to go in

23:02

there and not have a

23:04

dog in the fight. You're supposed to

23:06

look at it, look at the witnesses, judge,

23:08

whatever is presented to you with

23:10

a skeptical eye, and that's

23:12

the job. And I think

23:14

that's one of the good things that have come out

23:16

of podcast. There's a long form

23:19

or at least a longer form, you know, part of

23:21

the problem used to be, you

23:23

do a a hit on cable

23:25

news at night, and it's a tour, a

23:27

three minute segment. Podcasts, you

23:29

get a long form version

23:31

where people start to discuss it.

23:33

And if you're interested in it

23:35

and you're focused, you start to get

23:37

a more nuanced view of

23:40

what was really going on as opposed to

23:42

kind of what was fed you in a three minute

23:44

or a four minute or even a an eight

23:46

minute clip. Yeah. That's the good side. The

23:48

bad side as I told my daughter and

23:50

is definitely true. Now,

23:52

Garrigous is the first step into true

23:54

crime. And, I mean, this is it's not like he and

23:56

I are taking a part of the case, but

23:58

I haven't done any of it on a podcast

24:00

because I hate to succeed. No. Because

24:02

I wanted to focus on a

24:04

political dialogue that I think is important to

24:07

happen. I've always really

24:09

appreciated crime in

24:11

journalism because it's the perfect

24:13

narrative. It's made for once

24:15

upon a time. You have great

24:17

minds invested with resources in

24:19

giving you at least two different

24:21

versions of a store. And it's great because

24:23

as a beginning middle and an end and there

24:25

consequences and it's relatable. So you

24:27

know, crime has always been a

24:29

lustful thing for any

24:31

storyteller, but my problem with the

24:33

podcast, now that I'm looking at it to figure

24:35

out what space I can carve out people? Is these people make

24:37

shit up? They just make things up.

24:39

I'm looking on the Idaho case

24:41

now. Yeah. Because the guy at the truck

24:43

knew this, knew that one, and knew this is

24:45

not true. So, yeah, I finally get

24:47

through to the one of the investigators off

24:49

the record. And I was like, so

24:51

this guy knew the thing, and he said, where'd

24:53

you get that? I said, well, I

24:56

I saw it on the one of the and then I

24:58

called myself. I was like, am I really about to tell this

25:00

guy that I saw it on TikTok? And I, you

25:02

know, I was like, if somebody sent it to me, some or

25:04

he's like, listen. Just because

25:06

somebody says something confidently doesn't

25:08

mean they're saying it confidently, which I thought was

25:10

a great great line. It's a great line, but I was just

25:12

so then I started looking. They just make

25:15

things up about what they think may have

25:17

been true. So Casey Anthony now,

25:20

they do this series. Everybody

25:22

complains, should you be doing a series

25:24

on Casey Anthony? Or should you

25:26

do a series on Jeffrey Dahm? Well,

25:28

if you wanna watch,

25:30

then isn't isn't that the answer?

25:32

I haven't seen it. I had to watch a little

25:34

bit of it because we were gonna cover an

25:36

aspect of

25:37

it. But people are very upset

25:39

about it. And it's such an interesting thing,

25:41

I think, to get your take on

25:44

that this line of should you

25:46

do a damer series

25:48

that makes him somewhat sympathetic

25:50

in terms of what he went through that made

25:52

him a monster, which is what he was.

25:54

Or Casey Anthony, should she get paid to

25:56

tell her story? You and I

25:59

lived through Casey

26:01

Anthony from the

26:03

standpoint, I was commenting on it and I

26:05

know Jose well and think

26:07

the world of it. But, you know, ABC,

26:09

your old employer, as I remember,

26:12

license pictures in that case for two hundred and

26:14

fifty thousand, which I think ended up

26:16

making its way to the lawyer

26:18

to defend during, when

26:20

people make the argument that

26:22

she shouldn't be able to do this. Number one,

26:24

she was acquitted. Number two, you

26:26

know, the son of Sandman, so called

26:28

laws across the country. There's a patchwork

26:30

of them, have not really stood up

26:33

real well. I mean, a post conviction,

26:35

there's restitution orders, which is a

26:37

different thing, but there's a free

26:39

speech component and there's the

26:41

ability to to tell your side of

26:43

the story. I mean, she didn't get on

26:45

the stand and

26:47

testify and she can laid low, which

26:49

I think was a smart thing.

26:51

But it's the there's whether

26:53

it's Casey Anthony or Scott

26:55

Peterson any of the

26:57

others that you can think of that, you know, the

26:59

so called trials of the century that

27:01

happened, that used to happen every

27:03

year during weeks of weeks in

27:05

May, there is a story to be

27:07

told in people, as you

27:09

accurately said, are fascinated by it,

27:11

because it does have a beginning middle

27:14

and end. It does give rise to

27:16

arguments for a give and

27:17

take, and that's part of the nature

27:20

of of a community or a

27:22

tribe. And it's almost always

27:24

relatable to a dynamic in your own life, not

27:26

to mean that all of us are a step away from

27:28

shopping somebody up, but that you

27:30

know like They look like people you know, the dynamics

27:32

of where they live. You know, there's usually some kind

27:35

of of

27:37

hook. And a son of Sam Law is just

27:39

so you know at home that counselor is referring

27:41

to. So a son of Sam, you know who that

27:43

guy was in New York City. Right? And he did all

27:45

those horrible crimes. THEY PASSED A LAW THAT YOU SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO WROTE A BOOK AND

27:47

BENEFIT FROM YOUR OWN CRIME AND THAT MONEY SHOULD BE

27:50

GIVEN TO THE VICTIMS AS SOUTHERS CALLING

27:52

RESTAUTION. THAT IS AN ARGUAL

27:54

LEGAL PREMIS. IT SOUNDS GOOD.

27:56

Feels right, but doesn't mean it's going to

27:58

have constitutional sufficiency.

28:01

And the ABC case

28:03

was very interesting. ABC got

28:05

exposed for paying for materials to

28:07

tell the Casey Anthony story. It

28:09

was ordered by the media who

28:11

had lost in the bidding. Which

28:13

-- Exactly. -- which I found very

28:16

interesting. You know, this is the problem with your competition

28:18

being your credit base in the media. So

28:20

other people were bidding on it. They just

28:22

didn't And no, I wasn't bidding on

28:24

the thing. It's not like I'm trying to defend

28:26

myself. I don't have any problem with the practice, and I'll

28:28

tell you why. This is gonna

28:30

be controversial. Should you pay

28:32

people for their story?

28:34

No. Easy answer. Right? Ethically

28:37

no. Okay. But

28:39

you will make a fortune, exploiting their

28:42

story, and telling it in different ways on

28:44

different shows, different times, and specials

28:46

and everything else, and you'll make

28:48

a fortune doing it. That's okay, but they get nothing.

28:50

Even if they wind up being acquitted, they

28:52

get nothing. Now, that makes it a little

28:54

bit more confusing, doesn't it?

28:57

And I've always seen that gray

28:59

space when people would say to me

29:01

especially in the Oprah Winfrey and the daytime TV

29:03

days started coming up, they started paying people for

29:05

their stories. They were like, well, why should I go on

29:07

with you and not her when they're gonna pay me?

29:09

I never had a good answer to that. There

29:11

isn't a good answer to that. Well, I would say, well,

29:13

that's daytime TV. This

29:15

is news. But it's all blurred now. It's all,

29:17

you know, person by person. I

29:19

remember controversy. We were

29:21

representing Michael Jackson in

29:23

CBS use sixty minutes

29:25

to interview him for

29:27

the noobs and at the

29:29

same time had his special from

29:31

the entertainment arm of CBS.

29:34

And they paid a very large sum of

29:36

money for that special. And there

29:38

were people who were trying to link it

29:40

together and the late grade had Bradley

29:43

was denying the connection and,

29:46

you know, I'll I'll leave it at that. Ed

29:48

Bradley may rest in peace. I

29:50

live in his front yard from where

29:52

his home was. They have since sold it, but

29:54

I knew him. He was very good to me. We went to

29:56

the gym together, and he was in a sticky

29:58

wicket in that one because he was

30:00

forced to cover for the

30:02

corporate interest. And that's always a problem and it's

30:04

always gonna be one. And the media is always gonna

30:06

have an owner. Right? It's it's always as long

30:08

as it's a business. So I'm gonna

30:10

let you go because you press for time, but I will say

30:12

this. This was enjoyable. Thank you. I'd like to

30:14

have to continue this discussion. I would like

30:16

to continue the discussion here. And

30:18

on news nation, you're always welcome. I have

30:20

tremendous respect for you, and I look

30:22

forward to following the legacy

30:24

of just one of your cases with

30:26

Scott

30:26

Peterson. But You're always welcome anywhere I am

30:29

and I wish

30:29

you and the family the best. But I do. I

30:31

appreciate it. You're the same. Mark

30:34

Rhimes, with the spares.

30:38

That was

30:43

really think that we're going to more

30:45

of this talking about what

30:47

matters within different criminal

30:49

investigations and trials from

30:51

the perspective of people who understand the strategy involved.

30:54

What do you think? Let me know. You know how to

30:56

comment. Our thanks to Mark Garagas, my thanks

30:58

to you. Please subscribe. Please

31:01

follow and please remember that free agent

31:03

merch own being an

31:05

independent. I'll see you

31:07

next time.