Law&Crime Sidebar - Legal War Erupts in Nolan Wells Mystery Death

Episode Date: September 3, 2026

Rev. Al Sharpton, who has been in the spotlight recently showing support for the family of Nolan Wells after the teen's death on Horn Island, says he welcomes any legal action Wells' friends might wish to bring against him. Several of Wells' friends who were on a boating trip with him on the day he was reported missing have accused Sharpton of making defamatory statements about them on multiple occasions. Law&Crime's Jesse Weber takes a look at scathing letters between the parties with litigator Richard Schoenstein.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Watch MK Confidential on YouTube - https://bit.ly/4xPG7ik or listen to it where you get your podcasts.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson, Heather Berzak & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

There is a lot of new drama in the Nolan Wells case. Reverend Al Sharpton, an advocate for the Nolan Wells family, received a legal letter basically accusing him of defamation, and he is fighting back. So as we analyze what to expect there, we got our hands on letters from the Wells family lawyer to the local DA about the examination of Nolan's body and his cell phone. So there is a lot to discuss, and we're going to break it all down for you right now.

Welcome to Sidebar, presented by law and crime. I'm Jesse Weber. There is a lot that we got to talk about that's happening in the Nolan Wells case. We haven't covered it in a little bit, and now there's a lot that we have to focus on. So Reverend Al Sharpton, who is an advocate for Nolan Wells family, is being accused in a legal letter of defamation. And his team is firing back. There's this back and forth communication that we're going to talk about. And separately, there is communication regarding Nolan Wells' self. phone and the independent examination by the family that we have to talk about. So a lot to get into. Now before I do, so Nolan Wells, of course, is an 18-year-old college football player who died

after a July 4th boating trip to this barrier island known as Horn Island in Mississippi. His body was found two days after he disappeared, July 6th. His family has been demanding answers. They hired their own attorney, Ben Crump, to conduct an independent investigation as the authorities, namely specifically the Jackson County Sheriff's Office conduct their own investigation. And the results of the state's official autopsy, the toxicology report, they haven't been released. The case is expected to go to a grand jury under Mississippi law for potential criminal charges. But we don't know for sure how Nolan died, the circumstances of his death, what caused his death, or even if a crime has officially been committed.

But as you know, there has been a lot of public comments about this case. And now it is moving into the legal arena. And as you see this, there is a question, are we seeing bits of the narrative, pieces of what actually happened coming to light? So before we get into this, I also have to tell you, look, we've been covering Nolan Wells for a while now.

This is a very big case that we follow here on Sidebar. We cover a number of big cases, but we're kind of limited in how much we can show you here on Sidebar. You know, we only have 30, 40 minutes. And there's a lot of documents. There's a lot of information. So what we did, we have the case file section. on the Long Crime Plus app, and we're basically opening up the evidence vault to you.

So you can inspect raw body cam footage, 911 calls, crime scene photos, full trial tapes all firsthand. You also get ad-free streaming of all your favorite long crime and court TV shows. And by the way, we got a special Labor Day offer for you. So you use my promo code Sidebar, and you'll get your first 30 days of Long Crime Plus free. The offer ends September 7th. So head on over, the Long Crime Plus, use code Sidebar to subscribe today and you can check all this Okay, back to Nolan Wells. I want to get into this now very public fight. It is getting really ugly and specifically through a legal letter that was just sent, well, a few, I should say a few weeks ago, to Reverend Al Sharpton. And we got his response too, and then we'll get into the phone issue. So Sharpton has been an advocate for Nolan Wells family. And Nolan's purported friends, Warren Hudson, Jack Spatalo, Morgan Seymour, we've talked about them before here on the show, through their legal counsel, are now going after Al Sharpton. And later on, we're going to bring on renowned New York attorney,

Rich Schoenstein, talk all about these potential defamation claims. But I want to read you some of this letter, okay? Quote, we represent Warren, Jacks, and Morgan. This letter will serve as our only pre-suit demand regarding your defamatory statements about these completely innocent young men. This letter should come as no surprise to you since you recently welcomed the lawsuit against you, boasting at the National Association of Black Journalist Convention, But I will say this on stage, I want them to sue me first. You also stated, I want to depose your son. If you sue, the plaintiffs are deposed.

And let's go to civil court, any kind of court you want to go to because you can't make this make sense. And then they go on to say, we're happy to grant your wish. Unless you comply with the demands set forth in this letter, we will imminently be filing sued against you. However, we are pleased that you too welcome depositions. Goes on to say, smearing the reputation of innocent young men, mourning the law, loss of their friend to score cheap political points will prove far easier than explaining yourself under oath. Indeed, you will find dealing with us to be an altogether different experience than

indulging in a slanderous rampage applauded by the fawning sycophants in the echo chamber of your inner circle. On July 14th, 2026, you appeared on TMZ Live and spoke about events surrounding the tragic death of Nolan Wells. Speaking about the investigation into Nolan's death, you stated, I was, first of all, stunned at the fact that this young man is going out. He, black, they white, and a day later, this mother and them starts searching for him, no one comes forward, and then they find out after two days that they claim his body was washed up and that they had given his cell phone and his keys to one of the three friends saying he didn't want to go back from Horn Island with them.

You then stated, have they brought these three young men in for questioning under oath? You again left no doubt who you were referring to when you stated, how does it? anybody say that, oh, no, race played no role unless you know the three guys and the three guys were forthcoming. Continuing your racist vitriol, you further identified your targets when you stated, you got to look at the possibility of racism at different levels. One, were any of the three guys racist? You later asked, have they interrogated the three young men? There can be no doubt that you were intentionally referring to Warren, Jackson, and Morgan. Your remarks were intended to accuse them of infamous crimes, publicly claim them as criminal, identify them as

enemies, endanger them, and subject them to threats, ridicule, and scorn. Then on August 19, 2026, on what would have been Nolan's 19th birthday, you hosted an online vigil, ostensibly to honor his legacy. However, being that you are a megalodon-esque devourer of reputations, you could not resist the urge to launch more attacks against Warren Jackson Morgan. There, you made the following defamatory statement. He had friends in the community in Ocean Springs, and as one would do with friends, holidays you spend together. On the 4th of July of this year, he and three young white male friends, people he was acquainted

with, decided to go to Horn Island because that's where a lot of the festivities happened. Hours later, the three friends came back, and he was not with them. And that is where the mystery happened. When his parents recognized he was not back at a certain time, they started calling around, and they found that he had not come back with the three friends. And that's where it gets cloudy. What the friends knew, when they knew it, why they didn't hand over the cell phone over right away

when it was clear he was not back with them. The keys, all of that needs to be litigated. Quote, not only were these remarks delivered an exceptionally poor taste at what was supposed to be a vigil, you knew full well that these fine young men did not even have Nolan's phone to withhold in the first place. You also knew that Nolan did not travel alone to the island with Warren Jackson Morgan. He was with 29 other people. You dishonored Nolan by using

a vigil as a platform to smear his best friends. Contrary to the multiple lies in your defamatory statements, the truth is that Warren, Jacks and or Morgan did not touch Nolan's cell phone or keys on July 4, 2026. Warren Jacks and or Morgan did not lie about Nolan's cell phone or keys. Warren Jackson or Morgan did not admit to having Nolan's cell phone or keys because they never even touched his cell phone or keys on July 4th, 2026. Warren Jacks and Or Morgan did not access Nolan's phone. Warren Jackson and or Morgan did not breach Nolan's phone. Warren Jackson or Morgan did not erase anything on Nolan's phone.

Warren Jackson and or Morgan, like many other Nolan friends, did come forward, contacting not only Nolan's family, but also the Coast Guard and even returned to Horn Island to search for Nolan. Warren Jacks and or Morgan did not have any knowledge whatsoever of the tragic death of Nolan Wells and Warren, Jack, and or Morgan did not have anything whatsoever to do with the death of Nolan Wells. You falsely accused these three completely innocent young men of extremely serious wrongdoing that constitutes multiple felonies under Mississippi law, including but not limited to murder. Nonetheless, emboldened by decades of unaccountability, you consider yourself

untouchable with a green light to peddle your abhorrent and damaging lies as you stand atop the gilded soapbox which you have fashioned into a throne. Your evidence-free modus operandi is most reminiscent of the carnival barkers, elixir salesmen, and hucksters, who preyed upon the gullible and naive of America's 19th century country fairs. Yet, even these carnival barkers, elixir salesmen and hucksters, would find your uniquely potent snake venom too much to stomach. You are a human circus. Wow. So the letter then provides a timeline of what they claim are facts in this case. Now I'm not going to go through the whole narrative, but there is this part that I want to call out. It says, quote, between the Triton and the Tideline, there were 24 occupants and thus 24 witnesses.

None of these 24 individuals saw Nolan in either boat because Nolan was not in either boat. Every one of these witnesses have spoken to authorities and verified that Nolan Wells was not on any of the subject three boats when they returned to the mainland. As you can clearly see, Al, Nolan is not in the boats and they attach a photo as well. Hey, so real quick, Megan Kelly has this new true crime series. It's called M.K. Confidential. I don't know if you know. She's like a true crime obsessive. So she made this show that she always wanted to listen to it. And also, I don't know if you know this. Megan practiced law for nine years. And she covered a lot of these trials while they were happening. So she's working the actual record, not the internet's version of it. One case a week,

five episodes, new one every weeknight. The lineup is exactly what you'd expect. John Bonae Ramsey, Chandra Levy, the D.C. snipers. Plus, there's cases you might not even heard of. So click the link below to watch on YouTube or find it in the Megan Kelly Show feed. Wherever you listen, it's right there in that feed. You go start a case. And then come back and in the comments, just tell us, like, which

case really stood out to you? Which is the one that resonated with you? Be curious to hear. And then the letter attempts to show that these young men contacted Nolan's family, specifically Nolan's mom, Christine. Quote, Warren told Christine that Nolan did not return with the group.

and Christine confirmed that he had not returned home, and she had not heard from Nolan since the evening of July 3rd. Warren advised her that Nolan's cell phone had remained with the group on the return from the island and was secured in redacted's vehicle. Warren also told Christine that he would call the Coast Guard out of an abundance of caution. Without the assistance of Warren Jackson, Morgan, the investigation into Nolan's whereabouts would not have started as soon as it did, and we would all be further from getting to the truth. And then you get into the legal analysis section of this letter. You will presumably attempt to escape liability for their disgusting accusations against Warren, Jackson, Morgan by claiming opinion. In Mississippi, false statements, whether written or spoken, which tends to injure one's reputation, and thereby expose them to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, degrade them in society, lessen them in public esteem or lower them in the confidence of the community are liable for defamation. And then they go into the law and defamation to establish claim for defamation, an ordinary plaintiff must prove a false defamatory statement concerning another, an unprivileged publication to a third party, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher, either actionability of the statement irrespective of special harm or the existence of special harm caused by the publication.

And then they talk about defamation per se. So like on its face, it's a particular statement that you don't even need to show what the harm is. It's so bad on its face. It's so harmful. And to give you an example, and they include this in the letter, words imputing the guilt or commission of a criminal offense involving moral turpitude and infamous punishment. Quote, hence, an accusation that Warren Jackson Morgan were in any way involved

in the murder of their friend, hindered a prosecution or tampered with physical evidence, certainly involves moral turpitude and infamous punishment under Mississippi law. Here, your statements create an effect on the listener that is, asserts, Warren, Jackson, Morgan were colluding to hide evidence and or obstruct the efforts to find Nolan at the very least, and that they murdered Nolan at the very worst. Your assertions are grossly disproved by the truth. Your statements are negligent at the bare minimum, and your refusal to accept the facts that are publicly available constitute actual malice.

Actual malice under the law is like you make a statement, knowing it's false or with reckless disregard for the truth. Okay. So what do they want? quote so here's the deal al warren jackson morgan hereby formally demand that you apologize for retract and delete every false and defamatory statement about them so then you get a response you get a response from al sharpens team okay and it says the demands are rejected research has not disclosed any reported decision in which a plaintiff has recovered on a defamation claim

against a minister based on remarks delivered during a prayer service the letter asks that this case be the first. It goes on to say Reverend Sharpton did not insert himself into this family's grief. He was asked. He is an ordained Baptist minister and he stands with Christine Wells Wansley and Elmore Wonsley in that capacity as he has stood with families in that capacity for nearly 50 years. He has remained in continuous communication with the family throughout and he has deferred to their judgment at every point at which their judgment governed. The record shows it. Asked directly on July 14th, whether race played a role in Nolan's death. Reverend Sharpton did not answer the question on his own account.

He said he did not know that race played a role and did not know that it did not. And then explain the family's position that they did not wish to allege race, but did not wish the question be taken off the table. He said that because the family had said it. It is worth stating plainly what the letter asks. It asks Reverend Sharpton to apologize the three young men for having asked why an 18-year-old died. It asks him to attract questions that Nolan's own mother raised on national television four days before he repeated them. It asks him to delete a prayer vigil, and it asks this

allegedly on behalf of clients who have themselves established a public fundraising campaign, sat for recorded media interviews, criticized Nolan's mother publicly, and released their private communications to the press, while the family whose son is dead and whom Reverend Sharpton is accused of exploiting has asked him for none of it. They have not asked him to stop. They have asked him to keep going. The letter repeatedly asserts that Reverend Sharpton accused Messrs. Hudson, Patelow and Seymour of murder, hindering prosecution and evidence tampering. But nowhere in 19 pages does the letter identify a statement in which Reverend Sharpton accused any of them of committing any of those crimes. Instead, the letter argues that Reverend Sharpton's words create an effect

on the listener from which those accusations supposedly arise. That formulation is revealing. The accusation on which the threatened claims depend is not contained in Reverend Sharpton's words. It is supplied by counsel through inference. Then it goes on to say the letter cannot create a defamatory meaning by removing the context that defeats it. So it says the letter quotes Reverend Sharpton stating that something is amiss here. It stops immediately before the criticism of the sheriff announcing that no foul play was to, expected almost immediately after Nolan Well's body was recovered. The letter's own factual narrative substantially corroborates the statements it calls false, meaning the threatened claims

have an additional problem. The letter's factual resuscitation establishes much of the substance it purports the dispute. The letter acknowledges that Nolan's telephone remained with the returning group secured in a third party's vehicle until after midnight when individuals arrived at Mr. Patalo's residence seeking its return. knowledge is that when Nolan's father later sought Nolan's keys, they cannot initially be located. Another individual had to be contacted, and the keys were ultimately found in Mr. Patalo's bedroom. Thus, according to the letter itself, Nolan's telephone and keys were not immediately returned, and members of his family had to locate them. That is materially the substance of what Reverend Sharpton

said. And then they go to the term of actual malice, which by the way is a higher standard to prove in defamation. Constitutional actual malice does not mean, hostility, carelessness, inadequate investigation, or even an unreasonable failure to investigate. It requires proof that the defendant published with subjective knowledge of falsity or subjective serious doubt concerning truth. The response goes on to say, quote, the letter identifies nothing approaching that standard. There is no allegation that Reverend Sharpton knew any challenge statement was false, none that he entertained serious doubts about its truth, none that he disbelieved the sources on which he relied,

none that he possessed contrary information and deliberately disregarded it, the letter alleges an inadequate investigation and repeatedly seeks to relabel it actual malice. Calling it actual malice does not make it so. And then it says if the men, these young men filed a lawsuit threatened in the letter, Reverend Sharpton will seek dismissal at the earliest available stage and invoke New York's protections for speech on matters of public concern wherever procedurally available because they say that he lives in New York. And then there's this part where he basically goes on the offensive, quote,

counsel's own publications present a defamation problem. The fundraising campaign identifies Reverend Sharpton by name and tells the public that he, quote, invent and spread false narratives and lies and that he operates under the guise of seeking justice and that he exploits tragedy to squeeze as much money out of it as possible. The campaign then asks the public for money to fund litigation against him with the proceeds directed to Taylor and Cox law firm PA. The fundraiser does not merely criticize Reverend Sharpton and accuses him of knowingly inventing lies and exploiting a dead 18-year-old and his grieving family for money.

Those are factual charges. They are false and spare us the suggestion that this is protected opinion. Okay, so this is where I bring on trial attorney litigator, Rich Schoenstein to make sense of all this. Rich, thank you so much for coming on. I know you had an opportunity to look at these letters. I mean, I guess the big question is, first, what do you make? of the intent to sue letter. How do those letters work exactly?

Is that standard that you send an intent to sue letter before you actually file a lawsuit? Well, I wouldn't say it's standard. It is a strategy that we use sometimes, and you have to consider it in the context of the overall strategy what it is you're trying to accomplish. example. This notice of intent to sue letter is plainly written partially as a press release. It's not just a letter to Al Sharpton and his lawyers. It's a letter that they know the press

is going to pick up that we're going to be on a podcast talking about, and it is written as much for us as it is for Sharpton. And that can be part of the strategy if you were in a public facing dispute. It's pretty ugly, too. I mean, they call him Al at multiple times. It's personal because, I mean, I think they're trying to show we're angry at what you're doing. And by the way, to have a 19 page letter that disputes his alleged characterizations and puts out their own timeline, their own specific detailed timeline of events, if people are trying to search for the truth of what happened here, I think that says something, doesn't it? Yeah. So I think the letter, though, is it cross-purposes because I understand them putting

their own timeline and defending their clients and making good points about their clients, that they weren't alone with Nolan Wells, that they didn't have his phone, trying to clean up some of the factual statements that have been made about him. I get that. But But then when they spend the letter name calling and attacking Sharpton personally and, you know, making these big boy threats against him. Human circus? He's a human circus? Yeah.

That does a disservice. If you want me to take the letter seriously where you're defending your clients and putting out a timeline, then you can't be doing this juvenile name calling and the rest of it. That's a different letter. So I had a problem with those two things being included in the same piece. Well, let's talk about the substance here. Do they make a viable claim for, or claims for defamation, whether it's through a negligence standard, whether it's through an actual malice standard, whether it's defamation per se,

that as I talked about before, that the statement in it of itself, you could say how harmful it would be. What do you make of their actual defamation claims or potential defamation claims? Well, I think that the central point in this defamation claim would be, were they statements of fact by Sharpton, or were they either opinions or calls for action? And I think that Sharpton would say, and does say, that he was making a call for action, that he was saying, hey, the authorities should be investigating this thing. Let's make sure that they're looking at everybody, including these other kids, and that he was simply standing up for the family and the victim in trying to make sure that an adequate investigation is done. And he says in his response letter, you're pulling my statements out of context to highlight a few things to make it look like I was making statements of fact. I wasn't making statements of fact.

I was saying that in my view based on what we know we ought to be looking at this more carefully. And I think probably Sharpton has the better of that argument. But, you know, it could be litigated. First of all, from a legal point of view, he doesn't have to name them, right? He doesn't have to list their names specifically. No, if he's, he could make a reference. Right. The letter makes that point.

you're clearly pointing to these three young men. And I think that point is in their favor, that he can refer to them without spelling their names. How significant is it that they're including these purported texts with Christine, Nolan's mother, and the photographs and creating a timeline, because they want to assert, we had nothing to do with this, you know, and we were proactive in trying to find out where Nolan was. How significant is that? Because again, and I'm going to get into this in a little bit,

we haven't seen a lot of evidence or even a full timeline from investigators in this. So I find this kind of significant that they're including what is potential evidence in an investigation. They're putting this out there, their own version of it or, you know, text messages or photos. How significant is that to their claims? Well, I don't, you know, the defamation claim wouldn't be decided on the facts in the first instance. So whether or not they were involved isn't something that could be addressed at the outset of a lawsuit. You would just say, is this a defamation claim? But on the broader point where the attorneys are trying to defend these three kids publicly,

I think they're making a strong showing that they were very involved in trying to find Nolan Wells immediately and that they were in contact with his mother, they were in contact with law enforcement, they returned to the island to look for him. I find that to be a pretty strong argument in their favor. And we'll go into one more defense or defenses from Sharpton in a second and his claim for defamation. But to me, and this is something I've mentioned before,

and I think it's really illuminated here, if they had something to do with this, they would remain quiet. No? if they really had something to do with this, why proactively litigate it? Why put out your own statement of facts when there's a possibility it could be disputed? There's a possibility it might not be true. There's a possibility this could affect you criminally. If they're proactively moving forward with litigation and there's discovery and the exchange of information, to me it signals we have nothing to hide. We have no involvement, nothing to do with hiding evidence or being

involved in what happened to Nolan. I mean, that's what signals to me. from taking this position? Yeah, I think that's a fair point. If you actually move forward with defamation litigation, then you are creating a fact issue as to whatever was said about you. And you are putting that not only in court but in civil court where there's discovery

and there's more room to investigate it. I mean, we're kind of seeing that play out in the Karen Reed case where that's turned into some defamation litigation. and now there's big discovery fight. So I think that's a decent argument that if you bring that kind of defamation claim, you are strongly saying, I did not do this.

Let me ask you this. His defense, or what appears to be defense, is does he have protection as a minister? And does he have protection under New York law, basically saying, if you, I can have this dismissed under specific New York law, these kind of public comments that I made, Does either of those avenues provide him legal protection from a defamation claim?

I don't think he's protected as a minister. You can't bring a minister. If you stand up and you slander somebody, you can still be sued. I don't think you have the cover of the cloak for that. Now, he does have basically the New York version of anti-SLAPP litigation, and he can bring an affirmative. action against those that are trying to silence him if he's making legitimate points, but that doesn't protect him if he is really defaming people. But yeah, there is, there is legislation here that, and I think in one of the other states that's relevant to this

that he pointed to in his letter, and a lot of times people in defamation suits get that kind of response. We just saw that, by the way, in Justin Baldoni and Blake lively, Justin Baldoni brought a defamation claim, and he ended up having to, he's ending up having to pay a portion of her attorney's fees, which is the only thing that either side has won in that litigation. Yeah. Yeah, that's a good point. That's a really, really good point. What about his potential proactive defamation claim against them? I mentioned it before. the fundraising campaign where it allegedly identifies Sharpton, a by name, telling them that he is spreading lies and false narratives. Does he have a viable defamation claim against them through

this fundraising campaign? Yeah, he might because it's not privileged. If they said that in a pleading in court, it would be privileged. Correct. It couldn't be defamation. I mean, if you say something in a complaint or an answer or briefing, that's privileged. But when they say it in connection with fundraising publicly, or when they say it in an attorney letter that they thereafter leak to the press because they're using it, as I said, as a press release, there could be a claim that those statements are defamatory as to Sharpton. And I'm sure if either side actually actually brings litigation here, the other side will counterclaim. Okay, I want to put this to the side, and we'll see if this advances to a litigation.

We'll cover it here on sidebar. But there was another big development that I want to get your opinion on. So let me just go through it. Okay, this is about Nolan's cell phone. And there was a question about the family working with law enforcement authorities to examine Nolan's phone, this mutual inspection. So there was this August 13th letter that was sent to the office of the district attorney, Angel Myers Macalath, okay? And this is from Nolan Wells family lawyer.

It says, quote, we agree that examination of Nolan's phone was discussed during the July 15th meeting and that our team undertook to follow up concerning that process. During that discussion, however, we agreed to a jointly coordinated forensic examination of the phone that would include the use of the digital forensics lab at Mississippi Gulf Coast Community College as well as possible FBI involvement. Subsequent correspondence with your office reflected are. continued willingness to proceed through a mutually agreeable procedure. To date, Nolan's parents remain willing to facilitate an appropriate forensic examination of Nolan's phone, including FBI

involvement, according to our agreement on July 15th. However, your letter sent to Eric Hertz on August 12th at 12.51 p.m. Eastern Standard Time set a deadline for the oneslies to deliver the phone to your office by August 14th at 9 a.m. This is not practicable for a number of reasons. First, The date and time you proposed provided less than 48 hours notice. Moreover, the oneslies were outside Mississippi when your letter was sent and are not scheduled to return until after the deadline unilaterally imposed. Second, the parties never agreed to simply deliver the phone to your office. Third, the parties have not yet agreed upon a forensic protocol. It goes on to say with respect to the independent investigation, the legal team has reviewed the tips received and has followed up with persons whose information appeared relevant.

At present, that process has not identified additional witnesses whom the legal team reasonably believes possess information germane to potential criminal activity that warrants referral to your office. That's significant. Regarding Dr. Mitchell. Now, this was the doctor who did the independent examination of Nolan's body for the family. We appreciate that you will make available Nolan's body parts that were not previously sent to Dr. Mitchell. As reflected in your July 29th correspondence, your office previously stated that Dr. Mitchell, would have an opportunity to examine Nolan's complete body in advance of any grand jury testimony. Now, that's part of that letter.

There's another letter from August 17th, again from Nolan Wells family lawyer to the DA's office. It says, quote, with respect to Nolan's phone, the family's prepared to make the device immediately available for the joint coordinated forensic examination previously agreed upon by the parties. In the interest of expediency, we request that your office choose any time from Tuesday, August 18th through Friday, August. 21st to conduct the joint forensic examination. It says we also hope to promptly move forward with Dr. Roger Mitchell's examination of Nolan's body parts that were not previously made available to him. Dr. Mitchell is available Wednesday, August 19, through Friday, August 21st, to complete the independent autopsy. Now, before we go any further, Rich, I want to go to you. There's a lot to make of this. I mean, I think there's a lot of people that say, I've never seen

kind of a family holding on to what could be a potential piece of evidence and having a joint examination by authorities. Yet, authorities would need, I would assume, a warrant to get that phone anyway. There'd have to be some evidence that crime was committed. I mean, it seems like the family could hold on to it if they want. But this is interesting to see this correspondence on that point alone. Yeah. So, first of all, the phone should be examined because this is still a investigation. And the phone, I understand that he left it behind. when he went on the island, but it could have relevant evidence. The first thing that should happen with a phone when it is, has potential evidence,

is it should be imaged. You get a technology vendor who basically makes an electronic duplicate of the entire phone. And one of the reasons you do that is to preserve the evidence. So, because things can happen to a phone. A phone can be dropped. A phone can be lost. But you can make an electronic snapshot of the phone. And I'm surprised, it appears that hasn't been done yet.

And then I would think the phone ought to be made available, or the snapshot, ought to be made available to law enforcement to do whatever examination they feel appropriate. It's odd to have the victim's family negotiating with law enforcement for how, the evidence is going to be examined. I mean, think about that. In any context, do you, have you heard of a victim's family negotiating with law enforcement on how an investigation is going to be done? It seems to me there is a level of distrust. And it seems to me there was a level

of distrust that was built upon the idea of authorities initially saying there's no foul play. So they want to make sure that this is done thoroughly, which is why I believe they've hired Ben Crump to put a spotlight on this. But what's interesting as well about it is this is all about whether any, you know, messages were deleted? Was there tampering with the phone in any way? Does the phone, the messages provide a timeline of what happened to Nolan? I mean, that's part one. And then you get into the idea of the independent examination of Nolan's body, because as we reported here on Sidebar, according to Ben Crump, Dr. Mitchell's report was kind of limited. He couldn't tell cause a manner of death because there were certain body parts, I believe

the throat, the neck from Nolan that were missing, presumably because the state examiner had it was doing additional testing on them or they were trying to see if you know that could determine drowning or something like that but there seems to be uh this recognition that he might be able to examine those body parts yeah so so that's more complicated you know the phone once you make that image of it multiple people can examine it yeah so the prosecutors can examine it and if you don't trust the prosecutors you can hire your own forensics people to do their own examination and you can examine away because you've handed over an image more complicated with body right because you can't make a duplicate of the body the body parts or the body

parts and i don't know what condition they are in but but that's it's concerning that there is a dispute about that final point so there was this a press release from the d a on august 18th and it said in part. As district attorney, I do not have the same freedom to share information publicly that private individuals may have. For example, I do not have the freedom to release letters I've sent in this investigation, discuss witness cooperation, or the testing of evidence. I cannot control which facts or bits of information are shared or whether that information is being shared in context, twisted, or misconstrued. Public commentary does not make the speaker transparent, just like exercising restraint consistent with the law, does not make the process

corrupt. The fact that something is said does not necessarily mean it's actually true. Prosecutors are held to the highest ethical standard under law as we should be. There is nothing more to be shared at this time. I caution the public about assigning trustworthiness to things they read and see online. I also ask, rather than those individuals demanding that I step outside the bounds of the law and make public statements, we all step back, allow the process to work, and allow us to do the job we were elected to do. I stand. firmly on the rule of law and my ethical obligations. That is what the people of Jackson County elected me or selected me to do rather. I will present the grand jury with a thorough, complete,

and fair investigation into the death of Nolan Wells. Rich, why make that statement? Because you're saying publicly what should be obvious. And I agree with this statement. And I think this is a point that comes up a lot because we have these investigations that go on. and everybody wants to know what's happening. What have we found out? What have we looked at? What's the evidence say? What did the witnesses say?

And the prosecutor is saying, I can't tell you that. I'm not allowed ethically to get up on a podium every day and give you an update of the investigation. That's not what I'm supposed to do. Right. And I can't respond if someone like Al Sharpton is talking about it or the lawyers for the witnesses are talking. are talking about it, I can't respond to that stuff publicly because my job is to investigate and if there's something to present to the grand jury or charges to be brought to move forward with that process, not to inform the public on an incremental basis. And I think the prosecutor

here put out the statement to make that point publicly because we're very critical on these investigations and really they shouldn't be giving updates. They should be investigating. Yep. Look, this is a unique case, unique case with both what's happening with the investigation, what is happening behind the scenes, what you're seeing publicly, it's getting ugly. We'll continue to follow it. Rich Schoenstein, always appreciate you coming on and always appreciate your insight. Thank you, sir. Always glad to be here. See you, Jesse. And that's all have for you right now here on sidebar everybody thank you so much for joining us and as always please subscribe on youtube apple podcast spotify wherever you should get your podcast you can also check us out on

nbc's peacock as well if you want to follow me x instagram my news nation show jesse weber live monday through friday 11 pm eastern i'll see you next time everybody