Murdaugh Murders Podcast - TSP #108 - Clocking That Tea: Unmasking the Spivey Case Lies Told By The Attorney General’s Office

Starting point is 00:00:00 This episode is brought to you by Square. You're not just running a restaurant, you're building something big, and Square's there for all of it. Giving your customers more ways to order, whether that's in-person with Square Kiosk or online. Instant access to your sales, plus the funding you need to go even bigger,

Starting point is 00:00:18 and real-time insights so you know what's working, what's not, and what's next. Because when you're doing big things, your tools should too. Visit Square.ca to get started. Hey there, EB here, your faithful Cup of Justice co-host. I am so excited to tell you about my new book, Anything But Bland. In this memoir, I share stories about my childhood, marked by bullying, my father's job loss, and the indomitable spirit that propelled me into the law and ultimately international

Starting point is 00:00:50 recognition during the Alex Murdoch murder trial. I believe in certain life principles that have helped me and helped others achieve success, from the power of organization and a sense of urgency to the importance of truth, leadership and resilience. With vivid recollection from challenges and triumphs framing each chapter, success isn't about luck. It's earned through skill and hard work. Please visit TheErikBland.com to learn more about the book, Anything But Bland is the manifesto for those seeking triumph over adversity and a guide for anyone aspiring to reach their full potential. I don't know if incompetence or corruption led the Attorney General's office to mishandle

Starting point is 00:01:39 and bungle the Scott Spivey investigation. But after listening closely again to their legal explanation for why they decided not to press charges, I think everyone in South Carolina should be concerned about the message Alan Wilson is sending in this case. Especially if he wants to convince voters that he can handle the office of the governor.

Starting point is 00:02:06 Inaction speaks louder than words, Alan. My name is Mandi Matney. This is True Sunlight, a podcast exposing crime and corruption, previously known as the Murdoch Murders podcast. True Sunlight is a Lunar Shark production written with journalist Liz Farrell. Well y'all, we have a full episode for you today on the Scott's Bybee case, aka the Horry County Police Department Corruption case. Starting with what went down in the courtroom last Thursday in the wrongful death case against Scott's killers, North Myrtle Beach businessman Weldon Boyd and his friend Bradley Williams.

Starting point is 00:02:53 Neither Weldon nor Bradley was charged in Scott's death. Last week, lawyers for Weldon and Bradley and for Scott's older sister, Jennifer Spivey Foley, who is representing her brother's estate and suing on its behalf, appeared before Judge Eugene Bubba Griffith for a hearing. As you already know, Jennifer is also responsible for exposing extensive amounts of misconduct by the police, already resulting in a senior officer getting fired, and the number two guy in charge of the agency being pushed out, as well as exposing what appears to be the willfully blind eyes of solicitor Jimmy Richardson, attorney general prosecutor Heather Weiss and SLED agent Nathan Poston. It is

Starting point is 00:03:36 this wrongful death case that has helped bring sunlight into the very darkest of places in the South Carolina justice system. The hearing was for a few things. To start with, it was a hearing for a hearing. Weldon and Bradley are claiming that Scott was killed in self-defense and that the Stand Your Ground law protects them from liability in this case. So before Jennifer's case can move forward, Weldon and Bradley are going to have to prove to Judge Griffith that what they did that day on Camp Swamp Road qualifies as self-defense under the standard ground law. For her part, Jennifer will be allowed to offer a counterargument to that. That hearing, which is essentially a mini trial with witness and expert testimony, is

Starting point is 00:04:22 expected to be held later this year. In court on Thursday, several things happened. Weldon had been fighting Jennifer on turning over his medical records to her, and Bradley was fighting her on having to hand over Facebook messages between him and Weldon that Weldon had instructed him to delete,

Starting point is 00:04:41 which was captured in a recorded phone call on September 13th, 2023, just four days after they killed Scott. Their argument was that they didn't want these things to be made public by her, so Jennifer's attorney Mark Tinsley agreed to a consent order. None of the discovery from the defense will be released to the public by the plaintiff, and if the defense publicly comments on any aspect of the case, Tinsley agreed to consult Judge Griffith before publicly responding.

Starting point is 00:05:10 Also discussed at the hearing was the defense's request for the court to order Horry County Police Department to give them a sample from the strands of hair they collected from Scott in September, 2023. Now, why do they want the hair? They want to test it for steroid use. And with that, guys, when I say we are off to the races, I am not exaggerating because in open court, Mark

Starting point is 00:05:33 Tinsley, aka Zero Dark Tinsley and Tinsley the Tiger, put on the record that there is evidence that Oregon County Police Department might have planted the 26 blue pills found in a hidden compartment in the backseat of Scott's truck. I would pause here so that you all can be like, what? But I know no one listening right now is at all shocked because let's face it, the Orea County Police have already proven themselves to be very open to and adept at making sure the fix is in for certain people.

Starting point is 00:06:04 That reminds me, if you're just joining us for our real-time coverage of this case, I highly recommend you pause and head over to our episode description where you'll find a link to a playlist with all our past episodes on this case. This has been one seriously wild ride and it's only going to get more so. Back to the 26 pills. So to start with, remember how Jennifer fought to get her brother's case file and how the Horry County police wouldn't give it to her because Scott wasn't a victim and therefore she wasn't a family member of the victim, which is not a requirement for a Freedom of

Starting point is 00:06:40 Information Act request, by the way. Closed cases are subject to FOIA by anyone in the public, and it shouldn't be that hard. Oh, and remember how once Jennifer was given the case file, it didn't contain everything? She's had to subpoena for things that were supposed to be in that file. And let's not forget back in early May when Chief Chris Leonhard announced to the public

Starting point is 00:07:02 that they had recently discovered several allegedly mislabeled videos that weren't included in the case file. And that announcement came immediately after being told by Sled, who were told by Tinsley, who was told by us that one of their senior officers, Damon Vescovy, was caught on body camera writing a note to Weldon at the crime scene telling him to act like a victim. Well also not in the case file is the drug analysis report. The report that supposedly shows that the pills Scott allegedly had in

Starting point is 00:07:32 his truck were in fact anabolic steroids. Why not? Great question. We're going to go into a lot more detail in a future episode about what our research is showing when it comes to the steroid story. Because, and this is for those real Housewives fans out there, this is a real receipts proof timelines situation. For today, we want to devote all our focus to what happened in April 2024 when the Spivey family learned in the very hardest of ways that South Carolina has two very distinct systems of justice. One for the good old boys like Weldon Boyd and the other for people who mistakenly thought

Starting point is 00:08:19 that the laws applied to everyone. In episode 106, we told you that we recently received a recording from this April 2024 meeting between the Spivey family and Assistant Attorney General Heather Weiss, who sat down with the Spivies to explain why she wasn't filing any charges against Weldon Boyd or Bradley Williams in Scott Sp By V's death. In episode 106, we played the first three minutes of Heather's Here's Why I Don't Think Charges Against Weldon and Bradley would lead to a conviction speech and it was telling.

Starting point is 00:08:57 It was one of the most revealing recordings in this entire case. And as y'all know, there are a lot of recordings. This one though, gives you the unique opportunity to sit in and hear what it sounds like when a prosecutor who is supposed to be fighting on the side of justice tries to rationalize why she very clearly isn't doing that. And you can hear for yourself how much of that justification for not charging Weldon

Starting point is 00:09:27 and Bradley was based on the lies and demonstrably false accounts of the shooters in witness number one, a young woman who goes by BlazeAdrien on Facebook. Over the past two weeks we have told you about each of the five witnesses Weldon said saw everything from start to finish, who he says backed his story completely in the so-called cut and dried self-defense case. We also dove deep into Blaze's ever-changing story, which was disputed by evidence and basic common sense. Her testimony would never hold up in court in our opinion and it is stunning

Starting point is 00:10:06 that Heather didn't look into the case file enough to see that. Anyway, those episodes about the five witnesses are going to come in handy for you today because I think you're going to feel our outrage and especially the Spivey family's outrage by what was said in this meeting. Here is a quick rundown. Witness number one did not see Scott shoot at Weldon and Bradley, but claimed Scott had shot her car, which he didn't. He didn't even shoot Weldon's car.

Starting point is 00:10:37 The day after the shooting, after police inspected her car and found no damage, she continued to lie about her car being struck by a bullet or casing or glass. Witness number two saw Scott holding his gun, pointed in the air with the slide back, stopped in the middle of the road yelling at Weldon and Bradley to stop following him. Witness number two did not see Scott point or shoot, but he saw Weldon unload a magazine in Scott's direction. Witness number three saw absolutely nothing because she was on her phone and she was ducking

Starting point is 00:11:13 to avoid getting hurt. Witnesses number four and five spent over an hour and a half talking to Weldon and Bradley inside the crime scene tape. They saw Scott in a cat and mouse game with Weldon on Highway 9. And witness number five said that she saw Scott with his hand outside of the window. She did not see a gun. Witness number five gave investigators the story that Weldon gave to him and then questioned why Weldon continued to follow Scott, and whether that would count as self-defense. Neither witnesses, four nor five, saw or heard the shooting.

Starting point is 00:11:50 They drove past Camp Swamp Road, and saw Weldon and Scott stopped on the side of the street and decided to double-check because they wanted to help. But also, we suspect there was a little bit of nosiness there. Suffice to say, if they had seen a gun in Scott's hand on Highway 9 and still doubled back to see what was going on without ever calling 911, one would have to question their sanity there. Anyway, in the clip that we played a few weeks ago, Heather falsely claimed that multiple 911 calls revealed that Scott had been driving

Starting point is 00:12:25 erratically on Highway 9. The only calls in which these claims were made were from Weldon himself, the shooter, and from Blaise slash witness number one, who for some reason waited four miles after she said Scott pointed a gun at her and continued to keep pace with his truck before calling 911. So in this meeting, Heather Weiss told the Spivey family, including a cousin in law enforcement, that she could not charge Weldon or Bradley in the shooting of Scott Spivey because essentially they, as in the defendants, the two guys that she does not work for in this scenario, they might argue that the shooting was justified by stand

Starting point is 00:13:13 your ground law and that Weldon following Scott for almost 10 miles before pulling over behind him, that was justified, she said, by citizen's arrest law. Which, like we said in Cup of Justice, no duh, Heather. Every defendant has a defense. Your job is to show how the defense doesn't hold up against the evidence. Even the most strident Second Amendment fan does not want to live in a society where you can be justifiably shot and killed by any old person after retreating from a scuffle. Now we're going to play more clips today from that meeting where Assistant Attorney General Heather Weiss explained her twisted justification to the Spivey family, who are,

Starting point is 00:14:01 by the way, some of the most kind, respectful, and reasonable people around. Get ready to curse and scream on their behalf. Here is Heather. There's a couple different theories under which, you know, I felt like this case, there was nothing to go forward on on this case. And one is, in South Carolina, we still recognize a citizen's arrest, right for a citizen's arrest. And if you see a felony occur, you have the right to arrest that person as a citizen and use reasonable force to do so. So keeping that in mind, having back your mind, I'm not saying that Weldon Boyd said that that's what he was going to do. I'm not putting that out there.

Starting point is 00:14:46 I'm just saying as a lawyer, I'm evaluating that because that is part of our law. The other part of it is that we have a stand your ground law in our state as well. And the stand your ground law is something that has really changed, even in my time in prosecuting. So I've been prosecuting for right at 25 years now. And even in those 25 years, it's changed how we approach cases, has changed how we prosecute cases, has changed the trajectory of a lot of cases that were handled one way 20 years ago, and we have to handle them differently now because of this law. And what the law says is that you have a right to be in any place that you legally have a right to be. That includes in your car,

Starting point is 00:15:35 that includes in your car on a public road. So the idea that the shooting car was in a public place where they had a right to be, there's no duty to retreat, you can't bring upon the harm yourself, but what we have is prior to the gunfire exchange, you have not only the statements of the people in the car, you also have the fact they were on the phone with 911, so you have that kind of ongoing description of what's happening, and you have the 911 calls of the other people who were observing things. And then the statements of the people who actually pulled off were there as well. So you have their statements as well.

Starting point is 00:16:25 So what we know is that Scott was pointing the gun, running, driving erratically, and running at least the truck with the trailer off the road. So the fact that Weldon Boyd followed him when he pulled off on Camp Swap Road, he was still in a place he had a legal right to be. And when the cars stopped, as you know, neither of the shooters got out of their vehicle.

Starting point is 00:16:59 Scott got out of his vehicle and walked to the back and said, stop following me. But he had his gun and then he pointed his gun at the car. At that point, what our law says is if you're in reasonable fear of your life or safety, you can respond with reasonable response. Okay, Heather. So that's stupidly true. If you see a felony occur in South Carolina, a state where nearly 50% of households own at least one gun, according to the Rand Corporation, you have the legal right to arrest someone you witness committing that felony

Starting point is 00:17:34 and use reasonable force to do so. But this is so problematic. First, she's left out the part where the law requires the person doing the so-called citizen's arrest to announce to the other person that this is what they're doing. As you'll recall, Weldon didn't do that. Which brings us to the second point. Heather really wants everyone to know that Weldon didn't even come up with that defense. And he didn't come up with that defense because that wasn't even on his mind when

Starting point is 00:18:02 he was chasing Scott in his giant 700 horsepower truck. But for some reason, Heather Weiss, the prosecutor, jumped through those mental hoops to get there on Welton's behalf. Which if Weldon's attorney thought citizen's arrest was a winning defense, you better believe in the seven months before getting cleared, Weldon would have had t-shirts made with Citizen's Arrest Hero written on the front, and his restaurant would have been offering free shrimp plates to other

Starting point is 00:18:29 Citizens Arrest Heroes to really drive that defense home. They didn't do that, and that's because even they probably realize how lame that argument is. Again, it's not the prosecutor's job to come up with esoteric defense theories to absolve someone. Their job is to analyze what evidence they have to rip those defense theories apart in the name of justice.

Starting point is 00:18:52 You know, like we've been doing week after week? What? Like it's hard? Also, the AHE's office has no evidence that Weldon witnessed Scott committing a felony. Drugging recklessly and speeding are misdemeanors and there is no evidence that Scott pointed his gun at anyone. The three witnesses who said that he did are Weldon, Bradley, and Blaze who, in this situation anyway, have the combined credibility of a possum stinking of death and lying on the

Starting point is 00:19:23 ground with its mouth hanging open just waiting for you to walk away so it can stop the drama of pretending to be dead and carry on with their lives. The only witness who saw the shooting on Camp Swamp said he saw Scott holding the gun with the slide back and pointing it toward this guy, not pointing it at Weldon, who unloaded his gun on him. So this theory Heather is using to justify her very bad decision not to charge Weldon and Bradley is based on lies, inconsistencies, and a total lack of familiarity with the evidence. Because again, how was Scott supposed to know they were performing a citizen's arrest?

Starting point is 00:20:02 Did Weldon put his sirens on? Did he yell over a bullhorn? I am from the House of Boyd, put down your weapon or I and my Kingsguard will arrest thee? No, he saw Scott get way ahead of him and he heavy footed it to catch up with him because his truck was better. Because Scott was messing with the wrong man.

Starting point is 00:20:23 Because Weldon seemed to be fixing for this kind of fight. And because Weldon was having, and I quote, a blast. And again, why didn't Weldon and Bradley tell the cops that they were making a citizens arrest when they first spoke to police that evening? Because that's not what they were trying to do. But okay, go off Heather about how you decided that Scott was definitely pointing a gun on Highway 9 based on the word of two men who probably, and I'm just guessing here, don't want to be charged with murder. And the word of a woman who told 911 he's pointing the gun at the white truck right

Starting point is 00:20:59 now, right when Bradley was snapping pictures of Scott not pointing the gun at them. Anyway, we didn't mean to interrupt Heather's TED Talk on how to be part of the Good Ol' Boy system as a woman, but more from her after a quick break. And we'll be right back. Okay, now we're back to the 2024 recording of Assistant Attorney General Heather Weiss explaining to the Spivey family why she was not going to charge Weldon Boyd or Bradley Williams based on a false narrative that's backed up, honestly, by zero evidence. So once the gun is pointed at them, they don't have to try to examine and see was the gun loaded, was the gun not loaded, was there a safety on, was it not? All of that is stuff that, you know, we think about later, but in the moment, once the gun is pointed at them, the

Starting point is 00:22:06 gun has been raised in the air. Whether or not he fired a shot first, I think he probably did because of the witness that said she felt like she heard something hit her car. And she heard, I believe a shot was fired, but really and truly at the end of the day, that's not supportive. Once he's done all of those things and then he gets out of his car, walks in front of their car and points the gun and they shoot from their car towards him, that one, that just becomes a stand your ground justified shooting. that just becomes a stand your ground, justified shooting.

Starting point is 00:22:47 And then he goes back into the car and then there's information they said that he continued to shoot. And if you look at the pictures, his arm with the gun is back like it was facing back out the back window. So the idea that he got back in the car and pointed the gun back at him is consistent with where the gun is found

Starting point is 00:23:04 and where his arm is found in the car and pointed the gun back at him is consistent with where the gun is found and where his arm is found in the car." Here Heather is claiming that Scott pointed his gun first on Camp Swamp Road. But remember episode 102 when we looked at exactly what witness number two saw and how one of the investigators completely misrepresented what he said. In the summary that he submitted about it, let's take another listen to witness number 2's 911 call right after it happened. Okay, so a guy got out of his truck, he was in a black truck, he got out of his truck with a pistol drawn, the slide was open.

Starting point is 00:23:40 He told the guy, do not follow me anymore. The guy in the white truck had his gun drawn pointed at him. And the guy in the black truck kind of like moved his pistol. And the guy in the white truck just unloaded a complete magazine at the guy. I saw through his back window and I think he might have hit him. Again, he was the only witness to the shooting besides Bradley and Weldon and Scott. And he did not say that he saw Scott pointing his weapon. In fact, he pretty much painted Weldon as the aggressor. So again,

Starting point is 00:24:11 Heather has bad information and clearly didn't read the case file or bother listening to the recordings closely, which is deeply concerning because it is literally what taxpayers pay her salary to do. It is stunning that Heather Weiss is relying on Blaze's narrative that she believed a bullet hit her car when there is zero evidence to back that up. There is only evidence that this did not happen, according to law enforcement, by the way. And why does it seem to make sense to Heather and no one else who hears about this part that Blaze, who again, waited four miles after she says Scott pointed a gun at her to call 911, why she would speed up wall-on-the-phone with 911 so that she would be right there in the pack with the guy who, according to

Starting point is 00:25:06 Blaze, almost took her life. And who then took a right onto Camp Swamp Road 10 seconds after seeing Scott and Weldon, the two cars that were tussling and now full-on speeding, take that same turn. Why does that make any sense to one of our state's top prosecutors? And how can Heather say that the important part of this is that the shooting became a stand your ground case when Scott walked in front of Weldon's truck and pointed his gun when there is no evidence at all to back that up. None.

Starting point is 00:25:47 The only reason this is something she thinks that happened is because Weldon and Bradley said so. But how can she say this knowing about witness number two's 911 call? How can she say this knowing that no bullets from Scott's gun hit Weldon or Bradley or Weldon's truck. How can she say that Scott shot from where the back of his truck was, knowing that only one single shell casing was found outside of Scott's truck, and it was under the driver's side wheel? It was not anywhere near the back of his truck."

Starting point is 00:26:23 I actually have the answer for all of those questions, because Heather Wise likely relied on a sled agent and relied on a police agency known for its shenanigans to tell her what happened, and she stubbornly stuck to that. Worse, she appears to have shooed away the logical thoughts of what sounds like a very pesky law clerk, who you will hear about more in a minute. So after all of that, Heather Weiss, without taking a breath, then launched into her long-winded explanation about why Weldon and Bradley were justified shooting at Scott at least 40 times. shooting at Scott at least 40 times.

Starting point is 00:27:11 And so the fact that they shot until the threat was gone, that's, you know, the hardest thing is I've had to learn as a prosecutor because I'm not one that generally, I mean, I know how to shoot a gun. I don't don't shoot guns regularly. Be it, I don't hunt. I don't do any of that. But so one of the hardest things for me to learn is that people generally don't fire one shot unless they run out of bullets or gun jams. That once if somebody be it law enforcement, cyber abuse, law enforcement cases as well,

Starting point is 00:27:38 once they're faced with the imminent fear of death, and they pull the trigger, they keep pulling the trigger until the threat is eliminated. And that's, I think, a physical response as well as, for law enforcement, I think it's also probably somewhat trained as well, but I know it's also a physical response. It's not like you see on TV where they fire one shot, it knocks the gun out of the hand, and then it just, that's not what happens. And I've had to understand that, come to understand that over 25 years of prosecuting cases, that

Starting point is 00:28:11 it's not unusual to see four, five, six, seven, eight shots when you have two people shooting and it doubles. That's not unusual. As much as I would have thought it was 20, 25 years ago. As I've gotten into more gun cases, it's just multiple gunshots are not unusual. And do not impute any more intent. If somebody comes up with somebody and unloads their gun into them, an innocent person, whatever, that's a different thing. But when you're talking about guns being pointed at each other, when you have multiple gunshots in that situation, it doesn't

Starting point is 00:28:50 necessarily mean somebody had more, had malice or impute any sort of mental process other than once they start firing, they keep firing. Sorry. Again, I have to say, okay, Heather, we understand the concept that once you feel like you are in imminent danger of being killed by another person in South Carolina, that you have the right to shoot at that person threatening you until you are certain

Starting point is 00:29:19 you are no longer in danger of losing your life. No one is really questioning that. It is telling that you have such little information to back up what you're saying, that you spent an entire two minutes talking about your own experience with guns. Who cares? How is that relevant?

Starting point is 00:29:36 Oh, and your 25-year career, and how you've learned about human nature from examining whether charges should be filed in officer-involved incidents. We would love to see your stats on that one, by the way. And well, we have all learned from you today about how real-life crimes are not like they are on TV, where people apparently only fire once or twice. And we also learned how you clearly haven't watched Bosch in action because Harry Bosch

Starting point is 00:30:03 will empty a mag and not even care about the internal affairs investigation that follows. And am I forgetting anything? Yes, I am. I'm forgetting, much like Heather seems to have forgotten, that the issue isn't why Weldon and Boyd shot so many bullets at Scott. The issue is why did Weldon and Bradley feel as though their lives were in danger? Was it because they had followed a man with a gun who had not only retreated at that point, but who Weldon had intentionally caught up to by recklessly gunning his roadrunner truck like an emotionally unregulated fool? I'm just gonna say it Heather.

Starting point is 00:30:41 You need to brush up on your logic puzzles because if Weldon and Bradley feared for their lives enough to justify shooting Scott then, even though Scott isn't here to tell his side of things, I think it's fair to say that Scott felt that his life was threatened. Even Weldon has said that to his mother on one of his phone calls. Scott saw that big TRX take that corner after him and he got out of his truck to tell Weldon and Bradley to leave him alone. And yeah, he had his gun in his hand when he did it. You know why, Heather?

Starting point is 00:31:09 Because on the 911 call, Weldon told the dispatcher that he and Bradley had their weapons pulled in the car prior to getting on the phone call. But then he changed that story later to say that he and Bradley had not pulled their weapons until after seeing Scott put their lives in danger on Camp Swamp Brood. So is it reasonable to think that if men like Weldon and Bradley, who both have digital paper trails showing how much they wanted to be that proverbial good guy with a gun,

Starting point is 00:31:37 might have shown Scott that they too were armed when they were all on Highway 9? And is it possible that Scott was terrified too? Again, something that Weldon has admitted to his mother, that Scott was terrified. And is it possible that Scott also didn't want a gunfight? So he made sure he was holding his gun in a way that would visually communicate to most people but especially to two people in a TRX truck, likely gun-affixian autos, that he was armed but not fixing to shoot. Okay, let's hear more from old Heather. Still not taking a single breath of air,

Starting point is 00:32:12 10 minutes into this meeting, Heather shared her absurd summary of Weldon and Bradley's defense with the Spivey family, which once again is not her job, no matter how many times she tells them it is. So from that perspective, from the citizens' arrest, which like I said, nobody's said that from their side, that's just my legal analysis of it, there's a right for him to go and use reasonable efforts to try to arrest and stop the threat. But then there's the stand your ground that ultimately I think prevails over all of this that once Scott got out of his car walked around talked to them but once he lifted the gun and pointed it at him then that was at that point they had a right to fire because they were in fear for

Starting point is 00:33:06 their lives and that's really kind of like I said I'm just analyzing a very short period of time but that was my analysis and deciding there's just I'm not a lot I mean I think they I'm not allowed to bring a charge that I don't believe could be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But at the end of the day, that's what I think, you know, what's the day. I can't ethically bring a charge that I can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that I don't believe I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. And I can't, and with the Stand Your Ground law,

Starting point is 00:33:45 you can't even bring a charge. If you believe that it meets Stand Your Ground, Stand Your Ground is a free charging decision. And so if you believe it meets the elements of Stand Your Ground, based on the law, you're not even allowed to bring a charge. It's not, self-defense is an affirmative defense. So we could bring a charge,

Starting point is 00:34:01 and then the defense could raise self-defense. You go through a trial and we present evidence. Of one thing, they present evidence of self-defense. The jury decides if the self-defense, you know, if it meets the elements, the jury finds them not guilty. Stand your ground, which takes self-defense, takes out the duty to retreat or avoid the harm, says you cannot charge if it meets those elements. And this is a case where I just feel like it clearly meets the elements. Based on the fact that I have multiple 911 calls

Starting point is 00:34:31 from the road, Highway 9, where Scott was running the car off the road, pointing a gun out of the window and driving erratically, then that, that then pulls off on camp swap and gets out of his car, walks around the car, says stop following me, but then lifts his gun up and points it at them. At that point, based on our law, he has, they have the right to defend themselves because they have a reasonable fear of their life being taken. Okay, so let's do a little law school session here and break this down. Let's say Heather Weiss had charged Weldon and Bradley with murder or manslaughter in 2024.

Starting point is 00:35:15 They would likely have requested an immunity hearing, and we know this because of the wrongful death case, in which a judge would have to determine whether the Stand Your Ground law applied to the situation at hand, meaning that this was in fact a killing done in self-defense. There would be no jury involved in that. Heather mentioned that self-defense is considered an affirmative defense. What that means is Weldon and Bradley are admitting they shot and killed Scott

Starting point is 00:35:41 but are also saying that they believe the law protects them in doing so. And because it's an affirmative defense, the burden also saying that they believe the law protects them in doing so. And because it's an affirmative defense, the burden of proving that what they did qualify as a self-defense would fall on Weldon and Bradley and not the state. In determining whether Weldon and Bradley did, in fact, kill Scott in self-defense, the judge

Starting point is 00:35:58 would have taken some things into consideration, in addition to Weldon's and Bradley's arguments. First, the judge would have needed to determine whether the standards of the law were met, which might be why Heather was saying that she is, quote, not allowed to charge Weldon and Bradley as she believes they have met the standards of the law for immunity, which she clearly does and we clearly don't. And the reason we don't is in addition to the evidence that was available to Heather at the time, there is case law about this that

Starting point is 00:36:28 has established those standards. And we don't think Weldon or Bradley have met at least two of the elements. Heather says that there's no duty to retreat, and she's right about that, according to the statute. But this isn't a situation that the writers of the law likely envisioned. What they likely were envisioning

Starting point is 00:36:44 was something more like when someone tries to carjack you or busts into your home. In South Carolina, you don't have to run from the threat or retreat if you have the means to fight back. You can quite literally stand your ground with lethal force if you feel like your life is in imminent danger. But for a killing to be considered in self-defense, the killer can't have fault in bringing about the so-called difficulty, which means Weldon and Bradley can't have contributed to this dispute with Scott. And I don't know about you, but speeding on the highway so you can chase down a person who is actively retreating away from you, which is what Weldon did to Scott, would seem

Starting point is 00:37:23 like Weldon and Bradley have some fault there. Also, Weldon would have to be in reasonable fear for his life, which sure, on Camp Swamp Road, maybe he can make that argument. But only if we hold it in isolation with our eyes squeezed shut. Because Weldon knew Scott had a gun when he continued to chase him. He knew that guns can lead to a potential loss of life and he feared he might claim of getting shot and killed by Scott, seems to be negated by the fact that he continued to follow Scott while barking at the dispatcher that there was about to be a shootout and he was going to have to put Scott down. What's more, once he got onto Camp Swamp, he would have known that with the slide back, Scott was communicating to him that this was a warning.

Starting point is 00:38:06 Stop following me. And I cannot stress this enough. In the middle of all of this, Bradley felt like his life was in such imminent danger that he paid his phone bill. What? Anyway, even though that statute dictates that there's no duty to retreat, Heather might also have been able to use a pre-existing standard for self-defense to argue that this case is different,

Starting point is 00:38:32 that what Weldon and Bradley did to Scott is different from what the authors of the law intended when deciding there would no longer be a duty to retreat, and that the courts had already decided that considering what self-defense looks like, it can matter whether the killer had choices available to them before the deadly act. And that's this standard. The killer can't have had, quote, probable means of avoiding the danger of losing his

Starting point is 00:38:57 own life or sustaining serious bodily injury than to act. The intent of not having a duty to retreat is to allow property owners to defend themselves in a very perilous moment without having to justify to everyone why they didn't instead try to physically escape the danger or talk the assailant down. Weldon ran toward the alleged danger, which had already subsided, one could argue. One could also argue that it escalated the threat. And that, one could argue, is called mutual combat. But back to the main point.

Starting point is 00:39:31 If what happened on Highway 9 is the moment when Weldon was met with the alleged life and death threat of Scott, which Heather argued in that meeting with the Spivy's that it's why Weldon and Bradley were justified in killing Scott and not retreating, then how would Weldon's decision to turn onto Camp Swamp Road, a road he did not need to be on to get to his farm, qualify as not having had probable means of avoiding the danger and choosing to do it anyway? Retreat should not even be a factor in this case as far as Weldon and Bradley are concerned, but stick a pin in that one. We'll talk more about it.

Starting point is 00:40:07 So another thing the judge would have to consider in this imagined immunity hearing is Weldon's and Bradley's credibility and the credibility of their account. Meaning Weldon and Bradley would get to present their evidence to the judge. Moreover, they wouldn't be able to invoke the Fifth in answering questions, and the prosecution, Heather Weiss, would be permitted to debunk their arguments through cross-examination, and she would get to present her own case as to why immunity wouldn't apply here, and the judge would decide on what the facts say about the situation. If the judge had decided that immunity didn't apply, then that would be it. The case would not have moved forward.

Starting point is 00:40:45 But if the judge had decided that immunity does not apply, then it would have gone to trial where Weldon and Bradley would still be able to assert self-defense as their defense, and it would be left to the jury to decide. At any rate, while the burden of proof is on the defense and not the prosecution to prove that immunity is warranted, it doesn't mean the prosecution does nothing. They do what they're supposed to do in

Starting point is 00:41:09 that role, which is fight back so that that 51% burden of proof, the preponderance of evidence, becomes 0%. And by the way, this is why the wrongful death case against Walden and Bradley is so critical because if the judge presiding over that immunity hearing decides their case doesn't meet the standards of this standard ground law, then that's it for them if they're charged criminally. That civil hearing will have already determined their fate if the Attorney General's office does change its mind and decide to prosecute them. They won't be able to request another immunity hearing, they'll just be headed to trial. Anyway,

Starting point is 00:41:44 if I'm hearing Heather correctly, to be a prosecutor in the state of South Carolina, you apparently don't have to look at the actual evidence. So maybe that's why her decision makes sense to her. Because for her to have prepared for this immunity hearing, which she could have guessed that Weldon and Bradley would have asked for, Heather would have had to, you know, look at the evidence and think about things harder. Also, it seems like Heather is saying when you, as a prosecutor, get a case sent to your office because the local guys, aka Horry County Police, who are part of a demonstrably problematic and corrupt agency, are saying that they are too connected to the main

Starting point is 00:42:22 shooter in this case, you can just take those officers at their word and take the word of the shooters and call it a day. As long as that word meets Heather's standards for Stand Your Ground to apply. Unfortunately, Heather's standards could have deadly consequences for the state of South Carolina and anyone who visits there. Do you all see what's actually happening here with the

Starting point is 00:42:46 citizens arrest nonsense? Even though she says otherwise, Heather seems to know that Stand Your Ground law alone does not fully cover Weldon and Bradley because Stand Your Ground law cares about what happened on Highway 9. She needs the law to care about what happened on Camp Swamp Road. But like Liz just told y'all, in our opinions, and in a lot of opinions, Weldon and Bradley don't meet at least two of the standards for Stand Your Ground immunity.

Starting point is 00:43:19 The reason we think Heather knows this is because by mentioning a citizen's arrest defense, she's giving herself away. She has to know that a person driving on the road, seeing a man flash his gun at them before he peels away down the highway away from them and then deciding to call 911 and report it and then continue on their way home is not called retreating. It's called being smart and safe and not creating more chaos on a busy road, not contributing to the difficulty.

Starting point is 00:43:52 Heather wants to judge Scott's actions under a harsh light, but what about Weldon's? What if Weldon had just reported it, moved on and gone on to his blueberry farm? I mean, I'm no prosecutor, but it doesn't take a law degree and a 25-year career to understand when you have a two-piece puzzle and find out that neither piece will snap into place with the other. You can't just jam them together and expect the Spivey family and your pesky law clerk,

Starting point is 00:44:23 apparently, and now the public. Not to be like, girl, you're really bad at puzzles. Maybe try again to find the right pieces." Anyway, that brings me back to my original point. Heather seemed to know that Stand Your Ground didn't fully account for Weldon's decision to follow Scott. So what did she do? Tada! She deployed the antiquated Citizens Arrest Law. She took that law out of its Band-Aid box and slapped it on top of the Stand Your Ground law, and she totally failed to cover up the boo-boo. Heather Weiss continues to be in denial that this wound is now festering, and it's up to

Starting point is 00:45:03 her to make it heal before more damage is done. More on that after a quick break now and get a free chili dog. Chili dog not included. The Naked Gun, tickets on sale now, August 1st. Coors Light is launching a fake record label and they wanna sign you for a chance to win an unforgettable all access artist experience at Oceaga. Enter now at CoorsLightRecords.ca.

Starting point is 00:45:41 No musical talent required. La la. Wait, what key is this? Must be legal drinking age. No purchase necessary. So after Heather's lecture on why it would be unethical of her to charge two men who followed their alleged threat to a second location. Scott's family was allowed to ask Heather questions. Scott's mom, Deborah, did her homework and started with tackling the most egregious claim that Heather made in her theory, that she said

Starting point is 00:46:18 multiple people had called 911 to report Scott's erratic driving on Highway 9. I do have a couple of questions. 9-1-1 calls. How many 9-1-1 calls were that indicated he was driving erratically other than Blaze? Because from the time he left Boardwalk Billies till the time whatever happened there there was not a single 911 call that we know of that reported he was driving erratically, he was running people off the road or that he was pointing or showing a gun. Not

Starting point is 00:46:57 from boardwalk billies to that point. Now that we are made aware of. They shared with us, the 911 tapes, Lays, we heard that, and she's the one who followed, and we understand that. But how many others were they indicating that he was driving erratically and trying to run this other truck off the road. I can get the report or anybody else will send it. And I don't have transcripts of them because I listen to them. I listen to them and then I read statements. So that's

Starting point is 00:47:39 the only one that we recall. The other witness statement that you have, and I'm just going to interject for a second, was Monica, if I remember correctly. Monica was not kept separate at the scene. She is standing behind Weldon. I have a picture that she is standing behind Weldon as Weldon has given his statement to the police officer. And then she gives her written statement to Horry County police after that. She was not kept separate and she listened to everything he said she is within from me to you from him while she's

Starting point is 00:48:14 listening to all that. And I understand she may have seen what she saw, but I also know that when you hear the only party that's living side, it makes you take sides also." Phew, y'all. Side note, my teenage cousins from Kansas are in town this week, and they taught me a new term that the kids are saying. Clocked that T. Meaning called out their lies. And wow, Jennifer and Deborah Spivey clocked that tea here. Not only did they mention that the only other 911 call reporting road rage was Blaze, whose

Starting point is 00:48:53 story changed and was not backed up by evidence, but Jennifer mentioned the indisputable evidence of Weldon inserting himself into the investigation by speaking with witnesses, which should have tainted their testimony. And what a good point about Scott and his driving, right? Interesting that no one reported seeing Scott's erratic driving to 911, or that he was randomly, for no reason, pointing guns at fellow drivers until he crossed paths with Weldon Boyd on Highway 9. It's not until that moment that Scott is allegedly driving in and out of lanes and brake-checking Weldon.

Starting point is 00:49:35 Meaning, it's not until Scott comes into the vicinity of Weldon, a man who was having a very, very bad day, who was known for being very self-important. It was only until then that Scott became problematic." Well done, Debra. That is what building a case for the prosecution looks like, and the mother of a man in a shooting shouldn't have to be the one doing the work. Same thing goes for Debra's amazing co-counsel, her daughter, Jennifer Spivey Foley, who continued to politely clock Heather's tea.

Starting point is 00:50:12 Um, we have had serious doubts of how this was handled, um, as soon as this began. Um, before we get to that though, I have, I do have have a question if you don't mind. In the footage that came from Willard's fireworks stand, he is one truck linked off of Scott's bumper. In the pictures that he took of Scott forning and presenting, I'm not saying what my brother did was right. I am not taking up for that. And yes, I understand that there would have been criminal charges for him.

Starting point is 00:50:47 But at what point, if you're the victim and Scott would be considered the adversary, at what point do the roles, I'm not saying that Scott, what points do it reverse when he's being followed at a truck length away for five miles. It appears to us it's a road bridge incident that started at Tracks and Claws. We did get to listen to the 911 tape and it was very hard for us to hear if we see the gun again, we're taking this motherfucker out. He's speeding up, he's trying to get away from us. He's turning in up here, I'm going to turn in after him. That was very hard for us to hear. And I know from the

Starting point is 00:51:25 Stand Your Ground, once you become a willing participant, self-defense is not allowed. At what point do you become a willing participant in the altercation, is my question, with the Stand Your Ground also. Because it'd be one thing if you were following at a safe distance. And also, Horry County in that, from what we heard, never told him to stop pursuit. They never said, they never said, how close are you following him? And there was four minutes on the phone before the shooting occurred. To me, that's plenty of time to have asked those questions. That is my question is, is at what point, and I understand from

Starting point is 00:52:07 your point of view how you're explaining it, and I do understand that, but I just want clarification on... She's asking when does he regain his right to self-defense? Yeah, when does Scott regain his right to self-defense? Because what it, I mean, how did, he's not here to tell us. At some point, I mean, regardless of what he did father up the road, if he tries to disengage and they keep reengaging, at what point does he have a right to self-defense also? Thank you, Jennifer, for pulling us back from whatever backward southern lawyer planet Heather's ideology comes from, and back to reality, where people don't chase people in self-defense. It's impossible to know what happened between Weldon and Scott on Highway 9 because Scott, whose words should count just as much as Weldon's,

Starting point is 00:53:01 is not here to tell us. But it is possible to know what happened during the last six miles of their 10-mile interaction. When Weldon not only chased Scott, remember what Weldon said about this? Oh, I was on his ass, mama. He also made a decision to further follow Scott, a man with North Carolina tags, down Camp Swamp Road, the known route that those living just over the border take to get home. At what point did Scott have a right to stand his ground? It's a very important question.

Starting point is 00:53:36 Because if the answer is he didn't, as Heather says, then South Carolina has just made it a state where anyone can be killed for any reason, so long as the person who survives can afford an attorney with connections." But back to the meeting. Jennifer then repeated Weldon's own words from the 911 call. And gosh, as hard as it was for them to hear this, I am sure it was even harder to repeat those words back to the prosecutor who would not help them. I wanna play a couple clips from Weldon's 911 call,

Starting point is 00:54:13 just for a reminder. Hey, I've got a guy pointing a gun at me driving. We're armed as well. He keeps throwing the gun in our faces. I don't like he's not the shooter. If he keeps this up, I'm gonna shoot him. Where are you at? I'm on Highway 9. He's trying to run from me now. Yes, he's aiming guns. Listen, this dude shoots at me. We're gonna put him down.

Starting point is 00:54:41 He's, I mean, this dude's insane. Are you following him or is he following you? He's been following us, now we're behind him. We've got pictures of him holding, I've got pictures of him aiming the gun at us, everything. He's about to put the gun out again. So this guy aims that gun at me, we're gonna have to shoot him. He's about to put the gun out again. So, if this guy aims that gun at me, we're gonna have to shoot him. Yeah. Hmm. Now, that's what Jennifer's talking about.

Starting point is 00:55:14 The series of decisions made by Weldon to continue to pursue Scott, that Weldon himself recorded, the way Weldon seemed to predict the outcome as he needlessly continued to pursue Scott and close that distance between the two trucks. Jennifer asked, during all of that, would Scott also have the right to stand his ground, and at what point does it switch over from Weldon and Bradley to her brother? Here is what Heather said back to Jennifer. So, there are many I can give you examples.

Starting point is 00:55:45 If he had pulled off and stayed in his car and not gotten out, not pointed a gun, not gotten out, stayed in his car, even called 911 and says, listen, there's a guy that's been following me. He's behind me. Um, you know, I pulled off and the guy is still sitting there. Can somebody come help me? At that point, he is disengaged. I pulled off and the guy is still sitting there, can somebody come help me? At that point, he is disengaged.

Starting point is 00:56:08 Now, under the citizen's arrest, he's still committed felonies and if they could still try to detain him, but they can't walk up and shoot at him if he's not, if he, you can, there's reasonable force. So if he shoots a gun, if he points a gun, as if he's going to shoot or shoots a gun, you know, that raises the level. But they still would have the right to be there to try to detain him and tell him to stop, wait on the police to get there and all that. Heather Weiss is falling into what we call the perfect victim trap that bad prosecutors so often use as an excuse for not pursuing justice by blaming

Starting point is 00:56:46 the victim for not doing everything perfectly in the moment they were killed. There are no perfect victims and yes, in a perfect world, Scott would have pulled over and called 911. But notice her reasoning still hinges on Scott having pointed his weapon at Weldon first and there is simply no evidence to back that up. Also, she is still saying that Weldon had the right to chase and pull over Scott due to the citizens arrest law. Based on the felony, she doesn't have evidence of Scott committing.

Starting point is 00:57:16 But more than that, Weldon did call 911. And what good did that do? Because instead of waiting for the cops, he made the unilateral decision to keep following Scott. So is Heather saying that if Scott had called 911, he too could have unloaded a mag into Weldon for following him and it would have been fine as long as he stayed in his truck and shot from there? Come on! The Castle doctrine applies to your vehicle, sure. And that's what Weldon thought exonerated him. He felt threatened in his truck, so he took action from his truck.

Starting point is 00:57:48 And maybe this reasoning would have applied back on Highway 9 when Scott allegedly pointed the gun at Weldon, but things don't add up there either. First, Bradley Williams describes seeing Scott point the gun at them and said he reacted by turning to Weldon and asking, do you know him or something? Second, and again, I can't say it enough, in the middle of all of this, while Weldon was shouting his drama at the 911 dispatcher, Bradley took the time to pay his phone bill. Three, both Blaze and Weldon said Scott threatened them with the gun on Highway 9, and yet both of them continued to follow the so-called threat.

Starting point is 00:58:23 Why does it not matter to the prosecutor that Weldon chose the fight? So after Jennifer raised the point of Scott feeling threatened, again, something that Weldon has admitted to in his recorded phone calls, a family member with law enforcement experience spoke next. I agree with what you're saying as far as the stand your ground. The stand your ground is you come to me and start a fight. I don't have to run. Stand your ground is not you come to me, start something.

Starting point is 00:58:48 I chase you down and I finish. There's case law, which I know you're aware of that. It supports that. So at some point, the Supreme Court of State of Carolina has said that you can regain your right to self-defense. That being said, that's kind of where they're coming from. And we just need to have an understanding why that never we materialize.

Starting point is 00:59:13 I understand that he's the point in presenting the point in presenting can't be used against you if it's for self-defense. It sells you cannot bridge your right to self-defense. If the weapon is being displayed in a manner to try to communicate, leave me alone. The law allows for it. So that being said, I don't know what occurred. I know they said he pointed a gun at him like through women. If he did that, it is what it is. That being said, he is a law enforcement officer. I can't just point my gun out. The law does not present, give me the right.

Starting point is 00:59:48 I pull my gun out for no reason. I'm pointing it in and present a firearm. It comes out, present the firearm. So there's gotta be a reason. It's either there's a threat, I'm trying to deter, something of that nature. And if you look at the pictures, wrong, right, and different, I like to think I got a little bit of common sense.

Starting point is 01:00:06 It's not a lot, but he's got his finger outside the trigger guard. He's holding it up in the air, looking back in the mirror. So they're doing 90 miles per hour. Going down a highway. And I know you're probably not familiar with number nine. Have you been on one of these?

Starting point is 01:00:21 I haven't. That room's not busy. Why can't you back off a couple hundred yards, you ain't got to be on his left. Why are you on his left? And once you go to 911, he had 46 chances to stop. 911 had his information. And that's the question, I'm sorry. No, everything that you're saying is absolutely the same things that my law clerk who was

Starting point is 01:00:44 working with me on this, the same things that we discussed, the same things that my law clerk who was working with me on this, the same things that we discussed, the same things that we talked through. The problem is what the law doesn't allow is for us to turn around and say, well why didn't he do this? Because once you get to Camp Swap Road, that's where that ultimate decision of the firing and ultimately the fatal firing occurred. So the only reason I think, well, the main reason I think that other information is important, like you said, the pointing the gun through the window. They definitely say that. And, you know, Scott's not here to say.

Starting point is 01:01:19 Okay, so there's that pesky law clerk we mentioned a little bit ago. I can only imagine how many times this clerk was like, mmm, that doesn't sound quite right. I bet they learned quickly that there's no use trying to save Heather from herself. Again, I don't think Heather is right about her interpretation of the law in this case, and it doesn't seem like she's familiar with the process. I think the intention of the law was to protect people from criminal repercussions and civil liability when they are forced to take fatal action against another person threatening their lives.

Starting point is 01:01:48 And absent the rest of the context, sure, that seems like it would have applied to this scenario. But that's only if you're looking at the case with blinders that you are choosing to put on. Because in what world does Heather think legislators intended this law to protect people seeking revenge? The law was intended to protect people on the defense, not people on the offense. And because seeking vengeance, which Weldon seemed to be doing at that point, put Weldon

Starting point is 01:02:18 on the offense, it made him the aggressor. Every choice Weldon made after giving 911 Scott's license plate number and speeding to catch up with Scott is an offensive decision. Because let's not kid ourselves here. Weldon didn't take that turn to quote, follow Scott until the police get there. He knew damn better.

Starting point is 01:02:38 Years earlier, he was in a similar situation and chasing someone until police could get there. And the dispatcher told him, don't do stop following him so Weldon knew better and Weldon didn't take that turn to check on his trailer because what dummy chooses that option oh the guy with the gun just turned down that road I guess I should do that same thing now would be a really good time to check my trailer and that seems safe just stop Weldon took that turn because he wanted to show Scott that he had more power, in our opinions. Best case scenario, Weldon wanted to see Scott

Starting point is 01:03:12 get arrested so he could be like, this is my territory son. But we don't even need to imagine what the best case scenario is because we know why he turned down the road. He told the dispatcher there's about to be a shootout. And then there was a shootout. More on that after a quick break. ["The Time Is Now"] ["The Time Is Now"] No Frills delivers. Get groceries delivered to your door

Starting point is 01:03:40 from No Frills with PC Express. Shop online and get $15 in PC Optimum Points on your first five orders. Shop now at NoFrills.ca. Now here is Assistant Attorney General Heather Weiss further explaining to the Spivey family why she believes Scott did not have a right to stand his ground on Camp Swamp Road, but that Weldon did have that right. And again, her reasoning is not only based on bad evidence, it's based on not knowing the evidence. We do know that he was, that he was intoxicated, which can't, you know, impair your judgment.

Starting point is 01:04:19 So, you know, which does lead more to the benefit of maybe he did do something like that. I don't know why. But that's more to show that this, that it wasn't just a, the shooter's car was following him, you know, and chasing him until he stopped to the point that, you know, he felt like he had to get out and point a gun at them, that there was other stuff that happened that put them at risk as well as other people on the road at risk.

Starting point is 01:04:52 So when they pull off, you have to take that situation knowing what had already happened. And so then when you get to that time, and that's something, and you know this too, when you're evaluating even officer involved shootings, shootings which I do a lot of you go through and you go through this person was notified of this they should have known this and they should have been aware of this issue and and yes all of that is true they should have there are all kinds of issues leading up to it but I have to evaluate the shooting itself. And at the time of the shooting, the person who shot knew this, didn't know those things, should have, but didn't. And the person, you know, observed this, and this is what they knew, and they fired, this is what

Starting point is 01:05:36 happened. And you have to look at the actual shooting. And so I use that sort of information to show that it wasn't, like you said, it was not Weldon's car, Weldon Boyd pursuing him and him just trying to get away from Weldon, that these other things happened. Right. And so when they stop, he doesn't stay in his vehicle, hoping that Weldon will just drive off or whatever. He chooses to engage, get out of his vehicle, go back, say, stop following me and point

Starting point is 01:06:03 his gun. And so at that point they react. Now, you know, in South Carolina, as you know, I mean, our gun laws are, people are allowed to have guns, people are allowed to, and so, you know, at that point, I mean, he says on the call, which I agree with you, is disturbing when you listen to it, you know, we're, we're armed and if he points a gun at us, he fired at us, we're going to take him out. I don't like that anymore. Well, I know you probably like it a lot less.

Starting point is 01:06:32 I don't like that either. I don't like the way that sounds. But I have to take a step back and say, okay, well, that's not illegal. What he says is if he points a gun at me or... He's within his right. I don't think he said if he points it, he sticks it out. He shows me that he's running an animal shooting. And I agree with what you're saying. The issue I have with the standing ground is the standing ground, or at least what my understanding of the standing ground is, I don't have to run for you if you engage me.

Starting point is 01:07:06 Okay, I honestly feel like screaming. Again, Heather is relying on a premise that she can't possibly know to be true. She does not know that Scott pointed his weapon first, or at all, because the only evidence of this is Weldon's word and Blaise's interpretation of what she was saying. We know that Weldon's word and Blay's interpretation of what she was saying.

Starting point is 01:07:26 We know that Weldon's word can't be trusted because he's protecting himself and he seems really bad at the truth, according to his phone calls. Here is another sample of that. Here is Weldon talking to his mother two days after the shooting. I honestly think that he got out that truck and he thought that maybe that he maybe thought I was chasing him or what, but I think he thought he was a badass and shot a warning shot.

Starting point is 01:07:58 And he didn't expect that when he fired, well, if his story is true, he didn't expect that, but he didn't fire no damn warning shot he aimed that gun at me he'd look me dead in the eyes and I've seen those fucking eyes before in my life and I knew what they meant because when he I'm sitting here fighting trying to get the truck in reverse and Bradley he didn't say it loud. You can't hear it on the 911 call. You hear me yell, I can't. And then Bradley just calmly said, Weldon. And when I looked up, he was aimed at me.

Starting point is 01:08:37 And he was looking me in the eyes. And I've seen those eyes before. I knew what was coming. I stopped worrying about backing up, I immediately drew my pistol, and before my pistol could be up and over the steering wheel to fire back, he had already started shooting." There are so many things in that short minute that just gave Weldon away. He looked Weldon dead in the eyes. Um, from 30 yards away? What an amazing ability.

Starting point is 01:09:08 And Weldon has seen those eyes before? Weldon admitted that he's never aimed a gun at another person, nevermind shot another person. And also, he admitted that he didn't see any combat while serving in the Middle East. So when exactly did a man set those eyes upon Weldon before this? On TV? Because Heather Weiss says real life isn't like TV, so maybe you should listen to your protector. That said, we all know that Blaze's ability to accurately interpret what she is seeing is unreliable. There is literal evidence showing this. Not just one instance, multiple.

Starting point is 01:09:49 Plus again, why did it take her four whole miles after allegedly having a gun pointed at her to call the police? And why did she keep pace up with Scott after this allegedly happened? I'm not saying she didn't see Scott with a gun and again, I'm not saying that she wasn't terrified. I'm saying this was between Scott and Weldon in maybe a second white truck, not Blaze and Scott. Blaze didn't know that when she was on that 911 phone call, but she knew after, and Heather should definitely know that.

Starting point is 01:10:25 I'll say it again, Weldon appeared to be seeking revenge for what he says happened on Highway 9. Taking that turn onto Camp Swamp was a conscious decision to escalate the matter. In Weldon's own words on the 911 call, That is what the evidence shows. Okay, so back to the meeting. Here is Scott's mom, Deborah, raising another important point. Remember how we said the Citizens' Arrest Law requires the citizen to make a reasonable attempt to notify the person that they're under arrest? And how would Scott know that he was making a citizen's arrest?

Starting point is 01:11:07 That was his intention. If he's just continuing to follow him, and this is a big truck with a huge trailer, which is a dangerous length trailer to be going, if they said 90 miles an hour, how would Scott have known this person's intent was to just stop him and arrest him and not do something else? And here is how Heather later addressed that question. Now in the citizen's arrest, I was looking at, well, and my law clerk, because my law clerk was saying, you know, well, same question. You know, well, why did he, you know, why did he get off on the exit? And so we were trying to explain legally, you know, one, he has every right to get off on the exit, too.

Starting point is 01:11:49 There's, you know, it's a public road. You can get off on the exit just, just like Scott can. But, you know, with the citizens arrest kind of idea, which I'm, and I'm not saying that was going through their mind. I actually think that's probably the better than the stand your ground. But the problem you have with citizens arrest is again, I go back to, I can't do that. If I get out there and go get in my truck right now and I see you pointing a gun, I go chasing you, that's on me.

Starting point is 01:12:15 I'm breaking the law. They can put me in jail. I mean, it is what it is. Well, but you're leaving out a lot of other things. I mean, there's a lot of stuff that happened. But at the end of the day, was the shooting lawful or unlawful, like you said? And so he has the right to get off the road. He has the right to be sitting as far,

Starting point is 01:12:33 right there on the road. And Scott made the decision to get out and come back with the gun to the vehicle. And he engaged. And that's when the shooting took place. And it is my belief that they acted reasonably in fear for themselves under the standard ground at that point.

Starting point is 01:12:54 And so when you, and I know it's hard to isolate at that point, there's a lot of questions and very valid questions that you have that may be prudent to a different type of court. But just for my analysis, I just want you to know where I got my analysis. Because we spent a lot of time, I mean, I'll tell you, because my law clerk, you know, was asking a lot of the same questions and I wanted to be able to answer her questions as well. I'm like, okay,

Starting point is 01:13:16 you know, I know that I'm good with this, but let's let's look at all of that. Let's look at the questions you're asking and, you know, and figure that out. Because I want to be able to answer my law clerk's questions. If she's going to ask them, so is everybody else. And so that's why I was explaining the rest of it. Like, I mean, yes, if they knew what a citizen's arrest was and they were intending to do a citizen's arrest, he had stated as far, they had to walk up and say, you're under...

Starting point is 01:13:43 Yes, you're absolutely right. You're absolutely right. There's that pesky law clerk again. Okay, let me just get the obligatory part out of the way. There's no evidence that Scott pointed his gun at Weldon and Bradley on Camp Swamp Grove. There is only evidence that he didn't. Weldon was not intending to citizens arrest Scott. That's Heather trying to retrofit Weldon's and Bradley's action into a box marked exonerations for friends of the Horry County Police Department.

Starting point is 01:14:11 Did you hear where Heather told the family that the questions they have about these laws would be prudent to a different type of court? I have to catch my breath here because again I feel like screaming. Presumably Heather means through the appeals process. So essentially she's saying, I can't help you with that one. While also acknowledging that the way for those questions to get answered through a different type of court would be to first try and prosecute Weldon and Bradley and see what happens.

Starting point is 01:14:39 See how successful their defense is. Test the boundaries of the laws you say protect people who chase someone for the majority of 10 miles before shooting and killing them. See what the juries have to say. Also, how can Heather justify any of her reasoning when Weldon chose to go down Camp Swamp Road? Sure, he had a legal right to be there, but it wasn't a road he would have taken but for Scott turning down at first. And additionally, just having a legal right to be somewhere does not give you full authority on taking someone out and believing that the law protects you on that one.

Starting point is 01:15:14 But it wasn't a road he would have taken but for Scott turning down at first. And also, the argument that he had a legal right to be there, that Weldon was legally in his right to be there, doesn't mean he had a legal right to kill Scott. I got a question, you may use the term he was intoxicated, which we know he had had some drugs. We know he had eaten a few things. But we also, I know as a scientist, that if you don't take those samples and report them to the medical test, the results mean... Maybe.13 blood alcohol level. Maybe.13, but if you don't do it at a certain time frame, it's not related in a proper procedure. And it's not as jane and pussy with all of it. That means nothing.

Starting point is 01:16:01 In other words, you can't say it is possible. One was.13 and one was.10, depending on whether it was from the eye or the heart. They were different. That and spectra was not. So that would mean it would be a false high. And I appreciate that, but I think again, you're going into another realm of the case. That is not what we're here for. of the case. That is not what we're here for.

Starting point is 01:16:33 You're going into another realm, says the woman who repeatedly pointed to Scott's alleged intoxication as a reason why he was justifiably killed by two men who had chased him for miles. We've talked about this before on True Sunlight. It would be one thing if the coroner had taken Scott's body from the scene and put him in the morgue that evening. But that's not what happened. Scott's body sat in the South Carolina heat for hours before it was transported in his hot vehicle by a tow truck 20 plus miles to an impound parking lot in Conway, where Uri County investigators took Scott out of his truck and put him on the ground in what looked like full rigor mortis and in the heat.

Starting point is 01:17:11 And then spent the night with Scott's body while removing his clothing piece by piece until he was naked and photographing him each step of the way, on the ground, in the heat. As Jennifer, who is a biology teacher, has said, a fermentation of sorts occurs under those conditions, perhaps inflating Scott's blood alcohol content. In addition, there is surveillance video showing the last few hours of Scott eating and drinking at Boardwalk Billy's. He bought shots for people around him. He ate a full cheeseburger and fries and had a few drinks. Based on that video alone, it is hard to believe Scott

Starting point is 01:17:46 would have been over the legal limit and too intoxicated to drive. If Scott's alleged intoxication factored into Heather's so-called legal analysis, then these are questions she should have had the answers to, but instead she chose to blow off the family. And honestly, that's the problem here. Heather's legal analysis was based on bad facts, a lack of knowledge about the evidence

Starting point is 01:18:13 in the case file, and a really poor understanding of the law. Like Liz said, Weldon and Bradley having a legal right to be on Camp Swamp Road does not absolve them one bit. That's like saying it's okay to drown the guy cleaning your pool because this is your house. You have the legal right to be there and you don't want to pay his bill. Now, we're not even done sharing this entire recording with you. There is more. And yes, it somehow keeps getting worse. But I want to leave you with this. I want you to think about all of the facts in the case that Heather Weiss got wrong in this meeting

Starting point is 01:18:55 when explaining how she decided not to prosecute Weldon and Bradley. She said that there were multiple 911 calls accusing Scott of pointing his weapon at cars on Highway 9 when in reality, no other calls existed except for Weldon's call and Blaze's call. There's also the false narrative that Scott walked in front of Weldon's car and pointed his weapon at them before shooting at Weldon. And none of that is backed up by evidence.

Starting point is 01:19:27 There's also the non-existent felonies that she claimed Weldon witnessed Scott committing in real time, giving him the right to do a citizens arrest with necessary force. And then there's Scott Spivey's BAC level that was not reliable due to the amount of time that they took to get it. Something that she should have questioned when she learned that police, outside normal protocol, kept Scott's body and his truck in the heat for hours,

Starting point is 01:19:58 towed the truck and with his body inside, then kept him in the heat for more hours. I want you to imagine for a second that you were Heatherwise. Imagine you were assigned to this case in the fall of 2023 after Solicitor Jimmy Richardson asked your office to take over, due to the shooting suspect, Weldon, publicly thanking Horry County Police and the 15th Circuit Solicitor's Office for their hard work on the Spivey case. If Heather Wise was a fair and honest prosecutor, she would have spent months, just like we have, going through the massive amounts of evidence in this case with a microscope, searching not only for evidence of crimes to charge

Starting point is 01:20:46 for but also looking for public corruption since the appearance of impropriety was already alleged in this case, according to Jimmy Richardson's September 15, 2023 letter. She should have listened to the phone calls between Weldon and his deputy police chief buddy, Brandon Strickland. If she did, she would have heard Strickland tell Weldon that he was working in the shadows on the night of Scott's death, and that he specifically sent a good old boy to the scene, and that he sent the right people to the scene,

Starting point is 01:21:22 and that they had ordered an autopsy for Scott, specifically to help Weldon's case. If she was an honest and fair prosecutor, she would have watched the same video that Beth Braden watched of Damon Vescovy writing Act Like a Victim camera on a piece of paper that he showed Weldon before he was interviewed by investigators. Heather would have heard Blaze's conflicting stories about what she supposedly witnessed, and Heather would have noticed the lack of evidence to back up her claims. She would have known that Blaze was the only 911 call besides Weldon claiming that Scott

Starting point is 01:22:03 was pointing a gun at people on Highway 9. And at the very least, she would have heard the part of Weldon's 911 call where Bradley said, God damn it, Weldon. Why couldn't you effing leave him alone? You know what? I take it back. It would not have taken Heather Wyse months to do this. We knew from the very first day that what we were seeing in this file was disturbing.

Starting point is 01:22:30 So if Heather Weiss was an honest and fair prosecutor who was not influenced by political pressure to close this case without asking too many inconvenient questions and without pressing charges, wouldn't she stop to think, huh, something isn't right here? Wouldn't Heather think, why did Horry County Police have to work so hard for Weldon if the Stand Your Ground defense was so cut and dry? Imagine you are Heather Weiss, weighing all of the evidence stacked up against Weldon and Bradley.

Starting point is 01:23:08 The changing stories, the phone calls, and text messages from Weldon before and after the shooting, the audio and video showing Weldon interfering with the witnesses on scene, the bullet casings on scene, and probably most importantly, Weldon's own 911 call. Would you seriously think that this was a case that you couldn't even press charges for due to stand your ground and citizens arrest? In last week's Wall Street Journal article about the Scott Spivey case, it was reported that Heather Weiss admitted to South Carolina lawmaker Kevin Hardy that she did not hear the 911 recording from Weldon's truck, where Bradley said,

Starting point is 01:23:51 "'God damn it, Weldon, why couldn't you effing leave him alone?' Of course she did not hear that recording, because it's obvious from her statements in this meeting, as Jennifer called out a long time ago that she did not thoroughly investigate the case file materials before reaching her conclusion to not press charges. If she had heard that recording from Weldon's truck, she would have heard how clear the gunshots were. And if she was a decent prosecutor gathering evidence for charges

Starting point is 01:24:27 as she should have been, that would have perhaps led her to have the recording analyzed to see if she could determine if Scott did in fact shoot first. Unfortunately, would've, could've, should've does not help anyone get justice. But Attorney General Alan Wilson can fix this by recusing his office from the case and asking Governor Henry McMaster to appoint a special prosecutor. So what is he waiting for? And don't tell me he is waiting for Jennifer Spivey Foley to do the work for him. Heather Weiss failed to do her job as a prosecutor here, in our opinion, and that is on Alan Wilson to correct if he ever wants to be trusted for handling public corruption cases going forward and especially if he ever wants to be governor.

Starting point is 01:25:22 Alan Wilson's office failed Scott's bivy, and we need everyone to make sure he knows this case isn't going to fix itself and will only get bigger and worse for him as his campaign progresses. Stay tuned, stay pesky, and stay in the sunlight. Co-hosted and reported by journalist Liz Farrell. Research support provided by Beth Braden. Audio production support provided by Jamie Hoffman. Case file management provided by Kate Thomas. Learn more about our mission and membership at lunasharkmedia.com.

Starting point is 01:26:15 Interruptions provided by Luna and Joe Pesky.

Your Ad Here

Murdaugh Murders Podcast - TSP #108 - Clocking That Tea: Unmasking the Spivey Case Lies Told By The Attorney General’s Office

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.