Murdaugh Murders Podcast - TSP #137 - Crashouts, Crying and Lots of Lying: Weldon Boyd Testifies in Stand Your Ground Hearing

Episode Date: February 20, 2026

Investigative Journalists Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell are back in court... remotely. For the past three days, Mandy and Liz have been watching the Stand Your Ground immunity hearing in the Scott Spivey Shooting case — along with thousands of True Sunlight fans. Watch Friday's hearing with LUNASHARK Premium Members, or watch on Facebook or YouTube. Weldon and Bradley say they killed Scott in self-defense. But as Spivey attorney Mark Tinsley said in his opening statements this week... he’s never heard of a road rage case where the innocent party chases the aggressor for 9 miles at excessively high rates of speed.  Testimony has been explosive and the defense has so far put forth a contradictory and thinly threaded case. Which only got worse on Day Three when Weldon Boyd himself took the stand... Lot's to cover… Let's Dive in… 🥽 Episode Links Support Independent Journalism with a Premium LUNASHARK Membership 💖 Send the Spivey Family your encouragement and positive thoughts! 🌐 Nancy Mace’s Stand Your Ground FB Post 🌐 Castle Doctrine Statue from SC Code of Law ⚖️ Public Hearing Links 🎞️ Day One Day Two Day Three Stay Tuned, Stay Pesky and Stay in the Sunlight...☀️ Learn more about LUNASHARK Premium Membership at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠lunashark.supercast.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ to get bonus episodes like our Premium Dives, Wherever It Leads..., Girl Talk, and Soundbites that help you Stay Pesky and Stay in the Sunlight. Plus BTS content from Murdaugh: Death in the Family AND Mandy's book Blood On Their Hands. ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Support Our Show, Sponsors and Mission: https://lunasharkmedia.com/support/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Quince⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Hungry Root⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Bombas⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://amzn.to/4cJ0eVn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ *** ALERT: If you ever notice audio errors in the pod, email ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠[e-mail]⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ and we'll send fun merch to the first listener that finds something that needs to be adjusted! *** For current & accurate updates: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠lunashark.supercast.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram.com/mandy_matney⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠   |   ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram.com/elizfarrell⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠   ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠bsky.app/profile/mandy-matney.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠bsky.app/profile/elizfarrell.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TrueSunlight.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠facebook.com/TrueSunlightPodcast/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram.com/TrueSunlightPod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠youtube.com/@LunaSharkMedia⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠tiktok.com/@lunasharkmedia⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I don't know if Bradley Williams and Weldon Boyd will be granted immunity in the Scott Spivey case. But after watching the defense present three days of testimony, it is clear to us that neither the facts nor the law are on their side in this case where crime meets corruption. Oh, and we can't wait to see what Mark Tinsley does next. My name is Mandy Matney. This is True Sunlight, a podcast exposing crime and corruption previously known as the Murdoch Murders podcast. True Sunlight is a Luna Shark production written with journalist Liz Farrell. Well, hello. I want to start out the show by giving my husband David the absolute praise and thanks that he deserves for what he did last week to fight for transparency in the Spivey case. David participated in a press pool meeting with Judge E.

Eugene Bubba Griffith to lay out the rules for media coverage in the hearing this week. A newspaper reporter said before this meeting that the judge was very much against live broadcasting, but that did not stop David from asking. During the press meeting, David was the only journalist, and yes, he is a journalist now, to ask the judge to consider live streaming in the spivey stand-your-ground hearing this week. I swear, my heart meldell heart melted. When I heard him on the Zoom calls say, Judge, Democracy dies in the dark, and this case truly matters to so many people who need to see what is happening. The judge heard David. So if you are watching the hearing this week on our feed or on a TV station,

please know that we have this privilege because of David and his advocacy for transparency. And if you really want to thank David, the best thing in the world that you can do for him And to show your appreciation is to join Lunashark Premium. And this week, you can watch the hearing live with us, which will continue through Friday and possibly through next week. These hearings are a lot for us to cover live. Our team is working overtime. And props to Eric Allen on the ground in ORI County.

Our members and sponsors make this work possible. So join Lunashark Premium today at the link in the district. And thank you to Elaine, Susan, Rebecca, Megan, Summer, Kristen, Bridget, Wendy, Tara, Sarah, Catherine, and so many others who joined Lunashark Premium in the last few hours. We really appreciate your support of our mission to expose the truth wherever it leads, give voice to victims, and get the story straight. Okay, y'all. The Stand Your Ground Immunity Hearing in the Scott Spivey Wrong

death case is finally here. We've been watching every minute of it and taking score. And y'all, it is not pretty. As you know, this case has a lot of very notable things going on at once. First is the fact that we wouldn't be having this conversation if it wasn't for all of the steadfast work of Scott's sister, Jennifer Spivey Foley, who from the start felt that something wasn't right with the investigation into her brother's death. And boy, was she right. 33-year-old Scott Spivey was shot and killed on Camp Swamp Road in Loris, South Carolina, following a road rage incident just before 6 p.m. on September 9th, 23. six months later, South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson decided not to charge Scott's killers.

North Myrtle Beach restaurant owner Weldon Boyd and his friend Bradley William, in Scott's killing, citing specifically the stand-your-ground immunity and the citizens' arrest law, the latter of which wasn't even something Weldon and Bradley were claiming that they were attempting to do with Scott. In February 2025, after almost a year of fighting ORI County Police Department to get Scott's investigation file, Jennifer did something that Alan Wilson, Ory County, and Sled appear not to have done, which is actually look at the evidence. What she discovered is what brought us to this week. The evidence has shown that numerous anomalies occurred in the investigation,

which appears to have been the result of Weldon's close relationship with several Ory County Police Department members, including the now former Deputy Chief Brandon Strickland, who is now a salesman. Brandon and his crew helped protect Weldon and his friend from facing accountability not only criminally, but they were also working in an effort to hinder any further claim that Scott's family might make.

Also discovered in the evidence file, dozens of personal phone calls that Weldon recorded between him and so many people, and those calls exposed the truth. Things were exactly as they looked to Jennifer Spivey. Weldon was getting help from the police, and it would also seem the 15th Circuit solicitor Jimmy Richardson as well as others. And he admitted in those calls to chasing Scott and having a quote-unquote blast killing Scott.

For the past year, we have examined every piece of evidence that we could get our hands on, including every word uttered and written by the eyewitnesses that Weldon repeatedly claimed corroborated his story, which, no, sir, they did not. It's been an infuriating assignment, not only because of the depth of police and government corruption, not only because it's exposed state attorney general Alan Wilson for being a pathetic, cowardly, untrustworthy ding-dong, not only because Weldon's support team has seemed intent on ruining Scott's reputation and making Scott's family's lives harder, not only because in a fit of petulence and terrible legal advice, Weldon is currently suing the plaintiff's attorney, Mark Tinsley, aka Tiger Tinsley,

for defamation, for we're not actually sure why. Not only because it's yet another example of wealthy, good old boys being able to pay their way out of trouble, and not only because there have been, by our count, anyway, eight investigations so far into this case. Eight. The assignment has been infuriating mainly because after all this reporting and research and reading and being able to recite facts of this case by heart, we can't actually make a good guess at how Judge Eugene Bubba Griffith will rule when the hearing, which is expected to go through Friday, and maybe longer, is over. We have no idea which way he'll go. And that's not because of the evidence we're seeing in court. Nope.

It's because this is South Carolina and sometimes the fix is in. In fact, Congresswoman Nancy Mace, I know. Believe me, I know. Tweeted on Tuesday that a source told her that the judge had already made his decision before the hearing had even started. And he was going to rule against. the spivey family, which take that with a grain of salt. One, because Nancy is running against Alan Wilson for the Republican nomination for governor, and she's not one to ever resist kicking him in the doorbell whenever she can. And two, because actually, Bubba ain't that bad so far. Judge Griffith seems to be engaged in paying attention, and so far, pretty fair and reasonable.

So even though, as Weldon likes to say, this case is 100% cut and dried, black and white, Okay, well, Weldon wouldn't say this next part, but you get it. Absolutely not self-defense, in our opinions. And even though that on its face means nothing in South Carolina, meaning, again, we can't take that check to the bank and cash it. We can't make an educated guess as to how this will end. But we have some optimistic thoughts here. Because if Judge Griffith is engaged in paying attention like we think he is,

there is no way in ORI County Hell, or is it L, Ory County L. that he could possibly grant Weldon and Bradley immunity. Well, maybe Bradley, but let's not get into that today. We've talked about it before and how there seemed to be a path for Bradley to escape his very serious fate by stepping away from Weldon. But he hasn't. He has two small kids and a wife who actually seems to like him a whole lot and vice versa. But no, his reckless, needy friend Walden comes first. Anyway, today we're going to give you some highlights from the proceedings so far.

And just a little reminder here, Weldon and Bradley have the burden of proving that killing Scott wasn't just done in self-defense, but done according to the law. See, the law protects them from criminal and civil liability if they are able to show a few things. Now, this hearing wasn't an automatic thing, nor would it have been had Alan Wilson and his office actually had guts and stood up to the police. God forbid Allen and charged Weldon and Bradley back in 2024. Wellden and Bradley had to make a motion for stand-your-ground immunity, which triggered this hearing. Were this the criminal version of this case, it would look the same way, but with way worse lawyers, because you can't beat Mark Tinsley. And you can't beat his associate in this case, Natasha Hannah. When she cross-examined one of the expert witnesses this week, she immediately gained the nickname Lady Tiger from our premium member hearing chat, which this is 2026.

It should just be Tiger. Unless we all mutually agree to change Judge Newman's nickname for Mark, from Tiger to Gentleman Tiger. Decide amongst yourselves on that. Or maybe Tiger 1, Tiger 2? I don't know. That said, there's some thought out there that it was very stupid of Weldon and Bradley to go through with this hearing. Especially with special prosecutor, and yes, Alan, he is special. Barry Barnett presenting the spivey case to the state grand jury, whether it be Walden and Bradley's case or the case of Orie County Police Corruption.

Because this is it. If they don't get stand-your-ground immunity here, then they don't get it in any criminal case that might be coming their way. They can still claim self-defense as a defense, though, which is absolutely something a legal system created by good old boys, poor good old boys, would allow for. The judge said no immunity because you weren't standing your ground? No worries. Now that you have to face the consequences, you will still get to say it was self-defense. Just not the manly way. Wild.

Okay. Okay, so the hearing is like a mini trial without a jury. The judge gets to decide which witnesses and testimony and evidence is credible and whether the defense, again, it's the defense, not the prosecution in this case, has met its burden. So, the defense presents its case first. There are legal standards that apply here. First, the judge will be ruling on a preponderance of evidence, rather than beyond a reasonable doubt. Second, there are three ways to claim immunity through common law defense, castle doctrine,

meaning the defendant was in their home or their vehicle, or the defendant was in a place where they had the right to be. But wait, there's more. It's not even that simple, though I'm sure every lawyer listening right now thinks that we are oversimplifying. Each of those three pathways to immunity include their own set of measures that the defendants have to meet. If Weldon and Bradley claim common law self-defense, they have to show all of the four of the following, that they had no fault in bringing on the difficulty, i.e. they were not the aggressor, that there was an imminent threat to their lives, that this threat is one that would cause a reasonable person to fear for their lives, and there was not any other means.

likely of avoiding the danger. As you can see, to not a good old boy brain, it's like, yeah, no. That pathway is not for them. In the second path, castle doctrine, you have to be in your castle, your home or your vehicle, and the other person has to have either entered your castle through illegal or forceful ways or attempted to do so. As you know, Scott had not entered, nor was he trying to enter, Prince Weldon's Castle. Plus, there's this other part of castle doctrine. Weldon and Bradley have to show that they have no part in, say it with me, bringing about the difficulty, and they could not have been

involved in a legal activity. You know, reckless driving, endangering others, speeding at high rates, stalking, harassing, etc., etc., and that's all alleged. In the third pathway to immunity, Being in a place where the defendants had a right to be, I'll have David read who immunity applies to. A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in another place where he has a right to be, including but not limited to, his place of business, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his ground and meet force with force. force, including deadly force, if he reasonably believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or another person, or to prevent the commission of a violent crime as defined in Section 16-1-60.

Now, that last one seems to be Weldon's and Bradley's best hope, but for the part about not being engaged in unlawful activity. And you know, the part where Scott was trying to escape Weldon and Weldon was, quote, on his ass. And Scott was again, quote, terrified. Okay, I think we all have the rules of this legal competition, as it were. Let's see how the players are doing so far. On Tuesday, court started with opening statements from all parties. Now, Weldon and Bradley, Aw, have a joint defense agreements. Sorry, agreements. So there was a question about how this would work.

Are they two people with individual legal needs in their defense, or are they Weldon? Surprisingly, they are two people with one apparent legal team that includes Ken Moss for Weldon and Robert E. Lee. Yes, Robert E. Lee. Morgan Martin and Morgan's son, O'Brien Martin, or as Judge Griffith calls them, Whichever Martin. O'Brien is decades younger than his father and has the name O'Brien and still doesn't have his own identity. But that's the price you pay for good old boyism, right? Middle names first, but still their daddy's boys. Let's start with Morgan Martin's opening statement on behalf of Bradley.

Bradley's 36 years old. He, well, let me back up before I talk about him and say, so that we're clear for the record. that this is a hearing on our, and that is the defense motion, to assert our privilege and right to a stand-your-ground hearing and ruling from the court on whether or not the civil suit can continue or whether or not that lawsuit ought to be dismissed because Mr. Williams was standing his ground at the time that this tragic event occurred. And so with that, it is in many ways a many trial of sorts. I know that Your Honor has presided over many stand-your-ground hearings, and I've participated in many too, probably.

And so I know that you know the law, and I'm not going to try to belabor that law. Maybe talk about it more later than I do now. But it is simply, as you know, an extension of the right to self-defense. That the legislature codified the castle doctrine, which has always been a part of the common law, that says somebody in reckoning to your home that you don't have to retreat, that you can defend yourself and kill them if necessary. And the stand-your-ground law extended that to places beyond the house, including where you work, your work, your automobile, and a place where you have a right to be if you are not acting unlawfully

and if you were without the thought and bringing on the difficulty. And again, you got to go down and establish that you are entitled to a finding of self-defense. Uh, Morgan Martin is using his opening statement time to mansplain how the law. law works to a circuit court judge while reassuring him that this isn't what he's doing. Uh, Liz, how do we score that? Actually, I'm going to give him two points for that. Because sometimes men need to hear how they sound to women. Let's see what Elsie has to say.

First of all, obviously, you got to know the facts. The facts dictate what the law will lead you to in an element series. And so you got to get the fact right. And I know you've heard some things about this case. There's probably a lot that you haven't heard. I think you will learn a lot in these presentations from both sides. But I won't say to the court that it is the facts of what we have to deal with. The journalistic engine that has

been created since this event occurred, has got oxygen off two basic premises. So I have to say this. The quote-unquote podcast came up a lot in the last three days. And actually, I appreciate being reminded how much sunlight that we have shined on this case. even though David was not happy that they haven't called us by name yet, because, you know, brand recognition is important. That said, Morgan Martin was clearly talking about us here, and I have to say, we have been called a lot of things since 2021 when we started this podcast, but journalistic engine? That is a compliment, sir. I might need that on a T-shirt, actually.

And it's especially a compliment when you hear what the two things. Morgan Martin claimed we got wrong in this case. So that part is at least minus two points for the defense. One is that Weldon Boyd and Bradley Williams since he was riding with him, chased Scott's five nine miles. And then they shot him in the back. Both of those are wrong. They're incorrect and they are illusions that I believe have been created by the delusions of the followers of Mr. Spight.

We'll show you those two premises are not fact. Now first of all, we want the court to understand. There are some differences between Mr. Boyd and Mr. Williams regard to the facts of this case, primarily in that Bradley was not driving the car at any time in terms of the word chase. Everybody likes that word. And at the same time, he made no decisions about the speeds that were driven, and he made no decision about turning on the Camp Swamp Road. and we believe that the evidence will be clear that he is entitled to a finding of immunity. But we believe that the evidence will show you, and I will outline it for you briefly

because I hopefully it will help you as you try to listen and figure out what's important and what's not. Well, well, well, do we detect a split-forming between Weldon and Bradley because how interesting is it that Morgan is telling the judge, that these things are being said about Weldon and Bradley by SpyV supporters and the journalistic engine are illusions. Namely, that they chased Scott for miles at excessively high rates of speed, took a turned-down Camp Swamp Road, despite not needing to, so they could escalate the situation, shot Scott in the back, and then lied, and said Scott shot at them first, so they had no choice but to defend themselves.

But then, Morgan has the audacity to be like, Bradley wasn't driving. He didn't choose the speed they were driving at. Bradley didn't choose to turn down Camp Swamp Road. So they were speeding. And turning down Camp Swamp Road is a key factor here? You're admitting it? Huh. Interesting.

I'm actually going to give them two points for all but admitting that they were speeding. And that taking that turn down Camp Swamp was unnecessary. And another point for Bradley. For distancing himself from Weldon. Plus, minus three points for still denying that they chase Scott and quibbling over semantics. So, zero new points. Let's go back to Morgan. The evidence will show you that throughout this nine miles of cell,

that he was pointing a gun at least four different people with a specific point. In addition to that, he was brandishing, waving, holding out the window, playing with whatever you want to call it, that pistol, loading, got 9mm pistol and I say it was loaded because it was loaded when he jumped out with it on

Camps 1st Road. He's waving that gun at him. He is, before he ever runs into Boyd and Williams, he's driving his truck on Highway 17 and then on

Highway 9 at speeds that are 35 or 40 miles an hour over the speed limit on Highway 9 before he sees any of these things, he's driving that truck at speeds between 85 and 95 miles an hour. So I say that, Judge, because the evidence will show that the speeding and the bad driving was because that's what Mr. Spivey decided to do. The old solicitor Jim Dunn used to say whatever he did on the road that day, he did for reasons that were satisfactory.

to himself and himself alone. He instigated it. He started. He sustained it. He kept it up. And that was him. Everybody else had to react. We act to Mr. Spivey that day.

He was, for lack of a better term, as my mother would have said, he was a holy terror that day. Nobody caused it. We don't know why. I don't know. Maybe somebody in the course of the here can tell you why. A holy tear. I mean, I don't think the evidence is going to support that.

And who are these four people that Scott supposedly pointed a gun at? We know of three who claimed that this happened. Weldon, Bradley, and the only other person to call 911 from Highway 9, aka. Witness No. 1, aka. Blaze Ward. Who is number 4? A guest we'll have to find out. Also, the biggest question that will likely be answered in all of this is what happened between Scott and Weldon on Highway 9.

Something happened, because prior to crossing paths with Weldon, Scott was doing just fine. No gun waving, no erratic driving. And it sounds like the plaintiffs have all of Scott's GPS data from his phone, which shows what speed he was going at hundreds of points between boardwalk billies and meetings. meeting up to where Weldon and Bradley were pulling out of tractor supply onto the highway. But let's ask David for a score this time. David? We're going to deduct 29 points. One for each round allegedly fired from Weldon and Bradley's pistols.

Fair. And that seems like an appropriately symbolic penalty, though a little hefty, right? Oh, well, then I give zero. Zero points. I've been watching the here. and following this case for over a year. So I already know that these comments are hard to believe, and likely exaggerations. I also know who the fourth person is who says they saw Scott point a gun on Highway 9, and I didn't find her credible.

No hate, just sharing my truth. Same, David. I don't know what to say about that fourth witness woman who came out of nowhere, claiming that Scott sort of pointed a gun at her, and that she followed him, but also didn't call the police. We could do a whole episode on her and her strange testimony, but there is a lot to unpack here.

We will get back to the opening statements after a quick break, and we'll be right back. So back to Morgan Martin and his terrible opening statement on Bradley's behalf. Now they're going to say, well, the Boyd and Williams followed chasing. Okay. And so they might have been, I don't know how fast they were driving. We were not able to get any cell phone information from their phones that would show any speed because the phone simply didn't retain it or wasn't gained in time.

But after that short stint of very fast driving, the last two miles of this ride are back at road speed, 60, 70, 50 miles per hour. Before the turn on to, pamps won't throw. Blaze Ward, I'll tell you this, I don't know how fast. We know how fast is that electronic information is correct. I'm not sure what's correct and not correct with all this electronic information that we can derive from analysis, but apparently everybody believes in it. Whatever speed was,

welding here did stay within eyesight. And Blaise Ward, little blown-headed Blaze Ward in her ultimate, Nissan Altam. She stayed in eyesight in contact with them because she said somebody needed to get that guy off the road. So she's there. And so at that point in time, there is the turn into

on two Campsmont Road. Mr. Spivey makes that turn. And then the testimony that you will hear is that in that testimony from a guy named Frank McMurrow from Weldon and Bradley. And that obviously is where the shooting is at the place. Little blonde-headed Blaze Ward? Could he be any more reductive?

Honestly, what does Blaze being blonde have to do with anything there? Oh, right, if you mention that Blaze is little and blonde, then you have painted her as a damsel in distress, which would make Weldon her knight in shining bald spot. Armor. I meant armor. Points for this? Hmm. No. In fact, minus 10 for Morgan making it weird.

especially now that we know how Blaze handles business, which we'll talk about more fully in another episode, and plus one point, we're admitting that there was critical data on Weldon's and Bradley's phones that should have been but wasn't collected by the so-called investigators in 2023, because corruption and good old boys. The other testimony will be that I'm going to talk about

is shot in the back. Well, he weren't. shot in the back as you and I and everybody in this courtroom would understand that. He weren't shot, stand in it. He weren't shot in the back. He got me? He weren't shot in the back so that went through the back, out of the front, there you go. No, that's not what happened. What happened is he is shot under what is called the ancillary region of the body or the arm pin, which is right here. Now, it is maybe what you might technically say is the back. But no, it ain't the back in the real world.

Classic, just classic. According to the defense, Scott was technically shot in the back by Weldon and Bradley. But it ain't no back in the real world? What? I mean, obviously we know the defense really doesn't want Scott to have been shot in the back, because that doesn't look good for Weldon and Bradley, which we know Weldon was aware of, because aware of because he spoke about this very thing on his recorded phone calls with his mother.

But oh my God. How much did that cost, Bradley? To have Morgan Martin argued that Scott was technically shot in the back, but it ain't no back in the real world. What does a no back in the real world actually look like? Honestly, it's like 100 points for unapologetic and stupidly creative lawyer lying. Okay, what did he say next? At the end of the day, Judge, Bradley here, who was 36 years old, married two children, fine young man from all I can see in the journey about him,

works every day at a construction job, had come to O'Reak County to help Weldon Boy, who was a friend of his, moved some furniture, and do whatever might come up with the weekend. He didn't know Mr. Spivey, he didn't know any of Mr. Spivey's family, he didn't know a thing in the world about him, he's minding his own business and finds himself driven to a place where a man has got a pistol out pointing and shooting at him. He had no choice. You know that self-defense is built on the law of self-preservation, which is the strongest instinct a human has. It's genetic. You're predisposed that way. There's a desire to protect yourself. That's what Bradley Williams did.

This law that you're dealing with is exactly what the legislature, I believe, intended to protect the Bradley Williams in the world in cases like this. And accordingly, we filed a motion to have it dismissed. Okay, no. You don't get to bring Bradley's wife and children into this so that the judge feels sympathy for him. Bradley, Bradley is putting them in this situation by continuing to be Burt to Weldon's Ernie. But okay, sure. Self-defense is about self-preservation. It's an instinct, totally with Morgan on that. So why was the instinct not to stay away from Scott if he was so dangerous? It's unbelievable. So what should we score this part? More zeros. All the zeros. Because of everything I just said, but also Bradley and Weldon weren't just innocently moving furniture to the farm that day, in my opinion, they seemed to be planning to hang out. And again, in my opinion, it's likely that they were planning on doing some shooting, which, no judgment. It's Weldon's property. And for Weldon and Bradley, at least, a free country. But if they were planning on doing

some shooting at the farm that day and are making it a point not to mention that because they don't want to look gun crazy, then that's even more deceptive and totally hypocritical. Anyway, let's see what Weldon's attorney of 10 years, apparently, Ken Mumblemania Moss had to say in his opening statement. Immediately after this case started, here comes from fiercely period, here comes from the period, and that wasn't just one or two,

it was dutch, and this is the plaintiff, and this is the plaintiff's family, and those lines of them, they've taken every one of them, and they say, and they've shown them, in plea. They've shown up as allegation and fleeting if there's no basis for it. And so you're going to ask your

honor and find your review as we know you will. To the evidence presented from the witnesses that were there. Now about that, we have a couple of witnesses as you know, we've had a difficult time getting to participate in the case for really hard time. Finally, finally, and thankfully, they came with their positions and they know what they did, they cooperated their statements made, the police, within minutes after this incident. Now, these witnesses have been docked, these witnesses have been, you know, I don't know what the word you want to use yet, but they've been tampered

with, whether it was intentional or not, they're been tampered with by this, okay, they've been hampered with by trying this case in the press. And so these witnesses are trouted, okay? And you'll hear, particularly in this, Mr. Murrots, you'll hear, you'll hear, change the story a little bit and when he told law enforcement within minutes after what he thought.

And within minutes after what he thought, he talked when the body can reported in him. So you'll be able to be exactly what he told law enforcement

in a minute before he had the opportunity to stick with anybody else. The witnesses have been tampered with. Y'all, wait, because you're about to find out how

untrue that is and how the defense was actually the way. one's allegedly trying to guide the witnesses. And can Moss's claim of the stories being changed? No, not quite, sir. Minus 10 out of minus 10. No notes. Let's keep listening. We're talking about 14 miles that's oriented terror, no longer. You'll hear me none of the normal person. His sole purpose was to get law enforcement to find this man.

That's what place working to do. And so the suggestion somehow might find that someone person who's a fight looking for a location flies in a community. That allegation is nonsensical when you compare this little 20-something-year-old boyhead, the peak girl, was doing the same thing. It just, it's one of these theories that just doesn't make you decease.

I submit to you, the law enforcement needs citizens to step up and tell him what they're seeing and where they're seen and we call them someone help them off the Supreme Court says that's what we have a duty to do so I welcome me to look at this evidence this little 20-something-year-old petite girl again they are talking about blaze's physicality as if it's important in any way to the argument at hand they are using her to downplay weldon and bradley's actions and it is sick. It borders on gross old man perversion, honestly. That said, law enforcement needs citizens to step up and tell them what they're seeing. Uh, yeah, absolutely. That's what the 911 call was for,

Ken? You call, you report, and you let the professionals handle it, because otherwise someone could get hurt or worse, which is exactly why your clients are in court right now. And you know what? I'm doing a bench ruling on this one. No points. And hang on for a minute. Did y'all notice something? Neither Morgan nor Ken mentioned their theory about Scott and the steroids. Remember this phone call of Weldon's? Uh, Ken said in this kind of situation, alcohol is not going to help our argument. Ken said alcohol won't really, I forgot how he worded it, but in this situation, the alcohol, going to be hard hitting. He said we need narcotics or we need steroids. Yeah and I don't think alcohol would make you a crazy. That's why Ken said that alcohol

isn't going to be something that helps you. But it doesn't matter at this point. He's already, the evidence shows he initiated the fight. He was committed to the fight and he tried to stay in the fight. So we never left our vehicle. We only defended ourselves. And unfortunately, he got killed. The damn blast, but... Yeah, how could you forget, right? But what happened to them needing Scott to be on narcotics, on steroids? Oh, right. Scott wasn't on drugs or steroids, according to the toxicologist. Does the fact that neither of the defense lawyers mentioned steroids mean, they're going to drop that part of the narrative.

Did Mark Tinsley ruin their plan by accusing Ory County Police Department of possibly planting the drugs in Scott's truck? Unfortunately, those are not rhetorical questions, and we'll get to the answers in a bit because now it's Tiger Time. Let's take a look at how Mark Tinsley did during his opening statements. I'm going to try to respond to all that, but I want to start there. He said, hopefully you'll hear the testimony. You know why he said that?

they're not going to play it. They're not going to play Frank McMurrow's deposition testimony. They're not going to play Blaise Ward's deposition testimony that she gave on Friday, because what they said was, that's not accurate. And that what actually happened is they, Blaze Ward witnessed these two men chase him relentlessly, Scott's Bobby, relentlessly, like White on Rice, from colonial church. all the way to Camp Swamp Road at a high rate of speed so fast, Your Honor, that she wouldn't look down, that she wouldn't call 911. And he didn't even call 911 for four miles.

He's a menace. He's a tear 14 miles, and he chases him at 100 miles an hour before he even calls 911 to get up to 113 miles an hour. there wasn't medicine of terror and it was the two people who were heard in the 911 call saying

we've got our guns out too the very beginning of the 911 call we can try this case on the words because the words matter but it's their words

and the chase and you've heard Mr. Martin do this in hearings and you've heard him do it again today they want to get away from this chase word chase

for some unknown reason Mr. Boyd was recording secretly recording his calls. I say secret because the people he's recording don't know he's recorded. And so when this initially happens, there's search

warrants to get the phones. Well, Mr. Moss works out of detail that the Oregon County PD doesn't get the phones. And they eventually work out of consent. They turn the phones over and certain things are downloaded. Well, when they get downloaded by SLED, we have about 90 phone calls

that Weldon Boyd made. One of those calls was September the 11th. The shooting is the night of September the night. September the 11th, 7.14 p.m. and 10 seconds, he calls his mother. They're talking about whether or not there's some connection.

You can have some testimony between Scott's Fivie and Mr. Boyd's ex-fiance. And his mother says, we've got this in our brief and it's in the record, did the guy think you were following him, Mr. Boyd.

Oh, he knew I was following him. My, me and you talking, his mom, confidentiality. The biggest supporter he has in the world, his trusted confidant in private, in their secret moment. He knew he had fucked up at that point because all the other cars slammed on brakes and was trying to get away from him. And I was like, he just ran me off. the road and aimed a gun at Bradley's head. Fuck this guy. And I chased him.

Oh, I was on his ass and he couldn't, his truck couldn't outrun my truck. Chase is not our word, Judge. It's not the podcaster's words. It's not the media's word. It is well and void's word. And he relentlessly, and this is what the testimonies were shown, he relentlessly chased Scott's body and murdered.

We have seen a lot of comments so far wondering why the defense played the full deposition video of two witnesses, Frank McMurrow, who we've been calling witness number two or Clark, and who is the only person to have seen Scott Spivey with a gun on Camp Swamp Road, and the only witness to the shooting on Camp Swamp Road, and Blaze Ward, who we were referring to as Witness No. 1, or Blaze Adrian, which is the name that she goes by on the internet. We'll talk about those two witnesses in a bit, but up until recently, it seemed like the defense saw those two as their star witnesses, until they sat for their depositions,

and both of them said the same version of, I feel like the defense was trying to get me to say things to help Weldon. And notably, neither of those people spoke with Mark Tensley and the plaintiffs until they reached out to Mark themselves. But sure, Ken Moss says that the witnesses were tampered with. Oh, right, because of that journalistic and, engine, because journalists, like us, we're covering the case in detail because of the horrific proof of widespread and unconscionable corruption in law enforcement and the judicial system,

all to protect one sushi-slinging beach boy, Weldon Boyd, and his little battle buddy. Anyway, how many points do we give the plaintiffs for Mark's opening statement? Uh, 10. Because all Morgan Martin and Ken Moss had was the typical good old boy defense of, didn't do anything wrong because they say they didn't do anything wrong, which they are used to people accepting. But Mark came in with data, with evidence, and thank God, sent Morgan and Kins whining about the media right back to them. The media is not making this stuff up. This is how Weldon described what he did behind closed doors. We are of course tempted to play

Mark's entire opening statement, but there's just so much more to talk about today. So I'll just play one more little bit that I think is important to hear. I mean, everybody's been in traffic where you cut somebody off. He's done something unintentionally. Some crazy fool behind you is throwing his hands up and he's cussing at you and he's flipping you off. And for a few seconds, it's terrifying. And you don't make out contact and you keep driving.

Now extended over nine miles. The witnesses have Weldon Boy interacting with Scott's Bobby at Colonial Charters. It's about nine miles. They then, according to the witnesses, Gail Graham, writes, there's an instance where, well, then drives off the road, immediately drives back on the road. You can get lots of testimony about how fast his truck is, how powerful this truck is,

and then they begin this relentless chase. It speeds that go in this first stretch up in the area of 100 miles an hour. There's nobody that testifies this Scotts five. flies by us going 100 miles an hour. That's not the testimony. The testimony is this is back towards bail and bail. It's about 10 miles from bell and bail. It doesn't happen at bail and bell. That's a 57 cross road, but it's just just right beyond that. And then you'll see when we get to the to the GPS information, you'll see, I'm not the smartest lawyer in the world, Judge. I know that. In fact, half the time, I don't, I think I don't know what I'm doing. But I have never seen a road rage

case where the rogue rager was being chased by an innocent person. Excellent point. So the final tally on opening statements brings the defendants to, I lost count. And the plaintiffs to, I don't know, but it is so much higher than the defendants at this point. So that's quite a whole Weldon and Bradley have to get out of, thanks to their own actions and their lawyers' reliance on the good old boy school of law style of arguing. of arguing.

And we will talk more about this after a short break. This has been one of the most hectic hearings that we have covered, because just like we said earlier, there's just so much going on in this case. We don't have time today to highlight all of the absurdity from the cast of characters that the defense called in this hearing so far. So we will briefly summarize the witness testimony before we get into the insane of Weldon taking the stand. On day one, we heard from Ory County PD detective, John Sotile, who came off as either incompetent

or corrupt to me because he admitted to not completing his only assigned job in this case of gathering related surveillance footage. He knew that Scott had been at Boardwalk Billy's for five hours, but for some reason he only got an hour and a half of footage, despite the restaurant making the full five hours available to him. And then there was ORI County Police Officer Michael Quick, the officer who interviewed Blaze on scene and made the assumption that Scott had no business being on Camp Swamp Road. You know, the literal road Scott takes to go home and that Weldon did belong on Camp Swamp Road that he should have just driven past. In Quicks' testimony,

we learned that despite the defense repeatedly referring to Scott, as a holy tear on wheels and despite Blaze Ward's witness interview on September 9th, 2023, where she said Scott came speeding up behind her at the stoplight near Bellin' bell. Scott's GPS speed data actually showed the opposite of that. Then came eyewitness Terry Wright, the man who stood with Weldon and Bradley inside the crime scene for an hour, just, you know, joking and yoken. Even after police arrived on scene. Terry was now claiming that he for sure saw Scott Spivey point his weapon on Highway 9, something he became sure of after seeing Weldon's photo of Scott pointing his gun

upward to the sky. Terry testified that Scott appeared to be the instigator on Highway 9, but also he admitted he only saw a portion of the chase. And Terry appeared, hmm, how do I say this? nervous? Perhaps maybe even coached. He actually admitted to having multiple conversations with Weldon's defense team prior to the hearing. But remember, Terry did not see what happened on Camp Swamp Road, so his testimony carries little weight when it comes to stand your ground law. And then there was a brand new character in this saga, Lori Sarvis. She is the fourth person that the defense claims Saul Scott pointing a gun on Camp Swamp Road.

And like David said earlier, Lord, she did not come off as credible to us. She said that she saw Scott pointing a weapon at two old people on Highway 9. And suddenly, she put on her vigilante Vicky Cap as, you know, Samaritan Sarvis, and said that she, quote-unquote, took off after him. She said that she zipped through traffic to keep her eyes on Scott to help law enforcement. But then her story fell apart when she was asked if she called 911 at all. And her answer to that was she thought that she called 911, which she did not. Then Lori's testimony really sank into the swamp when Tensley cross-examined her. Listen to this, y'all.

And which side of the road did they go? They went to the left. And so did he stop beside him or did he just keep going past? He kept going. As he's pointing the gun? Yes. Is he pointed or is he holding it out the window? No, sir.

He had it like that. Okay. And did you see him again after that? It depends how you find saw him. Did I see him as close as I did at that moment? No, sir, I didn't. But like I said, my goal was to follow the black truck because he was the one being crazy out there.

Yeah. So I was trying to try and. keep my eye on him to see if I could get anywhere near him to get his tag number. I do know that his tag number was not a regular tag for as we go where it has the three numbers, four and three letters or the three letters of numbers. He had a different type of tag on his car or truck. Did he seem to be going faster at that point in time than he was when he passed you? Yes.

Okay. And then he continued to move on? Yes. you sir. Now you didn't know Scott, right? I didn't know Scott but I do know the Spivey family. You know the Spivey family. I mean you and Wendy Sarvice have the same last name right? We do. But not related? No sir not related. But this is the bad blood there, right? I wouldn't really say bad blood. You've been fairly vocal. Yes sir, I have. On Facebook, right? Yes or I have. I hate a liar. Okay.

And stuff she was telling on Facebook was not true. And so you felt compelled to get in touch for somebody and let everybody know? Yes. I felt like they needed to know the whole story, not just her story. Wow. And the bad blood has to do with some engagement, was it to your daughter? My son. To your son.

Ain't got nothing to do with, sir. Girls come, go, boys come and go. It ain't got nothing to do with that. And did you hate her before this or was it during this that you did? I don't hate Wendy Sarve's, sir. Do I spy some of the stuff she does? Yes, I do. I ain't no lie about it. Yes, I do. Ooh, yikes. What is the score again? Because that is another negative 10. Also, we have to ask this again, how many people were chasing Scott that day as like vigilantes? I'm counting one,

two, three, now four people? In their last move of day one, defense attorney. Defense attorney, presented Blaze Ward's 911 call and a video of her very recent deposition. Blaze is the woman who called 911 panicked when she witnessed chaos on Highway 9 on September 9, 23. She's also the one who made the claim that her car had been shot up by Scott, which she later learned it wasn't. Blaze was Weldon's best witness and the defense made this clear in their opening statements when they made sure people knew she was little, blonde, and scared. Blaise's perception of what she saw that day has shifted now. She now understands the fuller context. She explained in her deposition that she has experienced past trauma with gun violence, which is why she was hysterical that day. She said she used to think Weldon had saved her life, but after hearing what Weldon said in his phone calls about that day, specifically how Weldon described the chase to his mother, she now understands things differently. We'll talk more about her testimony in a future episode or on Cup of Justice because, her testimony was very strong. We should also mention that while the hearing was going,

we noticed Blaze was commenting online about what she thought the defense was doing in her deposition. In response to a commenter saying that the defense wanted her to lie, she said, they wanted me to lie so bad, and they wanted me to make Weldon look good. You can clearly see. Oh, we see it, Blaze.

Day two of testimony started with another big setback for the defense, which was weird because, again, this is their chance to present. the evidence that they want to be shown. They started the day by showing video from the deposition of Witness No. 2, who we used to call Clark to protect his privacy, but he was named in court Frank McMurrow. Frank is the most important eyewitness of all because he is the only one who witnessed the shooting on Camp Swamp Road. He was also highly credible. We already detailed Frank's deposition in episode 133 when David and Mandy read a lot of his quotes and we gave you all

the summary of what Frank said, namely that Frank did not see Scott raise his pistol before the shooting started. And the defense obviously did not want him to say that. So now, Frank's deposition hits differently seeing it on video and hearing his voice. And I recommend that y'all go back and watch it on Luna Shark Media's YouTube channel to get a sense of how disturbed Frank was by this whole experience. And how uncomfortable Frank was when being questioned and badgered by the defense's. attorneys. But he managed to stay steadfast and stuck to exactly what he saw. And he revealed a few interesting things about how he felt the defense was trying to get him to see things their way. There was this exchange between Frank and Weldon's attorney. Okay. So even I talked on, on, on, on, back in February, it was sitting there about

one testing deposition. I knew for whatever. when you came time to put a deposition you didn't respond to the call and so I don't know what happened in the point it seems like you were supposed to read those and all of a sudden you could say come you can call what happened on 20? I didn't feel comfortable with you sent in the package all the documentation asked to be able to even refresh my story if you know because I kind of felt like I was seen I didn't like it was forced and I didn't I didn't I really like it so if you want to treat us all in the shore. Thank you for that.

My letter actually, I'll come in it near it. If you want to see it, then you'd be your dog, okay. And go through with you know the other one, I'll let's you. And this one between Frank and Bradley's attorney. Oh, Mr. That's. Would you be opposed to down to South Carolina to testify

that the E re-rigo respond to this name? I'm not clear. I'm not having me to go on this out of this thing. This is nexus for the child, 40. The deposition was never for child. Well, I realize that it still didn't change in question. Okay.

Well, I'm... One of these cases... Well, these guys that said, Mr. but the big work of the just maddened me a girl? That is. Um, I want the fact that the police department is going with a multi-millionaire, and I felt like I got to make that narrative by, y'all. When you guys explained me out, he was just a good guy dropping my mouth,

trying to make not a long call. So I got the information and no narratives from the police team, and it didn't make me feel okay, and I did like, I felt like I felt like I was being coached into part of that truania kind of like, did you see this, what did you see, sure, really reviewed this, really honing on this, and I did like that. And you said he could speak to say that the nature of the point, way to take you. Mm-hmm.

And tell you, if you don't get a little, you don't get a little to me. No, I found out from you guys. I just had happened in fact. You know, you're not. police you fired on this stuff for the smelt house out of Carolina. I'm sorry. I mean, I just don't know I just don't want to be a fault. That's how I saw them. That's what I do. I have it's just it's too bad. I got four children of my business. Okay. All right. Second. So I was recently out to about the New York Times multiple media

voters trying to get my interview, call me my wife, send him a publisher. A publisher's story. I had this other stuff. So it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was, it was all. It's all right. All right, so to congratulate, do you feel like that you're going to information from both the spying and awkwardly? I have received information from spying after this. I have received to know information from spying. I've actually refused to communicate, though, the only words I have talked to in a very brief conversation,

Ms. Tenskinson, was last Tuesday. And I reached out to him. out to him. All right. I'm always told you to say, did you have received some information with the book at sometimes Friday it can't. It was something, Rick. Reddress was the narrative.

You know, what I get told about my testimony, what I saw, I don't know why I was told. I was self about prior to you. It was almost like it was trying to read. You had to persuade me to think of this situation was something. I didn't need to help about that. I didn't need all the information. I don't know why I was mean. all this stuff, right? He was a fellow for all this time. Why he did this, why he did that,

he was just trying to be a good citizen. What does that matter? Well, I understand what you say. Okay, I understand that. Stick a pin in this for a future conversation because Blaze Ward had similar comments about the defense in her deposition. Okay, the other witnesses on day two were Officer Kerry Higgs, the first officer on scene with Ory County PD, who didn't make the police look great. I'll just say that. Then on day two, the defense called first the doctor who performed Scott's autopsy, then the doctor who analyzed Scott's toxicology, and then not a doctor, PhD,

slash first-time expert, to specifically determine whether or not Scott was intoxicated and whether or not the toxicology showed that Scott was a steroid user, which it did not. Remember that bag of steroids found in the back of Scott Spivey's truck? As we have said before, we believe for a number of reasons that those drugs were planted by the police, especially after day three testimony from the officer who found them, which we will get to in a minute. So, on day two of this hearing, we heard from the autopsy doctor and the toxicologist, who both confirmed there was no evidence of steroid use or abuse in Spivey's system at the time of his death, not even trace amounts. And in fact, his testosterone levels were on the lower end.

That is a big problem for the defense, who really wanted to convince the judge that Scott was a drug-fueled maniac who needed to be taken out. The defense so badly wanted to make this point, despite the fact that the evidence did, not show this at all, that they called a first-time expert to the stand. His name is Ken Soderstrom, a Ph.D. pharmacologist who admitted that the majority of his scientific research actually focused on the effects of THC on songbirds. Seriously, and not just songbirds, specifically zebra fensches. Very high zebra fenches. So we could write an entire episode on Mr. Birdman's absolute train wreck of a testimony. And we might do a bonus episode for premium members if we hear enough demand for it because Liz has jokes for days on this. But just listen to this part with attorney Natasha Hanna, aka Tiger 2 or Lady Tiger,

where she absolutely destroys this man's credibility in literally one minute. Well, I've done some steroid research. You have, I believe, in your deposition you told me most of your research came from internet forums. Is that right? Yeah. So, well, in terms of figuring out how this drug is typically abused. So that's, I think, how you find out how to use abused steroids. You talked to the guys at the gym and there are these internet forums and it's

remarkable the amount of information you can get from that source. Remarkable. I think you said that earlier. In fact, I think you said you looked at little evidence that it was remarkable how it all fell together. Well, then I was talking about, you know, how the steroid was found in the truck, didn't think much of it until seeing all. Now we have an autopsy that shows a coronary artery of fusion and liver toxicity.

I'm going to get to that. So it all kind of came together. So that's what I was talking about there. That brings us to day three, y'all, the drama day. On the third day of the hearing, the defense called Shalniel Tamasi, a crime scene investigator at Ory County Police, who processed the evidence. at the scene that night. We will go back to this testimony in a later episode because she is crucial in Tensley's potential case against Ory County Police for obstructing justice, etc., etc., in this case.

So, on direct, shall Neal established credibility as a straight-laced investigator who crossed her tease and dotted her eyes? We could guess that the defense thought that this would make the judge ignore all the other evidence showing Ory County police grossly and maliciously interfering with this investigation, which matters in this hearing because it speaks to the core question. If this were a true stand-your-ground situation, why would the police department have to go to the links that it did to help Weldon? But of course, Tinsley the Tiger did not let the defense bury the lead. In cross-examination, Tinsley the Tiger roared, and said, not today, Weldon. During the Cross, Shal Neal testified to three very important facts. One, that she had processed over 100

death scenes in Ory County and had never seen a body towed while inside a vehicle before like Scots was. Two, that Alan Jones, the lead detective in the case, told her to search a specific location where that mysterious bag of blue pills was found. But he did not tell her to swab the bag for DNA to see if it actually belonged to Scott. And three, that Alan Jones told her that they did not need to get a search warrant to search Weldon's tablet, which the plaintiffs have reason to believe was used to record the incident. Why no warrant?

Because Alan, apparently, saw no need to search it. After Detective Tommasi testified on Thursday morning, just when we thought things couldn't get much worse for. the defense in this hearing, Weldon Boyd took the stand. Because of course he did. Of course he thought that he could talk his way out of this disaster and use his charm, I guess, to convince the judge that he was standing his ground in an imminent fear of his life that day on Camp Swamp Road. We were pretty much expecting this from Weldon. It's good old boying 101. What we didn't expect was the long list of strange questions and events, Weldon's attorney,

Ken Moss asked him about. Quickly, we realized that Ken Moss's questions weren't really aimed at satisfying the standards for stand-your-ground immunity to apply to them. Instead, it really felt like Weldon and his attorney were taking this opportunity to respond to all of the dots that we had connected on this podcast and settle scores Weldon has with his ex-fiance. Which, by the way, we know you're listening. Hi, Team Weldon. With the help of Kin's creative Weldon told the judge the good old boy's story of Weldon, how he was adopted by two loving parents who homeschooled him, who taught him right from wrong, how he got his GED with his mom homeschooling him, and then he decided to bravely serve the country in the Army National Guard,

and that took him to some place with a lot of roundabouts, where he saw a car on fire. And that part really made him cry. Well, for the first time. A lot of things made this. this man cried during the eight or so hours that he was on the stand. He might have cried more than Ehrlich Murdoch, actually, with the same amount of visible tears, but less nose goo. We'll get to that in a minute, though.

The good old boy story of Weldon was messy. Ken Moss asked Weldon about when Weldon bought his first restaurant, you know, before ever working in a restaurant like good old boys do. And how one day he chased down a man who had stole a man. from his salad bar and soda fountain. Weldon, as usual, was the hero of his own story. He told the court that he simply wanted the man not to be driving on the road. Weldon said, and take this with grain of salt, that the man smelled of alcohol.

So Weldon called 911 and got in his truck to chase the man, which makes absolutely no sense if Weldon was legitimately concerned about this man's sobriety and not the stolen salad and drink. because he'd be causing more chaos on the road by chasing him. The 911 dispatcher told Weldon, absolutely not. Don't chase this guy. That is law enforcement's job,

which is why Weldon was telling this story in the first place, because later he would blame the Ory County dispatcher for not giving him this same advice when he was, quote, following Scott. And in one of his recorded calls with his mama, Weldon mentioned that if the dispatcher, in Scott's case, didn't want him to go after Scott, then he would have told Weldon this,

just like that first dispatcher had, which, hello, dummy, you are admitting, in court, that you knew not to chase someone and to let the police do their jobs. After this weird salad bar story, Weldon then gleefully told the judge about the number of free meals

he has given out to law enforcement officers over the years to, quote, show his appreciation. So basically the judge heard how Weldon got big mad when a poor person stole from his salad bar and how he went out of his way to roll out the red carpet for people in power. Not a great look. When we thought this must be rock bottom for Weldon, Ken Moss decided to ask about Weldon's son and his mother

and their distressed relationship. And we all know this is Weldon's kryptonite. More on that after a quick break. All right, so Weldon's testimony lasted more than seven hours on Thursday, and it was full of crushouts and crying. So much crying to cover. But to keep this podcast at a decent length this week, we decided to sum up Weldon's testimony

before Mark the Tiger Tinsley got to him. We're going to talk about it. So we have for you the five biggest moments from Weldon's testimony. Moment number one. Weldon spent a long time blasting his ex-fiancee to the judge, which was full of so many lies it's hard to count. And then he crashed.

down, which is interesting because on September 9th, 2023, right as he was about to encounter Scott on Highway 9, Weldon was in the middle of crashing out over his ex-fiance. Things have gotten better and better than better. And we took it. We did our first. It was important to me that we're not in a race to do something big the first time with the kid. He needs that. the fairies. And I knew Disney was going to be a big one. So I thought, hey, I talked to her.

I said, I want to go to Disney. I don't want this to be a waste where it's, you know, oh, she did it before. That's not the experience our child dance. So I said, let's plan a business trip and let's do a co-parent trip and see if we can actually function and do that. So we went through the mountains the other week.

Terrible weekend to go because they ended up, you know. It was not being. We all went together to the math. We did. But that was not the first time you planned, right? No, sir. Please tell the judge, what you did. Wait, the first time I planned, what?

To go to the mouse. It wasn't your ex-law. No, no, I was taken, I had him that weekend, and I was going to take him, and I told her that, Disney had already been talking about. That was, she understood that, Where I stood, she agreed with me. She felt the same way.

So the Disney thing, and that's an anxious thing. I'm going to Disney for a week with someone that you don't know how that will be. I told her three weeks prior to going to the mountains that I was going to take Hunter to snow tube in the mountains on my weekend coming out. She was really upset, not at me. She just was blown that she was going to miss out on him getting to experience that. So I said, well, if I postponed the trip, why don't you go? I have to work. What if I postpone until you can go? She told me a weekend it would work so that I moved a trip that I was going to do with him to that weekend so that she wasn't left out and it was the perfect opportunity for us to test a co-fant trip. So I got that gentleman on us.

Well, let me just put it out there. Is this lawsuit is the plaintiff's attorney's interaction with your ex-problem with that co-cranial relationship? It was a problem all through mediation. It was a problem after mediation. She tells me that she told me that Mark Tensley and Jennifer Foley directly reached out to her, and that they told her they would assist her with her custody battle against me. But it's two-lates three. She was on board. She was ready to help.

She told Mr. Tensley, she wanted him in jail. She told Mr. Tensley, I need him in prison. and then she asked Mr. Tensley is that I heard that he gets a shot of immunity. I'm paraphrasing but is there any chance he's going to get immunity and Mr. Tensley said not a snowball's chance.

And we got these conversations from the subpoena to her, right? Right. We didn't get everything. They didn't provide anything. They kept stuff and they cut conversations off. They did not send merely what should have been said. When I said, I said it's spiritual Yes, sir.

Who jumped in the representative? Mark Tensley, jumped right in. And he provided incomplete response. Is that fair? Very incomplete. So, and you know she's on the witness test for this case, don't you? Yes, I do. That's the only reason that I'm having to bring all this in here

is to make sure the other side's told before he puts her up on his stand. And I don't, I haven't been on talk to her, rather. No, on the trip. Thursday before the trip, we had a day. a couple of conversations about court coming up. She made it clear to me that we were in a good place. She did not want to be involved with this. She said she doesn't know what to do

and she started asking me what do I do. And I made it very clear multiple times, I can't tell you what to do. I can't tell you what to do. You need to talk to your attorney. What do I call Mark? Can't tell you what to do? Then she asked, can I talk to him? So I asked her, you can talk Ken too. She said, okay, I'll do that. I said, okay, but you have to confirm. Well, a little night you asked Ken, didn't. I asked Ken, Ken told me what the rules for? You have to confirm with Ken Moss that you are not represented by Mark Tenz. And I said it flat out we're not going to break rules here. So if you want to talk to Ken, you have to confirm that you're not represented by Mark Tenzel. She was okay with

the next day we left for our trip. We talked about it again on the way down there. She expressed how she was stressed out. I expressed how I don't want this to all end up in this courtroom. It didn't need to be here. We got through the trip, got back, didn't say anything about it the next day. And then the next day I said, hey, will you reach out to Ken today just so we can get that ball? Sorry?

Kim. Kim? of all. I'm talking. So, Mother may talk to Ken sometime. That's sometime. Okay. I want to make sure

about another Ken. Ultimately, she did. She did not. She said, well, after the trip was over, she said, well, I can't confirm whether Mark is or is it my attorney. I said, you told me that you didn't sign papers with Mark Tensley, and you told me that you did not. Didn't talk to you. Yeah.

The point is she didn't talk. Right. Correct. No. Does there's a whole lot, a whole lot. Yes. No kid. This clon's red, but you've only heard of the search.

This is my child? Yeah. I really want to be in this. But if they put this in the witness, I would like to serve and right. I have fault in the name this where this doesn't come in here. Let's take a break. I wasn't going to take a break. They didn't pose itself as me.

Lunch. All right. Let's take the break, children. Not a big crowd here was there in the week 115. And maybe if everybody's not back, we'll delay a little bit with the sheet for 115. Um, yeah, I remind you, um, you know, can't talk about your testimony during the break. For instance, she can't go say, how am I doing or how to answer his question. You are not communicated about your testimony with anybody.

Understand? Yes, sir. All right, I'm going to ask you that when you come back. Yes, sir. All right, see you a little bit. Weldon just showed the judge that when it comes to his former fiance, he has no ability to control his emotions. And the judge was basically like, go put a facecloth on your forehead or something, son. Good Lord.

He shut that performance down and sent everyone to lunch. Okay, next is moment number two. When Weldon got back from the much-needed lunch break, the judge was like, You good, sir? Did you eat? And Weldon couldn't resist resuming his pity party and said, Yeah, just three bites. After that, when testimony was once again heating up, and Weldon was getting really mad talking about the recorded phone calls,

making their way into the investigation file, and into Jennifer Spivey Foley's hands, he made the wrong move. He lied about Mark Tensley. They gave it to Oregon County. The very agency that you refused to cooperate with on your job. data, right? Yes. So they gave it. Correct. And what the Lori County did with it? I published it. Well, they gave it to the lawyers to its file on my subpoena, right?

Right. And they got to other lawyers too. And then got published, didn't? It did. And some of I got published was phone calls that were within these exclusions, right? Correct. Like phone calls with me. Uh, at our first deposition, Mr. Tensley even told you in the back room. I've got the calls between you and Boyd, and I know your trial strategy. There's a very cause, Your Honor. I mean, first of all, that didn't happen. It wasn't in the back room.

And second of all, I mean, it's an outright lie to say that. I told Mr. Lawson that those calls were included because they were a attorney-client and I had not listened to them before the deposition. I submit to you that's exactly what Mr. Kim's he told me that did happen in the background. The department. He needs to answer questions and I keep telling you what somebody else told y'all. So yeah, Weldon's attorney, Ken Moss, allowed Weldon to blatantly lie about something that Mark did not say to Ken in a conversation Weldon was not a part of.

In Ken, Weldon's attorney confirmed to the judge that, yeah, my client just lied. Number 3. This one we're super proud of because from the beginning and based on the timing of when Scott Spivey was at the light at Bell & Bell, we suspected that this is when Weldon first encountered Scott. The Bell and Bell Light is about 10 miles from Camp Swamp Road. And the reason we suspected this was because right as Scott was passing Weldon, Weldon was in the middle of sending a text. Have a listen to this. there. So this is for a house. It's like, police per sink is like right there. So I pulled out here, I went up, sat at the Southlight, and took a left. And I started heading down Highway 9 this way. The farm is that way. And just for future reference, Bell and Bell is right here on Highway 9. Netmaps oriented north and south? Yes. any interaction at all in the intersection with Mr. Scott's Bible?

No sir. None. Anything unusual that you recall about that intersection and you were driving on that? No, sir, everything's all. Okay, and then what happened? Continue down the road. I don't, we haven't marked. I don't know exactly where the interaction happened and I can't speak to everything

happened behind me I didn't see but I'm driving along and I'm just finishing up a text message and I sent that and as soon as I sent it at some time it immediately after I hear my friend Bradley and excuse my language judge yell what the fuck I looked up first because I thought oh crap I'm gonna hit something but then I looked over and when I looked over, I saw a truck and the first thing we caught my eye was our mirrors because my mirror was here and we had ones that stick out. So my mirror is here and I noticed his mirror was there. It was just, I mean, there might have been two inches. His driver's mirror and your passenger. My passenger mirror and his driver mirror. And then I finished looking and when I looked over, I saw,

saw him in the truck. He had his hand here and he had a pistol and he was doing right like this at I'm sorry. He was doing this at Bradley's head. You heard that right? Weldon Boyd admitting to the judge, the man who was going to determine his fate, that he was texting and looking down when he first encountered Scott on Highway 9, meaning it sounds like Weldon almost ran into Scott, or came close to sideswiping him because he was texting and driving. That is where the initial conflict began, no matter what Terry Wright says, no matter what Lori Sarva says, which again, bizarre woman, it was Blaze who was closest to being right about this, that the initiating conflict had already happened when she first saw Scott with the gun a few miles down the road.

We have never seen a witness destroy himself on the stand like this before, just over and over and over. Moment number four. They'll act like a victim testimony. We noticed a common theme during Weldon's testimony today. Whenever there is a finger to point at somebody else, no matter how much that person has lost because of him, Weldon will do it. Loyalty is a one-way street for Weldon Boyd. And this was clear when Weldon was asked about the pesky piece of evidence Luna Shark journalist Beth Braden found last year.

The video showing Officer Damon Viscovy writing Act Like a Victim Camera while talking to Weldon on scene after the shooting. At that time, by the way, Weldon was not acting like a victim. So when he was asked about the officers on the scene, he said this. I didn't know the same person up there. Okay. Now let me ask you this. Do you remember an officer passing a note of any kind of unit? We're not passing the showings. I do, yes sir. What do you remember about? We're sitting on the trailer, the officer that's parked directly behind the trailer, trailer backs up from his door I think he shut the door but he walked towards us

he had a clipboard and we're sitting there and he I don't know I don't remember the manner in which he did it but he flashed the flipboard at us stared at us and I looked at it and then I believe Bradley saw it to turn around and then he went away and and that's how I remember happening. Do you know, did you ever see that officer in your life before that evening? I have no idea who that guy was that night. Do you know he was here today?

No. No. Did you know why he was showing you that? No. And I wish he had never done that. Did you tell him that one that he did that? We try not talk to anybody, but as soon as they let us get to you, that's the first thing I told you before anything else was said.

I wasn't to get involved in too much about what you told me and must be out of context. Somebody else there you told me that. Bradley was there. Okay. And was it a surprise to you that some officer you don't know, said that it's no. I didn't know what he meant by, I was totally dumbfounded by it. I mean, what do you, what do you do to that, act like a victim?

I mean, I am a victim. I'm sitting here at a scene where someone just tried to shoot me and we had to shoot back. And you walk up and you just flash that in me. And then I, I mean, immediately I knew this was bad because I didn't ask for that. That is not what I needed you to do. It's not what I asked you to do. I don't know this guy. He just walked up and did it to me.

Well, you've had a couple years to reflect on it. You have any idea what he might have been doing now? I have thought about this over and over and over because this has made me look guilty of something that I didn't do. And all I can do is just try to figure out why he did it, why he felt led to do it. The only thing that I have come up with is I was in a frankestead, I was up, I think my adrenaline was probably still going. I'm pacing back and forth.

I'm trying to get people on the phone. I don't know if maybe he just wanted me to calm down and just chill. I don't know if he thought that he was helping. I can't speak for why someone else did something. All I can do is try to understand it, but I don't know why he did it. Moment number five. When Weldon betrayed Bradley. Or did he?

This entire time we have been working. waiting for Bradley Williams to find his spine and finally separate himself from Weldon, who has brought nothing but chaos into Bradley's life. In the opening statements, you heard when Bradley's attorney pointed out that Bradley wasn't driving. Bradley wasn't in charge of the speeds they were going at, and Bradley didn't choose to drive down Camp Swamp Road. Imagine our surprise when it was Weldon, who was the one to separate from Bradley. Listen to this.

But you did draw your gun in fire. I did draw my gun. As I drew it, it somewhat got home on the seatbelt and I yanked it hard and got mine up. And you did return five. I did return fire. Do you know to a certainty whether you returned fire first and Mr. Williams returned fire first? I believe Mr. Williams got the first shot off. Why do you believe that? Well, when I snucked on the seatbelt during my draw, and two, it made more sense because I had to drop a phone. I remember pushing harder on the brake pedal, because I was trying to get back like this to get it. I pulled, stabbed the seatbelt, then got it up,

and I remember as I'm coming up, I felt that. And then I fired just. What is that? Concussion. And where did it came from? It would have come from Mr. Williams. So this is the first time we are hearing this version of the story, which given Weldon's credibility issues seems to be a retrofit to the facts. It makes sense is a weird thing to say. It makes sense

that Bradley shot first. See, this is interesting because Frank McMurrow's testimony was that he was passing Weldon and he saw Weldon or the driver, as he referred to him, unload his mag on Scott, which Weldon is now saying that Frank was mistaken and actually seeing Weldon hold his phone in his hand, which is a discussion for another day because, my God. Anyway, Frank didn't even notice a passenger. Nope. He saw Scott's gun down by his side

and Weldon's two-handed grip on the gun resting on the dashboard and then a continuous succession of pop pop pops, which according to the plaintiff sound expert is exactly what you hear on Weldon's 911 call. So what's Weldon up to here, right? We think we have it figured out because Bradley can be heard in the background of Weldon's 911 call after the shooting saying he shot first about Scott. It seems like their defense team is leaning in on that by shifting the blame to Bradley, who doesn't have the same seemingly insurmountable credibility issues that Weldon does.

See, if Bradley, who says Scott fired first was the first one to fire back at Scott from Weldon's truck, then Weldon was just bagging them up, right? I don't know that it changes anything about how Weldon and Bradley got to Camp Swamp Road and what precipitated that, which are big factors in the stand-your-ground standards, but it's interesting because Bradley didn't seem phased at all by getting thrown under the bus. If this is their strategy, then they're going to have a hard time explaining what Weldon meant when he kept saying that Bradley had, quote, joined the firefight and stayed in the firefight. Y'all, after Weldon got down from the stand Thursday evening, it took us a minute to shake it all off. I'm not kidding.

It was like being on the world's dumbest roller coaster for over seven hours, and it was so frustrating watching someone who's likely lived his entire life, where he just gets his way, where he gets to say what's real and the people around him just agree and make it real for him. lie so much. But did we expect anything less? No. Mark the Tiger Tensley, of course, immediately pounced on Weldon during Cross. And again, for the sake of this podcast ending at some point, we are going to have to save that for next week. In our eyes, after three days of testimony,

the defense hasn't come close to satisfying the standards of stained-your-ground immunity. Weldon's credibility has crumbled. Their star witnesses did not say what they wanted them to. The evidence did not show steroid use. Their hired expert was exposed as not an expert at all. At least beyond Bird Law. If we were keeping score, the defense would be losing big time. And Mark Tinsley still has his side of the case to present.

But this is South Carolina, and no case. is ever cut and dried, as Weldon says. Here, it is important to note that this decision comes down to one man, and that man is Judge Eugene Bubba Griffith, who has been surprisingly great so far by allowing live-streaming and letting in a lot of testimony. He's a tough read, but at times, it looked to me like he saw through Weldon. Then again, at the end of Weldon's testimony, he said something that gave us a lot of, a little bit of pause.

All right. That's it. You free to set now. Thank you. Please get it done today. We did. Thank you all y'all for sticking with it because I wanted Mr. Boyd's testimony to be concluded in one day so that he didn't have to maintain his vigilance overnight.

That's a tough thing to do. So we'll start a new tomorrow morning 9 o'clock, provided I'm not late again. All right. See you in the morning. 9 o'clock. Maintain vigilance? Well done? Like we said, this case could go either way.

The fourth day of testimony begins at 9 a.m. Friday morning, and it could very well continue into next week at this rate. Consider joining Lunashark Premium to get a link to watch the trial with our team and other members who add great commentary like Stephanie Tensley and Lerner. Tensley and legal expert Noah Pines. So, will Bradley flip on Weldon? Will Weldon flip on Bradley? Real quick, before we go, I just want to ask you all to send so much love to the Spivey family right now. They had to sit through three grueling days of testimony so far and hear the defense treats Scott like he wasn't even real or human, or a person loved by so many. Our hearts go out to Jennifer and her entire family.

We didn't know Scott, but we feel certain that he is proud of the fight that his family has taken on for him. Until next time, stay tuned, stay pesky, and stay in the sunlight. True Sunlight is a Luna Shark production created by me, Mandy Matney, co-hosted and reported by journalist Liz Farrell, research support provided by Beth Braden, audio production support provided by Jamie Hoffman and Grace Hills, case file management provided by Kate Thomas. Learn more about.

about our mission and membership at LunaSharkmedia.com. Interruptions provided by Luna and Joe Pesky.