Murdaugh Murders Podcast - TSP #140 - Charity Beallis Was Shot Twice, Sources Say. Did She Really Die By Suicide As Police Claim?
Episode Date: March 12, 2026Why did police in Arkansas lie about Charity Beallis’ final divorce hearing in their latest press release in the case? After the Sebastian County Sheriffs Office released a strange statement indicat...ing that Charity died by suicide and her 6-year-old twins died by homicide, investigative Journalists Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell dug into the records to find out exactly what happened in that hearing hours before Charity and her children died. Sources say that Charity was shot twice on the evening of Dec. 2 in Bonanza, Arkansas. A new investigation reveals turmoil between the sheriff’s office and Charity before the murders and connections that make us suspicious of corruption. While a police press release attempts to absolve Randy Beallis from the crime — which he has never been named a suspect of and says he was not responsible for the deaths of his family members — we still have questions. Let's Dive in… 🥽 🦈 Episode Links Support Independent Journalism with a Premium LUNASHARK Membership 💖 Sebastian County Sheriff's Office’s Press Release on Charity Beallis Investigation - March 4, 2026 “Beallis killed herself and 2 children, Sebastian County sheriff’s office says” - The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, March 4, 2026 “Ark. Mom Killed 6-Year-Old Twins, Died by Suicide After Estranged Husband Granted Joint Custody” - US Weekly, March 5, 2026 We’ve got a lot more on Charity Beallis - Join Premium as a Soak Up The Sun Member and head to the Members Lounge to dig into the full case documents. ☀️ Previous Episodes: TSP 131 & 134 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 info@lunasharkmedia.com 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
Transcript
Discussion (0)
I don't know who killed Charity Bialis and her two children.
But after discovering that the Sebastian County Sheriff's Office officials lied in their press release
while sharing information to support the conclusion that Charity died by suicide,
well, I don't think they should be trusted any longer to handle this investigation.
And I will tell you why.
My name is Mandy Matney and 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.
Okay, y'all, first thing is first today.
A couple weeks ago, we told you to mark your calendars for jury selection in J.P. Miller's
federal trial for March 17th.
That trial is now delayed after attorneys for the Myrtle Beach so-called pastor,
accused of cyberstocking and lying to investigators,
asked for a continuance and waived J.P.'s right to a speedy trial.
Judge Joseph Dawson approved the order for continuance
and moved the case until at least April 26.
But it could be even later depending on what JP Miller's team does next.
We will keep you updated as that trial gets closer.
One more update before we get into it,
and y'all, where to even start?
So you know how we've spent almost an entire year talking about how South Carolina Attorney General
Ellen Wilson made the political and very corrupt decision not to prosecute North Myrtle Beach
Restaurant under Weldon Boyd and Weldon's best friend forever, Bradley Williams, in the September
2023 shooting death of Scott Spivey and how Ellen has continued to double down on that?
And how we felt like that decision was 100% about Allen.
not wanting to challenge ORI County Police, lest he piss off all police in that part of the state because that's how the good old boys work.
And how Alan not only needs every law enforcement vote he can get if he wants to be governor, which he has been planning for a long time,
he's never been a cool guy in his entire life.
So his pandering to Ory County Police seems to be his last stab at feeling popular.
And how, when we called out the AG's office on this, Alan Wilson and his team were like,
it wouldn't be ethical for us to charge Walden and Bradley because of stand-your-ground immunity.
OTHICS, a word that in no way, shape, or form actually factored into their decision there, in our opinions.
Because you know what's unethical?
Using taxpayer-funded band-aids to patch together two laws to protect two shooters.
If you don't know what I mean by that, check out episode 108 of True Sunlight for our episode on the Spivey Families Meeting with the AG's office in April 2024.
When they were told, no charges would be filed in Scott's killing.
Anyway, Alan Wilson literally tried to fool the public into thinking that it was normal for the prosecution to act on behalf of the defense attorneys,
which makes you wonder why.
And actually, that is a question that needs an answer.
So if you ever attend one of Alan's sad little election parties, please ask him that question and let us know what he says.
Why was he acting on behalf of the defense attorneys and the Scots by the case?
Because every time we've tried to ask him a question about this case, his standard response has been,
Sorry, can't talk about it because of the rules.
It would be wrong with me.
Unless he's on his cousin's podcast.
There, Alan felt free to blab about the case.
To include letting the public know that had Scott survived this,
that Alan would have charged him, which should worry all of you, because it means Alan is not
in touch with the real world. It means he's hanging out with too many tassel loafer lickers and
good old boys who want Alan to keep this two-tiered justice system just the way it is. Anyway, this is all
just to say that Alan Wilson wasn't even half right when it comes to the spivey case. As you all know,
last month after a four-day hearing, everyone's new favorite South Carolina judge, Judge Eugene
Bubba Griffith, denied Weldon Boyd, stand-your-ground immunity. It was a glorious moment,
and it's about to be my ringtone. In his ruling, Judge Griffith, who were told is getting married,
so congratulations, sir, said he would leave Bradley's fate open for two weeks before making a ruling.
He asked that Bradley's attorneys write a draft of an order granting him immunity, and the Spivey family's
attorneys to write a draft order denying immunity. All due at noon last Friday. Within hours,
the judge posted his order, denying Bradley immunity. And oh, how I wish we could have Judge Bubba read
the order out loud because not only do we agree with his reasoning, essentially that Bradley, though
more credible than Weldon, was not credible enough to be believed. Remember, the bar is low
with Weldon. We're impressed by how well the judge understood the evidence.
Remember all the times Alan Wilson's office said they thoroughly looked at the evidence?
Those lies need to matter.
It's not okay for the state's top law enforcement agency to say these things without any recourse.
Don't let Alan Wilson forget all this.
Don't trust a man who is willing to put the community at risk in exchange for some votes.
As we continue our coverage of the Spivey case, I'm sure we'll be sharing some of the best parts of Judge Griffith's orders,
denying both Weldon and Bradley immunity.
In the meantime, send prayers and positive thoughts to the Spivey family
as they continue to do the hard work
to force the justice system into doing its job.
Now, let's talk about the Charity Bialis case
because a lot has happened.
I don't know if happened is the right word here.
A lot of words were said by investigators
and we're still unpacking them
because they seem very strategic, if not cryptic.
Okay, so this is our third episode on the Bialis case.
If you haven't done so, listen to episodes 131 and 134 to get caught up.
But here is the summary so far.
Charity Bialis and her two six-year-old twins, Maverick and Eliana,
were found shot to death in her Bonanza Arkansas home on December 3rd.
Just one day after Charity and her husband, Dr. Randy Bialis attended their final divorce hearing
where both parents were granted joint custody.
Charity is Randy's second wife to die by gunshot.
Randy has never been named a suspect in this investigation
that took a sharp turn in the last week,
which we will tell you about in a minute.
It's important to know all three of Randy's wives
have accused Randy of abuse.
In episodes 131 and 134,
we told you about the night of February 16th,
the night that everything changed in Charity's relationship with Randy.
Charity told police that Randy choked her in front of her children.
The couple separated that evening.
In March, Charity filed for divorce and Randy was arrested on three domestic violence charges
related to the alleged choking incident in February.
The case file included photos that showed marks and bruising on Charity,
including on her neck.
In episode 131, we told you about something else we've
found in the case file. The haunting report that the Sebastian County Sheriff's Office took
after that February incident. It was called the Laura's Law test that basically required
police to ask domestic violence victims a series of questions to determine lethality, i.e.,
the level of risk a woman has of being killed by her alleged abuser. Charity scored a 10
out of 13 on the Her Life is in Danger Scale, and less than 10 months later,
She was found shot to death along with her two children.
In episode 134, we walked you through the major failures, in our opinion,
in the domestic violence case against Randy,
where eventually the Sebastian County District Attorney's Office
agreed to give Randy a sweetheart deal for his charges.
In October, he was allowed to plead guilty to just one charge of third-degree domestic battery,
and he was sentenced to probation.
He got a $3,100 fine and was ordered to go to a DV prevention class,
which he completed in January 26, after her death.
We'll talk more about how Randy views this incident, by the way, so stick a pen in that.
We also told you about how the district attorney interviewed Randy's first wife, Donna, in their investigation,
and Donna alleged that there were several incidents
in which Randy was abusive to her and their three children.
Donna Bialis also told police about Randy's second wife, Shana's, sudden and violent death,
and how he married Charity a year later.
In the months leading up to her death, Charity was vocal on social media about her fear
of being killed by her husband.
She specifically posted a shocking statistic from a daily press story that said if a woman's
partner strangles her, the risk of her being shot to death by that same partner increases 750%.
750%. And just months after posting that, she was found shot to death. Three months after her death,
police released a statement which we will talk about in a moment, indicating that they believe
Charity died by suicide and her children died by homicide.
from the start with this case, the police reports were telling us that this was a volatile
relationship and that Randy had a history of abuse allegations. On top of that, there were some
other red flags. To begin with, there seemed to be a lot of agencies investigating this case.
First, there is the lead investigating agency, Sebastian County Sheriff's Office. Then there's
the Arkansas State Police Criminal Investigation Division, the FBI, Homeland Security Investigations,
and the United States Secret Service, which, you know, raises questions.
Like, who are the Bialysis?
Were they caught up in something?
Why are the feds investigating the deaths of a woman and her two children?
I mean, it's great, please.
More of that.
But also, you see this many agencies attached to a potential triple murder,
and you worry that there are too many cooks in the kitchen.
Sorry, I don't like that analogy.
Let's try this one.
Too many big egos in the tough guy shop.
It just seems chaotic.
And of course, they've offered no reasons for the mega agency attention.
The next red flag is something we've talked about in episode 131.
Immediately after the deaths of charity and their children,
Randy B. Alice tried to put a stop to the divorce, which is weird, right?
Why put a stop to a divorce when the person you're divorcing is now deceased?
One of the reasons is that as her ex-husband, Randy was no longer her next of kin,
which means that the $10,000 she was awarded in court, the BMWX5,
and half of their $750,000 house wouldn't go directly to him.
If you've listened to our previous coverage, you know that the judge complied with Randy's request initially,
but then charity's surviving adult son filed an emergency motion to stop the process which was granted.
So, you know, we listen and we don't judge.
But also, it's wild that a man who just lost his two kids and his newly designated ex-wife
had that on his next 24 hours to-do list.
Like we said, red flag.
Logically fine, money, money, money, but emotionally, no.
Especially because the judge didn't grant charity the divorce.
She granted Randy the divorce.
He wanted it.
He got it.
And the second she was dead, he was trying to rewind time.
Again, we all agree in different ways.
Some of us can compartmentalize better than others.
But then there's this other strange thing.
Less than a week after charities and the children's deaths,
a woman was dumpster diving at the reserve at Chaffee Crossing,
which is a townhouse complex where Randy had moved.
The woman was looking for items she could resell
and among her hall found a heavy black trash bag.
The next morning, when she went through the bag,
the woman found three professionally taken photos.
One was of Randy, one was of charity in her daughter,
and one was of charity in her sister.
son. That woman spoke to Beth Braden recently, and we have to tell you what she said.
The woman recognized the people in the photos from the internet and was like, oh my God,
what am I supposed to do right now? What she did was call the Fort Smith Police.
They sent an officer, and together they waited for the Sebastian County Sheriff's Office,
the lead investigative agency in the case. Also in the garbage bag were the following. A four-page
handwritten letter, a receipt from Jim Grizzell Tire from November 19, 2025, drawing,
and paintings from the kids,
Eliana's chore chart,
a necklace belonging to charity,
which, again, we all grieve differently.
Some people are not sentimental,
and we have no way of knowing
who threw these items out or why.
Was it Randy?
Was it a family member
or a friend helping him
in the aftermath of his family's deaths?
But it is hella odd, right?
I'm no investigator
with the Sebastian County Sheriff's Office,
so I'm not saying this is evidence of anything.
And clearly, according to the woman
who found these items, this left little impression on the detectives that came to retrieve the bag
from her. The woman told Beth Braden that she felt like the detectives weren't very interested
in what she had found. She led them to the dumpster where she found the items. When she left,
she realized they hadn't taken the bag she had found the items in. So she called them. They didn't
answer. So she drove back to the dumpster, where she had left them 10 minutes earlier. They were gone
when she got there. She said, given the short time that had elapsed,
She didn't think the detectives could have looked inside the dumpster.
Lastly, and here's a big one for y'all.
Over the past month, we were able to confirm through multiple sources that Charity was shot twice,
once in the head and once in the chest area.
Twice.
She was shot twice.
We know it is rare for women to shoot themselves as a method of suicide,
and we know it is extremely rare for anyone to be.
die from a multiple gunshot suicide. Actually, it's less than 5% of firearm-related suicides,
and that is being generous. So yeah, that's shocking, right? Now, all of that was to give you
background in terms of where we were thinking as we were awaiting the announcement from the
Sebastian County Sheriff's Office, which had not yet named a suspect, nor were they very
clear on what exactly was happening in the investigation. As we have said many times since the
Murdoch murders podcast days, context is everything. And gosh, it is infuriating how many times
we have seen context get ignored by the powers that be in the justice system. Sorry, one more
piece of context that you need before I tell you about the latest twist in the investigation.
Randy Bialis is represented by attorney Michael Pierce of the Gene, Gene, and Gene law firm.
Wait, how many jeans was that? There might be more.
Ugh, never mind.
Let me have David read Michael Pierce's online bio for you.
Michael Pierce is an aggressive and well-respected attorney in Fort Smith, Arkansas,
with over 10 years experience as an Arkansas and Oklahoma attorney.
For those of y'all who aren't familiar with Arkansas, the Bialys live close to the Oklahoma border.
There's more.
Mr. Pierce's primary practice areas are criminal law, including felonies, Mr. Meaders, and Traffic Offenses,
family law, including custody, divorce, adoptions, guardianships, and DHS cases, personal injury law,
automobile accidents, and personal injury, and probate and estate matters.
and quote.
That is a lot of practice areas.
I guess you could call him a multi-tool.
Oh, and one more line.
And this one is really important.
He is a former deputy prosecutor in Sebastian County, Fort Smith, Arkansas,
and has the experience and ability to handle your case
no matter how large or small it may be.
I'm not going to tell you to tell you to.
stick a pen in that because that is like mental index card territory. Keep that part in mind
for the rest of the episode after you rewind to the part where we told you about how Randy was charged
with three felony counts of domestic violence in February 2025 and was able to plead guilty to
one single misdemeanor count of domestic battery. Really helps to have a lawyer who's a former
deputy prosecutor, I bet. Okay, so let's talk about the twist. On March 4th,
2026, three months after Charity and her babies were found dead in their rural Arkansas home,
the Sebastian County Sheriff's Office released a media update on the Bialis case. Finally,
I'm going to have David read the first part of this so you all can hear their own words.
On 12.3. 2025, SCSO responded to a residence on 1st Avenue in Bonanza, Arkansas, and began a death investigation.
The deceased were Charity Bialis, 40, and her two children.
Since that time, SCSO has been working hard to uncover the facts.
The investigation is continuing.
But here's what we can share so far.
The autopsy conducted by the Arkansas State Crime Lab has a conclusion of suicide for Mrs. Bialis and homicide for the two children.
I'm going to stop to pause right now because this is an interesting way to phrase an autopsy ruling.
It does not say that the medical examiner ruled Charity's death a suicide and ruled Maverick and Eliana's death a homicide.
It says the state crime lab has to be a suicide.
a conclusion which feels open-ended and passive. Like they aren't saying it is for sure a suicide,
but it has a conclusion of suicide. What is going on here? Do they not want to commit to a finding?
Are they doubting themselves of having a conclusion? And why isn't the person who had this
conclusion named? And what? The investigation is continuing. We
are confused. And if you have a conclusion of suicide, isn't that the conclusion that you have?
And more importantly, why is it that this is the only information about the autopsy? It's also
important to note that this press release doesn't actually say that police believe Charity killed
her two children. It does not say whether or not there were any suspects in the homicide investigation.
The state lab has a conclusion of homicide for the two children, which is problematic,
because here are some of the headlines that dopey reporters wrote about the release of the same information.
From the independent, quote, Arkansas mother killed herself and two kids say new autopsy results.
Nope, not what the autopsy results or the press release say.
From the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, Bialis killed herself and two children.
County Sheriff's Office says. Again, not according to what we're reading, and possibly the most
inaccurate. From U.S. Weekly, mother killed twins after her ex was granted custody. Again, not what the
press release actually says. And importantly, both Charity and Randy were granted joint custody.
So frustrating. Oh, and please give me a break with the line
since the time SCSO has been working hard to uncover the facts.
Like, that is their third sentence in this release.
It's like, calm down, Scooby-Doo.
It is not time for treats at all.
More on that absurd press release after this break.
The Sheriff's Office press release on the Bialis case
was full of oddly selected information
and absent some really important facts.
It did not say anything about whether a weapon was found
in the home, which she would think would be a crucial detail to share with the public if you're
wanting to explain why you believe Charity took her own life. Instead, the Sebastian County Sheriff's
Office decided to share the three following facts about their very serious investigation in their
press release after the part about the autopsy. Again, I need y'all to hear the words they chose,
so we'll have David read this. An examination of the transcripts of the deposition of Mrs. Bialis
in the divorce-slash-custody case and the final hearing on the case on 12-2-2020-
reveal that she wished to be reconciled with her estranged husband, which did not happen.
Mrs. B. Alice, after being represented by four different attorneys,
represented herself in the contested divorce-slash-custody hearing.
At the conclusion of the hearing, Mrs. B. Alice was ordered to begin joint custody of her children
with her estranged husband.
Mrs. Bialis' estranged husband
was a driver of a Tesla electric vehicle at that time.
Tesla has compiled location data on Tesla vehicles,
and according to the information provided by Tesla,
Mrs. Bialis' estranged husband's vehicle
was not near the residence in Bonanza on the night in question.
Also, the estranged husband's phones did not, quote,
ping any of the cell towers,
approximately related to Mrs. Bialis' location.
Information from the home security alarm company
shows the alarm was deactivated by Mrs. Bialis by her phone.
She had exclusive access to the security system
at around 10 p.m. on the night in question.
Even though deactivated,
the alarm company was able to provide information
showing no doors or windows to the home were opened during that time.
When law enforcement arrived after 9,000,
30 a.m. on 12.3. 2025, there were no doors or windows open, and they had to use a key to enter the home.
SCSO rigorously tested the functioning of each door and window and found them to be operating properly.
Is it just me? Or does that press release have vibes like someone at the Sebastian County Sheriff's Office
was playing the game Clue and just opened his little yellow confidential case file envelope?
It's like, wait, Mrs. Peacock, Candlestick Library, what is this random assortment of facts you're throwing at us?
And I'm not saying that all police are sexist, but it's times like these when I swear I can see the misogyny seeping out of every word of this press release.
And I start to get really angry.
Because what do you mean an examination of transcripts from her divorce case allegedly reveal that she wished to be with her estranged and they forgot this part, allegedly abused.
of husband. Are they trying to say that she wanted to get back together with her husband? And he didn't
want that. So therefore, the next logical step for a 40-year-old mother of two little kids would be to
shoot herself twice? Are they trying to say that this transcript is evidence that Charity was a woman
who didn't get her way? And so, therefore, she killed herself after her final divorce hearing.
after all that.
Why is the Sebastian County Sheriff's Office
mentioning the fact that she had four attorneys
in this press release?
What does that have to do with anything?
How does that result in alleged murder suicide?
Oh yeah, it's men.
Looking at this case from their own perspective
of this must mean that charity,
as wives tend to be, was crazy.
Or this must mean that she was erotic and impulsive.
Instead of, oh hey, charity.
Charity hadn't worked for 13 years. She was fully reliant on Randy's income, which,
duh, she would likely need to pay for the attorneys. So I wonder how that looked. Was the
change in attorneys due to inconsistent funding, perhaps? Which, boys, if you're going to say that a woman
had four attorneys in your sixth grade reading level press release, explain what you mean by
including that detail. The sheriff's office was right about that one part, though. And that's at the
end of the hearing, Charity Bialis was ordered to split custom.
with her husband. But again, what are they trying to say there? Because splitting custody with Randy
actually wasn't Charity's worst fear. Her worst fear was losing her kids entirely, which was Randy's
explicit goal to take them from her because she didn't love them enough. We all know this because
Beth Braden got the 221 page transcript of that final divorce hearing between Charity and
Randy Bialis. And of course, it does not show what the police in announcing their
findings after three months say it does, which makes us question all of the other evidence in this
case, especially all of the other information they decided to share in this strange media release.
Stick a pin in that divorce hearing transcript because, y'all, it is jaw-dropping. We'll talk about that
in a minute. The other two things that the Sebastian County Sheriff's Office decided to share,
two pieces of information that seemed to work in Dr. Bialis's favor, and it really didn't absolve him.
Again, we're being careful here.
After the announcement from the sheriff's office,
Randy Bialis' attorney issued a warning to the media
and to content creators that they might pursue legal action
against defamatory statements about Randy.
Randy has not been charged or accused
by any public officials of having anything to do
with the murders of his wife and children.
He has denied abusing his wife
despite pleading guilty to assaulting her.
That said, in our opinions,
it felt like this entire press release
was aimed toward exonerating Randiard.
Randy and boosting his image in the public, rather than informing the public about the investigation
and what evidence is showing them.
Oh, wait, what was that last line in the press release?
Sebastian County Prosecutor's Office has been an integral part of this investigation as well.
Huh.
And what did the last line of Michael Pierce's bio say?
He is a former deputy prosecutor in Sebastian County, Ford Smith, Arkansas.
I'm not saying this is what happened, but is it possible?
that this press release was put out there preemptively as a sort of favor to clear Randy B. Alice's name
because the deputies say so themselves, this investigation is ongoing. There's more to be done.
So why put out this weird assortment of information? I mean, sure. The press release mentions
evidence, I guess. But really, what does it mean? The sheriff's office said Randy's Tesla
revealed it was not near Charity's home on the night in question. His cell phone was also
of pinging off towers away from the murder scene that night, according to the press release.
Again, Randy maintains his innocence and the deputies agree, according to the release,
but cars and phones don't shoot people, right?
Where's the connector?
Where's the alibi that confirms he was with his phone and car?
And real quick, the sheriff's office revealed something there.
It sounds like they have narrowed down the approximate time of death in this case to the night
that the hearing took place on December 2nd.
Before this, they hadn't said publicly when they believed Charity and her babies lost their lives,
just that they were found dead on December 3rd.
Anyway, anyone who watches Dateline in 2020, like we do,
knows that so many killers purposely leave their cell phones behind when they go commit a murder.
And killers can also use different vehicles to avoid being tracked,
perhaps an old junker that doesn't have a GPS.
Again, we're not saying by any means that there is evidence pointing to Randy's guilt in these murders.
We're simply saying that car and phone location data doesn't at all make for a full alibi.
And we're saying that it seems kind of rudimentary and loose for an investigating agency to offer these details in support of their conclusion of suicide that they have.
I swear, it's hard to stop thinking about.
The crime lab has a conclusion of suicide.
Finally, the sheriff's office said in the release that the home security system was deactivated by Charity's phone at 10 that night.
But the alarm company was able to confirm that no doors or windows had been open during the time in question, which again, what? What does that mean? I get what they think they're saying, that no murderer could have possibly entered the home. But even without knowing what security company they had and what the actual report said, it's not exactly a solid exonerating fact on its own, or even paired with the other nebulous facts in the release. And again, we're not saying Randy did this. We're just saying it doesn't mean charity did. Or rather, we don't say,
see how it means charity did, which, why release this half-baked information that only raises more
questions? After the sheriff's office's press release, Randy Bialis's attorney issued the
following statement that I'll have David Reed. Mr. Bialis continues to recover from the tragic event
that took his children from him. He would like to thank all of the law enforcement officials
working on this case for their diligent efforts to find the truth.
were not surprised by the findings in the autopsy, as we knew that Mr. Bialis was not responsible
for the death of his wife, nor his children. Further, the Sebastian County Sheriff's Office
has made a clear statement that they have not found evidence indicating any conclusion other
than those determined by the autopsies conducted by the crime lab. Please inform the public
that continued defamatory and libelous false accusations and statements, including
including those made on social media against Mr. Bialis will be reviewed and potentially pursued
in the legal system.
So that's interesting.
The press release sure did feel like, in my opinion, that it was written more to satisfy
a powerful defense attorney than it was to inform the public about their investigation
of a super horrific crime.
Because again, why bring a...
up the divorce hearing and say that she wanted reconciliation.
And that brings us to the transcript from the December 2nd divorce hearing and everything
that we've learned, which was a lot.
Today, we are going to share parts of the transcript that seem to directly contradict
what the Sebastian County Sheriff's Office press release said.
In a future episode, we will talk about what the transcript shows in terms of the tension
between Randy and Charity.
That said, trigger warning to everyone.
This is about custody and divorce and maybe some strong personality issues
and an imbalance of financial power.
And because there are a lot of different parts here,
we're going to have Grace Hills voice the part of charity.
David will be Randy Bialis and Bobby Woodrum.
And we're also going to use some tools from our friends at Storyblocks,
so David will also be reading the parts of Judge Black and Randy's attorney Michael Pierce.
But first, let's do a little rundown about why this hearing was happening in the first place.
Charity and Randy were suing each other for divorce.
Charity's case was filed first and then Randy countersued her.
Charity's perspective was this.
She didn't want to be in an abusive and controlling relationship.
She feared for the well-being of her kids who she says were scared of their father and didn't want to see it.
him and therefore she was seeking full custody. But she also was open to her kids having a relationship
with their father if he sought help for his anger and demonstrated that his perspective on things had
changed and according to the divorce papers, she was also open to using a third party for visitation.
Randy's perspective was this. He's perfect. He's the best father. Charity is 100% the problem.
Charity poisoned the kids against him. Donna, his first wife, poisoned their kids against him.
He's not an abuser. Charity's the abuser, and he's never done anything wrong. Also, he's going to take the kids from her and let them be raised among his large family in Illinois. Are you seeing where this is going in terms of certain personality types? And do you see why Charity Bialis might have been terrified about losing her children? So the sheriff's office claims that Charity wanted to get back together with Randy at the time of this hearing, and they made it seem like she was forlorn over his rejection of that possibility. They allude to this being one of the reason she killed her.
It's really not clear where they got that idea from because it wasn't the transcript.
According to the transcript, Charity, who represented herself, had insisted that this final hearing
happened on this date so that the divorce could go through sooner rather than later.
The judge, Shannon Blatt, mentioned this a few times when Charity was trying to understand
the rules of procedure, basically in a you wanted this to happen way.
But that's not the only evidence to Charity.
not wanting to reunite with Randy.
Here's an exchange between her and Randy's attorney Michael Pierce,
whose voice we have recreated with help from our friends at Storyblocks,
and Grace Hills reading for charity.
And you stated in the deposition that you want to bring your family back together, correct?
I said my children said that's the only way they wanted to see him again,
was if he would be good all the time until he's 118 years old,
and if he would, and only if I'm there.
But what they really wanted for us to be a good friend,
family. I thought I made it clear the trauma they've been through and how hard we've been working
to repair that. I thought I made it clear the true fear they've expressed about their father.
I thought I made it very clear, sir, that they voiced they never, ever want to see him again.
Is this about you or is this about the children?
My children, if I'm not being clear about that, please forgive me.
If that is the testimony that investigators think indicated charity wanted to reconcile with
Randy, then they either need reading glasses or they are just lying. In another exchange with
Charity, Michael Pierce asked her about a text message that she had sent to Randy on February 8,
2025, about a week before the domestic violence incident, when it seems like Randy was intent
on leaving Charity and her children. Now, there's been some testimony today from you and other
people about how Randy wasn't good for, to you, and how it wasn't a good relationship.
Yet, isn't it true that you were actually begging him to stay with you the week before his arrest?
I was.
Attorney Michael Pierce showed Charity a document, and she verified that she did indeed send the text in question.
But she also pointed out that there was more to the conversation that was left all.
the document. He then had her read the messages and then at the end asked her why she would
beg to be with a man who harmed her children. Does that sound like someone that you would be
referring to that treats your children poorly? I will tell you what that sounds like to me.
What does that sound like? That's a textbook reactive abuse tactic, right? He says,
you don't love me, you don't love me, you hate me. So he leaves, right? He leaves because he leaves,
because he wanted me to oh i love you randy i love you so much you know that's what he wanted that's
what he got and the truth is i do love him now i did have the love i have now because i've plugged into
the true source i am i can say no i didn't have that love at the time for him but i did love him
i don't hate him so you're saying you love him more now than then i'm not saying more here now or then
i'm saying i never hated him there are things i didn't like that he'd done because he caused a lot of
pain but I look at it this way. Anytime you would point out my flaws, see, I dealt with them,
I face them, I own up to them, I've made mistakes, I'm by no means perfect. But I'm not going
to sit here and tell you that I never made mistakes either, and that he is the sole problem and that this
is all his fault. No, we've all, we've both messed up, but my children don't deserve to be in the
middle of a storm, a game, whatever you want to call this. So a few things here. One is I want
to reshare something we told you about in episode 131. This is from Charity's
to police on February 16th, 2025, the night of the alleged choking incident.
Quote, I was in the bathroom getting ready for bed when my husband Randy walked in the bathroom
and was angry I was taking too long in the bathroom. He then got paranoid I was talking to someone,
which I was, and it was my dad. I just reconnected with him today via Facebook Messenger after years
of no communication. I reached out because my husband had told me last Saturday he was leaving me
and the kids to find someone that loved him the way he needs to be loved. He told me this about a
week after I told him I finally realized he is a textbook narcissist. Once I exposed him for a narcissist,
he chose to flee. I wasn't prepared to let him go at the time worrying about how I would support
me and my twins with no financial support. Now, there's the context to that testimony where Randy's
attorney seemed to want to put words in charity's mouth, maybe, or I don't know, confuse the judge
on the timeline maybe, which maybe confused investigators.
Honestly, I am at a loss with this one.
How is it that investigators thought that she wanted to reconcile with Randy?
I mean, one possibility is that investigators had it sort of planted in their heads,
that charity wanted reconciliation.
So when they went to look at the transcript, they didn't bother to read it closely,
which is another big red flag, because this so-called fact was important enough,
apparently, for the police to put in their bizarre, non-committal, press release about their
kind of, sort of findings.
Do you see why all of this is so weird to us?
So now let's drop the hammer a little.
Michael Pierce of Gene Squared Times Infinity Law Firm
was a former Sebastian County prosecutor.
Sebastian County Sheriff's Office is the lead investigating agency.
Sebastian County Sheriff's Office was also the investigating agency
when Charity reported that Randy had abused their twins
and in the February 2025 domestic violence incident.
So let's meet a Sebastian County.
Sheriff's Office investigator, shall we?
After a quick break, and we will be right back.
Randy Bielis' attorney, Michael Pierce, called Bobby Woodrowm, who was an investigator
with the same agency in charge of Charity's murder case as a witness.
Woodrow had observed the forensic interview done of Charity's two children and decided
that she had coached the children into saying that Randy had abused them.
And although an investigation conducted by the state crimes against Children Department
had found Mavericks and Eliana's accounts to be credible,
and Randy was put on the state child maltreatment registry,
which he is appealing,
no charges were ever filed against Randy related to alleged abuse of the twins.
In his direct examination of Woodrum,
Pierce tried to establish that the prosecutors were reviewing
potential charges against charity for making a false police report.
Here's how that went.
David is reading for Bobby Woodrum.
Did you ask the prosecutor to,
review potential charges, has it related to charity, Bialis?
Not that I'm aware of. I didn't request any charges at all.
Did you ask them to review if there was a false police report made or some sort of coaching
of the children or anything like that?
I don't recall ever asking for anything like that.
At some point, you were removed from the case.
Yes, sir.
And why were you removed from the case?
So the next day, after the Hamilton House interview,
there was a complaint that was filed saying that I was unprofessional,
and that I may have been paid off by Mr. Bialis of the amount of a million dollars.
Okay, so you were accused to have been paid off by Mr. Bialis of a million dollars?
Yes, sir.
Okay, so the plot thickens, right?
It seems like Pierce was alluding to charity being the one to lob these accusations against Woodrow.
So let's see what she did on cross-examination.
First, she asked him about the prosecutor at the time and whether it was a man named Jason Hunter.
Here is how he responded.
Yes, he was the initial prosecution.
I believe there was several prosecutors that was involved,
but I mainly dealt with Jason Hunter.
A several prosecutors involved in the,
forgive me, investigation into whether two children were abused by their father
that resulted in no charges being filed?
I'm not trying to downplay that.
And maybe I'm just not knowledgeable enough
about how things work in Sebastian County, Arkansas.
But doesn't it usually go investigation, decision about whether there's probable cause for arrest,
warrant for arrest, and then forward case to prosecutor's office?
Because here, it seems to have gone investigation to several prosecutors involved in no charges
getting filed.
Again, something does not seem right here.
But the real point I'm trying to make is that after the twins were forensically interviewed
at a place called Hamilton House,
Old Bobby Woodrum asked Charity if she had coached the children on what to say.
Then Woodrum went to Michael Pierce during his investigation into Randy's alleged physical abuse of the twins
and told Michael Pierce that he believed Charity had manipulated and coached the children.
And it was his belief that the prosecutor's office should have pursued filing a false police report charge against her,
which again, Bobby says he doesn't remember she.
saying. Charity asked him to tell the court why he was kicked off the case. Again, here's
David reading for Woodrum and Grace Hills reading for charity. And so the reason I was removed from
the case is they said that I shouldn't have asked if you had told the kids what to say. And that's
the reason why I was removed from the case. They didn't say anything about being unprofessional
or the way I was talked to or treated during... They said that that was unprofessional. Like,
I got rout up because they said that that was unprofessional, that I shouldn't have asked that.
So the plot thickens again, right?
Charity got an investigator from the same sheriff's office that became the lead agency
into her and her children's death, reprimanded and removed from her children's case.
And you know, it's hard to retone in a printed transcript, but it is not a stretch to think
that investigator was a bitter Bobby about it.
The judge asked Woodrum for clarification about what happened, and he told her that he had
asked Charity whether she had told the children why they were being interviewed.
She said yes, and that she advised them to tell the truth.
And then, Bitter Bobby replied, uh, well, what did you tell the kids to say?
We're also going to try out some new voice effects from story blocks for the part of Judge Blatt.
Okay, and you got written up for that?
Yes, ma'am.
Okay.
Do you believe that you were taken off of the case for no reason?
That's not what I'm saying.
I was taken off the case because it was deemed that the question I asked was inappropriate and unprofessional.
Charity asked Woodrum if he had ever received any training on what to look for in different age groups in these situations when it came to potential abuse.
Bitter Bobby said no.
meaning he was no expert in determining whether a child had been coached to say that another parent had abused them.
Charity pointed out to Woodrum that the forensic interviewer had asked the children several times,
did your mother tell you to say these things?
Woodrum, without any report in front of him, by the way,
told Charity that the reason for that was because, quote,
the kids kept saying,
well, mom has said to say this because she doesn't want to get in trouble.
Charity asked Woodrum whether he had been aware that this was the first time,
this forensic interviewer was conducting an interview by herself.
He was not.
Charity told him she had counted how many times each kid was asked repetitive questions
and mentioned that the kids were asked 10 times each about whether she had told them to say anything
and asked 27 different questions about their grandfather,
whom the interviewer had mistaken for a potential boyfriend of charities because the children
did not refer to him as Papa or Grandpa.
Charity asked Woodrum,
are you familiar with that developmental age and any psychology behind,
if you ask a child so many times the same question,
they're going to want to please.
They're going to think they're answering it wrong
and they're going to want to please that person.
Meaning, I believe that Charity believed
the children changed their answer to,
mom has said to say this because they thought
that they were getting the answer wrong.
Bobby Woodrum told Charity that no.
He didn't know that about children because he has no training at all
in interviewing a child.
And you know, when Mandy and I were reading this part,
it was like, go Charity,
because she had again gotten Woodrum to admit
that his assessment that she had coached her children into claiming abuse from their father,
an assessment that he independently brought to the lawyer of the suspect, their father,
was based on no training or expertise whatsoever.
Then it got a little weird.
At some point in their marriage, Charity had written a self-published book that Randy funded,
and according to Charity's testimony, had a heavy hand in.
Randy's attorney Pierce provided Woodrum with a copy of this book in his office,
which Woodrum took photos of and included in his case file.
So none of your supervisors told you that it was inappropriate to get that book from who was being accused and include that in a child abuse case?
So they said that it was inappropriate to include that into a child abuse case, that I could have got the inserts of the book, but add it into this part and to submit it to the prosecutors because there was no allegations made against you.
And the inserts were actions that had.
happened with you and not the kids.
So can you tell us the motive behind that?
I thought, based off what was in the book, and in the book you admitted that you had made
up stories before to get Mr. Bialis in trouble, okay?
And so that was concerning to me based off the interviews with the children and what they
were saying, Mama said, Mama said, Mama said, and so yes, I thought that that was more than
appropriate to add to that show.
Okay, well, we've got the forensic interview where the kids are saying,
Mama said, Mama said.
We've got your daughter saying, I don't know.
Let's go with whatever my brother said.
And that was in the forensic interview.
So we have all these things and then we have a book that says.
So first, I don't know of any six-year-old who would use the phrase,
let's go with whatever my brother said.
Lo and behold, Charity clarified that Eliana had grown tired of that interview
and told the interviewer something like,
it's like what Maverick said, and stick a pen in that.
But that's a lot different, right?
The investigator in this case, who again said he didn't have his report with him
and who again had been removed from the case due to inappropriate action and behavior,
had already admitted having no experience,
or training when it comes to children being interviewed.
And yet, he continued to demonstrate to the court that he had made his decision based on the
behavior he was ill-equipped to evaluate.
Did you read the whole book?
I did not read the whole book.
So you took things out of context to prove I'm not a credible witness.
Is that what you're saying?
No, I took what was in the book of the chapters that I had and made the conclusion from that.
That's just what I was told by the prosecutor, so I don't recall on the forensic interviews, Ellie, ever saying, I'm just going to go along with what my brother said.
Well, I asked you a specific question in your interview. I said, does your daughter normally go with what her brother says and wants her to do, or does she have her own will or whatever?
And you said, my daughter is very strong and she doesn't go with what the brother said.
And that's, so I mean, you know, with that being said, with you saying that, and then in the forensic interview, which it's there, her saying, quote, I don't know, I'm going to go with what my brother said, but she said his name. I mean, that also raised a red flag for me as well.
I think I vaguely remember she said something like that. At the point she had shut down, she said, I'm done talking. It's the same thing Maverick said.
That's yes.
I know. You probably want to know more about this book.
But the point here is that the deputy told the court that there were red flags in the kids' interviews.
And Charity was able to, in our opinions anyway, knock that back and expose it for what it was, inaccurate and biased.
He literally agrees with her that the thing Eliana said was less indicative of being manipulated and more indicative of her being.
a six-year-old who was over it. We'll talk more about this in a future episode and what
Charity had to say about the book and the assertions made in it, including whether she made up
things about Randy. In the meantime, this is about the Sebastian County Sheriff's Office, the same
agency that took three months to come to a half conclusion with the help of a half-dozen other
agencies about what happened to Charity Bialis. I don't think it's a stretch to say that
that it's notable that Charity had an issue with one of their investigators,
to the point where the investigator had to be removed from the case.
And I think it is notable that this investigation into the children's alleged abuse
included a number of prosecutors and, per Bobby Woodrum's word, a reworking.
One thing to note for those of you who might do some Googling after this,
The Bobby Woodrum that testified in Charity's case is not the same Bobby Woodrum who was arrested in Fort Smith last month and accused of raping four children, which he has pleaded not guilty to.
That Bobby Woodrow is 65 years old because he is related to a Sebastian County Sheriff's deputy.
He's being held at a different detention center.
A second thing to note is that the Sebastian County Sheriff's office is pretty small, like a total of 60 deputies.
On Wednesday morning, we had Beth Brady contact their public information officer to find out,
just how many investigators are in the agency's criminal investigation division. And it turns out
that number is six. Six, meaning Bobby Woodrum is one-sixth of the agency's investigators,
meaning one-sixth of the investigation team is a guy who got written up because of how he
traded charity and how he handled the investigation into whether Randy had abused her children.
There's some math to be done here, and I can see an equation that's taking shape. It's now making sense
Why that Sheriff's Office press release on the deaths of charity and her children is so strange.
The passive and non-committal language is strange.
The timing of it is strange.
Why put this out when the investigation by their own admission is still open?
The conclusions aren't actually conclusions.
And the list of supporting evidence is baffling.
I'm not saying that the evidence wouldn't make sense in a greater context,
but the bits and pieces they chose to share with the public
don't exactly build confidence in their crime-solving abilities.
Nor does the fact that one-sixth of their investigation team, who testified from memory on a case he was kicked off of,
was so unaware of his own professional limitations that he continued to make the same error on the stand that got him kicked off the case.
And listen, I'm not here to disparage law enforcement officers just for funsies, but I do know how these agencies tend to work internally.
Charity asked Woodrum about two of his supervisors by name, Minor and McConnell.
Are they part of the CID?
because that would mean that half of the sheriff's office investigators were involved in a complaint filed by charity.
And despite Woodrow being written up for what he did, there is no way of telling how the rest of his department, supervisors included, felt about that.
Were they supportive of charity or were they annoyed that she had put them in a position where they had to reprimand one of their own?
These questions are important given that these are the people who took three months to kind of sort of say charity died by suicide, but the case is still open.
It's astounding, and it's heartbreaking to read the transcript and see Charity point out several times the differences between the case she had against Randy, which included police reports, a guilty plea to domestic battery, experts, abuse allegations, and a state child abuse finding that landed Randy's name on a maltreatment registry.
And the case Randy had against her, which was founded completely on feelings and beliefs, including those of Adobe Investigator, who seemingly had no problem stepping outside his area of expertise.
multiple times to draw what appears to be an inappropriate conclusion,
which brings us to Charity's inherent disadvantage during this hearing and how she handled it.
And we'll get into that after a quick commercial break.
We'll be right back.
Charity's divorce case is a perfect and tragic example of how wildly disadvantage women can be
in divorce proceedings when the man is a breadwinner and the woman can't afford an attorney
because, in my opinion, their husbands didn't appropriately compensate them for their work in the home.
Randy allegedly made between 300,000 and 400,000 alone a year.
And that's an estimate that is apparently on the lower end of what Randy was making before his February 2025 arrest.
According to her testimony, Charity took on the vast majority of child care duties, raising the twins.
It breaks my heart that she was in a position.
where she had to represent herself.
And I think the outcome would have been much different
if she had a good attorney representing her.
In a case like this,
where Randy Bialis has been accused of abuse by three of his wives
and recently pleaded guilty to a lower charge of domestic battery
but has no other convictions,
you would think all of that would help Charity's case.
However, the system is designed to protect men like Randy.
like Randy and divorce attorneys have to follow certain rules of evidence of what can be used at trial.
Randy, with this high-powered attorney who objected to a whole lot in this hearing and appeared to be
very much favored by the judge, was on an entirely different playing field from Charity.
It was a different sport in a different league with different rules.
Here is an example from the hearing of this disadvantage playing out where Charity was questioning Randy on
stand. The transcript makes it pretty clear that Charity felt misled about what was going to happen
during the hearing and therefore prepared incorrectly. Grace is going to read the part for Charity
and David will read the part for Randy. We're going to try out some new voice effects from
story blocks for the parts of Judge Blatt and Michael Pierce. Do you realize Randy Ballas as you
look back and reflect how many people you have hurt? You have been the instant.
of pain.
That was not the question.
So you're saying, are you asking me that if I realized that I caused pain with Eliana and Maverick in particular?
I'm asking if you reflect on your life, do you see that you have caused those closest to you any amount of pain, fear?
No.
I have caused no pain and no fear other than the divorce itself, which is the causative agent of my
previous three kids. That's what they hurt them so much. But other than the divorce itself,
no, I didn't institute any pain. Do you remember your oldest three children, their admission
to a psych unit that they blamed you for? I object to the relevant of. What is the relevance?
Patterns, Your Honor, abuse of control. We- Do we have a time frame on what we're even talking to?
about do you want to try to lay a foundation forgive me mr. Pierce I do not I was not I was
misled somewhere or you are I understand to you is this is this something that's occurred in the
last five years 10 years 20 years your honor there's plenty of evidence I'm just asking you
miss Biavas are you trying to ask about something that's occurred in the last five years
last 10 years last 20 years
In a lifetime, I don't, we need a time frame.
I'm attempting to see if Randy can acknowledge he's ever caused anyone pain
and why he chose to blame and project everything on me.
Why he thinks...
Okay. Well, you can ask him about something that's occurred with you,
but we're not going to go on a fishing expedition
on something that may have happened sometime in the past,
that we don't really know when or where or how it occurred.
So if you want to ask him something directly related to your case, that's fine.
I would like to take a moment and go back to what I said earlier,
that I was comfortable removing myself from the protective order.
That was when I was under the impression we were going to actually be able to work together
and come to an agreement and reason.
Okay, just ask your questions.
Like we said, we'll talk more about what the transcript tells us about Randy Bialis in a future episode,
but I think you can get quite the taste with that exchange.
During the hearing, Charity tried to seek clarity from the judge over and over about what she was allowed to ask and what she was supposed to be submitting as evidence and whether she could object to something the defense had to say.
And the judge was repeatedly like, no, sorry, I can't give you any advice, which is interesting because the judge readily offered advice to Michael Pierce, letting him know that because Charity hadn't laid any grounds for divorce during her part of the case before rusting her case, that he might want to establish grounds for divorce through testimony in his case.
case against charity, which stick a pin in that because it had a consequence. The concerning thing
here is that the judge didn't get to hear testimony about the injuries charity sustained the night
she says Randy choked her. The judge also didn't get to hear about the pattern of child abuse
allegations against Randy. In fact, Randy was able to testify that his estrangement from his three
older children was totally due to his ex-wife poisoning the kids, which, hello, should have been
an eye-opener for the judge like, oh, so that's this guy's go-to.
He blames the mother totally for his issues with his kids like he appears to be doing today.
But no, because Charity was not an attorney when the judge was barred from giving her advice,
Charity seemingly confused by what the judge was asking her,
had rested her case before presenting all of her witnesses.
She also had not presented the judge with any exhibits to consider.
It is so hard to read this transcript because you can literally see the moments when Charity realizes she's cooked.
Not only did she say she felt misled even lied to,
presumably by the defense about what was going to happen during this hearing,
she seemed to be blindsided by the finality of it all.
Not the divorce. Not the divorce.
She knew why she was there.
What I'm saying is the finality of the court's process.
By the time Charity understood that she should have had character witnesses there
to speak to her skills and devotion as mother
and that she should have had investigators there from her domestic violence case against Randy,
and she should have marked exhibits for the court to consider.
It was too late.
After Pierce presented Randy's case for a divorce, and with the help of the judge advising him to lay the groundwork for a divorce, Charity asked if she would be able to call a late arriving witness, a doctor, well known to the court apparently, who would speak about Maverick and Eliana's traumas.
And this resulted in confusion, because at this point in the hearing, Charity, who is now the defendant and no longer the plaintiff, could only question this doctor in rebuttal to testimony that was heard during Randy's portion of the case.
Here's how that went.
This is your chance to present rebuttal testimony, Ms. Bialis.
Can you tell the court how this is going to be rebuttal testimony?
I'm sorry, can you tell me what rebuttal means?
I cannot tell you that.
I can't look it up.
Basically, my, because I already had my chance, I know.
I know you wanted to call him in your case in chief, but you rested and you weren't able to do that.
So...
Yeah, he had other obligations.
So, Dr. Roberts, can you tell us your level of education and experience?
I'd object. I think that's beyond.
There's nothing that's been brought up about his education or experience in the case in chief,
so that would be beyond rebuttal.
So he's an expert witness, or I mean, he's an expert is just what I'm trying to say.
I understand, Ms. Biavus, that you could have called him in your main case
when it was your turn to present your case.
but this is we're past that time.
You rested this morning, and then we moved on to Mr. Pierce's case.
And I apologize, Your Honor. I know he couldn't make it until 10.30.
I should have communicated that my mistake.
I do think he is very important to make a decision in this case.
I know there's been...
I can't let you go back and reopen your case.
I told you multiple times leading up to this trial
that you would be held to the same standards as an attorney.
And if an attorney showed up and tried to call Dr. Roberts as an expert witness in their main part of their case after they rested, I would not allow them to do that.
And I can't let you do something that I wouldn't let Mr. Pierce do.
If Mr. Pierce turned around and said, Judge, I want to call another witness.
Now that he's rested his case, I would not allow him to do that.
I see. So clearly I feel like I'm at a disadvantage because of my lack of someone.
that went to law school and understands all these things.
In the end, the judge asked the witness to step down.
Charity was unable to present his testimony, and then came the judge's decision.
The plaintiff's complaint for divorce is denied.
The defendant will be granted a divorce on the grounds of general and personal identities.
The parties have waived corroboration of grounds.
With regard to credibility of the parties, the court,
finds the defendant to be credible. The court finds that the plaintiff has some credibility issues.
This is primarily based on the investigator's testimony regarding the Hamilton House interviews,
and other testimony and evidence presented to the court.
I'm sorry. You think charity is the one with credibility issues? Not the guy who basically
declared on the stand that he has done absolutely nothing wrong.
throughout his entire marriage?
The judge went on to divide the assets.
Then she said this,
referencing a 2013 incident
in which Charity was accused
of pointing a gun at Randy.
An example of past alleged abuse
that the judge allowed to be presented
on Randy's behalf.
For Charity's part,
she admitted to making mistakes in the past
and pointed out that the 2013 incident
was not one-sided,
that Randy had pointed a gun at her.
her as well, but it appears that the judge only heard what she wanted to there.
This court has some very serious concerns with both of you. There has been a lot of history.
I believe, based on the evidence presented to me of domestic violence, the plaintiff has pulled a
gun on the defendant. The defendant has pled recklessly endangering the plaintiff in a misdemeanor
domestic battery and the court has to consider as one of the factors in determining custody
whether or not domestic violence is in the home and i have not heard any testimony fortunately
of domestic violence as it relates to the children or found any to be credible and i'm not
including the children on the order of protection the court is going to order the party's joint
custody of the minor children. The court is going to order for the next six months that the defendant
slash father will have two weeks with the minor children. The plaintiff slash mother will have
one week with the minor children and the parties will rotate that schedule for six months. That will
begin this Friday at 5 p.m. A serious concerns with both of them and no credible report
of domestic violence in the home, and no order of protection for the children, after their
father pleaded down to a domestic battery charge, it is important to note that this ruling
of awarding Randy's split custody was not Charity's worst fear. Charity's worst fear was
that her kids would be taken entirely from her. And from the transcript, at least, she seemed
to remain calm after the judge ruled. She asked polite questions about trans,
transferring the kids. From what she said in the transcript, she did not say anything that would
make anyone think that she was suicidal or homicic even when the judge ruled against her. She
did raise one last concern, the fact that she never got to enter the Arkansas Police Crimes
Against Children document that we told you about in episode 134 that was based on the investigation
into the alleged abuse of her twins. The document said,
that the investigative agency determined that Randy Bialis' name be entered into the child
maltreatment registry. That was a substantiated claim that she never got to enter, simply because
she did not understand the rules of evidence. Judge Blatt's reaction to Charity's final plea was
stunning. She said, quote, I've heard about that today, and that was it. The judge went on with her
ruling and for some reason decided to insult charity and praise Randy. And it was weird.
The court is concerned about the plaintiff's manipulation and harm to the children. The defendant
has been compliant with treatment. He has presented evidence of stability and safety. His risk
to others is low. He does not demonstrate antisocial or narcissistic personality.
traits that could potentially compromise his judgment or put others at risk. He does not have
mania, psychosis, problems with impulse control or substance abuse. He presented an evaluation
that was not objected to that included comprehensive toxicology testing, robust neurocognitive
testing, personality testing, a risk assessment, diagnostic interviews, and a
polygraph test. Judge Blatt went on to tell Charity that she didn't like her therapist and that the
children should be assigned to a non-biased therapist. She gave Randy the rights to decide what school the
children would attend. From the transcript, again, it looks like Charity remained calm and quiet.
At the very end of the hearing, Randy's attorney decided to make one last statement. He said,
quote, I'd just like to state that I think if both parties can be cooperative with each other,
it would be best for the children.
And like, really, Michael?
Duh, everyone knows that.
That is literally the point of all of this.
But again, Judge Blatt seemed to really like Michael.
Here is her response and her last words of advice
to Charity and Randy Bialis
before concluding court for the day.
I agree.
I have a little sticky note that says,
Don't dislike each other
more than you love your.
children. And your children both deserve love. And they deserve that from both of you. And I expect
you all to put your children first and make them your priority and make sure they are raised in a happy,
healthy, and loving environment. Less than 24 hours later, those children who were told to be
put first were found dead of gunshot wounds, along with their mother.
I hope those words and the decisions that she made that day to devalue and badger charity
haunt Judge Blatt for the rest of her career.
Three months after this hearing, the sheriff's office investigating the Bialis deaths released
a statement claiming that charity, the woman who appeared to love her children more than anything
in this world, killed herself hours after this hearing.
they cited this transcript from this hearing like it was evidence to back their claims.
And they lied.
Well, we are not buying it.
And we encourage residents in the Sebastian County, Arkansas area, to demand that this sheriff's
office steps down and recuses itself from the investigation that they are clearly incapable
of handling without their bias interfering, as this last press release has already shown.
Again, Randy Bialis now has two wives who were both shot to death.
Is it possible they both died of suicide?
We looked into the investigation of Shauna Bialis' death,
and we can't wait to tell you about what we found.
Until next time, stay tuned, stay pesky, and stay in the sunlight.
True Sunlight is a Lunar 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 our mission and membership at LunaSharkMedia.com.
Interruptions provided by Luna and Joe Pesky.