The Adam and Dr. Drew Show - Classic #1681 “He Shit Me Up”

Episode Date: July 15, 2026

February 14, 2023Mark and Drew continue their week together and they open the show discussing the legal ramifications surrounding covid and the “misinformation” term that was wieldy so wildly during the pandemic. Later they pivot to a story that Mark has been covering closely on ‘Reasonable Doubt’ and ‘Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’ – the Alex Murdaugh murder case out of South Carolina.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

An inspirational portrait of a farmer's son who rises from humble beginnings to build a luxury fashion empire. Brunello, the gracious visionary, traces Brunello Cucinelli's life journey, his commitment to craftsmanship, ethical values, and humanistic philosophy. Directed by Academy Award winner Giuseppe Tonatore, the film blends documentary and fiction, an intimate look at the Italian entrepreneur known as the King of Kashmir. See Brunello, the gracious visionary, in Select Theatres, July 24th. All right, I'm rolling, Drew. All right.

Well, time for a special throwback episode. This is February 2020. Mark Gergos sitting in. Let me start again. Well, this is a very special throwback episode from February of 2023. It's, in fact, Valentine's Day because Mark Gergos is sitting in for Adam Carolla. And this is a whole week we spend together, and we discuss initially the legal ramifications surrounding COVID and the so-called misinformation nomenclature that seems to be wildly overused during the pandemic.

Then we get to a story that Mark has been following closely on reasonable doubt. The Alex Murdoch murder case out of South Carolina, he was on the leading edge of that one. It's interesting in retrospect. Enjoy this episode from Valentine's Day, 2023. Well, Mark and I continue our week together. We start by talking about Mark's time working with and getting to know rap legend Nate Dogg. they also speak with a caller who's wondering about liability that Pfizer may be exposed to from, say, foreign countries like Thailand. And we discussed the recent Project Veritas video showing a high-level Pfizer executive making disturbing claims about how Pfizer is modifying COVID in the lab.

And finally, the conversation turns to DeMar Ham. And finally, we turn our conversation to DeMar Hamlin, scary injury. during the Monday night football game, which is still, to this day, something you're not allowed to ask any questions about. Enjoy this episode from February 17th of 2023. That's perfect. Thank you. Recorded live at Corolla 1 Studios with Adam Carolla and board-certified physician and addiction medicine specialist Dr. Drew Pinsky.

You're listening to The Adam and Dr. Drew Show. Get it on. Get it on. Got to get it on. No choice, but to get it on. mandate. Get it on everybody. This is the greatest 30 minutes in all of the digital space, but made better because this week we have Mr. Mark Garagos with us. I'm happy to be here, by the way. We've got stuff

lined up, but I want to get quickly to calls because people wait online for a long time to get to us. I feel guilty about that. So let's first talk on line one to Bart. Bart, what's going on? Hey, Drew, hey Mark. I'm a big fan of both you guys. I know you guys enjoyed doing a radio

show together, and I just think, you know, you guys got the medical side of things and you got the legal side of things. Why don't you guys start a podcast and call it medical malpractice? Wow, that's pretty good. Are we going to have to, is there a licensing fee for that coming up

with the idea? Wow, I'm glad I'm having a attorney here. This time, free of charge. Next time I'm charging you. Thank you. Gary, would you put a pin in that so that's a, that's a, we're going to rely on it, detrimentally to that.

Wouldn't it be just a little cleaner just to call it malpractice? Let's just call it Mal to dash practice. Wow. That's pretty good. Yeah, right? I like that. See, Bart, that's why they pay us the big bucks here. But so it's fun listening to us talk, right?

Yeah, I love listening to you guys. You guys are great every time. I mean, you know, I love Adam as well, but it's just the two of you guys together. Yeah, but Adam's not listening. Trust me, he won't list right now. Tell us a little more about how you like us. Tell us a little more about how this is superior. Oh, Bart shuts right out.

Oh, yeah, exactly. Bart's not going to go there. Where in Washington State are you? Right near the border, just south of Blaine, which is right up the I-5 corridor. Border of Idaho, Oregon? Border of Canada. Canada. Northern border of Canada.

I'm like I said, about 10 minutes from the B.C. border. Okay. So the reason I asked is people don't appreciate how different Western Washington is from Eastern Washington versus Central Washington, Frank. There's all three completely different environments. So you're northwestern, I'm imagining, near Vancouver. Yes. Are you actually in vain?

Northwestern Washington, which would be more in line, I guess, with Eastern Washington's ideals in a lot of ways. There's a town called Bellingham, which is a big town in this area. They're very liberal, but pretty much everything's surrounding it is farmland. So how does that, I guess it's like California, how does it hold together with all these different ideologies flying around? I mean, just like everything else. I mean, it's just fragmented. Everything's fragmented nowadays. Where I'm at, it's very conservative.

Do you guys ever have talks about dividing the state up like we do in California? Yeah, we do that all the time here. Yeah, there was a conversation of basically making, I think it was like basically taking Western Oregon, Western Washington, and combining them and calling them the Cascadia area. And then basically, yeah, all like the Idaho and Eastern Washington, Eastern Oregon and all that and just kind of making their own. one thing. But the problem is, is economically it just wouldn't work. The east side really can't survive without the west side. Oh, that's interesting. Very romantic notion. Thank you, part. But it is, it reminds me of a conversation I have with Michael Malice, who is in here.

And he contends that the state, country has become too big and can't hold together, and it's going to fly apart. I don't see that. I don't, you know, I've heard that, that argument be made. I know there's the people who frequently will talk about carving up California into three different states. Or five different states, exactly. I do not think constitutionally that we could ever get it done. So it's an interesting intellectual exercise, but because of the way that the Constitution is written and all of the hurdles you'd have to get over. Right. So the encumberance is make it impossible, which is why people go to arms, which also isn't going to happen. Right. And so although, you know, I had a conversation with, I think he was British, I remember right from London.

And he goes, well, you know, California could just secede. And I go, no, they would get attacked by the federal government. What? No, we fought a war over that idea. Exactly. That secession does not exist. that there is, and that's why Abraham Lincoln always called them the Confederate states so called. And he would never acknowledge it. He called it an insurrection. And he said they were out of their proper alignment. Because you, now you talked to me about, I guess it would be not just constitutional law, but contract law.

You can't just step out of a contract. Well, part of the problem is in order to do it, you would have to have, you'd have to go through the constitutional kind of convention process or have two-thirds majority. Right. You're never going to get two-thirds. I mean, because the way it's set up right now constitutionally is, you know, you've got two senators for each state. You've got the the House of Representatives is based on basically the more population. population. And then you also have, which is one of the interesting things that we're going to see this term in the U.S. Supreme Court is the challenges to the idea or the interpretation that each state

legislature has the dominion and control over the elections in their state as opposed to the court in each state. Because if that's the case right now, that tilts Republican. Oh, that's interesting. So that will, you know, and part of, this is a discussion for reasonable doubt, I suppose, but you and I can have it. The part of what the January 6th, the run-up to that, and what they now are, the state bar is now going after John Eastman for, Eastman had this kind of intellectual theory that that, what the U.S. Supreme Court is going to rule on, that you could challenge that. When people talk about fake electors, that, that is.

is what fake electors are, you have to send a slate of electors from each state. Electoral college. Yes, to the electoral college to do the tabulation on January 6th. Now, if the state legislature says we are going to send a different slate that is not reflective of what the so-called popular vote is, Do they have the right to do that, the legislature, or does the individual state Supreme Court have the right to make that determination? If it's the legislature and the legislatures in each state are controlled by the Republicans, that changes the whole dynamic. The insurrection is no longer an insurrection if you take that logic out to its logical kind of morphology. Interesting.

It's a fascinating you're going to have within the next year to 18 months. This is going to play out so that it's not as cut and dry as it's being made out to be right now. That's fascinating. And, you know, all my attorney, friends and family tell me that the courts are going to sort out a lot of stuff going forward. Do you agree with that? I agree with that wholeheartedly. There's a lot of stuff that needs to get sorted. And by the way, I think that the people.

people who understand that most. You take somebody like Mitch McConnell. Mitch McConnell understands that. He understands power like very few. You can call him a Machiavelli and evil guy or depending on which, where you're coming from. But he understands that the power ultimately

lies in the courts and that that's why he's so, why he can turn himself inside out to hold up Merrick Garland's nomination and then flip when it's Amy Coney, Colon Barrett, and he understands the importance of the courts. And anybody who doubts that to look no farther than Dobbs, than the Dobbs decision. Is it going to be the Supreme Court sorting these things out? Or is it going to be state by state sort of?

It's going to be the Supreme Court sorting it out, because what's going to happen is if the Supreme Court rules, and I forget the name of the case, Gary's probably got it handy because I talk about this all the time. But if they rule the way I believe they will rule, then that is. is going to bind the state courts. Oh, I see. Nothing for them to do. What is that?

There it is. Gary, you want to talk? We can't read it. There you go. There you go. Now, this is Eastman's, this is the order out of the Ninth Circuit. And this will be interesting in Eastman's case. There's another one.

I believe it's out of one of the Carolinas. And I've talked about it before, Gary. And they granted certain the Supreme Court's going to get there. So for me, obviously, the thing. that I'm very worried about that needs sorting out is the insane amount of authority granted to public health regulators and officials and county officials and state officials. Is that going to get sorted out? Well, you know, that is a wrinkle in the Constitution.

And the only, the three cases, and it was really at the behest of Gorsuch, who is a Trump appointee, and he was out of the Tenth Circuit. He was the one who started off as kind of a single voice and then he cobbled together and now he's got a majority who invalidated COVID-era restrictions based on religious exemption and religious discrimination. So in other words, in a future lockdown, we'll be able to go to church. Correct. Maybe in a parking lot, but they'll find ways around it. They'll magically solder the doors of the temple. Well, I've mentioned this many times on reasonable doubt.

He took the whole basis upon which all of these COVID lockdowns, all of the COVID, you know, the excesses and the law that was just passed and now invalidated, at least temporarily on the AB 2098. It was just put on a whole. It's on hold right now. There was a case, Jacobson, 1905, I believe. of your Supreme Court case, where a guy was fined five bucks, I believe, because he didn't want to get vaccinated. Well, and Gorsuch has said, and I don't want to misquote him, because he's got a great way with language,

when did this become a towering presence to justify kind of the eradication of all of our rights? And that, I think at some point that they're going to decide that. And when that happens, then I think this idea of being in a perpetual state of a. emergency so you can justify anything with an unelected bureaucrat will be will will be they'll pull the rug out from under that and is that going to require a series of decisions yes so yes i think we're just starting with they've he's kind of i thought effectively dismantled it when you know you can say a liquor store is an essential service but a church service is not essential right and he pointed that out i thought very effectively yeah and so that would be nice

if that happened because it really was, but it was international, by the way. I saw the... Correct. But this was everybody. Everybody glubbed onto this. But everybody went nuts. Right. And so I'm guessing there'll be a backlash against the nuttiness, and that's what we're talking about here.

And I noticed that in England, in the parliament, in the U.K., they're starting to ask for a little bit of explanation. but they're also doing it in the EU Parliament. And again, you and I talk Monday about the French. They're saying that we've seen you in the streets and we heard you, and now we're going to understand what happened here and not let this happen again. Well, I think there's to some degree that's happening here in the U.S. Not in California so much. Hymns.

Well, when something's off in the bedroom, most guys wait too long to address it. Hymns makes it simple to actually do something about it with real treatment options. 100% online. ED is more common and more treatable than most guys think. HIMS connects you with a licensed health care provider online so there's no awkward appointment and no pharmacy lines. Just complete a simple online intake and a provider will review your information to determine if treatment is right for you. And if that option isn't right for you,

then there are plenty other options. That's why they call them options. It's straightforward, transparent, and designed to make getting care feel easy. It's HIMS, right, D? To get simple online access to personalized affordable care for ED, hair loss, weight loss, and more, visit HIMS.com slash ADS.

That's HIMS.com slash ADS. Hymns.com slash ADS. Not available in all 50 states. Prescription required. See website for details, restrictions, and important safety information. Zildenifal is the generic version of Viagra. Viagra is a registered trademark of Vietro's specialty LLC. Hymns is not affiliated with or endorsed by Vietras.

Home serve. Ah, I hate that moment where something breaks in your home and you're scrambling around and a panic. That's where home serve comes in. Regular homeowners insurance doesn't usually cover a lot. of the day-to-day wear and tear stuff plumbing failures hvacc breakdowns electrical issues home serve is like a subscription for your home starting at as little as 499 a month it's simple choose a plan for your needs and your budget and when something goes wrong just call their 24-7 hotline it's summer

and your cooling system isn't going to warn you before it quits i use home serve and it gives me a lot of peace of mind knowing I won't get crushed by expensive repairs. It's homeserve, right, Daphne? Your next costly home repair is already coming. Act now and get protected with a plan through homeserve. For 50% less, your first year, go to homeserve.com slash ADS to find the plan that's right for you. That's homeserve.com slash ADS for 50% less. Savings compared to renewal price. Void in Florida. Better help. This episode is sponsored by Better help, as much progress as we've made, there's still a stigma against opening up about mental health. Better Helps, 2006 State of Stigma Report surveyed 2,000 Americans and revealed that 85% of

Americans believe getting support is wise. I would be amongst that group. Yet 74% say society discourages them from doing so. Don't let that stigma get in the way of getting the help you need. Better help is the world's largest online therapy platform, having served over 6 million people globally, and it works with an average rating of 4.9 out of 5 for a live session based on over 1.7 million client reviews. So it's simple. Just take their questionnaire and they'll match you with someone who's right for you immediately. It's BetterHelp, right, Daphne? Don't let Stigma stand in the way of support.

Start therapy with BetterHelp. Sign up and get 10% off at BetterHelp.com slash Adam and Drew. That's BetterH-E-L-P.com slash Adam and Drew. So I was asking Gary, I don't know if it was on air or off, but do you, does Gary, Are you following this Murdoch trial in South Carolina? I'll bet you you're not. I've heard of this one. Okay.

So this is a prominent lawyer who is the third generation of lawyers who have basically, if you buy into it, have had an outsized influence on the low country in South Carolina. Is this the guy that committed a murder finally? Correct is what he's accused of. How dare you? How dare I? Two murders, as a matter of fact, his wife and son. How dare you, Gary?

He's accused of his wife and his son, along with somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 financial crimes. Oh, boy. And so there is, or there has been wildly fought battles over what is the motive, because there has not been a motive that anybody has been able to effectively show. And so the prosecution has taken the position and are trying to get in and I believe did get a large part in what's called 404B evidence, what I always called character assassination. And they're saying that the motive was financial, that he was confronted with his embezzlement from his law firm because he was an opioid addict for 20 years. That's why makes me think of you. And why isn't the opioid addiction, I guess it wouldn't be a part of the attack,

be a part of the defense, right? That would be part of the defense if it was confessant avoidance was your defense. If you were saying, I did it, but it's because of this. Because I was sick. He's saying no, I didn't do it. But there is this, let's play this little clip. I want you to watch it, and then I'm going to ask you, I want to ask you because you have great insight into addiction, specifically opioids.

And then I want you to tell me, if. This is a legitimate explanation by the prosecution as to why he killed his wife and son. So hold on. So who am I looking at here? This is the- This is Alex's best friend. Yeah. The defendant, who is the wife and son was murdered. And this is his best friend talking about a confession by him.

This is outside the presence at the time. When he was opiate addicted? When he was opiate addicted. Okay. Do you all have a conversation? We did. Where was the conversation? I got there before he did.

I don't think I pulled in the driveway. I kind of waited out on the road. Pulled in the driveway. We went in the side door. The caregiver was there. We went out onto the front porch. Can I stop for a second? Is it not?

Let me just, I'm going to just comment as I go. That kind of detail seems real to me. When people give you that kind of detail, that's a memory and an important memory. for somebody unless you guys coach the shit out of him. Well, let's just say, I won't go there, but I'll say this is a guy who the prosecution is putting up there because they want to get this indefinance. So I'm going to say that this guy was prepped. But so far, he does hang together.

I haven't seen the cross on it, but he hangs together. So it's credible memory. Okay, go ahead. Went out onto the front porch and we talked on the front porch. And what did he say to you? I mean, the first thing I ask you is, you know, Eleg, what the F or what the H is going on here? You know, what is going on? And have you done something else to me or that involves me that I don't know about?

Because I know about this, and I've got to deal with this, but is there something else you've done that I don't know about that I need to be concerned with? He broke down crying. He said, I can't write this second. and he went inside, came back out with some paper towels, and told me that he had had a drug problem, that he was addicted to opioids, and that he had been addicted for, I don't remember if he said 20 or 20-plus years, but, I mean, you know, for 20 years or so.

I put a pin in that. So that's the accused. Okay. So who's on trial. Okay. So the prosecution wants this evidence. in. Okay.

Put this guy up as his best friend and to see what he would testify to so the judge can make the decision as to whether to allow this in. Okay. Okay. Here we go. Did he say anything about the money? He told me that he had been stealing money. Do you have a particular phrase about what he had done to you?

Shit me up. By the way. That phrase? Up until this trial, I'd never heard it. Me neither. Was it mean? Yeah. It basically means screwed him over.

It's like, fuck me up. Yeah, he fucked me up. Fucked me over. But he's going to hear him use it again. So Drew likes the detail. That's what rings true to him. Yeah. But what ring true to me, shit me up.

Ship me up. Yeah, it shows us a difference between our perspective. Shit me up or shit me up or shit me off or something like that. But I think it was he'd shit me up. He said that he admitted to you, he had been stealing a client money. Yes, sir. said he confessed that to you is that correct? I said he had shed a lot of people up.

I'm going to show you. What's been marked? The States 313. I hate courtrooms. They made me so anxious. You recognize that? You know, wait, time out. I feel so bad for everybody.

That's so funny because I was just thinking today, I was talking to a friend of mine and a lawyer, also a lawyer, and we were just talking about how aggravating COVID was. because you had to spend so much time in the office and you couldn't be in a courtroom. Yeah. And that our refuge, our sanctuary is the courtroom. And you have the opposite. My thing is like it's so intense

and it's always so awful for everybody. Something awful is happening to everybody. Isn't that wonderful? The place that I find that I find... I was going to say, I've seen some shots of Mark with a pretty decent smile inside a courtroom. You see it as you, like...

But it's like being an ambulance driver or anything else. You know, the crash is horrible. Now we're going to get the ambulance chaser. No, no, not Ambulus Chaser. It's a horrible situation. You don't want it to happen to it, but you have something to offer. And so you want to feel good about it. It's my domain.

Yeah. So I get that. But for me, I think about the expert witness stuff I've done. I think it's like, well, it's why I don't do it. It's why I don't do it. I've realized just this second. It's why, because I have tons to say. Wow.

I know you do. But I just know something horrible is going to happen to somebody. I don't want to be a part of it. Oh, God. Here you go. Yeah, but you'll go do. You'll go do Navy SEAL training. I'll go to the desert.

And end up in the hospital. I'll do that. But God forbid, not go into a courtroom. By the way, by the way. So thank you for bringing that up because yesterday, Susan and I walked to Old Town from our home and went to see this is so pathetic. And went and watched an afternoon screening of 80 for Brady. Oh. And enjoyed it.

Really? But I bring it up because my buddy, Danny Amadola, was figured promul. in it. I didn't know. And also Gus Kenworthy was in it too, guys I went in the desert with. Right. And so that was fun. So anyway, here we go. Yes, sir. What is that? I think this is the original of that $225,000 fee check written in

the gentleman's case directly to Richard Alexander Murdoch, Asquhar. Is that your signature on it? It is. So where does this go? Okay, so this is where it's going. Now, my question to you is, the prosecution wants to use this as a motive for him blowing his, um,

slaughtering his son. It's a murder trial. We're looking at a murder trial. This is not a fraud trial. No, it's got fraud counts to it. There's a massive amount of fraud connected on the. Here's what I would say at its basis. You'd put me on the stand for this.

Right. I'm going to call you as an expert. I'm going to say, Drew, you've got you're, I'm going to qualify you. an expert. Yes. How many years did you actively engage in the practice of addiction? 30 years. Okay. And did you ever supervise in a

clinical setting? Yes. And I taught through the Department of Psychiatry. Okay. And have you ever qualified as an expert? Yes, but never appeared as one. I once appeared as one in addiction. Okay. And have you published in the area? Yeah.

Got to think about my publication so quick. Not in a medical, not in a peer review journal. Okay, but have you published? I have published. Okay. And have you, how many patients have you treated? Maybe 5,000, at least over 3,000. Okay. And would you, and would you follow their progress after treatment? Correct. And would you be able or have you developed what you consider to be an expertise in what the ramifications are of opioid addiction? Absolutely. Would you be able to do any kind of or draw conclusions as to what that addiction does to behavior. I believe I can.

Okay. That I'm going to, I prof you as an expert. You're going to get qualified, especially if you're for the prosecution. I thought it was in a deposition right now. I'm so used to, I'm not nodding my head. Right. Please answer because the court report is taking the sound. Oh, my God.

That's been said to be more times than I want to count. Here's my question for you. If we now have evidence that Mr. Murdoch was addicted to opiates for over 20 years. Correct. And that he was having financial issues. Correct. And these financial issues led him to confess to having engaged in embezzlement. Correct. The morning of the murders, there was a confrontation. Yes, thank you, with one of his partners. Correct. Okay. Now, and that based on that confrontation about the embezzlement, Would you find it likely that some violent or desperate acts such as murder of his wife and his son,

that would be consistent with the scenario I just gave you in a hypothetical? Almost impossible. There you go. So here's the only way I could make it. Opioid addicts are interested in one thing and one thing only. And that is doing opiates. Period. End of story.

And that usually requires money. And that's all they... By the way, which Paulette asked me about, because when I was talking to her about this, she said, why does it need money? I thought it was so cheap. My bet is he, I don't, I'd like to know more about his opiate addiction. Like, did he graduate to heroin and vent and all and stuff? Because that's where it gets cheap. If you're just doing the pills, which is sort of a, you know, professional style, drug addict.

Can you look at somebody and tell me, based on looking at them and make a informed guess as to whether they, progressed to fentanyl based on their physical appearance. Not fentanyl, but IV drugs. And if enough time has passed since they last used, that would be very difficult. But I can tell you from my experience, most professionals see themselves as not true addicts. And so they maintain that sort of facade that lie to themselves by taking pills. And the pills, will you still? Those are expensive.

Very expensive. So that's where the, where you're. That's where the money comes in. Why is that? Why are the pills so expensive? Because it's so hard to get them because the restrictions on... And demand, yeah. And people would love to stay on pills.

But they always go to... There's just a progression to more powerful, more cheap over time. And if you can just go with the pills, you'll go with the pills. Why would you progress? I mean, I don't do that to myself. I'll just keep taking the pills. And when you say more expensive, what are we talking about? I'm an imagining...

I'd have to look it up sort of... know what the current rate is, but I'd see $300 a day kind of thing, at least, maybe $500 a day. And if you're not working because you're also opiate addicted, now you've got a problem. And that's why people commit crimes because they get... And usually property crimes. Occasionally there can be violence involved if they get in the way of the property crime, but not with intent to hurt anybody. And by the way, when you're opiate addicted, it's kind of hard to be that thing.

In withdrawal... Wait, explain that. You're sort of sedated, not super sedated because you're tolerant to it, but you're not like a meth addict who is agitated and paranoid and violent. You're the opposite. You're more like, not even alcohol. Even alcoholics get aggressive sometimes. Opiate addicts don't typically get aggressive. Unless you get the way of they're using.

Then they don't like it. And then if you, if I were to show you, Gary, do you have that one video that was of Murdaugh, the same. day, they're using it. This is what I would do. No, it's actually a video of him with a tree, a sapling that keeps falling. And you'll understand in a second why I'm having you look at it because

I want to use you as an expert. By the way, should I call Dick Harputtlyan up? Put me in there. You need to call Drew because he just said it's absolutely impossible. There's one circumstance in which there's two circumstances of which it could be possible.

I said next to impossible. Right. One is in withdrawal, people get pretty desperate and jacked up and might do something crazy. But OpenX don't do that. They're not that kind of crazy. They just don't. You'd have to say this guy's also a psychopath or something. So this is, what do we say, Gary, two hours before?

It's still light out, so it might be three or so, but it's in the afternoon. Before he killed his family. Yes. Before he's accused of killing his family. Okay. God, I can't get that. You think after 50 years I could have beat this out of you. I believe this comes from his son's Snapchat.

Okay. And they're allegedly laughing about how poorly they've done at planting these trees. Yeah. And also how sort of incapably is of doing anything, right? Let's see. Is that it? Yeah, that's it. It's just that five seconds or something.

Okay. Does that look like somebody to you? Does it look? Let me look again. Okay. Doesn't look like it. It's hard to tell. Not a great, if they can give me another.

10 seconds, I probably could show more, does not look like somebody in withdrawal, however, nor does it look like the other thing I was going to say, like somebody mixing in some methamphetamine, does not look like that. Because I think I've got a pretty good spidey sense given what that looks like. What that looks like. And that does not appear to be. No. And by the way, when you say graduate to fentanyl, when you graduate to fentanyl, then you become,

you know. Intramidantly pretty out of it. Yeah. Intramently. Not all the time, but intermittently. And he's got, he wouldn't be, show me that picture again. Don't even play the, play the tape. Just show me the picture of the guy.

Oh, Gary, what happened there? I'm so disappointed. There it is. What do you see about his clothing that might mitigate the probability that he was shooting fentanyl? Yeah, the fact that he's got short sleeves. He got short sleeves on. His arms would look like, his family would be alarmed by what his arms would look like if he shooting drugs. So I can say categorically, this man is not shooting drugs.

Right, which means if he is an opioid addict, which it's pills. And that's why the money and that's why all the everything. And everything about his case, save the murders, makes perfect sense in opiate addiction. And right, save the murders. Save the murders. All the thefts, all the embezzlement, all the bullshit, all the shitting people up. For a long time before the. more details of this case came out. It was for that exact reason that I always suspected that it wasn't him.

And maybe the reason he was left alive was because somebody is still trying to recover money or something. That was what Gary and I had hypothesized because it made no sense. Two weapons were used. The wife was shot with one weapon. The son was shot with a different one. So it's just it seemed early on like that seemed likely to me. Yeah, I agree. I totally agree.

I think that's what happened. So this is my, this is. And I suspected you might say this, and that's why I asked it, if I'm the defense and the prosecution gets what they want, which is this guy's testimony in front of the jury, be careful what you wish for because I may embrace that and say, yeah, this is an opioid addicted person, which is consistent with somebody who wouldn't have engaged in this activity. And we can give you good evidence that he's not an IV drug user, that he's using expensive oral pills and those people don't kill people.

They just don't. But the people they're getting the pills from sure do. Right. They sure do. Right. And what part of country was that? Low country is in South Carolina. I want to say 20 minutes outside of Charles.

You got to find, just document the behavior of local drug gangs that sell drugs. Just do they kill people yes or no. And what do they do? And that's it. There's your story. See, there you go. Jew should be the expert. We're calling Dick.

There you go. Mahalo.