Unheard: True Crime in Their Own Words - The Legal Analyst Millions Watch: Jesse Weber on True Crime, Trials, and Media

Episode Date: May 11, 2026

This week on Unheard: True Crime In Their Own Words, I sit down with Jesse Weber, attorney, legal analyst, host, and one of the most recognized voices in true crime and courtroom coverage today.Known for his work with Law&Crime, CourtTV, NewsNation, national television appearances, and extensive coverage of high profile criminal trials, Jesse joins me for an in depth conversation about some of the biggest cases dominating headlines, the evolution of true crime media, courtroom strategy, and what really happens behind the scenes when the cameras are rolling.From livestreamed trials and internet sleuthing to the ethical line between reporting and entertainment, this is a raw and honest discussion between two people who spend their lives immersed in some of the darkest and most talked about stories in the country.We also discuss the pressure of live television, the responsibility that comes with covering victims and defendants in real time, and why certain cases explode into national obsessions while others disappear from public attention.If you follow criminal trials, breaking news, legal analysis, or the modern true crime landscape, this is an episode you do not want to miss.Follow and subscribe to Unheard on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and everywhere podcasts are available. Be sure to leave a review and turn notifications on so you never miss an episode.#JesseWeber #LawAndCrime #TrueCrime #Podcast #UnheardPodcast #CourtTV #NewsNation #LegalAnalysis #CriminalJustice #TrialCoverage #BreakingNews #TrueCrimeCommunity #JustinShepherd #CrimeNews #HighProfileCasesSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Welcome to Unheard, True Crime in Their Own Words. Today's guest is someone who has become one of the most recognizable voices in modern courtroom coverage. You've seen him anchor the biggest trials of our time on law and crime, host Prime Crime. He's got a new show on News Nation, which we'll talk about as well. You've also seen him break down complex legal stories with clarity and sharpness in a way that most people in the industry can't touch. He's an attorney, legal analyst, journalist, and one of the few people who could take a chaotic courtroom moment and translate it in a way the public actually understands.

If you followed any major case in the last decade, chances are you've watched his coverage, his commentary or one of his interviews. I'm thrilled to welcome to unheard Jesse Weber. Jesse, thanks for joining us today. Thank you so much for having it. This is my pleasure. I'm very excited.

It's usually the other way around. When I have you on sidebar, I love, we break it down for like 30 minutes. So the fact that I get to reverse it and have you asked me questions, I'm out of my element, but I love it. Thank you so much. You know, the thing is I actually love doing this too. I love interviewing you guys because you all,

you guys never get interviewed. So nobody ever wants to ask me questions. No, but we're going to do that today. We're going to ask questions today because, you know, the concept of this, as we talked about beforehand, is that we want to have people see kind of all angles of how true crime or real crime unfolds. And what you bring to the table is really quite a bit. Like I said, you break down a lot of these courtroom sagas to make it easy for people to digest and understand. You really know how to do it in a way that tells the story that keeps it captivating. And I think that that's a really important part of this, because when we're trying to get stories out there and inform people, you're one of the most important aspects to that.

So. Well, I really appreciate you saying that. And I will tell you, it's not to suit my own horn. I'll tell you, I think it's really important in today's day and age with the advent of social media and AI. Why do I say that? So real quick, I say this all the time. The Johnny Depp Amber Herd trial was a very important moment for long crime. It was a very important moment in my career, and I think it was a very important moment, not in our only our culture, but understanding our legal system.

But I also think it was a prime example of the danger out there. What do I mean by that? It was a very serious court case. You were dealing with serious issues of domestic violence allegations. And what you saw were people taking sides. And there was predominantly those who were on favor of Johnny Depp's side against Amber Hurd. And what you saw in social media was people manipulating the courtroom footage, the clips, to make it look like her attorneys were making arguments that they weren't or making them look stupid or making them look incompetent. And as somebody who was in that courtroom every day for six weeks reporting live every day, it was very important for me and very important for law and crime to get the truth out there to actually break down what was happening in real time to be a sort. of trust to be a source of credibility because today's day and age, people can manipulate anything. And I think that one of the things that we've really tried to do, whether people like it or not, whether people take sides on a story or not, it's important to get the facts,

to get the law, to get the evidence so that people can really make an informed decision about a case and an informed understanding of how our legal system works. But that was when I first saw That was when I first saw the danger of, and I think the importance of trying to be a voice that people can rely on. So I want to talk a little more about that because you bring up some interesting points. Before I do, I don't know if you notice the photo behind me, this one up here. That is Johnny Depp. Oh, is that right? Yeah.

And it's a sign photo. So this is kind of relevant to the story. So my closest friend, my best friend, works for Alice Cooper. and Alice Cooper is in a band called Hollywood Vampires with Johnny Depp. My friend actually took this photo as well, and he had it printed and had Johnny sign it and stuff for me. But what was interesting about that, when I was covering Johnny Depp Amber Heard, I had been hearing Amber Heard stories for about four years at that point. And so I had a lot of insight, and I would never do anything obviously to throw my friend of the bus or use information to try to like better

myself that would jeopardize him or anybody in a case. But I knew a lot of information about that whole situation that I'm like, look, neither, both of them are toxic for each other, but she's, she's problematic. And he would, he would basically explain what his, what John, when they were on tour, what Johnny's demeanor was. So Johnny, when Amber was not there, would show up to rehearsal, was fine, was his normal, like, personable self or whatever. But when she would show up, he would become very reclusive.

late to rehearsal, into the substance abuse, things like that. It was just a very toxic culture between the two of them. And to your point, it's not even just that case that we've seen the manipulation. And I'm glad that you brought that up because this comes into what I do as well, because you're on the traditional side of it and I'm on the social media side. And I try to do it. As you know, I try to do it with empathy and with accuracy. Am I going to get it right 100% of the time?

No, I'm human. But when I do get it wrong, at least I try to own that as, mistake. I try to be accountable and we try to make a correction. Not everybody can say that, right? But we saw it with Gabby Petito, you know, when you had Brian Laundrie on a boat. We saw it with the Idaho four murders where you had that, that camera footage, ring footage that came up and you could hear somebody screaming. None of that was real. And people do that because what's really unfortunate about this is when it comes to true crime and that whole that whole genre segment. It is one of, if not the biggest genre of consumed content out there, period.

And so people know, like social media, you know, I make money off of views, right, as well as sponsorships, but it doesn't matter if I put something out that's true or not. It matters that it gets views. And if the social media platforms don't take it down, it continues to grow, which misinformation seems to grow faster than real information. You know, those people are making a lot of money off a fake, fake footage, fake whatever. And that's dangerous for a lot of reasons. Can I just jump that you make a great. This is a conversation that we've had at Long Crime.

And it's important to make a distinction here. And it goes into true crime. It goes into politics. It goes into whatever. The best way to make money on YouTube, on social media, is to sensationalize and to be partisan. It's easy. You just take a position and tarnish somebody, go after somebody. That's it.

Facts irrelevant. You will make more views more money. That is not what we will ever do. That is not something I would ever feel comfortable about. And I would rather risk just two people watching the video over 500,000. And I will tell you that there's another example of that. It was Blake Lively, Justin Baldoni. We started covering that from the very beginning.

I was breaking down the court documents and you saw people taking sides, mostly pro-Baldoni against Blake lively. And we would say, look, these are her arguments. These are the strength of the arguments. And we were getting negative comment after negative comment after negative comment. And the views just decreased because people wanted me to come out and be like, she's the worst. She's going to lose this. And I was like, I can't say that. I'm breaking down reasonably what her arguments are.

And I think that is a big danger that you see today. Whatever it is, it's just easy to take that position and get loosey-goosey with the facts. That's not our, that's not our mission statement. Our mission statement is to be informed, to be a source of credibility if you want. You and I, we saw each other at CrimeCon, which is a great, great organization. It's a great platform to be able to meet the people that obviously consume this content, but also to hear from people who are trying to get their stories exposed on a national stage. And we've been able to do that.

And I've met terrific people. But the number one comment that I get from people who come up and listen to Sidebar or Crime Crime, is thank you for just telling you like it is. Not sensationalizing. Just telling it like it is, easy to understand. Then we can make an informed analysis and decision about it. So 100% agree with you, particularly in this day and age, when it's all about clicks, it's all about getting content.

And I think the reason you've seen, I'm not being just a cheerleader for my company, law and crime, but making a point here, we went from like 250,000 subscribers to now over seven and a half million is because we have become that trusted voice in a world and industry that sometimes people question, what can they believe? Well, you know, the thing is, too, is some of these stories that get sensationalized don't even need sensationalization. You know, you look at the Idaho four murders. Those were so horrific and brutal and just complex as they were.

You didn't need to add to it. It was the same with Gabby Petito. You didn't need to do it. And even one that's more recently, you know, and for the audience purposes, I'll be transparent. I don't know when this episode is going to air compare, but one thing that happened fairly recently was, you know, the Reiner murders. And I'm going to say this, no matter how you feel about Nick Reiner politically, whatever the case is, for the listener. I love, I love, or not Rick Reiner, sorry, Rob Reiner. I love Rob Reiner. Okay.

I watched him on All in the Family as a kid on Nick at Night, I watched, you know, Princess Bride, Fugredemant, phenomenal actor. I've heard nothing but positive things about him out of Hollywood. And it's, it's a heartbreaking thing. And at the same time, it does highlight the problems of domestic violence and highlights the problems of addiction and mental health issues. And, you know, this is really an opportunity to kind of like face those. And when I talk about it, Like, you know, again, I'm very much on the side of Rob and Michelle Reiner, but at the same time, I can look at Nick Reiner and be like, you know, we don't know enough at this point.

You and I are recording this episode. But if he's diagnosed with schizophrenia, if he's got addictive issues, he's got things like that, it then very much complicates this murder because what people don't understand in this kind of a case, and I've seen it online already talking about it, is that if he was in a schizophrenic episode, it might not have been him, and I'm using air quotes for people who can't see this, it might not have been him that did this. And it becomes very complex. And so for people to just jump to conclusions, because you need to compartmentalize or put something in black and white, it's not always, there's a lot of gray when it comes to these cases. Yep. Yep. I think it's very important that we all

establish that murder is never the answer. Never. Okay. Because it's slippery slope. You disagree with somebody, you don't like somebody's position, whatever it is, doesn't justify ending their life or celebrating the end of their life. That's not a society we want to be. It's a very scary place to be. I can't believe I have to say it, but after going to crime con and doing a whole panel on Luigi Mangione and asking people, would you, even if you think he did it, even if you think all the evidence suggests he did it, would you still find him not guilty? And a lot of people raising their hand and saying, yeah, because they're upset about the health insurance industry. It's a scary place to be. Put that to the side. The Nick Reiner one, I think, is,

fascinating. I agree with you. Look, we're talking about is there going to be an insanity defense? And when his attorney, Alan Jackson, says they're very complex and serious issues and says that at the very beginning of the case before you look at any kind of evidence and any, you know, an attorney saying they could say, well, you're talking about maybe his rights were violated. Was there a constitutional violation? All that, yeah. It felt like it felt like in a mental health issue. I look at the surveillance footage, right? I look at the surveillance footage of Nick Reiner seemingly walking around in that convenience store before he gets arrested, there's an eerie calm and under the law in California in order to establish insanity, which is, by the way,

very, very high bar, very tough to prove. As you'd have to say, like, he didn't appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions. He didn't know the difference between right and wrong. And the more they can establish he was not there. He was not there. He didn't understand what was going on. that would be successful. But then again, why do you get a hotel room? Why was it covered in blood? You know, we're still in the early stages. We don't know.

Very early. 100% agree with you that there could be a very something for a defense attorney, particularly Alan Jackson to work with. Yeah, that's a, it's a strong attorney. So let's switch gears for a minute because I want to hear some about your background. Because again, this is an interview for you, Jesse. Before we get to some of the cases, more that you've covered, which we've talked about a little bit.

How did you get where you are? because you are an attorney, right? Yep. And probably like me, you never expected that you would be doing this for a living. How did you get where you are? It's a great question. It's not the traditional route. So after I graduated college, I was always told, you know,

law school is a great opportunity to learn, to grow, and you can take your law degree into anything you want to do. I love law school. I did great in law school. I was like maybe I want to practice. I practiced for several years. I realized the practice while it was great, I learned a ton. I worked with great people, really important cases.

Just that life wasn't for me. And I remember I always had a passion for performing and presenting. And it was funny when I was at my law firm, I actually gave the best man speech at my brother's wedding. And everybody's like, they thought it was incredible. They're like, you've never done public speaking for. I was like, no. And they said, this is something you should get into. And I was like, oh, yeah. And at one point, I went to acting school. I learned how to perform on camera. I said, I really enjoy this. And I parlayed my legal career

into broadcasting. The first thing that I did was I started making appearances as a legal analyst on any show that would have me. So it was CNN, Fox, CBS. I was on a show called Crime Watch Daily with Chris Hansen back in the day we were filming in New York. And I just kept making more and more appearances. And back in 2017, a colleague of mine said, Misty Maris, who by the way, is an NBC legal analyst. She goes, if you heard that Dan Abrams from ABC News is starting this company called Law News, it was a law and crime phenomenon. It was called Law News. It's like the new court TV. They're live streaming trials. I said, oh, wow. So I went in and I was a guest. And I said to the president at the time, I said, look, are you hiring anchors for this, like full day anchors?

And she said, yeah, and I auditioned. I got the part. And when I joined, that's when it became the Long Crime Network. I was hired full time to host live trial coverage Monday through Friday, three hours a day. I did that for like five years. And Law and Crime branched into other things. So I started doing on-site reporting for Harvey Weinstein and Johnny Depp. And that's when we launched the Sidebar podcast, which I have right now.

And, you know, we do three to four episodes a day, 20 to 30 minutes. We break down these big key legal cases and legal stories. During the pandemic, I started Prime Crime, which is a documentary style show. It's a kind of like Dateline. And one thing led to another. And I started doing hosting work for News 12 Long Island. And then I started doing hosting work for Sirius XM. I have a show called Always in Fashion with my dad on WOR.

So one thing was leading to another. And about 2023, I was hired by News Nation to be their legal contributor, their legal analyst. And so I did work for them. And they knew I was an anchor. So I started filling in for all their talent. Chris Cuomo, Dan Abrams, Elizabeth Vargas, did morning shows, the live show, the afternoon shows, the all different kinds of shows that was anchoring for them. And when there was an opening and they said we're expanding programming to the 11 o'clock hour,

Monday through Friday, 11 to 12, do you want to be our anchor? And I said, absolutely. And I started this show with them. And it's been an incredible journey. And I'm really, really excited to be working with News Nation on this show. So to have my own cable news show from when I was at my law firm at 11 o'clock at night and midnight working on legal briefs, I didn't think all those years later that, I would be a cable news anchor and also have this thankfully successful shows through

long crime on YouTube. So it's quite a journey to say the least. Yeah, and I understand that journey. So it's, it's, it's, it was what was meant to be, right? Because you do, you do a well. So. So let's go, let's go way back towards the early part of your, your doing this. And I know that it's not like, you know, you started off coming on as a contributor. So I know it's not exactly the same thing, but when you started covering trials, what was the, I guess, what was the first one that really kind of made you think, okay, hey, I know this is what I need to do? Like, what was the one that really stuck with you? Or how are you wanting to answer that? You know, you could be like, it's a great, it's a great question. Interesting. Okay, so the first trial I ever covered was the Aaron Hernandez case.

And I thought that was a really interesting one. But I got to say, I started realizing that you saw this pattern of trials, and I think a misunderstanding of how the legal system work. So you start to see how the process works and certain arguments and the evidence. And I think it was really important. I was getting the sense to educate people and to keep people informed.

But it was, I think it was the George Birch case out of Wisconsin. That's one that always stands out to me because I think, if I remember correctly, law and crime at one point, we had launched on investigation discovery for a period of time. And I think that was the case that we did. And for a minute, as a no, the George Birch case, you want to talk about a criminal trial, the ups and downs of that one was insane. You had this Wisconsin woman who was killed and they at one point thought it was her boyfriend

who was arrested. And they realized that it wasn't him. They realized it was a complete stranger. She had met at a bar that night. He ends up putting the blame on him. And it was a Fitbit device that this boyfriend was wearing that showed his movements that was allowed into evidence, which was a whole new piece of evidence that cleared it. It exonerated him. He couldn't have committed the murder.

And George Birch takes the stand, defends himself. And it had all these different elements, you know, a defendant taking the stand, cross-es. examination, the different pieces of evidence, multiple players. I think there was a question online about who did it, what happened. And it was a really, really sad case, but an important legal case. I remember that one standing out for me as like the first one, also because it was part of investigation discovery, where I think it really launched. And I said, this is this is something I definitely want to keep on exploring. And working with Dan Abrams and the team definitely made it easy. I think I don't remember that case, but that sounds like a good one to maybe look up and listen.

But yeah, the tip of wise, we got a, we got a prime crime on it. See that little self-promotion. And you know, you're allowed to promote your stuff. You know that, right? Like, you're okay. If you got to want to promote your, you know, sidebar or, or was prime crime. You're welcome to do any of that. Tell people what to find out. Everybody wants to watch it. They can. All right. So let's go back to kind of since it's you and I sitting here. You've seen the evolution of true crime coverage going from the courtroom reporting like you're talking about to TikTok to long-form documentaries from where you sit what's the biggest thing people get wrong about how these cases actually work i think it's very easy to question uh law enforcement investigations and to say oh there's a cover-up

oh they're not looking at this you can have a real conversation about what law enforcement's doing you can have a real conversation about what's communicated from law enforcement to the public particularly also to the families, I believe that, yes, there's a delicate line between what law enforcement can share with the victim's family because there's, you don't want to taint investigation or any evidence or potential witnesses. But I think you have to communicate with the family first. And whenever I hear stories where the families kept in the dark and not told what's going on, or they find out after the fact from media when there's an arrest or so that really bothers me. But I think that when you see people on social media, and by the way, I think there's a value to that, too, people on social media talking about cases, keeping it in the line like keeping a part of the discussion helping, right? You know, sometimes people see things and they report it to law enforcement and they get it amplified and that's a good thing. But sometimes it's based on misinformation about, I think, a misunderstanding of our legal system and how investigations work.

And it may be important at times for people to take a pause or in a worst case scenario, they know they're not, you know, they're doing it purposely to get views and create anger and create excitement. So just understanding a little bit more about how our legal process works. And, you know, I think I said this with the Coburger case. When you have a defendant or the evidence looks really bad where it's clear as day they're going to be found guilty, even particularly in those cases give that defendant every benefit of the doubt give them every opportunity to make an argument because the last thing that you want is a conviction and then it being overturned on appeal because their rights were violated in somewhere they weren't allowed to make a certain argument or an evidence wasn't allowed in that's the last thing anybody wants so i would say for for those who believe someone uh is definitely guilty of a crime and then you're like well They're being allowed to say this. They're being allowed to say this. It's a, I would say, just take a pause and realize that in the end of the day,

it's important they get the opportunity to make this argument. It is their right. And if it's defeated and the jury doesn't believe it, there is less likelihood that that conviction is going to be overturned. And I think that's something important to say as well, because, you know, when we talk about the understanding of the law, let's be honest. I'm not an attorney. Now, when I took law classes in college, I love them. I probably should have gone to law school. actually once had a judge tell me I should have gone to law school.

That was over a traffic ticket. That's a different story. But I argued it so well. The judge was like, what's your major? And I said it's international business. He goes, it needs to be pre-law. It's what he told me. Yeah.

Well, no, it was. Maybe I'll share that story in a second. But, you know, a lot of people don't understand it. One thing I see is like, well, we don't even need to do a trial. Well, we do. even when you talk about somebody like Brian Coburger or really anybody who is just

blatantly, Brian Walsh is another one who was found guilty you know, blatant like the Google searches were there. I mean, everything's obvious but people need to understand that it's kind of like going back to what you said in regard to like it's not okay to murdering. Like whether it's Charlie Kirk, Brian Thompson,

the Ryaners, anybody. It's not okay to murder somebody. It's not okay to murder somebody. It's not okay to celebrate them. Doesn't mean that you have to mourn them, but to be out there and celebrating it, it's not, it's just not okay. It's, it's a total failure of a person's humanity to do that. That's just the bottom line. But a lot of people don't think that trial should happen to.

And what I want to say to that, so for anybody listening, is that it's, if you're listening from America, it is in our Constitution that you have a right, you know, to a fair trial. And the minute you take that away, you collapse everything. So whether the person's guilty or not, I mean, if the evidence is overwhelming, the evidence is overwhelming. Not everybody's going to be able to hire, you know, the attorneys that Johnny Depp's going to be able to hire or that that Ditty's going to be able to hire. Those are the few and far between. These are, these are seven digit attorneys for the most part. But for the most part, people need to be able to have a real trial. Otherwise, our entire society collapses.

That's the bottom line. And let me just say this, like, 100%, right? everybody's entitled to a defense. Everybody's innocent until proven guilty. It's the prosecution's burden to prove the case, even something like Mangione, where I think the evidence is very strong that he did this. He has a right to say, my rights were violated. When police approached me in that McDonald's, there's a fair question about why wasn't he read his Miranda rights for about 20 minutes. Was he in custody? Was he not in custody? Did they need a warrant to search his bag. And look, I don't think we're getting a decision on that till May, but he has every

right to make those arguments. And again, even in a case like this, where I think you look at the forensic evidence, the digital evidence, very strong that, you know, indicator that he did it. I think a lot of supporters actually believe that he did it. If his rights were violated in some way, then that evidence shouldn't come in. And but at the same time, he allow him to make this argument and because if he wasn't allowed to make this argument and he's convicted there's a chance that conviction after all that hard work after all those jurors sat through this trial after the victim's family had to sit through this trial for it to be overturned and have to try to do it again that is a really really bad scenario so again i i agree with you so

that said let's um let's talk about about the second this is a good segue you have to like me and you do it differently because again you you have rules and regulations you have to follow i don't which is which is a different argument to talk about with with social media um but you have to balance storytelling with sensitivity so what are the what are your own personal like i'm drawing this line in the sand i'm not going to cross this when you're covering a case what are your own personal lines and boundaries i don't think i have to get into certain details of sexual assault i don't think i have to get in particularly graphic details about how someone was killed unless it's relevant to the evidence of a crime.

But what I'll also say is, look, these are stories to tell, and people have short attention spans, unfortunately, particularly in today's day and age. There are ways to tell the story to grab people's tension and interest without marginalizing or sensationalizing, you know, sensationalizing the details or trying to, you know, I'm trying to find the right word, exploit, exploit what happened there. So I think it's really important to do that. I'm never going to, I'm never going to make it look, you know, poppy and star and sensation. Like, it's a very careful line. These are human lives. This is a real situation. But there are ways to keep people engaged and keep people interested and try to explain what the main issues are, the unsolved questions that I think we all deserve

and we all need to know. And that doesn't, again, go against the story and what needs to be said. But it's a tricky balance because, again, people have short intention. There's an important legal point. There's an important point or important guests that I want to get to and I have to keep teasing it and explaining it. And I just want to make it as clear as possible for people as they go into these stories. I want them to understand our legal system.

I want them to understand the process. And hopefully I do an okay job at trying to make it easily digestible. Well, I think that you do. And also to your point, sorry, to your point, what I think people need to remember is, as I realize that a lot of people look at true crime, these court cases as a form of, and I use the term loosely entertainment. But at the end of the day, you know, one thing that you have to keep in mind when you're consuming this content, when you're making comments out there in the, in the, you know, TikTok sphere, Instagram, wherever,

is that real, the families could come across this, you know, and would you want them to see your comments? And I used to always say that. I've had lives coming on. There's oftentimes where, you know, I'm involved with the families as well. You know, you know that I know you are too. And so the families will come into my lives or they'll watch my videos. And do you really want these families who are already experienced something horrific or traumatic to come in and see your comments

of what you're saying about their loved one or anything that's lack of support. I had somebody the other day. I did an update, because you have old cases that you talk about every now and then, so I did one on Natalie Holloway for a brief update. And somebody came in and literally blamed Beth Holloway,

Natalie Holloway's mother, for her death, saying, oh, she paid off your in Vander's suit. And I'm like, the level of mental gymnastics that these people get to in their conspiracy theories and the things that they feel compelled to say online, it can be very disgusting, it can be very gross, but at the same time it's very insensitive to families that actually live there.

There's something that you can keep to yourself, right? And so that's the problem of social media that I kind of want to talk about since I have you, and it's very careful of what you see. And it's funny, like, so it's funny you should say that, I mean, sidebar and prime crime, the victim's family members can't thank us enough for a lot of the stories that we cover.

I mean, I was just thinking about the Mercedes Vega case, which is an awful killing out in Arizona. This woman was brutalized. She was beaten, bleached, poured down her throat. Marzette on fire. They believe they have the suspects. We have been on top of that story from the very beginning, and her parents can't thank us enough for shining a light on what's going on there,

telling her story, keeping it informed, keeping people invested in it, trying to hold the suspects accountable and telling that story. When we covered the Tristan Bailey stabbing, her family came on prime crime, sat down for a full interview. I mean, they appreciate the fact that we're giving a voice to them and giving the voice to the victims and also spending some time talking about who they are. They're not just a statistic. They're not just a number. They're not just victim A.

These are real human beings. Their loss is felt. They had an impact on this world. So dedicating some time to do that when we have, thankfully, a platform that is watched by a lot of people, something we definitely always keep in mind. Yeah, it's something that I, you know, and once you start losing side of that, that empathy, I think that, you know, you're done. That's just my opinion.

Like, if you can't. So I don't know about you. There's some really difficult things that I talk about, really, you know, when we use, You talk about cases of like sexual abuse, child sexual abuse in particular is one that really I struggle with compartmentalizing with. Any case involving kids, I kind of struggle compartmentalizing with. So, you know, we cover some brutal things. We see some brutal details, stuff that would make people lose sleep. How do you, how do you deal with that? And what do you, and what do you struggle with compartmentalizing also? Like, how do you, what is your way of like going back when like setting this aside and keeping your sanity? It's tough. It's really, really tough. You know, every crime is awful. I think if you really take a minute and you think about what that person went through before they're killed, when you think about how family members are informed about what happened to them after they go through the legal process, it's incredibly, it's incredibly heartbreaking.

And sometimes you can mentally separate and said, just, you know, focus on the facts, focus on the law, focus on the organs, focus on it. It's easier said than none. It's kids that I can't get past. It's the kids that I just, those are the ones that are really difficult. And like even when I do sidebar and I'm like going through it, it's like really, really, those are the ones that I really can't get past because there's a level of vulnerability and innocence and there was no way to defend themselves. And what happened to them is inexcusable.

And it's something. Sometimes there's, it's just, it's very hard to make sense of this world and think about what happened. And so when it comes to kids, those are the ones that like, it's hard to, it's hard to move past. I do my best to try to move past and think about, you know, what are we doing next? But it stays with you. There's no, there's no other way to get past. It just stays with you. Yeah. And I know exactly what you're saying. So let me go a little darker with this. What cases kept you up at night. You know, I remember, I'll tell you that, unfortunately, I cover so many of these kinds of cases that they, it's tough, but I'll tell you the first one. I'll

tell you the first one that ever got me into this, because by the way, I didn't have a criminal law background. I've studied criminal law that you see cases, but I'll never forget the first one that was really difficult to get past and difficult to fathom. It was the Cherish Perry Winkle case out in Florida. I know. He was kidnapped by Donald Smith. I think it was from a Walmart. You see the surveillance footage of him approaching,

befriending the mother, and they're just walking out with her. And she was brutally killed and sexually assaulted. And that was when you look at her and you look at her face and you think about what she endured because they had to go into graphic details. And I think I remember correctly, the medical examiner when she testified, choked up on the stand. I think that was the case. That's the one that changed everything for me.

And I saw the true evil in this world in a different light. Yeah, those are, for me, one of those is Audrey Cunningham. If you remember that one, that was the girl in Texas. And what a lot of people don't know about that case, just say, you know um i actually blamed don stephen mcdougal for two murders or for two deaths because i was speaking with um audrey's maternal grandfather at the time when everything was going on and he was giving the grandparents gave me information and he he ended up he was in his 50s too he wasn't even that old he he got so overwhelmed and overstressed and just distraught by the whole thing

that he had a heart attack and died well while he was at work he worked they were they were people of simple means you know he worked they lived in like nowhere texasas He worked at, I think, a Walmart distribution center. And, you know, just very simple, you know, simple, good, good people. And he went to work and was in a training. And because he couldn't, you know, he didn't have the money to take off work. And he was also taking care of, Audrey had a half sister. And they were taking care of her as well.

And he ended up having a heart attack and passing away. And so those are some of dying from broken hearts. Yeah, I mean, I think that's, I think that's a huge part of it. And the doctor, even, he had started having issues. As doctors, you can't go to the funeral, you can't do. And he's like, there's nothing you're going to do to keep me away from it. So I don't think he made it to the funeral. I think that he just, his heart just gave out.

So I think about them often. Because for the same reason to it, I'm not trying to get into graphic detail because I don't think that people need to know it. But, you know, we know what Don, you know, when somebody's doing this to a little girl, a little boy too when it happens. We know, we know what's happening. Like, we know what they're doing. and then to murder them as another thing.

But like he, if you probably remember this, he tied her to a rock and threw her in a river naked. And I just, I think about this whole, the brutality of this crime. And even now, it still gets me.

So I agree. Those are the hardest ones to deal with and the ones that you have to handle with the utmost care. Yeah. Because they're just, they're just so horrific. And I feel like lately, I don't know about you, but I feel like lately, I don't know if it's an algorithm thing or whatever,

there's been so many more crimes against children than I've ever seen. You know, I always wonder about that. And I say to myself, it's a different kind of case. But when you talk about teachers or educators who are abusing children, why are we seeing it so much more? There are those who will say there's certain reasons for that. But it's also, I think, it happened all the time. It just wasn't amplified by the media. It wasn't talked about as much.

And you wonder whether these kinds of cases always happening, but just don't get the kind of attention that they should for a variety of reasons. And with the advent of social media and different platforms like yours, they are brought to a national attention, an international attention. So I do wonder if that's as well, you know, just the the ability to share more of this in more real time and quickly. I do wonder if that's what you're seeing as well, just more people talking about it and maybe not necessarily happening more now,

but just talked about more now. And I think that it's a fair point. You're probably on to something with that. And this is just a reminder for parents, talk to your kids. Let them know that there's nothing anybody can say or do to threaten them if something happens to your kids to come to you, come to a safe adult that's just I can't stress that enough yeah um here's let let's do

something a little bit more less less dark let's get something a little bit lighter um with everything that you've seen okay the trials the evidence the stories what do you want people to know what do you think people should know and understand about the justice system that they don't understand right now i don't have to tell a misconception yeah i don't have to tell anybody that it's not perfect it's not perfect it's not perfect But it's a pretty good system when you compare it to other countries. I think it's important to realize that it's, and I love law and order. I think law and order is great.

It's not law and order. It doesn't happen in a day. It doesn't happen in a week. It's a process. It's a process. And I would encourage anybody just, you know, wherever you live or if you're interested in federal cases, usually there's like a website that will list like the entire criminal process. And by the way, litigation sometimes could take even longer. That's a whole process, too.

It just takes time and you won't see an answer. You won't see justice, whatever you believe that to be, for quite some time. And there's a variety of factors that go into. We have rules of evidence. There are plea deals. There are negotiations. There are human issues. They're scheduling. And I think it's important to understand each area of that and to appreciate what's happening. And trials, we do it at Long Crown. We cover trials. They're a very, very fascinating event. And when you see the opening arguments, excuse me, the opening statements, and you see the witnesses and you see what evidence is allowed in, what questions are allowed in, what questions are not allowed, and what the juror's role is through this.

through closing arguments and the jury instructions from the judge to have a deeper knowledge of how our legal system works and what its limitations are. If you do see, talk about the Jesse Mac Butler case, right? You've been all on top of that. That is a case where I think there needs to be a serious conversation about youthful as vendor status in Oklahoma and who's entitled to it. That is something, a conversation that maybe would not have happened if that story hadn't been amplified by you. And so I think understanding our legal process and deficiencies in our legal process and things that could potentially make it better. You know, look, I also believe there should be cameras in every single court. I think there should be cameras in the Supreme Court.

The reason is it's not like I just, oh, just entertainment. I want to have it. No, it's important that people have a front row seat to see how it works, particularly when there's conspiracy theories out there, particularly when people have misinformation. This is the evidence being presented. it. This is where they're getting it from. This is how the foundation is laid. And then you get determined. Then you can say someone's rights were violated. Someone wasn't given due process. You know, this is clearly this person is guilty. It's all about education and understanding a little bit more. You know, I don't know if you knows. Do you know why we don't have cameras in the

federal court system? I actually learned this recently. Is it because they are worried that it would taint the process? Is it a worry that it would taint witnesses or, uh, uh, uh, you tell me. Well,

I learned it was basically because of the Lindberg trial, the Lindberg baby. Oh. Uh, back in 35, you had the kidnapping trial. It turned into a full blown media circus, apparently.

Yeah. So reports were packed the courtrooms. There were, you know, every, you know, these didn't really have, you didn't have television cameras back then, you know,

in the 30s, but you had, you know, apparently like the flash bulbs going off and photographers were apparently literally climbing on benches and it became like national entertainment. And so the legal community kind of freaked out. And then they created the Can.

35 rule, which basically banned all cameras and courtroom because it had created a carnival atmosphere. So it was a single case, basically 90 years ago. I get it. I get it. I get it. I agree with that because now you have decorum and now you have, you know, I mean,

you're supposed to have decorum. But, you know, now you have ways that the judge can kind of handle that. I understand. I get it. 100%. Like when I was doing the Johnny Depp ever heard trial, but that's so many Johnny Depp supporters were in that courtroom wearing t-shirts. I get it. I understand. Does it have an effect on how attorneys act? Sure. Does it have an effect when you think about witnesses who are testifying not only in front of that jury in the gallery, but the world? I understand it. But, but there is more of a value in my eyes to, you know, broadcasting that, to showing the world how it works, to having public access to our legal system,

then there's always a risk in anything, then whatever risk might. There's ways to go around that. I mean, look, if you're dealing with confidential informants, if you're dealing with undercover officers, if you're dealing with minor victims, you don't show their faces. You just have audio. Maybe you release it the next day. There's ways to get around it.

But to just shield from it is not the answer in mind. Well, I think, too, when you go back to, like, look at the ditty trial, there are things from that trial. To me, it's a bit amazing and maybe you feel the same way or don't, but how the general public thinks that we're entitled to so much more than we are. Like, you know, you go back to the Ditty trial. There was obviously some explicit, explicit video, right? That to protect victims, to protect, you know, even just the general public,

only the jurors, the judge, people in that courtroom got to see, and it was shielded even to the point that report. reporters couldn't see it. And I think that you need to have that. And like you said, with child cases, the same thing. I don't, you know, one thing that I struggle, so I don't know if you, you may not know this. So after the Jesse Mac Butler case, I know, he's not technically a child, but, you know, it's on that borderline. It got me thinking that in all the cases that I cover, how many, how many of these predators, how many people that harm kids get a slap on the wrist and go on to reaffin, you know, Brock Turner, who now goes by Alan Turner, is one of them that

Canton Lee Dolly out of, it was on the same time as Jesse Mac Butler out of, uh, wherever. He's the same thing. And so I created a petition and change.org has actually been helping to like get a pushed out. I'm up to like 158,000 signatures on it to basically end these easy plea deals for child predators. And because I feel like, you know, how many times do you hear the story? Like somebody like, here's another good example. We go back to Audrey Cunningham for a second. I don't know if you're, I know you cover a lot of cases, so you remember some, you don't. Steve, Donne, Steve McDougal, the person who, who is, guilty. He pled guilty for murder. He's getting life in prison. His plea deal was he, they will,

Texas won't execute him if he pleased guilty. He'll get life in prison. Totally cool with that plea deal. Good plea deal, right? But the one, but his original plea deal, he'd gotten caught in bed with, I think, a nine or 10 year old girl taking her pants off. And they, they pled that down to enticement of a child, no sex offender registry at all. Nothing. So it was gone. And now there's, There's a little girl who never is going to come home again because of that. And you look at somebody like Jesse Mac Butler and look, I'm not here to predict what he's going to do or not. But the indicator of strangulation are there, right?

If you're somebody who's that comfortable to strangle somebody to the point of unconscious to the point that you then wake them up and strangle them again so you can record it, there's a, you know, there's a 750% higher chance that he's going to kill someone. And so now this is a guy who, who, who, got off with a it was facing 78 years now has 150 hours of community service um that's all of this is going to be expunged from his record the day he turns 19 years old and and so there's the point of that petition um which by the way people who watching this you can sign it's linked in

the show notes um you know just to help kind of end those plea easy plea deals and make it so these predators are held held more accountable but to your point sorry this is a really long-winded answer really long-winded point to get here but one thing that you hear a lot and I know you cover this, how many times a minor victim has to testify. And I get very frustrated with this because one is you're taking the trauma that a minor has gone through.

And depending on how old that minor is, if you're talking about a teenager, it's a different conversation than when you're talking about, and I hate to say it, but let's the reality of a five, six, seven, eight-year-old kid, right? There is a case, I don't know if you, I don't think you know this person,

but there's a case that this attorney in Pennsylvania has been covering where she was telling got a case where basically during COVID, this a daycare worker, I believe it was a daycare worker, was abusing like a two or three year old girl. And she told what happened, you know,

the best that a two or three year old could and they very limited vocabulary that they have. But because of COVID, things are getting pushed and pushed and pushed and pushed. And then she's now five, six years old. She doesn't remember because, you know, she was too.

Whole case gets thrown out. And so why we can't, record them once and that be it, it's beyond. So yes, you can record them. That's how it leads to an arrest. That's how it leads to an indictment. There's a question about whatever they eventually testify to. I'm sorry, getting some work done in the building.

Sorry, if this is picking it up. Okay. There's also a question of when they do testify that their testimony matches up to what they originally said in a police interview. But also, I will tell you, look, under the law, as I mentioned, criminal defendant is innocent until proven guilty. They have a constitutional right to confront their accusers, to confront the witnesses. And that is why it is necessary to have a witness testify in real time. There are exceptions, of course, if somebody were to pass away, maybe their prior testimony can come in in some capacity.

But look, it's if you take somebody who says, I'm completely innocent, this person is making it up. The parents are telling them what to say. Just imagine that scenario. Wouldn't they have a right to really dig into the narrative, the recollection of this minor victim? I mean, they would have a right. And they are innocent until proven guilty. So it's a tough balance there because that is why you see a lot of times these plea deals in sexual assault or abuse. cases. It doesn't go to trial. You spare the expense of a minor victim having to testify. You

spare a jury having to hear all this. And yes, that person may not get the ultimate punishment that many people will say they should be getting. But look what you're, look what you're, you don't have to go through the pain of a trial, the pain of that testimony. So, so I'm not an attorney. So this is a big conversation. I'm going to ask you because you are an attorney. You can, you can try a murder case without the person there, right, with all, using all the evidence. So why? You mean like a body? Like nobody?

Yeah, you can't like, like Brian Walker's no body. Yeah, 100%. It's more difficult. It's more difficult, but you can do it. Yeah, you can do it. And even if you have a body, that person can't, you know, testify obviously. So why couldn't there be? And again, this is not me like, I, this is from a sheer point of curiosity, okay?

Why couldn't you have a cutoff? say 13, 14 years old and be like, all right, if they're under this age, whatever it is, you know, you're talking about, when you're talking about two, three year olds, they're already very limited on what they can do anyways. And you can get their forensic interview. You have that recorded. You have any rape kits or anything like that that are done. Why couldn't the system change so that, you know, you don't have a grown man confronting

a little kid about it when you have all this other evidence the same as you would try a murder trial without a body? I'm not saying there are not scenarios by which that wouldn't happen, but here's the difficulty, right? So difficulty is the majority of the evidence, a big portion of that case, if it's not supported by digital evidence or forensic evidence, is the account of that victim. That's the prosecution's case. And if it's built on that, the defendant has a right to question the accuser. Now, could there, and if the goal, if the case then is like, okay, that minor victim, is not going to testify, but you'll have the medical examiner testify,

somebody who does a forensic examination, or you have law enforcement who spoke to that minor victim. Then you deal with issues of hearsay, right? It's not a firsthand account. That's where it gets complicated. Now, could there be a change in the law? Could there be other scenarios? Sure.

But you will see a challenge, a constitutional challenge, is saying that somebody who's innocent and so proven guilty has a right to question all the evidence that they're giving, that they're really given a disadvantage, an unfair disadvantage going into a trial if they don't have the opportunity to question in some capacity, the key evidence against them. So it's tough. It's tough. It's part of a conversation. Sometimes every case is different. I mean, there's cases that are different. Sometimes there might be exceptions, but where a case is primarily based on that account. That's,

that's tricky. It's, and I've talked to victims, you know, I'm not, this person, they want to make sure that they stay quiet,

you know, who they are, but there was a, there was a case, well, just, I'll just say up in the Northeast where a little girl

got kidnapped, and they found her, like right at that, like, 47th hour mark, and they spared her. She was like eight or nine, and they spared her

the testimony, but his plea deal was he's going to go, he'll die in jail, basically. And if that's kind of the kind of thing, then I'm all for that. But it's just, I just find it very challenging when you talk about these cases and you're dealing with kids who can't under who can't comprehend. Like that's an even a good example too, because I remember speaking to those parents, you know, and she was, you know, and I asked like, you know, how is she doing? Like, is she doing like, you know, she's still herself?

Like, is she how she doing she doing okay, you know, with everything? And she's like, she doesn't understand what happens. She just knows she didn't like it. So that takes another issue because, you know, you have. You know what I'm saying? Like it's an issue that a lot of these kids don't even under can't comprehend what's been done to them. Yeah. So that's just kind of where I get frustrated with it.

If she were to testify, if a minor victim were to testify to that, that's arguably more powerful than going into detail. Yeah. It's more powerful for a jury, I think. Yeah, I'd say that I, you know, that I don't like it. I just, yeah. I think that would, you could see the headlines. You could see every news article quoting that. Yeah.

For reason. Yeah. It's, I mean, I see what you're saying on that, but it's just, it's just a very, it's a, that's a slippery slope with, with the little ones. And I hate it. It's so, it's so, it's so much. Um, there was something else I was going to ask you. Sorry, I know, I know that where I got you for a little bit longer. So, um, where was I had a question. Where was it? Okay, there was this one. Yeah, there was this question I had for you. Okay. So what. All right. I figure how I want to word this one. Could I put myself? I give myself a little notes, Jesse. Just so you know.

How do I want to put this one? Okay. So we've seen a lot of botched investigations. We've seen sweetheart deals. We've seen victims be ignored, right? What? This is going to be a two-parter. Okay.

What is the failure that you see happening the most when it comes? Because like, you know, it's not a perfect system. What's the theory that you see happening the most often? and from your vantage point, what is one reform that would actually make a difference? That's feasible. It's a great question. Look, I'll start off with this. I hate second-guessing law enforcement.

I think the work that they do from the responding officers to detectives, to investigators, to forensic examiners is incredible. It's incredible. And we need them. And it's hard for me to second-guess what an investigation is like. as I go back to two points. One, I go back to that point, how do you have a proper conversation and communication with the victim's family members? I think I see too many stories, too many times where as the family is negotiating the trauma that they have to go through, the reality I've had to go through, the fact that they're burdened and frustrated by a lack of response and a lack of communication, a lack of answers from law enforcement and an ongoing investigation. is troubling.

I get it. You know, I go back to investigators don't want to taint investigation. They don't want to share too many details. I understand, but think about the victim's family. But more, there's another part to this too. I get there's a huge caseload. I get you get a lot of calls every day. It's hard to know what's credible, what's not.

But I do see scenarios where it seems early warning signs are ignored. And it seems like an initial claim, you go, back, and particularly when the worst comes out later on, there's a conversation where law enforcement has to say, was that initial complaint, was that initial warning sign, was it properly handled by law enforcement? Did they take it seriously or did they not take it seriously? And it's easy to play our Monday morning quarterback and say, you know, if you would have done this, he would have been arrested. He wouldn't have been out. But I think having to have. Have it. the proper protocol put in place to take these complaints and these accusations seriously at an

early level is is it is something to really consider and to think about um and i know that's more of a general kind of kind of answer because i don't have a specific example but that's something that makes it happen again does that make sense to you it be perfect sense i get what you're saying with it because you know when you're talking about you know these types of situations and systemic failures and things that could reform. I mean, you're not talking about something specific. I think it is more of a general issue. You know, because when you're sitting there talking about that,

I'm thinking specifically about domestic violence because how many, and I know that that might not have been what you were thinking, but I think that from a general standpoint is what you're saying applies to so many different aspects of the law and the way things have kind of been done. You know, how many, how many, I mean, we know that the domestic violence call is the most dangerous for law enforcement. I think there was one recently in actually Rochester, New York, where a guy got called out for domestic violence call.

Three police officers go out. All three police officers got shot. And because of this guy, the guy who made the phone call got shot, the new boyfriend. And it's incredibly a very incredibly dangerous thing, whereas this was not the first call on this person and had the system done its job properly. Maybe three officers would not have gotten shot. No, 100%. And also child protective services. Oh, yeah.

At many times I get cases about that where it's like, why didn't try? remove the child from the home. Like the one in Oklahoma that just gave, the one in Oklahoma, the girl gave the 11-year-old gave birth to her stepdad's baby. That's multiple times, multiple times. Their whole philosophy is

that it's all about keeping the family unified. You don't want to take the child out unless there's clear, like a clear and present danger, right? But that's, that's of, I see that conversation all the time. Did CPS fail? X, Y, and Z. That's of common,

common critique and argument. The other thing to that point that a lot of people I don't think know is that CPS, it's like, if somebody doesn't answer the door, CPS doesn't have the rights of a police officer, they don't have a warrant, they can't just go into the house. So if you, if somebody doesn't answer the door, if CPS responds to a call and they don't answer the door, they can't make contact with the person, there's really nothing they can do. And maybe that's a broader discussion that needs to be had. But that's part of the issue, too, is they can't just break into the house and think about when you're dealing with these volatile situations, how dangerous it is for those social workers as well to go out to those, you know, because you're dealing with people completely. about how they're raising their kids or complaints about what they've heard. But sometimes there's extreme negligence on their part, not every time, but sometimes there is. So that one is very, CPS is a very complex animal.

I right. I think. Really tough. So I know, you know, I want to be cocked. I know you want to get back to things that you have to do. So let's, let's kind of go here. out of everything that you have seen trials evidence stories um so actually already asked you that one this was what i meant to ask it this way sorry out of everything that you've done the trials the

stories etc what is one case that has that you've never covered that you have always wanted to cover to put your take on oh man i would have loved how did i say this i would have it would have been a very interesting situation to cover the OJ case if it happened right now. I mean, my gosh. I remember, by the way, I remember my mom watching that on TV when I was little and I was coming back home every day from school and she was like so invested in it. That, I mean, that is a case that, that or the Scott Peterson one. Like those were two that defined true crime and were very interesting from a number of different perspectives. and factors. And I looked, you know, over the years, I've gone back and looked at the evidence

and seen what was presented. But to have covered that trial in real time would have been very, very interesting. I would have loved to give my take on it and been able to digest all the arguments that were being made. Yeah, those were, those were two cases that I would have, would have been interesting to follow. You know, you have a podcast. You can do it still. I know. I know, I could. I do have power. But you know, you know, You know, here's one thing about the OJ case that I find interesting. And I say this as much as a pigmently challenged person can. All right.

When you go back, because I was so, that happened to what, 90, what was it, 95, 96? I think it wasn't a 94. Let me look at our computer here. Well, with why, at the same time, it's like the menendez happened in other ones, it's 95. No, 90. Yeah. No, I think it was 1994 was the killings, right? Yeah, yeah.

So the trial didn't start until 95. Yeah, yeah, yeah. And, yeah, I think it ended on October 3rd 95. I'll look it up. So what's very interesting about the OJ case and in a lot of people, and I'm going to speak as generically as I possibly can without getting myself in any type of trouble here. But what was very interesting is that you go back to the time period

in the black community and, you know, in the 90s. And this was like right after Rodney King, this was when you really had that, you know, know the East Coast, West Coast hip hop movement going on and you have like NWA coming out with, you know, a lot more speech coming out from the black community on how they were being treated. I mean, that was, I mean, Tupac was a lot about that as well. And you had people when a lot of people cheered about OJ getting off because I remember that happened. People did cheer when he got off on this.

It wasn't because like it was he got away with murder. It was because for a lot of people in the black community, again, I'm saying this is as much as I able to from my perspective. I want to be that very clear about that. That this was the first time in a lot of people's minds that a black man got a fair trial, like a truly fair trial. And so that's why it was, it was such that, that case is such a landmark case for so many reasons that people don't even realize, I think, half the time. And, and I think he ended up getting, I think he ended up kind of paying for it when he did the robbery, the judge really through the book at him for that.

Yeah, but he was trying to find the killer on the gun. golf course all those years. No, look, it was such a problematic prosecution. The glove. It was. But you've never done the glove. It wasn't like an airtight slam dunk prosecution, no problems. And there are parts of it. You're like, look, do I think that OJ, the evidence suggested OJ did it? Yeah. But at the same time, it was problems in the prosecution's case for sure. And I'll go on to say this too, and this is from my perspective, you do not have to agree with what I'm going to say here, and that's okay. Okay. And you don't have to say anything if you don't want to.

But I feel like, so right after, right after you had OJ's verdict, you had the Menendez's brothers go back to court. And the judge was like, we're not doing any of this battered woman BS, basically is how he worded it. You got his phrase a little bit differently, but that was essentially the gist in my courtroom, right? So I feel, again, going back to what we said at the beginning of this program, murder is never okay, all right? The Menendez brothers, sorry, excuse me, the Menna's brothers made a choice, right? They ended the lives of their parents. That's not okay.

They 100% deserve to be in prison for that. However, if the extended circumstances were, extended circumstances were there, which I believe that they are, then did they end up getting a fair trial because of OJ, because the judge is like, we need a win and we can't have two of these happen. back to back. I can't say whether there was any connection to OJ. All I'll say is I was never convinced that even if you assume all that, you know, the abuse, that wouldn't justify a self-defense argument at that time and place in the manner in which those two, their parents were killed, there was no sudden threat at that moment, the idea that they were in fear. There is a great,

I believe it's a Ninth Circuit opinion from several years ago that looked at this argument and looked at this evidence and explained why they weren't entitled to a new trial that clearly laid it out, how it just didn't support it. And I think that you can have, again, we can have a discussion about, were they being credible, what was going on with them, should they be given a sense of forgiveness? but at the same time, the difficulty for them is, legally speaking, they were able to present a defense, even in their second trial, though there's a lot of those who said, you know, they weren't unable to present or true defense. They were. It just wouldn't have justified it, in my view, of a self-defense argument at that point in time, particularly with the mother, particularly with the mother. I think that was a very problematic for them. Yeah, the father's a lot easier to understand the mom. I'll give you that for sure. Like, you know, and I believe, you know,

based on the first, I mean, this is not a Menendez discussion. But, you know, I think that the evidence shows when you look at things and you look at people who, who have analyzed the case in system that the evidence is there, that there was sexual abuse. But not, that explains the father, you know, that. So, yeah, without going too deep into those weeds, that's, I don't disagree with you on that. But that's what, that's part of the thought, though, is that OJ. And look, and again, not to go to the discussion. And we can't if you want to.

No, no, I mean, like, you know, could have gone to the police. They spend time going to retrieve the guns. There was an element of preparation planning. They, they, if they, what was the alternative? It goes back to the idea of murder can't be the answer unless there's some sort of imminent threat to their lives at that moment. And these were executions. I mean, it was executions. It is what it is.

And they can't. There's no other way to, to explain it the way that they were killed in that room. But yeah, look, that's part of it, the conversation for a different day. Yeah, we can have that discussion on a different day if you want to do that. All right. Well, before we let you go for today, and of course, I appreciate you being a guest. I interview you. Is there anything that I didn't ask that you want to talk? Because this is true crime in their own words.

So if there's something that I didn't ask that you want to talk about, this is your spot. And of course, obviously, please make sure to promote your platforms, your podcast, anything that you want to. Well, let me just say, first of all, thank you so much for having me. and you have been so generous with your time, whether it's coming on to a sidebar or coming on to News Nation. I've got to get you on Prime Crime. That's my next thing. But you've been so generous with your time and so knowledgeable about these cases.

And you're really an incredibly respected voice in this sphere. And you do great work for the victims. And I appreciate you. I really, really appreciate the work that you've been doing day and in day out. I know a lot of people do. And I'm not surprised by your success. And I'm not surprised by how many people follow you on this. and I just hope that you keep on continuing in doing this great work.

Yeah, I just, as we talked about at the top, there are a lot of voices out there, but there are the voices that I believe should rise to the top, the voices that I believe should be listened to or voices like yourself. So thank you for giving me the opportunity to come on, explain a little bit more about my life and what I do here and the work that I do for Long Crime and News Nation. Absolutely. And then do you want to tell people where they can find you and podcast and things like that?

Sure. Yes. See, I'm on Twitter and Instagram. I forgot my handles, but you'll find me. I'm going to look at, I'll look at Jesse's handle why because of this. But yeah, you can watch Sidebar and Prime Crime on YouTube or Spotify, my News Nation show. It's Monday through Friday every night, 11 o'clock Eastern time. You can watch it.

And we cover the biggest news of the day. Kind of give a preview of the day ahead. It's not just crime. It's politics, it's entertainment. It's all different areas. And so that's where everybody can watch me if they want to watch me. And for people who, because Jesse doesn't know his handles, you can follow him at Real J. Weber. By the way, funny, funny, funny story about that.

I made it Real J. Weber before I even got into broadcasting. I thought it was funny. And now, I guess it makes sense. Like, I don't think it was, it was kiss me. It's like making Jesse Weber. There's not. And it seems a little like pretentious. But at the same time, I don't feel like change.

it but yeah real jweber well i think that i think though honestly at this point you can't change it because you want it to be real and you have the checkmark i'm sure right so uh i think i think i have it on it's jessie clearly they're nothing about it's social yeah i used to have it on twitter and i just didn't want to pay for it yeah why yeah i got i stopped doing twitter and i have it organically on instagram i have it organically everywhere but tick tictock won't give me one for whatever whatever reason they don't like you they don't they they really don't like me they don't. That's okay.

That's a different story. Well, regardless, I appreciate you coming on and spending the time. And for everybody who's listening, we will see you guys next time. The views and opinions expressed in this episode are solely those of the individual speaking and do not necessarily reflect those of the host. Unheard is intended to provide a platform for personal stories and lived experiences, not to establish facts, determine guilt, innocence, or provide legal, medical, or professional advice.

Listeners are encouraged to conduct their own research and form their own conclusions. Thank you for listening to Unheard.