0:04

Hello and happy Friday. We

0:06

are still out on the West

0:08

Coast, which made this episode extra

0:11

challenging, but really rewarding. On

0:13

this special episode of Cup of

0:15

Justice, I am joined by my

0:18

husband and Luna Shark producer David

0:20

Moses as we chat with my

0:22

dear friend, South Carolina attorney, Mandy

0:25

Powers Norrell. Mandy Powers Norrell has

0:27

had a wildly successful career in

0:29

civil practice before entering politics as

0:32

a South Carolina State Representative and

0:34

later running for Lieutenant Governor. She

0:37

continues her private practice, but

0:39

also lends her significant talents

0:41

to the Sixth Circuit Solicitor's

0:43

Office prosecuting domestic violence cases.

0:46

We had a blast this week

0:48

discussing trial strategies for prosecutors and

0:50

defense lawyers with a focus on

0:52

how repetition and coercive narratives can

0:55

make or break a case. We

0:57

also dive into strategies deployed during

0:59

the first Michael Colucci murder trial

1:02

and how Andy Savage was able

1:04

to confuse the jury and ultimately

1:07

win the day. For now. Luna

1:09

Shark Premium members will also get

1:12

our complete conversation on the impact

1:14

of live coverage of court proceedings

1:16

and other challenges prosecutors face. Learn

1:20

more at lunashark.supercast.com.

1:23

And since we're on the road,

1:25

you'll also hear a variety of

1:27

sounds like crickets, frogs, and traffic,

1:29

which I hope you'll forgive us

1:31

for. We're back on

1:33

schedule next week with Eric Bland,

1:35

Liz, and me, so stay tuned for

1:37

Cup of Justice, 79 Tuesday. For

1:41

now, sit back, relax, and let's

1:43

get into it. We

1:46

have an exciting show for y'all today. I

1:49

am so happy to be

1:52

joined, first of all, by my husband

1:54

for the first time ever on Cup

1:56

of Justice. For those of you

1:58

that don't know me. You may have

2:01

heard my vocal renditions of Dick

2:03

or Putin, Jim Griffin, Chief Justice

2:05

to many others. I hope you'll

2:07

enjoy my natural voice as much

2:09

as some of you say you

2:11

like my acting voice. But I'm

2:13

not here to talk about me.

2:15

We are here to talk about

2:17

former candidate for Lieutenant Governor in

2:19

South Carolina, the ineffable, the impressive,

2:21

the spectacularly talented and majorly committed

2:24

Mandy Powers-Norell.

2:27

Thank you so much for joining us, Mandy, and

2:29

we couldn't be more happy to have

2:31

you on the show. So thank you

2:34

again. Why don't you tell us a

2:36

little bit about why your interest or

2:38

how you got interested in the law,

2:40

politics, and why you're currently working

2:42

with the Lancaster Solicitor's

2:45

Office, prosecuting domestic violence

2:47

and abuse cases. Thank you,

2:49

and thank you all so much for having me. I'm

2:51

so excited about this. I got

2:53

interested in the law, I think, just

2:55

because I was one of

2:58

those kids growing up who cared a

3:00

lot about fairness and justice, and that

3:02

sort of became a natural fit. I

3:05

went to law school and then came

3:07

home to practice law in my hometown

3:09

of Lancaster, where I grew up and

3:11

where my parents grew up, sort of

3:13

in the village that helped raise me,

3:15

and I get to

3:17

represent my friends

3:19

and neighbors who I've known my

3:21

whole life. And I

3:24

was in the legislature for four terms, I

3:26

was involuntarily retired in 2020. I'm

3:30

a Democrat who was running in a very

3:32

red district, and they would vote for me

3:35

until they wouldn't, and that

3:37

all came to an end in 2020. And

3:40

so I was

3:42

sort of cast back to my formal

3:44

role, and our Attorney General, Allen Wilson,

3:46

who is a friend of mine, called

3:48

and said, you're

3:51

gonna get bored, and I have an idea

3:53

for you. Why don't you call the local

3:56

solicitor and see if he will let you

3:58

just come in and prosecute domestic. violence

4:00

cases just on a contract basis

4:02

because that will fill

4:04

the void, the energy that

4:07

you're going to miss from being in the

4:09

legislature and I've helped write the domestic violence

4:11

statute. So it was a

4:13

great fit and I called up our local

4:15

solicitor and he said, you know, sure, because

4:18

nobody really likes prosecuting domestic violence cases

4:20

I think. So he let me come

4:22

in and take on domestic violence and

4:25

I've been doing that since 2022 and

4:29

it's been really, really fulfilling. I'm learning

4:31

a lot. I've never practiced in criminal

4:33

law and I'm still doing my private

4:35

practice. Civil law, practice law with my

4:37

husband here in Lancaster but domestic

4:39

violence has been and just prosecuting

4:42

in general has been such

4:44

a great learning curve and at this point

4:46

in my life, I didn't think that I

4:48

would be learning anything big and new.

4:50

So it's been like this awesome challenge

4:52

and I've loved it. That's

4:55

really cool that you were saying

4:57

that Alan Wilson suggested that for

4:59

you and I think a lot

5:01

of our audience will know you

5:03

from your legendary commentary of the

5:05

Murdoch murders trial last year and

5:07

you actually had a very big

5:09

impact on the trial. You're

5:12

the one that found both family annihilators

5:14

and text theory and texted Alan. Will

5:16

you tell us about that? Well

5:18

it was, thank you for that. I

5:20

didn't tell anybody for a long time because I thought, well

5:23

it's not mine to tell and then Alan

5:25

told it so I thought, well that'll

5:27

be okay for or General Alan Wilson

5:29

told it and I thought that would

5:31

be okay for me to acknowledge it

5:33

now. I was so excited when Creighton

5:35

said, you know, Mr. Murdoch, are you

5:37

a family annihilator? Because

5:40

it was early in the trial and

5:43

I thought they had the motive wrong.

5:46

I thought, you know, people don't kill

5:48

their family just to create a temporary

5:50

distraction but people

5:52

do, family annihilators kill

5:54

their family for just really weird

5:56

reasons and the reason doesn't matter

5:59

as much. just the fact

6:01

that they meet all of this

6:03

criteria that this group of people

6:05

who do this really have in common and

6:08

those are generally well-educated,

6:11

well-respected often

6:13

usually men who decide

6:17

to annihilate their

6:19

families after having some

6:21

big like financial crisis, they do

6:23

it at home or in a

6:26

remote area, they're facing

6:28

embarrassment and they have always been

6:30

very upstanding people in the community.

6:32

It's just like it checked all

6:35

the boxes for Alex Murdock and

6:37

so I found just sort

6:39

of a blurb and screenshot it from

6:42

the internet and I texted it to

6:44

Alan Wilson during the trial and said,

6:46

have you all looked at this as

6:48

him being a family annihilator? And

6:51

he immediately texted back and he was in trial

6:53

and I was kind of watching him on court

6:55

TV and he said, where did you get this?

6:58

And I said, I got it from Google and

7:00

so then later found out that he

7:03

had contacted the person who

7:05

came up with that psychological profile

7:07

in the 80s and asked him

7:09

to look at videos of Alex

7:12

Murdock in interviews and then to

7:15

give them an analysis of whether he

7:17

fit that psychopathy and he said that

7:19

he did and then that sort of

7:21

informed how they like questioned him

7:23

and information that they got out of him

7:25

after that he helped in their formulation

7:28

of questions. So that was so

7:30

fascinating and exciting to kind of have a

7:32

little bit of input there. When

7:35

you were watching the trial and

7:37

what was that? That was like

7:40

February, late February. When you

7:42

saw Creighton ask that question,

7:44

what did you think of Alex's response?

7:47

I didn't see him ask the question.

7:49

I was listening to it on my

7:51

AirPods and I was in the grocery

7:53

store and I screamed. I was at

7:55

Food Lion in the checkout line And

7:58

he said, Mr. Murdock, are you a family? Waiter

8:00

in a like. And

8:02

so bad. then. Alec. That

8:05

know what you're talking about? Enough

8:07

people? you know. Unless they really

8:09

focused and you know the psychology

8:11

of murders, they don't know the

8:14

term. And. So on he said

8:16

what do you mean like did I kill my

8:18

family. No. I didn't and it

8:20

was sorta like, you know, Alec the

8:22

didn't know that the word family annihilate

8:25

or the term meant like a litany

8:27

of check boxes That he said. So.

8:30

Am I don't think that he was

8:32

asking that? He. In order to

8:34

get a yes or no response,

8:36

I think he was asking it

8:38

to can a plant the seed

8:40

for people who were interested in that

8:43

psychological profile To to Mcnabb. Which.

8:46

Was brilliant. Was wrong

8:48

or your family a mile and. A

8:52

family an hour later. You

8:55

mean I did I shoot my wife?

8:57

Amazon's yes, no. Would

9:02

never hurt my you murder or

9:04

would never hurt Palmer. Hundred

9:07

Eighty. Circumstances. I.

9:09

Thought the Dallas a really smart moves

9:11

and then san and there without saying

9:13

and you know I think said. He

9:16

did so many really? I yeah I

9:18

know he was. He did and I

9:20

said I would get so mad at

9:22

the commentators who would say oh he's

9:24

he shouldn't be asking open ended questions.

9:26

He should be only asking yes or

9:28

no questions that you couldn't do that

9:30

without like that. Not everything he does

9:32

is brilliant in that way. So

9:35

path out of the bad on the slang. You

9:39

have known personally out like

9:41

Smart on for a long

9:43

time as as an attorney

9:45

and as. A friend of

9:47

really. Hot. And dry

9:50

and milling cry all my guys only

9:52

about As and I me unless. you

9:55

were one of my best

9:57

sources during the crazy time

10:00

but not only because you

10:03

presented a different side of Alex

10:05

that I didn't really see and

10:08

I also understood the people that

10:10

were really suffering because of him,

10:12

the people that thought that they really

10:14

knew him and were questioning their

10:16

own judgment. Yes. How

10:18

do I judge people from this point

10:21

on if I didn't say that this guy could kill

10:23

his family? So

10:25

how did you know him? So I knew Alex since

10:27

I met him in 2008. My

10:30

husband was on the board of the trial

10:32

lawyers with Alex and I remember after that

10:35

first meeting, the board meeting,

10:37

Mitch came out and he said, I

10:39

met this guy and you are going

10:41

to love him. His energy matches

10:43

yours like you're just going to think he's

10:45

just the greatest and when

10:47

he came out, it was just like

10:50

I knew exactly who which

10:52

one Mitch was talking about and

10:54

after that I felt like I've known

10:56

him for years. If you

10:59

would and I just had dinner with

11:01

a friend who has known Alex as

11:03

long as I have and I said,

11:05

I was charmed by him. Were you

11:07

and she's a very discerning person and

11:09

she's like absolutely I was charmed by

11:11

him and we both independently

11:14

had gone through sort of almost this

11:16

crisis of I thought

11:18

I was a good judge of character and yet

11:21

I was really taken

11:24

in. If I walked into

11:26

a room and knew nobody in the room

11:28

but Alex, I would be comfortable because I

11:30

would know that he would welcome me in,

11:32

he would make sure he introduced me to

11:34

everybody because I knew he would know everybody

11:36

else in the room that I didn't know

11:39

and he was just so everything

11:42

you hear about him and once you know

11:44

the things about him that

11:46

we know now, it's easy to say,

11:48

oh I would have seen

11:50

through him as a sociopath but

11:55

I didn't and I like to

11:57

think I'm a good judge of character but I've kind

11:59

of gone through this whole questioning

12:02

everything since then and I

12:04

really didn't want him to be guilty. He

12:08

was. He is. But

12:10

you saw the facts and that's what was

12:12

important. I appreciated that you like

12:15

some people were just Alex stands. They were

12:17

just like, I'm going to support him and

12:19

that like everybody who's reporting on

12:22

him, shame on them, blah, blah, blah, without

12:24

looking at the facts. And

12:26

I appreciated that you still have to know this

12:28

open mind and you really didn't want it to

12:31

be him. And I also remember I

12:33

didn't want it to be him. You

12:35

were saying how much

12:38

pride he took in his sons and

12:40

his family. Oh my gosh.

12:43

He didn't he bring Buster and Paul to

12:45

like every event when they were little kids.

12:48

Everything everything to the point that I would

12:50

tell Mitch. I'm like, I feel like we're

12:52

bad parents because Alex is bringing Paul and

12:54

Buster to every event and we're not taking

12:56

our kids because our kids were the same

12:58

age and like we're not

13:00

taking our kids to these things, but he's

13:03

bringing his kids to everything. You know, who's

13:05

right? Who's the better parent here? And

13:07

Mitch is all he's not in the comparison culture

13:09

like, you know, like I think most

13:12

people are. So he's like, don't worry about it.

13:14

We're just doing parenting our way and he's doing

13:16

parenting his way. But I

13:18

really, you know, thought what an

13:21

amazing guy bringing his kids to

13:23

every single thing that he goes

13:25

to and introducing them again

13:28

and again and again to everybody in

13:30

the room full of adults. Right.

13:32

That's true. What's the end

13:34

to those means? Was it to continue

13:36

the dynasty and all of that or

13:39

something else? I see it

13:41

as that now. I think that that's probably

13:43

how he was brought in to the

13:46

fold because it is sort of the

13:48

legal community is sort of a family.

13:52

And if you plan for your kids to be

13:54

lawyers, then you would bring them into the fold

13:56

by making sure that they become a part of

13:58

that family at a very young age. age so

14:01

that they're welcomed in and

14:03

always remembered and I

14:05

get that now. Like I

14:07

see that was probably just

14:10

a natural progression of generational

14:12

like lawyering and I'm

14:14

first in my family to come anywhere

14:16

close to being a lawyer. So I

14:19

wasn't raised like that. I didn't see

14:21

it at the time. I

14:23

just thought, wow, he just, you know, he always has his

14:25

kids with him. But my friends

14:27

and I who I was having dinner

14:29

with, she's like, and they were always

14:31

drinking with him too. Mandy, remember that?

14:34

Like don't think that, you know, he's

14:36

this great parent because his kids would

14:38

be drunk and underage at

14:40

these events. At lawyer events,

14:42

which is kind of crazy for the rest

14:44

of the world to think about like,

14:48

I can't imagine. I don't have lawyers

14:50

in my family but I can't

14:53

ever imagine my parents bringing me

14:55

to anything as a teenager and

14:58

letting me drink in front of

15:00

their coworkers, colleagues. Me either. Et

15:02

cetera. I've heard all sorts of

15:04

stories of that. But I grew up as

15:06

an evangelical so I don't know. Yeah,

15:09

that's way different. I can't imagine my parents

15:11

drinking so I don't know. And

15:16

he was a prosecutor. I mean, maybe

15:18

just a name only but I mean,

15:20

he had a responsibility to uphold and

15:23

then enforce the law. And like he

15:25

would be going to dinner with sheriffs

15:27

and he would bring and deputies and

15:29

he would bring his sons and they

15:31

would order drinks in front of sheriffs

15:34

and as underage kids

15:36

and it's just so crazy. And then you

15:39

think about being raised like that

15:41

and how problematic that would be. There's

15:45

nobody that you're afraid of to

15:47

tell you no. I would have

15:49

been terrified to order any drink

15:51

ever in front of my parents

15:54

but in front of law

15:56

enforcement and my parents. Chief law

15:58

enforcement. Chief law enforcement. law

16:00

enforcement and putting them

16:02

in that position too like I think of

16:04

Alex putting the sheriff in that

16:06

position and what a like power move that is

16:08

sitting a sons down and being like

16:11

you they're gonna order drinks and

16:13

you can't do anything that's just so

16:15

bizarre and you knew Randolph too correct?

16:17

Well I didn't like

16:19

I don't know if he would have been

16:21

like hey there's Mandy I know her but

16:24

I knew he was like

16:26

the pinnacle of the

16:28

trial lawyers he was so respected and

16:30

so honor like we

16:32

honored him at several events that I

16:35

was at and when he would speak

16:37

he just he had the best comedic

16:39

timing he would tell these like wild

16:42

stories of how it used to be

16:44

to practice law back you know years

16:46

ago and Mitch and I

16:49

would kind of look at each other like oh my

16:51

god we couldn't get away with that today and I

16:53

don't remember the stories but I remember being shocked by

16:55

them and just thinking

16:57

wow they did they did it

17:00

like that back then and it's

17:02

just and how the practice of law has changed

17:05

but he was he

17:07

was larger than life very well

17:09

respected and very much like not

17:12

afraid to talk about things that would probably

17:14

get you into a lot of trouble today

17:16

I just don't remember the details the

17:20

things he would tell it he would

17:22

tell it those events that he was

17:24

he was very entertaining.

17:26

When when you think about the

17:28

interaction between trial lawyers

17:31

at the conventions were

17:33

they you know moving and shaking around

17:35

the room they were well liked was

17:38

it was it a fear thing was

17:40

it intimidation was it something else was

17:42

it respect? The thing at the

17:44

conventions is that's where everybody lets their

17:46

guard down and just relaxes it was

17:48

very much like a family atmosphere when

17:50

you go to like the bar convention

17:52

that's where you feel like a lot

17:54

of posturing and people on the elevators

17:57

Just trying to, you know, build themselves up and.

18:00

Hey, I had a big case last week.

18:02

Let me tell you how big it was.

18:04

It was really big and you know at

18:06

trial lawyers it's more like you know, just.

18:09

People just cannot let net. I'll

18:11

hang out just like ceiling and

18:13

nights arm and. Been it

18:15

really more. Don't talk more about their

18:17

losses than there were times and system.

18:19

I liked the atmosphere, Of trial lawyers,

18:22

a lot more than the bar convention. The.

18:24

In my entire career I've liked it better

18:27

because people are more relaxed and the even

18:29

you look around and you know there's a

18:31

lot of people who made a lot of

18:33

money. and had a lot

18:35

of power said I think that the place

18:37

where they would go and feel like they were

18:39

very on. Protected. And and.

18:42

Protected. By each other and could

18:45

just mentally exhale. In their

18:47

Life so is it was. It's not

18:49

the atmosphere that I think a lot

18:51

of people would imagine that it is

18:53

last. Week when he be was talking

18:55

about how uncommon in a news for

18:58

lawyers to sue other more years. You.

19:00

Know got me thinking that

19:02

there is this cloistered sort

19:04

of protectorate where where if

19:06

you call out people for

19:09

their bad behavior more than

19:11

does that reflect poorly on

19:13

you as a professional within

19:15

that community. Re bought one

19:17

when he mentioned that other

19:19

people turn down malpractice suits,

19:21

I just wonder if in

19:23

those environments it's helpful or

19:25

hurtful to have such a.

19:28

Self. No net. a close

19:30

knit relationship personally and sometimes

19:32

professional, right? Well. I

19:34

think he had our ears and certainly

19:36

get it turned down. Anything that's against

19:38

somebody did you know and you might

19:41

know details about or something like that?

19:43

Or if you know legal practice is

19:45

not your area, you know I've learned

19:47

not to take on things that I

19:49

don't really have an expertise and. bad

19:51

it some i think it's authors

19:53

here is you know there is

19:55

a ethics can and it says

19:57

that if we know about someone

19:59

who is doing something that is

20:02

a violation of the canon of

20:04

ethics, then we are duty-bound to

20:07

like contact the ODC and give

20:09

the details of what we know.

20:12

And very often if we have an

20:14

hour of ethics at most continuing legal

20:16

education events that we go to

20:18

and we have to get a certain number a year, a certain

20:21

number of hours, that's often a question of

20:23

like do we have to actually

20:26

know? And if we just

20:28

suspect that they're violating the canon of ethics, do

20:30

we have to actually have knowledge of it? People

20:33

don't want to turn people in. It seems

20:35

like there's a lot more malpractice than there

20:37

used to be or a lot more sloppiness.

20:41

I don't know that it's

20:43

stuffed like Alex but just it seems like there's

20:45

a lot more sloppiness than there used to be.

20:47

A lot more people who don't quite understand

20:50

the rules, a lot more people who

20:52

just aren't putting as much

20:54

time and effort into the practice as

20:57

they should or as they were taught

20:59

to but then there's also

21:01

this just sort of fear of

21:03

karma like, oh my

21:05

gosh, if I were to

21:08

turn so and so in

21:10

for this thing that they may have

21:12

done, then is that going to

21:14

create like the stream of bad luck for

21:16

me, myself and the future? And

21:20

sometimes karma gets assisted by people

21:23

in the profession who will help karma along.

21:25

You know, you just get a little bit

21:27

of… Right. I think a

21:29

lot of lawyers are fearful about that aspect of

21:32

the canon of ethics. It says you have to turn

21:35

in any money that you know of that's

21:37

doing something wrong. I

21:39

thought it was so interesting

21:41

when Judge Newman sentenced Alex

21:44

after the financial for

21:47

the financial crimes. He

21:49

mentioned that he saw Alex

21:51

at the 2021 Trial Lawyers

21:53

Convention on Hilton Head and he

21:55

watched him at the bar taking

21:58

shots and drinking and how he did it. The time

22:00

and I remember I was getting your

22:02

there that I was getting our said

22:04

that far like that whole weekend with

22:06

like us blood wix has been a

22:08

we're in and but it's so funny

22:10

that judge new name is there and

22:12

I just touch your hands. And like

22:14

a nice wine. Sure, And certain

22:17

a nice have to sit there and. Specific

22:21

say. The

22:23

piano and just so I did like

22:26

not. Like that

22:28

this is this a scene of that. But

22:30

it's so funny that he noticed that. And

22:32

then years later laid there are. A

22:35

lot of people who are like

22:37

yeah yeah, everybody was looking at

22:39

them that week and I remember

22:41

now everybody notice that go. About

22:44

him being there because. It.

22:46

Was just a. Couple. Of

22:48

months after the murders and I

22:50

was I was stunned. I got

22:52

the elevator and buried land. And.

22:55

I just thought and you know and

22:57

me being the pollyanna that I was

23:00

at the time I thought wow heated

23:02

and I think we had like lights

23:04

that Sunday after the bar. Conventionally me

23:07

a new and lives David and live

23:09

and sixty really listen to their and

23:11

others like because he just needed to

23:14

be around the people who love him

23:16

after them for Christmas has either to

23:18

try and really hard to believe that

23:21

he didn't have anything to do with

23:23

it my boss and so yeah. I

23:25

was very much a pollyanna through that. Know

23:28

you mentioned something about sloppiness on

23:30

on some some Moyers parts when

23:32

it comes to upholding efforts, etc.

23:34

But I think also you know

23:36

him in your experience in the

23:38

Solicitor's office. I think we want

23:40

to talk about a little bit

23:42

after the break this Com O

23:44

J trial and the two thousand

23:46

and eighteen prosecution. Yeah, Michael Community

23:48

for the death of Sarah Lynn

23:50

Community. And will talk about that right

23:52

after the break. Ever

24:00

try to break a bad habit and felt

24:03

like you're climbing Everest and flip-flops? Here

24:05

is a breath of fresh air.

24:07

Fume. It's not about giving up,

24:09

it is about switching up. Fume

24:11

takes your habit and simply makes

24:13

it better, healthier, and a whole

24:16

lot more enjoyable. Fume is an

24:18

innovative flavored air device that does

24:20

just that. Instead of vapor,

24:22

fume uses flavored air. Instead

24:25

of electronics, fume is completely

24:27

natural. And instead of harmful

24:29

chemicals, fume uses natural flavors.

24:32

It is a habit you are free to

24:34

enjoy and makes replacing your bad

24:37

habit easy. Start the

24:39

year off right with

24:41

the good habit by

24:43

going to tryfum.com/coj and

24:45

getting the journey pack

24:47

today. Fume is

24:49

giving listeners of this show 10% off

24:51

when they use my code COJ to

24:54

help make starting the

24:56

good habit much easier.

24:59

tryfume.com/COJ. Hey,

25:02

it's Kaylee Cuoco for Priceline. Ready to go

25:04

to your happy place for a happy price? Well, why didn't you say

25:06

so? Just download the Priceline app

25:08

right now and save up to 60% on hotels. So

25:11

whether it's Cousin Kevin's kazoo concert

25:13

in Kansas City, go Kevin! Or

25:15

Becky's Bachelorette bash in Bermuda, you never have

25:18

to miss a trip ever again. So download

25:20

the Priceline app today. Your savings are waiting. Go

25:22

to your happy

25:24

place for a happy price.

25:27

Go to your happy

25:29

price, Priceline. And

25:35

we're back. So

25:37

Mandy, you are

25:39

currently prosecuting cases

25:42

for Lancaster County and

25:44

have significant experience working

25:46

with domestic violence and abuse victims

25:49

and prosecuting folks on behalf of

25:51

the state. And one

25:53

thing that we've been examining

25:56

is the Michael Calucci trial that occurred in

25:58

2018. for the 2015 murder of Sarah

26:00

Lynn Moore Kaluchi. You've

26:05

had a fantastic few Twitter threads

26:07

and commentary on that case. And

26:09

I think what we'd love to

26:11

learn from you is insights on

26:13

how the prosecution handled that case

26:16

in 2018 and how the defense

26:18

attorneys, led

26:20

by Aidy Savage, defended

26:23

Michael Kaluchi and ultimately

26:26

achieving a mistrial in that

26:28

case. So let's start with the

26:30

prosecution. You watched the whole thing, parts of it,

26:32

bits and pieces. What did you

26:35

think about Megan Birchstead's performance? The most

26:37

compelling evidence that they had and what

26:39

they need to go with. I

26:41

think I watched the whole thing. You know, it

26:43

was in those videos, like 19 videos

26:45

on court TV. And so I-

26:48

Confusing. It was, it was. So I would think

26:50

that I was clicking the next video and then

26:52

sometimes I'd have to go back and watch one

26:54

that I'd missed. But I think I got the

26:56

whole thing in. And I was

26:59

frustrated often. I think

27:01

though that when you look at these,

27:04

you know, especially prosecution cases, you

27:07

have to remember that, you know,

27:09

Andy Savage may have had one

27:11

or two big cases a year

27:13

and they're gonna, you know, I

27:16

mean, that could fund his entire

27:18

year. But

27:20

the prosecution, they get paid the same

27:23

no matter what and they're juggling hundreds

27:25

of cases. So they don't

27:27

get to spend as much time on

27:29

a case as

27:31

a highly paid defense lawyer generally

27:33

does. So, you know, a prosecution

27:36

can prep a case in a week

27:39

and have it ready for trial.

27:41

And they're not gonna have the

27:43

resources that a highly paid defense

27:45

lawyer will have. And they'll argue

27:47

with you on that because they'll

27:49

be like, well, you've got law

27:51

enforcement, you've got investigators, you've got

27:53

all these people that contribute to

27:55

the prosecution, but it is very

27:57

often imbalanced. So, I mean,

27:59

that, said, I think

28:01

that there's an art to practicing

28:03

law, there's an art to trial

28:06

practice and some

28:08

of it is kind of like

28:10

basic that doesn't require extra resources

28:13

and that is when you have a

28:15

good point, you drive at home. You

28:17

don't just make your point, check the box and

28:20

then you're done. You

28:22

really drive at home, you use repetition,

28:24

you change the inflection of your voice,

28:27

you get louder, you ask the witness,

28:29

wait, did you say so and so?

28:32

To let the jury know and you start

28:34

out in your opening with here's what I

28:37

want you to look for during

28:39

this trial, here's what you're going to see,

28:41

here's what's important because they're going to hear

28:43

a lot of boring chain of evidence stuff

28:46

and you want them to stay engaged when

28:48

they hear those things that you told them

28:50

to look for. So

28:52

those are just like some basic things that

28:54

you do. Like a thesis,

28:56

like Breton had a thesis the whole

28:59

time, there was a storm building around him

29:01

and you're going to hear about this storm,

29:03

you're going to hear about this and

29:05

this was going on and it's

29:07

an emotional narrative that the

29:09

jury can visualize and

29:12

understand and like you

29:14

said, there's just so many boring things

29:16

in trials that get so lost and

29:19

if you don't have

29:21

a prosecutor to string it along

29:24

and make sure that they're like, okay, but

29:26

you remember this, this, this, this is all part

29:28

of the thesis and it all goes back to

29:30

the thesis. And you should always be able to

29:32

at the beginning of any trial be like, this

29:35

case is about X and

29:38

this case is about greed, this

29:40

case is about a jilted

29:43

lover, this case is about so and so

29:45

and it's something that everybody can relate to

29:47

and think their teeth into and if they

29:50

get, you know, if they stray off course,

29:52

they just remember this case is about X

29:55

and Creighton did great with the storm

29:57

and so but it's a. Just

30:00

remember, it could not have happened

30:02

the way Michael Kaluji said it

30:04

happened. Period. It

30:06

could not have happened the way he said

30:08

it did. So therefore, he lied. And

30:12

that in and of itself may

30:14

not be enough for beyond a

30:16

reasonable doubt. But when taken together

30:18

with all of the facts, then

30:21

I think you do, you get

30:24

to overcome reasonable doubt really, really

30:26

quickly. When you think about

30:28

the facts presented by the prosecution, what

30:30

resonated most with you or what was

30:32

the best argument that they made that

30:35

those jurors should have come back with

30:37

a guilty verdict from? I did

30:39

a thread on this and there were like 10 things. And

30:43

one was just the impossibility

30:45

that you don't fall into

30:47

a noose. You don't

30:49

and it's not a noose anyway.

30:51

You know, just the seeming impossibility

30:53

that anyone could just fall into

30:55

a looped and unnotted hose and

30:58

strangle themselves. Hose, yeah. A hose.

31:01

Not even a noose, a hose. Yeah, that's

31:03

even crazier. Fall into a hose and die.

31:05

I mean, I don't think that has ever

31:08

happened ever. And

31:10

I would be very interested if it

31:12

did, how it happened. And

31:14

then the fact that the medical examiner said that

31:16

at least two ligatures were used

31:19

to constrict her breathing and at

31:21

different parts of her neck and

31:23

on different sides. You

31:25

just know it did not happen the

31:28

way that the defense wanted us to believe it

31:30

happened. And then the fact

31:32

that she had been dead for longer

31:34

than she could possibly have been dead

31:38

by the time 911 got there, his

31:40

story was true because she was already

31:42

blue and her blood had

31:44

started pooling at her lowest parts with

31:47

Liber Mortis had set in. So she

31:49

was dead like at least

31:51

a half an hour before they got

31:53

there. But under Michael Kalushi's

31:55

timeline, it would have been more like

31:58

five to 10 minutes. And

32:00

so that was an impossibility.

32:04

He had a busted lip and

32:06

a busted eye that corresponded to

32:09

busted glasses. You know, if I

32:11

was the prosecutor, I would have

32:13

used that picture of his

32:16

face from that night just over

32:18

and over. Everybody who saw him that night, I'd

32:20

put it up on the screen and be like,

32:22

is this what he looked like when he saw

32:24

him? Did you notice his lip? Did you notice

32:26

his eye? Can you get, you ever seen anybody

32:28

give CPR and get a busted lip and a

32:31

busted eye from that? And just

32:33

keep driving that home. And

32:35

I know they got it in, but

32:37

there's a difference between getting the evidence

32:39

in and really driving that evidence home

32:42

and letting the jury know that that's

32:44

super important. Right. Well, like in

32:46

the Murdoch murders trial, another

32:49

point that Creighton just

32:51

brought home over and over again was

32:53

he lied about the kennels. Why would he lie

32:56

about being at the kennels? He lied about the

32:58

last time that he saw his wife and son.

33:00

That doesn't make any sense of why you would

33:02

do that. And he kept lying

33:05

until he was caught. All

33:07

of that evidence combined, like you said, just

33:09

removes all reasonable doubt because they're like, there's

33:11

no way. Right. There's just no way

33:13

that anybody else could have been on the

33:15

property at that time. There's no way that

33:18

anybody else would sneak on the property without

33:20

weapons of their own. That doesn't make any

33:22

sense. That's where

33:24

the reasonable doubt removes. And for

33:26

me, watching the Kaluchi trial, it

33:29

was just kind of frustrated that

33:31

that stuff was getting lost. Like, for instance,

33:33

you were saying ligature, two different ligatures.

33:35

What does that mean? Can you explain that

33:38

to the audience? So, well,

33:40

one was the medical

33:43

examiner said that the hose

33:45

was just too big to

33:47

create the marks that she saw

33:49

on her neck. And she happened

33:51

to be wearing a gold necklace that was three quarters of an inch. And

33:56

then the other side of her neck was three quarters of

33:58

an inch. That said

34:00

it was something out which could

34:02

be hands or something else, that

34:04

it was from two different sides

34:06

of the neck and that you

34:08

know which with used to strangle

34:10

her two different things and from

34:12

two different angles. And. Neither

34:15

one. With. An industrial have.

34:18

One. Thing that Creighton did that I

34:20

thought was great that should have been

34:22

done in Israel and he uses that

34:24

nine one one call over and over

34:26

again and he would stop it and

34:28

ask a question about what was said

34:30

there and and started back and start

34:32

that again so we would hear it

34:34

in it's entirety and and we would

34:37

hear clips of it and the more

34:39

you heard it the more you heard

34:41

the theatrical and the Act D and

34:43

the deception. And if you just hear

34:45

it would. He owes. Southern

34:47

people wanna take folk that their word.

34:50

They wanna believe them when they're saying

34:52

something. But you know in the back

34:54

to your mind when something's wrong when

34:56

somebody is lying. And the more you

34:59

hear them lie or do these Beatrix

35:01

the more you're going to detect deception.

35:03

So. I would have used that

35:05

nine one one call over and over again.

35:08

That. Was interesting too because.

35:10

They I was just thinking about

35:12

that. They also a my interview

35:15

with Alex and showing him. Why

35:17

the please and showing and this was

35:19

axed weeks later and when him with

35:21

Korea fleming with a very. I

35:23

mean on everybody's job for drop. Like oh

35:25

my God. the since. He's not acting

35:28

normally and it's so weird that

35:30

he lied. life as on. I

35:32

don't know it's and the body cam

35:34

footage from and I don't know as

35:36

hulu t a say ever. Interviewed him

35:39

to serve and and broken up

35:41

a trial and. Another something that

35:43

I thought would have been extremely. Compelling

35:45

and I realized that the murder

35:47

happened in two thousand and fifteen

35:49

then technology changing all the time

35:51

that the prosecutors. Acted. like they

35:53

did not need any gps and that debate

35:56

express pass it said that he was i

35:58

thinking in the run that he was at

36:00

the scene at this time when they murdered

36:02

when the murder occurred that's all we needed

36:05

and it's like well he

36:07

had this whole story about them

36:09

going to the graves before and

36:11

the attorney's office and all

36:13

this out there what if they went

36:15

to the gold standard like hours before

36:17

they actually did and what if they

36:19

never went to the grave that would

36:21

be another moment where like the Creighton

36:23

moment of like you lied there you

36:25

lied there and and right and

36:28

it just shows again I

36:33

just really hope that they focus on that

36:35

this time and I think another thing have

36:38

you had a case that you prosecuted that

36:40

was this old because

36:42

2015 is a long time not

36:44

this old now we have some

36:46

old cases we have some cases

36:48

you know COVID backed everybody up

36:50

but you know so far I'm

36:52

looking at like 2019 as the

36:54

oldest cases that that I'm seeing

36:56

on my roster but the and

36:58

that was just the ones that

37:00

they didn't get to before COVID

37:02

stopped everything but you know I

37:05

know from I don't know if

37:07

y'all followed the Adnan Syed trial

37:09

and that was from significantly longer

37:11

ago in like 2002 and they

37:14

talked about like cell phone location

37:16

data and all that and Andy

37:18

Savage kept saying it can tell

37:20

you your cell phone GPS can

37:22

tell you exactly where you are

37:24

like down to within an inch

37:27

but it's really unless

37:29

you've got those apps on and tracking and

37:31

recording the tracking the cell phone is not

37:33

going to tell you that your on star

37:35

might tell you that if you had that

37:38

on your car or something like that but

37:40

I don't know that they would be able

37:42

to know these things and I know Andy

37:45

was like kind

37:47

of driving home that you know it

37:49

would have pinged off of this tower

37:51

that tower and the prosecution didn't beat

37:53

that back by saying well if this

37:55

tower is full then it pings

37:58

off of the next closest tower there's

38:00

like an overload thing that

38:03

goes on with these cell phones. So,

38:05

cell phone location data is not as

38:08

accurate as Andy Savage was

38:10

trying to present it as

38:12

being but the prosecution didn't

38:14

have the questioning, I think the

38:16

right questioning of the expert to sort of

38:18

bring that out and they didn't have their

38:20

own expert to

38:22

kind of pull that back in

38:25

as Andy Savage was making the point

38:28

of they were exactly where they said that they were

38:30

going to be but it would have

38:32

been very helpful if they had had like a

38:35

GM moment like the OnStar data

38:38

that showed up at the last minute

38:40

and that was just like a Perry

38:42

Mason thing there.

38:45

Yeah and it was just so helpful like it

38:48

was a Perry Mason moment to see all

38:50

of Alex's movements and

38:53

all together and speed that

38:55

was super that told a

38:57

story like every every footsteps

38:59

change have the orientation

39:02

of all of that was

39:04

fascinating. I also think

39:06

it's something that people like Alex

39:09

wouldn't think about and he's

39:12

right. I didn't think about it. It

39:14

got me scared like my phone's tracking me

39:16

like that. I

39:19

did you see I it

39:22

started with a podcast and then it was a show is

39:24

called something or something about

39:26

Pam and it was this woman

39:28

and she was caught with she

39:31

was caught basically setting up somebody else

39:33

for this murder and for the insurance

39:35

money and she was it was a

39:40

crazy story but how they nailed her

39:42

was she completely lied about

39:44

where she was on the state of

39:47

this murder and they

39:49

tracked herself on her. It was like

39:51

you said it was like a Google app

39:53

or whatever was open for the entire time

39:55

that she was doing this and it just

39:58

gave her exact steps. And now I

40:00

was shocked. But like you said, if you don't

40:02

have your location services on

40:04

your cell phone, and I turned most of

40:07

mine off, at one point I saw some scary

40:09

New York Times story that was like, oh,

40:11

that's really creepy. They're like selling your data

40:13

to Target about like what sections you're in

40:16

and why. Yeah,

40:18

the data that's available is pretty impressive.

40:20

And Andy Savage touches on that. You

40:23

know, when we watched the footage on

40:25

Court TV, Andy

40:27

Savage was a prosecutor for a while. So

40:30

he knows what I guess you're supposed to

40:32

do on the other side of that table

40:34

and exploited it when it wasn't done. And

40:36

the other thing that Andy did, and I'd

40:38

love to get your insights on this, Mandy,

40:41

is the defense strategies

40:43

that Andy deploys are

40:46

very purposeful. You can tell that

40:48

he's lining up the shot and

40:50

he's thinking six steps, seven steps

40:52

ahead. And it wasn't always perfect.

40:55

I mean, when he was handling

40:57

the evidence of the gold chain

40:59

and he's getting very dramatic and he's

41:01

squeezing it and he's manipulating the chain

41:03

and then he breaks the chain and

41:05

now his hands are bloody, I don't

41:08

know how they're gonna bring that chain

41:10

back into evidence. When he was, Vinny

41:12

Polliton touched on this in a couple

41:14

episodes ago when he was choking himself

41:17

with the hose and the jury

41:20

must have been mouth agape. Now

41:22

those were dramatic moments that I think

41:24

the jury remember, but in your opinion,

41:26

what were some of the

41:29

other strategies that Andy deploys

41:31

that the prosecution just couldn't

41:34

overcome? Oh my gosh. Well, I

41:36

mean, one of the big things with

41:38

him is he would pretend to be

41:40

confused and act like, I'm just trying

41:42

to get to the truth. I'm

41:45

not really advocating for one side or the other.

41:48

This is just so screwed

41:50

up, I'm confused. And he

41:52

confuses the jury by acting

41:54

as if he confused himself.

41:56

And that makes him like more. likable

42:00

than I think he would otherwise

42:02

be and he just, it

42:05

was masterful. It was making me mad like

42:07

I was watching it like you're not confused,

42:09

Andy Savage. Stop pretending to be confused. You

42:11

know what you're doing, you know. But

42:14

he did it well. Yeah, he didn't.

42:17

He didn't say I'm just a small town

42:19

country lawyer, but I feel like he

42:22

was using that tactic pretty

42:24

effectively. Right. And like

42:26

you said, just the massive confusion.

42:28

There was several times where the

42:31

trial would just steer so far

42:33

off course. As a prosecutor,

42:35

what do you do to stop something like that?

42:37

Like through objections? Well,

42:40

yeah, through objections. And also Andy

42:42

would ask like, did you do

42:44

X and the witness would say,

42:47

well, no. And then

42:49

he had them looking incompetent, but

42:51

you've got to prep them to

42:54

not just say, no, I didn't do that. No,

42:56

I didn't test that piece of evidence. No, I

42:58

didn't. You have to

43:00

prep them ahead of time to say that

43:03

is outside the scope of my role in

43:05

this investigation. That would have been done

43:08

by someone else. You should ask that

43:10

of, you know, John Doe when he

43:12

comes up here to testify because that's

43:15

what he would have done rather than

43:17

just saying, no, I didn't test that.

43:20

And that was, you know,

43:22

he had sort of a condescending

43:24

tone. So the more he

43:26

talked to a witness and the more he got

43:29

them to say what they didn't do, the less

43:32

credible that witness seemed over time and

43:34

he would take a lot longer with

43:37

a witness than the prosecution would. So

43:39

it would seem like he was scoring

43:41

a lot more points than they were.

43:44

He really was. He really

43:47

was. He did a really good job

43:49

at that. I hate to say. I

43:51

always want the people I disagree with

43:53

to not be smart, but unfortunately that

43:55

rarely happens and he was

43:57

pretty smart in this. He

44:00

should not have gotten away with that either. Right.

44:03

Can you, what was he doing? Like,

44:06

how did he testify, for example? He

44:08

would testify. He's like, do you

44:10

know me? Do you know how much I cost?

44:13

I am a very expensive lawyer. Maybe he was

44:15

getting that money for me. And

44:17

I'm like, it's objection. And

44:20

what's crazy about that is

44:22

that, yeah, that guy was

44:24

going into, that guy was

44:26

talking about borrowing money,

44:29

right? It was a bartender, talking

44:31

about Colucci's money problems. And

44:34

then Andy went on and said, like,

44:36

do you know, he can afford me.

44:38

Clearly he doesn't have money problems. But

44:40

what's so crazy about that is he

44:43

filed a motion, a pre-trial motion saying

44:45

that nothing can

44:47

be said about his status, how much

44:50

he costs as an attorney, how

44:52

great of a, and then

44:55

he says that. And

44:57

he did it himself. Right. And

45:00

what was so funny too, the judge was going

45:02

through the pre-trial motions and she was like, are

45:04

you serious? And he

45:06

was like, what did he say? Yes, it's

45:08

happened before. It's happened many times. She was

45:10

like, what are you worried about exactly? And

45:13

he was like, it happens all of the time.

45:15

I am a high quality person

45:18

and people use that against us.

45:20

Oh my gosh. I want to

45:22

talk more about Andy in a moment

45:25

because it was wild lawyering.

45:27

But right after this break, we'll

45:30

be right back. We'll

45:58

be right back. and

46:00

fill out the entry form. Don't

46:02

miss your chance to take your bunch to a

46:05

game. Enter today. I

46:13

think another thing that Andy did that

46:15

was so horrifying to me as

46:17

a woman, and

46:20

I don't know if you saw this part, but

46:23

when he, again, and

46:25

this is an example of a tangent that he went off

46:27

of whether or not she could have fit through

46:29

the fence, that didn't matter

46:31

with her breast size. Yes. And

46:34

that really didn't matter because, like you said,

46:36

it's just impossible that she would have been

46:38

hung by a hose at all, so let's

46:40

just pull back away from

46:42

the hole could she fit through the fence.

46:45

And not only did he have his wife dress

46:48

up in the exact same dress

46:50

that Sarah Lynn was wearing that

46:52

night, and

46:54

go to the crime scene, and then

46:57

he had her shimmies through the… The

46:59

gap. The gap to prove

47:02

that there was that, which

47:04

was horrifying. And

47:06

again, I don't know how the jury wasn't

47:08

just like, I disagree with everything that this

47:10

man was doing and saying, and that is

47:13

just, this is so gross and weird. But

47:16

on top of that, to prove

47:18

this point further, that again, it's a point that

47:21

does not – he was scoring points for himself

47:23

just to confuse the jury, just so at the

47:25

end of the day, the jury could be like,

47:27

well, that guy seemed to make a lot of

47:29

points today, and so it seems like they're right.

47:32

Exactly. And that

47:34

has nothing to do with the murder, so he

47:36

just kept – and he tested the

47:38

dirt. He went into the

47:40

dirt a lot, and literally the dirt, to talk

47:42

about the dirt when the dirt didn't matter. Did

47:45

you test the dirt? Right. Did you test

47:47

– did you take photos of the dirt? Yes.

47:50

Did you test the dirt? No, I didn't. You

47:52

didn't even test the dirt. Did you test the

47:54

– are you a dirt expert? Yeah,

47:57

like – and it's

47:59

true. even I would be sitting there

48:01

like, are we sure the dirt doesn't matter? But

48:03

that's the prosecution

48:06

that's got to be like, this has literally

48:08

nothing to do with anything. And Megan

48:10

Birch that did at moments object, I

48:13

don't know, I think it's, you

48:15

can be subjective with her

48:17

performance. But I

48:19

think she tried and Joel Kozak

48:22

tried. But there was

48:24

just so much misdirection

48:26

and distraction and pageantry really.

48:28

And when Andy Savage uses,

48:31

and I guess it must

48:33

be in the handbook

48:35

of South Carolina lawyers to make

48:37

the same joke about special agents

48:39

in sled. Oh my God, I

48:42

know he did the same thing as Dick Harputlian.

48:44

It must be in that book somewhere that says,

48:46

if you have a sled agent on the stand.

48:49

And tell them and tell them that they're not

48:51

special. What's

48:53

so special about you special agent? And

48:56

then, and the answer is nothing. It's just what

48:58

we're called. That's just my title. But then

49:00

that somehow like it, it confuses them and

49:02

it confuses the jury. And in that case,

49:04

like that was another like weird point that

49:07

he was able to score. But

49:09

what really worried me with a lot

49:11

of the police officers

49:13

that were involved is they that

49:17

were on the stand back in

49:19

2018. They didn't remember a lot.

49:21

Back then, both of them said,

49:26

several of the state's witnesses on

49:28

several occasions would say, I don't remember.

49:30

It was a long time ago. And

49:33

that freaks me out because now,

49:37

I mean, it's years later.

49:39

It's longer. Even more years. Yeah, it's more

49:41

time. It's more time. How as a

49:43

prosecutor do you overcome that? Prep.

49:46

I mean, you just have to really

49:48

prep them, you know, because you can

49:50

refresh your memory with your statement at

49:52

the time. There were

49:55

some, there were some witnesses that

49:57

you could tell just really hadn't read. their

50:00

statements. They weren't ready for

50:03

their testimony and

50:05

so it's all just, it's

50:07

prepping and I think they're

50:09

going to be more prepared this time because it

50:12

is a retrial and they have done it before

50:15

but it's a matter of

50:17

just you know now they're going to know how

50:20

Andy Savage tries a case, they're going to

50:22

know you know what he sees as important,

50:24

what is theory of the cases and

50:28

I think they'll be better witnesses this

50:30

time around than they were the time

50:32

before. Now there were some really stellar

50:34

witnesses in the original trial but

50:36

I think they'll be better in the retrial.

50:38

I hope they will be. And

50:40

that's what Vinnie Politon was saying too and has

50:42

this been your experience that on

50:44

retrial the prosecution has an edge

50:47

for that reason that they

50:49

know what the defense's tricks are going

50:51

to be? I think so. Have you ever

50:53

experienced that with a retrial and how did

50:56

that work out? I've never had a retrial.

50:58

You know I've only been prosecuting since 2022 and

51:02

have been a civil lawyer for 26

51:07

years so never had

51:09

a retrial in a civil case and

51:12

haven't had of course one

51:14

in a criminal case. They're very very

51:16

rare I think but I would imagine

51:18

because you know I think that a

51:21

lot of the prosecution's problem in the

51:23

initial Kaluchi trial was the fact that

51:26

they were I had so many cases

51:28

that they're working on. This was one

51:30

of many many weren't able to devote

51:32

a lot of time and resources to

51:34

the preparation probably and now that they've

51:37

done it once you know

51:39

they have devoted that time and resource.

51:41

They know that the eyes of a

51:43

lot more people are on them this

51:45

time and so I think that they're

51:47

going to be a lot more prepared. Now when we

51:50

look at resources the resources devoted

51:52

to the Murdoch trial were

51:54

was that was

51:56

very uncommon. You know that was

51:58

like millions of dollars

52:01

maybe, a lot of money was

52:03

spent to prosecute

52:05

Alex Murdoch. You can't just

52:07

practically, you can't devote those

52:10

kinds of resources to every

52:12

murder trial even that you have.

52:15

So that's and that's not on them.

52:17

That's just a matter of, you know,

52:19

we don't have that much tax money

52:21

allocated to the Attorney General's office to

52:23

do that. So they were doing, you

52:26

know, what they could with what they had, but

52:28

now they know at least what the

52:31

defensive strategy is. Another thing

52:33

that was just so clear in this case that

52:35

they didn't have in the Murdoch case is the

52:37

narrative that she was about to divorce him and

52:40

he seemed like a control freak in the

52:42

relationship. He seemed like the type of guy

52:44

that held

52:47

power over his relationship and would not

52:49

like to be left and might choose

52:52

violence. And I'm sure

52:55

you've seen those scenarios over and over.

52:57

It's scary when women leave and they're

52:59

in abusive relationships. That's a

53:01

lot of the... Control

53:04

is always the thing. Right.

53:06

And don't they say like the one

53:08

of the most dangerous period for a

53:10

woman is when you're leaving? When

53:13

you're leaving somebody like that's when your life is

53:15

the most at risk. And

53:17

if you're leaving an abusive relationship. It is.

53:20

It is. Any other evidence from the

53:23

Kaluchi trial that sort of stood out to

53:25

you before we move on? Well,

53:27

the signs of the struggle in the car, you

53:29

know, just the broken sunglasses

53:32

that corresponded with his

53:34

eye injury and

53:37

her broken acrylic nail that was in

53:39

the floorboard. And Andy

53:41

Savage made a lot of noise about that

53:43

thing. Oh, well, the acrylic nail is just

53:45

a piece of plastic that's just sort of

53:48

stuck to your nail like they don't. And

53:50

then he had the acrylic nail expert there

53:52

saying these weren't applied correctly and all this.

53:55

But acrylic nails and I've never had

53:57

them, but I have seen

53:59

the... kinds of injuries they can do.

54:01

I had a victim who, no, no,

54:03

she was, well, she probably was a

54:06

victim, but she was charged as a

54:08

defendant in a case and

54:10

I got her back there and I was talking

54:12

to her because she was not represented

54:14

and so

54:16

I was telling her, you know, you need to get a lawyer

54:19

and all this and so, but I

54:21

said, you know, if you, if you can talk to

54:23

me if you want to, but you don't have to

54:25

and I would recommend that you get a lawyer, but

54:27

I have an offer for you and I think she

54:29

ultimately took the offer, but

54:31

I was showing her the pictures of the

54:33

injuries to the man and

54:36

there was this, she

54:38

had dug his flesh off

54:41

of his arm with her acrylic nails

54:43

and she said, my nails did that,

54:45

I got him good there and so,

54:48

you know, it was just one of those

54:50

things that I'm like, wow, these acrylic nails,

54:52

they're like bear claws and

54:54

so it takes a lot for one of them

54:57

to pop off. I had a waitress

54:59

tonight at the restaurant that I went to and she

55:01

had a broken, she had a cast on her

55:04

arm and my friend said, what happened to you?

55:06

And she said, I was in the gym and I was,

55:08

I did this jump box thing

55:11

and I caught my fingers, my

55:13

fingernail caught the handle of

55:15

the box and it broke, I broke

55:17

my finger and so she

55:19

had the cast on, but her nails were still

55:21

perfect and she said, I had just

55:24

had my nails done and I

55:26

said, and your acrylic nail didn't come

55:28

off? And she's like, no, I have

55:30

to go and have them removed. I'm

55:32

so tired of them because they caused

55:34

me to break my fingers, but my

55:36

nail stayed on through that and it

55:39

broke her finger but not her nail. So

55:42

it takes so much to

55:44

break an acrylic nail that

55:47

that was some kind of, I think, serious

55:49

struggle in the car that day

55:52

for her nail, for Sarah Colucci's

55:54

nail to be broken

55:56

off. And that was special agent David

55:58

Owen that was testifying. about the struggle.

56:01

And I think that there was an inexperience

56:03

and a lack of understanding

56:05

on both Andy Savage's part,

56:08

which was likely intentional. I'm

56:10

confused. It's just a

56:12

piece of plastic. Yeah, and he was

56:14

based, yeah, he had that lady who

56:17

was like, her nails are trash nails.

56:20

Like, yeah. Yeah, I definitely press

56:22

on nails. Yeah, I was

56:25

like, oh my gosh, this is just so

56:27

far off the rails, but that's another example.

56:29

And Special Agent Owen was saying, well, yeah,

56:31

I mean, it's a sign

56:34

of a struggle when that comes

56:36

off. I mean, I don't have

56:38

acrylic nails, but it makes logical

56:40

sense that that would be some

56:42

sort of trauma to that

56:44

finger. But yeah, that's a great point. And

56:47

we'll probably go back and watch Special

56:51

Agent Owen doing that testimony. Yeah, he

56:53

was big in the Murdoch trial too. But,

56:56

Mandy, I really, really appreciate your time.

56:59

This has been amazing. But one question

57:01

that I had, you

57:03

have taught me a lot about domestic

57:05

violence, and you've learned a

57:08

ton as a prosecutor in the

57:10

last couple of years, and I have been more

57:12

educated in my reporting of domestic

57:14

violence. And one

57:16

thing that you told me a long time ago

57:18

was that a lot of your

57:21

victims flip, and

57:24

they don't want to

57:27

work with you anymore. And

57:29

what is the primary reason for that?

57:31

And what have you learned? Financial

57:35

dependence, generally, financial and emotional

57:37

dependence. I tell them,

57:39

over half of them say, I

57:42

don't want you to prosecute. I want to

57:45

drop the case. And I have to tell them,

57:47

it's not your case, it's the state's case.

57:49

I decide if we're going to prosecute,

57:52

and I want to go forward, and they

57:54

will call me everything but a child of

57:56

God. I mean, they just hate me for

57:59

prosecuting their boyfriend. boyfriend, generally

58:01

is their boyfriend or

58:03

their husband or whoever. And

58:06

it's a trauma bond is stronger than

58:09

a love bond and because

58:11

the love bond is based in equality

58:13

and just the notion that I don't

58:15

have to have you in my life.

58:18

I am secure. I have what

58:20

I need emotionally to go forward, but I

58:22

choose to have you because I love you.

58:26

A trauma bond says, you

58:28

are my identity without you.

58:30

I do not exist. And

58:32

most of these relationships are

58:35

formed with a trauma bond and not a real love

58:37

bond. And it's a very

58:39

difficult thing to get

58:42

someone to let go

58:44

of and to go

58:47

forward with the notion that they're

58:50

going to prosecute someone who's been

58:52

physically harming them. I

58:55

wish I had the answer for how

58:57

to fully overcome that. The

59:00

best thing for me that I found

59:02

is time and distance. So

59:05

if the defendant poses a

59:07

danger or a flight risk,

59:10

then we can oppose bond and

59:12

keep them in the county jail

59:14

until trial or for a

59:16

while longer at least. And

59:19

that distance, physical distance

59:21

and time often will let

59:23

the victim see that they can make it

59:25

on their own, that they can pay their

59:28

bills, that they can take care of their

59:31

own personal needs without the

59:33

defendant in their life. And

59:37

once that chain is broken,

59:39

a lot of times they'll participate

59:42

in the prosecution and really

59:44

stand out for themselves. But very

59:47

often, I mean, that's the biggest obstacle

59:49

in the case, is getting the victim

59:51

to cooperate. Yeah. I

59:53

mean, and you tweeted a

59:56

while ago, but it just really

59:58

resonated with me that... the

1:00:00

best thing in the world to teach your girls is financial

1:00:03

independence. And if you want

1:00:06

them safe, like it means it could

1:00:08

mean their life because and if

1:00:10

you think about like a lot

1:00:12

of women who are getting to the

1:00:14

trap of an abusive relationship and the

1:00:16

trap of being married and being a

1:00:18

housewife and not having any of their

1:00:20

own fallback. And then what do

1:00:23

you do? I know you

1:00:25

got a lot of these mamas out

1:00:27

here. They'll say, have you a go

1:00:29

bag, which means a bag

1:00:31

with a change of clothes and some

1:00:33

money in it so that you can

1:00:35

grab it and go because the mama's

1:00:37

in an abusive relationship. But

1:00:40

it is, you know, ultimately the

1:00:42

best thing to do is have more than

1:00:44

a go bag. Have your own, you know,

1:00:46

your own source of income because a lot

1:00:49

of people are teaching their their daughters find

1:00:52

you a good provider. And

1:00:54

that's, I think that's terrible advice. Right.

1:00:57

We're like kind of reverting

1:00:59

back to the whole trapwife thing

1:01:01

is becoming a thing again and becoming

1:01:03

and girls are getting really into like

1:01:06

stay at home girlfriend, which stay at

1:01:08

home if you want to. I don't

1:01:10

that that is right. But I think

1:01:12

the point that you make so clearly

1:01:14

is that you have to realize that

1:01:17

it's giving up your financial independence. Like

1:01:19

you're giving up a lot when it

1:01:21

comes to your independence and you

1:01:23

in that for your safety, if

1:01:26

you want to, you have to be able to

1:01:28

think of something beyond your relationship and

1:01:31

every woman needs a a fallback

1:01:34

and an education and financial independence

1:01:36

is the best thing

1:01:38

in the world. And yeah,

1:01:40

I mean, if you want to choose to

1:01:42

be a traditional wife and I say I

1:01:44

have friends that are stay at home moms,

1:01:46

they love it. And but it's it's just

1:01:48

really important that everybody has their what

1:01:51

do you do scenario. Right. Right. And not that

1:01:53

I do, David, I think that

1:01:55

you would do fine on your own. We would be OK.

1:02:00

We have a company bond, a love bond. We

1:02:06

got good stuff going on. Right. You've

1:02:08

got the right bond. Right.

1:02:11

Yeah. Well, this was amazing.

1:02:13

I know it's late on the East Coast, but

1:02:16

I can't thank you enough. We

1:02:18

finally made this happen and we

1:02:20

overcame all the challenges this

1:02:23

week. So, cups down, Mandy.

1:02:25

Cups down. Thank you all so much

1:02:27

for having me. So good

1:02:29

to talk with you, Mandy, and thank

1:02:31

you so much. Cups down, Mandy. And

1:02:34

Mandy? Cups down. Cup

1:02:48

of Justice is a LunaShark production created

1:02:51

by me, Mandy Matney, and co-hosted

1:02:53

by journalist Liz Farrell and attorney

1:02:55

Eric Bland. Learn more about our

1:02:57

mission and membership at lunasharkmedia.com. Interruptions

1:03:00

provided by Luna and Joe Pesky.