March 28, 2024 • 35 mins
Accused of vigilantism after a high-speed chase and shooting, Velasquez's actions raise complex questions about justice, victims' rights, and the impact of traumatic brain injuries. We explore the intertwined fates of Velasquez and the alleged child molester Harry Goularte, examining critical components like Marsy's Law, CTE, and the legal system's stance on vigilantism.
#dpshow
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Welcome to Playing Dirty Sports Scandals with me, Jay Harris,
your guide through the often distasteful, but always addictive tales
of sports greatest tragedies, challenges and downfalls. We can't help ourselves.
Our brains are wired to crave the inside scoop on
scandal's people. As novelist Henry Fielding said, love and scandal
are the best sweeteners of tea. Hmm, true that, Henry,
(00:31):
true that. But let's face it, I'm over to you,
smaan myself. Over the past twenty years of my career
as a journalist and sportscaster, I've hosted a variety of
ESPN shows, from Sports Center to Outside the Lines.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
But I'm playing Dirty.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
My role is to take you outside the comfort zone
and behind the scenes of sports greatest scandals, ensuring that
you always have the fra vireo scoop. In this episode,
we're taking a deep dive into the separate but related
cases of MMA star turned alleged vigilante Kane Velasquez and
alleged child molester Harry Gallard. Now you may remember that
(01:13):
in our.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
Last episode, I left you with a question.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
I asked you if you thought that Kane Velasquez was
justified for playing dirty on February twenty eight, twenty twenty two,
when he allegedly pursued the Gallart family for eleven miles
in a high speed car chase, shooting at their Chevy
Silverado pickup truck with a forty caliber semi automatic handgun.
Given what you know now about the circumstances, do you
(01:38):
believe that Cain's behavior is justifiable? Today We're going to
dissect the treatment of Kane Velasquez and Harry Gallart by
our justice system by impacting three critical case components, Marci's Law, CTE,
and vigilanteism. Understanding these ingredients of the Caine Velasquez and
Harry Gillart cases are critical and they might a shift
(02:00):
your perspective of this whole scandal. Let's start with Marcy's Law.
Who is Marcy and what does she have to do
with Kane Velasquez.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Well.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Tragically, Marcy's Law was named after a real person, Marcy Nicholas,
who was a vibrant University of California Santa Barbara student.
Marcy was horrifically stalked and murdered by her ex boyfriend,
Carrie Michael Connolly in nineteen eighty three.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Unbelievably, only one week.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
After Marcy's murder, on the way home from her funeral service,
Marcy's family stopped at a shop to pick up a
loaf of bread. It was there in the checkout line
that Marcy's grieving mother, Marcella, was confronted by her daughter's murderer.
Marcella had received no notification from the judicial system, and
so she had no idea that Carrie had been released
(02:52):
on bail just days after brutally killing her daughter Marcy.
This experience of Marcy's family sounds shocking, I know, but
it actually wasn't uncommon for the suffering family members of
victims to endure these types of situations. That's because back
in the nineteen eighties, the courts and law enforcement had
no obligation to keep victim's families informed. Now, the Nicholas
(03:21):
family might have wound up as just another casualty of
the system, but fate had other plans. In nineteen ninety one,
Marcy's brother, Henry Nicholas, co founded Broadcom in the spare
bedroom of his Redondo Beach condo. Henry and his partner,
a guy named Henry SAMUELI each invested five thousand dollars
of their own money into their startup. Seven years later,
(03:43):
BAM Broadcom became publicly traded and its name is now
recognized globally as a leading American semiconductor corporation. So, as
you might imagine, Henry Nicholas became very wealthy, like ranked
by Forbes as of January eighth, twenty twenty four, with
a net worth of ninezero point ninety seven billion dollars.
Wealthy and for better or worse, with money tends to
(04:06):
come clout. Having lost his sister Marcy in such a tragic,
traumatic way in his early twenties, Henry Nicholas went on
to have a painful first hand experience with the parole process.
His sister Marcy's murderer, Carrie Michael Connolly, was sentenced to
life in prison with the possibility of parole after seventeen years.
Henry and his family found the parole hearings and ensuing
(04:28):
lack of communication from legal officials to be an outrageous
affront to their feelings and a breach of their perceived rights.
So Henry Nicholas used his clout to ensure that other
grieving families were not subjected to the same upsets and indignities.
He led and sponsored the Marcy's Law initiative in honor
of his sister, and after years of campaigning, it was
(04:50):
finally passed in California in November two thousand and eight,
twenty five years after Marcy's death, Proposition nine the California
Victims the Bill of Rights Act of two thousand and eight.
Marcia's Law became one of the strongest and most comprehensive
constitutional victims rights laws in the United States. Its purpose
is to ensure dignity, respect, and above all, fairness for
(05:13):
victims and the criminal justice process. Our justice system is
focused on the rights of the accused, and it's of
course critically important that accused rights are at the forefront
of our justice system, which revolves around the presumption of innocence,
which is the legal principle that every person accused of
any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. But just
(05:36):
because the rights of the accused are enshrined in the
US Constitution doesn't mean that the rights of crime's victims
and their families aren't also important. They are, and there
are a lot of people affected by crime. Think about
it more than one point two three million people directly
experienced a violent crime in the United States last year,
according to Statista's December eighteen, twenty twenty three report. Those
(06:00):
people's family members are caught up in the fallout of
those crimes too, whether the victim died, was injured, or
was traumatized. Crime has a ripple effect that's incredibly painful,
and all of these millions of people grappling with grief
and rage deserve to have their voice heard. Take Stacy
Stevens experience as a microcosm of this far reaching issue.
(06:22):
When her father, Gary was killed during a home invasion,
she lost a loved one and had her entire world
turned upside down, especially when justice was not as swift
and effective as she'd expected. Stacy explained, people don't understand
the process that you have to go through, or the
terrible pieces on top of the crime that was committed
against your family member, to then have the entire system
(06:44):
feel like it's weighted against you, and then to protect
the rights of the people who did the crime, I
feel like I'm just sort of voiceless. Stacy explains the
problem pretty clearly. Right, if you're trying to cope with
the crime against the loved one. At the very least,
you deserve to know about everything that's happening in the
case as it makes its way through the justice system,
(07:04):
don't you. You should have a voice in your loved
one's case, and you should certainly be treated in a
respectful manner by the court. So that's what Marcy's Law
is supposed to guarantee for victim's families, dignified treatment and
the right to be notified, especially concerning the release or
escape of the accused. Now that you know the backstory
(07:28):
of Marcy's Law, you could appreciate that in the state
of California, the DA's office prosecuting Harry Gillart in twenty
twenty two, fourteen years after Marcie's Law took effect, absolutely
had an undeniable legal responsibility to tell kan Velasquez and
his family about Harry Glart's release from jail. But they didn't.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
What was their rationale?
Speaker 1 (07:51):
You'd think that one member of staff could take a
few minutes to call or send an email to the
Velasquez family to follow the law the DA's office exists
to uphold. There are just no two ways about it.
The Santa Clara District Attorney's office violated the law by
not notifying Cain to Michelle Velasquez of Harry Gillart's release.
(08:12):
So now, what what was the Velaskaz family's recourse. Well, amazingly,
there really isn't any You can't unring a bell after all.
But you should keep the DA's breach of the Velasquez
family's legal rights in mind as we sink deeper into
this scandal, because the DA's negligence is certainly an ingredient
and the blend up to Caine Velasquae's alleged rampage on
(08:35):
the afternoon of February twenty eighth, twenty twenty two. Wronged
by Harry Gillard who had allegedly harmed his child, and
then wronged by the very DA's office that was part
of the justice system tasked with public protection. Cain's feeling
of powerlessness must have been compounded, and Cain was not
a man who was used to feeling powerless. Kine As
(09:00):
had been stripped of his son's innocence, one of his
legal rights, and his famous criminal defense attorney, Mark Garrigos
argued of his mental health at a pivotal bail hearing
for Kane Velasquez, which was packed with a sea of supporters,
including notable figures like UFC Heavyweight Champion Daniel Cormier, an
American Kickboxing Academy head coach Javier Mendez. Mark Geragos presented
(09:23):
a compelling case focusing on Caine's mental health. Specifically, the
defense was ready to highlight the potential role of traumatic
brain injuries and CTE conditions likely sustained by Cain during
his fighting career. Garrigos's argument was that these injuries might
have reduced Kine's mental ability, impairing his impulse control and
(09:46):
contributing to the alleged incident involving Harry Gallart and the
shooting of Gallart's stepfather, Paul Bender. Now we've discussed at
a high level what chronic traumatic encephalopathy, commonly known as
CTE is in previous episodes, but we need to dig
deeper here because ct is a core component of Kane
Velasque's defense strategy and potentially one of the triggers for
(10:10):
his alleged attack on the Gallard family. Stirred up with
his grief and rage over Little Kine's abuse and the
violation of his rights by the DA's office. Under Marci's Law,
adding CTE into the mix would certainly be explosive, so
let's talk about it. Chronic traumatic encephalopathy or CTE, is
caused by ongoing, long term and repetitive brain trauma and concussions.
(10:34):
The common symptoms of CTE include memory loss, confusion, impaired judgment,
impulse control, lack of impulse control, aggression, depression, suicidality, violence, parkinsonism,
and eventually progressive dementia.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
CTE was discovered.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
By doctor Bennettomalo, whose autopsy of former Hall of Fame
Pittsburgh Steelers center Mike Webster in two thousand and two
set the stage for a heated battle between science and
the sports industry. Doctor Amalu spent years trying to get
organizations like the NFL to acknowledge chronic traumatic encephalopathy as
a real and highly dangerous condition worthy of preventative measures.
(11:17):
In fact, you might already be familiar with the name
doctor Bennet Amalu because actor Will Smith played him in
a movie called Concussion. Told you CTE is a big
deal anyway, Doctor Amalo knew how hugely debilitating CTE could be.
Mike Webster's brain was a case in point. His autopsy
had revealed large accumulations of TAO protein, resulting in Mike
(11:39):
Webster's suffering for years with cognitive and intellectual impairment, destitution,
mood disorders, depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts. In Mike
Webster's townhouse in the Pittsburgh suburb of Moon Township, his
family had a sad tribute to what their patriarchs suffered
day after day living with CTE.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
It's not a.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
Trophy or a newspaper clipping about his triumphs on the gridiron. No,
it's a pile of torn sheets of paper from a
legal pad, page after page of heartbreaking gibberish penned by Mike.
Mike Webster's anguish was so raw as he wrote about
his mental state, which he described as deep, confusing, twisting,
(12:22):
fishing line, tangled up mess of confusing things go on
all the time. It's difficult to imagine anyone functioning, let
alone behaving rationally while in that headspace. Mike Webster's precipitous
decline with CTE was devastating for him, his fans, his teammates,
and his family. Remember how I said that crime creates ripples.
(12:45):
When we were talking about Marcy's law, well, illness can
have the same far reaching effect. There are ripples upon
ripples of tragedy linked to CTE. Since doctor Benetomalu's discovery
in two thousand and two and his ensuing awareness campaign,
there have now been several documented, notorious cases where professional
athletes have acted extremely violent with CTE, killing family members
(13:09):
or other people before committing suicide. From Philip Adams, a
journeyman NFL cornerback who shot and killed a prominent physician,
his wife, and two of their grandchildren, as well as
two workers at their home, before going back to his
own house to kill himself, to Aaron Hernandez of the
New England Patriots, who hung himself in his jail cell
at age twenty seven after being tied to multiple murders,
(13:32):
there's no doubt that CTE can severely impair people's behavior.
Another famous and heartbreaking example is that of NFL legend
Junior Seau. He was a wildly successful player for the
San Diego Chargers as they were known then, but he
committed suicide at the age of forty three. Seau shot
himself in the chest and his grief stricken family decided
(13:53):
to have his brain analyzed. Sure enough, Junior Sal's autopsy
also confirmed CTE.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
Okay, so you're.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Probably thinking that CTE is a slam duct defense for
Mark Arrogos to use to gain Kane Velaska's conditional release.
Right he needs medical help, not jail time. Isn't a
totally out of left field argument. Surely the information and
circumstances certainly seem to track. But see, this is one
of the problems with CTE as a condition and as
(14:24):
a defense. It can only be firmly diagnosed after a
person's death. Doctors have to conduct an autopsy to look
for signs of brain tissue degeneration and a build up
of abnormal TAUL proteins. Doctor Matthew Lorenz, a co director
of the Sports Neurology Clinic and a professor at the
University of Michigan, explains that CTE is not a clinical diagnosis.
(14:48):
There are no MRI or ct scans that doctors can order.
There is no current way to diagnose CTE in a
living person.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Despite what you might hear.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
This means that medical professionals they strongly believe that someone
has CTE based on their behavior, but they can't prove
it until the person has actually died. This fact alone
makes CTE a complex and somewhat mysterious factor in understanding
the actions of athletes like Philip Adams, Aaron Hernandez, Junior Sel,
(15:18):
and quite potentially Kane Velasquez.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
After all, many.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Athletes endure brain trauma without violent outbursts. According to the
American Association of Neurological Surgeons, twenty percent of all high
school players and ten percent of all college players sustained
brain injuries. This means that most athletes, even those with
brain trauma, do not become violent, and modern medicine still
(15:45):
can't explain exactly why repetitive brain trauma impacts some people
to such an extreme damaging degree and not others. So
it's complicated to understand what might drive a person to
act violently, especially someone known for being peaceful outside the
ring like Kane Velasquez. The Playing Dirty podcast reached out
to criminal profilo Jim Clemente, who spent his career with
(16:08):
the FBI analyzing the criminal behavior of many violent offenders.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
His insights are illuminating.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
Particularly when considering the potential role of chronic traumatic encephalopathy
or CTE.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
In Kine's behavior.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
The way Jim tells people to think about it is
that the frontal lobe of our brain typically acts as
a sort of policeman in our minds. It's this area
of the brain that monitors and restrains our actions, especially
when it comes to violent thoughts or impulses. Most people
have a well functioning policeman which keeps these impulses in check.
(16:43):
But when this policeman is compromised due to conditions like
CTE or other forms of traumatic brain injury that affect
the frontal lobe, a person's ability to regulate these impulses
can be severely diminished. This may lead to acting out
in ways that are out of character, including extreme violent,
even for individuals who are typically described as friendly and loving.
(17:04):
Retired FBI PROFILEOGE Implemente emphasized that it's not at all
unusual for people to have violent thoughts. What's key is
our capacity to control and not act on them. But
with the impairment of the frontal lobe, as can occur
in cases of CTE, this control can be weakened or
even lost entirely, and when this happens, a person might
(17:26):
react extremely in situations where they normally wouldn't. The probability
of this happening can be exacerbated further by an unusually
stressful moment, something out of the ordinary, something like finding
out that your four year old son has been sexually
abused and the district attorney's office failed to notify you
of his alleged abusers released from jail. CTE was a
(17:49):
sensible strategy from Mark Geragos to deploy on behalf of
his client, Kane Velasquez. The courtroom was packed with his
client supporters, friends from both inside and outside the MMA
war world. All of them were expressing to the press
and to the court that violent behavior beyond the octagon
was definitely out of character for Kin. Social media was
(18:10):
also alike with the free Caine hashtag. The Free Kane
movement in and of itself is a testament to Kane
Velasqua's typical upstanding behavior. His supporters really look up to him.
Caine's work in the community, particularly with kids, has made
him a hero to many. He's known for his dedication
to uplifting young lives, not putting them in danger with
(18:32):
high speed car chases and gunfire. The violence Kine allegedly
displayed just doesn't jive for his supporters, who claim that
he is worshiped as a hero south of the border
in Mexico, where his roots are. One of our sources
even recounted the story of a woman there who asked
Kine to touch her child's head, as if in a
blessing of some kind. Kine also made appearances at schools
(18:54):
throughout the US two reading to the kids and telling
them how important college and wrestling had been to his success,
trying to inspire them to get an education and follow
their dreams. It was undeniable. The Free Kine movement was
a passionate and compelling testament to Kane Velasquez's character and
doing his defense team's effort at the very least in
(19:15):
the court of public opinion. American mixed martial artist Ron
Wynn made a beautiful post online in support of his
friend that summed up the character portrait of the defense.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
Aimed to paint.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
I stand by Kane and his family in these hard times.
He is one of the most selfless, genuine people I've
ever had the pleasure to know.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
On a personal level.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
I almost can't put into words how amazing of a
guy he is. He lives a good life. The truth
will come to light. But what was the truth in
this situation? Even though the piece is added up? An
inability to definitively diagnose CTE made for a challenging defense,
(19:55):
no matter how much Kine supporters insisted that has alleged
violent public out burst had been a one off. And
even if Kane's defense attorney, Mark Garragos was able to
convince the court that his client suffered from CTE, that
behavioral insight wouldn't necessarily excuse or justify the actions as
client stood accused of. It would only offer a potential
(20:16):
explanation for the drastic shift in his behavior and perhaps
sway the judge towards a more lenient sentence. So how
did Mark Garrogos and the rest of Kane Velaska's defense
team fair well at this hearing? Judge Schelina Brown did
acknowledge the defense's argument about traumatic brain injuries and specifically CTE,
noting its potential role in Kane Velaska's actions. This acknowledgement
(20:40):
felt like it was moving in the right direction for Kane,
so Mark Garagos pushed forward, pulling out all the stops
to get his client released on bail. He laid out
specific bail terms, including a staggering one million dollars bail,
electronic monitoring, relocation to an out of state inpatient facility,
and constant super The defense even offered for Cain to
(21:02):
pay for all of this himself. You see, there are
cases in which an accused person hires effectively guards to
keep himself under surveillance or supervision to get out of
jail on bond is essentially self imposed home confinement with
some security presence like retired cops. But despite Mark Garrog
was arguing how the DA's breach of Marcy's Law and
(21:23):
probable CTE were important contributing triggering factors in what it
allegedly happened, the Santa Clara County DA's office, represented by
Aaron French, wasn't backing down. The prosecution argued that no
bail terms could mitigate the risk to kane Velasque's alleged victims,
Harry Gallart, his mother Patricia Gallard, and his stepfather Paul Bender.
(21:44):
Prosecutor Aaron French's stance echoed the DA's office's earlier arguments,
but with a new dramatic addition. A statement from Paul Bender,
the man Caine Velasquez allegedly shot via video call.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
Paul Bender's words.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
Cut through the courtroom said, good morning, your honor. My
name is Paul Bender. I am the person who is
driving the truck and the person shot by kane Velasquez.
On February twenty eight, twenty twenty two, we were simply
following a court order to get a GPS monitoring device
for Harry when kane Velaskaz started following us.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
He shot at us.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
And chased us at speeds over one hundred miles an hour.
When we came to a stop near a school, kane
Velasquez shot at us again, severing my brachial artery and nerve.
I have lost the use of three fingers and can
no longer work because I could not pass my department
under transportation physical without the use of my right hand.
We do not know if this loss is permanent. Kane
(22:41):
Velasquez has no respect for human life. He could have
easily shot the family in the car next to us,
innocent pedestrians, or even young children. Kane Velaskaez does not
care who sees him do this. He does not care
about the rule of law and has no respect for
our judicial system. If given the opportunity, I believe he
will try to finish what he started. I am fearful
(23:03):
for my life as well as for the lives of
my family. No amount of bail or GPS monitor will
stop Kane Velasquez. Respectfully, your honor, I ask that you
please help keep my family safe in our community, safe
from Kane Velasquez and deny his request for bail. While
(23:24):
most in the courtroom we're there to support Kine and
whether the judge had seemed to recognize the defense his
team's victims' rights and CTE arguments, at the end of
the day, her role was to interpret and uphold the law.
So when Kane Velasquez, the former UFC heavyweight Champion, stood
before Judge Selina Brown anxiously awaiting her verdict on his
request for bail, he was likely to be destined for disappointment.
(23:47):
Why you ask, well, one big reason really vigilanteism. It's
perhaps the most controversial component of this scandal and the
most damning for Kane Velasquez. Vigilanteism is illegal, regardless of
the intention behind it. No state or federal jurisdiction offers
any kind of vigilante defense to criminal prosecution. So Judge
(24:10):
Chelina Brown denied the bear request in the attempted murder
case against Kane Velasquez, keeping him behind bars, despite the
fact that the man who had allegedly molested his child
had been released. To many people, this determination seemed ironic
and cruel, but arguably the judge was upholding an important
legal precedent that vigilanteism is never acceptable under any circumstances.
(24:34):
She noted that, in her view, Kane Velasquez was too
great a risk to release, not just to the Galart trio,
but also to the Santa Clara community at large. Judge
Brown's ruling marked a significant turn in the Kane Velasquez
and Harry Glart saga, leaving the MMA world in Caine's
supporters reeling. It's a moment that feels like the final
bell of a fight, except this time there's no clear winner,
(24:57):
just a lingering sense of uncertainty, unrest, and a growing
upset with the judicial system. And when you blend uncertainty, unrest,
and upset altogether, more often than not, it's a recipe
for disaster. The fresh disaster brewing in the case broke
on local news media with great fanfare one of the
kane velasqa'z judges unnamed had requested more security, saying that
(25:20):
they were fearful of Caine's fervent supporters. I'm not surprised
at all, Mark Garcia, who provides executive security services, told NBC.
Garcia explained to reporter Damian Trejuil that security for a
judge in a case like Canes could range from extra
patrols around their home to around the clock armed guards. Now,
despite the press not releasing the name of the judge,
(25:42):
we can reasonably surmise that it was Judge Selina Brown.
After all, at this time, she was really the only
judge actively engaged on the kane Velasquez case. So while
we can't know for sure that Judge Selena Brown requested
heightened personal security, in all likelihood it was her. And
if it was Judge Shelena Brown who felt under threat,
(26:04):
that begs the question could she really have been impartial
in considering kane Velasque's motion for release. Isn't that sort
of like an NFL ref betting on one of the
teams they're reffing for. I mean, a ref really can't
be impartial if they have an interest in the outcome.
That's actually why refs aren't allowed to bet on the games. So,
following that logic, what was going on with impartiality in
(26:26):
the Kane Velasquez case. Was the justice system functioning at
a reasonable level given this latest bombshell. On the one hand,
Judge Selena Brown's decision to deny bail and keep Kane
in jail could be seen as standard procedure given the
gravity of the charges against him. But on the other hand,
feeling threatened by Caine's supporters arguably shifted her decision making
(26:48):
from a legal judgment to a personal one. And if
this was true, then much like the DA's office, the
judge had played dirty two. After all, it's hard to
believe that a judge could set great feelings of personal
fear totally from the decision making process in Kine's case, right,
the whole situation cut right to the heart of judicial impartiality,
(27:10):
which is the principle of justice that requires judges to
be fair and objective in their decisions. The Kane Velaskaz
case had devolved into a complex cocktail of legal ethics,
personal safety, and public perception. It's a scenario that challenges
many people's confidence in our justice system's ability to remain unbiased,
(27:31):
especially when the players involved in upholding the law.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Feel personally threatened.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
At this stage of the scandal, it seemed like two
different standards were clearly at play in the Santa Clara
County Court. After all, who in our society is more
vulnerable than children? Yet alleged child abuser Harry Gallart was
released on an O R bond after just two days
in jail. Harry certainly didn't offer to pay for security
to monitor him, and the judge still allowed him to
(27:57):
work in the community. Kane guests did offer to pay
to stay either at home with a monitoring device and
private security, or at an inpatient treatment facility in an
entirely different state, Yet.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
He was denied bail and kept behind bars.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
Two very different disparate decisions had been handed down, and
the reasoning for a lot of people felt muddled. Okay,
let's clear our palates and then view Kane Velaska as
alleged vigilanteism through the lens of the court's behavior or misbehavior,
depending on your perspective. There's a compelling case for judicial
(28:34):
prejudice on the table at this point, and an alleged
child molester is back on the streets thanks to the
court's decisions, which brings us back to the question from
our last episode. Is vigilanteism ever justified? It's a controversial
subject with a storied history in the United States, and
Kane of Alaskaz certainly isn't the first to be accused
of exercising vigilanteism. There are some notorious cases that captured
(28:58):
the public's attention long befo Cain took the actions that
landed him in handcuffs. First, there's the case of Bernard
Gets in nineteen eighty four, dubbed the Subway Vigilante. Gets
shot four men on a New York City subway train,
claiming self defense during an attempted robbery. One of the
young men he shot in the scuffle suffered serious injuries
(29:18):
and brain damage. Gets His actions sparked a national debate
about self defense and urban crime, and that debate continues
to resonate today. Can we rely on the police as
well as the justice system to impartially protect us and
our families. Interestingly, a jury acquitted Gets of all charges
except carrying an unlicensed gun, so they clearly believed his story.
(29:41):
Although the controversy ignited by gets his vigilanteism has raged on,
particularly given the race issues in that case. All the
young men involved were black, while Gets is white. Ellie
Nessler's case is another one that resonates deeply when debating vigilantiism.
Back in nineteen ninety three, in a small northern California town,
(30:03):
Nesler faced a horrifying reality, not unlike the Velasquez family situation.
Her young son Willie, had been sexually abused by Daniel Driver,
a man with a history of such offenses. The case
took a dramatic and tragic turn in the Jamestown Justice
Court during the accused preliminary hearing. Ellie Nesler, driven by
a mother's desperation and a deep sense of injustice, shot
(30:26):
and killed Daniel Driver right there in the courtroom by
shooting him five times in the head. This act of
vigilante justice sent shockwaves across the country, igniting debates about
the legal system, the handling of sexual abuse cases, and
the links to which a parent might or should go
to protect their child. Ellie Nesler defended her action to
(30:47):
the police, saying, maybe I'm not God, but I tell
you what I'm the closest damn thing to it for
all the other little boys. Public reaction Tonsler's action was
deeply divided. Many empathized with her, seeing her as a
mother who was failed by the system and felt she
had no other recourse. Others viewed her action as a
dangerous precedent, a threat to the rule of law and order.
(31:10):
This case certainly carries strong similarities to the kane Velaskaz scandal,
but probably the most famous vigilante justice case of all
involved Gary Plochet. This case is a seminal example of
vigilante justice and one that sparked intense debate across America.
In nineteen eighty four, the very same year that subway
(31:30):
vigilante Bernard Getz was in the public eye, Gary Plochet
shot and killed Jeffrey Ducett, who had kidnapped and molested
his son. The shooting occurred at an airport and was
captured on camera by a news crew, with Plochet uttering
the words, if I had to do it over again,
I'd kill him again. Gary Plochet pleaded guilty to the killing,
(31:52):
but the judge, who clearly had a very different attitude
than kane Velaska's judge, sentenced Gary to probation, noting it
was unlikely that he'd commit another crime and it suffered enough.
Gary Plochet's action, which so closely mirrors the behaviors of
Ellie Nessler and Kane Velasquez, bring us face to face
with complex questions about justice, retribution, and the protective instinctive parents.
(32:17):
The public's response to Gary Plochet's vigilante behavior in sentencing
was divided, much as we see today with Kane Velaskiez case.
Gary Plochet's remarkably lenient sentence seven years of probation and
three hundred hours of community service sparked a wide array
of reactions. For some, it was seen as a just
outcome considering the circumstances under which Plochet acted.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
For others, it.
Speaker 1 (32:41):
Raised questions about the consistency and fairness of the justice system.
How many murderers with guilt so firmly proven via video
and a confession get probation. When we look at Kane
Velasquez's and Gary Plochet's cases side by side, there are
clear parallels, but also stark differences. Like Gary Ploche kine
as a father accused of taking extreme actions in response
(33:04):
to harm and inflicted on his child. However, experts agree
that Kine faces potentially much more severe consequences, including prison
time of twenty years to life, even though he didn't
actually kill anyone, if he's ultimately convicted. This brings us
back to the question of vigilante justice and how it's
treated by the legal system. While both Kane Velasquaz and
(33:25):
Gary Ploche acted out of a desire to protect their children,
the outcomes and treatment by the justice system appear to
be on completely different trajectories. Could the differences in their
professional backgrounds, public perception, or other factors be responsible for
impacting legal outcomes. Gary Plochet, a regular citizen, received a
(33:46):
sentence that some might view as a slap on the wrist,
whereas Kane Velasquez, a famous MMA fighter, is facing the
possibility of a much harsher penalty. These comparisons force us
to confront uncomfortable questions about equality and justice in the
United States. They make us wonder whether the scales of
justice weigh the same for everyone, or if they tip
(34:06):
depending on who you are, what you've done, and how
you're perceived in the court of public opinion. The line
between a hero and a vigilante is blurred. Kane Velaska's case,
like those before him, forces us to confront our own
values and beliefs about justice, protection and when, if ever,
it's acceptable and justifiable to take the law into our
(34:28):
own hands. Thank you for joining me your host, Jay Harris,
in drinking up this complex, bitter blend of legal dilemmas
and moral quandaries. Join me next time on Playing Dirty
Sports Scandals to find out how the Kane Velaskaz scandal
shakes out. Playing Dirty Sports Scandals is a production of
(34:55):
Dan Patrick Productions, Never Ever Productions and Workhouse Media from
executive producers Dan Patrick, Paul Anderson, Nick Panella, Maya Glickman,
and Jennifer Clary. Hosted by Jay Harris, Written and produced
by Jen Brown, Francie Haiks, Maya Glickman, and Jennifer Clary,
Welcome to Playing Dirty Sports Scandals with me, Jay Harris,
your guide through the often distasteful, but always addictive tales
of sports greatest tragedies, challenges and downfalls. We can't help ourselves.
Our brains are wired to crave the inside scoop on
scandal's people. As novelist Henry Fielding said, love and scandal
are the best sweeteners of tea. Hmm, true that, Henry,
(00:31):
true that. But let's face it, I'm over to you,
smaan myself. Over the past twenty years of my career
as a journalist and sportscaster, I've hosted a variety of
ESPN shows, from Sports Center to Outside the Lines.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
But I'm playing Dirty.
Speaker 1 (00:52):
My role is to take you outside the comfort zone
and behind the scenes of sports greatest scandals, ensuring that
you always have the fra vireo scoop. In this episode,
we're taking a deep dive into the separate but related
cases of MMA star turned alleged vigilante Kane Velasquez and
alleged child molester Harry Gallard. Now you may remember that
(01:13):
in our.
Speaker 2 (01:13):
Last episode, I left you with a question.
Speaker 1 (01:16):
I asked you if you thought that Kane Velasquez was
justified for playing dirty on February twenty eight, twenty twenty two,
when he allegedly pursued the Gallart family for eleven miles
in a high speed car chase, shooting at their Chevy
Silverado pickup truck with a forty caliber semi automatic handgun.
Given what you know now about the circumstances, do you
(01:38):
believe that Cain's behavior is justifiable? Today We're going to
dissect the treatment of Kane Velasquez and Harry Gallart by
our justice system by impacting three critical case components, Marci's Law, CTE,
and vigilanteism. Understanding these ingredients of the Caine Velasquez and
Harry Gillart cases are critical and they might a shift
(02:00):
your perspective of this whole scandal. Let's start with Marcy's Law.
Who is Marcy and what does she have to do
with Kane Velasquez.
Speaker 2 (02:10):
Well.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
Tragically, Marcy's Law was named after a real person, Marcy Nicholas,
who was a vibrant University of California Santa Barbara student.
Marcy was horrifically stalked and murdered by her ex boyfriend,
Carrie Michael Connolly in nineteen eighty three.
Speaker 2 (02:27):
Unbelievably, only one week.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
After Marcy's murder, on the way home from her funeral service,
Marcy's family stopped at a shop to pick up a
loaf of bread. It was there in the checkout line
that Marcy's grieving mother, Marcella, was confronted by her daughter's murderer.
Marcella had received no notification from the judicial system, and
so she had no idea that Carrie had been released
(02:52):
on bail just days after brutally killing her daughter Marcy.
This experience of Marcy's family sounds shocking, I know, but
it actually wasn't uncommon for the suffering family members of
victims to endure these types of situations. That's because back
in the nineteen eighties, the courts and law enforcement had
no obligation to keep victim's families informed. Now, the Nicholas
(03:21):
family might have wound up as just another casualty of
the system, but fate had other plans. In nineteen ninety one,
Marcy's brother, Henry Nicholas, co founded Broadcom in the spare
bedroom of his Redondo Beach condo. Henry and his partner,
a guy named Henry SAMUELI each invested five thousand dollars
of their own money into their startup. Seven years later,
(03:43):
BAM Broadcom became publicly traded and its name is now
recognized globally as a leading American semiconductor corporation. So, as
you might imagine, Henry Nicholas became very wealthy, like ranked
by Forbes as of January eighth, twenty twenty four, with
a net worth of ninezero point ninety seven billion dollars.
Wealthy and for better or worse, with money tends to
(04:06):
come clout. Having lost his sister Marcy in such a tragic,
traumatic way in his early twenties, Henry Nicholas went on
to have a painful first hand experience with the parole process.
His sister Marcy's murderer, Carrie Michael Connolly, was sentenced to
life in prison with the possibility of parole after seventeen years.
Henry and his family found the parole hearings and ensuing
(04:28):
lack of communication from legal officials to be an outrageous
affront to their feelings and a breach of their perceived rights.
So Henry Nicholas used his clout to ensure that other
grieving families were not subjected to the same upsets and indignities.
He led and sponsored the Marcy's Law initiative in honor
of his sister, and after years of campaigning, it was
(04:50):
finally passed in California in November two thousand and eight,
twenty five years after Marcy's death, Proposition nine the California
Victims the Bill of Rights Act of two thousand and eight.
Marcia's Law became one of the strongest and most comprehensive
constitutional victims rights laws in the United States. Its purpose
is to ensure dignity, respect, and above all, fairness for
(05:13):
victims and the criminal justice process. Our justice system is
focused on the rights of the accused, and it's of
course critically important that accused rights are at the forefront
of our justice system, which revolves around the presumption of innocence,
which is the legal principle that every person accused of
any crime is considered innocent until proven guilty. But just
(05:36):
because the rights of the accused are enshrined in the
US Constitution doesn't mean that the rights of crime's victims
and their families aren't also important. They are, and there
are a lot of people affected by crime. Think about
it more than one point two three million people directly
experienced a violent crime in the United States last year,
according to Statista's December eighteen, twenty twenty three report. Those
(06:00):
people's family members are caught up in the fallout of
those crimes too, whether the victim died, was injured, or
was traumatized. Crime has a ripple effect that's incredibly painful,
and all of these millions of people grappling with grief
and rage deserve to have their voice heard. Take Stacy
Stevens experience as a microcosm of this far reaching issue.
(06:22):
When her father, Gary was killed during a home invasion,
she lost a loved one and had her entire world
turned upside down, especially when justice was not as swift
and effective as she'd expected. Stacy explained, people don't understand
the process that you have to go through, or the
terrible pieces on top of the crime that was committed
against your family member, to then have the entire system
(06:44):
feel like it's weighted against you, and then to protect
the rights of the people who did the crime, I
feel like I'm just sort of voiceless. Stacy explains the
problem pretty clearly. Right, if you're trying to cope with
the crime against the loved one. At the very least,
you deserve to know about everything that's happening in the
case as it makes its way through the justice system,
(07:04):
don't you. You should have a voice in your loved
one's case, and you should certainly be treated in a
respectful manner by the court. So that's what Marcy's Law
is supposed to guarantee for victim's families, dignified treatment and
the right to be notified, especially concerning the release or
escape of the accused. Now that you know the backstory
(07:28):
of Marcy's Law, you could appreciate that in the state
of California, the DA's office prosecuting Harry Gillart in twenty
twenty two, fourteen years after Marcie's Law took effect, absolutely
had an undeniable legal responsibility to tell kan Velasquez and
his family about Harry Glart's release from jail. But they didn't.
Speaker 2 (07:49):
What was their rationale?
Speaker 1 (07:51):
You'd think that one member of staff could take a
few minutes to call or send an email to the
Velasquez family to follow the law the DA's office exists
to uphold. There are just no two ways about it.
The Santa Clara District Attorney's office violated the law by
not notifying Cain to Michelle Velasquez of Harry Gillart's release.
(08:12):
So now, what what was the Velaskaz family's recourse. Well, amazingly,
there really isn't any You can't unring a bell after all.
But you should keep the DA's breach of the Velasquez
family's legal rights in mind as we sink deeper into
this scandal, because the DA's negligence is certainly an ingredient
and the blend up to Caine Velasquae's alleged rampage on
(08:35):
the afternoon of February twenty eighth, twenty twenty two. Wronged
by Harry Gillard who had allegedly harmed his child, and
then wronged by the very DA's office that was part
of the justice system tasked with public protection. Cain's feeling
of powerlessness must have been compounded, and Cain was not
a man who was used to feeling powerless. Kine As
(09:00):
had been stripped of his son's innocence, one of his
legal rights, and his famous criminal defense attorney, Mark Garrigos
argued of his mental health at a pivotal bail hearing
for Kane Velasquez, which was packed with a sea of supporters,
including notable figures like UFC Heavyweight Champion Daniel Cormier, an
American Kickboxing Academy head coach Javier Mendez. Mark Geragos presented
(09:23):
a compelling case focusing on Caine's mental health. Specifically, the
defense was ready to highlight the potential role of traumatic
brain injuries and CTE conditions likely sustained by Cain during
his fighting career. Garrigos's argument was that these injuries might
have reduced Kine's mental ability, impairing his impulse control and
(09:46):
contributing to the alleged incident involving Harry Gallart and the
shooting of Gallart's stepfather, Paul Bender. Now we've discussed at
a high level what chronic traumatic encephalopathy, commonly known as
CTE is in previous episodes, but we need to dig
deeper here because ct is a core component of Kane
Velasque's defense strategy and potentially one of the triggers for
(10:10):
his alleged attack on the Gallard family. Stirred up with
his grief and rage over Little Kine's abuse and the
violation of his rights by the DA's office. Under Marci's Law,
adding CTE into the mix would certainly be explosive, so
let's talk about it. Chronic traumatic encephalopathy or CTE, is
caused by ongoing, long term and repetitive brain trauma and concussions.
(10:34):
The common symptoms of CTE include memory loss, confusion, impaired judgment,
impulse control, lack of impulse control, aggression, depression, suicidality, violence, parkinsonism,
and eventually progressive dementia.
Speaker 2 (10:53):
CTE was discovered.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
By doctor Bennettomalo, whose autopsy of former Hall of Fame
Pittsburgh Steelers center Mike Webster in two thousand and two
set the stage for a heated battle between science and
the sports industry. Doctor Amalu spent years trying to get
organizations like the NFL to acknowledge chronic traumatic encephalopathy as
a real and highly dangerous condition worthy of preventative measures.
(11:17):
In fact, you might already be familiar with the name
doctor Bennet Amalu because actor Will Smith played him in
a movie called Concussion. Told you CTE is a big
deal anyway, Doctor Amalo knew how hugely debilitating CTE could be.
Mike Webster's brain was a case in point. His autopsy
had revealed large accumulations of TAO protein, resulting in Mike
(11:39):
Webster's suffering for years with cognitive and intellectual impairment, destitution,
mood disorders, depression, drug abuse, and suicide attempts. In Mike
Webster's townhouse in the Pittsburgh suburb of Moon Township, his
family had a sad tribute to what their patriarchs suffered
day after day living with CTE.
Speaker 2 (12:01):
It's not a.
Speaker 1 (12:01):
Trophy or a newspaper clipping about his triumphs on the gridiron. No,
it's a pile of torn sheets of paper from a
legal pad, page after page of heartbreaking gibberish penned by Mike.
Mike Webster's anguish was so raw as he wrote about
his mental state, which he described as deep, confusing, twisting,
(12:22):
fishing line, tangled up mess of confusing things go on
all the time. It's difficult to imagine anyone functioning, let
alone behaving rationally while in that headspace. Mike Webster's precipitous
decline with CTE was devastating for him, his fans, his teammates,
and his family. Remember how I said that crime creates ripples.
(12:45):
When we were talking about Marcy's law, well, illness can
have the same far reaching effect. There are ripples upon
ripples of tragedy linked to CTE. Since doctor Benetomalu's discovery
in two thousand and two and his ensuing awareness campaign,
there have now been several documented, notorious cases where professional
athletes have acted extremely violent with CTE, killing family members
(13:09):
or other people before committing suicide. From Philip Adams, a
journeyman NFL cornerback who shot and killed a prominent physician,
his wife, and two of their grandchildren, as well as
two workers at their home, before going back to his
own house to kill himself, to Aaron Hernandez of the
New England Patriots, who hung himself in his jail cell
at age twenty seven after being tied to multiple murders,
(13:32):
there's no doubt that CTE can severely impair people's behavior.
Another famous and heartbreaking example is that of NFL legend
Junior Seau. He was a wildly successful player for the
San Diego Chargers as they were known then, but he
committed suicide at the age of forty three. Seau shot
himself in the chest and his grief stricken family decided
(13:53):
to have his brain analyzed. Sure enough, Junior Sal's autopsy
also confirmed CTE.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
Okay, so you're.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
Probably thinking that CTE is a slam duct defense for
Mark Arrogos to use to gain Kane Velaska's conditional release.
Right he needs medical help, not jail time. Isn't a
totally out of left field argument. Surely the information and
circumstances certainly seem to track. But see, this is one
of the problems with CTE as a condition and as
(14:24):
a defense. It can only be firmly diagnosed after a
person's death. Doctors have to conduct an autopsy to look
for signs of brain tissue degeneration and a build up
of abnormal TAUL proteins. Doctor Matthew Lorenz, a co director
of the Sports Neurology Clinic and a professor at the
University of Michigan, explains that CTE is not a clinical diagnosis.
(14:48):
There are no MRI or ct scans that doctors can order.
There is no current way to diagnose CTE in a
living person.
Speaker 2 (14:56):
Despite what you might hear.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
This means that medical professionals they strongly believe that someone
has CTE based on their behavior, but they can't prove
it until the person has actually died. This fact alone
makes CTE a complex and somewhat mysterious factor in understanding
the actions of athletes like Philip Adams, Aaron Hernandez, Junior Sel,
(15:18):
and quite potentially Kane Velasquez.
Speaker 2 (15:22):
After all, many.
Speaker 1 (15:24):
Athletes endure brain trauma without violent outbursts. According to the
American Association of Neurological Surgeons, twenty percent of all high
school players and ten percent of all college players sustained
brain injuries. This means that most athletes, even those with
brain trauma, do not become violent, and modern medicine still
(15:45):
can't explain exactly why repetitive brain trauma impacts some people
to such an extreme damaging degree and not others. So
it's complicated to understand what might drive a person to
act violently, especially someone known for being peaceful outside the
ring like Kane Velasquez. The Playing Dirty podcast reached out
to criminal profilo Jim Clemente, who spent his career with
(16:08):
the FBI analyzing the criminal behavior of many violent offenders.
Speaker 2 (16:12):
His insights are illuminating.
Speaker 1 (16:14):
Particularly when considering the potential role of chronic traumatic encephalopathy
or CTE.
Speaker 2 (16:20):
In Kine's behavior.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
The way Jim tells people to think about it is
that the frontal lobe of our brain typically acts as
a sort of policeman in our minds. It's this area
of the brain that monitors and restrains our actions, especially
when it comes to violent thoughts or impulses. Most people
have a well functioning policeman which keeps these impulses in check.
(16:43):
But when this policeman is compromised due to conditions like
CTE or other forms of traumatic brain injury that affect
the frontal lobe, a person's ability to regulate these impulses
can be severely diminished. This may lead to acting out
in ways that are out of character, including extreme violent,
even for individuals who are typically described as friendly and loving.
(17:04):
Retired FBI PROFILEOGE Implemente emphasized that it's not at all
unusual for people to have violent thoughts. What's key is
our capacity to control and not act on them. But
with the impairment of the frontal lobe, as can occur
in cases of CTE, this control can be weakened or
even lost entirely, and when this happens, a person might
(17:26):
react extremely in situations where they normally wouldn't. The probability
of this happening can be exacerbated further by an unusually
stressful moment, something out of the ordinary, something like finding
out that your four year old son has been sexually
abused and the district attorney's office failed to notify you
of his alleged abusers released from jail. CTE was a
(17:49):
sensible strategy from Mark Geragos to deploy on behalf of
his client, Kane Velasquez. The courtroom was packed with his
client supporters, friends from both inside and outside the MMA
war world. All of them were expressing to the press
and to the court that violent behavior beyond the octagon
was definitely out of character for Kin. Social media was
(18:10):
also alike with the free Caine hashtag. The Free Kane
movement in and of itself is a testament to Kane
Velasqua's typical upstanding behavior. His supporters really look up to him.
Caine's work in the community, particularly with kids, has made
him a hero to many. He's known for his dedication
to uplifting young lives, not putting them in danger with
(18:32):
high speed car chases and gunfire. The violence Kine allegedly
displayed just doesn't jive for his supporters, who claim that
he is worshiped as a hero south of the border
in Mexico, where his roots are. One of our sources
even recounted the story of a woman there who asked
Kine to touch her child's head, as if in a
blessing of some kind. Kine also made appearances at schools
(18:54):
throughout the US two reading to the kids and telling
them how important college and wrestling had been to his success,
trying to inspire them to get an education and follow
their dreams. It was undeniable. The Free Kine movement was
a passionate and compelling testament to Kane Velasquez's character and
doing his defense team's effort at the very least in
(19:15):
the court of public opinion. American mixed martial artist Ron
Wynn made a beautiful post online in support of his
friend that summed up the character portrait of the defense.
Speaker 2 (19:24):
Aimed to paint.
Speaker 1 (19:25):
I stand by Kane and his family in these hard times.
He is one of the most selfless, genuine people I've
ever had the pleasure to know.
Speaker 2 (19:34):
On a personal level.
Speaker 1 (19:35):
I almost can't put into words how amazing of a
guy he is. He lives a good life. The truth
will come to light. But what was the truth in
this situation? Even though the piece is added up? An
inability to definitively diagnose CTE made for a challenging defense,
(19:55):
no matter how much Kine supporters insisted that has alleged
violent public out burst had been a one off. And
even if Kane's defense attorney, Mark Garragos was able to
convince the court that his client suffered from CTE, that
behavioral insight wouldn't necessarily excuse or justify the actions as
client stood accused of. It would only offer a potential
(20:16):
explanation for the drastic shift in his behavior and perhaps
sway the judge towards a more lenient sentence. So how
did Mark Garrogos and the rest of Kane Velaska's defense
team fair well at this hearing? Judge Schelina Brown did
acknowledge the defense's argument about traumatic brain injuries and specifically CTE,
noting its potential role in Kane Velaska's actions. This acknowledgement
(20:40):
felt like it was moving in the right direction for Kane,
so Mark Garagos pushed forward, pulling out all the stops
to get his client released on bail. He laid out
specific bail terms, including a staggering one million dollars bail,
electronic monitoring, relocation to an out of state inpatient facility,
and constant super The defense even offered for Cain to
(21:02):
pay for all of this himself. You see, there are
cases in which an accused person hires effectively guards to
keep himself under surveillance or supervision to get out of
jail on bond is essentially self imposed home confinement with
some security presence like retired cops. But despite Mark Garrog
was arguing how the DA's breach of Marcy's Law and
(21:23):
probable CTE were important contributing triggering factors in what it
allegedly happened, the Santa Clara County DA's office, represented by
Aaron French, wasn't backing down. The prosecution argued that no
bail terms could mitigate the risk to kane Velasque's alleged victims,
Harry Gallart, his mother Patricia Gallard, and his stepfather Paul Bender.
(21:44):
Prosecutor Aaron French's stance echoed the DA's office's earlier arguments,
but with a new dramatic addition. A statement from Paul Bender,
the man Caine Velasquez allegedly shot via video call.
Speaker 2 (21:57):
Paul Bender's words.
Speaker 1 (21:58):
Cut through the courtroom said, good morning, your honor. My
name is Paul Bender. I am the person who is
driving the truck and the person shot by kane Velasquez.
On February twenty eight, twenty twenty two, we were simply
following a court order to get a GPS monitoring device
for Harry when kane Velaskaz started following us.
Speaker 2 (22:18):
He shot at us.
Speaker 1 (22:19):
And chased us at speeds over one hundred miles an hour.
When we came to a stop near a school, kane
Velasquez shot at us again, severing my brachial artery and nerve.
I have lost the use of three fingers and can
no longer work because I could not pass my department
under transportation physical without the use of my right hand.
We do not know if this loss is permanent. Kane
(22:41):
Velasquez has no respect for human life. He could have
easily shot the family in the car next to us,
innocent pedestrians, or even young children. Kane Velaskaez does not
care who sees him do this. He does not care
about the rule of law and has no respect for
our judicial system. If given the opportunity, I believe he
will try to finish what he started. I am fearful
(23:03):
for my life as well as for the lives of
my family. No amount of bail or GPS monitor will
stop Kane Velasquez. Respectfully, your honor, I ask that you
please help keep my family safe in our community, safe
from Kane Velasquez and deny his request for bail. While
(23:24):
most in the courtroom we're there to support Kine and
whether the judge had seemed to recognize the defense his
team's victims' rights and CTE arguments, at the end of
the day, her role was to interpret and uphold the law.
So when Kane Velasquez, the former UFC heavyweight Champion, stood
before Judge Selina Brown anxiously awaiting her verdict on his
request for bail, he was likely to be destined for disappointment.
(23:47):
Why you ask, well, one big reason really vigilanteism. It's
perhaps the most controversial component of this scandal and the
most damning for Kane Velasquez. Vigilanteism is illegal, regardless of
the intention behind it. No state or federal jurisdiction offers
any kind of vigilante defense to criminal prosecution. So Judge
(24:10):
Chelina Brown denied the bear request in the attempted murder
case against Kane Velasquez, keeping him behind bars, despite the
fact that the man who had allegedly molested his child
had been released. To many people, this determination seemed ironic
and cruel, but arguably the judge was upholding an important
legal precedent that vigilanteism is never acceptable under any circumstances.
(24:34):
She noted that, in her view, Kane Velasquez was too
great a risk to release, not just to the Galart trio,
but also to the Santa Clara community at large. Judge
Brown's ruling marked a significant turn in the Kane Velasquez
and Harry Glart saga, leaving the MMA world in Caine's
supporters reeling. It's a moment that feels like the final
bell of a fight, except this time there's no clear winner,
(24:57):
just a lingering sense of uncertainty, unrest, and a growing
upset with the judicial system. And when you blend uncertainty, unrest,
and upset altogether, more often than not, it's a recipe
for disaster. The fresh disaster brewing in the case broke
on local news media with great fanfare one of the
kane velasqa'z judges unnamed had requested more security, saying that
(25:20):
they were fearful of Caine's fervent supporters. I'm not surprised
at all, Mark Garcia, who provides executive security services, told NBC.
Garcia explained to reporter Damian Trejuil that security for a
judge in a case like Canes could range from extra
patrols around their home to around the clock armed guards. Now,
despite the press not releasing the name of the judge,
(25:42):
we can reasonably surmise that it was Judge Selina Brown.
After all, at this time, she was really the only
judge actively engaged on the kane Velasquez case. So while
we can't know for sure that Judge Selena Brown requested
heightened personal security, in all likelihood it was her. And
if it was Judge Shelena Brown who felt under threat,
(26:04):
that begs the question could she really have been impartial
in considering kane Velasque's motion for release. Isn't that sort
of like an NFL ref betting on one of the
teams they're reffing for. I mean, a ref really can't
be impartial if they have an interest in the outcome.
That's actually why refs aren't allowed to bet on the games. So,
following that logic, what was going on with impartiality in
(26:26):
the Kane Velasquez case. Was the justice system functioning at
a reasonable level given this latest bombshell. On the one hand,
Judge Selena Brown's decision to deny bail and keep Kane
in jail could be seen as standard procedure given the
gravity of the charges against him. But on the other hand,
feeling threatened by Caine's supporters arguably shifted her decision making
(26:48):
from a legal judgment to a personal one. And if
this was true, then much like the DA's office, the
judge had played dirty two. After all, it's hard to
believe that a judge could set great feelings of personal
fear totally from the decision making process in Kine's case, right,
the whole situation cut right to the heart of judicial impartiality,
(27:10):
which is the principle of justice that requires judges to
be fair and objective in their decisions. The Kane Velaskaz
case had devolved into a complex cocktail of legal ethics,
personal safety, and public perception. It's a scenario that challenges
many people's confidence in our justice system's ability to remain unbiased,
(27:31):
especially when the players involved in upholding the law.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
Feel personally threatened.
Speaker 1 (27:35):
At this stage of the scandal, it seemed like two
different standards were clearly at play in the Santa Clara
County Court. After all, who in our society is more
vulnerable than children? Yet alleged child abuser Harry Gallart was
released on an O R bond after just two days
in jail. Harry certainly didn't offer to pay for security
to monitor him, and the judge still allowed him to
(27:57):
work in the community. Kane guests did offer to pay
to stay either at home with a monitoring device and
private security, or at an inpatient treatment facility in an
entirely different state, Yet.
Speaker 2 (28:10):
He was denied bail and kept behind bars.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
Two very different disparate decisions had been handed down, and
the reasoning for a lot of people felt muddled. Okay,
let's clear our palates and then view Kane Velaska as
alleged vigilanteism through the lens of the court's behavior or misbehavior,
depending on your perspective. There's a compelling case for judicial
(28:34):
prejudice on the table at this point, and an alleged
child molester is back on the streets thanks to the
court's decisions, which brings us back to the question from
our last episode. Is vigilanteism ever justified? It's a controversial
subject with a storied history in the United States, and
Kane of Alaskaz certainly isn't the first to be accused
of exercising vigilanteism. There are some notorious cases that captured
(28:58):
the public's attention long befo Cain took the actions that
landed him in handcuffs. First, there's the case of Bernard
Gets in nineteen eighty four, dubbed the Subway Vigilante. Gets
shot four men on a New York City subway train,
claiming self defense during an attempted robbery. One of the
young men he shot in the scuffle suffered serious injuries
(29:18):
and brain damage. Gets His actions sparked a national debate
about self defense and urban crime, and that debate continues
to resonate today. Can we rely on the police as
well as the justice system to impartially protect us and
our families. Interestingly, a jury acquitted Gets of all charges
except carrying an unlicensed gun, so they clearly believed his story.
(29:41):
Although the controversy ignited by gets his vigilanteism has raged on,
particularly given the race issues in that case. All the
young men involved were black, while Gets is white. Ellie
Nessler's case is another one that resonates deeply when debating vigilantiism.
Back in nineteen ninety three, in a small northern California town,
(30:03):
Nesler faced a horrifying reality, not unlike the Velasquez family situation.
Her young son Willie, had been sexually abused by Daniel Driver,
a man with a history of such offenses. The case
took a dramatic and tragic turn in the Jamestown Justice
Court during the accused preliminary hearing. Ellie Nesler, driven by
a mother's desperation and a deep sense of injustice, shot
(30:26):
and killed Daniel Driver right there in the courtroom by
shooting him five times in the head. This act of
vigilante justice sent shockwaves across the country, igniting debates about
the legal system, the handling of sexual abuse cases, and
the links to which a parent might or should go
to protect their child. Ellie Nesler defended her action to
(30:47):
the police, saying, maybe I'm not God, but I tell
you what I'm the closest damn thing to it for
all the other little boys. Public reaction Tonsler's action was
deeply divided. Many empathized with her, seeing her as a
mother who was failed by the system and felt she
had no other recourse. Others viewed her action as a
dangerous precedent, a threat to the rule of law and order.
(31:10):
This case certainly carries strong similarities to the kane Velaskaz scandal,
but probably the most famous vigilante justice case of all
involved Gary Plochet. This case is a seminal example of
vigilante justice and one that sparked intense debate across America.
In nineteen eighty four, the very same year that subway
(31:30):
vigilante Bernard Getz was in the public eye, Gary Plochet
shot and killed Jeffrey Ducett, who had kidnapped and molested
his son. The shooting occurred at an airport and was
captured on camera by a news crew, with Plochet uttering
the words, if I had to do it over again,
I'd kill him again. Gary Plochet pleaded guilty to the killing,
(31:52):
but the judge, who clearly had a very different attitude
than kane Velaska's judge, sentenced Gary to probation, noting it
was unlikely that he'd commit another crime and it suffered enough.
Gary Plochet's action, which so closely mirrors the behaviors of
Ellie Nessler and Kane Velasquez, bring us face to face
with complex questions about justice, retribution, and the protective instinctive parents.
(32:17):
The public's response to Gary Plochet's vigilante behavior in sentencing
was divided, much as we see today with Kane Velaskiez case.
Gary Plochet's remarkably lenient sentence seven years of probation and
three hundred hours of community service sparked a wide array
of reactions. For some, it was seen as a just
outcome considering the circumstances under which Plochet acted.
Speaker 2 (32:41):
For others, it.
Speaker 1 (32:41):
Raised questions about the consistency and fairness of the justice system.
How many murderers with guilt so firmly proven via video
and a confession get probation. When we look at Kane
Velasquez's and Gary Plochet's cases side by side, there are
clear parallels, but also stark differences. Like Gary Ploche kine
as a father accused of taking extreme actions in response
(33:04):
to harm and inflicted on his child. However, experts agree
that Kine faces potentially much more severe consequences, including prison
time of twenty years to life, even though he didn't
actually kill anyone, if he's ultimately convicted. This brings us
back to the question of vigilante justice and how it's
treated by the legal system. While both Kane Velasquaz and
(33:25):
Gary Ploche acted out of a desire to protect their children,
the outcomes and treatment by the justice system appear to
be on completely different trajectories. Could the differences in their
professional backgrounds, public perception, or other factors be responsible for
impacting legal outcomes. Gary Plochet, a regular citizen, received a
(33:46):
sentence that some might view as a slap on the wrist,
whereas Kane Velasquez, a famous MMA fighter, is facing the
possibility of a much harsher penalty. These comparisons force us
to confront uncomfortable questions about equality and justice in the
United States. They make us wonder whether the scales of
justice weigh the same for everyone, or if they tip
(34:06):
depending on who you are, what you've done, and how
you're perceived in the court of public opinion. The line
between a hero and a vigilante is blurred. Kane Velaska's case,
like those before him, forces us to confront our own
values and beliefs about justice, protection and when, if ever,
it's acceptable and justifiable to take the law into our
(34:28):
own hands. Thank you for joining me your host, Jay Harris,
in drinking up this complex, bitter blend of legal dilemmas
and moral quandaries. Join me next time on Playing Dirty
Sports Scandals to find out how the Kane Velaskaz scandal
shakes out. Playing Dirty Sports Scandals is a production of
(34:55):
Dan Patrick Productions, Never Ever Productions and Workhouse Media from
executive producers Dan Patrick, Paul Anderson, Nick Panella, Maya Glickman,
and Jennifer Clary. Hosted by Jay Harris, Written and produced
by Jen Brown, Francie Haiks, Maya Glickman, and Jennifer Clary,
Popular Podcasts
1. The Podium
The Podium: An NBC Olympic and Paralympic podcast. Join us for insider coverage during the intense competition at the 2024 Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. In the run-up to the Opening Ceremony, we’ll bring you deep into the stories and events that have you know and those you'll be hard-pressed to forget.
2. In The Village
In The Village will take you into the most exclusive areas of the 2024 Paris Olympic Games to explore the daily life of athletes, complete with all the funny, mundane and unexpected things you learn off the field of play. Join Elizabeth Beisel as she sits down with Olympians each day in Paris.
3. iHeartOlympics: The Latest
Listen to the latest news from the 2024 Olympics.