August 17, 2026 • 34 mins
Some of America’s most notorious criminal cases are taking dramatic new turns.
Tudor Dixon is joined by criminal defense attorney David Gelman to break down the latest legal developments involving Luigi Mangione, Bryan Kohberger, Alex Murdaugh, and Lindsay Clancy.
They examine the intense public fascination surrounding Mangione, his potential legal strategy and sentencing, and what Gelman describes as the “Netflix effect” that can turn accused and convicted killers into cultural figures. They also discuss Kohberger’s effort to withdraw his guilty plea and why Gelman believes his chances of succeeding are extraordinarily slim.
Then, Tudor and David examine why Alex Murdaugh is getting another trial, including allegations of improper conduct involving the court clerk and the jury.
Finally, they tackle the disturbing Lindsay Clancy case and the complicated questions surrounding postpartum mental health, medication, criminal intent, reasonable doubt, and whether doctors and pharmaceutical companies should face greater scrutiny when medications are alleged to contribute to violent behavior.
It’s a wide-ranging look inside the criminal justice system—and the legal battles behind some of the cases captivating America.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. We have so many
things going on in like the criminal defense world right now.
It seems to all be happening at one time. You've
got Alex Murda, who is now going to go through
a retrial. You've got Brian Kohlberger who is saying he
wants to remove his guilty plea. And we know we're
watching this Luigi Mangioni thing happen in New York City,
(00:24):
and he's got a fan base, which is disgusting to me.
I don't know how this is happening in the world,
but we figured we had to get an expert on
so we have David Gelman. He is a New Jersey
criminal defense attorney. David, thank you for joining me.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Hey, thanks for having me, Tutor.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
Have you ever seen anything like this Luigi Mangioni thing.
I mean, I think it's totally sick. I'm completely disturbed
by it. It makes me wonder what's happening in this country.
But I just want to first, I want to state
we are recording this on Friday, you're listening to it
on Monday, so we don't know what he does today
yet in this courtroom. But we're watching as people are
(01:04):
lining up just to see him. How is this possible?
Speaker 2 (01:09):
This is like the Netflix effect, That's what I think
I like to call it. They're they're sensationalizing these murderers
for the most heinous crimes possible. I mean, like, look,
you know, this guy really doesn't have that much of
a defense. He got caught red handed on camera murdering
Brian Thompson in the you know, in the early mornings
(01:29):
for early hours. So it's just like he's got this
such of a fan base. And then that plus he's
a young guy. Allegedly he's good looking. I don't you know,
I don't know, that's not that's above my pay grade there.
But then you also have the fact that people just
are not very happy with the healthcare system. So I
think all that together, because you know, Brian Thompson was
(01:52):
the CEO of the health of that healthcare company, put
all that together and it's almost like the perfect storm
to to get this.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
That's mine now, But my mind just cannot wrap around
the idea that there are young people who aren't happy
with the healthcare system because they feel like people aren't
getting the right care to make sure their bodies are
healthy and therefore they can justify murder. It just doesn't compute.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
You can't justify murder. I mean, there's no justification in
the world. You can be as upset with anybody for
any reason you know out there, but at the end
of the day, murder is the last thing that can
be justified, especially for something like this. I mean, Brian Thompson,
you know, you can love the guy, you can hate
the guy, whatever it is, but murder. He had a family,
(02:39):
he had three boys. I believe it wasn't a wife,
and you know, they'll obviously never be able to see
him again, and just because of his job. It's a disgrace.
The issue though, that we're going to see, or well,
we may not see now. I guess if there's going
to be a plea, which we're anticipating, is that you know,
you would have potentially a jury who may be in
(03:02):
favor of Louis Mangoni being found innocent. You know, they
would potentially justify his actions, which is the scarier thing now,
and it's just the world we're living it, dude. It's
absolutely insane that somebody could be justified for killing somebody
for you know, because they just disagree with them.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
Well, explain what the what is on the table for Luigi,
because New York has some weird laws where he can't
be tried for murder one.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Yeah, so it's a murder two in New York. And
you know, every state has their own set of statutes,
you call it. So you know, in New Jersey we
have first degree murder, but New York they have second
degree murder. Where so if he's convicted, he'd be looking
at twenty five years to life in prison, all right,
and in the federal system, he also has the life
(03:54):
in prison hanging above his head as well. Now, what
will be very interesting to see it happening is, let's
just say he takes the plea today in federal court,
which we're all anticipating what's going to happen. Is it's
called an open plea. So an open plea is where
the government or the prosecutor they are not recommending a
sentence and the defense is not agreeing to any potential sentence,
(04:17):
so they're pretty much going to just leave it in
the hands of the judge. So Luis Manngioni will literally
be at the mercy of the judge and the judge
may give him life, might give him a couple of
years at the end of his life. Who who knows.
You have to provide a lot of mitigation to the judge,
pride to sensing, and sensing will be way down the line.
(04:38):
But the issue now will be if he pleads there
in the federal court, then there would be a potential
double jeopardy issue in the New York court, meaning he
was already charged and convicted for the same crime in
New York. They will not let they will not allow it.
That's a it's a that's called double jeopardy in a
in a nutshell. Now, the prosecutors Alvin Bragg's office, they're
(05:02):
going to jump up and down. They're going to argue.
They're going to say, well, listen, he was charged and
he was convicted of a stalking with the with the
intent to murder in the federal court, he's not charged
with that. Here he's charged with a second degree murder.
So the elements are potentially different. That's their argument. But obviously, Mangioni,
they're going to say, you know, you can say whatever
(05:22):
you want. He was convicted of a murder offense there,
you're charging him with murder here in New York. You
can't do that. That's double jeopardy. So it's going to
be a big legal argument when he pleads guilty in
the federal court.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
So if he pleads guilty, is that that he just
gets sentenced.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
So if he pleads guilty in federal court, the sentencing
won't happen today, No, it'll happen probably a couple months
down the road because you have to do what they
call a sentencing memorandum. And what happens is the defense
they're going to provide all these different documents and all
these factors to the judge as to why Louis Mangoni
should not get life in prison. So they're going to
talk about how he's a young man, he doesn't have
(06:02):
a criminal record, maybe what he did in jail, as
he been helping people, has been going to class, has
been working, you know, who knows really what's going on,
and that he you know, those are some of the
things that they'll be providing. Obviously, the government is going
to say, no, no, judge, this guy should fry. He
should be sent there forever. And they're going to talk
about Brian Thompson as a father, as what he's done
(06:25):
in the community potentially, and just the heinous act that
of how Louis Manzioni killed him. And also let's just
remember Manngoni just didn't, you know, say all right, I
killed him, I give up, I'm you know here, take
me away. You know, it was a man hunt for
him for what a couple of days I remember maybe
a week so this and they so a lot of
(06:46):
resources we were brought in to try to capture him.
So all that said, the prosecution of the government in
this situation, they're the ones that I think may have
the upper hand here, but you know, it's going to
be up to the judge at the end of the day.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
So they still have a trial where they go through
all the evidence.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Technically, I guess if you want to call it, it's
not going to be a trial. It's really at a sentencing.
The prosecution of the government and the defense they're just
going to kind of put on what they want the
judge to be aware of for sentencing purposes. So again,
defense is going to say, how great of a guy
Louise Manngioni is. Government is going to say, no, this
(07:27):
guy's a monster. That's really what they're going to do.
But they're not They're not going to be having a
ton of witnesses talking about anything. They're not going to
be bringing in officers or anyone that talking about the
actual evidence in the situation in the case.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
All right, let me jump over to Idaho. We know
that we went through the everything with Brian Kolberger. He
did please get he did put in a guilty plea.
Now suddenly he's saying he wants to take back his
guilty plea. What is that even mean? What happens after that?
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Well, number one, good luck in that happening. That's a
pipe dream. That's never going to happen. He'll be spending
the rest of his life in prison, that I can guarantee.
But what you'd have, what you have is it's an appeal.
So he is saying, pretty much, listen, my counsel, my attorneys,
they didn't provide the proper representation to me, and because
(08:23):
of that, I did not get a fair shake. And
I would have gone to a trial if I knew,
you know, certain evidence, or if you know, my my
attorneys did the right thing. Now that is going to
be extremely difficult for for Coldberger to prove, which I'm
glad because he should be, you know, rotting in jail
as I think most people would would agree with me.
(08:46):
But what happens is the judge has to sit down
a emotion hearing and the defense which Colberger he has
his burden to prove this. Now it's going to be
very interesting because when you were when you played guilt
in a court, any court, it doesn't matter where you are,
the judge will always ask you certain questions. So number one,
(09:07):
are you under the influence of any drugs, alcohol, medication?
You know? Are you thinking freely? Is anybody forcing you,
coercing you?
Speaker 1 (09:15):
You know?
Speaker 2 (09:15):
I know all this. I've been in a million in
front of a million judges, so can I can read
the script almost. But what will happen is that judge
will also ask you. Are you satisfied with your attorney?
Do you have any questions for your attorney? You know,
have they gone over all the evidence with you, all
the discovery? Do you need more time to discuss this?
(09:36):
These are all questions that the judge asked Brian Coldberger
before he pled guilty, and Brian Colberger said to each
of them, no, I'm happy with my attorneys. I'm happy
with what they did. I don't need any more time.
I went through all the discovery and this is all
on the record. So judges do that for one reason
and one reason only. They don't want to get appealed,
(09:57):
because if they do get appealed, like what Brian Coldberger
is trying to do, there's a record and they can't
say to them, oh, well you know what I lied.
Now you can't say that because then you just say
I committed perjury. So there is a very, very i'd
say one in a billion shot that Colberger will actually
get re a trial in this I think I don't
(10:19):
think it's going to happen. The judge here is a
judge who pled him, who sentenced him. That's the one
who's going to decide this. So the judge is not
going to say, oh, wait a minute, did I screw up? No, no,
no judge is going to say that. So there is
not a shot in hell that Colberger is going to
be having as guilty lee being able to be withdrawn.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
So he's thinking, though, I mean, if you're Brian Colberger,
you're thinking I could potentially get a new trial and
then somehow be seen not guilty. Is that possible? That
he could think that.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
I mean, look that the guy is a psychopath. He
could think anything. I guess right, it's going to be Look,
he's probably thinking to himself, I have nothing to lose,
because if you think about it, what does he have
to lose? All right? If the judge denies his motion,
he's back to where he's at. You know, he's got
life in prison. And if the judge for some odd reason,
(11:15):
which mare which I again I just can't see. But
if he says, you know, how okay, we'll grant you,
We'll allow you to take back your guilty plate, and
then you could proceed to trial. Either way, what's going
to happen? All right? If he loses, he's going to
be back there, or he would get the death penalty.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Or yeah, I was gonna say, isn't that doesn't taking
the guilty plea off the table give him the chance
of the death penalty.
Speaker 2 (11:38):
It certainly would, Yeah, because Idaho would then say, all right,
no problem, we're you know, death penalty is on the
table now if we're if we're victorious at trial, we're
going to ask for the death penalty. So that is
I guess that's something, but I don't know, if you
know how Coolberger thinks about that, maybe he doesn't, maybe
he doesn't care. You know, I don't know. I think
this is a publicity stunt. We know he a publicity
(12:00):
for We know that all he cares about is himself
because he's a selfish individual, obviously, because he killed those
four college students. And you know, by doing this, you're
all he's doing is really opening up wounds. You know,
the families of the of the victims, you know, they
they want to try to mourn and they want to
(12:21):
try to move on with their lives. But it's very
difficult to do that when you have Colberger keep trying to,
you know, rehash these the litigation here, And I feel
terrible for them for having to endure this.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
I think it is so hard for the average person
to think about what you just said, to even be
able to comprehend the idea of wanting to kill people,
but then how messed up your mind is, and that
you would be addicted to the media and you want
to be out there and you want to be in
the news. So I feel like most people go, Gosh,
(12:58):
this guy is such a scumbag and he must just
want to go off and die. But he But I
thought when I first heard this, I thought, could he
possibly be that arrogant that he just wants to have
his face out there?
Speaker 2 (13:11):
Again, I think it's very possible. Yeah. Look, I was
a prosecutor before a criminal offense attorney, so I had
I had some cases where they were somewhat high profile,
and it's you can't ever get into the mind of
these criminals, you like how you and I think Tudor
and all your all the listeners, we're never going to
(13:31):
understand it. You know, we could try, but we never will.
And I'm in a way I'm glad we will never
be able to think like these people. But this is
just the type of disgusting, psychological psycho of a man
that Brian Colberger is. And I kind of go back
(13:52):
to a very beginning. I truly believe that this is
the Netflix effect. And I just you know, they sensational
lies and not just Netflix, I'm just talking you know, me,
entertainment in general. They sensationalized murderers. I mean, I go
on h on Netflix last night to just see what's
on the on What's New, and there's a documentary about
(14:13):
the Coldberger murder. So you know he and he's well
aware of that, I'm sure. And that's why I think
you're you're seeing these types of think with Mangioni, with
Colberger and and you know the Giglio Beach guy from
a while ago. You know that they want the they
want they want the attention. I don't know if they
never got it as a kid or who knows, you know,
(14:34):
I'm not a psychiatrist, but it's just it's they they're
just media starved. Well.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
I think the murder case is a similar situation. Alex Murdau.
We know, we we sat through that trial, the trial
of his wife and son being murdered. There were even
snapchat videos that were evidence that indicated that he was
there at the time of the murders. And he he
has now come out and said I want a new trial.
(15:02):
They actually are giving that to him because apparently the
court clerk messed with the jury in some way. So
what exactly happened there and why? I mean, he's already
going to be light. He already has life in prison
for financial crimes, doesn't he.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
Yes, yeah he does, he does. And if it's not life,
it's it's pretty long. But I think you might be right.
So this one is a totally different beast altogether. I've
done a bunch of trials. I've never seen what happened there.
So you have a court clerk, all right, And the
court clerk is is almost like the eyes and the
ears of the judge, because when the jury is in
(15:41):
the jury room deliberating, nobody can go back there. So
the judge can't go back there, prosecutors can't go back there,
defense attorneys can't go back there. The only person that
can go back there and just see if they have
any questions or if they want it they eat or drink,
is the court clerk. Well, in this situation, the court
clerk was pretty much was saying to the jury, you know,
(16:06):
don't you don't have to believe everything that the defense says.
You know, we know he did it, we know, like
this is the first thing. You cannot do this. And
she was charged with it and she was fired obviously.
Now that right there is grounds for a mistrial. Nobody
knew it at the time of the of the trial.
(16:27):
So once the evidence, once that occurred, once it happened,
once everybody found out about it, the judge had no
choice but to grant Murda a new trial, even though
the evidence may be totally overwhelming. The court literally, you know,
had to do something because a member of the staff,
a high member of the staff, literally just interfered with
(16:49):
the trial, which it's.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
A no, no, that is actually crazy. So now we
have to go through that trial again, and he is
and he's saying he's not guilty. But every I mean,
do you think that that actually had an effect on
the jury? I mean, based on the evidence that you saw,
what's your theory on that case?
Speaker 2 (17:11):
Yeah, you know, it's really really interesting you asked me
that because I say this a lot. You have twelve
people that twelve jurors. All right, they're in a room.
I just don't know what they're going to be thinking.
You could have one person who just does not believe
what is being said. You could have eleven other people
that are totally into agreement. But if you have one
(17:33):
person and that's all you need, that's a mistrial right there.
And I've won a lot of cases where I should win.
I've lost some cases though that I thought like, wow,
I have this thing in the bag, this is a
good case. Now I've lost. And then I've also one
case is where I'm like, ah, this is not a
great case. I don't think I'm going to win it,
but I've done it, so you really don't know how
(17:55):
jurors are going to think. And you know that court clerk,
you know what she said to them. All she needed
was one person to think that and you know, to
get that reasonable doubt in there. So it certainly could
have played a role in the in the guilty plate.
But as for the new the what Murdof's trying to
(18:16):
do now, you know, now they're trying to bring up
new evidence. They're trying to say that, well, some of
the DNA was tainted and that some of the one
of the investigators there was not doing this the correct
way in the murder, so he didn't report certain things
that should have been reported. So I don't know if
that's even going to be admissible. You know, at defense attorneys,
(18:39):
what we tried to do is really try to, you know,
put throw mud at the wall, all right, and see
if something sticks. I think that's kind of what they're
doing here. I don't know if that's going to if
the judge's going to buy it, but you know, you
never know.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
What would you do if you found out hypothetically that
there were groups around this kind of tree that were
training people to tamper with juries. They were training people.
They would see a big case in a community and
they would bring as many people and as possible to
train them to if they were picked, or if they
(19:16):
knew someone who were picked, to try to tamper.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
With that jury. Well, that's an interesting question. I've never
gotten that one before, and I probably can see that happening. Man. Look,
if if that was happening to May, I'd be number one.
I think you'd have to keep the jury in a
hotel room, you know, and you know they'd have to
(19:40):
sequester them pretty much.
Speaker 1 (19:43):
When is that decision made? I mean I was on
a jury a few years ago and it was a
pretty serious case for our area. But when is that
decision made that it's at the point where you have
to sequester the jury.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
Well, it could be any time during the trial, honestly,
but a lot of times they would do they would
tell the jury prior to this trial starting. So like,
if you remember when you were picked for a jury, right,
you have that for dire So they're asking you all
these questions, you know, what you think about certain things,
and if you're picked for the jury, then they tell
you a little bit more about the case. That's when
(20:18):
a lot of times the sequestration would begin. Now, there's
obviously certain things that can happen during a trial where
you know, jury jurors may be contacted by somebody or
for tampering purposes. Once that happens and the jury will
tell the court, then the court really has no other
option than toe question the jury. So it could happen
(20:42):
at the beginning in it, it could happen during the
middle of a trial. Hell, it could happen towards the
end of the trial. But you know a lot of
times they want to try to do it as soon
as possible if they feel that there's going to be
some type of jury tampering or just for the safety
of the jury in general.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
Interesting. So the last case I want to go through
is the Lindsay Clancy case. And obviously I think this
is one of those cases that kind of grips the
whole nation because anytime a mother murders her own children,
I think it's just so it's it's something you cannot
even wrap your mind around. And in the case of
Lindsay Clancy. She had three young children, the one I
(21:24):
believe the youngest I think was only eight months old,
and so you have to say, Okay, there are a
lot of hormones going through your body. We know women
suffer from postpartum. She was diagnosed with a postpartum psychosis,
but she was put on a massive amount of medication,
and I think that there's so I think there's two
(21:46):
stories here. It's like, how is the public looking at this?
And she obviously killed her three children and then threw
herself out the window, ended up paralyzed, but lived through it.
I think people are horrified by the story, but they're
also saying we always talk about mental illness, and we're like,
(22:08):
we've got to get more mental health help. But it
seems like more mental health help has started to become
massive over medication, and we look at this case and
I've seen both sides. I've had women who have been like,
oh no, this had nothing to do with the medicine.
She's just a nutjob. And other people have been like,
(22:29):
I've been put on some of those medicines and they
really changed who I was and how I thought. What
is the legal discussion behind the scenes here? I mean,
we've had so many cases now where there was one
case where a man went on prozac at the emergency
room and I think within twenty four hours killed his family.
(22:51):
There are connections to some of these medications. Is there
a legal argument to say we can't just put somebody
in the hospital and just medicate them to the point
of complete psychosis.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
Look, dude, I think you nailed it on the head
with your with your analogy. I mean, because I've over
medication is something that is prevalent in our country, and
I think that has a lot to do with with
some with mental health issues today. And in this particular case,
I don't think anybody can say that she was not
(23:24):
over medicated because I mean, she had like literally a
grocery list of medications that she was on, and then
they kept adding and subtracting it all. You know, that's
definitely going to affect your your mindset. I don't think
anybody can can say otherwise. It's such a difficult case
due to the fact that you know, look, you have
(23:44):
three young, young kids who were murdered by their mom,
and the intent part is where you have to really look,
did she have the actual intent to do it? Was
she in the right state of mind? And look, I
I'm I'm very torn on this one, honestly, because I
(24:05):
as a defense attorney, I could argue a bunch of that.
I can definitely argue that the intent wasn't there because
of all the medication that she was on, and that
you have to blame the psychiatrists, the doctors who cared
for her and everything that. But if I put on
my prosecutor hat, you know there was some intent there
because if you remember, she told her husband that, you know,
(24:28):
go get go, go get food from my favorite Italian restaurant,
which is what forty five minutes away. So she planned
she kind of planned this. She looked at ways to
kill herself over the over the days and the weeks
prior to it. So it's the jury is going to
have a hell of a time deciding this one, because
you're going to have it's it's all it's a battle
(24:49):
of the experts. At the end of the day. You
can hear what she says, you can hear what the
state says, but the end of the day, what the
states expert is going to say is no, she she
knew what she was doing. She planned this. I don't
care if she was on medication or not. She knew
what she was doing. The defense is going to say, no,
new new look. We have all this medication and these
(25:10):
are studies that show that she was not in the
right state of mind, she did not have the intent
to actually do this, that she does not belong she
does not she should not get the guilty. She should
actually be put in a mental health facility. So it's
a battle of the expert. And you know, it's really weird,
tutor that you bring this up. I was talking to
my wife about this the other day, right, and she's
(25:30):
talking to her friends and all they have like this.
There's conspiracy theories out there that the husband is the
one who's the person who was responsible for all this,
and he married so soon, and I'm like, I don't
that never even crossed my mind. But the jury may
be thinking this. That's why it's such a crazy Uh.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
I just saw some of these theories last night where
it was like he went on vacation right away and
he was doing reviews on Yellow for something, which honestly,
when I heard that, I was like, that is pretty
messed up, Like I would not be able to do that.
So it I mean, there's that's for sure a weird situation.
(26:12):
But I want to go back to something you said,
because you said it could be argued that it was
the medication or it can also be argued that she
had intent to do it. But can't both of those
things be true?
Speaker 2 (26:24):
Also? Yeah, yeah, they certainly can. So now how much
is true? Though? That's the question the jury would have
to be asking themselves, right, you know, like she had
the intent? Then I think that's really a game over
argument in my opinion if I'm the state. But you know, remember,
(26:45):
in a juror in a trial, you have to have
reasonable doubt. So what's reasonable doubt? All right? You have
to be not eighty percent, not ninety percent, You've got
to be ninety nine percent sure that this individual was
the person who did this crime and did it with
the and met the elements of the crime. And the
intent is the biggest element of this crime. Nobody's saying
(27:07):
that she didn't do it. It's did she have the
intent to do it? Was she in the right mind?
And if you have a sentilla of doubt, they like,
you know what, maybe you know that one medication was
the reason that you know, she didn't have it. That
is reasonable doubt. And they have reasonable doubt, the judge's
going to have to direct them that they have to,
(27:29):
you know, find a not guilty product. So the defense
that's what their job is. Like I said, again, throw
a muddle on the wall, see if something sticks.
Speaker 1 (27:39):
It's just But I mean, when you really think about it,
when you break down the legal system in this particular case,
it feels a little bit like you're just analyzing a
tiny portion of what happened here and who could be
at fault. So she obviously is the one who committed
the murders, so she gets put in prison, and she's
(28:01):
the one who gets the punishment. But what if it
is that the doctors gave her medications that shouldn't be together,
or what if it is that the pharmaceutical companies prescribe
something that in certain people cause homicidal or suicidal thoughts.
And I believe that there we could go back to
many of these school shooters and say the same thing
(28:22):
that these caused homicidal thoughts. A student, a child who
maybe was overactive in their seat in the classroom, gets
put on a medication and all of a sudden they
go and kill their whole there, they killed their whole
their classmates. They go in with a gun and shoot
up the whole school. And yet we never get back
to the root cause it's like you we don't go
(28:43):
back that far. In the legal system, it's the well,
that person had the gun, so they go to prison.
But what if we're missing something?
Speaker 2 (28:50):
Yeah, I mean, that's a that's a really good point.
So the issue, I guess you could you can look
at it two ways. You can look at it in
the criminal world. Where did the did did companies know?
Did the pharmaceutical companies know that this that there there
could be side effects a right? And did they make
it known? If they did, then they could potentially be
criminally liable. But I think the easier route to go
(29:14):
would be a civil route. So did they know or
should they have known that these medications that they're prescribing
to people that are over prescribing that they could cause
you know, people to do certain things that are obviously violent,
you know, murder, you know, whatever else it may they
And if that's the case, the burden is much lower
(29:36):
in a civil court than it is a criminal court.
And potentially, you know, they could be sued for you know, millions,
billions of dollars, And look, we all know, what did
the pharmaceutical companies care about the end of the day money?
And how are you going to take it from them?
And how are you going to hurt them the most
by suing them and getting and you know, and getting large,
(29:58):
large judgments, and and I think it's something that you
probably should be looked at a little closer, if not
already it's already happening.
Speaker 1 (30:07):
I don't know, no, I have heard some cases. I
think the father who went home and killed his family,
I think they did end up getting a settlement from
the company. I think it was Prozac. I'm not one
hundred percent sure, but I think it was, and I
think they got a settlement. The problem is, I mean,
we've had we've actually had people on the show that
(30:29):
have had situations where the medical device that the pharmaceutical
or the medical company gave them caused damage in almost
every patient, and it took twenty years for them to
finally and multiple lawsuits and multiple payouts. And those companies
have so much money they just keep paying it out
(30:49):
and they keep the product out there, which I think,
I know, I sound probably like a Pollyanna. But I
feel like there's got to be somebody who can help
and go in there and say you can't prescribed medications
that create little killers. You know, you just can't do
that if that's a side effect in three percent of
(31:11):
the people. Too many, too many people that go out
and kill people. But it just feels like our hands
are kind of tied on these pharmaceuticals for mental health.
And I say that because the mental health drugs, it's
not like, it's not like penicillin. You get a sore
throat and the sore throat goes away. It's an experiment
every time. You have no idea if it's going to
(31:32):
solve the problem or if it's going to cause a
bigger problem. And that to me feels very much like
at least someone should be investigating. And I know you
weren't expecting to go here, but.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
I love it. I love it. I'll go on in
this all day long. You could, well, you know what,
I'll tell you who should investigate it? But we know
it's not going to happen. It's Congress. It's very simple.
Congress could be aggress could do something, and you and
I know Congress doesn't do a lot of things. It
seems like you can't get them on the same page.
But look, Congress could do something about this. They should
(32:02):
have some industry.
Speaker 1 (32:03):
If we could find one that doesn't take money from
a pharmaceutical company, then.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
I think we're screwed.
Speaker 1 (32:10):
Then, yeah, exactly, that's the problem. That's and you know,
that's the funny part about listening to all these ads
where people are like, I'm not going to take dark money.
It's but but you are taking it, right, And what
does that? What do all these There is definitely a
problem with the connection of money to keeping people quiet,
(32:33):
and the lobbyists for the pharmaceutical companies are so powerful.
But I feel like if there's anything that should convince
Congress to do that, it should be the story of
a young mom who went through months of medication and
then ultimately killed her three young kids. And it seems like,
which I don't know, I haven't read a lot on
this case, but it doesn't seem like this happened with
(32:55):
the first two babies. So it just seems very strange
that she had postpartums psychosis and was just I mean,
it was like the whole pharmacy was given to this
poor woman.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
Yeah, you make a good point there. You know, you
don't hear about did she have postparum depression for the
first two, just for the third one. And look, I'm
not a doctor, so I don't know if that's normal
or something like that, but that's definitely something and I'm
sure the state will be definitely talking about that in
their closing arguments.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
Well, I've given you something to think about. Now you
can round up all the people who have been harmed
by these mental health pharmaceuticals and then you can save.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
Us from them, and you and me, let's do it, toot.
Speaker 1 (33:41):
I mean, I'm not kidding it. Really, the people my
audience knows that I talk about this quite a bit.
I cannot stand that there's no accountability for drugs that
have bad side effects like this, So I appreciate you
talking to me about it. It's been fascinating to go
through all these cases with you today, David Gelman. Thank
you so much for coming on.
Speaker 2 (33:59):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (34:00):
It's been a blast, absolutely, and thank you all for
listening to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. Please share this. It's
on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also watch the video on Rumble or YouTube
at Tutor Dixon, Share it and join us next time.
Right now, have a blessed day.
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. We have so many
things going on in like the criminal defense world right now.
It seems to all be happening at one time. You've
got Alex Murda, who is now going to go through
a retrial. You've got Brian Kohlberger who is saying he
wants to remove his guilty plea. And we know we're
watching this Luigi Mangioni thing happen in New York City,
(00:24):
and he's got a fan base, which is disgusting to me.
I don't know how this is happening in the world,
but we figured we had to get an expert on
so we have David Gelman. He is a New Jersey
criminal defense attorney. David, thank you for joining me.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
Hey, thanks for having me, Tutor.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
Have you ever seen anything like this Luigi Mangioni thing.
I mean, I think it's totally sick. I'm completely disturbed
by it. It makes me wonder what's happening in this country.
But I just want to first, I want to state
we are recording this on Friday, you're listening to it
on Monday, so we don't know what he does today
yet in this courtroom. But we're watching as people are
(01:04):
lining up just to see him. How is this possible?
Speaker 2 (01:09):
This is like the Netflix effect, That's what I think
I like to call it. They're they're sensationalizing these murderers
for the most heinous crimes possible. I mean, like, look,
you know, this guy really doesn't have that much of
a defense. He got caught red handed on camera murdering
Brian Thompson in the you know, in the early mornings
(01:29):
for early hours. So it's just like he's got this
such of a fan base. And then that plus he's
a young guy. Allegedly he's good looking. I don't you know,
I don't know, that's not that's above my pay grade there.
But then you also have the fact that people just
are not very happy with the healthcare system. So I
think all that together, because you know, Brian Thompson was
(01:52):
the CEO of the health of that healthcare company, put
all that together and it's almost like the perfect storm
to to get this.
Speaker 1 (02:01):
That's mine now, But my mind just cannot wrap around
the idea that there are young people who aren't happy
with the healthcare system because they feel like people aren't
getting the right care to make sure their bodies are
healthy and therefore they can justify murder. It just doesn't compute.
Speaker 2 (02:19):
You can't justify murder. I mean, there's no justification in
the world. You can be as upset with anybody for
any reason you know out there, but at the end
of the day, murder is the last thing that can
be justified, especially for something like this. I mean, Brian Thompson,
you know, you can love the guy, you can hate
the guy, whatever it is, but murder. He had a family,
(02:39):
he had three boys. I believe it wasn't a wife,
and you know, they'll obviously never be able to see
him again, and just because of his job. It's a disgrace.
The issue though, that we're going to see, or well,
we may not see now. I guess if there's going
to be a plea, which we're anticipating, is that you know,
you would have potentially a jury who may be in
(03:02):
favor of Louis Mangoni being found innocent. You know, they
would potentially justify his actions, which is the scarier thing now,
and it's just the world we're living it, dude. It's
absolutely insane that somebody could be justified for killing somebody
for you know, because they just disagree with them.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
Well, explain what the what is on the table for Luigi,
because New York has some weird laws where he can't
be tried for murder one.
Speaker 2 (03:32):
Yeah, so it's a murder two in New York. And
you know, every state has their own set of statutes,
you call it. So you know, in New Jersey we
have first degree murder, but New York they have second
degree murder. Where so if he's convicted, he'd be looking
at twenty five years to life in prison, all right,
and in the federal system, he also has the life
(03:54):
in prison hanging above his head as well. Now, what
will be very interesting to see it happening is, let's
just say he takes the plea today in federal court,
which we're all anticipating what's going to happen. Is it's
called an open plea. So an open plea is where
the government or the prosecutor they are not recommending a
sentence and the defense is not agreeing to any potential sentence,
(04:17):
so they're pretty much going to just leave it in
the hands of the judge. So Luis Manngioni will literally
be at the mercy of the judge and the judge
may give him life, might give him a couple of
years at the end of his life. Who who knows.
You have to provide a lot of mitigation to the judge,
pride to sensing, and sensing will be way down the line.
(04:38):
But the issue now will be if he pleads there
in the federal court, then there would be a potential
double jeopardy issue in the New York court, meaning he
was already charged and convicted for the same crime in
New York. They will not let they will not allow it.
That's a it's a that's called double jeopardy in a
in a nutshell. Now, the prosecutors Alvin Bragg's office, they're
(05:02):
going to jump up and down. They're going to argue.
They're going to say, well, listen, he was charged and
he was convicted of a stalking with the with the
intent to murder in the federal court, he's not charged
with that. Here he's charged with a second degree murder.
So the elements are potentially different. That's their argument. But obviously, Mangioni,
they're going to say, you know, you can say whatever
(05:22):
you want. He was convicted of a murder offense there,
you're charging him with murder here in New York. You
can't do that. That's double jeopardy. So it's going to
be a big legal argument when he pleads guilty in
the federal court.
Speaker 1 (05:35):
So if he pleads guilty, is that that he just
gets sentenced.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
So if he pleads guilty in federal court, the sentencing
won't happen today, No, it'll happen probably a couple months
down the road because you have to do what they
call a sentencing memorandum. And what happens is the defense
they're going to provide all these different documents and all
these factors to the judge as to why Louis Mangoni
should not get life in prison. So they're going to
talk about how he's a young man, he doesn't have
(06:02):
a criminal record, maybe what he did in jail, as
he been helping people, has been going to class, has
been working, you know, who knows really what's going on,
and that he you know, those are some of the
things that they'll be providing. Obviously, the government is going
to say, no, no, judge, this guy should fry. He
should be sent there forever. And they're going to talk
about Brian Thompson as a father, as what he's done
(06:25):
in the community potentially, and just the heinous act that
of how Louis Manzioni killed him. And also let's just
remember Manngoni just didn't, you know, say all right, I
killed him, I give up, I'm you know here, take
me away. You know, it was a man hunt for
him for what a couple of days I remember maybe
a week so this and they so a lot of
(06:46):
resources we were brought in to try to capture him.
So all that said, the prosecution of the government in
this situation, they're the ones that I think may have
the upper hand here, but you know, it's going to
be up to the judge at the end of the day.
Speaker 1 (07:02):
So they still have a trial where they go through
all the evidence.
Speaker 2 (07:07):
Technically, I guess if you want to call it, it's
not going to be a trial. It's really at a sentencing.
The prosecution of the government and the defense they're just
going to kind of put on what they want the
judge to be aware of for sentencing purposes. So again,
defense is going to say, how great of a guy
Louise Manngioni is. Government is going to say, no, this
(07:27):
guy's a monster. That's really what they're going to do.
But they're not They're not going to be having a
ton of witnesses talking about anything. They're not going to
be bringing in officers or anyone that talking about the
actual evidence in the situation in the case.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
All right, let me jump over to Idaho. We know
that we went through the everything with Brian Kolberger. He
did please get he did put in a guilty plea.
Now suddenly he's saying he wants to take back his
guilty plea. What is that even mean? What happens after that?
Speaker 2 (08:02):
Well, number one, good luck in that happening. That's a
pipe dream. That's never going to happen. He'll be spending
the rest of his life in prison, that I can guarantee.
But what you'd have, what you have is it's an appeal.
So he is saying, pretty much, listen, my counsel, my attorneys,
they didn't provide the proper representation to me, and because
(08:23):
of that, I did not get a fair shake. And
I would have gone to a trial if I knew,
you know, certain evidence, or if you know, my my
attorneys did the right thing. Now that is going to
be extremely difficult for for Coldberger to prove, which I'm
glad because he should be, you know, rotting in jail
as I think most people would would agree with me.
(08:46):
But what happens is the judge has to sit down
a emotion hearing and the defense which Colberger he has
his burden to prove this. Now it's going to be
very interesting because when you were when you played guilt
in a court, any court, it doesn't matter where you are,
the judge will always ask you certain questions. So number one,
(09:07):
are you under the influence of any drugs, alcohol, medication?
You know? Are you thinking freely? Is anybody forcing you,
coercing you?
Speaker 1 (09:15):
You know?
Speaker 2 (09:15):
I know all this. I've been in a million in
front of a million judges, so can I can read
the script almost. But what will happen is that judge
will also ask you. Are you satisfied with your attorney?
Do you have any questions for your attorney? You know,
have they gone over all the evidence with you, all
the discovery? Do you need more time to discuss this?
(09:36):
These are all questions that the judge asked Brian Coldberger
before he pled guilty, and Brian Colberger said to each
of them, no, I'm happy with my attorneys. I'm happy
with what they did. I don't need any more time.
I went through all the discovery and this is all
on the record. So judges do that for one reason
and one reason only. They don't want to get appealed,
(09:57):
because if they do get appealed, like what Brian Coldberger
is trying to do, there's a record and they can't
say to them, oh, well you know what I lied.
Now you can't say that because then you just say
I committed perjury. So there is a very, very i'd
say one in a billion shot that Colberger will actually
get re a trial in this I think I don't
(10:19):
think it's going to happen. The judge here is a
judge who pled him, who sentenced him. That's the one
who's going to decide this. So the judge is not
going to say, oh, wait a minute, did I screw up? No, no,
no judge is going to say that. So there is
not a shot in hell that Colberger is going to
be having as guilty lee being able to be withdrawn.
Speaker 1 (10:39):
So he's thinking, though, I mean, if you're Brian Colberger,
you're thinking I could potentially get a new trial and
then somehow be seen not guilty. Is that possible? That
he could think that.
Speaker 2 (10:52):
I mean, look that the guy is a psychopath. He
could think anything. I guess right, it's going to be Look,
he's probably thinking to himself, I have nothing to lose,
because if you think about it, what does he have
to lose? All right? If the judge denies his motion,
he's back to where he's at. You know, he's got
life in prison. And if the judge for some odd reason,
(11:15):
which mare which I again I just can't see. But
if he says, you know, how okay, we'll grant you,
We'll allow you to take back your guilty plate, and
then you could proceed to trial. Either way, what's going
to happen? All right? If he loses, he's going to
be back there, or he would get the death penalty.
Speaker 1 (11:32):
Or yeah, I was gonna say, isn't that doesn't taking
the guilty plea off the table give him the chance
of the death penalty.
Speaker 2 (11:38):
It certainly would, Yeah, because Idaho would then say, all right,
no problem, we're you know, death penalty is on the
table now if we're if we're victorious at trial, we're
going to ask for the death penalty. So that is
I guess that's something, but I don't know, if you
know how Coolberger thinks about that, maybe he doesn't, maybe
he doesn't care. You know, I don't know. I think
this is a publicity stunt. We know he a publicity
(12:00):
for We know that all he cares about is himself
because he's a selfish individual, obviously, because he killed those
four college students. And you know, by doing this, you're
all he's doing is really opening up wounds. You know,
the families of the of the victims, you know, they
they want to try to mourn and they want to
(12:21):
try to move on with their lives. But it's very
difficult to do that when you have Colberger keep trying to,
you know, rehash these the litigation here, And I feel
terrible for them for having to endure this.
Speaker 1 (12:34):
I think it is so hard for the average person
to think about what you just said, to even be
able to comprehend the idea of wanting to kill people,
but then how messed up your mind is, and that
you would be addicted to the media and you want
to be out there and you want to be in
the news. So I feel like most people go, Gosh,
(12:58):
this guy is such a scumbag and he must just
want to go off and die. But he But I
thought when I first heard this, I thought, could he
possibly be that arrogant that he just wants to have
his face out there?
Speaker 2 (13:11):
Again, I think it's very possible. Yeah. Look, I was
a prosecutor before a criminal offense attorney, so I had
I had some cases where they were somewhat high profile,
and it's you can't ever get into the mind of
these criminals, you like how you and I think Tudor
and all your all the listeners, we're never going to
(13:31):
understand it. You know, we could try, but we never will.
And I'm in a way I'm glad we will never
be able to think like these people. But this is
just the type of disgusting, psychological psycho of a man
that Brian Colberger is. And I kind of go back
(13:52):
to a very beginning. I truly believe that this is
the Netflix effect. And I just you know, they sensational
lies and not just Netflix, I'm just talking you know, me,
entertainment in general. They sensationalized murderers. I mean, I go
on h on Netflix last night to just see what's
on the on What's New, and there's a documentary about
(14:13):
the Coldberger murder. So you know he and he's well
aware of that, I'm sure. And that's why I think
you're you're seeing these types of think with Mangioni, with
Colberger and and you know the Giglio Beach guy from
a while ago. You know that they want the they
want they want the attention. I don't know if they
never got it as a kid or who knows, you know,
(14:34):
I'm not a psychiatrist, but it's just it's they they're
just media starved. Well.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
I think the murder case is a similar situation. Alex Murdau.
We know, we we sat through that trial, the trial
of his wife and son being murdered. There were even
snapchat videos that were evidence that indicated that he was
there at the time of the murders. And he he
has now come out and said I want a new trial.
(15:02):
They actually are giving that to him because apparently the
court clerk messed with the jury in some way. So
what exactly happened there and why? I mean, he's already
going to be light. He already has life in prison
for financial crimes, doesn't he.
Speaker 2 (15:18):
Yes, yeah he does, he does. And if it's not life,
it's it's pretty long. But I think you might be right.
So this one is a totally different beast altogether. I've
done a bunch of trials. I've never seen what happened there.
So you have a court clerk, all right, And the
court clerk is is almost like the eyes and the
ears of the judge, because when the jury is in
(15:41):
the jury room deliberating, nobody can go back there. So
the judge can't go back there, prosecutors can't go back there,
defense attorneys can't go back there. The only person that
can go back there and just see if they have
any questions or if they want it they eat or drink,
is the court clerk. Well, in this situation, the court
clerk was pretty much was saying to the jury, you know,
(16:06):
don't you don't have to believe everything that the defense says.
You know, we know he did it, we know, like
this is the first thing. You cannot do this. And
she was charged with it and she was fired obviously.
Now that right there is grounds for a mistrial. Nobody
knew it at the time of the of the trial.
(16:27):
So once the evidence, once that occurred, once it happened,
once everybody found out about it, the judge had no
choice but to grant Murda a new trial, even though
the evidence may be totally overwhelming. The court literally, you know,
had to do something because a member of the staff,
a high member of the staff, literally just interfered with
(16:49):
the trial, which it's.
Speaker 1 (16:51):
A no, no, that is actually crazy. So now we
have to go through that trial again, and he is
and he's saying he's not guilty. But every I mean,
do you think that that actually had an effect on
the jury? I mean, based on the evidence that you saw,
what's your theory on that case?
Speaker 2 (17:11):
Yeah, you know, it's really really interesting you asked me
that because I say this a lot. You have twelve
people that twelve jurors. All right, they're in a room.
I just don't know what they're going to be thinking.
You could have one person who just does not believe
what is being said. You could have eleven other people
that are totally into agreement. But if you have one
(17:33):
person and that's all you need, that's a mistrial right there.
And I've won a lot of cases where I should win.
I've lost some cases though that I thought like, wow,
I have this thing in the bag, this is a
good case. Now I've lost. And then I've also one
case is where I'm like, ah, this is not a
great case. I don't think I'm going to win it,
but I've done it, so you really don't know how
(17:55):
jurors are going to think. And you know that court clerk,
you know what she said to them. All she needed
was one person to think that and you know, to
get that reasonable doubt in there. So it certainly could
have played a role in the in the guilty plate.
But as for the new the what Murdof's trying to
(18:16):
do now, you know, now they're trying to bring up
new evidence. They're trying to say that, well, some of
the DNA was tainted and that some of the one
of the investigators there was not doing this the correct
way in the murder, so he didn't report certain things
that should have been reported. So I don't know if
that's even going to be admissible. You know, at defense attorneys,
(18:39):
what we tried to do is really try to, you know,
put throw mud at the wall, all right, and see
if something sticks. I think that's kind of what they're
doing here. I don't know if that's going to if
the judge's going to buy it, but you know, you
never know.
Speaker 1 (18:54):
What would you do if you found out hypothetically that
there were groups around this kind of tree that were
training people to tamper with juries. They were training people.
They would see a big case in a community and
they would bring as many people and as possible to
train them to if they were picked, or if they
(19:16):
knew someone who were picked, to try to tamper.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
With that jury. Well, that's an interesting question. I've never
gotten that one before, and I probably can see that happening. Man. Look,
if if that was happening to May, I'd be number one.
I think you'd have to keep the jury in a
hotel room, you know, and you know they'd have to
(19:40):
sequester them pretty much.
Speaker 1 (19:43):
When is that decision made? I mean I was on
a jury a few years ago and it was a
pretty serious case for our area. But when is that
decision made that it's at the point where you have
to sequester the jury.
Speaker 2 (19:56):
Well, it could be any time during the trial, honestly,
but a lot of times they would do they would
tell the jury prior to this trial starting. So like,
if you remember when you were picked for a jury, right,
you have that for dire So they're asking you all
these questions, you know, what you think about certain things,
and if you're picked for the jury, then they tell
you a little bit more about the case. That's when
(20:18):
a lot of times the sequestration would begin. Now, there's
obviously certain things that can happen during a trial where
you know, jury jurors may be contacted by somebody or
for tampering purposes. Once that happens and the jury will
tell the court, then the court really has no other
option than toe question the jury. So it could happen
(20:42):
at the beginning in it, it could happen during the
middle of a trial. Hell, it could happen towards the
end of the trial. But you know a lot of
times they want to try to do it as soon
as possible if they feel that there's going to be
some type of jury tampering or just for the safety
of the jury in general.
Speaker 1 (21:01):
Interesting. So the last case I want to go through
is the Lindsay Clancy case. And obviously I think this
is one of those cases that kind of grips the
whole nation because anytime a mother murders her own children,
I think it's just so it's it's something you cannot
even wrap your mind around. And in the case of
Lindsay Clancy. She had three young children, the one I
(21:24):
believe the youngest I think was only eight months old,
and so you have to say, Okay, there are a
lot of hormones going through your body. We know women
suffer from postpartum. She was diagnosed with a postpartum psychosis,
but she was put on a massive amount of medication,
and I think that there's so I think there's two
(21:46):
stories here. It's like, how is the public looking at this?
And she obviously killed her three children and then threw
herself out the window, ended up paralyzed, but lived through it.
I think people are horrified by the story, but they're
also saying we always talk about mental illness, and we're like,
(22:08):
we've got to get more mental health help. But it
seems like more mental health help has started to become
massive over medication, and we look at this case and
I've seen both sides. I've had women who have been like,
oh no, this had nothing to do with the medicine.
She's just a nutjob. And other people have been like,
(22:29):
I've been put on some of those medicines and they
really changed who I was and how I thought. What
is the legal discussion behind the scenes here? I mean,
we've had so many cases now where there was one
case where a man went on prozac at the emergency
room and I think within twenty four hours killed his family.
(22:51):
There are connections to some of these medications. Is there
a legal argument to say we can't just put somebody
in the hospital and just medicate them to the point
of complete psychosis.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
Look, dude, I think you nailed it on the head
with your with your analogy. I mean, because I've over
medication is something that is prevalent in our country, and
I think that has a lot to do with with
some with mental health issues today. And in this particular case,
I don't think anybody can say that she was not
(23:24):
over medicated because I mean, she had like literally a
grocery list of medications that she was on, and then
they kept adding and subtracting it all. You know, that's
definitely going to affect your your mindset. I don't think
anybody can can say otherwise. It's such a difficult case
due to the fact that you know, look, you have
(23:44):
three young, young kids who were murdered by their mom,
and the intent part is where you have to really look,
did she have the actual intent to do it? Was
she in the right state of mind? And look, I
I'm I'm very torn on this one, honestly, because I
(24:05):
as a defense attorney, I could argue a bunch of that.
I can definitely argue that the intent wasn't there because
of all the medication that she was on, and that
you have to blame the psychiatrists, the doctors who cared
for her and everything that. But if I put on
my prosecutor hat, you know there was some intent there
because if you remember, she told her husband that, you know,
(24:28):
go get go, go get food from my favorite Italian restaurant,
which is what forty five minutes away. So she planned
she kind of planned this. She looked at ways to
kill herself over the over the days and the weeks
prior to it. So it's the jury is going to
have a hell of a time deciding this one, because
you're going to have it's it's all it's a battle
(24:49):
of the experts. At the end of the day. You
can hear what she says, you can hear what the
state says, but the end of the day, what the
states expert is going to say is no, she she
knew what she was doing. She planned this. I don't
care if she was on medication or not. She knew
what she was doing. The defense is going to say, no,
new new look. We have all this medication and these
(25:10):
are studies that show that she was not in the
right state of mind, she did not have the intent
to actually do this, that she does not belong she
does not she should not get the guilty. She should
actually be put in a mental health facility. So it's
a battle of the expert. And you know, it's really weird,
tutor that you bring this up. I was talking to
my wife about this the other day, right, and she's
(25:30):
talking to her friends and all they have like this.
There's conspiracy theories out there that the husband is the
one who's the person who was responsible for all this,
and he married so soon, and I'm like, I don't
that never even crossed my mind. But the jury may
be thinking this. That's why it's such a crazy Uh.
Speaker 1 (25:51):
I just saw some of these theories last night where
it was like he went on vacation right away and
he was doing reviews on Yellow for something, which honestly,
when I heard that, I was like, that is pretty
messed up, Like I would not be able to do that.
So it I mean, there's that's for sure a weird situation.
(26:12):
But I want to go back to something you said,
because you said it could be argued that it was
the medication or it can also be argued that she
had intent to do it. But can't both of those
things be true?
Speaker 2 (26:24):
Also? Yeah, yeah, they certainly can. So now how much
is true? Though? That's the question the jury would have
to be asking themselves, right, you know, like she had
the intent? Then I think that's really a game over
argument in my opinion if I'm the state. But you know, remember,
(26:45):
in a juror in a trial, you have to have
reasonable doubt. So what's reasonable doubt? All right? You have
to be not eighty percent, not ninety percent, You've got
to be ninety nine percent sure that this individual was
the person who did this crime and did it with
the and met the elements of the crime. And the
intent is the biggest element of this crime. Nobody's saying
(27:07):
that she didn't do it. It's did she have the
intent to do it? Was she in the right mind?
And if you have a sentilla of doubt, they like,
you know what, maybe you know that one medication was
the reason that you know, she didn't have it. That
is reasonable doubt. And they have reasonable doubt, the judge's
going to have to direct them that they have to,
(27:29):
you know, find a not guilty product. So the defense
that's what their job is. Like I said, again, throw
a muddle on the wall, see if something sticks.
Speaker 1 (27:39):
It's just But I mean, when you really think about it,
when you break down the legal system in this particular case,
it feels a little bit like you're just analyzing a
tiny portion of what happened here and who could be
at fault. So she obviously is the one who committed
the murders, so she gets put in prison, and she's
(28:01):
the one who gets the punishment. But what if it
is that the doctors gave her medications that shouldn't be together,
or what if it is that the pharmaceutical companies prescribe
something that in certain people cause homicidal or suicidal thoughts.
And I believe that there we could go back to
many of these school shooters and say the same thing
(28:22):
that these caused homicidal thoughts. A student, a child who
maybe was overactive in their seat in the classroom, gets
put on a medication and all of a sudden they
go and kill their whole there, they killed their whole
their classmates. They go in with a gun and shoot
up the whole school. And yet we never get back
to the root cause it's like you we don't go
(28:43):
back that far. In the legal system, it's the well,
that person had the gun, so they go to prison.
But what if we're missing something?
Speaker 2 (28:50):
Yeah, I mean, that's a that's a really good point.
So the issue, I guess you could you can look
at it two ways. You can look at it in
the criminal world. Where did the did did companies know?
Did the pharmaceutical companies know that this that there there
could be side effects a right? And did they make
it known? If they did, then they could potentially be
criminally liable. But I think the easier route to go
(29:14):
would be a civil route. So did they know or
should they have known that these medications that they're prescribing
to people that are over prescribing that they could cause
you know, people to do certain things that are obviously violent,
you know, murder, you know, whatever else it may they
And if that's the case, the burden is much lower
(29:36):
in a civil court than it is a criminal court.
And potentially, you know, they could be sued for you know, millions,
billions of dollars, And look, we all know, what did
the pharmaceutical companies care about the end of the day money?
And how are you going to take it from them?
And how are you going to hurt them the most
by suing them and getting and you know, and getting large,
(29:58):
large judgments, and and I think it's something that you
probably should be looked at a little closer, if not
already it's already happening.
Speaker 1 (30:07):
I don't know, no, I have heard some cases. I
think the father who went home and killed his family,
I think they did end up getting a settlement from
the company. I think it was Prozac. I'm not one
hundred percent sure, but I think it was, and I
think they got a settlement. The problem is, I mean,
we've had we've actually had people on the show that
(30:29):
have had situations where the medical device that the pharmaceutical
or the medical company gave them caused damage in almost
every patient, and it took twenty years for them to
finally and multiple lawsuits and multiple payouts. And those companies
have so much money they just keep paying it out
(30:49):
and they keep the product out there, which I think,
I know, I sound probably like a Pollyanna. But I
feel like there's got to be somebody who can help
and go in there and say you can't prescribed medications
that create little killers. You know, you just can't do
that if that's a side effect in three percent of
(31:11):
the people. Too many, too many people that go out
and kill people. But it just feels like our hands
are kind of tied on these pharmaceuticals for mental health.
And I say that because the mental health drugs, it's
not like, it's not like penicillin. You get a sore
throat and the sore throat goes away. It's an experiment
every time. You have no idea if it's going to
(31:32):
solve the problem or if it's going to cause a
bigger problem. And that to me feels very much like
at least someone should be investigating. And I know you
weren't expecting to go here, but.
Speaker 2 (31:42):
I love it. I love it. I'll go on in
this all day long. You could, well, you know what,
I'll tell you who should investigate it? But we know
it's not going to happen. It's Congress. It's very simple.
Congress could be aggress could do something, and you and
I know Congress doesn't do a lot of things. It
seems like you can't get them on the same page.
But look, Congress could do something about this. They should
(32:02):
have some industry.
Speaker 1 (32:03):
If we could find one that doesn't take money from
a pharmaceutical company, then.
Speaker 2 (32:09):
I think we're screwed.
Speaker 1 (32:10):
Then, yeah, exactly, that's the problem. That's and you know,
that's the funny part about listening to all these ads
where people are like, I'm not going to take dark money.
It's but but you are taking it, right, And what
does that? What do all these There is definitely a
problem with the connection of money to keeping people quiet,
(32:33):
and the lobbyists for the pharmaceutical companies are so powerful.
But I feel like if there's anything that should convince
Congress to do that, it should be the story of
a young mom who went through months of medication and
then ultimately killed her three young kids. And it seems like,
which I don't know, I haven't read a lot on
this case, but it doesn't seem like this happened with
(32:55):
the first two babies. So it just seems very strange
that she had postpartums psychosis and was just I mean,
it was like the whole pharmacy was given to this
poor woman.
Speaker 2 (33:06):
Yeah, you make a good point there. You know, you
don't hear about did she have postparum depression for the
first two, just for the third one. And look, I'm
not a doctor, so I don't know if that's normal
or something like that, but that's definitely something and I'm
sure the state will be definitely talking about that in
their closing arguments.
Speaker 1 (33:26):
Well, I've given you something to think about. Now you
can round up all the people who have been harmed
by these mental health pharmaceuticals and then you can save.
Speaker 2 (33:35):
Us from them, and you and me, let's do it, toot.
Speaker 1 (33:41):
I mean, I'm not kidding it. Really, the people my
audience knows that I talk about this quite a bit.
I cannot stand that there's no accountability for drugs that
have bad side effects like this, So I appreciate you
talking to me about it. It's been fascinating to go
through all these cases with you today, David Gelman. Thank
you so much for coming on.
Speaker 2 (33:59):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (34:00):
It's been a blast, absolutely, and thank you all for
listening to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. Please share this. It's
on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, wherever you get your podcasts.
You can also watch the video on Rumble or YouTube
at Tutor Dixon, Share it and join us next time.
Right now, have a blessed day.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com