November 13, 2024 • 43 mins
A lawsuit was filed accusing country music singer Garth Brooks of alleged sexual assault and battery. Brooks denied it and said he filed his lawsuit against the plaintiff for "extortion and defamation of character."
In this episode of Zone 7, Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum, is joined by Jack Fox to analyze the statement by Garth Brooks regarding recent sexual assault allegations. Jack, dissects the language used in Brooks' statements, focusing on symbolic references, indirect denials, and emotionally charged language. Sheryl and Jack touch on themes of fame, the perception of truth, and how celebrities handle public scrutiny. Jack also discusses the victim's allegations, highlighting language that suggests familiarity and potential consent. Lastly, Sheryl breaks down why sexual assault cases are often challenging to investigate and stresses the need for objective analysis without assuming guilt or innocence.
Jack Fox is a seasoned statement analysis expert with a background in media. Having transitioned from shaping narratives to unraveling them, Jack has worked with law enforcement, private investigators, and professionals across various industries. He has developed a comprehensive system for analyzing language and identifying deception, which he shares on his channel, Never a Truer Word.
Listeners can learn more about Jack Fox at his website, and on X @truer_word
Previous Episodes with Jack Fox:
Detecting Deception | Analyzing the Colt Gray Case with Jack Fox
Show Notes:
- (0:00) Welcome back to Zone 7 with Crime Scene Investigator, Sheryl McCollum
- (0:30) Sheryl introduces Jack Fox back to Zone 7 to dissect Garth Brooks’ statement analysis
- (2:10) Key observations and inconsistencies in Garth Brooks’ statements
- (4:00) Jack Fox on the absence of direct denial in Brooks' statements
- (8:30) The order of priorities within the statement
- (11:30) ‘Jane Doe's’ allegations
- (13:00) The role of emotions in statements
- (15:30) Dissecting the allegations
- (20:30) The hurdles for law enforcement
- (23:45) Fox discusses the power dynamics in employer-employee relationships at play
- (24:00) The Trisha Yearwood threesome allegation and its implications
- (27:00) The concept of the liar's number
- (32:00) The role of money, power, and the accessibility to “break the rules”
- (37:00) The complexity of sexual assault cases
- (40:00) Potential fallout and future implications
- (42:30) “When we got married almost 10 years ago now, we made a commitment to really be together, which means we hardly ever spent a night apart and being madly in love is important. But I think it's equally important to be in deep like, I like this guy. We talk about everything, and we laugh a lot. Life is good.” -Trisha Yearwood
- Thanks for listening to another episode! If you’re loving the show and want to help grow the show, please head over to Itunes and leave a rating and review!
---
Sheryl “Mac” McCollum is an Emmy Award winning CSI, a writer for CrimeOnLine, Forensic and Crime Scene Expert for Crime Stories with Nancy Grace, and a CSI for a metro Atlanta Police Department. She is the co-author of the textbook., Cold Case: Pathways to Justice. Sheryl is also the founder and director of the Cold Case Investigative Research Institute,
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:10):
Jack Fox is back. We need him to help us
go through some statements. Garth Brooks, legendary country singer, has
been accused of sexual assault, multiple sexual assaults from a
Jane Doe. He filed some paperwork where he tried to
(00:31):
keep his name out of it, his name was leaked.
He has now in turn leaked the name of the victim,
which we are not going to do. What we are
going to try to do as gently as possible show
you just how important statement analysis is in a case
like this. So Jack Fox, welcome back to Zone seven.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Hey Cheryl, thanks for having me back.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Well, I gave you an easy one. Welcome. This is
something and here's the thing you just said, the most
important thing off air. Nobody's going to win in this say.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
It's such an interesting set of statements that we've got here.
I first came across this with goth Brooks statements. He's
obviously the famous person involved here, and when I read that,
I went, oh, wow, there's something going on here. What
is it? You caning? I read his statement out for you.
He said, for the last two months, I have been
(01:33):
hassled to no end with threats, lies, and tragic tales
of what my future would be if I did not
write a check for many millions of dollars. It has
been like having a loaded gun waved in my face.
Hush money. No matter how much or how little, is
still hush money in my mind. That means I am
admitting to behavior. I am incapable of ugly acts no
(01:53):
human should ever do to another. We felt suit against
this person nearly a month ago to speak out against
extortion and deaf of character. We found it anonymously for
the sake of the families. On both sides, I want
to play music tonight. I want to continue our good
deeds going forward. It breaks my heart. These wonderful things
are in question now. I trust the system. I do
not fear the true truth. And I am not the
(02:15):
man they have painted me to be. And I read
that and went, oh wow, how many things can I
see in there that interest me? First of all, when
he comes straight out the bat, he talks about the
check that he's been asked to write and everything that
we're going to look at. In these statements, money is
very much at the center of it. On both sides.
(02:38):
He starts off by saying, I've been hassled to no
end with threats, and then he says it was like
having a loaded gun waved in my face. Well, if
you'd had a loaded gun waved in your face, would
you say you've been hassled or would you say you've
been threatened? So that was interesting to me. There very much.
Garth is a songwriter, isn't he? He writes and talks
(02:59):
a lot in metaphus. I think he's got a very
rich use of language, which we'll see going on here.
He describes it as hush money. He says, hush money,
no matter how much or how little, is still hush money.
But what he's actually describing, if you look at it
was is extortion, is blackmail, But no, it's hush money.
And it's very interesting that he's praised it is hush money,
because that is money to be quiet, to keep someone quiet.
(03:22):
He doesn't talk about this being extortion at all, and
if it was extortion, he should have been straight to
the police with this, So as an implicit admission there,
I believe in his words that he sees this as
hush money, money to keep someone quiet. He talks about
the fact that we filed suit. We filed it anonymously
for the sake of the families on both sides. But
(03:42):
he says he did it to speak out against extortion
or defamation of character. Well, you can't speak out against
extortion if you're filing anonymously, can you. That is not
speaking out. That is you acting in your own best
interests as you spoke about. The names of the people
involved again play a big part in this. And then
he just goes on at the end to say, I
want to talk about the good deeds. It breaks my heart,
(04:05):
So these wonderful things are in question now. So that
is him doing what's called a rezume statement and trying
to remind everyone of what a great guy he is.
And that's what very often people who are in a
bit of a jam will go, well, look, how could
I have been the person that did this bad thing?
Because I do good deeds, I do good things. I'm
a member of a charity, or I'm an upstanding member
of the community, or you know, I'm very closely involved
(04:27):
in the church. People quite often do that to talk
about well, I can't possibly have done something wrong. They
introduce all the good things they've done, and as you'll
know from your experience, that does not hang logically together
at all. All sorts of people that do good things
are also capable of doing bad things. But it sounds
very impressive in a statement. You'll notice all the way,
(04:47):
all the way through that he does not deny one
allegation that is put there directly at all. It's a
non denial. It's a statement of things as he sees them,
but not once to see say he didn't do of them.
He alludes to things like that by saying that this
is things I am incapable of and things that no
(05:08):
humans should ever do to another. But he doesn't say
this human me Garth did not do this to this
person at all. And so look, this could have been
written by a pr person from him for him. But
my view is very much, if you release a statement
in your name, I'm going to analyze the words as
if they came directly from you, because you have felt
seen fit to put your name against these words. The
(05:32):
other thing in there is at the very end there
he once he's talked about filing anonymously, he talks about
what he wants to do and how that goes in order.
So it's I want to play music tonight. That's the
very first thing, the most important thing to him. I
want to play music tonight. You know, it's not I
want to clear my name tonight, or I want to
clear my name right now. I want to play music tonight.
(05:54):
I want to continue our good deeds going forward. So music,
good deeds, these are all the things that are really
important to him. That's what he is bringing up there.
But when I first saw that, I was like, there's
a lot going on here. And then I dug into
the actual filing that has been in mad in court
against him.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
Right, and you know that statement about the hush money
when he says, you know, to me, given money to
that person would be admitting to that behavior. But he says,
you know that I would be admitting I am incapable.
But then he goes on to say, we file the lawsuit,
we did it anonymously. Yes, he doesn't say who he's
(06:38):
talking about, but that's a very big shift to me.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Yes, also, I want to continue our good deeds going
forward as well. He's got he's joining himself to someone
there as well, so he does you know, I think
the biggest one in that is he does say its
behavior I am incapable of. But before that becomes no
human should do to another, And that is talking about
(07:03):
the world in general. That is not talking about himself
at all. That ugly acts no humans should ever do
to another. That is not saying I did not do this.
It sounds impressive, but when you actually look at the
words that are there, it's not saying I didn't do this.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
And you know, for those of us that do this
for a living, when there's not an outright denal, you
flag it.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Yes, my crazy life. I got accused of shoplifting a
couple of weeks ago, and I walked away and went
a statement, analyzed myself. What did I say? And I said,
I didn't steal anything. I'm walking away, and I gave
them the very simple denial I didn't steal anything. In
this statement from Garth Brooks. There is nothing as simple
(07:48):
and flat and sharp as that whatsoever. I described this
as a balloon statement, so it looks like something solid,
but if you look at it, it's really got a
flimsy exterior and very very little on the interior.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
And you and I have talked about the importance of
the order of things. Yeah, he did come out and
make a statement himself on video, So this isn't a
pr person. He comes on his radio thing and he says, okay,
let's talk about the elephant in the room. You almost
(08:22):
think okay, he's fixing to give you a play by play.
He's the one that says, let's talk about the elephant
in the room. Yes, and then he basically says, hey,
if you came here to hear about what's being alleged,
I can't talk about it.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
That's always very convenient for people, isn't it when they
say I can't talk about it. Actually, there are no
laws against talking about it unless there's a gag order imposed.
So when someone says I can't talk about it, it
really means I don't want to talk about it. This
is not an area that I want to go into.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Well, here's what stuck out for me. The order he
says that, I quote, I want to play music tonight,
continue our good days going forward. It breaks my heart.
These wonderful things are in question now. I trust the system.
I do not fear the truth, and I am not
the man they have painted me to be.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Yeah, I think that I do not fear the truth
as an interesting one their cheryl, because that's a statement
in the negative, So that shows where our focus is,
even though it's in the negative the subject of the sentence,
So fearing the truth is where the focus is. It's
very much like when I said to the person accusing
(09:34):
me of shoplifting, I did not steal anything. My focus
was on stealing. It wasn't the fact that I hadn't stolen,
but you know, my focus was very much on the stealing,
and I hadn't stolen. And right there where he says
I do not fear the truth, he says just before that,
I trust the system. That's a statement in the positive.
So he does trust the system. He's saying in general.
(09:55):
He doesn't say he trusts the system to do well
by him, or he trusts the system that he's in.
But he does say I trust the system, but I
do not fear the truth. The truth is this subject
of that there, and then fearing the truth is to
take it a little bit wider. So he has a
focus on fearing the truth. So, you know, I think
(10:15):
I know why we defile anonymously. There is truth in
here that he is very very worried about getting out.
He does actually fear the truth. That's a concept that
is high in his mind.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
Well, he talked about music first, the good deed second,
and then trust and then fear. He's mentioning again they
more than one person. So again, y'all, I want to
be super clear, we're not saying anything as far as
guilt or innocence. What we are saying is there's things
(10:49):
in the statement that give us pause. And if we
were investigating this case, Jack and I together, we're seeing
the same thing. This is a problem, This is an issue.
This needs more exploring. This is what I would concentrate
on if I were to interview him.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
Yeah. I mean, that's a great point, Cheryl, is that
there's no one magic proof that someone is lying. When
you look at the statements, there's nothing that makes you go, right,
I have proved it here, unless maybe they contradict themselves.
Then you will know that they are lying somewhere along
the line, but you won't know which of the contradictions
is true. But what statement analysis can do is just
inform a root of investigation or a set of questions,
(11:30):
or give you areas to really zone in on and
go what's going on here.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
Let's you know, talk about Jane do. Her statement ain't
perfect either, Okay, And one of the ones. There are
several that leaked out at me, but one only because
you and I've already talked about it. She says that
Garth Brooks appeared in the doorway to the bedroom completely naked,
making her feel trapped in the room alone. Now for me,
(12:03):
were you trapped or did you feel trapped? Those are
two very different things.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
Yes, And a rule of mind as if someone doesn't
say something, if someone hasn't said the words, then do
not assume it's true. So when the phrase is there,
I felt trapped in the room, that's all we know,
and let's accept that that is true. But the truth
is I felt trapped, not that I was trapped. If
(12:28):
she had said I was trapped in the room, I
would assume that was true and give them the benefit
of the doubt and say you were trapped in the room.
But that is only a feeling that was there. Now,
it's maybe not a feeling that anyone would like to have.
If you feel trapped in a room that you don't
want to be, and that is not a nice feeling,
but it is not the same thing as being trapped
in a room.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
And to your point, some of this is investigation one
O one, So if you have somebody say I saw
the two boys, they left the park and went home.
If I write in my report the two boys went home,
I don't know that. All I know is they left
the park. I don't know where they went. So you
need to be real clear. You know, when you're talking about,
(13:10):
you know, anything that occurred or didn't occur. So again,
when you're talking about an emotion, that's not an act exactly.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
That emotion is an internal and they're letting their internal
feelings and internal experiences come out when people talk about
their emotions, at least when they talk about their emotions honestly.
And there are other things we can do to decode
whether these might be the feelings that they actually had,
or whether these are feelings that they want to convince
us of. But that is all that's there. It is
(13:41):
those internal feelings. They tell us a lot. But we
need to we need to listen to what people are saying.
Just like you said there about the person, I saw
him go home, rather than I think he went home
or he did go home, all very different things. It's
amazing what you can do by just listening to the
words and then believing those to be true. No matter
what they tell you, it just makes you way more
(14:05):
aware of what is being said.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
Agreed. So when you read through the allegations and specifically
things she's quoted as saying occurred, did anything else leap
off the page where you said, wait a minute, we
need to look at this a little more.
Speaker 2 (14:22):
Yeah, I did, so I read through the full filing.
And this is a difference between what is in the
filing and what goth Brooks said. The filing is made
and written and in the name of her attorneys. It's
not her words unless they're in quotes. So I'm not
going to judge everything there because these may be the
(14:43):
attorneys putting their spin on things. In fact, they are
because the whole motion reads like bad fiction. I'm not
saying it is fiction. What I'm saying is this. Stylistically,
they add words like tragically her worst fears came true
when seconds later he was towering over her. Now that
reads like, why is it written in such persuasive terms?
(15:04):
Why is it not written factually? It's done to win
someone over, to make someone will take the word tragically.
And if you don't do what we were talking about
before and go why is that word there? Why is
that word being used both tragically is a word used
to persuade us of how tragic what is to follow is,
but actually was it tragic? Or is this being written
(15:25):
in a way to persuade us of it? So I'm
not going to judge too much on those attorney words there,
but there are a lot of quotes because I believe
reading this she has saved some text messages between herself
and Garth Brooks and also seems to have recorded some
phone calls between herself and Garth Brooks. Now it's very interesting.
She does mention in the filing that Garth deleted a
(15:46):
lot of texts from her phone at one point, so
maybe that's why she does not have the complete text
message exchanges. But the phone calls, there's only certain parts
of them that are quoted, and none of them, not
one of them to specifically about any of the severe
criminal incidents that she's alleging. In fact, what they show
(16:09):
is a two way relationship between the two that involved
intimacy and closeness, which I thought was very interesting. That
is not in the headline of the allegations. If you
liked that, they did seem to have some kind of
beyond work relationship. The first one that jumped out to
(16:29):
me was there was a comment from her to Brooks
where she's complaining that this would read like a sexual
harassment complaint in the complaint in the workplace, and she says,
I have thought a lot about the conversation of last Monday.
I can't work in an environment where explicit sexual comments
are made about a sham about shampoo bottles doubling as dildos.
(16:52):
I mean you no harm, and if you truly value
my work, I am happy to show up tomorrow and
or whenever you may need my services. And I went, well,
that's interesting. She talks about the conversation of last Monday.
Now I don't know if that's a conversation they had,
because she doesn't say our conversation. She says the conversation,
or if it's a conversation someone else had, but it's
very much referencing a specific event. And then she says,
(17:18):
I can't work in an environment where explicit sexual comments
are made about shampoo bottles doubling as dildos. Now, Cheryl,
I've talked to you twice. This is the second time
I've talked to you. I'm a little bit embarrassed about
using that word because we don't know each other well
enough yet. So that suggests that there was that closeness there.
There was other ways she could have said that. There
would have been a little bit more formal, a little
(17:40):
bit more I can't work in an environment where explicit
sexual comments are made about shampoo bottles. That would have
covered it all off. And yet she's gone there to
use a word that you would only use generally with
someone that you're quite familiar with, that you may have
used that term with before, or the similar concepts with before.
And then she says, I I'm happy to show up
(18:01):
for work tomorrow, not I will show up for work
tomorrow kind of grudgingly, or you know, it's I am
happy to show up for work tomorrow. So, while this
is being portrayed in the filing as something that is,
you know, a horrible situation that she was put in
in the workplace by Garth Brooks, her words don't belie
a level of real uncomfortableness with this at all. There's
(18:25):
no ultimatum that this must stop as well. She doesn't
say she just says, I am uncomfortable working in this environment.
She doesn't say I will not work in this environment
where this happens. So while this has been presented as
evidence of some sort of terrible behavior on Garth Brooks' behalf,
the words show that this was a little bit different
from that in that statement.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
When you were reading the statement about what occurred, was
there anything that you read that gave you Paul's to say,
how did that happen?
Speaker 2 (18:58):
Yeah, there was a point where where we're talking about
the alleged rape incident, and the statement says having no
regard for her well being an intent on his own
sexual gratification at the expense of miss Rose's physical, mental,
and emotional trauma. At some point during the nightmare, Brooks
even held her small body upside down by her feet
(19:19):
and penetrated her. And one of the things that I
teach people is when you are hearing someone's words, when
someone is being calm and clear in their delivery, and
they've got the authentic words to deliver the experience that
they have experienced, it's very easy for you to get
a picture in your head of what was happening, because
(19:41):
these are authentic words, and you can picture things in
your head. And that was one of those things that
made me go, I can't picture that, what would that entail?
What does that happen? And then further on there, apparently
he asked her to or forced her to keep her
glasses on during this. Again, so we've got this really
(20:01):
strange physical contortion that they seem to be in, and
then he's forcing her to keep her glasses on at
the same time, and that to me was physically impossible.
I can't see how in all of that you could
force someone to keep their glasses on as well. Just
this feels like overdoing it, you know. It feels like
way too much information, there, way too many things happening
(20:26):
at once for it not for it to all hang
together in my head. I can't say whether it was
not true or not, because I wasn't there. But when
I can't picture these things, when the words just don't flow,
then I find I go, well, wait a minute, what's
happening there? And I would dig into it just a
little bit more.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
And that's the thing, And I'm going to say it again.
We are not saying that either one is lying or
either one is being deceptive. What we're saying is this
is the hurdle, the problem, the walls that law enforcement
is going to have to get over, break down, go
(21:02):
around in order to find out who's telling the truth,
because the reality is, to our knowledge right now, she
has not gone to law enforcement. All we know is
there is a simple action. I mean, is that accurate.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
I am no legal expert, but as far as I know,
it is all civil actions at the moment.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
Yes, I mean we haven't heard anything. He hasn't been
arrested ever, and I mean they've known each other twenty years.
So there's some things I think that law enforcement is
going to have to look at with no bias, and
that is going to be the most critical piece. You
got to take the name Garth Brooks out of it,
(21:45):
right and you've got to look at this as a defendant,
and at first you know a defendant and a victim,
and see is there any probable cause? I mean, is
there any evidence? Is there anything factually that you can
glean from these statements?
Speaker 2 (22:02):
So far, there is nothing there. One of the ones
that really stood out to me was a message from
Jane to Thed to Garth Brooks, and it's the nearest
thing that references an incident of serious sexual assault or rape,
and she says, I want to make sure that even
though I've told you no, that you're cool with no?
(22:24):
I mean no, as in no fooling around like we
had done. You were cool with that? Right now? That
sounds way too breezy in the wording for it to
be talking about a serious sexual assault. You know, Are
you cool with no? You know? So? Yeah? Look she
is saying no. Here, she is saying no. She doesn't
(22:46):
want to continue, but it's continue. What are you cool
with no? No fooling around? Again? That does not sound
like someone referencing a severe and violent assault. And then
it's no fooling around And you were talking about pronouns earlier,
no fooling around like we had done. So that we
(23:06):
is very much about a joint action, about a joint
action together. If you study couples that are on the
verge of splitting up or have split up, you will
see that they very rarely use we pronouns. They talk
about you and I all the time. They split themselves apart,
people who have a unity about what we had done.
(23:27):
So I get the impression there's very much been some
fooling around. A work relationship has turned a little bit
more intimate here, and that is something that is pretty
much I would say from there, I can't prove anything,
but I would say, yeah, there has been a consensual
relationship between the pair of them at some point. I
(23:47):
think she has wanted out of that because he is
holding the power of work over her there. But I
think the one thing that is clear in his statements
that she quotes is that he is using his power
and I want you to keep working with me. And
maybe she feels a little bit powerless in that situation.
But in all this, all the statements that she quotes,
(24:09):
she talks about what's happened to herself. I get the
impression there was a consensual agreement with between the two
of them. And you know, bearing in mind that Garth
Brooks was married and she actually worked for his wife
at some point, is a very interesting position for the
two of them to have been in.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
What do you think about the statement when she says
that he basically propositioned a threesome with Tricia Yearworth.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
Oh, well, that is the whole the Tricia Yearward thing,
And where Tricia comes into this is is very interesting
because there is a point where that she is upset
that Garth has told Tricia that she has seen his stuff,
and stuff is the word they used to describe his
(24:58):
his naked body, and she is obviously very uncomfortable with that.
Very interesting because Garth says that he doesn't I think
I know Tricia pretty well, right, so I think I
know So there you talk about feelings. I think he
doesn't say I know her pretty well. He just kind
(25:19):
of thinks that he does and pretty well. So that's
not entirely and she wasn't uncomfortable. I said, you saw
my stuff, and that was it. We were talking about
something and it just came up. Now that we were
talking about something, it just came up. That sounds kind
of not deceptive to me. That sounds like he's hiding
something that the hym and Tricia have talked about, and
I wonder, I wonder what that was. I think I'll
(25:41):
leave it at that one. But it's only I think
I know Tricia pretty well, So I think that there's
probably some intimation in there that the relationship with between
him and Tricia maybe not all it is there. What
is interesting, she does say it was repeating remarks about
having a threesome with his wife. Now, I will always say,
(26:04):
pay attention to what people repeat because we're talking about
how to work out someone's priorities. When they order something,
the first thing they say is likely the most important
thing to them, and then it goes on down. Things
people repeat will reveal a lot about what is on
their mind as well. So if these were repeated remarks
about having a threesome, then that would suggest that, yeah,
(26:27):
that was something that was in his mind if it happened.
If he did make repeated remarks, and she does not
in her statement it was repeated, it.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
Marked would the three being the liar's number come in
to play there or now?
Speaker 2 (26:44):
I don't think so. I think it because threesome is
a concept that yeah, it does involve three people, but
I think three. And the theory around three being a
liar's number is that if someone constructs a story the
number three, the number three is involved in it. That's
the kind of guy who would say, it wasn't me
(27:07):
that that robbed that bank, but I did see three
men hanging about outside, you know. I think the theory
is one one will be too specific and you'll be
asked questions about that one person. Two. It's kind of
same when you get to three. Then all of a
sudden you can start being very vague about the three.
I didn't see all of them. One guy I think
(27:27):
had brown here, or you know, I tried three times
to call you. I mean, how many times have you
heard that, you know, with someone I didn't hear from you.
I tried three times? Did you? Did you? Or is
that just make it sound like you really tried quite
hard and then gave up.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
Well, I just wanted to clear that up because you know,
there's gonna be some people that are going to ask
us because we mentioned the liar's number last time. But
you know, here's the thing, and I want everybody to
understand again, there is a reason that sexual assault is
the most underreported. The victim is absolutely going to be
put on trial, no matter how many safeguards, no matter
(28:07):
how many laws, no matter how much protection we tried
to give them, It's going to happen, and people are
going to question and then they're going to you know,
point out anything they can come up with to blame her.
Like even now, we still occasionally hear somebody say what
(28:27):
was she wearing? Was she drinking? So, for example, when
she starts putting out these statements and she's telling you
things that occurred. People are going to look at that
and say, okay, wait a minute, he walks out of
the shower and he's naked, Well, that's obvious. You mean
(28:48):
to tell me she was there in the bathroom while
he was in the shower and what did she think
was going to happen? And then people are going to
question the hotel room. I mean, number one, does anybody
believe that Garth Brooks booked a hotel or he had
somebody do it for him? And you know how often
is somebody at his level alone. There's always hair and
(29:13):
makeup and managers and producers and lawyers and all these
other people around, right, So if he has carved out
where it's just the two of you on a plane
and only two of you walk into a hotel, his
assistant's not there, his manager's not there, the producer of
whatever this event is not meeting him and is there.
(29:34):
It's just the two of you. And then you say
we went into the hotel room and I was shot.
There was only one bedroom. But then she goes on
to say he pushed me into the other bedroom.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
So, just to talk in the victims favor over, remind
you that Garth Brooks does not deny any of the
allegations in his statement, and there are some things that
are caughty from Brooks in her statement that do give
me pause for thought as to what went on here.
Is he a nice guy? There's a statement, a quote
from him where he says, I would never be upset
with you. Look at it this way, Okay, look at it.
(30:07):
The best way I can explain is me and you
broke into a jewelry store and the second we broke
the door, we looked at each other and said, this
isn't right. Now. That's quite a violent metaphor for what
the situation he's describing. You know, that could have been
explained in a much more gentler way. You know, we
started something, babe, that we should not have. We realized
(30:27):
as soon as we started it it was the wrong thing.
So we walked away, and that's the right thing to do.
But he uses quite violent imagery there of breaking into
a jewelry store and breaking a door, and so that
made me think, what is this guy really like? It's
his personality coming out through some of the metaphors that
he is using there. And also I believe he uses
(30:47):
his status, and his status is not just Garth Brooks
famous person, but as her employer, you know, let's not
forget that. And he says to her at one point,
and this is if you're listening to this and you
want to tip for uncovering what people say, this is
a great one for what did someone actually say there.
So he says to her, I work with the best,
(31:09):
and I don't want to do something stupid that breaks
this team up, So I will do whatever I need
to do, or do whatever I don't need to do.
But I just want to keep working with you. But
if you feel weird working with me, it's fine. We
don't have to work together. So number one, I can
see he's holding the work and the fact he is
an employer over her, the fact that her livelihood depends
(31:30):
on him. But he says I work with the best.
Not once within all of that does he say she
is one of the best. He doesn't say you are
the best at your job, and I want you on
the team, so I will do whatever it takes to
keep you on my team because you are one of
the best. He does say that I work with the best,
and I don't want to split that team up. And
you can go if you want and I was thought,
(31:52):
that is very interesting. I think he's silvertonged. He seems
quite charming in some of the things he says. I
think it can be very easy for someone to hear
a statement like that and go always calling me one
of the best. That's very flattering, and I want to
stay on this team because you really values my work.
But he doesn't actually say that. We could assume that's
what he meant. But if he doesn't say the words,
don't assume, don't give them the benefit of the doubt
(32:14):
that that is what is in his head.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
Jack, when she flat out says and I quote, he
thinks laws don't apply to him. I think there's probably
some basis for that. So again, if you're at his
level and you're on a tour bus, you know you're
not going to get a ticket if you're speeding. You know,
if the hotel says there's no swimming after ten that
(32:37):
that don't apply to him. You know, there are things
where maybe laws of speeding or illegally be in part
or rules at different places, they do not apply to him.
Speaker 2 (32:48):
I am in a previous life, worked very close to
a lot of some of the most famous people over here.
In the UK, and I can attest to the fact
that these people live alone that we could not imagine
doors closed. That door will open and let you in.
And that leads to if you're not a balanced person,
that does lead to exactly the fact that you don't
(33:10):
feel like not just the laws don't apply to you,
but the norms of society, the standards of behavior that
we expect from people don't apply to you either. So
I could really see how someone with you know, the
level of fame that he has, and the number of
people as well, so that it will surround him that
(33:31):
will depend on their livelihoods. For him, I could see
very much how that is true. And again, the laws
don't apply to him. That's a very he feels like
the laws don't apply to him. Is a very straightforward statement.
It's not one that's trying to convince us of anything
or persuade us that this might be true. It's stated
very straight, very sharp, you know.
Speaker 1 (33:52):
And here's the thing. There are hurdles for both sides.
And this is why, again, this is a very difficult
crime to investigate. If you don't have a rape kit,
if you don't have DNA evidence on clothing, if you
don't have some type of voicemail or video of the hostility,
(34:13):
the anger, the threats. It gets difficult. So again, she
may not have any recourse other than CIBIL. She may
not have enough probable calls for law enforcement. Doesn't mean
it didn't happen. And if she's having financial difficulty and
she has known him for twenty years, maybe something happened
(34:34):
and she stayed because she had to. Maybe she doesn't
have other clientele. Maybe that you know, again, the level
that he's at, she had to be twenty four to
seven at his back and call my issue if this
was our case, Jack, Again, you know it does appear
civil not law enforcement. She did stay after several assault.
(35:01):
He says it's about money. Who you going to believe?
So you got to start, I think again with these statements.
If you look at his statement, is their past infidelity?
Is there possibly infidelity with the victim? And did it
start that way and then at some point did it
turn violent? Are we going to see other people come forward?
Speaker 2 (35:24):
Now?
Speaker 1 (35:25):
So far I have not heard of anybody coming forward.
No past employees, not anybody that met him on tour,
nobody that came back to his hotel as a fan.
I have not heard of anything. I have not heard
of one other woman. But here's the deal. Why did
she stop working for Tricia yearwould and how did she
(35:48):
go from working for Tricia to working for Garth Brooks.
I think those are things that law enforcement and the
civil suit should at least attempt to answer.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
Yeah, I was also taken in by the fact that
no one has come forward. You know, where the Diddy
story is going on right now, and it's like open
season for people to come forward and say and did
he was active for about about the same time as
Garth Brooks, you know, in terms of fame, and so
many people have come forward to say that they've had
bad experiences in his orbit. So I was taking that
(36:21):
no one else has come forward. But you know you said,
if you and I were investigating the case looking at
the statements, I would say to you, money is at
the root of this. And I'm not saying that's extortion
money or hush money. But what I do when I
look at statements is look at repeated concepts. So what
comes up time and time and time again and across
what Garth Brooks says, and of course what is in
(36:43):
her filings is the concept of money. He talks about
hush money, she talks about the fact that she relied
on him for money, that she was in some financial
deep straits, so money, and also the fact it was
a working relationship, so work is an exchange of time
for money. Money is a repeated concept. So I'm not
saying this is not true, and I'm not saying this
(37:04):
I'm true. What I would say was, if we were
looking at this, I'd be like, money is at the
center of this some way, somehow, because it comes up
so often from both sides.
Speaker 1 (37:13):
Agreed, and that's why I started with what I did.
Why is it civil and not law enforcement? You got
to ask that question. And again, these are not easy question, y'all.
Jack said earlier he did not even feel comfortable using
some of the words. I get it, it's not easy.
There are multiple reasons this is the most difficult crime
(37:36):
to investigate. You are going to have people pick sides immediately.
Nobody in a murder says what was she wearing? Nobody? Nobody.
Nobody questions well, was she home alone when she got murdered.
She shouldn't have been alone, She should have had people
around her. Was she drinking she shouldn't have been drinking. No,
(37:58):
they accept the murder and it's horrible. It's horrible across
the board. Friends, family, people at church, co workers, neighbors, everybody.
Everybody cares when it's sexual assault. It's like they go
away and they don't want to be a part of it.
They don't want to pick sides. But I believe, and Jack,
(38:19):
I want to know what you think. I think this
is going to get a lot uglier very quickly.
Speaker 2 (38:29):
I'm slightly different from you there. I'm not sure there's
a lot more to get ugly about. I think there
was a work relationship between the pair of them that
went sour, and potentially she wanted to back away from
the closeness of the intimacy that they had, and that
I think if there was, if she had something else,
Why is it not in the filing? Why is it
(38:53):
not in there? That is there? Now, that's not to
say I know what's happened or not. That's to say
that from everything I've seen, I think this. All the
words I see look like a very simple relationship gone bad.
Now why it went bad is not quite made clear
in the words in the statements. Is there I know
(39:14):
what she's alleging, but what there is any actual proof
of what? There are any words there that those just
don't are not there in that filing. Having said that
he does not deny the allegations. He remember when we started,
and I said, he does distance himself from denying at all.
(39:34):
So why is that? Why did he not come out
and say that so robustly in his defense? So there's
that great area in there, but I'm not sure there
is anything that is going to shed a little bit
more light on that gray area that's going to help
either party. Frankly, it could end up when you say
it messy, it may end up with no real resolution.
Speaker 1 (39:54):
Well, here's what I make by MESSI there ain't no
way you've had a front run to Garth Brooks for
twenty years and you don't know dirt. And I mean
an argument between him and Trisha Yearwood, who they pay,
who they don't pay, who they like, who they don't like,
(40:15):
If he had other extramarital affairs, if he paid anybody
else to keep quiet, if he had anybody else on
their payroll that didn't really work for him, she knows it,
And that's what I mean. If he leaked her name,
and now she is so hurt and so upset and
(40:39):
possibly embarrassed because now her friends from high school, her hometown,
her whole family, they now know. And maybe they didn't
know before, they know now. So if she has something,
I think she's going to put it out there.
Speaker 2 (40:57):
You're one step ahead of me. But that is a
very very good point. And I'll go back again to
the start where he talked about hush money.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
That's right, that's right. And you know, when you look
at Bill Clinton when he said what he did about
Monica Lewinsky, he said, I did not have sexual relations
with that woman. When he called her that woman, Suddenly
she's got a blue dress. So I'm just telling you,
(41:24):
hurt people they come back and if they have any
type of arsenal, they'll use it.
Speaker 2 (41:30):
I will be watching this one though, with great interest.
Over here in the UK country music, Garth Brooks is
not very popular. I'm aware of who he is, but
this has been it's been an eye opener in terms
of actually his popularity. And you know how well respected
he is or has been, so that he has a
(41:51):
lot to lose in this situation, doesn't he He does.
Speaker 1 (41:54):
And here's the thing. Reality Tom, and this is for
any any young man and listening to me, if you
get yourself in a situation where somebody can make this allegation,
it's going to hurt your reputation no matter what. And
he pretty much says that in his paperwork. That's why
(42:15):
he said he was asking, you know, for compensatory and
punitive damages. That she knew by putting this out there
what it was going to do to his reputation and
his career and his family. And he's absolutely right, Jack Fox,
Thank you so much. We've got a lot to keep
our eye on.
Speaker 2 (42:33):
Thank you for having me, y'all.
Speaker 1 (42:34):
I'm going to end Zone seven the way that I
always do with a quote. When we got married almost
ten years ago now, we made a commitment to really
be together, which means we hardly ever spent a night apart.
And being madly in love is important, but I think
it's equally important to be in deep like I like
(42:58):
this guy. We talk about everything and we laugh a lot.
Life is good, Trisha Gearwood, I'm Cheryl McCollum, and this
is Own seven.
Jack Fox is back. We need him to help us
go through some statements. Garth Brooks, legendary country singer, has
been accused of sexual assault, multiple sexual assaults from a
Jane Doe. He filed some paperwork where he tried to
(00:31):
keep his name out of it, his name was leaked.
He has now in turn leaked the name of the victim,
which we are not going to do. What we are
going to try to do as gently as possible show
you just how important statement analysis is in a case
like this. So Jack Fox, welcome back to Zone seven.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Hey Cheryl, thanks for having me back.
Speaker 1 (00:57):
Well, I gave you an easy one. Welcome. This is
something and here's the thing you just said, the most
important thing off air. Nobody's going to win in this say.
Speaker 2 (01:11):
It's such an interesting set of statements that we've got here.
I first came across this with goth Brooks statements. He's
obviously the famous person involved here, and when I read that,
I went, oh, wow, there's something going on here. What
is it? You caning? I read his statement out for you.
He said, for the last two months, I have been
(01:33):
hassled to no end with threats, lies, and tragic tales
of what my future would be if I did not
write a check for many millions of dollars. It has
been like having a loaded gun waved in my face.
Hush money. No matter how much or how little, is
still hush money in my mind. That means I am
admitting to behavior. I am incapable of ugly acts no
(01:53):
human should ever do to another. We felt suit against
this person nearly a month ago to speak out against
extortion and deaf of character. We found it anonymously for
the sake of the families. On both sides, I want
to play music tonight. I want to continue our good
deeds going forward. It breaks my heart. These wonderful things
are in question now. I trust the system. I do
not fear the true truth. And I am not the
(02:15):
man they have painted me to be. And I read
that and went, oh wow, how many things can I
see in there that interest me? First of all, when
he comes straight out the bat, he talks about the
check that he's been asked to write and everything that
we're going to look at. In these statements, money is
very much at the center of it. On both sides.
(02:38):
He starts off by saying, I've been hassled to no
end with threats, and then he says it was like
having a loaded gun waved in my face. Well, if
you'd had a loaded gun waved in your face, would
you say you've been hassled or would you say you've
been threatened? So that was interesting to me. There very much.
Garth is a songwriter, isn't he? He writes and talks
(02:59):
a lot in metaphus. I think he's got a very
rich use of language, which we'll see going on here.
He describes it as hush money. He says, hush money,
no matter how much or how little, is still hush money.
But what he's actually describing, if you look at it
was is extortion, is blackmail, But no, it's hush money.
And it's very interesting that he's praised it is hush money,
because that is money to be quiet, to keep someone quiet.
(03:22):
He doesn't talk about this being extortion at all, and
if it was extortion, he should have been straight to
the police with this, So as an implicit admission there,
I believe in his words that he sees this as
hush money, money to keep someone quiet. He talks about
the fact that we filed suit. We filed it anonymously
for the sake of the families on both sides. But
(03:42):
he says he did it to speak out against extortion
or defamation of character. Well, you can't speak out against
extortion if you're filing anonymously, can you. That is not
speaking out. That is you acting in your own best
interests as you spoke about. The names of the people
involved again play a big part in this. And then
he just goes on at the end to say, I
want to talk about the good deeds. It breaks my heart,
(04:05):
So these wonderful things are in question now. So that
is him doing what's called a rezume statement and trying
to remind everyone of what a great guy he is.
And that's what very often people who are in a
bit of a jam will go, well, look, how could
I have been the person that did this bad thing?
Because I do good deeds, I do good things. I'm
a member of a charity, or I'm an upstanding member
of the community, or you know, I'm very closely involved
(04:27):
in the church. People quite often do that to talk
about well, I can't possibly have done something wrong. They
introduce all the good things they've done, and as you'll
know from your experience, that does not hang logically together
at all. All sorts of people that do good things
are also capable of doing bad things. But it sounds
very impressive in a statement. You'll notice all the way,
(04:47):
all the way through that he does not deny one
allegation that is put there directly at all. It's a
non denial. It's a statement of things as he sees them,
but not once to see say he didn't do of them.
He alludes to things like that by saying that this
is things I am incapable of and things that no
(05:08):
humans should ever do to another. But he doesn't say
this human me Garth did not do this to this
person at all. And so look, this could have been
written by a pr person from him for him. But
my view is very much, if you release a statement
in your name, I'm going to analyze the words as
if they came directly from you, because you have felt
seen fit to put your name against these words. The
(05:32):
other thing in there is at the very end there
he once he's talked about filing anonymously, he talks about
what he wants to do and how that goes in order.
So it's I want to play music tonight. That's the
very first thing, the most important thing to him. I
want to play music tonight. You know, it's not I
want to clear my name tonight, or I want to
clear my name right now. I want to play music tonight.
(05:54):
I want to continue our good deeds going forward. So music,
good deeds, these are all the things that are really
important to him. That's what he is bringing up there.
But when I first saw that, I was like, there's
a lot going on here. And then I dug into
the actual filing that has been in mad in court
against him.
Speaker 1 (06:14):
Right, and you know that statement about the hush money
when he says, you know, to me, given money to
that person would be admitting to that behavior. But he says,
you know that I would be admitting I am incapable.
But then he goes on to say, we file the lawsuit,
we did it anonymously. Yes, he doesn't say who he's
(06:38):
talking about, but that's a very big shift to me.
Speaker 2 (06:41):
Yes, also, I want to continue our good deeds going
forward as well. He's got he's joining himself to someone
there as well, so he does you know, I think
the biggest one in that is he does say its
behavior I am incapable of. But before that becomes no
human should do to another, And that is talking about
(07:03):
the world in general. That is not talking about himself
at all. That ugly acts no humans should ever do
to another. That is not saying I did not do this.
It sounds impressive, but when you actually look at the
words that are there, it's not saying I didn't do this.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
And you know, for those of us that do this
for a living, when there's not an outright denal, you
flag it.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
Yes, my crazy life. I got accused of shoplifting a
couple of weeks ago, and I walked away and went
a statement, analyzed myself. What did I say? And I said,
I didn't steal anything. I'm walking away, and I gave
them the very simple denial I didn't steal anything. In
this statement from Garth Brooks. There is nothing as simple
(07:48):
and flat and sharp as that whatsoever. I described this
as a balloon statement, so it looks like something solid,
but if you look at it, it's really got a
flimsy exterior and very very little on the interior.
Speaker 1 (08:01):
And you and I have talked about the importance of
the order of things. Yeah, he did come out and
make a statement himself on video, So this isn't a
pr person. He comes on his radio thing and he says, okay,
let's talk about the elephant in the room. You almost
(08:22):
think okay, he's fixing to give you a play by play.
He's the one that says, let's talk about the elephant
in the room. Yes, and then he basically says, hey,
if you came here to hear about what's being alleged,
I can't talk about it.
Speaker 2 (08:35):
That's always very convenient for people, isn't it when they
say I can't talk about it. Actually, there are no
laws against talking about it unless there's a gag order imposed.
So when someone says I can't talk about it, it
really means I don't want to talk about it. This
is not an area that I want to go into.
Speaker 1 (08:52):
Well, here's what stuck out for me. The order he
says that, I quote, I want to play music tonight,
continue our good days going forward. It breaks my heart.
These wonderful things are in question now. I trust the system.
I do not fear the truth, and I am not
the man they have painted me to be.
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Yeah, I think that I do not fear the truth
as an interesting one their cheryl, because that's a statement
in the negative, So that shows where our focus is,
even though it's in the negative the subject of the sentence,
So fearing the truth is where the focus is. It's
very much like when I said to the person accusing
(09:34):
me of shoplifting, I did not steal anything. My focus
was on stealing. It wasn't the fact that I hadn't stolen,
but you know, my focus was very much on the stealing,
and I hadn't stolen. And right there where he says
I do not fear the truth, he says just before that,
I trust the system. That's a statement in the positive.
So he does trust the system. He's saying in general.
(09:55):
He doesn't say he trusts the system to do well
by him, or he trusts the system that he's in.
But he does say I trust the system, but I
do not fear the truth. The truth is this subject
of that there, and then fearing the truth is to
take it a little bit wider. So he has a
focus on fearing the truth. So, you know, I think
(10:15):
I know why we defile anonymously. There is truth in
here that he is very very worried about getting out.
He does actually fear the truth. That's a concept that
is high in his mind.
Speaker 1 (10:27):
Well, he talked about music first, the good deed second,
and then trust and then fear. He's mentioning again they
more than one person. So again, y'all, I want to
be super clear, we're not saying anything as far as
guilt or innocence. What we are saying is there's things
(10:49):
in the statement that give us pause. And if we
were investigating this case, Jack and I together, we're seeing
the same thing. This is a problem, This is an issue.
This needs more exploring. This is what I would concentrate
on if I were to interview him.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
Yeah. I mean, that's a great point, Cheryl, is that
there's no one magic proof that someone is lying. When
you look at the statements, there's nothing that makes you go, right,
I have proved it here, unless maybe they contradict themselves.
Then you will know that they are lying somewhere along
the line, but you won't know which of the contradictions
is true. But what statement analysis can do is just
inform a root of investigation or a set of questions,
(11:30):
or give you areas to really zone in on and
go what's going on here.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
Let's you know, talk about Jane do. Her statement ain't
perfect either, Okay, And one of the ones. There are
several that leaked out at me, but one only because
you and I've already talked about it. She says that
Garth Brooks appeared in the doorway to the bedroom completely naked,
making her feel trapped in the room alone. Now for me,
(12:03):
were you trapped or did you feel trapped? Those are
two very different things.
Speaker 2 (12:08):
Yes, And a rule of mind as if someone doesn't
say something, if someone hasn't said the words, then do
not assume it's true. So when the phrase is there,
I felt trapped in the room, that's all we know,
and let's accept that that is true. But the truth
is I felt trapped, not that I was trapped. If
(12:28):
she had said I was trapped in the room, I
would assume that was true and give them the benefit
of the doubt and say you were trapped in the room.
But that is only a feeling that was there. Now,
it's maybe not a feeling that anyone would like to have.
If you feel trapped in a room that you don't
want to be, and that is not a nice feeling,
but it is not the same thing as being trapped
in a room.
Speaker 1 (12:47):
And to your point, some of this is investigation one
O one, So if you have somebody say I saw
the two boys, they left the park and went home.
If I write in my report the two boys went home,
I don't know that. All I know is they left
the park. I don't know where they went. So you
need to be real clear. You know, when you're talking about,
(13:10):
you know, anything that occurred or didn't occur. So again,
when you're talking about an emotion, that's not an act exactly.
Speaker 2 (13:18):
That emotion is an internal and they're letting their internal
feelings and internal experiences come out when people talk about
their emotions, at least when they talk about their emotions honestly.
And there are other things we can do to decode
whether these might be the feelings that they actually had,
or whether these are feelings that they want to convince
us of. But that is all that's there. It is
(13:41):
those internal feelings. They tell us a lot. But we
need to we need to listen to what people are saying.
Just like you said there about the person, I saw
him go home, rather than I think he went home
or he did go home, all very different things. It's
amazing what you can do by just listening to the
words and then believing those to be true. No matter
what they tell you, it just makes you way more
(14:05):
aware of what is being said.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
Agreed. So when you read through the allegations and specifically
things she's quoted as saying occurred, did anything else leap
off the page where you said, wait a minute, we
need to look at this a little more.
Speaker 2 (14:22):
Yeah, I did, so I read through the full filing.
And this is a difference between what is in the
filing and what goth Brooks said. The filing is made
and written and in the name of her attorneys. It's
not her words unless they're in quotes. So I'm not
going to judge everything there because these may be the
(14:43):
attorneys putting their spin on things. In fact, they are
because the whole motion reads like bad fiction. I'm not
saying it is fiction. What I'm saying is this. Stylistically,
they add words like tragically her worst fears came true
when seconds later he was towering over her. Now that
reads like, why is it written in such persuasive terms?
(15:04):
Why is it not written factually? It's done to win
someone over, to make someone will take the word tragically.
And if you don't do what we were talking about
before and go why is that word there? Why is
that word being used both tragically is a word used
to persuade us of how tragic what is to follow is,
but actually was it tragic? Or is this being written
(15:25):
in a way to persuade us of it? So I'm
not going to judge too much on those attorney words there,
but there are a lot of quotes because I believe
reading this she has saved some text messages between herself
and Garth Brooks and also seems to have recorded some
phone calls between herself and Garth Brooks. Now it's very interesting.
She does mention in the filing that Garth deleted a
(15:46):
lot of texts from her phone at one point, so
maybe that's why she does not have the complete text
message exchanges. But the phone calls, there's only certain parts
of them that are quoted, and none of them, not
one of them to specifically about any of the severe
criminal incidents that she's alleging. In fact, what they show
(16:09):
is a two way relationship between the two that involved
intimacy and closeness, which I thought was very interesting. That
is not in the headline of the allegations. If you
liked that, they did seem to have some kind of
beyond work relationship. The first one that jumped out to
(16:29):
me was there was a comment from her to Brooks
where she's complaining that this would read like a sexual
harassment complaint in the complaint in the workplace, and she says,
I have thought a lot about the conversation of last Monday.
I can't work in an environment where explicit sexual comments
are made about a sham about shampoo bottles doubling as dildos.
(16:52):
I mean you no harm, and if you truly value
my work, I am happy to show up tomorrow and
or whenever you may need my services. And I went, well,
that's interesting. She talks about the conversation of last Monday.
Now I don't know if that's a conversation they had,
because she doesn't say our conversation. She says the conversation,
or if it's a conversation someone else had, but it's
very much referencing a specific event. And then she says,
(17:18):
I can't work in an environment where explicit sexual comments
are made about shampoo bottles doubling as dildos. Now, Cheryl,
I've talked to you twice. This is the second time
I've talked to you. I'm a little bit embarrassed about
using that word because we don't know each other well
enough yet. So that suggests that there was that closeness there.
There was other ways she could have said that. There
would have been a little bit more formal, a little
(17:40):
bit more I can't work in an environment where explicit
sexual comments are made about shampoo bottles. That would have
covered it all off. And yet she's gone there to
use a word that you would only use generally with
someone that you're quite familiar with, that you may have
used that term with before, or the similar concepts with before.
And then she says, I I'm happy to show up
(18:01):
for work tomorrow, not I will show up for work
tomorrow kind of grudgingly, or you know, it's I am
happy to show up for work tomorrow. So, while this
is being portrayed in the filing as something that is,
you know, a horrible situation that she was put in
in the workplace by Garth Brooks, her words don't belie
a level of real uncomfortableness with this at all. There's
(18:25):
no ultimatum that this must stop as well. She doesn't
say she just says, I am uncomfortable working in this environment.
She doesn't say I will not work in this environment
where this happens. So while this has been presented as
evidence of some sort of terrible behavior on Garth Brooks' behalf,
the words show that this was a little bit different
from that in that statement.
Speaker 1 (18:47):
When you were reading the statement about what occurred, was
there anything that you read that gave you Paul's to say,
how did that happen?
Speaker 2 (18:58):
Yeah, there was a point where where we're talking about
the alleged rape incident, and the statement says having no
regard for her well being an intent on his own
sexual gratification at the expense of miss Rose's physical, mental,
and emotional trauma. At some point during the nightmare, Brooks
even held her small body upside down by her feet
(19:19):
and penetrated her. And one of the things that I
teach people is when you are hearing someone's words, when
someone is being calm and clear in their delivery, and
they've got the authentic words to deliver the experience that
they have experienced, it's very easy for you to get
a picture in your head of what was happening, because
(19:41):
these are authentic words, and you can picture things in
your head. And that was one of those things that
made me go, I can't picture that, what would that entail?
What does that happen? And then further on there, apparently
he asked her to or forced her to keep her
glasses on during this. Again, so we've got this really
(20:01):
strange physical contortion that they seem to be in, and
then he's forcing her to keep her glasses on at
the same time, and that to me was physically impossible.
I can't see how in all of that you could
force someone to keep their glasses on as well. Just
this feels like overdoing it, you know. It feels like
way too much information, there, way too many things happening
(20:26):
at once for it not for it to all hang
together in my head. I can't say whether it was
not true or not, because I wasn't there. But when
I can't picture these things, when the words just don't flow,
then I find I go, well, wait a minute, what's
happening there? And I would dig into it just a
little bit more.
Speaker 1 (20:42):
And that's the thing, And I'm going to say it again.
We are not saying that either one is lying or
either one is being deceptive. What we're saying is this
is the hurdle, the problem, the walls that law enforcement
is going to have to get over, break down, go
(21:02):
around in order to find out who's telling the truth,
because the reality is, to our knowledge right now, she
has not gone to law enforcement. All we know is
there is a simple action. I mean, is that accurate.
Speaker 2 (21:17):
I am no legal expert, but as far as I know,
it is all civil actions at the moment.
Speaker 1 (21:21):
Yes, I mean we haven't heard anything. He hasn't been
arrested ever, and I mean they've known each other twenty years.
So there's some things I think that law enforcement is
going to have to look at with no bias, and
that is going to be the most critical piece. You
got to take the name Garth Brooks out of it,
(21:45):
right and you've got to look at this as a defendant,
and at first you know a defendant and a victim,
and see is there any probable cause? I mean, is
there any evidence? Is there anything factually that you can
glean from these statements?
Speaker 2 (22:02):
So far, there is nothing there. One of the ones
that really stood out to me was a message from
Jane to Thed to Garth Brooks, and it's the nearest
thing that references an incident of serious sexual assault or rape,
and she says, I want to make sure that even
though I've told you no, that you're cool with no?
(22:24):
I mean no, as in no fooling around like we
had done. You were cool with that? Right now? That
sounds way too breezy in the wording for it to
be talking about a serious sexual assault. You know, Are
you cool with no? You know? So? Yeah? Look she
is saying no. Here, she is saying no. She doesn't
(22:46):
want to continue, but it's continue. What are you cool
with no? No fooling around? Again? That does not sound
like someone referencing a severe and violent assault. And then
it's no fooling around And you were talking about pronouns earlier,
no fooling around like we had done. So that we
(23:06):
is very much about a joint action, about a joint
action together. If you study couples that are on the
verge of splitting up or have split up, you will
see that they very rarely use we pronouns. They talk
about you and I all the time. They split themselves apart,
people who have a unity about what we had done.
(23:27):
So I get the impression there's very much been some
fooling around. A work relationship has turned a little bit
more intimate here, and that is something that is pretty
much I would say from there, I can't prove anything,
but I would say, yeah, there has been a consensual
relationship between the pair of them at some point. I
(23:47):
think she has wanted out of that because he is
holding the power of work over her there. But I
think the one thing that is clear in his statements
that she quotes is that he is using his power
and I want you to keep working with me. And
maybe she feels a little bit powerless in that situation.
But in all this, all the statements that she quotes,
(24:09):
she talks about what's happened to herself. I get the
impression there was a consensual agreement with between the two
of them. And you know, bearing in mind that Garth
Brooks was married and she actually worked for his wife
at some point, is a very interesting position for the
two of them to have been in.
Speaker 1 (24:28):
What do you think about the statement when she says
that he basically propositioned a threesome with Tricia Yearworth.
Speaker 2 (24:36):
Oh, well, that is the whole the Tricia Yearward thing,
And where Tricia comes into this is is very interesting
because there is a point where that she is upset
that Garth has told Tricia that she has seen his stuff,
and stuff is the word they used to describe his
(24:58):
his naked body, and she is obviously very uncomfortable with that.
Very interesting because Garth says that he doesn't I think
I know Tricia pretty well, right, so I think I
know So there you talk about feelings. I think he
doesn't say I know her pretty well. He just kind
(25:19):
of thinks that he does and pretty well. So that's
not entirely and she wasn't uncomfortable. I said, you saw
my stuff, and that was it. We were talking about
something and it just came up. Now that we were
talking about something, it just came up. That sounds kind
of not deceptive to me. That sounds like he's hiding
something that the hym and Tricia have talked about, and
I wonder, I wonder what that was. I think I'll
(25:41):
leave it at that one. But it's only I think
I know Tricia pretty well, So I think that there's
probably some intimation in there that the relationship with between
him and Tricia maybe not all it is there. What
is interesting, she does say it was repeating remarks about
having a threesome with his wife. Now, I will always say,
(26:04):
pay attention to what people repeat because we're talking about
how to work out someone's priorities. When they order something,
the first thing they say is likely the most important
thing to them, and then it goes on down. Things
people repeat will reveal a lot about what is on
their mind as well. So if these were repeated remarks
about having a threesome, then that would suggest that, yeah,
(26:27):
that was something that was in his mind if it happened.
If he did make repeated remarks, and she does not
in her statement it was repeated, it.
Speaker 1 (26:35):
Marked would the three being the liar's number come in
to play there or now?
Speaker 2 (26:44):
I don't think so. I think it because threesome is
a concept that yeah, it does involve three people, but
I think three. And the theory around three being a
liar's number is that if someone constructs a story the
number three, the number three is involved in it. That's
the kind of guy who would say, it wasn't me
(27:07):
that that robbed that bank, but I did see three
men hanging about outside, you know. I think the theory
is one one will be too specific and you'll be
asked questions about that one person. Two. It's kind of
same when you get to three. Then all of a
sudden you can start being very vague about the three.
I didn't see all of them. One guy I think
(27:27):
had brown here, or you know, I tried three times
to call you. I mean, how many times have you
heard that, you know, with someone I didn't hear from you.
I tried three times? Did you? Did you? Or is
that just make it sound like you really tried quite
hard and then gave up.
Speaker 1 (27:44):
Well, I just wanted to clear that up because you know,
there's gonna be some people that are going to ask
us because we mentioned the liar's number last time. But
you know, here's the thing, and I want everybody to
understand again, there is a reason that sexual assault is
the most underreported. The victim is absolutely going to be
put on trial, no matter how many safeguards, no matter
(28:07):
how many laws, no matter how much protection we tried
to give them, It's going to happen, and people are
going to question and then they're going to you know,
point out anything they can come up with to blame her.
Like even now, we still occasionally hear somebody say what
(28:27):
was she wearing? Was she drinking? So, for example, when
she starts putting out these statements and she's telling you
things that occurred. People are going to look at that
and say, okay, wait a minute, he walks out of
the shower and he's naked, Well, that's obvious. You mean
(28:48):
to tell me she was there in the bathroom while
he was in the shower and what did she think
was going to happen? And then people are going to
question the hotel room. I mean, number one, does anybody
believe that Garth Brooks booked a hotel or he had
somebody do it for him? And you know how often
is somebody at his level alone. There's always hair and
(29:13):
makeup and managers and producers and lawyers and all these
other people around, right, So if he has carved out
where it's just the two of you on a plane
and only two of you walk into a hotel, his
assistant's not there, his manager's not there, the producer of
whatever this event is not meeting him and is there.
(29:34):
It's just the two of you. And then you say
we went into the hotel room and I was shot.
There was only one bedroom. But then she goes on
to say he pushed me into the other bedroom.
Speaker 2 (29:46):
So, just to talk in the victims favor over, remind
you that Garth Brooks does not deny any of the
allegations in his statement, and there are some things that
are caughty from Brooks in her statement that do give
me pause for thought as to what went on here.
Is he a nice guy? There's a statement, a quote
from him where he says, I would never be upset
with you. Look at it this way, Okay, look at it.
(30:07):
The best way I can explain is me and you
broke into a jewelry store and the second we broke
the door, we looked at each other and said, this
isn't right. Now. That's quite a violent metaphor for what
the situation he's describing. You know, that could have been
explained in a much more gentler way. You know, we
started something, babe, that we should not have. We realized
(30:27):
as soon as we started it it was the wrong thing.
So we walked away, and that's the right thing to do.
But he uses quite violent imagery there of breaking into
a jewelry store and breaking a door, and so that
made me think, what is this guy really like? It's
his personality coming out through some of the metaphors that
he is using there. And also I believe he uses
(30:47):
his status, and his status is not just Garth Brooks
famous person, but as her employer, you know, let's not
forget that. And he says to her at one point,
and this is if you're listening to this and you
want to tip for uncovering what people say, this is
a great one for what did someone actually say there.
So he says to her, I work with the best,
(31:09):
and I don't want to do something stupid that breaks
this team up, So I will do whatever I need
to do, or do whatever I don't need to do.
But I just want to keep working with you. But
if you feel weird working with me, it's fine. We
don't have to work together. So number one, I can
see he's holding the work and the fact he is
an employer over her, the fact that her livelihood depends
(31:30):
on him. But he says I work with the best.
Not once within all of that does he say she
is one of the best. He doesn't say you are
the best at your job, and I want you on
the team, so I will do whatever it takes to
keep you on my team because you are one of
the best. He does say that I work with the best,
and I don't want to split that team up. And
you can go if you want and I was thought,
(31:52):
that is very interesting. I think he's silvertonged. He seems
quite charming in some of the things he says. I
think it can be very easy for someone to hear
a statement like that and go always calling me one
of the best. That's very flattering, and I want to
stay on this team because you really values my work.
But he doesn't actually say that. We could assume that's
what he meant. But if he doesn't say the words,
don't assume, don't give them the benefit of the doubt
(32:14):
that that is what is in his head.
Speaker 1 (32:16):
Jack, when she flat out says and I quote, he
thinks laws don't apply to him. I think there's probably
some basis for that. So again, if you're at his
level and you're on a tour bus, you know you're
not going to get a ticket if you're speeding. You know,
if the hotel says there's no swimming after ten that
(32:37):
that don't apply to him. You know, there are things
where maybe laws of speeding or illegally be in part
or rules at different places, they do not apply to him.
Speaker 2 (32:48):
I am in a previous life, worked very close to
a lot of some of the most famous people over here.
In the UK, and I can attest to the fact
that these people live alone that we could not imagine
doors closed. That door will open and let you in.
And that leads to if you're not a balanced person,
that does lead to exactly the fact that you don't
(33:10):
feel like not just the laws don't apply to you,
but the norms of society, the standards of behavior that
we expect from people don't apply to you either. So
I could really see how someone with you know, the
level of fame that he has, and the number of
people as well, so that it will surround him that
(33:31):
will depend on their livelihoods. For him, I could see
very much how that is true. And again, the laws
don't apply to him. That's a very he feels like
the laws don't apply to him. Is a very straightforward statement.
It's not one that's trying to convince us of anything
or persuade us that this might be true. It's stated
very straight, very sharp, you know.
Speaker 1 (33:52):
And here's the thing. There are hurdles for both sides.
And this is why, again, this is a very difficult
crime to investigate. If you don't have a rape kit,
if you don't have DNA evidence on clothing, if you
don't have some type of voicemail or video of the hostility,
(34:13):
the anger, the threats. It gets difficult. So again, she
may not have any recourse other than CIBIL. She may
not have enough probable calls for law enforcement. Doesn't mean
it didn't happen. And if she's having financial difficulty and
she has known him for twenty years, maybe something happened
(34:34):
and she stayed because she had to. Maybe she doesn't
have other clientele. Maybe that you know, again, the level
that he's at, she had to be twenty four to
seven at his back and call my issue if this
was our case, Jack, Again, you know it does appear
civil not law enforcement. She did stay after several assault.
(35:01):
He says it's about money. Who you going to believe?
So you got to start, I think again with these statements.
If you look at his statement, is their past infidelity?
Is there possibly infidelity with the victim? And did it
start that way and then at some point did it
turn violent? Are we going to see other people come forward?
Speaker 2 (35:24):
Now?
Speaker 1 (35:25):
So far I have not heard of anybody coming forward.
No past employees, not anybody that met him on tour,
nobody that came back to his hotel as a fan.
I have not heard of anything. I have not heard
of one other woman. But here's the deal. Why did
she stop working for Tricia yearwould and how did she
(35:48):
go from working for Tricia to working for Garth Brooks.
I think those are things that law enforcement and the
civil suit should at least attempt to answer.
Speaker 2 (36:00):
Yeah, I was also taken in by the fact that
no one has come forward. You know, where the Diddy
story is going on right now, and it's like open
season for people to come forward and say and did
he was active for about about the same time as
Garth Brooks, you know, in terms of fame, and so
many people have come forward to say that they've had
bad experiences in his orbit. So I was taking that
(36:21):
no one else has come forward. But you know you said,
if you and I were investigating the case looking at
the statements, I would say to you, money is at
the root of this. And I'm not saying that's extortion
money or hush money. But what I do when I
look at statements is look at repeated concepts. So what
comes up time and time and time again and across
what Garth Brooks says, and of course what is in
(36:43):
her filings is the concept of money. He talks about
hush money, she talks about the fact that she relied
on him for money, that she was in some financial
deep straits, so money, and also the fact it was
a working relationship, so work is an exchange of time
for money. Money is a repeated concept. So I'm not
saying this is not true, and I'm not saying this
(37:04):
I'm true. What I would say was, if we were
looking at this, I'd be like, money is at the
center of this some way, somehow, because it comes up
so often from both sides.
Speaker 1 (37:13):
Agreed, and that's why I started with what I did.
Why is it civil and not law enforcement? You got
to ask that question. And again, these are not easy question, y'all.
Jack said earlier he did not even feel comfortable using
some of the words. I get it, it's not easy.
There are multiple reasons this is the most difficult crime
(37:36):
to investigate. You are going to have people pick sides immediately.
Nobody in a murder says what was she wearing? Nobody? Nobody.
Nobody questions well, was she home alone when she got murdered.
She shouldn't have been alone, She should have had people
around her. Was she drinking she shouldn't have been drinking. No,
(37:58):
they accept the murder and it's horrible. It's horrible across
the board. Friends, family, people at church, co workers, neighbors, everybody.
Everybody cares when it's sexual assault. It's like they go
away and they don't want to be a part of it.
They don't want to pick sides. But I believe, and Jack,
(38:19):
I want to know what you think. I think this
is going to get a lot uglier very quickly.
Speaker 2 (38:29):
I'm slightly different from you there. I'm not sure there's
a lot more to get ugly about. I think there
was a work relationship between the pair of them that
went sour, and potentially she wanted to back away from
the closeness of the intimacy that they had, and that
I think if there was, if she had something else,
Why is it not in the filing? Why is it
(38:53):
not in there? That is there? Now, that's not to
say I know what's happened or not. That's to say
that from everything I've seen, I think this. All the
words I see look like a very simple relationship gone bad.
Now why it went bad is not quite made clear
in the words in the statements. Is there I know
(39:14):
what she's alleging, but what there is any actual proof
of what? There are any words there that those just
don't are not there in that filing. Having said that
he does not deny the allegations. He remember when we started,
and I said, he does distance himself from denying at all.
(39:34):
So why is that? Why did he not come out
and say that so robustly in his defense? So there's
that great area in there, but I'm not sure there
is anything that is going to shed a little bit
more light on that gray area that's going to help
either party. Frankly, it could end up when you say
it messy, it may end up with no real resolution.
Speaker 1 (39:54):
Well, here's what I make by MESSI there ain't no
way you've had a front run to Garth Brooks for
twenty years and you don't know dirt. And I mean
an argument between him and Trisha Yearwood, who they pay,
who they don't pay, who they like, who they don't like,
(40:15):
If he had other extramarital affairs, if he paid anybody
else to keep quiet, if he had anybody else on
their payroll that didn't really work for him, she knows it,
And that's what I mean. If he leaked her name,
and now she is so hurt and so upset and
(40:39):
possibly embarrassed because now her friends from high school, her hometown,
her whole family, they now know. And maybe they didn't
know before, they know now. So if she has something,
I think she's going to put it out there.
Speaker 2 (40:57):
You're one step ahead of me. But that is a
very very good point. And I'll go back again to
the start where he talked about hush money.
Speaker 1 (41:04):
That's right, that's right. And you know, when you look
at Bill Clinton when he said what he did about
Monica Lewinsky, he said, I did not have sexual relations
with that woman. When he called her that woman, Suddenly
she's got a blue dress. So I'm just telling you,
(41:24):
hurt people they come back and if they have any
type of arsenal, they'll use it.
Speaker 2 (41:30):
I will be watching this one though, with great interest.
Over here in the UK country music, Garth Brooks is
not very popular. I'm aware of who he is, but
this has been it's been an eye opener in terms
of actually his popularity. And you know how well respected
he is or has been, so that he has a
(41:51):
lot to lose in this situation, doesn't he He does.
Speaker 1 (41:54):
And here's the thing. Reality Tom, and this is for
any any young man and listening to me, if you
get yourself in a situation where somebody can make this allegation,
it's going to hurt your reputation no matter what. And
he pretty much says that in his paperwork. That's why
(42:15):
he said he was asking, you know, for compensatory and
punitive damages. That she knew by putting this out there
what it was going to do to his reputation and
his career and his family. And he's absolutely right, Jack Fox,
Thank you so much. We've got a lot to keep
our eye on.
Speaker 2 (42:33):
Thank you for having me, y'all.
Speaker 1 (42:34):
I'm going to end Zone seven the way that I
always do with a quote. When we got married almost
ten years ago now, we made a commitment to really
be together, which means we hardly ever spent a night apart.
And being madly in love is important, but I think
it's equally important to be in deep like I like
(42:58):
this guy. We talk about everything and we laugh a lot.
Life is good, Trisha Gearwood, I'm Cheryl McCollum, and this
is Own seven.
Host
Sheryl McCollum
Popular Podcasts
Bookmarked by Reese's Book Club
Welcome to Bookmarked by Reese’s Book Club — the podcast where great stories, bold women, and irresistible conversations collide! Hosted by award-winning journalist Danielle Robay, each week new episodes balance thoughtful literary insight with the fervor of buzzy book trends, pop culture and more. Bookmarked brings together celebrities, tastemakers, influencers and authors from Reese's Book Club and beyond to share stories that transcend the page. Pull up a chair. You’re not just listening — you’re part of the conversation.
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
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!