Sara and Jim sit with veteran journalist, Chris Cuomo. Chris shares his vast experience covering crime stories over decades. He explains the fascination with crime, including with Murdaugh and the Gilgo killer, the need for transparency, the presumption in the court of law and public opinion, and so much more. Sara presses Chris on whether he really looks at the accused from the lens of presumption vs guilt, and Chris of course returns the favor. Sara and Chris talk about their friendship, personal struggles and mental illness, and Chris' dog, Eliza who deserves forgiveness. The conversation gets interesting! More with the Mo Man next week!
Photography - Catherine White
Art – Simon & Associates
Music – Caleb Fletcher
Photography - Catherine White
Art – Simon & Associates
Music – Caleb Fletcher
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:22):
Hi, everyone, Welcome to thePresumption. I'm Sarah Azari here with my
esteemed colleague Jim Griffin. A.Jim, Hey, Sarah, I'm sorry
about that. How are you norace? Are you at Fondalie? Are
wonderful producer? Hi? Matt,Hey, guys, So today is so
special for us. We have beenwanting to speak to Chris Cuomo for a
(00:45):
long time. He's been a dearfriend of mine for probably around seventeen years.
He always says not to say howlong because it makes us look old,
but he's been a dear friend.He's been really good to us here
on the podcast. He's always promotingand you know, when Jim goes on
a show, he's just super fair, leads the interview with integrity. And
so there's no better person for usto sit down with than Chris because he
(01:11):
you know, look, he's gotpolitics in his DNA. He's a lawyer,
he's a journalist, and he's coveredcrime for decades. I mean,
this guy was at Fox, thenABC, than CNN and now of course
News Nation, and he's got personalexperience with false accusations, and he's got
experience as a journalist. And Ithink it also helps that he's a lawyer,
(01:33):
so just so well rounded for whatwe do here, and so we're
really honored to have him. Andso here's us with Chris Cuomo. All
right, and we are here withthe man, the Moman, Chris Cuomo,
my dear friend. Welcome to thePresumption. Chris. Wow, what
(01:57):
an opportunity sites for me, Likewe've just chased you since we launched in
June. But look, Chris doesn'tneed an intro, although we did an
intro, and uh, it's justsuch an honor to have you with us.
(02:19):
Uh, you're the perfect person totalk to us about all the things
that we're about on this podcast.You know, we when Jim and I
started this are we were not goingto be the popular podcast or the popular
kids, because we're not. We'rejust the unpopular view. But it was
important for us to sort of highlightthis missing voice of the presumption of innocence
and the way that media covers crime, and they cover a lot of crime
(02:44):
now you do as well, andalso the lost illness, you know,
the substance abuse and mental illness andthe criminal justice system. So it's really
kind of you to support us andgive us all the plugs over the last
you know, several months, andwe're appreciate that. So you believe in
the presumption, right, it doesn'tmatter if I do or not. It's
(03:06):
a fundamental as that's the system.Okay, well let's Matt. Let's play
a clip from when I was onChris's show with Mark Arragos said the presumption
of innocence. I think it's calledI think there's a great podcast by that
name. Also, yeah, yeah, the presumption of innocence. But then
(03:27):
we we ended up, uh,you know every so often we chat by
text, uh, exchanging some textmessages that I then shared with Jim and
uh, I wasn't really I don'tknow they were concerning Matt. Can you
put up the text messages? Sothis is this is about Corey Riches and
(03:49):
that's your picture with Mario up there. That's about Corey Richs in Utah,
the woman who is accused of poisoningher husband with fentanyl. She is yet
to start on trial. And you'relike, she did it, she did
it? So I don't know,I mean the presumption of innocence. He
did it, Chris, I mean, she's what? Okay, look the
(04:14):
evidence there, there's other text messagesthat I will give you because they're about
Peterson. But first of all,how dare you violate my privacy in a
text message by Sherry that you woulddo? I edited it. It was
the villain edit, villain edit.I will return this by forwarding some pictures
(04:36):
you sent me. And there aretwo things. There are two things.
One is the standard of proof andhow we conduct ourselves within the criminal justice
system. Uh, that is onething. There is then the court of
public opinion. And they are differentfor a reason, and each matters.
(05:00):
Now the conflation of them is dangerous. I do not believe what a lot
of you people like to argue,which is, oh, there shouldn't be
any public discussion of a case.You need public discussion of a case for
two three reasons. One because thisis the people's business being done and they
should weigh in on it. Two, it often motivates investigation and to allow
(05:27):
the opt to know that this mattersand they better be supposed to do.
And three is that very often thesystem gets it wrong, and it is
important to have people weighing in onthe value of the policies that underlie some
of these cases. So it canbe like, wow, we shouldn't.
(05:48):
And because defense attorneys only feel thisway when it's their client in the game.
When it's not their client in thegame, you guys are more than
happy to yapp about whatever it is. But when it's you're a client,
whoa, whoa, whoa, weshouldn't before it actually happens. So I
like to police that game a littlebit. But I do think there's space
for both. You have to reach. But look, Chris, I understand.
(06:11):
I mean if there's value to mediacoverage of these cases as well,
because look at for example, AdnanSayet that podcast serial was the reason why
his conviction was overturned. I meanthat that's what shed light on all the
issues in his trial. And Iknow that you know there are pros to
this as well, but I guessfrom the perspective of a journalist, you're
(06:32):
a truth finder, you're a liecatcher, you're the best at it,
and you get to the bottom ofit. And so there's this fascination with
crime that gem and I appreciate,you know, I think that it's impressive
how people know so much about whatwe do. They there's cameras in the
courtroom, they know the procedure.I mean, it's pretty impressive. But
(06:57):
what I don't like is sometimes thechirons are they're not reconcilable with the truth.
And so like one example that comesto my mind that's recent is putting
up Buster Murdoch next to Stephen Smith. Oh my god, roadside you know,
roadside accident that killed this kid.It was Buster. The whole family's
(07:19):
criminal. It's like, there wasno evidence of that and at the end
of the day didn't turn out tome. So what's the ethics, I
mean, how do you choose?But uh, you know, look,
I think it's a fairly bright line, to be honest. The there's one
thing where when I'm texting with youand you're you know, you are playing
(07:42):
on a very slim possibility, nota probability, that there's a different outcome
other than the obvious one in asituation like where the guy's poisoned and the
only person who was giving them anythingwas his wife. And the Buster Murdoch
situation where it's the out where thereis no proof connecting the ID to the
(08:05):
situation, but it just feels goodbecause the narrative about the family. I
think it's a pretty bright line distinction, and I am very careful to not
convict people on my show, evenwhen I think that that's the way it
is, because that's part of whatI love about the coverage of crime is
(08:28):
I love that you never know howit's gonna come out, and it's always
been this way. By the way, crime is not a new area of
fascination for the American audience. It'sjust found a new manifestation in a modality
of social media and the stockers,these cyber sleuths as there. So it's
(08:52):
always mattered. Why well, becauseit goes to the fundamental interest of news,
which is is people's sense of selfprotection. People are very into what
could endanger them, So crime isa natural well and Jim, you know,
we were on Good Morning America afew months back and Jim took it
back to Kill a Mockingbird, andyou know, the spectacle of a trial.
(09:13):
I mean, it's always been there, but I think it's just exponential
now because of social media. Summerturn over to Jim on Murdoch because of
course Jim has a lot of questionson that game. Hey, Chris,
good talking with you. Are yougoing to reveal some of our private conversations?
Also, No, I have nopictures of you, you have none
of me, and we don't reallyhave no real private conversations. But here's
(09:37):
here's what i'll you know, Ionly get your perspective as to why the
Murdock case drew so much attention.Oh that's easy. So here's why.
One. Media is a pack animaland they love to add to momentum as
opposed to originating any initial force.I mean, we're actually living that right
(10:01):
now with this missing South Florida womanin Spain. I got called a friend
of hers on a Knezevich. Knezevichis her married name, a Serbian name.
I got called about that story bya friend of hers, and I
did a little checking and I said, oh yeah, this is this is
weird. So I started covering it. Nobody picked up. Now. Part
(10:24):
of it is because I don't havethat huge platform at CNN anymore, but
it's also because the media likes tocover what the media covers. And now
it's starting to gain momentum, notbecause the story changed, not because there's
some new acts to change it.It's that it's a pack animal. So
that's number one. Number two.Netflix did a series on it. Why
(10:45):
did Netflix do a series on Murdoch. People like to get into the space
of wealth, privilege and how itoperates in society. And Burdox checked those
boxes and then they had that extra. And the extra is there's a lot
(11:07):
of weird shit that happened around family, So it gave you like that dynasty
vibe or whatever the modern day equivalentis of that. So that checks a
lot of boxes, and it hadthe last one which matters most to me
in a story like this. Whatmatters most to me in crime and covering
(11:28):
it is the underlying policy involved.I'm not just an intrigue junkie, but
the idea of because where do youstart with a homicide? The homicide analysis
always begins and of course you haveyou know, means motive and an opportunity,
but it's well, who else woulddo it? It's got to be
someone who knew this person. Otherwisethere's this other randomized scenario of the monster
(11:52):
the unknown, And this Murdoch storyplayed to that. Why who kills their
own kids, let alone the waythat this happened. Killing the wife,
okay, but killing your own kid, you know, you don't really hear
that. So check a lot ofboxes. But don't sleep on that white
rich, privileged thing, because youknow, the media loves to beat up
(12:16):
white rich people, and people liketo get insight into how power and privilege
plays in society. So just tofollow up on that, you know,
as a lawyer trying a lot ofcases, you know, for years and
years we didn't have cameras in thecourtroom, and and then you know,
we started experimenting with them, andnow you know the Murnot case. I
mean it was it was a daytimmust watch TV. And I guess the
(12:41):
question I have to you is ifcameras were not allowed in the court room
at the Murdoch trial, would ithave garnered so much attention? No,
we need picture to visual medium.I am a transparency junkie. I believe
even transparency everywhere. I think itnever hurts. For years, I struggled
(13:05):
with this when it comes to copsand cams, because there are things that
happen in policing. As you guysboth know that the uninitiated may not understand
and that people could demonize and weaponizefor their own agenda. I understand that.
I still transparency is key. Ithink every trial should be on I
(13:26):
think the way we protect minors iswrong. I think the way that we
protect people who make allegations of asexual variety is wrong. I think that
there can be special cases, ofcourse, but I think it's gone too
far. I think the way weprotect the audience from the dead is wrong.
(13:48):
I think that when there's a massshooting, you should see what happens
to the bodies. I think youshould see it at war. I think
you should see the reality. Transparencyis key. One last question, Chris.
I know you've covered the trial,covered the post trial stuff and Becky
(14:09):
Hill at all. Here's the question, did, in your opinion, did
Alec get a fair trial? DidAlec get a fair trial? No?
And I'll tell you why. Iam also of the school of let them
all go, not about how wedid it. Let them all go.
(14:33):
If we're not sure that it wasfair, let them all go. I
believe in that. I believe inthe let the one hundred guilty men go
free so that one innocent man doesnot get wrongly convicted. I believe in
that. And I don't understand howthis judge came to this conclusion. I
don't understand how the first person heinterviews says, yeah, she talked to
(14:56):
me, which automatically, but thisclerk no business talking to jurists. But
not only did she talk to me, but yes, it influenced my decision.
I don't know how it's not overthere, you know, Do I
understand the rest of his analysis andhow they believe it wasn't that instructive and
that maybe the person wasn't given thereal answer the first time? Yes,
(15:18):
yes, and yes, But Ithink you air on the side and I
know it's expensive, and I knowthat this was complicated, but I don't
I was shocked that it didn't getmore play. I think that goes to
bias. I think it goes tobias in the media. People want Murdoch
to be guilty. Well, Ithink that Murdoch was such a By the
(15:39):
way, Jim Chris is behind myfascination with the Murdoch case. That's how
it all started, is when youstarted covering the case on CNN and we
were texting. I was like,what is this? This is crazy,
this is a crazy story. Butyou know the the Chris, you know
that I feel like the that Murdochgave the judiciary such a big black stain
(16:02):
or black guy in South Carolina thatthat it was just there's no way he's
going to get any slack or anyrelief, even if the laws on his
side. And I think that thisis only gonna, you know, hopefully
get overturned in a different level,which with Jim and Dick Carpootley and are
working on. But this is Imean, I think, uh, it's
(16:25):
no secret in our world that sometimesthe result is determined and then we just
work backwards to get there. SoI think he's got trouble on two levels.
One he's got the level he's gotthe trouble of, well, he
did something so uh he probably killedhis wife and his kid. Uh,
and he probably had something to dowith some of these other things that happened
(16:47):
in and around his family. Andthen you have the other one, which
is really wrong, which is andthe guy is a fucking junkie. So
uh, you know these junkies,you know, and this is what they
do. And that part bothers methe most and is one of the most
shocking continued prejudices in our society.I don't know how in the year twenty
(17:11):
twenty four people can have the arrogance, the unmitigated goal to think that they
are untouched by mental health illness,and that addiction is not mental illness,
and that somehow people who are addictedor somehow bad or that their illness should
(17:37):
not have anything to do with howthey behave. I think it is nuts
pun intended that we are still inthis place in twenty twenty four, and
I think it's only out of convenience. And that's really said. Yeah,
I mean that don't bring you know, Judge Newman, that Alex Senensing says,
well, maybe it wasn't you.Maybe it was the monster you become
when you take these drugs. Andthis is a guy has been on drugs
(18:00):
for twenty years. I mean,so anyway, but it's the same person
who doesn't know like Sarah. Youknow. Look, Sarah and I have
a lot of shared history and uhand your audience should know. So.
I don't know Jim as well.I've had very good and straight dealing with
him. I think he represents peoplefor the right reasons. He's never asked
(18:21):
anything to agrin dies himself, whichis rare in TV attorneys. Sarah I
know much much better. She isa very important person in my life,
and she suffers through me being avery lackluster friend. I am. I
am. You know, if badshit happens, I'm a good guy to
(18:41):
have in your life, but otherwisenot so great. And she is one
of the few people I know whoone has actually done the real job and
not for five minutes. Okay,like that's what I am. Okay,
I practiced law for three and ahalf four years. Okay, I am.
I'm more one of those. I'ma TV lawyer. Okay, I
(19:02):
do not know practice the way shedoes. She would slice me like fatty
cheese if we were ever. Ithink she has tremendous interest and passion for
the pursuit of what matters in astory, in a case, as much
or more than anyone else I've everworked with in the space. I gotta
(19:23):
like this stupid dog. If Iweren't talking to Sarah right now, I
wouldn't be doing not just this podcast. I would not be letting this little
bitch dog back in my house aftershe sh my carpet. But I'm great
because Sarah believes that everybody deserves forgivenessexcept me on occasion. So I think
it's important that you, as anaudience understand this that all podcasters are the
(19:45):
same. Not all lawyers are thesame, and a lot of them are
for gazing and you have too rightnow, benefiting you in a way that
they don't. Now. Part ofour shared experience is we understand a lot
of people who've been through the hardway with illness. And look in vino
veritas for giving people when that nightthey were drunk when they said what they
(20:10):
said, forgiving people for breaking thatthing in your house. You know,
the fear that we have when someone'sgoing to drive and they're under the influence.
How we are careful about how wedeal with people when we know that
they're under the influence of something,the metaphor that you hear that you're like,
hey, you don't talk to someonewhen they're drowning, right, And
(20:32):
we know all these things, right, but then when it comes into the
most important context of understanding behavior,because remember remember what the law is.
Two things, what they did theactus reus right, and what's the more
important part, men's raya could formthe intent. We know, but as
(20:53):
a society, starting in the nineteenforties, we decided, you know,
there are too many drunks. We'renot going to give them a break.
Some kind of skewed Christian sense ofmorality that you must pay for your sins,
and the law echoed it, andthey started to move away from any
(21:15):
sophistication and thought when it comes toassessing intent on the basis of diminished capacity,
and they created higher and higher barsof entry. Now it's starting to
change a little bit, but we'restill in a place now where if somebody
took too much ambient, okay,because we all like ambient, Ambient's not
(21:37):
a bad thing, So I can'tsleep. It took ambient, I thought
I took a half turns out Itook a whole one. I ran right
off the road and I banged intothis other car on the way. Thank
God, the person's all right.But that's a situation where you're like,
well, yeah, you know,I get it, the medication that can
happen. But if I say thesame thing and it's crack, now,
(22:00):
you're like, go to hell.You're going to jail for the rest of
your life. Well, Chris,and you know what's pathetic is in the
system. I had a federal districtjudge who actually I'm not calling him pathetics,
just to be clear, I'm justsaying the idea is pathetic. He
oversees the drug court in our district, and my client was a terrible gambling
(22:22):
addict. He also had an opioidproblem, and it's sentencing. He said.
You know, I don't believe thathe's an addict. I mean that
the definition of addiction and substance abuseand just addiction. You know, addiction
can be food, sex, drugs, gambling, could be anything. Right,
it's still in twenty twenty four loston the system. And you know,
(22:45):
it's just that nexus between like,for example, in Jim's case,
I remember right after the verdict cameand I was like, this is I
mean, how could people be takingtheir calculator out trying to do the math
on how much money he stole versushow many pills he took. It's not
about that. It's a lifestyle.You know, you do all kinds of
shady things. You lie, youcheat, you steal it. You know,
(23:07):
in that connection is still not notbeing you know, recognized. But
well, it's difference between explanation andexcuse and our fire to punish bad behavior.
Yeah, but I mean it is. It is a real thing,
and we see it in most ofour cases. One of the first things
(23:29):
I do is delve into the person'shistory from their development as a kid to
their adulthood, and there's always somethingthere. I mean, you know,
there are people who you know,are perfect adults or close to perfect adults,
came from perfect family structure and mightend up in a situation. But
ninety percent of my clients something wentwrong somewhere, you know, So even
if it didn't, we know,we know the stories all over the place.
(23:53):
And again, if I were adiabetic or I had a heart issue
into some type of distress and Itook too much night for glycerine or whatever
my medication was, and then Idid something that transgressed the law, people
would be understanding, but not fiction. Look what do we say to addicts
when we don't know what we're talkingabout, and we have addicts in our
(24:15):
lives, Why don't you just stopstop drinking, stop filling the blank of
the addiction, just stop, getsome discipline. Come on, Well,
you don't know what the hell?Would never say that if it were cancer.
Nobody says that about having long COVID. You know what I mean,
Hey, stop being so flushed,stop at the break bog. You know,
(24:38):
just because you're white, you're white, you think you're not, and
that week Heavin generation all right,all right, So I want to get
into your HLN series. Chris dida series on HLN, the sister network
to CNN, when he was atSANNA, and he did several but this
one was called Inside Evil, andI absolutely loved each and every episode.
(25:03):
For the true crime followers out there, for Chris's followers out there and ours,
you absolutely should pull this up ondemand and watch it. Chris would
very nonchalantly drive up to the supermaxprisons in upstate New York and visit serial
killers to try to get into theirminds. Was it nature or nurture?
What is in the psyche of aserial killer? And so in the context
(25:26):
of you know, all the thingsthat you cover, including Rex Hureman and
Gilgo Beach, I really sort ofwas one of the fascinating episodes for me
was the Jewel Rifkin interview that youdid. Joel Rifkin had killed I think
seventeen women. OHI Eliza Hi notbecause she looks like Sharah. So the
(25:51):
Rifkin interview is fascinating to me.He was he killed seventeen women, very
similar to Rex Hureman. He hadraped that, drag their bodies, dump
their bodies, et cetera, torturedthem. But you know, watching Chris
uh do this interview, you keptpressing him about how he felt when there
(26:14):
was a stench from a body inhis car, or you know, what
was his reaction right after a killing, and he couldn't tell you. That's
so frightening. Tell me about Well, tell me what was going through your
mind when you were sitting there withhim, and what what do you think
it is? Is it nature nurtureA Look, it's gotta be both.
(26:38):
It has to be that. Thereare some of them that are just evil
people, but more And by theway, we changed the name of the
show because it's tough to book somebodyit turns out when they know they're going
to be called evil, But theyalso a lot of illness and sometimes people
again they don't want to justify behaviorthat they reject. Pedophiles are sick people.
(27:04):
It's very rare that you find somebodywho actually enjoys in a healthy way,
fects with a minor. This isvery unusual. It's an illness.
Serial killers often the same thing.Joe Rifkin was obviously a profoundly ill guy.
And you know what, so arethese women who fall in love with
(27:25):
him all the time, which iscrazy. And he was telling me about
them when I was there. Healso told me a story. Look,
the answer to your question is,I'm fascinated by serial killers because they look
like the rest of us, andwe are interested in understanding what makes them
different in such a profound way thatwe don't believe we could ever do.
(27:49):
How is it that they the restof their life is totally like mine,
except every few weeks they get thisweird urge or like this other cat that
I interviewed who starts to smell orangeswhen somebody's pissing them off, and that's
when he knows he has to killthem. So I stopped the interview and
I asked him, you're not smellingoranges now, are He's like around and
(28:11):
he's like no. I was like, all right, good, let's continue.
But with Joel Rifkin, he toldme a story. Listen to this.
He picks up. He said thathe had never told this story before,
but I think he did. Anyway, he picks up this affetch worker
okay, and she's a little olderand they get in the car and they
(28:32):
start fooling around or whatever they're doing, and he starts to choke her,
and she is underneath him, andhe is choking her, trying to kill
her. She gets her legs herfeet up underneath his torso in the back
of this pickup truck and starts bashinghim into the hood, the roof rather
(28:56):
of his truck, so much sothat he is like losing consciousness. And
she then stops and puts him onthe side and says, Okay, baby,
I gotta get back now. Yougot to drop me off and listen,
you gotta look for me because alot of these other girls they don't
like this rough stuff. He drivesher back, drops her off, goes
(29:22):
home, flects himself because he can'tbelieve how fucked up he got by this
person he thought he was going tokill, goes back out, picks up
another sex worker, kills her.Wow, that's crazy her. Yeah,
he gives me Huroman vibes a lot. So about the woman who got away,
(29:52):
who left the date that I hadon my show. Yeah, I
keep wanting to have her back on, but like ABC or some body one
up me and like cut her adeal or something, so like I say,
did her now? But she's ona date with Rex Yuerman as an
escort, and enough with the blamingher for going on the date. Will
you please? Do you know howmany people have to make this choice for
(30:17):
one reason or another? Can younot judge that? Can you just let
people be okay? And instead ofyou finding your own sense of superiority through
putting them down, just try tounderstand and just focus on your own beabue
Anyway, So she's a sex work, she's got kids all over the place,
she can't get a job because she'sgot a record. This was the
only way she could, you know, in her estimation, make ends met
(30:41):
judge it as you wish, butI wish you wouldn't. Still, it's
actually good line. She's sitting acrossfrom this guy and he's given her daddy
vibes, right, I want totake care of you. I want to
do this and want to do that. And he is very insistent that she
come back to his house, whichwas very unusual because John's don't usually want
(31:03):
you to go back to their housewhere their family usually is, or they
just don't want you to know wherethey live, or whatever it is.
You know, and so she waslike, well, that's kind of weird.
And he was saying, and I'lldrive you there. You can leave
your car. She starts to getweird vibes, which you know, smart,
which she is. People who havethis experience repeatedly start to get some
(31:26):
radar for things right. And bythe way, the guy's a giant.
Okay, he sick sate three hundredsomething. So she calls a friend.
She had never done this before ona date. Calls a friend and says,
or text him or something, saysyou need to come get me.
I got to get out of here. And they come and show up,
(31:47):
and he gets very angry with herwhen she says she's going to leave,
and the anger took on a flavorthat she had never seen before, she
says, which was he had thiskind of this is an over vibe where
it was like, Okay, youthink you're gonna leave now, but I'll
(32:12):
see you again. And she wentto the bathroom and then took off outside
and left. And she went andtold people there was something really wrong with
this guy. And then she startshearing about the gil Go Beach stuff years
later and says, I think Iwas with the guy who did that,
because listen to this one. Youguys all love this. What is he
talking to her about at dinner?What do you think about the gil Go
(32:36):
Beach killings? Well, you know, they're just wars, don't you think
they you know, kind of askedfor it by being whores. And she
was like, uh, that's weird, seeing how you're on a date with
one right now. He was fascinatedby who had done it and how these
(33:00):
women kind of just asked for itby what they did with their lives.
And there are two things that areinteresting to me about that. One,
don't be that guy and judge peopleon the basis of the choices that they
have to make in their life,especially when you know you're there enabling it.
And she felt that that was justobviously so perverse that they kept talking
(33:24):
to her about a guy who waskilling sex workers. And then he started
asking, weren't there like online therewas a lot of online searches that he
had done about you know, notto play with the presumption, but you
know this guy got trouble six waysfrom Sunday. Yeah, yeah, no,
that's true. He's got the wifethough, is the interesting part of
(33:45):
that story. She can't have knownnothing, not just for two reasons.
Forget about my wife. The womenin my life who were my friends,
like Sarah, have like esp andshe'll call me and be like, Hey,
were you flirting in the grocery storetoday. It's it's like, you
know, women know, okay,if relationship with you, they know,
if they're friends with you, theyknow. Women have a intuition of,
(34:10):
you know, how men are dogsor whatever you want to call it,
and they know. So the wifehas to know that there's something going on.
And there is a lot of anecdotalI believe proof in the form of
testimony that could be adduced at trialthat they had a freakidek lifestyle. So
(34:35):
she was arguably aware of his sexualdeviancy and freakidky lifestyle. So the idea
that this is not the man Imarried, he was never capable, he
never did I don't think that's true. I think that that's an article of
convenience for her, which I thinkpeople will allow because you don't want to
slip reslope the situation for her either, and the police have been very hands
(34:59):
off in the implication that she wasinvolved in criminality. But yeah, but
also she could have known that herhusband's are freaking doing things with sex workers.
I mean, who knows. Imean maybe a woman's okay with that,
but like, I don't know thatshe knows necessary that he was killing
these women and then dumping their body. No, but it's not that you
knew nothing. Yeah, yeah,you know what I mean. You know,
(35:23):
it's like if I go out,especially if you're not having sex with
your husband, he's having it somewhereelse. Well, look, and maybe
they weren't. I don't know whatthe deal was in correctly, but I
want to know. Yeah, I'vegot to gross or she's the more into
There are two interesting aspects of thatcase to me. One is her and
two and not that I think thatshe's implicated in it. And I'm not
(35:45):
just saying that to protect myself.I just I don't think she was implicated
in it. But the second thingis there has to be more And we're
going to take a break. Ourconversation with Chris Cuomo will continue next time
on the Presumption, and in themeantime. If you want to check out
more episodes of The Presumption, pleasesubscribe to our podcast. We're available on
(36:06):
all the podcast platforms, and hey, you can even watch the interviews as
well. We're on YouTube, YouTubedot com, slash at the Presumption and
the handle at the Presumptions, alsofor Twitter and Instagram and all that good
stuff. So great job, Sarahand Jim. Looking forward to hearing the
second part of this conversation, butuntil then, we rest, We rest.
Hi, everyone, Welcome to thePresumption. I'm Sarah Azari here with my
esteemed colleague Jim Griffin. A.Jim, Hey, Sarah, I'm sorry
about that. How are you norace? Are you at Fondalie? Are
wonderful producer? Hi? Matt,Hey, guys, So today is so
special for us. We have beenwanting to speak to Chris Cuomo for a
(00:45):
long time. He's been a dearfriend of mine for probably around seventeen years.
He always says not to say howlong because it makes us look old,
but he's been a dear friend.He's been really good to us here
on the podcast. He's always promotingand you know, when Jim goes on
a show, he's just super fair, leads the interview with integrity. And
so there's no better person for usto sit down with than Chris because he
(01:11):
you know, look, he's gotpolitics in his DNA. He's a lawyer,
he's a journalist, and he's coveredcrime for decades. I mean,
this guy was at Fox, thenABC, than CNN and now of course
News Nation, and he's got personalexperience with false accusations, and he's got
experience as a journalist. And Ithink it also helps that he's a lawyer,
(01:33):
so just so well rounded for whatwe do here, and so we're
really honored to have him. Andso here's us with Chris Cuomo. All
right, and we are here withthe man, the Moman, Chris Cuomo,
my dear friend. Welcome to thePresumption. Chris. Wow, what
(01:57):
an opportunity sites for me, Likewe've just chased you since we launched in
June. But look, Chris doesn'tneed an intro, although we did an
intro, and uh, it's justsuch an honor to have you with us.
(02:19):
Uh, you're the perfect person totalk to us about all the things
that we're about on this podcast.You know, we when Jim and I
started this are we were not goingto be the popular podcast or the popular
kids, because we're not. We'rejust the unpopular view. But it was
important for us to sort of highlightthis missing voice of the presumption of innocence
and the way that media covers crime, and they cover a lot of crime
(02:44):
now you do as well, andalso the lost illness, you know,
the substance abuse and mental illness andthe criminal justice system. So it's really
kind of you to support us andgive us all the plugs over the last
you know, several months, andwe're appreciate that. So you believe in
the presumption, right, it doesn'tmatter if I do or not. It's
(03:06):
a fundamental as that's the system.Okay, well let's Matt. Let's play
a clip from when I was onChris's show with Mark Arragos said the presumption
of innocence. I think it's calledI think there's a great podcast by that
name. Also, yeah, yeah, the presumption of innocence. But then
(03:27):
we we ended up, uh,you know every so often we chat by
text, uh, exchanging some textmessages that I then shared with Jim and
uh, I wasn't really I don'tknow they were concerning Matt. Can you
put up the text messages? Sothis is this is about Corey Riches and
(03:49):
that's your picture with Mario up there. That's about Corey Richs in Utah,
the woman who is accused of poisoningher husband with fentanyl. She is yet
to start on trial. And you'relike, she did it, she did
it? So I don't know,I mean the presumption of innocence. He
did it, Chris, I mean, she's what? Okay, look the
(04:14):
evidence there, there's other text messagesthat I will give you because they're about
Peterson. But first of all,how dare you violate my privacy in a
text message by Sherry that you woulddo? I edited it. It was
the villain edit, villain edit.I will return this by forwarding some pictures
(04:36):
you sent me. And there aretwo things. There are two things.
One is the standard of proof andhow we conduct ourselves within the criminal justice
system. Uh, that is onething. There is then the court of
public opinion. And they are differentfor a reason, and each matters.
(05:00):
Now the conflation of them is dangerous. I do not believe what a lot
of you people like to argue,which is, oh, there shouldn't be
any public discussion of a case.You need public discussion of a case for
two three reasons. One because thisis the people's business being done and they
should weigh in on it. Two, it often motivates investigation and to allow
(05:27):
the opt to know that this mattersand they better be supposed to do.
And three is that very often thesystem gets it wrong, and it is
important to have people weighing in onthe value of the policies that underlie some
of these cases. So it canbe like, wow, we shouldn't.
(05:48):
And because defense attorneys only feel thisway when it's their client in the game.
When it's not their client in thegame, you guys are more than
happy to yapp about whatever it is. But when it's you're a client,
whoa, whoa, whoa, weshouldn't before it actually happens. So I
like to police that game a littlebit. But I do think there's space
for both. You have to reach. But look, Chris, I understand.
(06:11):
I mean if there's value to mediacoverage of these cases as well,
because look at for example, AdnanSayet that podcast serial was the reason why
his conviction was overturned. I meanthat that's what shed light on all the
issues in his trial. And Iknow that you know there are pros to
this as well, but I guessfrom the perspective of a journalist, you're
(06:32):
a truth finder, you're a liecatcher, you're the best at it,
and you get to the bottom ofit. And so there's this fascination with
crime that gem and I appreciate,you know, I think that it's impressive
how people know so much about whatwe do. They there's cameras in the
courtroom, they know the procedure.I mean, it's pretty impressive. But
(06:57):
what I don't like is sometimes thechirons are they're not reconcilable with the truth.
And so like one example that comesto my mind that's recent is putting
up Buster Murdoch next to Stephen Smith. Oh my god, roadside you know,
roadside accident that killed this kid.It was Buster. The whole family's
(07:19):
criminal. It's like, there wasno evidence of that and at the end
of the day didn't turn out tome. So what's the ethics, I
mean, how do you choose?But uh, you know, look,
I think it's a fairly bright line, to be honest. The there's one
thing where when I'm texting with youand you're you know, you are playing
(07:42):
on a very slim possibility, nota probability, that there's a different outcome
other than the obvious one in asituation like where the guy's poisoned and the
only person who was giving them anythingwas his wife. And the Buster Murdoch
situation where it's the out where thereis no proof connecting the ID to the
(08:05):
situation, but it just feels goodbecause the narrative about the family. I
think it's a pretty bright line distinction, and I am very careful to not
convict people on my show, evenwhen I think that that's the way it
is, because that's part of whatI love about the coverage of crime is
(08:28):
I love that you never know howit's gonna come out, and it's always
been this way. By the way, crime is not a new area of
fascination for the American audience. It'sjust found a new manifestation in a modality
of social media and the stockers,these cyber sleuths as there. So it's
(08:52):
always mattered. Why well, becauseit goes to the fundamental interest of news,
which is is people's sense of selfprotection. People are very into what
could endanger them, So crime isa natural well and Jim, you know,
we were on Good Morning America afew months back and Jim took it
back to Kill a Mockingbird, andyou know, the spectacle of a trial.
(09:13):
I mean, it's always been there, but I think it's just exponential
now because of social media. Summerturn over to Jim on Murdoch because of
course Jim has a lot of questionson that game. Hey, Chris,
good talking with you. Are yougoing to reveal some of our private conversations?
Also, No, I have nopictures of you, you have none
of me, and we don't reallyhave no real private conversations. But here's
(09:37):
here's what i'll you know, Ionly get your perspective as to why the
Murdock case drew so much attention.Oh that's easy. So here's why.
One. Media is a pack animaland they love to add to momentum as
opposed to originating any initial force.I mean, we're actually living that right
(10:01):
now with this missing South Florida womanin Spain. I got called a friend
of hers on a Knezevich. Knezevichis her married name, a Serbian name.
I got called about that story bya friend of hers, and I
did a little checking and I said, oh yeah, this is this is
weird. So I started covering it. Nobody picked up. Now. Part
(10:24):
of it is because I don't havethat huge platform at CNN anymore, but
it's also because the media likes tocover what the media covers. And now
it's starting to gain momentum, notbecause the story changed, not because there's
some new acts to change it.It's that it's a pack animal. So
that's number one. Number two.Netflix did a series on it. Why
(10:45):
did Netflix do a series on Murdoch. People like to get into the space
of wealth, privilege and how itoperates in society. And Burdox checked those
boxes and then they had that extra. And the extra is there's a lot
(11:07):
of weird shit that happened around family, So it gave you like that dynasty
vibe or whatever the modern day equivalentis of that. So that checks a
lot of boxes, and it hadthe last one which matters most to me
in a story like this. Whatmatters most to me in crime and covering
(11:28):
it is the underlying policy involved.I'm not just an intrigue junkie, but
the idea of because where do youstart with a homicide? The homicide analysis
always begins and of course you haveyou know, means motive and an opportunity,
but it's well, who else woulddo it? It's got to be
someone who knew this person. Otherwisethere's this other randomized scenario of the monster
(11:52):
the unknown, And this Murdoch storyplayed to that. Why who kills their
own kids, let alone the waythat this happened. Killing the wife,
okay, but killing your own kid, you know, you don't really hear
that. So check a lot ofboxes. But don't sleep on that white
rich, privileged thing, because youknow, the media loves to beat up
(12:16):
white rich people, and people liketo get insight into how power and privilege
plays in society. So just tofollow up on that, you know,
as a lawyer trying a lot ofcases, you know, for years and
years we didn't have cameras in thecourtroom, and and then you know,
we started experimenting with them, andnow you know the Murnot case. I
mean it was it was a daytimmust watch TV. And I guess the
(12:41):
question I have to you is ifcameras were not allowed in the court room
at the Murdoch trial, would ithave garnered so much attention? No,
we need picture to visual medium.I am a transparency junkie. I believe
even transparency everywhere. I think itnever hurts. For years, I struggled
(13:05):
with this when it comes to copsand cams, because there are things that
happen in policing. As you guysboth know that the uninitiated may not understand
and that people could demonize and weaponizefor their own agenda. I understand that.
I still transparency is key. Ithink every trial should be on I
(13:26):
think the way we protect minors iswrong. I think the way that we
protect people who make allegations of asexual variety is wrong. I think that
there can be special cases, ofcourse, but I think it's gone too
far. I think the way weprotect the audience from the dead is wrong.
(13:48):
I think that when there's a massshooting, you should see what happens
to the bodies. I think youshould see it at war. I think
you should see the reality. Transparencyis key. One last question, Chris.
I know you've covered the trial,covered the post trial stuff and Becky
(14:09):
Hill at all. Here's the question, did, in your opinion, did
Alec get a fair trial? DidAlec get a fair trial? No?
And I'll tell you why. Iam also of the school of let them
all go, not about how wedid it. Let them all go.
(14:33):
If we're not sure that it wasfair, let them all go. I
believe in that. I believe inthe let the one hundred guilty men go
free so that one innocent man doesnot get wrongly convicted. I believe in
that. And I don't understand howthis judge came to this conclusion. I
don't understand how the first person heinterviews says, yeah, she talked to
(14:56):
me, which automatically, but thisclerk no business talking to jurists. But
not only did she talk to me, but yes, it influenced my decision.
I don't know how it's not overthere, you know, Do I
understand the rest of his analysis andhow they believe it wasn't that instructive and
that maybe the person wasn't given thereal answer the first time? Yes,
(15:18):
yes, and yes, But Ithink you air on the side and I
know it's expensive, and I knowthat this was complicated, but I don't
I was shocked that it didn't getmore play. I think that goes to
bias. I think it goes tobias in the media. People want Murdoch
to be guilty. Well, Ithink that Murdoch was such a By the
(15:39):
way, Jim Chris is behind myfascination with the Murdoch case. That's how
it all started, is when youstarted covering the case on CNN and we
were texting. I was like,what is this? This is crazy,
this is a crazy story. Butyou know the the Chris, you know
that I feel like the that Murdochgave the judiciary such a big black stain
(16:02):
or black guy in South Carolina thatthat it was just there's no way he's
going to get any slack or anyrelief, even if the laws on his
side. And I think that thisis only gonna, you know, hopefully
get overturned in a different level,which with Jim and Dick Carpootley and are
working on. But this is Imean, I think, uh, it's
(16:25):
no secret in our world that sometimesthe result is determined and then we just
work backwards to get there. SoI think he's got trouble on two levels.
One he's got the level he's gotthe trouble of, well, he
did something so uh he probably killedhis wife and his kid. Uh,
and he probably had something to dowith some of these other things that happened
(16:47):
in and around his family. Andthen you have the other one, which
is really wrong, which is andthe guy is a fucking junkie. So
uh, you know these junkies,you know, and this is what they
do. And that part bothers methe most and is one of the most
shocking continued prejudices in our society.I don't know how in the year twenty
(17:11):
twenty four people can have the arrogance, the unmitigated goal to think that they
are untouched by mental health illness,and that addiction is not mental illness,
and that somehow people who are addictedor somehow bad or that their illness should
(17:37):
not have anything to do with howthey behave. I think it is nuts
pun intended that we are still inthis place in twenty twenty four, and
I think it's only out of convenience. And that's really said. Yeah,
I mean that don't bring you know, Judge Newman, that Alex Senensing says,
well, maybe it wasn't you.Maybe it was the monster you become
when you take these drugs. Andthis is a guy has been on drugs
(18:00):
for twenty years. I mean,so anyway, but it's the same person
who doesn't know like Sarah. Youknow. Look, Sarah and I have
a lot of shared history and uhand your audience should know. So.
I don't know Jim as well.I've had very good and straight dealing with
him. I think he represents peoplefor the right reasons. He's never asked
(18:21):
anything to agrin dies himself, whichis rare in TV attorneys. Sarah I
know much much better. She isa very important person in my life,
and she suffers through me being avery lackluster friend. I am. I
am. You know, if badshit happens, I'm a good guy to
(18:41):
have in your life, but otherwisenot so great. And she is one
of the few people I know whoone has actually done the real job and
not for five minutes. Okay,like that's what I am. Okay,
I practiced law for three and ahalf four years. Okay, I am.
I'm more one of those. I'ma TV lawyer. Okay, I
(19:02):
do not know practice the way shedoes. She would slice me like fatty
cheese if we were ever. Ithink she has tremendous interest and passion for
the pursuit of what matters in astory, in a case, as much
or more than anyone else I've everworked with in the space. I gotta
(19:23):
like this stupid dog. If Iweren't talking to Sarah right now, I
wouldn't be doing not just this podcast. I would not be letting this little
bitch dog back in my house aftershe sh my carpet. But I'm great
because Sarah believes that everybody deserves forgivenessexcept me on occasion. So I think
it's important that you, as anaudience understand this that all podcasters are the
(19:45):
same. Not all lawyers are thesame, and a lot of them are
for gazing and you have too rightnow, benefiting you in a way that
they don't. Now. Part ofour shared experience is we understand a lot
of people who've been through the hardway with illness. And look in vino
veritas for giving people when that nightthey were drunk when they said what they
(20:10):
said, forgiving people for breaking thatthing in your house. You know,
the fear that we have when someone'sgoing to drive and they're under the influence.
How we are careful about how wedeal with people when we know that
they're under the influence of something,the metaphor that you hear that you're like,
hey, you don't talk to someonewhen they're drowning, right, And
(20:32):
we know all these things, right, but then when it comes into the
most important context of understanding behavior,because remember remember what the law is.
Two things, what they did theactus reus right, and what's the more
important part, men's raya could formthe intent. We know, but as
(20:53):
a society, starting in the nineteenforties, we decided, you know,
there are too many drunks. We'renot going to give them a break.
Some kind of skewed Christian sense ofmorality that you must pay for your sins,
and the law echoed it, andthey started to move away from any
(21:15):
sophistication and thought when it comes toassessing intent on the basis of diminished capacity,
and they created higher and higher barsof entry. Now it's starting to
change a little bit, but we'restill in a place now where if somebody
took too much ambient, okay,because we all like ambient, Ambient's not
(21:37):
a bad thing, So I can'tsleep. It took ambient, I thought
I took a half turns out Itook a whole one. I ran right
off the road and I banged intothis other car on the way. Thank
God, the person's all right.But that's a situation where you're like,
well, yeah, you know,I get it, the medication that can
happen. But if I say thesame thing and it's crack, now,
(22:00):
you're like, go to hell.You're going to jail for the rest of
your life. Well, Chris,and you know what's pathetic is in the
system. I had a federal districtjudge who actually I'm not calling him pathetics,
just to be clear, I'm justsaying the idea is pathetic. He
oversees the drug court in our district, and my client was a terrible gambling
(22:22):
addict. He also had an opioidproblem, and it's sentencing. He said.
You know, I don't believe thathe's an addict. I mean that
the definition of addiction and substance abuseand just addiction. You know, addiction
can be food, sex, drugs, gambling, could be anything. Right,
it's still in twenty twenty four loston the system. And you know,
(22:45):
it's just that nexus between like,for example, in Jim's case,
I remember right after the verdict cameand I was like, this is I
mean, how could people be takingtheir calculator out trying to do the math
on how much money he stole versushow many pills he took. It's not
about that. It's a lifestyle.You know, you do all kinds of
shady things. You lie, youcheat, you steal it. You know,
(23:07):
in that connection is still not notbeing you know, recognized. But
well, it's difference between explanation andexcuse and our fire to punish bad behavior.
Yeah, but I mean it is. It is a real thing,
and we see it in most ofour cases. One of the first things
(23:29):
I do is delve into the person'shistory from their development as a kid to
their adulthood, and there's always somethingthere. I mean, you know,
there are people who you know,are perfect adults or close to perfect adults,
came from perfect family structure and mightend up in a situation. But
ninety percent of my clients something wentwrong somewhere, you know, So even
if it didn't, we know,we know the stories all over the place.
(23:53):
And again, if I were adiabetic or I had a heart issue
into some type of distress and Itook too much night for glycerine or whatever
my medication was, and then Idid something that transgressed the law, people
would be understanding, but not fiction. Look what do we say to addicts
when we don't know what we're talkingabout, and we have addicts in our
(24:15):
lives, Why don't you just stopstop drinking, stop filling the blank of
the addiction, just stop, getsome discipline. Come on, Well,
you don't know what the hell?Would never say that if it were cancer.
Nobody says that about having long COVID. You know what I mean,
Hey, stop being so flushed,stop at the break bog. You know,
(24:38):
just because you're white, you're white, you think you're not, and
that week Heavin generation all right,all right, So I want to get
into your HLN series. Chris dida series on HLN, the sister network
to CNN, when he was atSANNA, and he did several but this
one was called Inside Evil, andI absolutely loved each and every episode.
(25:03):
For the true crime followers out there, for Chris's followers out there and ours,
you absolutely should pull this up ondemand and watch it. Chris would
very nonchalantly drive up to the supermaxprisons in upstate New York and visit serial
killers to try to get into theirminds. Was it nature or nurture?
What is in the psyche of aserial killer? And so in the context
(25:26):
of you know, all the thingsthat you cover, including Rex Hureman and
Gilgo Beach, I really sort ofwas one of the fascinating episodes for me
was the Jewel Rifkin interview that youdid. Joel Rifkin had killed I think
seventeen women. OHI Eliza Hi notbecause she looks like Sharah. So the
(25:51):
Rifkin interview is fascinating to me.He was he killed seventeen women, very
similar to Rex Hureman. He hadraped that, drag their bodies, dump
their bodies, et cetera, torturedthem. But you know, watching Chris
uh do this interview, you keptpressing him about how he felt when there
(26:14):
was a stench from a body inhis car, or you know, what
was his reaction right after a killing, and he couldn't tell you. That's
so frightening. Tell me about Well, tell me what was going through your
mind when you were sitting there withhim, and what what do you think
it is? Is it nature nurtureA Look, it's gotta be both.
(26:38):
It has to be that. Thereare some of them that are just evil
people, but more And by theway, we changed the name of the
show because it's tough to book somebodyit turns out when they know they're going
to be called evil, But theyalso a lot of illness and sometimes people
again they don't want to justify behaviorthat they reject. Pedophiles are sick people.
(27:04):
It's very rare that you find somebodywho actually enjoys in a healthy way,
fects with a minor. This isvery unusual. It's an illness.
Serial killers often the same thing.Joe Rifkin was obviously a profoundly ill guy.
And you know what, so arethese women who fall in love with
(27:25):
him all the time, which iscrazy. And he was telling me about
them when I was there. Healso told me a story. Look,
the answer to your question is,I'm fascinated by serial killers because they look
like the rest of us, andwe are interested in understanding what makes them
different in such a profound way thatwe don't believe we could ever do.
(27:49):
How is it that they the restof their life is totally like mine,
except every few weeks they get thisweird urge or like this other cat that
I interviewed who starts to smell orangeswhen somebody's pissing them off, and that's
when he knows he has to killthem. So I stopped the interview and
I asked him, you're not smellingoranges now, are He's like around and
(28:11):
he's like no. I was like, all right, good, let's continue.
But with Joel Rifkin, he toldme a story. Listen to this.
He picks up. He said thathe had never told this story before,
but I think he did. Anyway, he picks up this affetch worker
okay, and she's a little olderand they get in the car and they
(28:32):
start fooling around or whatever they're doing, and he starts to choke her,
and she is underneath him, andhe is choking her, trying to kill
her. She gets her legs herfeet up underneath his torso in the back
of this pickup truck and starts bashinghim into the hood, the roof rather
(28:56):
of his truck, so much sothat he is like losing consciousness. And
she then stops and puts him onthe side and says, Okay, baby,
I gotta get back now. Yougot to drop me off and listen,
you gotta look for me because alot of these other girls they don't
like this rough stuff. He drivesher back, drops her off, goes
(29:22):
home, flects himself because he can'tbelieve how fucked up he got by this
person he thought he was going tokill, goes back out, picks up
another sex worker, kills her.Wow, that's crazy her. Yeah,
he gives me Huroman vibes a lot. So about the woman who got away,
(29:52):
who left the date that I hadon my show. Yeah, I
keep wanting to have her back on, but like ABC or some body one
up me and like cut her adeal or something, so like I say,
did her now? But she's ona date with Rex Yuerman as an
escort, and enough with the blamingher for going on the date. Will
you please? Do you know howmany people have to make this choice for
(30:17):
one reason or another? Can younot judge that? Can you just let
people be okay? And instead ofyou finding your own sense of superiority through
putting them down, just try tounderstand and just focus on your own beabue
Anyway, So she's a sex work, she's got kids all over the place,
she can't get a job because she'sgot a record. This was the
only way she could, you know, in her estimation, make ends met
(30:41):
judge it as you wish, butI wish you wouldn't. Still, it's
actually good line. She's sitting acrossfrom this guy and he's given her daddy
vibes, right, I want totake care of you. I want to
do this and want to do that. And he is very insistent that she
come back to his house, whichwas very unusual because John's don't usually want
(31:03):
you to go back to their housewhere their family usually is, or they
just don't want you to know wherethey live, or whatever it is.
You know, and so she waslike, well, that's kind of weird.
And he was saying, and I'lldrive you there. You can leave
your car. She starts to getweird vibes, which you know, smart,
which she is. People who havethis experience repeatedly start to get some
(31:26):
radar for things right. And bythe way, the guy's a giant.
Okay, he sick sate three hundredsomething. So she calls a friend.
She had never done this before ona date. Calls a friend and says,
or text him or something, saysyou need to come get me.
I got to get out of here. And they come and show up,
(31:47):
and he gets very angry with herwhen she says she's going to leave,
and the anger took on a flavorthat she had never seen before, she
says, which was he had thiskind of this is an over vibe where
it was like, Okay, youthink you're gonna leave now, but I'll
(32:12):
see you again. And she wentto the bathroom and then took off outside
and left. And she went andtold people there was something really wrong with
this guy. And then she startshearing about the gil Go Beach stuff years
later and says, I think Iwas with the guy who did that,
because listen to this one. Youguys all love this. What is he
talking to her about at dinner?What do you think about the gil Go
(32:36):
Beach killings? Well, you know, they're just wars, don't you think
they you know, kind of askedfor it by being whores. And she
was like, uh, that's weird, seeing how you're on a date with
one right now. He was fascinatedby who had done it and how these
(33:00):
women kind of just asked for itby what they did with their lives.
And there are two things that areinteresting to me about that. One,
don't be that guy and judge peopleon the basis of the choices that they
have to make in their life,especially when you know you're there enabling it.
And she felt that that was justobviously so perverse that they kept talking
(33:24):
to her about a guy who waskilling sex workers. And then he started
asking, weren't there like online therewas a lot of online searches that he
had done about you know, notto play with the presumption, but you
know this guy got trouble six waysfrom Sunday. Yeah, yeah, no,
that's true. He's got the wifethough, is the interesting part of
(33:45):
that story. She can't have knownnothing, not just for two reasons.
Forget about my wife. The womenin my life who were my friends,
like Sarah, have like esp andshe'll call me and be like, Hey,
were you flirting in the grocery storetoday. It's it's like, you
know, women know, okay,if relationship with you, they know,
if they're friends with you, theyknow. Women have a intuition of,
(34:10):
you know, how men are dogsor whatever you want to call it,
and they know. So the wifehas to know that there's something going on.
And there is a lot of anecdotalI believe proof in the form of
testimony that could be adduced at trialthat they had a freakidek lifestyle. So
(34:35):
she was arguably aware of his sexualdeviancy and freakidky lifestyle. So the idea
that this is not the man Imarried, he was never capable, he
never did I don't think that's true. I think that that's an article of
convenience for her, which I thinkpeople will allow because you don't want to
slip reslope the situation for her either, and the police have been very hands
(34:59):
off in the implication that she wasinvolved in criminality. But yeah, but
also she could have known that herhusband's are freaking doing things with sex workers.
I mean, who knows. Imean maybe a woman's okay with that,
but like, I don't know thatshe knows necessary that he was killing
these women and then dumping their body. No, but it's not that you
knew nothing. Yeah, yeah,you know what I mean. You know,
(35:23):
it's like if I go out,especially if you're not having sex with
your husband, he's having it somewhereelse. Well, look, and maybe
they weren't. I don't know whatthe deal was in correctly, but I
want to know. Yeah, I'vegot to gross or she's the more into
There are two interesting aspects of thatcase to me. One is her and
two and not that I think thatshe's implicated in it. And I'm not
(35:45):
just saying that to protect myself.I just I don't think she was implicated
in it. But the second thingis there has to be more And we're
going to take a break. Ourconversation with Chris Cuomo will continue next time
on the Presumption, and in themeantime. If you want to check out
more episodes of The Presumption, pleasesubscribe to our podcast. We're available on
(36:06):
all the podcast platforms, and hey, you can even watch the interviews as
well. We're on YouTube, YouTubedot com, slash at the Presumption and
the handle at the Presumptions, alsofor Twitter and Instagram and all that good
stuff. So great job, Sarahand Jim. Looking forward to hearing the
second part of this conversation, butuntil then, we rest, We rest.
Popular 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.
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
The Herd with Colin Cowherd
The Herd with Colin Cowherd is a thought-provoking, opinionated, and topic-driven journey through the top sports stories of the day.