Speaker 1: Around. This is the seventy seven WABC Mini cast.
Speaker 2: Walter Sterling and you with Wyatt Sharp. Wyatt, congratulations for
Speaker 2: being on the biggest all night show in American radio.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much.
Speaker 2: Now today you're in Austin. Is that your report? Is
Speaker 2: that what you claim?
Speaker 1: I am Austin, Texas, Yes, sir, all right, it's very
Speaker 1: different than Canada.
Speaker 2: Completely different than Canada. Please give us an update on
Speaker 2: the news and information of interest to your your fans,
Speaker 2: your audience on YouTube.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so there was actually becoming a bit of a
Speaker 1: pattern for us here in terms of true crime news.
Speaker 1: But I started doing some true crime stuff after my
Speaker 1: interview with the Nancy Guthrie Sheriff, and I've just been
Speaker 1: continuing with that ever since. And so your listeners will
Speaker 1: have known that the Luigi Mangioni investigation had a new
Speaker 1: development this week. Luigi Mangioni is, of course, a man
Speaker 1: who killed the CEO of United Healthcare, Brian Thompson, just
Speaker 1: on a sidewalk in the middle of the street in
Speaker 1: New York City. This was in December of twenty and
Speaker 1: twenty four, and so he actually pleaded guilty to two
Speaker 1: federal stocking counts this past week in court, and the
Speaker 1: reason that he did that was because of something called
Speaker 1: double jeopardy, and he was facing counts in both the
Speaker 1: federal court but also state charges as well, and so
Speaker 1: the hope, according to his attorneys, by pleading guilty to
Speaker 1: the federal charges is that they can get those state
Speaker 1: chargers thrown out and that he will be able to
Speaker 1: walk free sometime in his fifties. Is kind of the
Speaker 1: general timeline that people are looking at right now, which
Speaker 1: obviously seems very very absurd for someone who literally killed
Speaker 1: a man in cold blood. But the reason that I
Speaker 1: think my generation is so interested in this case in
Speaker 1: particular is the reasoning behind why this happened. If you
Speaker 1: listen to the attorneys for Luigi Mangioni, they will tell
Speaker 1: you that he did this as kind of, you know,
Speaker 1: for reasons of emotional disturbance that they haven't officially used
Speaker 1: that line of reasoning in court, but basically saying that
Speaker 1: he was so fed up with the healthcare system and
Speaker 1: that's why he did this. But to me, it's just
Speaker 1: so interesting because I really don't think that you know,
Speaker 1: as fed up as you can be with anyone or anything.
Speaker 1: The idea that that type of an argument would ever
Speaker 1: stand in a court setting seems quite you know, laughable
Speaker 1: in that sense. It doesn't seem as if that would
Speaker 1: ever be a worthwhile argument or something that would have
Speaker 1: much legal standing.
Speaker 2: I am shocked that they had the nerve to present
Speaker 2: that he's not being tried for murder. He's being tried
Speaker 2: for stalking, and the judge has agreed to let this
Speaker 2: go on.
Speaker 1: Right. I talked to I don't know if you're listeners,
Speaker 1: well know his name is Mark Geragos. He's a very
Speaker 1: well known attorney, and he told me that one of
Speaker 1: the interesting things in this case is because of the
Speaker 1: legal loopholes. Right. It's not that, you know, Luigi Mangioni
Speaker 1: didn't commit this horrible act, because he absolutely did, but
Speaker 1: it's because of the way that the legal system work works,
Speaker 1: rather that he very well could be out of jail
Speaker 1: within his fifties. Now, of course that's not certain. We'll
Speaker 1: have to see how the case continues to progress. But
Speaker 1: I just think that, and I'm sure you would agree
Speaker 1: with this, that it seems very shocking to me that
Speaker 1: someone who killed somebody who is currently I think in
Speaker 1: his twenties, I mean only getting you know, twenty five
Speaker 1: or thirty years for that type of a crime seems
Speaker 1: quite absurd. When someone like Brian Thompson, you know he's
Speaker 1: not going to get any of his life back. And
Speaker 1: yet here you have Luigi Mangioni, who could, potentially, based
Speaker 1: on the way things are going, be released and you
Speaker 1: still have twenty to thirty years of his life left.
Speaker 2: Wyatt Sharp, who has a very active and popular channel
Speaker 2: on YouTube, The Sharp Report is that right?
Speaker 1: Sharp Exchange?
Speaker 2: Close enough?
Speaker 1: Got it?
Speaker 2: No Sharp Exchange, Sharp Exchange, Sharp Exchange on YouTube. Tell
Speaker 2: us the latest that you you've received about the Guthrie case.
Speaker 2: You had a famous interview with the sheriff. Anything else
Speaker 2: from that interview and then updates the past week.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so I've done obviously that interview with the sheriff,
Speaker 1: but I've also done a couple of follow up interviews
Speaker 1: with different people. And one of the gentlemen that I
Speaker 1: spoke to, or a gentleman I spoke to with someone
Speaker 1: by the name of Rick Castigar, And obviously your listeners
Speaker 1: probably don't know that name, but his backstory is very
Speaker 1: interesting because he was actually the boss of Sheriff Chris
Speaker 1: Nanos for about thirty five years down in Tucson, Arizona,
Speaker 1: and I interviewed him and he had some pretty interesting
Speaker 1: things to tell me. He had said that the kind
Speaker 1: of tension that we are sensing right now between the
Speaker 1: sheriff's office down there with the FBI is actually not
Speaker 1: just specific to this case, and it's a longstanding personal
Speaker 1: grievance that the sheriff has with the FBI, not just
Speaker 1: the FBI director currently, but with the bureau as a whole.
Speaker 1: And he says that he believes that that tension has
Speaker 1: hurt the case pretty dramatically. He said that it's actually
Speaker 1: the ego of Chris Nandos, the Pma County sheriff, that
Speaker 1: has sabotaged the case. Was the wording that he used.
Speaker 1: So I thought that was really interesting just because that's
Speaker 1: not you know, your average Internet commentator who's saying that
Speaker 1: about the sheriff. It's someone who has had direct involvement
Speaker 1: with him, who worked with him for several decades. Also
Speaker 1: on the case, I've spoken to Ed Smart, who was
Speaker 1: the father or who is the father of Elizabeth Smart,
Speaker 1: who of course was abducted in Utah. Smart.
Speaker 2: What a smart an interesting person to interview in this
Speaker 2: case Elizabeth Smart's father. Please, I didn't mean to interrupt you,
Speaker 2: but I wanted to yellow highlight how smart you are.
Speaker 1: Thank you, I appreciate it. But yeah, the reason to
Speaker 1: that point why I wanted to talk with him is
Speaker 1: because his daughter was found after nine months of being abducted,
Speaker 1: and so I thought to myself, let me reach out
Speaker 1: to him because he might have some interesting things to
Speaker 1: say about the timeline here, because I think six months
Speaker 1: into this investigation, a lot of people who perhaps aren't
Speaker 1: super ingrained in legal and criminal cases, think that after
Speaker 1: six months these types of cases have gone cold. But
Speaker 1: interviewing him was kind of to underscore that even six
Speaker 1: months into this, well, Nancy Guthrie likely unfortunately, even he said,
Speaker 1: is probably not likely to still be alive. That does
Speaker 1: not mean the case has gone cold, and it does
Speaker 1: not mean that they're not going to find out the
Speaker 1: perpetrator of these crimes.
Speaker 2: And in your opinion, what has happened there with Savannah
Speaker 2: Guthrie's mom. In your opinion, what do you think the
Speaker 2: end result is.
Speaker 1: It's really tough to say without speculating too much. I
Speaker 1: think there's a lot of different scenarios, but I do
Speaker 1: think that part of what has happened here and part
Speaker 1: of the reason that we are left without answers. When
Speaker 1: I interviewed the sheriff, you know, he wasn't able to
Speaker 1: rule out the suspect from the Tucson area, which, of course,
Speaker 1: you know, I don't want to read too much into that,
Speaker 1: but I thought that was kind of puzzling. But I
Speaker 1: think part of it is because they withheld the FBI
Speaker 1: for several days from getting access to the scene. There's
Speaker 1: been an extraordinary lack of communication, So you know, honestly, Walter,
Speaker 1: I think right now, one of the realities here that
Speaker 1: not a lot of people are willing to say is
Speaker 1: that even the Sheriff's office doesn't really seem to have
Speaker 1: much of a clue what's going on, because if they did,
Speaker 1: they probably would be saying more because quite frankly, their
Speaker 1: popularity is going down quite substantially right now because of
Speaker 1: the la lack of answers that they are giving. And
Speaker 1: you know, as much as the sheriff did give me
Speaker 1: the interview, I'm very grateful for that. I think the
Speaker 1: fact that he wasn't able to answer a lot of
Speaker 1: the questions that I had for him in a direct way.
Speaker 1: That certainly didn't vode well for him, and it didn't
Speaker 1: vote well for the public's trust or kind of their
Speaker 1: interpretation of how transparent the Sheriff's office has been.
Speaker 2: Whyat Sharp? Anybody who has teenage children know that if
Speaker 2: an answer, if a question is asked and you don't
Speaker 2: get a direct answer, there's a lie at work.
Speaker 1: It's a yes.
Speaker 2: It's very powerful. Whyatt Sharp? Whyatt Sharp? The Sharp Exchange
Speaker 2: on YouTube, great guests. Thank you very much for being Canadian,
Speaker 2: and thank you for being on the other side of
Speaker 2: Midnight