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