0:02

Please be advised this story contains

0:05

adult content and graphic language.

0:08

It's not justice at all

0:10

to know that the

0:13

respect that I had for these guys and what

0:15

I thought they would produce for me

0:17

and do for me, they did the complete opposite,

0:19

and they they made my pain

0:22

worse. And they continued

0:24

to do that by

0:26

not admitting what they did and not just

0:29

holding themselves accountable. Welcome

0:42

to Sleuth. I'm Linda Sawyer.

0:45

We hope you recognize our effort

0:47

throughout this podcast to shine

0:49

a light on just how justice is dispensed

0:52

and determined in Orange County, California.

0:55

With the checks and balances a platform

0:57

like Sleuth has brought to bear on

1:00

this subject, there is now a new

1:02

day in town. On November

1:04

six, the people of Orange County

1:06

spoke and voted in new d A

1:09

Todd Spitzer, who dethroned

1:11

a twenty year incumbent in Tony Rococcus,

1:14

Mr Spitzer one, on a platform of cleaning

1:16

up corruption in the Orange County

1:19

d A's office. With that,

1:21

we have invited a timely roundtable

1:23

discussion welcoming back our

1:25

trio of guests, which include

1:28

Wosniak defense counsel Scott Sanders,

1:31

victim advocate Paul Wilson, who

1:34

lost his wife of twenty six years

1:36

to Mr Sanders, clients Got to Cry,

1:39

and a thirty year award winning veteran journalist

1:41

Scott Moxley. Mr

1:44

Moxley, through his weekly Moxley

1:46

Confidential, informs the public

1:49

by consistently keeping an eye on the

1:51

political and legal maneuvering taking

1:53

place in the Orange County justice system.

1:56

Welcome to Sleuth again, gentlemen, and

1:59

thank you for being here today.

2:01

For this past season of Sleuth, the

2:04

focus has been on the Dan Wozniak case

2:06

because I believe Dan was not alone in

2:09

committing the murders of Sam Hair and Julie

2:11

Kibuishi, and I've shared

2:13

with listeners my work in support

2:15

of this theory. There are others

2:17

involved in these murders who should

2:19

have been charged as accomplices, but

2:22

we're not due to perhaps political expediency,

2:25

with the d a's office seemingly consumed

2:28

by a win at all costs mentality,

2:31

So the narratives seem to be get the death

2:33

penalty for Dan Wozniak, and the

2:35

others will simply be summed up as

2:38

collateral damage. Therefore,

2:40

I wanted to invite all three of you, gentlemen, back

2:43

to the program today, so each of

2:45

you can discuss some of your

2:47

concerning issues that your

2:49

work has revealed regarding the shortcomings

2:51

of the Orange County justice system,

2:54

not only you covering them, Mr Moxley,

2:56

but you experiencing them from a personal

2:58

standpoint as of the MS family member,

3:00

and of course Mr Sanders experiencing

3:04

it as a as a public defender in

3:06

the county for over twenty six years. So

3:09

with that, let's talk about

3:11

the election. We just had an election

3:14

and an incumbent of twenty years was

3:17

basically ousted. The people spoke

3:20

and uh, I know that you had

3:23

a lot to say about it in your coverage,

3:25

So why don't we start with you, Mr Moxley. Sure,

3:27

as we film this or record this, it

3:30

looks like Mr Spitzer, the challenger,

3:32

is up by forty votes and

3:35

which is a trouncing and particularly given

3:37

the history of the office. Racoccus

3:39

one in June the

3:42

first time and has been openly

3:44

seeking a six four year term

3:47

and I think entered into the year

3:49

believing he would be the next district attorney

3:53

and was stunned that the

3:56

voters in the June primary wanted someone

3:58

other than him, And I think

4:01

you could look at what the office did in

4:03

the following weeks leading up to the election and

4:05

wonder whether decisions were made in

4:08

the interests of justice or attempted

4:10

to be made to an influence an election.

4:14

I'd like to know, Mr Sanders.

4:16

I know that I've

4:19

heard that in fact, Mr Spitzer

4:21

really was running on it clean up the d

4:23

a's office platform.

4:26

Do you feel like all your work and the informant

4:28

scandal had the

4:31

results that you were looking for in this election?

4:33

Well, we weren't doing it for the election,

4:35

first of all, so it really wasn't part of

4:37

the analysis. Never was I ever doing work

4:40

and going out there and LiTi getting these

4:42

issues thinking that Mr ra Caucus

4:44

would would be replaced. It's

4:46

happened, and now we'll look forward to see

4:49

if Mr Spitzer brings in a new

4:52

thinking about how to deal with issues

4:54

of misconduct, both within the office and

4:57

outside of it. So it's really in

4:59

his ball field. Now he can he

5:01

can assuring a whole new era that

5:03

looks nothing like the one we've seen for the

5:05

last couple of decades. But on the campaign,

5:08

he was touting all your work and he was

5:10

giving you credit for what you uncovered.

5:12

I don't know how much he was directly recognizing

5:15

our work, but I think he was speaking

5:17

to at least what the work had done

5:20

to show that there were problems that he believed

5:22

needed to be changed or responded

5:24

to. So he's talked a lot about it.

5:26

It's been a big issue for him. I think

5:28

it was an issue that did move people, unquestionably.

5:31

I think it's just you know, and and the writing people

5:34

like Scott Mr Moxley covered

5:36

it. How many articles would be he wrote

5:39

over a hundred, He's written over a hundred and sixty.

5:41

I know on the that's a lot

5:43

of articles on the informant. How

5:45

many words is that? Have you ever figured it out? I don't

5:47

want to really know, it's a lot. Mr

5:50

Wilson, I know you had firsthand experience

5:52

and got involved with Mr

5:54

Spitzer's campaign to the point where you just spoke

5:57

about your firsthand experience. Why don't you

5:59

tell my listeners about sure? Well, I'm

6:01

at Todd six years ago.

6:03

Seven years ago. Todd gave me

6:05

a platform to speak. He was

6:08

a lot of victims rallies and it

6:11

was instrumental in helping me heal. At

6:13

that time. I give thought a lot of credit

6:15

for that, and he was very kind to me,

6:18

and like I said, he gave me that

6:20

that platform that I very much needed at that

6:22

time. And in context, how how long ago

6:25

was that? It's uh spent seven

6:27

years? So Todd reached out to me,

6:29

and my first victims rally would

6:31

have been probably six months after Christie

6:33

was shot and killed in Seal Beach. I Scott

6:36

to Cry who was one of Mr

6:38

Sander's clients. Correct, So Todd

6:40

is he ran on victims

6:43

rights and and cleaning up that office and

6:46

everything I know about Todd, he's been true

6:48

to his words. So he's got a large

6:50

clean up. And so was there

6:52

a commercial that you did with him or

6:54

what I did? I did do a commercial

6:56

for Todd. I wanted the voters to know

6:59

the corre option and the scandal that I experienced

7:02

with Tony Rococcus in that current

7:04

District Attorney's office, and that's

7:07

basically what the commercial was about. Did

7:09

you want to share with listeners your

7:11

experience when you did actually meet with Tony

7:13

directly? It's

7:17

time with that When you said

7:19

that you sat down with Mr Roccoccus and you could

7:21

tell that it was his choice. Yeah,

7:23

well, I had numerous meetings with Tony

7:25

over the course of six and a half years, so many

7:29

of those were face to face, and um, they

7:32

were very heated. What

7:34

were they heated about? Well, because I

7:37

was contesting his decisions and what

7:39

he was doing and didn't agree with them, and we

7:41

basically just decided we didn't like each

7:44

other. So definitely

7:46

a different experience than you had with Mr Spitzer.

7:49

Completely different. But but again, I mean,

7:51

Toodd's giving me a platform to speak on

7:53

it as a victim, and Tony Roccoccus

7:56

is out there cheating and lying to me

7:58

and doing things that I don't agree with. So I

8:01

held Tony accountable and I knew he was lying

8:03

and he was cheating, and he didn't like that very

8:06

much. Do you have a sense, Mr

8:08

Moxley, of your readers how

8:11

they feel about perhaps

8:13

this new administration? Was it just time?

8:15

I mean, tell me, what, if

8:17

anything, you're getting any feedback. The

8:20

Weekly's readership is twenty to

8:22

forty market essentially, so it's younger

8:25

people, and they're

8:27

always suspicious of law enforcement, particularly

8:30

political law enforcement. Let me

8:32

go back to something about how he won

8:34

or how he ended up losing this contest,

8:37

I think you have to start the very

8:39

beginning is that Tony Corococcus

8:41

abandoned his public oath. And

8:44

without him doing that repeatedly, nothing

8:46

else would have fallen into play. I wouldn't have written

8:49

certain articles, uh Todd

8:51

would have been struggling in a way, but just

8:53

repeatedly abandoning his oath. And

8:56

then give us an example of that, well, I think

8:58

in the in the in the Ry case, where

9:01

it was very evident by two thousand

9:03

fourteen, and let me just say for listeners,

9:05

Scott to Cry was the largest

9:07

mass shooter in Orange County history,

9:10

and one of his victims was your

9:12

wife, Mr Wilson. That's so the key was

9:15

in a place like Orange County, where

9:17

there's largely suburban juries

9:20

who are not hesitant to vote for the death

9:22

penalty. This was considered a slam

9:24

dunk death penalty case. And

9:27

yet they violated the defendants

9:29

constitutional rights constantly. They had

9:31

records covered it up in light about it

9:33

right, and then they committed perjury. And in

9:35

the process of that, Tony

9:37

could have gone the high road and

9:40

ended the cheating and fired the people

9:42

on his staff who were

9:44

cheating and go after the deputies a committed

9:46

perjury in a death penalty case. He did none

9:49

of that. So that's the basic right there.

9:51

In fact, even said they didn't

9:53

agree with Judge Goethe's ruling. Right. I

9:55

mean, I remember the sheriff saying that

9:57

she bloody overstepped himself. You

10:00

had a speaking engagement, I believe

10:02

it was at a competing tabloid,

10:05

and you spoke with and she

10:07

was there sheriff, and they've they've

10:10

she and Mr ra Caucus have repeatedly

10:13

talked about their frustration with

10:15

what happened. I don't know that people listening understand

10:17

that we had a

10:20

debate that got spurred by an

10:22

informant that was both on the Wasnia case

10:24

and the Decry case. And in the Decry case

10:27

we ended up writing a lengthy motion of five

10:29

page motion analyzing what we believed

10:32

was a hidden informant program. That's how

10:34

it all came to pass because you had both clients,

10:36

so you all of a sudden saw things

10:39

happening in both cases that ultimately

10:42

drew you into the informant scandals. So

10:44

the line of the Sheriff's department, District Attorney's

10:47

office is that this informant ended up in

10:49

these locations next to high

10:51

profile defendants by accident. It was just a

10:53

coincident. You represented two of those high

10:55

profiles and that then

10:58

Wosnia and Scott to Cry and Judge

11:00

Gouldals in the Decry case did some miraculous,

11:03

really incredible things. First of all, he

11:05

told the D's office to turn over materials

11:07

they didn't want to turn over, and then he allowed

11:10

us to have hearings over three years in which

11:12

more and more evidence poured into

11:14

the courtroom. Prosecutors took the stand,

11:18

which was very different in Judge Connolly's courtroom

11:20

because he wrote similar motions,

11:22

but there was no hearings. Well, they

11:24

were just a decision was made, that's right, and

11:26

Judge Goltals moved over time.

11:29

He first denied our recusal, then looked

11:31

at more evidence and granted it, then dismissed

11:33

the death penalty. Judge kindly

11:36

didn't allow any hearing. And by the way, what's kind

11:38

of important is the Wosnia

11:40

case actually led to some of the most

11:42

important evidence in the Decry case. So,

11:44

for example, when we lost and Decry,

11:47

we went and got records in the Wosniak

11:49

case, and those records with

11:51

Judge Statler as a matter of fact. He

11:54

then ordered some records. I don't think he knew what they were,

11:56

but they were devastating to what witnesses

11:58

had said in the Decry case. He saw a similar

12:00

name coming up, Is that right? Similar

12:03

names, informant names, informant

12:05

names, and evidence we had never seen before. An

12:07

evidence had contradicted what witnesses had said

12:09

on the standover months, and Mr

12:12

Moxley was covering it like incredible,

12:15

Yeah, yeah, incredible, award

12:17

winning incredible. And

12:19

not to speak for Paul, but Paul, who

12:22

started as someone who couldn't

12:24

have been more opposed to what

12:26

we were doing, I would say, was

12:28

watching you would had not a

12:31

happy relationship, nothing, no cooperation.

12:34

It was very contankerous. First, he was

12:36

rightfully angry. Right, you were

12:38

representing his wife's killer. This

12:41

is the guy that's defending the guy

12:43

that part of your life away. Changed

12:45

my life. I was married for twenty six years, three

12:47

children, it's a sky changed the course of

12:49

my life. And here's the guy defending

12:52

him. And how could you not how

12:54

could you not feel the way you felt? But

12:57

I also want to talk about

12:59

the conversation stion you had with the prosecutor.

13:01

I think it was Dan Wagner. You told

13:03

me that you went right up to him and

13:05

and said, is are the things that Mr

13:08

Sanders saying in court about this informant

13:10

scandal? Are they true? What was that

13:12

correct? I mean, when all of this started

13:14

coming out and we noticed that Judge

13:17

Goethe's was allowing this

13:19

to go on and happen in the courtroom,

13:22

we would ask the

13:24

public appropriate questions, and

13:27

the Wagner's answer was, that's

13:29

just the public defender throwing up smoking mirrors

13:31

and trying to dance around this thing, and extended

13:33

out that's none of that's true. They're

13:36

all lies, nothing you need to worry

13:38

about. So no

13:40

ownership. No, he's sitting there

13:42

lying to families that

13:45

are all murder victims and

13:47

he's lying to us. Was that the inciting

13:49

incident for you was that when it all turned was

13:51

already starting to turn. I think there was about

13:55

about years two, about

13:57

two thousand fifth, maybe

14:00

about two thousand fifteen, that

14:02

I started to see this thing unhinging

14:04

and asking why why is

14:07

you know, this is a very simple case. Why

14:10

is the judge allowing all this? Common sense has

14:12

to tell you that there's a reason why. I mean,

14:14

this is a very good judge, and

14:17

he's allowing it. So something's not

14:20

something's not sitting something legitimate about

14:22

what Mr Sanders is discussing. Your

14:24

listeners should know that in the early

14:27

years of the case, the prosecutor's

14:29

office went out on a pr mission

14:32

to blame Mr Sanders for all

14:34

the delays in the case, as they did in

14:36

Lasniak and as as it turned out,

14:38

as which judge was determined,

14:41

it was actually the Sheriff's department and the prosecutors

14:43

that had delayed the whole time because they were hiding

14:45

stuff that should have come in along a lot earlier.

14:48

So they weren't they weren't

14:50

submitting what the court was asking for,

14:53

coming up with all kinds of excuse. You've can understand.

14:55

I mean that when I talked about this, sometimes on

14:57

the defense side it can be difficult. This

14:59

is a case were ultimately, when we had marshaled

15:01

all the evidence and gone through everything and

15:03

spending year study, we owned the facts.

15:06

When we walked into the courtroom,

15:09

we had documents that showed the movements

15:12

of informants and the concealment of

15:14

it and how it wasn't coming forward in cases,

15:16

So you would be asking witnesses questions

15:18

and their answers would be ridiculous. And

15:20

I remember at some point Paul and I have talked

15:23

about this. I would look back at him, can

15:25

you believe it? Kind of a little bit like

15:28

this is this is absurd and

15:30

kind of wanted to see his reaction. And

15:32

I did see the reaction. Again, that's before

15:35

we were friendly. I mean, we were still

15:39

but it's starting to unravel. And

15:41

he notices that I'm noticing

15:43

that it's unraveling, and he's

15:46

like watching an Abbot and Costello show. Absolutely

15:49

and something that two days

15:51

after the shooting happened, we were all summoned

15:53

down to the d a's office and it

15:55

brought us all upstairs and Tony's

15:58

up there telling us what he's going to do and

16:00

how he's going to do it, and the news

16:03

media is assembling downstairs. It's a it's

16:05

a huge news comp of course, UM,

16:07

and he says to us, I don't want

16:10

you guys exposed to the media at this time.

16:13

This is something that I'm going to carry and

16:15

I've I've got your backs and

16:17

I'm going to take care of you guys. And

16:20

he did anything but take care of us, and

16:23

UM did you feel

16:25

like, right, then there was something funny

16:27

that No. No, I mean this is two days.

16:30

This is my first exposure to the system.

16:32

Right, the system is gonna work because we

16:35

all wanted to labor, all Americans, and it's

16:37

the best system in the world. Never been in court,

16:39

never had any exposure to it. Here's the

16:41

top law enforcement. Certainly not to

16:43

be there, you didn't want to be there. I'm

16:46

a hundred percent convinced that they're going to protect

16:49

is going to protect me, and they're gonna do what's right,

16:51

and the system is going to work exactly

16:54

how it's supposed to work for me. Did

16:57

complete the complete opposite. I

16:59

think get people don't realize sometimes as they

17:01

think, well, if you uncover

17:04

misconduct, it only helps

17:07

defendants, like yeah, but

17:10

but all of this it's for society well

17:12

and also for victims. So the problem

17:14

is if you're in a death penalty case and

17:17

twenty years later evidence that comes

17:19

forward that could have been available twenty

17:22

years earlier, that's when victims

17:24

lives get unraveled again. So cheating

17:26

doesn't help on any side. And in reality,

17:28

here, if they would have played it straight from the beginning,

17:32

they would have gotten the death penalty. They

17:34

would have had a pretty good shot, not that

17:36

I would have ever wanted it. I would have always been opposed

17:38

to it, but they but they could have done it clean

17:40

from the beginning. And one of the great

17:43

and terrible examples is that we

17:45

are years into this litigation, we

17:47

are the D's Office has been recused,

17:50

and we discover a whole series

17:52

of records called a special Handling Log

17:54

that basically said that everything we had said

17:57

way back in two thousand in fourteen

17:59

when we first filed the brief was

18:01

accurate. If they had turned

18:04

that over when they were supposed

18:06

to, and they were required to, because in two thousand and thirteen

18:08

they had in order to turn over all of these types

18:10

of materials they refused. If

18:13

they had done that, Paul wouldn't

18:15

have gone through this, none of it. It would

18:17

have all right there been out What would have happened

18:19

happened to tell us? I would have dealt with all the informant

18:21

issues right there. We would have understood what was

18:24

the scope of the litigation. We would

18:26

have realized it all there wouldn't have been But

18:28

what would have been the downside for the d A's

18:30

Office to admit all of that well, and

18:32

let's let's say, you know, some stuff D's office

18:35

sometimes Sheriff's office. If the Sheriff's

18:37

office had admitted, why do you think they were afraid

18:39

to say, Okay, this happened. Let's move

18:41

on. Because it's devastating because because

18:44

behind all this, unfortunately is

18:46

years of concealment. It's not just the Scott

18:48

Decry case. So other cases would have. Is

18:51

that what you think, Mr Moxley? A whole lot of Absolutely.

18:54

In January two fourteen, when

18:57

Matt Murphy and Dan Waggoner in the homicide unit

19:00

received Scott's motion and

19:03

to cry, I was with them

19:05

and they huddled around,

19:07

and they looked through it and they

19:10

told me and they trusted me at

19:12

this point. I trusted them at that point. This

19:14

is nothing. This is just wild

19:16

stuff. But I could see the look

19:19

on some of their faces of cringet,

19:21

trepidation, and and so I you

19:24

know, it's a five page motion And

19:27

I remember on a Saturday going to a coffee

19:29

shop thinking I'm gonna I'm gonna speed read

19:31

this puppy, and I get like forty

19:33

pages in. It's been like four hours because

19:36

it's so dense. That's how

19:38

much hard work went into that to

19:40

that brief, and I'm talking about Mr

19:42

Sanders, the original brief, and I

19:45

knew that I was. I just it's not the

19:47

first document that revealed

19:50

the informant scandal, and I

19:52

knew this is gonna take me forever

19:55

to digest because there's so

19:57

many and you didn't have any real professional

20:00

relationship with Mr Sanders at that point. I watched

20:02

him in him. I knew of him. I had watched him

20:04

in court um and in fact, some

20:06

of the people in the homicide unit had previously

20:09

told me good things. They thought he was a really good lawyer. It's

20:12

true. And so eventually, when

20:14

I felt I got a little bit more into it, I realized

20:17

the issues are way beyond me that he's

20:19

discussing in terms of all the informant games

20:22

and the Sheriff's Department, the d A that

20:24

I requested a meeting, and

20:26

we were hesitative at each other because he'd

20:28

read my coverage of the Orange County

20:30

District Office and a favorable that I've written

20:32

favorable stories about their homicide cases.

20:35

So when we sat down, we didn't know exactly

20:37

where we were going to go. All I

20:40

wanted out of the meeting was one

20:42

thing, that that he would open

20:44

up a channel that I could

20:46

ask him questions. That was it to start

20:48

with that he was worried whether he could trust

20:50

a reporter who was so close to everybody in the

20:53

homicide unit. Thank goodness, you went first.

20:56

I was second after that.

21:00

That's the article where he came with the cowboy hat

21:02

and the think oxide on his

21:04

nose and you were afraid

21:06

of the sunshine at that. I never really had any

21:10

um communications with reporters. Maybe

21:12

once in a while somebody would ask me something, but this

21:14

is really my first time I've ever media,

21:18

and you know, and it's the

21:20

most media don't say very nice things about

21:22

your clients, so I could understand you not. One

21:26

of the one of the remarkable things for me in

21:28

terms of signals was in the

21:30

after maybe a week or two where the d a's office

21:32

had time to digest more about what was in

21:34

the in the brief, there was a hearing

21:36

in in No wazni At case with

21:39

Murphy and Matt

21:41

was walking behind him at the

21:44

pacing and standing right behind

21:47

him, and and I was sitting in

21:49

there. You hadn't seen that kind of behavior before.

21:51

I hadn't seen that from him that I could remember. But

21:53

what the difference was Scott

21:56

swiveled around in the divince here and just stared

21:58

up at him. It wasn't frown or just

22:00

just he was digesting, like you could see

22:02

he's just take but he spun around. He wasn't

22:05

afraid. He wasn't afraid. And that was the signals,

22:07

Like because one of my pet peeve covering court

22:09

for for so long is I hate

22:11

lazy lawyers, you know. And I

22:13

was like, oh, this guy's this guy is ready

22:15

to fight, and he wasn't over the top.

22:18

It was just you hate lazy journalists.

22:20

I do, but I've seen so

22:22

many. Matt is an impressive

22:25

courtroom figure, and I've seen many

22:27

defense lawyers just crumble around

22:30

him. And for for Scott

22:32

Sanders to spin around and

22:34

follow him like it's sick. I'm not afraid of you.

22:37

I'm not afraid of you on this and it was

22:39

it was a turning point for me that I

22:41

have to pay attention, I have to learn more,

22:43

and thankfully my company allowed

22:46

me to drop covering other things to

22:48

spend more time kind of digesting this and

22:50

learning the issues. And they were tough at first.

22:53

The Messiah rules and when

22:55

you can when the cops can talk to you or not,

22:57

and that sort of thing. It was. It was a learning experience.

23:00

It took years to kind of feel like

23:02

I understood it appropriately. But it all

23:04

began there with them telling me I couldn't trust

23:06

Scott, but me seeing a

23:08

signal of him ready

23:10

to fight. And then he he slowly

23:13

opened up and helped me understand

23:15

what was in his motion and why he put it in.

23:18

Do you feel satisfaction? Anybody

23:20

could answer this with the election

23:22

results, Well,

23:26

my friends joked with me that as an

23:28

investigative journalist it's better to have Tony

23:30

Rococcus in there because he's just a scandal machine.

23:33

So, UM, I laugh at that. I think I've told you

23:35

that before. And uh, I

23:38

mean I've I've known Todd

23:40

Spitzer and Tony Rococcus since

23:42

the late nineties.

23:44

Maybe we have no Todd since my

23:47

listeners about a little bit about Todd

23:49

Spitzer's background. Well, Todd

23:51

has been on a school board, he's been a county

23:54

supervisor twice, he's been termed

23:57

out at the state Assembly. Um,

23:59

he's a radio show and KFI

24:01

many years ago, or at least he was a producer

24:03

or something like that. He's been a reserve a Los

24:05

Angeles Police Department officer

24:09

and um, you know, so he has served

24:11

the public over the years. Yeah, he's a he's a

24:13

He's unlike Ricoccus,

24:15

Tony a touch bitzer, is much more of a policy

24:18

wonk. He gets into the nitty gritty

24:20

of why you have to do something right.

24:23

Rococcus is more, Uh, my

24:25

friends calling on the phone that needs

24:27

help, maybe a case doesn't get filed

24:30

for example. Uh. One of the first

24:32

indicators for me about Tony Ricoccus

24:34

was his office filed

24:37

a complaint against George Arduous,

24:40

who was a billionaire Newport Beach real estate

24:42

developer. He has an apartment

24:44

complex massive, and

24:47

he was refusing to give refunds to all these poor

24:49

people, just systematically. That was in

24:51

the complaint. Within like forty

24:53

five minutes of it being filed officially in

24:55

court with the time stamp, he had it yanked.

25:00

Arduous was one of his campaign contributors,

25:02

and that cleared the way for

25:04

George Arduous to pass Senate

25:07

confirmation to become a US ambassador to Spain.

25:10

That's the type of thing that Todd has campaigned

25:12

a bit, not just recently, but kind

25:14

of fought against or argued against

25:16

that. You can't have a system operating

25:18

like that. And I can tell you that the prosecutors

25:21

on that case were horrified that they

25:24

had They had worked on it for years and years,

25:26

and for him to yank it for what they

25:28

believe our political concerns was unacceptable. Do

25:31

you think that with a new administration,

25:34

the cleanup that Todd Spitzer promised

25:37

to his constituents will indeed take

25:39

place? I just am taking

25:41

the perspective that it's

25:43

a possibility that he will, he'll bring

25:45

that in. I want to be positive about that, but this

25:47

is what I would say. It's not going to

25:50

be enough to just look

25:52

forward and make sure that it

25:54

doesn't happen in the future. There's issues to address

25:56

here that are not going to

25:59

just go away. And like what, well,

26:01

right now we have a phone call scandal. We have

26:03

issues with regard to and

26:06

to say what that is. There's been calls that recorded

26:09

from inmates to their lawyers improperly.

26:12

Unquestionably those numbers have grown as

26:14

really well, you're not allowed to

26:16

record calls from inmates

26:18

to their lawyers. It's strictly prohibited

26:20

and has lots of legal implications and

26:22

they have been recorded. They have and you know this

26:24

for fact. Yes, this has been admitted. This

26:27

has been admitted by the telephone provider and by the

26:29

Sheriff's department. There's no question. Yeah,

26:33

it's not it's not a disputed issue. It's been admitted

26:35

by both entities. The numbers

26:37

that the sheriff Department admitted, Yes, and

26:39

they're at this reluctantly. Reluctantly.

26:42

They took a long time, and I would say they absolutely

26:45

concealed it for three and a half years. So

26:47

now they come forward and

26:49

they have admissions of a very

26:52

small number of calls. How

26:54

did you come to realize this is And it

26:57

wasn't me. It was another lawyer by the name of Joel Garson

26:59

who covered it in a case. Our

27:01

office then has been leading an effort to

27:04

bring it out in other cases. I have one

27:06

of the cases that's involved. But they admitted

27:08

a thousand calls on

27:11

Friday, we're talking here on the Tuesday

27:13

and Friday. They've admitted now that the calls

27:15

maybe vastly greater. We think the numbers

27:18

are more like an excess of two thousand

27:20

calls, and we think there's lots of logic supporting

27:22

that and lots of cover up on it. So

27:25

that's not going to go away, and he has

27:27

to handle issues like that. There's also the

27:29

issue of the people that were involved in the informant

27:31

scandal have moved to the streets. So if

27:33

you were a deputy working in the jail

27:36

and you then were part of what

27:39

we're part of it, that's supposed to follow you your

27:41

whole career. If you made the decision to engage

27:44

in governmental misconduct

27:46

and concealment of that, and that should follow you.

27:48

So when you take the witness stand, you

27:50

get to be questioned about that. It does not look like

27:52

there's been any disclosures of that in cases,

27:54

and so that's another issue we've

27:57

raised. But so that's gonna

27:59

be the issue you for Mr Spitzer.

28:01

I think there's a really good chance he's going to say

28:03

I don't want cheating to take

28:05

place. I'm hoping that's the case. Well

28:08

if he, I mean, you said he ran on that,

28:10

but that campaign promise. But that's I just want to say,

28:12

But that's just not enough. He has to

28:15

remedy what's going on to date.

28:17

He's got to make sure that cases

28:19

from the past get handled correctly. Well,

28:21

we'll have Mr Moxley watching out for

28:23

that, right sure. Let me just add something on the phone

28:26

call for your listeners. The importance

28:28

is that your pre trial inmate, the

28:31

the Shares Department controls every aspect of

28:33

your day and night in there, and you're supposed

28:35

to constitutionally have the ability to communicate with

28:38

your defense lawyer. And those communications

28:40

are important because you're talking about

28:42

strategy or your feelings or whatever,

28:45

where a piece of evidence might be and that sort

28:47

of thing. And they just can't violate

28:49

that. And we know they've come in and tried

28:51

to downplay the numbers so far, the number

28:54

the system records the calls, that's

28:56

a violation. But then the Shares deputies

28:59

and key cases were going in and monitoring,

29:01

downloading the calls for themselves

29:03

and not telling anyone. And in the

29:05

particular case of Josh Wearing

29:08

that's ongoing right now, uh my

29:11

belief that he had said

29:13

some things only on the phone. And

29:15

then Coasta Mesa police department eventually

29:17

had the prosecutor had to admit that she

29:20

she had been given a rundown of the what

29:22

was said in the phone call. That's how they were aware of

29:24

and wrote things in certain motions, and

29:27

was the prosecutor using that information? They

29:29

yes, they did. That's what started the whole ball rolling

29:31

on us. That's the first indication

29:33

of these calls. And the other thing that's really fascinating

29:36

is the group in the jail that

29:38

kind of it was at the forefront of the informant scandal

29:40

was a group called Special Handling. And

29:43

so in March of two fifteen,

29:46

Judge Goltel's removes them from the District Attorney's

29:48

office. One day later,

29:51

that same entity, Special Handling,

29:53

stops another log that they were keeping,

29:55

and that log had all sorts of information

29:58

about their monitoring a phone calls. So

30:01

you didn't see that at that point, we didn't know. We

30:03

had no idea that we didn't have the evidence

30:05

yet that they were that they were actually

30:08

listening to calls that hadn't come out until a

30:10

couple of months ago. But way back

30:12

they end their log. This is the second

30:14

log that they ended in a very strangely

30:17

time decision. One just

30:20

within days of Judge Golde's ordering evidence

30:22

in the decry case, and then second

30:25

within days of Judge Goltell's throwing

30:27

them off the case. And here comes the Attorney General's

30:29

office, they've been listening to all these calls

30:31

and suddenly they just they decided to stop

30:33

their log for a second time. So that's

30:35

just one piece. You know, they turned over

30:37

documents that are ridiculous where you're

30:39

you've got a hundred law offices

30:42

you're calling, and there's five week periods where they claiming

30:44

there's not a single call made to a lawyer's office.

30:46

It's absurd stuff. And so when you engage

30:49

in that kind of conduct repeatedly, and we've gone through

30:51

this through our litigation and through this

30:53

litigation, what do you do with the sheriff's

30:55

department that keeps behaving like this? Well, here

30:57

comes Mr Spitzer and have

31:00

to hope it's to the rescue. But that's a that's a tall

31:02

order. And how do you feel because for so long

31:04

you said your relationship with

31:06

the d A's office was a positive one, right

31:08

where you never saw any of this. I had

31:10

no idea. I'd watched certain battles litigate

31:13

out and I wasn't aware. I knew

31:15

that there were trouble with certain prosecutors. I mean,

31:17

one, for example, was tipping off the organized

31:20

crime about raids that were on the way. Wait,

31:22

wait, what does that mean you you tipped off?

31:25

I'm aware of a prosecutor

31:27

doing that. Orange County was working

31:29

in league with the organized crime to tip them

31:31

when they were going to be police raids. Um,

31:34

he lost his license, but now he's back in practicing.

31:37

When did that? By the way, he contributed to

31:39

he was

31:42

yes, So couldn't we say his name? Brian

31:45

Kazarian? Right? And how

31:47

long ago? When was he a prosecutor? Was the beginning

31:49

of the rococcus term? Right

31:51

back? And he was. I mean he

31:53

was a prosecutor starting when I did. We were in the almost

31:56

the same class

31:58

six years ago almost. But

32:01

the key here is that if

32:04

they every time you go into court, the

32:07

judge will say, or the lawyers

32:09

are said, during when they're doing jury selection, when

32:11

this officer or an officer comes in, our deputy

32:14

comes in, you're not going to give them any more weight

32:16

than any other witness because that would be wrong. And

32:19

they all absolutely not. Now

32:22

they come in and they're wearing their weapons,

32:24

they're wearing their outfit with their ranks

32:26

and whatever else, and that carries

32:29

weight in ours county. So I think it's

32:31

an authority figure. I mean that's right. So

32:33

that so that the way the system,

32:35

if the system is working, you

32:38

have to rely on the credibility of

32:40

those officers to tell the truth. Once

32:42

that system is broken down, which it has here,

32:45

how can you trust any decision? Then I was just

32:47

gonna say, it's a trust based system. And in the

32:49

in the in the Informant jail

32:51

House Informant scandal, they knew

32:54

the loophole. Prosecutors

32:57

and deputies knew the loophole to site.

33:00

So for example, you once

33:03

a pre trial defendant has been arraigned and has a lawyer,

33:06

the government and their agents like informants, are

33:08

not allowed to question them about the case. So

33:11

there's an exemption that if an

33:13

inmate wink wink

33:15

that's not working for the government accidentally

33:18

overhears the guy confessing.

33:23

Right, So they would parade the guy into court

33:25

and go, did we make any deal with you? No,

33:27

No, you're not gonna get any sweetheart deal at all. So

33:29

you're just out of the goodness of your heart. You listened

33:32

in and you heard this guy confess, and you get nothing

33:34

in return. Right, And so what we've learned

33:36

in the snitch scandal is the routine

33:38

was they had meetings. They

33:40

wink wink, and they would move, they would shuffle

33:43

the informants around, and the informants

33:45

were writing notes going I love

33:47

my little job I have. And

33:51

the two of them that Scott exposed,

33:53

both of them who that the

33:55

d a's office said, oh, we have no deal with them.

33:57

There was no prior deal for them. They

34:00

did out of the good. These are gang murderous

34:02

gang members, by the way, who were facing

34:04

life in prison unless they cut unless

34:06

they cut a deal in some way,

34:08

and they were being paraded into court. Oh, no

34:10

deal at all. There was nothing there. And we

34:13

later on, Um

34:15

saw the paperwork in the process that

34:17

worked out how they were using that loophole

34:19

to cheat. How did you how

34:22

did you confront your

34:24

sources in the d a's office when you were seeing

34:26

this unfold? How

34:28

did that change or did it change your relationship

34:31

or your feelings towards these people that you had been

34:33

covering for years? Well, Um,

34:36

Susan King Schroeder. She is Tony

34:38

Roccoccus is right hand person,

34:40

and she was the head of Public Aration's

34:42

office. She made herself chief of staff. She was the head

34:44

of what office at public Relations office?

34:46

And as I was writing

34:49

as I was learning and I watched the developments

34:51

in the nich snitch scandal, she repeatedly,

34:54

routinely said, I'm gonna cut you off from

34:56

our agency if you keep writing these

34:58

stories. And I just kept well,

35:00

then you're gonna have to cut me off because I'm going to write

35:02

what I see in court. And quite frankly,

35:04

she couldn't even keep up because she wasn't paying

35:07

attention or whatever whoever the sources were

35:09

who were telling her about what was happening, they

35:11

were ill advised, or they weren't telling a story, or

35:13

she just was down with spin spin.

35:16

So I've lost her as a

35:18

source and she's the main d a

35:20

flack or was and so yeah, there's

35:22

a ramification for telling the

35:24

truth in a story about what you what you see sounds

35:28

familiar. Well, I mean, this

35:30

is what's so incredible about having someone

35:32

like Paul involved in another person

35:35

by the name of Bethany Webb also who had who

35:37

lost a loved one. There's

35:41

it never happens. You don't have victims

35:43

who are so stunned by what they're

35:46

seeing. I mean that

35:48

they rise above their natural

35:50

feelings would be towards you representing

35:52

their loved one's killer, right that they

35:54

rise above that. That's right, first

35:56

of all. Most human beings can't do that. Regardless

35:58

like that we would be sitting here today

36:01

and that we've sat together many times. It's Marathos,

36:03

But it's not. That's not me, that's Paul, because

36:06

I can do it as a defense lawyer, you know, I

36:08

can. I'm trained to see everybody

36:11

in in all sorts of shades. But

36:14

to have lost your loved one the way he did

36:16

and still to say, look, I

36:18

can't see how horrible

36:20

that is and how much it's it's devastated

36:23

my life, but I still can't tolerate

36:26

the cheating that's going on in the courtroom

36:28

and that no one's being held accountable. And that's

36:30

the key. And I think I don't want to speak for Paul, but

36:32

I think that's what's so motivating to him and why

36:34

he keeps pushing me, is that there's

36:36

the tenants of our system, right, but there's no there's

36:39

been zero accountability, right, And that's

36:41

the problem. And it's the zero accountability.

36:44

And does that frighten you? Of course it

36:46

frightens me absolutely. I Mean, like I said,

36:48

I'm a guy that went into this believing in

36:50

this system and this system that's in place

36:52

for exactly guys like me. Right,

36:54

That's that's what you think as

36:57

we sit here today. I'm still very

37:01

pro police, pro law enforcement,

37:03

and I believe that there's more

37:05

good being done than than there

37:07

is is bad. Unfortunately,

37:11

I got put in with the bad and I had to

37:13

experience and through that experience,

37:16

Yeah, I mean it look

37:18

at these guys took almost seven

37:21

years of my life of and

37:23

like Scott said earlier, the only reason I

37:25

was going back to court is

37:28

because they got caught cheating.

37:30

They got caught breaking

37:33

the law, and that extended

37:35

the time I had to go to

37:37

court. And so you no longer

37:39

looked at it as Scott Sanders fault.

37:42

You looked at it as the d and obviously, and

37:44

I mean, can't tell you what

37:47

it's like sitting ten feet away

37:50

from the guy that has changed the course

37:52

of your life.

37:54

It drains, It takes

37:56

everything out of your soul. I would leave court that

37:58

day and just have to go home and close

38:01

up my house and just

38:03

sit there and and and be alone,

38:06

because it just takes everything out of you.

38:08

It's hard to understand unless you're there actually

38:12

had a very similar conversation

38:14

with me about that with Dan wisn Yankee

38:16

says, you just can't imagine. It's mentally

38:18

and physically excruciating

38:21

and draining. And the

38:24

fact that I only had to do that

38:26

because these guys got caught cheating.

38:29

They need to be held accountable, and they're there.

38:31

They as far as I'm concerned, Scott

38:33

and it we're gonna work to get these guys there are going to

38:35

be held accountable. So you're angry, of

38:38

course, I'm angry. I mean, these guys

38:40

lied to me. It's difficult. I had

38:42

a son in high school going through his senior year

38:44

when this all happened. He was he

38:47

was getting looked at it by colleges, and there

38:49

was so much to juggle in the fact that these guys

38:52

we're just using me as a pawn and playing

38:55

with me and lying to me, and they knew exactly

38:57

what they were doing. It's unacceptable

38:59

to me, and I'm not going to allow it to happen. And

39:01

it's at some point somewhere

39:03

along the line, those bad guys

39:05

are going to have to be held accountable. I mean, you could

39:08

understand Paul's gone and spoken to the attorney

39:10

General's office himself and asked for

39:12

answers because in two thousand and fifteen they

39:14

announced we're going to do an investigation of what the Sheriff's

39:17

department did. It was obvious cover up. Judge

39:19

Golds called out the perjury in written

39:21

rulings and it's undebatable perjury

39:23

and there's plenty of evidence. We're

39:26

three and a half years later, not a peep

39:28

from them, not a word. Tell me what's

39:30

going on with the Department of Justice and

39:32

the Attorney general investigations. I think

39:35

as Scott's was saying earlier, the delay,

39:37

the three and a half year delay with nothing to show

39:39

for it in it may I

39:41

believe the California Attorney General,

39:43

who supposedly independently investigating

39:46

corruption in the Arrange County shriffs Department, held

39:48

a campaign stunt press conference

39:51

with the candidate

39:53

that's trying to replace and did replace

39:55

us shriff functions, So

39:58

to pose in front of the media right

40:00

before an election. You're

40:04

not gonna do that if you're going to hold these accountable.

40:08

Plus, standing right behind him is one of the

40:10

lead investigators in this who's

40:12

also one of the very prominent figures in the whole

40:14

snitch scandal. Yeah,

40:17

who is that? William Baker was

40:19

one of the people who's been investigating

40:22

and supposedly on the inside level trying

40:24

to determine who's responsible. But that

40:26

investigation that Basara came

40:29

to speak at and speak about with

40:31

Don Barnes, the newly elected sheriff, was

40:34

an investigation that's led by one

40:36

of the primary people from the snitch scandal,

40:38

So a fellow by the name of Jonathan Larson, all

40:41

through the snitch scandal, in the heart of it,

40:44

in the heart of not turning over records,

40:46

they chose him, of all people to

40:48

be their lead investigator in

40:50

this very important Mexican mafia investigation.

40:53

So if you're us looking at this, you think,

40:55

but did he take the standard stand?

40:57

He testified, he told tests, covered up,

40:59

he gave to testimony in two different cases.

41:02

He never revealed for years that there was an

41:04

informant program. So he's

41:06

a guy that you would think, well, we just moved him to the side.

41:08

Would they put him in charge of investigating Why?

41:11

Because they're not afraid at all.

41:13

They have no fear of the attorney generals, nobody

41:15

that's holding anybody accountable. This is

41:17

one of the things when I met with the d o J, and

41:19

I made very clear to them that what's happening

41:22

in Orange County, they're laughing at you, guys. They

41:24

don't they operate as they want to, when

41:26

they want to, how they want to. They're laughing

41:28

at you. They don't care what you have to say about it.

41:31

They don't care what you think or what you'll do. They're

41:33

laughing at you. And what was their response. Number

41:35

of people at the d o J, the California

41:37

Department of Justice. So there's the

41:39

response. Um. Their response was,

41:44

we're not here to give you responses.

41:46

We're here to listen to you. Mr Wilson, Wow,

41:51

how do you feel about that? Mr? Mat doesn't make

41:53

me happy because the system is not working. And

41:56

it goes back to it's been obvious

41:58

perjury. There's been the destruction

42:00

of records. Even their own records

42:03

show that they've destroyed evidence, and

42:06

nothing's happened so well,

42:09

And just just to draw it back to WASNAC

42:11

for a second, So in the Waznia case, we

42:13

actually went further back. The cry is

42:15

really limited to about a six year examination

42:18

of informant records in the WASNIAC case, even

42:20

though we never were permitted a hearing. In our argument

42:22

in the Waznia case was that the system

42:25

is so corrupted right now that it's not

42:27

a reliable one for imposing the

42:29

death penalty, that you can't reliably count

42:31

on evidence being turned over. But when we looked

42:33

at in Wozniak was looking back at

42:35

thirty five years of deception,

42:38

because it's been going on forever, the same

42:40

techniques, the same tactics. And

42:42

if you looked at case after case since the

42:45

early nineteen eighties where informants were involved,

42:47

they always coincidentally landed in the same

42:49

place. They were using the same what we

42:51

call snitch tanks or informant tanks, same

42:53

techniques, no disclosure. So

42:56

and then did those snitches get some kind

42:58

of a sweetheart They all us do. They

43:01

always do. They come in and their line

43:03

is, I'm doing it out of a moral obligation. That's

43:05

what Fernando Perez said in

43:07

the in the Wosniac and Decry

43:10

cases. That's what Oscar Morial did in every

43:12

case. Now, Matt did give you the

43:14

letter from Fernando. There's no there's

43:16

no disclosure issue in terms of

43:19

Matt Murphy failing to turn over discovery

43:21

and We never argued that he failed

43:23

to turn over discovery on that level. We did argue

43:25

that the Sheriff's department didn't turn over materials,

43:28

and they didn't. In fact, after we lost

43:30

in the Wosniac case was when we got

43:32

this special Handling log that included details

43:34

about the contacts with Special Handling

43:37

and Fernando Perez to get statements that's almost undeniable.

43:40

And also wasn't the mail order

43:42

requests from Detective Morales

43:44

discovered at that point, right? That was discovered afterwards

43:47

as well, after the trial was complete. That the

43:49

trial was completed, So after Wosniak was

43:51

completed, was when we got in a in

43:54

subsequent litigation, this key

43:56

document that has so much about what everyone

43:59

had been denying up to that. So, really you

44:01

weren't given everything in discovery. We weren't

44:03

giving everything. And I've always said this. I'll

44:05

put it aside and say we don't blame Matt Murphy

44:07

for not giving us a special handling lung wool. Assume

44:10

that he didn't know about that. But what

44:12

about the Morales mail I

44:14

don't request. Well, why

44:16

Morales wasn't turned over I don't know, but

44:18

I will just say we didn't get that, and

44:21

that mail order request from

44:23

Detective Morales to the

44:25

Orange County Sheriff's Department had

44:28

it a letter that spoke

44:31

about the Coast of Mesa's

44:33

belief that there was a co conspirator in

44:36

the case of the murders of Sam and Julie,

44:39

and so they wanted the mail

44:42

from Dan Wozniak in case there was mail

44:45

between Dan and Rachel Buffett, which

44:47

shows the mindset of the Coast of Masa

44:49

police at the time that they really did

44:52

consider Rachel Buffett an

44:55

accomplice. But again,

44:57

this is we're talking about decades of

45:00

concealment and it would take

45:02

an army to dig it all through,

45:04

and people are doing it. There's a lot of cases that have

45:06

been turned around by our numbers. There's eighteen cases

45:09

where the defendant received a new trial,

45:12

this case was dismissed, some

45:14

very positive outcome for defendants related

45:16

to informant related misconduct. So this

45:19

is the arguably the largest scandal in the nation's

45:21

history, and it's still growing and it should be growing

45:23

even more. But when do

45:26

you think there's going to be some

45:30

form of actionable

45:32

response from an authority

45:35

that as something

45:37

that they can claim that Okay,

45:39

we're going after these people and they're going to pay

45:41

their going there's going to be consequences to their

45:44

actions. Where do you see the end

45:46

of this odyssey that

45:48

you're all on. Probably

45:50

never, I mean realistically,

45:53

I mean, I'm not hoping for the U. S. Department

45:55

of Justice or the California Department of Justice

45:57

to save this. This This work

46:00

is just work that you just have to kind of keep

46:02

going on until someone cries uncle.

46:04

Do you think it's ultimately going to be the public

46:06

that makes it? I mean, here, we do have an election

46:09

after twenty years, we have a new administration.

46:11

I would imagine that gives you some

46:13

form of hope, cautiously optimistic.

46:16

But is it the public in the end,

46:18

Mr Moxley, that you think has the power

46:21

to make changes? They just showed it

46:23

and Todd Spitzer's election. Absolutely. And

46:25

what one of the most

46:28

ridiculous or not ridiculous, but more arrogant

46:30

things that Shriff Huchins and Racoccus

46:32

we're bragging about and when they were doing

46:34

private dinners and wealthy communities,

46:37

was that nobody's paying attention to niche

46:39

candle because it's made up. It's we

46:42

all know around here that it's not made up, it's

46:44

real. And one of the real um

46:48

facts that people should know is they

46:50

were sending in informants illegally,

46:53

and they were the informants were doing

46:55

great intelligent intelligence works,

46:57

There's no doubt about that. Some of the

47:00

notes that they were making cleared

47:03

defendants that were in jail, and

47:06

they held those notes because they didn't want

47:08

to change. They wanted that defendant. One of them

47:10

was a fourteen year old boy who had been charged

47:12

in Santa Anna with a murder. The

47:15

notes that they had in their possession said,

47:18

everybody knows this guy wasn't had nothing to do

47:20

with it. He's a punk. We would never let him in our game.

47:23

They kept him in and they dragged it out. They dragged

47:25

it out for how long was that two

47:28

years? Fourteen year old boy.

47:30

So they're selective and when they want

47:32

to use the information, and then they pretend

47:35

that even though this is one of the biggest informants

47:37

in history modern history around here, they

47:40

didn't really read all of his notes, but they

47:42

used them in the cases

47:44

where they wanted to use them well, and that would

47:46

add So when that district attorney took the stand,

47:49

do you remember what happened. He said that

47:51

they had lost their file. The District Attorney's office

47:53

had lost their file. His name is Stephen Shriver,

47:56

he testified, and James is

47:59

here as a prosecutor in that case. He

48:01

said they couldn't find their file. The

48:04

sant Ana Police Department officers said, oh, it is

48:06

all in the hands of the District Attorney's

48:08

office. The District Attorney's office said, we can't find

48:10

our file. But just as Scott

48:12

Moxley just said, those notes

48:15

are a great indication of the mentality.

48:18

And I've sometimes when I talk about this case, compare

48:20

it. The guy who was making these comments

48:22

to the informant named Oscar Maurreal was not is

48:24

not a great guy, but he at least

48:26

had the moral decency to know that some kid who didn't

48:29

do a crime shouldn't go down for it. The

48:31

folks who got the notes decided

48:33

the better route was to keep it to themselves

48:36

because they had a better sense of justice. And so

48:38

when people are playing on those

48:40

levels and that type of mindset,

48:43

you imagine the damage they're doing in this

48:45

context and so many other contexts. Again,

48:47

I always say this, if you're cheating with informants who

48:50

are the most dangerous witness in the system.

48:52

Everybody knows this, right. They're

48:54

super motivated, they'll say anything. They're

48:56

half bounced away from being a car salesman.

49:00

They're incredibly skilled. They can I had

49:02

a difficult time questioning them because

49:04

they're really talented. Often. But

49:06

if you're a district attorney's office and you're willing

49:09

to play with evidence of the sheriff's

49:11

department or hold back things, what will

49:13

you do on other cases? Right?

49:16

Because that those are easy. You just turn over everything

49:18

on an informant, You put it out in front of the jury and

49:20

let them make a call it. But for years, here, decades,

49:23

I would say that hasn't happened, So

49:25

it's not. And this is why the argument

49:27

I made on the Wisnia case. In a

49:30

culture that allows that you

49:32

don't get to have the death penalty, that's my argument.

49:34

And that's one that you know didn't work. But we'll

49:36

see what happens down the road. But

49:39

it's frightening to me to think about

49:41

what else is out there that we won't ever

49:43

touch. When you see this type of kind of because

49:45

I never saw I I've spent most of

49:47

my last five years of my life studying

49:49

these issues, and I never found something

49:51

that was helpful to a defendant from an informant

49:54

that was disclosed. I never found it. And

49:58

in the case of Oscar or Moreal, this

50:01

is a guy who walked

50:03

down the street with his buddies shooting

50:05

at people on their porches and didn't care.

50:08

So he's technically a serial

50:10

killer. And I think he admitted how many on the witness

50:12

stand five He admitted five,

50:14

But he can't know because he's shooting

50:17

as he's walking down the street at night with his buddies.

50:19

He's doing this all the time. This is who

50:22

Tony Prococcus in the Sheriffs Department put their faith

50:24

in UM as he's facing a life

50:26

sentence. And as far as

50:28

in the Scotty case you're talking about, well

50:30

when well he testified,

50:33

He testified in three cases with nine

50:35

defendants looking at life. He ended up testifying

50:37

in the Scott Decry case and having

50:39

to answer some of those questions, and

50:41

this is one of them. You're saying they used him as

50:44

a credible witness. Yeah,

50:46

they oh yeah, they pretended they didn't have a deal

50:48

with him, but he got a sweetheart deal. Recently,

50:51

as Scott and Scott wrote a number

50:53

of stories about Oscar Morel and the lunacy

50:56

of this right, true serial killer. If you

50:58

go out five times to do

51:00

shootings, isn't that the very definition of a

51:02

serial killer? You don't become less of one because

51:04

you're a gang member. Right. Then

51:06

he goes up and I don't know if you've

51:08

ever heard the recordings that were concealed and

51:10

which he said, I can make my memories better if

51:12

you give me a better deal. Didn't make it into any

51:14

of his cases, and those things can be

51:16

found online, just terrible things,

51:19

and he gets rewarded because you did a deal

51:21

with the devil and you can't get out, okay. I

51:23

think one of the reasons that the prosecutors

51:25

loved using someone like Oscar Moreal

51:28

grew up in a high crime area as

51:30

a serial killer you wouldn't want to be

51:32

around him, is that this

51:35

is actually a remarkable person. I wrote

51:37

this a couple of times after watching him for hours

51:39

in court. He is brilliant,

51:43

he is He outraces me by

51:45

a trillion percent by his brain function. The

51:47

federal government used him in a Mexican

51:50

mafia case and he

51:53

was answering questions before they came

51:55

out of the federal prosecutor's mouth. Repeatedly,

51:58

he knew what the questions

52:01

should have been, and he actually, actually, don't

52:03

you want to ask me this? That's how smart and

52:05

slick this guy is. He could have

52:07

been the best auto

52:10

dealer salesperson at at Fletcher

52:12

Jones, whatever, But this

52:14

guy would sales. This guy could sell you anything.

52:16

In the battle he gave with Scott at one point he

52:19

was able to defend off for hours, but

52:21

eventually Scott got him because it was hours and hours

52:23

of grilling him. But the few

52:26

people can hold up to that. But a person like Oscar

52:28

Morial everything is he

52:31

doesn't. You'll tell you what you want to hear. In other

52:33

words, he's a great salesman. But and this

52:36

is what's the problem. So he's so good.

52:38

I had all the tools in the end because

52:40

of this crazy situation in a death penalty

52:43

case where Judge Goulds made a miraculous

52:45

ruling, we learned all these things about him.

52:47

But when he was in trial with those defendants with their

52:49

lives on the line, they didn't have those

52:51

tools. They didn't have the evidence to show he was

52:54

lying. I had it in some crazy

52:56

litigation that nobody could have guessed in a hundred years.

52:58

But how's that fairness when people are

53:00

in trial for their lives and

53:03

the prosecutor's office turns over four

53:05

pages of his two hundred pages of notes, which

53:07

they did in cases, or don't disclose

53:09

his relationship so you can't take him apart.

53:12

Hey, Mr Mariel, here's this and this

53:14

and this. That's what you need. That's why I always say

53:16

it wasn't that my litigation in the Decry case

53:18

was particularly good. I had it all. It

53:21

didn't take it didn't take the headiest guy

53:23

to do this. In the end, we had we had

53:25

accumulated all the materials and we could

53:27

play things for him that made him

53:30

ultimately given. As Scott said, it took

53:32

a long time and finally

53:34

he relented, and then he started to talk proudly

53:37

about his shootings in the neighborhood and

53:39

how he how he walked in. But it was hard,

53:41

and those other people didn't have it. And that's

53:43

the key. The key to the fairness is you've

53:46

got to have the evidence that you're entitled

53:48

to have so you can question witnesses effectively.

53:50

I mean, that's the foundation of our system. Yeah,

53:53

it's and and you know that's again I come back

53:55

to Paul that Paul, Paul sees

53:59

these things in way that few victims can see

54:01

it. And I'm still mesmerized

54:03

by it. I truly am them. Yeah,

54:05

you know what, because

54:07

it's just incredible that with the pain that

54:10

he and his family has suffered, he can see that. You

54:12

still don't want this to be the case. This isn't

54:14

just it's just not the way to do justice. And

54:17

ultimately victims pay too, because what

54:19

happened on the Oscar Morial's cases,

54:21

well one of them, the victims think the

54:23

defendants doing life without possibility

54:25

of parole. He's out in a year

54:27

or two. You know, for whatever you think

54:29

of this, that's a disaster, right, that's a

54:32

disaster. Now, maybe he should have he

54:34

deserved to be acquitted, but the victims,

54:36

they would have said, why don't you just give him the evidence

54:39

the first time and we'll litigate it the right way, or

54:41

don't use him because he's unreliable.

54:43

But it's never good for victims either if

54:46

ten years down the road or fifteen down years

54:49

down the road, you're learning of evidence that should have

54:51

been given over earlier. It turns your life upside

54:53

down a second time. Well, that's

54:55

what I've been saying, and I think I've

54:57

shared with you, Mr Moxley, like I

55:00

don't understand in the case of Wozniak,

55:02

he had it all right, he had a confession, he

55:04

had the murder weapon, he had the treasure trove

55:06

of evidence, as he likes to say, he didn't

55:09

have to frame Rachel the way

55:11

he did. And it seemed

55:13

to me like there

55:16

there's a sense and correct

55:18

me if you think I'm wrong, but I feel like in

55:20

the case of the Orange County District Attorney's

55:22

office, there's a sense of that

55:25

they cherry pick justice, who gets

55:27

justice and who doesn't. I'd

55:31

love to hear your reaction to that, But that's

55:34

someone who has come into town and

55:37

covered this trial for in this case

55:39

for three years. I don't know the history

55:41

the way Mr Moxley does, or certainly

55:44

you, Mr Sanders, and I can't

55:46

speak on behalf of how you feel, Paul, but

55:48

that's my impression. It might

55:50

be cherry picking. But I think one of the things that

55:52

I learned about, particularly

55:55

after these Wozniak and cry cases,

55:57

is that they

56:00

weren't focused on them to target

56:02

them for cheating. They were just cheating

56:04

against everybody anytime they wanted. They

56:06

were doing because they called him capers

56:08

all the time, against inmates. Um.

56:11

And this is what they

56:13

just routinely do. Nobody was. They

56:16

were operating in secret, They had no

56:18

management accountability, they were coming

56:20

into court, they were committing perjury.

56:22

They they're above the law. And it

56:24

just through Scott's

56:26

work here, it just got exposed that

56:29

they took the easiest slam dunk definitely

56:31

case and botched it. That's

56:34

the embarrassment that Tony Roccoccus and

56:36

Sheriff Hutchins have to live with. And

56:39

I keep asking, how

56:42

is that justice for the victims families?

56:44

I mean, I think you

56:47

could speak best. It's not justice

56:50

at all, it um

56:56

right, It's just it's heartbreaking. And

56:58

you know, to know that the

57:03

respect that I had for these guys and what

57:05

I thought they would produce for me

57:07

and do for me, they did the complete opposite,

57:10

and they they

57:14

made my pain worse. And

57:16

they continued to do that by

57:20

not admitting what they did and not just

57:23

holding themselves accountable. I

57:25

mean, right, that's what I'm just so sorry

57:27

for what you are experiencing. I

57:30

just think it's a travesty. I

57:34

want to thank you all today for being here.

57:36

It means so much to have

57:38

listeners hear the truth and know

57:41

the real story behind all this, and you

57:43

all three have contributed to

57:45

that in such a powerful,

57:48

honorable way, and I just thank

57:50

you all, Thank you, thank you. On

58:03

our remaining episodes of Sleuth, you

58:06

can expect to hear from sources who

58:09

will identify the full extent of

58:11

others who helped Daniel Wazniak

58:13

in the murders of Sam Hair and Julie Kibuishi.

58:17

We'll learn about when and where Tim

58:19

Wazniak showed up on the scene to

58:22

help aid his brother Dan in the murders.

58:25

And then there is Rachel's brother Noah Buffett.

58:28

What and how much did no one know at the time

58:30

of the murders. Finally,

58:32

you will hear from a couple of explosive surprise

58:35

guests which will round out our season,

58:38

ending with a live call in finale episode

58:41

a finale where all our Sleuth listeners

58:44

have a chance to talk to me directly

58:46

with any questions, criticisms,

58:49

or suggestions for our team.

58:51

As we head into the new year with an

58:53

all new season, two. Stay

58:56

with us as we share all that's left of our

58:58

work for this season of Youth

59:00

and No. You can find us with the latest

59:02

sleuth news at Facebook

59:04

dot com, Forward Slash Sleuth

59:07

podcast. If

59:11

you enjoyed this episode of Sleuth, share

59:13

it with a friend and be sure to

59:16

leave a rating or review. Follow

59:18

Sleuth on I Heart Radio, or

59:20

subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts

59:22

so that you never miss an episode.