Nolan Wells AND Siders 16 Kids: Officials Did WHAT?!

[00:00:01]This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brusky [music] and Robin Dreke.

[00:00:09]>> Nolan Wells went to Horn Island with his friends on the 4th of July. His friends came back, he did not. His body was found in the water 2 days later. And before the autopsy was finished, before toxicology could come back, before the FBI touched his phone, the sheriff told the country no foul play was suspected.

[00:00:31]>> [snorts] >> The question is whether this investigation is structured to follow the evidence wherever it leads, or whether that early statement already pointed it somewhere and it's been walking in that direction ever since.

[00:00:47]I'm here to say I don't know, but words do matter. You may remember another sheriff, Mr. Nanos, who had that harsh reality check earlier in the year where his words matter wasn't used to people taking him so seriously. This is a different sheriff, different words, but no foul play is suspected before an autopsy, before toxicology, before the FBI touches the digital evidence.

[00:01:12]I don't quite know how you get there. Um that's the question I think we're going to start with this morning. Eric Faddis, defense attorney, former prosecutor with myself and Robin Dreke, reform former FBI special agent, chief of the counterintelligence behavioral analysis program. Let's start there. Eric, what does a statement like that do to the direction of an investigation that, you know, it's in its super early stages?

[00:01:36]They didn't have all the data. So, how do you go and make a statement like that to the public? What's what's going on here?

[00:01:46]>> Tony, I'm I'm worried that such a statement issued prematurely can have a chilling effect on the investigation.

[00:01:53]You know, if there are multiple agencies involved, they're all hearing this and they're saying, "Oh, well, you know, perhaps we can kind of put this on the back burner.

[00:02:01]We've got a lot of other work we got to do."

[00:02:03]Uh and so I'm worried that that it would take away from from sort of the dedication of resources and manpower and everything else that is required to really unearth what happened here because it's still obviously an ongoing mystery. They don't know the answers.

[00:02:18]And if you don't know the answers, how can you say whether foul play is suspected or not? I just thought it was is terribly premature.

[00:02:26]>> Yeah, you definitely lay down an early confirmation bias with that. And it happens in multiple layers where now they're going to move in a direction again, totally potentially unconsciously, but just move in a direction where they're trying to confirm that there was no foul play involved. And then also you cascade on top of that the position of the sheriff, position of authority, you're looking for promotion. Do you really want to go against what your boss already said? So, it really sets things up, you know, for potential not goodness. So, how do you then how do you think they walk that back? How do you walk something back and if you're the sheriff to now go back into the world that we should be living in, the world of maybe? The world of maybe opens up all possibilities that we can explore all the tendrils that go out from this and go, like we said at the opening, where the investigation takes us.

[00:03:14]>> Uh Robin, very true. And I think that they certainly law enforcement needs to be now kind of overly diligent. I think they need to sort of overcompensate for for the statement that they made in the sense of, you know, we need to interview everybody under the sun we can possibly find. We need to seize digital devices where appropriate that might have information revealing what happened here. We need to talk to all of these businesses. We need to scour all of the premises for potential video evidence.

[00:03:45]All of those things. I I think they really need to be overly diligent now because of that statement that was issued.

[00:03:51]>> Yeah, I mean it's a really tone-deaf statement to make. I mean especially in the atmosphere we're in, in the state they're in, with the track record of the state that we're in. And and it it it it's just like come on, dude. Come on.

[00:04:08]Even I mean even I mean you just you there's no room for that just sort of flippantness in something like this where where everything is ripe to explode very quick and people want to go down this road of a narrative or that road of a narrative.

[00:04:24]Words matter. I don't know what it takes. I want to take these sheriffs and just shake them. Like come on, you you your words matter. You're in the position. I mean I don't know. I mean I I I'm I'm somewhat trying to give benefit of the doubt. Maybe it's just another one of these I'm not used to saying [ __ ] in public and people listening because I don't know. I would think once you have that title, once you work your way up to sheriff, you kind of got to take your job and what you say seriously. Is this was this just a slip of the tongue? Just a bad way of describing something? We've all done it.

[00:05:01]We've all said things like I wish I would have said it more that way. Should he just at this point just walk that back? Just say look, I misspoke. I kind of meant to say it this way. It's on me.

[00:05:12]Just own the damn thing. Or is it better at this point just to shut up and and and and and and show in action in in the investigative work that they are taking this seriously rather than just give lip service to the public.

[00:05:29]>> Why tell me why not give just an updated statement to the public? You know, he doesn't necessarily have to say hey, I kind of screwed up when I said this thing inartfully. But but but instead give an updated um status of to the public in terms of the actions that are being undertaken uh to to investigate what what may have happened here. And and and I think that that would probably suffice. It doesn't have [clears throat] to be the sort of hat in hand, oh woe is me thing. Uh but they can be like, "Hey, you know, here is all the all the things we're doing. In fact, we're enlisting other agencies. I've heard the FBI might be involved." Give the public some assurance that there is a diligent investigation going on. That might be the next appropriate step.

[00:06:09]>> Yeah. And and I go >> Go ahead. Go ahead, Robin.

[00:06:11]>> Yeah. And I looked at that, too. So, you know, I did a deeper dive again from what we know, you know, seeing if we do have another Nanos in the making here.

[00:06:17]And from from the outset, from what we know now is the as this recording, no is actually got a really good sheriff. It's The sheriff here is an elected position, but he was appointed, so he wasn't elected. He will be up for election when it comes due. He's a National Academy graduate, which uh he he was selected to go through FBI's National Academy. He's got a good reputation. His department's got a good reputation. So, I'm hoping that he can do what you just said, Eric, because what you do in times when you blow trust, which had happened here by statements like that, the only thing you can really do is then give that transparency in areas in which people don't feel safe. And so, like to your point, if he now just counters the foible of words with a lot a lot a lot of transparency, more frequent updates, and just what's going on, it goes a long way. And to the and to your uh question about the FBI's involvement and then one of our listeners, I did look it up. Uh yeah, the FBI is involved, like they generally are in big cases like this in a support role looking at digital uh and forensics and such. Um so, that's what I found out.

[00:07:18]>> With with this being um not as of this moment, it's not being classified as as anything nefarious uh as of this moment. Um what what sort of of latitude do the local authorities have to do a deeper investigation? To look into everything that could disappear quickly, everything that could be destroyed uh or not already has been destroyed on people's devices on digital records. All of those sort of things. The bilge pump.

[00:07:53]Go take a look at that. Was there actually water coming in on the boat?

[00:07:56]All these sort of things.

[00:07:58]From my understanding and I think a lot of people's understanding when you're at this stage and it's not a criminal investigation yet and may never be.

[00:08:08]It's a lot of suggesting. It's a lot of asking. Please volunteer. Come forward.

[00:08:12]Give us the information. And if you have nothing to hide, I would say I would you know hopefully yes. I mean for the sake of everybody involved that if there's nothing going on, please look at my device. You'll see we were friends. I don't know what the hell's going on here but this should help port you in that direction. But people are also going to clam up. They're going to circle wagons and circling the wagon sometimes looks like conspiracy, sometimes looks like cover up when they're just afraid of getting a finger pointed at them for something that wasn't actually there.

[00:08:42]But the the mob is already there with the pitchforks ready to go after them.

[00:08:46]There's already been death threats against friends and all of that that's been going on.

[00:08:52]What what latitude do they have to get in to get that information from everyone that was around to put together a picture of what happened with it not being a criminal investigation yet?

[00:09:07]>> Well Tony, they have broad investigatory powers even if they haven't got to the place where they believe it's criminal yet. They still have a number of things at their disposal including like all standard law enforcement resources. So we're talking about you know manpower, procuring video, getting statements, doing interviews, assessing the scene, assessing things that were at the scene like the boat. On top of that, you know, I I according to reports, there is some allegation that some of the statements may have been inconsistent. There's some allegation that some of the timelines from different folks might not match up. And so, those are prime examples of things on which law enforcement can hone in and try to either confirm or deny. Hey, was this just some coincidence, some mistake? Or instead, do we have, you know, two people saying things that couldn't possibly both be true?

[00:10:03]>> You know, to that point, Eric, I'm sorry, Tony. Do you want to go?

[00:10:06]>> You're good.

[00:10:07]>> So, to that point, Eric, the easiest thing we have as an investigator early on in a case like this, as you're investigating it to see if it's, you know, just a random accident or if it is criminal, is, like you said, it's a lot of interviewing.

[00:10:19]You conduct a lot of interviews, and then you're cross-referencing these interviews. At what stage does What do you need to hear as a prosecutor and an official to elevate it from to to the next level? Because we always go by intrusiveness the technique used. You know, the least intrusive is an interview. You do an interview, you take notes, and then you keep interviewing all these people involved. You can observe from the outside without being intrusive and getting a subpoena.

[00:10:45]Subpoena requires probable cause. That's what starts elevating. What are you going to need as a prosecutor, do you think, to elevate this, or a judge is going to want to hear it to elevate from an interview of someone? Is an inconsistent statement between two people enough, or do they need something more?

[00:10:58]>> Sure. So, we have, like you said, the interview level is really the introductory level.

[00:11:04]And then from there, you need to look into search warrants and production of records requests, where you request from digital devices or from apps on digital devices information about activity, things like that. In order to get to that place, Robin, you do need probable cause. But probable cause is a pretty low standard. That that's, you know, reasonable grounds to believe that a crime has occurred and that that there's someone who is the perpetrator of that crime. You you put that together in a search warrant, you give it to a judge, see if a judge allows you further access in into like you said these more intrusive legal mechanisms like search warrants and what have you.

[00:11:42]Inconsistent statement probably in of itself is not enough, but an absence of an innocent explanation is something that the the judge can also consider.

[00:11:52]When you put all those together, do you meet that low standard of probable cause?

[00:11:56]That's up to a judge.

[00:11:57]>> So on that I'm so sorry Tony is that I'm I'm so curious about how we get at the cell phones here cuz the mother has the son's cell phone and she's claiming that from her baseline of understanding of her son's behavior, she's got her life's arc of her son. He's usually doing X, Y, and Z. Texting at this time of day, taking photos, and she says it's absent.

[00:12:16]She has possession of that, so I'm assuming that she now is the authority that can give access to that cell phone.

[00:12:22]I'm curious though, so say there's another individual, friends, family, or whoever is out on that boat, if they have cell phones they've voluntarily turned over because we heard they did or were asked to at least as of this recording. If if someone's noting that there is that enough in other words for someone else? Is is it enough that it's been stated or assumed or a friend said, "I think he deleted or she deleted stuff from that cell phone."

[00:12:49]Is that enough to get a warrant to search?

[00:12:52]Or what's the bar for it?

[00:12:54]>> Are we at a probable cause state? I guess is that's what's my question is going to be. Are we at a probable cause state with the inconsistent statements?

[00:13:02]Because I mean you do have what the big one everybody talks about is the allegedly some of again these are unconfirmed it is what it is.

[00:13:10]Allegedly some reports are saying that the some of the boys said that he was going to go and get a ride back. He wanted to go hang out with the girl. The girl says he was going to go ride back with his friends. The family says he would always ride back with his friends.

[00:13:24]It's not impossible for an 18-year-old to change course when they see a pretty girl and go, "Uh I know I normally would go back with you guys, but I'm going over here." Um and and it would be a deviation of behavior, but it's not an impossibility of deviation of behavior. So, I mean, is that an area where that would be probable cause because of the conflicting inconsistent statements, or is that does that not reach that bar? I know the bar is low, but is that does that quite get there?

[00:13:57]>> Yeah, you know, it wouldn't be shocking for a 40-year-old to change course and go to a pretty girl.

[00:14:02]>> Yes.

[00:14:02]Yeah. [laughter] Yeah.

[00:14:05]>> But, um you know, is that enough? I I think what we're what we're talking about is a lack of some kind of natural explanation in terms of what happened, and then the witnesses who would have possession of the information regarding what happened uh appear to be inconsistent. Um does that give rise to reasonable grounds as to whether there was a potential criminal cause of of what happened? I think when you when you have these conflicting statements, you have an absence of of of a natural explanation, at least presently. Um I I think that we're getting close. I I I don't know if >> Yeah.

[00:14:44]>> But then, Tony, like you mentioned, the deleting stuff from the phone, that appear that a judge could look at that as potential concealment, as potentially withholding information.

[00:14:54]And I think when you put all those things together, is a judge going to err on the side of I'm going to give you access to this these devices because we need to know what happened to this what happened to this kiddo.

[00:15:05]I think probably.

[00:15:07]>> How much of this is is is everyone applying their own narrative to the story?

[00:15:14]Of well, he's always on Snapchat. And I and no way my god, this this mother is grieving her son. She's trying to look at at his his behaviors and go, "Well, this seems out of character." So, no way am I I I'm questioning her or saying, you know, anything negative here. But, sometimes people do things that are out of character. Um there's other people other other friends who've made statements now about Yeah, when we're out we're out on the boat or we're out on the beach here, we put our phones on the boat and and it sits there. So, maybe he wasn't out there snapping all day. Uh I was wondering about service on the damn island number two. Like, with Snapchat, sometimes if you don't have service, it's not going to actually go anywhere, either. I mean, there there does seem to be potential roads where there wouldn't be anything on a Snapchat that day. And it just it is what it is.

[00:16:06]And we until we get information back from Snapchat and the data of the phone, the metadata saying, "Yes, there was in fact deletion." Which we don't know yet.

[00:16:14]That's that's the assertion that's being made because mom is saying there was nothing there. We don't know the actual being deletions as of yet. Um there you throw all these into the narrative and and it makes people think that something is suspicious. I would also think the authorities and I'm wondering, do you think the authorities are also being cautious on on saying there or or or treating this um as something more than uh an accidental drowning to uh out of a litany of caution for all of the friends, all of the people that were around him. Um not in a way of cover-up, but to prevent a a mass mob coming in and saying, "See? See, something happened here." When the investigation simply needs to run its course, but just signals out of an investigation saying, "We need to look at everybody's phone.

[00:17:07]We're going to take your phone." That immediately would signal to people that something is awry, even when in fact in reality, it may not be. It's information gathering. But, that reads to a lot of people as something far darker than it may actually be.

[00:17:21]>> Uh gosh, Johnny, the authorities are in a difficult position here because it is a very delicate situation. We have a very sensitive, of course, highly emotionally charged, certainly for the family and friends. Uh and so, you know, on the one hand, they want to show, the authorities, "Hey, we are looking into things. We are being diligent. We are um looking into devices where appropriate."

[00:17:43]On the other hand, they don't want to stir up the community into such an outrage that you've got a mob with pitchforks. My understanding is that, according to reports, some folks claim they've already been like threatened because simply because they're proximal to to to to this alleged incident and what happened. And so, gosh, how does law enforcement balance, "Hey, we want to keep the peace in the community. We also want to let them know if something nefarious did go down, we're in we're looking into it." And I think striking that balance can be a very difficult task.

[00:18:16]>> Yeah, because and I get what they're doing, that that balance is so challenging and difficult because of all the sensitivities. But if you're looking at the law of averages, I just double-check them again, homicides do happen in this area.

[00:18:30]They're extremely rare. If you're looking at law of averages, there are rip currents there and and related related drownings because of those types of rip currents in this area, especially on a holiday weekend, there's about 100 drownings per year nationally from that in this area and 227 rip current fatalities since 2002. And this area is actually known for those rip currents as well. So, I know that they're playing, you know, as law enforcement, remember that I you you create filters. And unfortunately, when you have all the eyes of the world on you, they they want some clarity, but they don't have the clarity yet. So, you get statements like the sheriff put out and anyway, makes it a mess.

[00:19:06]>> Well, and a lot of people, you know, when when you you think drowning, if you've never dealt with rip tides or or a drowning or anybody, you know, struggling in water. Sometimes people think IT'S THIS REAL >> [screaming] >> "I'M OUT HERE DROWNING. Somebody help me." Drownings are quite often not that at all. They're everybody's doing their thing over here. Hey, where's so-and-so?

[00:19:29]That's how drownings happen because nobody saw it happen because the rip tide pulled them out and boom, they're gone. If you've never been in a rip tide, you don't know what the hell you're talking about because they're dangerous, they're scary as [ __ ] and they can take you out pretty damn fast.

[00:19:44]I've been in one myself. It was scary as [ __ ] So, I mean, that is another thing that came to mind, too. IT'S NOT ALWAYS THIS IT'S IT IT IT He could have as as well as many other things that could have happened. That is a very dangerous thing to navigate. Even if you are cuz they go, "Well, he's an athlete.

[00:20:05]He's this." It's like, I don't care if you're Superman.

[00:20:07]>> Oh, yeah.

[00:20:07]>> A rip tide will kill you if if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[00:20:11]>> And this one in this area they're saying is 8 ft per second, roughly 5.5 mph that's been recorded in this area.

[00:20:17]>> Yeah, I mean, so there's there's a lot that could be going on there. The coroner saw no obvious signs of trauma and sent the body to the estate medical examiner. That sounds good to me. I mean, that sounds like, "Okay, we're crossing Ts, we're dotting Is."

[00:20:31]He gave his answer, but he's not like, "This isn't the end-all-be-all. We need to send it further." So, that's good. It shows the system is working. It's being processed. These things do in fact take time. But people drowned in homicides, too. Held under, incapacitated, pushed from a boat. I mean, what does that autopsy actually need to show for this investigation to change course, Eric?

[00:20:54]>> Yeah, you know, um it of course if if the toxicol report came back and there was some intoxication, I'm not saying there there is, I'm hypothetically.

[00:21:05]Uh you'd want to know the source of that intoxication. Was it uh self-ingested? Did someone give him something? Uh, on top of that, you want to look at not only obvious signs of trauma, but non-obvious signs of trauma. You know, you might not see anything, for example, on the head. Person has hair, but sometimes there can be bruising under the scalp area that is simply not visible.

[00:21:29]On top of that, you know, there are internal things that can be examined.

[00:21:34]Uh, for example, when the hyoid bone is fractured, sometimes that can be indicative of strangulation, even if there are no sort of outward marks or signs. You know, if someone has an arm around someone's neck, uh, and and you know, people bruise differently. So, I think that we really got to do a thorough dive into that autopsy, and there could be findings that could be suggestive of a need for additional investigation. We just don't know yet.

[00:22:00]>> Yeah, so many questions. Give us your thoughts in the comments section and Substack and YouTube for this segment and everything we've been talking about.

[00:22:07]Love for you to weigh in. We do read it all. We're reading the comments live as they come in as well. Every friend who was on that boat with Nolan Wells has an attorney now. The family has Ben Crump, their own investigators, their own autopsy. One friend went on national television. Content creators are naming names to millions of people. Everybody connected to this case is making moves right now. But the question nobody is asking is which of those moves actually helps the truth come out? And which ones are just following a narrative?

[00:22:38]Um, all three friends that we've we've seen in those pictures, they have attorneys. The sheriff says they've been cooperative.

[00:22:45]Crump says the family doesn't actually know what cooperation looks like. If If If you're one of those friends and you genuinely did nothing wrong, um, is getting an attorney the smartest move right now? Or is it the most suspicious?

[00:22:58]Or is it both?

[00:23:01]>> You know, I'm an attorney, so I I might be a little biased on this. Sure. I think it's potentially both.

[00:23:08]I think that you know, when you have all of this fervor in the community about hey, we've got to get an answer. Something happened to this kid. Things are looking a little sketchy. There's inconsistencies. You know, you start to worry about the pressure and and targeting of people around Nolan Wells. You know, even if they didn't do anything wrong.

[00:23:30]>> Yeah.

[00:23:31]>> Is there a pressure from the community on law enforcement to pin this on somebody? To come up with an explanation even if that explanation might not be 100% correct. And even if that explanation might improperly implicate some some alleged wrongdoing on behalf of friend in which they had no real involvement. And so I think that it does make sense to have have an attorney under these circumstances. Not only for the law enforcement context, but gosh, you got media probably is contacting these folks. They got to be careful what they say, how they present it.

[00:24:02]>> And it's so heartbreaking because if these if these kids did absolutely nothing wrong and in no way are we saying they did at all.

[00:24:11]From everything we've understood so far, it looks like these were a pretty tight group of friends. And and then to to suddenly be accused of of doing something heinous to your your friend.

[00:24:22]You know, you'd almost have to lawyer up. And it's not necessarily a sign of I'm doing something wrong, but you got to protect yourself from from the world that's now suddenly coming at you.

[00:24:33]>> Yeah, from everything we're seeing from the friends side behaviorally too, that's what I've been looking at. Again, only from what we've been seeing out of this, you know, there's no wobble.

[00:24:40]There's no leakage of of unhealthy behaviors, you know, outside of being young and making the choices you're making on July 4th. You know, so we're not saying wobble's there. And what I'm also been curious about too is man, it just left my mind. I'll forget it. Go back to Tony. I'll come back to you >> I want to ask about this specifically.

[00:24:59]Um We don't have toxicology yet. That will come out eventually.

[00:25:04]I'm going to take a wild guess. Let's just go down this road in theory. I'm not saying it is true. I'm going to guess there might be drinking involved at a minimum.

[00:25:13]And and there might be other things. Who knows? They're young. They're 18. It's It's the summer before everybody's going off and doing stuff. Some are already in college. Some it's their first one out.

[00:25:23]It's It's that time. I've been I've been saying it akin to remember American Pie, the movie and the parties. That's That to me kind of is like the the atmosphere reminiscent of that except you're on a barrier island in a paradise type setting. I mean dumb things happen, crazy things happen, fun things happen, all of the above can happen there. But if there is drinking involved, if there was drugs involved, more specifically to the drinking area of things where those sort of things could be obtained legally by someone, not an 18-year-old.

[00:25:58]What kind of accountability might we be looking at if there's liquor or alcohol found in his system and then tracing back to where that alcohol came from and who got it and from where?

[00:26:11]>> Hans, you know, it it it reminds me a little bit, Tony, certainly not identical, but somewhat similar to >> Yeah, yeah.

[00:26:19]>> And then the and then also like a like a college frat situation where where where someone is is a freshman and and they're not of age, they're provided alcohol, they overindulge, and they die.

[00:26:33]And those things happen. And and I think at that juncture we look at what is the source of that intoxicant that appeared to contribute to someone's death. What charges could arise from that? You know, there there is depends on the facts, but contributing contributing to the delinquency of a minor is one that comes to mind.

[00:26:50]Another one potentially is negligent homicide if there was some indication that the supplier of this alcohol was just feeding this guy shots and shots and shots until he was, you know, not cognizant of what was going on. And then add add, you know, water and rip tides and everything else to that, that's a recipe for disaster. So certainly there could be some criminal liability on behalf of whomever supplied the alcohol if such alcohol was supplied and played a role in in what happened.

[00:27:21]>> And that kind of circles back to the question I did forget but just remembered, which actually relates and because we're talking about the lawyers and they lawyered up. So we're we're talking about, you know, whether they should or shouldn't. So let's reverse it. Why wouldn't you want to lawyer up in cases like this or in any cases, you know, related to something crazy happening?

[00:27:43]>> You know, I think there might be a motivation to avoid some appearance of suspicion, some appearance of wrongdoing, some appearance of complicity.

[00:27:52]And you know, look, if I was out there and I was 18 and you know, perhaps I was smoking some weed and and and I happened to share it with somebody and something awful happened to that person.

[00:28:03]You know, even though I probably did not have any criminal responsibility in their demise, I would want to protect myself and and so the fact that they're lawyering up to me is not terribly suspicious, but there's certainly the implication that they have there's some legal issue they need to navigate.

[00:28:22]>> It's interesting. It attracts our attention and I'll I'll look it up in a second as, you know, Tony asks that question, but I'm curious. Have you ever seen a case Eric where someone didn't lawyer up when it when you have a case that hit national, you know, national attention like this?

[00:28:37]So in other words, would it be odd if they didn't?

[00:28:40]>> Where it worked out and they didn't?

[00:28:42]>> [laughter] >> Yeah.

[00:28:43]>> In a sense, the um I my recollection of that I think it was the Olympics bombing and they and there was this security guard and he tried to he basically tried to help and it seems like he was totally innocent >> [laughter] >> and they dogged him terribly and wrongly accused him of stuff and right before he was exonerated he died or something. I don't believe that he was represented in the early stages of that and that just goes to show that that can be perilous.

[00:29:12]>> Well, yeah, I mean there's so many cases where you know, I and I get it's it's it's it's coming from a place of I think of you know, goodness if you had nothing to do and you're just wanting to be transparent but look, we've seen a thousand cases here where you don't lawyer up and the system will then railroad you. I mean look at Richard Allen. I mean there's a man who should have lawyered up from the beginning and and like well, we're going to go down this narrative. Um I mean it's yes, there's there's the public that is judging you but at the end of the day it's the court system. It's the actual law that matters. So I I don't fault anyone for lawyering up with a case that is this high profile just considering the climate that we're in.

[00:29:58]Let's talk about what what what people are doing right now. Crump, the attorney pointed out that the friends didn't voluntarily tell investigators they had Nolan's phone and keys. The family traced the phone with Life 360 and then they went to go get it themselves.

[00:30:17]Um I don't I mean that's the the the story that we're being told from from that narrative.

[00:30:24]I'm wondering if they knew they had his phone [laughter] and keys. I mean I I mean I'm not trying to make excuses here but sometimes just inept incompetence or just unawareness can look like something other than it is and I do wonder how much of that is going on here. I mean what does a reasonable innocent person do when they have a dead friend's phone and keys in their possession if they're aware of it?

[00:30:49]>> Yikes, you know, I think there are a number of potential explanations for this. One is that they weren't aware they had them in their possession.

[00:30:56]Another is that they were aware, but they're, you know, for lack of better characterization, a naive 18-year-old who, >> [clears throat] >> you know, you're freaked out, you your friend is dead.

[00:31:08]That on that is traumatic in and of itself. On top of that, there's this national attention on on an incident at which you may have been present. And then, you know, you're peppered with questions from but from law enforcement.

[00:31:20]You might not You might state something inartfully. You might not remember something in the moment cuz you're so freaked out. That's one explanation.

[00:31:27]Um But something about, you know, Tony, if I was there and if I was a friend and my friend died and I had his phone, that might have information about what happened, that might be the first thing I mention.

[00:31:38]I might say, "Hey, look, I can't tell you what happened, but please take this phone. This might have This might shed some light on how my friend died, which I'd really love to know about."

[00:31:48]>> Yeah. I mean, I'm trying to play devil's advocate here and just like just throw all these possibilities out there because it's easy to go down a narrative route when we just don't know the answers yet. But the thing that we seem to be having here, if if the stories that are coming out of the allegations that are coming out are true is is there does there is starting to be a pattern of inconsistent statements, there's a pattern of of of just some oddities, some some wobbles in in in the wobbles in the what? The what is it, Rob?

[00:32:19]>> Behavior arcs.

[00:32:20]>> Yeah, the behavior, but wobbles in the the you say yeah, all that. The when there's when there's these wobbles going on, um yeah, it can look like something. It can also look like a bunch of 18-year-olds who were out drinking and partying and their stories are >> Yeah.

[00:32:38]>> are are not necessarily going I mean you could ask them about, you know, what did you have for lunch and you may have three different versions of the story. I don't know.

[00:32:46]Um What what do you think we're looking at here? Is it Is it a combination of all that or I mean does this have the signs um of of of something being covered up here? People not wanting to be accountable for information that they may have?

[00:33:03]>> To me, Tony, if it's true that that information was deleted from some device and I don't know if that's been confirmed but I think some people have alleged it.

[00:33:12]>> Uh if that's true and if you're talking with multiple eyewitnesses and their stories have uh material inconsistencies, material uh discrepancies in terms of the timeline.

[00:33:28]Uh and then um on top of that, if there is some kind of finding in this autopsy that is even just suggestive of [snorts] a non-natural death or or or a or or a death that that could involve criminality, I think when you have those elements together, really it raises some eyebrows from a from a legal perspective.

[00:33:52]Really something we need to look at more seriously and try to unearth because you look at the girl's statement, the girl that he allegedly went with and that's different than what the friends say. Um I I've got more questions. But I want to ask this. I Is there anything that the family uh of Nolan right now I Is there anything they should be doing when they're watching the investigation if if they're cuz we don't know exactly who's been interviewed, what devices have been taken if any. Um is there and if you're sitting there as a parent, if I'm if I'm sitting here, if I'm Nolan's parents and I'm watching this and it's all kind of like, well, we're asking people to bring their phones in and uh let us take a look at them. But it's an ask, it's not a demand, it's not a requirement, it's not a subpoena, it's not this or that.

[00:34:39]If it's a request and and you're like I think we need to get these. I I and I don't think there needs to be an option in here.

[00:34:47]Should they, can they file a civil case at this moment in time to compel those sort of devices to be taken, to be retained, to be safeguarded? I mean can can anything be done outside of the laws of law enforcement to conserve the evidence that exists as of right now?

[00:35:11]>> They could file a civil case and seek information from those devices via a subpoena or the discovery process, but but to file a civil case, you need a defendant.

[00:35:24]Who's the defendant? Who would they identify as being responsible for unlawful wrongdoing that led to their son's death? I don't think they're there yet. I think in order to to pursue those those avenues civilly, you need a defendant and at this early stage, we don't have one. Will we get one?

[00:35:45]>> And let me ask you this too, if they were to do that and they were to to go after name a name and I mean and it's I'm saying it more in in in a structural sense more than an actual we think you did something wrong. But in order to first preserve the evidence, if they were to go do that and have a defendant and you'd have to name a name for that and accuse, make an accusation against somebody and if that person had nothing to do with it and you're just doing it to check their device, could they not turn around and counter sue you for defamation if you were to go and and do that, try to pull that lever as a way to preserve the evidence?

[00:36:24]>> Yes and you know, I think in addition to that Tony, their civil legal team can issue a ton of what are called preservation demands.

[00:36:36]>> Yeah.

[00:36:37]>> And so that they send them to all parties involved or not even parties, just people who are proximal to this including the friends, including the the apps on the phone like Snapchat. You got to send them to to these companies, things like that. And it says, "Hey look, there might be litigation coming up in the future. This is a legal demand requiring you to preserve everything that is on those devices because it could become important later." And and so that wouldn't gain you immediate access to them, but it could preserve that evidence for future litigation.

[00:37:09]>> And you know, as an investigator, I keep going through what I'd be doing in this in this time period as well and because I know we're paying a lot of attention to these inconsistencies or bringing them up. But at the same time though, we don't know the context of those inconsistencies and that's what the interviewers are doing. You know, are these are these wobbles in stories happening because it's typical of intoxicants being involved here? And that's why I think they're really going to be hesitant to go one way or the other on this until they actually get the the raw data from the autopsy results, seeing what's in the system, seeing if there's any internal bruising.

[00:37:44]In other words, are there any signs that are other leakage and wobbles to anything other than a horrendous accidental drowning or is there also the other thing I'd be looking at too is, you know, any digital thing if I can actually raise the the wobbles to a bar for a judge to get any kind of subpoena or I can tell through the course of the interview cuz a a really skilled interviewer can tell whether someone is actually hiding an agenda, hiding things on a cell phone that they don't feel comfortable in sharing. Is there you know, so there's a lot of ways that an interview could go both on the content that may or may not be on that cell phone. so that's what I think they're really waiting on and cuz we don't know the context of those inconsistencies, that's why I think they're probably holding right now, too.

[00:38:30]>> Yeah.

[00:38:30]>> Yeah, and and and just just briefly on that point, you know, I think that's a critical uh insight there, Robin, because just cuz there might be inconsistencies, there can be a gazillion innocent explanations for those like being intoxicated, you know, 18-year-olds not having the best recollection, any number of things under the sun, so that doesn't mean that there was necessarily a crime or some kind of wrongdoing.

[00:38:50]>> doing. I totally agree.

[00:38:51]So many questions, so many inconsistencies, and just a lot of of lack of facts uh yet in this case. We'll continue to follow this and wherever it goes, wherever this damn thing leads. Um uh your thoughts in the comments section, Substack, and YouTube. We'd love for you to weigh in. Let's go over to uh another uh horrific story that's uh been making the headlines uh in this last uh week or two. The Sider 16 children pulled from a 12 by 12 room in a rural Ohio home, some able to speak, covered in human waste, and the only reason anyone found them is because the father was out showing his junk to the neighbors, allegedly.

[00:39:29]>> What an individual.

[00:39:30]>> Uh four members of the Sider family now face 64 combined felony counts, but the gag order just shut down the flow of information to the public. The grandfather walked out of jail because the county couldn't afford to keep him, and uh Gallia County had a truancy complaints on six of the kids 5 years ago that were never actually served. We couldn't serve them. Next. Uh defense attorney uh and former prosecutor Eric Faddis is with myself and uh Robin Drake to help uh break all this down. I want to get to the gag order right away because obviously this is something that the attorneys for the Sider uh for a Gary uh senior, junior, one of them uh got into place here. Um Yes, of course, a gag order quite often times does benefit the defendant.

[00:40:20]But I I'm seeing this as as a little more beneficial to to the state. I'm seeing this as a little more beneficial to to to all the the departments, all the places, all the people that are going to be asked the question, that are being asked the question, that are being pulled to task and saying, "How the hell did this happen? How did these kids 5 years ago just well, can't locate them. Next."

[00:40:48]There there was there was a lot of signs and a lot of signs were ignored or forgotten about or there wasn't staff to take care of them or whatever. There's a lot of excuses at play here as to how they got to this state. And that gag order, "Why can't answer those questions about that because there's a gag order."

[00:41:06]Um How convenient, Eric?

[00:41:09]>> [laughter] >> Uh exactly, you know, Robin was talking earlier about how you repair trust in a community. You talk about transparency.

[00:41:18]You talk about being forthcoming, uh things like that. This seems like the opposite of that because when you hear the allegations, uh there's automatically a kind of a lack of trust in the systems and structures in place that are supposed to regulate society like making sure kids are okay. And then instead of uh the avenue of the government saying, "Hey, let us show you what we did. Let us show you why we couldn't serve these truancy complaints. Let us tell you about um you know, what we our actions."

[00:41:47]It's going to be the exact opposite.

[00:41:48]Like I said, "Oh, sorry, we can't can't talk about that. There's a gag order."

[00:41:51]Uh well, um my gosh, how how can the public trust that other kids are going to be kept safe if these allegations are true and if they can't get any information from the government about it.

[00:42:03]>> I mean exactly. I think that I mean that's the big reason. Obviously, these kids have been found. I've been saying from the moment I heard this story, this is not a one-off case. Maybe it's a one-off that there's 16 of them in a 12 by 12 space.

[00:42:15]Uh but it's not a one-off in terms of Oh, there's a couple houses down the road that got two or three kids. And there's a couple up that way that got a kid. There's a couple up that way and this way and that way that are living in these abhorrent conditions with mutant-like family members that are charged with being parents and and and raising them. And the county looks the other way. Well, there's nothing we can do. I mean, now that they have been called to task on this they're like, "WE HAVE NO MONEY TO DEAL WITH THIS." SO, of course they had no money to deal with it to begin with. They're only like, "Shit, now we're our feet are being held to the fire and we're broke." Um I mean, it it's really exposing a system and I wouldn't say it's it's corruption, but it's ineptness um more than anything else. Like, on paper we have these systems. On paper we have Okay, this happens, that happens. See something, say something. The do something is the part that's that's missed. And we get to the do something part and it's like, "Well, yes, it is our job to do that, but we're understaffed, we're underfunded, uh and uh well, we just lost track of that shit."

[00:43:17]>> The [laughter] the gag order really gets me on this one right now because again, that lack of transparency on a critical case like this and and Tony and Todd, I know I texted you last night. So, uh I'm going to give props to my amazing daughter uh who is a labor and delivery nurse for the last 6 years. And I said I gave her this case. I said, "What would you do?"

[00:43:37]Um and here's what I got back and uh I even asked her to come on the show. She said, "No."

[00:43:41]>> [laughter] >> Um she So, what she said was um they should have been flagged. So, if she goes into a hospital cuz we know she gave birth in hospitals and that's what my daughter First of all, my daughter was amazed that um that she gave birth in hospitals and this continued to happen because she said she's a walking red flag. Uh all the nurses would have referred her to case management and social work consult. But, here's the critical thing she kept saying throughout this. If if she, the 15-year-old at the time, refused to talk, that becomes the big problem. You know, that we see this in sexual abuse in in S abuse cases as well, that if if the victim won't talk, that's a that's a problem.

[00:44:21]And then I said, "What would you have done in this case?" And because this is where that compassionate of nurses really comes to bear. She goes, "I would have pulled her aside. I would have pulled her aside. I mean, look at this human being right here. This is who my daughter routinely would reach out to and and any good nurse reaches, especially in labor and delivery. They care so deeply about this. They pull them aside. They have a conversations.

[00:44:43]They refer them to services.

[00:44:46]But, if the other thing that happens in case like this, too, if they're hospital jumping, it falls through the cracks as well. And but, all that being aside, it seems to make excuse, but now that you threw the gag order on it, to your point, Tony, who are they protecting using a gag order? Are they now aware of a of a deeper problem in one of these organizations that, you know, say you know, I'm going to go glass half full on my nurses that I I love so dearly. They probably did say something, but then it fell through some crack either intentionally or because they're inept or maybe a bad combination of both.

[00:45:21]>> Well, I mean, Eric, what does it take? I mean, it's one thing to pull somebody aside, but that person that's being pulled aside then has to want to accept the help.

[00:45:29]And and if they if they if they can't accept the help, if if if if it's fear, if it's ignorance, I mean, look at this this this poor I mean, I I I hesitate to say poor girl.

[00:45:41]But, I I do because she had all these kids, but but at the end of the day, she was 15 and, you know, basically, you know, I'm going to get married here and they're everybody adults around her, great idea. So, the guy who, you know, basically statutorily did this to you at a younger age, we're going to celebrate this with marriage. Um it's everything failed around these people, but I don't know that that that failure is looked at failure in this part of the country. It seems to be more like another Tuesday.

[00:46:14]Um and that that seems to be a lot of the problem here. So, if you pull somebody aside, but they don't want to get the help, and there is technically nothing illegal, quote unquote, going on, what can you do? There there doesn't seem to be a safeguarding society for any of this if the person doesn't want to get help until people are actually caught being harmed.

[00:46:38]>> Uh totally, Tony. And and we see that so much in a number of contexts. One context is domestic violence. You know, in those cases, there there even is significant evidence of criminality. And even then, it is difficult. You can't force help upon someone who's refusing it, even if they're refusing it out of fear or out of some other reason like that. And so, yeah, we just don't have a great system.

[00:47:03]And unfortunately, in the domestic violence context and other similar contexts, even if there's help offered, if it's refused, those things can tend to recur. They tend to play out over and over again in similar ways. And at least according to the allegations, it seems like that's what happened here with the multiplicity of children, the multiplicity of of of abuse and neglect that's alleged.

[00:47:23]>> I also be interested to because one thing that my daughter as soon as I presented my daughter, the first thing that she said was abuse. I mean, the first thing that popped in her mind because of the ages involved here, right? And we she said just the law of averages say most likely this is going on. Pure conjecture, obviously, innocent until proven guilty, all that, but that was her professional opinion, just off the cuff. The other thing, too, that happens when they go into these hospitals is blood work is done. And they would have popped for any kind of any kind of bad things in her blood system as well, the which also would have been reported to a case worker. So, that's why I'm really kind of curious about why the gag order, what was actually known, what wasn't passed along cuz I think I'm glad they're investigating but now I'm skeptical.

[00:48:06]>> [snorts] >> I mean this this really feels like a case where if you let people's whose brains are incapable of making good choices and I I believe in this case you probably have a good amount of that going on. You have probably have extremely low IQ, you probably have mental health problems going on.

[00:48:28]God knows what else you may have going on here.

[00:48:30]Probably some genetic [ __ ] Again, all conjecture.

[00:48:35]That that that literally makes someone incapable of making good decisions.

[00:48:41]Um but we we say well to each their own.

[00:48:45]You have your rights, you have your freedom, your autonomy.

[00:48:48]Is this more of a case where we're looking at not only just the depravity of these these people, but really what what kind of a system are we running here where where we allow this to go on as a society and pretend and keep telling ourselves oh they'll make a a good choice and if they don't well then there'll be consequences but we keep hoping for good choices when generationally for hundreds of years you can trace families like this back and it's The Hills Have Eyes and we're like oh that's their that's their lifestyle, that's their choice. Do we really give a [ __ ] about the children or is it just we like to tell ourselves we do? I mean it's an opinion question, it's not a legal question Eric but what are your thoughts?

[00:49:34]>> Yeah, you know um oh it's such a tragedy and we're talking about children who can't protect themselves and and who at least according to allegations whose parents are not protecting them and they are at risk. What do we do?

[00:49:51]Does the government step in and if so, how how severely do they intervene? And and and does just having some, you know, lip service in place about, hey, there there's uh you know, a social services system and and that they we can we can come try to protect this kid, but you know, are they going to then take the children or are they going to say, hey, look, in this >> [snorts] >> rural community or this this remote community, this is how these folks live and and live in the live, it's just a it's a hard fine line. You know, we want to have appropriate protective intervention and we also want to maintain [snorts] liberty and personal choice and those those two constructs really can come in tension with one another when we when you see a case like this.

[00:50:38]>> Really, attorney for uh for mom here, uh Elizabeth, I believe is her name. Uh what are you what are you advising her to do right now? I mean, I mean, I I could see a world where uh she turns on everybody and and and really, you know, saves her own ass to a certain extent um because I do believe deep down as much as I think, you know, it's deplorable and you do have a level of of accountability here and I do believe she does.

[00:51:05]Um but you got to consider the circumstances. Do you do you advise her?

[00:51:09]Uh what would you say to her?

[00:51:12]>> I I I think uh in this case and I'm not typically in favor of becoming government of clients becoming government witnesses and cooperating and turning people. I've just seen it not help be helpful for the client and open up worms. In this case though, uh I think absolutely. I think you look at um the disproportionate share of responsibility among the actors involved. I think her share is is is quite low according to reports if they're true.

[00:51:41]And and so I would I would say, hey, you got to come forward. You got to tell them what a nightmare it was [clears throat] living in there and what in how you were influenced and and and what pressures were on you and and were there any threats made and were there any sort of collusion and and and >> [clears throat] >> them compelling you to do stuff because they had more money or or they had the shelter or they had some kind of way to dangle that over your head and then you really try to implicate the true bad actors in order to save that client.

[00:52:12]>> Is there any way I mean like what would what would you need as a prosecutor to have her on your side and so she becomes the she becomes the person going after all of them for abuse. What would you need to see you know would there you know physical evidence statements you know what do you need as a as a lawyer to see to to charge if she wanted to charge the rest of the family for the abuse that she went through you know kind of like you said turning those tables and now now's her time to kind of take charge of everything and show what was going on you know because it wasn't a physical restraint but maybe an emotional. What do you need to see for that?

[00:52:49]>> It you know it would be it would be difficult to go on her word alone. There is just so much so much that is problematic within that household that that her just saying hey yeah you know this other relative involved they were actually the monster and I was just going along with because I had to. That's one thing but gosh if you had text messages if you had photographs if you had videos if if any of these children are competent to provide information that's consistent with what with what this young woman may have to say in terms of implicating other folks that you would really want that as a prosecutor and not just kind of her word in in in this nightmare scenario.

[00:53:33]>> The government is obviously closed ranks with their gag order of we're not going to talk about this but there's there's a a of people who who witnessed this.

[00:53:42]Um I'm not saying anybody is is, you know, legally accountable or responsible for this other than the people involved before them. Uh but but there are a lot of people who who did see these these people around. Um you know, mandatory reporters and such. And mandatory reporting only means so much if there actually something is done after something is reported.

[00:54:04]Um It we like to just sit on that mandatory report and think, "Oh, this is going to solve the problem."

[00:54:10]>> [laughter] >> Um is there any uh accountability that you see here? Or or is there any liability, I guess, that you see here for anybody outside of government? Um I- if things were not reported. I- if if action was not taken, even though we know the answer is it would have gone to the county and the counties would have said, "We're broke. It's all you." Which they're doing now.

[00:54:35]Um D- do you do you see anything going down that road in any way, shape, or form?

[00:54:42]>> You know, Tony, um a minority of states have what are called good Samaritan laws.

[00:54:47]>> Yeah.

[00:54:48]>> A- and really the essence of them is is if you see something horrible happening, you may have some kind of legal duty to do something, whether it's reporting it, uh intervening is not usually required.

[00:55:00]Uh I don't know if the if if their state has that law, but if it doesn't, the general rule is that if you know of something horrible going on, you're not legally required to to come forward to police or to the government or to somebody else about that. You know, we we we don't impress uh uh that legal duty upon folks. Now, should they?

[00:55:22]Is there a moral duty? Is it You know, that that's an entirely different question.

[00:55:26]>> I think a lot of people A lot of people have the moral duty and and they they follow it. It's just then it dies with the with the agencies that that don't have the the to do anything, Robin.

[00:55:37]>> You know, and and on this I I I I don't know why I anytime you cover what may be a severe abuse of a woman, I I really get wound up about it because this to me has got a lot of leakage of like hillbilly Epstein going on.

[00:55:52]You know, is there any way I'm sorry. Is there any >> [laughter] >> Every now and then, right? I have a moment.

[00:55:59]Is there any way say they could do DNA testing on the kids. Is there a way then that could then become evidence that she was unwilling with multiple partners that it was forced upon her if you have multiple DNA? I'm just kind of going down what roads does she can she do with a lawyer saying cuz I I really if she was abused and it's hard to imagine in my my confirmation bias world that she wasn't at some some way compelled to do what she really didn't want to do like have babies nonstop in her entire life.

[00:56:32]What can you do? I mean what what Can you do something like that would have helped not help?

[00:56:37]>> Uh yeah, it totally. You know, I think what you do is you start with the client and you say, "Hey, tell us how you might have been victimized, how you might have been forced to do things you didn't want to do." And then you take investigative measures to try to confirm or deny that that allegation.

[00:56:54]And one of them, like you said, Robin, if she was forced to be with multiple partners with whom she didn't want to be and had children as a result of them, well, one way to find evidence supportive of that allegation would be to do a DNA test of the children. And oh, it's true that she that her kids are from multiple partners, that is consistent with her allegation that she that she did that she was forced to do that against her will. And so, yeah, I think there are those investigative measures that can be looked into. And also, you know, I I I can't believe that no one else was aware of this. I think interviewing folks in in the neighborhood in the community who may have had interactions with these people. You know, people need to buy things. They have to go to the grocery store. They got you know, and I think that those information from those folks too can help either confirm or deny the allegations of of non-consent things like that.

[00:57:49]>> And does a small court system like in this county have the resources actually pay for DNA testing? I mean, how does that work?

[00:57:56]>> Well, I potentially I think that prosecutors with the appropriate cause could order DNA testing. Civil attorneys could pursue it, but they would have to be paid not by the state. So yeah, there is a funding question. Yes.

[00:58:12]>> It's such a a sad story and and yeah, and it's just another one where it leads to oh, look at this horrifically broken system we have that nothing ever gets fixed at and it always seems to be broken at the same spots and the same problems and nothing ever changes. Wonder why that is.

[00:58:32]>> Makes you cry.

[00:58:32]>> Uh yeah, I got some suspicions.

[00:58:36]That's going to wrap up our episode.

[00:58:38]Eric Faddis, as always, thank you so much for coming on and giving us your insight. Robin Drake, retired FBI special agent, his latest book It's Not All About Me, available wherever you get books and audiobooks. Leave a review there on Amazon. That's greatly appreciated and your thoughts in the comments section on Substack YouTube.

[00:58:56]Links are in the description. Be sure to hit subscribe so you don't miss any of our coverage of these horror stories.

[00:59:02]Until next time for Robin, for Todd, for Eric, I'm Tony Bruski. We'll talk again real soon.

[00:59:09]>> Want more on this case and [music] others? Then press subscribe now and don't miss a moment of true crime coverage from Tony Bruski [music] and the Hidden Killers Podcast.