Speaker 1: Jack Fox is back. We need him to help us
Speaker 1: go through some statements. Garth Brooks, legendary country singer, has
Speaker 1: been accused of sexual assault, multiple sexual assaults from a
Speaker 1: Jane Doe. He filed some paperwork where he tried to
Speaker 1: keep his name out of it, his name was leaked.
Speaker 1: He has now in turn leaked the name of the victim,
Speaker 1: which we are not going to do. What we are
Speaker 1: going to try to do as gently as possible show
Speaker 1: you just how important statement analysis is in a case
Speaker 1: like this. So Jack Fox, welcome back to Zone seven.
Speaker 2: Hey Cheryl, thanks for having me back.
Speaker 1: Well, I gave you an easy one. Welcome. This is
Speaker 1: something and here's the thing you just said, the most
Speaker 1: important thing off air. Nobody's going to win in this say.
Speaker 2: It's such an interesting set of statements that we've got here.
Speaker 2: I first came across this with goth Brooks statements. He's
Speaker 2: obviously the famous person involved here, and when I read that,
Speaker 2: I went, oh, wow, there's something going on here. What
Speaker 2: is it? You caning? I read his statement out for you.
Speaker 2: He said, for the last two months, I have been
Speaker 2: hassled to no end with threats, lies, and tragic tales
Speaker 2: of what my future would be if I did not
Speaker 2: write a check for many millions of dollars. It has
Speaker 2: been like having a loaded gun waved in my face.
Speaker 2: Hush money. No matter how much or how little, is
Speaker 2: still hush money in my mind. That means I am
Speaker 2: admitting to behavior. I am incapable of ugly acts no
Speaker 2: human should ever do to another. We felt suit against
Speaker 2: this person nearly a month ago to speak out against
Speaker 2: extortion and deaf of character. We found it anonymously for
Speaker 2: the sake of the families. On both sides, I want
Speaker 2: to play music tonight. I want to continue our good
Speaker 2: deeds going forward. It breaks my heart. These wonderful things
Speaker 2: are in question now. I trust the system. I do
Speaker 2: not fear the true truth. And I am not the
Speaker 2: man they have painted me to be. And I read
Speaker 2: that and went, oh wow, how many things can I
Speaker 2: see in there that interest me? First of all, when
Speaker 2: he comes straight out the bat, he talks about the
Speaker 2: check that he's been asked to write and everything that
Speaker 2: we're going to look at. In these statements, money is
Speaker 2: very much at the center of it. On both sides.
Speaker 2: He starts off by saying, I've been hassled to no
Speaker 2: end with threats, and then he says it was like
Speaker 2: having a loaded gun waved in my face. Well, if
Speaker 2: you'd had a loaded gun waved in your face, would
Speaker 2: you say you've been hassled or would you say you've
Speaker 2: been threatened? So that was interesting to me. There very much.
Speaker 2: Garth is a songwriter, isn't he? He writes and talks
Speaker 2: a lot in metaphus. I think he's got a very
Speaker 2: rich use of language, which we'll see going on here.
Speaker 2: He describes it as hush money. He says, hush money,
Speaker 2: no matter how much or how little, is still hush money.
Speaker 2: But what he's actually describing, if you look at it
Speaker 2: was is extortion, is blackmail, But no, it's hush money.
Speaker 2: And it's very interesting that he's praised it is hush money,
Speaker 2: because that is money to be quiet, to keep someone quiet.
Speaker 2: He doesn't talk about this being extortion at all, and
Speaker 2: if it was extortion, he should have been straight to
Speaker 2: the police with this, So as an implicit admission there,
Speaker 2: I believe in his words that he sees this as
Speaker 2: hush money, money to keep someone quiet. He talks about
Speaker 2: the fact that we filed suit. We filed it anonymously
Speaker 2: for the sake of the families on both sides. But
Speaker 2: he says he did it to speak out against extortion
Speaker 2: or defamation of character. Well, you can't speak out against
Speaker 2: extortion if you're filing anonymously, can you. That is not
Speaker 2: speaking out. That is you acting in your own best
Speaker 2: interests as you spoke about. The names of the people
Speaker 2: involved again play a big part in this. And then
Speaker 2: he just goes on at the end to say, I
Speaker 2: want to talk about the good deeds. It breaks my heart,
Speaker 2: So these wonderful things are in question now. So that
Speaker 2: is him doing what's called a rezume statement and trying
Speaker 2: to remind everyone of what a great guy he is.
Speaker 2: And that's what very often people who are in a
Speaker 2: bit of a jam will go, well, look, how could
Speaker 2: I have been the person that did this bad thing?
Speaker 2: Because I do good deeds, I do good things. I'm
Speaker 2: a member of a charity, or I'm an upstanding member
Speaker 2: of the community, or you know, I'm very closely involved
Speaker 2: in the church. People quite often do that to talk
Speaker 2: about well, I can't possibly have done something wrong. They
Speaker 2: introduce all the good things they've done, and as you'll
Speaker 2: know from your experience, that does not hang logically together
Speaker 2: at all. All sorts of people that do good things
Speaker 2: are also capable of doing bad things. But it sounds
Speaker 2: very impressive in a statement. You'll notice all the way,
Speaker 2: all the way through that he does not deny one
Speaker 2: allegation that is put there directly at all. It's a
Speaker 2: non denial. It's a statement of things as he sees them,
Speaker 2: but not once to see say he didn't do of them.
Speaker 2: He alludes to things like that by saying that this
Speaker 2: is things I am incapable of and things that no
Speaker 2: humans should ever do to another. But he doesn't say
Speaker 2: this human me Garth did not do this to this
Speaker 2: person at all. And so look, this could have been
Speaker 2: written by a pr person from him for him. But
Speaker 2: my view is very much, if you release a statement
Speaker 2: in your name, I'm going to analyze the words as
Speaker 2: if they came directly from you, because you have felt
Speaker 2: seen fit to put your name against these words. The
Speaker 2: other thing in there is at the very end there
Speaker 2: he once he's talked about filing anonymously, he talks about
Speaker 2: what he wants to do and how that goes in order.
Speaker 2: So it's I want to play music tonight. That's the
Speaker 2: very first thing, the most important thing to him. I
Speaker 2: want to play music tonight. You know, it's not I
Speaker 2: want to clear my name tonight, or I want to
Speaker 2: clear my name right now. I want to play music tonight.
Speaker 2: I want to continue our good deeds going forward. So music,
Speaker 2: good deeds, these are all the things that are really
Speaker 2: important to him. That's what he is bringing up there.
Speaker 2: But when I first saw that, I was like, there's
Speaker 2: a lot going on here. And then I dug into
Speaker 2: the actual filing that has been in mad in court
Speaker 2: against him.
Speaker 1: Right, and you know that statement about the hush money
Speaker 1: when he says, you know, to me, given money to
Speaker 1: that person would be admitting to that behavior. But he says,
Speaker 1: you know that I would be admitting I am incapable.
Speaker 1: But then he goes on to say, we file the lawsuit,
Speaker 1: we did it anonymously. Yes, he doesn't say who he's
Speaker 1: talking about, but that's a very big shift to me.
Speaker 2: Yes, also, I want to continue our good deeds going
Speaker 2: forward as well. He's got he's joining himself to someone
Speaker 2: there as well, so he does you know, I think
Speaker 2: the biggest one in that is he does say its
Speaker 2: behavior I am incapable of. But before that becomes no
Speaker 2: human should do to another, And that is talking about
Speaker 2: the world in general. That is not talking about himself
Speaker 2: at all. That ugly acts no humans should ever do
Speaker 2: to another. That is not saying I did not do this.
Speaker 2: It sounds impressive, but when you actually look at the
Speaker 2: words that are there, it's not saying I didn't do this.
Speaker 1: And you know, for those of us that do this
Speaker 1: for a living, when there's not an outright denal, you
Speaker 1: flag it.
Speaker 2: Yes, my crazy life. I got accused of shoplifting a
Speaker 2: couple of weeks ago, and I walked away and went
Speaker 2: a statement, analyzed myself. What did I say? And I said,
Speaker 2: I didn't steal anything. I'm walking away, and I gave
Speaker 2: them the very simple denial I didn't steal anything. In
Speaker 2: this statement from Garth Brooks. There is nothing as simple
Speaker 2: and flat and sharp as that whatsoever. I described this
Speaker 2: as a balloon statement, so it looks like something solid,
Speaker 2: but if you look at it, it's really got a
Speaker 2: flimsy exterior and very very little on the interior.
Speaker 1: And you and I have talked about the importance of
Speaker 1: the order of things. Yeah, he did come out and
Speaker 1: make a statement himself on video, So this isn't a
Speaker 1: pr person. He comes on his radio thing and he says, okay,
Speaker 1: let's talk about the elephant in the room. You almost
Speaker 1: think okay, he's fixing to give you a play by play.
Speaker 1: He's the one that says, let's talk about the elephant
Speaker 1: in the room. Yes, and then he basically says, hey,
Speaker 1: if you came here to hear about what's being alleged,
Speaker 1: I can't talk about it.
Speaker 2: That's always very convenient for people, isn't it when they
Speaker 2: say I can't talk about it. Actually, there are no
Speaker 2: laws against talking about it unless there's a gag order imposed.
Speaker 2: So when someone says I can't talk about it, it
Speaker 2: really means I don't want to talk about it. This
Speaker 2: is not an area that I want to go into.
Speaker 1: Well, here's what stuck out for me. The order he
Speaker 1: says that, I quote, I want to play music tonight,
Speaker 1: continue our good days going forward. It breaks my heart.
Speaker 1: These wonderful things are in question now. I trust the system.
Speaker 1: I do not fear the truth, and I am not
Speaker 1: the man they have painted me to be.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that I do not fear the truth
Speaker 2: as an interesting one their cheryl, because that's a statement
Speaker 2: in the negative, So that shows where our focus is,
Speaker 2: even though it's in the negative the subject of the sentence,
Speaker 2: So fearing the truth is where the focus is. It's
Speaker 2: very much like when I said to the person accusing
Speaker 2: me of shoplifting, I did not steal anything. My focus
Speaker 2: was on stealing. It wasn't the fact that I hadn't stolen,
Speaker 2: but you know, my focus was very much on the stealing,
Speaker 2: and I hadn't stolen. And right there where he says
Speaker 2: I do not fear the truth, he says just before that,
Speaker 2: I trust the system. That's a statement in the positive.
Speaker 2: So he does trust the system. He's saying in general.
Speaker 2: He doesn't say he trusts the system to do well
Speaker 2: by him, or he trusts the system that he's in.
Speaker 2: But he does say I trust the system, but I
Speaker 2: do not fear the truth. The truth is this subject
Speaker 2: of that there, and then fearing the truth is to
Speaker 2: take it a little bit wider. So he has a
Speaker 2: focus on fearing the truth. So, you know, I think
Speaker 2: I know why we defile anonymously. There is truth in
Speaker 2: here that he is very very worried about getting out.
Speaker 2: He does actually fear the truth. That's a concept that
Speaker 2: is high in his mind.
Speaker 1: Well, he talked about music first, the good deed second,
Speaker 1: and then trust and then fear. He's mentioning again they
Speaker 1: more than one person. So again, y'all, I want to
Speaker 1: be super clear, we're not saying anything as far as
Speaker 1: guilt or innocence. What we are saying is there's things
Speaker 1: in the statement that give us pause. And if we
Speaker 1: were investigating this case, Jack and I together, we're seeing
Speaker 1: the same thing. This is a problem, This is an issue.
Speaker 1: This needs more exploring. This is what I would concentrate
Speaker 1: on if I were to interview him.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I mean, that's a great point, Cheryl, is that
Speaker 2: there's no one magic proof that someone is lying. When
Speaker 2: you look at the statements, there's nothing that makes you go, right,
Speaker 2: I have proved it here, unless maybe they contradict themselves.
Speaker 2: Then you will know that they are lying somewhere along
Speaker 2: the line, but you won't know which of the contradictions
Speaker 2: is true. But what statement analysis can do is just
Speaker 2: inform a root of investigation or a set of questions,
Speaker 2: or give you areas to really zone in on and
Speaker 2: go what's going on here.
Speaker 1: Let's you know, talk about Jane do. Her statement ain't
Speaker 1: perfect either, Okay, And one of the ones. There are
Speaker 1: several that leaked out at me, but one only because
Speaker 1: you and I've already talked about it. She says that
Speaker 1: Garth Brooks appeared in the doorway to the bedroom completely naked,
Speaker 1: making her feel trapped in the room alone. Now for me,
Speaker 1: were you trapped or did you feel trapped? Those are
Speaker 1: two very different things.
Speaker 2: Yes, And a rule of mind as if someone doesn't
Speaker 2: say something, if someone hasn't said the words, then do
Speaker 2: not assume it's true. So when the phrase is there,
Speaker 2: I felt trapped in the room, that's all we know,
Speaker 2: and let's accept that that is true. But the truth
Speaker 2: is I felt trapped, not that I was trapped. If
Speaker 2: she had said I was trapped in the room, I
Speaker 2: would assume that was true and give them the benefit
Speaker 2: of the doubt and say you were trapped in the room.
Speaker 2: But that is only a feeling that was there. Now,
Speaker 2: it's maybe not a feeling that anyone would like to have.
Speaker 2: If you feel trapped in a room that you don't
Speaker 2: want to be, and that is not a nice feeling,
Speaker 2: but it is not the same thing as being trapped
Speaker 2: in a room.
Speaker 1: And to your point, some of this is investigation one
Speaker 1: O one, So if you have somebody say I saw
Speaker 1: the two boys, they left the park and went home.
Speaker 1: If I write in my report the two boys went home,
Speaker 1: I don't know that. All I know is they left
Speaker 1: the park. I don't know where they went. So you
Speaker 1: need to be real clear. You know, when you're talking about,
Speaker 1: you know, anything that occurred or didn't occur. So again,
Speaker 1: when you're talking about an emotion, that's not an act exactly.
Speaker 2: That emotion is an internal and they're letting their internal
Speaker 2: feelings and internal experiences come out when people talk about
Speaker 2: their emotions, at least when they talk about their emotions honestly.
Speaker 2: And there are other things we can do to decode
Speaker 2: whether these might be the feelings that they actually had,
Speaker 2: or whether these are feelings that they want to convince
Speaker 2: us of. But that is all that's there. It is
Speaker 2: those internal feelings. They tell us a lot. But we
Speaker 2: need to we need to listen to what people are saying.
Speaker 2: Just like you said there about the person, I saw
Speaker 2: him go home, rather than I think he went home
Speaker 2: or he did go home, all very different things. It's
Speaker 2: amazing what you can do by just listening to the
Speaker 2: words and then believing those to be true. No matter
Speaker 2: what they tell you, it just makes you way more
Speaker 2: aware of what is being said.
Speaker 1: Agreed. So when you read through the allegations and specifically
Speaker 1: things she's quoted as saying occurred, did anything else leap
Speaker 1: off the page where you said, wait a minute, we
Speaker 1: need to look at this a little more.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I did, so I read through the full filing.
Speaker 2: And this is a difference between what is in the
Speaker 2: filing and what goth Brooks said. The filing is made
Speaker 2: and written and in the name of her attorneys. It's
Speaker 2: not her words unless they're in quotes. So I'm not
Speaker 2: going to judge everything there because these may be the
Speaker 2: attorneys putting their spin on things. In fact, they are
Speaker 2: because the whole motion reads like bad fiction. I'm not
Speaker 2: saying it is fiction. What I'm saying is this. Stylistically,
Speaker 2: they add words like tragically her worst fears came true
Speaker 2: when seconds later he was towering over her. Now that
Speaker 2: reads like, why is it written in such persuasive terms?
Speaker 2: Why is it not written factually? It's done to win
Speaker 2: someone over, to make someone will take the word tragically.
Speaker 2: And if you don't do what we were talking about
Speaker 2: before and go why is that word there? Why is
Speaker 2: that word being used both tragically is a word used
Speaker 2: to persuade us of how tragic what is to follow is,
Speaker 2: but actually was it tragic? Or is this being written
Speaker 2: in a way to persuade us of it? So I'm
Speaker 2: not going to judge too much on those attorney words there,
Speaker 2: but there are a lot of quotes because I believe
Speaker 2: reading this she has saved some text messages between herself
Speaker 2: and Garth Brooks and also seems to have recorded some
Speaker 2: phone calls between herself and Garth Brooks. Now it's very interesting.
Speaker 2: She does mention in the filing that Garth deleted a
Speaker 2: lot of texts from her phone at one point, so
Speaker 2: maybe that's why she does not have the complete text
Speaker 2: message exchanges. But the phone calls, there's only certain parts
Speaker 2: of them that are quoted, and none of them, not
Speaker 2: one of them to specifically about any of the severe
Speaker 2: criminal incidents that she's alleging. In fact, what they show
Speaker 2: is a two way relationship between the two that involved
Speaker 2: intimacy and closeness, which I thought was very interesting. That
Speaker 2: is not in the headline of the allegations. If you
Speaker 2: liked that, they did seem to have some kind of
Speaker 2: beyond work relationship. The first one that jumped out to
Speaker 2: me was there was a comment from her to Brooks
Speaker 2: where she's complaining that this would read like a sexual
Speaker 2: harassment complaint in the complaint in the workplace, and she says,
Speaker 2: I have thought a lot about the conversation of last Monday.
Speaker 2: I can't work in an environment where explicit sexual comments
Speaker 2: are made about a sham about shampoo bottles doubling as dildos.
Speaker 2: I mean you no harm, and if you truly value
Speaker 2: my work, I am happy to show up tomorrow and
Speaker 2: or whenever you may need my services. And I went, well,
Speaker 2: that's interesting. She talks about the conversation of last Monday.
Speaker 2: Now I don't know if that's a conversation they had,
Speaker 2: because she doesn't say our conversation. She says the conversation,
Speaker 2: or if it's a conversation someone else had, but it's
Speaker 2: very much referencing a specific event. And then she says,
Speaker 2: I can't work in an environment where explicit sexual comments
Speaker 2: are made about shampoo bottles doubling as dildos. Now, Cheryl,
Speaker 2: I've talked to you twice. This is the second time
Speaker 2: I've talked to you. I'm a little bit embarrassed about
Speaker 2: using that word because we don't know each other well
Speaker 2: enough yet. So that suggests that there was that closeness there.
Speaker 2: There was other ways she could have said that. There
Speaker 2: would have been a little bit more formal, a little
Speaker 2: bit more I can't work in an environment where explicit
Speaker 2: sexual comments are made about shampoo bottles. That would have
Speaker 2: covered it all off. And yet she's gone there to
Speaker 2: use a word that you would only use generally with
Speaker 2: someone that you're quite familiar with, that you may have
Speaker 2: used that term with before, or the similar concepts with before.
Speaker 2: And then she says, I I'm happy to show up
Speaker 2: for work tomorrow, not I will show up for work
Speaker 2: tomorrow kind of grudgingly, or you know, it's I am
Speaker 2: happy to show up for work tomorrow. So, while this
Speaker 2: is being portrayed in the filing as something that is,
Speaker 2: you know, a horrible situation that she was put in
Speaker 2: in the workplace by Garth Brooks, her words don't belie
Speaker 2: a level of real uncomfortableness with this at all. There's
Speaker 2: no ultimatum that this must stop as well. She doesn't
Speaker 2: say she just says, I am uncomfortable working in this environment.
Speaker 2: She doesn't say I will not work in this environment
Speaker 2: where this happens. So while this has been presented as
Speaker 2: evidence of some sort of terrible behavior on Garth Brooks' behalf,
Speaker 2: the words show that this was a little bit different
Speaker 2: from that in that statement.
Speaker 1: When you were reading the statement about what occurred, was
Speaker 1: there anything that you read that gave you Paul's to say,
Speaker 1: how did that happen?
Speaker 2: Yeah, there was a point where where we're talking about
Speaker 2: the alleged rape incident, and the statement says having no
Speaker 2: regard for her well being an intent on his own
Speaker 2: sexual gratification at the expense of miss Rose's physical, mental,
Speaker 2: and emotional trauma. At some point during the nightmare, Brooks
Speaker 2: even held her small body upside down by her feet
Speaker 2: and penetrated her. And one of the things that I
Speaker 2: teach people is when you are hearing someone's words, when
Speaker 2: someone is being calm and clear in their delivery, and
Speaker 2: they've got the authentic words to deliver the experience that
Speaker 2: they have experienced, it's very easy for you to get
Speaker 2: a picture in your head of what was happening, because
Speaker 2: these are authentic words, and you can picture things in
Speaker 2: your head. And that was one of those things that
Speaker 2: made me go, I can't picture that, what would that entail?
Speaker 2: What does that happen? And then further on there, apparently
Speaker 2: he asked her to or forced her to keep her
Speaker 2: glasses on during this. Again, so we've got this really
Speaker 2: strange physical contortion that they seem to be in, and
Speaker 2: then he's forcing her to keep her glasses on at
Speaker 2: the same time, and that to me was physically impossible.
Speaker 2: I can't see how in all of that you could
Speaker 2: force someone to keep their glasses on as well. Just
Speaker 2: this feels like overdoing it, you know. It feels like
Speaker 2: way too much information, there, way too many things happening
Speaker 2: at once for it not for it to all hang
Speaker 2: together in my head. I can't say whether it was
Speaker 2: not true or not, because I wasn't there. But when
Speaker 2: I can't picture these things, when the words just don't flow,
Speaker 2: then I find I go, well, wait a minute, what's
Speaker 2: happening there? And I would dig into it just a
Speaker 2: little bit more.
Speaker 1: And that's the thing, And I'm going to say it again.
Speaker 1: We are not saying that either one is lying or
Speaker 1: either one is being deceptive. What we're saying is this
Speaker 1: is the hurdle, the problem, the walls that law enforcement
Speaker 1: is going to have to get over, break down, go
Speaker 1: around in order to find out who's telling the truth,
Speaker 1: because the reality is, to our knowledge right now, she
Speaker 1: has not gone to law enforcement. All we know is
Speaker 1: there is a simple action. I mean, is that accurate.
Speaker 2: I am no legal expert, but as far as I know,
Speaker 2: it is all civil actions at the moment.
Speaker 1: Yes, I mean we haven't heard anything. He hasn't been
Speaker 1: arrested ever, and I mean they've known each other twenty years.
Speaker 1: So there's some things I think that law enforcement is
Speaker 1: going to have to look at with no bias, and
Speaker 1: that is going to be the most critical piece. You
Speaker 1: got to take the name Garth Brooks out of it,
Speaker 1: right and you've got to look at this as a defendant,
Speaker 1: and at first you know a defendant and a victim,
Speaker 1: and see is there any probable cause? I mean, is
Speaker 1: there any evidence? Is there anything factually that you can
Speaker 1: glean from these statements?
Speaker 2: So far, there is nothing there. One of the ones
Speaker 2: that really stood out to me was a message from
Speaker 2: Jane to Thed to Garth Brooks, and it's the nearest
Speaker 2: thing that references an incident of serious sexual assault or rape,
Speaker 2: and she says, I want to make sure that even
Speaker 2: though I've told you no, that you're cool with no?
Speaker 2: I mean no, as in no fooling around like we
Speaker 2: had done. You were cool with that? Right now? That
Speaker 2: sounds way too breezy in the wording for it to
Speaker 2: be talking about a serious sexual assault. You know, Are
Speaker 2: you cool with no? You know? So? Yeah? Look she
Speaker 2: is saying no. Here, she is saying no. She doesn't
Speaker 2: want to continue, but it's continue. What are you cool
Speaker 2: with no? No fooling around? Again? That does not sound
Speaker 2: like someone referencing a severe and violent assault. And then
Speaker 2: it's no fooling around And you were talking about pronouns earlier,
Speaker 2: no fooling around like we had done. So that we
Speaker 2: is very much about a joint action, about a joint
Speaker 2: action together. If you study couples that are on the
Speaker 2: verge of splitting up or have split up, you will
Speaker 2: see that they very rarely use we pronouns. They talk
Speaker 2: about you and I all the time. They split themselves apart,
Speaker 2: people who have a unity about what we had done.
Speaker 2: So I get the impression there's very much been some
Speaker 2: fooling around. A work relationship has turned a little bit
Speaker 2: more intimate here, and that is something that is pretty
Speaker 2: much I would say from there, I can't prove anything,
Speaker 2: but I would say, yeah, there has been a consensual
Speaker 2: relationship between the pair of them at some point. I
Speaker 2: think she has wanted out of that because he is
Speaker 2: holding the power of work over her there. But I
Speaker 2: think the one thing that is clear in his statements
Speaker 2: that she quotes is that he is using his power
Speaker 2: and I want you to keep working with me. And
Speaker 2: maybe she feels a little bit powerless in that situation.
Speaker 2: But in all this, all the statements that she quotes,
Speaker 2: she talks about what's happened to herself. I get the
Speaker 2: impression there was a consensual agreement with between the two
Speaker 2: of them. And you know, bearing in mind that Garth
Speaker 2: Brooks was married and she actually worked for his wife
Speaker 2: at some point, is a very interesting position for the
Speaker 2: two of them to have been in.
Speaker 1: What do you think about the statement when she says
Speaker 1: that he basically propositioned a threesome with Tricia Yearworth.
Speaker 2: Oh, well, that is the whole the Tricia Yearward thing,
Speaker 2: And where Tricia comes into this is is very interesting
Speaker 2: because there is a point where that she is upset
Speaker 2: that Garth has told Tricia that she has seen his stuff,
Speaker 2: and stuff is the word they used to describe his
Speaker 2: his naked body, and she is obviously very uncomfortable with that.
Speaker 2: Very interesting because Garth says that he doesn't I think
Speaker 2: I know Tricia pretty well, right, so I think I
Speaker 2: know So there you talk about feelings. I think he
Speaker 2: doesn't say I know her pretty well. He just kind
Speaker 2: of thinks that he does and pretty well. So that's
Speaker 2: not entirely and she wasn't uncomfortable. I said, you saw
Speaker 2: my stuff, and that was it. We were talking about
Speaker 2: something and it just came up. Now that we were
Speaker 2: talking about something, it just came up. That sounds kind
Speaker 2: of not deceptive to me. That sounds like he's hiding
Speaker 2: something that the hym and Tricia have talked about, and
Speaker 2: I wonder, I wonder what that was. I think I'll
Speaker 2: leave it at that one. But it's only I think
Speaker 2: I know Tricia pretty well, So I think that there's
Speaker 2: probably some intimation in there that the relationship with between
Speaker 2: him and Tricia maybe not all it is there. What
Speaker 2: is interesting, she does say it was repeating remarks about
Speaker 2: having a threesome with his wife. Now, I will always say,
Speaker 2: pay attention to what people repeat because we're talking about
Speaker 2: how to work out someone's priorities. When they order something,
Speaker 2: the first thing they say is likely the most important
Speaker 2: thing to them, and then it goes on down. Things
Speaker 2: people repeat will reveal a lot about what is on
Speaker 2: their mind as well. So if these were repeated remarks
Speaker 2: about having a threesome, then that would suggest that, yeah,
Speaker 2: that was something that was in his mind if it happened.
Speaker 2: If he did make repeated remarks, and she does not
Speaker 2: in her statement it was repeated, it.
Speaker 1: Marked would the three being the liar's number come in
Speaker 1: to play there or now?
Speaker 2: I don't think so. I think it because threesome is
Speaker 2: a concept that yeah, it does involve three people, but
Speaker 2: I think three. And the theory around three being a
Speaker 2: liar's number is that if someone constructs a story the
Speaker 2: number three, the number three is involved in it. That's
Speaker 2: the kind of guy who would say, it wasn't me
Speaker 2: that that robbed that bank, but I did see three
Speaker 2: men hanging about outside, you know. I think the theory
Speaker 2: is one one will be too specific and you'll be
Speaker 2: asked questions about that one person. Two. It's kind of
Speaker 2: same when you get to three. Then all of a
Speaker 2: sudden you can start being very vague about the three.
Speaker 2: I didn't see all of them. One guy I think
Speaker 2: had brown here, or you know, I tried three times
Speaker 2: to call you. I mean, how many times have you
Speaker 2: heard that, you know, with someone I didn't hear from you.
Speaker 2: I tried three times? Did you? Did you? Or is
Speaker 2: that just make it sound like you really tried quite
Speaker 2: hard and then gave up.
Speaker 1: Well, I just wanted to clear that up because you know,
Speaker 1: there's gonna be some people that are going to ask
Speaker 1: us because we mentioned the liar's number last time. But
Speaker 1: you know, here's the thing, and I want everybody to
Speaker 1: understand again, there is a reason that sexual assault is
Speaker 1: the most underreported. The victim is absolutely going to be
Speaker 1: put on trial, no matter how many safeguards, no matter
Speaker 1: how many laws, no matter how much protection we tried
Speaker 1: to give them, It's going to happen, and people are
Speaker 1: going to question and then they're going to you know,
Speaker 1: point out anything they can come up with to blame her.
Speaker 1: Like even now, we still occasionally hear somebody say what
Speaker 1: was she wearing? Was she drinking? So, for example, when
Speaker 1: she starts putting out these statements and she's telling you
Speaker 1: things that occurred. People are going to look at that
Speaker 1: and say, okay, wait a minute, he walks out of
Speaker 1: the shower and he's naked, Well, that's obvious. You mean
Speaker 1: to tell me she was there in the bathroom while
Speaker 1: he was in the shower and what did she think
Speaker 1: was going to happen? And then people are going to
Speaker 1: question the hotel room. I mean, number one, does anybody
Speaker 1: believe that Garth Brooks booked a hotel or he had
Speaker 1: somebody do it for him? And you know how often
Speaker 1: is somebody at his level alone. There's always hair and
Speaker 1: makeup and managers and producers and lawyers and all these
Speaker 1: other people around, right, So if he has carved out
Speaker 1: where it's just the two of you on a plane
Speaker 1: and only two of you walk into a hotel, his
Speaker 1: assistant's not there, his manager's not there, the producer of
Speaker 1: whatever this event is not meeting him and is there.
Speaker 1: It's just the two of you. And then you say
Speaker 1: we went into the hotel room and I was shot.
Speaker 1: There was only one bedroom. But then she goes on
Speaker 1: to say he pushed me into the other bedroom.
Speaker 2: So, just to talk in the victims favor over, remind
Speaker 2: you that Garth Brooks does not deny any of the
Speaker 2: allegations in his statement, and there are some things that
Speaker 2: are caughty from Brooks in her statement that do give
Speaker 2: me pause for thought as to what went on here.
Speaker 2: Is he a nice guy? There's a statement, a quote
Speaker 2: from him where he says, I would never be upset
Speaker 2: with you. Look at it this way, Okay, look at it.
Speaker 2: The best way I can explain is me and you
Speaker 2: broke into a jewelry store and the second we broke
Speaker 2: the door, we looked at each other and said, this
Speaker 2: isn't right. Now. That's quite a violent metaphor for what
Speaker 2: the situation he's describing. You know, that could have been
Speaker 2: explained in a much more gentler way. You know, we
Speaker 2: started something, babe, that we should not have. We realized
Speaker 2: as soon as we started it it was the wrong thing.
Speaker 2: So we walked away, and that's the right thing to do.
Speaker 2: But he uses quite violent imagery there of breaking into
Speaker 2: a jewelry store and breaking a door, and so that
Speaker 2: made me think, what is this guy really like? It's
Speaker 2: his personality coming out through some of the metaphors that
Speaker 2: he is using there. And also I believe he uses
Speaker 2: his status, and his status is not just Garth Brooks
Speaker 2: famous person, but as her employer, you know, let's not
Speaker 2: forget that. And he says to her at one point,
Speaker 2: and this is if you're listening to this and you
Speaker 2: want to tip for uncovering what people say, this is
Speaker 2: a great one for what did someone actually say there.
Speaker 2: So he says to her, I work with the best,
Speaker 2: and I don't want to do something stupid that breaks
Speaker 2: this team up, So I will do whatever I need
Speaker 2: to do, or do whatever I don't need to do.
Speaker 2: But I just want to keep working with you. But
Speaker 2: if you feel weird working with me, it's fine. We
Speaker 2: don't have to work together. So number one, I can
Speaker 2: see he's holding the work and the fact he is
Speaker 2: an employer over her, the fact that her livelihood depends
Speaker 2: on him. But he says I work with the best.
Speaker 2: Not once within all of that does he say she
Speaker 2: is one of the best. He doesn't say you are
Speaker 2: the best at your job, and I want you on
Speaker 2: the team, so I will do whatever it takes to
Speaker 2: keep you on my team because you are one of
Speaker 2: the best. He does say that I work with the best,
Speaker 2: and I don't want to split that team up. And
Speaker 2: you can go if you want and I was thought,
Speaker 2: that is very interesting. I think he's silvertonged. He seems
Speaker 2: quite charming in some of the things he says. I
Speaker 2: think it can be very easy for someone to hear
Speaker 2: a statement like that and go always calling me one
Speaker 2: of the best. That's very flattering, and I want to
Speaker 2: stay on this team because you really values my work.
Speaker 2: But he doesn't actually say that. We could assume that's
Speaker 2: what he meant. But if he doesn't say the words,
Speaker 2: don't assume, don't give them the benefit of the doubt
Speaker 2: that that is what is in his head.
Speaker 1: Jack, when she flat out says and I quote, he
Speaker 1: thinks laws don't apply to him. I think there's probably
Speaker 1: some basis for that. So again, if you're at his
Speaker 1: level and you're on a tour bus, you know you're
Speaker 1: not going to get a ticket if you're speeding. You know,
Speaker 1: if the hotel says there's no swimming after ten that
Speaker 1: that don't apply to him. You know, there are things
Speaker 1: where maybe laws of speeding or illegally be in part
Speaker 1: or rules at different places, they do not apply to him.
Speaker 2: I am in a previous life, worked very close to
Speaker 2: a lot of some of the most famous people over here.
Speaker 2: In the UK, and I can attest to the fact
Speaker 2: that these people live alone that we could not imagine
Speaker 2: doors closed. That door will open and let you in.
Speaker 2: And that leads to if you're not a balanced person,
Speaker 2: that does lead to exactly the fact that you don't
Speaker 2: feel like not just the laws don't apply to you,
Speaker 2: but the norms of society, the standards of behavior that
Speaker 2: we expect from people don't apply to you either. So
Speaker 2: I could really see how someone with you know, the
Speaker 2: level of fame that he has, and the number of
Speaker 2: people as well, so that it will surround him that
Speaker 2: will depend on their livelihoods. For him, I could see
Speaker 2: very much how that is true. And again, the laws
Speaker 2: don't apply to him. That's a very he feels like
Speaker 2: the laws don't apply to him. Is a very straightforward statement.
Speaker 2: It's not one that's trying to convince us of anything
Speaker 2: or persuade us that this might be true. It's stated
Speaker 2: very straight, very sharp, you know.
Speaker 1: And here's the thing. There are hurdles for both sides.
Speaker 1: And this is why, again, this is a very difficult
Speaker 1: crime to investigate. If you don't have a rape kit,
Speaker 1: if you don't have DNA evidence on clothing, if you
Speaker 1: don't have some type of voicemail or video of the hostility,
Speaker 1: the anger, the threats. It gets difficult. So again, she
Speaker 1: may not have any recourse other than CIBIL. She may
Speaker 1: not have enough probable calls for law enforcement. Doesn't mean
Speaker 1: it didn't happen. And if she's having financial difficulty and
Speaker 1: she has known him for twenty years, maybe something happened
Speaker 1: and she stayed because she had to. Maybe she doesn't
Speaker 1: have other clientele. Maybe that you know, again, the level
Speaker 1: that he's at, she had to be twenty four to
Speaker 1: seven at his back and call my issue if this
Speaker 1: was our case, Jack, Again, you know it does appear
Speaker 1: civil not law enforcement. She did stay after several assault.
Speaker 1: He says it's about money. Who you going to believe?
Speaker 1: So you got to start, I think again with these statements.
Speaker 1: If you look at his statement, is their past infidelity?
Speaker 1: Is there possibly infidelity with the victim? And did it
Speaker 1: start that way and then at some point did it
Speaker 1: turn violent? Are we going to see other people come forward?
Speaker 2: Now?
Speaker 1: So far I have not heard of anybody coming forward.
Speaker 1: No past employees, not anybody that met him on tour,
Speaker 1: nobody that came back to his hotel as a fan.
Speaker 1: I have not heard of anything. I have not heard
Speaker 1: of one other woman. But here's the deal. Why did
Speaker 1: she stop working for Tricia yearwould and how did she
Speaker 1: go from working for Tricia to working for Garth Brooks.
Speaker 1: I think those are things that law enforcement and the
Speaker 1: civil suit should at least attempt to answer.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I was also taken in by the fact that
Speaker 2: no one has come forward. You know, where the Diddy
Speaker 2: story is going on right now, and it's like open
Speaker 2: season for people to come forward and say and did
Speaker 2: he was active for about about the same time as
Speaker 2: Garth Brooks, you know, in terms of fame, and so
Speaker 2: many people have come forward to say that they've had
Speaker 2: bad experiences in his orbit. So I was taking that
Speaker 2: no one else has come forward. But you know you said,
Speaker 2: if you and I were investigating the case looking at
Speaker 2: the statements, I would say to you, money is at
Speaker 2: the root of this. And I'm not saying that's extortion
Speaker 2: money or hush money. But what I do when I
Speaker 2: look at statements is look at repeated concepts. So what
Speaker 2: comes up time and time and time again and across
Speaker 2: what Garth Brooks says, and of course what is in
Speaker 2: her filings is the concept of money. He talks about
Speaker 2: hush money, she talks about the fact that she relied
Speaker 2: on him for money, that she was in some financial
Speaker 2: deep straits, so money, and also the fact it was
Speaker 2: a working relationship, so work is an exchange of time
Speaker 2: for money. Money is a repeated concept. So I'm not
Speaker 2: saying this is not true, and I'm not saying this
Speaker 2: I'm true. What I would say was, if we were
Speaker 2: looking at this, I'd be like, money is at the
Speaker 2: center of this some way, somehow, because it comes up
Speaker 2: so often from both sides.
Speaker 1: Agreed, and that's why I started with what I did.
Speaker 1: Why is it civil and not law enforcement? You got
Speaker 1: to ask that question. And again, these are not easy question, y'all.
Speaker 1: Jack said earlier he did not even feel comfortable using
Speaker 1: some of the words. I get it, it's not easy.
Speaker 1: There are multiple reasons this is the most difficult crime
Speaker 1: to investigate. You are going to have people pick sides immediately.
Speaker 1: Nobody in a murder says what was she wearing? Nobody? Nobody.
Speaker 1: Nobody questions well, was she home alone when she got murdered.
Speaker 1: She shouldn't have been alone, She should have had people
Speaker 1: around her. Was she drinking she shouldn't have been drinking. No,
Speaker 1: they accept the murder and it's horrible. It's horrible across
Speaker 1: the board. Friends, family, people at church, co workers, neighbors, everybody.
Speaker 1: Everybody cares when it's sexual assault. It's like they go
Speaker 1: away and they don't want to be a part of it.
Speaker 1: They don't want to pick sides. But I believe, and Jack,
Speaker 1: I want to know what you think. I think this
Speaker 1: is going to get a lot uglier very quickly.
Speaker 2: I'm slightly different from you there. I'm not sure there's
Speaker 2: a lot more to get ugly about. I think there
Speaker 2: was a work relationship between the pair of them that
Speaker 2: went sour, and potentially she wanted to back away from
Speaker 2: the closeness of the intimacy that they had, and that
Speaker 2: I think if there was, if she had something else,
Speaker 2: Why is it not in the filing? Why is it
Speaker 2: not in there? That is there? Now, that's not to
Speaker 2: say I know what's happened or not. That's to say
Speaker 2: that from everything I've seen, I think this. All the
Speaker 2: words I see look like a very simple relationship gone bad.
Speaker 2: Now why it went bad is not quite made clear
Speaker 2: in the words in the statements. Is there I know
Speaker 2: what she's alleging, but what there is any actual proof
Speaker 2: of what? There are any words there that those just
Speaker 2: don't are not there in that filing. Having said that
Speaker 2: he does not deny the allegations. He remember when we started,
Speaker 2: and I said, he does distance himself from denying at all.
Speaker 2: So why is that? Why did he not come out
Speaker 2: and say that so robustly in his defense? So there's
Speaker 2: that great area in there, but I'm not sure there
Speaker 2: is anything that is going to shed a little bit
Speaker 2: more light on that gray area that's going to help
Speaker 2: either party. Frankly, it could end up when you say
Speaker 2: it messy, it may end up with no real resolution.
Speaker 1: Well, here's what I make by MESSI there ain't no
Speaker 1: way you've had a front run to Garth Brooks for
Speaker 1: twenty years and you don't know dirt. And I mean
Speaker 1: an argument between him and Trisha Yearwood, who they pay,
Speaker 1: who they don't pay, who they like, who they don't like,
Speaker 1: If he had other extramarital affairs, if he paid anybody
Speaker 1: else to keep quiet, if he had anybody else on
Speaker 1: their payroll that didn't really work for him, she knows it,
Speaker 1: And that's what I mean. If he leaked her name,
Speaker 1: and now she is so hurt and so upset and
Speaker 1: possibly embarrassed because now her friends from high school, her hometown,
Speaker 1: her whole family, they now know. And maybe they didn't
Speaker 1: know before, they know now. So if she has something,
Speaker 1: I think she's going to put it out there.
Speaker 2: You're one step ahead of me. But that is a
Speaker 2: very very good point. And I'll go back again to
Speaker 2: the start where he talked about hush money.
Speaker 1: That's right, that's right. And you know, when you look
Speaker 1: at Bill Clinton when he said what he did about
Speaker 1: Monica Lewinsky, he said, I did not have sexual relations
Speaker 1: with that woman. When he called her that woman, Suddenly
Speaker 1: she's got a blue dress. So I'm just telling you,
Speaker 1: hurt people they come back and if they have any
Speaker 1: type of arsenal, they'll use it.
Speaker 2: I will be watching this one though, with great interest.
Speaker 2: Over here in the UK country music, Garth Brooks is
Speaker 2: not very popular. I'm aware of who he is, but
Speaker 2: this has been it's been an eye opener in terms
Speaker 2: of actually his popularity. And you know how well respected
Speaker 2: he is or has been, so that he has a
Speaker 2: lot to lose in this situation, doesn't he He does.
Speaker 1: And here's the thing. Reality Tom, and this is for
Speaker 1: any any young man and listening to me, if you
Speaker 1: get yourself in a situation where somebody can make this allegation,
Speaker 1: it's going to hurt your reputation no matter what. And
Speaker 1: he pretty much says that in his paperwork. That's why
Speaker 1: he said he was asking, you know, for compensatory and
Speaker 1: punitive damages. That she knew by putting this out there
Speaker 1: what it was going to do to his reputation and
Speaker 1: his career and his family. And he's absolutely right, Jack Fox,
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. We've got a lot to keep
Speaker 1: our eye on.
Speaker 2: Thank you for having me, y'all.
Speaker 1: I'm going to end Zone seven the way that I
Speaker 1: always do with a quote. When we got married almost
Speaker 1: ten years ago now, we made a commitment to really
Speaker 1: be together, which means we hardly ever spent a night apart.
Speaker 1: And being madly in love is important, but I think
Speaker 1: it's equally important to be in deep like I like
Speaker 1: this guy. We talk about everything and we laugh a lot.
Speaker 1: Life is good, Trisha Gearwood, I'm Cheryl McCollum, and this
Speaker 1: is Own seven.