WEBVTT - Inside the Garth Brooks Allegations with Statement Analysis Expert Jack Fox

0:00:10.920 --> 0:00:15.040
<v Speaker 1>Jack Fox is back. We need him to help us

0:00:15.480 --> 0:00:21.360
<v Speaker 1>go through some statements. Garth Brooks, legendary country singer, has

0:00:21.400 --> 0:00:26.439
<v Speaker 1>been accused of sexual assault, multiple sexual assaults from a

0:00:26.520 --> 0:00:31.240
<v Speaker 1>Jane Doe. He filed some paperwork where he tried to

0:00:31.320 --> 0:00:34.519
<v Speaker 1>keep his name out of it, his name was leaked.

0:00:35.520 --> 0:00:38.960
<v Speaker 1>He has now in turn leaked the name of the victim,

0:00:39.280 --> 0:00:41.800
<v Speaker 1>which we are not going to do. What we are

0:00:41.840 --> 0:00:45.320
<v Speaker 1>going to try to do as gently as possible show

0:00:45.440 --> 0:00:50.960
<v Speaker 1>you just how important statement analysis is in a case

0:00:51.080 --> 0:00:55.720
<v Speaker 1>like this. So Jack Fox, welcome back to Zone seven.

0:00:56.040 --> 0:00:57.640
<v Speaker 2>Hey Cheryl, thanks for having me back.

0:00:57.920 --> 0:01:03.400
<v Speaker 1>Well, I gave you an easy one. Welcome. This is

0:01:03.480 --> 0:01:07.720
<v Speaker 1>something and here's the thing you just said, the most

0:01:07.720 --> 0:01:11.319
<v Speaker 1>important thing off air. Nobody's going to win in this say.

0:01:11.880 --> 0:01:14.720
<v Speaker 2>It's such an interesting set of statements that we've got here.

0:01:14.840 --> 0:01:18.800
<v Speaker 2>I first came across this with goth Brooks statements. He's

0:01:18.800 --> 0:01:23.240
<v Speaker 2>obviously the famous person involved here, and when I read that,

0:01:23.720 --> 0:01:26.959
<v Speaker 2>I went, oh, wow, there's something going on here. What

0:01:27.240 --> 0:01:29.440
<v Speaker 2>is it? You caning? I read his statement out for you.

0:01:30.080 --> 0:01:33.200
<v Speaker 2>He said, for the last two months, I have been

0:01:33.280 --> 0:01:37.000
<v Speaker 2>hassled to no end with threats, lies, and tragic tales

0:01:37.000 --> 0:01:38.880
<v Speaker 2>of what my future would be if I did not

0:01:38.959 --> 0:01:42.160
<v Speaker 2>write a check for many millions of dollars. It has

0:01:42.200 --> 0:01:44.759
<v Speaker 2>been like having a loaded gun waved in my face.

0:01:45.240 --> 0:01:47.760
<v Speaker 2>Hush money. No matter how much or how little, is

0:01:47.760 --> 0:01:50.240
<v Speaker 2>still hush money in my mind. That means I am

0:01:50.280 --> 0:01:53.480
<v Speaker 2>admitting to behavior. I am incapable of ugly acts no

0:01:53.680 --> 0:01:56.640
<v Speaker 2>human should ever do to another. We felt suit against

0:01:56.680 --> 0:01:59.080
<v Speaker 2>this person nearly a month ago to speak out against

0:01:59.120 --> 0:02:02.480
<v Speaker 2>extortion and deaf of character. We found it anonymously for

0:02:02.560 --> 0:02:04.800
<v Speaker 2>the sake of the families. On both sides, I want

0:02:04.800 --> 0:02:07.200
<v Speaker 2>to play music tonight. I want to continue our good

0:02:07.280 --> 0:02:10.359
<v Speaker 2>deeds going forward. It breaks my heart. These wonderful things

0:02:10.400 --> 0:02:13.480
<v Speaker 2>are in question now. I trust the system. I do

0:02:13.480 --> 0:02:15.560
<v Speaker 2>not fear the true truth. And I am not the

0:02:15.560 --> 0:02:18.280
<v Speaker 2>man they have painted me to be. And I read

0:02:18.280 --> 0:02:21.800
<v Speaker 2>that and went, oh wow, how many things can I

0:02:21.880 --> 0:02:25.959
<v Speaker 2>see in there that interest me? First of all, when

0:02:25.960 --> 0:02:28.440
<v Speaker 2>he comes straight out the bat, he talks about the

0:02:28.520 --> 0:02:31.000
<v Speaker 2>check that he's been asked to write and everything that

0:02:31.040 --> 0:02:33.800
<v Speaker 2>we're going to look at. In these statements, money is

0:02:34.160 --> 0:02:37.000
<v Speaker 2>very much at the center of it. On both sides.

0:02:38.040 --> 0:02:40.400
<v Speaker 2>He starts off by saying, I've been hassled to no

0:02:40.560 --> 0:02:42.640
<v Speaker 2>end with threats, and then he says it was like

0:02:42.680 --> 0:02:44.680
<v Speaker 2>having a loaded gun waved in my face. Well, if

0:02:44.680 --> 0:02:46.639
<v Speaker 2>you'd had a loaded gun waved in your face, would

0:02:46.639 --> 0:02:49.320
<v Speaker 2>you say you've been hassled or would you say you've

0:02:49.320 --> 0:02:54.480
<v Speaker 2>been threatened? So that was interesting to me. There very much.

0:02:54.960 --> 0:02:58.680
<v Speaker 2>Garth is a songwriter, isn't he? He writes and talks

0:02:59.000 --> 0:03:01.520
<v Speaker 2>a lot in metaphus. I think he's got a very

0:03:01.639 --> 0:03:03.960
<v Speaker 2>rich use of language, which we'll see going on here.

0:03:05.040 --> 0:03:07.440
<v Speaker 2>He describes it as hush money. He says, hush money,

0:03:07.440 --> 0:03:09.959
<v Speaker 2>no matter how much or how little, is still hush money.

0:03:10.240 --> 0:03:12.440
<v Speaker 2>But what he's actually describing, if you look at it

0:03:12.520 --> 0:03:15.679
<v Speaker 2>was is extortion, is blackmail, But no, it's hush money.

0:03:15.720 --> 0:03:17.760
<v Speaker 2>And it's very interesting that he's praised it is hush money,

0:03:17.760 --> 0:03:22.120
<v Speaker 2>because that is money to be quiet, to keep someone quiet.

0:03:22.480 --> 0:03:25.160
<v Speaker 2>He doesn't talk about this being extortion at all, and

0:03:25.200 --> 0:03:27.280
<v Speaker 2>if it was extortion, he should have been straight to

0:03:27.320 --> 0:03:30.399
<v Speaker 2>the police with this, So as an implicit admission there,

0:03:30.440 --> 0:03:33.440
<v Speaker 2>I believe in his words that he sees this as

0:03:33.760 --> 0:03:37.560
<v Speaker 2>hush money, money to keep someone quiet. He talks about

0:03:37.600 --> 0:03:40.760
<v Speaker 2>the fact that we filed suit. We filed it anonymously

0:03:40.800 --> 0:03:42.520
<v Speaker 2>for the sake of the families on both sides. But

0:03:42.560 --> 0:03:44.800
<v Speaker 2>he says he did it to speak out against extortion

0:03:44.920 --> 0:03:48.120
<v Speaker 2>or defamation of character. Well, you can't speak out against

0:03:48.120 --> 0:03:50.640
<v Speaker 2>extortion if you're filing anonymously, can you. That is not

0:03:51.000 --> 0:03:53.640
<v Speaker 2>speaking out. That is you acting in your own best

0:03:53.640 --> 0:03:56.680
<v Speaker 2>interests as you spoke about. The names of the people

0:03:56.720 --> 0:04:00.240
<v Speaker 2>involved again play a big part in this. And then

0:04:00.440 --> 0:04:02.400
<v Speaker 2>he just goes on at the end to say, I

0:04:02.400 --> 0:04:04.960
<v Speaker 2>want to talk about the good deeds. It breaks my heart,

0:04:05.000 --> 0:04:07.200
<v Speaker 2>So these wonderful things are in question now. So that

0:04:07.280 --> 0:04:09.440
<v Speaker 2>is him doing what's called a rezume statement and trying

0:04:09.440 --> 0:04:12.640
<v Speaker 2>to remind everyone of what a great guy he is.

0:04:12.720 --> 0:04:14.840
<v Speaker 2>And that's what very often people who are in a

0:04:14.840 --> 0:04:17.279
<v Speaker 2>bit of a jam will go, well, look, how could

0:04:17.320 --> 0:04:18.840
<v Speaker 2>I have been the person that did this bad thing?

0:04:19.160 --> 0:04:22.000
<v Speaker 2>Because I do good deeds, I do good things. I'm

0:04:22.040 --> 0:04:24.560
<v Speaker 2>a member of a charity, or I'm an upstanding member

0:04:24.600 --> 0:04:27.120
<v Speaker 2>of the community, or you know, I'm very closely involved

0:04:27.160 --> 0:04:30.039
<v Speaker 2>in the church. People quite often do that to talk

0:04:30.080 --> 0:04:33.599
<v Speaker 2>about well, I can't possibly have done something wrong. They

0:04:33.680 --> 0:04:36.160
<v Speaker 2>introduce all the good things they've done, and as you'll

0:04:36.160 --> 0:04:39.240
<v Speaker 2>know from your experience, that does not hang logically together

0:04:39.320 --> 0:04:41.640
<v Speaker 2>at all. All sorts of people that do good things

0:04:41.680 --> 0:04:44.400
<v Speaker 2>are also capable of doing bad things. But it sounds

0:04:44.480 --> 0:04:47.600
<v Speaker 2>very impressive in a statement. You'll notice all the way,

0:04:47.839 --> 0:04:50.720
<v Speaker 2>all the way through that he does not deny one

0:04:50.880 --> 0:04:54.039
<v Speaker 2>allegation that is put there directly at all. It's a

0:04:54.240 --> 0:04:57.400
<v Speaker 2>non denial. It's a statement of things as he sees them,

0:04:57.640 --> 0:05:00.320
<v Speaker 2>but not once to see say he didn't do of them.

0:05:00.440 --> 0:05:03.520
<v Speaker 2>He alludes to things like that by saying that this

0:05:03.640 --> 0:05:07.960
<v Speaker 2>is things I am incapable of and things that no

0:05:08.120 --> 0:05:10.120
<v Speaker 2>humans should ever do to another. But he doesn't say

0:05:10.200 --> 0:05:13.320
<v Speaker 2>this human me Garth did not do this to this

0:05:13.520 --> 0:05:16.719
<v Speaker 2>person at all. And so look, this could have been

0:05:16.760 --> 0:05:19.159
<v Speaker 2>written by a pr person from him for him. But

0:05:19.400 --> 0:05:21.840
<v Speaker 2>my view is very much, if you release a statement

0:05:21.880 --> 0:05:24.360
<v Speaker 2>in your name, I'm going to analyze the words as

0:05:24.360 --> 0:05:27.919
<v Speaker 2>if they came directly from you, because you have felt

0:05:28.120 --> 0:05:32.400
<v Speaker 2>seen fit to put your name against these words. The

0:05:32.480 --> 0:05:34.840
<v Speaker 2>other thing in there is at the very end there

0:05:35.120 --> 0:05:39.040
<v Speaker 2>he once he's talked about filing anonymously, he talks about

0:05:39.680 --> 0:05:43.479
<v Speaker 2>what he wants to do and how that goes in order.

0:05:43.560 --> 0:05:45.640
<v Speaker 2>So it's I want to play music tonight. That's the

0:05:45.800 --> 0:05:48.159
<v Speaker 2>very first thing, the most important thing to him. I

0:05:48.160 --> 0:05:50.240
<v Speaker 2>want to play music tonight. You know, it's not I

0:05:50.279 --> 0:05:51.839
<v Speaker 2>want to clear my name tonight, or I want to

0:05:51.839 --> 0:05:54.080
<v Speaker 2>clear my name right now. I want to play music tonight.

0:05:54.360 --> 0:05:58.280
<v Speaker 2>I want to continue our good deeds going forward. So music,

0:05:58.360 --> 0:06:00.520
<v Speaker 2>good deeds, these are all the things that are really

0:06:00.560 --> 0:06:03.760
<v Speaker 2>important to him. That's what he is bringing up there.

0:06:03.880 --> 0:06:06.760
<v Speaker 2>But when I first saw that, I was like, there's

0:06:06.839 --> 0:06:09.559
<v Speaker 2>a lot going on here. And then I dug into

0:06:09.600 --> 0:06:13.599
<v Speaker 2>the actual filing that has been in mad in court

0:06:13.640 --> 0:06:14.680
<v Speaker 2>against him.

0:06:14.720 --> 0:06:18.760
<v Speaker 1>Right, and you know that statement about the hush money

0:06:19.440 --> 0:06:22.279
<v Speaker 1>when he says, you know, to me, given money to

0:06:22.400 --> 0:06:26.000
<v Speaker 1>that person would be admitting to that behavior. But he says,

0:06:26.880 --> 0:06:30.000
<v Speaker 1>you know that I would be admitting I am incapable.

0:06:30.640 --> 0:06:34.240
<v Speaker 1>But then he goes on to say, we file the lawsuit,

0:06:34.440 --> 0:06:38.440
<v Speaker 1>we did it anonymously. Yes, he doesn't say who he's

0:06:38.480 --> 0:06:41.440
<v Speaker 1>talking about, but that's a very big shift to me.

0:06:41.920 --> 0:06:45.240
<v Speaker 2>Yes, also, I want to continue our good deeds going

0:06:45.279 --> 0:06:48.760
<v Speaker 2>forward as well. He's got he's joining himself to someone

0:06:48.839 --> 0:06:52.720
<v Speaker 2>there as well, so he does you know, I think

0:06:52.720 --> 0:06:54.240
<v Speaker 2>the biggest one in that is he does say its

0:06:54.279 --> 0:06:58.479
<v Speaker 2>behavior I am incapable of. But before that becomes no

0:06:58.760 --> 0:07:02.920
<v Speaker 2>human should do to another, And that is talking about

0:07:03.080 --> 0:07:07.080
<v Speaker 2>the world in general. That is not talking about himself

0:07:07.160 --> 0:07:09.680
<v Speaker 2>at all. That ugly acts no humans should ever do

0:07:09.840 --> 0:07:12.920
<v Speaker 2>to another. That is not saying I did not do this.

0:07:13.280 --> 0:07:15.560
<v Speaker 2>It sounds impressive, but when you actually look at the

0:07:15.560 --> 0:07:18.760
<v Speaker 2>words that are there, it's not saying I didn't do this.

0:07:19.240 --> 0:07:21.200
<v Speaker 1>And you know, for those of us that do this

0:07:21.240 --> 0:07:25.040
<v Speaker 1>for a living, when there's not an outright denal, you

0:07:25.160 --> 0:07:25.640
<v Speaker 1>flag it.

0:07:25.920 --> 0:07:29.520
<v Speaker 2>Yes, my crazy life. I got accused of shoplifting a

0:07:29.560 --> 0:07:32.680
<v Speaker 2>couple of weeks ago, and I walked away and went

0:07:33.040 --> 0:07:35.640
<v Speaker 2>a statement, analyzed myself. What did I say? And I said,

0:07:36.120 --> 0:07:39.400
<v Speaker 2>I didn't steal anything. I'm walking away, and I gave

0:07:39.440 --> 0:07:45.040
<v Speaker 2>them the very simple denial I didn't steal anything. In

0:07:45.240 --> 0:07:48.480
<v Speaker 2>this statement from Garth Brooks. There is nothing as simple

0:07:48.640 --> 0:07:53.200
<v Speaker 2>and flat and sharp as that whatsoever. I described this

0:07:53.240 --> 0:07:56.160
<v Speaker 2>as a balloon statement, so it looks like something solid,

0:07:56.160 --> 0:07:57.760
<v Speaker 2>but if you look at it, it's really got a

0:07:57.800 --> 0:08:00.960
<v Speaker 2>flimsy exterior and very very little on the interior.

0:08:01.440 --> 0:08:04.800
<v Speaker 1>And you and I have talked about the importance of

0:08:05.200 --> 0:08:08.920
<v Speaker 1>the order of things. Yeah, he did come out and

0:08:08.960 --> 0:08:13.400
<v Speaker 1>make a statement himself on video, So this isn't a

0:08:13.400 --> 0:08:19.640
<v Speaker 1>pr person. He comes on his radio thing and he says, okay,

0:08:19.720 --> 0:08:22.240
<v Speaker 1>let's talk about the elephant in the room. You almost

0:08:22.320 --> 0:08:24.880
<v Speaker 1>think okay, he's fixing to give you a play by play.

0:08:25.360 --> 0:08:27.800
<v Speaker 1>He's the one that says, let's talk about the elephant

0:08:27.800 --> 0:08:30.640
<v Speaker 1>in the room. Yes, and then he basically says, hey,

0:08:30.640 --> 0:08:33.480
<v Speaker 1>if you came here to hear about what's being alleged,

0:08:33.880 --> 0:08:34.880
<v Speaker 1>I can't talk about it.

0:08:35.520 --> 0:08:38.080
<v Speaker 2>That's always very convenient for people, isn't it when they

0:08:38.080 --> 0:08:41.520
<v Speaker 2>say I can't talk about it. Actually, there are no

0:08:41.679 --> 0:08:44.440
<v Speaker 2>laws against talking about it unless there's a gag order imposed.

0:08:44.440 --> 0:08:46.600
<v Speaker 2>So when someone says I can't talk about it, it

0:08:46.720 --> 0:08:49.600
<v Speaker 2>really means I don't want to talk about it. This

0:08:49.720 --> 0:08:51.800
<v Speaker 2>is not an area that I want to go into.

0:08:52.320 --> 0:08:55.280
<v Speaker 1>Well, here's what stuck out for me. The order he

0:08:55.320 --> 0:08:58.600
<v Speaker 1>says that, I quote, I want to play music tonight,

0:09:00.040 --> 0:09:03.760
<v Speaker 1>continue our good days going forward. It breaks my heart.

0:09:03.960 --> 0:09:07.720
<v Speaker 1>These wonderful things are in question now. I trust the system.

0:09:08.360 --> 0:09:10.880
<v Speaker 1>I do not fear the truth, and I am not

0:09:11.040 --> 0:09:13.559
<v Speaker 1>the man they have painted me to be.

0:09:14.280 --> 0:09:17.520
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I think that I do not fear the truth

0:09:17.520 --> 0:09:19.960
<v Speaker 2>as an interesting one their cheryl, because that's a statement

0:09:20.080 --> 0:09:23.520
<v Speaker 2>in the negative, So that shows where our focus is,

0:09:23.559 --> 0:09:27.160
<v Speaker 2>even though it's in the negative the subject of the sentence,

0:09:27.920 --> 0:09:32.360
<v Speaker 2>So fearing the truth is where the focus is. It's

0:09:32.480 --> 0:09:34.840
<v Speaker 2>very much like when I said to the person accusing

0:09:34.880 --> 0:09:37.600
<v Speaker 2>me of shoplifting, I did not steal anything. My focus

0:09:37.640 --> 0:09:40.240
<v Speaker 2>was on stealing. It wasn't the fact that I hadn't stolen,

0:09:40.480 --> 0:09:43.280
<v Speaker 2>but you know, my focus was very much on the stealing,

0:09:43.320 --> 0:09:46.480
<v Speaker 2>and I hadn't stolen. And right there where he says

0:09:46.640 --> 0:09:50.080
<v Speaker 2>I do not fear the truth, he says just before that,

0:09:50.160 --> 0:09:52.320
<v Speaker 2>I trust the system. That's a statement in the positive.

0:09:52.600 --> 0:09:55.400
<v Speaker 2>So he does trust the system. He's saying in general.

0:09:55.440 --> 0:09:57.600
<v Speaker 2>He doesn't say he trusts the system to do well

0:09:57.600 --> 0:09:59.600
<v Speaker 2>by him, or he trusts the system that he's in.

0:10:00.040 --> 0:10:02.280
<v Speaker 2>But he does say I trust the system, but I

0:10:02.440 --> 0:10:06.160
<v Speaker 2>do not fear the truth. The truth is this subject

0:10:06.200 --> 0:10:09.440
<v Speaker 2>of that there, and then fearing the truth is to

0:10:09.520 --> 0:10:11.520
<v Speaker 2>take it a little bit wider. So he has a

0:10:11.559 --> 0:10:15.679
<v Speaker 2>focus on fearing the truth. So, you know, I think

0:10:15.960 --> 0:10:19.600
<v Speaker 2>I know why we defile anonymously. There is truth in

0:10:19.640 --> 0:10:22.400
<v Speaker 2>here that he is very very worried about getting out.

0:10:22.440 --> 0:10:25.400
<v Speaker 2>He does actually fear the truth. That's a concept that

0:10:25.480 --> 0:10:26.439
<v Speaker 2>is high in his mind.

0:10:27.080 --> 0:10:30.319
<v Speaker 1>Well, he talked about music first, the good deed second,

0:10:31.000 --> 0:10:35.880
<v Speaker 1>and then trust and then fear. He's mentioning again they

0:10:36.800 --> 0:10:41.319
<v Speaker 1>more than one person. So again, y'all, I want to

0:10:41.360 --> 0:10:46.040
<v Speaker 1>be super clear, we're not saying anything as far as

0:10:46.080 --> 0:10:49.440
<v Speaker 1>guilt or innocence. What we are saying is there's things

0:10:49.480 --> 0:10:53.240
<v Speaker 1>in the statement that give us pause. And if we

0:10:53.240 --> 0:10:56.880
<v Speaker 1>were investigating this case, Jack and I together, we're seeing

0:10:56.960 --> 0:11:00.640
<v Speaker 1>the same thing. This is a problem, This is an issue.

0:11:00.880 --> 0:11:04.880
<v Speaker 1>This needs more exploring. This is what I would concentrate

0:11:04.960 --> 0:11:06.600
<v Speaker 1>on if I were to interview him.

0:11:06.760 --> 0:11:08.760
<v Speaker 2>Yeah. I mean, that's a great point, Cheryl, is that

0:11:08.800 --> 0:11:12.000
<v Speaker 2>there's no one magic proof that someone is lying. When

0:11:12.040 --> 0:11:14.240
<v Speaker 2>you look at the statements, there's nothing that makes you go, right,

0:11:14.600 --> 0:11:17.640
<v Speaker 2>I have proved it here, unless maybe they contradict themselves.

0:11:17.679 --> 0:11:19.640
<v Speaker 2>Then you will know that they are lying somewhere along

0:11:19.640 --> 0:11:21.840
<v Speaker 2>the line, but you won't know which of the contradictions

0:11:21.920 --> 0:11:25.840
<v Speaker 2>is true. But what statement analysis can do is just

0:11:25.960 --> 0:11:29.800
<v Speaker 2>inform a root of investigation or a set of questions,

0:11:30.240 --> 0:11:32.720
<v Speaker 2>or give you areas to really zone in on and

0:11:32.760 --> 0:11:34.199
<v Speaker 2>go what's going on here.

0:11:38.080 --> 0:11:41.040
<v Speaker 1>Let's you know, talk about Jane do. Her statement ain't

0:11:41.080 --> 0:11:44.920
<v Speaker 1>perfect either, Okay, And one of the ones. There are

0:11:45.000 --> 0:11:48.000
<v Speaker 1>several that leaked out at me, but one only because

0:11:48.000 --> 0:11:51.720
<v Speaker 1>you and I've already talked about it. She says that

0:11:52.040 --> 0:11:55.840
<v Speaker 1>Garth Brooks appeared in the doorway to the bedroom completely naked,

0:11:56.760 --> 0:12:02.000
<v Speaker 1>making her feel trapped in the room alone. Now for me,

0:12:03.040 --> 0:12:06.199
<v Speaker 1>were you trapped or did you feel trapped? Those are

0:12:06.200 --> 0:12:07.680
<v Speaker 1>two very different things.

0:12:08.080 --> 0:12:11.360
<v Speaker 2>Yes, And a rule of mind as if someone doesn't

0:12:11.360 --> 0:12:14.080
<v Speaker 2>say something, if someone hasn't said the words, then do

0:12:14.200 --> 0:12:17.640
<v Speaker 2>not assume it's true. So when the phrase is there,

0:12:17.840 --> 0:12:20.640
<v Speaker 2>I felt trapped in the room, that's all we know,

0:12:21.280 --> 0:12:23.640
<v Speaker 2>and let's accept that that is true. But the truth

0:12:23.760 --> 0:12:27.960
<v Speaker 2>is I felt trapped, not that I was trapped. If

0:12:28.160 --> 0:12:30.240
<v Speaker 2>she had said I was trapped in the room, I

0:12:30.280 --> 0:12:32.760
<v Speaker 2>would assume that was true and give them the benefit

0:12:32.800 --> 0:12:34.680
<v Speaker 2>of the doubt and say you were trapped in the room.

0:12:34.880 --> 0:12:37.800
<v Speaker 2>But that is only a feeling that was there. Now,

0:12:37.960 --> 0:12:40.560
<v Speaker 2>it's maybe not a feeling that anyone would like to have.

0:12:40.640 --> 0:12:42.560
<v Speaker 2>If you feel trapped in a room that you don't

0:12:42.559 --> 0:12:44.200
<v Speaker 2>want to be, and that is not a nice feeling,

0:12:44.480 --> 0:12:47.000
<v Speaker 2>but it is not the same thing as being trapped

0:12:47.080 --> 0:12:47.560
<v Speaker 2>in a room.

0:12:47.960 --> 0:12:51.520
<v Speaker 1>And to your point, some of this is investigation one

0:12:51.520 --> 0:12:54.520
<v Speaker 1>O one, So if you have somebody say I saw

0:12:54.559 --> 0:12:56.559
<v Speaker 1>the two boys, they left the park and went home.

0:12:57.280 --> 0:12:59.640
<v Speaker 1>If I write in my report the two boys went home,

0:13:00.080 --> 0:13:03.040
<v Speaker 1>I don't know that. All I know is they left

0:13:03.040 --> 0:13:06.240
<v Speaker 1>the park. I don't know where they went. So you

0:13:06.320 --> 0:13:09.760
<v Speaker 1>need to be real clear. You know, when you're talking about,

0:13:10.559 --> 0:13:13.720
<v Speaker 1>you know, anything that occurred or didn't occur. So again,

0:13:13.800 --> 0:13:18.480
<v Speaker 1>when you're talking about an emotion, that's not an act exactly.

0:13:18.559 --> 0:13:22.760
<v Speaker 2>That emotion is an internal and they're letting their internal

0:13:22.840 --> 0:13:26.640
<v Speaker 2>feelings and internal experiences come out when people talk about

0:13:26.640 --> 0:13:29.440
<v Speaker 2>their emotions, at least when they talk about their emotions honestly.

0:13:29.480 --> 0:13:32.240
<v Speaker 2>And there are other things we can do to decode

0:13:32.240 --> 0:13:35.680
<v Speaker 2>whether these might be the feelings that they actually had,

0:13:36.000 --> 0:13:38.400
<v Speaker 2>or whether these are feelings that they want to convince

0:13:38.480 --> 0:13:41.520
<v Speaker 2>us of. But that is all that's there. It is

0:13:41.600 --> 0:13:43.800
<v Speaker 2>those internal feelings. They tell us a lot. But we

0:13:43.960 --> 0:13:46.520
<v Speaker 2>need to we need to listen to what people are saying.

0:13:46.600 --> 0:13:48.880
<v Speaker 2>Just like you said there about the person, I saw

0:13:48.960 --> 0:13:51.120
<v Speaker 2>him go home, rather than I think he went home

0:13:51.320 --> 0:13:55.640
<v Speaker 2>or he did go home, all very different things. It's

0:13:55.960 --> 0:13:58.160
<v Speaker 2>amazing what you can do by just listening to the

0:13:58.160 --> 0:14:01.280
<v Speaker 2>words and then believing those to be true. No matter

0:14:01.320 --> 0:14:04.840
<v Speaker 2>what they tell you, it just makes you way more

0:14:05.160 --> 0:14:06.840
<v Speaker 2>aware of what is being said.

0:14:07.240 --> 0:14:12.480
<v Speaker 1>Agreed. So when you read through the allegations and specifically

0:14:12.720 --> 0:14:18.320
<v Speaker 1>things she's quoted as saying occurred, did anything else leap

0:14:18.360 --> 0:14:20.840
<v Speaker 1>off the page where you said, wait a minute, we

0:14:20.920 --> 0:14:22.320
<v Speaker 1>need to look at this a little more.

0:14:22.720 --> 0:14:25.440
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I did, so I read through the full filing.

0:14:25.560 --> 0:14:29.920
<v Speaker 2>And this is a difference between what is in the

0:14:29.920 --> 0:14:32.720
<v Speaker 2>filing and what goth Brooks said. The filing is made

0:14:32.880 --> 0:14:35.320
<v Speaker 2>and written and in the name of her attorneys. It's

0:14:35.400 --> 0:14:39.680
<v Speaker 2>not her words unless they're in quotes. So I'm not

0:14:39.760 --> 0:14:43.920
<v Speaker 2>going to judge everything there because these may be the

0:14:43.960 --> 0:14:47.320
<v Speaker 2>attorneys putting their spin on things. In fact, they are

0:14:47.360 --> 0:14:50.920
<v Speaker 2>because the whole motion reads like bad fiction. I'm not

0:14:50.960 --> 0:14:53.600
<v Speaker 2>saying it is fiction. What I'm saying is this. Stylistically,

0:14:54.280 --> 0:14:57.520
<v Speaker 2>they add words like tragically her worst fears came true

0:14:57.520 --> 0:15:00.480
<v Speaker 2>when seconds later he was towering over her. Now that

0:15:00.600 --> 0:15:03.880
<v Speaker 2>reads like, why is it written in such persuasive terms?

0:15:04.400 --> 0:15:08.480
<v Speaker 2>Why is it not written factually? It's done to win

0:15:08.600 --> 0:15:11.680
<v Speaker 2>someone over, to make someone will take the word tragically.

0:15:11.720 --> 0:15:13.400
<v Speaker 2>And if you don't do what we were talking about

0:15:13.400 --> 0:15:15.920
<v Speaker 2>before and go why is that word there? Why is

0:15:15.920 --> 0:15:18.480
<v Speaker 2>that word being used both tragically is a word used

0:15:18.480 --> 0:15:21.280
<v Speaker 2>to persuade us of how tragic what is to follow is,

0:15:22.080 --> 0:15:25.520
<v Speaker 2>but actually was it tragic? Or is this being written

0:15:25.560 --> 0:15:27.560
<v Speaker 2>in a way to persuade us of it? So I'm

0:15:27.600 --> 0:15:30.160
<v Speaker 2>not going to judge too much on those attorney words there,

0:15:30.240 --> 0:15:33.840
<v Speaker 2>but there are a lot of quotes because I believe

0:15:34.000 --> 0:15:37.120
<v Speaker 2>reading this she has saved some text messages between herself

0:15:37.160 --> 0:15:39.720
<v Speaker 2>and Garth Brooks and also seems to have recorded some

0:15:39.760 --> 0:15:42.600
<v Speaker 2>phone calls between herself and Garth Brooks. Now it's very interesting.

0:15:43.080 --> 0:15:45.960
<v Speaker 2>She does mention in the filing that Garth deleted a

0:15:46.000 --> 0:15:48.360
<v Speaker 2>lot of texts from her phone at one point, so

0:15:48.400 --> 0:15:51.760
<v Speaker 2>maybe that's why she does not have the complete text

0:15:51.760 --> 0:15:55.280
<v Speaker 2>message exchanges. But the phone calls, there's only certain parts

0:15:55.280 --> 0:15:58.640
<v Speaker 2>of them that are quoted, and none of them, not

0:15:58.920 --> 0:16:03.640
<v Speaker 2>one of them to specifically about any of the severe

0:16:03.760 --> 0:16:08.480
<v Speaker 2>criminal incidents that she's alleging. In fact, what they show

0:16:09.080 --> 0:16:14.560
<v Speaker 2>is a two way relationship between the two that involved

0:16:15.560 --> 0:16:20.280
<v Speaker 2>intimacy and closeness, which I thought was very interesting. That

0:16:20.440 --> 0:16:22.880
<v Speaker 2>is not in the headline of the allegations. If you

0:16:23.000 --> 0:16:25.080
<v Speaker 2>liked that, they did seem to have some kind of

0:16:25.200 --> 0:16:29.240
<v Speaker 2>beyond work relationship. The first one that jumped out to

0:16:29.320 --> 0:16:33.560
<v Speaker 2>me was there was a comment from her to Brooks

0:16:34.520 --> 0:16:38.280
<v Speaker 2>where she's complaining that this would read like a sexual

0:16:38.320 --> 0:16:42.240
<v Speaker 2>harassment complaint in the complaint in the workplace, and she says,

0:16:42.280 --> 0:16:44.680
<v Speaker 2>I have thought a lot about the conversation of last Monday.

0:16:45.120 --> 0:16:48.160
<v Speaker 2>I can't work in an environment where explicit sexual comments

0:16:48.200 --> 0:16:51.640
<v Speaker 2>are made about a sham about shampoo bottles doubling as dildos.

0:16:52.080 --> 0:16:54.200
<v Speaker 2>I mean you no harm, and if you truly value

0:16:54.240 --> 0:16:56.480
<v Speaker 2>my work, I am happy to show up tomorrow and

0:16:56.680 --> 0:17:00.960
<v Speaker 2>or whenever you may need my services. And I went, well,

0:17:00.960 --> 0:17:04.600
<v Speaker 2>that's interesting. She talks about the conversation of last Monday.

0:17:04.640 --> 0:17:06.360
<v Speaker 2>Now I don't know if that's a conversation they had,

0:17:06.400 --> 0:17:09.679
<v Speaker 2>because she doesn't say our conversation. She says the conversation,

0:17:09.800 --> 0:17:11.960
<v Speaker 2>or if it's a conversation someone else had, but it's

0:17:12.040 --> 0:17:16.720
<v Speaker 2>very much referencing a specific event. And then she says,

0:17:18.200 --> 0:17:20.959
<v Speaker 2>I can't work in an environment where explicit sexual comments

0:17:20.960 --> 0:17:24.520
<v Speaker 2>are made about shampoo bottles doubling as dildos. Now, Cheryl,

0:17:24.560 --> 0:17:27.000
<v Speaker 2>I've talked to you twice. This is the second time

0:17:27.040 --> 0:17:29.440
<v Speaker 2>I've talked to you. I'm a little bit embarrassed about

0:17:29.480 --> 0:17:31.480
<v Speaker 2>using that word because we don't know each other well

0:17:31.600 --> 0:17:36.040
<v Speaker 2>enough yet. So that suggests that there was that closeness there.

0:17:36.119 --> 0:17:37.919
<v Speaker 2>There was other ways she could have said that. There

0:17:37.920 --> 0:17:40.120
<v Speaker 2>would have been a little bit more formal, a little

0:17:40.160 --> 0:17:43.480
<v Speaker 2>bit more I can't work in an environment where explicit

0:17:43.520 --> 0:17:46.720
<v Speaker 2>sexual comments are made about shampoo bottles. That would have

0:17:46.840 --> 0:17:49.199
<v Speaker 2>covered it all off. And yet she's gone there to

0:17:49.280 --> 0:17:52.679
<v Speaker 2>use a word that you would only use generally with

0:17:52.760 --> 0:17:54.760
<v Speaker 2>someone that you're quite familiar with, that you may have

0:17:54.880 --> 0:17:58.040
<v Speaker 2>used that term with before, or the similar concepts with before.

0:17:58.640 --> 0:18:01.000
<v Speaker 2>And then she says, I I'm happy to show up

0:18:01.000 --> 0:18:03.960
<v Speaker 2>for work tomorrow, not I will show up for work

0:18:03.960 --> 0:18:06.800
<v Speaker 2>tomorrow kind of grudgingly, or you know, it's I am

0:18:06.880 --> 0:18:09.760
<v Speaker 2>happy to show up for work tomorrow. So, while this

0:18:09.840 --> 0:18:12.760
<v Speaker 2>is being portrayed in the filing as something that is,

0:18:12.800 --> 0:18:15.640
<v Speaker 2>you know, a horrible situation that she was put in

0:18:15.640 --> 0:18:19.480
<v Speaker 2>in the workplace by Garth Brooks, her words don't belie

0:18:19.920 --> 0:18:25.880
<v Speaker 2>a level of real uncomfortableness with this at all. There's

0:18:25.920 --> 0:18:28.560
<v Speaker 2>no ultimatum that this must stop as well. She doesn't

0:18:28.600 --> 0:18:31.840
<v Speaker 2>say she just says, I am uncomfortable working in this environment.

0:18:31.880 --> 0:18:34.440
<v Speaker 2>She doesn't say I will not work in this environment

0:18:34.440 --> 0:18:36.919
<v Speaker 2>where this happens. So while this has been presented as

0:18:37.040 --> 0:18:41.640
<v Speaker 2>evidence of some sort of terrible behavior on Garth Brooks' behalf,

0:18:41.880 --> 0:18:45.040
<v Speaker 2>the words show that this was a little bit different

0:18:45.119 --> 0:18:46.440
<v Speaker 2>from that in that statement.

0:18:47.240 --> 0:18:50.919
<v Speaker 1>When you were reading the statement about what occurred, was

0:18:50.920 --> 0:18:55.720
<v Speaker 1>there anything that you read that gave you Paul's to say,

0:18:56.400 --> 0:18:57.480
<v Speaker 1>how did that happen?

0:18:58.160 --> 0:19:01.719
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, there was a point where where we're talking about

0:19:02.359 --> 0:19:06.560
<v Speaker 2>the alleged rape incident, and the statement says having no

0:19:06.680 --> 0:19:09.000
<v Speaker 2>regard for her well being an intent on his own

0:19:09.080 --> 0:19:12.760
<v Speaker 2>sexual gratification at the expense of miss Rose's physical, mental,

0:19:12.760 --> 0:19:16.600
<v Speaker 2>and emotional trauma. At some point during the nightmare, Brooks

0:19:16.640 --> 0:19:19.520
<v Speaker 2>even held her small body upside down by her feet

0:19:19.560 --> 0:19:23.320
<v Speaker 2>and penetrated her. And one of the things that I

0:19:23.359 --> 0:19:28.240
<v Speaker 2>teach people is when you are hearing someone's words, when

0:19:28.280 --> 0:19:31.720
<v Speaker 2>someone is being calm and clear in their delivery, and

0:19:31.760 --> 0:19:35.280
<v Speaker 2>they've got the authentic words to deliver the experience that

0:19:35.320 --> 0:19:38.840
<v Speaker 2>they have experienced, it's very easy for you to get

0:19:38.880 --> 0:19:41.119
<v Speaker 2>a picture in your head of what was happening, because

0:19:41.160 --> 0:19:44.200
<v Speaker 2>these are authentic words, and you can picture things in

0:19:44.240 --> 0:19:45.680
<v Speaker 2>your head. And that was one of those things that

0:19:45.800 --> 0:19:50.320
<v Speaker 2>made me go, I can't picture that, what would that entail?

0:19:50.359 --> 0:19:53.719
<v Speaker 2>What does that happen? And then further on there, apparently

0:19:53.800 --> 0:19:56.520
<v Speaker 2>he asked her to or forced her to keep her

0:19:56.560 --> 0:20:01.920
<v Speaker 2>glasses on during this. Again, so we've got this really

0:20:01.960 --> 0:20:05.880
<v Speaker 2>strange physical contortion that they seem to be in, and

0:20:05.920 --> 0:20:08.639
<v Speaker 2>then he's forcing her to keep her glasses on at

0:20:08.680 --> 0:20:11.920
<v Speaker 2>the same time, and that to me was physically impossible.

0:20:11.960 --> 0:20:14.200
<v Speaker 2>I can't see how in all of that you could

0:20:14.200 --> 0:20:17.520
<v Speaker 2>force someone to keep their glasses on as well. Just

0:20:17.720 --> 0:20:21.520
<v Speaker 2>this feels like overdoing it, you know. It feels like

0:20:21.800 --> 0:20:25.960
<v Speaker 2>way too much information, there, way too many things happening

0:20:26.080 --> 0:20:29.040
<v Speaker 2>at once for it not for it to all hang

0:20:29.119 --> 0:20:30.800
<v Speaker 2>together in my head. I can't say whether it was

0:20:30.840 --> 0:20:33.000
<v Speaker 2>not true or not, because I wasn't there. But when

0:20:33.040 --> 0:20:35.800
<v Speaker 2>I can't picture these things, when the words just don't flow,

0:20:36.200 --> 0:20:39.119
<v Speaker 2>then I find I go, well, wait a minute, what's

0:20:39.119 --> 0:20:41.119
<v Speaker 2>happening there? And I would dig into it just a

0:20:41.119 --> 0:20:41.840
<v Speaker 2>little bit more.

0:20:42.119 --> 0:20:44.159
<v Speaker 1>And that's the thing, And I'm going to say it again.

0:20:44.960 --> 0:20:49.280
<v Speaker 1>We are not saying that either one is lying or

0:20:49.320 --> 0:20:53.800
<v Speaker 1>either one is being deceptive. What we're saying is this

0:20:54.119 --> 0:21:00.399
<v Speaker 1>is the hurdle, the problem, the walls that law enforcement

0:21:00.520 --> 0:21:02.639
<v Speaker 1>is going to have to get over, break down, go

0:21:02.800 --> 0:21:06.679
<v Speaker 1>around in order to find out who's telling the truth,

0:21:07.119 --> 0:21:10.840
<v Speaker 1>because the reality is, to our knowledge right now, she

0:21:10.920 --> 0:21:14.080
<v Speaker 1>has not gone to law enforcement. All we know is

0:21:14.160 --> 0:21:17.400
<v Speaker 1>there is a simple action. I mean, is that accurate.

0:21:17.800 --> 0:21:19.840
<v Speaker 2>I am no legal expert, but as far as I know,

0:21:19.960 --> 0:21:21.880
<v Speaker 2>it is all civil actions at the moment.

0:21:21.960 --> 0:21:24.439
<v Speaker 1>Yes, I mean we haven't heard anything. He hasn't been

0:21:24.520 --> 0:21:28.639
<v Speaker 1>arrested ever, and I mean they've known each other twenty years.

0:21:29.359 --> 0:21:32.800
<v Speaker 1>So there's some things I think that law enforcement is

0:21:32.840 --> 0:21:37.439
<v Speaker 1>going to have to look at with no bias, and

0:21:37.480 --> 0:21:41.639
<v Speaker 1>that is going to be the most critical piece. You

0:21:41.800 --> 0:21:44.879
<v Speaker 1>got to take the name Garth Brooks out of it,

0:21:45.880 --> 0:21:49.240
<v Speaker 1>right and you've got to look at this as a defendant,

0:21:49.280 --> 0:21:51.679
<v Speaker 1>and at first you know a defendant and a victim,

0:21:52.160 --> 0:21:56.359
<v Speaker 1>and see is there any probable cause? I mean, is

0:21:56.400 --> 0:22:00.720
<v Speaker 1>there any evidence? Is there anything factually that you can

0:22:01.040 --> 0:22:02.560
<v Speaker 1>glean from these statements?

0:22:02.560 --> 0:22:05.520
<v Speaker 2>So far, there is nothing there. One of the ones

0:22:05.560 --> 0:22:07.919
<v Speaker 2>that really stood out to me was a message from

0:22:08.400 --> 0:22:13.440
<v Speaker 2>Jane to Thed to Garth Brooks, and it's the nearest

0:22:13.520 --> 0:22:18.280
<v Speaker 2>thing that references an incident of serious sexual assault or rape,

0:22:18.320 --> 0:22:21.120
<v Speaker 2>and she says, I want to make sure that even

0:22:21.160 --> 0:22:24.040
<v Speaker 2>though I've told you no, that you're cool with no?

0:22:24.600 --> 0:22:28.000
<v Speaker 2>I mean no, as in no fooling around like we

0:22:28.280 --> 0:22:32.639
<v Speaker 2>had done. You were cool with that? Right now? That

0:22:32.880 --> 0:22:36.479
<v Speaker 2>sounds way too breezy in the wording for it to

0:22:36.520 --> 0:22:40.520
<v Speaker 2>be talking about a serious sexual assault. You know, Are

0:22:40.560 --> 0:22:43.159
<v Speaker 2>you cool with no? You know? So? Yeah? Look she

0:22:43.280 --> 0:22:46.119
<v Speaker 2>is saying no. Here, she is saying no. She doesn't

0:22:46.119 --> 0:22:49.960
<v Speaker 2>want to continue, but it's continue. What are you cool

0:22:49.960 --> 0:22:53.440
<v Speaker 2>with no? No fooling around? Again? That does not sound

0:22:53.560 --> 0:22:58.160
<v Speaker 2>like someone referencing a severe and violent assault. And then

0:22:58.160 --> 0:23:01.119
<v Speaker 2>it's no fooling around And you were talking about pronouns earlier,

0:23:01.480 --> 0:23:06.119
<v Speaker 2>no fooling around like we had done. So that we

0:23:06.920 --> 0:23:09.920
<v Speaker 2>is very much about a joint action, about a joint

0:23:09.920 --> 0:23:13.240
<v Speaker 2>action together. If you study couples that are on the

0:23:13.320 --> 0:23:15.800
<v Speaker 2>verge of splitting up or have split up, you will

0:23:15.840 --> 0:23:19.120
<v Speaker 2>see that they very rarely use we pronouns. They talk

0:23:19.200 --> 0:23:22.720
<v Speaker 2>about you and I all the time. They split themselves apart,

0:23:23.000 --> 0:23:27.040
<v Speaker 2>people who have a unity about what we had done.

0:23:27.160 --> 0:23:29.399
<v Speaker 2>So I get the impression there's very much been some

0:23:29.520 --> 0:23:32.600
<v Speaker 2>fooling around. A work relationship has turned a little bit

0:23:32.640 --> 0:23:38.600
<v Speaker 2>more intimate here, and that is something that is pretty

0:23:38.680 --> 0:23:41.840
<v Speaker 2>much I would say from there, I can't prove anything,

0:23:41.880 --> 0:23:43.919
<v Speaker 2>but I would say, yeah, there has been a consensual

0:23:43.960 --> 0:23:47.399
<v Speaker 2>relationship between the pair of them at some point. I

0:23:47.440 --> 0:23:51.280
<v Speaker 2>think she has wanted out of that because he is

0:23:51.320 --> 0:23:54.119
<v Speaker 2>holding the power of work over her there. But I

0:23:54.160 --> 0:23:56.200
<v Speaker 2>think the one thing that is clear in his statements

0:23:56.320 --> 0:23:59.080
<v Speaker 2>that she quotes is that he is using his power

0:23:59.720 --> 0:24:02.440
<v Speaker 2>and I want you to keep working with me. And

0:24:02.480 --> 0:24:05.280
<v Speaker 2>maybe she feels a little bit powerless in that situation.

0:24:05.800 --> 0:24:09.320
<v Speaker 2>But in all this, all the statements that she quotes,

0:24:09.520 --> 0:24:12.040
<v Speaker 2>she talks about what's happened to herself. I get the

0:24:12.720 --> 0:24:16.920
<v Speaker 2>impression there was a consensual agreement with between the two

0:24:16.920 --> 0:24:19.800
<v Speaker 2>of them. And you know, bearing in mind that Garth

0:24:19.800 --> 0:24:22.680
<v Speaker 2>Brooks was married and she actually worked for his wife

0:24:24.040 --> 0:24:26.440
<v Speaker 2>at some point, is a very interesting position for the

0:24:26.480 --> 0:24:27.440
<v Speaker 2>two of them to have been in.

0:24:28.080 --> 0:24:30.720
<v Speaker 1>What do you think about the statement when she says

0:24:30.760 --> 0:24:36.480
<v Speaker 1>that he basically propositioned a threesome with Tricia Yearworth.

0:24:36.600 --> 0:24:41.520
<v Speaker 2>Oh, well, that is the whole the Tricia Yearward thing,

0:24:41.520 --> 0:24:45.720
<v Speaker 2>And where Tricia comes into this is is very interesting

0:24:45.760 --> 0:24:51.760
<v Speaker 2>because there is a point where that she is upset

0:24:51.800 --> 0:24:56.240
<v Speaker 2>that Garth has told Tricia that she has seen his stuff,

0:24:56.320 --> 0:24:58.800
<v Speaker 2>and stuff is the word they used to describe his

0:24:58.800 --> 0:25:05.960
<v Speaker 2>his naked body, and she is obviously very uncomfortable with that.

0:25:06.720 --> 0:25:11.840
<v Speaker 2>Very interesting because Garth says that he doesn't I think

0:25:11.880 --> 0:25:14.640
<v Speaker 2>I know Tricia pretty well, right, so I think I

0:25:14.680 --> 0:25:17.359
<v Speaker 2>know So there you talk about feelings. I think he

0:25:17.400 --> 0:25:19.399
<v Speaker 2>doesn't say I know her pretty well. He just kind

0:25:19.440 --> 0:25:21.640
<v Speaker 2>of thinks that he does and pretty well. So that's

0:25:21.680 --> 0:25:25.880
<v Speaker 2>not entirely and she wasn't uncomfortable. I said, you saw

0:25:25.920 --> 0:25:27.920
<v Speaker 2>my stuff, and that was it. We were talking about

0:25:27.960 --> 0:25:29.720
<v Speaker 2>something and it just came up. Now that we were

0:25:29.760 --> 0:25:32.960
<v Speaker 2>talking about something, it just came up. That sounds kind

0:25:32.960 --> 0:25:35.800
<v Speaker 2>of not deceptive to me. That sounds like he's hiding

0:25:35.840 --> 0:25:37.840
<v Speaker 2>something that the hym and Tricia have talked about, and

0:25:37.880 --> 0:25:41.040
<v Speaker 2>I wonder, I wonder what that was. I think I'll

0:25:41.080 --> 0:25:44.640
<v Speaker 2>leave it at that one. But it's only I think

0:25:44.760 --> 0:25:47.480
<v Speaker 2>I know Tricia pretty well, So I think that there's

0:25:47.960 --> 0:25:53.879
<v Speaker 2>probably some intimation in there that the relationship with between

0:25:53.960 --> 0:25:57.480
<v Speaker 2>him and Tricia maybe not all it is there. What

0:25:57.640 --> 0:26:01.000
<v Speaker 2>is interesting, she does say it was repeating remarks about

0:26:01.040 --> 0:26:04.560
<v Speaker 2>having a threesome with his wife. Now, I will always say,

0:26:04.800 --> 0:26:08.240
<v Speaker 2>pay attention to what people repeat because we're talking about

0:26:08.280 --> 0:26:11.679
<v Speaker 2>how to work out someone's priorities. When they order something,

0:26:11.760 --> 0:26:13.960
<v Speaker 2>the first thing they say is likely the most important

0:26:13.960 --> 0:26:17.080
<v Speaker 2>thing to them, and then it goes on down. Things

0:26:17.160 --> 0:26:20.720
<v Speaker 2>people repeat will reveal a lot about what is on

0:26:20.760 --> 0:26:23.360
<v Speaker 2>their mind as well. So if these were repeated remarks

0:26:23.359 --> 0:26:27.320
<v Speaker 2>about having a threesome, then that would suggest that, yeah,

0:26:27.359 --> 0:26:30.919
<v Speaker 2>that was something that was in his mind if it happened.

0:26:30.920 --> 0:26:32.879
<v Speaker 2>If he did make repeated remarks, and she does not

0:26:33.000 --> 0:26:35.359
<v Speaker 2>in her statement it was repeated, it.

0:26:35.520 --> 0:26:43.080
<v Speaker 1>Marked would the three being the liar's number come in

0:26:43.119 --> 0:26:44.280
<v Speaker 1>to play there or now?

0:26:44.800 --> 0:26:48.000
<v Speaker 2>I don't think so. I think it because threesome is

0:26:48.040 --> 0:26:51.760
<v Speaker 2>a concept that yeah, it does involve three people, but

0:26:52.600 --> 0:26:55.359
<v Speaker 2>I think three. And the theory around three being a

0:26:55.400 --> 0:27:01.119
<v Speaker 2>liar's number is that if someone constructs a story the

0:27:01.200 --> 0:27:04.440
<v Speaker 2>number three, the number three is involved in it. That's

0:27:04.440 --> 0:27:07.000
<v Speaker 2>the kind of guy who would say, it wasn't me

0:27:07.119 --> 0:27:09.920
<v Speaker 2>that that robbed that bank, but I did see three

0:27:09.960 --> 0:27:13.560
<v Speaker 2>men hanging about outside, you know. I think the theory

0:27:13.680 --> 0:27:16.440
<v Speaker 2>is one one will be too specific and you'll be

0:27:16.440 --> 0:27:20.320
<v Speaker 2>asked questions about that one person. Two. It's kind of

0:27:20.400 --> 0:27:22.320
<v Speaker 2>same when you get to three. Then all of a

0:27:22.359 --> 0:27:24.560
<v Speaker 2>sudden you can start being very vague about the three.

0:27:24.680 --> 0:27:27.280
<v Speaker 2>I didn't see all of them. One guy I think

0:27:27.320 --> 0:27:31.520
<v Speaker 2>had brown here, or you know, I tried three times

0:27:31.560 --> 0:27:32.960
<v Speaker 2>to call you. I mean, how many times have you

0:27:32.960 --> 0:27:36.080
<v Speaker 2>heard that, you know, with someone I didn't hear from you.

0:27:36.520 --> 0:27:40.639
<v Speaker 2>I tried three times? Did you? Did you? Or is

0:27:40.680 --> 0:27:43.240
<v Speaker 2>that just make it sound like you really tried quite

0:27:43.280 --> 0:27:44.239
<v Speaker 2>hard and then gave up.

0:27:44.320 --> 0:27:46.119
<v Speaker 1>Well, I just wanted to clear that up because you know,

0:27:46.119 --> 0:27:47.720
<v Speaker 1>there's gonna be some people that are going to ask

0:27:47.800 --> 0:27:51.159
<v Speaker 1>us because we mentioned the liar's number last time. But

0:27:51.280 --> 0:27:54.000
<v Speaker 1>you know, here's the thing, and I want everybody to

0:27:54.080 --> 0:27:59.280
<v Speaker 1>understand again, there is a reason that sexual assault is

0:27:59.359 --> 0:28:03.639
<v Speaker 1>the most underreported. The victim is absolutely going to be

0:28:03.680 --> 0:28:07.200
<v Speaker 1>put on trial, no matter how many safeguards, no matter

0:28:07.200 --> 0:28:10.360
<v Speaker 1>how many laws, no matter how much protection we tried

0:28:10.400 --> 0:28:14.080
<v Speaker 1>to give them, It's going to happen, and people are

0:28:14.080 --> 0:28:17.159
<v Speaker 1>going to question and then they're going to you know,

0:28:17.280 --> 0:28:22.800
<v Speaker 1>point out anything they can come up with to blame her.

0:28:23.800 --> 0:28:27.280
<v Speaker 1>Like even now, we still occasionally hear somebody say what

0:28:27.440 --> 0:28:32.200
<v Speaker 1>was she wearing? Was she drinking? So, for example, when

0:28:32.280 --> 0:28:36.399
<v Speaker 1>she starts putting out these statements and she's telling you

0:28:37.359 --> 0:28:42.040
<v Speaker 1>things that occurred. People are going to look at that

0:28:42.280 --> 0:28:44.720
<v Speaker 1>and say, okay, wait a minute, he walks out of

0:28:44.760 --> 0:28:48.800
<v Speaker 1>the shower and he's naked, Well, that's obvious. You mean

0:28:48.840 --> 0:28:51.280
<v Speaker 1>to tell me she was there in the bathroom while

0:28:51.320 --> 0:28:53.680
<v Speaker 1>he was in the shower and what did she think

0:28:53.800 --> 0:28:55.680
<v Speaker 1>was going to happen? And then people are going to

0:28:55.800 --> 0:29:00.920
<v Speaker 1>question the hotel room. I mean, number one, does anybody

0:29:00.920 --> 0:29:04.280
<v Speaker 1>believe that Garth Brooks booked a hotel or he had

0:29:04.280 --> 0:29:08.200
<v Speaker 1>somebody do it for him? And you know how often

0:29:08.480 --> 0:29:13.800
<v Speaker 1>is somebody at his level alone. There's always hair and

0:29:13.840 --> 0:29:17.240
<v Speaker 1>makeup and managers and producers and lawyers and all these

0:29:17.280 --> 0:29:21.480
<v Speaker 1>other people around, right, So if he has carved out

0:29:22.360 --> 0:29:24.160
<v Speaker 1>where it's just the two of you on a plane

0:29:24.720 --> 0:29:27.280
<v Speaker 1>and only two of you walk into a hotel, his

0:29:27.360 --> 0:29:31.040
<v Speaker 1>assistant's not there, his manager's not there, the producer of

0:29:31.080 --> 0:29:33.680
<v Speaker 1>whatever this event is not meeting him and is there.

0:29:34.040 --> 0:29:37.520
<v Speaker 1>It's just the two of you. And then you say

0:29:38.400 --> 0:29:40.320
<v Speaker 1>we went into the hotel room and I was shot.

0:29:40.360 --> 0:29:42.920
<v Speaker 1>There was only one bedroom. But then she goes on

0:29:43.080 --> 0:29:45.840
<v Speaker 1>to say he pushed me into the other bedroom.

0:29:46.160 --> 0:29:48.600
<v Speaker 2>So, just to talk in the victims favor over, remind

0:29:48.680 --> 0:29:50.800
<v Speaker 2>you that Garth Brooks does not deny any of the

0:29:50.840 --> 0:29:53.360
<v Speaker 2>allegations in his statement, and there are some things that

0:29:53.400 --> 0:29:55.840
<v Speaker 2>are caughty from Brooks in her statement that do give

0:29:55.880 --> 0:29:58.560
<v Speaker 2>me pause for thought as to what went on here.

0:29:58.720 --> 0:30:02.200
<v Speaker 2>Is he a nice guy? There's a statement, a quote

0:30:02.200 --> 0:30:04.719
<v Speaker 2>from him where he says, I would never be upset

0:30:04.760 --> 0:30:06.840
<v Speaker 2>with you. Look at it this way, Okay, look at it.

0:30:07.080 --> 0:30:09.280
<v Speaker 2>The best way I can explain is me and you

0:30:09.480 --> 0:30:12.240
<v Speaker 2>broke into a jewelry store and the second we broke

0:30:12.280 --> 0:30:14.200
<v Speaker 2>the door, we looked at each other and said, this

0:30:14.440 --> 0:30:19.000
<v Speaker 2>isn't right. Now. That's quite a violent metaphor for what

0:30:19.160 --> 0:30:21.760
<v Speaker 2>the situation he's describing. You know, that could have been

0:30:21.800 --> 0:30:24.440
<v Speaker 2>explained in a much more gentler way. You know, we

0:30:24.480 --> 0:30:27.719
<v Speaker 2>started something, babe, that we should not have. We realized

0:30:27.720 --> 0:30:29.440
<v Speaker 2>as soon as we started it it was the wrong thing.

0:30:29.520 --> 0:30:32.000
<v Speaker 2>So we walked away, and that's the right thing to do.

0:30:32.080 --> 0:30:35.920
<v Speaker 2>But he uses quite violent imagery there of breaking into

0:30:35.960 --> 0:30:39.360
<v Speaker 2>a jewelry store and breaking a door, and so that

0:30:39.440 --> 0:30:41.600
<v Speaker 2>made me think, what is this guy really like? It's

0:30:41.680 --> 0:30:44.440
<v Speaker 2>his personality coming out through some of the metaphors that

0:30:44.480 --> 0:30:47.720
<v Speaker 2>he is using there. And also I believe he uses

0:30:47.760 --> 0:30:50.280
<v Speaker 2>his status, and his status is not just Garth Brooks

0:30:50.360 --> 0:30:53.120
<v Speaker 2>famous person, but as her employer, you know, let's not

0:30:53.280 --> 0:30:56.280
<v Speaker 2>forget that. And he says to her at one point,

0:30:56.840 --> 0:31:00.240
<v Speaker 2>and this is if you're listening to this and you

0:31:00.280 --> 0:31:03.160
<v Speaker 2>want to tip for uncovering what people say, this is

0:31:03.200 --> 0:31:06.200
<v Speaker 2>a great one for what did someone actually say there.

0:31:06.400 --> 0:31:09.280
<v Speaker 2>So he says to her, I work with the best,

0:31:09.360 --> 0:31:11.920
<v Speaker 2>and I don't want to do something stupid that breaks

0:31:11.960 --> 0:31:14.480
<v Speaker 2>this team up, So I will do whatever I need

0:31:14.520 --> 0:31:17.120
<v Speaker 2>to do, or do whatever I don't need to do.

0:31:17.360 --> 0:31:19.320
<v Speaker 2>But I just want to keep working with you. But

0:31:19.360 --> 0:31:21.720
<v Speaker 2>if you feel weird working with me, it's fine. We

0:31:21.800 --> 0:31:23.800
<v Speaker 2>don't have to work together. So number one, I can

0:31:23.800 --> 0:31:26.240
<v Speaker 2>see he's holding the work and the fact he is

0:31:26.280 --> 0:31:30.080
<v Speaker 2>an employer over her, the fact that her livelihood depends

0:31:30.120 --> 0:31:33.000
<v Speaker 2>on him. But he says I work with the best.

0:31:33.560 --> 0:31:36.080
<v Speaker 2>Not once within all of that does he say she

0:31:36.560 --> 0:31:38.960
<v Speaker 2>is one of the best. He doesn't say you are

0:31:39.000 --> 0:31:40.880
<v Speaker 2>the best at your job, and I want you on

0:31:40.920 --> 0:31:42.720
<v Speaker 2>the team, so I will do whatever it takes to

0:31:42.800 --> 0:31:44.600
<v Speaker 2>keep you on my team because you are one of

0:31:44.640 --> 0:31:47.640
<v Speaker 2>the best. He does say that I work with the best,

0:31:47.680 --> 0:31:49.760
<v Speaker 2>and I don't want to split that team up. And

0:31:49.800 --> 0:31:52.160
<v Speaker 2>you can go if you want and I was thought,

0:31:52.280 --> 0:31:55.360
<v Speaker 2>that is very interesting. I think he's silvertonged. He seems

0:31:55.440 --> 0:31:57.600
<v Speaker 2>quite charming in some of the things he says. I

0:31:57.640 --> 0:31:59.160
<v Speaker 2>think it can be very easy for someone to hear

0:31:59.200 --> 0:32:01.600
<v Speaker 2>a statement like that and go always calling me one

0:32:01.640 --> 0:32:03.520
<v Speaker 2>of the best. That's very flattering, and I want to

0:32:03.520 --> 0:32:06.400
<v Speaker 2>stay on this team because you really values my work.

0:32:06.680 --> 0:32:09.520
<v Speaker 2>But he doesn't actually say that. We could assume that's

0:32:09.520 --> 0:32:11.760
<v Speaker 2>what he meant. But if he doesn't say the words,

0:32:12.040 --> 0:32:14.160
<v Speaker 2>don't assume, don't give them the benefit of the doubt

0:32:14.240 --> 0:32:15.960
<v Speaker 2>that that is what is in his head.

0:32:16.960 --> 0:32:20.920
<v Speaker 1>Jack, when she flat out says and I quote, he

0:32:21.120 --> 0:32:25.520
<v Speaker 1>thinks laws don't apply to him. I think there's probably

0:32:26.080 --> 0:32:28.959
<v Speaker 1>some basis for that. So again, if you're at his

0:32:29.120 --> 0:32:31.960
<v Speaker 1>level and you're on a tour bus, you know you're

0:32:31.960 --> 0:32:34.600
<v Speaker 1>not going to get a ticket if you're speeding. You know,

0:32:34.720 --> 0:32:37.239
<v Speaker 1>if the hotel says there's no swimming after ten that

0:32:37.240 --> 0:32:40.280
<v Speaker 1>that don't apply to him. You know, there are things

0:32:40.680 --> 0:32:44.200
<v Speaker 1>where maybe laws of speeding or illegally be in part

0:32:44.440 --> 0:32:47.920
<v Speaker 1>or rules at different places, they do not apply to him.

0:32:48.360 --> 0:32:51.760
<v Speaker 2>I am in a previous life, worked very close to

0:32:51.800 --> 0:32:54.240
<v Speaker 2>a lot of some of the most famous people over here.

0:32:54.240 --> 0:32:56.960
<v Speaker 2>In the UK, and I can attest to the fact

0:32:57.080 --> 0:33:01.480
<v Speaker 2>that these people live alone that we could not imagine

0:33:01.720 --> 0:33:04.640
<v Speaker 2>doors closed. That door will open and let you in.

0:33:05.200 --> 0:33:07.600
<v Speaker 2>And that leads to if you're not a balanced person,

0:33:07.640 --> 0:33:10.320
<v Speaker 2>that does lead to exactly the fact that you don't

0:33:10.360 --> 0:33:13.320
<v Speaker 2>feel like not just the laws don't apply to you,

0:33:13.600 --> 0:33:17.080
<v Speaker 2>but the norms of society, the standards of behavior that

0:33:17.120 --> 0:33:19.760
<v Speaker 2>we expect from people don't apply to you either. So

0:33:19.840 --> 0:33:24.280
<v Speaker 2>I could really see how someone with you know, the

0:33:24.440 --> 0:33:28.880
<v Speaker 2>level of fame that he has, and the number of

0:33:28.880 --> 0:33:31.280
<v Speaker 2>people as well, so that it will surround him that

0:33:31.360 --> 0:33:34.840
<v Speaker 2>will depend on their livelihoods. For him, I could see

0:33:35.000 --> 0:33:38.800
<v Speaker 2>very much how that is true. And again, the laws

0:33:38.800 --> 0:33:41.120
<v Speaker 2>don't apply to him. That's a very he feels like

0:33:41.120 --> 0:33:44.240
<v Speaker 2>the laws don't apply to him. Is a very straightforward statement.

0:33:44.280 --> 0:33:46.360
<v Speaker 2>It's not one that's trying to convince us of anything

0:33:46.800 --> 0:33:49.680
<v Speaker 2>or persuade us that this might be true. It's stated

0:33:50.000 --> 0:33:51.960
<v Speaker 2>very straight, very sharp, you know.

0:33:52.040 --> 0:33:56.080
<v Speaker 1>And here's the thing. There are hurdles for both sides.

0:33:56.840 --> 0:34:00.800
<v Speaker 1>And this is why, again, this is a very difficult

0:34:01.040 --> 0:34:05.320
<v Speaker 1>crime to investigate. If you don't have a rape kit,

0:34:05.520 --> 0:34:08.840
<v Speaker 1>if you don't have DNA evidence on clothing, if you

0:34:08.960 --> 0:34:13.680
<v Speaker 1>don't have some type of voicemail or video of the hostility,

0:34:13.760 --> 0:34:18.440
<v Speaker 1>the anger, the threats. It gets difficult. So again, she

0:34:18.560 --> 0:34:21.960
<v Speaker 1>may not have any recourse other than CIBIL. She may

0:34:22.000 --> 0:34:25.399
<v Speaker 1>not have enough probable calls for law enforcement. Doesn't mean

0:34:25.400 --> 0:34:30.279
<v Speaker 1>it didn't happen. And if she's having financial difficulty and

0:34:30.480 --> 0:34:34.920
<v Speaker 1>she has known him for twenty years, maybe something happened

0:34:34.960 --> 0:34:38.240
<v Speaker 1>and she stayed because she had to. Maybe she doesn't

0:34:38.280 --> 0:34:42.520
<v Speaker 1>have other clientele. Maybe that you know, again, the level

0:34:42.520 --> 0:34:45.080
<v Speaker 1>that he's at, she had to be twenty four to

0:34:45.120 --> 0:34:49.640
<v Speaker 1>seven at his back and call my issue if this

0:34:49.840 --> 0:34:54.200
<v Speaker 1>was our case, Jack, Again, you know it does appear

0:34:54.280 --> 0:35:00.239
<v Speaker 1>civil not law enforcement. She did stay after several assault.

0:35:01.000 --> 0:35:03.920
<v Speaker 1>He says it's about money. Who you going to believe?

0:35:04.040 --> 0:35:06.839
<v Speaker 1>So you got to start, I think again with these statements.

0:35:07.280 --> 0:35:10.120
<v Speaker 1>If you look at his statement, is their past infidelity?

0:35:10.880 --> 0:35:14.759
<v Speaker 1>Is there possibly infidelity with the victim? And did it

0:35:14.840 --> 0:35:18.440
<v Speaker 1>start that way and then at some point did it

0:35:18.520 --> 0:35:24.000
<v Speaker 1>turn violent? Are we going to see other people come forward?

0:35:24.800 --> 0:35:24.960
<v Speaker 2>Now?

0:35:25.040 --> 0:35:27.560
<v Speaker 1>So far I have not heard of anybody coming forward.

0:35:27.920 --> 0:35:33.280
<v Speaker 1>No past employees, not anybody that met him on tour,

0:35:33.760 --> 0:35:36.000
<v Speaker 1>nobody that came back to his hotel as a fan.

0:35:36.160 --> 0:35:38.200
<v Speaker 1>I have not heard of anything. I have not heard

0:35:38.239 --> 0:35:44.279
<v Speaker 1>of one other woman. But here's the deal. Why did

0:35:44.320 --> 0:35:48.719
<v Speaker 1>she stop working for Tricia yearwould and how did she

0:35:48.840 --> 0:35:52.560
<v Speaker 1>go from working for Tricia to working for Garth Brooks.

0:35:53.080 --> 0:35:56.400
<v Speaker 1>I think those are things that law enforcement and the

0:35:56.400 --> 0:35:59.960
<v Speaker 1>civil suit should at least attempt to answer.

0:36:00.719 --> 0:36:02.960
<v Speaker 2>Yeah, I was also taken in by the fact that

0:36:03.000 --> 0:36:05.080
<v Speaker 2>no one has come forward. You know, where the Diddy

0:36:05.160 --> 0:36:07.520
<v Speaker 2>story is going on right now, and it's like open

0:36:07.640 --> 0:36:11.640
<v Speaker 2>season for people to come forward and say and did

0:36:11.640 --> 0:36:14.000
<v Speaker 2>he was active for about about the same time as

0:36:14.280 --> 0:36:16.319
<v Speaker 2>Garth Brooks, you know, in terms of fame, and so

0:36:16.360 --> 0:36:18.399
<v Speaker 2>many people have come forward to say that they've had

0:36:18.440 --> 0:36:21.719
<v Speaker 2>bad experiences in his orbit. So I was taking that

0:36:21.760 --> 0:36:24.000
<v Speaker 2>no one else has come forward. But you know you said,

0:36:24.000 --> 0:36:27.360
<v Speaker 2>if you and I were investigating the case looking at

0:36:27.400 --> 0:36:29.759
<v Speaker 2>the statements, I would say to you, money is at

0:36:29.760 --> 0:36:32.000
<v Speaker 2>the root of this. And I'm not saying that's extortion

0:36:32.120 --> 0:36:34.719
<v Speaker 2>money or hush money. But what I do when I

0:36:34.719 --> 0:36:36.920
<v Speaker 2>look at statements is look at repeated concepts. So what

0:36:37.080 --> 0:36:40.400
<v Speaker 2>comes up time and time and time again and across

0:36:40.520 --> 0:36:43.360
<v Speaker 2>what Garth Brooks says, and of course what is in

0:36:43.400 --> 0:36:46.160
<v Speaker 2>her filings is the concept of money. He talks about

0:36:46.239 --> 0:36:49.080
<v Speaker 2>hush money, she talks about the fact that she relied

0:36:49.120 --> 0:36:51.800
<v Speaker 2>on him for money, that she was in some financial

0:36:51.840 --> 0:36:54.920
<v Speaker 2>deep straits, so money, and also the fact it was

0:36:54.960 --> 0:36:58.080
<v Speaker 2>a working relationship, so work is an exchange of time

0:36:58.200 --> 0:37:02.600
<v Speaker 2>for money. Money is a repeated concept. So I'm not

0:37:02.680 --> 0:37:04.319
<v Speaker 2>saying this is not true, and I'm not saying this

0:37:04.400 --> 0:37:06.080
<v Speaker 2>I'm true. What I would say was, if we were

0:37:06.080 --> 0:37:08.279
<v Speaker 2>looking at this, I'd be like, money is at the

0:37:08.320 --> 0:37:11.279
<v Speaker 2>center of this some way, somehow, because it comes up

0:37:11.560 --> 0:37:13.400
<v Speaker 2>so often from both sides.

0:37:13.920 --> 0:37:16.799
<v Speaker 1>Agreed, and that's why I started with what I did.

0:37:17.400 --> 0:37:20.959
<v Speaker 1>Why is it civil and not law enforcement? You got

0:37:20.960 --> 0:37:24.600
<v Speaker 1>to ask that question. And again, these are not easy question, y'all.

0:37:25.080 --> 0:37:28.240
<v Speaker 1>Jack said earlier he did not even feel comfortable using

0:37:28.280 --> 0:37:31.600
<v Speaker 1>some of the words. I get it, it's not easy.

0:37:32.320 --> 0:37:36.280
<v Speaker 1>There are multiple reasons this is the most difficult crime

0:37:36.320 --> 0:37:40.200
<v Speaker 1>to investigate. You are going to have people pick sides immediately.

0:37:40.960 --> 0:37:47.799
<v Speaker 1>Nobody in a murder says what was she wearing? Nobody? Nobody.

0:37:48.200 --> 0:37:51.720
<v Speaker 1>Nobody questions well, was she home alone when she got murdered.

0:37:51.880 --> 0:37:54.400
<v Speaker 1>She shouldn't have been alone, She should have had people

0:37:54.400 --> 0:37:58.040
<v Speaker 1>around her. Was she drinking she shouldn't have been drinking. No,

0:37:58.320 --> 0:38:01.840
<v Speaker 1>they accept the murder and it's horrible. It's horrible across

0:38:01.840 --> 0:38:06.360
<v Speaker 1>the board. Friends, family, people at church, co workers, neighbors, everybody.

0:38:06.920 --> 0:38:12.080
<v Speaker 1>Everybody cares when it's sexual assault. It's like they go

0:38:12.160 --> 0:38:15.279
<v Speaker 1>away and they don't want to be a part of it.

0:38:16.120 --> 0:38:19.719
<v Speaker 1>They don't want to pick sides. But I believe, and Jack,

0:38:19.800 --> 0:38:22.319
<v Speaker 1>I want to know what you think. I think this

0:38:22.440 --> 0:38:25.680
<v Speaker 1>is going to get a lot uglier very quickly.

0:38:29.760 --> 0:38:32.200
<v Speaker 2>I'm slightly different from you there. I'm not sure there's

0:38:32.239 --> 0:38:35.879
<v Speaker 2>a lot more to get ugly about. I think there

0:38:36.000 --> 0:38:38.440
<v Speaker 2>was a work relationship between the pair of them that

0:38:38.520 --> 0:38:42.560
<v Speaker 2>went sour, and potentially she wanted to back away from

0:38:42.600 --> 0:38:46.799
<v Speaker 2>the closeness of the intimacy that they had, and that

0:38:46.960 --> 0:38:49.479
<v Speaker 2>I think if there was, if she had something else,

0:38:49.560 --> 0:38:53.160
<v Speaker 2>Why is it not in the filing? Why is it

0:38:53.239 --> 0:38:56.640
<v Speaker 2>not in there? That is there? Now, that's not to

0:38:56.640 --> 0:38:58.640
<v Speaker 2>say I know what's happened or not. That's to say

0:38:58.960 --> 0:39:03.120
<v Speaker 2>that from everything I've seen, I think this. All the

0:39:03.160 --> 0:39:08.600
<v Speaker 2>words I see look like a very simple relationship gone bad.

0:39:08.960 --> 0:39:11.880
<v Speaker 2>Now why it went bad is not quite made clear

0:39:12.480 --> 0:39:14.360
<v Speaker 2>in the words in the statements. Is there I know

0:39:14.360 --> 0:39:17.200
<v Speaker 2>what she's alleging, but what there is any actual proof

0:39:17.239 --> 0:39:21.319
<v Speaker 2>of what? There are any words there that those just

0:39:21.440 --> 0:39:25.279
<v Speaker 2>don't are not there in that filing. Having said that

0:39:25.320 --> 0:39:29.240
<v Speaker 2>he does not deny the allegations. He remember when we started,

0:39:29.280 --> 0:39:34.439
<v Speaker 2>and I said, he does distance himself from denying at all.

0:39:34.520 --> 0:39:37.319
<v Speaker 2>So why is that? Why did he not come out

0:39:37.360 --> 0:39:41.800
<v Speaker 2>and say that so robustly in his defense? So there's

0:39:41.880 --> 0:39:44.480
<v Speaker 2>that great area in there, but I'm not sure there

0:39:44.560 --> 0:39:46.360
<v Speaker 2>is anything that is going to shed a little bit

0:39:46.400 --> 0:39:48.399
<v Speaker 2>more light on that gray area that's going to help

0:39:48.480 --> 0:39:50.839
<v Speaker 2>either party. Frankly, it could end up when you say

0:39:50.840 --> 0:39:53.960
<v Speaker 2>it messy, it may end up with no real resolution.

0:39:54.640 --> 0:39:57.880
<v Speaker 1>Well, here's what I make by MESSI there ain't no

0:39:58.000 --> 0:40:02.640
<v Speaker 1>way you've had a front run to Garth Brooks for

0:40:02.680 --> 0:40:07.239
<v Speaker 1>twenty years and you don't know dirt. And I mean

0:40:07.440 --> 0:40:12.319
<v Speaker 1>an argument between him and Trisha Yearwood, who they pay,

0:40:12.360 --> 0:40:14.799
<v Speaker 1>who they don't pay, who they like, who they don't like,

0:40:15.520 --> 0:40:22.520
<v Speaker 1>If he had other extramarital affairs, if he paid anybody

0:40:22.560 --> 0:40:26.080
<v Speaker 1>else to keep quiet, if he had anybody else on

0:40:26.120 --> 0:40:29.520
<v Speaker 1>their payroll that didn't really work for him, she knows it,

0:40:30.600 --> 0:40:33.919
<v Speaker 1>And that's what I mean. If he leaked her name,

0:40:35.239 --> 0:40:38.960
<v Speaker 1>and now she is so hurt and so upset and

0:40:39.080 --> 0:40:44.279
<v Speaker 1>possibly embarrassed because now her friends from high school, her hometown,

0:40:44.800 --> 0:40:48.600
<v Speaker 1>her whole family, they now know. And maybe they didn't

0:40:48.680 --> 0:40:53.920
<v Speaker 1>know before, they know now. So if she has something,

0:40:54.920 --> 0:40:56.439
<v Speaker 1>I think she's going to put it out there.

0:40:57.080 --> 0:40:58.799
<v Speaker 2>You're one step ahead of me. But that is a

0:40:59.000 --> 0:41:01.680
<v Speaker 2>very very good point. And I'll go back again to

0:41:01.719 --> 0:41:03.680
<v Speaker 2>the start where he talked about hush money.

0:41:04.040 --> 0:41:07.799
<v Speaker 1>That's right, that's right. And you know, when you look

0:41:07.840 --> 0:41:11.319
<v Speaker 1>at Bill Clinton when he said what he did about

0:41:11.400 --> 0:41:15.680
<v Speaker 1>Monica Lewinsky, he said, I did not have sexual relations

0:41:15.719 --> 0:41:20.440
<v Speaker 1>with that woman. When he called her that woman, Suddenly

0:41:20.680 --> 0:41:23.640
<v Speaker 1>she's got a blue dress. So I'm just telling you,

0:41:24.120 --> 0:41:28.080
<v Speaker 1>hurt people they come back and if they have any

0:41:28.160 --> 0:41:30.200
<v Speaker 1>type of arsenal, they'll use it.

0:41:30.840 --> 0:41:35.520
<v Speaker 2>I will be watching this one though, with great interest.

0:41:35.800 --> 0:41:38.279
<v Speaker 2>Over here in the UK country music, Garth Brooks is

0:41:38.320 --> 0:41:40.960
<v Speaker 2>not very popular. I'm aware of who he is, but

0:41:41.000 --> 0:41:43.160
<v Speaker 2>this has been it's been an eye opener in terms

0:41:43.160 --> 0:41:48.759
<v Speaker 2>of actually his popularity. And you know how well respected

0:41:49.280 --> 0:41:51.480
<v Speaker 2>he is or has been, so that he has a

0:41:51.640 --> 0:41:54.479
<v Speaker 2>lot to lose in this situation, doesn't he He does.

0:41:54.960 --> 0:41:58.120
<v Speaker 1>And here's the thing. Reality Tom, and this is for

0:41:58.239 --> 0:42:02.160
<v Speaker 1>any any young man and listening to me, if you

0:42:02.320 --> 0:42:06.839
<v Speaker 1>get yourself in a situation where somebody can make this allegation,

0:42:07.480 --> 0:42:11.239
<v Speaker 1>it's going to hurt your reputation no matter what. And

0:42:11.680 --> 0:42:15.680
<v Speaker 1>he pretty much says that in his paperwork. That's why

0:42:15.680 --> 0:42:19.319
<v Speaker 1>he said he was asking, you know, for compensatory and

0:42:19.440 --> 0:42:23.279
<v Speaker 1>punitive damages. That she knew by putting this out there

0:42:23.320 --> 0:42:25.600
<v Speaker 1>what it was going to do to his reputation and

0:42:25.680 --> 0:42:30.120
<v Speaker 1>his career and his family. And he's absolutely right, Jack Fox,

0:42:30.160 --> 0:42:32.520
<v Speaker 1>Thank you so much. We've got a lot to keep

0:42:32.560 --> 0:42:33.040
<v Speaker 1>our eye on.

0:42:33.440 --> 0:42:34.919
<v Speaker 2>Thank you for having me, y'all.

0:42:34.920 --> 0:42:36.560
<v Speaker 1>I'm going to end Zone seven the way that I

0:42:36.600 --> 0:42:40.200
<v Speaker 1>always do with a quote. When we got married almost

0:42:40.239 --> 0:42:43.960
<v Speaker 1>ten years ago now, we made a commitment to really

0:42:44.040 --> 0:42:48.880
<v Speaker 1>be together, which means we hardly ever spent a night apart.

0:42:49.960 --> 0:42:53.359
<v Speaker 1>And being madly in love is important, but I think

0:42:53.400 --> 0:42:58.440
<v Speaker 1>it's equally important to be in deep like I like

0:42:58.560 --> 0:43:03.799
<v Speaker 1>this guy. We talk about everything and we laugh a lot.

0:43:04.800 --> 0:43:12.120
<v Speaker 1>Life is good, Trisha Gearwood, I'm Cheryl McCollum, and this

0:43:12.200 --> 0:43:12.920
<v Speaker 1>is Own seven.