10 Most Shocking Pieces of Evidence in the Naresh Bhatt Trial

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: This week, Naresh Bhatt was convicted of first-degree murder of his wife, Mamta. She has not been seen or heard from since July 29th of 2024. Since Mamta's body was never found, the Commonwealth knew it was going to be hard to convict Bhatt. They spent four weeks showing the jury the circumstantial evidence against him. Then, when the defense had a turn to present its case, Bhatt stunned the courtroom when he took the stand and admitted he had disposed of his wife's remains. But Bhatt staunchly insisted he did not commit murder. Bhatt said he got up to use the bathroom in the middle of the night and found his wife dead. He said she had poisoned herself. He panicked, and instead of calling 911, he did the unthinkable. When police and her family asked questions, he admitted he lied to them. The jury didn't buy it. They convicted Bhatt of murder after deliberating just five hours. In an interview with a local TV station, WUSA 9, one juror said, It wasn't that difficult. It really wasn't. What was it that made the case easy for the jurors? Hi, y'all. I'm Lawyer Lee. Please hit the like button. It helps immensely with the YouTube algorithm as we get started talking about 10 truly shocking pieces of evidence that sealed the fate of Naresh Bhatt. Counting up from 10, I want to start with number 10, the chilling Google searches. In February, Momta left Bhatt for a few days. Momta was in her 20s, healthy, a young mom. And yet, investigators found these startling searches on Bhatt's computer. [00:01:54] Speaker 2: April 12, 2024. This is on your laptop. Laptop. You type these words. What happened dead of died spouse? Right? [00:02:11] Speaker 3: A loon. [00:02:14] Speaker 2: The loon? [00:02:16] Speaker 3: You mean the loon? [00:02:17] Speaker 2: The what? Sorry, interpreter? Loan. You mean loon? No, I'm just asking you. These are the words you put into your laptop, right? Your laptop. Yes. That was in April. Before that, in March, March 21st, you typed into your cell phone, what happened if spouse disappears in divorce in Virginia? [00:02:55] Speaker 4: Yes. [00:02:55] Speaker 2: Those searches are about Momta, correct? [00:03:03] Speaker 4: Not necessarily. [00:03:05] Speaker 1: It would make sense that Bhatt would be doing searches for divorce. The couple was talking about divorcing. But Momta was young and healthy. It truly was impossible to explain why Bhatt would have been searching for what would happen if a spouse died during the divorce, much less disappeared. The problem was that those searches were uncomfortably close to what really did happen just a few months later. The Commonwealth used those searches to argue that Bhatt was mulling over and planning to kill Momta and make her disappear months before he finally did it. The searches made Bhatt's claim that Momta killed herself and that he stumbled upon the body on a late night trip to the bathroom too much of a coincidence. And this first piece of evidence begins a theme you will hear over and over. Bhatt told lies and it made it impossible for the jury to believe him on the one point he really needed them to believe, whether he killed Momta. When the juror was interviewed after the verdict, he said to the news reporter, so many lies were told. Number nine in the list of evidence, Bhatt's threats and controlling behavior toward Momta. The commonwealth showed the jury text messages where it appeared that Bhatt was threatening Momta. [00:04:35] Speaker 5: The days are coming that you'll regret a lot. The defendant, in his own words, told us what he was going to do to Momta. The days are coming that you'll regret a lot. That's a text message that the defendant sent to Momta. He told Momta what he was going to do with her. 162 days later, that day came. 162 days later, he delivered on that promise. 162 days later, the defendant murdered Momta Koffley, the defendant dismembered Momta Koffley, and the defendant got rid of her like garbage. [00:05:37] Speaker 1: Bhatt told the jury he didn't mean to directly threaten Momta. He was trying to reason with her about all they would both lose if she divorced him. He was concerned about a report she had made to the police and worried it would cause him to lose his security clearance and maybe even his job in the White House military office. But the problem for Bhatt was that the text messages did not stand alone. We heard from Momta's brother that Momta was afraid of Bhatt. The jury saw photos of bruises on her face. The text messages were put into context. It became impossible to ignore the threats when they were combined with evidence supporting the allegations of DV. The eighth piece of evidence: Bhatt's admitted lies. When the police first came to his house looking for Momta, Bhatt told them he didn't know where she was. He said she'd gone to be with a sister in Texas or maybe New York, but he wasn't sure which. He told Momta's mother that she left for work and just didn't come home. He told the police the same thing in an interrogation. Bhatt was clearly lying in one story or the other, but at least what he was saying had a common theme. He didn't know where Momta was. Two years later, he took the stand in his trial and shot everyone by admitting for the first time that he had found Momta's body in the night. And he had partially dismembered her and stuffed her in a trash can. But the problem was that it was now very clear that Bhatt was a liar. And that gave the prosecution a very strong opening when they cross-examined him. [00:07:31] Speaker 2: You're an admitted liar to this entire jury. Everybody in this room knows now that you are a liar. [00:07:41] Speaker 4: That is the only one thing I lied. [00:07:43] Speaker 2: That's the one? What's the one thing you lied about? [00:07:51] Speaker 4: About that case at that time. [00:07:53] Speaker 2: About the Momta case. That's the case you lied about, right? Didn't you say to the police that you never lied? Those are your words? You never lied? [00:08:13] Speaker 4: Yes. Yes. [00:08:21] Speaker 2: You lied to Sarita Nupani. [00:08:26] Speaker 4: Yes. [00:08:27] Speaker 2: You lied to Officer Pellet. [00:08:31] Speaker 4: I don't remember that. [00:08:33] Speaker 2: When you finally decided to make your fake call for the fine Momta on August, on that Sunday, Monday, August 5th. [00:08:44] Speaker 4: Yes. [00:08:44] Speaker 2: You finally decided to report her body missing. [00:08:51] Speaker 4: Yes. [00:08:51] Speaker 2: The officers that responded, you lied to him too? [00:08:57] Speaker ?: Yes. [00:08:57] Speaker 4: Yes. [00:08:57] Speaker 2: The two officers that came for the health and safety check, you lied to them? [00:09:08] Speaker 1: Yes. Bott could not deny it. He was a liar. He had lied repeatedly. Piece of evidence number seven, the extraordinary water consumption in the Bott household. Bott's home wasn't searched until nearly three weeks after Momta disappeared. By then, the home had been thoroughly scrubbed and cleaned. But the prosecution needed to be able to prove that. And even before Bott cooperated by taking the stand, they found a clever way to prove he had been cleaning right after Momta disappeared. They showed just how much water the house had used in a two-hour period. They put on evidence of that. And then, when Bott did take the stand, they were able to cross-examine him about it. [00:09:55] Speaker 2: How long did you let the water run? [00:09:59] Speaker 4: Just half-pull the bathtub and then clean and then let it go. [00:10:03] Speaker 2: You said you filled the bathtub? [00:10:04] Speaker 4: Half-pull. [00:10:05] Speaker 2: Half-full with water? Yes. All right. We got a bathtub in your bathroom. You fill it up halfway with water. [00:10:31] Speaker 3: So, I fill up half and I clean up and then let it go. And then again, half-filled and clean up. But I never filled up on the top. [00:10:42] Speaker 2: Okay. You don't dispute that your water meter in one hour was 111 gallons? [00:10:52] Speaker 3: I agree with that. [00:11:00] Speaker 4: I agree with that. [00:11:01] Speaker 1: A public works employee testified that the water usage far exceeded the amount that a house would normally use in that period of time. The sixth piece of evidence. The sixth piece of evidence, the surveillance videos of trash dumpsters. As part of their investigation, Virginia law enforcement found surveillance video that showed that in the days after Momta disappeared, Bott traveled to multiple dumpsters around town and threw out trash bags. The commonwealth lined up the videos and showed the jury just how much he threw out. At the time, the assumption or implication was that these bags had pieces of Momta's body, which were thrown out in order to keep the police from finding her. When Bott took the stand, he could not run from this evidence. It was some of the most powerful proof the state had. So instead of denying he'd thrown these items out, he tried to put a different spin on what he was doing and why. [00:12:03] Speaker 6: Mr. Bott, what are you doing here? [00:12:07] Speaker 4: Opening my back trunk. [00:12:15] Speaker 6: What do you have in your hands here, Mr. Bott? [00:12:16] Speaker 4: Some trash bags. [00:12:19] Speaker 6: Do you remember what is in the trash bags? [00:12:21] Speaker 4: I guess the recently opened rice bags and then some sort of foods, already open type of foods. Okay. [00:12:33] Speaker 6: So you're throwing these things away? [00:12:49] Speaker 4: Yes. [00:12:50] Speaker 6: So these were not things that would have been useful to someone else? [00:12:54] Speaker 4: No, those are not the useful stuff. Useful stuff, there is, you know, I have to leave outside or there is another bean, I have to leave under another bean. Next to that trash can, there is another recycled bean or something like that. [00:13:10] Speaker 1: Bott insisted he wasn't throwing away body parts. He was throwing away Mamta's possessions as well as any open food they had there at the house. He was doing it, he said, because that was normal. That was appropriate in his culture. In Nepal, the items might be connected to the dead person's spirit, so they're discarded. There were several problems with Bott's story, though. First, if these items were connected to the spirit, if they were bad in some way, then why would he try to give some away to unsuspecting people? And even more fundamentally, what difference did it make that he was throwing out possessions? He acknowledged he cut her body and put it in a trash can in the garage. How did it help him that it was a trash can in his own garage instead of at an apartment complex? Piece of evidence number five is Bott's bizarre attempt to give away his daughter. In the wake of Mamta's disappearance, Bott suddenly found himself a single dad. He began searching for flights back to Nepal. At first, he searched whether infants could fly for free, but then he realized he had a problem. Their baby did not have a passport yet, and she was going to need one to leave the country. That would take time. So Bott cast about for someone to care for the baby. He asked a family friend, but the friend said his request came with a threat attached. [00:14:46] Speaker 2: He tried to pass baby to Mandira, correct? [00:14:57] Speaker 4: Yes. [00:14:58] Speaker 2: You would rather go to Mandira than go to the Kaffley family? [00:15:14] Speaker 4: Not that way. [00:15:14] Speaker 2: Didn't you say to Mandira that if she doesn't take the baby, you're going to put in foster care? [00:15:24] Speaker 3: I do not recall that at all. [00:15:34] Speaker 4: I, before they coming, I told Mandira to take care of the baby. Yes. [00:15:39] Speaker 2: And she told you she couldn't, right? [00:15:43] Speaker 4: I don't recall that. She take the baby. She take care of the baby. [00:15:47] Speaker 2: This was a week ago, at most a week ago. You don't remember her saying this in court? [00:15:52] Speaker 4: Yes, she said that. [00:15:53] Speaker 2: Okay. So she said in court, just to be clear, that you were going to give the baby to her or the baby goes to foster care. [00:16:03] Speaker 1: Wait, no, any questions? [00:16:06] Speaker 4: She said that. [00:16:09] Speaker 1: Bott said he didn't remember this incident, but the friend testified she most clearly did. He told her if she wouldn't take the baby, he would leave the child in foster care. For a man trying to rehabilitate his image with the jury, it was exactly the wrong look. He left himself wide open for the commonwealth to argue that he was willing to sacrifice anyone and anything in order to protect himself. Piece of evidence number four, blood evidence in the bedroom and the bathroom. When police finally searched the bot home three weeks after Mom had disappeared, a police detective noticed something strange. The bed in the master bedroom was angled oddly against the closet, blocking it. Acting on a hunch, she tested under the bed and it lit up under a light as a potential positive for blood. She swabbed the area and sent it for testing. Forensic testing identified a DNA profile on the carpet that was a strong, nearly certain match for Momta. When he took the stand, the commonwealth grilled Bott about what he had done with Momta's body. [00:17:26] Speaker 2: But you dragged her into the bathroom, right? [00:17:28] Speaker 7: You dragged her into the bathroom, right? I would not use the word drag, but I took her. [00:17:41] Speaker 2: You pulled her into the bathroom? Yes. Was she actively bleeding as you're pulling her into the bathroom? [00:17:59] Speaker 4: No. [00:18:01] Speaker 2: You saw the crime scene photos, right? [00:18:05] Speaker 4: Yes. [00:18:06] Speaker 2: You saw how Blue Star was applied into the bedroom in the bathroom? [00:18:11] Speaker 4: Yes. [00:18:11] Speaker 2: That line from the bed to the bathroom, that's all of Momta's blood as you're pulling her in, correct? [00:18:22] Speaker 7: Yes. Yes. [00:18:40] Speaker 1: The evidence was damning. Bott admitted that he dragged Momta's body across that carpet and into the bathroom. He put her in a tub to minimize the mess as he cut the body to fit inside the trash can in the garage. And then he enlisted the help of a downstairs neighbor to move the bed so as to cover up the area. Piece of evidence number three, the reciprocating power saw. The third critical piece of evidence against Bott was a reciprocating power saw that, frankly, the police never should have found. Shortly after Momta disappeared, Bott traded his $200 saw to a local landscaper named Jose Ayala for $40 worth of lawn care. It seemed like a great deal to Jose at the time. He wanted the saw and it was worth more than he was paying for it in terms of lawn care. But when Momta went missing, Jose rethought the deal. He decided he had better turn that saw over to police. And that saw became a critical piece of evidence against Bott. And that saw that. [00:19:51] Speaker 5: This is Conwell's Exhibit 218. If you could direct our attention to any reddish-brown and brown staining and/or any hairs that you observed. [00:20:02] Speaker 8: In this photograph, there is staining concentrated also around the handle, just like on side A. This is side B. [00:20:15] Speaker 5: And I have my mouse or my marker on this area on the groove on the edge of the saw. Is that the reddish-brown staining that you're referring to? Yes. Now, can you tell us what hairs you observe? [00:20:32] Speaker 8: There is also a hair here on the left side of the photograph. [00:20:42] Speaker 5: Now, we see a circular type of area next to the left-hand side of the hair. Does that also have that reddish-brown, brownish stain? Yes. What did you believe all of this reddish-brownish staining to be? [00:20:56] Speaker 1: I believed it to be blood. DNA experts confirmed that the blood matched Momta's DNA. The hair could not be positively identified. How could Momta's blood get inside the saw? And why were dark hairs inside the saw? As Mott later admitted in his testimony, because he had used it to cut her body. And as the juror said, that is not something you do to someone you love. It was not only inexplicable, it was unforgivable. Piece of evidence number two, Momta's sudden and complete disappearance. In July 29th, Momta spoke to her mother just like she did every day. And then she just vanished. She disappeared suddenly and completely. She didn't show up for work. She never again spoke to her family or her friends. And most shockingly, she seemingly abandoned her nearly one-year-old baby. That's what Mott told police and Momta's family. Momta's mother testified at trial and told the jury she was not buying it. [00:22:09] Speaker 5: Have you heard from Momta since July 30th, 2024? Have you seen her since that time? [00:22:28] Speaker 9: No. [00:22:31] Speaker 5: Do you know where she is right now? [00:22:36] Speaker 9: No, I don't know. [00:22:37] Speaker 5: Based on your relationship, would she have left without telling you? [00:22:49] Speaker 1: In his testimony, of course, Bach confirmed that Momta did not just leave. He found her dead. According to his testimony, he had sat on that information for two years. He let her family, her friends, even their little girl, sit with the idea that Momta had walked away from them all. The final and biggest piece of evidence of all was one Bach handed to the Commonwealth. It was his testimony at trial. Bach admitted that he tried to conceal Momta's body by cutting it and putting it in trash bags and carrying the bin to the street. He claimed he had PTSD and he panicked when he found out she had killed herself. Bach was gambling that by admitting he concealed and defiled a body, the jury would believe him when he said she killed herself. They might convict him of the first two charges, but they wouldn't convict him of the most serious charge of all, murdering his wife. Bach lost that gamble in an ugly way. [00:24:10] Speaker 2: Not only did you cut her up, and we're talking about love. [00:24:22] Speaker 7: You stuffed her into a trash can. [00:24:30] Speaker 4: I accepted that. [00:24:31] Speaker 2: Say that again, sir? [00:24:36] Speaker 4: Yes. [00:24:37] Speaker 2: But you didn't just stuff her into a trash can. You chopped her up to make her fit. [00:24:51] Speaker 1: The jury could not fathom it. If you love someone and you discover them dead, there are many things you might do. You might call 911. You might notify their loved ones. You might grieve and mourn, but cut them up and dispose of them in the trash. That went too far. And so, Bach lost the gamble and the trial. He was convicted on all three counts, including murder. He now faces decades to life in prison, although his exact sentence won't be set until March. So, what do you think? Which of these pieces of evidence was most persuasive to you? Let me know in the comments, and please hit the like button and subscribe. I'll see you in the next one.