Naresh Bhatt GUILTY of Murder! The Closing Arguments That Sealed His Fate (Bhatt #10)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Hi y'all and welcome to tonight's live stream. Well, the jury has spoken after weeks of testimony in the murder trial of Naresh Bhatt. The jury has reached its verdict. Tonight we're going to watch that dramatic moment in the courtroom and then we're going to look at the prosecution's closing arguments, the ones that closed the deal for the jury. The Commonwealth faced an extraordinary challenge in this case, proving that Bhatt murdered his wife Mamta even though her body has never been found. And even though the only witness to what happened was Bhatt, the man accused of murdering her. And Bhatt took the stand and admitted part of what the prosecution needed to prove, dismembering her body and disposing of her remains, but denied the murder. Bhatt said, Mamta killed herself. So how did the prosecutors persuade the jury that this was murder and not not the suicide that Bhatt was talking about? We're going to look at three major arguments that the Commonwealth made in its closing, including some particularly powerful ones that I think had would likely have had a pretty big impact on the jury. And we'll talk about what is going to come next for Naresh Bhatt. His trial has been one of the most unusual murder trials I've ever covered here on the channel. I mean, think about what the Commonwealth is trying to prove here. There was nobody and they didn't have an autopsy. They didn't have a manner of death, a cause of death. There wasn't something that a medical examiner could get on the stand and say, okay, this is how she died. And then it could be connected up to Bhatt. There was no way to determine any of that without the body. And so the prosecution spent a lot of time in proof of what it could prove, all of the circumstantial evidence, and they put in a hundred something witnesses. Then in week four, the defense turned everything upside down when Naresh Bhatt himself took the stand. It was finally the defense case and Naresh Bhatt took the stand and changed everything. He, at the time when he was first interviewed by police, when he was first interrogated by police, and when he spoke to friends and family, he told them all various stories, but they all revolved around the same general principle, which is, yeah, we don't, I have no idea where she is. I don't know what happened. It's really confusing to me. I am looking just, oh yes, good. Okay. Thought I better check and make sure everything was good on the connection. So glad to hear that. All right. So that was, um, that was something that the prosecution knew it was going to have. I'm not exactly sure where I was. So we'll just start over. Um, so Bhatt takes the stand and instead of denying everything, which you might've expected, he admitted some of the really important things. Two of the charges against him were concealing the body and defiling the body. He admitted those. He, he just said, yeah, okay, I did that. But he had a story behind it. And the story was that instead of murdering Mamta and then dismembering her and concealing the body, instead, what happened was he woke up in the middle of the night, went into the bedroom to go to the bathroom. He was sleeping in a different bedroom. And when he got in there, he discovered Mamta dead. She had killed herself. And that was a shock to him. He panicked. He freaked out. And instead of doing what you would normally do, like call 911 and say, help or get an ambulance and have a funeral, notify the family, none of that happened. Instead, he decided to conceal the body and it was all because he freaked out. That led to a really detailed story. He told about his background, what he had been through his life up until then. And a witness they put on who said, because of this incredible background, he had PTSD. I want to give you a plug for two really important videos that my last two videos, I really think you ought to go see those at the end of this. And it's not because of anything I did. The first one was about the culture argument that Naresh Bhatt kept making. And that one was so interesting because of what you put in the comments. I had comments from all over. People put in about what the meaning was of some of the things that Bhatt was arguing. We'll talk about it a little more at the end, but it was remarkable. I learned so much. And then there was one idea where I went through this story that Bhatt told the jury so you could hear it too. So that's the story Bhatt gave. Mamta did this to herself. He just freaked out. He did a couple of things that yeah, though. Yeah, those are felonies under Virginia law, but it's not murder. And the question for the jury was, was not whether the remaining question wasn't okay. Did he conceal the body? Did he, did he defile it? Because he pretty much admitted that what they had to decide was whether the Commonwealth had proven that he was responsible for Mamta's death in the first place, that it was murder in the first degree. And this was a circumstantial evidence case. So there were things like blood evidence, disturbing Google searches, evidence about the very troubled marriage, or at times when it got troubled. The surveillance footage of Bhatt going to Home Depot and Walmart and buying cleaning supplies. And of course, Bhatt's statements to police and to friends and family. But by the time he took the stand, Bhatt had answers for so much of what had been said by the evidence that had been put in by the prosecution. And that left the jury with two competing accounts of what went on inside that house. Did Mamta die by suicide as the only eyewitness Bhatt claimed? Or did Bhatt murder his wife and dismember her and then come up with this elaborate story to try to get away with murder, try to get out of the charge and the penalty for actual murder? So today, the jury reached its decision. It didn't take them all that long, and about half a day, 1130 to five, maybe something like that. And when the verdict was announced, the courtroom was under strict instructions. Do not react. The judge warned everyone there. There will be no outbursts. And I don't care. You know, it doesn't matter which way it is. No one says anything. No one cries out or makes a fuss. So let's watch what happened. From the record to come with the Virginia [00:07:21] Speaker 2: versus Nuresh shot, the jury has reached a verdict as the deputy has already indicated. And I've shortened it. If you do not, if you're not able to control yourself during this verdict, I'm going to ask you to step out [00:07:32] Speaker 3: now. Do not want any outbursts in the courtroom either way. Members of the jury, have you reached a verdict in the case at the corner? Yes. Yes. Yes. Is this your unanimous verdict? Yes. Yes. - Suspense. - In the matter of the Commonwealth of Virginia versus Naresh.bot, CR 2400-2302-00, we the jury find the accused, Naresh.bot, guilty of transporting, secreting, concealing, or altering a dead body. Signed for a person, juror number 79, dated November 10th, 2026. In the matter of Commonwealth of Virginia versus Naresh.bot in CR 2400-3076-00, the jury find the accused, Naresh.bot, guilty of first-degree murder. - In the matter of the Commonwealth of Virginia versus Naresh.bot, in CR 2400-3077-00, we the jury find the accused, Naresh.bot, guilty of physically defiling a dead human body. [00:09:04] Speaker 1: - Okay, so there you have it. It was a clean sweep for the Commonwealth. They won all three charges against him. Guilty, and then guilty, and then guilty. So, guilty of concealment amongst his body, guilty of defilement of the body. And those two now, remember, those weren't a surprise, because he'd admitted those when he took the stand. The suspense, and there wasn't frankly a ton of that either, but the suspense was around whether he would be convicted of first-degree murder. He took the stand, admitted the two, but he was hoping to win on that final charge of murder, to get a lesser sentence for that. And his story was not only that he walked into the room, the part he admitted was that he used a power saw to cut her body, to fit it in the trash can, and then set that trash can out at the curb for the garbage truck. And the reason behind that, he said, was this remarkable life story. And it is truly remarkable. I don't know if it's true. I have no way of knowing or verifying whether what he said is true, but I will say this, one really good use of his time in prison would be to write his memoirs because, wow, I don't even care if they're fictionalized. It was amazing. It was amazing. You've got to watch that video. It was called Naresh Bot tells an extraordinary life story, and you definitely want to watch that one. But none of that was enough to overcome the state's argument. So let's unpack the state's argument to see why the Commonwealth argued that Bot was guilty and that the jury ultimately agreed. So the first reason was motive, that Bot had a motive to kill Mamta and have been extremely controlling in their marriage, that it was filled with conflict, really, that began at least in February, maybe even a little bit before that. There was one incident where Mamta fell down the stairs and miscarried. There was no suggestion that that was involved, but it was something earlier and it was not ever connected up. The state didn't suggest I was connected. When they began to fit things with the troubled marriage was in about February when the couple separated. And they talked about some of the threats that Bot made to Mamta in advance in, this is before she disappeared, through text messages. Here's, for example, some of what the prosecution argued in closing. [00:11:45] Speaker 4: The days are coming that you'll regret a lot. The defendant, in his own words, told us what he was going to do today. The days are coming that you'll regret a lot. That's a text message that the defendant sent to Mamta Kovler. He told Mamta 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 Mamta Kovler. The defendant dismembered Mamta Kovler. And the defendant got rid of her like garbage. [00:12:45] Speaker 1: Now, I have jacked up the sound on this in case you were wondering. I know it sounds probably a little soft, but I have jacked it way up. And that's what we got. It was not the best sound quality. Sometimes courtrooms aren't. Mamta's friends and family testified at trial and told the jury that Bhatt had been very controlling in the marriage with Mamta. For example, he wanted her to call him Raja. The defense argued, oh, that's a form of endearment. That's dear in the Nepalese, in the Nepali language. That's what it means is dear. But the prosecution said, yeah, that's not what it meant. It meant king or master. So she was ordered to call him master, to call him king. And that was an example the prosecution gave of why they believed he was exceptionally controlling. And then that ultimately moved into actual murder. By the way, would you please hit the like button if you are getting into the video just now? It would really help with our live stream to let you two know we're here. And I would appreciate it. [00:13:59] Speaker 4: The Raja who cut off Mamta's phone. The Raja who restricted her access to money. Who restricted her access to a car. A Raja who did not love her. A Raja who mistreated her. Abused her. The Raja actively searched for a good girl. A Colombian girl. All while he was still married to Mamta Kahle. Saying to the king. To the king. The Raja. [00:14:51] Speaker ?: Mamta didn't listen to him. [00:14:52] Speaker 4: Mamta didn't listen to her parents. His parents. Mamta didn't clean like she was supposed to. Mamta no longer fit. The mold that he had created for her. And to the king. To the king. To the king. [00:15:01] Speaker ?: The Raja. [00:15:02] Speaker 4: Mamta didn't listen to him. Mamta didn't listen to him. Mamta didn't listen to her parents. His parents. [00:15:06] Speaker ?: Mamta didn't clean like she was supposed to. [00:15:09] Speaker 4: Mamta no longer fit. The mold that he had created for her. Into the mold that he wanted her to stay in. She no longer fit in that. She was pursuing her American dream. She was going to be an American citizen. With her daughter. [00:15:30] Speaker 1: So I want to talk for just a minute about why I thought that was such a powerful argument. One of the things that the defense had done successfully, I think, during the testimony from Naresh Bhatt is to cast him as a person who had gone through an incredible amount overseas, who gave up everything he had to come to the United States, and who was doing his best to live the American dream. He served. He served. He served. He joined the military, and he was actively working to pursue what Americans would value. He was working hard. He was doing the things that they would respect. So what the prosecution has done is turned all of that around. And she said, why was he so angry with her? Why was he so needing to control her? It's because she was doing that. She was pursuing the American dream. She was a nurse. She had a good job. She was going to be independent and be able to stand on her own. She was going to be able to care for her child. She was going to move forward, and she was going to leave him behind. Those are the arguments that the state is making, the Commonwealth. So the defense had argued that it was not just a beleaguered husband and Mamta was off the rails, that she was unable to be controlled, and therefore he reacted to that. It wasn't like that at all, the Commonwealth said. He was cheating on her. He was actively trying to repress her in numerous ways because she was too uppity, too into the American dream. A lot of that began, they said, in that February separation that the couple went through. And a lot of what we know about their troubles dates from about then. There was an incident where Mamta called the police and she actually moved out and stayed with a friend for several days. I saw different accounts, but maybe up to 19 days. Now, Mamta called police. Police came out to the house, but they said that Mamta stopped communicating with them. And so they didn't charge anyone in the incident. [00:17:55] Speaker 4: Mamta was messing that up in February. Told her the marriage was over. Now, by no measure was he husband of the year at any time before this. But this single event changed the trajectory of the relationship for the months after that. From that moment, he became a scorned Raja, a king. From that moment is when he starts plotting and planning how to kill his wife. No normal person searches the things that we presented to you. No normal person does that. [00:19:00] Speaker 1: And she had a really good point. Those Google searches were very difficult to explain. They explained so much, but sometimes the explanations just went way too far. And they tried to explain things that clearly just looked suspicious. Why was he searching for about his wife were to die in a divorce? She was young. She was in her twenties. There was no reason to suspect that would happen or searching that someone disappears in a divorce. Why would that happen? And it didn't fit with his story, but it did fit with the Commonwealth story that he killed her. And that was what made it so incredibly powerful. And it sounded like he was threatening her in some of these or at least planning some kind of dangerous action against her, thinking in advance about getting rid of her. Now, the second point I think that the prosecution really drove home during closing was that what Bott's story did when he took the stand was he admitted what he absolutely could not deny. He admitted the bare minimum he had to, to try to not be convicted on the murder. He took a big gamble at trial to admit those lesser charges in hopes that that persuaded the jury that he was being truthful. And then once the jury accepts that you're being truthful, then deny the primary charge, the murder charge. So, in other words, lose the little stuff to win the big stuff. Now, by little stuff, let's be clear that it was still a felony. I'm still talking about years in prison, but it wouldn't be 20 years to life. It would be a lot less than that. But the story ended up being very complex. In order to explain away all the evidence, he had to kind of bob and weave like admitting this, but denying that to make it all fit. There were just far too many convenient explanations. It became ultimately more difficult to believe. Now, the prosecution just laid that out for the jury. Look at what he had to admit and why he would admit those particular things. He did it, they said, to get away with something. It's not a good guy who's just coming forward. He is trying to get away with something. This is all very intentional. Let's hear the next clip. [00:21:37] Speaker 4: The defendant did not have to testify at all in this case. He chose to. And he would have had an absolute right not to testify. But he chose to. That's important. He had to admit what he could not deny and deny what he could not admit. What did he admit to? He admitted to dismembering his wife. He admitted that he couldn't fit her into the garbage can. He had to cut her up into pieces to get her in there. And he had to do a couple tries. The first time she didn't fit. He had to take her out. Cut her up. Put her back in there. He had to admit that he cut up the mother of his child. He admitted that he concealed her death from her loved ones. [00:23:16] Speaker 1: So, as you can see, what the prosecution is doing is talking about the way that he carefully crafted the story so that he would not be guilty of murder while still admitting all the points he had to admit because the evidence was so strong around those. The ultimate issue then that the jury had to decide is, has the Commonwealth proven the murder case beyond a reasonable doubt? And so the Commonwealth brought the jury back to the question, is all of this excusing truly reasonable doubt? Or is this just the only explanation that he could think of that would explain away as much as possible? I mean, is this something where we truly have reasonable doubt? Here's what she said. [00:24:13] Speaker 4: Now, ladies and gentlemen, the question is not whether you can imagine a world where Manta somehow committed suicide. The real question that you have to resolve amongst yourselves, does it match the multitude of evidence that has been presented to you? Does it make sense? Absolutely not. The real question is, is that the fact that you have to do this, is that the fact that you have to do this, is that the fact that you have to do this, is that the fact that you have to do this, is that the fact that you have to do this, is that the fact that you have to do this, is that the fact that you have to do this, is that the fact that you have to do this, is that the fact that you have to do this. And that's the fact that you have to do this. And that's the fact that you have to do this. And that's the fact that you have to do this. [00:25:07] Speaker ?: And that's the fact that you have to do this. [00:25:08] Speaker 4: And that's the fact that you have to do this. [00:25:09] Speaker ?: And that's the fact that you have to do this. [00:25:10] Speaker 4: And that's the fact that you have to do this. And that's the fact that you have to do this. And that's the fact that you have to do this. And that's the fact that you have to do this. And that's the fact that you have to do this. And that's the fact that you have to do this. And that's the fact that you have to do this. And that's the fact that you have to do this. [00:25:18] Speaker ?: And that's the fact that you have to do this. And that's the fact that you have to do this. [00:25:20] Speaker 4: And that's the fact that you have to do this. And that's the fact that you have to do this. And that's the fact that you have to do this. And that's the fact that you have to do this. [00:25:24] Speaker ?: And that's the fact that you have to do this. [00:25:25] Speaker 4: And that's the fact that you have to do this. And that's the fact that you have to do this. And say, "Well, that guy, he admitted to pretty terrible things about chopping up Mamta, literally using a saw on her body, stuffing her in the garbage can, getting rid of her belongings. So he must be telling the truth now. That is what he wants. Don't let him control the narrative." [00:25:54] Speaker 1: I thought that was really exceptionally powerful. And the reason is, she went straight at the issue. She told them, "You may be tempted to see what's happened as reasonable doubt. To see his testimony as presenting reasonable doubt. But that is letting him, as the only witness in the room, control the narrative. Don't let him do that." And she even made a point of telling them, "He's trying to control you. And what you do." He tried to control Mamta. He tried to control the police to craft a narrative just so for them. That didn't work. And now he wants to control you. Don't let it happen. So she asked the jury to look at the facts and ask, "What's reasonable? What's a reasonable interpretation of the facts as we've seen them? And is it that Mamta killed herself or is a more reasonable interpretation that Bot committed murder?" [00:26:58] Speaker ?: And ask yourself one question. [00:26:59] Speaker 4: Do not call 911. A normal person who finds their wife dead on the floor with some supposed poison, calls 911. And somehow he wants us to believe it's a cultural thing? Are you kidding? He called the police on Akash. He knew how to do that. But couldn't do it in this case? This story doesn't make sense. You heard from the expert that the Commonwealth scrambled to find was that the poison that he's claiming Mamta used to kill herself is activated by water. It creates a gas. So this whole, I found her dead with this powder that I could definitely tell was this poison. Then I started putting water on her. And then I did CPR for 45 minutes to an hour. Is unbelievable. That is the best story he could come up with to make the evidence fit his own narrative. To try to get some sort of benefit. Cannot emphasize this more, ladies and gentlemen. That defendant, all he cares about is himself. [00:28:45] Speaker 1: Again, super powerful argument. And it certainly, we saw it throughout the trial, Bot definitely was into self-preservation. Everything from concealing the body and the way he did it to throwing out her belongings to lying as he admitted, lying to her family to keep them from knowing, lying to the police. He admitted that. So clearly he was into self-preservation. And so that was such a powerful point. Would he really give CPR to someone he thinks took poison? And the poison, that was to me, one of the most unbelievable parts of the story. That he happened to see powder in the vomit. It hadn't mixed. He was able to see it. He recognized it as matching the pesticide, which he discovered on a lower shelf in the house. A lower shelf with a one year old in the house. And so he was saying that he didn't bring this in. Mamta did. So the mother of a just about one year old brought in poison and left it on a lower shelf for an almost, in a house with an almost one year old. And he said, this was a pesticide and it was only used in Nepal. So how would she get that from Nepal? Did she bring it in luggage? Bring, you know, poisonous pesticide in luggage? Like, how did that happen? And he said, well, I don't know. Which was a good answer. Obviously you wouldn't know that. But between the two of them, who would be more likely to have pesticide? Would it be Mamta who just brought it over from Nepal for unknown reasons? Or would it be, would it be, um, bought? Because he actually ran a pest control company. And he made a point to the jury saying that this pesticide he had brought in, what, sorry, that Freudian slipped there. This pesticide was not sold in the U.S. It had to have been brought in from Nepal. Now I looked it up and that was not the answer I got, but that's what the jury had. And the jury could accept that or not. No one testified that it was also available in the U.S. But you had someone who actually worked with pesticides and had been in that business versus Mamta who just would have brought it over in her luggage for a completely unclear reason. So I thought that explanation for the poison was one of the more unbelievable parts of the story that he told. But the ultimate story, of course, or the ultimate question, I should say, for the jury was, did Mamta commit suicide and then he decided to cut her up and throw her away? Or did he kill her? And what the idea that she would have done this to herself did not fit with what anyone else said about Mamta. All of the people who knew her thought that this was unrealistic and that she would not have left her child. [00:31:57] Speaker 4: A mother of an 11-month-old child would not have just gotten up and left. Definitely not committed suicide. She had plans. She loved that little girl. And somehow the defendant wants us to believe that she committed suicide. She was so unhappy about her relationship with him. And he was contemplating suicide during this moment of panic for days. And then he looked over and saw toys. And remember, he has a daughter, so he can't commit suicide. But he expects us to believe that Mamta would? The mother of that child? [00:32:42] Speaker 1: And I thought, again, good argument. The prosecution pointed out that Mamta had less motive than he, less motive to arm herself as opposed to he did to murder her. And remember, and they did not push this, but she was, according to the testimony, one interview away from becoming a U.S. citizen. In which case, she no longer needed him and needed the marriage to him. She missed that last appointment because she disappeared. But it obviously would have changed her position. She had a great job as a nurse and she was about to become a citizen. [00:33:26] Speaker 4: Mamta had no reason to kill herself. The defendant had absolutely every reason to get rid of her. Motive, opportunity, intent. Premeditation. Months of premeditation. Typically, in first-degree murder cases, we don't see months of premeditation. Premeditation. You have a jury instruction that says premeditation can be instantaneous. A moment before. We have months of him planning on what to do. Master manipulator. [00:34:05] Speaker ?: Master liar. [00:34:05] Speaker 4: All of the evidence that you've heard, including his own testimony. There's only one reasonable verdict in this case. Guilty on all three charges. Don't let him control the lasting memory of Mamta. And there you have it. [00:34:38] Speaker 1: After weeks of testimony, the jury found Naresh Bhatt guilty of first-degree murder, defiling Mamta's body and concealing her remains. What stood out to me about the case is that Bhatt admitted to some of the most horrific conduct we've heard about in the trial. He admitted the dismembering, the disposing of, but he insisted he was innocent of murder. Now, ultimately, we know the jury did not believe him. We don't know which pieces of evidence the jury picked out as most important. Was it Google searches? Was it his controlling behavior? Was it the poison or the blood evidence? We don't know. Whatever they thought individually, they unanimously concluded that the Commonwealth had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Bhatt will be sentenced in March. And although the trial is over, there are still some important questions in this case that I want to explore. So I've got a couple more videos likely to come out on this. But tonight, I want to hear from you. What was, to you, the single most important piece of evidence against Naresh Bhatt? Was there a particular moment in the trial when you became convinced he was guilty? Or did you have doubts right up until the time of the verdict? So let me know in the comments. I read as many as I can. I always enjoy hearing your thoughts. So let's do a few questions. And if you have a question, if you would put question marks at the beginning, it'll make it a little easier for me to spot that. I want to shout out our first five in tonight's chat while y'all are getting your questions in. Dash Lamar, Jinda Bomb, Loretta Powell, LW3021, and InChristAlone14. And shout out to Armand Marlin. Much appreciate him being here on very short notice as well. All right. So let's take a look. And I also need to thank Oh Hi Kitty. I hope I can. It's a long way away. I hope I'm reading that right. Oh, thank you. I really appreciate that. Both the super chat and your super nice comment. Thank you. Very appreciated. Okay. So let's take a look and see if y'all had any questions about it. I do really want y'all to go back and watch those two videos. And like I say, it's not because of anything I said in the videos. It's other people. The story about Naresh Bhatt's life story that I published today. This story is unbelievable. You must hear this. Now, it may be unbelievable, but it is truly remarkable. And you need to hear that. And then the, like I say, he needs to write memoirs because it's incredible. The other one I did last night was about the culture issue because over and over again, Bhatt explained problems with people understanding his testimony or things he meant as cultural differences. And so I wanted to explore that. Is that something that really what I and I was looking just practically speaking logically. Did it fit? Did it make sense? But I said, I don't know the culture from Nepal. I have no idea whether he's telling me the truth or not. I'm just going to assume he is and look at the logical side of what he's saying or illogical. And it was so that was really interesting to me. But what was phenomenal was your comments, because so many people with far more knowledge than I had about the cultural, about the culture, made comments and explained it. And it was just a fascinating discussion. So definitely go back and look at that for the comments. I'd appreciate it if you'd watch the video, too, but mostly for the comments because they were that good. All right. Let's see if there are any questions. How long did the jury deliberate? It was roughly five hours. I think it was a little after 11:30 when they went out. And I believe the jury was reading it sometime around five. It could have been a little earlier. I meant to look at the clock and I forgot. So I don't know exactly, but roughly five hours, something. Why so long till sentencing, Dandy's mom asked. I know, right? It was really a long time. Sentence in March. I mean, remember in South Carolina, Alec Murdoch gets like, okay, you're guilty. Would you like to be sentenced right now? And they were like, can we have like overnight? So this is really a long time. Some states have a sentencing report that gets put in. In Virginia, that probably makes a lot of sense because there's not apparently an automatic life sentence. It could be a term of years up to a life sentence. So there might be a real reason to talk about his background or things in his past. He told the story already. So the judge does have the advantage of that already, but there could well be some things that would be researched and that would be presented to the judge. But it probably also has to do with the fact that we're about to move into the Thanksgiving and Christmas season and everything slows down then. So I think it was a long time too. I was very surprised myself. Tech Misto is asking, will he serve those charges in sequence or parallel? I don't know yet. And I don't think anyone knows. I think the judge will make that decision. Sometimes judges run them concurrently, sometimes consecutively. I don't know what the judge will decide to do here. No one will know until March. And the judge probably doesn't know yet. Okay. Andromeda Skywalker wants to know doubts till he testified. I'm probably asking all of you, did you have doubts until he testified? The answer for me was no, no doubts before he testified. And when he testified, it didn't really change things for me. Initially, I really tried to latch onto that, but the poison was just so irrational to me. That whole story made very little sense. So that was kind of where I fell out on that one, I would say. All right. Doubt, let's see. But that is a good question for everyone. Didn't he waste the court's time by first pleading not guilty, then later admitting to some charges? Can the judge consider this? Ask Texas two pugs. In general, that's a common thing for defendants to do. They often enter a guilty plea. Now, what was unusual here was he let that guilty plea run all the way through until trial without revealing it to the other side. But he was entitled to do that and allowed to do that. Would the judge hold it against him? Probably not because it's permitted. I am sure that the prosecution was very upset at the last minute surprise. And the prosecutor said in closing, she had no idea this was coming. This was a surprise to her, too. So that would be extremely hard when you tried your entire case and suddenly a brand new, completely different theory gets thrown out there. So there's a lot of thinking on your feet required. All right, why wouldn't the defense have anyone testify to back up his story as TCZ3UR? I probably said that wrong. I'm not sure how to pronounce that. I would say because there wasn't anyone to back it up. The only person who, according to his story, it will fit his story. The only person who went into the room and saw mom to dad was Naresh Bhatt. And the only person who cut her up, went to the trash can, took it out to the curb, was Naresh Bhatt. There was no one else involved. And so he didn't have anyone to back it up. Now, there might have been people to back up the idea that he wasn't abusive, say. But I suppose the only people would really be his mother, who was present in the household, his mother and father, who came over for a lengthy visit. And that just may not have been possible. Or maybe it just wasn't practical since they do not live in the United States. All right. Ruth, has her mom said if they'd stay in the States or go back to Nepal? I don't know. And I was trying to find that out today. I was doing research, trying to figure it out. According to what we've heard, they've been in the United States ever since the disappearance of Mamta. And they are caring for the child. This is Mamta's mother, Mamta's brother, are caring for the child. And I'm just trying to figure out, were they allowed to work? I mean, how are they doing this? And now, do they have to go back to Nepal? Or were they given some kind of special allowance because of the circumstances? That is it going to end or will it be forever? Those of you who know anything about the immigration status, I would be very interested in knowing that. Please do put that in the comments. I would be interested in knowing. I know other people would as well. Simply Morgan says, what made him think he could get away with this? Well, I don't know. He did not get very far. I mean, he was arrested pretty quickly after this happened. And his first real chance to change the narrative did not happen for two years and didn't go anywhere with the jury. So there you have it. Why would the defense not have someone testifying to culture? I think as T, I'm just going to call TCZ. Okay. And I think it's because Bott did it. Anyone else might not have done it exactly the way he did it. And he used that repeatedly throughout it to explain. And at any time, really, that there was something that sounded like he was saying something damning. He would say, oh, that was cultural. You misunderstood me. And there was always an explanation like that. Now, the prosecution actually, the prosecution combated that a little bit, but they didn't have a direct witness to do it. But there was an example on the, when the state put on its rebuttal case where Mamta's brother did the same thing. And he said, I've been misunderstood culturally. You didn't understand what I meant. So that was interesting that it was, and of course it could be real, right? There is a huge gulf in the understanding when you don't know the other person's culture. That's kind of the whole point of the jury of your peers, is people who understand the background and the context. And here, that's more difficult. Chevy Hawk is asking, could the federal government charge him for lying about where he was born on his army application? I don't think that would be something they would bother to do at this point because it's such a small thing compared to whatever he's facing in terms of the prison sentence for murder. I don't think they would ever bother with that. What he is, what Chevy Hawk is talking about is that there was testimony that he was actually born in India, but he listed Nepal as where he was born. And the reason being that he was born in India to parents who were from Nepal. And when he was two and a half, he went back to Nepal. And somehow that was considered by him to be where he lived, where he was from. And so he listed it as a place he was born. I think that's not going to be enough to capture the attention of the federal government. That would be my best guess, especially since he was convicted. I think there's not a lot of reason to do it now. Oh, thank you, River Birch. River Birch, a nice comment. I won't read it, but that was really kind. Thank you. And well, okay, I'll read it. How long did it take you to become so smart and beautiful? The answer is it's been a very, very long time, River Birch. So I'm not going to necessarily agree to the smart and beautiful, but I will have to say it's been a long time. Thank you. That was very kind. All right. Roseanne, the mad bookkeeper. What a great title. Do you think that it would have been harder for the jury to reach a guilty verdict if he had not admitted to the dismemberment and disposals? Really interesting question, right? Because they would have had nothing about what happened from him if he had not taken the stand. They wouldn't have had his admission for that. But I felt like the momentum against him was so strong. All of the evidence coming in that really pointed to him. I don't think he had another shot other than to testify. As it turns out, he also didn't have a shot if he did testify. So now we know the answer to that. So I think it would have been hard either way. Scooter, what might be some issues he can use for appeal? That's an interesting question. I'll have to give that some thought. I haven't really thought about that, but that is a really interesting question, Scooter. All right. Andromeda is asking me about Melanie. I don't know what you mean by that. So, Tech Misto, did the defense just give up at the end? They started off at the Founding Fathers' Rant and then went off humiliating the jury on their obligations. I don't think it would have been giving up. I think that just would be a personal style. Different people do closing arguments very differently. Very structured, very organized, reading it. You saw that that was a very scripted presentation from the prosecution and some people do it less so. So it just comes out a little differently. I think that's the only difference. I don't think it was anything more than that. Well, his life story, not the incident. Yes, his life story is the video I was talking about. You really, really want to trust me. You really want to do that. Well, all right. Let me give you kind of our schedule for what we're doing. I've got another couple of videos probably that I'm going to put out on this. Just some thought pieces about what's happened here and what I think was important. So I hope you'll watch those. We've, I am going to, I normally go live on Wednesday since we went live on Tuesday. I probably will still go live tomorrow, but I may drop a video instead. I'll try to let y'all know in advance which way it'll be. But I hope you'll watch either way. If you haven't hit the like button, I would really appreciate it if you would. And if you're not subscribed, we would love to have you back for more. more. Thank you so much for watching and I will see you in the next one.