Naresh Bhatt: He Admitted Dismembering His Wife — But Denies Murder!

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: A stunning admission in a Virginia courtroom, a man accused of murdering his wife now admits he dismembered her body and disposed of her remains, but he insists he didn't kill her. Why didn't he call 911 and will his explanation convince the jury? Plus, JonBenet Ramsey's brother breaks his silence and an Amazon dryer killer learns his fate. Those stories and more today on Crime Talk. I'm Scott Reich. Let's talk about it. All right, lawyer. Lawyer. Lawyer. We have a major development today in the Virginia murder trial of Naresh Bhatt, the man accused of killing his wife, Mamta Kaf Bhatt, whose body has never been found. And what happened in court Thursday is nothing short of extraordinary. For the first time, Bhatt publicly admitted that he dismembered his wife's body and disposed of her remains. But he insists he did not murder her. Instead, he's telling jurors that he found her already dead, panicked and made a series of decisions he now cannot fully explain. Remember, Bhatt is facing charges of first degree murder, concealing a dead body and defiling a dead body in connection with Mamat's disappearance in July of 2024. Prosecutors believe he killed her inside their Manassas Park home and then went to extraordinary lengths to destroy evidence and dispose of her remains. Throughout the investigation, Bhatt maintained that he did not know where his wife had gone. Now, after prosecutors presented weeks of evidence, he is offering a dramatically different explanation. Now, according to his testimony Thursday today, Bhatt went to bed on the night of July 29th, 2024, while his wife remained downstairs. When he woke up early the following morning, he claimed he found Mamat lying on the bedroom floor surrounded by vomit containing what appeared to be blood, food and pill capsules. He also testified that he noticed an open package of selfos, a highly toxic pesticide suggesting that his wife may have taken her own life. That is Bhatt's explanation and the cause of Mamat's death has not been independently established. Now, Bhatt told jurors he attempted to revive his wife performing CPR and other life-saving measures for approximately 45 minutes to an hour. But he never called 911. And when his attorney asked him why, Bhatt said he was scared and panicked, adding that even after years of thinking about what happened, he still could not explain why he failed to call for help. What followed was even more disturbing. Bhatt testified that he initially considered disposing of his wife's body in the Potomac River. He went shopping, looking for materials that might help him conceal her remains. Eventually, he returned home and tried to fit her body into a trash container. When it wouldn't fit, he decided to dismember her. According to his testimony, he initially struggled to carry out that plan. But the following day, July 31st, he used a saw and knives to dismember Mamat's remains and placed them into multiple trash bags, which he then put out for collection. He also acknowledged that surveillance footage presented during the trial showed some of his activities during that period. Now think about what this means for the defense. For weeks, prosecutors have presented evidence involving blood found inside the home, purchases of cleaning supplies, surveillance footage, and a saw that investigators connected to Mamataz through forensic testing. Until today, the defense could challenge what those pieces of evidence actually proved. But now Bhatt has acknowledged that he dismembered and disposed of his wife's body. That does not automatically establish that he murdered her. And that's an extremely important distinction. Now, the prosecution still has to prove the elements of first-degree murder beyond a reasonable doubt. Bhatt's explanation is that his wife was already dead when he found her. The prosecution's position is that he caused her death. But this admission creates an enormous problem for his credibility. Jurors have already heard evidence about what Bhatt told investigators when his wife disappeared. Now they have to compare those earlier statements with the extraordinary account he is giving in on the witness stand. Now, why did he tell authorities he did not know where Mamata was? Why did he never summons emergency responders? And why would someone who says he had nothing to do with his wife's death decide to dismember and dispose of her body rather than report what happened? Those are questions prosecutors will undoubtedly want to explore. And remember, once Bhatt voluntarily took the witness stand, he exposed himself to cross-examination within the limits of the applicable rules of evidence, obviously. And his attorney may believe this explanation offers a way to acknowledge the physical evidence while maintaining his innocence on the murder charge. But prosecutors now given an opportunity to challenge every part of that account. And there's another legal distinction worth considering. Even if jurors were to accept that Bhatt did not kill his wife, that would not necessarily resolve the separate charges involving the concealment and obviously the defilement of her body. Those offenses involve different elements for murder and the prosecution must prove each charge independently. And as a criminal defense attorney, I find the strategy somewhat fascinating because the defense appears to be making an enormous concession in an effort to preserve reasonable doubt about the most serious allegation. They're essentially telling jurors that Bhatt did something horrific after his wife died, but that he was not responsible for causing her death. Will that distinction be enough? Or will jurors view the explanation as an attempt to account for overwhelming forensic evidence while avoiding responsibility for murder? The prosecution has already spent weeks presenting his case. Now the defendant himself has acknowledged some of the most disturbing conduct described during that testimony. But the central question remains unanswered. How did Mamta Bhatt actually die? And that's ultimately what this jury must decide. An admission to dismembering a body is not automatically an admission to murder. But explaining why you concealed the body rather than calling for help may be one of the toughest challenges any defendant could face on the witness stand. What do you think? Could you believe someone who admits dismembering his wife's body, but insists he has absolutely nothing to do with her death? Let me know in the comments. I didn't kill her. I just dismembered her. Nearly 30 years after the murder of six-year-old John Benet Ramsey, one of America's most famous unsolved cases is receiving some renewed attention. And this time the person speaking publicly is her older brother, Burke Ramsey, who was just nine years old when his sister was killed inside the family's Boulder, Colorado home. And in a new interview with the Daily Mail, Burke is calling for investigators to pursue the DNA evidence that he believes could finally identify the person responsible. Now, Jean Benet was found dead in the basement of her family's home on December 26, 1996, hours after her mother reported finding a ransom note. The case immediately became a national sensation. There were questions about the crime scene, the unusual ransom demand, evidence collected inside the house and the actions of investigators during those first critical hours. Despite decades of investigation, interviews, forensic testing and enormous public attention, no one has been convicted of her murder. Burke, who is now 39 years old, has rarely spoken publicly about the case. For years, he and his family have lived under intensive scrutiny, fueled partly by theories that circulated through television programs, documentaries and online discussions. And in his latest interview, Burke again denied involvement in his sister's death and insisted that he believes the answer lies in the DNA evidence. His central message is that investigators should continue submitting available samples to laboratories capable of using new testing methods. That brings us to what investigators have called unknown male one. It's an unidentified male DNA profile associated with evidence collected from John Benet's clothing. In 2008, Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacey cited DNA evidence when announcing that the Ramsey family was no longer considered suspect suspects by her office. But the interpretations of that evidence has remained controversial. With forensic experts raising questions over the years about the profile, its possible sources, and what conclusions can reasonably be drawn from it. And this is where the science matters. Finding DNA on an item does not automatically establish that the person who left that DNA committed a crime. Investigators must determine how the biological material arrived there, whether contamination or innocent transfer is possible, and how reliably the evidence can be associated with a particular person. Those questions become especially difficult when dealing with older evidence, small samples, or mixtures involving more than one contributor. And newer forensic techniques include investigative genetic genealogy, have helped authorities identify suspects in previously unsolved cases, but those techniques depend on the quality, quantity, and suitability of the underlying DNA evidence. And investigators cannot simply place every sample into a database and expect a name to appear. They have to establish that the material can support reliable analysis, and any investigative leave must then be independently verified. Now, the renewed attention is also arriving ahead of a two-hour ABC news investigation scheduled to air this Friday. Diane Sawyer and Aaron Katursky are revisiting the case, examining the unidentified DNA profile, and presenting interviews with people connected to the investigation. As the 30th anniversary approaches, the question remains whether developments in forensic science might finally accomplish what decades of traditional investigative work have not. For Burke Ramsey, the issue is deeply personal. He says he wants his his sister's murder solved and believes additional DNA testing offered the best opportunity to get there. But an important distinction remains between a family member's confidence in the evidence and a forensic conclusion that a particular person committed the crime. Investigators still have to establish that connection. And until they do, this remains an unresolved murder. JonBenet Ramsey was six years old with a family, a life, and a future that was taken from her. Thirty years later, the objective should remain the same. Follow the evidence, identify the person responsible, and bring that person to justice. Now, do you believe advances in DNA technology will finally solve the JonBenet Ramsey case? Or has too much time passed for investigators to recover the answers that they need? We now turn to Dallas, where testimony continues in the murder-for-hire trial involving rapper Yella Beezy, whose legal name is Marquise Conway. Now, prosecutors accused Conway of arranging the killing of fellow rapper M03, whose real name was Melvin Noble, during a deadly ambush on a Dallas highway back in November of 2020. Now, Conway has pled not guilty and the jury is now hearing testimony. Prosecutors hope will connect the shooting to an alleged financial arrangement. On Wednesday, Cedric Bradley, a childhood friend of convicted gunman Kiwan White, testified that White confessed to shooting M03 and expected to receive payment for the killing. Now, according to Bradley, White was angry because he believed he had not received the money he was promised. The testimony gives prosecutors another piece of their murder-for-hire theory, but it also creates a significant credibility problem for the jury to consider. Now, Bradley is a federal inmate with his own criminal history and potential sentencing consequences. Defense attorneys challenged his reliability, pointing to his federal drug and machine gun case, his exposure to a potentially lengthy prison sentence, and a previous meeting with investigators in which he reportedly denied having information about the murder. Jurors also heard from forensic financial analyst Deanna Davenport, who discussed Conway's bank accounts and two cash withdrawals of $40,000 each. One withdrawal occurred nine days after M03 was killed. Prosecutors are drawing attention to the timing and size of those transactions, while the defense maintains that large withdrawals do not prove money was used to pay for a murder, particularly when the defendant had legitimate entertainment income. Today, lead detective Eric Barnes returned to the stand. He discussed surveillance footage, phone records, and the longstanding tensions between the two rappers. Investigators also described a vehicle that allegedly watched M03's location for hours before the fatal highway shooting. Now, the jury was shown videos connected to the feud as prosecutors continued laying out their theory of the case. And this is the central issue for the jury. Do statements from witnesses with their own legal problems, combined with financial activity and surveillance evidence, establish a murder for higher conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt? Or are prosecutors asking jurors to connect the dots that might have innocent explanations? Large cash withdrawals may look suspicious, but suspicion and proof are not the same thing. A Missouri man has been sentenced to 40 years in prison for the murder of a 23-year-old Amazon delivery driver who was simply making her rounds. The victim was Jasmine Taylor, and the details of what happened to her are both disturbing and difficult to understand. On February 5th, 2025, Taylor was driving along a rural road in Lawrence County when Thomas Coy encountered her delivery car. According to investigators, Coy retrieved a high-powered pellet rifle and fired at Taylor as she passed his property. She was struck in the head, lost control of her car, and crashed through a fence. What happened next makes this case even more troubling. Investigators say Coy approached the damaged delivery vehicle, removed Taylor from the driver's seat, and placed her in a roadside ditch. Taylor was still alive after the shooting, but was suffering catastrophic injuries and died several days later. Now investigators say Coy and Taylor did not know each other. Reports indicate that Coy had complained about delivery vehicles traveling along the road, but authorities have not established a definitive motive for the attack. Now Coy ultimately pled guilty to second-degree murder and armed criminal action. And then on November 2nd, he received a 30-year sentence for murder and an additional 10 years to be served consecutively. Now there is a difference between a confrontation that escalates unexpectedly and a situation in which someone obtained a weapon and fires at a passing vehicle. But regardless of whatever anger Coy may have felt, Jasmine Taylor was simply doing her job, her family now has to live with the consequences of an utterly senseless killing. After days of testimony, in an Ohio courtroom, a jury has found Andrew Griffin guilty on all five counts submitted for his consideration in the murders of Thomas and Angela Strusson. The couple was killed inside their Belmont County home back in September of 2021, and prosecutors alleged that Griffin shot them before setting the house on fire. Now Griffin previously had a business relationship with Thomas Strusson and prosecutors presented evidence about disputes involving that relationship. And over the course of the trial, jurors also heard testimony from witnesses connected to the alleged planning of the killings. That included Brett Cole, who testified under a grant of immunity. And Dalton Ray, whose refusal to answer questions despite receiving immunity, became a significant courtroom issue. After approximately four and a half hours of deliberation on Wednesday, jurors returned guilty verdicts on four aggravated murder counts and one aggravated arson count. The murder counts involved the different legal theories related to the deaths of the two victims. The jury also found the associated firearm specification proven sentencing is now scheduled for December 1st. The death penalty is no longer being sought, but Griffin faces the possibility of spending the rest of his life in prison. For me, one of the most interesting aspects of this case remains the use of immunity. Prosecutors sometimes must must offer protection to individuals who may have participated in or witness criminal activity in order to obtain testimony against another defendant. The difficulty is those agreements give the defense an opportunity to question a witness's motive. But in this case, the jury ultimately found the evidence that the prosecution's evidence was sufficient to convict Griffin today marks the sixth day of testimony in the Connecticut manslaughter trial of Cooper Coulette, the young man accused in the death of 17 year old Sophie Ringquist. The prosecution rested Wednesday and the defense has begun presenting its case. One of the most important questions now concerns evidence generated from life 360, the cell phone location tracking application. Prosecutors presented a forensic animation using location records from the phones associated with Ouellette and Ringquist. The animation was intended to help jurors understand their movements before Ringquist's deaths in May of 2023. Now, Ouellette faces charges including manslaughter and delivering alcohol to a minor and the prosecution contends that he caused Ringquist to fall from his moving truck and then fatally ran over her. The defense has challenged the accuracy and the reliability of the location data. During questioning, attorneys raised concerns about the application's error rates and whether its measurements could support the precise conclusion prosecutors were asking the jurors to draw. Defense digital forensic expert Jeffrey Martin testified that the application was not sufficiently accurate for certain location and speed determinations. On cross-examination, however, prosecutors questioned him about his review of the underlying records and whether he had independently tested the application. And that's an important legal distinction. A digital animation can be very persuasive because it gives the appearance of a precise reconstruction. But the reliability of the illustration depends on the data and the assumption used to create it. An animation does not become scientifically accurate simply because it looks convincing. Defense is also questioning aspects of the police investigation, including decisions about testing Ouellette for possible intoxication. Lead investigator Ryan Slaby testified that he believed too much time had passed to obtain meaningful testing and that it was unclear whether Ouellette had consumed alcohol. The questioning became contentious enough that the judge admonished the attorneys. Now, ultimately, jurors must decide how much weight to give to the location evidence alongside witness testimony, investigative findings, and the rest of the evidence presented in court. It's a good reminder that technology can help explain a case But it cannot replace the requirements of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. How about a little history? On November 5, 1872, women's rights activist Susan B. Anthony voted in the presidential election in Rochester, New York, even though women were generally prohibited from voting under the laws of the time. Anthony argued that the 14th amendment protected her right to vote as a citizen. She was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted the following year. The judge directed the jury to return a guilty verdict and Anthony was fined $100 which she refused to pay. Nearly five decades later, the 19th amendment prohibited denying the right to vote on account of sex. Her case remains a powerful example of civil disobedience and the long struggle of voting rights. On November 5, 1968, Shirley Chisholm was elected to the United States House of Representatives from New New York becoming the first black woman elected to Congress. A former educator and state legislator, Chisholm went on to champion civil rights educational opportunities and greater economic security for American families. In 1972, she also became the first black woman to seek a major party's presidential nomination. Her election represented a historic expansion of political representation in the United States. Then on November 5, 1996, California voters approved Proposition 215, known as the Compassionate Use Act, permitting qualifying patients and their caregivers to possess and cultivate marijuana for medical purposes under state law when recommended by a physician. The measure represented a significant departure from decades of drug enforcement policy. It did not eliminate federal federal restrictions, but it helped create the legal and political framework for later debate about medical marijuana legalization, federalism, and criminal enforcement. Now, today's legal quote comes from former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., who wrote in 1918, quote, "A word is not a crystal transparent and change. It is the skin of a living thought." Holmes understood that words don't always have one fixed meaning. Their meaning can change depending on the circumstances and the context in which they're used. And that's especially important in a courtroom where a single statement taken out of context can sound very different from what the speaker actually intends. The law requires more than simply examining individual words. It requires understanding what those words mean in the larger picture. And finally, it's time for our dumb criminal of the day. Apparently, one Florida man wanted free donuts so badly that he decided asking for them wasn't enough. Police in the Lady Lake area say 67-year-old Lonnie Cantrell had been following a donut delivery driver along his route, repeatedly asking for free donuts. The driver repeatedly refused, which apparently didn't discourage Cantrell. When the delivery truck stopped outside of Circle K in the villages and the driver went inside, police say Cantrell opened the truck's side door and helped him to approximately $80 worth of donuts. Unfortunately for our alleged donut enthusiast, the driver spotted his vehicle and pointed it out to police. Officers stopped Cantrell and reportedly discovered the stolen donuts inside a clear plastic bag hidden in luggage in the bed of his pickup truck. Cantrell allegedly admitted taking them without permission. And although he explained that another driver had previously given him the free donuts. And just when you thought the story couldn't get any better, officers discovered that Cantrell's driver's license had been suspended that very same day for failing to pay an earlier traffic citation. He was arrested on a felony charge involving burglary of an unoccupied vehicle and a misdemeanor charge of driving without a suspended license. So instead of getting a free breakfast, he ended up with a trip to jail, a $3,500 bond, and what may be the most expensive bag of donuts in Florida history. Congratulations, sir. You are a dumb criminal of the day. All right, everybody, that's all we have for you today. Hope you enjoyed the show. We appreciate you taking the time to watch and if you made it all the way to the end, thank you very much. All right, be careful out there. It's dangerous. And remember, the Constitution matters. .