Naresh Bhatt Stuns Courtroom As He Admits Almost Everything — What's He Doing and Will It Work? (#6)

[00:00:00] Speaker 1: Yesterday in the Naresh Bach case was one of the most stunning events I have ever seen in a trial. He utterly shot the courtroom when he uncourked a brand new defense. He basically admitted two of the three charges against him. And he now says he did dispose of his wife's remains, but he insists he never killed her. He is basically setting up a sacrifice on two charges in order to set up a defense to the biggest charge of all, first-degree murder. I have seen people admit things before, but usually not this big. His testimony blew this case wide open. It is a complete game-changer. It may be the biggest turn in a case I've ever seen, but it almost surely means a prison sentence for Naresh Bach. So why did he do it? And will it work? Will the jury believe it? Let's dive into one of the most shocking twists I've ever seen. Hi, y'all, and welcome to tonight's, this afternoon's, live stream. Please, if you would, hit the like button as we get started. All right, Momtabat disappeared after July 29th. The exact time wasn't known, we now hear from Naresh, that it was overnight, between the 29th and the 30th. Now, when police, and I should say that she passed away, when police did a wellness check on August 2nd, Naresh Bach told police that she left him and went to Texas or New York to be with one of her sisters. But later, he told police and he told Momtabat's mother that Momtabat had gone to work and she just hadn't come home. The prosecution says Bach was cheating on Momtabat, or at least they put witnesses up who have talked about her belief that he was, and that he treated her badly. Her brother suggested to the jury that she felt unsafe. Now, the prosecution says Bach proved Momtabat right when he killed her, that he cut the body, he disposed of her remains in dumpsters around town. But then yesterday, Bach agreed. He said he did cut the body, he did dispose of it. Now, to understand just how shocking this testimony was, you need to realize that Bach has basically admitted two of the three charges against him. There were a total of three. Let me rearrange things a little bit so I can make sure I see your comments and everything at the same time. Okay, so there's a first-degree murder charge. Physically defiling a dead body is the second charge. And concealing a dead body is the third charge. Under Virginia law, for Bach to be found guilty of physically defiling a dead human body, the prosecution has to prove he physically did that and that he did it willfully and intentionally. And yesterday, he pretty much admitted that. There's not really even much more for the jury to decide. Then the concealing a dead body charge requires that he have secreted or concealed a body, acted with malicious intent, and intended to prevent discovery of an unlawful act or the death itself or the manner or cause of death. And again, he's pretty much admitted every element of that charge against him. And then the prosecution cleared that up in the cross-examination, which we'll deal with another day in another video. So, why? Why would he do this? I think the answer is in the numbers. Physically defiled and concealing charges would leave him with a prison sentence of one to five years per. So, at most, 10 years could be as little as two, and with good behavior, he might even earn credits to reduce even that number. Compare that to what he could face if he is convicted of murder, because that could be 20 years to life in prison. Now, Bott's defense has apparently decided to focus on the charge of murder. In other words, he seems willing to accept the other two charges in exchange for a not guilty verdict on the murder. And you will see that the new bombshell testimony shows exactly that, exactly how they're dividing up the case and approaching it. Bott continues to deny that he killed Mamta. He says she did it. He merely found the body after she did something, it's not 100% clear, to kill herself. Now, that gives him room to deny the prosecution's theory that he was in a bad relationship with Mamta, and so he had a motive to kill her. He can still believe she did that and he found the body without having a bad relationship. And so he testified he was never unfaithful to Mamta. He had no other girlfriends, not just while he was married to Mamta, but even before that, during his entire time in the United States. And he says he wasn't even looking for any. Let's listen to a clip from yesterday. [00:05:29] Speaker 2: Okay, okay. Mamta told her brother that she was unsafe. Was that true? [00:05:38] Naresh Bach: That is, I don't know what is his opinion, why he is saying that. I don't believe that at all. [00:05:45] Speaker 2: Is there any, do you know why she took pictures? [00:05:50] Speaker 1: Let me stop there and talk a little bit about that. In fact, I will pull that out and talk for just a minute. Okay, so let's talk about whether or not, he's saying up front, let me just put it that way. He's saying he didn't have a relationship with anyone else. He was devoted to Mamta and he is unclear why anyone would say she would feel unsafe with him. I think, okay, we're just going to stop there. Sorry, I'm trying to figure out where I am in the course of the tape that I'm playing. So, Bott denied he did anything to make her feel unsafe. He talked about an incident where he hit her with a plate, but he said he didn't intend to. It was just an accident. There was a hint that something happened even before that because they were planning a ceremony for the baby. Rice ceremony, that's not quite the right word for it. I've forgotten, rice something, rice eating ceremony maybe. And the Mamta and he apparently canceled it. And the reason was she had a bruise. Now, Naresh Bhatt says she fell down the stairs. Since they were going to have photographs at this event, she wanted to postpone it until she looked good. And so that's why they postponed it. But the jury has already heard Mamta's brother testify that she sent him a photograph of a bruise dating from roughly late November, early December. It's not clear if it was the same. Her brother also testified that Mamta said she felt unsafe and that Naresh was restricting her access to food. Now, according to the brother, Mamta said Naresh's parents hated her. Naresh said all of this was untrue, what the brother was saying. His mom and Mamta had a great relationship. It was even better than a mom-daughter relationship. And Mamta actually was cooking most of the meals, except for the period right after the baby was born, when his mother first got there. And after that, Mamta took over the cooking again because she was, frankly, he said, a better cook than his mother was. So as of the question of whether Mamta felt safe, let's go ahead and add that. And I think I'll back up just a little bit. [00:08:16] Speaker 2: And then send them to... [00:08:17] Speaker 1: We'll back up just a few seconds. [00:08:20] Speaker 2: Do you know why she took pictures of herself and then sent them to... [00:08:25] Speaker 1: Okay, we're just going to stop it there. I must be missing, Clem. Okay, so Mamta told her brother that she was unsafe, asked if that was true. Bot said, I don't know what is his opinion, why he's saying that. I don't believe that at all. Now, Naresh had to admit that he had said in a text thread with Mamta, or in a text thread, that Mamta had been disrespectful to his parents. But he said it wasn't really true. He just said that to make her feel bad because they were in an argument. She wasn't being kind to him. So he was kind of just getting her back. Now, this was all still on direct. So remember, this is the defense getting their side of the story out there. So the defense lawyer asked Naresh, okay, if all of that is true, why would Mamta take these pictures showing a bruise at all? Why would she do that? And here was his answer. [00:09:26] Speaker 2: Or to other people, do you have any, do you know why? [00:09:31] Naresh Bach: I believe yes, because she took the picture, even like she has a previous picture when she got injured, miscarriage, she always used to do that. So she has on that phone, I have seen that on the phone as well, because we have phone access, each other's phone access in the beginning time. So it doesn't matter for me. But like, you know, at the situation come, like, you know, we are getting like, you know, worse than she might send to like, oh, okay, like, you know, we might need this to make me scared or something like that. [00:10:02] Speaker 1: So maybe, he says, she just did it to make him scared. Now, Naresh also denied some of the testimony that we have heard that he had spit on or hit during the course of the relationship. The word he explained that got interpreted as spitting is a word that in Nepalese, I guess that's the right way to say it, basically means to make something meaningless. So the way I interpreted what Naresh was trying to say is, Momta wasn't talking about something physical, like we would mean in English. She was saying, Naresh treats me like I'm unimportant. Now, and you can choose to believe that or not, I'm explaining to you what happened during the testimony. So as he withdrew from her, he says that Momta began to wonder if he maybe had a girlfriend on the side. And she even called a woman from his home village to ask about that. But Naresh told the courtroom he did not, that he didn't plan to get divorced from her. He threatened it, but he didn't mean it. And in his culture, that's very frowned. Divorce is very frowned on. So he didn't plan to do that. And in some that he never cheated on, never harmed her. [00:11:26] Speaker 2: Mr. Bhatt, were you, and we're talking about now going forward from February or even December of 2023 through to July, were you physically harming Momta? [00:11:43] Naresh Bach: Never. None of us. I do not remember ever I have physical fight in my life. [00:11:48] Speaker 2: And, but specifically with Momta? [00:11:50] Naresh Bach: No, not at all. [00:11:51] Speaker 2: Were you cheating on Momta with other women? [00:11:54] Naresh Bach: Never. [00:11:55] Speaker 1: Okay. So right now, as you can hear, we have the setup for the rest of the testimony. Naresh has now denied he had a motive to kill his wife. He wasn't planning to leave her. He wasn't cheating on her. There was no DV. They were just a normal couple having a few fights in a mostly happy marriage. This is the critical, all-important context for what he said next about the part that really matters in the case, which is what happened on July 29th. Now, here's what he said. He went to bed with the baby about 8 p.m. And she was about 1, a little bit under 1, age 1, I mean. And he woke up about 4 a.m. and went to go to the bathroom in the master bedroom. Now, normally, he said they didn't shut the door to the master bedroom, but this time it was shut. It wasn't locked, but it was closed. The room was really dimly lit, but as he went in, something just felt different. Also, he said it smelled different. It wasn't something he could really explain. It just was different. So, he called out to Mamta. She didn't answer, but that is when he saw her on the floor. And here's what he said about that. [00:13:13] Speaker 2: Were you having a relationship with any other woman during this time period? [00:13:20] Speaker 1: There's the missing clip. [00:13:21] Naresh Bach: Not only in this time period, like in my United States career in seven, eight years, I never had any girlfriend. Even before married or after marriage, never had any girlfriend. [00:13:31] Speaker 2: So, were you looking to have a relationship? Were you trying to have a relationship with someone other than your wife? [00:13:37] Naresh Bach: No. [00:13:38] Speaker 2: Were you trying to find a woman to have sex with other than your wife? [00:13:41] Naresh Bach: Never. Now we're facing north side and then she was lying with vomit and stuff like that. [00:13:53] Speaker 2: Was she lying? How was she lying? On her side, on her back, on the front? [00:13:59] Naresh Bach: Back, tilted head. [00:14:01] Speaker 2: Back in what? [00:14:02] Naresh Bach: On the back, head tilted. [00:14:06] Speaker 1: Okay, I'll let him finish that. So, he says, okay, he found her in the bedroom. Okay, let me make this bigger. She was at the foot of the bed and he admitted he moved the bed later. So, one of the things you will see in his testimony is that it meets the prosecution with the points that the prosecution was making. Remember, one of their pieces of evidence was that they could see when they got to the bedroom that the bed was in this bizarre location, kind of blocking the closet, like up against it. Like, why? And that made them look under the bed where they found some blood. And therefore, and they knew about it because it was out of place. So, he is able to confirm that. Yes, that's where it was. She was at the foot of the bed and he talks about moving the bed. A lot of the things the prosecution has relied on, he is going to acknowledge. Yep, that happened. Yes, you correctly interpreted many things in it. So, he notices that in the vomit, there are remnants of pills and there's some blood. That explains the blood that was found by the prosecution. Now, in the closet, he found an open package of a pesticide called selfos. In Nepal, they use it to kill pests on crops and also in the home. And we're going to hear more during the cross-examination when we cover that in another video about where it came from. So, we won't deal with that right now. But he spoke to Mamta, but she doesn't respond to him. So, he tries CPR and then he checks and he realizes she's not breathing. So, he tries to revive her for 45 minutes to an hour, he says. But the prosecution is going to be much more interested in what he did not do because he did not do the very thing that most people would do first. He did not call 911. He never got anyone in, no outside help. Now, here is his explanation for why. It's a full minute and a half. I put the whole thing in because it's that important that you hear exactly what he said. [00:16:27] Speaker 2: Mr. Pott, obvious question. Why didn't you call 911? [00:16:33] Naresh Bach: That's the, I really, at that point, scared. I don't know why I did not. I tried to call. I really scared. I don't know why. Something take over me. I was really, really panicked. I don't know. I don't really, even like, it's been like two, over two years. I have completed more than 3,500 hours of meditation. Still, I don't have that answer. [00:17:04] Speaker 2: Let me ask this. Is, did you have 911 in Nepal? [00:17:08] Naresh Bach: No. [00:17:09] Speaker 2: What would happen if you found somebody in your house that was an extremist like that in Nepal? [00:17:18] Naresh Bach: Inform your seniors. Hold on. Hold on. What's the objection? [00:17:21] Speaker 2: As to what would happen in Nepal? I said, what would he do? I'm sorry. You're right. I did ask it in a general way. However, I think that he absolutely can answer that. It goes to what he did and what he did. I can't allow the question. So, you can answer that question. [00:17:35] Naresh Bach: Usually ask to seniors. [00:17:37] Speaker 2: Ask the seniors. [00:17:39] Naresh Bach: Yes, get help from seniors. [00:17:40] Speaker 2: Like older people? [00:17:41] Naresh Bach: That is correct. [00:17:44] Speaker 2: Would you try to call 911 or some other number to get help? [00:17:49] Naresh Bach: Later, once I exhausted, I tried, but like, you know, I scared. [00:17:53] Speaker 2: But the pattern in Nepal would be that you would not call? [00:18:00] Naresh Bach: In Nepal, even our brother lost for many, many years. We never informed police. [00:18:05] Speaker 1: Okay, so that is his explanation for why he didn't call 911. He was scared. He didn't have any seniors or older people to ask. And it was the custom in Nepal that you wouldn't call 911 even when his brother was lost for many years. They never informed the police. Now, what exactly was Naresh Bhatt worried about? He said basically everything, up to and very much including his job, where he worked with the White House. But he was also worried about the legal part, about whether he would be blamed for what had just happened to Mamta. [00:18:48] Naresh Bach: I cannot explain what I was concerned about. Everything around the world. [00:18:54] Speaker 2: Concerned about your job? [00:18:55] Naresh Bach: Everything. Not only the job. Job doesn't, that doesn't come on my mind. Everything. [00:19:02] Speaker 2: Are you afraid that you're going to be blamed for driving her to suicide? [00:19:07] Naresh Bach: Yes. [00:19:12] Speaker 2: Are you afraid that you're going to be blamed for not taking serious? [00:19:17] Naresh Bach: A hundred percent, yes. [00:19:19] Speaker 1: Okay, so he is saying he's afraid he's going to get the blame. Bhatt said he's found Mamta. He tries repeatedly to give her water. Now, it wasn't really clear how that was going to help or why he was doing that. But he said he did try it. He tried to pick her up, but he couldn't carry her. So he put her on a blanket and pulled her to the bathroom to get extra water. And then he called the babysitter and asked to be able to drop the almost one-year-old off for the day. He said he initially thought about taking his own life while Nemo was with the sitter. But he changed his mind when he saw the baby's belongings. He didn't prepare any food for the baby. He just took her. He dropped her off and said, asked the sitter, could you please give her some food? Because he hadn't prepared any. He doesn't remember going to the trash where the babysitter lived. He also changed his Facebook profile to what he called the military one. I assume it's a picture of him in military uniform. Now, Naresh said he sort of wandered about aimlessly that first morning. He thought to himself that he would put Momta's body into the Potomac River with gold and money, which he said was a cultural thing. He went to Home Depot, which somehow, I was never really clear, seemed to be part of that plan to put her in the Potomac with the gold and money. I guess they do get a lot of our money at Home Depot. He bought one pair of gloves and he said he has no idea why he did that. [00:20:58] Speaker 2: Why did you buy gloves? [00:21:00] Naresh Bach: I have no idea why I buy that. Usually, I was trying to buy a drink or something. Usually, I do if I did not buy anything. But, like, you know, just I find the—I was looking for, like, you know, anything useful, but, like, I don't see that. Just I buy the gloves without any reason. [00:21:17] Speaker 2: If you were looking for something useful to help you get rid of Momta Khatli's body, right? [00:21:24] Speaker 1: That is correct, yes. He admitted he was looking for something to help him get rid of Momta's body. And Naresh also said he removed his sacred thread. He had worn this since childhood. He believed it protected him. He wrapped it around a tree branch. Now, through that entire first day, he tried to revive Momta. He said, but he knew it was hopeless. By late afternoon, he decided he would need to dispose of the body. So, at first, he thought he would use a trash can in the garage next to the car. So, he thought about it measurements-wise and decided it would not fit. He was shaking. He was weak. His fingers, his feet seemed stuck. What he remembered about cutting the body was he just wanted to make a smaller size so he could fit things in the can. He doesn't remember all the details. He just remembers doing that. He did put her body in the tub. He remembers that. But his hands and his body just weren't working. And in his mind, he was blaming Momta for what had happened. That was his explanation to the jury. [00:22:38] Naresh Bach: Just what happened, blaming Momta. [00:22:40] Speaker 2: You were blaming Momta. [00:22:41] Naresh Bach: Yes. [00:22:43] Speaker 2: Why were you blaming her? [00:22:46] Naresh Bach: What you did, whatever she did, you know, like, you know, she did not do good. That's why we were blaming. I was blaming, I was blaming, talking to it, and then crying, and then blaming, we used to Momta, yes. [00:23:00] Speaker 1: Okay. So, that night, Bot said, he did not even go back into the master bedroom. He picked up the baby, and then he didn't go anywhere near the master bedroom. He said he couldn't sleep. He was also afraid to approach the religious statues because he had removed his sacred thread. So, he said this was the worst time of his entire life. [00:23:27] Naresh Bach: I never felt that before, even when I was about to, when I had a first-time kidnap and then about to get killed, even I did not feel at that time. [00:23:37] Speaker 1: Okay. So, he'd never felt that bad before. Now, he also admitted that he took things out of the house, like he took Momta's clothes. He took the uncooked food, the cups they had used, because that is culturally what would be done in Nepal. When someone dies, he said, in Nepal, everyone's scared. So, they throw, that was his phrase. So, they throw out the clothes belonging to the person. He did throw those out. He said he didn't want to throw it in the home trash. He said, usually, you're supposed to burn them. So, the next day, he took the baby, sorry, the daughter back to the babysitter, and he spent that day doing the dismemberment. He used the saw, knives, the ones that we have heard from the prosecution about during the course of the testimony. So, he, Momta was put in the trash can in the garage, not in the dumpsters around town. All of that was other stuff, he explained. He said he emptied the existing household trash first, and then, after he took the daughter to the babysitter, he used the power saw, the knives. And it was garbage day, and he finished before the trash trucks came. He said he never put Momta's body into the Tesla, as the prosecution had assumed he used the household trash can. Now, the defense did something unusual here, which is they made sure that Naresh admitted all of the elements of the crimes of physically defiling a dead body and concealing a dead body. It was very bold. [00:25:23] Speaker 2: I think this is clear, but I want to make sure it's clear. You cut her body up and put it in the trash so that it would not be found. [00:25:34] Naresh Bach: Yes. [00:25:36] Speaker 2: And that was your intention as you were cutting her body up and putting it in the trash, is that no one finds her body. [00:25:45] Naresh Bach: Question one more time. [00:25:46] Speaker 2: It was your intention. [00:25:48] Speaker 1: Okay, that is so very specific to the actual elements of the crime. His own attorney has asked him to admit elements of those two crimes. So she's giving up on two charges. He is essentially admitting he's guilty of concealment of a body and defilement of a body. He's admitting those two things. Here's my read. This is a very intentional, sophisticated strategy. The attorney is hoping she can lose the battle on those two, but ultimately win the war, which is the question of the actual murder charge. So my guess is she already was completely sure that the jury was going to commit Bott of something. The question was what? And if the jury is willing to commit him on just those two charges, but let Bott go on the murder, his sentence will be drastically, radically reduced. So she made sure the jury saw he's admitting he defiled a human body, which I think dismembering pretty much meets that one. And he's essentially admitting he concealed the body in order to prevent detection. The jury will have to find malicious intent, but I think that certainly fits with what he said. He even admitted it on cross, which, as I say, we'll get to in another video. So the defense attorney is openly telling the jury he's partly guilty. You don't have to let him off scot-free, but he's not guilty of murder. So she's giving them psychologically a way to convict him, but also acquit him of the most important charges to him. Now, as I say, I'll be diving in in another video into the cross-examination, but I want to ask you now what you think. Will this defense work? Will Bott get off with a guilty verdict on only two charges? Let me know your thoughts in the comments. And as we move into questions, please hit the like button and subscribe if you're not already. We would love to have you back for more videos. If you would, please, if you have questions, put question marks at the beginning of the question. I can spot it more easily that way. And while I'm waiting for your questions, let me say a thank you to our mod, Marlon, and to the first five in tonight's, this afternoon's live stream. Betsy Sue, Elizabeth Gambeski, Sunset Gazing, Anna, and Lady Argonne. So welcome, everybody. And we have a new member, the Court Cat. So glad to have you. Thank you, the Court Cat. Oh, my goodness. Chico Karen has been a member for 32 months. That's forever, Chico Karen. Thank you. And I appreciate your nice comments. So thank you both. All right, let me head over and see if there are any questions, if anybody's putting any question marks in. If you put them at the beginning, then I'll realize that it's a question. If T, I'm looking for, I'm not seeing any question marks. Oh, wait there. I think T from Michigan is asking me to go back to an original question, but I can't find that. Y'all put it in again. I'm sorry, T from Michigan. All right. Well, I think we're good on questions. I have about four more videos planned on this case already. I am having trouble keeping up. It's moving so fast. And we're getting it all in bits and pieces. The court technically allowed a live stream, well, allowed video, let me put it that way, but not a live stream. So you can't get the whole thing. You have to get it in pieces. And that's making it more difficult for daily coverage like I would normally do. But there are so many things. First of all, y'all are going to want to hear his story of his background. It's absolutely fascinating. And then you've got to hear the cross-examination because it's going to be all important. When a defendant takes a stand, the defendant is automatically the most important witness in the whole case. And cross-examination is all important. So that's going to be very, very important. There's also the, there was a real attempt by the defense to connect BOT with the jury to have them see who he is as a person. Did it work? What did they do for that? And they, there also was a Nureshbot detailed sort of the relationship and what went wrong inside the marriage, how it wasn't in any way DV. It simply was something that ultimately didn't work. All right. Well, I will look forward to seeing y'all in the next video. Thank you everybody for being here and sticking with me through our complicated problems there with the, with the internet connection. And I will see you.