Naresh Bhatt's Shocking Testimony — Case by Case — "48 Hours" Podcast

[00:00:00] Chanel Call: The following episode includes discussion of domestic abuse, suicide, and references to sexual assault. Viewer discretion is advised, and we'll have resources for you at the end of the episode. And if you or someone you know may be experiencing a mental health crisis, call the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline. Just call or text 988. Hi, I'm CBS News correspondent Chanel Call for 48 Hours Case by Case. We have some news in the Naresh Bhat murder trial that dropped after 48 Hours correspondent Natalie Morales and I recorded this episode on Wednesday, November 4th. So in a stunning development on Thursday, November 5th, Naresh Bhat testified that he found his wife, Mamtha, dead from presumed suicide and tried to dispose of her body. He said he saw vomit around her body that contained pills and also said that there was a packet of insecticide nearby. Afterwards, he said that he tried to dismember and dispose of her body. When asked on the stand about why he didn't phone 911 that day, he said something took over him and that he was really panicked. Stay tuned on the Case by Case feed for our continued coverage. And here's this week's episode on the Butt murder trial. [00:01:20] Catherine Zamas: My attention was drawn to three searches that were, one of which was from March 21st of 2024. Those searches were what happened if spouse disappears, what happened if spouse disappears in divorce in Virginia and need divorce spouse died in Virginia. There were numerous other searches as well. [00:01:42] Speaker 3: Were there any searches talking about donations? [00:01:46] Catherine Zamas: Can I donate my baby to my friend? [00:01:48] Natalie Morales: That was master digital forensics investigator Catherine Zamas testifying in the murder trial of Mamtha Kafle Bhat. Mamtha's husband, Naresh Bhat, was charged with murdering her in Manassas Park, Virginia, after she appeared to have gone missing in August of 2024. We are now on week five of this trial. It is expected to take up to seven weeks. The prosecution rested its case on Monday, November 2nd, after supporting their argument through forensic evidence at the Bhat home, testimonies from those close to the Bhat family, and Naresh's Google search history around the time of Mamtha's disappearance. On Wednesday, November 4th, the defense began making its case, and we have a major development here. The first witness they called to the stand was actually Naresh Bhat himself. As a reminder, he faces charges of first-degree murder, concealing a dead body, and physically defiling a dead body. Mamtha's body has still not been found. I'm 48 Hours correspondent Natalie Morales, and this is Case by Case. For our previous coverage on the Bhat trial, you can go back to the 48 Hours YouTube channel or check the Case by Case feed wherever you get your podcasts. Well, joining me today to recap the last few weeks of the trial is CBS News correspondent Chanel Call. Thank you for being here, Chanel. [00:03:11] Chanel Call: Yeah, thanks so much for having me. It's such a fascinating case. [00:03:14] Natalie Morales: Yes, it is a fascinating case, and it certainly has captured a lot of attention, especially in the Washington, D.C. area, but nationally as well. And so here it is on Wednesday, November 4th, that Naresh Bhat took the stand in his own murder trial. Now, this is a very big deal because for a while, it was unclear whether or not we would be hearing from Naresh. So we're going to play a clip here of the defense questioning him about his experiences growing up during the Nepali Civil War. [00:03:42] Speaker 5: Did they—are you saying that you yourself experienced violence? [00:03:48] Naresh Bhat: That is correct. [00:03:50] Speaker 5: And can you describe—like, what did they do? [00:03:56] Naresh Bhat: Those hard works make you carry a lot of hard works. So they—physically, sexually, mentally, they abuse very badly. [00:04:07] Speaker 5: And how long did that go on? [00:04:11] Naresh Bhat: More than two or three weeks. [00:04:16] Speaker 5: How old were you at this time? [00:04:20] Naresh Bhat: 13, 14, something. [00:04:23] Speaker 5: Does that trauma stay with you today? [00:04:26] Naresh Bhat: Not right now, right here. But if I talk about it, make me feel worse sometimes, you know, when I see the wound, when I—I had a fight over there. Do you have nightmares? A lot. [00:04:40] Natalie Morales: So, Chanel, I mean, I think this is the first time we've covered a defendant testifying on his own behalf here on Case by Case. What did you notice there about his testimony? [00:04:50] Chanel Call: Yeah, I mean, I think that the most significant part here that we heard was that the victim, Mumtha Butt, was actually not brought up in the first full hour of questioning from the defense's side. The defense instead chose to start their argument by discussing, you know, his childhood, his upbringing. You heard there specifically talking about the experiences growing up during the Nepali Civil War. [00:05:13] Natalie Morales: Perhaps trying to humanize him a little bit, give a little bit more of that character, you know, what was maybe going on, you know, in his life prior to coming here to the United States. But, yes, making him the focus of the first part of the testimony, I mean, it felt like a very intentional move on the defense's part. And, obviously, what Naresh said about those experiences in Nepal, I mean, they're truly harrowing. So, it does sound like he experienced abuse as well as a child that I could see impacting him well into adulthood. But, I couldn't help thinking, how does this tie back to Mumtha? And, is it a good way to start off the defense here? [00:05:54] Chanel Call: I mean, obviously, it is a thoughtful strategy, I would think, on the part of the defense. But, I think your question is something probably a lot of jurors are going to be thinking about as well as they continue to listen. You know, they did eventually discuss Naresh and Mumtha's marriage. And, then, later in the testimony, Natalie, we actually heard Naresh was engaged when they met, when he first met Mumtha. And, he had said that his previous relationship was coming to an end. When they met, they eventually became friends on Facebook. [00:06:20] Natalie Morales: Well, he also spoke to those early days in his engagement with Mumtha. Let's play some of that here. [00:06:25] Speaker 5: Did Mumtha get along with your family? [00:06:29] Naresh Bhat: Very well. [00:06:30] Speaker 5: Did she get along with your parents? [00:06:33] Naresh Bhat: Very well. [00:06:37] Speaker 5: You eventually had a wedding, right? [00:06:40] Naresh Bhat: Not at that point. [00:06:41] Speaker 5: But, eventually, you did. [00:06:42] Naresh Bhat: Yeah, after a first-time counsel, next time, yes. [00:06:47] Natalie Morales: So, Naresh went on there to explain the wedding was postponed due to a death in the family. [00:06:52] Chanel Call: Yeah, Natalie, we should note also that, at the time of this recording, the prosecution hadn't yet cross-examined Naresh. So, there may be more details that we'll learn once that happens. [00:07:02] Natalie Morales: So, this is a nobody case for those who've been paying attention. This means prosecutors are going to be relying on what is largely circumstantial evidence to lay out their argument. What can you tell us about some of the digital evidence specifically presented in court over these last few weeks? [00:07:18] Chanel Call: Yeah, so, prosecutors put together sort of a timeline based on Mumtha and Naresh's phone activities. So, the last time Mumtha was seen by her co-workers was back on July 27, 2024. She also, as we learned, made these daily calls to her mother, sometimes a couple of times every day. And that all stopped abruptly after the last call happened on the 29th. So, prosecutors say that they believe that she died sometime overnight, perhaps, into July 30, 2024. And around that time, Naresh had actually made some very fascinating and curious Google searches that that master digital forensics investigator that you talked about earlier actually read in court. [00:08:00] Natalie Morales: Right, the searches themselves, I mean, they were jarring to hear considering the allegations against Naresh. I mean, some were even conflicting. And, for example, on July 30, he searched human brain diagram. But then, on August 5, he searched missing person finding rate in Virginia. Now, we should note on August 5, that was the day that Naresh filed a missing persons report for Mumtha. Her co-workers at the UVA hospital had requested a welfare check for Mumtha after she failed to show up for work. Naresh spoke to the police during this check on August 2, and then it was three days later that he filed the missing persons report. So, Chanel, what stuck out to you when Zamas was on the stand reading some of those searches? [00:08:45] Chanel Call: There's so much that's so interesting about these Google searches, not just the content of the searches, but also the language choices, right? You know, I think he was trying to look up adoption, but he actually called it donation. And I should note as well, Naresh and Mumtha have a daughter together. And days before the child's first birthday, Mumtha had actually been missing for three weeks. And Naresh searched, quote, can I donate my baby to my friend? [00:09:10] Natalie Morales: I mean, based on that search, it did not sound like Naresh had high hopes for finding Mumtha and might have even been preparing for the possibility of raising their daughter alone. We should say the child is now being cared for by Mumtha's mother and brother while Naresh stands trial for Mumtha's murder. But months prior to that, what he called donation search, Naresh also reportedly looked up what happened if, and that's intended misspelling and grammar, what happened if spouse disappears in divorce in Virginia? And this was not the only reference to divorce that he made. What can you tell us about that? [00:09:49] Chanel Call: Yeah, I think there's so many questions about what their relationship was like. And investigators are saying that in March of 2024, Naresh had actually asked an unknown person to set him up with a Colombian woman. That person apparently said, Natalie, that they didn't do that. They didn't connect him with that woman because they thought that Mumtha was going to move back in with him. Naresh responded by saying that, no, they're just living together while they're trying to figure out how to get a divorce. But you're right, Natalie, I mean, he did have other searches about divorce. At one point, he searched, quote, need divorce, spouse die in Virginia. And again, intentional grammar there. And, quote, can I divorce if wife lost? So the searches, I should clarify here, we don't know exactly when they were made. We can't know the specific date because the history of those searches could have been cleared. The server could have been cleared. But I think regardless, the searches themselves give us a bit of a picture and the jury a bit of a picture of what his state of mind was and what potentially the relationship was like right before all this happened or around the time when Mumtha went missing. Something else that was really fascinating here that stuck out to me was that investigators found that Mumtha was actually saved under the name bad memory in his phone. [00:11:08] Natalie Morales: There were also a number of text messages that investigators recovered between Mumtha and her brother Mahesh Kavle. Five months before she disappeared, Mumtha reportedly confided in her brother about the abuse she says she experienced at the hands of her husband, Naresh. Now, according to WUSA, Mahesh said, she told me she's unsafe. Chanel, this isn't the first time that we've heard about abuse allegations in the bot house, right? [00:11:36] Chanel Call: Yeah, and this has become a big part of this story, right? In our last coverage of this case, we talked about Sarita Nupani's testimony. This is somebody who, you know, is a friend of the bot family who said that Mumtha told her that Naresh had hit her before. Naresh and his defense team, though, they've not admitted to or denied those allegations. And then last week after the jury was dismissed, the prosecution and the defense's attorney, Natalie, were arguing about whether or not those statements from Mahesh that you just mentioned should even be admissible in court in this murder trial. The judge said that, look, it depends. Some of the things are going to be admissible and some of the things aren't. [00:12:14] Natalie Morales: Well, Naresh's team seemed to be making a serious effort to try to keep any mention of domestic violence out of the courtroom. I mean, as we've mentioned in our previous coverage before the trial even began, the defense put forward a motion to disallow references to domestic violence allegations during jury selection and opening statements of this trial. But ultimately, the judge denied this. So it's difficult for me to imagine, you know, domestic violence not being a big piece of this murder trial. You know, I could see keeping any mention of abuse out of the courtroom, you know, how that might leave a hole in the prosecution's argument. [00:12:50] Chanel Call: Yeah. And I think it's important to also mention that one of Naresh's attorneys had said that those that were close to the butts had testified their relationship had actually improved. A friend of the couple had texted Naresh saying, I thought you guys were good. [00:13:04] Natalie Morales: So on October 21st, there were also a number of security cam videos which show Naresh Bot tossing bags into a trash compactor in Falls Church, Virginia, on July 31st, 2024. Now, this is the day after prosecutors believe that Mamta was murdered. I want to play some of the prosecutors questioning of the investigators about that footage. [00:13:28] Speaker 7: What did we just see him do at minute seven minutes in? Um, throw bags into the trash compactor. Do we see him driving away at this point? Yes. Stopping this at eight minutes and six seconds. Chanel, what do you think the prosecutors are trying to argue here? [00:13:50] Chanel Call: So what happened to Mamta's body is still a huge question, right? And prosecutors are saying here that they believe that Naresh dismembered her body and then disposed of the pieces in multiple trash compactors and dumpsters in Northern Virginia. So one was that trash compactor that we just saw in Falls Church. They've also got footage of him at a Manassas Park, Virginia apartment complex. And in that piece of footage, you actually see him throwing away more bags into a dumpster. So this was the apartment complex where Naresh had dropped off his daughter on the morning of July 30th. And around that time is also when he disposed of those bags. [00:14:26] Natalie Morales: Well, according to the prosecutors and that video footage, he came back to the apartment that afternoon to pick up his daughter from Amanda, who was the babysitter. Right. [00:14:35] Chanel Call: Yeah, and the babysitter actually testified to this in court a couple of weeks ago. She had a lot to say, Natalie, about Naresh's demeanor when he came to pick up his daughter that day. I want to play more of that here. You're hearing from Amanda Hiro Perez testifying via translator. [00:14:49] Speaker 8: So I opened the door and he, like, pushed a little bit the door and he kept going towards the inside. [00:14:56] Speaker 9: Se quitó sus llinas, cargaba unas llinas. [00:15:01] Speaker 8: Interpreted an explanation, que son llinas. So he got into the living room and he was looking all over the place. He was on his phone and he said something in English really fast and I didn't understand. And that's why I later asked him about that. [00:15:17] Speaker 3: Was that the first time the defendant has come into your apartment? [00:15:21] Speaker 8: ¿Esa era la primera vez que el acusado ingresaba a su apartamento? [00:15:24] Speaker 3: Sí. [00:15:25] Speaker 8: Yes. [00:15:25] Speaker 3: Did you invite the defendant in? [00:15:27] Speaker 8: ¿Usted lo invitó al acusado a entrar? [00:15:29] Speaker 3: No. [00:15:29] Speaker 8: No. It was when I went out and I just, you know, looked at him and I noticed that he was looking around everywhere, like anxious. [00:15:38] Speaker 9: Pero siempre parado viendo para la ventana. [00:15:41] Speaker 8: But always standing there looking towards the window. [00:15:44] Chanel Call: This testimony could be really revealing, right, Natalie? The sitter is calling him anxious. She says that he kind of pushes his way into the apartment. He's looking around. It definitely paints a picture of someone who was on edge around the time that his wife disappeared. And I can see the jury really paying close attention to this. [00:16:02] Speaker ?: Right. [00:16:02] Natalie Morales: And, you know, we've discussed extensive digital evidence around this case. Now I want to get into actual physical evidence that has also been brought into the courtroom. I saw that the prosecution entered a section of the Botts' home's primary bedroom carpet as evidence. Chanel, what can you tell us about what was on that carpet? [00:16:21] Chanel Call: Yeah. So prosecutors talked about believing that there's evidence of bloodstains on the carpet. As for how they made that determination, Natalie, they say that they use technology called Blue Star Forensic, which is basically a luminol-based substance. You sort of spray it on surfaces. It lights up blue if it indicates that there is any evidence of blood there. So the crime scene investigator, Joseph Rostino, he testified that samples that he took from the carpet actually did test positive for blood. I'm going to play some of his testimony here, and you can hear the defense's questions, and then you'll hear the prosecution's response. [00:16:55] Speaker 9: If I cut my hand and I washed my hands, could that leave a Blue Star reaction in the sink? [00:17:00] Speaker 10: Yes, it could. [00:17:01] Speaker 9: If I cut my hand and I washed my hands and then I shook my hands off and it got onto the counter, could that leave a Blue Star reaction? [00:17:09] Speaker 10: Yes, it could. [00:17:10] Speaker 11: Let's say somebody was stabbed within a bedroom, would you expect you to get a Blue Star reaction if that blood had, in fact, gotten onto the floor? [00:17:25] Speaker 3: Yes, it would. [00:17:26] Chanel Call: So I don't know if this is going to be sort of the smoking gun in this case, but you can definitely see the defense trying to ask if the prosecution is sure that the substance there is really blood. And then the prosecution sort of trying to steer the focus back to their argument. [00:17:40] Natalie Morales: One of the most compelling pieces of physical evidence that came up in court is also a saw that Naresh Bhatt gave to his landscaper, Jose Ayala. Now, investigators believe this is what Naresh used to actually dismember Mamta's body. Ayala took the saw, apparently, but after he heard about Mamta's disappearance, he then turned it over to the police. And here's what he had to say on the stand through a translator. [00:18:08] Speaker 10: So I didn't want to carry that, you know, in my mind. But just to be, you know, fine with me and my conscience, I decided to go to the police and tell them that I had the saw. [00:18:40] Chanel Call: So, I mean, the Commonwealth attorneys are probably pretty grateful that this person actually turned the saw over after they found out what had happened to Mamta because investigators, Natalie, ended up finding a sort of reddish brown stain. They also found some hair like strands on that saw. So forensic scientists, they took a look at this and ultimately they were able to confirm that the strands are hair. But because there wasn't a full follicle on it, they couldn't conduct a DNA analysis. Here is what the lead crime scene investigator, Andrea Feldman, had to say about her findings in the courtroom. So the reddish brown staining was on the inside of the saw. [00:19:20] Speaker 7: And what did you believe the reddish brown stains to be? [00:19:23] Chanel Call: I believed it to be blood. And so, get this, the same model saw was actually passed around by the jury so they could get a sense of what it looked and felt like. I can't imagine what that would have been like for them. [00:19:35] Natalie Morales: Yeah, just harrowing and just kind of gives you the chills to see, you know, that saw being passed around in the hands of the jury. Yeah. And knowing what a saw like that might have been used for. So what is next here, Chanel? [00:19:48] Chanel Call: So the prosecution has rested its case. That happened on Monday, November 2nd. And I think now some of the big questions are around who else the defense is going to call to testify and what they could say. [00:20:00] Natalie Morales: Right. So as we come to a close today, I do want to play some testimony from Mamta's former roommate, Nadia. [00:20:08] Speaker 12: Mamta was my friend and my roommate. She rarely left the apartment. So we would do things kind of COVID style like cut each other's hair, makeup, we would watch YouTube videos. [00:20:29] Speaker 7: Did you study together at any point? [00:20:31] Speaker 12: Yeah, we did. And what, if anything, were you studying? I'm a biology major and she was studying for the NCLEX exam, I believe. Did you help each other study? Sometimes, yes. [00:20:48] Natalie Morales: I mean, Mamta seems to be somebody that Nadia remembers very fondly. She also testified that she was supposed to meet to catch up with Mamta and her baby around the time of her disappearance. But Nadia said she just didn't hear from Mamta ever again. [00:21:02] Chanel Call: It is truly such a tragic loss. You know, I think something that's been clear throughout this trial is just how much Mamta has been missed, how big of an impact that she had on her friends, on her family, on her community. The community, you know, has really rallied around this case and rallied around her loss. [00:21:22] Natalie Morales: So good to have you with us again, sharing all your knowledge on this case. Thank you, Chanel Call, as always. Thank you. And I do want to take a moment to say that if you or if someone you know may be experiencing domestic violence, contact the National Domestic Violence Hotline by calling 1-800-799-7233 or by texting START to 88788. And we will be back next week with another episode of Case by Case. For our continuing coverage, you can check the Case by Case feed wherever you find your podcasts. And you can also watch episodes of Case by Case on the 48 Hours YouTube channel or by searching Case by Case on Paramount+. Be sure to rate and review and let us know which cases you're following and which cases you would like us to follow. [00:22:17] Speaker ?: you