got corrupted or deleted or something. Huh. So I guess these files aren't going to be useful but darn we sure wanted to give them to you. I mean we tried so hard but we wish we could have but the glitch, the glitch got us.

Now here's my question. How many times in the last five years has somebody who is some public figure or important entity managed to skate through a legal process by claiming that they lost or a file was damaged? It turns out that seems to work every time. Why would anybody ever turn over a digital source if they thought they could just destroy it? Yeah. Ding dong the glitch is dead. That's funny.

All right, well I don't believe anybody who has a glitch and a file disappears but maybe you know since it's within the range of things that could happen in a real world however unlikely, it looks like it works as a legal strategy. It makes me wonder if there are lawyers who ever suggest the client does that. You know like well as your lawyer I must inform you that you should not destroy any files. As your lawyer do not. I'm going to put it in writing. Do not destroy any files. But also as your lawyer just as background context everybody who does destroy their files and claims it's an accident seems to get away with it. But as your lawyer I advise you not to do it. Don't do that thing that everybody gets away with. No no don't do it. So I suppose that conversation's happening a little bit somewhere.

Meanwhile according to Slay News the Daniel Penny trial took an interesting turn with a forensic pathologist Dr. Satish Chundru who got on the witness stand and said the choke did not cause the death. He's a former Miami area medical examiner so he knows what he's talking about. And he said he did not believe the air choke. He calls it an air choke as opposed to some people say this a thing called a blood choke which would be more severe. But he called it an air choke and he said that the cause of death probably has something to do with the effects of sickle cell crisis. So I guess he had a bad case of sickle cell anemia, schizophrenia. I don't know how that kills you physically. The struggle and restraint and the synthetic marijuana. So he had something that wasn't marijuana. There's some synthetic thing that's way worse. I'd never heard of it actually. And he said someone schizophrenic, high on K2, that's the synthetic marijuana thing, K2, and involved in struggle can die without a choke hold being involved at all.

And then he said, and I think this is sort of the kill shot, he said what's also important is unconsciousness always precedes death in a choke hold. So in other words when they showed up he was conscious and then he died. He was no longer being choked and he was conscious and then he died. And if I interpret this right I think the forensic pathologist is saying that if the guy stopped choking him and he was conscious then whatever killed him wasn't the choke. Is that true? Well I'm no forensic pathologist but I'll tell you if I were on the jury and I heard one pathologist say oh I'm pretty sure he killed him with that choke and then another one who's equally qualified said no nobody dies from being conscious after the choke. That's not a real thing. And he had real other reasons he would have died. That would be somewhat ordinary. Now that is clearly enough doubt that there shouldn't be any way he could be convicted because you don't need a lot of reasonable doubt. You just need some reasonable doubt. This is way more than reasonable doubt, right?

If you're going to say like what does a bucket of reasonable doubt look like it would look like this. One of my favorite court stories is about the lawyer who was trying to defend his client with reasonable doubt. He didn't have a strong case but he wanted to make the jury think that reasonable doubt was a little stronger than maybe it is. And so here's what the lawyer did. He said in his closing statements you know not only is my client completely innocent but the real killer is walking through that door right now. And he said he's going to walk through that door right now. And he turns, he points toward the door. Everybody in the jury box turns toward the door. All the witnesses turn toward the door. The judge looks toward the door. And then nothing happens. The door does not open and there's this awkward silence. And then the defense attorney turns back to the jury who are still looking at the door and now they look back at the lawyer. A little time has passed and the lawyer says that is reasonable doubt. Because they had enough belief that there was another explanation for the crime that every one of them looked at the door and waited for the real criminal to walk in.

Now that's a little bit too clever and I don't think that would actually win you a case. Was it Jerry Spence? I was wondering that. I wonder if it was Jerry Spence or did he just tell the story. He may have told the story but I don't know if it was him. Could have been. Could have been Jerry Spence. But now that's trying to sell reasonable doubt. You know if there's just a trace of it in the real world you need a little bit more than somebody walking through the door. It might have won that trial but you know generally speaking you need more than that. But if you've got an expert who says nope I'm quite sure this person could have died of other causes that really needs to be the end of it.

So here's what I'm worried about. What happens if it goes the other way? Because I feel like I think the men in America are kind of done with this and the white men in America are very done with it. I don't know what would happen. Like I'm not predicting violence but if Daniel Penny gets convicted after this expert says this we're going to have a lot of questions and I don't think it's going to be business as usual.

Here's what I don't think. I don't think the process just processes them, puts them in jail. I assume there'd be some appeal process but I feel like there's a point where the public just has to take over and I think the public has to make it clear that we're watching this thing. And ultimately the public does have all the power because there are enough of us and if we're mad enough whoever it is we're mad at is going to have a really bad day one way or another. You know again I'm not recommending violence so I really think we need to keep an eye on this one. We can't let this one get away. We men mostly we got to protect them and I feel like a personal responsibility to do that. It feels personal to me. Very personal. Because Daniel Penny, I don't know him of course but he's everybody. He is every guy. He's every guy. So I don't really feel him as different from me. Like when I watch Daniel Penny I'm not watching some stranger even thou