Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / Murder of Ahmaud Arbery

Transcript

Murder of Ahmaud Arbery · Murder Files Unsealed

0:00
Speaker 1: Today we're diving into a story, a really heavy one
0:04
that sparked protests, ignited conversations, conversations about race, about justice
0:11
here in America, the death of Amaud Arbery.
0:14
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's one of those cases that just I think,
0:16
you know, forces you to confront some really uncomfortable truths
0:20
about well, assumptions, we make, implicit bias, that kind of thing,
0:23
and really that uneven playing field that exists in our
0:27
justice system.
0:28
Speaker 1: Yeah, sadly it all kind of comes to a head.
0:30
This all happens in a neighborhood, a quiet neighborhood outside Brunswick,
0:34
Georgia called Setilla Shores, February twenty three, twenty twenty. But this,
0:39
I mean, this wasn't just another news story, right, This
0:41
became something something much bigger.
0:43
Speaker 2: Oh absolutely, this was a flashpoint. You had the delayed arrest,
0:46
the release of that cell phone video, the just the
0:49
national outcry. It all came together to make this a
0:52
landmark case.
0:53
Speaker 1: So let's for those who maybe don't recall all the details,
0:56
let's rewind. Let's go back to Setila Shores. Let's unpack
0:59
what happened on that day.
1:00
Speaker 2: Okay, So it all starts with Ahmad arbery. A young
1:02
black man out for a.
1:03
Speaker 1: Jog, just a regular job, middle of the.
1:06
Speaker 2: Right exactly, and along his route he comes across a house,
1:10
a house under construction. Now this is this is where
1:14
things start to get a.
1:15
Speaker 1: Little complicated, because he goes inside.
1:17
Speaker 2: He does. Security footage actually shows him walking around inside
1:21
the construction site for a few minutes. He's he's looking around,
1:24
and then he leaves, and we know from the homeowner's
1:27
later statements that nothing was actually stolen, so so.
1:31
Speaker 1: Not exactly a crime in progress.
1:33
Speaker 2: No, But shortly after Arbury leaves that construction site, a neighbor,
1:38
guy named Matthew Albinzi, he makes a nine to one
1:41
to one call.
1:41
Speaker 1: Okay, let's let's talk about those nine one one calls
1:43
for a second, because they become, you know, really a
1:46
crucial piece of this whole puzzle.
1:49
Speaker 2: Absolutely. So in that first call the neighbor, he sounds uncertain.
1:53
You know, he describes seeing someone in the house, but
1:55
he says they weren't breaking in or anything. It's it's
1:58
almost like he's trying to figure out like if what
2:00
he's seeing, like if it's even worth calling the police about,
2:03
you know what I mean? Right, He even mentions that
2:05
this person he's referring to, Ahmad, had been caught on
2:08
camera a bunch at night, which I mean, right there,
2:11
that suggests there was already a degree of suspicion, you know,
2:14
attached to him.
2:15
Speaker 1: So there's this this sense of unease, but nothing that's like,
2:19
you know, imminent danger of flashing red lights.
2:22
Speaker 2: Right. But then, and this is where it gets really
2:25
really complicated. Minutes later, a second nine to one one
2:28
call comes in, and this time it's Gregory McMichael, now
2:32
his son, Travis McMichael. He's going to figure very prominently
2:35
in this story. But this call it's different. It's chaotic.
2:39
You know. You can hear the urgency, the fear in
2:41
Gregory's voice. He's shouting for Arbury to stop in the background,
2:44
you can hear it.
2:45
Speaker 1: So what changed, like why this sudden escalation.
2:48
Speaker 2: Well, it seems like Gregor and McMichael, along with his
2:51
son Travis, had decided to take matters into their own hands.
2:53
Speaker 1: And that brings us to the I mean, the fateful encounter,
2:56
the one that was captured on that cell phone video.
2:58
Speaker 2: Right a video recorded by William Roddy Bryan, who also
3:01
lived in the neighborhood.
3:03
Speaker 1: And it's this video, I mean, more than anything else,
3:07
that kind of propels this case into the national spotlight.
3:10
Speaker 2: You're absolutely right about that. It's difficult to watch, but
3:13
it's essential to understanding how this all unfolded. It shows
3:17
the McMichaels in their vehicles and they're confronting Arbery, who
3:20
is on foot. Gregory is in the bed of one
3:23
pickup truck while Travis is out of the other shotgun in.
3:26
Speaker 1: Hand, and it's that moment right when the first shot
3:28
rings out. It's just it's so hard to process.
3:31
Speaker 2: It really is. And the video is unclear, you know
3:33
what I mean. You can't see exactly what's happening right
3:36
before Travis McMichael pulls the trigger.
3:37
Speaker 1: And that ambiguity, that split second, that obscured view, I mean,
3:43
it becomes a major major point of contention throughout the trial.
3:47
Speaker 2: Absolutely. What we do see, though, is a struggle, a
3:50
struggle for the shotgun. We see more shots fired, and tragically,
3:54
we see Maude Arbury fall to the ground fatally wounded.
3:58
Speaker 1: And it's important to point out here that while Green McMichael,
4:01
he didn't fire his weapon. He's seen in the video
4:04
approaching arbery, but with his handgun drawn.
4:06
Speaker 2: Right, So even though he wasn't the one who you know,
4:09
physically fired the fatal shots, I mean, his involvement is
4:13
it's undeniable.
4:14
Speaker 1: So we had this tragic shooting, it's all, it's all
4:16
there on video, and yet it still takes what over
4:20
two months for any arrest even.
4:22
Speaker 2: Be made, right, and that delay, that in action, it
4:25
immediately raised questions. It raised questions about, you know, how
4:28
is this case being handled? Why wasn't I mean, it
4:30
fueled the outrage, right, it brought that national spotlight onto
4:34
Satilla Shores. People wanted to know, I mean, with this
4:37
video evidence, why why were the McMichael still walking free?
4:40
Speaker 1: Yeah, it feels like there's a deeper layer to this,
4:42
something beyond just you know, a slow investigation, like what
4:46
was going on behind the scenes here.
4:47
Speaker 2: Well, you can't ignore the fact that Gregory McMichael, the father,
4:50
he had previously worked as an investigator for the local
4:53
district attorney's office.
4:54
Speaker 1: So a potential conflict of interest right.
4:56
Speaker 2: There, exactly. And to make matters even more kind of
5:00
I don't know, Murky, he was also a former police
5:03
officer in Glenn County. So these connections, These relationships, I mean,
5:08
they cast a long shadow over this entire investigation.
5:11
Speaker 1: Did those connections, I mean, do we know did they
5:13
actually influence how the investigation was handled.
5:16
Speaker 2: It's it's hard to say definitively, but those connections, they
5:20
certainly created the appearance of impropriety, right. And remember, I
5:23
mean the case saw multiple recusals. You had different district
5:27
attorneys recusing themselves because of these conflicts. It even got
5:31
to the point where the Georgia Attorney General himself had
5:34
to recuse himself. I mean, really, it really makes you
5:36
question the system, doesn't it it does.
5:38
Speaker 1: What about the Glenn County Police Department, Like, what role
5:41
did they play in all this?
5:42
Speaker 2: Well, they were the first on the scene, right, and
5:44
their handling of the immediate aftermath that came under I
5:47
mean intense scrutiny. It later came out that the first
5:51
responding officer he actually knew Gregory MacMichael personally.
5:55
Speaker 1: Wow, I mean, you can't make this stuff up.
5:57
Speaker 2: You can't. And then, just to add fuel to the
6:00
fire here, there's the fact that the District Attorney's office,
6:04
they initially advised the police not to make any arrests.
6:08
Speaker 1: They advised them not to arrest the McMichael's even after
6:12
seeing that video.
6:13
Speaker 2: That's right, it was a decision that I mean baffled
6:16
legal experts. It further fueled those accusations about cover up.
6:19
Speaker 1: Right, So what changed, Like, how did this case finally
6:23
gain the i mean, the national attention it deserved.
6:27
Speaker 2: It all comes back to that cell phone video, the
6:29
one recorded by William Bryan. Remember this video wasn't initially
6:32
released publicly.
6:33
Speaker 1: Right, right, This was something that the public wasn't supposed.
6:36
Speaker 2: To see exactly, But a local radio station they got
6:39
ahold of the video and ultimately they made the decision
6:42
they released it to the public.
6:43
Speaker 1: And that's that's when the case really exploded, right, it did.
6:46
Speaker 2: Once that video hit the internet, it went, I mean
6:49
it went viral. People all across the country, not just
6:52
in Georgia were outraged, outraged by what they saw. This
6:55
wasn't just a local news story anymore. This was national and.
6:59
Speaker 1: That outrage, that collective you know, demand for justice, that's
7:04
ultimately what forced the authorities to finally to finally take
7:07
a closer look at what happened.
7:09
Speaker 2: You could say that, I mean, the pressure was coming
7:10
from all sides. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the GBI,
7:14
they stepped in and within I mean within days, the
7:17
McMichaels were arrested. They were charged with felony murder, among
7:20
other crimes.
7:21
Speaker 1: And what about William Bryan, the man who filmed the encounter.
7:24
Speaker 2: He was arrested too a few weeks later. The video
7:29
he recorded, as disturbing as it is, it became a
7:32
i mean, a key piece of evidence in the case.
7:34
Speaker 1: Okay, So that brings us to the trial. It took
7:37
place in the same county where the shooting happened, right,
7:40
Glenn County, which, given I mean everything we just talked about,
7:43
seems like it would add a whole other layer of
7:45
I don't know, complexity to this this already complicated case.
7:49
Speaker 2: It did. It did a lot of legal experts they
7:51
question whether a truly impartial jury could even be seated
7:54
in Glenn County. I mean, just considering the pre trial publicity,
7:58
the McMichael roots in the community, it was a valid concern.
8:02
Speaker 1: So walk us through the trial. What were they, you know,
8:05
the key arguments from both sides, from the prosecution in
8:08
the defense.
8:08
Speaker 2: Sure, the prosecution, they presented a very straightforward narrative. They
8:13
argued that the McMichaels, along with William Bryan, that they
8:16
acted as vigilantes. They pursued Amaud Arbury based on well,
8:21
based on assumptions fueled by racial bias. They argued that
8:25
Arbury was I mean, he was simply out for a jog.
8:27
He didn't pose a threat. Yeah, and that his killing
8:30
was well, it was the tragic result of a racially motivated.
8:34
Speaker 1: Attack, and the defense was their strategy.
8:36
Speaker 2: The defense, well, as you might expect, they they offered
8:39
a very different interpretation of events. They maintained that the McMichaels,
8:43
what they were trying to do was make what they
8:45
called a citizen's arrest.
8:47
Speaker 1: This this is arrest. What does that even mean in
8:49
this context.
8:50
Speaker 2: That's a great question. Georgia law at the time it
8:55
allowed for citizens to make arrests if if they had
8:59
what they deemed reasonable and probable grounds to believe that
9:03
a felony had been committed. The defense argued that the McMichaels,
9:07
given the recent break ins in the neighborhood, that they
9:09
believed that Arbury was responsible and that they were within
9:12
their rights to detain him.
9:14
Speaker 1: Hold on, hold on, So they were using that break
9:16
in as justification, even though even though Arbury hadn't actually
9:19
stolen anything that day.
9:21
Speaker 2: Yes, they pointed to a previous incident where Arbury had
9:24
been seen on camera at that same construction site, and
9:27
they used that to establish in their minds at least
9:30
this pattern of suspicious behavior.
9:32
Speaker 1: So the defense was basically arguing that this wasn't about race,
9:35
but about protecting their community.
9:37
Speaker 2: Precisely, they went on to argue that during the encounter,
9:42
that a struggle, a struggle for Travis McMichael's shotgun, that
9:45
it ensued, and that he fired those fatal shots and
9:48
self defense. They claimed that Travis McMichael that he felt threatened,
9:53
that he feared for his life, and that he had
9:55
no choice, no choice but to pull the trigger.
9:58
Speaker 1: And William Bryan, where did he fit into all of this?
10:01
Speaker 2: They argued that Brian was simply a bystander, a witness
10:05
to the events, that he was just trying to help by,
10:07
you know, by filming the encounter. They maintained that he
10:11
had no involvement in the actual confrontation itself.
10:14
Speaker 1: But the jury ultimately rejected those arguments, right they did.
10:17
Speaker 2: After days of testimony deliberation, the jury reached a verdict.
10:20
All three men, Travis McMichael, Gregory McMichael, and William Bryan
10:24
were all found guilty of felony.
10:26
Speaker 1: Murder, so a clear cut victory for the prosecution.
10:29
Speaker 2: Not entirely. It's actually a bit more nuanced than that.
10:32
While all three men were found guilty on the felony
10:35
murder charges, Travis McMichael, the man who actually pulled the trigger,
10:39
he was also found guilty of malice murder, which was
10:41
the most serious charge he faced.
10:44
Speaker 1: So what was the difference. What did that additional charge mean.
10:46
Speaker 2: Essentially, the malice murder conviction, it meant that the jury
10:50
they believed that there was an element of intent, an
10:53
intentional desire to cause harm on the part of Travis McMichael.
10:57
Speaker 1: And the sentences they were significant.
11:00
Speaker 2: They were Travis McMichael received life in prison, life in
11:04
prison without the possibility of parole plus twenty years. Gregory
11:07
McMichael received the same sentence, life without parole plus twenty years.
11:11
William Bryan was sentenced to life with the possibility of
11:14
parole after thirty years.
11:16
Speaker 1: So there was a sense of accountability, at least at
11:19
least in the eyes of the law. But this case.
11:21
I mean, this case was about so much more than
11:23
just legal accountability, wasn't it? It tapped into something much much deeper,
11:27
much more profound in our society.
11:30
Speaker 2: You're absolutely right, this case it forced a national conversation,
11:34
a conversation about race, about vigilantism, about those deep seated
11:37
biases that still exist in our society.
11:40
Speaker 1: And what about the McMichael's claim of making a citizen's arrest?
11:45
Did this case have any impact on that on that
11:47
law in Georgia?
11:48
Speaker 2: It did. Following the trial there was this ground swell
11:51
of support for repealing the citizen's arrest law in Georgia.
11:54
People were outraged that a law like that could be
11:57
used to justify such a tragedy.
11:59
Speaker 1: Was it repealed?
12:01
Speaker 2: It was, and twenty twenty two, Georgia Governor Brian kemp
12:04
He signed a bill into law that effectively repealed the
12:07
state's citizens arrest law. The new law is significantly narrow
12:11
the circumstances under which private citizens could make arrests. And
12:15
while it's you know, it's impossible to know for sure
12:17
if this case alone led to the laws repeal, it
12:20
undeniably played a significant role in prompting that change.
12:24
Speaker 1: So a small victory amidst the tragedy.
12:26
Speaker 2: I think. So it shows that sometimes even in the
12:28
face of you know, unimaginable loss, that positive change it
12:32
is possible.
12:33
Speaker 1: And speaking of positive change, there was another significant development
12:37
following Arbury's death, right something about a hate crime law
12:41
in Georgia.
12:42
Speaker 2: You're right, this case also exposed a gaping hole in
12:45
Georgia law. At the time of Arbury's murder, Georgia was
12:48
one of only four states in the entire country that
12:50
didn't have a hate crime law on the books.
12:52
Speaker 1: Wow, I can't believe that it's true.
12:55
Speaker 2: But following the I mean, the outcry over Arbury's death,
12:58
lawmakers finally took action. In June twenty twenty, just a
13:01
few months after Arbury's death, Governor Kemp signed a hate
13:05
crime bill into law. The law it allows for enhanced
13:08
sentencing for crimes that are motivated by bias, bias based
13:12
on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity,
13:17
or disability.
13:18
Speaker 1: So while the law, I mean, obviously it couldn't bring
13:20
Ahmad Arby back, but it did represent a significant step towards,
13:24
you know, addressing hate motivated violence in Georgia.
13:27
Speaker 2: It did. And while it's impossible to measure the true
13:30
impact of a law so far it's passage. It was
13:32
a testament to the power of you know, of collective action,
13:36
and to the enduring legacy of Ahmad Arbery. It showed
13:39
that that even in the face of such a such
13:41
a senseless tragedy, that positive change it is possible. But
13:46
the conversation it doesn't end there. There's still I mean,
13:49
there's still much work to be done, especially when it
13:51
comes to addressing racial injustice in our society.
13:55
Speaker 1: And that's what makes this case, the case of Ahmad Arbery,
13:58
so so important. It wasn't just about a single act
14:01
of violence, you know, it was a stark reminder of
14:05
the work that we still need to do as a society.
14:07
Speaker 2: Absolutely, this case forced us to confront, like we said,
14:11
some uncomfortable truths, truths about race, about privilege, about the
14:15
systems that too often failed to protect marginalized communities.
14:19
Speaker 1: It's a conversation that continues to this day. Yeah, it's
14:22
almost like this case it just it threw open the
14:24
doors on so many issues, issues that maybe people weren't
14:27
talking about openly, or maybe they didn't even realize were
14:30
so so pervasive in our society.
14:33
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, absolutely.
14:34
Speaker 1: And one of the things that really struck me, and
14:36
I don't know if you felt the same way, but
14:40
the prosecution's decision not to seek the death penalty for
14:42
the McMichaels.
14:43
Speaker 2: Yeah.
14:44
Speaker 1: I mean, given the severity of the crime, the national spotlight, everything,
14:48
what do you think for some of the reasons behind
14:50
that decision.
14:51
Speaker 2: Well, I mean, we can never know for sure, right
14:54
unless we were in those rooms those discussions, but you know,
14:57
we can we can analyze it based on what we
14:59
know about the case, the legal landscape. Sure, So, I
15:02
mean one possibility, and this is just me kind of
15:05
you know, thinking out loud here, is that that maybe
15:09
they felt they felt incredibly confident in their ability to
15:12
secure life sentence without parole. I mean, the evidence, especially
15:16
with that video footage, it was it was pretty damning, right,
15:19
So they might have believed that that pursuing the death
15:23
penalty that it would have been riskier, you know, that
15:25
it could have even backfired, led to a mistrial or
15:29
or a lesser sentence on appeal.
15:31
Speaker 1: Right, right, Like why gamble on a harsher punishment if
15:35
you're almost guaranteed a life sentence.
15:36
Speaker 2: Anyway, exactly exactly. And on top of that, you also
15:40
have to consider the I don't know, the political climate,
15:43
you know what I mean, This was twenty twenty, This
15:44
was a time of I mean intense national reckoning, reckoning
15:49
on race, on justice. Pursuing the death penalty, especially in
15:53
a case that had such I mean, let's face it,
15:55
such clear racial overtones. It could been seen as I
16:00
don't know, as overly aggressive. It could have even you know,
16:03
potentially sparked more unrest, who knows.
16:05
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, It's almost as if like seeking a life sentence,
16:09
it was a way to to try to secure justice,
16:12
but without without further inflaming, you know, an already incredibly
16:16
tense situation.
16:17
Speaker 2: One hundred per one hundred percent. And we also, we can't,
16:21
we can't overlook the role of the victims' families in
16:24
these situations. Now I don't, I don't know their stance
16:26
in this particular case, right, but you know, families, they
16:30
they often have a say in whether prosecutors seek the
16:33
death penalty or not. And it's it's entirely possible that
16:36
they that they preferred a life sentence, right, you know,
16:39
seeing it as as a form of I don't know,
16:42
maybe a more prolonged form of accountability.
16:45
Speaker 1: Sure, Yeah, it's it's a good reminder that these cases,
16:48
you know, they're not they're not just you know, these
16:51
abstract legal battles you know, playing out in a courtroom.
16:54
These are these are deeply personal tragedies with with real
16:57
people they are, and and real families, and they have
17:01
a lasting impact one hundred percent.
17:03
Speaker 2: And while the McMichael's ultimately did receive those life sentences,
17:07
I'm on Arbury's legacy, I mean, it extends, it extends far,
17:12
far beyond the courtroom.
17:13
Speaker 1: Yeah.
17:13
Speaker 2: I mean, remember how we were talking about Georgia not
17:15
having a hate crime law on the books.
17:17
Speaker 1: At the time, right, one of the few states without one, exactly.
17:20
Speaker 2: And for years, you know, activists they had been pushing
17:22
and pushing hard for legislation, but it just it kept
17:25
getting stalled, you know, Right, and then then i'm ad
17:28
Arbury is killed, and it's like suddenly there's this national spotlight,
17:33
a spotlight on Georgia, on its justice system, on its
17:37
lack of hate crime legislation.
17:38
Speaker 1: Yeah, it is like this case in a way, it
17:42
became a catalyst. It did for change, it did, it really.
17:45
Speaker 2: Did Within within months of Arbury's death, Governor kemp He
17:49
signed a hate crime bill into law.
17:51
Speaker 1: Wow.
17:52
Speaker 2: It allows for tougher sentences for crimes that are motivated
17:56
by bias based on race, religion, sexual orientation, I mean,
18:00
a whole list of protected characteristics.
18:03
Speaker 1: So even in the face of this, this horrible, horrible tragedy,
18:08
something something positive emerged.
18:10
Speaker 2: It's a testament to the power of collective action, you know,
18:13
to the idea that even in the darkest of times,
18:16
even in the face of such a loss, that change,
18:19
change is possible.
18:20
Speaker 1: And it wasn't just the hate crime legislation, right, right.
18:23
Georgia took another step in honoring ah mod Arbery's his memory.
18:26
Speaker 2: Ever think you a mod Arbory Day, a mod Arbury Day?
18:29
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, tell me about that.
18:31
Speaker 2: So in twenty twenty one, Georgia they officially designated February
18:35
twenty third, the anniversary of Arbury's death, as Ahmad Arbery Day.
18:39
Speaker 1: Wow.
18:40
Speaker 2: It's a day to reflect, to reflect on his life,
18:43
to continue those conversations, those really important conversations about racial
18:47
justice that his death you know, unfortunately ignited, right, and
18:51
to really just work towards a future where these kinds
18:54
of these kinds of tragedies are less likely to happen.
18:57
Speaker 1: It's a powerful gesture. I think it's a way acknowledging,
19:01
you know, the impact of his death, but also also
19:04
the need for for continued progress.
19:07
Speaker 2: Exactly exactly, and it really just underscores that that while
19:10
the trial, the trial might be over, that quest for
19:13
for true justice, that that continues.
19:15
Speaker 1: It really does make you think, like, how do we
19:17
create a world, a world where someone like ahm at
19:20
Ourbery can can simply go for a jock, you know,
19:23
on a on a sunny afternoon and and not and
19:26
not become the target of suspicion, of fear. What what
19:29
can we learn learn from this? What steps can we
19:31
take to to make sure that this never this never
19:34
happens again.
19:35
Speaker 2: I mean, those are the questions, right, those are the
19:36
questions that linger long after, you know, the verdicts are read,
19:39
after the sentences are handed down. It's it's a call
19:42
to action, I think, for all of us to to
19:44
confront our own biases, to to educate ourselves, to educate others,
19:48
to challenge, to challenge those systems of oppression that are
19:52
still so prevalent, right, and to never ever stop fighting
19:55
for a more just and a more equitable world, a
19:58
world where every single life, if it, is valued, where
20:00
every voice is heard, and where everyone everyone has the
20:04
opportunity to live with dignity and with respect. I mean,
20:07
that's that's the legacy that Ahmad Arbery deserves.
20:10
Speaker 1: I couldn't agree more. And unfortunately that's all the time
20:13
we have for today's deep dive. But you know, the
20:16
conversation doesn't end here. Keep asking those tough questions, keep learning,
20:20
keep engaging, and most importantly, keep fighting for a better
20:23
and more just future for everyone.
20:25
Speaker 2: I agree. Couldn't have said it better myself.