What Alleigha Botner Texted Caleb Flynn About Ashley Before She Was Killed

SPEAKER_1 (0:01)

This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Dreeke.

Tony Brueski (0:08)

Well, did you see the sentencing of Caleb Flynn? Did you have some popcorn? Did you have some jujitsu fruits? Did you have any of those little sticky dots that get caught in your teeth while you're watching it? I know I did. I still have a couple stuck back there. I think I'm missing a filling or two.

It was a scene. It was a scene and we are here to talk about it today. We're going to break it down in every which way we possibly can. We're going to start by specifically looking at the mistress, the lover, the 24-year-old Alleigha Botner. She was the prosecution star witness who helped put Caleb away from murdering his wife Ashley. But if you've seen those deeply disturbing text messages between them, you know a lot of people are wondering how she gets to just walk away, Scott, free.

So, we're digging into those toxic texts today to ask the big question. Even if she isn't in handcuffs, could Ashley's family take her to civil court to make her pay for the role in fueling this nightmare?

Joining us to discuss Bob Motta, defense attorney, host of the podcast Defense Diaries, and Robin Dreeke, retired FBI special agent, chief of the counterintelligence behavioral analysis program and master class instructor. So, we'll start here with the staggering text messages. I've wanted to get to this with Bob for a week now, because I've been really excited to get his take. We haven't had this conversation, the three of us, yet. During the trial, where Alleigha literally types, I want to kill her, Caleb. And he replies, that makes two of us. Since civil court is a lot easier to win than criminal court, how much weight, Bob, do those specific messages hold if Ashley's family does try to sue her for helping set this murder in motion? Is there a path for it?

Bob Motta (1:56)

I think so. I mean, first and foremost, you can sue anybody, right?

Robin Dreeke (2:00)

Sure. Right.

Bob Motta (2:01)

It doesn't mean that...

Robin Dreeke (2:03)

Good point. But will it go anywhere? The bar is really low. Anyone.

Bob Motta (2:07)

Exactly, exactly. So here's the issues, all right? Typically, if you're suing, the first thing that they teach you in law school, like in, say, a torts class, is you don't sue people with no money.

Robin Dreeke (2:20)

That's right. Follow the money.

Bob Motta (2:22)

Right. So it's like when we saw OJ back in the day, he was acquitted, shocked the world, and then the Browns and the Goldman's. Was it Goldman? Goldman?

Goldberg's. Goldman's.

Tony Brueski (2:36)

Goldman.

Bob Motta (2:37)

Goldman.

Tony Brueski (2:38)

Goldman. Yeah, Goldman.

Bob Motta (2:39)

They turn around and they sue OJ civilly. As you said, it's a lower burden. It's a much lower burden, and they prevailed on that. But OJ had money, even though he spent the rest of his life trying to hide it. Here, I don't know, but we're talking about two different things. If you're asking, could they potentially sue her and win? Yes, I think unequivocally, and it depends on what certain...

You know, there's a lot of different ways you would sue her in terms of what you would sue under which theory. And I think that there's a couple that could prevail. But as far as whether or not it's worth it, I don't know.

Tony Brueski (3:26)

And that's ultimately the question. I mean, this family, we saw them in court yesterday. They seem like some of the most gracious, forgiving people I've ever seen in my life.

Bob Motta (3:35)

Yeah.

Tony Brueski (3:36)

So, I didn't get the vibe that they're necessarily sue hungry and ready to go after her. Mike, Mike, and if there's, I mean, I have no idea what she's worth. I'm going to guess not a lot. But, you know, who knows? Maybe there's some insurance somewhere that, I don't know. But if there's no monetary gain here, number one, you'd have a very hard time finding an attorney that would do it civilly. But is there a lane here in which you sue civilly, you get discovery going civilly, and that somehow then opens up a door to possible criminal charges, if there's any, or would that already have been identified by now?

The investigation wasn't that great. Keep that in mind.

Bob Motta (4:22)

Yeah, I definitely think that that would be an avenue. You know, I'm always talking about that. In terms of the discovery process in a civil case is exponentially more intense than in a criminal case because you don't have the constitutional protections behind it. So, you know, pretty much everything is fair game and anything that the other side is going to beef about, well, you bring it in front of the judge, and the judge is going to hear the arguments and decide whether or not there's potential relevance there.