← Fame Under Fire
Fame Under Fire
Pulled Off Air: The Bachelorette crisis
00:21:42
ABC pulls The Bachelorette after Taylor Frankie Paul video surfaces
Loading summary
Transcript58 lines
- [00:00]
Sean Kent
This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk.
- [00:06]
Whole Foods Market Advertiser
Delicious spring gatherings start at Whole Foods Market. Shop the spring and bloom sales event with yellow sales signs throughout the store and serve your loved ones. Whole Foods Market seafood always responsibly farmed or sustainable. Wild caught. Explore vibrant seasonal flavors like their trending mango yuzu, Chantilly cake. Great for brunch or an after dinner treat. Spoon. Speaking of brunch, check out their deviled eggs, cold pressed juices and more. Spring is in bloom now at Whole Foods Market.
- [00:36]
Pocket Hose Advertiser
This podcast is sponsored by Pocket Hose. I gotta tell you, being a homeowner, there's so many things you have to think about all the time. For example, I have to replace my hoses every single year because they're weak, they get tangled and there's kinks. Then I found the pocket hose ballistic. This is the upgrade I've been looking for for a long time, man. It's reinforced with a liquid crystal polymer used in bulletproof vests. You know what? No kinks. It's not going to get tangled. It also comes with this pocket pivot, which gives you total freedom of movement. And the spigot has like a 360 degree rotation, which is pretty cool. There's also this upgraded UV coating they added for free. So your hose basically looks brand new all the time. Right now, when you get the new pocket hose ballistic, you'll get a free 360 degree rotating pocket pivot and a free thumb drive nozzle. Go to pockethose.com podcast. That's pockethose.com podcast for your two free gifts with purchase. Pocke.com P O D C A S T
- [01:40]
Anushka Matandadawati
hello, and welcome back to Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anushka Matandadawati. And I'm joined, of course, by a resident trial attorney, Sean Kent, who's brought his child with him.
- [01:49]
Sean Kent
Are you Anushka?
- [01:50]
Anushka Matandadawati
That's a ridiculous dog.
- [01:51]
Sean Kent
You leave him alone. He's trying.
- [01:53]
Anushka Matandadawati
Are you gonna bring him over when you come in July? Sean's coming to the UK in July.
- [01:57]
Sean Kent
No, I'm keeping my dogs away from you in July.
- [01:59]
Anushka Matandadawati
Yeah, because I'm gonna shave your dogs. That's what I'm gonna do. What's that one called? Is that Clark Kent?
- [02:04]
Sean Kent
This is Sparty Kent. Clark. Ken is in it. You want to see Clark? Come here, Clark. And that's Clark Kent.
- [02:10]
Anushka Matandadawati
They ain't the most masculine looking dogs I've ever seen in my life. Hey, we love a man who steps in his feminine energy. I've missed you. I was getting Sean withdrawals every time I don't do an episode with you. And I've got something that I think I really want to get your take on this week. It's been going viral on social media. It's quite a confusing story, and it's got some legal points in it that we haven't been before. Just to let everybody listening know some of the topics in this episode might be a bit distressing, and we will probably have some strong language now, Sean, I don't know if you heard, but three days before its premiere, ABC pulled an entire season of the Bachelorette. Wish me luck. I can see him.
- [02:53]
Sean Kent
It's Jesse Taylor.
- [02:55]
Anushka Matandadawati
Yeah.
- [02:55]
Sean Kent
Let the journey begin.
- [02:57]
Anushka Matandadawati
I love it. I don't think they made dolls like that when I was a kid. I like cowboys. Yeah. Hug makes the nerves. And for the uninitiated, the Bachelorette is a reality TV dating show in which one woman dates a group of men, eliminating them over time. The idea being that there's one man left who is the potential husband for that woman. The parent show of that is called the Bachelor. So same thing, but gender switched. So the Bachelorette was on season 22. The cast had already been picked. It'd been edited. It'd been scheduled. This was the finished package. And then the network has pulled it from being released just three days before. But the reason abc, whose parent company is actually Disney, pulled the show so. So close to broadcast is that a video surfaced and went viral. I just want to give another warning because this does contain an instance of violence.
- [03:43]
Sean Kent
Huh. And you think this is okay? It's not okay. Holy. It's okay. I don't give a. Let me go. Stop.
- [03:54]
Anushka Matandadawati
Dude.
- [03:55]
Sean Kent
Leave me alone. Oh, my gosh. Your daughter is right here. Oh, my gosh.
- [04:08]
Anushka Matandadawati
So the video shows influencer Taylor, Frankie Paul in a domestic incident from 2023 involving her now ex boyfriend, Dakota Mortensen. The video includes footage of Taylor throwing a chair with her child present. Taylor said she was under the influence of alcohol at the time. The video was filmed by her then boyfriend, Dakota Mortensen. But we don't know who leaked the video. It was then released by the entertainment website tm. And Taylor, she is the lead star of the Bachelorette. That season that's been pulled. She was the one looking for a husband. We don't know if she found a suitable candidate, and now we may never know if she found a suitable candidate. But the thing is, Sean, the video isn't new. The domestic violence incident had already been through the courts. So what Changed when the full video emerged and was then widely circulated. And legally, what on earth does a network do when it's cast people done advertising deals, product placement deals, and then has to pull the whole series just three days before? So after that video, Taylor, Frankie Paul was arrested and charged with three misdemeanors. Aggravated assault, criminal mischief, and domestic violence in the presence of a child, according to court documents released by the District Attorney for Salt Lake County. Sean, I've always had this question. Aggravated assault and assault. Who's. I'm going to sound so stupid. Who's aggravated? Is that. Is that what that means?
- [05:33]
Sean Kent
No, it is not. And the best way is. I talked about this once before. So an assault, you know, we always hear the phrase assault and battery, okay? And people use those interchangeably, and they should not be used interchangeably. And assault is. Have you seen that viral trend that's going on in which the young lady is going down the road and she goes, ah. And screams, and then all the boys turn and look, and she's there like, why is so upset, obsessed with me? And she starts pausing, if you haven't seen it. But what she does is she screams at a group of guys, and then the group of guys look at her, and then she takes a picture like they're obsessed with her. Well, that screaming is an assault. Once you connect with somebody, once you hit them in the face, once you touch them, that assault then becomes a battery. And so an assault is not necessarily touching somebody. The successful completion is a battery. Now, what makes it aggravated is the level of assault that we're talking about. Now, the young lady we just talked about, who just screaming at guys and they turn to look, well, that's just screaming at somebody. Let's say I take a gun, Anushka, and I fire at you. I never touch you. That's a pretty aggravated assault. Let's say I take a chair, as you just mentioned, and throw it at you. That's a pretty aggravated assault. It's the level of what could have happened based upon the assault, how scary the situation could have been. And so that's what makes it aggravated, is the level of. I want to say intent sometimes or what the person intends on doing, that makes it a little bit scarier.
- [07:05]
Anushka Matandadawati
Are there levels to the aggravation? I don't think that's how you phrase it. But say if you fired a gun or you threw a chair. Those are two separate things. Right. So is. Is there a way to. Absolutely. How do you. What's it called?
- [07:17]
Sean Kent
Well, those are just Levels of aggravation. And that's just what it is. It just turns into a felony aggravated assault as opposed to a misdemeanor aggravated assault. And remember, we always focus on the batter. And I want to make sure. Here's the best way to describe a battery. Every unlawful touching is a battery. Doesn't matter the level of it. So let's say you're walking through the mall or walking down the street and somebody brushes up to you by accident. You're like, hey, what's that? Well, that's a battery. You understand if somebody touches you or if a coworker just touches you on your shoulder, it may seem sensitive. That's a battery. A battery is just defined as an unwanted touching. So someone touches you, you don't want to touch. That's a simple battery. And the level of that battery that goes higher makes it a higher crime. And the same thing with an assault. And so that what makes them higher levels of what ends up happening.
- [08:10]
Anushka Matandadawati
So she was charged with three misdemeanors. We've got one there. I don't want to lessen anything, but criminal mischief does sound a little bit like a term from yesteryear, like something Robin Hood would be doing. What does that actually mean?
- [08:23]
Sean Kent
You are so right on that. You know, a lot of times they're on the statute book. And I love the fact that you said it came up from yesteryear because a lot of our laws are written from a long damn time ago. We still have a dueling statute on the books where you can't fire guns towards each other. Criminal mischief is the same thing you just described. It comes from yesteryear where they're just like, you know what? Don't necessarily know what this is, but we're going to call it criminal mischief. You're acting bad. You're acting bad in public. You're doing something we don't like. If you. I hate to say it, but your description was positively accurate. That's the same way we look at it.
- [08:57]
Anushka Matandadawati
Maybe I understood it.
- [08:58]
Sean Kent
You just don't know where to put it, and you just throw it into the criminal mischief category. We don't know what it is, but something you've done is wrong.
- [09:04]
Anushka Matandadawati
Now, in regards to those charges, Taylor pled guilty to a third degree felony count of aggravated assault in abeyance, whilst four other charges were dismissed with prejudice. That's legalese. Honey, can you translate what even is abeyance?
- [09:19]
Sean Kent
Abeyance. And it's. It's called something different in almost every jurisdiction. What abeyance means is the following. Usually, usually, usually you don't have a criminal record. You have done this. You are apologetic. You're a good person. Maybe you were drunk, maybe you were stupid, but there's a rationale for doing it. So what we're going to do is you are going to plead guilty. The judge is going to say, ma', am, you are guilty of this charge. But we believe that you are the type of person who can be salvaged. We are going to put you on probation. We are going to make you do some stuff. We're going to make you get some mental health counseling. We're going to do some things, and we're going to give you a certain period of time. Maybe it's a year, maybe it's two years. It's usually a year, but maybe it's a year, maybe it's two years, maybe it's three years. And once you have completed that term, we're going to either take it off your record completely. So we're holding the conviction in abeyance until you do everything we've told you to do. Now, if you don't do what we told you to do, then the conviction will stand on your record the way it has, and you've already pled guilty to it, so you can't go backwards. So holding something in abeyance means just that. We're just waiting to show the world that you are salvageable, that you regret this. And we don't want you to have a potential felony on your record, because, as you mentioned, it is a felony. Aggravated assault. That eliminates her right to vote, her right to own firearms. Yes, Anushka, we do all have a right to have firearms here, Yosemite Sam, but this would cause you not to have a right to have a firearm in the United States, not be able to vote in our elections. And so it's a big deal to get your charge handled in abeyance.
- [10:51]
Anushka Matandadawati
And look, Taylor has spoken about her perspective of the incident that took place. And she spoke on a podcast in 2024 called the Vile Files. And she said, quote, it was a buildup. So not just that night. I had an ectopic pregnancy a few months prior, and I had a chemical pregnancy. She says, I obviously don't want to blame hormones, but that was pretty whack. I think hormones are whack and crazy. I'm angry. I'm very angry. That's the one emotion I was feeling. Then I ended up drinking that night again, feeling very lost. So she did tell her side of the story back then in September 2024. So she's, she's telling her perspective that it was a build up. I'm assuming all of that then plays into the reception in deciding whether it goes in abeyance or she just gets charged right then and there. It was held in abeyance for three years, which allowed her to undertake recommended courses, prime for life class, to get some information or education about alcohol and its side effects and consequences. So that's literally what you just said, Se. And a parenting class.
- [11:46]
Sean Kent
Smart.
- [11:46]
Anushka Matandadawati
Yeah, well, you know. Okay, okay, I know stuff. Don't make me say it. And they also made her take a parenting class to learn to manage stress and anxiety around her children. I just want to ask. The allegation is that the child was present during the throwing of the chair. There's the allegation of domestic violence. Is that then worsened in the eyes of the law if a child is present?
- [12:10]
Sean Kent
Absolutely. We have something that we almost always call the best interest of the child test. And we always worried about parenting around children. So we really try to make sure that if our crimes, if children are involved, they become heightened and more aggravated. And they're basically saying, you know, this is the crime. You saw what is also possibly happened on the crimes. You don't see if a person is willing to do this in front of a child and it's on the camera, what are we not watching when it's not there? So the fact that a child is involved in the eyes of the court because, you know, a child is vulnerable, a pet is vulnerable, an elderly person is vulnerable. So courts go out of the way to protect in those situations. And since a child was there when she's throwing the chair and could have been hurt, that aggravates or heightens the crime that she's potentially looking at.
- [12:55]
Anushka Matandadawati
So we have an explanation from Taylor on her side of events in that incident that took place in 2023. Then in February last month, the police in Utah confirmed that the domestic abuse incident was still, quote, open and active. They can't release any details of it, but they did confirm allegations have been made on both sides. So we had it held in abeyance for three years, but it's still going on. Should we glean from that that there's been another incident?
- [13:21]
Sean Kent
Yes, yes, you should. There are new allegations being brought forth from the male who is saying that there's been a new incident of domestic violence. And if that is what has happened during the three years, you know, we talk about held in abeyance you're basically on probation, Anushka, and you cannot get in trouble during that three years. And so if he is saying something during that three years, she has done this again. She has done. And I'm not saying she has, but this is his allegation. She has done this again. So, Judge, you need to look back at this. This would be a violation of the three year advance process she's being on. And this is a problem. And when you look at it a little further, when you plead guilty, and I understand she has given her statement and that's why I kind of give it a look, because I tell people that when you plead guilty, the judge asks you certain questions. Your name is blank. How old are you? Do you understand you are pleading guilty? By pleading guilty, you are given up certain rights. Amongst those is a right to a jury trial. You are acknowledging the facts as they have stated. You are acknowledging that you have done wrong. No one has promised you, threatened you or forced you in any way to plead guilty. Those are all the things the judge asks you and it's put on the record. Maybe someone told her just to do that to get through a plea. But those are now the facts of the case, Anusha, that she has acknowledged what she did was wrong. And so now to come back and say, well, I've had all these issues, that's why when you ask me, should we glean anything from it, she's already pled guilty, period. And to go back and relitigate it would make it hard on her.
- [14:52]
Anushka Matandadawati
Like you said there, Sean, if something happens while it's being held in abeyance, like with probation, the case continues. It doesn't close out after that three years. And we have. In a protective order obtained by TMZ from Dakota Mortensen, there is an allegation that there's been another incident. He shared that he argued with Taylor in their home with their two year old son. The two had an argument which escalated and he alleges that Taylor choked him and he had to physically remove her hands from his neck while she shoved him into a window and struck him. He called the situation frightening and chaotic. He goes on to say more and describes why he felt he had to remove the child. This is of course, just one side of events. Those are his side of, of that new allegation, that fresh allegation of domestic violence. In March, Dakota Mortensen files for a temporary restraining order on Taylor Frankie Paul and gains temporary custody of their two year old son. Son, should we glean from the gaining of the temporary custody that he has some sort of sufficient evidence to back up what he said there.
- [15:48]
Sean Kent
Yes. I mean, remember we talked about this question, didn't know was coming, but we talked about what's in the best interest of the child. And that's what courts tend to consider, what is in the best interest of the two year old child. And you look at the mother versus the father, some court somewhere looked at this and made a decision that it is in the best interest of the child based upon the evidence that we have been presented to put custody with father over mother. So something was presented that we should glean from it that the court decided in this situation there's some merit to what he is saying.
- [16:21]
Anushka Matandadawati
And look, we did ask Taylor, Frankie Poole for a response. We didn't get one. But a spokesperson for Taylor did release a statement after the video went viral saying Taylor is very grateful for ABC's support as she prioritizes her family's safety and security. After years of silently suffering extensive mental and physical abuse as well as threats of retaliation, Taylor is finally gaining the strength strength to face her accuser and taking steps to ensure that she and her children are protected from any further harm. She goes on to talk about the fact that there are many other women who are suffering in silence as they survive. Aggressive, jealous ex partners who refuse to let them move on with their lives. So she previously took accountability for the assault in 2023 and alcohol abuse. This statement casts Dakota Mortensen as the aggressor in the relationship. Taylor has spoken about all this in interviews and she's released multiple statements. In one, she says, quote, I'm a person that will always speak my truth.
- [17:12]
Sean Kent
Truth.
- [17:12]
Anushka Matandadawati
That's what I'm known for. So when the time is right, I will be. And Dakota has spoken out after the release of the video and the cancellation of the Bachelorette to places like Entertainment Weekly and People. He said, as anyone who has seen the video will understand, this is a deeply upsetting situation. I am unfortunately used to these baseless claims about me and our relationship, which I categorically deny. I'm focusing on our son and his safety and hope that Taylor will do the same. But Sean, I want to ask you something about reactive abuse. It's this phrase that comes up a lot when we're examining these types of stories, saying just because she might have been the aggressive in a specific situation, it can be reactive to a, a larger pattern of coercion. And that sounds like what she's asserting in that statement and what her rep is Asserting in that statement.
- [17:54]
Sean Kent
Absolutely. And that is a literal, viable defense. It is true. There are women who suffer for decades in abusive relationships. We have battered wife syndrome, which is a recognized defense that. We have therapists and psychiatrists who will testify that this woman has engaged and dealt with years of abuse and that's why she reacted the way she did. People looking back from lens of today, looking back and saying, people can suffer for years of abuse, and they may not be an abused at an exact time, but they're likely to snap. I agree with all of that. The problem is, as mentioned earlier, that would have been a perfect defense before she chose to enter into the guilty plea, because the second she has entered into a guilty plea, the judge asked all of those questions. And is anyone promising you, Is anyone forcing you? Are you being threatened to plead guilty? Are you pleading guilty under your own free will and volition? Has your lawyer, and they even go through this and this. Has your lawyer gone over legal defenses that you possibly could have on this case that you would want to assert? They ask them all of these questions, but surely.
- [18:55]
Anushka Matandadawati
So then the next logical step to that is, I was in a coercive relationship at the time, so I would have pled that way because I was in the midst of an abusive relationship.
- [19:05]
Sean Kent
No, 100%. But is it going to work? No. Because you have pled guilty. The second you plea, it stops. You know, there's a difference. When you're like, I went to trial. I was fighting this, whatever. You made a conscious choice to stand in front of God, country, the court and say, I am guilty for this, and I'll take whatever the court wants to do for me. Once you have done that, it's hard to have a revisionist history later. And we've represented a lot of people as like, I wish I wouldn't have pled guilty. And now it's hard to change the narrative.
- [19:31]
Anushka Matandadawati
But this is playing out on a global stage because she was going onto this reality TV show where she was gonna be the bachelorette to find a new man, potentially a husband. And there's the sides of it, legally, that we've just unpacked to do with their specific situation. But there's also a business ele to this. You know, Disney have invested a lot of money in that series and made deals with advertisers, made deals with the contestants. This could cost them millions of dollars.
- [19:59]
Sean Kent
And usually, if you know these situations, they do such a vetting process of getting people on these television shows. We've had a couple of people who have sent us contracts to look at. And when you would look at Anushka, the contract, the background check, who you are. Have you ever been accused of a crime? Have you ever had a crime expunged? Because they don't want this situation to happen that could cost them millions. So I'm very curious about the vetting process that would have happened before they put this young lady on the show.
- [20:26]
Anushka Matandadawati
Now, of course, we did ask Disney for a comment and they haven't replied. They haven't spoken specifically about their vetting process, but they have released a statement saying, quote, in light of the newly released video just surfaced today, we have made the decision to not move forward with the new season of the Bachelorette at this time. And our focus is on supporting the family. And I just want to quickly check with you when I'm thinking about who can sue? Because I spend a lot of time with you talking about who can sue. And in America, the answer is usually everybody.
- [20:54]
Sean Kent
You know what my response is going to be.
- [20:56]
Anushka Matandadawati
But I was thinking, outside of advertisers who've made agreements with Disney for product placement, outside of brand deals, etcetera, the contestants that were going to go on that show, who would potentially then get future opportunities because it launches their career into the stratosphere. Aluminum Love island, etc, can't they sue for damages in the form of lost business, potential future business opportunities?
- [21:21]
Sean Kent
Absolutely. Every single person can file suit against the parent company and say, we counted on you to do this vetting process. We counted on you not to put this woman on the show if blank. We counted on you. We took our time, energy, effort, and you've killed all types of potential opportunities. They won't sue the young lady, not to be disrespectful because she's not a billionaire company. They'll go after the billionaire company because that's where the money is.
- [21:48]
Anushka Matandadawati
Oh, Shawn, it's nice having you back. Thank you for walking us through all of that. There's some new ground we covered there. We haven't done a lot of that before. Because you're a legal nerd.
- [21:57]
Sean Kent
Honey, I am a dork. And you know I get excited about this type of stuff.
- [22:01]
Anushka Matandadawati
Sean, thank you so much for coming and breaking that down for us.
- [22:03]
Sean Kent
Thank you, Anoushka, for having me. You are appreciated.
- [22:07]
Anushka Matandadawati
That was our resident trial attorney, Shawn Kent from Sarah, South Carolina. But before we go, there's some exciting news. The BBC is throwing open the doors to Maida Vale Studios on Saturday, 25th April for Cast Fest, a one day celebration bringing our biggest news podcast directly to you. And Fame Under Fire will be there as well as Newscast americast, the global Story and Top Comment. You'll be able to go behind the scenes, meet your favorite hosts, join exclusive Q and A's, and even step into the studio to record your own mini podcast episode. Episode tickets are free. Just head to the BBC shows and tours website. And that's it for this episode of Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anoushka Matandadawati. Make sure you subscribe and turn on those push notifications so you never miss a thing. A group of men ran in with machetes. I'm Livy Haydock and from BBC Sounds and BBC Radio 5 live, this is Gangster, the story of Georgie Pai.
- [23:04]
Sean Kent
The scene of the killing near a Chinese bookshop is being flooded with detective detectives.
- [23:08]
Anushka Matandadawati
Welcome to the world of the triads. If the triads are coming out of you, you're done. Where loyalty is sworn in Blood Gangster the story of Georgie Pie Listen first on BBC Sounds.
- [23:23]
Grainger Advertiser 1
When you manage procurement for multiple facilities, every order matters. But when it's for a hospital system, they matter even more. Grainger gets it and knows there's no time for managing multiple suppliers and no room for shipping to delays. That's why Grainger offers millions of products in fast, dependable delivery so you can keep your facility stocked, safe and running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER Click grainger. Com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.
- [23:53]
Grainger Advertiser 2
If you work in university maintenance, Grainger considers you an MVP because your playbook ensures your arena is always ready for tip on and Grainger is your trusted partner, offering the products you need all in one place, from H Vac and plumbing supplies to lighting and more. And all delivered with plenty of time left on the clock. So your team always gets the win. Call 1-800-GRAINGER visit grainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done.