transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:03] I don't know how much longer I can do this work of exposing crime and corruption, but after everything I've been through in the last few months, I am more grateful than ever for the ability to step up to the mic and tell y'all the truth about what is really happening in the justice system. And I want to thank all of you for being here as we get to do it another day. My name is Mandy Matney. This is True Sunlight, a podcast exposing crime and corruption, previously known as the Murdaugh Murders Podcast. True Sunlight is a Lunashark production written with journalist Liz Farrell. Well, two weeks ago, I was ambushed in court by an attorney named Deborah Barbier, who I think clearly wanted revenge for what I exposed in the Murdaugh Murders. As Liz told y'all in episode 144, and Eric and I explained in Cup of Justice this week, the hearing was brutal. When I was on the stand, it hit me that it really felt like I was being punished by Mark Moore, who represented Russell Lafitte, Deborah Barbier, who represented Corey Fleming, and Greg Parker, whose gas station settled for millions of dollars with the Beach Family for illegally selling Paul Murdoch alcohol the night of the boat crash that changed everything. It felt like Deborah Barbier and team were using the court to punish, embarrass, shame, and diminish me for all of the things that we have ever said about them and their clients on this podcast. People in South Carolina don't show up for depositions all the time. And to my knowledge, most of them aren't summoned across the state to testify in a court hearing that treated them like a criminal. But I know, I am not like everyone else in South Carolina who did not show up for a deposition. I am a journalist who exposed the dark, disgusting depths of the justice system here. A journalist who poses a major threat to those in the old guard who have comfortably profited off of this unjust system. And I'm a female journalist who dares to stand up for herself in the First Amendment when bullies pretending to be lawyers come after me and use the law to do so. And for the record, I did show up for my deposition, just not at the place where they wanted me to show up that felt very unsafe. So it all hit me. We are now in season two of the Murdaugh story, where the old guard is getting revenge because they cannot stand the thought of people being aware of the evil that lawyers get away with in this state. After that hearing and that realization, I couldn't breathe. And it's still hard to breathe, knowing that there are still open questions regarding what's next. I texted Liz after I got out of that hearing and said that I wanted to be dead. And I meant it in that moment. I am okay now, so don't worry. It is important to say this because I want you to know how overwhelmingly impossible my future felt after that horrifying hearing. The dragons that had been vanquished somehow came back to life and are now out for revenge. How could I possibly go on with this work standing up for victims when I wasn't sure that I could even continue to stand up for myself in a way that was safe? How can I help anyone navigate the same justice system that is crushing my life and my business? Thankfully, I am surrounded by the kind of support most people dream of. My team of attorneys, Becky Lindahl and Meredith Bannon and my amazing husband kept me from going off the deep end that night and the next day I did the deposition that I had agreed to do. And the deposition was nothing like the hearing. It felt like someone told Team Parker that they had gone way too far and this time they finally had to be decent. And the day after that deposition, David and I jetted off to Peru for our new travel podcast Wherever It Leads, a trip that we already had planned. Never in my life have I planned an adventure so perfectly. The timing of that trip healed me in ways nothing here could have. David and I decided before we left for the trip that we would not and could not publish an episode about the hearing that week. We knew the trolls and unfortunately other media would publish their narrative about what went down to further defame me. But this time, instead of ruining our trip, to try to set a record straight, we embraced Mel Robbin's theory of Let Them. We let them call me a hacked journalist and we let them claim that I was reckless with facts and mischaracterized the entire hearing for a whole week while we had the time of our lives in Peru. And, have to say this, when I wrote about this on Instagram, Mel Robbins herself commented on my post, which I fangirled at. However, coming home was harder than it has ever been. We had to face the reality that it is no longer safe for us to live in South Carolina if we want to continue doing this work of holding the powerful accountable. South Carolina is not a state that protects its real journalists. And it's past time that we realize that. We don't know where we will go or when. But, I played the song Exile by Taylor Swift on repeat for the whole way home. The lyrics say, You're not my homeland anymore. So what am I defending now? You are my town. Now I'm in exile seeing you out. I think I've seen this film before. So I'm leaving out the side door. The good news is that this experience has forced me to find strength inside of me that I didn't know I had. I know we will survive this. And I know we will be better for it. As I was on that stand, I thought about all of the abused women and survivors who had sat in that same seat to testify and who were also treated like criminals for simply exposing the behaviors of bad men. I thought about all the women who have gone through family court hell and told me they had similar and worse experiences because they were on that stand fighting for their children. As I was being screamed at for posting a photo in my bathing suit on the internet while also having a stalker, I just kept thinking, if this is how officers of the court operate in the sunlight with someone who has thousands of supporters, what do they do to people when they are in the dark? That thought infuriated me, but it inspired me to fight even harder than I ever have before. I truly understand how horrifying this system is for most of us in South Carolina, and I am still going to do my best to expose that, no matter how scary that gets for me. And speaking of scary, this war with Greg Parker and his team is not over. From my understanding, anything is possible, even criminal contempt. They could make me pay for their fees, which we will fight in the Court of Appeals, but will be an astronomical hit to LUNASHARK MEDIA. They could make me go to trial for contempt of court and argue that I deserve a year in jail. But I am at peace with all of the consequences of fighting for the First Amendment and fighting for my rights as a journalist and as a citizen of this state to expose the truth wherever it leads, get the story straight, and give a voice to victims. I also have faith that our amazing audience, especially LUNASHARK Premium members, will carry us through these dark days. So many of you have asked how you can help. So here's how. Join LUNASHARK Premium to support our work and remind our entire team that the world needs real journalism, real journalism that holds power to account. Now more than ever, when you support LUNASHARK Premium, you are investing in journalism, the First Amendment, in the fight to make our justice system better. There is no better time to join and again, I have to say, if it was not for the LUNASHARK Premium members, our business likely would not have survived and certainly not our spirits. So thank you to the LUNASHARK Premium members. We promise to get Girl Talk, the fun premium only show with Liz and me gabbing about things that piss us off and make us happy. That's coming back on regular schedule. You can also support our show by purchasing the products from our sponsors and mentioning us at checkout. Those purchases go a long way. Finally, you can help us by spreading the word about what is happening to me on social media. Tag your favorite podcasters and journalists in our posts and write to them and ask them to cover this. We need as much sunlight as possible on this case and I am confident our army can help with that. After I got home from Peru and I was feeling really low and sick, I checked the True Sunlight Facebook page and was brought to tears at the hundreds of y'all who posted photos of yourselves to support me with the hashtag disgusted with Debbie. I have never been more grateful and proud of our community who showed up and showed their faces when I needed to see them the most. Thank you. And also another huge thank you to my husband for being the glue keeping both me and our company together. I love you. And speaking of loving my husband and wanting to make things easier for him, things are changing a bit here at True Sunlight, but I think y'all are gonna like the change. Because we are having a hard time covering all of the cases on our list and our weekly episodes just keep getting longer. And because our enemies constantly produce news that we have to cover on Wednesdays. And because we care about my sweet husband and our production team who should not have to stay up until 2am most Wednesdays. Well, we are going to start publishing two episodes a week on weeks like this one when there's a lot to cover. Twice as much sunlight because Lord knows the world needs it. So on part one this week we will cover Mica's Law in the ongoing JP Miller case and in part two, which will be out on Friday, we will cover the latest in the Scott Spivey case and what's going on with Horry County PD and we will cover the stunning new information in the Christa Bauer Ghillie case. Don't thank us for extra episodes. Thank the LUNASHARK Premium members who make this work possible. And please consider joining at lunashark.supercast.com. In the words of Afro Man, Help us turn their bad time into our good time by joining LUNASHARK Premium today. Thank you.

Speaker 2:
[11:45] Let's start by talking about the latest with Mica's law. The bill that's meant to criminalize coercive control abuse in South Carolina. It's a bill that legislators have had many opportunities to pass over the years, but every single version of it got stuck in committee. It's a law that likely would have saved Mica Francis' life, because as you all know, there are multiple instances of Mica seeking help from law enforcement in the months prior to her death, when according to reports and court records, her estranged husband, so-called pastor and churchy business bro, John Paul Miller, allegedly stalked and harassed her relentlessly. Law enforcement did nothing to help Mica, and the excuse they used repeatedly is that they didn't have a law to turn to, which, for the sake of supporting a coercive control abuse law, I am going to pretend is true. But come on, when you read the reports, you can see that not one law enforcement officer took the time to understand the bigger picture in Mica's case, and they were quick to say over and again, there's nothing we can do. There didn't seem to be any critical thinking going on at all as to what repercussions might exist here, nor was there any apparent attempt to connect the dots using other reports involving JP and his first wife. Not to mention, the same agencies that say their hands were tied when it came to arresting and charging JP for what he allegedly did to Mica, sure seemed to find a way to wriggle out of those hand ties like big ol Bubba Houdini's whenever there's an opportunity to charge a woman with stalking and harassing a man. But that's an episode for another day. Knowing that Mica's life could have been saved is the hardest thing to accept in all of this as we still wait for JP to face some sort of justice. Mica, who according to court records, faced medical, spiritual, physical, emotional, financial and sexual abuse from JP. She felt so hopeless and alone, unlike the alleged abuse would never end, that she took her own life in April of 2024. Again, South Carolina's legislators sat on their hands in the years leading up to this because they're, well, they're not women, that's for sure. South Carolina routinely ranks at the bottom of the list in the ratio of men to women in the legislature. This year, there are two women in the 46 member Senate, and there are only 20 women in the 124 member House. In a state where women represent 51.4% of the population, they represent only 13% of the people making laws that affect them. Which is why I think you are all going to find what I'm about to tell you about Mica's law really interesting. More on that after a quick commercial break. Currently, JP Miller is charged with a single federal felony count of cyber-stalking. A federal grand jury indicted JP in December 2025, accusing him of harassing and stalking Mica between November 2022 and April 2024. That harassment, according to a press statement from the US. Attorney's Office, included interfering with Mica's finances and daily activities, posting a nude photo of Mica online without her permission, causing tracking devices to be put on her vehicles, damaging her vehicle, and making unwanted contact with her, including contacting her more than 50 times in a single day. JP has pleaded not guilty to this charge and is currently awaiting trial with an ankle monitor on. Hallelujah. The next scheduled hearing for this creep is May 21st in Florence County at the US. District Courthouse. If you're new to the Mica Francis story, be sure to check out our episode description for a playlist of our full coverage of the case. So a few days before her death, Mica served JP with a divorce complaint for the second time. They had not been living together and Mica was rebuilding her life on a wing and a prayer. On the day of her death, she was on her way to work as a server at a Myrtle Beach restaurant when she turned around and instead went to a pawn shop to purchase a gun before mysteriously driving to State Park in North Carolina where law enforcement says she ended her life. Shortly after her death, Mica's family informed Horry County Probate Court of the abuse, they say, Mica suffered at the hands of JP, who is playing the part of her widower. A weirdo widower at that. If you need more explanation about that, check out how he announced her death to his congregation. Anyway, to prevent JP from taking control of Mica's estate, Mica's family appealed to the Probate Court, asking them to step in and supplying the court with affidavits outlining the allegations of abuse. Months later, Mica's family settled with JP for an undisclosed amount of money and he was appointed as her personal representative of Mica's estate. But the family and Mica's divorce attorney, Regina Ward, did not go quietly. In June 2024, they held a press conference where they announced their plans to call on legislators in South Carolina to stop ignoring the very common and deadly problem that is coercive control abuse, asking them to finally pass the law that would criminalize the behavior, and to name that legislation Mica's Law. I want to share a clip from that press conference. Here is Mica's divorce attorney, Regina Ward, speaking about the history of the coercive control abuse bills stalling in committee.

Speaker 3:
[17:27] Would you be shocked to know that that very law has already been drafted and has been sitting in the General Assembly and the Judiciary Committee, both in the House of Representatives and the Senate? Don't get too happy. It's been sitting there since February the 2nd of 2020. Now I'm mad. Are you mad? I'm mad. So let me tell you the history. On February the 20th of 2020, what is referred to as the Coercive Control Bill was introduced to the House of Representatives. When it was introduced, it was introduced as House Bill number 5271. You can get online and track it. It goes nowhere. It goes to the Judiciary Committee, and it goes no further. Folks, that was four years ago. Then again, again, I said, on January the 12th of 2021, House Representative Robert J also referred to as RJ, May, and May Y, the 3rd. He introduced the same bill, Coercive Control Bill. It was known as House Bill 3621. That was three years ago. When you do the research on the bill, guess what? It got referred to the Judiciary Committee. Now, normally when it gets there, there should be a subcommittee that is assigned to take that particular bill to study it, to review it, to bring in whatever advisors or other professionals to help craft that bill and put it into, hopefully, its perfect form. It went to the Judiciary Committee in the House and never went any further. Can't find where it was assigned to anyone or anything. Now, let's go back to one-half years ago. December the 7th, 2021, Senator Katrina Fry Shelley, she introduced into the Senate the Coercive Control Bill. What do you think happened to it? Got referred to the Judiciary Committee.

Speaker 2:
[20:02] And the bill went no further once again. Again, again, again. Also, yes, Regina did say the name RJ May the 3rd. And that ol RJ was one of the legislators who introduced this bill back in 2021, which should show you how dismal the state of affairs is for women in South Carolina, because RJ May is the ultra right-wing conservative, co-founder of the Freedom Caucus, and pedophile who is currently sitting in prison, which he is expected to be for the next 17 years or so, assuming his appeal, the appeal of his federal guilty plea, isn't successful. Let's not waste time talking about that guy today, but my god, I wonder what his plan was by introducing that bill, because we certainly don't trust his motives. And protecting women is not something that generally seemed to be on his to-do list as a legislator. So what shenanigans were afoot? Was there a political enemy he was hoping to nab with the law? Anyway, the point is that legislators on the Judiciary Committee failed Mica, and continue to fail women in South Carolina every day in multiple and deadly ways. And I'm actually not sure there's much hope here. You know what? I'm going to try and not be cynical here. No cynicism, because there is hope. Okay, so one sign of hope. The bill did make it into a subcommittee this time around, meaning lawmakers seem to be taking it more seriously. Let's listen to some highlights from that April 15th Senate Judiciary Subcommittee meeting. Here's how it started. The voice you'll hear is subcommittee chairman, Senator Brian Adams, who represents parts of Berkeley and Charleston counties. Senator Adams is a retired law enforcement officer. His official Senate bio does not list advanced education. Currently, he is listed as an owner of a real estate appraisal company. He is 56 years old and a dad of four.

Speaker 4:
[22:00] We're short on time, and so we're going to go ahead and start, but we're going to start with 702. Ms. Wilkerson, if you could give us a brief summary of that.

Speaker 2:
[22:11] Short on time? You just started. This is the first time a Coercive Control Abuse Bill has made it to a subcommittee, and already it's like, hurry up. So Ms. Wilkerson, who is a staff member of the Judiciary Committee, read through the stipulations of the bill. We'll post a link to the bill in our episode description so you can read the full draft, but you'll hear enough in the clips from the hearing to understand what the sticking points are. Okay, now let's hear from Senator Stephen Goldfinch, who is co-sponsoring the current bill. Senator Goldfinch represents Georgetown County, which abuts Horry County and is part of the 15th Circuit, where the good old boys helped keep Weldon Boyd from facing charges of killing Scott Spivey in 2023. Senator Goldfinch is 43, an attorney, and has served as an attorney in the military. Oh, and he's running to take Attorney General Alan Wilson's place. He wants to be the top law enforcement officer in the state. And huh, it looks like Stephen Goldfinch was law partners with Tom Winslow, who was, let me check my notes, JP Miller's attorney? The lawyer who appears to have drafted the power of attorney documents that granted JP control over Mica's health care decisions after her family brought her to the emergency room in November 2022 against JP's wishes? Huh, yeah, like I said, no sentencing them today. Be hopeful, Liz. So here is Senator Goldfinch, who introduced Mica's law.

Speaker 5:
[23:49] I will be brief because I know we've got some folks in the audience who want to speak to this issue and are certainly passionate about this issue for a good reason. Mr. Chairman, members, this is a bill that has been a long time coming. As you know, I've worked on this bill with Senator Shealy many years ago, introduced this bill a couple of times. I've introduced this bill a couple of times. And I'd like to briefly tell you why. A few years ago, we had a situation in our community, which will be spoken about today, I hope, where a young woman was, you know, involved, allegedly involved. Certainly looks like she was involved in what we now call coercive control. She ultimately, it looks like, took her life because of this situation. And it was horrifying for our community, for many, many reasons. And I don't want to get too much into that, because I know they do, they will. But it brought real light and attention to the issue for me. And quite frankly, Mr. Chairman and members, I was embarrassed for myself that I didn't understand the precursor to domestic violence. I've never had it in my family, thank God. Never been involved in it, thank God. And so sometimes we feel isolated or, you know, just not, it hasn't touched my life until that point. And so I watched it occur in our community and tear our community apart. And I was embarrassed that I didn't understand what coercive control was and what it could do to a family and a community like ours. And so that was sort of the impetus for getting this process started.

Speaker 2:
[25:39] Okay. He's a little wobbly, but so far so good. I didn't like the phrasing of young woman being allegedly involved in coercive control, because that is not the way to phrase that. A man was allegedly committing coercive control abuse against her to the point where she felt like taking her own life was the only solution. But stay hopeful.

Speaker 5:
[26:04] We looked at a number of other states to try to model it. And I've got the states here that have done this, by the way. I wrote them down this morning. South Carolina ranks, continually ranks somewhere between third and six in the worst domestic violence states in the nation. We also continually rank worst in deaths as a result of domestic violence in the nation. And so my belief, and I believe the belief of many, many people in the audience today, is that we begin to get proactive about domestic violence rather than reactive. Our state's policies have always been to be reactive. The problem with that is, oftentimes, the reactive nature of dealing with domestic violence means somebody is going to be severely injured or killed before the state takes action. So the idea here is identify it early, do something about it, cut it off at its knees before it turns into severe injury or death. But there's been some concerns, and rightfully so, from folks out there that they don't want to criminalize thought. And I don't want to criminalize thought either. I don't want to get into that.

Speaker 1:
[27:19] So, Senator Goldfinch just gave us insight into what one of the hangups the legislator appears to have with criminalizing coercive control abuse. They think it's about thought. They think advocates want this law in place to punish men for thinking mean thoughts about their partners. Uh, no. No, no, no, no, no. But stay hopeful. Senator Goldfinch tries to educate them.

Speaker 5:
[27:48] So, you know, we were very careful about the way that we drafted this. And coercive control means a pain. I'd like to just read you this quick piece here. It means a pattern of behavior. It's not a one time incident. It is a pattern of behavior that restricts a person's free will and personal liberty. They actually made a movie about this recently. And I can't remember the name of the movie, but I watched it with my wife, and it was horrifying. The actual, the defendant in this case, what is based on a true story, the defendant in this case locked his significant other in a closet or a room and demanded she do horrifying things to herself as punishment before she could be let out of the room. Now, did he lay his hands on her? No. Did he cause her bruises and her scratches and her cuts and her wounds? No, he didn't. And would that have easily been able to be charged as domestic violence? The answer to that is also no.

Speaker 1:
[28:51] He is referring to the movie The Housemaid with Amanda Seyfried and Sidney Sweeney. And in that movie, much like with Mica, Amanda Seyfried's character couldn't go to the police because her abusive husband had all the power and influence. And her abusive husband made sure to create a paper trail while convincing his new wife that she was mentally ill and homicidal. So we're going to give Senator Goldfinch some hopeful points there in making that connection and understanding the movie enough, at least to raise that point.

Speaker 5:
[29:25] And so there are certainly loopholes in the law that this tries to address. And it's a pattern of behavior that restricts a person's free will and personal liberty. We added, we did this a little differently than the last time the bill was written. You've got a few grounds for divorce. Those of you who practice in that arena, that's, you know, adultery, desertion, physical cruelty and habitual drunkenness. We added domestic violence as defined by the new code, which we defined here to include coercive control. So we added it to a cause for divorce. And Mr. Chairman, I think that's all the technical details I want to get into, because I know that we have family of Mica here, among others, that have experienced this, and I want them to have more time than I do. And Mr. Chairman, if there are no questions, I have another bill I've got to run to right now. If there are any questions, I'll take them, and then I apologize, but I do have to leave for another committee.

Speaker 1:
[30:25] Oh, OK, so he had to leave? He had to leave the first subcommittee meeting of this important bill, which he is co-sponsoring as he is running for Attorney General. And the bill's other co-sponsor, State Senator Larry Grooms, isn't there either. But anyways, we still have to be hopeful. I don't want to judge, and I should not have cut off Senator Goldfinch. Here is the rest of what he said.

Speaker 5:
[30:52] And one more thing, Mr. Chairman. I'm not wed to any language. I don't take, you know, any pride and ownership of the language. Y'all know what you're doing. Y'all are experienced in these matters. And so you're not going to hurt my feelings. And nobody in the audience is going to hurt my feelings. If there's a better way to do this, if there's an amendment that's forthcoming that can make this better, that can improve the lives of South Carolinians, I'm all about it. So let me know how you come out with it.

Speaker 1:
[31:21] So he was in a rush and he does not care about the language of the bill and he's leaving. Eek, yikes. Ah, well, okay. Maybe we shouldn't read too much into that. Maybe that is how things normally happen in a South Carolina state house, which is notorious for not getting anything done. Maybe there is something I'm not seeing here. You know, when there's something lawmakers say is important to them, maybe they just can't give it time and attention. And maybe they don't care about the language of the bill, uh, that they are cosponsoring. Here is Senator Brian Adams again.

Speaker 4:
[32:06] So we got quite a few people that want to testify. I am limited on time. I want to hear all y'all stories and make sure y'all are able to express how important or what your stance is regarding this legislation. So please, um, understand that we are limited on time.

Speaker 2:
[32:26] So I think I'm starting to understand why calls to action from the community for pending bills are, always contact your representative and tell them why this bill is important. Yeah, but stick a pin in that one. So okay, I hate to sound like Brian Adams. The senator, not the singer. But a lot of people did speak during this hearing, which was longer than this episode. So I'm going to summarize some of the speakers. After Senator Goldfinch spoke, the subcommittee heard from Jennifer Wells, who is a criminal defense attorney and has over 20 years of experience as a state and federal prosecutor in South Carolina, as well as in North Carolina. Jennifer expressed support for a Coerce of Control Bill, but also told the subcommittee that the language in this bill was too broad. She suggested the subcommittee further research how this law has worked in Hawaii, which is the only state to have criminalized Coerce of Control abuse so far. This proposed draft, she said, is almost word for word that of Hawaii, so it would be instructive to learn what has worked with the law and what has not. She also said the quiet part out loud. Law enforcement and judges are not trained on the existing laws as they pertain to domestic violence and other elements of Coerce of Control abuse. Because again, while it is accurate to say that a Coerce of Control abuse law would have saved Mica's life, it is also accurate to say that police had laws available to them that they could have employed, had they taken the time to help a woman who felt like her life was in jeopardy. Jennifer also suggested that Coerce of Control language be added to existing domestic violence laws for police to use when determining the primary aggressor. She said something frightening, that Coerce of Control abusers will find a way to use this law, as it exists in this draft form anyway, to further abuse and harass their victims. They will flip the law on the victim and weaponize it to further control the victim, which in and of itself should tell everyone just how pernicious this form of abuse is. So next, Mica Francis' sister spoke. I'm going to play the full clip of what they said to the subcommittee.

Speaker 4:
[34:34] Next we have Abigail Francis. If you would just state your name, if you're a represent organization or reference your statement. I'm assuming this is Anna Francis.

Speaker 6:
[34:46] Anastasia. Yes, sir.

Speaker 4:
[34:47] Okay. Thank you.

Speaker 6:
[34:48] Good morning, Mr. Chairman, state representative committees and fellow South Carolinians. My name is Abigail Francis and this is Anastasia Francis, and we are representing the Francis family on behalf of our sister, Mica Francis, whom some of you may know as Mica Miller. We're in favor of the course of control bill as 702, and are asking the committee to rename this bill Mica's Law. Mica was a fierce woman of God, a sister, a daughter, an aunt, and much more. On April 27th of 2024, Mica was found deceased two days after she had served her alleged abuser with divorce papers. Mica did what we are all told to do in abusive situations, but was failed time after time by the Myrtle Beach Police Department, the Horry County Police Department, and finally the Robeson County Police Department in her death. Between the years of 2022 and 2024, Mica called the police on seven different occasions seeking help against her alleged abuser, but there was nothing for them to do since there are no laws to guide them against course of control. Mica wrote a list of abuse she endured, including an affidavit telling us just a portion of the heinous crimes that were committed against her. In this affidavit, Mica said that she was forced to take part in sexual acts against her will, meaning she was trafficked. Mica was forced to take steroid injections, causing medical and vocal court issues. Mica's identity was stolen. Mica's character was put in question with false police reports, which the police on scene told her that it was an abuse of law enforcement. Mica's personal belongings were either stolen, thrown away, damaged, or moved to other locations. But since she was still married, all of these items were listed under marital assets, so there was nothing she or law enforcement could do in this situation. Much more happened to Mica for many years, yet her alleged abuser has not been charged for said crimes. According to the South Carolina Domestic Violence Advisory Committee, South Carolina is the nation's sixth worst state in regards to domestic violence homicide rates. The original course of control bill was introduced in 2019 by Senator Tool during the 123rd session. It was introduced again in 2021 by Senator Shealy in the 124th session, and now it's being introduced in the 126th session by Senator Goldfinch and Senator Grooms. The lack of accountability over the years allowing this bill to lapse was detrimental and unforgivable as this could have saved our sister's life. A petition started nationwide the moment Mica died, seeking justice and stricter laws. Our family, including 42,632 others, implore you to give this bill a subcommittee along with chargeable offenses. We implore you to take a stand and help save the lives of those who are in need at this very moment. This bill has the ability to save an incalculable amount of individuals. As Christians, God requires us in Mica chapter 6 verse 8 to act justly, to love mercifully, and to walk humbly with Him. And that is what we will continue to do. Thank you for your time. God bless and justice for Mica.

Speaker 4:
[37:34] Thank you. Do you have any questions? Thank you all so much. We appreciate your story and your courage and everything. And we look forward to your continued battle for this. And don't waver. Keep fighting. Yes, sir. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Speaker 1:
[37:51] Guys, I am trying really hard to be hopeful, but, ugh, that felt patronizing. Never waver? Does that mean this bill is already doomed? More on that after a quick commercial break. We will be right back. So, after the Francis sisters spoke, it was time for Mica's divorce attorney, Regina Ward, to speak.

Speaker 4:
[38:27] Next up is Regina Wind Ward.

Speaker 1:
[38:31] Ward.

Speaker 4:
[38:32] Okay.

Speaker 1:
[38:32] My handwriting.

Speaker 4:
[38:33] That's okay. That's all right. You usually see it with the men, not the women. If you would just state your name, if you're with an organization or anything, and just tell us your story.

Speaker 1:
[38:44] Okay, stop. Way to employ a sexist trope, an anecdotal one at that, during a subcommittee hearing on an issue that primarily affects women. I know this seems like a throwaway thought of an old school legislator, but it is indicative of how these guys regard women, as always feminine and delicate, right down to the way they write. Let's see what Regina had to say.

Speaker 3:
[39:11] I'm concerned that we're at the end of this legislative session. It's going to take a lot to get this bill through. And so my concern is that it won't make it this time. And we've waited far too long, far too long. And the Francis family is correct. My belief is that if this had passed four years ago, Mica Francis would be alive and be here today. But I'm also, in addition to being a practitioner, I'm also a survivor of coercive control myself. And so I know what that feels like. I know what that looks like. I know how difficult it is to explain it in a manner that someone actually gets how abusive this is. It puts an indelible mark on the psyche of a person. And it's meant to keep them down and oppress them for control purposes. And when someone in that situation tries to explain what has happened to them, before I knew the words coercive control, I called it invisible stuff. I was subjected to invisible things, obviously some things that were very visible. But it's marks that don't, I mean, it's abuse that does not leave marks on the skin. We're archaic in our thinking. Psychological abuse, I mean, that's been around for centuries, used in warfare even. Why? Because it's effective. And we need to do something about it. South Carolina needs to stand up for victims.

Speaker 1:
[40:50] Okay, this is one of the most important points of coercive control abuse. It's used in warfare. It is not a new form of abuse. It's a technique. It's subversive in nature. And a weapon that is used to break down an enemy slowly over time. The question is, is this kind of abuse so pervasive and familiar to the boys of the South Carolina legislature that it could represent a handover of power from men to women? Is that why they all seem so disinclined to do anything to get this bill passed?

Speaker 3:
[41:32] If nothing else happens this term, please do this one thing, this one thing. I do see in the bill that there's a change in the definition of abuse, of domestic abuse. It's including this psychological form of abuse. That is critically important. That is the best beginning that I can think of for this law to actually make it through and not only make it through, but actually be effective, actually do something. There needs to be funding set aside somehow, some way. I don't know if it's through fines or whatever it is, but money needs to be taken either through the criminal process or something or just in the budget to give the resources, to get the training for the police officers, the training for our judges, because whenever you try to explain what's happening to you, it doesn't seem like a crime, but it's the totality of the circumstances that that person is living in that it makes it a crime. They chip, chip, chip, chip, chip away at the very core soul of a person until they're left with just nothing. They feel worthless and they've been convinced that they shouldn't even be alive most times. It's despicable and it's despicable that this become has come before the legislature many times and has not made it through.

Speaker 1:
[43:03] And that's it right there. It's a totality of circumstances. Mica died as a result of the totality of circumstances, and had the police been at all motivated to help her, there was a way. But they weren't and they aren't going to be, which is why this law is necessary. These guys need it spelled out for them. They need their hands held when responding to calls related to intimate partner violence. They need someone to stand behind them and hold open their eyes. And they need another person to whisper in their ears, slow down, there is something you can do. Regina then went on to thank Senator Goldfinch for taking the lead on getting this bill back on the table. And well, here's what happened.

Speaker 3:
[43:53] And thank God he came up and did this, where no one else would be. And I'm quite, actually, I'm quite upset that I've not seen more names attached to it, because I know that gives it momentum.

Speaker 4:
[44:07] Thank you, Ms. Ward. Were you done? I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off.

Speaker 3:
[44:11] That's okay, I don't want to take up a lot of time, but I do want to say, did you have a question for me?

Speaker 4:
[44:15] No, ma'am, I wasn't sure if you were done or not.

Speaker 1:
[44:18] So, right when Regina is expressing her thoughts about how there should be more names co-sponsoring this bill, she got cut off. Yeah, y'all see why we struggle with the whole hope thing here? Unfortunately, this was a trend. Next to speak was Zara Barbier with the South Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. She spoke of the effect this abuse has on victims and the importance of this bill addressing intimate partner violence in dating relationships. And then, well, let's have a listen.

Speaker 7:
[44:54] A parent who exerts total control over a partner creates an environment that is inherently detrimental to a child's well-being.

Speaker 4:
[45:02] If you can kind of speed up this a little bit more.

Speaker 7:
[45:05] So I actually printed out my testimony too.

Speaker 4:
[45:09] If you want to get that to us, I'll be sure to share it out with the committee.

Speaker 2:
[45:14] I'm not trying to cut you off as he cuts her off and tells her to speed it up. Good Lord. Next up was Columbia Family Court Attorney Rebecca Creel.

Speaker 8:
[45:26] My concern is making sure that if we are looking at it for purposes of a temporary hearing, that we have clear rubrics under which this is going to be proved to the judicial standard. In the confines of an order of protection hearing, whether that... Yes, sir.

Speaker 9:
[45:41] Ma'am, can I interrupt because you're talking about grounds for divorce. And Section 3 of the bill adds another grounds for divorce as you're talking about.

Speaker 8:
[45:53] Absolutely.

Speaker 9:
[45:55] In your opinion, would that require a constitutional amendment?

Speaker 8:
[45:59] I think it's a fair question.

Speaker 9:
[46:01] Because Article 17, Section 3 prescribes the grounds for divorce. I know we've also put that in statute.

Speaker 8:
[46:10] And that is another point that I had not planned to necessarily explore because I have not researched that quite as well. But I do have some constitutional concerns. And you know, we've since the 60s made, I mean, frankly speaking, our case law makes it hard to get divorced in South Carolina based upon the stat.

Speaker 9:
[46:25] As it relates to domestic and domestic violence, do you have an opinion as to whether several things, one requiring parties to be divorced for a year, separated for a year before seeking a divorce on a no-fault ground, do you believe that reducing the time from a year to some time, less than a year, would help in domestic violence situations?

Speaker 8:
[46:48] I think the longer you stretch out the process of a divorce in any circumstance, people in the divorce court are not happy people. There is often incidents of intimate partner violence. The challenge is that intimate partner violence is a crime that is rarely reported or prosecuted. And so I do think if you shorten the time frame for what we think of as no fault, I think it would be helpful for everyone in the process.

Speaker 2:
[47:13] Okay, so yeah, that would be great if the legislature did something to make divorce easier in the state of South Carolina. As it is, you have to live apart for a year in most circumstances, which creates a longer period of potential interaction with potential abusers. Meaning, after Mica served JP with his divorce papers, there would have been a waiting period of about a year before Mica would have had him out of her life. Rebecca Creel continued to speak until she, too, was cut off.

Speaker 10:
[47:41] Okay, would it be possible if maybe you can give us your comments and maybe even what the section says in writing? I think we've kind of, and not to, I know you probably saw us kind of talking. We weren't trying to not listen, but we do have a hard stop. And we recognize based on the comments that there are probably some things we need to tweak. And so it'd be easier, and this is really for everybody, if you might put some of those things in writing, that gives us an opportunity to kind of work on this because we do know that we're limited on time for the next couple weeks, but we also would like to see something at least get further. So if we could get the comments, that will help us work together and be efficient of everybody's time.

Speaker 2:
[48:22] Next up was a woman named Joy McGee who spoke about her friend, Kristen, who died 12 days earlier. I'm going to play the full clip of Joy speaking. Thankfully, the legislators did not cut her off.

Speaker 11:
[48:34] Hello, my name is Joy McGee. Thank you for providing me the opportunity to speak with y'all today. I'm here on behalf of my friend, Kristen Jane Etam, and I'm from Virginia. This is my friend Kristen, and this is her daughter, Lovely. We were friends for 20 years. That's pretty rare, and I don't think I have to say what a blessing it is to have somebody in your life that long. I'm only going to take four minutes of your time, but Kristen Jane Etam died on April 4th, 12 days ago. She was a singer, a public figure, and a mother who loved her seven-year-old daughter with everything that she had. She spent six years fighting grade three brain meningiomas, and six years fighting coercive control, emotional abuse, and psychological manipulation at the hands of the man who was supposed to protect her. She lost both battles. Coercive control sounds like, why do you deserve to be a mother? Because you gave birth? Congratulations, you're a mammal. You should just kill yourself and get it over with already because you're sucking me dry. You could have at least bought the furniture on credit, so when you die, I don't have to pay for it. Jump off the balcony and put me out of my misery. To be clear, he was talking about the balcony that was facing on Hopkins Hospital where she was receiving brain surgery for her tumors. When her tumor stole her mobility, she was called lazy and pathetic. When she was left alone with a crying baby and no formula that was used as evidence against her when he was the one who left her there. What kind of mother are you? You can't do anything as proof that she could not do it alone without him. When she found the courage to speak up, he threatened to take her daughter across the country and make her choose between being her child and receiving life-saving treatment for her brain tumors. She chose her daughter every time. Is there really a choice? She always chose her daughter. Christa bore this in silence, not because she was weak, but because she was strategically and heartbreakingly wise. She knew that she could not survive radiation, brain surgery and a custody battle at the same time. When she became bedbound, he took their daughter out of state. He filed for custody, claiming that Kristen, who could not walk, could not use her left arm and could not see out of her left eye, had abandoned her daughter. He did not think that she would show up. He thought it was a slam dunk, but she showed up. In the last year of her life, Kristen appeared in a virtual court just to ask for the right to visit with her own child. The court did not recognize any of the abuse that was committed against her as admissible.

Speaker 8:
[51:08] He was 6 foot 3, 200 pounds.

Speaker 11:
[51:10] She was 5 foot 3 and weighed 80 pounds and could not move. No one protected Kristen. The system had no framework to recognize what had been done to her. The same system that should have shielded her was also used against her as another weapon against her. She won a visitation arrangement. He did not honor it. Kristen Jane Etam died without seeing her daughter again 12 days ago. People find it hard to believe that these things happen. Coercive control is designed to produce exactly that doubt. Abusers are often charming, convincing, and beloved to the outside world. The harm they cause is real, devastating, and nearly invisible to a legal system built around physical evidence. That is precisely why it must be named into law. S702 would give the courts the language to see it, to name it, to intervene before a woman has to choose between her child and her cancer treatment before she dies waiting for the protection that never came. Kristin Jane Etam deserved that protection. She did not get it. Her daughter will be at her viewing with her abuser on April 20th. Please give a voice to the ones that are still here. Thank you so much for your time.

Speaker 2:
[52:26] After this, a man named Steve Pruitt spoke in support of the law. Other than Senator Goldfinch, he was the lone man to speak about the importance of this bill. To not just women, Steve said that he was in a coercive control situation for three years when he lived in California and then 20 years in his marriage. He also told the subpanel that he was a teacher at Columbine when the mass shootings occurred in 1999 and that he had observed the extreme bullying that existed at the school prior to the shootings, suggesting that some teachers even stood by and laughed as kids dumped milk onto the heads of fellow students.

Speaker 12:
[53:02] I'm just begging you somehow to make this into law so that when someone does go to the police, there is something to back that up and something they can stand on and not feel completely alone and lost and in such danger that there's nothing they can do about it. I appreciate your consideration of this and please consider this very serious to many of us for our safety.

Speaker 2:
[53:30] After Steve, two more victims of coerce of control spoke. And the hearing ended with Senator Brian Adams thanking them, promising to work with the lawyers who had spoken on fixing the language in the bill and lamenting how difficult it is for these subcommittee members to find time to meet. Which, I bet they don't have that problem when it comes to bills they're motivated to pass. Like, gun laws that are more lax and full abortion bans. Back to what I said earlier though, this hearing shows how important it is to Indian date members of the South Carolina Senate and House Judiciary Committees with messages in support of a Coercive Control Abuse Bill. If you have time and the inclination, click on the two links in the description of this episode to access the members of each committee and let them know your pesky thoughts on what they've been up to.

Speaker 1:
[54:18] Trust me when I say that it is harder than ever to believe in any sort of positive change in the South Carolina government, especially when it comes to change that advocates for women's safety. But we cannot and will not lose hope. When all of South Carolina told Liz and me that a Murdaugh could never be held accountable in this state, we said bet. Did we know how bad it was? Absolutely not. Did we know the depths of corruption we were signing up to dive into? Definitely not. But we still showed up day after day to try to change the good boy system because it was the right thing to do and because it matters to us. People tell Annie Andrews she is crazy to think that she could ever beat Lindsey Graham in a state this red. And yet she still shows up to campaign every single day because she believes in a better South Carolina and she knows that she can do the job far better than the man in office. Women make up approximately 51.3% of the South Carolina population and yet women only occupy 12% of public offices in this state. Think about that. If women in this state and the men who support us would all start betting on ourselves and start voting to protect our rights and our future and our safety, the political landscape would turn upside down. It would shift from a legislature that focuses most of its attention on abortion bans to a government body actually willing to advocate for the people, not just the good old boys. Women in this state have the power to change it. We have to remember that. And remember to look out for an episode this Friday. Stay tuned, stay pesky, and stay in the sunlight. True Sunlight is a LUNASHARK production created by me, Mandy Matney, co-hosted and reported by journalist Liz Farrell. Research support provided by Beth Braden. Audio production support provided by Jamie Hoffman and Grace Hills. Case file management provided by Kate Thomas. Learn more about our mission and membership at lunasharkmedia.com. Interruptions provided by Luna and Joe Pesky.