Transcription
[Music] Thank you. [Music] Foreign. [Music] Thank you. [Music] Oh God. [Music] Joseph. [Music] [Music]’s care. I’m not a historian. [Music] I’m not a detective. [Music] Not a part of any group. I just want the truth. Foreign. [Music]
My name is Justin Griffin, and I wrote and directed the documentary, *Who Killed Joseph Smith*? We researched every bit of evidence further than anyone ever had up to that point. We reconstructed the entire crime scene just so we could run different scenarios and test our different theories. And we did all of this because we wanted to know the truth—what really happened to Joseph and Hiram in those two to three minutes in Carthage.
Now, every now and then since the film came out, I run into somebody who knows what happened to us after the film, and they asked me, “Was that all worth it?” I got a restart, an article about it where she just ripped it to shreds. I almost thought she was 2B, in a way. I remember how I described it, but it’s it’s a load of crap. It’s really strong praise, but I won’t even use the word “documentary.” But for being an amateur effort, it’s remarkably good. In a way, I take any feedback to the film very seriously. I’m asking you to consider my point of view, so of course I’m going to listen to yours.
It seemed like a lot of the initial reaction was very emotional, and that’s completely understandable. I mean, I know I crossed some very sacred lines with people. But there is one thing that surprised me, and that’s the none of the critics mentioned any of the evidence I presented in the film. They called me a conspiracy theorist. They said the film was Amateur Hour. They accused me of being in a cult group. They said I had a bone to pick with the church. They even tried to make fun of me for calling myself a Carthage researcher. And that’s fine; it didn’t bother me. I figured when they got that out of their system, now we can finally talk about the evidence. And it never happened. They just ignored it.
So I’ve thought about that reaction for quite a while, and you know, it makes sense to me that when something you hear, something that goes against your beliefs, sometimes it’s easier to just ignore it. And that’s exactly what had happened to my wife and I a couple of months earlier when our local church authorities asked us to come in and discuss the documentary with them. And I did my best to go over the evidence and, you know, present what it was that we were showing in the film, and they just did not want to hear it. [Music]
What is your purpose behind that? For truth. Search for truth. And I love Joseph. I love everything about Carthage, about Nauvoo, everything from that time. These so-called factual evidence—yes, it changes what the Iowa—the eyewitness accounts. So the two eyewitnesses found in the Joe were John Taylor and Willard Richards, and their evidence accounts don’t match the evidence. So that’s what we were tracking. Is why I think very Nance comes to the idea that it’s implicating that those men were telling the wrong story for a reason. Yeah, I think I think some people will come up with that, and I think other people won’t. But for me, yeah, there was a reason why they weren’t accurate. But I wasn’t there; no one was there. So all you can do is present the evidence and figure out what it means to you. So, so why did Hiram receive, according to the accounts that were there? I don’t know. To me, to me it doesn’t matter. My stake president said the exact same thing that every other church historian and scholar has said since the movie was released: the historical accounts are already proven; the physical evidence does not matter. [Music]
I guess I was just naive enough to think that people would think this evidence is important, but that backfired. You’re promoting a film that is putting doubts into people’s hearts, questions. I I don’t have any problem with questioning, but but when you were causing people to doubt and and possibly be led astray, I think that is dangerous ground. I have to give up the movie for now. Yes, you’re planting seeds. It’s down and what you’re saying is, you know, you’re so Willard Richards, um, John Taylor. John Taylor became a prophet of the church. You know, you’re you’re making some awfully stiff claims or or assumptions that maybe we have no business of even exploring or making. My wife and I had to make a choice. Our leaders didn’t feel like it was any of our business to be exploring the martyrdom, so we had to either choose to walk away from the movie or to risk our membership in the church. So we we asked for the chance to go home and pray about that decision, and they said that they would consider our requests, and then they left the room to deliberate our case. We’ve counseled according to your proposal. We steal, and we’ll invite you to consider the things that we invite you to do, and as a show by your actions, you’re willing to follow counsel. But in the meantime, the process, we feel we need to draw your membership for the church. We really did not want to lose our membership in the church. The repercussions to our lives were enormous. We live in a small town, and the church’s policy was to announce to everyone that we have been excommunicated for apostasy. I’m wearing this shirt to try and take some of the power out of these words. In our world, these are tremendously shameful labels. Foreign.
We were completely honest with them. We shared what we believe and what we’ve experienced. We shared our witness of God and his Son, Jesus Christ. Told them we still believe that Joseph was a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is scripture. [Music] But none of that mattered. [Music] And our journey to led us to this. So yeah, I ask myself all the time, “Was all of this worth it?” [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]
We aren’t quitting. No way. Not yet. There are so many other dedicated people out there right now working every day to uncover things about our history that have been hidden: the martyrdom, polygamy, the session, all of it. They’re driven by their search for the truth. They are well-studied. They ask the tough questions, and they are not afraid of the real answers. And they’re also getting branded as apostates. But they believe in God, in his Son. They believe that Joseph is a prophet and the Book of Mormon is scripture. But they want to know the truth about the history of the church. I know for my small part in this that I’m up against an impossible wall. How do I get the church to consider the physical evidence from Carthage? At this point, I realize my chances of convincing them are pretty slim, but if I can’t convince them, then who can? [Music]
Firearms are used at many crime scenes, so to analyze the evidence that’s left behind is very important. So Matt Steiner is probably one of the most qualified and experienced forensic detectives in the entire country currently. He has millions of views versus trainings and for his critiques of crime scene investigations in different popular movies and television shows. I’m a retired detective with the New York City Police Department. I was a detective for 25 years in the crime scene unit. You’ll notice more detail in that I’ve investigated over 2,000 crime scenes, most of them being shootings, and that’s what Sherlock Holmes is all about. It’s all about the devil being in the details, and this is the basic founding principle of forensic science: we’re looking for what’s left behind. Yeah, this is just pure television, not reality. And one of the fields that they questioned was bite mark analysis. While I was learning everything I could about forensic investigations, it was Matt’s videos that gave me so many new ideas about how to approach the evidence at Carthage. And eventually, I got the idea to just call Matt and see if he’d be willing to do a review of the first part of *Who Killed Joseph Smith*. I got a hold of him, and he agreed to do it.
Hello. We’re about to watch a documentary by Justin Griffin, *Who Killed Joseph Smith*. It is a documentary I have not yet seen about a case I know nothing about, just getting the beginnings of the story. I do like that the director, creator of this documentary, I was trying to think, a very objective a look at the scene, and that’s the most important thing for a crime scene investigator: to be objective. Notoriously, eyewitness accounts should always be taken with a grain of salt because you never know, like, you know, people’s biases. We also learned that we have two different accounts that are recorded 10 years apart. You always want to get that account right away, your evidence versus what your eyewitnesses say, and do they add up? So there is some error in that equation, especially with the ballistic trajectory. Maybe that’s not the shot. Damage to a substrate or surface, you can measure it; it won’t tell you the exact size. You don’t have two points. So typically for shooting reconstruction, you need two points. Very powerful, a very compelling documentary.
After Matt completed his review of the film, I asked him if he’d be willing to do a full investigation of those two to three minutes in Carthage, and he agreed. Now, a lot of different critics of the film have said there is no way that the Inside Job Theory would stand up to the criticism of a professional forensic detective, so we’ll see. They might be right. At this point, I don’t even know what Matt’s going to say. It’s taking him a couple of months to go through everything, and then we’ll get together, and he’ll present what he thinks is the best theory or what he thinks most likely happened. Want to know one way or another what actually happened in those two to three minutes.
Many people who saw the first film were confused by what I referred to as the New Evidence, so I thought I’d take a moment to make that a little bit more clear. The four new pieces of evidence are: number one, John Taylor’s watch; number two, photos of Joseph and Hiram’s skeletal remains; number three, the laser pointer through the door panel; and number four, Hiram’s clothing. First was John Taylor’s watch. Of course, we’ve always known about the watch, but it wasn’t made available for public examination until 1990. That’s when it was first put on display in the Church History Museum. So once this watch is put on display in 1990, immediately the church historians and scholars started examining it and eventually proved that it was never shot. Foreign.
Was in 1995 when Shannon Tracy first published his book, which included photos of Joseph and Hiram’s skeletal remains. These photos had never been released to the public before. The photo of Hiram’s skull was the single most damaging piece of evidence against the two eyewitness accounts of how Hiram died. Third, in 1996, David Lyon had the idea to place a laser pointer in the bullet hole in the door panel at Carthage that showed the second shot was fired at a five-degree downward angle and couldn’t possibly have struck Hiram in the face if he was standing 10 feet back from the door. Fourth, in 2019, Gary Smith donated Hiram Smith’s clothing to the museum, which he had worn during the martyrdom, and that called into major question the timing of Hiram’s wounds. And you can see here the hole in the name and right over here on the hip that there’s no blood around those wounds, and they didn’t put the shirt—they don’t have that on display—but on the back of it is the hole supposedly fired from the window, and that also has no blood around it. There’s even more evidence that has surfaced since these four were made public, but these are the four that have caused the biggest disruption to the long-accepted martyrdom narrative so far.
So I contacted you about five months ago. You you know, respond to me, and I and I talked about this case and if there’s a chance for you to review it, and you say yes, which is amazing, and so I send you everything I have, and over the last five months you’ve been able to go through the evidence and look at all the different reports and eyewitness accounts and, you know, ask me anything or look at anything you want. And my understanding is is you’ve come to a conclusion. I’ve come up my own theory. Yes. Okay. Um, what is it? Well, I don’t think you’re gonna like it, babe. What do you mean? Well, what if the detective proves that it couldn’t have been an inside job? I’d have to admit I was wrong. Let’s apologize. Do you think the church would take us back? I admit I was wrong. Yeah. [Music] If they did want us back, would you want to go back?
I look first at the evidence, the photographs of the evidence. I was able to evaluate that and let that speak to me. Uh, then I watched her documentary, which was a great kind of overall the case, going into the evidence, what witnesses were saying, current theories, and then at the end you came up with your own theory. It was impressive that, you know, having a group of people that were not experts in the field that you all kind of approached the case in the same systematic, methodical order. You guys applied the scientific method, too, which which is great, and you know, it wasn’t just like, “I think this is what happened,” but not back it up. Let’s dive into the evidence. Not all of it, but some of those things that I think are key to understanding the case. And first of all is John Taylor’s watch. Okay. Okay. Believe or don’t believe that his watch was shot? No, I don’t think I’m shy. Okay. Good. And just thinking in this case, you have two watches that are shot. What is the odds of that happening? Odd things do happen, but again, my my point that you have your eyewitnesses that know some of this evidence exists and they’re making their stories fit that evidence. So I don’t particularly care if the watch was shot or not. I don’t even know if this is the original watch. To me, there’s a bigger question. John Taylor quaint when it was shot. He was falling out of the window, and that shot pushed him back into the window and onto the floor. In my investigation, I was like, “Is it possible to shoot a watch that doesn’t kill the guy, doesn’t have enough power to penetrate the watch, but somehow throws him back into the room?” And that’s the video I want to show you. You normally fire these at the time with a hundred to 150 grains of black powder, but we were worried about throwing that much in here because we didn’t know what was going to happen, so we kept it at 80, just to be safe. So yeah, we’re way less. Plus so many people are like, “Oh, they could just build powder,” and I’m like, “Okay, so let’s account for all of that by just going to 80 grains.” And here’s here’s the first shot. Come on. So look what it—see that bag? It did budget right. But according to the eyewitness accounts, it threw them back out of—from falling out of the window—back into the room. Think of looking at watching *Dirty Harry*. There’s a famous scene in the diner; guys are going flying through the windows as they’re being shot. That’s not reality. That’s basic physics states that you know, you know, if there’s enough force to throw him from the window, yeah, into the room, then the person shooting it would have the same exact opposite force, right? Newtonian physics. So this is our .69 caliber musket. This is our .50 caliber rifle, and this one’s percussion. The biggest difference between these two is obviously the size of the ball, but they typically still use the same amount of powder. And this one’s rifled, and also because it’s a percussion, you don’t lose any of the compression in here, right, which you do lose in the flintlocks. So this—it’s a smaller ball, but in ways it’s more accurate and more powerful. So I’m like, okay, I mean, whether it’s a musket or a rifle, I mean, kinetic energy, it’s you know, the mass is not as important as the velocity. So if this bullet is traveling faster and it’s smaller, it may have more kinetic energy than this. Now you’ll see the second shot from the right. [Music] This was 80 grains as well. [Music] [Music] And then just look at that watch. Yeah, massive damage. Well, you know, this is how you change people’s minds, saying this is what you think, this is what happened. Do you still think that? Right. And that’s really it. I mean, and if they don’t—if they’re stubborn—then there’s people that you’re never going to convince, right? They’re they’re going to be stuck in their their own mind of what happened and that they don’t want to listen to reason, right? So now we’re going to talk about John Taylor’s wounds. So according to John Taylor’s description, he was shot in a leg with a musk—I mean, bone is flying everywhere. Even if you even if you back that gun up to whatever the maximum distance from the doorway to the window. So we matched it here. Yeah, we said, you know, it’s somewhere between 10 and 15 feet. I mean, it ripped chunks of the—sure. I was like, John Taylor, there’s no way you were shot where the musket because this was only 80 grains on the .69 caliber. Next is the left wrist. He’s not playing the piano after that. No. There’s no [Music] yeah, there’s no—I’m gonna be in bed for a couple of weeks, and then I’m better than that. This coming out of this would take off your hand, would take off your arm, uh, it would, you know, you’re not going to slow it down enough that it’s going to embed itself, you know. So yeah, to your point, what’s more likely, that to be in bed, it’s gonna be something of a smaller caliber. I agree with you on that. All of these are gonna cause massive damage, and they’re going to perforate him; they’re not going to penetrate him. We both agree if a .69 caliber was involved, he has no leg, he has no knee, he has no hand; it’s all his hip gone, right? I mean, this is probably there at the scene. This is being fired, probably the one that goes through the door. It may be some other shots that we don’t have any evidence of or also being shot by this, but you know, if we’re talking direct shots, direct hits, yeah, this is not being stopped by your thigh bone going at, you know, over 2,000 feet per second. So far we both agree that John Taylor’s watch was not shot, John Taylor was not thrown back in the window by a gunshot, and John Taylor’s wounds are more consistent with a small caliber weapon similar to the pistol Joseph had in the jail. I know that Detective Steiner is a top expert on shot pattern analysis, so I’m very much looking forward to his insights on the shot through the door that supposedly struck Hiram. So we’re asking the question: Do you believe Hiram could have been—that wound could have come through the panel and hit Hiram, whether it was close or far or whatever? Is there a scenario where that shot could have struck him in the side of the nose? No, not not that bullet hole. Going back to the theories that are in place, there is a theory saying that these two are correlated, but this is the entrance and that is the exit, right? And that if this is at the door, first off, I don’t think it happens because we see no pseudostippling. But let’s just say that some reason there’s some barrier there. We don’t—the door fragments in a way that they have unbe—you know, on it; it acts unexpectedly, and we don’t have pseudostippling. And then it exits here, but we’re still talking a very awkward angle for him to be at the door, yeah, you know, where he’s perpendicular to the door and in this way so that the bullet enters, exits, and doesn’t strike his chest, doesn’t strike his shoulder. So I I think that the one-shot theory is great. I think it’s probably what happened, you know, just weighing out what evidence that we have years later, but it’s in reverse, and that the damage we see here and that Barnes cause the entrance, right? He’s probably associating with the door, which he actually does; he he says in the same exact sentence has to do with the door, but he thinks that it’s pseudostippling from the wood wound and around the periphery of this entrance that he has, you know, damage from the wood, but actually I think it is stippling. So the unburned gunpowder that’s creating abrasions around the periphery, and that this is still the exit. What I care about is anything that had the power to make it through that panel would have caused far more damage to Hiram’s head. Sure. The three shots that I decided to do was the musket, .69 caliber, 80 grains; the rifle, .50 caliber at 50 grains; and then for fun, I did the pistol, .50 caliber at 25 grains. And here’s what happens at a .69 caliber ball, a half…
Years, so on this one, we actually caught the ball. Oh wow, look what it did, really cool. So I don't know what they use for the—I'm sure it's whatever—it's probably similar density. The bone is 95 comparative to actual bones’ shatter point. Okay, here's the rifle at 50 grains. Okay, so it didn't knock it completely off the stand like it did the other one.
[Music]
So there's massive damage, and there still is an exit. Oh wow, but it's not nearly as defined as the—as what it made it through, or part of it.
Yeah, or part of it made it through. That's right. And the other thing is, it cracked the heck out of the skull. There was cracking all over in it.
Yeah.
[Music]
That's the back of this—both of their skulls. Oh wow, I never saw this photo before.
Yeah. So there's nothing—there's nothing. That's where I'm like, okay, maybe it didn't make it all. There's—there's not even a crack anywhere. And this was just with 50 grains. The back of their—both their skulls are perfect condition. They're perfect. Very telling, right?
Ah, did you notice what happened—the thing you're always talking about?
Yeah, right in the eye. Yeah, that would ruin your day right there. Yeah, look at all the wood that's all over in his face—in this gigantic hole through this. And that's really your strongest evidence of him not being at the door, getting hit with that bullet. Is there any way that that wound to Hiram's head came through whatever was shot through that panel of the door?
No. No. Again, the strongest evidence—no matter what bullet size we're looking at—if it's passing through the door, it's bringing parts of that door with it, and we're going to see associated damage. If he's—he's braced up against the door. There was—Hiram shot once or twice in the head. I believe it's one shot. Again, we see no other damage. You know, we had the death mask, which is telling us that there's damage to the nose. It exits here, you know, without hitting the—the nasal cavity, right? Um, importantly, what Barn says is that he calls this an entrance.
That's right. We both agree he was shot once in the head. Yes. We don't have any other damage to the skull—straight through, or even at five degrees down. Again, this is stuff that you could look into—10 degrees down, you know, you know, here to here, or here. So far—where's the rest of it? All we've done so far is just look at this shot, and most people don't ever test. But there's a shot under the chin, and this one does not come through the door. Here's the big thing—this one's the—exactly massive exit—just tore the face apart. I wanted to use the same skull for both—shutting the nose gently. I couldn't use it on the musket because the first one was just tore too far, so I used a brand new skull. But the other two shots, I used the same skull with the—no shot. This one tore his face in half. Yeah, and we caught the musket ball. Look at that. It's not—wow—a piece of shrapnel or whatever that was. I mean, that would have shown on the death mask.
I think so. I think so. Last but not least—therapists—25 minutes. Oh, it exited. Isn't that exactly what you're talking about?
Yep. I could see the creator in there. Yeah, that's like beveled edging. This is why I think we agree it was one shot, because if it was two shots, there would have been other damage show up in the skull—from the nose and the chin, or one of the—there would have been other damage, and it's just not there. Willard Richards and John Taylor both say the shot through the door panel struck Hiram on the left side of the nose. Willard Richards also says a second shot struck Hiram below his chin, but Detective Steiner and I both agree that the ball shot through the door panel could not have struck Hiram, and that Hiram was only shot in the head once. So if these key components of the eyewitness narratives aren't true, then what really happened in those two to three minutes in Carthage?
Theorizing. Okay, that's a big part of what you do, correct?
Yes. You come up with a theory, and you present it, and people decide, and they build on other things and compare it, and they decide what they think happened. Go again—saying that all—all previous three theories have parts that we like—that have parts that are—are very astute observations, especially for non-experts—uh, but all of them are impossible. Because the one that involves being shot through the nose at a door, we don't have any associated damage, so that X's that out. The other one—Sam Weston—that these are separate shots—no exits—again, impossible. But for your theory, I st—I think is possible. The first three—they're not possible. Mine is at least possible.
Yeah, yours is possible. And don't edit it down just to—I agree with you, Justin, and everyone else is full of [ __ ]. I don't—I don't think you—you've proven this, but I don't think any of the theories can be proven in court, but I do think that your theory is possible. Okay, and I think coming up—my own theory is just another possibility, and there could—some—a third person, fourth person, fifth person could come in with another possible theory, and then I'm going to rip you on yours if that's all right.
Oh, sure.
Yeah, are you okay with that?
Yeah, of course. I mean, if I—if I can—I might—any theory has to be questioned. You know, if you're—if you're at a crime scene investigating it actively or doing a reconstruction later on, if you're not questioning every single thing that you say, you're doing it wrong. My theory is that we have the mob outside the door; we have our four characters inside the room, both pushing on that door back and forth. Uh, from all accounts, we—the mob doesn't know that they're armed inside. So maybe the first thought is, we'll just punch into this room, grab him, and go hang him. Uh, and then at some point, maybe there's a conversation—who knows—but as that door is being forced open, we know that one shot hits the side of the door and doesn't damage the door frame, so that means that door is at least partially open. Maybe that shot strikes Hiram in the back, and that's when he exclaims, "I'm a dead man," then releases pressure from the door, and then someone else who's—the outside with a handgun at close range—at what—an intermediate range—not close range. Close range would cause powder burns, but the intermediate range—to say, I don't know—that this weapon—but say some are greater than four to six inches away—shoots—enters the—this side and then exits to this side, uh, and then falls backwards. We see that there's spatter on the left shoulder of Hiram, so that could be from the exited bullion traveling in that direction, carrying blood with it, then falls on the floor, and then all the other shots come later on—could be postmortem, which would be explained why there isn't, you know, completely saturated clothing and blood. It would be harder to clean, and maybe just small—some smaller stains, right?
Okay. Okay. So push up against the door, you get shot in the back. Okay, so there's enough—like that people are pushing—it's a shot to the floor that goes straight through—not so—inside it hits—it hits the door frame, uh—again, who knows—maybe it's from a smaller caliber weapon—is a less—less velocity—uh, and it slowed down a bit from going through halfway through that door, which is the thicker part of the door—not the panel, which is a thinner part of the door.
Absolutely. And then strikes them in the back, and then now the pressure of Hyrum pressing—gets them—is no longer there—doors open even further, and then someone reaches in from the outside—gets that shot—enters here and then exits out the side of his nose.
Got it. Just because someone doesn't have the same theory as you, right, does that mean that they're wrong? It doesn't mean that you're right. It's just both possibilities. I think you've done a pretty—pretty great job so far. I think, you know, stating what—restating what I said before is like looking at the evidence—looking at this—the eyewitness accounts—looking at the current theories—coming up with your own. I think you could keep this—could keep refining it. You know, I'm giving you some more information, but again, I told you before—I—I am an expert in this, but I'm not the be-all end-all. Even if you brought in another expert with similar backgrounds—similar experience in training—they may come up with another theory; they may come up with observations that I did not. I mean, you guys have come so far on your own without training and experience that I think this has been an educational process for you and for—yes—all our other theorists as well. Uh, you did things in a very systematic and methodical order—use the scientific method. You looked at what you had; you looked at your evidence; you weighed it against your witness statements; and then you looked at what current theories are out there and evaluated those—coming up with your own theory in the end. I think if you could continue to look at this—I've come up with some suggestions for you for further testing that you can do—some stuff that you can't do on your own—you're gonna need permission—but there's other experts out there that could look at the same thing and come up with another theory that's valid, right? And then maybe they're going to see something that I didn't see, and it could be something that's important for the case.
[Music]
I still can't believe that I was sitting across the table from one of the most respected detectives in the entire country, talking about the Martyrdom. I had my doubts about how this was going to go. I always knew that my theory is possible, but to hear him say that—that was a cool moment. But you know, obviously, I haven't completely won him over—not yet. There's still more work to do.
[Music]
So I found a replica of the clothes that Hiram was wearing during the martyrdom. All of these items are actually from 1837. What I'm going to do is, you know, try to test the detective's theory. So I've ordered a full ballistic gel torso, and I'm going to dress it in these clothes, and I'm going to fire at it through a panel the thickness of the side of the door and see if I can get that shot. What happens with that shot? After I make that shot, I'm going to take the clothing off of that ballistic gel and put blood on it and see where that soaks in and how—and then you leave that blood for a day, and then after a day, I'll wash it as vigorously as I possibly can and see—can I get, you know, every—back or any remnant of blood out of the clothing to where it looks like it does the actual clothing in the museum today, where there is not a spa of blood whatsoever on that clothing? How do you think the detective will respond?
Well, um, he's a very logical guy, so I think he'll hear me out, and you know, when I—when—after we had our discussion and he presented his theory to me, I started thinking about it immediately and how I had set up different tests, um, to test his theory, and I was looking through some photos that I had taken, and one of them I found was this—one of me standing at the door in Carthage, and you can see right here—this is the shot that he is saying struck Hiram in the back, and you can tell right off the bat that shot is super high. I'm about the height of Hiram, and that would not hit me in the lower back; that would be, you know, that would come through my ribs. So right off the bat, I'm like, I think that's pretty strong evidence against his theory that he was shot through the door in the back first.
How many people do you think have been convinced by the forensic evidence you've presented?
Um, that's a good question. I think most people who watch the film were convinced by that—that there is no way that the narrative—the way that it is told now—that that could have worked. Now I could have stopped there and been fine and accomplished my goal, but I—I kept going, and this is where I got into trouble, is because then I wanted to know—well, if they—if that's not what happened—those narratives—then what did happen? And so I came up with my own theory—the Inside Job Theory—after reviewing everything and uh, you know, I don't think I agree with the detective. I don't have enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt in the court of law. I don't think I would convince the whole jury beyond a reasonable doubt that it was an inside job, but I also agree with the detective—none of the other theories could do that either. So the jury is still out on what actually happened that day. Nobody's made a case so far that proves absolutely that this is what happened, but out of all of the theories that I've come across—and many people have shared many different theories with me—I've tested most of them, and I'm going to test the detective's theory—most of them get eliminated. So so far, the only one that I've personally seen that is still standing is the Inside Job Theory.
What was your motivation for making this second film?
Uh, uh, my motivation has evolved over time. It started out—I just was seeking for the truth—what happened in those two to three minutes because I don't think anybody knows, and I hear all sorts of different stories, and I didn't want to take anyone else's word for it—like I had my whole life. I wanted to figure it out for myself—what happened—and I was willing to do the work, and uh, you know, by the—by the time I had finished most of my initial tests, I—uh, could very well explain in my own words what I thought happened. And so, you know, I—that motivation went away. But after time, you know, I got—I got excommunicated for presenting that theory, and you know, that's when I lost everything—that's when everything in my life changed, and my motivation changed also at that point. I just wanted to vindicate myself, and so I got into all sorts of debates and fights with people, and I just wanted to show them—no, I was axed for the wrong reasons—this is really what happened in Carthage, and I wasn't fair—what they did. But that puts you in a really dark place. Um, you know, I wasn't building relationships; I was destroying relationships or putting big wedges in relationships by—by doing that. So I realized that, and I just stopped. So I didn't want to prove anything to anyone else—I'd already proved what I wanted to prove to myself, and I was ready to, you know, put this project aside and maybe work on something else. But then the movie came out, and I started getting all sorts of messages from people about it, and uh, there's—there's four—when you've—hear something—if you've been a member of the church your whole life and you hear something about the history that just rocks you to the core that you didn't know—there's four ways that I've seen people react to that, and the first is to just ignore it and act like it never happened. The second is people that just double down on defending the church, and I think their motivation is—well, I know the church is true; therefore, there has to be an answer for this, so they just defend—defend the church. The third reaction that I've seen is people that are just so frustrated and they feel so betrayed about whatever thing they learned from the past that they just throw all of it out. And then the fourth reaction is the people who turn to God and say, you know, I've relied on man my whole life—they've given me all these answers—now I can see that there's problems in those answers—what am I supposed to do? And I was more along the lines of my own reaction. Um, so the—so the different messages that I was getting—I definitely—tons of people just ignored the evidence. Um, I got all sorts of messages from people who just absolutely hated the movie and hated what I did. Um, you know, I think his name is Dark—I did a four hours worth of podcast just ripping the movie and everything about it, and then that works with Fair—he came out and was like, I wish the church could have excommunicated him twice. So I got—I got a lot of that reaction, um, and I understand that, but I also got a ton of reaction from people who had turned to God at one point in their life already, and they know how to go to him and ask for answers or direction on what to do when they come to a difficult question, and you know, most of these people when they reached out to me said—I've known for a long time that there's something wrong with the martyrdom—that this story doesn't add up—but I didn't know what it was until you made this movie and you put that into words. So that was—that was awesome. You know, it was worth doing all this just to meet these people and be able to talk—anyone that puts God first doesn't freak out when you ask the hard questions—that's somebody I wanted to be friends with and have a relationship with. Then you have that final group—the people who threw everything out—and this is—this is the saddest one—and I even had people who reached out to me that said they had thrown everything out—they had given up on God—given up on Christ—given up on the church—the Book of Mormon—they threw everything because they just didn't want to trust in man—they had felt so betrayed—and then they watched the movie—somehow they found it—and they said to me, you know, if this narrative is not correct—if what the church is saying didn't really happen—you know, what does that mean? And it helped them realize that they had been putting their faith in man, and that's why they had a faith crisis is because they trusted man, but in their hearts they'd always known that God was there. And so when they saw that man can mess up and man can make mistakes and the history is not correct—well, what else could they maybe not be correct about? That gave them the opportunity to start looking for answers themselves—so not just trusting the normal narrative but going to God themselves—toying with them—and watching people who've thrown it all out come back to their testimony of God—of Jesus Christ—The Book of Mormon—and even the Prophet Joseph has been one of the most rewarding parts of—of doing this work. So that's what my motivation is now—is to continue to reach out to those who are wondering about the history and what happened and helping them to find their own answers.
Do you think the leaders of the LDS church will ever respond to your films?
Um, well, that would be great if they did, but I understand that there's no way the leaders of the church can answer every single question that everybody has about hurt church history or, you know, doctrine or whatever. So what they typically do is they refer you to your local authorities—either your stake president or your bishop—to help you with your questions, and in my case, that didn't work out very well, obviously. But I've heard stories of other people who go in with their bishop or their stake president, and they end up having a wonderful experience working together. You know, some of these bishops are just like—I don't know the answer to that, but I'll study it with you, and let's go through it, and let's pray and see if we can come to conclusions together. So I mean, how cool would that be if my leaders—my local leaders—have been like, let's do that. Um, they didn't—they didn't choose that path with me. Maybe—maybe someday they will, but you know, in the meantime, I don't think—yeah, I'm not ever thinking the church, you know, authorities are ever going to watch it or respond to it.
What's the biggest weakness of the Inside Job Theory?
That's easy—it's the historical account. And what do I mean by that? So when I was in that debate mode with people, every time I lost a debate, it was because they would bring up the historical account, and I couldn't speak to it. I've tried my best to convince them why the physical evidence is more important, but if they don't want to believe that, that's fine. So what I've done over the last year is studied the historical evidence myself. I found over 70 accounts of the martyrdom pertaining to what—
What happened in that two to three minutes at Carthage? And that took a long time to study those and understand those. And now I'm ready, if anyone wants to have a discussion or talk about the martyrdom, and in a, or a debate, or whatever you want, kind of conversation. If you want to get to the truth and you want to talk about the historical account, I'm ready to do that.
In Dallin Oaks's *Carthage Conspiracy*, he quotes Udina Marsh. Her brother-in-law was an officer in the guard assigned to guard the jail on the evening of the martyrdom. He burst into their house and said, "A party of men are coming to take Joe Smith from jail and hang him in the Square." I didn't just make that up about the hanging in the first film. And Udina Marsh wasn't the only one who said it. One of the baggage wagon drivers for the mob, named Benjamin Brackenberry, testified under oath that he also thought the mob wanted to grab Joseph and hang him.
Why is this tiny, overlooked detail so important? It's because it paints a completely different picture than the standard narrative we've all been led to believe. In our minds, we see a huge, angry mob pushing their way into the jail and barreling up the stairs with their muskets so they can shoot everyone in the room. In reality, it was only a few, probably very scared, mob members who actually went into the jail. Thomas Dixon testified in court that it was only about a half dozen, and according to other eyewitness accounts, they were all very young.
As soon as the mob arrived at the jail, those in charge yelled out to the jailer to surrender the prisoners. And when he refused, they ordered their youngest guys to go in and grab Joseph. Colonel Williams shouted out, "Rush in, there's no danger, boys, all is right." According to William Matthias, they were given liquor so they'd have the courage to go through with it. William Daniels and Brackenberry both said this exact same thing. But when these kids got to the top of the stairs, the door was shut, and they had no idea what to do. In the adrenaline rush of the moment, a few of them shot at the door with their muskets.
Now imagine these young men's surprise when the door flew open and Joseph started firing at them. No one told them that the prisoners would be armed. What would you have done in that situation? Fire back or run? Five different witnesses at the jail that day described what happened next: Henry Matthias, William Webb, William Daniels, William R. Hamilton, and Benjamin Brackenberry. Each of these accounts gives different names, different wounds, and different descriptions of what happened when they were trying to grab Joseph, including William Grover who claimed Joseph punched him twice in the face. All of these accounts are full of inconsistencies and contradictions, and I understand now why historians rarely refer to them. Even so, I think there is enough of an overlap between them that it's safe to assume there was a gunfight at the top of the stairs. There is no way Joseph was going to let them take him—hire him or his supposed friends—not again, not like they did when he was tarred and feathered.
You can see now why Joseph fought back inside of the jail. It is interesting to note that none of the witnesses who were part of that gunfight in the jail ever mention anything about Taylor and Richards knocking down their muskets with walking sticks. This is the walking stick that we used in the movie. Okay, and we had the actors jamming these muskets through the door with the bayonets on them, and look at the damage. One day I was sitting there looking at that, thinking to myself, "Both of them had walking sticks that they were doing this, knocking the musket down. There's probably marks on there." Yeah, so we have that walking stick in the museum—no marks. So it's, it's a really strange; it has all these bumps on it, and some of the bumps are torn off, but there's none of these scrapes. Right? So if you, if you saw a more linear damage, which would be associated with hitting the blade of the, um... So I'm like, "Does this future analysis church, if they would let me analyze that walking stick, and then I get equivalent ones and run and see what happens to the damage?" Yeah. Now if I show that that was the real walking stick and there was no damage on it, would you say misremembering or lying that they were knocking down muskets? Yeah, I would say that would be a lie. Yeah. Okay, because that's a complete creation of an act that didn't happen.
Both the physical evidence and the historical evidence suggest this part of Taylor and Richard's narrative could have been a complete fabrication. I look forward to exploring this evidence further. On the other hand, nobody disputes that Joseph had a six-shooter or that Hiram had a single-shot pistol. But did Taylor and Richards also have guns? In part one, I made a startling allegation that John Taylor had a six-shooter and Willard Richards was hiding two pistols in his coat. As it turns out, the historical record backs up this possibility. In the *Warsaw Signal* extra, Thomas Sharp printed that Joe and his fellow prisoners, it seems, had provided themselves with pistols. Governor Thomas Ford laments in his history that he was the one blamed for not having the prisoners checked for these weapons. In John Hayes's account, many years later, he questions General Deming, the Jack Mormon sheriff, for not investigating the matter and then goes on to state one of the most intriguing facts in the entire historical record. He said that Joseph Smith had two six-barrel revolvers in the jail—two—but he believes Joseph could only have fired one of them. There they are, the possible murder weapons.
The fact that the historical record proves John Taylor and Willard Richards also had pistols was startling, but imagine my surprise when I came across the statement given by Elder Samuel Jones three days after the martyrdom. He claimed an eyewitness at the jail, named Dixon, saw that Joseph and Hiram were murdered by friends.
It's not easy finding any further confirming details of Elder Jones's bombshell revelation, except that he was a well-respected member of the Church. A few months after saying it, he was excommunicated. A jaw-dropping detail doesn't stop there. For the longest time, I've suspected the mob only shot their muskets a few times into the room. My suspicion was confirmed when I discovered the missionary couple who remodeled the jail in the 1930s. They scraped all of the plaster in the room off the walls and found no bullet marks in any of the underlying lather stone. Maybe the lath had been replaced, but the stone was still original. And I can tell you by personal experience that if you fire a .69 caliber musket into a limestone block, even if it's covered with a layer of plaster, it's still going to leave a permanent mark. But the lack of any physical evidence means many people today still believe the room ended up riddled with bullet holes in the walls. This assumption is prevalent, and it may have started with the only two contemporary witnesses who mentioned bullet holes. The first was Willard Richards, who wrote that a shower of balls was pouring through all parts of the room, many of which lodged in the ceiling just above the head of Hiram. That's odd. The second was Joseph Smith's attorney, J.W. Woods, who claims to have inspected the jail the day after the martyrdom and noted 35 bullets lodged in the room.
I had a hard time believing Woods's account because he was completely mistaken in his description of Joseph's wounds. According to Woods, Joseph was raising the east window to escape the room when a ball hit him under the jaw and passed out through his left eye. Now, why would Joseph need to open that window if John Taylor had already tried to jump out of it? Articles appearing in the *Warsaw Signal* and *Quincy Herald* also said that window was closed, but all of the other accounts say it was already open. So who knows? Woods then wades into the leaped versus fell debate by siding with those who said Joseph fell out of the window after he was shot. Let me explain why this debate is so important. We have 19 different accounts of people describing how Joseph came out of the window, 14 of which came from eyewitnesses who were in Carthage when it happened. Richards, Taylor, and Harman used the word "leaped," and Willie Hamilton, Wilson, and Dixon said he fell. Webb said that he jumped, which puts him more in the leaped camp, but then turned around and also said Joseph fell. It's hard to know which side Daniels was on because he said Joseph leaped, fell, and hung on the window ledge for a few minutes. Samuel Arthur Williams used the word "tumbled." Sharp said Joseph threw himself out of the window, countered by Sherman and Marsh who both said Joseph was thrown out or pitched headlong. Barnes first used the word "leaped" in his account, which he repeated from Richards, but then corrected himself and said "fell." I suspect most of the other witnesses that used the word "leaped" were also influenced by Richards. Now, why do you suppose Willard Richards would be so anxious for people to believe Joseph leaped from the window rather than fell?
Regardless of whether Joseph leaped or fell out of the window, none of the other witnesses standing outside of the jail mentioned seeing John Taylor ever come to the window, which adds to my suspicion that that part of his story also never happened. So J.W. Woods said "fell," which more witnesses agreed with. He also matched several other key details from different accounts, so it is conceivable he wasn't just embellishing his story about the 35 bullet holes. But still, how could he have been so wrong about Joseph's wounds? Let's look at his statement again: "A ball hit him under the jaw and passed through his left eye." Can you see it? That's not Joseph; that's Hiram. Joseph's attorney is describing the shot that killed Hyrum. Woods also said that a ball shot through Joseph's back struck the watch in his left vest pocket. That's how I know for sure he was really talking about Hiram. Dr. Barnes and the coroner's jury both described the same thing: Hiram was shot in the throat; the ball exited out of the left side of his nose. By now, I hope you're asking yourself the same question I've been asking myself: pointing to an inside job have been in the historical record this entire time, and none of us knew about them? Such a good question.
So far, out of the 73 different martyrdom accounts I've found, one in particular has bothered me the most. After the martyrdom, the *Nauvoo Neighbor* reprinted an article from the *Quincy Herald* stating that it would probably never be known who shot Joseph and Hiram. It only took two weeks for both sides to concede that this conspiracy would never be solved. Here we are, almost 200 years later, and I just can't live with that. And I think the leaders from both sides giving up so easily is very telling. I understand how all of the conflicting testimonies make this investigation a mess, but once you understand the forensic evidence, you can better see in the historical account how Willard crafted his narrative and used it to influence the other witnesses. For example, Thomas Barnes was one of the first people in the jail after the mob fled Carthage. He was the doctor that removed the ball from Taylor's hand, and he asked Willard how he was the only one of the four men not wounded. Willard responded that he had been hiding in the corner to the right of the door, using it as a shield. William Hamilton was also one of the few in the jail immediately after the attack. He also confirmed the same story about Willard hiding in the corner. Willard must have regretted saying that to Barnes and Hamilton almost immediately; perhaps he thought it sounded cowardly because later that night, in his first written account of the martyrdom, he changes his story to say he stood on the left of the door with Joseph and John Taylor. Then a month later, in his seventh account, that's when he first added in the detail about bravely knocking down muskets with his walking stick. Both Barnes and Hamilton saw with their own eyes Hiram laying on the floor dead. Both say he was struck by the bullet shot through the door panel. The forensic evidence now proves that's impossible. But even if it was possible, how could they have known? Neither of them were in the jail when it happened. There is only one way they could have come up with that story: Willard. And that's exactly why the mob members who shot through the door also said it struck Hiram. But how could they have known that if the door was closed?
After the mob ran out of the jail and saw Joseph die next to the well, Willard dragged Taylor into the adjoining cell and then stood in the doorway and waited for them to return. He knew, once Joseph was dead, that they'd be back for Hiram. When they came back up the stairs and opened the door, they must have been pretty confused to see Hiram already dead on the floor. But Willard was right there, anxious to explain that it was their shot through the door panel that killed him. A couple of half-inebriated teenagers had no reason to believe Willard was lying, and Willard was happy to let them take the credit. That made these kids instant heroes and celebrities to everyone in the county who thought the Smiths were dangerous criminals. In fact, two of them were gifted new suits of clothing by the citizens of Warsaw and Green Plains for their bravery in the matter. It was the perfect cover-up.
I have invited multiple LDS historians and scholars with expertise on the martyrdom for a sit-down interview, and they all refused. I understand how being in someone else's film would be a risk, but the invitation still stands. Anytime any of you would like to try and explain again how the history has been settled, let me know, and I'll be there. In the coming weeks, we will post every known martyrdom account on the whokilledjosephsmith.com website. This will be the first time ever that every account will be available in one searchable database. We will also continue to add new accounts as they are identified. For example, just last year, Mormon expert John Hiacek acquired a trove of early Utah Mormon documents from a private collection. Within those documents, he discovered a curious sermon given by John Taylor on January 23, 1848. In that sermon, John Taylor argued that there is such a thing as a righteous motive for murder. Elder Taylor cautioned members of the church to not judge others for murder when you do not fully understand their motives. He likened this to Moses explaining that he was wrongfully judged by his brethren for killing the Egyptian, which was a righteous act, and he did it in order to save his people from oppression. This account has never before been made public. We look forward to continuing our examination of whatever new evidence the future brings.
The night of the premiere was an incredible experience. I met so many amazing people, but there's some unfinished business from that night. After we showed the film, we had a question-and-answer period. And a lady from the audience raised her hand. She looked a little bit distraught and she asked the question, "What are we supposed to do now?" I knew exactly what she was asking, but I didn't answer her. I hope that someday we can meet again so we can talk that through, but if not, I hope she's watching this because what I would say to her now is: when you first start realizing that the martyrdom may have been an inside job, your instinct is going to be to deny it. But that's why, in Ether chapter 8, verse 24, the Lord commands us to wake up to our awful situation. Don't go back to sleep. If John Taylor really was involved with this, how could he have been a prophet? And if he wasn't a prophet, is the church today still true? These are questions that only God can answer for you. But if you want the truth, you're going to have to go into the wilderness—that's what God calls it in the scriptures—when you go on an epic journey all alone and leave everything behind to go and find him.
The hardest thing about waking up is being labeled and rejected. In the wilderness, this label doesn't mean anything. The only thing here is you and God. And it came to pass that he departed into the wilderness, and he left his house and the land of his inheritance and his gold and his silver and his precious things and took nothing with him. And I will also be your light in the wilderness, and I will prepare the way before you, if it so be that you shall keep my commandments. And they did harden their hearts from time to time. And the Lord did straighten them in the wilderness with his rod.
And if it so be that the children of men keep the commandments of God, he doth nourish them and strengthen them and provide means whereby they can accomplish the thing which he has commanded them. And they began to bear their journeyings without murmurings. Yea, and the Lord said also that after you have arrived in the promised land, you shall know that I, the Lord, am God.
Yeah, I think everything's gonna be okay. Men saying things; they are starting to seem like they're fighting to be the one true God. Here on my knees, I will seek to receive something I've never said that's on my mind. I bow down before you; I bow down. Darkness invades; oh, my sins are afraid; falling; all I can do is call your name. I see in my mind's eye blinding two figures. About down before you; I bow down. Maybe you still believe John Taylor and Willard Richards were telling the truth, even though the evidence contradicts their accounts of the martyrdom. Maybe the contradictions don't bother you because you know that eyewitnesses are usually mistaken. Or maybe you believe it doesn't matter because it's impossible for anyone to know exactly what happened that long ago. Or perhaps you feel it's immoral to accuse someone of a crime when they aren't alive to defend themselves. These reactions might sound reasonable, but if you believe any of them, how can you still be so sure about polygamy? Why do you believe the self-proclaimed eyewitnesses who claim Joseph was a polygamist? How could you understand everything Joseph was doing almost 200 years ago? Why are you okay with accusing him? He isn't here to defend himself.
Undeniable truth is that from 1830 to 1844, in many printed publications, numerous public sermons, forceful letters, private journals, and highly public trials and excommunications, Joseph Smith, in concert with his brother Hiram and his beloved wife Emma, vehemently preached, relentlessly taught, indeed fiercely fought against polygamy, plurality of wives, spiritual wifery, and anything like them. In the scriptures he revealed and in many public statements, Joseph equated any form of polygamy with adultery and whoredoms. The only private statements recorded by Joseph regarding polygamy expressly condemn and forbid the practice without exception. Some of his final words ever spoken to thousands of gathered Saints just weeks before his murder were, "What a thing it is to be accused of having seven wives when I can only find one." In contrast, there is not a single public or private statement, contemporaneous document, or verifiable action taken by Joseph Smith during his lifetime in support of or tying him to the practice, period. But still, you may be saying, "Well, he may have been against it publicly, but he practiced it privately, right?" Well, guess who started that rumor?