Custody Motive, No physical Evidence

Welcome back to The Reform Advocate, the companion blog to the Wickedly Judged podcast.

First, a personal note: thank you to everyone who reached out with well wishes after my car accident. I took time off to heal, and I’m truly grateful for the patience, prayers, and kindness you showed me during that season.

Content warning + important disclaimers

This post discusses allegations of sexual assault involving a minor.

Nothing here is legal advice. I’m not an attorney. This is advocacy and public education.

To protect the alleged victim, we will not share identifying details, and we will not share locations.

Because these topics can be weaponized, I’m going to be careful with language. When I describe what happened, I’ll use phrases like “Richard states,” “Richard alleges,” and “records reportedly reflect,” because our goal is to advocate responsibly—without turning a human being into a headline.

Why we’re covering this case

Some convictions happen because the evidence is overwhelming.

And some convictions happen because a narrative is treated like proof.

In this case, Richard Hoyt, also known as Whyte Wolff, was convicted of sexual assault of a child under the age of 13. Richard maintains his innocence.

This blog post is intended to cover the case as a whole—not just one portion of the interview—so readers have a single place to understand the core claims, the alleged failures, and the advocacy questions that follow.

Richard’s core claims

Based on what Richard has stated publicly and in interview:

·       Richard maintains there was no physical evidence supporting the accusation.

·       Richard alleges medical records did not support assault, and that the alleged victim had a yeast infection and had scratched herself.

·       Richard alleges the biological father had a motive tied to custody, and that the accusation was used to retain full custody.

·       Richard states he has taken multiple professional polygraph examinations and passed them.

A reminder: allegations are not evidence, and motive is not proof. But when the system is deciding whether someone loses their freedom, the burden is supposed to remain where it belongs: on the state.

Media, public narrative, and why it matters

Richard also describes a public-facing side of this case that he believes shaped perception.

He states he appeared on The Steve Wilkos Show, and alleges the show misrepresented the situation for ratings.

He also states he regularly posts court records and what he believes is proof of his innocence on social media, in an effort to keep the public record visible.

Whether people agree with that approach or not, it raises a serious question: when a case becomes a spectacle, does the public narrative start to replace the legal standard?

Threats and intimidation allegations

Richard alleges that members of the alleged victim’s family have threatened to harm him and his children because he continues to post what he describes as the truth and supporting records.

If true, that is not “justice.” That is intimidation.

And I need to say this clearly: advocacy must never become harassment. No one should be threatened. No one’s children should be threatened. If you care about reform, your actions have to reflect that.

The sealed juvenile file and the mistrial issue

One of the most serious legal-procedure claims Richard raises is this:

Richard alleges the prosecution brought up his sealed juvenile file during trial.

He further alleges that this should have resulted in a mistrial, but that the judge denied the mistrial request.

I’m not here to litigate this in a blog post. But I am here to point out why it matters: sealed records are sealed for a reason, and when boundaries meant to protect fairness are crossed, the integrity of the process is on the line.

The questions that matter (and why they matter)

Cases involving children can trigger an emotional response that shortcuts critical thinking. That’s human. But it’s also exactly why due process exists.

Here are the questions that matter in any case like this:

·       What is the claim, specifically?

·       What evidence is offered to support it?

·       What evidence is missing?

·       What alternative explanations exist?

·       Were medical findings interpreted correctly—and were other explanations explored?

·       Were there incentives in play (including custody dynamics)?

·       What did the jury hear versus what was excluded?

·       Were any legal safeguards violated (for example, sealed records)?

If the answer to those questions is vague, inconsistent, or built on assumptions, then we’re not talking about justice. We’re talking about a story that was allowed to become a verdict.

A note on responsible advocacy

If you care about reform, your advocacy has to be ethical.

That means: - Do not name the alleged victim. - Do not share identifying details. - Do not harass families or witnesses. - Do not threaten officials. - Do not turn this into entertainment.

We can demand accountability without creating harm.

How you can help (expanded call to action)

If you made it this far, I’m asking you to do more than just read—because Wickedly Judged is not entertainment. It’s advocacy.

Here’s how you can help without crossing ethical lines:

1. Listen and share with intention. Don’t share this as drama. Share it as a due process conversation. Tell people: listen for evidence, not emotion.

2. Leave a rating and review. It’s one of the fastest ways to help advocacy content reach new listeners.

3. Support the mission (if you can). Merchandise purchases help fund investigations, document review, and the time it takes to do this work responsibly.

4. If you have documents relevant to a case, submit them the right way. Court filings, transcripts, and records matter. But do not post sensitive information publicly—especially anything involving minors.

5. Educate yourself on the process. Learn how discovery works, how expert testimony is evaluated, and what beyond a reasonable doubt is supposed to mean.

6. Be a responsible advocate online. No doxxing. No threats. No harassment. If you want reform, you have to model it.

7. Talk to one person about wrongful convictions—without politics. This isn’t left or right. This is about what happens when the state gets it wrong.

Thank you to our sponsors

This work is only possible because of the people and organizations who stand behind it.

Thank you to: - Veteran Alliance - Yarntherapy4me - Just an Apron - Liberty First Radio - NDVLB - PrimeLEdger Group LLC

And special thanks to JP Verse of Versefire Records for the intro and outro music.

Final word

If you’re here, it’s because you believe the justice system should be more than a verdict.

It should be a process that can withstand scrutiny.

It should be evidence-driven.

And it should never be so fragile that a narrative can replace proof.

Reform through Advocacy.