Polygraph Report Clears Former Horry County Deputy Chief

and Raises Questions About LunaShark’s Narrative Machine

Former Horry County Deputy Chief Brandon Strickland Directly Denied the Allegations. A Polygraph Examiner Found No Deception.

By James Seidel | CC News Network

HORRY COUNTY, S.C. — For years, LunaShark Media has built a brand around exposing what it describes as hidden corruption, backroom influence, and powerful insiders operating beyond public view. But are they the new “Good Ole Boy Network?”

A newly surfaced polygraph report involving former Horry County Deputy Police Chief Brandon Strickland raises a different question:

What happens when LunaShark’s preferred narrative collides with actual evidence?

At the center of the Lunashark controversy is the fatal shooting of Scott Spivey and the scrutiny that followed surrounding Weldon Boyd and his supposed longtime friendship with Strickland. According to Boyd he’s only seen Strickland 6 to 7 times.

In podcasts and public commentary, LunaShark’s Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell portrayed Strickland as a law enforcement insider allegedly working behind the scenes to protect Boyd. Their reporting repeatedly suggested Strickland manipulated events, omitted key facts, and acted as part of a “good old boy” network designed to shield Boyd from accountability. A term they frequently overuse, but they themselves may actually be.

The problem is that much of that narrative was built on assumptions and creating a narrative rather than actual findings.

A Direct Examination of the Core Allegations

A March 2025 polygraph examination conducted by veteran law enforcement professional and certified examiner Ray Nash directly tested the central allegations leveled against Strickland.

According to the report, Strickland was asked whether he:

• Attempted to manipulate the homicide investigation;
• Used his position to tamper with the investigation;
• Used his authority to influence the outcome; or
• Attempted to alter the course of the investigation.

Strickland answered “No” to each question.

The result:

“NO DECEPTION INDICATED.”

According to Nash’s report, Strickland received an overall score of +32, dramatically exceeding the passing threshold established for the examination.

The significance is not that a polygraph conclusively proves innocence. Polygraphs have critics, and courts generally treat them with caution.

The significance is that LunaShark’s most serious allegations were finally subjected to direct examination.

And the examination did not support them.

Narrative Versus Evidence

Instead, the allegations remain largely what they have always been:

• Interpretations of phone calls;
• Assumptions about motives;
• Speculation regarding what Strickland may have known; and
• Conclusions drawn from relationships and appearances.

Throughout its coverage, LunaShark repeatedly asks readers and listeners to infer misconduct. This is called creating a narrative, not journalism.

Did Strickland know Boyd was lying?

Did Strickland hand-pick investigators for an improper purpose?

Did Strickland intentionally omit information?

Those questions may generate compelling podcast content.

They are not evidence.

The distinction matters.

A person can know someone involved in a shooting.

A person can have a friendship with a suspect.

A person can make phone calls that later appear questionable.

None of those facts alone establish misconduct in office.

Yet LunaShark’s reporting frequently treats suspicion as though it were proof.

The Double Standard Problem

Ironically, the same type of inference-driven reporting LunaShark has directed at Strickland now appears in allegations involving LunaShark itself.

Court filings associated with Weldon Boyd’s legal dispute with attorney Mark Tinsley contain allegations concerning the relationship between LunaShark principals Mandy Matney and Liz Farrell and their handling of sensitive information related to the Mallory Beach case.

According to those filings, Matney and Farrell allegedly discussed among themselves the potential negative impact of publishing a link containing photographs of Mallory Beach but proceeded anyway.

The filings further allege that neither consulted the Beach family before publication and later criticized others for using the same material.

Additional allegations contend that Mark Tinsley was aware of the publication and did not seek its removal.

Whether those allegations are ultimately proven remains for the courts to determine.

But they expose an uncomfortable contradiction.

When LunaShark analyzes others:

• Relationships become evidence of influence.
• Phone calls become evidence of intent.
• Publication decisions become evidence of motive.

Yet when similar allegations are raised involving LunaShark and its allies, readers are told the circumstances are more nuanced and complicated.

The contrast is difficult to ignore.

What the Polygraph Actually Shows

The Strickland polygraph does not answer every question surrounding the Spivey shooting investigation.

It does not determine whether every decision was perfect.

It does not establish that every criticism is invalid.

What it does do is directly address the central accusation repeatedly advanced by LunaShark:

That Brandon Strickland manipulated or improperly influenced the investigation.

On that question, the examiner’s conclusion was unequivocal:

No deception indicated.

For years, LunaShark has presented listeners with a theory.

The polygraph report presents something different — a documented examination specifically designed to test that theory.

According to the polygraph report, Strickland was asked:

1. “In your role as a police commander, did you attempt to manipulate that homicide investigation?”
2. “Did you use your position to tamper with the homicide investigation in any way?”
3. “Using your position of authority, did you strive to influence the outcome of the investigation?”
4. “Did you use your position to attempt to alter the course of that homicide investigation?”

The report notes that Strickland answered “No” to all four questions.

Reasonable people may disagree about the value of polygraphs.

But after years of insinuation, the strongest piece of direct evidence addressing the core allegations against Brandon Strickland points in the opposite direction of the narrative LunaShark has countless years promoting.

And that raises a question that deserves just as much scrutiny as the allegations themselves:

Was the story ever about evidence, or was it always about the narrative that Lunashark wanted to push in yet another case that Mark Tinsley was involved with?

Only time will tell what ultimately emerges from the Weldon Boyd case.

But critics of LunaShark’s reporting have begun pointing to a familiar pattern.

In the Alex Murdaugh jury controversy, key facts did not emerge until court proceedings forced witnesses under oath. In the Beach v. Parker litigation, discovery, depositions and court orders revealed communications and information that were not previously public. In the JP Miller litigation, sworn testimony and court filings again became the mechanism through which facts surfaced.

Now, in the Weldon Boyd case, many of the same names, relationships and allegations appear once again.

The examiner’s conclusion was straightforward: No Deception Indicated. Now what is Lunashark’s next move? Discredit polygraphs, discredit this article, and discredit the “Good ole boy” system, and the examiner? Time will tell.

Attorney Herrmann Says Backlash Escalated into Threats

Attorney Bert Von Herrmann, who represents former Horry County Deputy Chief Brandon Strickland, says criticism from LunaShark supporters went far beyond disagreement after comments he made regarding Mandy Matney.

According to Von Herrmann, the response included more than 100 communications across phone calls, text messages, social media messages and contacts to his law office.

“Approximately 10 to my staff encouraging them to kill themselves. Maybe 30 just talking crap. Close to 25 threatening to either kill me or saying I should kill myself. The balance of which were just nasty calls telling my wife she should leave me,” Von Herrmann said.

He estimated the total number of communications exceeded 100 when personal calls, office calls, text messages and Facebook messages were included.

“I don’t want anyone to get the idea that this intimidated me,” Von Herrmann said. “I have been in this business for 27 years and love idiots that warn you with threats.”

Von Herrmann further alleged that the activity followed a social media post by Matney in which she allegedly encouraged followers to respond.

“Also the activity was put online by Mandy saying something to the effect of, ‘My Facebook friends, do your thing,'” he said.

CC News has not independently verified the source of the communications or whether any individuals making threats were acting on behalf of LunaShark Media. However, Von Herrmann’s allegations add to growing criticism from attorneys, litigants and other critics who argue that online activism by Lunashark surrounding high-profile South Carolina cases can sometimes cross the line into personal attacks, intimidation and real harassment.

The allegations are particularly noteworthy because they come from a veteran attorney with nearly three decades of legal experience who says the threats did not come from opposing counsel but from members of the public responding to online commentary surrounding the case created by Lunashark.

The larger issue is no longer whether criticism is acceptable, but is known harassment acceptable?

Criticism is part of journalism, litigation and public debate.

The issue is whether influential media figures have a responsibility to discourage harassment when they know their audience may act on their rhetoric.

For years, LunaShark has spoken publicly about the harassment directed toward Mandy Matney, Liz Farrell and others associated with the organization. Their position has consistently been that online abuse, threats and intimidation are unacceptable.

If that standard is genuine, it should apply equally to everyone.

If attorney Bert Von Herrmann’s allegations are accurate and he, his staff and family received threats, messages encouraging suicide and other forms of harassment, then the response should not depend on whether the target is a friend or an enemy.

The principle is simple:

Threats are wrong.

Harassment is wrong.

Encouraging someone to kill themselves is wrong.

And if public figures know members of their audience are engaging in that behavior, many would argue they have a responsibility to say so clearly and publicly.

Whether LunaShark chooses to do that remains to be seen.

But history has shown that online hostility rarely de-escalates on its own. The longer it goes unaddressed, the greater the risk that words become actions.

Nobody should have to wait for a tragedy before deciding that threats and intimidation have gone too far.

About the Author

James Seidel

Administrator

About the CC News Network James Seidel: Publisher, Award Winning Journalist, Author. Investigator, Podcaster, Talk Show Host, and Music Producer. The CC News Network is a distinguished media company in the world of South Carolina News, Weather, Sports and True Crime. At the beginning, James Seidel was only known as Crime and Cask and well known for his relentless pursuit of truth and justice in the Alex Murdaugh trial. As a journalist, author, investigator, radio talk show host, and record producer he has made significant contributions to uncovering some of the most complex and high-profile criminal cases of our time.

Visit Website View All Posts