The director admitted the payments but denied he had instructed any paid participants to say anything that was false. The movie helped perpetuate the Clinton body count conspiracy theory about a list of associates Clinton was purported to have had killed. The Los Angeles Times reported that Larry Nichols, who appears throughout the film and is the primary source for a number of the murder and mysterious death claims, was fired from his Arkansas state government job and once admitted to an Associated Press reporter to being motivated by spite. The fact checking site TruthOrFiction.com states that "There is no credible evidence that any of the deaths is related or can be attributed to Bill Clinton". To promote the film, Falwell aired an interview with Matrisciana, who was silhouetted to conceal his identity as he pretended to be a journalist who was afraid for his life. Matrisciana later acknowledged that he was not in any danger, but that the interview was staged for dramatic effect at Falwell's suggestion. Later developments The New York Times interviewed some of the participants in the film after it aired for followup developments. Gary Parks, who appeared in a segment of the film discussing the suspicious circumstances of the death of his father while investigating Clinton's womanizing, admitted he embellished some details in the film, but still believes his father was killed for political reasons. Linda Ives, the mother of Kevin Ives, stated that her interest for participating was solving the mystery of her son's death, and was concerned her comments were used for political purposes. Bill Duncan, a former IRS agent who investigated the Mena accusations regretted appearing on the film, stating, "I would not have willingly been a part of it had I known where that footage would end up". Matrisciana produced a followup video focused exclusively on the Mena airport drug smuggling and murder accusations. Two police officers accused in that film of being involved with the murders of Ives and Henry attempted to sue Matrisciana for defamation. They initially prevailed; however, lost the case when it was appealed. The appeal focused primarily on free speech and the ability to criticize public figures. Even though the judges overturned the ruling of defamation, they were critical of the film in their ruling, saying it blurred the lines between fact and fiction. A number of the incidents mentioned in The Clinton Chronicles continued to