A (4:20)

And now some breaking news on a major story that we've been following. We have just learned the identity of a teen found dead inside of the trunk of a Tesla registered to the singer David. Investigators now say that the victim, Celeste Rivas, reported as a runaway last year, had not been seen since Eyewitness News reporter Sophie Flay. Live now in the Hollywood Hills, where the car was abandoned. Sophie.

B (4:42)

Mark a devastating discovery. And that singer David has been performing on tour throughout this investigation. Law enforcement told us previously that he was cooperating. And in fact, David was supposed to perform tonight in Seattle, but it appears that that show has since been canceled. Now, most of you will know David's music. It found fame on TikTok, on Spotify. He has amassed 33 million monthly listeners. His YouTube views are in the hundreds of millions. He's collaborated with Carly Uches and 21 Savage and toured with SZ. On 17 September, the police searched his home in the Hollywood Hills. Then the story just caught fire. Online videos popped up that appeared to show him and Celeste together. Then this song was leaked online of him appearing to sing an original unreleased song called Celeste. Some lyrics. Oh, Celeste, the girl with my name tattooed on her chest. Smell her on my clothes like cigarettes. Photos also emerged of him and Celeste with a matching tattoo of the word Shh on their fingers. But then in November, Los Angeles police got a judge to prevent the chief medical examiner from releasing the findings of the autopsy. And no cause of death has been revealed. The Internet has claimed to have solved the case. They are pointing the finger firmly at David. Yet six months on, there are still no arrests, no charges, no indictment. Now, we of course, reached out to David's manager and lawyers for a comment, and we haven't heard back yet. He has not publicly commented on the case, but his representatives prove previously said he was cooperating with police. We also reached out to the LAPD for a comment, and we haven't heard back from them either. The world wants to know what happened to that little girl and why does it feel like the case has stalled? Then last week, we got our first real update. Joining me now to go through it all is our resident trial attorney, Sean Kent. Hi, Sean.

A (6:33)

Hey, Anushka, how are you doing?

B (6:35)

I'm good. I mean, I know we've spoken about this before, but of course, this is a difficult topic and it's very graphic. And I want to keep reminding the listeners that you can go halfway through and listen to our Epstein Fact or fiction? If this isn't for you. But I've just done an explainer of the case. Walk through what's happened, Sean, As I mentioned, the cause of death in this case has been sealed. And we've had little detail about what's actually going on. But then David's dad, D4VID, the singer, he filed some papers in Texas that were arguing against a court summons. And from this we got to see some more detail. Number one, we can see that a grand jury has been convened and that they have summoned his family to testify. Sean, can you just remind everybody a grand jury is.

A (7:17)

So what ended up happen is family got a subpoena. A subpoena basically says you must come forth, you must show up. You must either bring your documents or you must bring yourself to testify. A grand jury is an investigative body, if you will, from the area where the crime is supposedly occurred. And so what the grand jury does is they vote. They look at all the information, they look all evidence, they listen to potential witnesses, and. And they make a decision whether or not you should be charged and indicted with a crime. So you technically have been charged, but the grand jury makes the decision of whether or not that crime should go forth a little bit further. And so once these people have gotten a subpoena, our grand jury has said, or the California grand jury said, y' all need to show up and testify, ask questions, so we can try to figure out if the case against David should go further, if David is who we're looking at. And now that we know from looking at some of the documentation, he's what's called a target, which means he knows he is being looked at. And the grand jury is trying to make a decision if he should be indicted.

B (8:22)

Right, exactly. So in the papers, we can see from what his dad's filed that David is being referred to as, quote, the target. Now, is that normal phraseology? And should we glean from that that charges are coming, or does that happen and then it doesn't amount to anything anyway?

A (8:38)

Generally, it doesn't happen that way. Now, usually it happens with the federal government. And we represent a lot of people in Nushka who will get what's called a target letter. A target letter generally says, the federal government is investigating you for a potential crime. We are looking into you. You should take this letter, find an attorney, come and contact us so we can look into whether or not we should charge you or not. And that's what a target means. It means we're looking at you, we're investigating you, we're probably going to charge you. We're not positive yet. It gives you an opportunity to come, sit down, tell your side of the story, negotiate sometimes and try to get and find a lesser charge. On the state system, it's exceedingly rare to get a target letter to say that somebody is being looked at. But he has, according to the documentation that we've read, because I think the background is his family got a subpoena. They said they didn't want to go. They appealed it. And when it got appealed, a lot of the documentation got leaked to news media sources because things are required to be filed. After they were filed, we see that he is a target of investigation, and they're trying to bring his family in to give information so they can make a decision whether or not they can indict.

B (9:50)

That's absolutely right. His mom, his dad and his sister were subpoenaed, asked to come and Testify in front of the grand jury. And the argument put forward by David's dad for why they won't is that there's been a violation of his due process rights because certain details of the case were redacted. And he filed a writ. Oh, God, I think I'm going to get this wrong. A writ under habeas corpus. That is legalese to the max. Sean, can you just break down what that actually means?

A (10:15)

All right, so we got to break it down and start from we said at the beginning, first they were subpoenaed. A subpoena is a command from a court to show up. You must come. You must come forth, and. And you must testify. They filed through his attorneys, filed a writ of habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is a fancy Latin phrase that just means you have the body. Usually what ends up happening is after somebody is convicted of a crime and they think they were unlawfully or unjustified, when they're in their conviction, they file a habeas corpus petition saying that I am being unlawfully detained. And so the court must look to that same logic. What's going on with David's family? You are making me show up. So my habeas corpus says you want to have my body. Remember the phrase, you have my body. You're making me come to California from Texas. That is impermissible. You should not have the right to bring me over to California on your subpoena to just look at information on my son. I don't want to have to come. And so they first basically filed. And you can file two things here initially. You can file a motion to quash the subpoena. What that means is I ain't coming. It's a California subpoena. I live in Texas. It's too expensive. I don't want to go. I'm not going. That's something that someone can file in this situation. They have filed a writ of habeas corpus saying you would unlawfully detain me. You bringing me here has violated my due process because I don't know what I am coming for, which candidly is not the best of arguments. And that's why two courts, two separate courts said, you've been subpoenaed. Go testify in front of the grand jury.

B (11:55)

And what exactly is due process? Rights? Is that where you get all the information?

A (12:01)

Well, as an American, you have due process. You have a right to challenge. You have. You know, under amendments of the Constitution, you cannot just go. We want to force you to do something. As an American, We Always say, we have the right to challenge. Unconstitutional searches, stops, arrest, captures, habeas corpus means the same. You have a right to due process, you have a right to challenge. And that's what he's saying. He's like, this subpoena violates my right to due process. It violates my right to challenge. I should not be forced to testify in front of somebody because I simply don't want to. And the court said that's not what that means. That's not what our due process rights would mean. It would be different if you were David, who was looking at some type of criminal liability. Under that situation. You can say I should not be allowed or be forced to testify against myself. But you, sir, are a family member. You are a potential witness. You might have information that we need to know to justify, satisfy and help with a conviction or potentially solve a crime. And so that's what he's saying. He's, I mean, and I don't want to talk down anyone. It's an inartful argument to try to get away from a subpoena. And as you can see, two separate courts said it's not going to work. Your due process has not been violated. You've simply been asked to go to California and testify. And as a matter of fact, if I'm not mistaken, one of David's dearest friends, I think his name was Neo, also got a subpoena. He tried to avoid the subpoena and he got arrested. And that's what the court said is like, look, you cannot avoid subpoenas. We've sent this properly, proper subpoena. There's not a constitutional right to avoid legal process. And that's what the court said.

B (13:44)

So gathering from that, if David had made the argument, it would have stuck a little better than his dad making it.

A (13:50)

Absolutely. Because if you think about it, in our constitution, you are not allowed or you are not required to self incriminate yourself. So you can't bring somebody in and say, David said, we want you to testify in front of the grand jury and tell us everything you've done. Well, David has a constitutional right. We hear it all the time. You have a right to remain silent. So you cannot force him to get in front of a grand jury and say, tell us what happened. You can't force him to do that. He doesn't have to say anything. So he would have a due process right. But as far as a regular witness, they just don't. And just because they are his family members, there are no privilege to family members Privileges, Anushka, that do exist, like there is a attorney client privilege, there is a spousal privilege that you cannot be forced to testify against your wife, your lawyer cannot be forced to testify against you. These are privileges that we have in the law. There is not a privilege that exists between a person's mother, their father, their best friend, their neighbor. There are no privileges in that situation. So, yes, they can be forced to come and testify if called by a grand jury or any investigative body.

B (14:52)

And I wanna say it's not a foregone conclusion that charges are coming against David. Nobody has been charged in this case. And right now he's an innocent man. Innocent until proven guilty. I mean, that is the standard you've said being referred to as the target could indicate that something is coming, but right now, we just don't know. And a lot that centers around, I don't want to say the mystery of the case, because that makes it sound like this is some narrative. It's completely uncomfortable that we have no details here. And I know the family have spoken out and called for more transparency. The sealing of the medical records, the sealing of the cause of death has been a key point of tension. Why would you seal that?

A (15:31)

I'm glad you brought that up, because there's sometimes in these murder investigations, there's been turns to be a lot of confusion. So if I can try to break this down a little bit to make it easier. When you're dealing with a medical examiner or a coroner, there are two things that we have to determine. We have to determine cause of death and manner of death. Now, those are the first things. Someone has to make a determination. The cause of death is the why. Okay. Or the. Or the what, if you will. It's gunshot, heart attack, like what caused the death that led to a series of information or series of things that ended up happening. For example, if someone is driving down the interstate or driving down the road, they have a heart attack, and then they go off the side of the road and their car crashes and it blows up. The cause of death is the heart attack. The next thing the medical examiner must determine is the manner of death. Anushka. And when you're talking about manner of death, there are five things. There's accident, there is suicide, there is natural consequences, there is make sure I get the right. There is homicide. I get it right. Accident, natural suicide. Oh, and undetermined, meaning they can't make a determination as to what has happened. So when a medical examiner is figuring out, they must figure out after they figure out the cause, then they must figure out the manner. All homicide means is the death was caused at the hands of another person. That's all homicide mean. People get confused and think every homicide is a murder. No, homicide is a medical determination. Murder is a legal determination. The reason I bring all this up is in this situation and I, I'm not saying I know, but I've seen situations before and based upon these facts, this could happen that the medical examiner could not determine the cause of death or the manner of death. And under that situation, they cannot say that it is a homicide. And if you cannot determine it's a homicide, it still would then be hard to charge someone with murder. And I understand as we look at it, somebody would say the following. Why would somebody, just candidly, why would somebody on their own put their own body in a trunk? Somebody would have had to put their body in the trunk, so it would have had to be a murder. That is the easy way to explain it, but it's not because the medical examiner must still determine, as we mentioned, cause and manner. Remember, this body was found decaying in a trunk for quite some time. And you might have a situation where the medical examiner is like, I don't know the cause of death and I hate to say it, this could be an example. You could have a situation, as we mentioned, that someone died of a heart attack, went off the side of a road and then somebody dismembered their body. The dismemberment of the body did not cause the death and is not the manner of the death. It's something that happened thereafter. And so what you have is possibly a medical examiner. This is just thought process. We've had these cases before, a medical examiner saying, I want to release that I don't know the cause of death or the cause of death is undetermined, or this individual died by these means, or I can't determine the cause. Well, if they release that, you know who is not going to start cooperating? David. If David knows that the medical examiner, and I'm not saying he did anything, he's innocent until proven guilty. And when I say David, I mean in the pejorative, like as the accused or the target. If a target knows they can't determine the cause of death, they can't determine the manner of death. I'm not cooperating whatsoever. And from my reading, my understanding, he has been very cooperative. And so it might be that the LA department is saying, don't release the cause and manner of death because if whoever did it knows, then they're going to be less likely to cooperate. I'm sorry, that's a long winded answer. But sometimes people get confused on cause and manner of death and think that every death is a murder and it's not.

B (19:21)

Yeah, it's really good to break that down, actually, because some of the quotes that came out first were, we don't necessarily know if a charge could be coming for the concealment of the body, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the act of murder was committed. So there's lots of levels to this. I just want to ask you this, though. There have been accusations online that the reason no charges have come, we're six months on now since her body was discovered, is because the case has been mishandled. Should we really be reading into the length of time it's taking to get a charge and saying, well, this definitely means that this, the case has been mishandled, it's not working, they've done something wrong. Or does that happen a lot? Does it mean something else?

A (19:58)

No. And I hate the phrase that it's been mishandled because you just don't know. I personally, and I've talked to you guys about this on this podcast many times. I hate. Sometimes law enforcement is in a rush to arrest, a rush to charge, and sometimes when you charge too fast and too incorrectly, you get it wrong. We have discussed the difference between our federal government and our state government, that our federal government in the United States, what they tend to do is investigated, charge for a long period of time, and then arrest. And that's why they make such better arrests. A lot of times in the state system, they arrest and then investigate and get it wrong. So I don't know what's happened in this situation, but I like the fact that if they're taking their time to do a proper investigation before arresting, that can only yield to more positive results.

B (20:48)

Once again, no one's been charged, David or otherwise. So we just have to remember that, because I know that online the finger is being firmly pointed at him. And some of the accusations online are that David and Celeste were romantically linked. They had matching tattoos. They had the word like shh on their finger, both on their fingers. And there's videos of them together that came out. There was a leaked song that was allegedly sung by David with her name in it, Celeste's name in it. Celeste's family have said that she told them that she was dating someone called David. If all this is true, if this is a hypothetical, if all this is true and they were romantically linked while he was an adult and she was a minor and he was going to be charged with her murder. Would the prosecution also be interested in the suggestion he may have been involved with somebody underage? Or would they just go, we're focusing on this. That's the priority, the murder. We're not looking at other charges, other potential charges.

A (21:46)

There are multiple ways to answer that question. Probably the easiest way is to say that a good prosecutor will seek all of the charges that they think that they can get a conviction on. They will do this because there are appeals, there are processes. When other things get thrown out, there is potential that certain evidence will get thrown out and the goal is to get a conviction. If you look at the Diddy trial, we always go back to the Diddy trial. If you go back to the Diddy trial, everyone remembers that he was charged with a plethora of charges, a bunch of them. And at the time, a lot of people like, why is he charged with such a small charge? But if you remember, he was found not guilty of a lot of charge and then found guilty of the prostitution charge. What led him in jail? So to go back to your question, it could be the same scenario. Charge him with everything. And if for some reason some of these other charges flips, at least we have a conviction on our better charge. Realistically though, it will be difficult, if not impossible, given the fact that the young girl has passed, given what we have heard, and of course, I don't know much of the evidence, it's going to be very difficult to prove that he was engaged. Make sure I say this, engaged in a sexual relationship with an underage minor, because that would be the proof he can be friends with an underage minor and that would be his defense and things of that nature. But to prove that he is engaged in a sexual relationship with an underage minor would be difficult. Third, to take all that a good prosecutor possibly make this possibly because again, David is still innocent until proven guilty. We haven't heard any facts. I haven't looked at any of the evidence, anything. A good prosecutor possibly could utilize that as motive. Possibly David's underage relationship with this child. She is that a child could be the reason why the child lost their life and they could point to David. And that's what prosecutors do a lot of times that they might be looking for a motive. And that's a lot of times the hardest thing to prove on these cases. And that might be why they're having all this family member go for the grand jury. We need to figure out what the motivation is for why this possibly happened. And that's sometimes why you meet with grand jury. So all of that goes to answer your question on would the relationship with the underage child be important to a prosecutor? And it will could be important for a bevy of reasons.

B (24:06)

And another thing that's been raised over and over, especially since his name was released, obviously as the target, and we now know that he is being being investigated by the grand jury, is the content of his art, his song lyrics, his videos. We've spoken about this before, Sean. This is a. It's a tricky topic here. I want to read you some. This is from Romantic Homicide, which was released in 2022. Some of the lyrics. In the back of my mind you died and I didn't even cry. Later on, in the back of my mind I killed you and I didn't even regret it. I can't believe I said it, but it's true. I hate you. In one of his videos for the song One More Dance, he can be seen dragging a body while covered in blood that he puts in the. In the boot of a car, in the trunk of a car. So boots probably quite English. In the trunk of a car. We see in the video that the body he's dragging is actually him. That was released in February 2025. Once again, we're in a hypothetical situation because no one's been charged, but we know he's referred to as the target. If they do raise charges against him, this makes its way to court. Is this admissible as evidence? His songs, his music videos, not deflate

A (25:12)

both sides, but possibly. We have a battle going on right now on courts all over the United States on whether or not a rapper or singer's music lyrics should be allowed to be utilized against him. On one side of the spectrum, you have artists, rappers, saying the following. This is artistic freedom. This is poetry. This is expression. These are not my personal thoughts, but they are my personal thoughts through my music. And I should be allowed to have artistic freedom when I'm singing. Prosecutors, on the other hand, are saying that when you look at rap lyrics, these are usually first person encounters of a person's narrative of their thoughts, and we should be able to utilize them in the prosecution of them. And so what judges have to do, Anushka, is do a careful balance to make sure if they are going to allow the rap lyrics in, they are for a specific part of the case and not just poetic freedom. Where this gets a little deeper is if an individual takes the stand again we're talking in comparison, complete hyperbole. Let's say the trial happens and I don't want to keep saying David's name because that's unfair. But let's say a trial happens and someone takes the stand who has been accused of killing a young girl. And he gets on the stand and says something to the fact of. That's disgusting. I would never do that. Whoever would do that. Whoever would say that, whoever would joke, that is a bad person. Well, that opens door for all the rap lyrics to come in and start asking questions about it and asking him questions about. Why would you say that? Because as we mentioned, when you go on the stand, your character comes on and the jury is going to be allowed to hear, like, why would you sing and why would you rap? It would take a depraved mind to rap about so such things. And maybe that's why you did it. So again, to answer your question, a

B (26:58)

long winded away, and I'm gonna say again, David has not commented on the case, but his representatives previously said he was cooperating with the police. And if you're kind of sat there going, why'd you keep giving denials? For David, it is important. He is innocent until proven guilty. Those are his rights. I don't have to tell you that, Sean, as a criminal defense attorney, you bang that drum regularly. But it is important. But I'm gonna move more to sort of generally talking about the case. Now, I wanna ask this delicately. Cause we, like you said, we don't know the cause of death as it's been sealed. If this is ruled a murder and someone is charged with that murder, does the fact that dismemberment has taken place either before or after the murder, does that increase the potential amount of time you could be sentenced to? How does that play in to the prosecution's argument?

A (27:51)

And not to be the correct professor, but if it is ruled a homicide and then the prosecutor chooses to charge with murder, there are certain things that are called special circumstances. And looking in there, yes, it could increase depending on the special circumstances in California, depending on what they find, could they make this a death penalty case? Yes. Could they increase the penalties? Yes. But it all goes to what they can prove about that dismemberment. How was it done? Why was it done? And you may not be familiar, but there literally is a famous case in California that happened. There was a television show about it called the Jinx with a guy by the name of Robert Durst. It had a Texas and California tie in what ended up happening in that similar situation is he dismembered a body. Okay. They were not able to prove that he killed the person, but he was able to prove that he dismembered the body. And he got charged with the dismemberment and not the murder and didn't do a lot of time on that. Now, people watch. You can find out later that a lot of more information came out as a result of that. But, yes, dismembering a body and disposing of it incorrectly, if you will, is a separate charge that someone can find themselves on.

B (29:02)

Okay, but so we know from the legal docs that the body was placed in cadaver bags, which indicates, or could possibly indicate a level of planning as they had to be purchased. You can actually get them on Amazon, which it's. I found crazy. How does that affect the way this is prosecuted if there's a level of thought and planning that's gone into it, rather than. Would you call it, rather than like a crime of passion?

A (29:23)

Perfect analysis. You're exactly right. Depending on where they're going to go, that a good prosecutor will use that they will say that the murder is the intentional killing, the premeditated intentional killing of another with malice aforethought. So that means you had to say exactly. Is it the level of planning and preparation that went forth? Let's say for argument's sake, the person who finds themselves accused this charge gets on the stand and says, this was an awful accident. I didn't mean this happened because that's what happened in the Robert Durst case. This was an awful accident. And I panicked. And then I severed and took care of the body and took it over. Well, let's say they make that same argument and then they catch him in Walmart six months earlier. Because they. They will find it, if it exists, finding these bags. So why would you have been buying the bag six months before the shooting if you are the killing or whatever, if you were not planning on killing this person all along? All this goes to the premeditated nature of what proves a murder. And that's the difference between a murder and a manslaughter charge. Manslaughter is heat of passion. It just happened. I just. I reacted. I caught this person in a situation and I snapped. That's the difference between murder and manslaughter.

B (30:34)

Look, Sean, thank you so much for breaking that down. I know it's a very difficult topic, but we really appreciate it.

A (30:40)

Thank you, Anushka. I appreciate all having me.

B (30:41)

Before we go, I wanted to do this Epstein, fact or fiction that was sent in? I'm gonna play the voice note which is from Sarah. There were claims circulating on social media that the newly released Epstein documents mention Madeleine McCann, suggesting she disappeared at the scene same time certain elites were on a yacht in Portugal. And even implying the files reference her abduction and that she was harmed. Is there any truth to this? Or is it just conspiracy driven rage bait? I've also seen posts saying Michael Jackson was actually rescuing children who were supposedly been taken to Epstein's island and that he was innocent. Is there any evidence for this as well? Or is that just another conspiracy theory too? So I want to take those one at a time actually, because there's a fair bit to unpack there. Firstly, a quick reminder. In 2007, Madeleine McCandy disappeared at the age of three during a family holiday in Portugal and has never been found. On the first point, yes, Madeline McCann's name does appear in the Epstein files. Her name comes up in a few FBI tip offs submitted by members of the public. These include an email suggesting FBI investigators look into a Portuguese abuse scandal called Casa Pia. It says Dear says. A 2019 documentary currently being shown on Netflix Canada entitled the Disappearance of Madeline McCann is about the four year old English girl who disappeared from Portugal in 2007. She was three while on holiday with her parents and siblings. She has never been found. In series one, episode three, Portuguese journalists refer to a scandal that took place years earlier regarding child abuse in a Portuguese orphanage. It is referred to as the Pact of Silence. In connection with the orphanage Cassapea. A journalist states that it is a known fact that American millionaires were flying into Portugal on private jets for the purpose of sexually abusing these children. This might be a line of inquiry that you may wish to follow up. Yours truly, A little bit about Cassiopeia. It's a state run children's home in Lisbon. In 2010, six Portuguese men were jailed after they were found guilty of sexual abuse there. I want to say tip offs. We've spoken about this before. Tip offs can be submitted by anybody. We do not know if they were investigated or followed up. We do not know if they were found to be baseless or if something came of it and then went away. We literally have no details such as the way that the Epstein files were released. I know that's frustrating. I know we've spoken about that before. Read the claims that wealthy Americans flew in to abuse children. Here's what we found. In 2010, the New Zealand Herald reported for an elite pedophile ring which included a former ambassador and a prominent television celebrity. Cassiopeia orphanages were supermarkets, so there is a claim about elites, but there is no specific mention of Americans. We could not find where this claim originates from, but I have seen it circulating online and as a definitive thing, that is in the Epstein files and that is not true. It comes through on a tip offline. Those could be submitted by anybody. From what we've seen in the Epstein files, there's no link between Epstein, Madeleine McCann and Cassiopeia. There's another document naming Madeleine McCann in the files. It's another tip off, once again, could be submitted by anybody. It was submitted by somebody in the UK claiming they once saw a child who resembled Madeleine McCann with a woman who they thought looked like Ghislaine Maxwell. And that's a theory you might have seen on TikTok. It's in the files. It's E, F, T, A0. It's a tip, not a confirmed sighting. The DOJ has noted multiple times that the released files may include fake or falsely submitted images or videos, as everything that was sent to the FBI by the public was included. Now to the second part of the question about yachts. We searched the release documents for references to Portugal, yachts and 2007. In the material we've reviewed so far, and for context, there's over 20,000 results for the year 2007 and 2700 results for the word yacht and over 1100 results for Portugal. We found no evidence that Epstein or his associates had yachts docked there the night Madeleine McCann disappeared. We can't see any other reporting that suggests that either. It's also worth saying that boats were explored as part of the original Madeleine McCann investigation. At the time, Portuguese investigators looked at the possibility she could have been taken by sea. But that's separate from any evidence linking that theory to Epstein. On the second part, is Michael Jackson mentioned in the files as rescuing children. I've seen this online as well. I'm not entirely sure where this comes from, because, in short, the answer is no. There are 207 results for Michael Jackson when searching the Epstein files. We've said this before, we'll say it again. There is no suggestion that appearing in the documents implies any wrongdoing. In the files, there is a photo of Michael Jackson with Epstein, as well as listings on the singer's tour deck. It also seems Epstein was a fan of Michael Jackson, as there's an email asking for free concert tickets. There is one document that appears to contain a statement from an Epstein victim saying she spoke to Michael Jackson on the phone while at Epstein's house. That's EFTA 016-95923. This is the quote it says, redacted, mentioned that during one of her visits to Epstein's residence, she spoke to Michael Jackson over the telephone. In our search, we found no documents suggesting Michael Jackson was involved in saving victims from Epstein, as a few videos across TikTok, Insta and YouTube are claiming. We also found no evidence linking the Neverland Ranch. That was Michael Jackson's famous ranch, a 2,700acre estate in California owned by him as the place to save victims. There are 15 mentions of Neverland in the Epstein files. Most mentions don't seem to be about Michael Jackson's ranch and instead the 2004 film Finding Neverland. Epstein appears to ask for it on email at one point. It's also worth noting the timeline. Michael Jackson bought the ranch in 1988. Epstein purchased his private island in 1998, 10 years later. So the idea that the the ranch was created to rescue children from Epstein, which has been claimed online, doesn't fit chronologically. Thank you so much for the question, Sarah, because I've seen that everywhere and I hope that answers some of those questions that you had. That's it for this episode of Fame Under Fire from BBC Sounds with me, Anushka, Mutanda Doughty. Make sure you turn on those push notifications on the BBC Sounds app so you never miss. What would you do if your deepest secrets were held to ransom? In 2020, every patient who had used a Finnish psychotherapy service called Vastamo had their therapy notes stolen and held to ransom by a faceless, remorseless hacker.

A (37:21)

It could be some extortionist gang from Eastern Europe, or it could be somebody living next door to me.

B (37:27)

I'm Jenny Kleeman. Join me as I discover just how vulnerable our deepest secrets can be. I think I'm going to have a heart attack. From BBC Radio 4 and Intrigue. This is Ransom Man. Listen first on BBC Sounds.

A (37:51)

If you're a maintenance supervisor at a manufacturing facility and your machinery isn't working right, Grainger knows you need to understand what's wrong as soon as possible. So when a conveyor motor falters, Grainger offers diagnostic tools like calibration kits and multimeters to help you identify and fix the problem. With Grainger, you can be confident you have everything you need to keep your facility running smoothly. Call 1-800-GRAINGER clickgrainger.com or just stop by Grainger for the ones who get it done, we focus on the part of the Internet that most people know about. It's called the Dark Web. Undercover in the furthest corners of the Dark Web, US special agents are on a mission to locate and rescue children from abuse. Move in now, please. From the BBC World Service World of Secrets, the Darkest Web follows their shocking investigations. Listen on BBC.com or wherever you get your BBC podcasts.