Judge (3:19)

We the jury find as follows. As the count one of the indictment, first degree murder, the defendant is guilty of first degree murder. Mrs. Adelon, control yourself.

Phil Holloway (3:37)

All right, Mark And Dave. She says she didn't get a fair shake. She said the judge had it out for her. She said the jurors were engaging in misconduct. She even blamed a juror. And we'll see this in a moment. She even blamed a juror who had something to say about her emotional outburst. Of course, Dave, in Florida, you. You were. You knew the victim in this case. You followed this close. Close closely. What's going on with this motion?

Dave Ehrenberg (4:06)

Pretty normal. I mean, you can expect a defendant, especially someone like Donna Adelen, who is someone of a life of privilege, who seemingly has been above any accountability for any of her decisions, to immediately ask for a new trial and blame the judge, blame the jurors. As soon as I saw some of the jurors come out on tik Tok and do interviews about the verdict, I knew that. That it would give the defense an opening to try to come back with a request for a new trial. But that's not how it works. I mean, it's not like they were on social media blabbing during the trial. They spoke after the trial's over, they're allowed to. It is not grounds for a new trial. In fact, none of these grounds, and I've looked at them all, to me, move the needle at all. I think the most amusing thing is that this motion apparently came from. From Jackie Fulford, the lawyer for Donald Adelson's day job office, which is at a mortuary. So I guess if you want your appeal to have life, maybe you don't want your documents filed from the morgue.

Phil Holloway (5:07)

You know, Mark, you've been a prosecutor, and you've done defense, which you do now. So you know how this works. One thing that struck me was the fact that this is filed before she's even been sentenced.

Mark Iglarsch (5:21)

Right.

Phil Holloway (5:21)

I mean, normally, correct me if I'm wrong, but you would kind of wait until there's a sentence. You would determine whether or not there's going to be maybe a new team of lawyers for the appeal to look at something like whether or not there was ineffective assistance of trial counsel. What is the deal with this thing being filed at this early point in the case?

Mark Iglarsch (5:41)

Especially when you see her reaction. You know, I have a kind of a smile when I see her reaction. Like, the thought of them saying guilty never occurred to her. No one ever discussed with her the possibility that they could possibly find her guilty. And it almost makes me laugh. Right. And then the fact that we have this appeal, which meant that she already had appellate lawyers ready to go to file, something with arguably merit, also seems inconsistent with her reaction. Like, wait, what? Listen, I agree with Dave 100% on this one. Normally when you hear about certain grounds that defense lawyers are going to raise, appellate lawyers specifically, you think, well, if true, maybe there's a shot there. Nothing really moved the needle for me. I didn't think that anything really here, if proven, would rise to the level where the appellate court would say, yeah, that was error. And even more significant to say it wasn't harmless error, meaning it was of such great significance that we must have a new trial.

Phil Holloway (6:43)

Well, she's even complaining about the judge holding her feet to the fire to. To insist that she make some decision about whether she's going to testify. We'll get to that in a minute. We've got video and we've got audio of juror number seven. If we can roll SOT one, we'll see where she was basically describing how everyone in the jury room was on the same page.

Juror Number Seven (7:08)

Overall, it took us about just over three hours to deliberate and reach our final verdict.

Mark Iglarsch (7:14)

Right.

Juror Number Seven (7:14)

But within the first hour, hour and a half, I want to say everyone was agreeing that she is guilty. Everyone. It was unanimous within the first hour, hour and a half. But we went over everything several times because this is a big decision and this is serious, and we all took our duty very seriously. Like, this isn't just fun and games. And like, you know, although it is a very cool experience. Experience to talk about now. And it's exciting. It is someone's life.

Mark Iglarsch (7:46)

I don't like it. Phil.

Phil Holloway (7:48)

Phil.

Mark Iglarsch (7:48)

I don't like it. I don't like it. Maybe I'm old school. In spite of my youthful appearance. I don't like these tick tockers thinking that justice is something to, you know, have fun with. We weren't.

Phil Holloway (8:00)

He.

Juror Number Seven (8:00)

He.

Mark Iglarsch (8:01)

Yes, you are.

Phil Holloway (8:02)

Yes, you have the right to say they got the right to go out. The judge even tells them when they don't have to, like, they can go talk to whoever they want. No, you don't have to like it. But look, it is the way it is and it's. And here's the thing, what she's doing is she's giving us insight. All of us who have tried cases, we go and we want to talk to jurors anyway. I've been in the jury room after I've won cases and after I've lost cases, I want to say, what did I do right? What did I do wrong? What could we have done better? You know, those are the kinds of things that the lawyers want to hear about. But look, this is 20, 25. People are going to take to social media, they're going to take to TikTok. So I think it's just one of these things going to have to get accustomed to. But Dave, look, in this motion, they are saying that the jury did not pay attention to the evidence. They're saying there was inconsistencies in the evidence. But that juror sounds to me like someone who, along with the other people in the jury room, paid pretty damn close attention to what the evidence was that came out of the witnesses on the witness stand.

Dave Ehrenberg (9:02)

Yes, in fact, the people inside the courtroom were predicting who the jury four person would be. And my friends in the courtroom did not expect it to be the 20. I think she's 26 years old, this young woman who has tattoos and is quick to go on TikTok afterwards. But just because she's young and she's a millennial or Gen Z doesn't mean she didn't pay attention to the evidence. She clearly did. She got it. I mean, the comments she said afterwards and Mark and I are going to have to disagree because, hey, the judge did say you can now speak. So she did. She just spoke to the world in these TikTok videos. But what she said was very consistent with the evidence. I mean, I thought she made some really good points as to why she didn't believe certain testimony and why she believed other testimony and why she thinks Wendy is next. Totally agree with her on that one.

Mark Iglarsch (9:50)

Just so guys, just so we're clear, I am not saying that she did anything unlawful. And if it's my case, sure, I'd love to hear more about it. I'm saying that it just smells. And by the way, I heard from another juror's interview that you know how they picked this one. She goes, I wanna be it. And apparently she volunteered herself, putting herself at the center. Don't tell me this doesn't start to smell after a while where people then have motives, interests, and then all Of a sudden, it's like hot dogs. You don't wanna go see how they're made. Similarly, you know what? The less we know about what goes on in that jury room, sometimes it's. It stinks a lot less.

Phil Holloway (10:29)

No, I don't. Look, I don't have a problem with somebody volunteering to be the foreperson because, hey, somebody's gotta do it. And the sooner they elect a four person, the sooner they can get down to the business of deciding guilt or innocence. But, Iglarch, if you were triggered by that video, you're really gonna hate SOT number two, where it's the same person talking about what's next in this entire dreadful saga.

Juror Number Seven (10:51)

Long story short, but also probably long at the same time. Yes. Yes, I do. And do I think she is next? Do I think Harvey might be next? Absolutely, I do. Now, the state hasn't said that specifically, but there's evidence showing that they were aware of what happened. And, I mean, I had to. I had to think back and take my notes because, well, like, write down new notes. We couldn't take the notes that we took during the trial out of that jury room. They get disposed after deliberations, minor details. Now, if and when the state goes after Wendy, I think that. Because I think they will. I think it's going to be to a lesser degree. It's not gonna be the same charges only because she. She insulated herself from her family, from the situation very, very well. Very well. And she also played dumb very well. That's. I feel like that's when we really. We saw the acting that Ms. Donna referred to previously. She plays. Yeah, she plays that part way too good. So I do think that she will be next. I just don't know what. To what extent. I don't know what she will be indicted on, but she was 100 involved. 100.

Phil Holloway (12:00)

All right, Mark, look, you know, come on.

Mark Iglarsch (12:03)

No, Phil, about this.

Phil Holloway (12:05)

We've gone on and on and on about whether or not Wendy's gonna be charged. Is Wendy next? We've done it on this show. We've done it on other shows. What is wrong with her going on social media and doing what we are doing right now, talking.

Mark Iglarsch (12:19)

We're not doing that. What she's doing is, okay, like, make sure you like and subscribe. And by the way, after we talk about the liberty of the Adelsons, we're going to be reviewing, like, this chocolate from Dubai with, like, it's got pistachio in it.

Dave Ehrenberg (12:32)

It's fabulous.

Mark Iglarsch (12:33)

Listen, it just seems Undignified. I worry that she's going to give something to the defense. It's not entertainment. It's not theater. It's very serious, and something doesn't seem right about it. That's all I'm saying, guys. Come on.

Dave Ehrenberg (12:49)

Well, Phil, I soaked it all up. I could not wait to see the next video. I was watching every single minute of it because it's so rare that we get that inside view of what goes on in that juror room. I mean, as a prosecutor, I would love to have access to that. I want to be a juror so I can see what goes on in there. That's something I've never done. I've never been allowed to be on a jury, so I find it fascinating, and I agree with her, except for one thing. I think she's wrong on the law when she says, yeah, Wendy 100% was involved, but she'll probably be charged with a lesser crime. No, no, no. It's not how it works. If she was involved, she's going to be a principal. She'll be charged with the same thing as Donna and Charlie.

Mark Iglarsch (13:25)

Really? You don't accept her as the legal scholar she's holding herself out to be? Gosh.

Dave Ehrenberg (13:29)

Well, I would like to try that chocolate.

Phil Holloway (13:32)

She's entitled to her opinions, even as a lay. Look, most of our audience listening and viewing are laypersons, and they've got. They're entitled to their own thoughts. This woman is, too. We don't want lawyers on juries as a general rule. But look, we're going to have to drive Mark really crazy because there's another jury, another juror, I should say, that's been talking on social media as well. In slot three, we've got juror number five, Mitchell McKenzie, who had something to say about Donna's emotions after the verdict. And then we're going to talk about that on the other side because this is part of her motion for new trial.

Dave Ehrenberg (14:09)

Count one comes back guilty. And you hear that scream that. Well, your thoughts that were running through your mind at that point. I mean, that's a heavy moment.

Juror Number Five Mitchell McKenzie (14:21)

It is. But again, just the way it come out. And then obviously, that drew my attention to her. And to see it just. That almost looked like it was a practice response to me. It almost looked like I kept going back in my head to the Adelsons. Have to have a win. A win for the Adelon. This guy hasn't beat us yet.

Mark Iglarsch (14:42)

So it.

Dave Ehrenberg (14:42)

It.

Phil Holloway (14:43)

It.

Juror Number Five Mitchell McKenzie (14:43)

That's. It felt very acted out to me to try not to let anybody know that she suffered a loss is how it felt personally to me.

Phil Holloway (14:55)

So in the motion for new trials, guys, they. They. The defense is claiming that the jurors should not even have essentially paid any attention to that, never, notwithstanding the fact that they had already made their decision before she. She had that emotional response for these jurors to even react to. I mean, what are they supposed to do? Just come back in the courtroom and close their eyes and ears and pretend they don't see anything that happens after that? Dave?

Dave Ehrenberg (15:20)

Yeah, that's why this motion is going to be denied quickly, because even if you say he should not have paid attention to her reaction as the verdict was read, that didn't have anything to do with the deliberations. The deliberations were over by that point. And by the way, he was right. She was crying out without any real tears. I didn't see any water coming out of her eyes. It sounded like an angry person who was angry at this jury in Tallahassee who she felt superior to. How dare you judge me and convict me. For the first time she's ever been held accountable for anything in her life. So I love hearing this. And also a quick shout out to Joel Walden, my friend, and that's Surviving the Survivor, a great show I've been on many times. So it's cool that he got that interview, you know? But now I think we can benefit from these interviews because we can learn as lawyers what works with jurors and what doesn't.

Phil Holloway (16:12)

All right, Mark, I got some. Let's get into the meat of the law here, because one of the grounds that they are raising in this motion, they're citing what they're calling discrepancies in the testimony of the jailhouse snitches.

Dave Ehrenberg (16:27)

Right?

Phil Holloway (16:27)

We all remember that. We've talked about it on this show. We had the former inmates or the current inmates that were locked up with Donna Adelson, and they were called, couple of them, as state's witnesses. So they are now saying that there was a discrepancy. And so somehow this entitles her to a new trial. Mark, correct me if I'm wrong. Is that not something you would make an argument you would make to the jury in your closing argument? But now that we're on the appeal, is it really about factual discrepancies like that or alleged factual discrepancies once we get to the appellate stage?

Mark Iglarsch (17:04)

No, these are arguments for the jury, and they failed. Listen, I had a dear friend who did nothing but appellate work for decades, and he would tell me all the time, they pay me to lose. Now, occasionally he won, but what he meant was, most of the time you're going to lose, but you don't turn down the cash. You say, sure, I'll take the case. And you look and you write the best arguments you can make. Just because you say it so doesn't make it so. And it certainly doesn't mean that there's gonna be merit to it. That example you just gave is a perfect example of a meritless argument that ran its course once the jury came back and said, okay, we're gonna manage through those discrepancies, assuming there are any, and we're gonna find in favor of the state. They met their burden. Done issue, closed appeal, Bye, bye. Like my NBA career. Goodbye.

Dave Ehrenberg (17:57)

Yeah.

Phil Holloway (17:57)

Dave, it seems to me that the jury like if I'm the judge and I'm hearing this motion and the, and the. They're arguing in the motion for new trial, they're saying, look judge, the witnesses testimony was inconsistent. I'm going to say, well, the jury presumably already considered how much weight, if any, they wanted to give to all of the witnesses in the case, including the defense witnesses, who by the way, there was some discrepancies there, but this is already baked into the verdict. So this, I think was what was missing from the defense presentation at trial was some coherent argument on the issue of credibility and consistency and strength of the state's case.

Dave Ehrenberg (18:38)

Yeah, yeah, they left a lot of money on the table. Defense lawyers, they didn't put on much of a case. They led with the character witnesses. That's usually what you end with. You don't lead with that shows you how weak of a case they had. And now here they are trying to mop it up. But that mop up duty ain't gonna work here. Totally agree with Mark. The jury decided. It's a decision for the jury and you can argue these things on appeal, but you have zero percent chance of getting a new trial from the same judge, especially when you use part of your motion to slam the judge for being biased. So I'm sure he's gonna just rush out and give you everything you want.

Phil Holloway (19:13)

Oh yeah, they. So let's get into that because that's a good segue. They slammed the judge. In addition to them complaining about the juror speaking to the media and doing tiktoks, they're saying that the judge was biased, that he didn't give them a fair shake. They're saying that he didn't give them enough time to do various things, but specifically, they are complaining that the judge did not give her enough time to decide whether to testify. Let's go ahead and play SOT6, and then we'll talk about that.

Judge (19:46)

What are you asking for?

Phil Holloway (19:47)

I'm asking for additional time to be.

Dave Ehrenberg (19:49)

Able to go through all of the.

Phil Holloway (19:51)

Testimony and evidence with our client so.

Chapter Advertiser (19:53)

That she can make a fully informed.

Mark Iglarsch (19:55)

Decision as to whether she wants to.

Chapter Advertiser (19:58)

Continue to remain silent or testify in this case.

Judge (20:01)

Ms. Fulford, concerning that that has been provided by the court. If she wishes to testify, we do need to go through the colloquy. If she does not, It's a simple matter, but there has been time pretrial to prepare for this moment. There's been time during trial, and specifically, we recessed court early for you to address any issues of witnesses or whether your client would testify.

Phil Holloway (20:26)

All right, so look, I'm going to throw it over to you guys, but before I do that, let me just say I think that this judge was very fair. I think he's got great judicial temperament. I think he showed great restraint when other judges may not have had such restraint. And look, he's not not wrong. She's had years since she's been charged. She's had plenty of time to think about this and to be thinking all along. She had every day of the trial. She even said at a motion hearing, I think her lawyer said several weeks before the trial that. That she intended to testify. So I don't really get this argument. Mark Iglosh, what do you say?

Mark Iglarsch (21:02)

Well, let's keep it fair and balanced. Let me try to come from the defense perspective, and it's not the facts here, but let's try, right? Every defendant shall be given the opportunity to decide whether they should testify or not. If they're not given sufficient time, the argument is it's tantamount or equal to not really having that choice. So the argument is she made a decision without having the benefit of competent counsel to discuss the facts and evidence with. They made that record, and I think it's gonna fail. They did have enough time. They had plenty of time throughout the trial, and the judge did give some time for her to decide. What if she were to say, hypothetically, well, how much time do you need? Well, Yom Kippur, 20, 28. You know, she wants to go through a few of those atonement holidays for the Jews. You know, you can't. You can't just ask for a certain amount of time. The judge gave it time. I don't think the appellate court is going to disturb on that issue.

Phil Holloway (21:58)

You know, it's. They, they have to find something. It's almost like they have to find something to put in this pleading. And so they, they find anything that they can find. The judge made rulings all through the trial. I mean, are they going to pick out each one and say how it was an error to, to make this ruling or that ruling? You know, Dave, help me out here. Help me understand how this is what they want to hang their hat on.

Dave Ehrenberg (22:27)

Oh, they don't have anything else. They really have so little. You know, they're paid to do a job and they look at the record, they look at the evidence, and they're like, oh, man, we are screwed. So, yeah, you know what they say in law school? If you've got the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you got the law on your side, pound the law. And if you have neither, you pound the table.

Chapter Advertiser (22:50)

You know what's crazy? Trusting the government or some random insurance agent to give good Medicare support. That's how people could wind up stuck in the wrong plan. Get this. Trump's Department of Justice sued three, count them, three major Medicare brokers for pretending to be unbiased while allegedly pushing people into the plans that got the brokers the biggest kickbacks. Let's be honest, the government made a mess of Medicare and no one should have to untangle that mess alone. That's why I want to tell you about Chapter. Chapter compares every single plan nationwide, not just the ones that pay the biggest commissions. Because of that, they can save people an average of $1,100 per year. That's real money. So whether you are brand new to Medicare or you've been on it for years, consider making the call and finding out more. If you're already in the best plan, CHAPTER will tell you. If not, they could help you save thousands. It's free, it's fast, and in less than 20 minutes, they will review your options. Call the number 27 Medicare today. That's 27 Medicare. And finally, feel confident about your Medicare.

Phil Holloway (23:54)

All right, well, we're going to have to switch gears and talk about Alec Murdoch, because this, remember this, guys, this was the South Carolina case where the now disgraced attorney, it was convicted in this brutal double murder of his wife and one of his sons. And, you know, there was obviously a lot of media interest in this case. There was a lot of public interest in the case. It was so interesting that the clerk of court in the case decided she was going to write a book Mark, do you remember what happened with her?

Mark Iglarsch (24:33)

Oh, yeah. First of all, it was found that she lied. I don't remember the specific issue, but what she did do still concerns me to this day. In the interest of disclosure, I watched that full trial. I gave a lot of analysis on it. I have no question the jury made the right decision. He did commit an abhorrent act. However, I am a defender of due process and the Constitution. And if the clerk unduly influenced the jury by making comments like they allege she did, I'm not saying they get a new trial as a result. I'm saying that really bothers me. And the appellate court should give great consideration to her abhorrent actions in trying to poison the jury so that she could have a different outcome to help her book sales.

Phil Holloway (25:19)

Well, look, Dave, we expect an appeal. Just in any given case, whether it's a murder or anything else, you expect issues to be raised like, you know, the police did a crappy job or the jury didn't. No rational juror would have found the defendant guilty based on the evidence that was presented in the courtroom. Those things are all kind of standard. But what you don't see regularly is this. They claim that there was direct jury interference. They claim that multiple jurors have come forward to describe the clerk. Her name was Hill. To describe her efforts to influence the deliberations, including entering jury rooms after the state rested and telling them not to let the defense, quote, throw you off, distract or mislead you, and to not be fooled by Murdoch's testimony in his own defense. Now, if that is true, Dave Ehrenberg, and you're. You put your. Put your state attorney hat back on for a minute. You are a state attorney for, what, 12, 12 or so, 12 years? And so if you found out that this is going on in your jury room during a trial by the clerk of court, despite all your years of work and effort into this case, I think you, a prosecutor, might have to be tempted to even agree to the granting of a new trial, because if that's true, it doesn't get much more corrupt.

Dave Ehrenberg (26:46)

Well, they did have a former Supreme Court justice there, a woman named Jean Toll, who said that this woman, Becky Hill, was, and here's the quote, attracted by the siren call of celebrity. And she was influenced by a desire to sell her book to make money off it. But still, she didn't overturn the conviction. And I guess it's the standard there. It's a pretty high standard. They questioned all the jurors, and they found that there wasn't enough to warrant a new trial since the verdict apparently was not changed. That she, Becky Hill, did not change the juror's mind. So that's why this woman, the clerk of courts, was not able, through her actions, to overturn and screw everything up at the same time. I gotta believe that the Supreme Court may look at it a little differently. I do agree with Mark, and I say I am really uncomfortable with what the clerk of court did here. I do think there was some real problem here. But despite that, the question is, were her actions enough to change the jurors minds? And the evidence was overwhelming. Do we forget the cell phone video? Remember, Alec Murdoch kept saying that he was nowhere near the kennels where the murder took place. And then here's the video of him at the kennels. It was Paul, the murdered son, who actually solved his own murder. So that's why it's gonna be up to the court and the standards they use. But it doesn't mean that Becky Hill wasn't out of line in what she did. She was.

Phil Holloway (28:08)

All right. Well, we expect a ruling from the Supreme Court in South Carolina sometime later in 2025, or perhaps earlier into 2026. But there's a new Netflix series coming out, of course, where the. Let's see. The new series is called Murdoch Death in the Family. The trailer shows Jason Clark as a diabolical dad who claims it's only cheating if you get caught. Let's roll. SOT 7. This is Alec Mur. Doc, I. I need police and an ambulance immediately.

Juror Number Seven (28:53)

Looking back, sometimes I feel like living.

Phil Holloway (29:00)

A life I never was supposed to live. Oh, sinner, you better get. Better get.

Juror Number Seven (29:13)

Anyhow.

Dave Ehrenberg (29:16)

The Murdochs are a South Carolina legal dynasty.

Phil Holloway (29:19)

Y' all know me. I'm an honest man. Oh, you cheating bastard. It's only cheating if you get caught.

Dave Ehrenberg (29:27)

I know you've been lying to me.

Phil Holloway (29:29)

I'm the one that's gonna do it.

Mark Iglarsch (29:30)

Not you.

Dave Ehrenberg (29:31)

Me. Not me.

Phil Holloway (29:32)

Me. These Murdoch, man, you know, you have to sacrifice a lot of things to make them the men that you know that they can be.

Mark Iglarsch (29:45)

This news to the Murdochs.

Phil Holloway (29:47)

Long may we live.

Juror Number Seven (29:48)

Amen.

Phil Holloway (29:53)

Truly a. A horrific crime and truly something that's, you know, obviously got a lot of public interest and. And actually, I said. I said it was Netflix. That's Hulu, of course.

Mark Iglarsch (30:04)

But can I ask you, Phil, is the rumor that I'm starting now true? Was that you who played the lead role?

Phil Holloway (30:12)

No. No.

Mark Iglarsch (30:13)

Are you sure?

Phil Holloway (30:14)

Are you sure? Absolutely. 100% sure. Just check. But anyway. All right, that'll do it for this segment. Up next, we've got updates on Tyler Robinson and the trial of would be Trump assassin Ryan Ruth. Remember, if you have questions or comments for us, you can now email the show at mk true crimeevilmaycaremedia.com we'd love to hear from you.

Chapter Advertiser (30:38)

You might think home security was just an alarm that goes off after a break in. You know, scaring the intruder off and getting a neighbor's attention if you're lucky. But that is a reactive approach. By the time an intruder is in your home, it's too late. Your feeling of safety is shattered and your safety is shattered. That's why real security should stop a crime before it even starts. So this is why Simplisafe was born. Their system is designed to be proactive, not reactive. I don't know how somebody didn't think of this before. They use smart AI powered cameras to identify threats lurking outside your home and immediately alert Simplisafe's professional monitoring agents. These agents intervene in real time before the break in even begins. Join the more than 4 million Americans who trust Simplisafe with their home security every day. And with a 60 day money back guarantee and no long term contracts, Simplisafe earns your business by keeping you safe and satisfied every day. Visit SimpliSafe.com Megan to claim 50% off a new system that's simply safe. It's spelled S I M p l I safe.com Megan there's no safe like Simplisafe.

Phil Holloway (31:56)

All right. This week, Utah county prosecutors charged Tyler Robinson, who is accused of killing Charlie Kirk with aggravated murder. And they announced they would in fact be seeking the death penalty. Text messages between Robinson and his lover Lance Twiggs have been released. The big question is, could Twiggs or any others be charged for any role as accessories to this horrific crime? And then of course, we have Ryan Ruth, the man who allegedly attempted to assassinate Donald Trump during his 2024 presidential campaign. He's on trial this week where he's representing himself. So let's start with Robinson, who we now have learned wanted to. He wanted to have a gentle surrender when he turned himself in. I want to talk about all this, but let's go ahead and take a look at SOT 9, which is Washington County Sheriff Nate Brooksby.

Sheriff Nate Brooksby (32:49)

Did he ask for, can I ask? He basically for a peaceful, gentle, comfortable transition for him to come out again. He knew he was going to get caught. He didn't want a big SWAT team hitting his parents house or his apartment. He was truly fearful of being shot by law enforcement, so that the conditions were as relaxed and comfortable and almost to the point of inviting. And if at the end of the day, the. The we accomplish him surrendering peacefully on his own, I'm gonna. I'm gonna make some concessions to make that happen.

Phil Holloway (33:27)

Look, I want to say this, and then I'm going to let you guys weigh in, Just take it away. But I, as a former law enforcement officer, I can appreciate that someone who's wanted by police or anything, it's always better when they turn themselves in. Because, look, you don't have law enforcement resources that are wasted on extensive manhunts. The temperature of everything goes down. Everybody's sort of safer, right? Law enforcement doesn't have to put their lives on the line in apprehending dangerous subjects. But the sheer irony here that this guy was afraid of being shot and that's what this was all about. I find that to just absolutely be breathtaking. We have lots of legal issues to talk about related to this case. But, Mark, what do you. What do you make of the circumstances of this? Surrender.

Mark Iglarsch (34:26)

A gentle surrender. What next? Pink fuzzy handcuffs? Come here, let me give you a hug. Listen, that rarely happens in cases. Defendants don't dictate the terms. I understand why they did it here, but they almost never do that. Why? Because every second they wait for a surrender, someone can flee the jurisdiction. They're a danger to the community. They took a risk here and it paid off. But often that's not how defendants are treated.

Phil Holloway (34:55)

Dave, as a state's attorney, were you ever involved in negotiating surrenders? And have you ever heard of this kind of, let's just say, demand being made of law enforcement when you've got someone accused of a capital murder?

Dave Ehrenberg (35:12)

Not for capital murder, but I have heard of terms like defendants will say, I don't want a perp walk in front of the cameras. I want to just turn myself in late at night when no one's around with my lawyer present. I want you to go through my lawyers and not show up at my door at 5:30 in the morning. So yes, it does happen that they make demands, but it is really emblematic, sadly, of this individual and people like him in his generation. Sorry. Who just sit around and play video games all day and have just become numb to human life because all they do is play Call to Duty and kill people on the screen. And so it was nothing for him to get a rifle on this murder. Charlie Kirk, and then just talk about in such a casual way afterwards, not showing any remorse whatsoever, actually thinking that, you know, maybe when he's old he'll talk about it. He would just assume that he would get away with it for so long. And now all of a sudden he's got consequences. He's wearing the suicide smock. He looks like shell shocked, and now he's going to be facing the death penalty.

Phil Holloway (36:11)

All right, well, on the legal side of this, we, we've. We talk a lot in legal circles about conspiracies, and that's a big question here. Is there some conspiracy? And in order for a conspiracy to exist, there's obviously has to be more than one person and there's got to be some agreement. Okay? That's what a conspiracy is about. We've got accessories before the fact. We talked about this in the context of Adelson. Accessories before the fact, accessories after the fact. And we've got these, these text messages. And we now. We now know there's other chats that, that are being investigated by law enforcement. And so the question is, legally, was there someone else who A, knew about it, but B, knew about it ahead of time and who also participated in some way? That's the legal standard in order for someone else to be charged. But we. Let's start by taking a look. We've got these text exchanges. I think we've got an image we can show here. So here's what the text messages say. Tyler Robinson starts by saying, drop what you're doing. Look under my keyboard. The roommate says, what? You're joking, right? Robinson says, I'm still okay, my love, but I'm stuck in Orem for a little longer yet. Shouldn't be long until I can come home, but I gotta grab my rifle. Still, to be honest, I'd hoped to keep this secret till I died of old age. I'm sorry to involve you. The roommate responds, you weren't the one who did it, right? Robinson says, I am. I'm sorry. To which the roommate responds, I thought they caught the person what I'm seeing here, and if you guys see it differently, let me know. What I'm seeing here is someone who, if this is to be believed and if there was nothing else, this is someone who didn't know about it until after it was over. So at least with respect to this Mark Iglarsh, I'm not seeing a conspiracy.

Mark Iglarsch (38:11)

Agreed. But I wouldn't trust this. This could be a rouge. This, this person could know about it on its face. If this is to be believed, the Roommate, alleged lover did not know until after the fact. But I would look through everything, and I'm sure they are comb through every email, every text, look at the roommate's phone, look at everything. But there is no duty to report. Someone could know something, but not aid and abet before, during, or after, and it not be a crime. So as abhorrent as it is to know about it, they're under no duty then to proactively assist the government to do anything.

Phil Holloway (38:50)

Dave, if you're investigating this case, are you going to. Are you going to be looking to see if anybody else provided him any kind of encouragement? Because, look, let's face it, if you encourage someone, even in a small way, to go commit a crime, you are on the hook just as if you had pulled the trigger yourself. How are you going to go about investigating and looking to see if anybody.

Dave Ehrenberg (39:17)

Else was involved to do what Mark said? You look through all the messages. You want to see if there's anyone who knew about it in advance. It's not that the roommate actually knew about it afterwards and didn't report. That's not a crime. You question whether he took any affirmative steps to destroy evidence, lied to police, which apparently he did not do. In fact, police have been very complimentary of the lover roommate and his cooperation. But you do want to see if there's anyone else involved, including the roommate. Like, for example, Robinson said that he had his rifle at a pickup place. Did he leave the rifle there to be picked up later, or did someone else put the rifle there? So that's where I would go first. So, yeah, there's still a lot more investigating to go.

Phil Holloway (39:59)

Well, Mark, in a very strange turn of events, we have an individual who falsely claimed that. That he shot Charlie Kirk and he was then arrested for obstruction. And they found, of all things, CSM material on his. On his phone and on his devices. So what do you. What do you make of this? And you know, is this somebody that you're going to say, look, is this person involved? Are they some kind of co conspirator? Were they a plant just to throw us off? Or is this just some nut job who just happened to be there? And this is entirely coincidental.

Mark Iglarsch (40:37)

Clearly this guy ain't playing with a full deck. In fact, I rarely discuss my work with my family. But as I'm preparing for this podcast last night, guys, you got to hear about this one. That guy who looked like Captain Stubing, who initially we thought was the one who did it. Right. I described it. No, they already got the Guy, he's got. And I described him just like the captain of the Love Boat. I thought he was the guy. Now we're hearing the backstory. This idiot to thwart police investigation said, I'm the one who did it. And so that absolutely detracted from their investigation, at least somewhat. And then the moron allows them, allegedly, access to his phone. And then the child porn was on there. Karma, man. Wow, what a story.

Phil Holloway (41:21)

Well, look, I mean, once they, once they arrest him, look, they're entitled to go through his effects. Now, they're not entitled necessarily to search his phone, but he gave consent. He gave consent. They always, look, they always consent all over themselves. But anyway, this is, by the way, is 71 year old George Zinn. And speaking of what they found, they say during a preliminary review of the phone, Investigators viewed over 20 images of children ranging from 5 to 12 years old in various stages of undress and so on and so forth. Things that I just. It feels slimy just talking about it here. But I think as horrible as this entire tragedy was, it's just one of those things that I think we're going to be doomed to hear conspiracy theories about for all eternity because there will be people out here who always believe that this guy was some kind of a plant and that he was in on it. I believe for the record, I can say it right here, right now. I think this is a mere coincidence. And it's something that, you know, fortunately, if this guy is guilty, fortunately, the cops got him off the streets now, and he won't be able to hurt any more children or at least participate in that type of alleged crime. But, Dave, I'll give you a last word on this before we move on to Ryan Ruth.

Dave Ehrenberg (42:42)

Conspiracy theories are so insidious, and it's just happening on both sides. I see it on my side of the aisle, the Democratic side of the aisle, where I already have talked to friends who should know better, who are already saying, well, there's something that doesn't match up here that you got this kid who was able to kill Charlie Kirk with one bullet from 200 yards away. He must have been trained by, who knows? So we got to stop. You know, this is what leads us to these problems. When you have everyone disbelieving, distrusting just the basic facts in front of their face, and all of a sudden now everything's a conspiracy theory. And it just generates this hatred and mistrust on both sides. That's got to end now.

Phil Holloway (43:22)

Well, having having grown up around firearms and rifles and Hunting. And I can tell you that, you know, 150 yard shot with that rifle, with that kind of optic, it's not the kind of thing you could do maybe if it was your first time ever handling a weapon. But if you have any experience whatsoever, it doesn't take someone who's a trained Navy SEAL or a sniper, and apparently just, you know, anybody with a mere working knowledge of firearms could, unfortunately could, could pull that off. But look, and Phil, speaking of taking.

Dave Ehrenberg (43:56)

A ship, if I can just add one thing. And when I said, and I trailed off when I said trained by. Well, because they're saying trained by Trump's people or the CIA. Absolutely ludicrous to think that somehow the Trump administration was involved with killing one of their very best supporters. So that's why I gotta say we gotta stop with this stuff and just hopefully this can be a turning point, pun intended, for us to come together and just end the political violence.

Phil Holloway (44:19)

Well, speaking of Trump and alleged assassins, we've got the Ryan Ruth trial that's underway in a federal court now in Florida. And look, there's. Say what you want about people who try to represent themselves being a fool for a client, but this guy takes the cake because he had some really wild pretrial requests. Look, he, he wanted to have strippers. He wanted to have, he said he wanted to have an ex lover come. He said he wanted to avoid the trial and just challenge Donald Trump to a round of golf. What in the world is going on in South Florida? Mark Iguilar, since you're there, maybe you can answer that.

Mark Iglarsch (45:02)

Easy, buddy. We have 23 million people in Florida. Don't judge us by the 21 million. Okay. Was Dave someone's line anyway? That's it, that's. I love that line. Listen.

Dave Ehrenberg (45:15)

Or Dave Barry.

Mark Iglarsch (45:16)

Yeah. Okay, so here's the deal. This is a slow guilty. We know it is. And typically prosecutors don't even like unrepresented because it becomes a circus. You'd rather just have trained attorneys on both sides and you're worried about really reversal. You have a guy who isn't following the rules and a judge who somehow can get angered by his tactics and then hope and pray that the judge makes some kind of decision that ultimately an appellate lawyer can find trampled on his rights. So it's difficult, it's messy, but a guilty verdict is almost certainly going to happen.

Phil Holloway (45:53)

Yeah, so what, what Mark means by, by slow guilty in the law, we refer to that as a slow plea of guilty, which, you know, what's going to happen you know, it's going to be a conviction, but you still have to go through the process. It's due process. Everybody's entitled to it, even nut jobs who represent themselves. But, Dave, have you seen this interview with Ryan Ruth's daughter? Because, look, I mean, whatever you may think about Ryan Ruth, how can you not feel bad for his daughter? Let's take a look.

Juror Number Seven (46:25)

I just want the world to know who my dad is for who he is and not for what the media has painted him out to be.

Chapter Advertiser (46:32)

Sarah Ruth says her father, Ryan Ruth, is a loving father who spends his life helping others and doing good for the community.

Juror Number Seven (46:38)

I mean, like, he's never wronged anybody. He's always been devoted to helping other people and he doesn't understand why there's not more support out there.

Chapter Advertiser (46:48)

Well, I mean, he is on trial for allegedly attempting to assassinate a presidential candidate, which most people would say is not a good, kind or gentle thing.

Juror Number Seven (46:57)

Yeah, no comment on that.

Phil Holloway (47:00)

So, look, we all, we've all been around this a long time. We, we, we see the people that are accused of crimes. We see people who are the direct victims of crimes. But it's, look, I always felt, when I was a prosecutor, one of the folks I always felt bad for, like wives and children of people that had done terrible things. And I was having to send mom or dad to prison because it destroys their lives. And here you have a young girl who's, you know, she, she still wants to believe in her dad. And so at least a part of me has got to feel like, gosh, you know, she's, she's as much of a victim here as anybody.

Dave Ehrenberg (47:35)

She's clueless, though. I mean, and she's not a child. And her dad has been accused of something very serious and has been convicted in the past of firebombing someone. I mean, he's an ex felon, so he is someone who is not the person that she believes he is, even without the attempt to kill President Trump. So, no, I don't have much sympathy for her because, look, I mean, yeah, she's obviously not guilty herself, but she's delusional and she wants to keep believing this guy who is clearly not playing with a full deck, who clearly has had serious issues and has hurt lots of people in the past. So, no, maybe because I've been a prosecutor for too long that I've gotten cold hearted on some of this stuff, but I just, after that interview, I just didn't have much sympathy.

Mark Iglarsch (48:23)

But she didn't say my dad's innocent. What she said is something we hear very often and that is he was good and loving to me and the people around. And she may be absolutely accurate. But then there's a side of him that wants to assassinate the president and who's a little nutty. And when asked about that, that's when she said no comment. So what she's saying could also be true. He might have been loving to people around him, but not so loving to Trump.

Dave Ehrenberg (48:51)

It would be better if she just speak to the reporter then.

Phil Holloway (48:53)

Maybe I'm just getting too soft as I get older. And then being a father to a daughter, I really feel terrible for that young woman and I'm sorry that her father has done this to her. She is a victim whether she realizes it or not. And we obviously hope the best for as she moves on with the neck, whatever's next in her life. But we're gonna have to leave it there for this segment of what's turning into Crazy Florida Week here at MK True Crime because you're loving it, Georgia.

Mark Iglarsch (49:23)

You're loving it.

Phil Holloway (49:24)

Next up, we've got a scuba diver who is stealing thousands of dollars from an Orlando restaurant in an unbelievable splash and dash burglary. Stay tuned.

Chapter Advertiser (49:35)

Foreign don't procrastinate about what matters most. Protecting your future with life insurance. For about the price of one streaming service, you can get the coverage you need with Select Quote. Even if this is your first time thinking about life insurance, they make it really simple. For over 40 years, Select Quote has helped more than 2 million Americans secure more than $700 billion in coverage. As a broker, they work for you for free, comparing policies from trusted top rated companies to match your health, lifestyle and budget. Some providers even offer same day coverage up to 2 million bucks with no medical exam. And if you've got a pre existing condition, no problem. Solectquo partners with companies that cover people with high blood pressure, diabetes or heart disease. Life insurance is never cheaper than it is today. Get the right life insurance for you for less and save more than 50%@SelectQuote.com Megan that's SelectQuote.com Megan.

Phil Holloway (50:36)

All right, we'll soon get to your questions and our own closing arguments. But first we've got to bring you this crazy story out of Orlando. It's completely representative of the Florida man meme that you see on the Internet. Of course, that being a meme popularized going back to 2013, which refers to the prevalence of people in Florida performing irrational, ridiculous or maniacal actions in the state of Florida.

Mark Iglarsch (51:04)

Objection.

Phil Holloway (51:04)

And since We've got two probably non maniacal Floridians on the show with us today. I felt like this would be something would be awesome to talk about. Dave Aronberg, what is your defense of South Florida in this? What's going on?

Dave Ehrenberg (51:19)

I have to defend South Florida. My goodness. I, I love South Florida. The people here are great. I get to live within an hour of Mark Aguilar and that's great. As far as people like this, I would suspect he came from another state because we don't act like that in the prim and proper state of Florida. And if we did, he would be a true Florida man. And I got the trademark for Florida lawman. So I guess in a way I should send him a thank you card. I mean, here's a guy who still has not been caught and the only question I have is this. How does someone steal money and things and then hide it in the scuba gears? I guess he has a, a satchel that is waterproof that you put the stuff in. I didn't see that in the police report. So. Wow, crazy situation right here in the swampland of the Sunshine State.

Phil Holloway (52:04)

Well, scuba gear is hard enough to deal with outside the water, let alone when you're trying to use it during a burglary and robbery. But that's just nuts. All right, we also got the legal mailbag. We answer questions now. We love to hear from. Folks, we've got a great question today from Chance Law. Okay. And Chance law says I'm 35 and I'm a recovering addict. I've been in recovery for almost three years and completely turned my life around. I went back to college and I'm about to finish my BS in psychology with a minor in pre law. I have a 4.0 GPA that I've had for almost two years and I want to apply for law school. However, I do have a criminal history. Do you think I'll be able to attend law school and admitted into the bar with a criminal history? All of my charges are the lowest level of felony charges in Indiana, but they include forgery, escape and possession. Thank you for your time and I love listening to you. Mark Iglarsch, what do you have to say to this audience member who wants to go into law school despite having a felony record?

Mark Iglarsch (53:17)

First of all, congratulations for your sobriety. It takes a lot to overcome addiction and turn your life around. And for what it's worth, I certainly applaud you and admire you. Now, your chances in getting into law school. You've got a shot you know, I think that law schools understand, in fact, write about your experience on your essay, and I think you have a better shot of doing that. My concern is the bar, the Florida bar. I'm not saying it's not going to happen, but as I was hearing that there were crimes involving moral turpitude, you know, the forgery, you know, they're gonna get into all that and it's going to be challenging. That said, do it. It's not like we're talking dumb and dumber. So you're saying there's a chance? I'm saying that there's a better chance. And at a minimum, get that law degree, have that education and see what the bar does.

Phil Holloway (54:06)

Yeah, and I'll second. I personally know of more than one current member of the bar who has in one case, significant criminal history, felony and prison history. And so it's all about who you are now. And a lot of bars, state bars, are notoriously forgiving. If you are honest now, and there's been a sufficient time period from when whatever happened in the past happened to what you are now. All right, so here's the segment of the show where we get in. We call these our 1 minute rants or closing arguments. They may actually not be a rant, but the contributors on this show get approximately a minute or so to talk about whatever they want to talk about. I have no idea what my colleagues are going to be ranting or closing about today, but we'll go ahead and start with Dave Ehrenberg. Dave, what's on your mind, bud?

Dave Ehrenberg (54:57)

Bill. Mark, did you watch Cash Patel testify before the House and Senate committees? He was asked about Epstein and it got a little out of control. One thing that has slid under the radar a little bit is how he, for the first time, a member of the Trump administration, has a new strategy and that is to deflect the Epstein controversy onto Alex Acosta. They're throwing him under the bus. Well, it's actually a pretty smart move because it was the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Florida at the time, Alex Acosta, who entered into the deal that was so controversial with Jeffrey Epstein that gave, among other things, a non prosecution agreement not just to Epstein, but also to his co conspirators, known and unknown. I mean, they cut this deal and he got just had to plead guilty to state charges. And then Ghislaine Maxwell can now claim that she got immunity, even though she wasn't technically even part of the deal. She didn't have to give anything up. By focusing on Acosta It's a smart move because then the administration can divorce themselves from the one who allegedly did this. But there's a problem with that. This is what I'm looking for. How do you totally throw him under the bus and divorce yourself from Alex Acosta when it was your administration who picked Acosta for Labor Secretary in 2017, and you knew that the sweetheart deal with Epstein had already taken place. And then eight months later, he finally had to resign after this story came out, the Miami Herald, that blew this thing into the stratosphere. So that's why it's gonna be very interesting in the days ahead as the administration tries to deal with this issue that just will not go away.

Phil Holloway (56:30)

All right, thank you, Dave. We'll see how that goes. Moving on into the future. Time will tell. Mark Iglarsch, what's on your mind, bud?

Mark Iglarsch (56:41)

What's with the growing trend of justifying murder? Lately, we're seeing far too many people publicly defending killers in first degree murder cases, even calling for their release. You got examples like Luigi Mangione and Tyler Robinson who murdered Charlie Kirk. Shockingly, there are people who are actually rationalizing the premeditated slaughter of innocent people. I understand that many might have grievances with the healthcare industry or disagree, let's say, with some of the things that flowed from Charlie Kirk's mouth. I get it. That's fair. But what's not fair and what's deeply disturbing is twisting those feelings into a defense of murder. I value free speech immensely. And with it comes the right to say outrageous and offensive things. I support that right for many reasons. At a minimum, it allows us to see clearly who the ones are with the pathetic, ignorant, and heartless voices. But I worry about the real world consequences. I'm concerned about stealth jurors, people who secretly hold these twisted views and may try to get on juries just to acquit murderers in spite of overwhelming evidence of guilt. Maybe society has become so desensitized to violence that some have lost their grip on reality, whatever the cause. Let me say something that I never thought I'd ever need to say publicly. Murder is unacceptable. It's wrong. And those who condone it are weak, misguided, and utterly pathetic.

Phil Holloway (58:40)

All right, well, look, that's well said. And look, I think we could devote an entire show, and certainly it's something I think we ought to talk about moving forward here at mk. True crime is the issue of stealth jurors. Because they are real, they exist, and they can wreak havoc on the justice system all Right. So for my closing argument, I want a look, I want to congratulate and shout out to our colleague here, our fellow MK True crime contributor, Ashley Merchant, because she has, she's ushered in now the end of the Fani Willis fiasco saga that captivated the world right here in my home state in town of Atlanta, Georgia. Because earlier this week we got final word from the Georgia Supreme Court. What had happened was there was an appeal. Willis was booted off the case by the Court of Appeals. They said that she had the appearance of impropriety and that under the rules of professional conduct and under the laws of the state of Georgia, she had to be removed from the case. She asked the Georgia Supreme Court, she said, look, I want to, I want to lodge a discretionary appeal. She filed for a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Supreme Court did not have to hear her appeal. She asked if they would. Well, after almost a year, they said no. It took a long time, but they said, we are not going to even take up your appeal. The Fanny Willis situation is over. This is now an indictment. Without a prosecutor. It's an orphan. So what happens next? What happens next is a state agency in the state of Georgia called the prosecuting attorney's counsel has to decide whether or not they are going to appoint another prosecutor to take over the case. The prosecuting attorney's counsel could itself take the case because they have prosecutorial authority. But they are the agency. When a conflict, when a prosecutor conflicts out or is removed for whatever reason, they have to make the other appointment. But look, no other prosecutor in their right mind wants this case. It's too convoluted, it's too complex, it's too costly, and quite frankly, there's too much of a mess that would have to be cleaned up if anybody even wanted to move forward with the case. So I predict that this is going to be eventually the end of the case. I don't think they're going to find a prosecutor who wants to pick up the torch and move on. And I don't think the prosecuting attorney's counsel does either. So kudos to Ashley Merchant. She did an awesome job. And this is a truly landmark legal episode in the history of the United States. And we'll leave it there. And I want to say thanks to all of you for tuning in, watching, listening. I want to say thanks to my fellow contributors and thank you for joining us at MK True Crime. And remember, send us your story suggestions, your questions, your comments to mk true truecrimevilmaycaremedia.com that's mk truecrimevilmaycare media.com Be well, everyone.

ExxonMobil Advertiser (61:52)

Can lighter structures really be stronger? Yes, they can. ExxonMobil is helping advance American industrial innovation with Proxima system, enabling a lighter and stronger alternative to traditional rebar while lowering greenhouse gas emissions to help build a more efficient construction industry. With sustainability in mind. ExxonMobil let's deliver.

Pact Advertiser (62:20)

Your skin should never come second. That's why Pact makes everyday essentials from the purest organic cotton. No toxins, no harsh chemicals, just softness you can feel good in. Because wellness isn't just what you put in your body, it's what you put on it too. From the first layer to the last, getting dressed should feel like self care. Visit wearpacked.com and use code DRESSWELL for 15% off your first order. Dress yourself well.