Diddy Gets Sentenced, D4vd Lawyers Up, Wall Street Icon with ‘Sex Dungeon’ Charged

Summary

MK True Crime Podcast Summary

Episode Title: Diddy Gets Sentenced, D4vd Lawyers Up, Wall Street Icon with ‘Sex Dungeon’ Charged
Host: Mark Eiglars (MK Media)
Date: October 3, 2025
Guests: Mark Garagos, Jona Spilber

---

Episode Overview

This episode tackles a trio of sensational legal stories:

• The sentencing of Sean "Diddy" Combs following a closely watched federal trial,
• The arrest and charging of former Wall Street star Howard Rubin for alleged sex trafficking in a “sex dungeon,”
• The latest developments in the case of pop singer D4vd, following the discovery of a body in his car.

Additionally, the panel provides updates on the infamous 1991 Austin “Yogurt Shop Murders” and other offbeat crime news, offering expert legal analysis throughout.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Diddy Gets Sentenced: Legal Battle and Sentencing Predictions

[02:42 - 21:00]

• Case Recap: Diddy was tried on multiple charges, acquitted on the most serious (sex trafficking, racketeering), but convicted on two counts under the Mann Act.
• Motion to Dismiss:
  • Jona Spilber: "The defense was trying to throw out the two charges that the jury came back with guilty verdicts for… claiming that the… Mann Act were unconstitutional. Now, the Supreme Court... has already ruled that the Mann Act is constitutional. So... not surprisingly, [the judge] came down against them." [03:19]
• Sentencing Debate:
  • Garagos explains that although each Mann Act count carries a potential 10-year sentence, real outcomes are governed by nuanced sentencing guidelines, and the defense is pushing for a much lower sentence.
  • The prosecution is seeking 135 months (11+ years), arguing for more time based on "relevant conduct" and “obstructed justice.”
  • "The government went to trial on five counts... the most serious ones... sex trafficking... [Diddy] was acquitted on those. Those three counts could have cost him... his freedom, life." – Mark Garagos [05:16]
• Predicting the Judge:
  • Eiglars: Posits the judge will go at least as long as recommended by probation (seven years and three months).
  • Garagos & Spilber: Predict less than 39 months, arguing overcharging and time served should be mitigating.
  • "He was overcharged. It cost him a fortune. It cost him part of his career. They never should have done this." – Jona Spilber [16:38]
• Victim Impact Statement Drama: The judge permitted Mia, Diddy's former assistant, to testify at sentencing despite her testimony being “completely impeached” at trial.
• Should Diddy Speak?
  • “I think Sean should address the court. This time out gave him perspective, and I think that he's the only one who can articulate it.” – Mark Garagos [20:15]
• Panel Predictions:
  • Garagos: Under 39 months.
  • Spilber: Even less than 39 months.
  • Eiglars: 7 years, 3 months minimum.

---

2. Wall Street ‘Sex Dungeon’ – Howard Rubin's Case

[21:00 - 28:20]

• Case Details: Ex-Salomon Brothers trader Howard Rubin, age 70, and his assistant are charged with sex trafficking in a penthouse “dungeon,” allegedly exceeding consensual BDSM.
• Defense Perspective:
  • Spilber provocatively asks: “If you volunteer to have weird sex with a weird dude, when does that stop being on you? When does that become a crime?” [22:25]
• Consent and Civil vs. Criminal:
  • Debate centers on boundaries of consent, the role of non-disclosure agreements, and why some sex cases are charged criminally rather than handled as civil disputes.
  • Garagos: “If you put the ball in your mouth and you wear the mask and you sign up for the dungeon… It reminds me… Many years ago… my client was the John… and… The judge said, yeah, this is a breach of contract action. And he dismissed the rape case.” [24:00]
• Panel Skepticism:
  • Garagos and Spilber doubt the merits of criminal prosecution when women first seek civil damages (jury awarded $3.9 million previously).
  • “When you run to the lawyer to get a payday first as opposed to run to the police station… it creates the presumption of gold digger money grab.” – Garagos [27:21]
• Comparison with Diddy:
  • The panel jokes about comparing sentences for “old white Diddy” versus the singer.

---

3. The D4vd Case: Pop Star Lawyers Up After Body Discovered

[30:40 - 34:47]

• Introduction to the Case: D4vd (David Anthony Burke) was found with the body of a 15-year-old girl (Celeste Rivas Hernandez) in his car trunk; he’s retained celebrity attorney Blair Burke.
• Crime or Not?:
  • Garagos: “I'm not so sure there was a crime that was committed. ... If he committed a crime and put her in his own trunk and then left the car to be picked up while he went on tour, then he should be convicted just on felony stupid.” [31:25]
• Celebrity Legal Maneuverings:
  • Discussion of Blair Burke’s experience; panel doubts there’s evidence of murder at this stage.
  • Spilber: “Concealment of a body is a far cry for murder. ... She had police coming to her house numerous times.... Everybody else thought she was 19. It sounds like she had a very hard life.” [32:55]
• Police Mishandling:
  • Panel critiques botched police communication during family “swatting” incident:
    • Spilber: “Talk about negligent infliction of emotional distress. ... That was horrible policing right there.” [36:09]
• General Tone:
  • Panel skeptical of deliberate wrongdoing by D4vd; emphasizes need for forensic results.

---

4. “Scream Mask Orgies” – The Brittany Fortenberry Case

[36:24 - 42:44]

• Case Overview: Married teacher Brittany Fortenberry in Indiana faces 47 counts of sexual misconduct with minors, involving drugs, threats, and “scream mask” orgies.
• Gender Double Standards in Sex Crimes:
  • Garagos expresses skepticism that male victims are truly traumatized in such cases:
    • “I will tell you, every time I've ever had one of those cases, the prosecutor ends up begging me... because the last thing they want... is to have one of those boys get on the stand and have to testify they were forced to have sex with a teacher.” [38:04]
  • Spilber pushes back: “If 47 teenage boys are having sex with a teacher, there's something really wrong with that teacher... that's not really the kind of healthy relationship even a teenage boy should have.” [39:10]
• Details of Abuse:
  • Drugs, nude photos, threats, sex while her own kids slept nearby.
  • Student testimony was that he was indeed molested, equating it to statutory rape if roles were reversed.
• Panel’s Take:
  • Mental illness is floated as a possible defense, but none are optimistic.
  • Garagos: “It clearly isn't normal. ... The fact that there is any kind of not taking this all that seriously tells you it's not the same as if the sexes were reversed.” [42:44]

---

5. Cold Case Update: Austin Yogurt Shop Murders

[45:41 - 49:41]

• Case Summary: 1991 quadruple homicide of teenage girls in Austin. Recent advances in genetic genealogy identified the real killer, Robert Eugene Brashers, but only after his suicide.
• Justice Delayed:
  • Spilber: “Back then... it was hard. We didn't have the technology that we have today. Now we do. ... But we do like to have a defendant sitting at the defense table. ... but the perp had killed himself.” [47:28]
• Wrongful Convictions:
  • Eiglars: “Two innocent people were convicted. ... this was a miscarriage of justice.” [48:06]
  • Garagos: “What makes me lose sleep is when I believe somebody is innocent. ... That's why you need criminal defense lawyers.” [48:38]
• Lesson: Advances in DNA and genealogy technology are increasingly solving major cold cases.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On Overzealous Prosecution:
  • "He was overcharged. It cost him a fortune. It cost him part of his career. ... The thing that he was never tried for is the thing we hate him for." – Jona Spilber [16:38]
• On Sentencing Predictions:
  • “The over/under in this case... is 39 months. ... I'm taking the under.” – Mark Garagos [09:28]
• On Consent in the Rubin Case:
  • "If you volunteer to have weird sex with a weird dude, when does that stop being on you? When does that become a crime?" – Jona Spilber [22:25]
• On Sex-Abuse Double Standards:
  • “It just isn't [the same]. I know that's unpopular, but that's reality.” – Mark Garagos [42:44]
• On Cold Case Justice:
  • “Let's put down the pitchforks sometimes, folks, and don't believe everything you see in the media.” – Mark Eiglars [49:41]

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

| Time | Segment/Topic | |------------|----------------------------------------------| | 02:42 | Diddy case introduction | | 03:19 | Defense motion to dismiss, Mann Act issues | | 05:16 | Prosecutors’ “sore loser” sentencing memo | | 10:06 | Sentencing predictions: over-under debate | | 12:38 | Victim impact testimony by Mia | | 16:38 | Downward departures, sentencing guidelines | | 20:00 | Should Diddy make a statement to the court? | | 21:00 | Howard Rubin (“Sex Dungeon”) introduction | | 24:00 | Consent, civil vs. criminal boundaries | | 27:02 | Civil verdict (Rubin case) discussion | | 30:40 | D4vd case summary and legal defense outline | | 36:24 | Brittany Fortenberry sex abuse case | | 45:41 | Austin Yogurt Shop Murders cold case update | | 50:38 | Legal Mailbag: the Ellen Philly suicide case | | 51:20 | Closing Arguments |

---

Closing Arguments Highlights

• Mark Garagos:
  Argues sentencing should be more lenient when the government overcharges and loses at trial:
  “I think when the government overcharges and loses, I think the defendant ought to get a benefit for that, and the government ought to be punished. They ought to be told, sit this one out. You... tried, you lost.” [52:17]

• Jona Spilber:
  Skewers the celebrity lawsuit circus between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni, suggesting the legal system is being clogged with publicity stunts:
  “Let it go, both of you. ... when you take up a court's time with red carpet crybaby bullshit, you slow the wheels of justice for those who really do need relief.” [54:07]

• Mark Eiglars:
  Reflects on the extraordinary power of forgiveness for victims and their families:
  “Forgiveness does not excuse their behavior. Forgiveness prevents their behavior from destroying your heart.” [55:42]

---

Overall Tone & Style

• Conversational, witty, sometimes provocative.
• Legal expertise blended with real-world cynicism and gallows humor.
• Each contributor brings a unique perspective, challenging each other robustly while grounding discussions in legal realities.

---

For Listeners Who Missed It

This episode is a must-listen for those interested in the intersection of pop culture, crime, and the law. The hosts mix sharp legal analysis with irreverence, delving into both the letter of the law and the human messiness at its edges. Whether debating sentencing disparities, the boundaries of consent, or the ethics of criminal prosecution versus civil litigation, the panel offers a no-nonsense but never dull look at America's true crime headlines.

Transcript

[OnDeck Advertiser]

Cash flow crunch on Deck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing, and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply [e-mail] funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans an amount subject to lender approval.

[Thumbtack Advertiser]

Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro. You just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app. Download today.

[Mark Eiglars]

Hello everyone, and welcome to MK True Crime. I'm Mark Eiglars, your host for today. I'm a former prosecutor, veteran criminal defense attorney, adjunct law professor, author, and most importantly, an avid pickleball player. Now, Diddy faces sentencing today or already has, depending upon when you're watching this and the question is, what does the future hold for him? We're going to discuss with our all star panel. Plus, a former Wall street big shot and his aide are charged with trafficking women to a sex dungeon. The facts are outrageous. We're gonna share what we know about that one. And also singer David, who somehow spells his name with the number four in this title. He lawyers up with this celebrity attorney named Blair Burke. Now, what does this mean for the case? We'll talk about it. And also we're gonna give you an update on the cold case of the yogurt shop murders. Now, I am joined today by an I don't just say this, I mean this. An all star cast. These guys I respect personally and professionally immensely. I refer cases anytime I can. I speak very highly of these two. We've got Jona Spilber, a criminal defense attorney. She's the founder of the Janice Spiller law firm. And also Mark Garagos, who just started doing criminal defense work and hopes to move on from DUIs to something more complex in the future. Actually, he's the managing partner of Garagos and Garagos and a phenomenal bestselling author and a terrific attorney. And I'm so glad they're both here hello, you guys.

[Mark Garagos]

How are you, Mark? Hi, Jonael.

[Mark Eiglars]

I'm choosing to be wonderful. I am looking forward to hanging out with you. We got a Mark sandwich with a little Jonna Spielberg in the Middle East. Going to be a great time. Let's start with Diddy. Okay, let's start with Diddy. Some are watching this before he gets sentenced. Some are watching it afterwards. So this is going to be really cool. We're going to talk about, you know, what the potential sentence may be, what it should be. I want to start with you, Jona. Tuesday, the judge rejected the defense's motion to throw out this case. What was that about? And should the judge have done that?

[Jona Spilber]

The judge probably got it right. This was not unexpected. There are certain motions that have to happen before anybody is ever sentenced. But both in criminal cases and in other situations, in civil cases, there are motions you need to make before something else is going to happen. And in this case, the defense was trying to throw out the two charges that the jury came back with guilty verdicts for claiming that the transportation for prostitution by which was brought under the Mann act were unconstitutional. Now, the Supreme Court of the United States has already ruled that the Mann act is constitutional. So at least the judge allowed them to argue it, but not surprisingly, came down against them on it. But no surprise, let's keep no surprise, but let's keep something in mind. These two charges, this is still a win for Diddy. I don't care. I don't like him personally. It's a win for Diddy. He's got a really excellent shot at getting sprung loose after sentencing. And I'm sure we're gonna talk all about that.

[Mark Eiglars]

Let's do that. First of all, for those who just crawled out from under a rock, Diddy went to trial on a bunch of charges. It was an eight week trial and they acquitted him, the jurors did, of the most serious charges, including sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy. The but they found him guilty on two counts of the Man's Act. What is that, Garagos? And also tell us about what the defense just filed.

[Mark Garagos]

Okay, so the man act, for those of you who don't know, if you go to Burbank Airport and you want to fly to Vegas on a Friday afternoon, when you're watching this, be careful of what you're thinking because that could potentially be the Man Act. If you're going to go have sex, speak for yourself. Speak for yourself. Yes, I know. I know you. When you fly to Vegas, that's the furthest thing from your mother, 25 years, happily married.

[Mark Eiglars]

No.

[Mark Garagos]

Very, very right. Which is even more of a man act violation. But what the defense just filed as we're taping this was a reply to the government, what I like to affectionately call the government. We're sore losers and we're going to make everybody know it. They filed this court crazy, crazy sentencing document where they're asking for 135 months. And for those of you who don't do math, well, that's over 11 years. And mind you, if you understand what happened here, Mark set it up perfectly. The government went to trial on five counts. Three of those counts, the most serious ones was a RICO and two sex trafficking counts. Mind you, the victims of the sex trafficking were Cassie and a woman who goes under the nickname or the anonymity of Jane. And he was acquitted. Diddy was acquitted on those three counts. Those three counts could have cost him his entire net worth over a billion dollars. Could have cost him the rest of his freedom, life. Government took a swing. They lost. So what do they do? The defense basically, for lack of a better term, conceded the Mann act violations, the kind of ticky tack foul. The government, not to be dissuaded, argues that Diddy obstructed justice, if you can believe that, by going to trial and fighting this case, in essence, that he also, the trial itself, even though he was acquitted of the conduct, felt was found not guilty. That we're going to now say, Judge, even though the jury didn't buy it, we want you to buy it and we want you to enhance his sentence. It's frankly outrageous.

[Mark Eiglars]

All right, so in the interest of disclosure, not that you would have felt any differently, you have a slight connection to the case I gave Diddy.

[Mark Garagos]

Yes, I gave Diddy my firstborn. And.

[Mark Eiglars]

Okay, Right.

[Mark Garagos]

So.

[Mark Eiglars]

And by that his daughter is one of the lead attorneys in this case. And when you said RICO earlier, we might have lost a few people. RICO stands for racketeering. And they tried to make him out to be the Tony Montana of the lube world and they weren't successful in doing so. John, let's talk about sentencing. He could get 10 years for each count, Correct? Let's talk about what legally he's allowed to get. Let's start with that. Yes.

[Jona Spilber]

So. So, yeah, under the guidelines, he's looking at 10 years per count. It should not happen. Why shouldn't it happen? Because sentencing is really governed by the sentencing guidelines. They used to be mandatory. They're not so much anymore. Now it's discretionary. When you do the math, right? The defense is looking at arguing that Diddy should only be sentenced to 14 months, which after you do jail math, you get credit. You carry the wand. You do that. Then he should walk. I mean, he would really walk. Probably before Christmas, if not sooner. Juxtapose that with. The prosecution, of course, wants the book thrown at them, at him. And they want, as Mark said, 11 years. Even contemplating 11 years for the two charges for which he was found guilty is absurd. The judge now has to decide, where am I going to fall on this? Are there mitigating factors? Are there aggravating circumstances? Is he going to do middle of the road? Is he going to throw the book at him? This is what we're waiting for tomorrow. And. And I got to tell you, I don't know which way this judge is going to go.

[Mark Eiglars]

And she said, hold on, we're shooting this. Hold on, we're sorry.

[Jona Spilber]

Yes.

[Mark Eiglars]

Thursday, it. We're actually releasing it Friday. So that's why we're saying tomorrow. Let's. It looks like I'm playing devil's advocate because I got two people who clearly think that he should walk free with a hug and apology and reimbursement of legal fees.

[Mark Garagos]

Well, wait a second. How do you get a hug? Apologies. Been in custody for over a year. He hasn't seen his. Come on, let's. Listen to me for one second.

[Mark Eiglars]

Yeah.

[Mark Garagos]

I'm going to give you. I'll let you play devil's advocate.

[Mark Eiglars]

I'm going to.

[Mark Garagos]

I'll make it. I'll actually make it a little bit easier for you. I think the over and under here. You know what an over and under is, Mark? I know you don't have sex, but you do. You gamble. So you go to Vegas, you don't have sex, you gamble, at least. So if you go to Vegas and we'll use the gambling theme, there's something called an over and under. And the over under in this case, to My mind is 39 months. I picked that number and I won't get into it on the sentencing guidelines, but it's based on a. The top end of a guideline. And so I'm going to take the under under.

[Mark Eiglars]

So two things, okay, As I play devil's advocate. Number one, I do have sex when I go to Vegas, but with my wife. That was the point.

[Mark Garagos]

I can see a man still.

[Jona Spilber]

Tmi and more.

[Mark Eiglars]

I know. More importantly and more importantly, do you gamble? Most judges sentence defendants somewhere within the guidelines. If the guidelines are around seven years, like I'm hearing probation came up with, don't you think the judges at a minimum going to go somewhere in that range? Plus, I'll add to that, this is the same judge who after the acquittal on the major charges, chose not to release him. Doesn't that get you into the mindset of this judge? And don't you think he'll give a sentence somewhere within the guidelines? Jona?

[Jona Spilber]

All right, so here's the thing. The fact that the judge did not release him is interesting because on the one hand you could say, all right, tea leaves say this is a, you know, a judge who's gonna throw the book at him, doesn't want him to cut him any slack whatsoever, kept him in custody. However, there's a, you know, a more hopeful side of this. As the judge might have said to himself, I'm going to keep him in for as long as I can because on the day that I have to issue his sentence, I'm not going to throw the book at him. And this is the message that I'm sending, ok? Those are springs eternal when you're a criminal.

[Mark Garagos]

By the way. By the way, Jonah, to your point, I was sitting in court when the judge denied because it was the day of the verdict, he denied the bail. And what he did was, is he went and he looked at the US See the United States code. The code groups the man act in the section that is referenced as violence. So he had basically, and he stated this on the record. I cannot release him now. But he did state this is not to imply at sentencing that I'm going to do the same thing. So. All right, so more things eternal.

[Mark Eiglars]

That's helpful. More, more devil's advocate. The judge is not restricted Mark Garago's to just what the man act means. Okay, so somebody was transported for the purpose of sex. The judge can consider relevant conduct. Correct. Which includes a lot of the stuff that he heard during the case, including but not limited to someone who wants to testify at sentencing Mia. So I want to know your thoughts on her. He was Combs's personal assistant.

[Mark Garagos]

He just ruled. He just ruled? Yes, earlier today, about an hour ago, that Mia can testify. Government. Of course. Five minutes.

[Mark Eiglars]

Well, okay, great. Of course.

[Mark Garagos]

Because Mia is not a victim.

[Mark Eiglars]

So let me set it up. Let me set it up.

[Mark Garagos]

Of course. Wait. Did you ever leave the the DA's office?

[Mark Eiglars]

I'm playing devil's advocate. Very well, Garagos, or else you're going.

[Mark Garagos]

To call knucklehead defense lawyers the equals devil. Go on.

[Mark Eiglars]

These jurors These jurors, these viewers slash jurors want to hear a fair and balanced discussion.

[Mark Garagos]

So let's get back to Mia cheering for their team. But that's another issue.

[Mark Eiglars]

Okay, so Mia served as a personal assistant to Combs from 2009 to 2017. She's testified that Combs physically and sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions. And her exact words. These are her words. Judge, I ask you to deliver a sentence that reflects the full measure of harm that he has caused the years of coercion, financial abuse, humiliation, physical sexual violence. Your object? Hold on.

[Mark Garagos]

I'm objecting because, you know, it hurts.

[Mark Eiglars]

And the profound trauma as a result. So my question now, I've teed it up, keeping it fair and balanced, because if he does get a significant sentence, these people watching are going to go, wait, those. Those knucklehead lawyers just defended him, and we have no idea why this happened. It's a complete injustice. But can't the judge consider relevant conduct? He sat through this trial, and he heard a lot of stuff, and so did we about Diddy. All right, Garrett, go ahead and defend.

[Mark Garagos]

Let me just tell you, number one, if you watched Mia testify, if you saw the evidence, one of the reasons it's too bad district courts don't have television. M was thoroughly, completely impeached. Mia's testimony was. I mean, the jury gave it no moment whatsoever. None, zero, no credence. It was. To say it was absurd is giving too much credit. It was completely debunked, number one. Number two, yes, relevant conduct can be considered. The problem is that the acquitted conduct. There's a difference between relevant conduct and acquitted conduct, and the government has obliterated that difference. Every nonsensical relevant conduct argument that they've made, the jury rejected. So that is, the judge heard the evidence. The judge was there. And in fact, on the subsequent bail petition, he cited what he couldn't unsee. And by the way, Sean wouldn't be sitting in custody but for that Intercontinental tape getting sold to cnn. But for that, you wouldn't. You wouldn't have seen it, and he wouldn't be. He wouldn't have been charged. So he's there because of the tape. So what are you going to do? You compounded five more times. And by the way, John, I just want one last thing I'm going to throw to you. Don't you think the government, after taking a swing, overcharging the hell out of this case, losing spectacularly?

[Mark Eiglars]

They should.

[Mark Garagos]

The feds should get a downward departure for that.

[Mark Eiglars]

Well, that's My question. Hold on. Let me set this up so people understand downward departures in federal court, which is very different than state court. The probation department prepares a report, and they calculate where someone they believe falls within the guidelines. The defense thinks it's a lot lower than the seven years and three months that probation believes that. That the sentencing guidelines call for. So, first of all, John, how do we get to seven years and three months? Do you believe that that's appropriate? And do you think the judge. This is now prediction time. Do you think the judge goes within the guidelines, which would put it at a lot more than credit for time served?

[Jona Spilber]

Well, first of all, probation gets involved in advance of just about every sentence, right? And what they do is they dig into the charges. They dig into basically the entire life history, history of the defendant that's before them. They dig into whether they think that defendant has, quote, unquote, learned their lesson and whether they're going to be able to reenter society and what that's going to take. And they basically crawl up your butt and then make a report and hand it over to the judge. The judge does not have to accept it hook, line, and sinker. But the judge uses it for guidance as well in this case. And again, coming from me, a person who has publicly said, I don't like Diddy, I think he's a dirtbag. I truly believe this man deserves a downward departure for exactly what the other mark said. He was overcharged. It cost him a fortune. It cost him part of his career. They never should have done this. And the problem is, the thing that he was never tried for is the thing we hate him for. And that's the tape where he beat up. Okay, Ventura.

[Mark Eiglars]

So. So in the interest of time, because I want to cover the next topic, I want to cover a couple more things with Diddy. Very quickly, your prediction. What's the sentence, Jonah?

[Jona Spilber]

I'm going low. I'm going less than the 39 months that Mark predicted. Or did you say 39?

[Mark Eiglars]

What did you say, Garrigo?

[Mark Garagos]

39 is the over. Under. I'm taking the under.

[Mark Eiglars]

Okay. And I say.

[Mark Garagos]

All right.

[Mark Eiglars]

All right. And I'm gonna disagree. I'm gonna say if probation got to seven years and three months with a straight face, the judge goes along with that. And I think that that's the minimum time that he gets seven years and three months. Okay?

[Mark Garagos]

Minimum. So I should have set the over and under at seven years.

[Mark Eiglars]

We'll see. I don't think this judge didn't let him out on for Any other reason other than he doesn't like him? I'm telling you, he does not like him. And I think he's going to. He's going to hit him hard.

[Mark Garagos]

Yeah, I don't think you gamble when you go to Vegas. That's my takeaway.

[Mark Eiglars]

But very, very quickly, though, a couple other points. I really selfishly want to know if he's your client. Do you have Diddy address the court and what do you say? Quickly?

[Mark Garagos]

Yes, absolutely, have him address the court.

[Mark Eiglars]

What does he say?

[Mark Garagos]

I think you do. I have been in that Southern district. I can think of one case in particular where I had a client, and I was not in front of this judge, but a different judge. And I. I went into the hearing thinking I would not have my client talk. And then I turned to my client and I said, I think you should speak. He spoke later. I saw the judge years later, and he told me that that turned him. And I think it's important. I think. I think Sean should address. I think absolutely Sean should address the court.

[Mark Eiglars]

Okay. And I agree. But you really can't control how they're gonna deliver their message. You would never let him just speak off the cuff, right? You'd make sure that he writes it out, you proofread it, you give some better words if somehow he's blaming other people and not taking responsibility. Right, John? Yes.

[Jona Spilber]

Well, wait, let me. Let me ask you to a question. What would turn the. What could come out of Diddy's mouth that would change this judge's mind?

[Mark Eiglars]

I am so sorry. And I accept responsibility for things I did in the past. I'm a different person today. Here's what I've done. The things I've learned in the. In the. In the. In the horrible situation I've been in over the past however many days he's been in jail has changed my life. I promise you, Judge, I will never, ever be involved in anything. All right, maybe, Judge, a little lube. Just a little bit. I can't stop using that. Mark, what do you think?

[Mark Garagos]

Look, I have seen this before. I've known, and I'm very frank about it. I've known Sean for decades. He is a changed person and changed in this sense. He needs to articulate that. He needs to articulate.

[Mark Eiglars]

Agreed.

[Mark Garagos]

This time out gave him perspective, and I think that he's the only one who can articulate it.

[Mark Eiglars]

All right, so can't wait to see what happens. We've got this. It's been memorialized. Our predictions are there. Let's watch it in A couple of days and see what happens. Okay, let's shift gears. If you take a little Diddy, you throw in a little Epstein and Maxwell. You get this guy, Howard Rubin and what he was involved in. This is an ex Wall street star. He's accused of abusing women in his penthouse sex Dungeon. This guy's 70 years old. He's a former Salomon Brothers bond trader. He made Wall street famous in some book that he wrote. He was arrested last week, Friday on sex trafficking charges. Prosecutors said he took women to the penthouse blocks from Central park where he had a bedroom. He painted it red. Kind of reminds me of what Garagos has going in his house. He soundproofed it. He fitted it with devices. This part now we deviate. I'm kidding, Mark. To use on the women. The indictment was unsealed in Brooklyn, which where he's being prosecuted. His personal assistant, just like Ghislaine Maxwell, helped him out, was his partner in crime. She recruited and she paid for at least a half a dozen women to participate in these bondage and sadomasochistic acts. But these acts went far beyond what these women signed up for. Apparently there was like a safe word, but the women were gagged, so they couldn't say the safe word. It's insane. And he's facing decades in prison. Actually, they're both are facing life, realistically, if they're convicted. Let's talk about this one, John. I see you shaking your head, probably not with approval of their actions.

[Jona Spilber]

No, no, actually. Nope, nope, nope. This is an old white diddy and I have to say something. I have to say something. Listen, I must be a prude because this whole lifestyle, not my thing, but it is some people's thing, you guys. So if you want to engage in a little S and M and you want to date an old guy and you know, and you're going to sit across, you know, from a table at Chiprian and he's going to slide you a non disclosure agreement. That's your first clue. Okay, so maybe, maybe you don't sign that. And if you do sign it, if you volunteer to have weird sex with a weird dude, when does that stop being on you? When does that become a crime? You may not like it, it may be. It may be strange. I get it. But if you're voluntarily participating, why are we criminalizing weird sex?

[Mark Eiglars]

Are you? I can't tell if this is Janna speaking or Jana, who's been paid a hefty fee, hypothetically to defend this creepy was that was that really you? Or were you just playing the role of defense lawyer?

[Jona Spilber]

No, no, I. I honestly. I could take this case. I would take this case.

[Mark Eiglars]

Are you blaming the victims? Who said, I'll do X, Y and Z, but then he's having. No, I'm saying there's.

[Jona Spilber]

There's no victim. You know what your safe word is? This is your safe word. Stop or I'm gonna effing kill you. That's.

[Mark Eiglars]

Wait, but I can't.

[Jona Spilber]

Hold on if he doesn't.

[Mark Eiglars]

But I can't say it. He's got a stick in my mouth. I can't say. I can't say the safe word.

[Jona Spilber]

Mark, you say it.

[Mark Eiglars]

You can't say the safe word. This guy set him up for failure.

[Mark Garagos]

There's. There's a whole lot to unpack here. I mean, not. Not the least of which. Not the least of which is. Have you ever walked down the fifth Avenue on Pride weekend? Because I have in New York, and I did it this year right after the closing arguments in Diddy. And I said to myself, you know, it's a very strange place for all of these sex trafficking cases, Manhattan, because when I walk the mile and a half on Pride weekend, I see more risque stuff going on in the street than I do on some of these sex tapes. And, you know, John's point is, I think if this is. Isn't this a civil case? Because to your. Well, it was to your point, Mark, that if that ball had gotten into the mouth by force and without consent, then you might have a pretty compelling point, right? But if you put the ball in your mouth and you wear the mask and you sign up for the dungeon, and then. You know, it reminds me, Johnna, you'll appreciate this. Many years ago, it would not happen now, but I had a case in Pasadena Court where my client was accused. He was the John, and was accused of exceeding. He had only. He had paid for one sex act, but he had gotten a different sex act and then didn't want to pay for it. And so the prosecution put their evidence on, and I made a motion, as we always do in federal court. It would have been Rule 29, but in California, they called 1118, a motion to dismiss. The judge said, yeah, this is a breach of contract action. And he dismissed the rape case.

[Mark Eiglars]

Sounded like theft of services.

[Mark Garagos]

Yeah, yeah, exactly. A theft of service. But it sounds more like a. To Jonah's point, I don't. Well, it was because John is a woman. You don't say that. She. She doesn't get it. Johnna would never be in that position. Unless that was Johnna's thing.

[Jona Spilber]

Unless I wanted to.

[Mark Eiglars]

So this thing did go to a civil jury in 2022. A jury found him liable for trafficking and ordered him to pay 3.9 million. So it already. Already the jurors in the civil arena rejected the notion that these women wanted it.

[Mark Garagos]

No, no, that's not true. Number one. Number. Number one, it is. It sounds like it should have been handled in a civil case. I don't know why these prosecutors keep taking civil cases and criminalizing them. I mean, Cassie was a civil case. She got her payday.

[Mark Eiglars]

She could be both. Could be both.

[Mark Garagos]

It could be. But when you run to the lawyer to get a payday first as opposed to run to the police station. I agree with that.

[Mark Eiglars]

No, I. Look, at the first time, I'm now just agreeing with you. Not that I disagreed with everything you said. I was playing devil's advocate.

[Mark Garagos]

No, you were playing DA's advocate.

[Mark Eiglars]

There we go.

[Jona Spilber]

Just being a devil.

[Mark Eiglars]

And I play it well. And I'll tell you this. I agree. I love it when they went to a civil lawyer first. Doesn't mean that they weren't injured, by the way, but it certainly creates the presumption of gold digger money grab.

[Mark Garagos]

Well, by the way, how many times do you try when I am in civil court and what you explain to jurors is civil court is money court, Criminal court is liberty court. So if you're here for money, then call it what it is. But don't. Don't start confusing the two. Money and liberty.

[Mark Eiglars]

How about this guy gets acquitted of all the main charges, but only gets convicted on the man act stuff, and we get to see what he gets and compares the two. The white China calls him versus, you know, old white Diddy.

[Mark Garagos]

Old white. Old White Diddy will take you on his private jet to Vegas next time with your wife.

[Mark Eiglars]

All right? So, guys, excellent analysis. Next up, we're going to talk about the David case. Who's David? We're so old we don't know who this singer is. And he spells his name real funny. But there's a major update in that case. Listen, if you have any questions or comments for us, we would love to hear from you. We actually do get this stuff. We discuss it. So send us in stuff. You can email us at mktruecrime at devil may care media.com. i've asked for them to get a longer email, but they said it's not possible. MK true crimevilmaycare media.com we would love to hear from you.

[Sun Goddess Matcha Advertiser]

Afternoons can be rough. Energy fades. Cravings kick in. Focus goes out the window. The quick fix, another coffee. But that can lead to jitters or a crash later or can interfere with sleep peaks. Sun Goddess Matcha is another option. It can give steady energy and help you focus without the ups and downs. This is not just any matcha. It's organic, ceremonial grade and grown in Japan's pure volcanic soil, far away from pollution. It's harvested by tea masters and screened for toxins not once, but four times. That is how serious they are about quality. The taste is smooth, creamy and rich, not bitter like lower quality Matcha. It's packed with antioxidants to keep you sharp and steady. Whether it's how the day starts or how it gets back on track, this Matcha is not just a drink. It can be a better daily habit. Right now you can get up to 20% off for life, plus a free rechargeable frother and glass beaker. It's backed by a 90 day money back guarantee. Go to peaklife.com Megan that's P I Q U E Life Megan to try it for yourself again, that's P I q u e life.com Megan on deck.

[OnDeck Advertiser]

Is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team or bridging cash flow gaps, On Deck's loans up to $250,000 help make it happen fast. Rated A Plus by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five star trust pilot reviews, OnDeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in [e-mail] depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by On Deck or Celtic Bank. On Deck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

[Mark Eiglars]

A dead girl was found in the trunk of Singer David's car and now he's lawyered up. The first question is who the heck is David? Right. We have three old people on the panel here. I'm including. Yes. Hold on. You knew. Hold on. You knew who David was? Apparently I didn't even use a last name. And it's D, the number 4VD. And thanks to Chat GBT, I learned it's actually David. That stylistically he uses the number four instead of an A. Thank you. I've learned that now apparently he lawyered up. And the the crime to me is clear. This happened in L. A. So to me the first obvious crime is that he didn't hire Garagos.

[Mark Garagos]

I tell you because I don't Even I. First of all, I've said this to anybody who. Listen, I'm not so sure there was a crime that was committed. And number two, it. If. If he committed a crime and. And put her in his own trunk and then left the trunk, the car to be picked up while he went on tour, then he should be convicted just on felony stupid. So.

[Mark Eiglars]

Right.

[Mark Garagos]

I just don't. I'm not buying it. I tend to be. You know, I don't often agree with the lapd, which by the way, stands for lost and presume destroyed, but. Oh, I didn't know this. Yes. But in this case, I tend to agree with them. I don't know how you're going to prove that there was a crime that was.

[Mark Eiglars]

So this is musician David Anthony Burke. He's known professionally as D number 4vd. So, David. And in his trunk was a 15 year old Celeste Rivas Hernandez. He hired this guy, Blair Burke.

[Mark Garagos]

It's a woman. It's a woman. Yes.

[Mark Eiglars]

Blair Burke. Limited experience on murder cases, I've been told. Jonna, what do you do here?

[Jona Spilber]

So I agree with Mark, like I'm not convinced at all that there was a crime committed by this potential defendant. David with a four, by the way, I'm going to change the spelling of my name to J0 and then 4. Just so you know. What? Because you called me old and I need to prove.

[Mark Eiglars]

So mysterious.

[Jona Spilber]

Yeah, that's what I'm gonna do. So this could really be something. Like I said, concealment of a body is a far cry for murder. It's sad. This. This. This victim of whatever she is a victim of, had it. You know, I guess she was kind of like a runaway. She had police coming to her house numerous times. She was lying about her age. She was really only 15. Everybody else thought she was 19. It sounds like she had a very hard life. And that's the part that makes me sad. I am curious about one thing. And Garrett goes, you might know about this. Blair Burke has represented a lot of celebs, but I don't think some of these celebs have ever committed a crime like Reese Witherspoon. What the heck did she ever do? Like, that's one of her.

[Mark Eiglars]

Yeah. Probably not. Probably not criminal. Probably not criminal. And by the way, the concealment in a trunk there is a mere misdemeanor. So up to a year in jail. So if that's really all that he's facing, then he's.

[Mark Garagos]

I don't. Yeah. And I'm not. Like I said, I. The I always wonder about cases like this that catch your imagination because there's somebody high profile involved. I. It seems to me to be a lot more consistent with the facts that this poor girl was given something, some kind of a drug that she OD'd or, you know, OD suggests that she knew what she was doing. That is necessarily the case. They will figure that out from the forensics. Somebody panicked. Somebody put her in the trunk. Why. Why he would do it is beyond me. That makes zero sense. I don't even. I don't get it at all. I mean, you know, if there was somebody else who was involved with her and then she dies and then they find out what her true age is and they want to deflect from them, I could buy that.

[Mark Eiglars]

All right, well, here's some body cam footage. I don't know if this has anything to do with anything. This happened on September 18th after a 911 call. The family's house was swatted. Let's. Let's take a look at this.

[Police Officer]

We got a phone call from here saying that somebody was dead. Is there somebody else that lives on this property that has your address? What's your address? That's it.

[Mark Eiglars]

That's it.

[Mark Garagos]

That's what I actually got.

[Police Officer]

We got an address. There was a gunshot and a woman screamed.

[Mark Garagos]

What?

[Police Officer]

I'm serious. That's why we came up here like this, because. And then they talked to the caller. Whoever they were talking to said that there's a person dead. That's not normal activity. If so, if you were at the wrong address, they'd be concerned about somebody else. Like really like, you know what I mean? Maybe they'd be trying to help. But whoever it would pinged here, though, because wherever they call from, it pings and sends it to dispatch.

[Mark Eiglars]

What the what?

[Police Officer]

So, like, whenever you call 91 1, wherever you are, it sends it. It sends like a ping. That's how they know the address.

[Jona Spilber]

And this address and this address came up to this number? Yes, ma'. Am. That's where he was meeting.

[Mark Eiglars]

42.

[Jona Spilber]

So is that somebody on my property?

[Police Officer]

Could be. We'll check the property for you.

[Mark Garagos]

Yes, please.

[Mark Eiglars]

What do you make of that, Jonah?

[Jona Spilber]

Talk about negligent infliction of emotional distress. How do you get a couple of cops who don't know crap about crime crap coming to some parents house and saying somebody's dead around here? We got a pig. That was horrible policing right there.

[Mark Eiglars]

You think? All right, we got to shift to Brittany Fortenberry. I don't know if it's Fortenberry. I'm going to call it Fortenberry. And if I'm mispronouncing her name, listen, that's the worst thing that I could do. Some of the things that she's allegedly done pale in comparison. All right, this is a married teacher accused of scream mask orgies. By that, I mean this woman had some of the people involved in her little orgy wear the scream mask, which is not uncommon in the Garrigo's household. But again, it's all consensual. Now, this woman is from Martinsville, Indiana, and she now has a total of. Are you ready? 47 counts, sexual misconduct with a minor. 47. That actually is the number of symphonies and concertos that Mozart had composed by the age of 17. It's the same number of major works that Shakespeare has created. 47. You can look it up. I did. Now, Garagos, how are you defending this woman? It's all just a big conspiracy. Everybody's pointing a finger at her. Allegedly, she was giving these kids drugs and having sex with them. This is pretty bad stuff. Garagos, what are you doing with this one?

[Mark Garagos]

I have a question. And by the way, is the theme of this episode four the number four? Because we've got 47. We've got David with a four. We've got. John is the outlier with the zero. But the we four seems to be. I am. I. I.

[Mark Eiglars]

You're you.

[Mark Garagos]

How long has it been since you were a teenager? As a former teenage boy, I would like to tell you, and I've defended women who have been charged with having sex with underage boys. And I know this is not a popular opinion, but I will tell you, every time I've ever had one of those cases, the prosecutor ends up begging me to take something, anything. Because the last thing they want to do is have one of those boys get on the stand and have to test that they were forced to have sex with a teacher. I grew up down the street from David Lee Roth and Van Halen, who famously made popular the song Hot for Teacher. I have to just tell you, I don't get these cases where they charge the women and throw the book at them for having sex with the boys.

[Mark Eiglars]

Yeah, John, please educate the old guy. Can you educate him how damaging this is to teenagers.

[Mark Garagos]

Please, it's really.

[Mark Eiglars]

Please explain how something that I beg for when I was a teenager to occur actually does harm to teenage boys. Please explain that, John.

[Jona Spilber]

I'll tell you why it might be mildly harmful to a teenage boy. Because If a teenage boy, if 47 teenage boys are having sex with a teacher, there's something really wrong with that teacher. Especially when she gets off with the scream mask and the orgies. Oh, and by the way, fun fact, she's married and has teenagers of her own. So that's not really the kind of healthy relationship even a teenage boy should have. That woman is sick in the head. And as a matter of fact her defense team is going to explore that further. They think she suffers from some sort of mental disease or. And I concur.

[Mark Eiglars]

Okay, so a couple of things. Number one, she had sex with a lot of these kids while her own kids were sleeping in neighboring rooms. That's weird.

[Mark Garagos]

Number two, weird. I'll give you that. That's now.

[Mark Eiglars]

Oh really? You're giving me that? Garagos? I'll give you that.

[Jona Spilber]

Be crazy.

[Mark Eiglars]

I'm conservative of you.

[Mark Garagos]

I still will tell you, if it wasn't 47 and she wasn't getting, you know, riding the train or whatever, I would, I would be. I, I still don't understand it. And by the way, if it is a.

[Mark Eiglars]

You're interrupted me because there's more to what this woman did. You know, this, this woman who, who.

[Mark Garagos]

Once again DA advocate here.

[Mark Eiglars]

Okay.

[Mark Garagos]

Cleaning up the streets from.

[Mark Eiglars]

Okay, so. So, so this woman apparently sent nude pictures of herself. Drugs also and apparently she threatened to kill herself if any of these kids told on her. Additionally, one of the boys who she had sex with a 15 year old said this is no different than a 30 year old man and a 15 year old girl having sex. He said the molestation is there. He felt that he was molested. What? That's what? Go ahead.

[Mark Garagos]

What? You know what that is? That guy's already been to the civil lawyer. Give me a break. That guy. I guarantee you I will bet you any amount of money that guy's already lawyered up and he's ready to sue and he's going to sue the school district.

[Mark Eiglars]

All right, here's. Here's one thing that's really even more bizarre in this case. I love this. This woman. Fortenberry reports that she regrets losing weight. She lost 150 pounds apparently. She said that if she didn't lose that weight she would not have run into the problems that she ran into.

[Jona Spilber]

Yeah, she got too hot. You know, she got too hot.

[Mark Eiglars]

Too hot for a teacher.

[Mark Garagos]

Yeah, too hot for a teacher.

[Jona Spilber]

I suffer with the too hotness all day long.

[Mark Garagos]

I know. Johnna. John, I cannot relate to this because she didn't gain the weight. She was naturally hot. But when you get too hot. 47 boys. You know, by the way, you people.

[Mark Eiglars]

I disagree and I. For the record, I disagree and I object to you making light of this. And I will ask you to take it seriously at the very end. Let me ask you both. Her chances of arguing that mental illness or defect caused her to do this about. I think the same as my chance of finally getting into the NBA at 57 and my jump shot sucks. What do you think, Jonna? Her chance of prevailing arguing mental illness or defect?

[Jona Spilber]

Well, we don't know yet. We don't know what she's got going on upstairs. But it ain't normal, Mark. It ain't normal.

[Mark Eiglars]

It ain't gonna work. Garagos.

[Jona Spilber]

They have to do it. They have to do it.

[Mark Eiglars]

Come on, Garagos. Look, come on.

[Mark Garagos]

It clearly isn't normal. But the fact we're talking about it and the fact that there is any kind of not taking this all that seriously tells you it's not the same as if the sexes were reversed. It just isn't. I know that that's unpopular, but that's reality.

[Mark Eiglars]

And by the way, when you make comments, viewers, make sure you specify which Mark you're talking about. Okay?

[Mark Garagos]

Just when.

[Mark Eiglars]

Just make sure you put Mark G or Garagos when you're criticizing. I'm just saying I have thin skinned on some comments. Make sure you specify. Anyway, next up, there was a gruesome and tragic quadruple murder in Austin, Texas that stayed unsolved for 30 years. Well, now it's solved.

[Sun Goddess Matcha Advertiser]

We talk a lot on this show about personal freedom. Well, part of that is owning your privacy. And let me tell you, if you have ever googled your name and found your home address, your phone number, or even your income floating around, it is not a coincidence that data is bought and sold by data brokers without your consent. This is why I want to tell you about Incogni. It's a service that fights back on your behalf. Incogni contacts those shady sites and gets your personal data removed automatically. No forms, no emails. They handle the back and forth with these brokers and they just update you through their simple dashboard. It can really be a relief if you care about your privacy and want fewer spam calls, junk emails and less risk of identity theft. Consider this step and right now you can get 60% off an annual [e-mail]. megan. Use the code Megan when you check out to get your discount of up to 60% off. That's huge. 60 okay, it's spelled I N C O G N I N C O G N I dot com. Use that code Megan on checkout and take back control of your data with incogni.

[Mark Garagos]

Hey, guys.

[Thumbtack Advertiser]

Finding the perfect gift for the food lover in your life is easy thanks to Goldbelly. Goldbelly ships America's most iconic foods straight from world famous restaurants right to your door. So if you want to treat someone to Joe's Stone Crab from Miami, Franklin Barbecue from Texas, or desserts from famous foodies like Ina Garten or Martha Stewart, Goldbelly has you covered. Just go to goldbelly.com and for a limited time, get 20% off your first order with Promo Code gift. That's Promo Code Gift.

[OnDeck Advertiser]

Ondeck is built to back small businesses like yours. Whether you're buying equipment, expanding your team, or bridging cash flow gaps, Ondeck's loans up to $250,000 help make it happen fast. Rated A by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five star trust pilot reviews, Ondeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in [e-mail] depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by On Deck or Celtic Bank. On Deck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender approval.

[Mark Eiglars]

All right, we're going to get to closing arguments, which I love, and your mail in just a moment. But first, we're going to talk about a case that went cold for decades. It's a case that in 1991, there were four teenage girls who were at a yogurt shop in Austin, Texas. Remember those? I can't Believe It's Not Yogurt Places. I think that we all thought that that was absolutely great for us. And then there's that Seinfeld episode. All right, I digress. Anyway, people died because people were killed. And modern DNA has now identified who the perp is. HBO is coming out with a, I believe, some type of show about it. Let's look at that clip and then we'll talk about it.

[OnDeck Advertiser]

In 1991, four teenagers were shot and murdered inside a yogurt shop in this strip mall.

[Mark Garagos]

I don't know the.

[Mark Eiglars]

The city of Austin has ever been the same.

[Jona Spilber]

It was just unspeakable.

[Mark Garagos]

The place was set on fire. They were bringing in anybody who was a little bit different.

[Mark Eiglars]

I killed somebody. They're using techniques that can lead to false confession. We were asking for any tip.

[Mark Garagos]

People started calling me. We had so many suspects, but it was never solved.

[Mark Eiglars]

Yeah, this looks like one. I'm Going to want to watch, right? This looks interesting. All right, so, Jonna, you know, justice, after all this time, apparently they, through DNA, they were able to identify the perp. His name is Robert Eugene Brashers. Boy, we sure like to say someone's name and hold them accountable when they're alive. Right? It's not as sweet. Right?

[Jona Spilber]

So, yeah, this was really a cold case. And look, back then in the, you know, 1990s and earlier, it was hard. We didn't have the technology that we have today. Now we do. So we can solve some of these colds cases, but we do like to have a defendant sitting at the defense table. When we do. In this case, we don't because through genetic genealogy, they did manage to find the. But the perp had killed himself, I believe, several years earlier. It still gives closure. So that's a good thing. But this is a very interesting dig into this very cold case that we now have been able to solve.

[Mark Eiglars]

Garagos. What troubles me about this story was that in 1999, they had a task force led by the Austin Police department, and they rounded up four men. They were teenagers around the time of the murder, and they were questioned and released. Lack of evidence. But then two of them were later arrested and convicted. Two innocent people were convicted. The appellate court finally set aside their guilty verdicts. But this was a miscarriage of justice for those two. Huh?

[Mark Garagos]

So one of the things you often hear, I'm sure you two get all the time, is how do you defend these people when you know they're guilty? How do you sleep at night? How do you say, how many times have you heard that? I always say I sleep fine because I'm holding the government accountable. What makes me lose sleep is when I believe somebody is innocent. And so this is a perfect example of that. And this is why you need criminal defense lawyers. Otherwise, you know, by the way, speaking of sleep brought to you by the same state that they had to go to the appellate court to find that it was ineffective assistance of counsel when the criminal defense lawyer was asleep at council tables. So I, I, I think better, better late than never on these things. I get that there is not as much satisfaction, but the fact that you people will recognize that you can get caught up in the hoopla and the circus around something, and you may not have the evidence. I think that's an important lesson to be.

[Mark Eiglars]

Yeah, let's put down the pitchforks sometimes, folks, and don't believe everything you see in the media now. Let's see what the evidence yields. Not Everybody's guilty, as Garrigo says. By the way, they used the same technique in this case, which was the genetic genealogy that they used to solve the 2018 Golden State Killer case. So we're gonna see a lot more of that in the future. Okay, folks, it is time for Legal Mailbag. Am I making music here? We need to have some kind of music. Legal Mailbag. Anyway, Elena wrote in at mk true cr@devil may caremedia.com. love the show. I would love insight on the Ellen case in Philly, where it was ruled a suicide, but she had stabbed herself 20 times, and some of those were to the back. I love that one. Jona, what do you say to Elena?

[Jona Spilber]

Yeah, Elena. So we talked about this case on the September 10th show, and Mark Iglar. I think it was the two of us that. And we were both trying to figure out how somebody could stab themselves in the back and the back of the neck 20 times seems to defy logic, unless you're a circus freak. So we're not buying that. And we are gonna dig into that story more.

[Mark Eiglars]

Yeah. Sergeant Silly Pants investigated with Detective Giggles. And just because the boyfriend found her and said it's a suicide, they go. Okay, let's wrap it up. Anyway. That was a great episode. All right, so it's time for closing arguments. Love this segment. We're gonna go with Mark Garagos first. What do you say?

[Mark Garagos]

Well, I. This will be one that you can save, because when this drops, he may have already been sentenced. I. Building on what I had argued earlier, I think that in the. Under the sentencing guidelines, if you go to trial and lose, meaning you get convicted, then. And by the way, if you testify, the government will say, lose three levels of responsibility, of acceptance, you lose two levels for obstructing justice, you get tax, tip, and service charge during your sentencing. I think there ought to be just the opposite. I think under the sentencing guidelines, and I may call or write them as well, I think when the government overcharges and loses, I think the defendant ought to get a benefit for that, and the government ought to be punished. They ought to be told, sit this one out. You. You know, you tried, you lost.

[Mark Eiglars]

You.

[Mark Garagos]

You're not here to be a sore loser. That's my feeling and my belief as to what should happen with the sentencing guidelines.

[Mark Eiglars]

Okay, thank you very much. Garagos, Jana, we all await your closing argument. Go ahead.

[Jona Spilber]

Yeah, I have one. I have one in here. Okay. So in case you haven't been keeping up with the dueling lawsuits between Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. Allow me to bring you up to see Speed. Justin Baldoni, as you know, was the male lead producer and director of the movie. It Ends with Us. The flick quickly devolved from Blockbuster to ball buster after his co star Blake Lively kicked off a flurry of accusations in a sexual harassment complaint against Baldoni that dropped just days before Christmas last year. Bah humbug. Baldoni punched back with a $400 million countersuit, only to have a judge leave most of that on the cutting room floor while Lively had one of her back and forth claims against Beldon's team also dismissed. You keep it up. Good, because enter Taylor Swift, who was subpoenaed, then unsuppoated, then sort of asked nicely to show up for a deposition. An invitation, which understandably pissed her off. And if right about now you're asking who's on first, that would be the big deal criminal defense lawyer hired by Beldoni just last week. This begs the most profound of legal questions. What the hell is really going on here? Personally, from the beginning, this case felt like a high priced publicity stunt. It has since morphed into a battle of egos with seemingly no end in sight. I've handled Title VII sex harassment cases, and while no two are exactly alike, this one is especially hard for me to wrap my mind around.

[Mark Eiglars]

Why?

[Jona Spilber]

Because in real life, people don't have intimacy coordinators. In real life, simulating sex isn't part of most jobs, and in real life, staying in character isn't a thing. Blake Lively gets paid big bucks to do all of that with some of Hollywood's sexiest men. And now, Christ, foul. Because the acting was what? Too real is that it's in an industry where people make money to convincingly pretend? Where is the line between Oscar worthy performance and sexually harassing behavior? You want to know what I call getting paid millions to make out with Ben Affleck or Brad Pitt or Bradley Cooper? My dream job. Here's my advice, Blake, your case has a bit of Amber Heard odor to it and well, we all know how that worked out. And Justin, you don't need a criminal defense attorney to win this case. You need a divorce lawyer. Because divorce lawyers are uniquely qualified to handle parties who fight for stuff they don't want just so the other side can't have it. Let it go, both of you. Courts are densely populated with real claims. And when you take up a court's time with red carpet crybaby bullshit, you slow the wheels of justice for those who really do need relief. Lick your wounds, forget your feelings, and put this to bed. Because the legal war over this end with us just needs to end, period.

[Mark Eiglars]

Nicely done. And now my closing argument. Forgiveness. I want to talk about forgiveness. It's not for everyone. In fact, many of us were shocked to see Charlie Kirk's widow come out recently and forgive the killer of her husband. That was just extraordinary. She didn't do it because she condoned the conduct in any way. She did that to try, at least at a minimum, to ease some of the burden that she would face in the future for the rest of her life, for what he did to her, her children, her family, and to the world. It's not for everyone. Recently, I saw that extraordinary sense of forgiveness in a case where I was defending someone who technically and trag was responsible for the death of a female friend. He didn't mean to do it, but technically he was responsible. And so criminal charges were brought. He was facing decades in prison. And as always, prosecutors consider the next of kin in this case the parents of the girl and asked, what do you think we should do? My client wouldn't have lasted a day in prison. These people could have asked for it, and the prosecutor would have given it. Instead, they opened up their hearts. They forgave my client for what he did. They asked for leniency. And then they asked again. And they continued over the two years that I litigated this case, to continue to ask the prosecutor passionately, please show him mercy. And my client, who had never been in trouble before, who got his life in order, who finished and got his college degree and wants to serve in the Navy now, may be able to join their civil engineering program because the prosecutor reduced the charge to a mere misdemeanor. They saved his life. Now, it's not for everyone, and I'm not advocating it. I'm saying that when I see it, when I see extraordinary acts of forgiveness like that, I'm in awe. And I admire people who do it. It's been said that forgiveness does not excuse their behavior. Forgiveness prevents their behavior from destroying your heart. Okay, that's my closing argument, and I thank all of you for listening and watching. My fellow contributors, I can't thank you enough, Mark. I think the world of you, Mark Garagos, Jonas Spilbert, you guys are great. And I just feel like getting in trouble just so I can have you defend me. It would be extraordinary to have that happen. I'm gonna go be naughty this weekend. All right. Thank you for joining us, everybody, on MK Trueco Crime. Send us any story ideas, suggestions, criticism only to Garagos, not the other mark@mk true crimevilmaycare media.com that's MK True Crime. Get another pen. At Devil May Care Media. Get another pen. Ran out of ink.com thanks again for joining us. Have a wonderful weekend.