← MK True Crime
MK True Crime
Disturbing Abduction of Savannah Guthrie’s Mom, Luigi Avoids Death Penalty, and Creepy Busfield Claims Resurface, with Jennifer Coffindaffer
01:19:35
MK True Crime hosts Phil Holloway and Ashleigh Merchant join the show to discuss a Manhattan federal judge’s ruling that prosecutors would not be able to seek the death penalty at the trial of Luigi Mangione, the race between the state and feds to go to trial and why it matters who goes first, Mangione’s unexpected upcoming court appearance this week and whether or not that could signal a plea deal, a mentally ill man’s attempt to break Mangione out of jail, the resurfaced “creepy” allegations against Timothy Busfield by actress Eliza Roberts in the mid-1990’s, retired FBI agent Jennifer Coffindaffer joins Phil and Ashleigh to discuss the disturbing disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, mother of Today Show host Savannah Guthrie, the bloody crime scene left behind, whether the ransom note delivered to TMZ is real or a hoax, the FBI’s role in this investigation, what the latest Epstein files reveal about Ghislaine Maxwell and how this information will affect her plea to overturn her convi...
Loading summary
Transcript153 lines
- [00:00]
Phil Holloway
Mama quiero life on nuevo yo uno.
- [00:06]
Ashley Merchant
Iphone 17.
- [00:15]
Spanish Language Advertiser
S hinos and cuatro limias nuevas enciertos. Planes Unlimited visitanos huabla con un representant en espanol Al ocho. Cuatro, cuatro, cuatro. Sesquatro ochoci.
- [00:30]
Phil Holloway
ABC's David Muir, the most trusted anchor in America. The most watched anchor in America.
- [00:36]
Ashley Merchant
Thank you for making World News Tonight.
- [00:38]
Phil Holloway
With David Muir the number one newscast in America. Most trusted, most watched David Muir on abc. Welcome to MK True Crime. I'm Phil Holloway. I'm a criminal lawyer. I'm a former prosecutor and I'm an ex cop. I've been in and around the justice system for the better part of 40 years now. And I think I know what good true crime is when I see it. So here's what's on our MK True crime docket for today. It looks like the death penalty is off the table for accused CEO killer Luigi Mangioni in the federal case now pending in New York. We'll discuss the latest on that and why Luigi Mangioni is due back in court later this week in Manhattan. Plus, allegations continue to surface in the Timothy Busfield case. We'll bring you up to speed on actress Eliza Roberts claims from the 1980s. We'll be joined later in the show by retired FBI agent Jennifer Coffendaffer. She'll be here to discuss the disturbing disappearance of Nancy Guthrie. Nancy Guthrie, of course, being the mother of co anchor of the Today show Savannah Guthrie. We'll discuss the latest on the Epstein files release and what that means for Ghislaine Maxwell. Ashley Merchant, my co host, joins me today from Atlanta, Georgia, where she practices criminal defense. Ashley, let's start with Luigi Mangioni. As our listeners probably recall, Mangione is charged with the murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. And really what was a brazen like on the street caught on camera, brutal murder back in 2024. And late last week, actually we learned something very important. Specifically that Manhattan federal judge has ruled that prosecutors actually cannot seek the death penalty. They said that she would allow all the evidence seized from his backpack to be used. But the death penalty is off the table. And as I understand it, it's because the stalking charges, the judge said, do not meet the federal requirements for a violent crime necessary to invoke the death penalty. Ashley, can you help us make sense of what's going on in this federal case?
- [03:08]
Ashley Merchant
Yeah, definitely, Phil. There's so much going on in both of his cases, really, I mean, in his federal and his state court case, he's just got a lot of updates and then we've got updates on people trying break him out of jail. I mean, crazy stuff going on in New York. But to start with the federal case. So lucky decision, very good decision for the defense. He is not eligible for the death penalty. So basically what the judge said was that he cannot be receiving, he can't even be tried for a death eligible offense. And how it works is he was indicted on a couple different counts, he was indicted on stalking, he was indicted on a firearm account offense and also the murder case. So what happened back in the 70s when the Supreme Court said, hey, we can't have the death penalty anymore, we think it's uncommon constitutional, it violates the 8th amendment, we're not going to let you do it anymore. They then came back a year later and said, well, we're going to let you do it, but you got to have very specific statutes and those statutes have to make it what's called an individualized decision, meaning that it can't be a blanket decision. All cases that involve a rape and a murder, for example, those are death eligible. What they said was you've got to actually have aggravating factors and mitigating factors.
- [04:14]
Phil Holloway
So it can't just be, it can't just be any murder. Right. It's got to have something else to it.
- [04:20]
Ashley Merchant
Yes, it's got to be something more, you know, and what they said really was death is different. So because death is different, there's got to be a different set of rules. One of those things, Phil, for the federal case was a crime of violence. There has to be a crime of violence. And so if the murder happened while you're committing a crime of violence, that makes a lot of sense. Like if you're doing, you know, you're beating someone up, you're doing a murder, you're, you know, the homicide happens while you're in the middle of a rape, for example. That's easy. Where it's not so easy is in this case where what prosecutors said was he was in, in the middle of a crime of stalking. So the question before the judge was, is stalking really inherently a crime of violence?
- [04:56]
Phil Holloway
I can see, Let me interrupt you for that. I can, I can go ahead and see right now. In the YouTube comments to this video, we're going to hear that, you know, people who are the victims of stalking, these cases are oftentimes associated with violence. Right. So people who, let's just say that you commit an act of domestic violence, battery against Your spouse. Right. And you get out on bond and there's this condition that you, you have no contact whatsoever, but you violate that no contact provision. And in so doing, maybe you commit the separate crime of aggravated stalking in many states is. Which is what that would be. And then somebody goes and gets further attacks. So are we, are we supposed to say, all right, we look at stalking, just purely stalking, or are we, are we able to look at stalking in the context of all the other crimes that typically are associated with stalking, if that makes sense.
- [05:56]
Ashley Merchant
No, it makes perfect sense. And I think this is the problem that the judge was grappling with. And that's why she said. What did she say? Her decision was strange. And, you know, it was going to be. Going to be taken out of context. And it was really long. It was a really long decision. And, you know, they, they can decide, the state can decide, the federal prosecutors can decide to appeal it if they want. And they may do that. I mean, it was like 40 something pages, which is really long. But I think you hit the nail on the head. You know, stalking, it seems like an awful crime. It seems like a violent crime. And I'm sure we'll have a ton of comments about how atrocious it is. I know in my experience, and I'm sure you do as well, a lot of those crimes do lead to very violent crimes. The crimes of stalking, that's terrorizing. I think what this judge was looking at was if the crime of stalking in and of itself just stalking, not aggravated, not an actual, you know, act of violence beyond what Luigi Mangioni was doing in this case, if that was enough for the death penalty. And she said it's not. She said it's not enough. Now, you know, I'm sure there's a lot of different feelings when judges are ruling on the death penalty. You know, death is different for so many different reasons. You know, it's hard. It's hard when you've got a judge considering whether or not to let someone face the death penalty. I think that's got to be a really tough decision. So I think, you know, it's reasonable for a judge, especially in New York, to maybe lean on the side of leniency against the death penalty. We'll see. I don't know if they're going to appeal it or not. But you know, what else I think is interesting is in the state court, you know, they've are rushing now to have a trial in the state court.
- [07:24]
Phil Holloway
Yeah, I want to, I want to talk about that. And you mentioned. And see, here's. I'm glad you brought that up because I think that, I think that it might tie into this idea of whether federal prosecutors are going to appeal the judge's ruling in the federal case. Because of course, if they do, that delays the federal trial considerably. Right. It takes a long time for the court of appeals and potentially the Supreme Court of the United States to weigh in on criminal appeals in the federal system. And now we have the parallel, if you will, the state case, and you're by the way, in New York on that case alone, he can get up to life in prison. I think it starts at 25 years. And of course, if he's convicted of the federal offenses, notwithstanding the death penalty, he's probably going to spend the rest of his life in a federal supermax. Right. So we are just talking about legal minutia here and sort of the, the, you know, inside baseball. But as I, as I understand it, actually if New York tries him second, he, that trial might be barred by the double jeopardy clause, not of the United States Constitution, but under New York law. Is that right?
- [08:36]
Ashley Merchant
I think you have just nailed the, what they were saying in their site. They said compelling state interests. That's what the state was arguing, why they wanted to have their day in court, why they wanted the trial before the federal. They just kept saying compelling state interest. And I think you have nailed that right on the head. It's double jeopardy. And a lot of folks, double jeopardy is confusing, you know, and everybody thinks because we see it in the movies, double jeopardy means you can't be tried twice for the same crime. No, doesn't really mean that. It should mean that, but it doesn't. And the federal constitution is very different than state constitutions. So every single state has a constitution that has a double jeopardy provision in it. Then we've got the federal provision. The federal provision is a lot weaker than the state's constitution. I know that seems crazy, but the, the states have better protection. So typically, I know it's like that here in Georgia. It's like that in New. If you are tried in federal court, you cannot then be tried in state court. You'd have a very good double jeopardy claim. But if you're tried in state court, the federal system does not have that fairly good double jeopardy claim. So you could be tried twice.
- [09:36]
Phil Holloway
Well, look, so just to play devil's advocate about whether it's a good or a bad thing, what we're talking about, folks, is we're talking about something called dual sovereignty. This is A doctrine that the US Supreme Court used to explain how the federal government can prosecute someone even though the state has already prosecuted him under state law for the same events. And the example that comes to my mind, for those of us who might be old enough to remember, is the Rodney King case out from Los Angeles, where the officers were accused of severe beating and police brutality case against Rodney King. And there were some acquittals in the California court system. And the federal courts came up and said, well, we're also going to charge you now and prosecute you under federal law, and then they obtain convictions. And so people who disagreed, I guess, with that verdict were very happy to learn that the feds can still come back and prosecute someone. But here you got a case where you've got both of these things pending sort of at the same time. And if, if the feds go first, then it looks like the New York case would be out as a matter of New York State law, as opposed to vice versa. If the, if New York goes first, then the feds can still do their thing, notwithstanding any verdict that may come from New York. Did I get that right?
- [11:06]
Ashley Merchant
Right? Yeah, you did. And I think there's a lot of things going on behind the scenes here. You know, I can't help but wonder if the state prosecutors and the federal prosecutors are getting along. I mean, you've got to think the federal Prosecutors, these are U.S. attorneys, these are appointed by the executive branch. They're appointed by the president and the state. This, this DA's office is one of the ones that prosecuted Donald Trump. So I can't imagine there's a lot of cooperation there. I also can't help but wonder if the feds are worried about the state court messing it up. You know, I mean, it may be a rush to. You think about it. I mean, what if they messed up some evidence? What if, you know, what if something went wrong, a witness said the wrong thing or something? Like, what if they also had pretrial publicity? Because that's a big difference between state and federal court. You know, states allow cameras.
- [11:50]
Phil Holloway
Well, look, so we have some. The new news for today as we're recording this show is that the judge in Manhattan has summoned all the parties to come to, to the courtroom this Friday, February 6th. The notification did not include a reason for this unexpected court appearance. The prosecutors there had originally asked the judge to set a July 1st trial date. So we don't really know what this is about. And look, I'm, you know me, Ashley. We've known each Other a long time. I'm always sort of a skeptic and a little bit cynical when I see things like this pop up. Because, you know, we can always. If we. If we reach a plea deal, we can call the judge's office and we can run a case and sometimes the same day and get a plea deal done quickly before people change their mind. And so I posed the question to you and to our producers before the show is like, do you think this could possibly be maybe. Is there some kind of a plea deal in the works in Manhattan? Have you given that any thought or. I'm actually glad you come out of space here.
- [12:55]
Ashley Merchant
No, I'm so glad you asked me that, because when you asked me that earlier, I started thinking about it, and immediately I thought, yeah, that is typically what would happen. You know, this last minute, everybody come to court. Nobody's really talking about what's happening. That's typically a plea deal. But then I started thinking about who we're talking about. This guy, if you think about it, he loves the limelight. Loves it. And if he took a plea, that's all gonna go away. You know, if he goes to trial. I mean, just thinking about who he is and what we've seen from him, he plays to the cameras. He. You know, he's got what we. We have another topic talk about. He had someone trying to break him out of jail. I mean, all the theatrics that we've seen with this guy, I can't help but think he's gonna spend the rest of his life in prison, that he's one of those people that would rather spend the rest of his life thinking about a trial, dragging out a trial, having an appeal, having people write him all this stuff. If he takes a plea and goes away, he loses all his publicity. So thinking about the type of person we've seen, who he is, I can't help but think he's in this for the long haul.
- [13:54]
Phil Holloway
Well, maybe, Ashley, maybe he's counting on someone like this Mark Anderson, who you just reference. He's the guy armed with, apparently, a pizza cutter. What was it? A pizza cutter and a fork. And he. He. He literally tried to get into the federal jail in Brooklyn carrying those items and trying to. I guess they were trying to say he was trying to break Mangioni out. Now, I don't know how serious it was. He just goes in and starts throwing paperwork all around and all this. And clearly he's someone who has some type of mental health crisis. I don't think it was A serious attempt to break Mangioni out. But, hey, maybe Mangioni is delusional enough to believe that somebody is going to be his knight in shining armor and bust him right out of the jail.
- [14:40]
Ashley Merchant
I think so. And, I mean, he's getting. You know, he's got this website, he's getting all these fans, he's got online followers. Everybody's talking about him. I think he loves that. I mean, otherwise he just sits in his dreary, awful little jail cell all day with absolutely nothing going on. I can't help but think he would much rather get up and go to court, you know, be seen, have the cameras there, get to talk to his lawyer, get to leave his little dank cell. I mean, that seems like the type of person we're dealing with here. So I just can't help but think that that's what he's in it for. He's in it for the long haul. And this guy. I mean, this. This poor guy. God, why would he. Now he's facing all these charges. It sounds like he's just. He's. His lawyer said he was very alone in the world, and he's been in the system since he was 13. I mean, how did these people get drawn to Luigi Mangione? It's insane to me.
- [15:24]
Phil Holloway
Well, before we move on to talk about Timothy Busfeld, I want to circle back just for a minute to the idea of the federal prosecutor's appealing the judge's decision, possibly appealing it to reinstate the possibility of the death penalty. In order to do that, I guess what it would look like is they would just have to file a notice of appeal, and it would go to the court of appeals. Probably not the kind of thing that would get the attention of the Supreme Court ultimately. But if prosecutors decide they want to appeal that and they still want to seek the death penalty, actually, what are they going to have to show the court of appeals?
- [16:01]
Ashley Merchant
They're going to have to show that the judge got it wrong. They're going to have to show that this actually is a crime of violence. And it does justify under the statute, under the federal death penalty statute, it does actually justify a potential death sentence. And so that's, you know, they're going to have to prove that it's enough for a crime of violence. And they have these arguments regularly in federal court where they're arguing whether or not a crime is a crime of violence. We've seen it historically with immigration cases where people were being deported if they were convicted of a crime of violence. And There was a big argument, well, is this a crime of violence? I mean, DUI has been held to be a crime of violence. Misdemeanor domestic violence is a crime of violence. There's a lot of crimes that are encompassed. I mean, typically it's viewed very broadly. So typically, just about everything is a crime of violence in the federal system. So they may have a shot and I'm sure that's what they're weighing right now.
- [16:46]
Phil Holloway
All right, we'll have to wait and see. And folks, keep, keep your don't. Like we used to say, don't change that dial. I tell you how old I am. But look, make sure you subscribe on podcast and YouTube. Listen to us on Sirius XM because we're going to be following this as it works its way through the various courts, whichever court we're dealing with at any given time related to the Mangione case.
- [17:16]
English Language Advertiser
Converiz.
- [17:24]
Spanish Language Advertiser
Converison to familia d' es fruta mas pormenos.
- [17:43]
Phil Holloway
ABC's David Muir, the most trusted anchor in America. The most watched anchor in America.
- [17:48]
Ashley Merchant
Thank you for making World News Tonight.
- [17:51]
Phil Holloway
With David Muir the number one newscast in America. Most trusted, most watched. David Muir on abc.
- [17:58]
Birch Gold Group Advertiser
If you are looking to make smarter choices for your health this year, consider Riverbend Ranch. Their steaks are not only delicious, they contain real high quality protein that helps fuel your body. Beef is a complete protein and contains all nine essential amino acids that your body needs to function. It also keeps you fully fuller for longer, reducing cravings and snacking. But here's the key. Not all beef is created equal. The quality of the beef depends entirely on how it's raised and where it comes from. That's where Riverbend Ranch stands apart. For more than 35 years, Riverbend Ranch has been building an elite Black Angus herd, carefully selecting cattle for exceptional flavor and tenderness. All Riverbend Ranch cattle are born and raised right here in the usa. They never use growth hormones or antibiotics and the beef is processed at the ranch in their award winning USDA inspected facility. No shortcuts, no middlemen, just incredible healthy and flavorful beef shipped directly to your home. Order today@riverbendranch.com and use the promo code. Megan, for 20 bucks off your first.
- [18:56]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
Order.
- [18:59]
Phil Holloway
We'Ve got this Timothy Busfield case, actually that I've been wanting to talk to you about for a few days now since some. Anyway, some stuff happened and we have some new developments. But just for the audience who might need to be brought up to speed. Busfield, of course, is Charged in Albuquerque, New Mexico with two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor, one count of child abuse. The allegations come from his time as a director and producer on the series called the Cleaning lady, where he's accused of inappropriately touching twin 11 year old actors between 2022 and 2024. He was released in January of 2026 on his own recognizance, meaning he didn't have to post any kind of a bond. They just let him out on his signature. And he's free to travel at will from one state to the other. But he is required to be supervised by the pretrial release officers in New Mexico. The defense says, look, we strenuously deny these allegations. They've called these things horrible lies. His legal team argues the claims were manufactured as an act of revenge after the children were recast on the show. So I guess it's blaming the victims for having sour grapes. Sounds like following the charges, Busfield was dropped by his talent agency and he's actually, actually been edited out of scenes that have already been shot for upcoming programs. So what's going on with Busfield beyond that?
- [20:36]
Ashley Merchant
Anytime, Phil, you've got someone who has had allegations of a similar nature that span, I mean, what do they span, a decade? I think in 19. Two decades, 1994, talking two decade. That's problematic, you know, and I love to take the side of the defense, but this is a problem. I mean I. His lawyers have their work cut out for them. Anytime you've got someone who literally for the last 20 years has had allegations on and off similar allegations, allegations of, you know, sexual abuse, whether it's an adult, whether it's a child. I mean, the allegations with the Lisa Roberts who comes from a well respected family. I mean, it's Julia Roberts, sister in law, married to her brother, Emma Robertson, a long time. Yeah. Emma Roberts is her daughter. Like these are really beloved members of show business. And she's saying that he basically stalked her and harassed her. I mean, the allegations are awful, you know, that she was terrified. I don't know, I just think that's, that's a lot, that's a lot to try and outcome. It's. It's not as difficult, I don't want to say easy, but it's a lot easier to overcome one allegation of wrongdoing. But when you have multiple allegations of wrongdoing, it's kind of like what we saw in Diddy Phil. You know, people just keep coming out of the woodwork and it's like, you know, you can, you can disprove one allegation, but how do you disprove 20?
- [21:46]
Phil Holloway
Well, normally the rule of law, the general rule is that we, we don't prosecute people on the basis of whatever their, you know, general bad character might be. We don't prosecute them for things they're accused of doing today, for things that they may have done in the past. But there are some exceptions to that. And a lot of these exceptions we find in these, in, in sex cases. Right. And in this particular instance, we have Roberts stating that back in. Oh, gosh, she gave a deposition in 1994 and she gave a deposition. This is after Busfield was in the headlines back then when a 17 year old girl accused him of sexual harassment on the set of Little Big League. You know, I, we can't go through that whole deposition, but one thing that stood out to me that was in this deposition that's recently been resurfaced, I guess. She says that she met him in a children's bookstore in Santa Monica. She sort of knew him, they'd met a few times. So they began chatting and she said, quote, we started to talk about our kids. And he was very, you know, the concerned father type person. He started to talk to me about marriage and passion and sex and divorce. And then he wanted to compliment me. She goes on to say that he, Busfield started to say how he was attracted to her. She said kind of like, thanks for the compliments, see you later. Went out to the car, put her keys in the ignition. When she went to turn around to pull out of the space, he was right there in her window, she says, and he started speaking to her, according to her. But this was under oath. So, you know, it's not like it's just some random statement. It's something she said under penalty of perjury. She said that he got very graphic and he would say things regarding how much he, let's just say, would have enjoyed performing oral sex on her. And I'll just leave it at that. The deposition is a little bit more graphic, but we don't need to. I think that makes the point. But if you have this kind of allegation going back this many years, the idea is where there's smoke, there's gotta be some fire, right?
- [23:56]
Ashley Merchant
Right. Well, definitely. And how she came about to talk about this all of a sudden. She said she saw the, you know, women talking about allegations of abuse and them being called liars and she felt like they deserved support and cooperation. She wanted to tell them that the same thing happened to her essentially and just felt compelled to do that. She said she talked to her husband, she talked to her lawyer about it and really just decided to come forward. I thought it was interesting though. So no charges were filed and you got to think this is back in the 90s, you know, things have definitely changed with how we prosecute crimes. You know, when charges are filed. It used to be driven much more by the person who actually called the police, if they called the police. It's not so these days. But back in the 90s, no charges were filed but she settled out of court, which I'm curious about that and I know that's going to have to be something that's, you know, privileged or something that's secret, but settled out of court. A six figure sum was offered at the start of the mediation. So she sued him over this. This is a civil case. There's definitely a civil settlement. You know, I thought that was really interesting that they didn't call the police. That sort of to me weighs against her allegations and actually weigh for him because why would she sue him civilly but not call the police?
- [25:08]
Phil Holloway
You're talking about the, I guess you're Talking about the 17 year old accuser because the, the Roberts deposition was in the context of that 17 year old accuser, I believe.
- [25:19]
Ashley Merchant
Yes.
- [25:19]
Phil Holloway
And and so, you know, look a lot of different ways to think about this. On the one hand, there's so much of this type of assault that is never reported to police because it continues to traumatize victims to have to, to go through it again. Now that is, is sort of cut, you cut against that argument when you nevertheless bring a civil claim because you're still going through a court process. And so, you know, people will say, well, you're just in it for the money. And you know, if this were a one off, if this were like the only time ever that anybody had ever made this kind of accusation, it would be easier to kind of discount that. But when you start looking at this instance followed by this other instance, followed by the next one, followed by what we have now.
- [26:10]
Ashley Merchant
Oh yeah.
- [26:11]
Phil Holloway
What you see is, you see this lifetime, decades worth of these sexual allegations that, that have some similarity in this in particular. How, you know, Roberts would describe that similar similarity as being Busfield's alleged fixation on oral sex. And so you put all that together and like you mentioned, his lawyers do have their work cut out for them because the prosecutors in New Mexico, they're going to try to use as much of this as they possibly Can. To show that he was predisposed to commit this kind of crime.
- [26:46]
Ashley Merchant
Yeah, and it's allowed. I mean, in, in sex cases, it's allowed. It's really, it's what we call propensity evidence. And you and I both know it's. It's, it's. Unfortunately for the defense, it's allowed in these types of cases, fortunately for the state, because it does help fill in any gaps, any credibility issues. When you've got strength in numbers is really what, what it comes down to. You know, the more allegations there are, the more likely that someone is to believe that it happened. And that makes, that makes sense. That's human nature. You know, if someone has never done anything wrong before and you can come into court and say, oh, my God, he is a perfect gentleman, he's never even been fresh with me, or whatever the lingo is these days, if he says that, then you're more likely to believe that someone's making it up. But if you have, you know, 10, 15, 20 witnesses, women who are coming and saying, he did some bad things to me, you know, he did illegal things, he did criminal things, he did creepy things, you know, whatever it is, scary things that really lends credibility to every single one of their voices.
- [27:40]
Phil Holloway
Well, the verdict in that case remains to be seen, and it's quite some distance off in the future, but we, we, we have a verdict now. In the au pair murder trial, Brendan Banfield found guilty on all charges. This is something that we talked about with Vinnie Politin on our last show. Ashley, let's go ahead and roll SOT1, which is the guilty verdict, and then we'll talk briefly about it.
- [28:03]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
We, the jury on the issue, join. In the case of the Commonwealth of Virginia vs. Brendan Robert Banfield, defendant. Find the defendant guilty of aggravated murder of Joseph Ryan and Christine Banfield as part of the same act or transaction.
- [28:20]
Ashley Merchant
That moment. Never. It's never easy getting a verdict, no matter what side you're on. I mean, I'm really curious, Phil, what's going to happen with the au pair? Is she out already? I mean, I know that the deal was she testifies and she gets out. So we going to see her walking the street? She going to start doing interviews?
- [28:35]
Phil Holloway
Yeah, you know, that's, you know, Vinnie was saying when he, he was on our show. Vinnie Politen, the lead anchor at Court tv, was with us last show. He said that, you know, she was pled guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter. And the deal was, you know, she's going to get out on time served after the trial. And a lot of people may think, well, that's just not fair. But look, sometimes prosecutors have to make hard decisions. Sometimes they have to cut someone what may be a sweetheart deal so that they can get a conviction with respect to someone that they believe to be more culpable. And in fact, speaking of culpability, so Banfield, remember he was accused of catfishing this guy, the victim, Joseph Ryan, on a fetish website going so far as luring him to the home, shooting him, and then stabbing his wife. Right. And so there's also a child endangerment charge because this all happened in the presence, I guess, or while their four year old daughter was at least present in the home. Banfield's facing a mandatory life sentence, though we know he's not going anywhere anytime soon. So anyway, that's that. Next up, we'll be joined by retired FBI agent Jennifer Coffendaffer. She's joining us to discuss the mysterious disappearance of Nancy Guthrie, who, as of this taping, is still missing in Arizona. Stay tuned.
- [30:08]
English Language Advertiser
Converizan nos y vamos cuatro iPhone 17.
- [30:11]
Phil Holloway
Sin intercambio todos vamos estrenar iPhone Hi.
- [30:14]
Spanish Language Advertiser
Termino arrando converizon to familia dis fruta mas Pormenos Yevate Cuatro iPhone 17S Hinosa Nesacit Intercambio con cuatro linehas nuevas enciertos Planes Unlimited visitanos huabla con un representant en espanyol a locho. Cuatro. Cuatro. Cuatro Seis. Cuatro Ocho sieto nove seis seplicantermiros. Additionales of Verizon Punto compara de Taylor.
- [30:34]
English Language Advertiser
Dermatologists have long highlighted the benefits of indoor humidity for healthy, glowing skin. Dry air can start damaging your skin in just 30 minutes. That's where Canopy humidifier comes in. Recommended by leading dermatologists. The canopy humidifier is a completely reimagined humidifier with invisible clean moisture. The best kind for your skin. Go to GetCanopy Co to save $25 on your purchase today with Canopy's filter subscription. Even better, use code serious to save an additional 10% off your canopy purchase. Your skin will thank you.
- [31:04]
Birch Gold Group Advertiser
Ever been in a bad relationship? You know, the kind that just wears you down. You settle in, even though deep down you know this is not how it's supposed to be. Well, that's what daily aches and pains can feel like. You stop expecting to feel good. You start thinking, maybe this is Just my life now. But it doesn't have to be with relief actor. You can break up with pain just like Anthony did. He wrote, quote, I was dealing with debilitating pain and fatigue and I've been taking relief factor for about two months and now I'm back to running my business, fishing, gardening and doing the things that really matter to me. And listen, maybe it's your back pain, knee issues or stiffness that's slowing you down. Relief factor might help give you your mobility back. Relief factor is 100% drug free and it targets the inflammation that causes pain so you can move better, feel better and actually enjoy life again. Try the three week quick start for just 1995. Go to relieffactor.com or call 800 for relief break up with pain and get back to what matters.
- [32:05]
Ashley Merchant
Welcome back to MK True Crime. The Today show's co anchor Savannah Guthrie's mother, Nancy Guthrie is believed to have been abducted from her home in Arizona outside of Tucson. As of this taping, she is still missing. And retired FBI agent Jennifer Coffendaffer joins us to discuss the latest details and more. Welcome, Jennifer.
- [32:24]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
Thank you so much for having me.
- [32:25]
Ashley Merchant
Thanks for coming. Well, I am very curious about, I know that you've been following this Nancy Guthrie abduction. I know that we've been getting some updates recently. Maybe a ransom note. Can you fill us in on what's going on?
- [32:38]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
Well, there is so much new information going on. First of all, now that they have cleared the crime scene, we're actually able to see the blood spatter or I should say droplets, it's probably more accurate in the front part of that doorway area. And that is really concerning. I believe that's likely part of the DNA that would have been sent for testing. In addition, we're seeing that the door ring camera is removed. We don't know whether that was because crime scene specialists removed that or whether it was removed before they arrived, but I think that could be a major clue. And then now there's also this ransom note that TMZ is reporting now. I really, I give pause as to the validity of this ransom note. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I could actually read part of the note as they held it up and talked about it to the public. But the authorities have acknowledged receiving it and they're going to look into it.
- [33:41]
Ashley Merchant
Okay. So you could read part of it. I get it. It's kind of like when, when something is redacted and I'm holding it up to the light trying to read it. What Were you able to make out out?
- [33:49]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
I was actually able to make out the telephone number.
- [33:52]
Ashley Merchant
Wow.
- [33:53]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
So, yeah, it goes back to British Columbia.
- [33:56]
Ashley Merchant
Oh, my gosh.
- [33:57]
Phil Holloway
Well, you know, Jennifer, look, when you go. You were the FBI. I'm one of my. In another lifetime. I was a. I worked in law enforcement myself. And, you know, when I see people just basically strolling around, you know, these crime scenes, it makes me question, you know, what are they doing to protect the integrity of the scene. You're talking about the video, and I think we're showing some of that here on the screen of some of these blood drops. And I agree with you, it doesn't look like splatter, it just more looks like drops. Which, you know, to me that would suggest someone who's like, you know, literally just dripping blood as opposed to someone who's bleeding more severely than that. So clearly it suggests someone was injured and taken from the home. But I'm wondering, are we going to have a problem with the integrity of this crime scene now that there's so many people that are having access to it?
- [34:55]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
Well, I am concerned about that. I found it very interesting that only after about a day and a half, they released the crime scene to the family. So at the point that that's done, we all know the integrity of that crime scene and any investigation thereafter is pretty much over. So I, I agree with you. I think I would have kept that crime scene longer, but they said they were finished.
- [35:17]
Ashley Merchant
Yeah, it sounds like they're. They're pretty convinced that it's a crime scene. I think we've got sought two, which is the sheriff telling everyone that it is actually a crime scene.
- [35:24]
Phil Holloway
It was around noon yesterday, we got a call to the Guthrie residents that Nancy Guthrie, 84 years old, was missing. We saw some things at the home that were concerning to us. We believe now after we process that crime scene, that we do in fact have a crime scene, that we do in fact have a crime. And we're asking the community's help.
- [35:56]
Ashley Merchant
To awful.
- [35:57]
Phil Holloway
And, you know, one of the questions I've got coming out and see one thing they said at that presser, and this is. Whoever wants to answer this is just a roundtable discussion here. But look, they said that she, Nancy Guthrie, had no sort of cognitive issues. You know, she's in her 80s, right. But she could not walk 50 yards on her own. And there was some medication that she needs to take within 24 hours basically to keep her alive, is how I understood it. So do we know what this physical disability is that Basically affected her mobility so much.
- [36:35]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
Well, what I'm making out is that at 84 years old, she just had issues walking. She did use a cane. And in addition, I could see in the photos of her that she has that paper thin skin and a lot of bruising that is usually comes with using a blood thinner like Coumadin. Then we know she has a pacemaker. And typically people on pacemakers also use blood thinners. So I believe that it had to do with that. Just her age of physical immobility combined with her heart condition.
- [37:09]
Ashley Merchant
Yeah, probably frailty is what I was thinking, you know, And I mean 50, 50ft I think is what they said was about her max. So, you know, I wonder how they, whoever it was that did this was able to get her out of the house. And what, you know, really happened because she does have those mobility issues. So just. It's just awful thinking about someone's grandmother going through this.
- [37:29]
Phil Holloway
New York Post is reporting that the blood was found along signs of forced entry and a struggle in the house. And to your point, Jennifer, about the ring camera. So to me what I can see is, you know, the forced entry and all that. I can see maybe the police arriving and the ring camera having been taken. Right. So I could be wrong. We don't know if it was taken by police as evidence or if it was taken by the bad guys or guy, whoever they are. But normally when police process a ring camera, they don't need to remove the device to get to the images that it's recorded. So to me, I think that might be part of the signs of forced entry and struggle.
- [38:19]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
Yeah, I think that you could very well be on point there. I do know that some ring cameras apparently have some hard drives in those camera mechanisms. I was just kind of reviewing all of this. We don't know exactly what model she had or what year, But I tell you what, it is so significant if they indeed in, in other words, the bad guys, if they took that, because that tells me it was much more planned and more organized than just a crime of passion that took took place.
- [38:49]
Ashley Merchant
That's what Phil and I were talking about earlier with the. The fact that they asked for bitcoin in the ransom. What, I mean, does that give any indication about what this is, about what this kidnapping might be, either of y'?
- [39:00]
Birch Gold Group Advertiser
All?
- [39:00]
Ashley Merchant
It's.
- [39:00]
Phil Holloway
It definitely sounds to me like it's either. Look, if I just had to take a scientific wild ass guess right now, it would be that. Okay, my, my thoughts go two places. One now, since they're close to the border. Could this be some type of a cartel abduction? Okay, that's number one. Maybe it is, maybe it's not. It's worth looking into. Maybe the other thing is that this whole bitcoin piece of it, you know that that's bullshit, right? It's. I think that asking for bitcoin is a bit. You just. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. That. And plus it came so late. We're a couple of days into this. Now. Normally you're going to provide proof of life and you're going to say unless you pay me in money or bill, whatever, pay my ransom, you won't ever see her alive again or something like that. So they've waited a couple of days. So I'm just thinking that this, what TMZ is reporting about this ransom might be a hoax.
- [39:59]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
Yeah, I couldn't agree with you more. It does not make any sense to me. It's far too late for a ransom. The fact that they would send it to tmz, it just doesn't make any sense. And so I think that that's going to fare it out to probably be a big nothing. But having said that, law enforcement has got some clues in the note, right? They supposedly explained what she was wearing and. And some destruction that was at the house and gave some details. So they're going to see if any of that matches up. But I don't know. I'm not smelling that this is legitimate.
- [40:32]
Ashley Merchant
It's like, what is next in an investigation like this? I mean, we know that, you know, FBI is going to consult with the local law enforcement. I mean, what is next that they look at?
- [40:41]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
Well, what they need to look at and get their hands on. And today in the presser, they made it very clear that they don't have much of this. And that's video. It seems to me from what they're saying that the providers haven't provided a lot of it and that that could be a problem. He didn't want to blame anybody, but we see that all the time. But these are accident exigent cases. Usually in a situation like this with the Bureau, we could ask for it, get it overnighted right away or sent to us Electron, and then later on follow up with that warrant. So it's really an exigent situation. I can't imagine. And I'm glad the Bureau's finally on board because they just have the manpower, they have the number of analysts to sit there and stare at a screen minute after minute and look for video evidence of anybody in that neighborhood. And a car. What about the car? You couldn't have just walked out of this neighborhood with her? There has to be a video vehicle.
- [41:39]
Ashley Merchant
Yeah. Every case I have now has videos.
- [41:42]
Phil Holloway
Can you talk to us about what a, what like a, like a geo fence is and how that might play into this investigation?
- [41:50]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
I'm so glad you mentioned it because that's another big piece and another reason I think the bureau is involved in this. And just in layman's terms, basically, they're going to be able to look at what cell phones were being used in and around that house during the time frame. And we have a time frame. It's going to be very near 2 in the morning because that's when her pacemaker disconnected from the Apple watch, which typically happens due to distance. Right. A distance disparagement.
- [42:18]
Phil Holloway
I think it's Bluetooth.
- [42:20]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
Yeah. So as soon as she's taken, that cuts off. So we have the time frame. So that's. They need to be getting that geofence right away.
- [42:29]
Phil Holloway
Well, you know, the neighbors also, like most people have some type of video around their house these days. Days, maybe 90%, whatever. But so the neighbors, I mean normally they would cooperate. Law enforcement would canvass the neighborhood. They go door to door saying, hey, can we check your security cameras? And most people will cooperate. Right. These are like, oh my God, my neighbor's missing. How can I help? I know in my neighborhood when there's any vandalism, we have this mass email that starts going around. Everybody pulls their video and we start sharing it with ourselves. And so they're doing the same thing. Undoubtedly there's cooperation. I just don't understand what would be taking so long assuming there is that cooperation.
- [43:15]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
I think from the legal standpoint, of course, as you know, is it's fine if somebody wants to turn it over, but you got to make sure that legally all of that is lined up, that you have the proper warrant for that information. In other words, somebody house that, you know, you keep your chain of custody squared away. And so. But I agree with you just even being able to go in there and view it in the presence of the individual while you get that warrant. And what you need to get to ring is critical because those, I mean, look at how long they took. It was 11 o' clock till this was reported. She was last seen around 9:45 that evening. 2 o' clock likely is when she was abducted. My gosh, that's just an eternal enforcement.
- [44:01]
Ashley Merchant
She could be in another country by Now, I mean, it's just so long. It's so sad.
- [44:06]
Phil Holloway
Well, look, we all pray for a happy result. In the picture we're showing on the screen now, you can see that cane that Jennifer was talking about there. And so, yeah, you can see the mobility problems. And every minute that goes by is just absolutely critical. Unfortunately, you know, I think the statistics are not good once you get past a day or so. The sheriff has essentially said we are processing a crime scene now. We're not working on any kind of search and recovery. So nevertheless, whatever happened, this crime needs to be solved. And I have every confidence that the local law enforcement with their federal partners will get this thing solved. We could know something in a matter of a day or two as far as what actually happened to her.
- [44:59]
Ashley Merchant
Yeah, hopefully.
- [45:00]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
I hope so.
- [45:01]
Ashley Merchant
So we wanted to talk to you also about one of everyone's favorite topics, the Epstein file release. Ms. Maxwell has back in the news. So just a reminder for everyone listening. Giselle Maxwell was found guilty in December of 2020 one of five of six counts, including sex trafficking of a minor. She's essentially serving a 20 year sentence in federal prison. But recently she filed a habeas, which gives us some new tidbits. So she's back in the news for a couple reasons. One of them is she filed this habeas which had some interesting things I want to talk about in a minute where she's saying that 29 something people had some secret settlements. And so we want to get your thoughts on that. And then also some of the Epstein files that have been released are giving us a little bit more insight into her role and just how elaborate her role was and everything that was going on. So want to get your thoughts on that? If we could just start with, you know, these new files that are released every day. We get a little bit of additional tidbits from the Epstein files.
- [45:58]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
Right. Three million tidbits. Right. There's so much to go through, so much video. Unless you have a huge staff to go through this, it's just almost impossible to get through. But of course, different people, different things are coming out. And for me, one of the things that I've just never been able to wrap my head around is why Ghislaine? I'm sorry, I always say that wrong. It's Ghislaine why I want to say it. A fanatic White Lane Maxwell has had such, let's just call it, kid glove treatment. And I understand if they're working a deal with her. I mean, we do that all the Time and we offer up things but the carts before the horse here. I want to see some charges. I want to see people being arrested. I want to see some proof in the pudding. Instead, we get the treat before we get what she did.
- [46:59]
Ashley Merchant
Right. And you're talking about her prison conditions. I mean, she's in a, you know, fancy prison, got moved from the one that she was in that was already kind of fancy. I mean, she's definitely getting some better treatment than the typical sex trafficker who's serving 20 years in a federal prison. Definitely getting that. So you think that she's giving some insider information and helping the government still?
- [47:17]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
I mean, that's the only reason that they moved her from Florida to this. Basically a boot camp in Bryant that has virtually no security and, you know, service dogs and meals and all these special accommodations for her. But again, that's nothing you typically do in advance of help.
- [47:40]
Phil Holloway
You do it, you know, senior. Senior officials from the Justice Department went down and sat down with her, and I presumably did some kind of a proffer or a debrief where, you know, maybe she spilled her guts as to what she might know. And then almost immediately, within matter of days or so, she. She gets these. These better. This better treatment. Right. And you juxtapose that with what we're seeing now, which is that she was much more sort of involved and sort of like closer to the actual Epstein trafficking operation. There was a deposition that she gave back in 2015, and now we've got some video that's been released from this, and I want to show it in a second. But. But my take on it is that you can see from this video that she. She seems to be sort of not completely forthcoming. And. And she. If. If this is what her cooperation turns out to look like now, she certainly doesn't need the special treatment. Let's go with sat three, which is her deposition from 2015, when she was asked if Epstein had a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual massages.
- [48:59]
Ashley Merchant
As far as I'm aware, a professional masseuse showed up for a massage. There is nothing inappropriate or incorrect about that. And your mischaracterisation of it, I think, is unfortunate. Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls to use them for purposes of sexual massages?
- [49:20]
Phil Holloway
Objective form and foundation.
- [49:23]
Ashley Merchant
Can you ask me again, please? Sure. Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to.
- [49:26]
Birch Gold Group Advertiser
Recruit underage girls to use them for sexual massages?
- [49:29]
Phil Holloway
Objective form of foundation.
- [49:33]
Ashley Merchant
Can I ask it a different way? Did Jeffrey Epstein have a scheme to recruit underage girls? For sexual massages.
- [49:43]
Phil Holloway
Objective form of the foundation, if you know.
- [49:46]
Ashley Merchant
So I. I don't know what you're talking about.
- [49:49]
Phil Holloway
All right, so she didn't want to answer that question. It's obvious. But here's for our audience, for people who may not be attorneys, another thing that strikes me as very unusual about this deposition. There's no judge. There's no judge in a deposition. And so objections can be made to the form of the question, but there's nobody there to rule on it. And what you're doing is you're preserving that in case that video deposition gets played for a jury, in which case the judge would rule on it, but the witness still has to go on and answer the question. And so it's going to become part of the record. And so you saw this lawyer objecting to this question, which is a very reasonable question. It really goes to the heart of the matter. The lawyer would large pose this objection. And it's like the other lawyer asking the question almost like gave in. I would have just said, okay, your lawyers made the objection. Now you answer my question. But that never happened. And so it's almost like she kind of got off the hook and weaseled out of having to. To give some straight answer. Now, if she's ever called upon to testify for the government, she damn well better be more forthcoming than that. That's all I got to say.
- [51:01]
Ashley Merchant
Oh, yeah, she looked awful in that.
- [51:04]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
Yeah. And not just that, all these deposition tapes. I mean, she lied. I believe she actually pled guilty or, I'm sorry, was found guilty of lying, as I recall. Isn't there a false statement charged that she was. So, I mean, you have to consider that when you have a crime of moral turpitude, they call it. You know, you can be a drug slinger and you can be a murderer, but are you a liar? Have you done something that's fraudulent? And whenever you put somebody up on the stand who is a proven liar, it just completely. They have no credibility. And she has no credibility. So you have to consider that when making a deal with a devil. And she's the devil. Look, she was right in the middle of all of this with Epstein. In fact, in my opinion, no worse than Epstein. And it's really amazing that she's getting such a pass like she's getting right now, Jennifer.
- [51:58]
Phil Holloway
Speaking of deals, Ashley mentioned a few minutes ago that. But you know, Maxwell is still trying to put all. She's still trying to win her legal case, and now she's trying to do it by way of a habeas corpus petition, which is a collateral attack on the conviction. And she says in her habeas petition, let's see, there's four named co conspirators and 25 men with what she says are secret settlements, whatever that means. And they were not indicted as part of the investigation. And it's not clear who those 29 individuals referenced in the petition are. So the question that that raises for me is who. Who did they make? Besides who are they? Who did they make a deal with? I mean, is this some kind of a. Was there a civil claim against Epstein or against Maxwell, against the estate? Both. Or was this some kind of deal made with the government not to prosecute these people if they maybe kept their mouth shut or. Or something else? I'm very concerned about these, if this is true, these secret settlements. And look, I don't always believe Ghislaine Maxwell, and I don't always believe what lawyers put in pleadings either. But the fact that a lawyer put this in a pleading does give it to me some, I guess, extra weight that it might be, might have some truth to it, because lawyers can face serious repercussions for stating things in legal pleadings that aren't true. So I'm very concerned about these alleged secret settlements.
- [53:33]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
Yeah, no, I agree with you, but show me the money. Where are they? A settlement takes the form of paperwork and goes through a legal process. Where, where is this? Like you said, is this in some sort of civil judgment? Is this in sort of some sort of plea arrangement with the government? I want to see the proof in the pudding before I give it too much weight. But I agree with you, boy, if you're a lawyer and you're going to write that down, you better have proof of that.
- [54:03]
Ashley Merchant
Yeah, well, she's testifying next week on February 9, she's supposed to at least supposed to testify in front of the House Oversight Committee. Now it's a closed session, but they finally got her lined up to do a virtual deposition. Everyone thinks she's going to plead the Fifth. That's what's expected because she had some wild demands for immunity. But I wonder if they're going to ask, ask her about these 29 co conspirators because, you know, she can plead a fifth to things that are incriminating to her. But if she's got knowledge about someone else having a deal, I mean, I would make an argument that that's not pleading the Fifth because it doesn't tend to implicate herself. If she's got Knowledge about these secret deals. So curious if they're going to press on this at all and if we'll get any more information about this testimony.
- [54:43]
Phil Holloway
Well, it's going to be in a secret hearing. I mean this is, this, you know, we were, we were, we've talked about this the other day with this nonsense with the secret courts out in Idaho. Now we got, you know, the secret testimony. And this is something that's always bugged me. These closed, you know, they hype these hearings and then they do it behind closed doors and don't tell you what the hell anybody says. But what won't be secret is when she has a hearing on her habeas petition. She's made claims, she's going to have to put up or shut up. And her lawyers, by the way, are going to put up or shut up about these so called secret settlements. I don't know when that hearing might be, but you know, we'll find out soon enough. I guess it's going to be now that she's where she is, she's in Texas. So if she files a habeas, I guess it would have to be in a Texas federal court.
- [55:31]
Ashley Merchant
Yeah, yeah. And she, she can petition for a hearing and they may just give her a hearing. You know, it's up to the federal government if they want to give her a hearing or not. And that is something that she could definitely argue at that point. You know, I'm curious what her demands for immunity were at this, this point. Testifying in front of a special, you know, a special House oversight. I mean she doesn't exactly have a lot of room to, to a lot of bargaining power here to make any demands of this committee. But I guess that's her prerogative.
- [55:56]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
No bargaining power, no credibility. Nope where we're at all she. Yeah, but she's got a service dog in prison, so.
- [56:02]
Ashley Merchant
Oh my God. Yeah, no credibility at all. Now she's, she's, I think you, you tweeted it. I mean she's living like the queen. She's the jailhouse queen. She definitely is. Well, thank you, Jennifer. Thank you so much for joining us today. It's been great. Next up, we have your mail and our closing arguments. But remember, we want to hear from you. So please email us your comments, your questions, your story suggestions, things you want us to look into@mktruecrimelmaycaremedia.com we'll be right back.
- [56:30]
Spanish Language Advertiser
Mama quiero life un nuevo yo uno.
- [56:35]
English Language Advertiser
Verizon nos y vamos cuatro.
- [56:36]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
IPhone 17 sin intercambio todos vamos estrenar.
- [56:39]
Spanish Language Advertiser
Iphone hi termino arrando converizon to familia de frutamas Pormenos yeva cuatro iPhone 17s hinosa nes acit intercambio con cuatro lineas nuevas enciertos Planes Unlimited Visitanos. Additionales Visit Dermatologists have long highlighted the.
- [57:02]
English Language Advertiser
Benefits of indoor humidity for healthy, glowing skin. Dry air can start damaging your skin skin in just 30 minutes. That's where Canopy Humidifier comes in. Recommended by leading dermatologists. The Canopy humidifier is a completely reimagined humidifier with invisible clean moisture. The best kind for your skin. Go to GetCanopy Co to save $25 on your purchase today with Canopy's Filter subscription. Even better, use Code Serious to save an additional 10% off your canopy purchase. Your skin will thank you International Disputes.
- [57:32]
Birch Gold Group Advertiser
Inflation Rising national debt Digital currency There is a never ending list of reasons that gold has risen over 700% in the last 20 years. And a never ending list of reasons smart Americans diversify a portion of their savings into precious metals with Birch Gold Group. Gold can thrive during uncertainty, which is why it's a crucial part of a balance strategy. It gives you peace of mind given all the events that could impact the US Economy. See if holding gold in a tax sheltered retirement account is right for you. Birch Gold can help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold. Just text MK to the number 989-898 to receive your free info kit on Gold. There's no obligation, just useful information with an A plus rating from the Better Business Bureau and tens of thousands of happy customers. Consider letting Birchgold help you diversify with Gold so you too can have peace of mind regardless of the uncertainty. Text MK to the number 989898.
- [58:31]
Phil Holloway
Welcome back to MK True Crime. Ashley and I are going to get get to our closing arguments in just a few minutes. But first, and this actually this is something that I've been wanting to get into on this show ever since we started MK True Crime last August. You and I go back a long way and we have done a lot together in the media. Cases and things have just sort of intersected in our legal lives. And one of them is is what we had a request about. We have a request from Darla who emailed to the show and she says this. She says I love all the MK True Crime contributors. Love the podcast. Listen to each episode before any of my other subscriptions. But of course I have favorites, and they are Phil and Ashley, likely because I became acquainted with them during the Tara Grinstead investigation. Please, please, please, can the two of you discuss this case during an episode? I would love it so much. Well, today is your lucky day, Darla, because that's what we're going to do. And honestly, you know, actually, I don't know that there's anybody that knows this case better than you and me and maybe just a small handful of other people I can think about. So, look, I'm just going to give a little background and I'm going to let you kind of take it away. But for those of you who are not familiar with the Tara Grinstead case, Tara Faye Grinstead was a 30 year old high school history teacher and former beauty queen from the small, small town of Ocilla, Georgia in Irwin County. She disappeared from her home on October 22, 2005. She was last seen attending a beauty pageant and then a barbecue the following evening on October 24, when she failed to show up for work at the school. Police found her cell phone in her house along with her car outside, but no signs of forcible entry or apparent signs of a struggle. Her person or keys were, however, missing. She was later declared dead in absentia in 2010. And in a sense, her body has never been found. At least not exactly. The case remained unsolved for over a decade, with the the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, the gbi, pursuing leads, including DNA found on a latex glove found in her yard. But there were no early breakthroughs. Now let me pause right there. Parenthetically, the people that were, we know, involved in this and were the team of killers were their information and the exact scenario was actually in the GBI files as early as, you know, a couple of months back. It was in 2005, shortly after her disappearance. But despite that, they. They missed it. And there were no early breakthroughs. And this disappearance garnered significant national attention, including a 2008 episode of CBS 48 Hours Mystery. However, public and investigative interest exploded in 2016 and 2017 due to season one of the A true crime podcast called up and Vanished, of which I was a contributor and Ashley was also a regular guest. It was hosted by my friend, filmmaker Payne Lindsay. The podcast re examined the cold case in detail. It's said to have generated new tips and reignited scrutiny. A lot of scrutiny was aimed at the gbi, by the way. Some officials and some people credited the media, in particular that podcast, with contributing to the breakthroughs and the 2017 arrest. Because in February of 2017, based on a tip linked to that renewed interest, Ryan Alexander Duke, a former student of Tara Grinstead's, was arrested and he was charged with her murder. He initially confessed to breaking into her home to steal money, striking her during a confrontation, thereby causing her death, and disposing of her body with the help from his friend Bo Dukes, no relation to Ryan, who allegedly burned it on a pecan farm. Some say pecan, I say pecan, but nevertheless, that's where this whole thing ended. And Bo Dukes was arrested shortly after for concealing her death, hindering apprehension of a felon, and tampering with evidence. Now, Bo Dukes was tried in 2019. He was convicted of covering up the murder. That's called concealing a death, tampering with evidence. And he was sentenced to 25 years in prison. Now here we get to Ryan Duke, who, as you'll find out in a moment, turned out to be Ashley Merchant's client. His murder trial began in May 2022. After various delays at the trial, Duke recanted his confession on the stand. He claimed that he falsely admitted guilt to protect Bo Dukes and that Bo was the actual killer. On May 20, 2022, the jury acquitted him of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, and burglary. The jury did, however, find him guilty of concealing a death for which he received the maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. The current status of this, as of 2026, nobody has been convicted of directly murdering Tara Grinstead. Both men are in prison serving their original sentences for concealment related crimes. Bo Duke's 25 years, and Ryan Duke, 10 years. Now, this is where Ashley is going to really be able to break some news and give us the. The most recent information here, because In February of 2025, a court of appeals in Georgia threw out some additional pending charges against both of them in a related case in the next door county of Ben Hill. Ben Hill County, Georgia, is situated next door to Irwin county in South Georgia. The court of appeals ruled the prosecution had waited too long and the statute of limitations barred the prosecution of both of those defendants in Ben Hill County. But it did not impact their other convictions. The case remains one of Georgia's most notorious, arguably unsolved homicides in in terms of the killer's identity. But actually, I think I know who really killed Tara Grinstead. I think you know who you think really killed Tara Grinstead. So drum roll please. Who do you think killed Tara Grinstead?
- [65:20]
Ashley Merchant
Bo Dukes. And I think the jury knew who killed Tara Grinstead. That was clear. So I'M going to catch everyone up on what's happening now, you know, since the. But I think it's ironic that how I got involved in that case was you were doing that podcast, and so it sort of piqued my interest. I was curious about it, and we started chatting about it, as we often do when there's crimes in the. In the news. And we looked at the indictment and we were talking about the confession. And I came on and I did an episode with you, and I did it with pain. And Ryan's family then reached out afterwards and said, hey, can we talk to you? And I went down and I met Ryan, and I tell you, I. I spent the entire car ride home because he was about three or four hours from me. I spent the entire car ride home trying to convince my husband that we needed to take Ryan's case because we did it for free. We did it pro bono. But I believe that strongly in what he was saying. And one of the key issues in that case was false confession. So I'm glad Darla asked about this. I hope we get the chance to do a whole episode on it, because honestly, 10 minutes, an hour, it's never going to be enough. This is the largest case file in GBI history, and GBI is like the Georgia version of the FBI. It was just. I mean, it's insane how many leads and things happened in this case and how many little holes that you can go down, but just to catch everyone up from where you left off, Phil. After we got the verdict in Irwin county, so where Ryan was tried for the murder of Tara Grinstead, after we got that not guilty verdict, the DA, literally, from the courthouse, called the clerk in the adjoining county. So the state believed that Tara, she went missing from her home, but her remains were found in another county. So they didn't know what happened in the first county. They still, I don't think, knows what happens in that first county, but they knew where her. Her remains ended up. But what they did was they went on what they thought happened in that first county and tried Irwin County. Yeah. Talking about Irwin County. So this. This adjoining county, Irwin County. They tried Irwin, and they tried Ryan in Irwin County. He was acquitted. And so the DA Calls that other county and says, hey, I need a grand jury, because they. The statute's about to run on this case. Meanwhile, the statute had run long before, but so basically the. The worst case of sour grapes. And we talked about double jeopardy earlier. They go and they indict him in the next county over for however they could come up with language to try to indict him.
- [67:35]
Phil Holloway
Actually, let me interrupt you, but as I recall now, because I was in the courtroom for that whole trial, too. Right. Yeah, I remember very clearly. In closing, the prosecutor said to the jury that. And this is after your client Ryan had testified. The. The Prosecutor said that, Mr. Duke, you're only. You're only up here admitting to your role in this. That what you say your role is, because you know that the. We. We can't prosecute you anymore in Ben Hill county based on the statute of limitations. But lo and behold, right after the verdict, they go back and they do that very thing, or they try to until you beat that at the court of appeal.
- [68:13]
Ashley Merchant
Oh, exactly. That's exactly right, Phil. I'm glad you brought that up. So that was one of the things that we actually argued to the judge, hey, they shouldn't be allowed to argue this in closing arguments because it's not really relevant to the jury whether or not he can be prosecuted in another county. And they argued, well, that's the law. Specifically said, well, that's the law. He can't be prosecuted in Ben Hill County. And then meanwhile, they turn around right after they get the not guilty verdict and they indict him in Ben Hill county, where they had just argued to the. The court they could not prosecute him because of the statute of limitations.
- [68:43]
Phil Holloway
I want. So yeah, I want to. I want. Just to break. I want to show if we can. If we can look and listen to SOT 6. This was a. Actually has had lots of memorable moments in American legal jurisprudence, but one of them is. Is SOT6, which is this. This verdict coming out. So let's take a look and listen.
- [69:05]
Ashley Merchant
The State of Georgia vs. Ryan Alexander Duke with a jury, find the defendant. Count one, malice murder, not guilty. Count two, felony murder, not guilty. Count three, felony murder, not guilty. Count four, aggravated assault, not guilty. Count five, burglary, not guilty. Count six, concealing death of another, guilty. I have goosebumps even listening to it. I remember that day like it was yesterday.
- [69:37]
Phil Holloway
And so we can. Our producer was good enough, Natasha. She pulled together some. Some video that kind of. It can encapsulate sort of how we get here. Remember, folks, we got these two guys, we got Ryan and Bo, right? And the question is, everybody seems to be in agreement that these are the right two guys that are involved in this. Maybe there's a third party out there, but that's a, That's a. That's a discussion for another show.
- [70:03]
Ashley Merchant
We need a lot More time for that.
- [70:05]
Phil Holloway
Yeah, we need more time for that. But everybody seems to be in agreement that these are both criminals and they both were involved in this, but in different capacities. And so my personal theory has always been the cops got it wrong. They charged the wrong guy with the murder, but, hey, they did have a confession after all. Your. Your client confessed. But let's go ahead and. Let's go ahead and roll SOT5, which, by the way, this is. This is when you tried to call Bo Dukes as a witness for the defense, and, well, let's just see what he said when he was asked what his Name was.
- [70:40]
Ashley Merchant
Slot 5, we state your name for the record.
- [70:43]
Phil Holloway
On the advice of counsel, I'll be invoking my fifth amendment right not to provide testimony.
- [70:49]
Ashley Merchant
How'd you get here today?
- [70:51]
Phil Holloway
On the advice of counsel, I'll be voting my fifth amendment right not to provide testimony today.
- [70:56]
Ashley Merchant
Judge, may I purchase the witness?
- [70:58]
Phil Holloway
Sure.
- [70:58]
Ashley Merchant
Thank you. Showing you what I've marked as to defendants Exhibit 4, you could take a look at that. Do you recognize that document?
- [71:10]
Phil Holloway
On the advice of council, I would be invoking my Fifth Amendment right not to provide testimony today. Mr. Duke, do you intend to invoke your Fifth Amendment right to every question? I do, your honor. Any reason to continue this?
- [71:24]
Ashley Merchant
No, judge.
- [71:26]
Phil Holloway
You may excuse. All right, so he wouldn't even answer who he was. Right. And so actually, I want to go ahead and hit SOT4 because you want to juxtapose that testimony from Bo Dukes with your client Ryan Duke, who's testifying about his role in this. Let's go with thought four. Once the wood stacked up, what. What do y' all do next? Next, Bo tells me to help him put her on the wood. How did you. Did you help him? I did move the body. I did. And once you place the body on the wood, what happened next? Oh, back out. Almost out of the clearing. Kind of. You back out. Like, you mean you walk back out? Yeah. I told Bo, I can't be here. You got to take me home. What happened next? He just started putting wood on top of. And then what happened?
- [72:39]
Birch Gold Group Advertiser
He.
- [72:39]
Phil Holloway
He lit her on fire. All right, so there is Ryan Duke telling the jury under oath what he says his involvement was in the case. So, look, there may be, and I'm sure there are people who think he was lying to save his skin, but what I can tell you is that when the jury saw that testimony, as opposed to Bo Dukes, who comes in, wouldn't even. He took the fifth on what his name was.
- [73:11]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
Was.
- [73:12]
Phil Holloway
And how he got to court that day, right?
- [73:15]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
Yeah.
- [73:15]
Phil Holloway
And so it's just a question of who does the jury believe? And honestly, you just did a great job. And you presented, in my view, the more plausible scenario as to how this went down. And when I get to my closing, I'm going to talk more about venue, but tell us what happened with venue and how. How your client was convicted of essentially concealing a death in Irwin county, when what his testimony was is that he concealed the death. Death next door in Ben Hill County.
- [73:45]
Ashley Merchant
Yeah, it's one of those things that happens a lot of times with jurors. They're trying to do the right thing, and they don't necessarily understand the law, and we don't have the opportunity to really answer their questions like we want to after they get the case. And they really wanted. I mean, he admitted that he assisted in concealing her death, and, you know, he was very honest about that. And they wanted to find him guilty for doing that. And they thought that just because he had done that in an adjoining county, that they could find him guilty in Irwin County.
- [74:12]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
County.
- [74:12]
Ashley Merchant
And so after the verdict was rendered and they were able to ask questions, they told us they were all very honest about it and said, well, we. We don't think he did it in Irwin County. We think he did it in Ben Hill County. But we figured that the lawyers and the judge would fix that if we got it wrong. And we didn't really understand the law. So just because we knew he did it in an adjoining county, we thought we would find him guilty on that and fix it. And, you know, at that point, I mean, he had done the concealing of a death, so it wasn't like we were really disputing the fact that he was guilty of concealing her death. And he felt awful about it. He would have pled guilty to that from day one. But, you know, it's frustrating because we're not able to explain those nuances to the jury. And they wanted really hard to get it right, and, you know, they got it right in their own minds. But he did get convicted of that, and he is actually still in custody. He. It's. It's interesting how they treated his case. Another call beyond just the grand jury. The prosecutor also called the parole board right after this happened. And typically on a concealment charge, you would serve 18 months, maybe something like that. At the time of trial, Ryan had already been in custody for over five years, so typically he would be out, but he was given the max sentence of 10 years. And when he went into the state system, typically you would be paroled immediately on that. They have what's called a guideline. It's like a grid. You know, 99.9% of cases follow that. But the prosecutor made a call and made sure that he was taken off of that grid. So he actually was not able to even be considered for parole because of that call the prosecutor made. So if he serves all of his time, he'll be out next year, and he will do 10 years to the. To the door, which is unheard of. Now, if we get an appellate ruling, which is actually due within the next month, he could be released earlier.
- [75:50]
Phil Holloway
And that appellate ruling is as to what issue?
- [75:55]
Ashley Merchant
That's. That's the Irwin county that where I was talking about the jury who said, hey, we thought he did it in Ben Hill. It's to that issue and also the statute of limitations, because, remember, they knew about what happened, you know, 17 years earlier and they did not prosecute the case. So the statute of limitations is four years for these crimes.
- [76:13]
Phil Holloway
Crimes, yes. I've always felt that there's the statute of limitations ran on all this because as I mentioned in sort of the intro to this segment, despite having in 2017, the GBI said neither one of these guys was on our radar. Turns out their names and this scenario, how this happened was in fact contained in reports that were buried and overlooked and lost in the GBI's files. But look, it's time for us to get into our closings. And so for my closing, I'm going to talk some about venue, but I'll go ahead and let you go first with your closing, Ashley, and then I'll explain a little bit more about how I think venue plays into this case.
- [76:53]
Ashley Merchant
Okay, that sounds good. And as you can all tell, Phil and I like talking about the Terror Grinstead case. It's one of those cases that's got a lot of different things that are going on with it and a lot of different topics to talk about. So definitely let us know if there's something you want us to cover with that case, and hopefully we'll get enough interest and we'll do a whole episode on it. But what I want to talk about in my closing arguments today is double jeopardy. And the reason I want to talk about that today, two things. First, we talked about the Mangione case, and we talked a little bit about double jeopardy. But second, I also want to talk about how Ryan Duke could be charged in one county and then charged in the next county for the exact same Crime. And so it kind of plays into what Phil's going to talk about, you know, different venues for different crimes. But I want to talk for a minute just about double jeopardy specifically. So everybody hears about double jeopardy. There's a movie by that name. They think they know what it is. They think it says exactly what the Constitution says. It says you can't be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense. It doesn't really say that. It's one of those things where the Constitution says you can't be put in jeopardy twice. But then the case law and the judges have said, except for blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And so it's one of those things where the exception has sort of eaten the rule, which is not a good thing since it's a constitutional rule. There's so many loopholes in double jeopardy. It's such watered down protection, protection that things like what you see with Luigi Mangione happens. And that happens every day. You can be prosecuted in federal court after you're prosecuted in state court for essentially the exact same crime, as long as the prosecutors can say, oh, well, there's something more for that other case. There's something additional for that other case. Same thing in state court. A lot of folks don't understand this, but you can be charged with a crime in two different counties. And Phil's going to talk to you about venue, but it's the same thing with double jeopardy. I got a lot of questions after Ryan Duke was indicted in the adjoining county, Ben Hill county, about how in the world could he go to trial, be charged in Ben Hill county, when he was charged with the exact same thing in Irwin County? Everybody thought that was unfair. How could that happen? Well, double jeopardy doesn't protect that. If a crime happens across allegedly across county lines or state lines, you can be prosecuted in every single place you touch while that crime is going on. And so it's a very expansive rule, double jeopardy, and it really does not protect people like they think it does. But what we really need is we need judges that are willing to stand up when they get these cases and say, hey, guess what? I believe what the Constitution says. I believe you should not be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense. And I am not going to bend and stretch the law to allow prosecutors to charge the same crime over and over again. And even if you're a law and order lover, even if you are, that is, that is where you lie on this spectrum, it still makes sense that you should want double jeopardy protections. Why? Why should someone, why should the state get two bites at the apple. We want justice. If the state cannot convince with all of their resources, a jury, that someone committed a crime, why should they be able to keep trying and trying again? That's how you end up with innocent people in jail. So hopefully everyone knows a little bit more about double jeopardy. Thanks for joining.
- [79:55]
Phil Holloway
All right, well, that's a great explanation and actually is probably one of the people that knows more about double jeopardy than you know. She's forgotten. Let me say that she's forgotten more about double jeopardy than I've ever known. She's one of the true experts on that point. Now, what I want to talk about is, as Ashley mentioned, is venue. Now, this is a very fundamental piece of our criminal justice process, and it oftentimes gets overlooked. Venue is. Is not just one of the substantive elements of crime, like, like, you know, you got the guilty act, or we call that the actus reus in Latin, or the guilty mind, criminal intent, which we call mens rea in Latin. But it's absolutely essential to every single criminal prosecution. Why? Because every crime happens somewhere. That geographic location determines where the case can and must be tried. The United States Constitution makes this pretty clear. Article three, Section two requires criminal trials to be held in the state where the crime was committed. And then the Sixth Amendment picks up and says the accused has the right to an impartial jury of the state and district think county wherein the crime shall have been committed. For example, in Georgia, where Ryan Duke was tried, the state was obligated to prove that each alleged offense took place in Irwin county county, including the charge of concealing a death for which he was convicted. But the evidence was that the concealing of a death happened in the next county over, Ben Hill county, which is part of why Ashley has her pending appeal. So venue is not just a technicality. It's about fairness. It's an essential element of the crime, and it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by prosecutors. A defendant should not be dragged hundreds of miles away from witnesses or evidence or community context. For example, the local jury should reflect the area that was affected by the crime. That's sort of the idea behind venue. And as I said in court, government must prove venue was proper in each and every case, in each and every count, in each and every case. If they fail to establish it and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury must find the defendant not guilty. Guilty. Improper venue denies due process and risks an unfair trial, and it risks wrongful convictions. The bottom line here, if there's no venue, there's no valid prosecution. It is not merely an element of the offense, it is an indispensable requirement for justice. And with that, we'll leave it here for this episode of MK True Crime. Make sure you listen on Sirius XM every time you can on the Megyn Kelly Channel. You'll find us there. Make sure you subscribe on podcast and on YouTube or all of the above. I want to say a very special thanks to our guest Jennifer Coffendaffer, and to my co host Ashley Merchant. Thank you all for joining us and we'll catch you here next time at MK True Crime.
- [83:10]
English Language Advertiser
Con Verizon nos y vamos cuatro iPhone.
- [83:12]
Ashley Merchant
17.
- [83:15]
Spanish Language Advertiser
Hi termino comparison to Familia de fruta mas Pormenos Yamate Cuatro iPhone 17 S Hinosa Nesacit Intercambio Conquatos Planes Unlimited.
- [83:36]
English Language Advertiser
Dermatologists have long highlighted the benefits of indoor humidity for healthy, glowing skin. Dry air can start damaging your skin in just 30 minutes.
- [83:43]
Jennifer Coffendaffer
Minutes.
- [83:44]
English Language Advertiser
That's where canopy Humidifier comes in. Recommended by leading dermatologists, the Canopy Humidifier is a completely reimagined humidifier with invisible clean moisture, the best kind for your skin. Go to GetCanopy Co to save $25 on your purchase today with Canopy's filter subscription. Even better, use Code Serious to save an additional 10% off your canopy purchase. Your skin will thank you.