← MK True Crime
MK True Crime
Ghislaine Maxwell's Rare Next Move, Mystery Teen Cruise Death Turns Dark, and Paranoid Pot Shooting
01:05:09
MK True Crime contributors Phil Holloway, Mark Eiglarsh, and Matt Murphy join the show to discuss Epstein co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell’s plan to challenge her 20 year prison sentence with a habeas corpus petition, why habeas corpus petitions are rare, a prison whistleblower has claimed Maxwell is enjoying “concierge-style treatment" in jail, Judge Hippler’s ruling last week that Bryan Kohberger must pay his victims’ families restitution including payment for urns for Kaylee Goncalves and Maddie Mogen, new details about how 18-year-old Anna Kepner’s deceased body was found on a Carnival Cruise ship, disturbing claims from a person claiming to be her uncle, why he believes the step-brother is responsible for her death, a pharmacy student was shot by her friend after they smoked pot, and more. Phil Holloway: https://x.com/PhilHollowayEsq Mark Eiglarsh: https://www.eiglarshlaw.com Matt Murphy: https://www.mattmurphylaw.com Walmart: Learn how Walmart is fueling the future of U....
Loading summary
Transcript90 lines
- [00:00]
A
Struggling to fall asleep.
- [00:01]
B
Meet the Ergo Prosmart bass from Tempur Pedic. Its gentle massage and relaxing sounds help calm your mind every night during the Tempur Pedic Black Friday event. Save up to $500 on select adjustable mattress sets and $50 off select pillow sets at Tempur pedic.com select adjustable mattress sets. Only lesser savings may apply.
- [00:15]
C
Need to restock inventory, cover seasonal dips, or manage payroll. Ondeck's small business line of credit provides immediate access to funds up to $200,000 exactly when your business needs it with flexible draws, transparent pricing and full control over repayment. Unexpected expenses without missing a beat. Apply today@ondeck.com and funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. 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.
- [00:51]
B
Welcome to MK True Crime. I'm Phil Holloway, your host today. I'm a criminal lawyer, I'm an ex cop and I'm a former prosecutor. I've been in and around the justice system for the better part of 40 years now. So here's what's on our docket today. Ghislaine Maxwell is seeking new review of her prison sentence despite reports that her conditions in jail seem to be quite favorable. We'll bring you the latest on that. And also last week a judge has ruled that convicted murderer and monster Brian Kohberger must actually pay the restitution to his victims families that he promised to pay when he pleaded guilty to the murders out in Idaho. And the mysterious case of the teen girl found dead on a Carnival cruise ship seems to be taking a very dark turn. I'm pleased today to be joined by my fellow MK True Crime contributors, Mark Iglarch, criminal defense lawyer, former prosecutor and author who you can find at speak to mark.com and of course we have our friend Matt Murphy, former homicide prosecutor and author of the Book of Murder. Guys, since the House of Representatives has overwhelmingly voted on Tuesday to release the Epstein files, we'll start with his partner in crime, Ghislaine Maxwell. Before I toss to you guys to talk about this, I want to sort of set the table here about what's going on with this habeas appeal. So Epstein's co conspirator, she's planning to file what's called a habeas corpus petition. She's seeking a court's review of her 20 year prison sentence. A habeas corpus appeal is more accurately referred to As a petition, it's essentially, it's a legal lifeline for somebody who's already been convicted, of course, at trial, and they've already exhausted their first round of appeals, their direct appeals. And so they're locked up, and they're trying to say, hey, look, Judge, my imprisonment is illegal, or my trial was unconstitutional, making my imprisonment illegal, and is asking the court, of course, to take a fresh look at things even after, as I said, the regular appeals are done in simple terms. It forces the government, such as prison officials or the. The Department of Justice and prosecutors, to justify why they're holding somebody. If they can't justify that it's lawful and that it's constitutional, the judge can order certain things, like the person's release or more commonly, a new trial or perhaps other remedies. In a criminal case, Habeas comes after a person has. Has exhausted all of their direct appeals, and remember, hers has already been to the Supreme Court once. So it's not about retrying the whole case or nitpicking even small errors. It's for big things, like my rights were trampled, evidence was seized unlawfully, or maybe my lawyer was so bad and so incompetent that my sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated. One of the grounds also could be newly discovered evidence, and that is one of the grounds that Maxwell is basing this effort on. We understand. Remember, not every legal gripe qualifies. It needs to be solid grounds. So, Mark, Iglosh, I'll start with you. Tell us, does Ghislaine Maxwell have solid grounds for her habius?
- [04:04]
A
Absolutely not. I'm thinking of that scene from Dumb and Dumber, right, where she says, even if you're the last girl on earth, I would never date you, or whatever she says. And he goes, so you're saying I got a chance. That's exactly what she looks like. Candidly, I don't speak Latin, but habius corpus, I think, is loosely translated to fat chance. Look at the numbers. 12,000 petitions filed a year. 10% result in something favorable. But those are capital cases. In non capital cases, which is what this is, only 1% of the chance of the time, does she have a chance of something good happening? So, no, I think it's slim to none.
- [04:47]
B
Matt. Look, Mark makes an excellent point. It's just a very, very small percentage of these things that ever succeed. The presumption is very heavily in favor of the lawfulness, if you will, of the. Of the trial. But look, sometimes habeas petitions do get granted. Sometimes new trials get granted. What do you make of all this?
- [05:10]
D
Well, Mark makes me nervous because I got a habeas right now pending in front of the California Supreme Court on that they took up on a police officer case I have. So hopefully mine is one of the. One of those very few. Look, Mark's exactly right. She's got. This case was so thoroughly litigated. The trial judge at the time knew what this case was about. Our friend Arthur Aidala has been involved in that on her defense team. As a matter of fact, she's. Her involvement. She was up to her eyeballs. This was established. And look, this was real. The impact on these victims was unbelievably bad. And Virginia Guthrie. A lot of people don't know that she actually committed suicide in Australia. She was one of the. She was the victim that famously had the photo with Prince Andrew. So real people were hurt. This case was properly prosecuted by the Southern District in. In New York. It was completely botched down there in Florida, in my view. And I don't think she has any chance here at all, Phil, on prevailing on the Saviors.
- [06:10]
B
Well, you know, look, one of the claims. And before we move on to the. The other news about the. The effort to release the Epstein files, one of the claims that we understand is going to be that new evidence has come to light since her 2021 trial that her attorneys say would have had a material impact on the trial's outcome. So, Mark, pretend that you are her lawyer just for a minute. How do you convince a court that evidence, newly discovered evidence, would have changed the jury's verdict?
- [06:45]
A
Well, depends on what that evidence is, Right? If my client was framed like the Mona Lisa, then let's go. Let's change it up. I think that what she's accused of doing and ultimately convicted of is abhorrent, But I'm a big fan of the justice arena and due process. So what is it? Right. In the abstract, it's hard to make an argument unless I've got it. But if I do have something that shows that she wasn't given a fair trial, there's something out there that wasn't litigated previously, then by all means, she deserves some relief.
- [07:17]
B
Well, Matt referred to the impact that she and Epstein had on her victims. There's a PSA out that some of the Epstein and Maxwell victims have put together. Let's roll slot one and then we can talk about that.
- [07:33]
D
I suffered so much pain. So much pain.
- [07:36]
A
So much pain. I suffered so much pain.
- [07:44]
D
I was 14 years old. I was 16 years old. I was 16, 17, 14 years old. This is me.
- [07:51]
C
This was me.
- [07:51]
B
This when I met Jeffrey Epstein.
- [07:53]
C
This is me when I met Jeffrey Epstein.
- [08:02]
D
There are about a thousand of us.
- [08:04]
E
It's time to bring the secrets out of the shadows. It's time to shine a light into the darkness.
- [08:11]
B
So, of course, the House has voted in support of that. It's my understanding some victims were present at Congress when that vote was held. So we have that going on. And we also have. I guess it's not exactly related, although it's kind of related. We have this. These claims that Maxwell is getting special treatment. Here's the readout on that. Okay. There's been a federal prison nurse, her name is Noella Turnage, 46 years old, in South Brazos county in Texas. She's a longtime healthcare professional. She's been employed by the Bureau of prison since 2019. Okay. She calls herself a whistleblower. And she's reported to Congress that Ghislaine Maxwell is getting some kind of special treatment. She says she was troubled by the special privileges given to Maxwell by Warden Tanisha hall and other higher ups at the facility, including Warden hall personally handling all incoming mail. And there's other types of preferential treatment they're saying that she got. So I want to talk to you guys about a couple of things here that trouble me, though, because this person got this information because one of her jobs, even though she was a nurse, she was. She was in charge of screening mail, including emails, and she got her hands on some attorney client communications between Maxwell and her lawyer, because that's how we know that, you know, that they're planning this habeas appeal. And she's forwarded all that to Congress as a whistleblower. Matt Murphy, what do you make of that?
- [09:48]
D
Well, I had the same problem you had, Phil. That's disturbing to me. And that's one of the areas for the viewer that is supposed to be absolutely sacrosanct. And that's communications between a criminal defendant and their attorney. And it is unbelievably important that people have that sort of confidentiality, even if they are in custody. And that's something that is. That's like a third rail on this. And it is deeply disturbing me. Like, if she's getting special privileges, blow the whistle all day long. If she's being afforded something that the other inmates don't have, for whatever reason, by all means, shout it from the rooftops and hopefully you get protection. Doing that. Releasing attorney client communications is offensive to me, and it should be Offensive to everybody. Just like Mark said, this is a system that's supposed to be based on fairness. That's totally unfair. I think that Congress, it's composed of a lot of lawyers. Hopefully what they will do is immediately seal all that, because that should never see the light of day, in my view.
- [10:50]
A
I agree with Matt perfectly. Phil.
- [10:54]
B
Look, I was going to ask you, Mark, she says that. Let's see if I get this right. She says she had a legal and ethical duty as a whistleblower to report what she, in her opinion was a breach of law, policy, or regulation. But here's the thing. Back this summer, remember the deputy attorney general, Blanche, went and sat down with Maxwell and they talked for a long time. Now, supposedly she shelled down the corn, as we say here in Georgia, about some stuff, and we don't know what stuff, but that tells me she's a cooperating witness. She's cooperating in some way with the doj. So is it unlawful or unheard of for prosecutors or the Bureau of Bureau of Prisons to give somebody something such as a little bit better living conditions in exchange for their cooperation? What do you say about that, Mark?
- [11:49]
A
Okay, here's the. It's like, to me, it's a balance. All right? To be fair to this nurse, on one side, just like Matt said, I am very upset that she would be getting any specialized treatment. She doesn't deserve an extra biscuit. She doesn't deserve minutes more on the telephone. She doesn't deserve any extra benefit. So that's on one side of the scale, we want people to blow the whistle and to tell when that's going on. But on the other side is the sacred communication between an attorney and a client. And if that's compromised, the system shuts down. It's not about Maxwell. It's about every future defendant who can't freely communicate with their attorney. And I think it violates a huge law and a moral obligation that she has to not reveal those things. So I think the scale tips in favor of her not doing this.
- [12:46]
B
Well, I mean, obviously, Matt, if, if a prosecutor or law enforcement invades attorney client privilege, you know, a judge would blow their gasket, right. If this comes to light and evidence like, you know, things would be suppressed there, people could be thrown in jail, all kinds of bad things could happen. But what do you do when someone says, all right, I'm going to steal this attorney client email and I'm going to say that I am a protected whistleblower under the Federal Whistleblower act, and you can't do a damn thing to me.
- [13:18]
D
Yeah, it's a tough thing, right? However, look, this, we're talking about the Congress of the United States of America here. And they are the lawmakers, they are the ones that pass all those codes that protect these things. And this has been the way it's supposed, supposed to work for hundreds of years. There's nothing new here. And it is about every single person, not just criminal, defendant, but every person, every one of us. We have a right to communicate with certain people free of interference or release. That includes therapy, doctors, priest, penitent. There's a very select group of things in the evidence code where people are allowed. You want to speak freely to your spouse, for example. There are things that our law is based on common sense that has survived the test of time in multiple cases. This is one of those things. This is, Mark, use the word sacred. I agree. So she can turn those things over to Congress. People in Congress need to get over the political divide here, in my opinion on this issue and a few others, and seal that stuff immediately. There needs to be a court order that that woman isn't to disseminate that any further. She encountered those as a part of her employment. And look, she's probably setting up. She was fired. So I don't think I'm being too cynical when I say she's setting this up for a lawsuit. All that really does, as soon as she crosses that line is make her look bad. In my view, that stuff needs to be buried and never see the light of day.
- [14:46]
A
Bill, let me ask you something. Can you think of any acceptable reason why it would be okay for someone to breach the attorney client privilege? You know, maybe, I don't know, maybe somehow they discover something that, you know, like a school's going to be bombed or something.
- [15:03]
B
Well, first off, I mean. Well, you know why I have a. I have a little bit of an issue with prisons monitoring attorney client communications in the first place. I mean, we have, when we talk to our clients who are in custody, they might be on a phone that's, you know, maybe it's recorded. So we have special visitation methods that we can go in person or we can do special video calls. We can arrange non monitored phone calls. Because when you have a third party party who is able to hear or see or read the communication, it will actually destroy the attorney client privilege in the first place. So you can't be having these discussions in the presence of third parties or in places where it might be monitored. So that's a problem. And honestly, I question whether it was a good idea for the attorney to be emailing her using this particular system if it's not secure. So there's lots of questions that I have and there are certain times when it's appropriate to invade attorney client privilege, but it's, it's very, very rare. But obviously if you're talking about imminent death or one thing, but none of those things apply here. This is just some woman who had sour grapes about what she perceived as special treatment. And like I said, I don't think there's obviously there was special treatment. I think that's a given. But there may have been a legitimate reason for it. Okay, if she's a cooperating witness and that that is what we just don't.
- [16:32]
F
Know the details about 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 minutes@ondeck.com depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic bank on Deck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender Approv at Designer Shoe Warehouse we believe.
- [17:05]
A
That shoes are an important part of.
- [17:07]
C
Well, everything from first steps to first dates, from all nighters to all time personal bests.
- [17:15]
F
From building pillow forts to building a.
- [17:17]
C
Life for all the big and small moments that make up your whole world. DSW is there and we've got just the shoes. Find a shoe for every you from brands you love at brag worthy prices at your DSW store or dsw.com.
- [17:35]
E
When customers are walking through the aisles of their local Walmart, they are not just picking up groceries or supplies. They are supporting American businesses and their communities. The real story is what's behind the label. With over two thirds of the products Walmart buys made, grown or assembled right here in the US Buying local is not just stocking shelves, it's about strengthening communities. Because of that commitment, Walmart invested 350 billion bucks in US manufacturing helping American companies like Fisher and Weezer Specialty Foods, that's a local Texas business, expand their operations in Fredericksburg, Texas to hire more people and bring their Texas grown peach jam to a national market. Their story is just one example of how Walmart's US manufacturing investment is supporting over 750,000American jobs. Businesses across the country are empowered to sell more, hire more, and help their communities grow. From farms to factories to final shopping carts. Learn how Walmart is fueling the future of US manufacturing@walmart.com America at Work.
- [18:42]
B
I do need to move on to Brian Kohberger. All right, for those who may have forgotten, Bryan Kohberger, of course, was charged and convicted for the the November 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students, Kaylee Gonzalez, Madison Mogan, Zana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin. This case, of course, drew national attention. We were actually going to launch our show. This MK True crime show was going to be launched around the Coburger trial before he entered a plea of guilty. And so that caused us to turn to other things. But still he pled guilty. And one of the things that he was supposed to do, guys, he agreed to restitution. But before he pled guilty, he had been given tens of thousands of dollars by people who were his supporters. And now the judges ordered him to pay. And so my question for you, Matt, what is your opinion on whether it was appropriate or not appropriate for these lawyers to try to get him out of paying these? It's just a few thousand dollars, but it was for the urns that they use, you know, to bury their loved ones.
- [19:55]
D
Yeah, you know, they've got a job to do. The defense orders have a job to do. However, there's, there's also just the, the over the overriding decency of this whole thing. On death row, at least in California, most death rows, they're not permitted to work. And what this comes down to, guys, is, you know, this is commissary. So the only thing that these guys have to live for, essentially, with these life prisons, a lot of times is when they have a life sentence is how much stuff they can get their top ramen for themselves and they live on. It's called putting money on your books. So what they do with this victim restitution is if they have a job in the jail, they essentially garner all that from the books and they garner that from the prison wages. This is only an issue, guys, because the prosecutor came off death, he's not on death row, which means he is a part of a prison where he is capable one day of working and earning money. The idea that Coburger would fight that is, you know, legally, I understand it. I understand the reasons why they're doing that. But just as a human, my heart just breaks for those families that they have to go through this process. And look, the judge made exactly the right call. As this judge did throughout the proceedings, in my opinion, he said, no way, buddy. You still. You're on the hook for that. Of course you have to pay. And you got $28,000 now that people have donated. And that's the pro burger group, by the way, guys, the pro burgers, the people in America that came out in favor of Brian Kohberger that were convinced of his innocence. And it's like, I heard a great quote recently, A guy said, I think it was Joe Rogan said, if you have any room with 100 people, at least one of them is an idiot. And when you extrapolate that out to 340 million people in America, that means there's hundreds of thousands of genuine idiots out there. And anybody who would put money on Brian Kohberger's books, I'm sorry, in my view, is an idiot.
- [21:51]
B
Mark, he. Judge Hipler noted that Coburger received $28,360.96 in donations while in custody before he went to the prison system. So that seems like a lot to be on your book, so to speak, for commissary. But you've been on both sides of plea deals. You've been a prosecutor, of course, defense lawyer. We have a saying that a card laid is a card played. So if you make an agreement on behalf of your client to plead guilty with certain terms, and then your client accepts it and then gets. Receives the sentence and then wants to back out of that, it would seem to me that maybe he needs to find a different lawyer to try to get out of that piece of it. Because if it were me, I would have had a problem with it. I would have said, look, look, you agreed to this. This is part of what we agreed to. My name is on that plea document, too, and I'm not going to back out of it, especially if it causes harm to the families of the victims. They are. This causes them pain. And I think it goes beyond, in my personal opinion, what the duty we have of being a zealous advocate is. It goes beyond that to me. But I want to know what you think.
- [23:05]
A
I don't disagree with you. And I'm reminded of an argument that I was being asked to make yesterday in for a bond hearing, and the client wanted me to argue something that was so outrageous, so offensive to the victim and the family there that I looked at him and I. I pleaded with him. I said, don't make me do it. Don't make me do it, because it's not going to help you. It's going to be offensive. It's going to affect the whole case down the road negatively. Don't make me do it. Unfortunately, he backed down. But you know what? If he didn't back down, I would have had to make that argument. Fortunately, I knew the judge. We go back 30 years, and I think he. Not. I think I definitely would have made the argument, but he would have known where it came from. But we're zealous advocates. Our number one loyalties are to our clients. And when you're representing Kohberger and you're making arguments, I think it's very clear, especially when you're making offensive, outrageous arguments like you shouldn't have to pay restitution, even when you agreed to it in the plea bargain, that that's not coming from you, that's coming from him. And so I think it's challenging and obligatory that we make the arguments that our clients are asking us to make. It's not going to work.
- [24:17]
B
I might have to disagree a little bit on that. The tail doesn't wag the dog. I'm not obligated to make an argument that I know to be in my client's best interest. I'm not obligated to make an illegal argument, and I'm not obligated to make an argument that says that the, you know, we, we just want out of our plea deal because for whatever reasons, he, you know, he can't. He can't afford it. That's first off. I think it's specious, but I think it goes beyond what we're obligated to do. That tail doesn't get to wag the dog. The judge noted that this man Coburger is likely to have the opportunity, over the course of his long life that he may have in front of him. And I say may, but he, he has the opportunity to work in. In the prison. He has an opportunity to earn some kind of an income as an. And he might get some kind of media deals, Matt. And if so, these people need to be at the front of the line to be compensated, I think. What do you say?
- [25:11]
D
Yeah, look, if there's a thing out there known as the Son of Sam laws, and it's a little bit different in every state, that's from the famous serial killers in the. In New York in the 70s, where essentially he was. He made money off of slaughtering people in New York City, and there was outrage. And so.
- [25:29]
B
So.
- [25:29]
D
But those laws are enacted and then they're taken off the books. And so it depends state by state, if he makes a dime Every penny of that should go to these poor families. And I think this judge is spot on in making this order. I think that the families, look in OJ for example, they sued, the family sued and they got that judgment and they were able to get. But basically every penny that OJ Made from he wrote that book that they got the publishing rights to, if I did it, and they got to do the COVID art and they made the if really small, they got all of the proceeds to that. So hopefully we'll see something like that in this. But remember, guys, when this judge did the sentencing, he even made comments about how he hoped that people were going to come in and try to exploit this horrible case in the true crime arena. I'm a firm believer that the vast majority of true crime is done tastefully and very well. But the Gonzalez family has already come out signing a petition that's circulating against a proposed movie about this. So, look, I'm against anything that causes pain to victims families. Most of the time, I think like 2000s datelines, things like that can be good for the families. It helps the entire community help them mourn the loss of their loved one. But when it's exploitive, I got a problem with it. I'm sure you guys do, too. I'm sure everybody does. So it'll be interesting to see how this one shakes out.
- [26:55]
B
Well, that's. Yeah, that's right. And I want to talk about, before we get to the Anna Kepner Cruz death in the next segment, I wanted to ask Mark. I know what you said, Matt, but I did want to ask Mark about that Lifetime movie. It's part of what they call their Ripped from the Headlines movie series. There's, as Matt said, there's a petition that's gaining momentum to basically halt them from producing a movie. Now, these petitions, of course, can't force them to halt, but it certainly is a way for people to make their opinions be known that this is unseemly, the families against it. But what do you think? I mean, this is too soon, Mark. I just feel like it's too raw too soon. I just think it's unseemly for Lifetime to be doing this at this time.
- [27:43]
A
I agree with you, but I'm also not somebody who would be watching that, and I'm not their target audience. And I would defend their legal right to do it because the First Amendment affords them wide latitude. And Matt said, well, datelines are good and this and that. It's not for us to choose. You know, the First Amendment affords these people the legal right to come out with these movies and to come out with documentaries, but the families are doing it perfectly. Let the world know how abhorrent this is, how bad it's going to be for the family, how no one's going to be buying the coca col that they're going to be selling between, you know, during the commercials and hopefully they back down from an economic standpoint.
- [28:23]
B
Well, here on a recent episode of MK True Crime, we showed some TikTok videos that the cast members were. They were in costume, right? And so between scenes, they were just doing Britney Spears style TikTok dancing. And it just seems like the whole thing is just not being done with any kind of reverence or respect for the lives lost or for the families that these folks left behind. All right, that'll do it for this particular segment of MK True Crime. On the other side, we have new details and shocking accusations surrounding the 18 year old high school cheerleader who was found dead on a Carnival cruise ship. Stay tuned.
- [29:05]
F
On Deck 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 by the Better Business Bureau and earning thousands of five star trust pilot reviews, Ondeck delivers funding you can count on. Apply in minutes@ondeck.com depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not lend to North Dakota. All loans and amounts subject to lender.
- [29:34]
D
Approval come to DSW for the shoes.
- [29:36]
B
Stay for the fun.
- [29:38]
C
Because let's be honest, if shoe shopping.
- [29:40]
D
Isn'T fun, are you even doing it right?
- [29:43]
B
So go ahead, try something new.
- [29:45]
D
Try something different, good different. Try something that feels like you, you know, the real you.
- [29:52]
B
And then definitely brag about it later.
- [29:54]
C
Because at dsw, you've got unlimited freedom to play.
- [29:57]
B
Find the shoes that get you at.
- [29:59]
C
Prices that get your budget at DSW stores or@dsw.com let us surprise you.
- [30:07]
E
We talk a lot about personal responsibility on this show. Well, here's one aspect that's really important. Your health. And I'm not talking about following whatever the experts recommend. I'm talking about real data driven decisions based on your body's actual numbers. We demand transparency in government, but most of us have no idea what's happening inside of our own bodies. Disease can develop silently for years before symptoms appear. By then, you're playing catch up with expensive treatments instead of preventing problems when they are cheap and easy to fix. I want to tell you about jevoting. They are revolutionizing preventative care with something radically different. 100 plus blood blood markers tested at your home. Personalized supplement packs shipped directly to you based on your deficiencies. Bi annual retesting to track progress, plus ongoing virtual consultations on your schedule. This is healthcare independence. And you get 20 off at gojevity.com Megan with code Megan that's gonna G-E-V-I-T-I.com Megan because no one should control your health decisions but you.
- [31:17]
B
All right, so Anna Kepner was a beloved cheerleader who had plans to join the military after she graduated from high school later this school year. Her dreams, however, were cut short when she was found dead on a Carnival Cruise ship on November 7, 2025. Now we're learning some new details about how she was found, along with some alarming accusations about how she died. And so, guys, let me set that up real quick. So we have this uncle who says he's her uncle. Anyway, he goes on X, formerly Twitter, and he basically says that she was found stuffed under a bed, wrapped in a blanket and covered with like this. And he says that she was killed by her stepbrother. Right? Now, that tweet has since been deleted, but Daily Mail and I think other outlets are now reporting the same thing, basically that Anna had told family members at a dinner the night before that she wasn't feeling well. She went back to her room. There was no sign of her the next morning when the family gathered for breakfast. And of course, the cruise is still underway.
- [32:22]
D
Right?
- [32:22]
B
This wasn't like the last night. So according to the reporting, the family started looking for, frantically they searched the entire ship, which they say could hold 4,000 passengers. And a maid cleaning the room discovered Anna's body, allegedly when she went to the cabin to clean it at around 11am the next morning. So the ship then, of course, changed course and pulls into the port of Miami, and Miami Dade county medical examiner retrieves the body and presumably they've done a postmortem and now the FBI has the case. But, Mark, this is down in your neck of the woods in Miami. What do you, what do you think about this? Because obviously, whoever is in charge of this post mortem, they know presumably what the cause and manner of death is at this point. Right. So why, why the information vacuum here?
- [33:17]
A
Well, first, let's get this guy in who wrote that, that tweet. Either it's defamatory or he knows something that Maybe they don't know. And if it's defamatory, somebody needs to go after him, because even though it was removed, we all saw it. Yeah, we know his identity. And whoever this stepson is, well, boy, we think less of him because of what the uncle presumably said. Who knows? It's one or the other. I mean, he's very detailed about this. So again, either I'd like to see him pay for putting that out there because it's false, or I'd like law enforcement to take him seriously and find out how he knows this.
- [33:57]
B
Matt, the now deleted post clearly says, quote, the stepmom's son killed her, covered her naked beaten body in a sheet and stuffed her under a bed and covered her with life jackets, then slept on that bed like nothing happened, and goes on to say other things. I think we've got image here for the viewing audience to take a look at. But nevertheless, as I think Mark correctly pointed out, if that's not true, that's defamatory as hell and somebody should be sued over it. But let's just say, for the sake of this discussion, let's say that something like that did go down. You've prosecuted and handled a lot of murder cases. How do you go about sort of developing that lead and pursuing this and perhaps presenting it in a court of law? Matt?
- [34:51]
D
Well, the first thing that any, anybody should do, law enforcement and investigation wise, you got to put a lid on all that stuff. You need to. Anybody that has information, you need to sit down with them and let them know that that can compromise the integrity of a prosecution. For example, just like Mark said, if that man wants to be a critical witness because he's got information by making a statement, especially in writing, doesn't matter if it's taken down, that's out there. Any inconsistency, even the slightest thing, will be exploited during the trial. So this is the fact that it was taken down. I think behind the scenes, somebody from the FBI knocked on his door and said, what are you doing? So this is a guy that apparently has information. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. We gotta wait and see. But it is incredibly detailed. Like you said, Phil, the postmortem is gonna reveal everything. And it probably already has. For spontaneous murders, one of the most common things you see, it's. I mean, it's really. It's two types. You see bludgeoning deaths, and you see strangulation. Strangulation. There's all manner of telltale signs that pathologists will look for. There's Petecular hemorrhaging in the eyes, bruising on the strap muscles. There's a bone in everybody's neck called the hyoid bone that typically breaks during strangulation. I guarantee you they figured out exactly how this poor young woman died. And if it is a homicide, they need to corral everybody in that family, every potential witness, and shut stuff like this down, because all it does is hurt the case.
- [36:16]
A
Phil, now's a good time to plug his book with one coming out, because that was brilliant.
- [36:21]
B
Thank you. Yeah. And look, so the postmortem is obviously going to be key, but look in. In a post mortem or an autopsy, it's a medical, legal type examination and determination, and it's, you know it. The medical examiner is going to decide whether or not it was a homicide, which may or may not be criminal, but that means death at the hands of another person. Maybe it's an accident, maybe it's a suicide, or maybe it's undetermined. Those are four categories. So assuming that these details are accurate, it could have been. I mean, theoretically, maybe it still could have been an accident. Doesn't look like it was. You know, I don't see how you could be. How you commit suicide and then be found in that way and with your body in that condition. But all this does. It causes us to speculate, like we're doing right now, and it causes conspiracy theories to percolate and to get out there. I just am concerned that the. The authorities in this case, maybe the FBI, needs to be forthcoming with some details. I mean, if they've got the postmortem and they believe that it was a crime, that it was not an accident, that it wasn't suicide, they need to come out, I think, and at least give the public a little bit, because this is one of those cases that we'll be following and talking about here on this program for a long time yet to come, I'm sure, because we. We just don't know. And I think if the FBI would come forward and give us some information, it would go a long ways towards stopping the rumor mill and ceasing the speculation. Matt?
- [37:59]
D
Well, we got to be careful about that. And I don't disagree with you, Phil. It certainly would stop kind of the conspiracy theory aspect of it. But we also. I don't think it was posted what the age of this young man is. She was a juvenile. It's entirely possible if he's under the age of 18, there may be a whole entire additional host of problems with releasing information. It could potentially implicate a juvenile, which is all sealed. And that is one of those things. Every state and federally, the juveniles are treated differently. But we also, when it comes to media, we always have to be careful on the law enforcement side of these investigations not to release too much and infect potential jury pools. So even though it's frustrating to the public, sometimes the best thing to do is keep it quiet. But, but boy, like I said, guys, when you've got, when you get a family member who is posting things online, that is deeply troubling, deeply problematic. And I hope the reason that got taken down is that somebody finally got to him and explained that their investigation's ongoing, they're putting it together and stuff like that doesn't help.
- [39:06]
A
Yeah, Phil, we all want to know. We all want to know. With these high profile cases, we want to know as much as possible, but every time we know more, like Matt said, you're potentially compromising the investigation. When you finally do get a suspect, you're wondering, are those details from what he read on Twitter? X Did he hear it from law enforcement? You want to know that it came exclusively from someone who was there. And so anytime you really want to know, tell yourself it's probably better that you wait and hear it in due time.
- [39:38]
D
Time.
- [39:39]
B
Yeah, I, I completely agree with that as well. You know, the father of the young lady just about a week ago spoke out and he too was complaining that the FBI had basically told them nothing. He was complaining about a lack of evidence. Now, good father, as I understand it at this point in time, as we speak here today, has not corroborated the claims of the person claiming to be the uncle or anything like that. So we will have to wait and see. But there is another case that we can talk about out of Wisconsin where we do know more information. And of course this is the one that we're calling the paranoid pot shooting. Did you hear about this guys? A woman is charged of shooting a Concordia student. She says the two became paranoid after smoking too much pot. Prosecutors say 32 year old Milwaukee woman was paranoid after smoking marijuana shot the Concordia pharmacy student and herself on November 4. The prosecutor's criminal complaint says that Jamaica mills, who was 31 at the time of the shooting, she's charged with first degree reckless homicide. She reportedly told police the evening the shooting occurred at her home that the two smoked marijuana together and they both became so paranoid. The victim, Spilner was expected to cut Mills dog's hair with scissors. But instead Mills retrieved a hand, a handgun after becoming Paranoid. Now, look, I've dealt with lots of individuals in my various roles in the criminal justice system who their lives revolve around the quest to find, seek and smoke marijuana. Okay? And it just literally takes over people's lives. And it's also one of these things where over time, we've seen that marijuana may not be the arguably relatively more harmless plant that maybe our parents or grandparents remember from the 60s or 70s. This is some really strong stuff. And paranoia is one of those things that we know is a side effect of, of marijuana. So this to me says, all right, first off, I don't know that voluntary intoxication is going to be a defense, but Matt Murphy, can it be kind of like a defense?
- [41:58]
D
Yes. We had a very similar case in California with a young woman who had no apparent criminal background, who basically they were, I think the euphemism there, Netflix and Chill Evening with her boyfriend. And he got some marijuana and just like you were saying, felt super strong. And that young woman had a schizophrenic break after smoking this marijuana, and she murdered her boyfriend under really similar circumstances. And it did. Did function as defense for her in that case. And every case is different. And I mean, you know, like you said, it's so ubiquitous, Mark, that we don't want to just create a blanket defense for everybody who's high, because that's pretty much everybody who commits murder, it seems like. But at the same time, there are some cases where it's real, where ingestion of certain drugs will make people, for lack of a better term, lose their minds. And if they don't understand the nature and quality of their acts, it really can impact the mens rea or the state of mind that's necessary to accomplish various degrees of murder. So it all comes into the mix. And remember, criminal courts, as both of you guys know, they are courts of equity. In other words, they are courts of fairness, not black letter law. So the whole goal is to reach the fairest result possible. And so those, you know, in a lot of states, California even being one the of them, insanity is not a defense to certain. To certain. Under certain circumstances, it can be a defense, but it's a really high bar to get over. So this is one of those areas. Temporary insanity is not a defense in the state of California.
- [43:33]
A
Well, Mark, I like mitigation.
- [43:35]
B
Yeah, Mark is. So, you know, voluntary intoxication per se would be out as a defense. But can you, can you have some type of side effect to a drug, whether it be legal or illegal or otherwise, such that you you do become temporarily insane to the point you don't know right or wrong. And are we now into the realm of some type of actual or quasi insanity defense, even though it's grounded in voluntary intoxication? Can you make that argument in court?
- [44:09]
A
You can make any argument, and I've had many cases like this and where it really goes, those usually is to persuade prosecutors to offer a much better plea bargain because this is an isolated incident in an otherwise exemplary life. Someone who really, if they're not smoking the devil's grass, they wouldn't necessarily want to kill someone and you don't have to worry about them ever doing this again in the future, is the argument. And usually showing that this was so isolated and so unique of a circumstance, prosecutors may consider mitigation, not necessarily to negate their guilt because they are responsible ultimately. So yeah, that's where I see it being used most effectively.
- [44:52]
B
All right, well, we'll keep an eye on this one here at MK True Crime Mills is currently in jail with bail set as we speak at $150,000. It remains to be seen whether she will be able to post bond her next court appearances. November 17, 2025 when we get back, we're going to get into your questions and our closing arguments. Stick around.
- [45:14]
C
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 minutes@ondeck.com depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by On, On Deck or Celtic Bank. On Deck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans, an amount subject to lender approval.
- [45:45]
E
Grand Canyon University, an affordable private Christian university based in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, is one of the largest universities in the country. Praised for its culture of community and impact, GCU integrates the free market system, a welcoming Christian worldview and free and open discourse into more than 360 academic programs, including more than 300 online join a nationwide community of learners redefining what online education looks like through academically rigorous and industry driven programs that can spark bold ideas and prepare you for a future that matters. In addition to federal grants and aid, GCU's online students received nearly $161 million in institutional scholarships in 2024. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University Private Christian Affordable Visit gcu Edu Myoffer to see the scholarships you may qualify for.
- [46:44]
B
All right, this is the part of the show where we get to do our closing arguments or the occasional rant, and we also take some of your mail. But first, we have to talk about the Megyn Kelly Live Tour. The tour resumes this week out on the west coast with stops in Bakersfield, Anaheim and Glendale, Arizona, before concluding. Now, I know that Matt, you and Mark Garagos are going to be what, in Bakersfield on the 20th, is that correct?
- [47:14]
D
Mark's going to be in Bakersfield on the 20th. I'm going to be in Anaheim at the Honda center with mark on the 21st.
- [47:20]
B
Ah, okay. So he gets to go twice and then you're going with him. But Mark Igler, you and Dave Aronberg were in Miami. How did that go?
- [47:27]
A
It was wonderful. The energy was extraordinary. I think my favorite part was when people lined up and Megan had no idea what they were gonna ask. And she answered every one of the questions. And it was fun, spontaneous, and she was very real and emotional. It was great.
- [47:44]
B
So Ashley Merchant and I were at the Atlanta stop together and, you know, it was quite the experience to talk about this show before a live audience, particularly in kind of an arena. And I must say, I, you know, the folks were very thrilled because we're so close to Fulton County. They were very thrilled to see Ashley Merchant, I must say. But, but Mark, you're right. I that part of the show where it's towards the beginning where Megan takes questions from just people, it's like whoever can get to the microphone and belt out their question, she doesn't know ahead of time what it is, has no idea if it's going to be a complaint or if it's going to be some type of, of, you know, compliment or a hard question or softball. But she fields them all. And it was quite the, quite the thing to witness. And so if you're in the area or you can get to the area and you've got any kind of interest in seeing the show, you should definitely try to check it out. You can go to MeganKelly.com for your tickets. And also, by the way, before we get to the mailbag, I also want to point out that the MK True Crime is now, this show is now available, obviously, podcast and on YouTube. YouTube, but we're also on Sirius XM, the Megyn Kelly channel, channel 111. It's going to be Tuesdays at 10am and Saturdays at 9 and 10am and this past week, I actually heard it on Sunday. So we are there on Sirius XM, channel 111. Check it out. All right, so to the legal mailbag, we have listener Mary Jane, who says, love the show. I listen every Wednesday and Friday. I'm interested in the career trajectories of the lawyers. Did you always want to go into law? And did you have other careers before? Thank you again for a great show. All right, Matt Murphy, I'll start with you. Mary wants to know about your career trajectory. What do you got?
- [49:35]
D
Well, thanks for that question, Mary. I. I can't do math like a lot of lawyers. So I, I was interested in this, but I had a. I had a. Somebody close to me was sexually assaulted when I was in college. And I went through that process, and that's what really sparked it for me. I really wanted to become a prosecutor after that happened, and fortunately it worked out. So I went straight from undergrad to law school. I was recruited by. Because of some of the sexual assault work that I got to do as a result of that. In undergrad. I got recruited by the FBI, which was great for my ego. And I got recruited by the Orange County DA's office, a woman named Kathy Harper, who came from this sexual assault unit because I had some of that stuff on my resume. So I was brought in, I went through. Everybody learns at misdemeanors. Then I spent four and a half years in, oh, three and a half years in the sexual assault unit before I went on to homicide. And so sexual assault really wound up being the foundation of my legal career. And of course, about, you know, a disturbingly high amount of the cases that you deal with in homicide or are sexual assault related. So that was basically my trajectory. And I represent victims now pro bono who can't afford legal counsel under what's known as Marcy's Law in the state of California, where I will go in and represent them sometimes for free as their case proceeds through the criminal justice system. I've done that mostly for adult women, but when you're in the sex unit, it's about 80% or 85% sexual abuse of children. Children. So that's. That's my career path. I've got. I unfortunately, probably have the therapy pills and the mental scarring to prove it, especially from my days in sexual assault. But I got no regrets. And that's. That's basically been the trajectory of my career.
- [51:24]
B
Excellent. Awesome story, Mark. What got you to where you are, buddy?
- [51:27]
A
I never thought that I would be a lawyer. It never occurred to me. I majored in radio and television production. I wanted to be doing this. I wanted to help people. People understand issues in the most entertaining way. And my dad said, what I heard him say was, no, you got to go be a lawyer. And then I became a lawyer. And then 10 years into my practice, which I enjoyed, I went up to him and I said, dad, I'm pissed at you. I wanted to be on television and you made me be a lawyer. He said, no, no, no. I said, get your law degree first. It will help you with whatever you decide to do. You chose to be a lawyer, and aren't you happy? And by the way, you're not upset that I paid for your damn law school, are you? And I looked at him, I go, oh, my goodness. And he said, if you want to go beyond tv, go effin, make it happen. And it was that day where I said, okay, I'm going to go make it happen. And here I am. And I have the best of both worlds. I'm so grateful to my father for helping me be of service to so many clients, and I get to do both. So I'm extremely grateful and I thank my father for that.
- [52:33]
B
Awesome, awesome story. That's great to hear. And the law degree is a good education, whether you practice law or not. In my case, I started out when I was 16 years old learning how to fly airplanes. I was working after school in a department store at the local mall, and I had some money that was burning a hole in my pocket, so I decided to spend it on flying lessons. So I started out my young adult life wanting to be an airline pilot. But then I got interested in law enforcement. So I went in another direction and I served in law enforcement. I was working as a police officer, and I would see, like, my last full time job in law enforcement before I went to law school, if we made an arrest, I worked nights. And if we made an arrest, we'd have to be in court the next morning if the person did not bond out of jail for a preliminary hearing, which, of course, that gets into my sleeping time and other things. I was already irritated when I would get there and I would watch prosecutors, who in my opinion at the time, not knowing any better, thought, you know, I looked at those folks, I said, you know what? I could do better than that. I could be. I could ask better questions, I could do a better job, I could be more organized. And so that's kind of what inspired me to go into law. And so went to law school, graduated, and then I went in the military and the Military said, look, I know you want to be a prosecutor, but. But we're going to have to make you a defense lawyer and we're going to send you to the West Coast. And so from there I did some time and then I wound up at a prosecutor's office in the metro Atlanta area and then out into private practice. So just like everybody, we all have a journey that we may wind up in a place we never really thought we would be. I know that's the case with me. And we make decisions along the way that changes our, the trajectory of our lives. But that's it. But that's how I got here. And I thank you guys for sharing how you got here. Now it's time for our closing arguments. And let's start with you, Mark Igar. Go ahead, what you got?
- [54:36]
A
So one question that I get asked frequently, which is a fair one, is how do you defend those guilty people? Fair question, and it's a long, complex answer. But one of the parts is, you know, they're not always guilty. I'm reminded of a number of cases where I've been privileged to be a part of where, you know, my clients didn't always do what's being alleged. One case in particular that did never get the recognition that it deserves is a case involving my client, Miguel Macias. Miguel, by the way, is okay with me sharing this story. He was a handyman down in Homestead, which is south of Miami, and he was arrested for brutally beating, raping, kidnapping a teenage girl that he took from a party. Allegedly let her go. She then went on Facebook, found the guy whose party it was, looked for someone named Miguel because she knew that the perpetrator's name was Miguel and found someone and said, that's the guy. And with that he was arrested. So his family came to see me. He had been in custody for about 30 days on a non bondable offense. He was facing a life sentence. He thought his life was over. I didn't initially want to really take the case. There was not much that really appealed to me. But his parents convinced me, like, look, he's got all these tattoos. And I don't think that the victim said that the perpetrator had tattoos. Plus they showed me text messages which seemed to suggest he wasn't even at the party at the time the offense was committed. And with that I went to the prosecutor and I said, look, I'm new to the case, but I may have someone who's innocent. She literally told me what time it was that she doesn't work past 5 o', clock. And if I had anything that I wanted to send to her, dismissively, just send it to me over the next few weeks. Oh, boy. I thought that I had kind of of achieved spirituality where I wouldn't say certain things that I'd have to make amends for, but, boy, did I ever. And I actually said words to her in that conversation that are reserved for when you stub your toe in the middle of the night. You know those words. But anyway, I ultimately then got to her supervisor. By the way, that one prosecutor ain't working there anymore. I went to her supervisor who told me that DNA was taken, and we'll find out whether it's him in, I don't know, about six months when the DNA comes back. I was like, there's no way. I'm not waiting. She said, we're gonna have to wait. I said, I'm not waiting.
- [57:09]
D
Please.
- [57:09]
A
She said, no. I said, please? She said, no. And finally, I wouldn't take no for an answer. She settled on, all right, I'll rush the DNA testing as long as you don't tell your colleagues that I did it. So you didn't hear it from me. And thankfully, this was the headline in the Herald showing that it wasn't his DNA. This is actually us leaving Judge Block's courtroom room. My client, finally, an innocent man. And to put a button on this story, Miguel Macias, my client, is the one featured in the darker shirt. The guy on the right, the one in the white shirt, that's Miguel Bustos. He's doing time for this crime. His DNA matched what was found. So listen, do I represent guilty people? I sure do, occasionally. But always remember that they're not always guilty. And Miguel Macias taught me a great lesson. And again, justice was done.
- [58:07]
B
Awesome. And that truly exemplifies, in my opinion, what zealous advocacy is all about. And congratulations to you, and that was an awesome victory. And it's going to dovetail nicely into what I'm going to say when I get to mine. But first, Matt Murphy, it's your time to make your closing argument.
- [58:25]
D
Yeah. Today I want to talk about good guys and bad guys. And this week, the Epstein files are coming out. And Epstein is back in the news, along with a whole bunch of heat given to Megyn Kelly for a comment that she made about how he's not a pedophile. Now, I've dedicated my entire professional life to prosecuting sex offenders and also protecting or defending women that have been sexually abused. I've done that in My private practice, I've done that pro bono. I have done as much work as I possibly can on behalf of the survivors of sexual assault. When I rotated into sexual assault unit, where it's dedicated, about 85% of the cases that we dealt with dealt with children. And then there were some with adult women. But the very first day, you learn that there are three different varieties of sex offenders. There are those who go after prepubescent children, and that's the word everybody knows. They're called pedophiles. Pubescent children are called. The people that target them are called hebo fights. And then finally, you have what are known as ephebophiles for ephebus, which was a figure in Greek literature, Greek mythology. So when Megyn Kelly got out and she talked about how he was not a pedophile, she was exactly right. That is a distinction that's made in the DSM 5. It's a distinction that's made in the law. And for any professional that actually works in this space, whether you're a counselor, whether you are a detective, whether you're a prosecutor or a judge, everybody in that world knows the difference. Okay, so on the critics side here, I think that we can divide the people that are jumping on Megyn Kelly over this into two groups. Those who are understandably very emotional because they think that she's defending Jeffrey Epstein, which she was not, and those who know better, those that know exactly what she was talking about. And these people include a lot of folks, folks from the defund the police crowd. And let me tell you something. The way it works, when you defund the police, the first place they cut are specialized units. What's the specialized unit? The sexual assault unit in virtually every police department in America. And when they lose funding because people have rallied against, like we saw in Los Angeles county, the first place cut is the sexual assault unit, which means there's less sex detectives. And the way it works with sex offenders guys, is that until they are caught, they will continue to offend. Now, serial killers, thankfully, are very rare. FBI estimates between 25 and 50 active in the United States at any given time. Sex offenders are literally everywhere. So when you cut back on detectives that are. That are fighting them, that are putting those cases together, you are helping sexual predators. And when people come out and they criticize Megyn Kelly from the defund the police crowd because they're trying to. To exploit the emotions of those who don't understand the distinction that she was talking about. Megyn Kelly was a lawyer, guys, for over 10 years from the same people that have been policing our language, telling us how much words matter. She was exactly right. Jeffrey Epstein is an ephebophile. He's every bit as much a monster. Heads still need to roll over that. I can't wait to read those files. But for those who cynically take advantage of the emotion of sexual assault victims to advance their own political agenda, because. Because they're against Megyn Kelly, those people can go fuck themselves because they are the ones that are advocating, in effect, on behalf of sexual predators by trying to defund the police. I will debate any of them anytime, anywhere. I got no time for listening to them, but I got plenty of time if they want to engage me on any platform, anywhere they want. Megyn Kelly is one of the good guys. Cops love her. She's pro victim. And when I'm introducing her this Friday night at the Honda center center, they gave me 14 tickets. Every one of those seats is either going to be a police officer or a family member of a police officer because they love Megyn Kelly. Okay, so that's my rant for today. Megyn Kelly again is one of the good guys. And that's it. That's my rant.
- [62:23]
B
Excellent. Thanks. All right, so I want to talk about wrongful convictions. And this dovetails with what Mark had brought up with his recent victory with his client. Wrongful convictions are real, okay? And when they happen, innocent people get sent to prison. We have an imperfect system with inherent flaws that can lead to a certain degree of unreliability of the evidence that's used in criminal trials. This can stem from honest errors, perhaps sloppy police work, sloppy prosecutor work, sloppy defense lawyer work, or even deliberate wrongdoing by various players in the justice system system. Here are some of the most common systemic flaws that can lead to wrongful convictions. We have mistaken eyewitness identification, which I've talked about here on the show before. People who say they saw the crime or they think they did, they may point the finger at the wrong problem or the wrong person. This is very common because human memory is not perfect. Things like stress, poor lighting, distance, or even subtle suggestions from law enforcement or others, perhaps in a lineup that can mess it up. And for example, someone might swear they saw you commit the crime, but in reality it was someone else. And you could become a victim of mistaken identity. And then we have faulty or misleading forensic evidence. This is the CSI stuff that, contrary to what you might hear, can in fact go wrong. DNA evidence is rarely wrong when it's used right, but there can be problems with how it's collected and otherwise analyzed. Fingerprints. And one thing that's a big problem is bite marks. Bite marks used to be, you know, welcome in the criminal justice world. And juries would convict people on the basis of bite marks, which have now been completely discredited. Forensic odon. They call it forensic odontology. It's just been completely discredited. So these are the types of things that. That can bring unreliable, sometimes allegedly scientific evidence into a courtroom that can lead to wrongful convictions. And then of course, we have things like false confession, something else we've talked about. Sometimes innocent people will admit to crimes that they didn't do. And it's sometimes under conditions like intense pressure, long interrogation, threats, promises of leniency. This hits vulnerable people pretty hard. Kids, people with mental health issues, or anyone who's just exhausted or even scared. Shockingly, over a quarter of DNA exonerated cases have involved fake or false confessions. We have unreliable informant testimony. We saw some jailhouse snitches in the Donna Adelson trial that we covered here on the show. And we've talked about this. Jailhouse snitches or other witnesses sometimes lie, and sometimes they exaggerate straight because they want to get a deal, they want to get a reduced sentence. They might claim you confessed when maybe you didn't. And sometimes they just make things up for their own personal gains. And juries unfortunately, sometimes buy this garbage without much scrutiny, and prosecutors put it up without much scrutiny. Then we have police or prosecutor misconduct or even judicial misconduct. We've seen that. We see false narratives that get created and pushed because sometimes prosecutors will fail to disclose what we call Brady evidence. That's evidence that's exculpatory, that points away from guilt and to innocence. And sometimes they hide that stuff. And so that will create a false narrative that can affect the case at the beginning. It can go all the way to the verdict. We have things like perjury. We have fraud that can take place in a courtroom right on the witness stand. We can have negligence, and we can have corner cutting by prosecutors who just want a conviction. Or defense lawyers who are just ready to get home at the end of the day. Day. Which brings me to inadequate defense. This is called ineffective assistance of counsel. Maybe the lawyer, defense lawyer drops the ball. Maybe they're overworked. Maybe they're inexperienced, they're tired, and they don't investigate properly. And without a good pushback by a zealous defense advocate like Mark Iglarch and Matt Murphy on your side. Weak evidence can slip through and can seal a guilty verdict. Groups like the Innocence Project have helped free hundreds of people, hundreds, by exposing these issues, often with DNA testing. But reforms are happening. That's the good news. But it shows how the system can fail, even despite good faith effort. Listen to this. Total exoneration since 1989, 3698 that we know of prior to 1989. An additional 463 cases that we're aware of. Of. There's more, but these are just the ones that we know of. Overall trend, the numbers of exonerations have been rising in recent years, up to about 150 exonerations annually. Okay, we had one recently in September where somebody was exonerated after 30 years for a wrongful rape conviction. And we have had people have been exonerated who have been on death row awaiting their execution. So. So we have a long way to go in the justice system. There are reforms that need to be made. We still have an excellent system, but there are problems. There are things that need to be worked on and we can continue to talk about them and learn about them here at MK True Crime. And that's my rant. That's my closing argument. Today. I want to say thank you to all of you for being part of our audience. You are why we are here and we are thankful for you. And I'm also thankful for my fellow MK True Crime contributors, Mark Iglersch, Matt Murphy. Thanks for joining me today here at MK True Crime. Remember, folks, send your story, suggestions, questions and comments to us mktruecrime@devilmaycaremedia.com and have a great rest of your week.