← MK True Crime
MK True Crime
Shock ARREST in D4vd Case, “Au Pair Affair” Defendant Takes Stand, Kouri Richins Drops Bomb Ahead of Trial, with Vinnie Politan
01:07:30
MK True Crime hosts Ashleigh Merchant and Phil Holloway join the show to discuss the arrest of singer D4vd’s friend, Neo Langston, why Neo quickly bonded out, what this means for the murder investigation of Celeste Rivas Hernandez, the 14-year-old found dead in D4vd’s Tesla, why Lindsay Clancy, the woman accused of killing her three children with exercise bands in 2023, is suing her healthcare providers, if Clancy has a case in light of her past mental health history, what this means for her trial coming up this summer, and Vinnie Politan, Court TV Lead Anchor, joins the show to discuss the “Au Pair” murder trial happening this week, why defendant Brendan Banfield took the stand in his own defense, whether Brendan persuaded the jury with his story or not, why closing arguments could sway the jury, why Kouri Richins is claiming the state is threatening witnesses ahead of her murder trial, the two very different explanations behind the “Walk the Dog” letter found in Richins’ jail cel...
Loading summary
Transcript204 lines
- [00:01]
A
This Valentine's Day, let Edible help you share the love with Same day and next day delivery or local pickup, we.
- [00:07]
B
Make it easy to be the hero of the holiday.
- [00:10]
A
Choose from our signature fresh fruit arrangements, indulgent dessert boards or baked treats that arrive ready to wow. Whether it's for a new flame or your forever sweetheart, let Edible arrange the details so you can focus on the moment. Order online@edible.com or visit your local store today to find the perfect gift.
- [00:30]
C
ABC's David Muir, the most trusted anchor.
- [00:33]
A
In America, the most watched anchor in America. Thank you for making World News Tonight with David Muir the number one newscast in America.
- [00:42]
C
Most trusted, most watched David Muir on abc.
- [00:50]
A
Welcome to MK True Crime. I'm Ashley Merchant. I'm a criminal defense attorney out of Atlanta, Georgia. Here's what's on the docket today. A key grand jury witness in the David case was arrested for failing to testify. We'll share how this person is connected to David and more. And Lindsay Clancy, the mother accused of killing her three children, is now suing several of her mental health care providers. Does she have a case? We'll discuss. And Court TV lead anchor Vinnie Politin joins us to discuss the latest in the au pair murder case and the Corey Richens claim that the state is threatening witnesses ahead of her murder trial. I'm joined today by my co host, Phil Holloway, criminal lawyer, ex prosecutor and former police officer. Good to see you, Phil.
- [01:32]
B
Ashley, always happy to be with you. And look, I'm very excited about today's show. You know why? Because this is like old home week for you. And I know having Vinnie Politan come on the show because you and I can trace our media roots squarely back to doing crime media tv. Really? With Vinnie.
- [01:50]
A
Oh, I can't wait to see him. I think we'll have to talk about our time when we did a jury show with him and we were on the jury. But Phil. So we've had some movement in this David case. And a quick reminder for our listeners, the badly decomposed body of 14 year old Celeste Rivera Hernandez was found in singer's David Carr in September. The case is being investigated as a homicide and a secret grand jury is hearing evidence in the case right now. So Phil, what is going on with this witness who doesn't want to testify in front of the grand jury and now apparently got locked up for that?
- [02:22]
B
You know, normally when we do what we call, you know, these are, these are, it's an attachment warrant. Right? It's a, it's a material witness Warrant for a witness who doesn't want to come to court or, in this case, come to a grand jury. They. They had to lock this guy up. His name is Neo Langston. Right. He's a social media influencer. He's often photographed with. And I. It pains me to call him David. I keep wanting to call him D4VD.
- [02:50]
A
I know, I know.
- [02:51]
B
Anyway, he's. He's one of, I guess, inner circle. Right. And so I think the idea is they want to see what David's demeanor was like. What was it like when he learned about the discovery of this body all chopped up in the Tesla? And so they think that Neo Langston has some relevant information, and Neo Langston hasn't wanted to participate, but they. They do this attachment warrant. It's a. It's a warrant for basically not cooperating or not complying with a subpoena. They drag you in, literally in handcuffs. Normally, Ashley, you don't. You and I don't see this that often, but when we do see it, the person is brought in, they are required to testify to comply with the warrant, and then they can be released. In this case, they let him go right. On a bond, $60,000 bail. What we don't know is whether there's been some kind of a deal that's been made that will, I guess, ensure his cooperation or ensure that he will testify. But normally we don't see people getting out on bonds like this. It's very much a head scratcher.
- [03:53]
A
I'll.
- [03:54]
B
I guess we'll have to wait and see. But hopefully they've got his cooperation and cooperation of other people, because it does feel like LAPD actually is getting very close to making some criminal charges in this case.
- [04:07]
A
Yeah. You know, Phil, I completely agree. I think we are getting close. The fact that they've got a grand jury and they're actually locking up witnesses. I thought it was interesting also that he did get out on bond, because normally a witness would stay in custody until they're compelled to testify. So they're not going to actually be released until after they testify. So. So we don't know what he said or what type of a witness he is, but he's obviously important. They've got him under subpoena. He didn't show up, and you got to go to jail for that. I mean, it's. You know, I hate that process. I'm sure you've had cases where you've had witnesses, you know, come out, the state has them in custody, and they come out, you know, with Shackles and things like that. You've. You've seen some of those with me. It's an interesting moment when that happens.
- [04:46]
B
But literally dragged in in handcuffs and leg irons. And they're, you know, they're not like, charged with a crime. They're just charged with, you know, failure to comply with the subpoena. Anybody who's ever got a subpoena, even if it's like, just for a deposition or anything like that, it says, you know, you will show up at such and such date and time. And then they say something like, herein fail not under penalty of law. Well, that's what that means, right? That's what it means under penalty of law. It means that the cops are going to drag you in kicking and screaming in handcuffs if need be, but they will. It's called compulsory process. They will compel your attendance. And not normally, you don't get out of those handcuffs until your attendance has been achieved.
- [05:27]
A
Right. Until your testimony is actually secure. And I'm thinking the fact that he got a bond tells us that they're going to have him testify at the grand jury and then they're going to want him to testify again at the actual trial. And they don't want to lose this guy because, you know, obviously he's. He's disobeying, you know, disobeying subpoena, disobeying, going to the grand jury. But. So he's out on a $60,000 bond. But we've got some other stuff going on in the David case, another associate. So essentially, I don't know if you remember the owner of the house, Steve Fisher, he was hired by the owner of the house. So David was living in a house where her body was found, you know, in that area and renting that house. And so the owner actually hired this investigator, this PI Steve Fisher, to actually, you know, do some. Some work around the house and try and figure out what was going on. Well, apparently he said, so if they need Langston as a witness, and Langston, again, is that social media influencer we were just talking about that's out on the $60,000. It makes him think that he might be offered a deal. And you know, what he's saying there is because they haven't locked him up as a witness, that maybe they're going to offer him some type of a deal to testify. You know, I think it's interesting about this Stephen Fisher because he actually just tweeted, I don't know if you saw on X, he just did a tweet about this guy, about Neo, and some of the things he said was, I know Neo started the tour with him, but I do not believe he was there for the entire duration. He, he thinks that David's manager, he named some names. He named Robert Morgan Roth. He said he was likely involved, but he may not have been on the road continuously.
- [06:57]
B
Can I interrupt you actually real quick? Yeah. When he says when, when, when this Revis guy says that David's manager was likely involved, do you know what he means by that? Because that's, that's a dangerous thing to put out there on social media. Likely involved with. What is he saying he was involved with? Concealing a death or a murder or just likely involved with the grand jury? What exactly is he trying to say? Because, yeah, that's the million dollar questions.
- [07:25]
A
I know, and I think that's the million dollar question. You know, when I, when I read it, it doesn't sound like he knows anything specific, but he sounds like based on their relationship. And, you know, we all know if David was involved, he had to have some help. I mean, that's one of the things we've been able to kind of guess this entire time. He couldn't. This isn't a one man show, you know, not a one man crime. So maybe the relationship with this manager is that, that, that led him to believe that he was involved. He also called someone else out. He said he named another name, Asia Collins, one of David's friends, and said, I believe was with David the entire time on the road and at each show and was with him the day the news broke. So I'm thinking, Phil, that we may be hearing that these folks either testify in front of a grand jury or maybe they'll be like, you know, like their buddy Neo Cuffs.
- [08:09]
B
He's, he's saying that it would be extremely telling to know how those conversations unfolded after it became public that Celeste's body had been located. You know, I guess it just depends on what the grand jury and what the prosecutors are trying to get out of these witnesses. I mean, are you supposed to describe how someone responds? Like what they look like, what they sound like, the things they say? I think the things that they say when confronted with this information might be a lot more probative. But he goes on to say, if people are offered immunity, it doesn't mean they are not guilty. It means they got lucky. But karma does not care about luck. Right. So are these people being granted immunity? If so, immunity from what? If all they are are witnesses to how David responded when he learned about the body being found in the car. They're just fact witnesses. They don't need immunity if you're a fact witness, but if you're a suspect, you need immunity. And so we're sort of left to kind of guess about a lot of this, but because the cops are just not talking, the prosecutors aren't talking, and of course the grand jury stuff is. Is secret. So normally you have a lot of leaks and investigations like this. And I tell you, Mark Garagos and Matt Murphy probably know a lot more about this because they are plugged in, in that LA legal community. But we just are left to wonder what is going on with, with all these witnesses that might be given immunity?
- [09:47]
A
Well, I don't. Let me tell you my theory and then let's see if you agree with my theory. So. And I, you know, and I hate to. I hate to even throw out the name Epstein, but. I know, I know, I know. Just bear with me for a second. Just bear with me. Okay, so we know, we know this girl is underage. Okay? We know they're having a sexual relationship. We know that. Anybody who helped facilitate that. Now you're seeing why I'm throwing out Epstein. Anybody who helped facilitate that. Did they drive her somewhere? Our sex trafficking laws all say, if you drive someone to, to a place of prostitution, look at Diddy. I'm going to throw them all out. Look at Diddy. You know, if you arrange for, for an underage person to be transported for the purpose of sex or for the purpose of anything illegal that's, you know, sexual related photos, anything like that, you could be an accomplice to that. So I wonder if all of these folks, maybe they didn't have anything to do with the murder, but maybe they were really nervous because they're going to have background questions about this girl. They're going to have questions about how did this girl know David? They're going to have questions about what they saw. Did they give her a ride? Maybe? I mean, because under our sex trafficking laws, if they gave her a ride or they paid for an Uber and she ended up having sex, they could be accomplices. So I feel like there's a lot of culpability with these witnesses. I know if they gave me a call and said, hey, do you want to represent me in front of the grand jury, I'd be like, oh, hold on. Oh, hold on. Are you named basically in an Epstein file type situation, you know, and that's where I have this equation with Epstein. That's that's just my. That's my crazy theory on it.
- [11:13]
B
So, like, we. We all have questions, right? How can you not have questions about the nature and the scope of this relationship between D4VD and the teenage girl? I mean, so the question would become, all the people that are in his orbit, what. What have they seen? What have they heard? Are they somehow, as you pointed out, like an accessory, or we would call it maybe a party to the crime?
- [11:40]
A
Right.
- [11:40]
B
Because there's so much more here than just the question of how this teenager came to be dismembered in the Tesla and under what circumstances. That's just the sad end of this story. The beginning of this story goes back to whatever the nature of this relationship was. And so there's just a lot of layers of this onion to peel back. And I'm afraid that the more we peel back, the more this onion is going to stink to hell.
- [12:10]
A
Oh, my gosh. There's just so much. I mean, if you. It's just such an odd situation. And I think people who know David and, you know, I know we've talked about this before. I didn't really know who he was. You know, it's. It's not really my. My genre, but my teenage kids knew exactly who it was. And his music is just dark. And, you know, he talks about a lot of these acts in his music. I can't help but wonder if there were drugs involved and if maybe some of these folks were culpable in getting the drugs. Maybe the manager. I. Manager. And I'm like, oh, did he. Did he transport someone for sex? Or did he, you know, help get drugs that maybe she overdosed? And there's just a lot, like you said, Phil, that we don't know. It's all this cloud of secrecy. And, you know, as soon as these folks start testifying in front of the grand jury, we get an indictment. Maybe we'll start to actually be able to peel those layers back that you're talking about on the.
- [12:53]
B
Yeah, well. Well, one thing is for sure, to the folks watching on YouTube or listening on podcast here at MK True Crime, we are going to be all over this as it develops, and, you know, we're going to be here for the whole thing as long as it takes.
- [13:10]
A
Olivia loves a challenge.
- [13:13]
B
It's why she lifts heavy weights and likes complicated recipes.
- [13:19]
C
But for booking her trip to Paris.
- [13:20]
A
Olivia chose the easy way with Expedia, she bundled her flight with a hotel to save more. Of course, she still climbed all 674.
- [13:28]
B
Steps to the Top of the Eiffel Tower.
- [13:31]
A
You were made to take the easy route.
- [13:33]
C
We were made to easily package your trip.
- [13:36]
A
Expedia made to travel flight inclusive packages are atoll protected. ABC's David Muir, the most trusted anchor in America.
- [13:44]
B
The most watched anchor in America.
- [13:47]
A
Thank you for making World News Tonight with David Muir the number one newscast in America.
- [13:52]
C
Most trusted most watched David Muir on abc.
- [13:56]
A
If you are looking to make smarter choices for your health this year, consider Riverbend Ranch. Their steaks are not only delicious, they also contain real high quality protein that helps fuel your body. Beef is a complete protein and contains all nine essential amino acids your body needs to function. It also keeps you 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 t 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 M E G y n for 20 bucks off your first order.
- [15:02]
B
You know, actually there's something else that is in our rundown today. Speaking of drugs, this Lindsay Clancy case. I've been dying to talk to you about this one. Let me just give the rundown on that real quick. Just sort of the, the backdrop. So we're moving to from California now to Massachusetts. And this is goes back to January of 24th of 2023. Lindsay Clancy is from Duxbury, Massachusetts. She sent her husband, this is all according to prosecutors. Now she sent her husband Patrick out to pick up some medication and some food. And this is very painful for me to talk about as a parent, but this is a true crime show and this is truly what the alleged crime is about. While he was gone, the mother Lindsay strangled her, her three children, including her five year old daughter Cora, a three year old son named Dawson and a seven month old son named Callan with exercise bands. And then she threw herself, jumped out of a second floor window in an apparent attempt to kill herself un alive herself. And in the process she became paralyzed, I guess from like the sternum down. Right. And and she's set to stand trial. But, you know, this is a new one for me. I have never seen this before. I think it's part of her defense. Obviously, she's. She's claiming that she was insane. She has this mental health insanity defense. And that's. That was what. What you would expect. But she's actually going on the offensive, Ashley. She has filed a malpractice lawsuit. She has alleged that her mental health care providers failed to diagnose her bipolar disorder and prescribed her a revolving do of pharmaceuticals that triggered a psychotic break. And I want to jump ahead real quick because I want to. I wanted a list of all these things, right? They say that the cocktail of prescriptions that Clancy was prescribed on and off between October and December 2022 included Zoloft, Trazodone, Prozac, Ambien, Remeron, Klonopin, Seroquel, Ativan, Valium, Lamictal, and who knows what else. But that's just what we see from the lawsuit. I'm no doctor, I'm no psychiatrist, but I deal with people who have mental health issues. And I think that's a hell of a lot of drugs.
- [17:29]
A
It's a hell of a lot of drugs. And, you know, she was diagnosed with bipolar one disorder. So what does that mean? That means she's manic. That means she rapid cycles. That means she goes from ups to downs, ups to downs. You know, could. Could do that within the same day. So you got to think about all of those levels are fluctuating. Take out the fact that she just had a kid. Okay, let's that out. Let's just talk about her brain. She is bipolar one. So her moods are all across the board. She's manic, she's depressed, she wants to kill herself, she wants to kill someone else. She's all across the board. So you've got that. Then you've got these hormone drops. And you know, your wife has had two beautiful children. I've had two beautiful children. Postpartum depression happens. And it doesn't necessarily mean that you're depressed. It doesn't mean that you have a mental illness. But your hormones are whacked after you have a kid. It's just reality. So you've got that playing in. So you got her moods already going all over the place. You got her hormones going all over the place. And then you throw these drugs in and these drugs, half of them. I mean, I don't even know if half of them. I was looking at them and I was like, okay, so that's a tranquilizer, a really serious tranquilizer. That's an antipsychotic. That's an antidepressant. You know, that's a sleep medicine. That's an upper. That's a downer. I mean, the balls are just all over the place, you know, the hormone balls, the mental health balls, the medicine balls. I mean, this is just crazy. So I see why. Why someone looking at this. You know, she's got all the. The classic signs that something is going to happen. You know, I see why they want to blame these healthcare providers. I get that. But then I look at the lawsuit and I look at what they're talking about, and we've got some of it. We can talk about some of it. Apparently, according to the lawsuit, Clancy had entered a dissociative, dreamlike state as she strangled her children.
- [19:10]
B
That's the kind of state where you're. You're like, maybe you don't feel like you're in your own body. Right.
- [19:15]
A
You're watching.
- [19:15]
B
It's like you're watching events that you're actually involved in.
- [19:19]
A
Right, Right. You don't know what's real. You don't know what's. What's. It's like when you wake up from a dream and you're like, did I go, you know, was that a real dream or what? Did that really happen? Things like that. But that's what she was living. You know, that's what she was experiencing. And I think from all of the evidence that they have, this is a person who wanted kids and loved her children and loved her family. So it's not someone that was. You know, we don't have evidence like we have in some other cases where she's having this affair and she wants to get rid of her kids so she can go live this other exotic life. And they're holding her down like she was happy with her life. So, you know, it's just. It's just awful that something like this could happen. I mean, she tried to kill herself. That. That. That tells about her mood also. It left her paralyzed. I mean, this is just. This is a sad situation.
- [20:01]
B
They call it in the lawsuit a catastrophic failure to properly diagnose, treat, and monitor Clancy as her postpartum mental health rapidly declined. Now, some people will say, and I understand why, and they might very well be right. They may just say, look, this is a ploy. This is a ploy, a cynical ploy by her lawyers and her. To escape criminal liability. You're going to have people that say, that then you're going to have people that say, oh, my God, she was a victim and her husband ought to be joining this lawsuit and claiming wrongful death on behalf of his children because they, they gave her all this crazy medication. And, you know, I don't know. I don't know what the answer is. All I know is that if she did not know right from wrong essentially at the time, and they can prove that through medical evidence, then she might very well have a mental health type defense. I don't know. We'll have to follow this case and see where it goes. But I can tell you that based on my own experience in practicing law, and I think you probably can say the same thing. I have seen people who have various types of mental health needs, some more than others, some need a lot. And one of the things that I have seen is over medication or wrong medication or wrong combinations of medication that make them worse. I'll get a client that has a whole constellation of issues going on and they change to a. Another healthcare provider. And one of the things that they oftentimes do, they say, all right, let's just get you off of everything and get a new baseline. Because you really can't go from one doctor to another and tell what the baseline is if you're on all these psychotropic meds, at least in my layperson's opinion. But having dealt with this in my career a lot.
- [21:49]
A
No, and that's. I think that's one of the things that was alleged in the lawsuit. She apparently. So, let's see. So she had told her husband that she was having thoughts of harming the kids. She admitted herself to. I mean, she's doing all the things she's supposed to do. She admitted herself to a day programs at the Women and Infants Hospital. Said she was numb, she was messed up. They ruled out postpartum depression. They ruled out bipolar, which, you know, why did they rule that out? They ruled all of that out. And then this is what really got me. The hospital ultimately ruled out the postpartum depression and bipolar disorder. A conclusion the lawsuit blames on an inadequate patient history. And, you know, you hear this push for medical records. Better. Better medical records. We, this is the United States of America. Why do we not have a better medical record system than this? Why, you know, why are her records not available to doctors? I mean, that's, that's just. That's a systematic failure. You know, a lot of people, A.
- [22:42]
B
Lot of people don't want their medical records, like, digitized and online and available in these databases due to privacy concerns. And I could see that side of it, too.
- [22:53]
A
Yeah.
- [22:54]
B
But, you know, here's the thing. She obviously had a lot going on. And I just can't help but wonder if you're just an objective medical practitioner, and maybe some of you are who are watching or listening to this, and maybe you can get into YouTube and tell us in the comments. I mean, tell me your thoughts. Do you think that. That this laundry list of various psychotropic drugs that I read off just a few minutes ago, is that questionable? Is that not questionable? Is it normal? I know what I think, and I know what medical professionals I've talked to today about this. Tell me. But I'd be curious to see what folks put in the comments or maybe you can email us a question about that. But, you know, speaking of this mental health issue, we've talked about Nick Reiner, Ashley. And I think we have a little sort of new development on that front.
- [23:49]
A
Yeah. So apparently one of his former roommates, this guy, had lived with him, with Nick Reiner back when they were teenagers. They lived at a very fancy rehab. It was something like, let me see, like six, $60,000 per month, a Malibu rehab. And apparently they had been friends. They shared a room at this rehab when they were 15 years old. They had a big fight. And he gave some insight into Nick Reiner. He said that Nick was a very got, you know, sort of a violent person. He had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. He hated his parents. He talked a lot about how much he hated his parents. He said specifically that Rob and Michelle Reiner did everything they could, but that he just kept talking about how much he effing hated his parents. And he had a lot of oppressed anger. So, you know, if that comes out at trial, I think that could potentially undermine any insanity defense.
- [24:38]
B
Yeah. Our intrepid producer Natasha, poses the question. Could the prosecution call someone like this as a witness? Does this help their case? Well, yes and no, I would say. And I want to hear, you know, and actually, please, if you see it differently, tell me. I don't think that you can just call a witness just generally to say somebody's a scumbag who's entitled, spoiled, acts like an ass, that kind of thing, that's not really probative or relevant. But if he's claiming that he was insane and did not know right from wrong at the time he allegedly murdered his mother and father, yet we have him stating to this witness who was his roommate at the rehab, saying that he told me how much he effing hated his parents, especially his father. Well, to me, that's relevant. You know, that's. That's relevant to someone's state of mind. It's relevant to motive. Yes, that kind of thing could come in. I guess it depends on whether you can corroborate it, right? Is it. Did anybody else hear these conversations? But look, I would be really surprised as an ex cop. I put my cop hat on here for a minute.
- [25:48]
A
It.
- [25:49]
B
Don't you think, Ashley, that they're. The investigators are combing through his background to see if he said it allegedly to this guy, that he hates his parents, especially his father, has he said it to anybody else? And if they come in with a whole parade of witnesses that say, you know, Nick told me that he hated his mom or his dad, you know, that really could be very damning to his defense case.
- [26:14]
A
Yeah, you know, and I agree with you on that. You know, typically it wouldn't be relevant. It wouldn't be something that comes in. But as soon as he puts up an insanity defense or he negates the premeditation, then all of a sudden, things that weren't relevant before become relevant. You know, I like to try to educate some of our listeners. It's called opening the door. So if you're watching a trial and you hear someone say they opened the door, that's what that means. So what Phil's explaining is, you know, this evidence wouldn't necessarily come in, but as soon as Nick Reiner says, hey, I didn't do this, you know, I didn't. I loved my parents. I wasn't angry at my parents, I couldn't see right from wrong. He's opening the door to the state, bringing up evidence to dispute what he's. So I think we may be able to see it come in there. But, you know, the risk is always, Phil, that they're going to bring in how many people, you know, 20 people to say he hated his parents. And then the defense is going to go bring in 20 people to say he loved his parents. And you get to a point where the judge is going to have to limit some of that, because I'm sure they could find a ton of people that says he hates him and a ton of people that says he loves them.
- [27:10]
B
Well, I have a feeling that between this Nick Reiner case and this Lindsey Clancy case, the things that we're going to be talking about here on this show moving forward are going to have a lot to do with mental health and mental health treatment, and maybe we can get some, some good guests in here who are subject matter experts on that because it's obviously something that plays a role in criminal cases.
- [27:34]
A
Yeah, I think that's a great idea because it is. You know, I took classes in, in law school. It's kind of funny. We had a program with the, with the medical school where psychiatrists would come over and take classes with us at the law school and we would take classes with them because it is such an intersection. So, you know, it's one of those things that we have to deal with. And we really have been talking about a lot of cases with mental illness. And next, speaking about another interesting crazy case, we're going to dig into the crazy au pair murder case. It's a trial that's happening right now. Court TV lead anchor Vinny Politan is going to join us. Stay tuned.
- [28:08]
C
ABC's David Muir, the most trusted anchor.
- [28:11]
A
In America, the most watched anchor in America. Thank you for making World News Tonight with David Muir, the number one newspaper in America.
- [28:20]
C
Most trusted, most watched.
- [28:21]
A
David Muir on abc. Did you know Tide has been upgraded to provide an even better clean in cold water? Tide is specifically designed to fight any stain you throw at it. Even in cold butter. Yep. Chocolate ice cream. Sure thing. Barbecue sauce. Tide's got you covered. You don't need to use warm water. Additionally, Tide pods let you confidently fight tough stains with new coldzyme technology. Just remember, if it's gotta be clean, it's gotta be tied. Let's talk about All Family Pharmacy. They do what pharmacies are supposed to do, just better. They get people the medications they need fast and at a fair price. When you do not want to wait in line or deal with insurance headaches and you want your medications delivered straight to your home, All Family Pharmacy makes it simple. When everyone around you is getting sick and you want to be prepared instead of reactive, consider All Family Pharmacy. And when your doctor refuses to prescribe medications like ivermectin, even after you've done your research, All Family Pharmacy gives you another option. They have got antibiotics, antivirals, Tamiflu, Ivermectin, blood pressure medications, and a lot more you order online. A licensed doctor reviews your request and your medications ship straight to your door. It's that simple. Be prepared for the year ahead. Visit allfamilypharmacy.com Megan use the code Megan 10 to save 10% on your next order. That's allfamilypharmacy.com, megan code Megan 10 to save 10%.
- [29:51]
B
All right. Welcome back to MK True Crime. Brendan Banfield. He's the Virginia man accused of killing his wife and another man he planned to pin that murder on. He took the stand in his own defense this week. The question is, was that a good idea or not? Here to discuss that and more is Court TV lead anchor and my friend, Ashley's friend and former prosecutor Vinnie Politan. Vinnie, welcome to MK True Crime.
- [30:19]
C
How you guys doing, man? It's unbelievable. This is a reunion. It's amazing.
- [30:23]
B
I said at the beginning of the show, it's like old home week around here. We, Ashley and I, you were doing this before us, but Ashley and I, our first ever endeavors into the true crime world were with you on your shows.
- [30:36]
C
There you go. Fantastic. Well, you know, there's a few people that. That, you know, I. They came on my show first, and then we've seen what's happened. You guys are just blown up. So it's awesome. I have a good eye for talent. I think that's.
- [30:51]
A
Yes, yes, yes, definitely. That's awesome. That's awesome. Well, it's so good to have you.
- [30:56]
C
Yeah. Great to be here.
- [30:58]
B
All right, well, look, look, I. We. We got to talk first about this Banfield case, right? I know that you guys.
- [31:05]
C
One second, one second. I just have to tell the au pair to take care of the kids.
- [31:11]
A
And stop and get off that fetish website.
- [31:13]
C
Oh, yeah.
- [31:14]
B
Oh, my gosh. All right, Vinnie, look, so what's going on this week? You know, we've got this case. We're just kind of like a round table discussion here. It's not really a Q and A like some shows do. We'll just do a round table with this. From your perspective, what's going on with this case, and was it a good idea for him to take the stand?
- [31:34]
C
Oh, for Court tv, it was a great idea. It was the best idea ever for him as a criminal defendant, I think. So he had to, because you had the. The au pair testified.
- [31:47]
B
Right.
- [31:47]
C
She told her story and. Okay, I put the piece together that seemed to make sense. Does he have some alternative story that could potentially make sense? And I think he had to. And. And the thing about him is. And I know you've probably spoken to tons of these body language experts, right?
- [32:06]
A
Yeah.
- [32:06]
C
And one thing that all of them say is that when someone is over explaining irrelevant material, you know they're lying.
- [32:18]
B
Oh.
- [32:19]
C
It's. Well, and it gets into the minutia. Like, if you're spending all this time talking about your QR code on your McDonald's app when you're explaining why you had to circle around twice instead of just saying, ah, my app wasn't working, so I circled around twice instead. Well, I have this app and they have a QR code and, you know, some. He did it for everything. And to me, it was so uncomfortable to listen to in. In one way and another way it was. To me, it was a tell. It was a tell.
- [32:48]
A
Yeah, it was. It hasn't been good, but, you know, I'm really curious, Finney. This comes down to Anfil. This comes down to whether you believe her, the au pair, or him. Really. I mean, that's what it is. And that's why I think he had to testify, because otherwise, the only person we had heard from was the au pair with this wild, crazy story. So now what? The jury's going to have to choose. Do we believe him?
- [33:09]
C
Who?
- [33:10]
A
I mean, not likable, but not quite as crazy of a story as the au pair. What do you think? How do the two compared?
- [33:18]
C
Well, I.
- [33:20]
B
Well, hang on, let me interrupt. Let's just look at the. Let's look at some of that testimony and then we can talk about how they compare. We've got some of the. Some slots on this.
- [33:27]
A
Yeah.
- [33:28]
B
But by the way, in case you aren't following this. All right, so Brandon Banfield is being accused of concocting this elaborate scheme to kill his wife, Christine Banfield, and another man named Joseph Ryan in their family home back in February of 2023. The prosecutors are putting on a case over, I guess, four days or so worth of testimony and evidence telling the jury that Banfield plotted with his family's au pair to pose as his wife on a fetish website and lure the victim, Ryan, to their home under the guise of having a consensual, yet violent sexual encounter. Let's go ahead and roll SOT one. This is Brendan's testimony about his affair with Juliana and previous affairs.
- [34:12]
A
We were having an affair.
- [34:13]
C
I had also indicated to her that I had previous affairs.
- [34:20]
A
And that really.
- [34:21]
C
This was just an affair, and not that there would be no other relationship that there's. But basically that this is something that.
- [34:36]
A
I have had affairs previously and that.
- [34:38]
C
There'S nothing that changes in mine and Christine's relationship.
- [34:46]
B
Now, was Christine aware of your affair?
- [34:48]
C
I don't believe she was aware of the affair between me and Juliana.
- [34:53]
B
Was she aware of your previous affairs?
- [34:57]
C
She was aware of at least two previous affairs.
- [35:00]
B
Okay, and. And likewise, were you aware of her affairs?
- [35:04]
C
Yes, I was also aware that she had. That she had affairs.
- [35:09]
B
Well, Vinnie, obviously, other than the revolving door to the bedroom that he's describing, it seems like, you know, his body language tells me that he's not real comfortable in his story.
- [35:22]
C
He's not comfortable in his own skin. But let me lay this out, okay. What he just said, because to me. Yeah. We're weighing his story versus the au pair, but Christine is in the middle. His wife, she is a sexual assault nurse. Number one, right? Number two, she's working 12 and a half hour shifts. Now, I've been a father, I've never been a mother, but if you're a mother and you're working 12 and a half hour shifts and you got a four year old daughter at home, where are you having these affairs? Come on, you don't. You barely have the energy to get up. A four year old is full time, full time attention. And she was a great mother. And you're working these long shifts as a nurse doing incredibly difficult work. And then in between. Oh, yeah, she's sleeping around a little bit. Come on. That's why I don't believe him.
- [36:20]
A
And she's not here to refute it, so it's really convenient for him to say that. I'm surprised it wasn't objected to, honestly.
- [36:26]
C
And where's the evidence? Like, where's the evidence of these so called. Wouldn't there be at least one text message between Brendan and his wife talking about their affairs or. You know what I mean, there's none of that.
- [36:38]
A
Right. Something. Something else.
- [36:40]
B
All right, well, let's head to slot two, which is Brendan's testimony that there was no plan with Juliana to get rid of Christine. Did you ever create any sort of.
- [36:51]
C
A plan with Juliana? No, there was no plan. At this point, our relationship is maybe six to eight weeks old.
- [37:07]
A
I think that it's an absurd line.
- [37:11]
C
Of questioning for something that is not.
- [37:13]
A
Serious, that we're good, that a plan.
- [37:15]
C
Was made to get rid of my wife. That is absolutely crazy.
- [37:24]
B
He says that's crazy. But let's go ahead and hit slot three, which is Juliana saying that he did want to get rid of Christine.
- [37:33]
A
He didn't want to get divorced. Did he tell you what he wanted to do? Yes. What did he say? He mentioned his plan to get rid of her. What did you think when he told you that? At first I thought he was joking. Yeah. For me it was. It was a joke.
- [37:59]
B
Wasn't very funny. All right, so no.
- [38:02]
A
Wasn't very funny.
- [38:03]
B
How do you reconcile that?
- [38:04]
A
Well, what I think is Juliana got time served. Juliana au pair did not want to go to prison. So she's going to say whatever it takes for her to get that deal. And that's a really good deal.
- [38:15]
C
No, it's the sweetest deal ever. You go home, you basically.
- [38:17]
B
How much time did she actually serve, though? Was it like. Like months or how long?
- [38:21]
C
A couple years. Yep, a couple years. She's been in. She's still in until the end. End of the trial. She's soulless also. That's another problem here. She's absolutely soulless. The way she testified. So. So, like, it was nothing. Like, she's ordering dinner, talking about the brutal murder of someone, her shooting someone. So she's not likable. He's not likable. And I think that's for prosecutors. That would be my biggest concern is just, do they not like her enough that they're like, this isn't fair that she's going home? And I don't know. She. I don't like her. She could be lying about some of this stuff just to go home. Because, remember, for a long time, she was standing by her man until, like, the letters and all the communication kind of calmed down. All of a sudden. Brendan was distancing himself from her while she's locked up, because she's arrested before, he is. He's still walking around free when she's locked up. So I think it's a combination of, oh, my goodness, I don't have a future with Brendan. Who, by the way, she referred to her friends in Snapchat as the hot guy. Oh, my goodness, he's the hot guy. I refer to him as like a. Like if. If. If Scott Peterson and Elon Musk had a child and it started to go bald.
- [39:48]
A
Yeah, he's not the. The hot guy is not what really just comes to mind. Not gonna lie.
- [39:54]
B
Yeah. So we just. For those of you listening on podcast or on Sirius xm, we just showed a photograph of him with the au pair. And it's just, you know, it. In my opinion, it's one of the most repulsive things. But obviously it was piece of evidence in this case. But there's other repulsive things that we've seen as well. I mean, we've got the body cam footage of Brendan learning his wife died. Let's. Let's go ahead and roll that because I have some questions for Vinnie about this.
- [40:27]
A
My name is Dean. I'm one of the doctors here. Your wife has.
- [40:49]
B
Manny. All right. You made some. During where we were rolling that slot. You were doing an impression there. I mean. I mean, you know, the the poor doctor who's delivering this news, she just. I'm sorry to tell you, you know, your wife has died. She's very blunt and very direct with it. I guess that's how you have to be. And then he just kind of. He looks to me like he's play acting. That's just my. My take.
- [41:16]
C
I almost got the feeling that the doctor felt that in the moment.
- [41:20]
B
In the moment, yeah.
- [41:21]
A
Yeah, it was awkward. Wasn't exactly what the doctor expected.
- [41:25]
C
He. He is not. There's. There's no warmth there. There's nothing. And it's coming out on the stand as well. But I will say it's a little better on the witness stand than it has been at council table. I don't know if you've been watching this, but I've never seen this before. Like lefties, right? Because our education system messed them up. They all kind of do this. He's the only righty that I've ever seen that writes like that.
- [41:48]
A
Oh, yeah? Yeah.
- [41:50]
B
I'm a lefty. Are you a lefty?
- [41:52]
C
For like two weeks.
- [41:53]
B
For like two weeks.
- [41:54]
A
I know what you're talking about. Yeah. And what is he writing?
- [41:56]
C
Everything about him is awkward. And that's a problem for him. That's a problem. But she's soulless. Like they're perfect together. Awkward and soulless.
- [42:06]
A
Right. Well, and if the jury believes her and they think he's lying, then he goes down. So, you know, if they just don't like him and they can think that she's trying to get out of it, but that she could have some grains of truth to it. I mean, let's talk about what they actually did with this. This fetish site. And.
- [42:25]
B
Well, look, we've got cross examination going on now, and I don't know how you guys think that. That he's holding up, but let's just check out slot five. We got.
- [42:35]
A
That's what I want. You've had multiple affairs, correct? Yes. Okay. And one of those affairs was with a woman named Danielle, who you met on a fetish site searching for sugar babies. Is that correct? I would not call it a fetish site. Okay, what would you call it?
- [43:01]
C
An arranged relationship.
- [43:04]
A
Okay, but you were looking for someone to be your sugar baby.
- [43:10]
C
I guess it was a relationship where they would already know that I was married. That was what I was looking for.
- [43:19]
A
Okay. Not likable. That is a problem. If the jury hates your client, they don't care if he did it or not because they think he is a jerk and he cheats on his wife, cheats on her multiple times. Uses a website to try to cheat on her even more. Cheats on her with the au pair that they brought over to get watch their children. He's not likable.
- [43:48]
C
You know, government workers don't get sugar babies, do they?
- [43:52]
A
Right? He works for the irs. Come on. Come on.
- [43:55]
C
Don't you have to be. Don't you have to be like a really rich. Like, he's making his wife work. Like, his wife has to work. That's why they need the au pair, because she's working, he's traveling. His schedule is crazy. Her schedule is crazy.
- [44:08]
B
I worked for the irs. He's an IRS cop. He works for the irs. This is. I guess he's paying sugar babies with taxpayer earned dollars. I mean, but he says that.
- [44:21]
A
That Juliana, she was his hero. I think we've got that thought where he testified that six. I was definitely in love with her at. Definitely starting in this.
- [44:33]
C
Definitely starting in the summer of 23.
- [44:36]
A
Oh, okay. So it was just before she was arrested that you were fully in love with her. Well, that's when we had an opportunity.
- [44:46]
B
To actually have a bit of a relationship with.
- [44:51]
C
Other points were obviously very separated. I mean, I was still spend. I was still working a lot.
- [44:59]
A
I. Christine was. Christina was obviously still around. But in this letter, you're talking about the memories of times you spent together before Christine's death, Correct? It seems like some of them are.
- [45:14]
B
Before and some are after.
- [45:16]
A
I am obsessed with your happiness. Yes. But again, all of this is after Kirstein had asked.
- [45:28]
C
If you look at that, it also that I declared that she was a hero because in my view, she saved my life that day.
- [45:38]
A
I think it's easier to fall in love with somebody that.
- [45:45]
C
Saved you.
- [45:47]
B
All right.
- [45:48]
A
Saved him. They're in love.
- [45:50]
B
He can't wait for Christine to. To not be around. It sounds like.
- [45:54]
C
Yeah, yeah. Like we. Well, she was still around.
- [45:57]
A
She was still around. That was awful. Oh, my God.
- [46:00]
B
That was awful. Yeah. We could hook up because. And have sex. Because my wife's still around.
- [46:03]
C
My wife's around. We gotta get it well, oh, she's not around anymore.
- [46:06]
A
Get rid of her.
- [46:07]
C
Now we can really get to know each other. The fact that he calls her his hero because she saved his life. This is according to his version of how everything went down inside of that bedroom. The stabbing murder of his wife and the shooting and killing of Joseph Ryan. And the way he concocted it, it was like a really bad 1970s TV movie kind of thing. Right. Where he comes in, boom, shoots him, and he goes down, but of course, he's not quite dead yet. Phil, you're a police officer. I wasn't. But when you're trained, don't you, like, shoot to get rid of the enemy, like the target? How often does a police officer come in and shoot a defendant? Once.
- [46:57]
B
It's usually going to be multiple times. And this is when. And then the defense is going to say, well, you didn't need to fire five or six shots. Well, you know, that's not the police training. The police training is you shoot to eliminate the threat, and you don't count on your first one doing the job necessarily. So that doesn't make a lot of sense.
- [47:13]
A
Sense, yeah.
- [47:13]
C
Right.
- [47:14]
A
This prosecutor is having too much fun with this. You know, prosecutors don't ordinarily get to do cross examination. And I can tell you it's one of the reasons I love being a defense lawyer, because there is nothing like cross examining someone like this man on the stand. And you can just tell she's having fun smiling during. Oh, she is having fun.
- [47:33]
C
During his direct. She's smiling.
- [47:35]
A
She was probably like, I can't. I can't wait to get up. I want to get up. Let me add him. Let me add me. Oh, yeah, she's having a.
- [47:40]
B
Well, more often than not, they're the better off if they keep their mouth shut, because you might have reasonable doubt creeping in here and there, maybe with one or two witnesses such that you might be getting a hung jury. But then, so often we see this, they take the stand, they open their mouth, and stupid comes out just like that. And then the next thing you know, the jury, any. Any reasonable doubt that they might have had, you know, brewing in the back of their mind is gone in an instant. And so, you know, this is the worst thing, strategically. You don't know if his lawyers told him to testify or not. It's always the defendant's call, but sometimes they do it over the. Against the advice of counsel. But in any event, it's. This is not. This is not playing well. It's not going well for the defense.
- [48:25]
C
No, no, not at all. And. But I think part of the reason why he had to testify was to try to smooth out some of these really strange coincidences that occurred. Like just. He just happened to stop off at this McDonald's. He just happened to circle around twice, killing more time. Then he just happened to get the urge that he had to go to the bathroom. And then just at the moment that he's Finishing up on the toilet is when Giuliana calls for the first time. What are the odds there? Like that is precise timing that you only get in those bad 1970s TV movies. And I'm not buying it. I'm just not buying it.
- [49:11]
A
I don't really think the jury's buying it either, do we, Vinnie? What do we think there's going to be a lot more defense evidence, or do you think this is going to be their last witness?
- [49:19]
C
Yeah, they're done. And. And I think we may have a little bit of a rebuttal and then we're going to wrap this up. But I think it's. I think it's an opportunity where closing arguments can make a difference in a certain way. I've seen it. It, you know, it's not. I don't think it's the most common thing in a trial, and you know better than I do. I think you win at different parts of the trial. But I think this is one where a closing argument can make a difference for either side in the way they marshal the evidence for this jury because they've got two competing things that they're dealing with. And being able to make one make more sense than the other is really going to be the challenge.
- [49:56]
A
Well, so I want to talk about another case. I know you've been following Corey Richards just to catch our viewers up. Corey Richards is a mom and a realtor, and she's charged with aggravated murder, attempted aggravated murder, first degree felonies, insurance fraud, a couple other forgeries, a slew of things for essentially attempting to poison her husband and then fatally poisoning him. So she tried to poison him on Valentine's Day in 2022. And then later she actually succeeded. So now she is being charged. She has since published a children's book about dealing with grief. And one of her witnesses says they're being threatened. One of the witnesses, less than a month before her murder trial is supposed to start, it's supposed to schedule to begin in about a month, have said her attorneys claim members of the prosecution team have been threatening or harassing witnesses. They filed a motion on Sunday asking the judge to make them turn over all of the messages with these witnesses. And they got a couple of the messages from these witnesses already. And it kind of sounds like they are trying to threaten these witnesses and they are trying to intimidate them and harass them. And I got to tell you from. From experience, it's actually not that uncommon. Happens all the time. All the time.
- [51:11]
B
Well, do we know who these witnesses are? In relation to the case. Because it's not really clear. Right. One of them has said to. Said that the prosecutor, I guess, texted or wrote to them, quote, you have received a subpoena to appear at the court as a witness. If you fail to do so, the judge will issue a warrant for your arrest. You will then have to sit in a holding still until you are needed to testify. So make your life easier and answer our calls so we can prep you on what you will be asked. Otherwise, the next time I knock on your door, I'll have a warrant and a catch pole for the dog. Look, if you've gone too far, I.
- [51:51]
A
Mean, yes, you definitely have, that's a nasty message, and I can't tell you how many times I've seen that. And show up at someone's door, threaten that, threaten to take a warrant, say, if you don't cooperate with us, I'm going to show up with a warrant. And it is. Is pure threatening. It is pure intimidating witnesses. I mean, I get that they want to talk to them, but come on.
- [52:09]
C
No, it's bad. And if the jury hears them, and I presume the jury's going to hear about this.
- [52:14]
B
It's.
- [52:15]
C
It's not going to help you as a prosecutor. I don't know why you'd want your investigators like what. What the. What they're saying is true, right? If you don't, if you're subpoenaed, you don't show up, the judge can issue a bench warrant, right? You're a material witness. They can lock you up ahead of trial and then, you know, bring you in. That all can happen. But this was not to show up to trial. This was to show up so we can prep you.
- [52:35]
A
Right. You don't have a right to that.
- [52:37]
C
No, there's no right to prepping. But for a juror to hear that the prosecution wants to prep the witness, that doesn't sound good. It sounds like you want to tell them what to say.
- [52:48]
A
Yeah, that's not a good look.
- [52:49]
C
And you don't. And the implication, obviously, is if you don't say what we want you to say, we're going to. You're going to be locked up. Like, that's not right. That's not good for your own case.
- [52:58]
A
It gets even worse. They said the immunity granted by the prosecution remains conditional upon continued cooperation to declining to participate further may place that immunity at risk. So they're not only threatening to lock them up to testify, they're threatening to take away their immunity.
- [53:13]
B
Yeah, I've got No, look, I personally have no dog in this fight. I think that the evidence against Richards is substantial and she may very well be guilty. But this is a mistake for prosecutors to be going to this length to sabotage themselves. You know, look, they don't need to do this. They. They simply need to just prepare their case. If, if witnesses aren't cooperating. If you need to attach a witness with a warrant, do it. We just saw it out in California in the David case we talked about at the beginning of the show. Of course, out there you get a bond and you get to be released that normally you don't. So just, just do what you have to do. But don't say the quiet part out loud. Vinnie, though you have. There's another side to this coin when it talks about maybe witness intimidation or interfering with a witness. You've been talking a lot about this walk the dog letter, right? So this might be the defendant Richens interfering with some witnesses. What's up with that?
- [54:15]
C
Yeah, this is. And what's interesting, after her arrest, they've actually gathered more evidence and some of the most compelling evidence from my perspective, showing consciousness of guil guilt. She's locked up pre trial, right. And there's one of these random searches of her cell. And in a book they find an envelope that is. I don't, I'm not sure if it was sealed or not, but it was addressed to her lawyer, but it was her writings. They go through it and they find this walk the dog letter. And the letter is actually not to her attorney or who is now her former attorney, probably because of this. It's a letter to her mother to talk to her brother and she wants in. In the letter, she's directing her brother and giving him almost like lines to tell investigators that the victim, her husband, who was poisoned with fentanyl, was down in Mexico trying to buy fentanyl and had talked to him about it, trying to set up a story that her husband died of an overdose. But it was a self induced overdose, not the poisoning of his Moscow Mule or orange juice, whatever it was that he was drinking that night. And it looks really bad now. Like we said, she has this book that she wrote. So the, the defense or the story behind this letter is. This isn't a letter. This is, this is like a treatment on another book. I'm going to write like she's this prolific author. She's not a prolific author, Eric. Her husband met her when she was working at Home Depot and he was picking up supplies for his construction company. She's not an author. She wants to be a house flipper. She thinks she's Christina Haack from hgtv, but she's a failure. Her husband dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into her business and then was cutting her off because he didn't want to lose anymore. And that's when he dies.
- [56:09]
B
So wait a minute. You mean she's not really like a grief counselor or someone that I could go to for grief therapy? I'm. I'm amazed that you would say that.
- [56:18]
C
No, she should have kept her job at Home Depot. It's a great place to work. And if you spend a career there, you get, you know, you get stock, you get all that stuff. It was great. But she cashed in on Eric because Eric was the rich, you know, contractor who came in, has this great business and they had a beautiful life, beautiful kids. And now it's. It's all gone. Gone. It's all gone.
- [56:41]
B
Well, Vinnie, look, we're gonna have to leave it there with you, but I want to just personally say thank you so much for your friendship and for doing this. It really is a lot of fun. And Ashley and I both appreciate you putting us on TV all those years ago. And. And it's great to be with you again here today.
- [56:59]
A
Good to see you, Vinny.
- [57:02]
C
Thanks so much for inviting me and congratulations on all the success. It's well deserved and well earned and you guys are awesome.
- [57:09]
B
Thank you. And if I don't see you in person before then, I know I'm going to see you again at Crimecon this year. Look forward to it, buddy.
- [57:16]
C
Vegas, baby. See you there.
- [57:17]
B
All right. All right. So thanks, Vinnie. Next, your mail and our closing arguments. Remember, we want to hear from you. Email your comments and your story suggestions to mk true crimevilmaycaremedia.com we'll be right back.
- [57:35]
A
ABC's David Muir, the most trusted anchor in America. America, the most watched anchor in America. Thank you for making World News Tonight with David Muir the number one newscast in America.
- [57:46]
C
Most trusted, most watched.
- [57:48]
A
David Muir on abc. Did you know Tide has been upgraded to provide an even better clean in cold water? Tide is specifically designed to fight any stain you throw at it. Even in cold butter. Yep. Chocolate ice cream. Sure thing. Barbecue sauce. Tide's got you covered. You don't need to use warm water. Additionally, Tide pods let you confidently fight tough stains with new coldzyme technology. Just remember, if it's gotta be clean, it's gotta be Tide. A new year means new financial goals, like making sure your savings are secure and diversified Will this be the year you decide to talk to someone from Birch Gold Group? They use an educational approach with a deep understanding of macroeconomics. There are forces pushing the dollar lower and gold higher, which is why they believe every American should own physical gold. So until January 30th, if you're a first time gold buyer, Birchgold is offering a rebate of up to 10 grand on qualifying purchases. To claim eligibility and start the process, just text MK to the number 989898. Birchgold can help you roll an existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold and you are still eligible for a rebate of up to $10,000. Consider making right now your first time to buy gold and take advantage of a rebate up to 10,000 bucks when you buy by January 30th. Text MK to the number 989898. Claim your eligibility today. Again, just text MK to the number 989895. Welcome back to MK True Crime. We'll get to our closing arguments, but first we have a request from a listener. Vincent. Hello.
- [59:25]
C
Hello.
- [59:26]
A
I love the show. Thankful for a true crime show. From an expert legal point of view, the au pair murder trial reminds me of a case from 1995, the Mark Winger case. It might be a good time to revisit it. Thanks for a great show. That's a really good suggestion, Vincent. And the Winger case does have a lot of striking similarities to this au pair case. Phil, can you tell us a little bit about the Winger case?
- [59:47]
B
Yes, I'd be happy to tell you about this Winger case. And this is why I like hearing the feedback from our our audience because this was something that I personally was not previously aware of. But in preparation for this show, I read up on it. I found it to be absolutely, strikingly similar to this au pair case that we were just talking about with Vinnie. Go back to June of 1995. Okay, you've got Mark and Donna Winger. Okay. The nuclear technician and his wife had been married, reportedly happily so, for several years, and had just adopted a baby girl, a newborn named Bailey. Now, fast forward three months. You've got Mark Winger bludgeoned Donna to death with a hammer. Okay. In their Springfield, Illinois home, Donna had recently had an uncomfortable experience with a cab driver by the name of Roger Harrington, reportedly. And after Donna safely arrives home with Bailey, she had made a call, I guess, to the transit company to make a formal complaint about the driver's behavior, who was suspended. She told Mark about it and thought that he played the part of the supportive husband, and he even helped her file the complaint. It turns out that he had his own ulterior motives. And so days later, Mark invited the driver to their home, perhaps under the pretense of helping him get his job back.
- [61:13]
A
Act.
- [61:14]
B
He murdered then both his wife and Harrington and told police that he walked in on the crazed driver attacking Donna and shot him while trying to defend her. So for more than three years, police believe. Police. Police believed Mark's story. I can't talk. Until Donna's best friend came forward and admitted that she and Mark had been having an affair at the time of Donna's death. So investigators took a closer look. Look at the evidence, and you realize that Mark's version of the event simply just wasn't possible. And so, in 1999, Mark Winger became officially a suspect in the murders of Donna Winger and Roger Harrington. On August 31, he was indicted for those murders and then eventually convicted and sentenced to life without parole. So, yeah, there's very much some similarities to this au pair case. And, you know, sometimes you and I talked about this before the show. Actually. There's a TV show called the Closer, right. Going back a few years now, but it's. You can still find it streaming. There was an episode where something similar was in one of their plot lines. So sometimes life does imitate art, sadly. And here you have another case where someone has lost their life in this way.
- [62:34]
A
Right. Well, I mean, the motivation for crime tends to just be certain things, and they do repeat themselves in history. So, you know, love is definitely one of them. In this case, it seems like that's what it is because he went on and married this. This lady and had kids and, you know, lived what he thought was a great life until this case came back to haunt him. I'm really surprised after all those years that they were able to get a conviction, but they did. So, Phil, I don't know if you're ready for your closing argument, but I'm gonna let you go first before I close it. Out. Out.
- [63:02]
B
I'm ready as I'll ever be. Thank you, Ashley. And look, I want to talk about why people might plead guilty to things that they didn't do. Comes up a lot in discussions. But first, I have a little tease. By now, those of you who watch our show or listen to our show, you've noticed a change in the format of the show. We love the new format because it allows us to bring in outside voices such as Vinnie Politan today and others that we've had. It brings them into the conversation and in turn I think it brings you, the audience, an improved True Crime listening and viewing experience. I know that I learned something from each guest that we have on the show and we certainly hope that you do as well. So the three of us, though, you've noticed recently, you've seen me, you've seen Ashley and Dave Aronberg co hosting this show. And that's because the three of us will be co hosting a new and improved version of the show with all the details to be announced very soon. Also, our fellow MK True Crime contributors will likewise have other exciting announcements of their own coming very soon as well. So make sure to like this video, subscribe on podcast and on YouTube so that you can stay tuned for all these details yet to come. Now about why someone might plead guilty to something they did not do in the United States. In our justice system, over 90% of all cases are resolved by some type of an agreement rather than a jury trial. Maybe it's a guilty plea, whatever. So only 3% or so actually go to trial. And there's a reason for that. And this means that innocent people wind up pleading guilty. Estimates suggest that 2 to 8% of those pleas may be from people who did not commit the crime or maybe are guilty of some lesser crime than what they plead to to. I think really that in my experience it might be a little higher than 2 to 8%, but that's we'll go with the official numbers that were given. Why is this? Well, our system can create very intense pressure on defendants. First, we have aversion to risk. Taking a case to trial involves a lot of risk. Conviction rates at trial are very high. Occasionally you find not guilties, but that's the exception rather than the rule. A guilty plea or a plea deal, on the other hand, guarantees what's often a lighter sentence, a known outcome, as opposed to a trial where you risk the devastating penalties like mandatory life sentences or other mandatory minimum prison sentences. Secondly, a lot of people plead guilty just to get out of jail. They're stuck in jail, they can't make bail for whatever reason, so they stay there for months or years. And they will oftentimes plead guilty just to get out of jail as opposed to going to trial and risking something worse. And I think the biggest driver of this, though, is what we call the trial tax or the trial penalty. I think Ashley may have even spoken about this on the show before. But defendants who say, you know, I'm innocent and I want my day in court and then they lose at trial, okay, they typically receive sentences, Studies show, of three times longer, sometimes eight to 10 times longer than if they had pleaded guilty and took some kind of a plea deal and maybe even got put on probation. And judges tend to rationalize this by saying that people who plead guilty, they. They earn a sentencing discount because they've accepted responsibility. Well, there may be some grain of truth in that sometimes, but. But a lot of times, you know, they get punished when they say, look, I'm innocent. I want my day in court. So they go to court and they lose. And then when they do so, they forfeit that discount. And the judges say, well, you didn't admit your guilt. And so we're gonna. We're gonna punish you more strongly than we would have otherwise. And so what that is. That's why we call it a trial tax. You get punished more harshly because you've exercised your constitutional right for going to trial. Again, the trial tax punishes people for exercising their constitutional rights. And it's not supposed to be that way. We have a great legal system, fantastic legal system, but it's not perfect, not at all. It needs some improvement. And one way that we can improve on it is finding ways to eliminate this trial tax. A legal system that prioritizes efficiency over the truth is a dysfunctional legal system, and we need to change it. Ashley.
- [67:36]
A
Thank you, Phil. And I could not agree with you more. I 100% agree. And I hope that some of the things that we're sharing with you, all our viewers, about the justice system, since we practice every day, is kind of enlightening you on, like I like to say, how the sausage is made. And that's what my closing argument is going to be on yet another instance of how the sausage, which, you know, as. As, you know, I try to take everyone behind the scenes a little bit on some concept about what's happening, you know, in real life, what's happening in the criminal justice system. And I try to use one of our cases that we talked about earlier sort of as an example to walk viewers through. And so I want to talk about this witness intimidation. You know, the last story that we covered, we talked about some witnesses in the Richins trial and how they were getting these texts. And, you know, we. We talked a little bit about what the. What the investigators had said to these witnesses, But I want to talk about what the. What these witnesses were actually feeling. They reached out to the defense lawyer. So it got so bad that they actually reached out to the defense lawyer and said that they did not want the prosecutors to prep them for their testimony. They wanted them to send the questions in person. I mean, in writing. I'm sorry, they didn't want to do it actually in person. They didn't want to be prepped. And this, you know, this, this strong arming to try to get these witnesses to come in to have their testimony prepped. This is a common tactic. This is something that happens all the. I get witnesses who call me all the time and say that they've got messages like this. They get a subpoena from the prosecution without a court date. It just says, come to their office. It's illegal, and it's an abusive process. And as you can see from the story we covered earlier, it scares witnesses. You got to remember, witnesses haven't done anything wrong. They're not accused of a crime. Not that you should have less rights if you're accused of the crime, but they're just witnesses. They're literally just people that witnessed something. And so they should be treated with a lot more respect than what they're being treated with. And I just want to tell you an example of, of this. This goes on and how far it can actually go. There is now a judge, a judge in Georgia who used to be a prosecutor, and she took it so far as to actually threaten to call Child Protective Services if mothers would not come and testify against the, you know, the person that had abused them. If they didn't want to testify against their husband or their boyfriend or whoever it was, that she would actually call Child Protective Services and have them come out and investigate her. So when you see these courts, court shows, when you see these trials that you're watching on tv, there's a lot of this stuff that goes on behind the scenes. And I'm glad that we're here to expose it. And we're going to keep exposing it and talking about it, because it is how the sausage is made and it's not right like what Phil was talking about. There are major dysfunctions in our criminal justice system, and hopefully by talking about them, everybody will be more aware and so we'll be able to make a better system for everybody. Thank you all so much. Thank you for our guest, Vinny Politan. It was really exciting to get to talk to him and my co host, Phil Holloway. And thank you for joining us. I hope you have a wonderful weekend. Did you know Tide has been upgraded to provide an even better clean in cold water? Tide is specifically designed to fight any stain you throw at it, even in cold butter. Yep. Chocolate ice cream. Sure thing. Barbecue sauce. Tide's got you covered. You don't need to use warm water. Additionally, Tide pods let you confidently fight tough stains with new coldzyme technology. Just remember, if it's gotta be clean, it's gotta be tide. Did you know 39% of teen drivers admit to texting while driving? Even scarier, those who text are more likely to speed and run red lights. Shockingly, 94% know it's dangerous, but do it anyway. As a parent, you can't always be in the car, but you can stay connected to their safety with Greenlight Infinity's driving report. Monitor their driving habits, see if they're using their phone, speeding and more. These reports provide real data for meaningful conversations about safety. Plus, with weekly updates, you can track their progress over time. Help keep your teens safe. Sign up for Greenlight infinity@Greenlight.com podcast.