Surgeon’s Threats Against Ex in Ohio Murders, Timothy Busfield’s Defense Strategy, Accused Gilgo Beach Serial Killer in Court, with Joseph Scott Morgan

Summary

MK True Crime Podcast – Episode Summary

Episode: Surgeon’s Threats Against Ex in Ohio Murders, Timothy Busfield’s Defense Strategy, Accused Gilgo Beach Serial Killer in Court
Date: January 16, 2026
Host: Jonna Spilbor
Co-Host: Arthur Idalla
Guest: Joseph Scott Morgan (Death Investigator, Host: Body Bags Podcast)

---

Overview

This episode dives into several headline-grabbing true crime stories:

• Updates on Dr. Michael McKee, accused of murdering his ex-wife and her husband in Ohio.
• The defense strategy and allegations against actor/director Timothy Busfield over criminal sexual contact charges.
• Court developments in the Gilgo Beach serial killings, focusing on forensic DNA.
• The "gravedigger" case from Pennsylvania involving stolen human remains.
• Legal system reflections, especially regarding jury impartiality in the digital age.

The show features candid, informed legal analysis, speculative discussion, and forensic expertise delivered in a frank, energetic tone.

---

Segment 1: Ohio Surgeon’s Alleged Double Murder (Dr. Michael McKee)

[01:05–16:19]

Key Discussion Points

• Background: Dr. McKee, a respected surgeon, now accused of murdering his ex-wife, Monique Tepe, and her new husband, Spencer Tepe.
• Short, intense prior marriage between McKee and Monique makes motive puzzling.
• Speculation about a possible "love triangle" or a "love child" as factors.
• McKee’s recent legal troubles (medical malpractice suit, prior alleged abuse) discussed as potential triggers.

Notable Analysis / Quotes

• Arthur Idalla on the severity of the crime ([03:34]):

  “The human brain just kind of breaks... You lose your mind to the point where you're executing people, you're retaining the murder weapons... The chemicals just go crazy... This is a guy who followed the rules… until he gets divorced.”

• Jonna Spilbor questioning motive ([04:14]):

  “Why on earth would this man, if he's guilty, be harboring some sort of murderous torch for an ex-wife that he didn't really have a very long relationship with... What was going on?”

• Speculation on Prior Threats ([08:45]):

  “Monique told her brother in law that the surgeon here had threatened her in the past, so there's a little bit of the history of his violence.”

• On nature of professional breakdown ([09:43]):

  "To go and get a gun and then look at someone who at one point was your lover... and blow them away. You got to be in a whole different universe to do that."

Investigation and Legal Process

• No forced entry—suggests a personal relationship or premeditated access.
• Heat of passion vs. premeditation: Driving across state lines in the middle of the night argues for premeditation.
• Forensic focus: Digital communications, device data combed for evidence and motive.
  • Arthur: “Criminal law is all about technology now... There’s such a plethora of material to go through... looking for a needle in a haystack.” ([12:58])
• Humor mixed with caution:
  • Jonna: "My Google history makes me look like a serial killer from the stuff that we have to research." ([15:25])

---

Segment 2: Timothy Busfield Sexual Misconduct Allegations

[18:25–29:12]

Key Discussion Points

• Allegations: Actor/director Timothy Busfield accused by multiple minors of sexual contact and child abuse stemming from working on his show.
• Busfield’s public denial via video statement, proclaiming total innocence.
• Discussion: The devastating professional and personal impact of accusations—even if unproven; the risk of trial by media.
• Legal tactics: Debated merits/dangers of client statements to media (especially to TMZ).
• Speculation on motives for accusations (possible retribution by a parent for a contract not renewed vs. truthfulness of claims).

Notable Moments / Quotes

• Busfield’s direct statement ([22:42]):

  “I’m going to confront these lies. They’re horrible. They’re all lies. And I did not do anything to those little boys... I’m gonna be exonerated.”

• Arthur, on public accusations ([20:08]):

  “Once these accusations are made, like your life is forever altered, right?”

• Jonna, on the public denial video ([23:33]):

  “We don’t want our clients really ever to make statements. But when it comes to sex abuse and you’re a celebrity, that’s a little bit of a tougher call.”

• On the mix of accusers ([27:00]):

  “If you’re a child molester… boys, if Timothy Busfield is a serial child molester, you usually… teenage girls are different from young boys. It’s a little bit odd that this girl is coming out of the woodwork as well.”

---

Segment 3: Gilgo Beach Serial Killer Trial—Forensic Evidence Deconstructed

[33:26–51:28] Guest: Joseph Scott Morgan (Death Investigator)

Key Discussion Points

• Case Update: Rex Heuermann, suspected Gilgo Beach serial killer, trial date finally set.

• Evidence Focus:

  • DNA from discarded pizza crust was central to linking Heuermann to old murders.
  • Extensive explanation of DNA evidence: how touch DNA, saliva, and contamination are handled in court.
  • Defense expected to challenge reliability of forensic evidence due to contamination or storage questions.

• Legal Standards:

  • Explanation of Fry vs. Daubert standards in admitting scientific evidence.

• Genetic Genealogy:

  • New methods can break old cases wide open, but privacy/anonymity concerns remain (e.g., the risks of submitting DNA to 23andMe/Ancestry.com).
  • Potential for science to both support and risk civil liberties.

Notable Quotes

• Morgan on DNA ([35:00]):

  “Contained within the saliva is going to be your DNA, your map, your biological map... And it is very much unique. And it is unique to you.”

• Arthur on jury comprehension ([39:03]):

  “Explaining to the jury what DNA is and how it works is not exactly riveting. Am I correct on that one?”

• Morgan on advances in forensics ([48:35]):

  “The more perfected it gets, the scarier it gets.”

• Jonna’s dark humor tip ([51:00]):

  “You can’t put it in the garbage. You gotta flush it down the toilet. That’s how you get rid of the evidence.”

---

Segment 4: Pennsylvania Gravedigger Case—Human Remains Theft

[51:39–59:37]

Key Discussion Points

• Case Details: Man charged with grave robbing; hundreds of human remains and skulls found in his car and home.
• Details on Discovery: Burglary of graves at Mount Moriah Cemetery; crowbar and burglary tools recovered.
• Dark Marketplace: Human remains advertised on Instagram/Facebook.
• Legal Implications:
  • Theft/distribution of remains across state lines may bring federal charges (interstate commerce).
  • Environmental risk: Bodies embalmed with heavy metals could contaminate his home/neighborhood.

Notable Quotes

• Morgan on the remains ([56:20]):

  “In the basement... there are row upon row upon row of skulls, individual human remains, bony remains, probably upwards of 500, I think right now.”

• Arthur, reference to real-life funeral home scandal ([55:19]):

  “He was the guy who, like, people were giving their loved ones to… and he’s cutting them open and taking out their bones and selling them. And it was a very profitable [scam].”

---

Segment 5: Jury System in Digital Age

[62:26–66:56]

Listener Question

"Is the traditional jury system still fit for purpose in the era of 24/7 news and social media?"

Hosts’ Perspectives

• Jonna:
  • Our jury system is threatened both by outside information and by jurors who might seek to profit post-trial (e.g., book deals).
• Arthur:
  • Constant exposure to information makes true impartiality difficult, especially in high-profile cases.
  • Suggests allowing jurors to submit questions in writing at trial end, and even calls for a national task force to rethink the system.

---

Memorable Quotes & Standout Moments

On the challenge of premeditation vs. crime of passion:

“A road trip in the middle of the night is a long time to rethink your decision to off two people… One of the reasons probably why they elevated to premeditated.” – Jonna ([12:16])

On advances in forensics and policing:

“Are we making our old school detectives obsolete or are we making them lazy?... The assumption is, is that science is going to solve the problem. It will not solve the problem.” – Joseph Scott Morgan ([49:50])

On gender and law (Closing Argument by Jonna):

“Actually, we do [have a definition of a woman]. And we owe it all to biology, DNA, chromosomes, reproductive organs… You can call a rooster a chicken all day long, but it's never going to lay an egg. Drop the mic.” – Jonna ([67:14])

On the enduring parental responsibility in child protection:

“There are people, sick people out there... as parents, you gotta just have a keen eye... [the case] is an alert to all parents to just to be alert and to be very, very cognizant that children could be in harm's way and you don't even realize.” – Arthur ([72:57])

---

Timestamps for Quick Reference

• [01:05] – Start: Tepe double murder – case overview/motive speculation
• [08:45] – Prior threats/evidence emerging against Dr. McKee
• [14:27] – Investigative focus on digital footprints
• [18:25] – Introduction of Timothy Busfield abuse charges
• [22:42] – Busfield’s public video statement
• [29:12] – Media/legal strategy for high-profile accused
• [33:26] – Rex Heuermann, Gilgo Beach killer trial: forensics/death investigator guest
• [35:00] – Explanation of DNA evidence in context
• [42:00] – Fry vs. Daubert for scientific evidence in court
• [43:28] – Genetic genealogy – advantages and privacy risks
• [51:39] – Pennsylvania gravedigger case: details and legal risks
• [62:26] – Listener Q: Jury system in digital age
• [67:14] – Closing arguments: Title IX, gender, jury system

---

Conclusion

This episode delivers incisive true crime coverage with informed legal context, thoughtful speculation, and technical forensics demystified by expert Joseph Scott Morgan. The hosts maintain a spirited, conversational tone throughout, providing empathetic yet unflinching perspectives on violence, justice, and truth in the modern criminal landscape.

Transcript

[A]

Special agent Will Trent, ABC Tuesdays you run from the dark. That's why it chases you. Get out of my house. The hit series Will Trent is back. Will, this is a manhunt, not a murder that needs to be solved. And the truth, this man killed my mother and left me to die. He's out.

[B]

I think if we don't catch this.

[C]

Guy, then he's gonna go off the.

[B]

Deep end of control. They won't even see you coming. I have to end this.

[A]

Will tread. Tuesdays 8, 7 Central on ABC and stream on Hulu. Well, the holidays have come and gone once again.

[B]

But if you've forgotten to get that.

[A]

Special someone in your life a gift. Well, Mint Mobile is extending their holiday offer of half off unlimited wireless.

[D]

So here's the idea.

[A]

You get it now, you call it an early present for next year.

[B]

What do you have to lose?

[A]

Give it a [e-mail] Switch limited time.

[C]

50% off regular price for new customers. Upfront payment required $45 for three months, $90 for six month or $180 for 12 month plan taxes and fees. Extra speeds may slow after 50 gigabytes per month when network is busy, see terms Foreign.

[B]

Welcome to MK True Crime. I'm Jonna Spilbore. I'm a criminal defense attorney and founding member of Jana Spilbore Law. Here's what's on the docket today. New disturbing information is coming out about Dr. Michael McKee, alleged killer of Monique and Spencer Tepe. We'll bring you the latest. Actor and director Timothy Busfeld is maintaining his innocence after being officially charged with with two counts of criminal sexual contact of a minor and one count of child abuse. And Joseph Scott Morgan, professor, death investigator and host of the podcast Body Bags, joins us to discuss the latest in the Gilgo beach serial killer case and the gravedigger from Pennsylvania who was charged with a whopping 100 counts each of abuse of a corpse and more. I, I'm joined today by co host Arthur Idalla, New York trial attorney and fedora fiend. Arthur, we have to start with updates in the Tepe case. You're familiar, correct?

[A]

Yes, yes. Well, if, if you read the New York Post, it's like the second story. It's like, you know, we're invading Venezuela and we're bombing Iran and then there's this case and then there's that, right?

[B]

And then there's you. You know, you're usually somewhere.

[A]

I mean, you know, it usually has to do with fashion, but you know, what, what tastes like this makes you think and John, and we've both been doing this for a while, like. And the human brain just kind of break, you know, look, it's no secret I've been through a divorce. There's an enormous amount of emotion, especially when there's little children involved, et cetera, but never once. And financial ruin, by the way, but never once did I ever think about killing any, anybody, not even myself, let alone another human being. And here as this evidence unfolds, and we're not talking about a guy who's, you know, rough and tumble dude, the guy went to a doctor, medical school, like a surgeon, you know, he's not like, you know, putting band aids on people's knees. Like, you know, he's, he's doing serious medical, cerebral, intellectual work. And yet you lose your mind to the point where you're executing people, you're retaining the murder weapons. It's like, like what happens does the brain is it, you know, it's a complicated organ. The chemicals just go crazy. Like did you ride your bicycle and fall and break your head? I mean this is a guy who was a law abiding citizen. No, but John, unlike some of the clients grow up, who grew up in the gutters, who had no parents, whose mother died when they were 10 years old and they were raised in the subways. Okay. You know, there's a reason why they are the way they are. This isn't that way. This is a guy who followed the rules, followed the norms of life until he gets divorced and the way the evidence is looking does something horrendous, horrific and that something, he probably deserves to stay in jail for the rest of his life.

[B]

But, but hang on. Because this, there's more here than meets the eye. Because there are a couple things that strike me. Number one, so first of all these, the Mr. Dr. McKee was married to Monique Tepe seven years ago for about five minutes. They literally had a very short term marriage. So my first question is why on earth would this man, if he's guilty, be harboring some sort of torch, some sort of murderous torch for an ex wife that he didn't really have a very long relationship with and has had a half a lifetime. I'm exaggerating. But since the divorce, like what was going on? So I want to know if there was, if they maintained any sort of relationship or friendship or something between the divorce and the, and the murder. And I do also want to go on record and actually we're going to go to Assad. I predicted that this Murder had something to do with a love child.

[A]

It must be given.

[B]

You don't have to. You don't have to pat me on the back, but let's just.

[A]

No credit must be given you. You blurted this out a while ago.

[B]

What the hell happened here? Okay, final answer.

[E]

This is it.

[A]

This is. And then we're gonna compare the tape and we'll see.

[B]

All right, here's what could have happened.

[A]

We find out, we're gonna, we're gonna.

[E]

Hear what you have to say.

[A]

What's your prediction?

[B]

This is my total supposition. No additional facts. Just have to make it up, pull it out. Thin air. Let's go there. There had to be some sort of love triangle with the three of them. The husband, the wife, and another person who got upset, very upset with the husband. That's why there are more bullet holes in the husband than in the wife. Couldn't leave any witnesses, shoot the wife, don't want to harm the kids, out I go. That's it.

[A]

So my first question that's burning in my mind. When do you decide you're wearing the glasses or you're not wearing the glasses? When we do the segments together. I'm just curious, okay.

[B]

What is the decisive thing when I have to read, I need the extra eyes. And that show that we just watched, the thought where I basically correctly predicted what happened here.

[A]

Well, we don't know.

[E]

Hold on.

[B]

No, I kind of did.

[D]

I did.

[A]

Do we know there's a love triangle? I mean, I, I guess you can assume so because he killed the, the new husband as well. But I, I, I'm not speaking from authority, but I haven't read anything where we know for a fact that there was a love triangle.

[B]

It is a little.

[A]

It is circumstantial evidence that he killed the guy as well.

[B]

Arthur, here's the other fact that I want you to chew on. So this guy is a doctor, right? Dr. McKee. He's a doctor. You know, and I know lawyers, right? Lawyers. Doctors. In order to become a lawyer or a doctor, you have to pass a, A character and fitness evaluation. You don't just go to law school or medic medical school. Pop out and you can. Right. They have to make sure that you're not an of the highest regard. Well, I don't know.

[A]

That's not accurate.

[B]

They have to make sure you're not.

[A]

Nuts, because there are a lot of lawyers who fit the bill that you just said. They have to make sure you don't have a criminal record. You're not struggling with alcoholism.

[B]

Yeah. Financial.

[A]

My partner, Judge Cabins represents individuals for their character and fitness. Often a lot of kids who pass the bar, but they got arrested in college for something. Yeah. They're gonna have a little struggle. So Judge Cameron goes in and saves the day for them.

[B]

See? Very noble commercial for the law firm right there. But, but he had to do the same thing. Now at first blush, when this case broke, he didn't have any criminal history. Although now it's coming out that he was a bit abusive to his former wife, now victim. But very recently, very recently, September 2025, apparently he is a defendant in a medical malpractice suit which might have contributed to him going a little insane. Not, not legally insane, just going mad really. Literally perhaps. And here's another funny tip. Not funny, haha funny. I didn't know this. He was practicing in Nevada. That's where the medical malpractice suit is. You don't have to have medical malpractice insurance as a doctor in Nevada. But how does that make any sense? Why would anybody ever go under the knife in Nevada if there's no way to get recompensed if something goes wrong?

[A]

There's a couple of things here. I believe the deceased Monique told her brother in law that the surgeon here had threatened her in the past. So there's a little bit of the history of his violence. I mean I don't. You and I both know a lot of doctors. I know a lot of doctors gotten sued. They're.

[B]

They all get sued.

[A]

Right. They're covered by the insurance company. It's not like someone's going to take their house away or take their yacht away. And if they lose the lawsuit. So I don't know, John. I don't know if that rises to the level. I mean what he did is he left something like 8 inches in a guy's leg. Which sounds like unbelievable to me. I mean it's not like it's like one of those tiny little sponges. It's like it was a piece of plastic or something. I don't know if that's enough to make. We think about it, John. Think about it. We're both professionals.

[B]

Yeah.

[A]

To go and get a gun and then look at someone who at one point was your lover. At one point you sit in front of some ceremonial people and said I do. And I for forever, till death do us part paid for a big. Blow them away. Blow them away. And then blow away their, their, their, their new lover. I mean let's, you know. Yeah. Can't Even go hunting and kill like a rabbit. Okay. I got, I have rabbits on my property in Long Island. And I'm like, I got these little sound machines that if they cross it, it triggers something. And it's got some high pitched thing that we can't hear, but the rabbit ears and it runs away. Because I'm like, no, I don't want to put a trap and kill the rabbit. Think about what your mind's got to be to hold that gun in your hand and look at someone and bang and blow their head off. It's like, wow. Got to be in a whole different universe to do that.

[B]

No, and I agree on that. But we got to figure out how this man got into her house without any evidence of a break in. How does that happen? I mean, I can speculate. So I can speculate and tell you if you still have a relationship and you invite them over for dinner and somebody knows or they ever watched, I don't know, watched your house or something. How did he manage to do that without any evidence of a break in? What prompted him to get in his car in the middle of the night and drive across state lines to do this? I think think we are missing something is all I'm trying to say.

[A]

Well, it's one of, it's one of two things. Number one, you were totally right when you spoke with Mark Iglosh and you said this is a love triangle. And you would assume shortly between text messages, emails and private messages, direct messaging, something along those lines or other witnesses that's going to come out. And you know, the heart wants what the heart wants. And that's why this heat of passion murder defense where a murder charge will get somewhat lowered if you're functioning under extreme emotional disturbance. So that's one part of it, I don't think being sued, even though it's a bad lawsuit, that's going to trigger someone to do what he did. I mean, the other part of it is, John, you and I represent clients and we, we comment on cases where people do things and we're about to comment on a case where, like, I just don't know, the way a kid falls out of a tree and breaks his arm. I don't know if your chemicals in your body aren't functioning properly and your brain, you just start seeing things or hearing things and you're just no longer rational. And if someone doesn't pick up on that and if someone doesn't address that, somebody dies. Or here two people die.

[B]

But let me and I know we, we have Some other juicy cases to talk about. But a road trip, A road trip in the middle of the night is a long time to rethink your decision to off to people. If it's a heat of passion, rule of provocation, like, that's a long time to be like, yeah, let me turn this car around. Which is why they elevated to premeditated. One of the reasons probably why they elevated to premeditate. But we're going to find out more. And you're right, the text messages are going to be the next thing. And other phone pings. Where was he? You know, maybe that he had been in her vicinity prior times leading up to this. So that'll all come. That'll be next. They're working on it as we speak.

[E]

Speak.

[D]

I'm sure.

[A]

You know these cases. Like right now, the biggest change, folks, that you understand in the world of criminal, criminal law is technology. It has to do with the phones and, and our methods of communication. And back in the day, when I was in the district attorney's office in the early to mid-90s, everything was basically on paper. And now almost nothing is on paper. All the police reports and everything. But what it does, what it changes is there's such a plethora of material to go through. Back in the day, all they were looking for was like handwritten notes somewhere, love letters, postcards, fingerprints. And now it's like, okay, let's download this telephone that's got a terabyte of information. And you got to go through the birthday card to Aunt Molly, you got to go through the absentee note to the kids teacher to find one. It literally is folks looking for a needle in a haystack a lot of the times. And I will tell you, I was in a proffer recently. That's when you bring the defendant in to speak to the prosecutor. And they had executed a search warrant on his house. And he had so many devices in there. And they said to him, look, if you really want us to cooperate, if you really want to cooperate with us and you want to look good to us, of those 15 devices that we found, why don't you just tell us which ones are relevant and which ones have been around forever and absolutely irrelevant. And I will tell you right now, within hands reach, I think I have four telephones right here. I think I have a Palm Pilot in my desk. Draw from back in the day.

[B]

Palm Pilot.

[A]

I have a BlackBerry. Well, don't forget it went from pop pilot to BlackBerry to iPhone. I got all of them right here. And God forbid They came in and do the search warrant. They don't want to go through all this stuff because even on that PAL pilot there's a ton of information. So what they're going through, what they're doing now is they're going through everything and finding where's. What is the communication. Where's his mindset? Did he Google how to kill someone? Did he google how to break into a house without or ask chat GPT? How do I break into my ex wife's house without anybody knowing? So, you know, these investigations go on and on. However, even with a great defense attorney like John Espilbo, I think my man the surgeon's days of wielding a scalpel are over.

[B]

Yeah, he's going to probably be wielding a shank.

[A]

Very John esque of me because that's like something you would say. I think his days of wielding a scalpel are over. Can I. Jon A. Spielberg reporting live true crime.

[B]

Just want to add one other quick thing because I hope neither one of us ever gets investigated because because of the work we do with representing clients and doing this kind of commentary, my Google history makes me look like a serial killer from the stuff that we have to research.

[A]

No, no, you're. You are absolutely correct because there are things I will tell you. I sometimes I don't look them up for the reason you just said.

[B]

For that reason?

[A]

Yeah. Like I don't really want to look up like how to kill somebody even though, you know, I. It's been like evidence in some of my cases. I'm not putting that in my computer. I'll go to the New York Public Library three blocks from here. Do it on some public computer. I'm not doing that here because of what you just said.

[B]

I think about it every time. Every time. But it's okay. Because if the feds ever come looking for me, cops ever come looking for me calling. You.

[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, you can tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. Apply [e-mail] and funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. 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 approval. A text says you're on my mind. A bouquet from 1-800-Flowers says you're my everything Heartfelt moments belong in the real world, not just your phone. For 50 years, 1-800-Flowers has helped millions of people make memories that'll last a lifetime with gifts they'll cherish forever, their expertly curated arrangements and gift baskets shipped nationwide with a 100% satisfaction guaranteed. Don't wait for the next big moment. Make it when you visit 1-800-flowers.com sxm today, that's 1-800-flowers. Com sxm.

[D]

It's open enrollment time. The time when some health insurance companies hope you will blindly sign up for overpriced premiums and confusing fine print. Don't fall for it. Consider taking control of your healthcare with crowd health the alternative for people who make their own decisions. Crowd health is a community where members fund each other's medical bills directly. No middlemen, no networks, no, no nonsense. For under $100 a month, you get access to bill negotiators, low cost prescriptions, lab testing tools, and a database of vetted doctors. If something major happens, you pay the first 500 bucks, and then the crowd steps in to help with the rest. And with ACA subsidies, expiring prices could be going up. And crowd health members have already saved over 40 million by refusing to overpay this open enrollment. Take your power back. Consider joining crowd health to get started today for 99 bucks. For your first three months, you can using the code MK TRUE CRIME at joincrowdhealth.com that's joincrowdhealth.com code MK TRUE CRIME. Crowd health is not insurance. They say opt out. Take your power back.

[B]

Speaking of cops looking for people, we're going to. We're going to shift gears now and talk about this.

[A]

Is.

[B]

This is. This is a good one. Because it's one of these cases, Arthur. And you're going to. You're going to relate like. We've got Timothy Busfeld. I remember him from years ago. What was it called? 30 something something. Right. But he's done stuff since then. I mean, I have.

[A]

I don't have to read, right? I could take off my glasses.

[B]

I have followed his career. He's married to Melissa Gilbert. She's. She's famous, too. Well, out of the blue. Ish. A couple of kids that he worked with on one of his shows have accused him of sexual misconduct, for lack of a better word. And. And he knew about it. He took his sweet time turning himself in to New Mexico. He actually has a place, apparently in the Catskills, which is. Hop. Skipping a jump for me. Not all that far from you either. But he finally turned himself in, and guess what? This judge locked him up pending the next hearing. So I want to talk about this case because it's one of these cases, Arthur. You know, we've seen it in our career, too. Once somebody makes this kind of allegation against you, and celebrities are frequent targets. I'm not saying these allegations are false by any stretch. We don't know enough yet. But once these allegations are made, your life is forever changed, even if they are not proven. Even if. So this guy is saying, look, I didn't do anything. You know, the. The mother is mad and she wants to exact revenge because I didn't re up the contract with the kids or words to that effect, fired them from the show. What do you make of the allegations thus far at this early stage?

[A]

Let me just start where you were a minute ago, which is once these accusations are made, like your life is forever altered, right? So literally, when I represented Lawrence Taylor, the New York Giant, great. And the Giants very happy they got a new head coach. They're very excited about that today. Lawrence Taylor, just for those of you who don't know, because he hasn't played in 30 years, the NFL just ranked him the greatest defensive football player of all time. He was booked for rape. It was the COVID His mug shot that we just saw of Timothy Lawrence's was the COVID of. Of the Daily News when he got a misdemeanor and community service, they realized the young lady was not telling the truth and we just wanted to get rid of it. It was like on page 38 between the PC Richards ads and like the obituaries or something like that. So you. It's very, very hard. To your point, who shed that Dershowitz wrote a book built by accusation. Just the mere. The mere being accused of something like this. And Dershowitz, it wasn't an underage person. It wasn't a pedophile.

[E]

This.

[A]

We're talking about young boys. We're talking about pedophilia here. Now they're talking about inappropriate touching. I don't think there's any nudity, thank God, involved here. But listen, there's a lot to unravel here. First and foremost, John, I don't know if you've ever been in a position, you probably have where on a Thursday or Friday, you know that they're looking for your client. And you know if you surrender him, he's spending the weekend in jail, right? And what I've done, and I'm sure you've done the same, is I Call law enforcement and. Or the prosecutor if there's an assigned assistant DA or US Attorney. Look, calm down. You know who I am will be there Monday morning, seven o'. Clock. He won't. He won't have shoelaces on. He won't have a belt. He'll just have his ID and he'll be surrendering. We don't know if that happened here with Timothy. They're making it sound like, you know, he was in the wind. He says on his little video that, you know, I had to hire a lawyer and I had to drive 2,000 miles to get there because if I got on a plane, they would have arrested me in the airport, which probably would definitely make sense. So. But the thing that I want to hear, what Johnny Spielberg has to say is, number one, that he made a video, and I would like to hear your thoughts on the substance of the video. Number two, that he released it, of all places, to tmz. So, Jon, I'm. I'm gonna sit back and be educated by you.

[B]

So. Well, first let's. And I don't know, this might be the same video. Let's watch SA3 so we can hear from his mouth what he said at least at one point in this process.

[A]

Hi, everybody, it's Tim. I'm sure most of you know that are watching this, that I was ordered to come to Albuquerque. I'm here now. I got the call Friday night. I had to get a lawyer. Saturday, I got in a car, I drove 2,000 miles to Albuquerque. I'm going to confront these lies. They're horrible. They're all lies. And I did not do anything to those little boys. And I'm. I'm gonna fight it. I'm gonna fight it with a great team, and I'm gonna be exonerated. I know I am, because this is all so wrong and all lies. So hang in there. And hopefully I'm out real soon and back back to work. And I love everybody for supporting me. Thank you. So what do you think, Jonna? Would you allow your client to do that?

[B]

You know, I was going to ask you the same thing. Probably in this case, the attorneys, whoever is representing him probably couldn't stop him from doing that. I know if I were. We don't want our clients really ever to make statements. But when it comes to sex abuse and you're a celebrity, that's a little bit of a tougher call. And I think you have to maintain your innocence. This video. So I have a difference of opinion. There is some expert, Megan actually Talked to an expert who said he has detected deception from this video. When I look at it, I always look to, to the eyes. Like there's something with some profiler once said if you look up into the left or up and to the right, you're lying. And he's kind of not doing that. And he seems pretty, I don't know, Steady Eddie. So look, these are tough charges. We were, we were talking off air. It's a lot harder to prove a negative. It's a lot harder to prove something didn't happen than to prove something did. And when you're in the, this type of defendant posture, you really are trying to prove something didn't happen. Even though you know the whole innocence, proven guilty, forget that for a minute. So I think that this was a non harmful way for him to make a statement to let the public know that he's going to be fighting these charges without sticking his foot in his mouth. That's how I feel about this brief statement. And I have some other, I have some other opinions, but I want to hear what you think about it.

[A]

Yeah, I mean I don't necessarily disagree with you. I think he's probably gonna lose.

[E]

Lose.

[A]

I agree. It's in, it doesn't hurt him legally. Right. But.

[B]

Right.

[A]

You know, there's going to be people out there, oh, he's full of it. And you know what? Traditionally if you're going to do something like that, you would do a written statement, right? Four sentences, you know, have your lawyers.

[B]

Say it for you.

[A]

Yeah. Either have your lawyer say it for you like that's what I did with Lawrence, Lawrence Taylor, or you know, you just put out a four sentence statement and just say, you know, this is a hard, these are horrible accusations. Not only didn't I do it, I would never do think of doing it. I would never dream of doing someone who ever wanted to do that is a sick individual. I'm not a sick individual. And there's millions of people who I've interacted with through the course of my life that will attest to that, that these accusations are insane. I mean I did do it. They were about to charge somebody here in New York and I knew the charges were coming down the next day. And I did a preemptive press conference. I wanted to get the narrative out before the media did in the DA's office did. So it was one of the few times the defense attorney had a press conference before the prosecutor bribery case. City government. Very, very different than these charges. We have two when boys who are Extremely sympathetic. But Johnny, you know the uphill battle it is when you are fighting these types of char. He'd be better off saying he robbed a bank, right? Or he extorted, you know, people out of money than these charges that he's on the set and the parents who were watching their kids on an iPad, the iPad went dark. They couldn't see what was going on. And you know, he started off by just tickling them and then it went further and further. And you have experts saying that they've interviewed the kids and the one main complainant is suffering from ptsd. And you know, these are, these are big hurdles to have to climb.

[B]

And we also know because, and we've seen this movie before when you are. I'm not saying the allegations are false. We just don't know yet. But historically, when celebrities are targeted, sometimes what ends up happening is the plaintiffs want to get a quick payoff. They expect somebody to write a check and maybe these charges will go away. And I get that. I think more and more in these days since the MeToo movement, people are less inclined to pay their way out of a false allegation. You know, even the, even when it is false. And one other thing that strikes me about this case, and I want you to remember this when we discuss in the future, to me there's something a little bit askew about. He's got two little boys that are making these allegations. But then out of the woodwork comes a teenage, I think it was a 16 year old girl at the time is now also making allegations. And to me that, you know, one of these things is not like the other. If you're a child molester. What was his name? Sandusky, for example. Right. Boys, if Timothy Busfeld is a serial child molester, you usually, you know, girls, teenage girls are different from young boys. I'm not saying that he would stick with one over the other, but to me it's a little bit odd that this girl is coming out of the woodwork as well. So I just, for what it's worth, I do think it's a little strange in that sense.

[A]

Early yet. I mean, the bottom, bottom line is it's, it's early.

[B]

Very, very early. So I.

[A]

Moving right along. We're.

[B]

Yeah, we're going to move right along. I mean, you know, keep, keep your eye on this new sex abuse claim claim, because like I said, it's not from.

[A]

Spielboard. He does this, he does this video, right? Is TMZ the outlet? You should be. TMZ has A role in our society. A very substantial role in our society. But you're talking about an insanely serious criminal case. Potential devastated victims or. Or a potential devastated, falsely accused defendant. Tmz, where you release a video like this.

[B]

TMZ was probably the friendliest outlet. TMZ might be the only outlet that was willing to let him leave his self serving, one sided statement. Perhaps. Right? Maybe. Maybe the other networks weren't willing to do that.

[A]

No, that is a fair point. Look, folks, when you're up against these kinds of charges, like Professor Alan Dershowitz was, and I've been on that saga with him for almost 12 years now, until Virginia Drew Frey finally admitted that she was. You know, I may have. I may have made a mistake when I said Alan Dershowitz and I had sex six times in six different places. I mean, the two outlets we went to were the New York Times and some woman no one knows. Her name is Megyn Kelly. Those were the two places. I mean, right after the. The news broke in the New York Times, Alan went right on with Megan and, you know, told his side of the story that he was exonerated, et cetera. So I just thought if. If my client is going to do the unorthodox thing and make this statement, maybe an outlet that was more associated with hard news as opposed to celebrity gossip would be the appropriate place. But Jonna, once again, your brilliance shines through. And maybe no one else wanted to take it. Although in today's day of clicking, they would. Whoever took it would get a lot of click.

[B]

Yeah, that is. That is true, but. Okay, so we're gonna take a break. Yeah, we're gonna switch gears yet again and take a break. What's coming up after that, Arthur?

[A]

Oh, you know what? I think that a trial date has finally going to be set for alleged Gilgo beach serial killer Rex Uerman. I don't know if that's how you say his name the right way. We're going to talk about that and more. And we have a special guest coming. He's a professor and he's a death investigator. Yes, folks, a death investigator. Joseph Scott Morgan. You're going to want to hear. I don't know if I've ever spoken to a death investigator before. I am sure investigator Professor Morgan is going to be spectacular. Don't go away.

[C]

Need to restock inventory, cover seasonal dips, or manage payroll on Deck'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. You can tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. Apply [e-mail] and funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans an amount subject to lender approval. If you're an experienced pet owner, you.

[B]

Already know that having a pet is.

[C]

25% belly rubs, 25% yelling drop it. And 50% groaning at the bill from every vet visit. Which is why Lemonade Pet Insurance is tailor made for your pet and can save you up to 90% on vet bills. It can help cover checkups, emergencies, diagnostics, basically all the stuff that makes your bank account nervous. Claims are filed super easy through the Lemonade app and have get settled instantly. Get a'@lemonade.com pet and they'll help cover the vet bill for whatever your pet swallowed after you yelled drop it.

[D]

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 Birchgold 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 under until July 30, not July January until January 30. If you're a first time gold buyer, Birchgold is offering a rebate of up to $10,000 on qualifying purchases. To claim eligibility and start the process, you just text MK to the number 989898. Birch Gold 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 grand. Consider making right now your first time to buy gold and take advantage of a Rebate up to $10,000 when you buy before January 30th. Text MK to the number 989898. Claim your eligibility today. Again, text MK to 989898.

[B]

Welcome back to MK True Crime. Rex Hurman was in court this week where a judge finally set a date for his trial later this year. Quote come hell or high water. That's a direct quote from the judge Joseph Scott Morgan, Professor Death investigator. I love that's sexy. And host of the Body Bags podcast, joins us to discuss the very latest. Welcome Joseph.

[E]

Hey, thanks for having me. I really appreciate being here.

[B]

I, Arthur and I are very familiar with you. You've been, you're, you're Everywhere blood and guts are sold. We will find you. And you're amazing.

[A]

I love, I love the title death investigator, not a forensic guy, you know, go going with right to the, to the chase. So people have absolutely no confusion about what you do. You investigate.

[E]

Yeah, but that is it. Yeah.

[B]

The Hewer, the Rex Heuerman case. Just to remind people, Rex Uman is, I think he's charged with seven, seven murders at this time. Old murders, all between 1990 and 2010 of a bunch of. I don't. Women who were left on the side of the road in the Gilgo beach area, got caught because of a piece of pizza crust. So this is I. To me and I'm not a death investigator. You know, this might be a defensible case because we have to really look at the science and the forensics. That's your area of expertise. How do you look at the evidence thus far? From what, you know.

[E]

Well, first, thanks for having me, guys. But first off, we have to think about this idea of the abandonment of evidence. And you guys are well versed in this area. You know, if you leave something behind, it's, you know, it's, it's, it's open. It's open for anybody that wants to go and collect it. And that's essentially what's happened here. But let's talk about the transfer of the evidence. You know, saliva is DNA rich, all right? So let's just say if we're talking about a straw, which there's been several cases out there involving straws where people have discarded these in the trash. But particularly when you think about making contact with your mouth, people don't think about the process of eating and what you're leaving behind. So you bite in to a slice, all right? And that remnant of that saliva is actually going to attach itself to that pizza crust, all right? And this is very, it's an evidence rich environment at this point in time. So contained within the saliva is going to be your, your DNA, all right, your map, your biological map will be contained. And it is very much unique. And it is unique to you. Now, the fact that he has abandoned this and left it in the trash and it has been recovered. You know, I don't know. I mean, I'm not an attorney, but we're going to go after that in my field in forensics and we're going to examine it and take it out to the nth degree to see what we can find. And apparently they have recovered DNA. There's.

[B]

But Joseph, I was going to ask you and Then we just saw that interesting picture. I'm thinking, all right, you suck on a straw, you eat a piece of pizza. It goes in the trash. The trash contaminates that sample. I mean, and I would imagine a defense attorney in this case would try to make hay with that. I know they're also making hay on the fact that there was an expectation of privacy in his pizza crust. But I would have to push back and say, no, there wasn't. As you correctly pointed out, you throw something in the trash, fair game. We know that under the Fourth Amendment. But how. Why wouldn't it being discarded or open to an element or what have you contaminate that particular piece of DNA?

[E]

Well, I think, first off, is it boxed? Okay, I think that that would be a big question. Or is it wrapped in something as it's disregarded or discarded? Or did he just merely take a crust from a slice and just, you know, kind of toss it in there? I think one of the more important things. And we have to think about this very broadly, and it's an honest question, so let's just say that it's in a box. All right, well, you wouldn't just test that bit of crust that is in there. You would go through and sample all of the surfaces of that box to see. To see who else's DNA may have transferred there. Now, it'll be different status, right? It could be touch DNA, it could be saliva. I don't know. There are opportunities, I guess, where people could drop hair into there and those sorts of things. But you want to source each one of those profiles, and you need to make that available to everybody. Who else's DNA was found here? That's only fair. As a scientist, I want to know that I'm not coming down either on the prosecution side or the defensive side here. I just want to know the scientific truth and know what waters I'm swimming in. Now, here's the big question. If his DNA is there, all right, on that slice, that discarded slice, and you have DNA that marries up to his profile that's associated with all these other cases, we can only present the mathematical conclusions here, the odds, it's up to the prosecution and the defense to argue that point. Okay.

[B]

Juries love that, though. They love DNA evidence.

[E]

Yeah, well, they do.

[A]

They love the conclusion of it. No disrespect to the. I'm sure the professor makes it interesting, but folks should understand in the courtroom, explaining to the jury what DNA is and how it works is not exactly riveting. Am I correct on that one.

[E]

No, no, no, look, hey, look, guys, the only thing you got to do is look back to O.J. simpson. You talk about a snoozer. Remember, you know, Barry, Barry Scheck, you know, famously, he became the, you know, the DNA, the DNA guru, lawyer, you know, Innocence Project, all that stuff that came along with that. But talk about a snoozer. You know, you take. You get a graduate degree in forensic science. If DNA is not necessarily what you're interested in, forensics, trust me, I'll even say this, and I'm a college professor, it's a snoozer. I mean, it really is. It's not something that's like, oh, gee whiz, let's go study DNA.

[A]

You have to be prosecuted. The prosecutors who I've spoken to and lectured to, who, you know, are the ones who have to introduce to DNA. I just say, you know, kiss. Keep it simple. Stupid.

[E]

You have to.

[A]

They don't need to know the history. They don't. All they need to know is, hey, I'm an expert in DNA, because as the professor to enter this school, that school, this master's, etcetera, I know what DNA is. And the one that I found on the pizza, it matches the one on this guy, and that matches the one on this girl and that girl and the other girl. And as tightly as you could do that, you do it. And as the defense attorney, you bring up the points that John just brought up. Well, hold on a second, Professor. This is a piece of pizza found in a garbage pail. And aren't there rats in that part of the day? And there's squirrels and there's raccoons and what. Let's then now, let's look at the DNA found on the deceased and how that was contaminated and how long ago was that? And.

[D]

Right.

[A]

And so you just try to make a big soup out of it all and have the jurors walking away being like, I'm not sure what really happened right there.

[B]

This case rises and falls though on the forensics because of the age of the murders, you know, without it. So forget for a minute that the jury. The jury might get to contemplate that. What the defense is really trying to do is keep it out, because unlike most cases, if they successfully kept out out this type of forensic evidence, there's no case left.

[A]

Right. They're done.

[E]

Yeah, you're right. And that's, you know, that's kind of the baseline that they return to. I'm reflecting back. I don't know, maybe you Guys can remind me. It's a couple of months ago, the defense attorney made a presentation, and I remember we all had a laugh over this. He was saying they're using untested DNA principles here. It's almost like he was saying they went into a cave and they discovered fire. And what he's talking about is nuclear DNA and nuclear DNA sourcing. And research has been done for years and years in the medical field. Here's the thing about it is a lot of people. And again, this is more of an attorney's bailiwick, but forensically, too, for whatever reason, New York has never become a Daubert state. It's still a Fry state. All right? And when you think about that measurement of evidence, the feet are not really.

[A]

Explain to the listeners with.

[E]

Yeah, so with Fry. Fry is a very broad, broad understanding of science, okay? And it's like, well, the judges are like, well, yeah, I mean, it sounds good to me. We'll let it in. Daubert, you have to pass through a crucible in order to get certain bits of evidence, scientific evidence, admitted. Okay? And so there has to be ongoing testing. People have to agree on it. It has to be peer reviewed, all these sorts of things. And that's generally kind of the basis of Fry versus Daubert. Fry has been around since, I don't know, since the early 1900s, still the standard. And you have also fry plus states as well. But Daubert is kind of the gold standard. And still to this day, New York doesn't have it, which is kind of interesting, considering they consider themselves so legally progressive. And this has not happened up to this point.

[A]

You know, those. Those New York lawyers, they consider themselves this and they consider themselves that, but come on, they're a bunch of losers. Let's go.

[B]

Diamond. Does I want your opinion on something? This is a little bit off script, but this has bothered me since the Bryan Kohberger case, when that first broke and we were talking about genetic genealogy before the case got even stronger than it did at the time. He ultimately took his plea, although didn't admit anything. I said to myself, genetic genealogy. Jurors aren't going to buy that. It's too far removed. But I think I'm wrong. What's your take on genetic genealogies?

[E]

Well, okay, first off, as a scientist, I'm fascinated by it, all right? Absolutely fascinated. I think that. And I look, you know, shameless plug here. I point to my friends at Othram Laboratories and think about what they're doing with what's referred to as the NAMUS list, which is a list of all of the unidentified bodies across the country. Okay, Just imagine this and what David Mittleman, who is president of Othram, who actually plays into the Kohberger case, you know, his goal is to start striking names off of that list, getting these long since dead people identified. And that's through forensic genetic genealogy. Well, you know, you begin to build out this family tree. You know, his laboratory. He doesn't just employ scientists, he's got genealogists that are there too. But these are open source locations that they're going to. You know, supposedly. I think the FBI got into a little bit of an issue relative to what their internal memorandum had talked about in regards to the Coburger case because they said that they would not reference these closed sources. It's indicated that they may have. But that aside, it's really fascinating. Now as a private citizen, as a private citizen, I'm not a real big fan of these sites where you just free will give over your DNA because I think that it can be used.

[A]

Are you talking about like AncestryStock.com 23me?

[E]

Yeah, yeah. And I'm just not a fan. And you know, you guys might know more about it than me. I think. I don't know. 23andMe. I think it has been bought out by somebody now. And 23andMe said yeah, we got all the safeguards in place, your data secure. Well, what about the next guy that owns this? What's going to happen to all of that?

[A]

Let me say you talk about along the same lines because it was just going on an app the other day and they wanted to use my iris. It was a series, it was like American Express Biometrics.

[E]

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[A]

My crazy to allow American Express to get my biometrics.

[E]

I can't answer that. I think you got to do what you feel comfortable with. But I'll give you. Can I give you one quick analysis here?

[A]

You know, there are things, I'm in no rush.

[E]

Well, there's things that we do now in, in forensics that you know, when I started, as you can tell I'm a real young guy, when I started, we never could have even begun to fathom the stuff that we can do now. But even like the case out of out of Ohio with the unfortunate dentist and his wife that were executed in their bed, that, that pass, that video pass of the, the assailant, the alleged assailant moving behind that building. Well, you know biometrics is going to play into that because they can do a gait analysis on that, how that guy is walking, all right, they can actually plug that in. Then you start thinking about the biometrics of your face. You know, how you can open your phone, then thumb all this other stuff, that's all biometrics. And so let me just tell you.

[A]

Professor, how it's not perfect and I'm going to get myself in trouble here. There's this very stupid policy here in New York that if you're suing Madison Square Garden or any of its affiliated places, Radio City Music hall, the Beacon Theater, and you're a lawyer in the law firm that's suing, you're not allowed to enter any of their establishments. And two of my partners, both one at Radio City and one at Madison Square Garden, try to enter. And sure enough, as soon as they go through the metal detectors, within 30 seconds, they're approached by security holding an iPad with their picture from walking through the metal detector and the picture of our website and say, you remember this law firm, this law firm suing here, and you can't go through. Well, last year my wife, who's a partner at the law firm and myself decided we're going to take our son to see the Rockettes at Radio City. And I gave her a heads up. I go like, this could be a problem, but let's give it a shot. Now I'm kind of the face of the law firm somehow or another, doc, I walk through Radio City security, my six year old does, and then as my wife does, they surround her. And oh yeah, it was very interesting. My six year old goes, what's going on? I go, oh, you know, well, mommy's a lawyer and these, they need to talk to her about lawyering stuff. So she's not going to be able to the show. Arthur, you and I are going to go together. And he goes, well, that is six year old. He goes, dad, you're a lawyer too. He goes, you go do the lawyering and let mommy watch the show somehow or another. My point being that it's not a perfect science because they should have grabbed me and they didn't and they grabbed her. And so, you know, that's why, you know, criminal defense attorneys are always challenging all of the technology, all the cell phone data and what phone it or what power it hanged off of to identify somebody. And all the way down to, you know, old school paraffin tests where they used to put someone's handshot residue, right? The residue from a gunshot. And you know, you, you just, you cannot. 100% believe anything. And it all just needs to be challenged. And then, look, if it survives that challenge, the jury does with it as.

[E]

They should or will absolutely put the, put the feet to the fire, as I say. But, you know, the thing about it is the more perfected it gets, the scarier it gets. Right. And so, you know, you begin to think about those considerations as well. I, you know, I many times, you know, as a college professor, you know, with forensics, and I still teach at the police academy and all that sort of thing, and this is kind of a bit off topic, but I'll, I'll go ahead and go down this path with you. I've often thought, you know, the advances that we're making in forensics, everything that we're doing, I often think, are we making our old school detectives obsolete or are we making them lazy? You know, the old adage about, well, we'll let the boys down at the lab solve it. Well, you know, if you collect sample. If you collect sample, does that knock down the enthusiasm or the drive of a detective to go out and burn shoe leather? All right. And go out and knock on doors that they. The assumption is, is that science is going to solve the problem. It will not solve the problem. And again, kind of wrote. But, you know, the stuff that I provide, my colleagues provide, we're part of the big toolbox. We're something that you call on.

[B]

Right.

[E]

To augment what you're doing. We're not there to necessarily bring this thing to a conclusion. That's. That's not the utility.

[A]

Sometimes, but sometimes, your honor, it could be the nail in the coffin. So, you know, right. As a prosecutor, it could be like, so Mr. Idala wants you to think that Ms. Jones is lying. Mr. Schwartz is making a mistake. And it's just as a motivational lie. But you know, it doesn't lie. The professor, the death investigator, science, because he's got the DNA, the fingerprints, and everything else you can think of. And that doesn't lie.

[B]

But hold on. I do want to. I want to talk about the grave digger case. But before we do that, I kind of, in speaking about this, I figured out a way to commit the perfect murder. You want to know how?

[E]

I don't, I don't know if I want to be. I don't know if I want to be a party to this conversation anymore.

[A]

Well, just don't worry about it.

[B]

But hypothetically. So here's what, here's what you got to do if you're going to kill somebody.

[E]

Yeah.

[B]

And you want to lick a straw or, you know, suck a straw or eat a piece of pizza, you can't put it in the garbage. You got to flush it down the.

[E]

Toilet, flush it down.

[B]

That's how you get rid of the evidence for, like, you could never. Right. Nobody has ever gone and tried to fish out that kind of evidence. I.

[E]

Well, I don't know. I can't speak that now. Talking about detectives. I've been around detectives that will not quit, period. And they will go into the sewers. They will go into a septic tank. But to the best of my recollection, no, I haven't heard about anybody chasing DNA, contaminated straws down into the toilet.

[B]

Same. Now you just got it. Just got a tip. News you can use. All right, so before. But. But I do want to pivot, because this case fascinated me. I didn't even think grave robbers were a real thing, but apparently they are a real thing.

[E]

Yes.

[B]

And you talk about this grave. This grave robber case from Pennsylvania. 100 skulls and mummified body parts found in the back of a car. What's going on here?

[E]

Well, this. This individual. There's been an individual that has been arrested out of. Out of Pennsylvania. And actually, these grave robberies took place in Delaware county, if people are familiar with the greater Philly area. And just so I can just. I just want to frame this. Just give me a little bit of rope here. This graveyard, so people understand, is called Mount Moriah. Mount Moriah Cemetery. It's not graveyard. Graveyards are associated with churches. So this is a cemetery. And this cemetery has been there now, get this for 100 for. See, I'll just give you the number since, like, 1850. All right. So.

[A]

Long time.

[E]

It's a very long time. And the totality of this area for this thing covers almost 160 acres. All right. Prime real estate, right. Delaware County. And it just goes on and on. Only a part of the graveyard or cemetery is still being utilized. You know, some. Sometimes you just have to. You have to stop it. And there are thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of bodies that are buried in this thing. Well, what had begun to occur is that people had been reporting that graves had either been desecrated or burglarized because they found, like, with mausoleums, they found either holes knocked in the door, the doors were pried open, there's a couple of subterranean burials where you've just got kind of a slab on top of the ground. And this thing has either been knocked through or pried up. When this individual was Hooked up on charges. Right you are. They actually found a crowbar in his possession. He's got a rather large screwdriver and yeah, he's got remains in the back of his car. And what one of the detectives had done is they had set up cameras because they were trying to figure out who, you know, who's doing this, because it's absolutely ghastly when they finally catch this guy literally red handed. He's got. And this adds a bit of a creep factor to it, a burlap sack, okay? He's got this crowbar, which, as you guys know, every state has a description of burglary tools in their criminal statute. You look at Ted Bundy, he was hooked up on a charge relative to burglary tools, all right? That was one of the charges. So things that you can facilitate theft with burglary. And then he's got these remains on the back seat of his car, including skulls. But what they found at his home was even more chilling because they wind up back at this guy's domicile in the basement, of course. And to add another level to this, and there are row upon row upon row of skulls, individual human remains, bony remains, probably upwards of 500, I think right now. Individual. And when you say remains, that's not total intact remains, that's like elements you can have like a femur, a humerus, you can have parts of hands. You've got mummified remains that are down there. And then you've got these skulls. This rocket scientist also had an Instagram page that was advertising this stuff or at least demonstrating it. You know, with all of these skulls, they just go on and on. And apparently there's a Facebook group that's associated with it too.

[A]

So, you know, professor, there was a very famous case in New York and actually my closest friend was the main prosecutor, Josh Handshaft. He's a judge now, but he was the lead prosecutor. It was a funeral home. And the funeral home, as they were embalming the individuals. And Alistair Cook, remember him, the famous old actor, was on the famous show there. He was one of the victims. They were taking the bones out and replacing them with PVC tubes and then using the bones for dental implants and other type of surgical. And as horrible as that is, some of the deceased and the bones they were using were people who were very sick and they had cancer and they had, you know, the diseases where you should not be using those bones to put in another human being. The, the doctor who was involved in this, he went to prison for life. And he died in prison. The funeral director, I'm not making this up. He apparently fell off a roof. But, you know, he was. He was the guy who, like, people were giving their. Their loved ones to him to prepare for burial. And he's cutting them open and taking out their bones and selling them. And it was a. A very profitable. And I'm assuming this grave digger, you know, that the finances were, to some degree is what was motivating him. Although I'm curious to know whether Janna knows him because Johnny has a thing for motorcycles and tattoos. I don't know. Did you ever, like, run into this guy, John, or in your, like, walking around life?

[B]

No, I don't have a thing for that. And I'm gonna go on record right now, even though I have a long list of ex boyfriends in my life. If I ever walked into one of their homes and saw a human skull, I'd be out of there. You can't even have one of those. You know when people decorate with like old goat skulls if they think they're sort of a cowboy, you know, and a cow skin rugs. No. I'm gone. Thank you very much.

[A]

Would you ever eat. Would you ever eat like lamb's heads for like, as a meal?

[B]

I don't eat baby animals. No. In fact, thank you for that. But apparently. And before we let you go, Joseph.

[A]

But I get.

[B]

So it is legal to sell some human remains for medical purposes. Yeah, but what he was doing.

[A]

Consent. Yeah, but you have to have the consent of the. Either the individual or the family members to do that. Right. This is robbery.

[E]

Let me interject one more thing. This guy did allegedly make a sale. And this is kind of a big legal issue here, I think, and why the feds are going to get involved in this. He transported a skull, allegedly from Pennsylvania to, I think, the Chicago. I'm sorry. And sold it there. Now that's theft of stolen property, if you will. That's interstate commerce. I think that's kind of terrifying because where else have these samples gone? And one more thing, that people are not picking up on this case. This guy. Just hang on one second. This guy has robbed allegedly countless numbers of graves, y'.

[A]

All.

[E]

Let me tell you something. Back when these people were buried, they weren't using modern embalming techniques. You know what? They embalmed bodies with heavy metals. So everything that he took out and put into his basement, the state level EPA is going to get involved in this also. His neighbors run the risk of being contaminated by this stuff. And there's also supposed to be a storage unit somewhere where he's keeping this stuff. So everybody in that storage area has the potential of being contaminated by heavy metals as well. I'm talking about things like mercury here. And so this, this thing is so far reaching, I think that right now we're just scratching the surface of it because there's no way, no way under heaven that this guy's doing this by himself. I think other people are probably connected to it.

[A]

John. I think we got to cut him off, this guy from our lives.

[E]

I'm sorry.

[A]

I don't think we should be hanging out with him anymore. I'm done. I don't know about you, but I'm done with it.

[B]

That is actually scarier to me than the notion of somebody going into a cemetery under the COVID of darkness and digging up old bones. Joseph Scott Morgan, you are such a rich field of information.

[E]

Thanks for.

[B]

We really appreciated having you and really. And grossing us out like I do like being grossed out just a little bit from time to time. And we really appreciated having you. Thank you very much. And people can listen to your podcast too, right? Body Bags is the name of your.

[E]

Body Bags with Joseph Scott Morgan on Apple, Iheart or, or Spotify. Yeah.

[B]

Well, thanks again and we are gonna take another quick break. Next, your mailbag and our closing arguments. Remember, we want to hear from you. Email your comments and story suggestions to mk true crimeavelmaycare media.com and we will be right back.

[C]

Cash Flow Crunch on Deck Small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and control control over repayment. Get funded quickly and confidently. Apply [e-mail] funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes. Your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans in amount subject to lender approval. Just got a new puppy or kitten. Congrats. But also yikes. Between crates, beds, toys, treats and those first few vet visits, you've probably already dropped a small fortune. Which is where Lemonade pet insurance comes in. It helps cover vet costs so you can focus on what's best for your new pet. The coverage is customizable, sign up is quick and easy, and your claims are handled in as little as 3 seconds. Pro Tip Lemonade offers a package specifically for puppies and kittens. Get a [e-mail] Pet, your future self will thank you. Your pet won't. They don't know what insurance is.

[D]

You've watched the GLP1 craze explode. Friends, celebrities, everyone's talking about it. And yes, the results can be impressive. But if you are looking for a safe, effective, natural alternative that's needle free, consider Veracity. Veracity was founded by a certified hormonal health coach dedicated to creating holistic solutions for metabolic health. Their signature formula, Metabolism Ignite, is a unique blend of hibiscus extracts, green coffee bean extract, magnesium and more. It's caffeine free. And Veracity says clinical trials showed no negative side effects from these wholesome ingredients. They say Ignite is the number one doctor recommended natural GLP1 alternative and booster. And they say it's safe for people already on GLP1 meds and even for new moms who are pregnant or breastfeeding. So consider GLP1 benefits the natural way. Head to veracityhealth.co and use code MEGAN for up to 45% off your order. Once again, that's veracityhealth co. You don't put in the extra M there for up to 45% off. Promo code Megan so they know we sent you.

[A]

Hi, everybody, and welcome back to MK True Crime. We'll get to our closing arguments in just a moment, but first, we have a great question from Allison and it really is a great question. I'm not just saying that. Here's the question. Is the traditional jury system still fit for the purpose? In an era of 24. Seven news cycles, social media and instant access to to information, can juries realistically remain impartial and decide cases solely on the evidence presented in court? Or has the nonstop information cycle fundamentally changed our jury's function? Thank you so much for all of the work you do. Looking forward to future episodes. Love, Alison. I have very strong feelings on this, but I will defer to Jonas.

[B]

Okay, then, I'm going to be quick so we can get to your very strong feelings. Allison, I want to answer your question with a little bit of a sidebar. So the answer is no. The jury system has changed so much as social media and 24.7news and and the Internet have allowed it to. Here's one of the things that really bothers me and it's connected to your question. I think now we have a bigger problem in that some jurors will attempt to get on a jury because they think they can make money later. Somebody wants to be on a jury because they can write the book or they can, I don't know, get the, get a big interview for which they're going to get paid. And that is easy to not reveal in voir dire. Right. Once you know who the defendant is, if you think it's going to be a high ticket case, you might want to say whatever it takes to stay on that jury. That's the next big thing we need to tackle in connection with the sanctity of juries in this day and age. Arthur, I can't hear you.

[A]

Information. I was just thinking, okay, I'm sorry. It's my thoughts. They can I collect my thoughts. Information in today's day and age is so accessible. And misinformation, that's the biggest problem. Misinformation is so accessible. And jurors, especially if you're in a high profile case, the news is everywhere, even if people are trying not to see it. They go in the elevator and all of a sudden there's the case that you're sitting on a jury on. You go in a cab, there it is in the back. I mean, it's hard to avoid. And then there are the other jurors who intentionally see what they're saying online about it. It is a very, very difficult task to be up against. And Allison, to your point about the jury system and how it's set up, I asked a question in the first round of the Harvey Weinstein trial.

[E]

I.

[A]

Guess, last year to a young man who, Maybe he was 28, 29. I said he'd been in the courtroom maybe two hours. When was the last time you went this long without having a phone in your hand? And his answer was quick. He said, the day I bought it. So jurors are so used to constant entertainment, constant stimulation, that now they're sitting there with nothing, just staring at a judge and a prosecutor and defense attorney. It's, it's, it's a skill to maintain their attention to the, the evidence and the testimony. So I would definitely say some tweaks in the system would be appropriate. And I could give you an example of what I think. I think at summation that each juror can ask in writing. You don't have a free. For all can ask the. Each side one question, one question they have about the evidence to. Because after jury selection, voir dire, the jurors don't say a word. They don't say, maybe they'll raise the hand, they have to go to the bathroom. Besides that, you don't know what they're thinking. You don't know what questions they have. It's all guesswork. And I will tell you, it wastes a lot of time. There may be issues that you're addressing in summation that they either will never believe or they totally believe, but you're spending 15 minutes on it. So, Alison, it's a very, very good question. And I think, and I'm being sincere, I think a task force, even a national task force, should be set up to look again at how jurors are functioning. Back in the day, O.J. simpson, the jurors were sequestered. What did that mean? They had to live together with court officers who made sure they didn't watch the coverage of OJ they didn't read the newspapers or listen to the radio or anything. You know, they don't do that anymore for financial reasons. But now more than ever, something like that in a, in a homicide case that's so important would be appropriate.

[B]

I think that answer should double as your closing argument. That was very good. I like the task force force idea.

[A]

I mean, it could be. I got, I got a little closing argument. I'm doing my little one, or you would do your big one, or I'm.

[B]

Going to do my big one, then you can do your little one, and.

[A]

Then mine's a little.

[B]

Okay, are you ready?

[A]

Go for it.

[B]

Okay. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in what will undoubtedly be a landmark ruling on an issue so fundamental it should never require nine of the most learned legal minds to pen an opinion on it. The legal issue on paper is whether biological men identifying as women have a civil right to compete in Title 9 women's sports. The answer is easy. That's a no, they don't. Title IX was born in large part to protect against sex based discrimination in federally funded educational institutions. Why? Because up to that point, it was women who were typically on the receiving end of discriminatory practices. Why then are we here to answer the simplest of questions? Not one as nebulous as what is the meaning of life? Nor one as legitimately confounding, such as is a tomato a fruit or a vegetable? The question truly before the Supreme Court is, what is a woman? Justice Alito lasered in asking plaintiff's lawyer, quote, what does it mean to be a boy or a girl or a man or a woman? The response, quote, we do not have a definition. Actually, we do. And we owe it all to biology, DNA, chromosomes, reproductive organs. You know, the really important stuff to which we owe the existence of humankind. Ask any 5 year old to define gender and he or she will point to a fellow five year old of the opposite sex and tell you that one is icky. There's a difference and even they know it. It's science. You see, a woman is an adult human female, full stop. There is no surgical procedure that can change the science. You may change the appearance, you may even change the parts. Do a deep dive into the procedure by which a doctor creates a vagina in the space between a man's bladder and anus after lopping off his penis and testicles, if you have the stomach. And the end result? Still not a woman. These procedures remove healthy organs, repurpose tissue, and create structures that require lifelong medical intervention. There is no uterus created, no ovaries, no eggs, no reproductive function. It is body demolition, not gender affirmation. Which brings us to the real issue. No one wants to talk about gender dysphoria. For decades, it was correctly understood as a mental health condition. The best response was treatment. Today we flip that on its head. We no longer treat the distress. We restructure reality around it. We don't help the patient adapt to the world. We demand the world adapt to the diagnosis. And somehow women, actual women, are told to sit down, shop, shut up and surrender their sports, their scholarships, their records and their safety all in the name of inclusivity that excludes them. The Supreme Court will not get this wrong. Because the definition of a woman is not a tomato tomato situation. You can call a rooster a chicken all day long, but it's never going to lay an egg. Drop the mic, you're next.

[A]

That was.

[B]

You laughing?

[A]

No, it's fantastic. You could call the rooster rooster and.

[B]

Chicken all day long. Never gonna lay an egg. You can borrow that.

[A]

It is very true. Not along those exact lines, but, you know, covering this Timothy Busfield case, being the father of three, and I want to make it clear we don't know enough to know about guilt or innocence here. And in no way, shape or form am I casting aspersions on the parents of these little boys. But unlike when we were kids and I went to a high school where 20 years later it came out that the coach was abusing boys, a lot of boys, horribly, horrifically causing suicides, we're in a day and age where we now have the knowledge and we're not running from it and we're not fighting it. And as parents, you gotta just have a keen eye. Look, anything can happen to any kid. I mean, we have to send them to school, we have to send them to camp and soccer practice and all that and things can happen anywhere. But in this particular case, when you hear about the iPad went dead, you couldn't see where the kids were. I mean, I could just tell you in a. I don't want to make this too personal, but my wife, Marianne fortuna, like that iPad went dead. You would hear her speaking very loudly. I can't see him, can't see my son anymore. I need to see this. Like, you know, you need to be a little pushy, you need to be a. Yeah, you need to intervene because there are people, sick people out there. I don't know if they're born that way, they develop that way. We could talk about that another day. But there are people who prey on those who can't defend themselves. And it will offer, alter their life forever. Creates so many problems, insecurity and the way they look at themselves, the way they look at life, depression, alcoholism, the statistics go on and on. So if there's anything that this Timothy case brings to light, it's just, you know, and I'm speaking personal experience here in terms of what I think, thought about today, preparing for this segment and being on this segment is, you know, I'm going to keep an extra careful eye on my 4 year old and my 9 year old, I think my 19 year old is in pretty decent shape. But the little ones, they should be an alert to all parents to just to be alert and to be very, very cognizant that children could be in harm's way and you don't even realize.

[B]

Excellent, Arthur. I love that message, I really do.

[A]

No, it's scary. You know, we don't know what's going to happen with that case, but.

[E]

Right.

[A]

The one part of that case that freaks me out a little bit is people who are on that set where this was allegedly took place, who really don't have any skin in the game on either side, said that the young boy here, the complaining witness, when he started the filming, he was this happy, local, lucky, vibrant, laughing kid. And at the end of all of these sessions, at the end he was much more quiet, much more withdrawn, didn't seem to be very happy to be there. When you hear that about a little boy, and maybe because it's me, I'm surrounded with a little girl and a little boy in my household, that, that really brings up a red flag. Like, hey, something is going on here. So just be alert for those telltale signs.

[B]

Yeah, that's great advice. That's great advice from a great parent. So with, with that, with that, we're going to bid everyone an adieu.

[A]

It is always wonderful to be on with you and I say that from the bottom of my heart. You are wonderful to be on professional and you keep it energetic and educational and no one's ever going to be bored looking at you.

[B]

Well, I appreciate that. And don't forget, you and I are going to be doing well. I'm going to be doing your show after this show. But I do also want to thank before we let you go, big thanks to Joseph Scott Morgan and to you, Arthur Idella. You're just amazing. And in a few minutes I'm gonna be bopping over onto your radio show. So everybody have a wonderful weekend. Keep your emails and great points and story suggestions coming and we'll see you soon.

[D]

Did you know that parents rank financial.

[A]

Literacy as the number one most difficult.

[D]

Life skill to teach? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app for families.

[C]

With Greenlight, you can set up chores.

[D]

Automate allowance and keep an eye on.

[C]

Your kids spending with real time notifications.

[B]

Kids learn to earn, save and spend.

[C]

Wisely and parents can rest easy knowing their kids are learning about money with guardrails in place. Sign up for Greenlight [e-mail] podcast.