C (3:26)

Bill, let me start with you. What. What's happened in the last couple days in the Adelson case?

B (3:32)

First off, I think I'm a current lawyer, Matt, I'm a former lawyer. Maybe there's something that you need to tell me about. Maybe something I need to know.

C (3:38)

Sorry about that, buddy.

B (3:39)

That's with. Just totally teasing you. I think it looks just great. Look, so this Adelson trial is something else, man. We've got these videos, we've got audios, we've got wiretaps. We've got it all in this trial. And the prosecution is working its way methodically through this evidence. Sometimes, Matt, as you know, and as John of course knows, when you're prosecuting a case, you have things that, you know, sometimes we just call them a wart. Right. The case is not perfect. And one of the things that a smart prosecutor might do is to try to bring out some of these things during their presentation of evidence so that when the defense hammers on it, you kind of have taken the sting out a little bit. And in that. In that site, we just heard that recording from one of the wiretaps, you essentially have Charlie Adelson telling his mother, you know, that she did. She didn't do anything wrong and she's got nothing to worry about. And so I think that. That what that was was a prosecutor's effort to kind of take the sting out of this so that this piece of it, which doesn't exactly support their case, doesn't have as much weight to be given to it when the. When the defense gets around to their case and to cross examination on this point so that, you know, the jury kind of takes it in stride and it doesn't sink the case because it actually, this particular piece of it is what we would call exculpatory as to Donna Adelson. But on balance, I think this trial is going along great, and I look forward to seeing what the Prosecutor has next.

C (5:13)

So, Jonah, what are your views on this? What does the defense have to work with in your mind? What is the prosecution? What points have they scored so far? What are your thoughts?

A (5:24)

No, I have a slightly different opinion of the last side that we just saw Than our. My good friend Phil as well. And here's what I think. I don't. I wouldn't call that piece of evidence so far a war. I think what the prosecution has many, many dots that they need to connect in this case, and they are connecting them. It's just not, you know, as we all know, it doesn't line up in a nice, simple linear line like they're connecting a dot here, then they're connecting a dot there. And what they're trying to do circumstantially, Is show the involvement of Donna adelson in this gigantic scheme, and they're doing it through all of their witnesses. This last piece of evidence that we saw on that site, I think, can cut both ways. Yes. Is it exculpatory in one sense? If you think that a convicted killer telling a potential killer on trial that she didn't do anything wrong is exculpatory, but maybe a juror could look at that and say, well, this just shows another level of involvement in. In this granny sitting at the defense table. I think the prosecution is doing a pretty good job of trying to weave this all together. And what I think the defense did was something very surprising. It might have been yesterday when they really went at Wendy adelson, who is the defendant's daughter. They kind of went at her like a pit bull, showing no mercy. But Wendy was cool as a cucumber. I don't know if anybody had a chance to see that testimony.

C (7:03)

So what are you. I'm going to toss this one back to Phil. When you're talking about cases like this, does the defense have to notify the prosecution if the defendant is going to testify? When will we know one way or another if Donna adelson is going to take the stand?

B (7:19)

No, we won't know until it actually happens. And interestingly enough, a few weeks ago, in one of the last pretrial hearings, she. She announced that she was planning to testify. And now that's not. She's not obligated to testify. The defense never has any burden to produce any evidence or anything like that. The burden is on the prosecutor, and it never shifts to the defense. She has an absolute right to remain silent. And I think the. The strategy, the best strategy is between a criminal defendant and their Lawyers wait and see how the prosecutor's case goes up, and then you can decide whether or not you think your client should or maybe needs to testify. Because a lot of times they can be their own worst enemy. Sometimes the case is going great for the defense until the defendant opens his or her mouth, and then the whole thing goes to hell. So it's one of these things where we won't know until the last minute she's announced that she's going to testify. But that could be just a tactic to try to throw the prosecutor off. Although a good prosecutor is going to prepare for either scenario. And I promise you, if she, if she is, if she testifies, the cross examination is going to be something that you could probably sell tickets to.

C (8:38)

What do you think, John? You've cross examined about a million people over the course of your career. And from people I've talked to, you are deadly in the courtroom. I haven't seen that yet, but I haven't seen you in court. If you had to put Vegas odds on this, what do you think at this point? Is Donna, are we going to see Donna Adelson on the stand? And part two of that, Is she going to throw her daughter Wendy under the bus? What do you think?

A (9:04)

She's already tried to. In the cross examination of Wendy. I think she tried to do that and did it a little bit. And sidebar. My favorite part of any trial is cross examining witnesses. I know a lot of us think that, oh, closing argument's my favorite part. No, I love cross examining witnesses, and I love cross examining them hard. And you're gonna have to do this in this case if you're in Donna's camp. This is really funny because in the beginning, in the closing and closing, in the opening statement, or not even in voir dire, when the prosecution was asking potential jurors, hey, do you think you can convict a granny? I thought that was a little bit unnecessary. But as we watch this trial, you guys, she does present like a little granny. Even though the testimony is far different. We know from the testimony of her daughter that she was a very controlling, involved, in a sense, grown up helicopter mom, right? From everything from her daughter's dating habits to what the kids would do. She was involved, way too involved. And so that's not granny ish. That's very bullish. But as she sits there, just the optics, she looks kind of frail and unassuming. Jurors are watching her. They always do. So I'm interested when we fast forward into the future, when we get a verdict, if any jurors will have a comment on that specifically.

B (10:38)

Well, let me, if I can add to that point real quick, there's going to be video that's going to be shown to this jury where she is trying to get the hell out of Dodge. She's at the airport in Miami on a one way ticket. She's booked to Vietnam, a country that there's no extradition treaty with. And she's seen like she pulls her phone back from the cops and it's almost like it looks like maybe she's very spry and like, almost like she's wanting to even try to fight the cops or resist arrest. So they're going to be able to contrast that, that evidence, when we get to it with what they see in court, and they're going to see two different things. I think that, I think that this whole thing about being the granny in the courtroom, to me that seems like a little bit of a charade.

C (11:23)

Well, in the dating world, somebody who's guarding their cell phone like that is called a red flag. I think one of the when and legally it's called consciousness of guilt. Right. There's actually a formal legal recognition of that common sense thing. Right. When somebody's trying to hold a cell phone back or hide something, the jury's allowed to consider that as evidence showing that she might be really afraid of what. What might be on that cell phone. One of the things that you mentioned, Phil, you said you talked about warts. In California, we always call that drawing the sting by the prosecutors. Why don't we play. Play the next shot if we could. And let's talk about this witness, Katie Magbana.

E (12:06)

During these conversations with Charlie Adelson, was there ever a time when he's in the middle of these conversations with you about what's going to happen, speaking to his mother from time. Sometimes he would get on the phone.

A (12:23)

He'D kind of look at me weird.

E (12:24)

And then just step out of the room and discuss whatever he needed to discuss. How many times did this particular situation happen where you were discussing what would eventually become the murder and his mother was interjected in that way that you just described More than twice? Yes, ma'.

C (12:45)

Am.

E (12:45)

More than five times? Yes, ma'.

C (12:47)

Am.

E (12:47)

So this was like a regular part of the way this worked, Whenever this conversation came up?

B (12:52)

Yes, ma'. Am.

E (12:52)

He would consult his mother and come back and speak to you? Yes, ma'.

C (12:56)

Am.

E (12:56)

Did he ever. Did he ever re relay to you? You know, my mom says whatever he didn't, he never specifically said what he spoke to his mom about. Okay.

C (13:11)

All right. This one's to you, Jonna. What do you think? Are they, are they drawing the sting a little bit? And, and why?

A (13:20)

And again, I, I, I think I disagree a little bit with you guys. I look at this evidence as helpful to the prosecution, and here's why. It's sort of like you got to remember that the jurors, Juries, Jurors are human. And do you guys remember. And this is going to be a weird analogy, so stick with me. Do you remember back in the day when smoking was allowed, say, in restaurants? Right. And they'd have a smoking section over here and the non smoking section over here. But if you were in the non smoking section, you still smelled the smoke, like you can't contain it. What I see the prosecution doing here is she is connecting again these dots. She's got this witness who shows up in an orange jumpsuit. So the jury knows that she's, you know, they would have known anyway. Probably there was maybe testimony about it. They know that she's convicted of something to do with this crime. They're connecting other dots where Donna is, whether she's kind of in the center or whether she's on the outskirts, like the smoking section of the restaurant. She's there. And the jury at the end of the day is gonna say, well, you know, we saw Donna in this part of the crime, and we saw Donna in this part of the crime, and then she was back over here in this part of the crime. She's involved in this crime inextricably. So I don't see this as harmful at all to the prosecution. I may be wet, but I don't see it.

B (14:40)

No, you know, speaking.

C (14:41)

I'm sorry. You know, let me, let me go to the next sort. Phil, let me ask you about that being all wet. Let's, let's play the next shot where she's asked about washing money.

E (14:52)

Did you notice that the money was stapled together? Yes, it was.

C (14:56)

Okay.

E (14:57)

Did you notice something else unusual about the money at that moment? I didn't when I opened it. But a couple days after the fact, it was wet and starting to mold. The money itself was damp to the touch? Yes, ma'.

C (15:14)

Am.

E (15:14)

Right. And did you ever mention that fact to Charlie Adelson? I, I'm pretty sure I contacted him and told him, why is the money wet? What do you mean, pretty sure? You did or you didn't? That I didn't. Okay. And when you contacted him and said the money's wet or you just mentioned to him the money's wet. Did he have a response? Yes, ma'.

C (15:34)

Am.

E (15:34)

He told me. Go ahead. Tell me that. That his mom washed the money, but she physically washed the money? Yes, ma'.

C (15:41)

Am.

E (15:41)

You started getting paychecks in September after the murder, which continued through May of 2016. Is that right? Yes, ma'.

A (15:48)

Am.

E (15:48)

And how would you receive the paychecks? Charlie would give it to me. All right. And you admit that you weren't doing anything to earn that money?

A (15:57)

No, ma'.

C (15:58)

Am.

E (15:58)

Other than contributing to this murder? Yes, ma'.

C (16:01)

Am.

E (16:01)

Who signed your paychecks from the Adelson Institute? Donna Adelson.

C (16:07)

All right, Phil, going back to what Jonna just said. What's going on with that? We got money. We got signed checks. Tell us what's going on.

B (16:16)

Well, other than it being a bizarre amount of obvious hearsay coming into this trial by someone who's a convicted felon, who has a motive to fabricate her testimony because she's already stated she wants to get some benefit from the prosecution, although she says nothing was promised, and although she's testified previously in court in a wildly different way. Putting all that to the side, if a jury believes her, you've got the. You've got Donna Adelson once again showing up. Like Jona was saying, the. The smoke is one is making its way around the room. Here she is signing checks at the Adelson Institute. And even if she doesn't, it just doesn't prove that she knew about the murder ahead of time. She knew that. That this woman McBanawa was not doing any actual work at the. At the office. So she knows that she's paying her for something that's. That's illegitimate. So she knows that. And this whole conversation where, you know, McBanwa and Charlie are talking about, you know, the. The conspiracy, and then he gets off the phone, and he goes and talks to. To his mom and comes back. That also kind of shows that, you know, she is sort of the hidden hand, if you will, that's behind the conspiracy. And it plays into the prosecutor's theme of her being sort of the. The mastermind. So I think that, on balance, this does move the needle forward a little bit for the prosecutor, but it all hinges on the credibility of Catherine McManawa, which. That's a very much an open question.

A (17:53)

Good point.

C (17:54)

So what do you think? Jona signed checks after the fact. And, I mean, that's not necessarily hinging just on her credibility. Right? You got. They have physically the checks, signature matches. She's got control of the accounts. What do you think as far as the power of that evidence?

A (18:10)

Pretty powerful. And, you know, this is going to be a theme in the closing argument when we get there. Like, if. If Donna adelson really has nothing to do with anything, why is she paying a person who's not working for the practice? Why is she doing that? Why does she get nervous when she gets the bump? Why does she contact Charlie and talk in this weird kind of code? She is there. And maybe. Maybe the defense at some point is going to try to argue to the jury. Really, how do you parse out when her involvement began? Maybe she didn't have anything to do with the planning phase of this. Maybe she came in afterwards. I just think jurors are human. They're people. They're gonna see too much of Donna's fingerprints, figuratively and probably literally on a lot of this evidence, to say she's not guilty.

C (19:02)

So speaking of the bump, let's play the next sot, if we could, where the undercover agent actually testifies about this.

E (19:09)

You were asked to approach Donna adelson. Is that what you did?

C (19:12)

That is correct.

E (19:13)

Where did that happen?

C (19:14)

I believe that happened in south Miami, somewhere near her residence.

E (19:19)

Okay, and did you just walk up to her on the street? Sidewalk?

B (19:23)

I did.

E (19:24)

Okay, and what did you do?

C (19:26)

Well, I was instructed to walk up to her and engage her in small discussion as to why I was meeting with her and then eventually handing her a flyer.

E (19:41)

And this cell phone number that belongs to the phone number that's written here. Are you personally going to carry that around and answer it if someone calls it?

C (19:51)

That is correct. That's solely in my hands, and I'm.

B (19:54)

The only one answering.

E (19:54)

And statesman 117. Those are all the phone calls associated with this number on the sheet here. We've got one from you to the adelen institute. Family business. Recall that?

C (20:06)

Yes, I do.

E (20:07)

Okay. And then one from Charlie adelen to this phone number. Is that right?

C (20:12)

Yes.

E (20:12)

And one from Donna Adelson to this phone number, Correct?

B (20:15)

Yes, correct.

C (20:18)

You know, let's. Let's go into the next SOT, if we could, and let's connect these, if that's all right. If we could play the next sot and then I want to get your guys input on. On this because think this is amazing. Excuse me, Mrs. Adelson. How you doing? Just want to give you this.

B (20:34)

Listen, you don't be scared.

C (20:36)

No, don't be scared.

B (20:37)

Listen, I just want to let you.

C (20:38)

Know that we know that your family has been taking care of Katie and.

B (20:43)

Her friend for quite some time after your problem, my brother, has been solved. And I want to let you know.

C (20:50)

That my brother, he's incarcerated.

B (20:52)

He helped your family with this problem you guys had up north. And we want to make sure that.

C (20:58)

He'S going through some rough times.

B (20:59)

We want to make sure that you take care of. Of what he's going through, the way.

C (21:04)

You'Re taking care of Katie and T. Well, this works fine. Thank you. Okay. And we get. We got it in the next shot. But, Phil, you're an innocent person. That dude comes up to you on the street and hands you essentially what looks like a blackmail letter. What do you do?

B (21:28)

Well, so, you know, this whole thing about the bump, the. The significance of this event in the whole story of this case and this murder and this trial cannot be understated, because that is what really leads to the broader investigation that. That I think is going to ultimately ensnare Donna Adelson to the point of conviction. But there's a lot of. A lot of being made of, you know, how she reacts or doesn't react. And generally speaking, I'm not a big of trying to say, all right, how someone acts is somehow evidence of something, because how. How are you supposed to act in any given scenario is really anybody's guess. So on the one hand, I'm not a fan of that kind of analysis, but on the other hand, I'm a realist. And I know that in the jury room, the jury is going to be saying to themselves, look, if that were me, I'm calling the cops. If that were me, I'm going to say, wait a minute. Help my family with the problem. What are you talking about? Who are you? I have no idea what you're talking about, but that's not what she does. She simply takes it and then goes about her day. And then ultimately, as we'll see, she calls Charlie and she makes some other statements to Charlie that seem pretty incriminating. But that bump and her reaction to it is absolutely critical. It's going to be, I think, something that. It's one of the other pieces of the pie, but it's going to, along with everything else, be her undoing in this case, because that is some powerful, powerful video evidence.

C (23:01)

Okay, well, let's do this. Let me. Let's play the next sot, which is the actual phone call. And then, John, I want to get your. Your. Your. Your thoughts on what we're about to listen. If you play the next sot and.

E (23:13)

Who Is the first person that the defendant calls after the bump.

B (23:17)

Charlie Adelson.

A (23:19)

I got some. He delivered to me.

B (23:26)

You didn't sue?

E (23:30)

No.

C (23:30)

That's what I thought it was. But I'm getting this job to you. Okay.

B (23:35)

Does it involve me or other people?

E (23:37)

No.

B (23:40)

Probably don't. What's that? Probably.

A (23:44)

You could choose them.

C (23:48)

Before. All right, Jona, what do you think?

A (23:53)

You know, the more we listen to that, you guys, the more I think this might be the death knell for her. Why? Because. Let's go back. I agree that, you know, sometimes when we cover murder cases and the. The cameras are on a defendant and we're like, oh, we don't judge anybody. We don't know how we react in that case. In this case, it's a different analysis. Donna Adelson is being approached by a big dude on her little secure south Florida street. She doesn't run. She doesn't say, get, get away from me. She doesn't do what I do. When, you know, I'm in Manhattan and somebody hands me a flyer, I'm like, ah, no, get away. Like, she doesn't do that. She just calmly stands there and she's going to take it all in and she smartly is not going to really say a word. Smartly. But then she processes all of that information, calls her co conspirator son and very, very cagely. She knows she. She's worried that they might be listened to. She doesn't want to create evidence because she's smart like a box and she' could involve both of us. Boom. If I'm in that jury box, I'm like, game, set, match. Really, when you take that with all of the other evidence, including the evidence they have yet to hear, but we know they will hear, that is powerful for the prosecution. My opinion.

C (25:09)

Okay, what do you think, Phil? They're going to go with an accessory after the after the fact defense on this thing? What are they going to roll with?

B (25:18)

Well, if they. If they're going to go with that defense, Matt, they certainly have given no indication of it because that would be what we call setting a theme for your defense, which normally you would bring out during your opening argument. You would say, look, she's only been. She's been charged with soliciting. She's been charged with being a co conspirator, and she's being charged as essentially the principal of this murder. And. And she's not been charged with any crimes. And after the murder. And so they would have come out and they would have said, that and they could then embrace this and they could say, well, wait a minute. Yeah, she's. All this evidence points to her being involved with and aware of the conspiracy and trying to conceal it after the fact. And we concede that this makes her look terrible, and it makes her look like a criminal, which she is. But guess what? The prosecutor didn't charge her with any of these crimes after the fact. And therefore, ladies and gentlemen, jury, you have to acquit her. That would be how the defense would work if it were being employed. And honestly, if this were my case, that would probably be the defense that I would use because I can't think of another one. And so, you know, I sort of a head scratcher, guys. I don't know why we haven't seen anything like that, but I'm struggling to find a coherent strategy by the defense other than to maybe point the finger at Charlie and even daughter Wendy. But look, if Wendy is also a member of the conspiracy, the defense of Donna pointing that out doesn't mean that Donna can't also be a member. So this thing is all over the place. And if you're a little bit lost, then you're not alone.

C (26:55)

Okay, well, coming up, we've got two missing persons cases that turned into homicides. If you have any questions or comments for us, you can now email mk true crimevilmaycare media.com would love to hear from you.

D (27:15)

As President Trump is settling into his new administration, one of the top Democrats in Congress aiming to undermine the Trump agenda is Illinois Senator Dick Durbin. And according to our sponsor, the Electronic Payments Coalition, Senator Durbin has a new scheme, a government takeover of your credit card. Today, Americans have thousands of choices in credit cards, but they say Senator Durbin's plan will result in less competition and less security. And that means more risk for your credit and your identity. Learn more@guardyourcard.org guardyourcard.org and consider telling your senators to stop Dick Durbin's government takeover of your credit card before it's too late.

C (27:55)

Now, a man accused of killing his wife has surrendered in Peru. Jana, why don't you give us the breakdown on this one?

A (28:02)

Okay, so this case is a little bit strange, only because when this story broke, here's what we saw. We saw a video of a man dragging something seemingly large in a large garbage bag. That caught the attention. There you go. That caught the attention of a neighbor. Now, guys, you know, you don't have to be a forensic scientist. You don't have to be Matlock to Know that there's something that was once alive in that bag. Just look at the way that he's dragging and the way that the bag is. Is flowing down the sidewalk. So sure enough, this guy drags this bag, he leaves the country to Peru with his three children. He's not there very long before he gets caught, basically because that bag that he was dragging ended up in some national forest. Forest, I think, in your neck of the woods, Matt. And the bag did contain the body of his wife. So he is eventually going to be back here in the United States, presumably to face the music and the murder charges of his wife. I also heard that he has a history of domestic violence. This may, in fact, turn out to be an escalation of that. I also read that she had recently asked him for divorce. This is the preliminary information, and there you have it.

C (29:29)

Philip, I'm going to go back. In addition to your legal mind, I'm going to try to ask you a little bit here about your experience, experience as a police officer. Why do people dump bodies in. In the wilderness? Is there any. Is it. Is it just, you know, they got the body, they can get. Get rid of it anywhere. What happens when they do that, in your experience?

B (29:51)

Well, let me. Let me get back. Let me answer your question in just a second, but let me first start by saying that this is the first time I've actually seen that video. And for those who are listening just on podcast, it's worth it. It's worth it to check out the YouTube version so you can see this video, because this is clearly, if you look at it, you can see that there's a person in there. To me, it just looks like a giant duffel bag with a dead body being dragged in. It literally looks like dead weight. It's very compelling, very stunning. And quite frankly, I'm surprised that this guy has surrendered himself to the authorities in Peru. I think we even have some video of that. But it's amazing that he surrendered. Whether or not he ever gets back here to the United States to face charges, I guess, is an open question question right now. Hopefully he will. But with the. With that compelling evidence, it's. It's shocking to me that he's surrendered. At least the three kids are safe. But to answer your question as to why do they dump bodies, I mean, I guess the answer is because they. I mean, they got to do something. But these people who commit these acts of violence are not necessarily thinking this through. They're committed these crimes oftentimes in the heat of passion. There's a lot of emotion involved, and they feel like they just have to do something quickly, and they panic. And a lot of times, you know, they make stupid mistakes. Like what you just saw in that video with dragging a body in front of somebody's surveillance camera. Not the smartest criminal in the world, but this is. This is clearly going to be a strong case.

C (31:26)

Yeah. And just to speak to that a little bit, having done a million homicides here in Southern California, not a million, but I tried 53 of them. A lot of times, what happens in the chaparral here in Southern California, and this is a little graphic for the audience, but the animals will get to the bodies and very quickly destroy anything of forensic value. So even though it appears rash, you know, a good prosecutor can also argue that that's a calculated effort to destroy evidence, believe it or not. So let's. Let's get into the next. The next case. This is baby Emanuel. This is another case involving a little boy who disappeared here in Southern California. Riverside county is adjacent to Orange county, where I was a DA for 26 years. Phil, why don't you walk us through this one briefly, if you could. What's this case all about?

B (32:16)

All right. Well, so The Riverside County DA's office held a presser back on August, the. Yesterday. On August. Well, day before yesterday, August 27th. So investigators have stated that they have a tremendous amount of evidence to show that the original story of the kidnapping was not true. And I know y' all are shocked by that because their. Their stories were obviously so believable that. That apparently nobody on earth believed them. But anyway, law enforcement says they're appreciative of the compassion that everybody has for Emanuel, but they apparently didn't seem to want to. I've seen videos. They didn't. They didn't want to lock down the crime scene of the house. You got members of the public walking through here. They say that they nevertheless have a strong indication of where baby Emanuel's are, Although the dad is given different versions of that. They sadly confirm what lots of us had sort of speculated about. Maybe it's educated speculation, but they believe the child had been severely abused over a long period of time, and that regardless of who killed the child, that both parents would have been aware of that abuse. And so they're charging them both, you know, with this murder. So I think we have slot 7 if you want to play it, Matt, because you got the D. A saying that Emmanuel was severely abused over that period of time. Here it is.

C (33:49)

Yeah, let's Listen to that.

F (33:50)

I can't speculate. I'll say. I'll repeat what I already said. We believe that Emmanuel was severely abused over a period of time. And that, that that's what will. That's the reason for the filing the way it was is that he was abused over a period of time. Both parents would have been aware of that abuse.

C (34:12)

So, Jonna, one of the big questions out there that I keep seeing online over and over again is how can you prosecute a murder case without a body? What are your thoughts on that?

A (34:22)

Well, it is possible, and it has happened in the past. And this case is. It reminds me of a case. And again, I'm like, dating myself with these old cases. Do you guys remember David Westerfield? Danielle Van Dam was the victim. Now, her body, she had gone missing. I think she lived next door to him or he lived in a trailer park. She lived next door. Her body went missing. And four months into this missing situation, they charged him with murder. They eventually found her body after they charged him, though, I think in a landfill. And when you talk about, you were talking about in the other case, how people will intentionally place bodies out in the California, you know, desert or forest or wherever they are, where animals are going to quickly consume them to remove all the DNA. Landfills are the equivalent of that. Right? Bodies very easily decompose. They get mixed up in this mess, and it's like literally trying to find a needle in a haystack. But this little girl was found there, and he was prosecuted successfully. I thought that part of this story may end up the same way where baby Emanuel's body may have been discarded. I don't, don't quote me on that, but that's initially what I heard.

C (35:37)

Okay, let's play another clip from that same press conference. I want to get, I want to get your reactions to this. This is once again the DA but talking about the judge and a prior sentence for Mr. Haro.

F (35:52)

So in 2018, Jay Caro with his ex wife, there's another child who they, they were prosecuted for child abuse as well, child neglect, cruelty. That child was also an infant. What we wanted out of the case was prison. We believed it was a prison case and that Jay Caro should have gone to prison. Jay Caro pled straight up to the court in this case. A judge here in Riverside county happened to have been a visiting judge from San Bernardino county, gave Mr. Haro a suspended sentence. Which means, if I can translate for you what that is, it means that instead of sending him to Prison. He chose to give him probation and suspend prison time sort of over his head. I will say that it was an outrageous, an outrageous error in judgment by this judge. And I don't have any problem saying that. I'm not attacking the judge personally. That decision was absolutely outrageous. Mr. Hart should have been in prison at the time that this crime happened. And if, if that judge had done his job as he should have done, Emmanuel would be alive today. And that's a shame and it's an outrage.

C (37:13)

So what do you think, Jonna? Da's going after judges, not a super common thing. Give us your thoughts.

A (37:21)

But in this case, so ridiculous, right? Because this man was basically convicted of severely abusing another child and got a slap on the wrist, which is really interesting because you guys know, we all know what goes into that decision. It's typically not just the judge's decision. You're going to have the defense attorney, the prosecution, and most likely a probation officer who's going to do a presentence investigation report and kind of guide the court on what it should do. Now, can a judge poo poo all of that and do whatever the heck he wants? Sure. Did that happen here? We don't have that information enough to analyze it. But I do agree that if you put a monster behind bars, they're not going to for a long time. They're not going to be able to commit the same offense. And it sounds like that's exactly what happened here. And it's infuriating and it's. It's so incredibly heart wrenching and sad. It really hurts my heart, this story. And looking at that, that poor, innocent little seven month old boy, it's just heartbreaking.

C (38:22)

Phil, as a police officer, you responded to more than one domestic violence scene and more than one child abuse scene, I'm sure. What are your thoughts on this?

B (38:30)

Yeah, well, it's certainly heartbreaking. And while it's uncommon for prosecutors to slam judges in that way, I think it's, I think it's probably warranted because look, it's the totality of the circumstances are what judges have to look at. But one of the big circumstances in that previous case from 2018 was the severity of the injuries to that poor child. Also an infant, lifelong injuries, things that she'll never recover from, as I understand. So I think straight probation under those circumstances was quite frankly a bit outrageous. But if there's a silver lining to any of this, it's that, you know, this, dad, I use the term very loosely, this sperm donor, if you will, for this child, he has apparently confessed to undercover inmates. And so it looks like the murder case against him is going to be very strong, and he's probably looking at life in prison. So that mistake is not going to be made twice. What happened from 2018?

D (39:29)

I've been talking a lot about Riverbed Ranch lately because I love their steaks. Those Riverbend Ranch steaks are something else. Riverbend Ranch has taken Black Angus beef to a whole new level. Did you recently hear rfkj, head of the MAHA movement, saying, really? All he eats is red meat and fermented products?

A (39:48)

Hello?

D (39:49)

Riverbed Ranch has got you covered. For the last 35 years, Riverbend Ranch has been creating a very elite Angus herd by using ultrasound to select genetically superior cattle with a focus on flavor and tenderness. When you buy from Riverbend Ranch, you're not only supporting the 64 Cowboys and Cowgirls and their families who work on the ranch, but you're also supporting over 260 other US ranches and the hundreds of American families who work on them. It is born in the USA, raised in the USA and processed in the USA. It is aged to perfection for 21 days and shipped directly from the ranch to your home. This is not your average Black Angus beef. So order from Riverbendranch.com use the promo code Megan for 20 bucks off your first order and let me know what you think. Riverbendranch.com promo code Megan.

C (40:41)

And now, everyone's favorite AG was in court this week. This, of course, was the viral video of the woman who was at a bar with her friend, who apparently had been drinking heavily and got into it with the police. We've got a sot if we could play that. And then I want to get reactions.

A (40:58)

She's a lawyer, so she knows.

C (41:00)

Well, that's lawyer stuff, so that's not true. So we got to go.

E (41:04)

No, it is.

A (41:05)

That's. That's the law. I'm an ag.

C (41:07)

I'm an ag.

B (41:08)

Good for you.

A (41:08)

I don't give a.

C (41:09)

Let's go. I'm an ag.

A (41:16)

I'm an ag. I'm an ag. What do you.

B (41:21)

What.

C (41:21)

What are your problem.

A (41:23)

What are your problem with cause to detain me for?

B (41:25)

You're being detained.

C (41:26)

Cuz you're not leaving.

B (41:27)

Cuz I'm.

A (41:27)

What you. You have.

C (41:29)

You.

B (41:30)

Relax.

A (41:33)

Buddy.

C (41:33)

You're going to regret this.

A (41:35)

Yeah, you're going to regret it. How many?

C (41:43)

Okay. And why do we see the change? Let's play the next shot. Let's see what she's like when she's sober and in a courtroom. On August 14, 2025, the defendant did trespass at the Clockwork House. 24 Ganis Water.

B (41:56)

All right, after hearing those allegations, do.

C (41:58)

You agree that the charge could be proven? Yes, your honor. Is there anything you'd like to say?

E (42:04)

No, your honor.

B (42:05)

All right, so I'll find a factual.

C (42:07)

Basis for your plea.

B (42:08)

I'll find it's known, intelligent, voluntary.

C (42:10)

Mr. Hagen, what's the agreement between the parties? Your honor, it's a six month filing, no return to the cookhouse, restaurant and court cost would be imposed.

B (42:21)

Filed for six months, no return, our cookhouse sign.

C (42:30)

Thank you, your honor. Jona, what do we think?

A (42:36)

All right, so in fairness, she did that. That's a fair disposition. Basically what that is, is you behave yourself for six months, this case is going to go away like it never happened. But I would have given anything if she would have walked out of that courtroom screaming, I used to be an ag. That. What? That would have tickled me. I would have even done better than the six month acd we call it here, filing, they call it there. But I don't, you know, we're gonna, we're gonna keep watching that clip, I think for a long time to come, even though her case is done.

C (43:07)

Phil, what do you think?

B (43:08)

John, that's hilarious. I used to be an ag. And look, I mean, I heard she's suspended now, but I honestly, Matt, you know, you and I are former prosecutors. I think my boss would have immediately fired me as soon as that video came out. So I don't know what her future holds, but I certainly wish her the very best professionally and personally. But she went from f around to finding out like in zero seconds flat. And so I hope she's learned something. But I think the disposition, as Jona said, was fair. She needs to. I would have included a letter of apology to the cops in there, quite frankly, but I think it's otherwise fair.

C (43:44)

Yeah, I, I'm torn with this one, guys. I gotta tell you, I was a prosecutor for 26 years. My friends, high school, college and all through my career tend to be heavy drinkers. I know a bunch of buddies that have been in trouble, some for alcohol related things. And I'll tell you where she crossed the line for me is when she's in the backseat of that car, she threatened that police officer who's just doing his job. And she's incredibly lucky, in my view, to still be employed. And you're absolutely right, Phil. Any of the DA's I work for would have fired me on the spot if I threatened a police officer under circumstances. And I'll tell you what, her friend was 10 times more obnoxious than she was, dropping f bombs and all that. So it's an entertaining video. Nobody got hurt and her career looks like she's going to take some appropriate hits. Let's get into the legal mailbag and then we're going to get into closing arguments and. And rants. Okay, so this new feature that we're using, the legal mailbag and this is really cool, this is people who are watching the show who sent us emails. I want to start with really nice comment from Sanjita. She said hello OGs, not AGs. Thank you. You were all amazing. And I had actually been looking for the legal eagle episodes of Megan's show to watch and re watch them and then she started this show. So thank you very much, Sanjeet. Sanjita, that is, it's nice to hear. I think on behalf of all of us, this is a lot of fun. Megan's been great and I have an all star crew of co hosts and co contributors. Phil, let me toss the next one to you. Nice comment from Charlie to Johnna.

B (45:27)

Yeah. So Jonna's fan club is growing exponentially by the minute, it seems here at MK True Crime, Charlie says love the new rant to lawyers combined with the lively male crew. This was a good group. And episode Jonna, do not ever attempt to moderate your accent. She's tuned just right. Ha ha. So Jona, somebody obviously loves the New Yorker in you.

A (45:53)

Thank you so much, Charlie. Venmo. I'll find you on Venmo. That was very, very, I appreciate it.

C (45:59)

And then there's a request from Caddy John, why don't you, why don't you read us that one?

A (46:05)

So I want to acknowledge Katty wants us to talk about a case at a. I can't pronounce this. It's Tremontan, Utah, where two police officers were gunned down responding to what they think was a domestic violence call. But here's why you guys. They responded to a bunch of 911 hang ups which as you know, cops do have. They can, if there's enough information to find out where you're calling from. They do show up, but when they got to this location, they were both shot dead. I think that's gonna be a very interesting case to follow in the future. So Katie, we will be sure to come back to that.

C (46:41)

Yeah. And thank you for that, Katty. That is a horrific case and we're gonna be following it closely on Megyn Kelly TR Crime. And now for the moment that we've all been waiting for, we get to our closing arguments. Why don't we start with you, Phil. Give us a, give us a one minute rant on the topic of your choice.

B (47:00)

All right, so here in the state of Georgia, not too far outside Atlanta, where I am in, in Carroll county, back In September of 2015, 17 year old Kylie Lindsay and 16 year old Isabella Chinchilla were killed when then Georgia State Trooper A.J. scott's patrol car slammed into their vehicle on Highway 27 near Bremen, Georgia. I think we got some video of that as well that maybe we can show. But two others, including the driver, a teenager named Dylan Wall, were seriously injured earlier this week. On Wednesday, a jury convicted him of a number of counts related to their death. But here's the thing, the truth trooper, then trooper whose job it is, guys. And this is the real rant. His job was to enforce essentially the traffic laws. He's on duty. He's not responding to any calls, driving like a bat out of hell around 90 miles an hour in a 45 or 55 zone. And he didn't deny those allegations. Instead, the defense was he wanted to blame the teenage driver for causing the accident. The jury didn't buy it, but that's not really the point. The point is, you know, as a former police officer, I'm very disappointed in this because we hire and expect law enforcement officers to protect and to serve. We don't expect them to make choices such as that to drive a dangerous vehicle in such a fashion so as to put the lives of our citizens, particularly our youth and our children, at risk. And so I would like to say that this is something that can be addressed by training. I don't really know how you train a state trooper to not drive 90 and a 55 when they're not responding to a call, when they don't have their lights and their sirens on. But maybe the issue is perhaps better screening of the applicants who we give these enormous, we entrust with this enormous responsibility to protect and to serve. But in any event, it's a really tragic case. Hate to see it happen. But even 10 years late, justice apparently has been delivered.

C (49:16)

Jonah, give us a rant again. Topic of your choice. What's on your mind?

A (49:20)

Okay, give me a sec while I grab, I have to grab my glasses. You'll see why in a second because my rant today is about a fellow contributor. Now, I'm not going to tell you Who? But I'm going to tell you why. So you guys know that this podcast, MK True Crime, is basically brand new, but yet we are soaring our way up the podcast ranking charts. Like, it's just amazing what we're doing here. And that got me thinking. You know, eventually, you guys, we are gonna be nominated for some awards. You've got Oscars, you've got Emmys. I don't know what they call podcast awards. Potties, maybe. But we're gonna be there, right? I can feel it. And that got me thinking that I better start gunning for my category right now. And my category is most Fashionable Eyewear on a True Crime Podcast. Now, to be fair, I'm not only claiming that category, but I actually created it on account of I need reading glasses when we're here, specifically when I'm hosting. And I thought I might as well make the most of it. Plus, it's such a narrow category that I'm practically a shoe. And anyway, I thought I had the support of you guys, my entire MK True Crime family, when lo and behold, one of our fellow contributors, who shall remain nameless, called me on the sly and he said, and I quote, you know, I have, like, six, seven, eight pairs of glasses, every color orange, blue, green, every color of the jelly bean. And when you told us that you were claiming that category, I went to my house, I got all of my glasses, and I brought them to my studio. So I said, are you coming for me? For reals? I mean, if you're such a fashionista, why don't you try telling that to your vast collection of fedoras in varying shades of brown? Well, I have news for him. Nobody puts Baby in a corner. It just so happens that me and the unnamed contributor will be appearing together on next week's show. Wednesday, September 10th, to be exact. And all I have to say to him is, challenge accepted. Capiche? Capiche. That's it for my rant.

C (51:47)

Well, I gotta say, I'm very happy that you weren't gonna rant on me when you said fellow contributor, because I never want you to be mad at me, John, ever. And of course, you have a lot more hair than that. That contributor, he is a fellow New Yorker, but you got your work cut out for you because he has some very fashionable eyewear, I gotta say. So my quick rant here. I want to go back to Baby Emanuel, just for the viewers to understand. No body cases are. Are absolutely viable cases all across the United States, but particularly in Southern California. I've done. Personally, I've prosecuted five nobody murder cases. Every one of them resulted in a conviction. But I want to echo the comments of the Riverside County District Attorney's office. California has a. I'm a practicing lawyer here. I'm offering no criticism to the judiciary. But there are cases that come through the system where there's almost this built in, hug them and let them go attitude amongst some bench officers, some. Plenty of defense lawyers, and even some prosecutors. And this is the worst nightmare. I just think that there is a responsibility, especially when it comes to children, to err on the side of caution. And everybody wants to be fair. And it's. It's a very difficult job. You gotta. You gotta balance it. But Phil hit the nail on the head on this one. Allegedly, Mr. Haro's prior involved lifelong permanent injuries to an infant. And there's just no way in my mind that's not a prison case. Had he been in prison, baby Emanuel would be alive today. And I think that that's something. It's a. It's a cautionary tale. I don't want to end this session on a. On a sour note, but this is important business. Lives are at stake every day and. And some people just need to pull their head out and something like that. That guy should have been in the joint, and that little boy should be alive. That's. That's my rant for today. I am absolutely honored to be joined by two phenomenal legal minds in Philip Holloway and Jonas Pilbore. And, you know, I hope you guys tune in for our next one. We are. We're going great guns here at Megyn Kelly True Crime. And I think the future is bright.

A (54:01)

Your skin should never come second. That's why Pact makes everyday essentials from the purest organic cotton. No toxins, no harsh chemicals, just softness you can feel good in. Because wellness isn't just what you put in your body, it's what you put on it, too. From the first layer to the last, getting dressed should feel like self care. Visit wearpacked.com and use code dresswell for 15% off your first order packed. Dress yourself well.