Cain Velasquez: Blood Sport - Part Four

Join host Jay Harris as he delves into the complex legal battle of Cain Velasquez, focusing on the implications of his son's alleged sexual abuse, the family's struggle with the justice system, and the broader societal impact of incarceration on families.

#dpshow

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:08):
Welcome to Playing Dirty Sports Scandals with me Jay Harris,
your go to guide for the juiciest sports scandals of
all time. Over the past twenty years of my career
as a journalist and sportscaster, I've hosted a variety of
ESPN shows, from Sports Center to Outside the Lines. But
I'm Playing Dirty. My role is to take you down,

(00:29):
way down to learn about the dark side of sports now.
In our last episode, we really got into the grind
of the Cane Velasquez case, breaking it down to three

(00:50):
of its core ingredients. The first ingredient we talked about
was Marcy's Law, which, to remind you, is a law
that was passed in the states of California, North Dakota,
South Dakota, and Ohio to ensure that victims of crime
are treated with respect and dignity by the criminal justice system.
This law protects the families of victims, ensuring that they

(01:13):
have participation and knowledge rights in bail hearings, pleas, sentencing,
and parole hearings. The Santa Clara District Attorney's office breached
the Velasquez families legal rights under Marcy's Law, adding a
contentious ingredient to Caine's alleged violent outburst on February twenty eighth,
twenty twenty two. The second ingredient we discussed was CTE

(01:37):
and defense attorney Mark Geragos's argument that the probability of
Kane Velasquez suffering from a brain injury begged sentencing leniency,
and the third ingredient we dug into was vigilanteism in
our justice system's inconsistent approach to street justice throughout history,
the law is subject to interpretation, and just because similar

(01:59):
path vigilantes like Gary Plochet, who killed the child molester
who kidnapped and raped his son, received merciful legal sentences
didn't mean that Kane Velaska's outcome was going to be
equally forgiving. What in fact happened was that Judge Selina
Brown denied Cain's request for bail, despite his offer to

(02:22):
pay for his own house arrest expenses, including around the
clock private security, and despite the fact that his son's
alleged abuser, Harry Gillart, remained free and at large in
the community. Twisted justice. Whether you think so or not,
this was the reality of Kane Velaska's situation as the

(02:42):
officers led him from the courtroom and back behind bars
on March seventh, twenty twenty two, and it was a
grim reality which not only impacted Kin but his family,
his wife, Michelle Velasquez, and their two children, Coral and
Kane Junior. This is part of the extended cost of
crime that many people don't think about. The accused in

(03:06):
the spotlight isn't the only one who suffers the consequences
of their actions behind the scenes. Their family also suffers,
and in this case terribly. While there was surely no
love lost between the Velasquez family and the Santa Claric
District Attorney's Office, DA Jeff Rosen at least made a
valid point acknowledging this tragic truth in his statement to

(03:29):
the press. Kane Velasquae's alleged act of violence also causes
more pain and suffering to his family. The Velasquez family
was now part of the US population impacted by incarceration,
and this is sadly a sizeable group of people. Half
of all Americans have an immediate family member who has

(03:51):
been in prison, and one in every five people is
that a parent incarcerated. Right now, approximately two point seven
million children in the United States have a parent behind bars.
That's one in every twenty eight kids, or three point
six percent of all children in the US being impacted
by this tragic reality, and the impact it has on

(04:16):
these children is statistically very heavy. According to Education Week,
studies show parental incarceration can be more traumatic to students
than even a parent's death or divorce, and the damage
it can cause to student's education, health, and social relationships
puts them at higher risk of one day going to
prison themselves. The Journal of Health and Social Behavior also

(04:41):
reported that data from a national survey of children's health
revealed higher rates of asthma, obesity, depression, anxiety, behavioral problems,
speech and language delays, and other developmental delays in children
with an incarcerated parent. Academically, these kids also more likely

(05:01):
to struggle. Only one to two percent of students with
incarcerated mothers and thirteen to twenty five percent of students
with imprisoned fathers graduate from college. That's according to a
twenty thirteen report from the American Bar Association and the
White House. Those are some seriously sad statistics, and behind

(05:21):
all of them, there's usually one parent or alternative guardian
who is not in prison who is left dealing with
the fallout. Having Cain in prison, particularly as Little Kine
was grappling with the aftermath of sexual abuse, laid a
heavy load solely on the shoulders of Cain's wife, Michelle.
Keep in mind that Michelle wasn't just holding down the

(05:42):
home front on her own. She was doing so while
at the center of a media and legal frenzy, and
while her daughter, Coral was old enough to understand her
father's situation, four year old Kine Junior remained in the dark.
Mother and big sister had to strike a delicate balance
of shielding what were of Little Kine's innocence and protecting

(06:02):
him from further trauma while gradually preparing him to confront
harsh truths. Michelle has explained her challenges publicly, saying, since
my husband's arrest, little Kine's been asking where his dad is,
and we've been telling him that he's in Mexico wrestling,
and that's little Kine's favorite thing. I think as a family,

(06:24):
we've been used to him traveling and being gone for
extended periods of time. So right now I'm just trying
to help little kin feel safe still, but trying to
create that safe, secure and calm environment for little Cain
was extremely hard given the storm that had come crashing
down all around her. Michelle didn't pull any punches, and

(06:46):
describing how difficult it was to juggle her routine court
appearances with solo parenting, saying, it's been really hard having
to deal with my son's abuse and also my husband's arrest.
I try to spend as much much time with Little
Caine as I possibly can. He's now not at daycare
any longer, and he stays at home with me, and

(07:08):
so I just try to allow him to try to
have a good day, although oftentimes he doesn't want to
leave the house. So I just try to do whatever's
going to make him happy that day. You know, if
it's having a picnic in our bedroom or picnic in
the living room because he loves picnics, or watching you know,
a movie together, then that's what I'll do. But he's

(07:28):
not comfortable being outside of our home right now, and
so it's been extremely difficult for me to try to
nurture him through this process because he's clearly hurt. Any
parent can appreciate how incredibly challenging, sad, and lonely this
situation must have been for Michelle. It's heartbreaking to think

(07:50):
of a child who had been so outgoing and boisterous
suddenly fearful to go outside. But Michelle's description of their
home life in the aftermath of Harry Gillart's alleged abuse
does track with how abused children typically behave. According to
child sexual abuse experts, a fear of leaving the house,
especially when a child has been abused outside their home,

(08:13):
is one of the most common responses by children to
sexual abuse. But despite having her world turned upside down,
grappling with the emotional fall out of her youngest child's
suffering on her own day to day and ensuring that
her daughter's life remained as consistent as possible, Michelle still
prioritized seeking justice for her son and understanding for her husband.

(08:37):
Michelle was determined not to miss any hearings, no matter
how much of an uphill battle it was for her
to get to the court room. It was maddening for
many that Michelle, who had so much to handle on
her own, attended every hearing, while the defendant, Harry Gillart,
avoided making physical appearances in court whenever possible. This is

(08:58):
because his hearings were held at the tail end of
COVID rules, and so courts allowed some people, including lawyers
and even defendants, to make their appearances via zoom. Santa
Clara County was one of the courts which allowed virtual attendance,
and so Harry Gallart took full advantage of the rule.
In fact, several sources have reported never even hearing Harry

(09:20):
speak or showing his face on zoom. In his early hearings.
Harry's lawyer, Stephen de Philippus, responded for him, and the
only thing people who were actually in the courtroom, like
Michelle Velasquez, could see was Harry's name on an otherwise
blank screen. But though the screen and court may have
been blank, it didn't mean that the picture of what

(09:42):
had gone on at Paddy Gallard's daycare was That picture
had come into shocking focus. Michelle Velasquez must have felt
equal parts horrified and vindicated as prosecutors presented their case
against Harry Gallart, starting with an in depth review of
his mother's daycare. As I explained in an earlier episode

(10:02):
of Playing Dirty, Patty's daycare was an upscale, fully licensed
daycare based out of a mansion just a few blocks
away from Cane's and Michelle's own prestigious home. It had
a fantastic reputation, and when parents came to tour Patty's
Daycare for consideration, it looked like heaven on Earth. Residents
who sent their kids there described it as having been

(10:24):
a very nice and spacious home with lots of play areas,
especially outside. The yard was so attractive that many parents
even rented out Patty's fields and playgrounds for their kid's
birthday parties. No parent could be faulted for thinking that
Patty's Daycare was an ideal facility for their child, and
no parent could be faulted for believing that Patty's Daycare

(10:47):
was a safe environment for their child. But beneath the glitz,
the plitiful snack offerings, the well kept grounds, and the
up to date California license which was meant to guarantee
that experts were routinely coming by to assess and evaluate
the business, Patty's Daycare was not safe and it hadn't
been ever. Our team at Playing Dirty has reviewed state records,

(11:12):
and the shocking truth is that California authorities were not
keeping kids safe and the parents of the children at
Patty's daycare had no idea. What the state records reveal
is a very long history for Patty's Daycare, riddled with
violations and suspensions throughout its entire existence. The violations range

(11:33):
and seriousness, but some like leaving children unattended inside the
house while all staff members were in the backyard, certainly
rise to the level of child endangerment. The daycare's records
from nineteen eighty three to twenty twenty two make for
tough reading and clearly demonstrate that Patty Gillard's Daycare was
a business that bent the rules, pushed all the limits,

(11:55):
and tolerated a carelessness that's almost hard to imagine where
the well being of children as young as infants is
at stake. One of our sources shared a jaw dropping
story about Patty's Daycare, which was rooted all the way
back in the nineteen eighties. You see, the whole venture
started out on the wrong side of the law. Patty
Gallart operated without a license in those early days, totally

(12:19):
flouting the regulations put in place to ensure children's welfare
and home daycares, and what exactly was in place by
the authorities to protect children in the state of California,
you might ask the childcare Licensing program. This is the
program that is tasked with ensuring that child care facilities
operate according to the California Health and Safety Code and

(12:40):
Title twenty two of the California Code of Regulations in
a number of very important ways, including pre licensing inspections,
unannounced facility inspections, complain investigations, and follow up inspections. So yeah,
right from day one, Patty Gallart, it didn't seem to
hold the law or child's safety up as matters of priority.

(13:06):
As word of her daycare business spread, Patty realized that
she would need a license to continue her operation uninterrupted,
So she bit the bullet and got her license on
December sixth, nineteen eighty eight, after operating on the down
low for as long as possible. Once Patty's daycare was
in the system, the issues about her business started making

(13:26):
their way into state records consistently, and our source revealed
that one of the first major violations of note had
to do with the breach of basic home care rules.
So here's the scoop. The law in California does allow
people to offer daycare services from their home rather than
at a commercial property. So far, so good. But the

(13:48):
rules are very strict when it comes to home care facilities,
and one of those rules is that home daycares cannot
care for more than twelve kids at a time, and
that there must be at LEAs least one adult staff
member per six kids. Now, let's be real a minute.
It seems to me that six kids to one worker

(14:08):
is already a hugely tough job. Anyone who's had a kid,
or knows a kid, or has even seen a kid
putting their parent through the ring or at the supermarket
can probably relate to what I'm talking about here. It's exhausting.
Kids are high energy. I'm tired just thinking about watching
six young kids by myself. These staff members would be

(14:28):
tasked with making sure kids weren't putting their fingers in
light sockets, getting into the chemicals under the kitchen sink,
or jumping off the furniture. In other words, keeping an
eye on kids in daycare is a big, stressful and
incredibly necessary job. Now, keeping in mind the maximum legal
ratio of staff to kids in a home daycare, imagine

(14:51):
Patty's house teeming with children just as soon as she
got her license. Maybe she thought that the wheels of
bureaucracy turned slowly, and so the state wouldn't send anyone
to inspect her operation. Who knows what she was thinking.
But in April nineteen ninety one, California's Department of Social
Services or DSS, responding to reports of overcrowding at Patty's house,

(15:15):
discovered a staggering number of kids at the daycare. Twenty
one children, including five infants, were on the property with
just two employees to watch them, one paid staff member
and Patty Gillard herself. This wasn't just an overcrowding error.
This was a reckless safety nightmare. And it was a

(15:38):
nightmare with a further eerie twist. Cribs and napping children
were found upstairs in the private quarters of the home.
This blurring of boundaries between daycare and living space isn't
just a red flag, it's a siren, especially in retrospect
considering Harry Gillard's unfettered access to these areas. Harry got

(16:00):
was never listed as an employee of Patty's daycare, yet
he had routine access to all of the children in attendance.
It was an extremely irregular situation, to say the least.
The daycare defiance didn't end there, though, following its citation
for having twenty one kids under the care of two

(16:22):
adult members of staff. Just weeks later, DSS returned to
Patty's house and found fourteen kids there. By October, when
DSS returned yet again, the child count had hit twenty five.
As if this wasn't enough, Patty had violations for straight
up deceit in the reports for her daycare. Our team

(16:43):
at Playing Dirty have uncovered accounts of Patty moving kids
to other locations to dodge inspections, hiding kids in closets
when DSS was spotted arriving at her home, and even
having confrontations with DSS workers when they noted feeling threatened
by her. Patty Gallart treated the law for home daycares
like a game of cat and mouse, but with the

(17:05):
highest of stakes the safety of children. And puzzlingly, the
response from DSS to all of these incredibly concerning incidents
was muted, and by muted, I mean basically non existent.
Why did the DSS not revoke Patty Gillart's license to
operate her daycare given all the shocking and flagrant violations

(17:28):
of California law? Was there something more at play. Well,
it seems likely that there was something playing dirty going
on in the background, with political pressure possibly swaying dss's actions.
It's a chilling thought, the idea that political influence might
trump child's safety, and yet we do know that this

(17:50):
happens in our society. Just take the battle over kids'
use of social media and screens currently raging at the
highest levels of government in the US and UK. In
the US, federal children's online safety bills are being hotly debated.
Efforts to ban TikTok have picked up steam and waned
over the last year, and dozens of states of sued

(18:10):
Meta for allegedly deliberately designing its platforms to be addictive
to kids. But when you consider the millions of dollars
that tech CEOs contribute to political campaigns, where you can
understand how reform and compliance for that industry is slow
to come by. It's this tenuous interface between politics and
corporate level which raises serious questions about accountability and oversight

(18:34):
for all businesses, including daycare. In the case of Paddy's Daycare,
local assemblyment Rusty Arrais sent a letter to the Department
of Social Services in support of her operation. He passionately
argued that any violations recorded on her premises should be
forgiven and that Patty's Daycare provided a much needed community resource.

(18:56):
And just like that, in a scenario that certainly seemed
to be connected to Rusty Euaeus's letter, Patty retained her
license to operate, regardless of the repeated serious violations that
directly impacted upon the safety of the children in her custody.
Maybe it's just me, but there certainly seems to be
a distasteful theme here in Santa Clara, and it's one

(19:18):
that favors Patty Gallart and her family over the welfare
of children. Patty's Daycare was a catastrophe waiting to happen,
and Little Kine and the Velasquez family paid the price
for the DSS turning a blind eye to bad business.
Little Caine should never have been in contact with Harry
Gillart or Patty Gallart for that matter. The decades of

(19:38):
violations should have shut her business down long before Little
Kane was ever enrolled there. Many, many people failed in
their responsibilities leading up to his alleged abuse, and that
in and of itself is terrible and tragic. So at
this stage of the unraveling scandal. We have Michelle trying

(20:00):
to keep her home together and attend every legal hearing
in the wake of Little Kine's alleged sexual abuse and
Big Kaine's arrest. And on the other side, we have
the Gallard family, the Department of Social Services, and the
DA's office, all with a pattern of playing dirty to
some degree. And sadly, the situation was about to become

(20:21):
even dirtier because it wasn't just Michelle who attended the hearings.
Little Caine's participation was called upon two. Little Kane, who
was too traumatized to leave his home, who spent his
days now having picnics in the living room and watching
movies by his mother's side instead of playing with other
kids his age, was now expected to stand up for

(20:43):
himself in court. If this sounds like a less than
ideal situation to you, then you're certainly not alone. But
the assistant district attorney assigned to Harry Gallard's case, Robert Philbrook,
told Michelle Velasquez that he wanted Little Kin to take
the stand at Harry's preliminary hearing, despite it being a
huge and highly unusual request. You see, according to child

(21:08):
abuse experts, having a child testify at any court proceeding
as fraught with difficulty, both for the child and for
the case. This is because kids fundamentally are at a
different stage of development at adults. They have different abilities
to recall facts and judge concepts like time passing or
how many times something happened. As a detective or prosecutor,

(21:30):
it's important to understand those challenges when it comes to
putting a child on the stand in court, and if possible,
it's almost always preferable to avoid putting an already traumatized
child on the stand altogether. Michelle Velasquez and the lead
investigative detective both took the stand at Harry Gilark's preliminary
hearing on February twenty seven, twenty twenty three. Typically, those

(21:54):
witnesses would be the only ones the prosecutor will call
would need to call at such a hearing, because all
the prosecution is required to prove is that there is
probable cause to believe the crime happened and that the
defendant is the one who committed it. It's like a
just over a fifty percent sort of standard to establish
probable cause. There's no jury and it's not a trial,

(22:16):
not yet. And while it may seem counterintuitive for a
preliminary hearing to be more stressful for a child than
testifying during the actual trial, the reverse is often true
because regardless of whether it's a preliminary hearing or trial,
the child testifying will need to endure cross examination, and
at least during a trial, a jury is watching, which

(22:40):
means the defense attorney must be on their best behavior
not to seem overly aggressive towards a little kid on
the stand. But in a preliminary hearing, well, all gloves
are off, there is no jury, and so the defense
attorney is one hundred percent focused when trying to get
his or her client off. In a preliminary hearing, the

(23:00):
defense attorney actually has a big incentive to try and
make the child testifying feel uncomfortable, even scared, so they
are more likely to look uncertain of their testimony and
appear as though they can't be trusted. If that sounds
terrible to you, then congratulations, that's a natural and decent reaction.
It's an awful thing to ask of a child who

(23:22):
has already been through so much. As Tim McDonald, a
veteran prosecuting attorney from Benton County says, it's never a
good situation when you have to make a child relive
a horrific situation, And the courtroom is an intimidating place
for anyone, much less a child who is being asked
to talk about the worst thing that has happened to them.

(23:43):
So this is why attorneys, for the most part, do
not put a kid on the stand to testify if
they don't absolutely have to, and at the preliminary hearing,
arguably a prosecutor should never have to. Certainly, in the
preliminary hearing for Harry Gallart, having the victim's mother, Michelle Velasquez,
and the lead detective testifying should have been more than

(24:05):
enough to solidly make a case for probable cost to
the judge, But prosecutor Robert Philbrook insisted on putting little
Cain on the stand, and that day in court would
prove pivotal for the Velasquez family, changing the course of
their lives forever. Imagine the scene Caine Velasquez, a towering

(24:27):
figure of the Mma world, sitting quietly in the gallery,
his presence alone a statement, despite a protective order in
place to keep Cain away from Harry Gallard. The judge
Javier Alcala allows Cain and his wife Michelle to offer
comfort to their son, Kine Junior, as he courageously takes
the stand. Little Kine, now five years old, faces the

(24:50):
daunting task of recounting his ordeal. It's been more than
a year since the alleged abuse at this point, but
he is expected to recall what occurred in excruciating detail.
Accompanied by stuffed animals and shielded from alleged abuser Harry
Gallard's view by a piece of cardboard, Little Kine bravely
recounts his experience, albeit hesitantly, in the unfamiliar court environment.

(25:14):
In an effort to keep the child from too much stress.
Despite Harry Gallart sitting just twenty five feet away, Judge
our Caller permits Little Kine to color in a Pokemon
coloring book while he testifies. It is the first time
that Harry Gallart has been physically present at a hearing,
and the first time that the Gallart and Velasquez families

(25:34):
have been in the same room since Kine's alleged attack.
On February twenty eighth, twenty twenty two. Having insisted on
little Kaine's testimony at the preliminary hearing for Harry Gallart,
Assistant District Attorney Robert Philbrook navigated the conversation, seeking clear,
binary answers from Little Kine with the help of a

(25:54):
simple sketch of a human body. Little Kine alleged that
Gallart touched him inappropriately in the daycare's bathroom. This moment,
stark and profound, marked the first direct public implication of
Harry Gallart by Little Kine. Watching their small beloved son
in such a stressful situation must have made Cain and

(26:15):
Michelle feel so terribly helpless, as many parents have described
in similar situations. In the words of Attorney Tim McDonald,
no parent wants to put their child on the stand,
having to be cross examined by a defense attorney and
being in the same room with the offender. But Attorney
McDonald goes on to explain that this unthinkably awful situation

(26:36):
is sometimes a necessary evil for the system to function.
Without children testifying, we can't hold the offenders accountable. But
despite the prosecution putting everything on the line to the
point of insisting on Little Kine's testifying in the preliminary hearing,
the defense was determined to do everything and anything to
ensure that Harry Gallart was not held accountable. The defense,

(27:01):
led by Attorney Stephen D. Philippus, suggested that Little Kaine's
testimony might have been coached pointy two perceived inconsistencies. De
Philippus said that, quote, the problem is they extended the
coaching that goes on with a youngster like that, which
is why you heard the testimony. He'll say one thing
and then turn around and say it completely the opposite.

(27:23):
And while it's natural to grimace hearing Stephen D Philippus
questioning the validity of Little Kayne's testimony, it is well
within his role as a defense attorney to do so.
In fact, it's a classic tactic by the defense to
question the testimony of a child. After all, without DNA
or other tangible physical evidence, the entire case is destined

(27:46):
to rise or fall on Little Kayne's testimony. It was
undeniably a tense, delicate situation in the Santa Clara County
court room, with the credibility of a child's words, the
case against Harry Gillard, and the potential safety of the
entire community hanging in the balance. Michelle Velaska's testimony, While

(28:06):
not his gut wrenching as watching her young son's direct
account of his experience, was still absolutely heartbreaking. In addition
to recounting what Little Kine had told her and his
father in his initial disclosure at bedtime, she revealed that
he'd also mentioned seeing Harry Gallart go into the bathroom
with other boys at Patty's Steakcare. This was a bombshell

(28:28):
moment and the first time that other potential victims had
been publicly alluded to. While no other children have disclosed
abusive experiences with Harry Gallart, yet, Officer Nathaniel Rodriguez, who
was the arresting officer on the scene of Kane Velaska's
alleged attack on the Gallart family, did mention that Cain
had relayed concern about other children being abused at Patty's

(28:52):
staycare during his own arrest. So while this claim by
Little Cain, Big Kane, and the rest of the Velaska's
family in their lost suit against Harry Gillart has not
yet been verified, it's important that their concern be taken seriously.
All the children who attended Patty's daycare should be closely
monitored and the DA's office should continue to be vigilant,

(29:14):
understanding that delayed disclosure of abuse is extremely common. In fact,
a majority of children do not disclose sexual abuse, with
studies suggesting that only between sixteen and twenty five percent
of children disclose abuse to family and friends during their childhood. Sadly,
a study of adult survivors of child sexual abuse found

(29:36):
delayed disclosure typically occur between three and eighteen years after
the abuse, with only twenty one point three percent disclosing
within one month of the abuse. An additional study found
that forty four point eight percent of people who experience
child sexual abuse never disclosed what had happened to them,
not to anyone. It's a terrible secret to keep, and

(29:59):
it's a good thing that little Kane didn't keep the
secret because kids who disclosed child sexual abuse within one
year and received support have improved psychological outcomes in adulthood,
and because Little Kane's disclosure prevented Harry Gallart from allegedly
continuing his abuse unchecked. Of course, to Velaskaz family weren't

(30:20):
the only ones testifying at Harry Gallard's hearing. Harry's mother,
Patty Gallart, testified as well. She described her son's presence
at her daycare business as incidental, a happenstance, rather than
a regular occurrence, despite the fact that he was a
resident of her home. Patty specifically testified that her son
Harry was sometimes at her daycare facility when children were present,

(30:43):
but that he did not work there in an official capacity.
She also shared an incident at the daycare in which
she said a group of children teased Harry and called
him funny names, and said that her son played back.
At one point, Patty said her son Harry picked up
Kane Junior and said he'd put him in a trash
can if he didn't stop calling him names, before putting

(31:04):
him back down. Patty also testified that she told Caine
Junior's parents about the incident after it happened, and said
that at a subsequent Halloween party, Kine Senior approached Harry Gallart,
picked him up and joked that he would put him
in a trash can. The defense, led by attorney Stephen D. Philippus,
focused on this story shared by Patty, suggesting that little

(31:27):
Kayne's fear might stem from being physically picked up by
Harry Gallart playfully. Stephen D. Philippus highlighted the fun nature
of this interaction, contrasting it with the allegations of sexual abuse.
But Assistant District Attorney Robert Philbrooks stood firm, asserting that
despite the defense attorney Stephen D. Philippus trying to discredit

(31:48):
Little Kayne's testimony and making it all sound like a
social misunderstanding, that Little Kayne's account of being inappropriately touched
by Harry Gallart was clear and credible. Judge Xavier Alkala,
weighing these conflicting narratives, ultimately sided with Robert philbrook He
determined that Little Kine's account was truthful enough to establish

(32:10):
probable cause and sent the case further on for trial
of the charge of child molestation against Harry Gallart. Perhaps
DA Robert philbrook had been right to subject Little Kine
to the unusual task of testifying at a preliminary hearing.
After all, does the end justify the means? What damage,
if any, was done by having Little Kine testify? Will

(32:33):
Little Kine fear going back to the courtroom and being
called a liar again by the defense attorney when Harry
Gallart goes to trial. Was the whole experience such an
ordeal for little Kine that his parents will determine he
suffered too much to be put through it again. Only
time will tell, As Harry Gallard's haran concluded, The Velasquez

(32:53):
family's attorney, Renee Hassling, shared a statement on their behalf,
the Velasquez family wants and expects justice for their son.
She read today was an important step towards that goal.
Harry Gallart remains on supervised release awaiting his trial, which
is likely to occur sometime this year in twenty twenty four. Meanwhile,

(33:14):
what does twenty twenty four hold for Kane Veleesquez. While
despite securing a trial against his son's abuser, Kane himself
is still up against multiple criminal counts. His legal team,
just like Harry's, must mount a persuasive defense to try
and sway a jury to acquit him of all charges.
Of course, one possible defense is chronic traumatic encephalopathy or CTE.

(33:38):
As we discussed in the last episode of Playing Dirty,
CTE affects memory, behavior, and personality. It certainly tracks as
a potential trigger for Caine's alleged armed assault on the
Gallart family. On February twenty eight, twenty twenty two, and
putting CTE in the minds of jurors might offer insight
into Kine's actions and state of mind, framing him alleged

(34:00):
behavior in a new and maybe more forgiving light. But
CTE is only a speculative defense since it could only
be diagnosed in a post mortem autopsy. So what else
could Kane Velaska's defense team focus on to convince a
jury that kin should not be held to further account
for his alleged violent actions. Well, it's possible the Caine's attorney,

(34:22):
Mark Garrigos will be putting forth a crime of passion defense.
We've all heard that term crime of passion, but what
does it actually mean? In legal terms? A crime of
passion defense is a criminal defendant's excuse for lacking the
premeditation element of a crime due to sudden anger or heartbreak.
It has been successfully used to reduce sentences, for example,

(34:45):
from murder to a voluntary manslaughter. But typically for a
crime of passion defense to be successful, an attorney needs
to provide that the defendant acted immediately after the provocation,
without time to quote cool off. Basically, there needs to
be no evidence of premeditation. Now it's going to be
challenging for Mark Geragos to launch this defense, since Kane

(35:08):
Velasquez allegedly waited several days until he knew the Gallart
family would be driving to get Harry's monitoring device fitted
per the terms of his release. Kin also allegedly brought
additional ammunition in his SUV, which could arguably indicate forethought.
Having said that, in Cain's case, the alleged crime of
a high speed car chase and shooting did closely follow

(35:31):
a deeply personal and traumatic revelation the alleged abuse of
his young son, this matters because the crime of passion
defense is not about justifying the action, It's about context.
Mark Arragos will almost certainly argue that Kin was driven
by an intense, almost unbearable emotional response to the news

(35:51):
of his son's abuse or being released, leading him to
act in a way that he normally wouldn't. Mark Garrigos's
crime of passion defense would acknowledge the gravity of the
act allegedly perpetrated by Kane, but equally ask the jury
to consider the human element, the anguish, the desperation, and
the emotional response to a horrifying situation. Let's be clear,

(36:15):
crime of passion is a complex and often contentious defense.
It doesn't excuse a crime, but it does aim to
provide a fuller view of why it occurred. The defense
must convincingly argue that Kine's actions were a direct, immediate
response to an overwhelming emotional trigger, and they also must
make it crystal clear that that trigger no longer exists,

(36:38):
rendering Cain no longer a threat to anyone. The jury's
role in the Kane Velasquez case will be crucial. They
will need to consider if extreme emotional disturbance can lead
a person to act out of character, and ask themselves
if they in Kane's position might have reacted similarly. A
crime of passion defense walks a fine line, navigating the

(37:02):
murky waters between legal culpability and emotional turmoil, and for
that reason, there is no guarantee the judge will allow
defense attorney mark Errogos to make these arguments. In Kaine's trial.
We will see. But the good and arguably equitable news
for the Velasques family is that Kin was finally released

(37:22):
from prison on November eighth, twenty twenty two, on one
million dollars bail and with the conditions of wearing a
GPS tracker and staying at least three hundred yards away
from the Gallard family after spending eight long months in custody.
This decision by Judge Arthur Bocanegra was greeted with relief
and joy by Kaine's family, friends, and legal team. Kaine's attorney,

(37:46):
Mark Erragos, could not contain his gratitude. It's been a
long slog, mark Erragos told ESPN, and while this sentiment
was certainly felt by the Velasquez family and Mma community
at large, Kane as himself hadn't just viewed his time
behind bars as a period of confinement. He determined to
use it as an opportunity for self reflection. Speaking on

(38:09):
the Jackson podcast, Caines shared that he really needed to
be alone to take care whatever. He said that he
had a newfound appreciation for freedom and for the small
things in life which we all often take for granted. So,
like Harry Gallart, Kane Velasquez also awaits his trial outside
of prison in the company of his beloved family. From here,

(38:32):
we can only ponder the looming questions that hang over
the upcoming court actions for both the Harry Gallart and
Kane Velasquez cases. What fate likely awaits Harry Gallard in
the court room? Will the evidence present it lead to
his conviction or will there be twists in his trial
that could alter the course of justice? How will the
jury perceive Little Kaine's testimony? What fate likely awaits Kane

(38:56):
Velasquez in the court room? How will his background as
an mma be perceived by a jury? Will they interpret
his actions as those of a vigilante father pushed to
the brink by a nightmare scenario? Or will he be
viewed as a public danger, someone who overstepped the boundaries
of law and order and should pay the price. The
answers to these questions will shape not only the outcomes

(39:18):
of these trials, but also the lives of everyone involved.
And just as itself, as always, is also on trial.
This Playing Dirty Scandal doesn't have its ending yet. But
now that you have the inside scoop from yours, truly,
you know to keep your eyes peeled for news on
both cases to ensure your thirst for scandal gets quenched.

(39:39):
I'm Jay Harris, and I'll meet you back here next
week for another episode of Playing Dirty Sports Scandals. Playing
Dirty Sports Scandals is a production of Dan Patrick Productions,
never Ever Productions and Workhouse Media from executive producers Dan Patrick,

(40:02):
Paul Anderson, Nick Panela, Maya Glickman, and Jennifer Clary. Hosted
by Jay Harris, Written and produced by Jen Brown, Francie Haiks,
Maya Glickman, and Jennifer Clare,