Adelson Sentenced, Sanchez Charged, D4VD Under Scrutiny, and What Makes an Arsonist?

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This program features the individual opinions of the hosts, guests,
and callers, and not necessarily those of the producer, the station,
it's affiliates, or sponsors. This is True Crime Tonight.

Speaker 2 (00:19):
Welcome to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio. We're talking true
crime all the time. It is Monday, October thirteenth. We
hope you had a beautiful Columbus day. And guess what, everybody,
we have a stacked night of headlines. The controversial Ellen
Greenberg's new findings from her autopsy are officially in and

(00:40):
it is astounding. Plus, pop star David, who we've been
talking much about, has recently transferred two properties to his
mother amidst all of these investigations around Celeste Revaz's death. Also,
Esteemed arson Profiler is going to be joining us Ed Nordscott.
He joins us to really break down all of the

(01:02):
forensics and information regarding the Pacific Palisades fire and also
what makes a serial arsonist convicted. Granny also was sentenced today,
also pretty astounding, and Luigi's defense has filed a motion
to drop the death penalty.

Speaker 3 (01:20):
We talked about this briefly last.

Speaker 2 (01:22):
Night, but we're going to break it down this evening,
and then also the NFL player Mark Sanchez has been
released from the hospital and officially charged. So much more
on that to come as well. I'm Stephanie Leidecker and
I head of KT Studios where we make true crime
podcasts and documentaries, and I get to be here every
night with my mates Courtney Armstrong and Body Move In.

(01:45):
And because there is so much going on this evening,
we have Jarrett Farantino, our very favorite esteemed trial attorney,
is back and he's going to break down.

Speaker 3 (01:56):
Several of these cases.

Speaker 2 (01:57):
Because we've been getting a lot of talkbacks and those
talkbacks need answers, so we're bringing in the big dogs.

Speaker 3 (02:03):
Welcome back, Jareded. We're so happy you're here.

Speaker 4 (02:06):
Always a pleasure to be with you on True Crime tonight,
looking forward to the questions. And it's never a dull
night when I'm here, so I know it's going to be.

Speaker 5 (02:15):
A busy day.

Speaker 3 (02:17):
Well, let it rip, Jareded.

Speaker 2 (02:18):
We're so happy you're here as well, and let's go
straight to a talkback.

Speaker 3 (02:22):
Hey, ladies, stepped me from Ohio.

Speaker 6 (02:24):
Just wanted to make a quick comment about the lyrics
for David and that being tied to the murder.

Speaker 3 (02:30):
What would you guys think about it? Being an obsessed fan.

Speaker 6 (02:33):
Who took his lyrics too far, and maybe that's why
it's so hard to be able to us all.

Speaker 3 (02:39):
I would throw that out there, possibility. Can't wait to
hear what you girls think. Love you, bye, well, Hi
the doodle do?

Speaker 2 (02:46):
First of all, are you in a farm, Stephanie? That
was so interesting with the little cockadoodle do in the background.

Speaker 3 (02:52):
That's amazing. That came to my mind.

Speaker 2 (02:57):
She has such a beautiful voice and has this little
you know, partner in crime.

Speaker 3 (03:01):
I would love it. That's amazing. But no, I think
that's that's something I hadn't thought of that.

Speaker 7 (03:08):
You know that somebody may be obsessed with the pop
star David right. I mean, he's a kind of a
famous guy, young, attractive. Maybe he has, you know, an
obsessed stalker of some kind.

Speaker 3 (03:21):
I don't know. I mean, anything's possible. What do you
guys think.

Speaker 2 (03:24):
It seems to me like there would be something in
the news or something in terms of him being a
person of interest or a suspect, none of which appears
to be the case at the moment. We know his
world tour has been canceled. The financial obligations surrounding that
must be unsurmountable. Frankly, that's a big deal to cut

(03:45):
something like that show. You can only imagine. So, yeah,
can you imagine if it has nothing to do with him,
what a disaster financially speaking, Courtney, you were going to
jump in?

Speaker 3 (03:57):
Oh?

Speaker 8 (03:58):
Just I think your guess as honest, as good as any.
In this moment, we have so little actual information in
terms of you know, again, no suspects, et cetera, no
cause of death, even that has still been delayed. So right,
I think it's possible. I think it would be odd,
but I think anything is possible in this case.

Speaker 7 (04:17):
I mean, it's pretty astounding so far that we haven't
heard anything.

Speaker 3 (04:22):
I mean anything. The tox is going to be the
key in this.

Speaker 2 (04:26):
Case, I wonder, And I'm just soft launching this theory.
It is based solely on nothing except for kind of
in my head. But I was thinking about this kind
of aggressively yesterday. Is it possible that maybe David the
pop star had this lovely home in the hills and
other locations, et cetera, had his tesla, maybe Celesterevas was

(04:47):
staying with him, and then he went off to tour,
and maybe some of his buddies or associates were staying
in his house had access to his car, something went amiss.
Suddenly they decide to panic and you know her tragically,
her body ends up in the trunk, which is unimaginable.
But again, I think if there was something really specific

(05:08):
around David himself, we would know about that by now.

Speaker 7 (05:12):
They would have made an arrest. Yeah, I think you're right.
I think it might be something like that. And I
kind of wonder when you look at the photos of
the car, it seems like it's damaged, and I kind
of wonder if maybe that might be related.

Speaker 3 (05:23):
But I don't know. I guess we're But speaking of
David's homes, you.

Speaker 7 (05:28):
Know, you'd mentioned these beautiful home in the Hollywood Hills,
while he has transferred ownership of his two Texas properties
to his mother as police continue investigating the discovery again.
She was fourteen years old, Celeste Revas Hernandez. Her body
was found in the front of his Tesla while he
was on tour. The tour has you know, has since

(05:49):
halted and they're investigating this.

Speaker 3 (05:51):
This happened in.

Speaker 7 (05:52):
September September fifth or eighth, eight September eighth, So it's
been two months and restuchonizing. Well, there's it two months
or one month, one month. I don't know what month
I'm in right now.

Speaker 3 (06:03):
It's been a month. We haven't heard anything. Yeah, Jared,
do you have any take on that?

Speaker 2 (06:08):
Why would somebody actually transfer their properties to maybe mom's name.
To me, that just signals, hey, look this civil mounting
against me. Yes, there could potentially be civil liability in
some way. Whatever assets he has, he likely wants to
have tied to a trust and maybe under his mom's name,

(06:28):
so that I can't be seized, I would assume.

Speaker 4 (06:32):
So that's what it looks like is going on here.
I mean, we're looking at this because we know that
Celeste appears to have been the victim of a criminal act,
but David appears to be fortifying himself for what will
likely be a civil claim in transferring his properties. And
why would you do that because you want to insulate

(06:55):
them from civil judgment and being taken. And remember the
civil standard is lower than the criminal standard. So even
if it was a friend of David or associates of
David that somehow killed selects she a minor in his company,
in his orbit gets killed, he's the deep pocket. So
a civil lawyer, even if that was the scenario, will

(07:17):
come after him and potentially his assets. So that's what
he could be doing, which could be problematic though, Oh really,
transfers could be viewed under Texas law as fraudulent transfers
because they were to his mother. So let's assume for
a moment Mom didn't pay full price for the houses.
You would she would be looked at as an insider

(07:41):
for David. She transfers those properties to insulate them from judgment.
That entire transfer could be undone under Texas's fraudulent concealment law.

Speaker 3 (07:53):
Fraudulent concealment.

Speaker 8 (07:55):
Interesting, and Jared, is that fraudulent concealment only because we're
talking about a potential civil case, or would that be
fraudulent concealment like if I decided to give my house
to my mother and she didn't what pay taxes?

Speaker 4 (08:11):
Well, is fraudulent because he knows he would be the
debtor in this law? Okay, in the civil realm, he
knows a claim has arisen around this time. He knows
that celect family, maybe a lawyer already send him a letter.
He certainly knows a body has been found in the
trunk of one of his vehicles, So the argument would.

Speaker 9 (08:32):
Be he's a debtor.

Speaker 4 (08:34):
He dumped this property to protect it from collection, and
that would be the argument. If you did a familial
transaction with your mom or oftentimes elderly transfer, that too
could be looked at as a fraudulent transfer or to
protect from nursing homes and things of that nature. So
there's a timeframe often in states where they do look

(08:57):
backs from those. It's not necessarily fraud, but they clawback
transactions if a nursing home has a judgment or something
like that. So similar in that you're making these transfers
to avoid some financial obligation.

Speaker 3 (09:11):
That's interesting. So obviously he's got a good lawyer that's
advising him, Like you might need to transfer some of
your assets, I would imagine, is this often successful, this
kind of transfership.

Speaker 4 (09:23):
Well, look, I mean a good lawyer planned for these
kinds of things upstream. I've read that the property was
held in a trust actually controlled by David. In the end,
it doesn't matter because it was his property that was
deeded over to his mother. I as a former prosecutor,
would look at this and say, this is consciousness of guilt.

(09:44):
He's throwing off the sandbag, trying to get away from
anything that could be injured when they come after him
for celests, because he knows he's responsible. So if a
lawyer could be staying on one end, you're protecting assets,
but a prosecutor could be saying, you're luck can yourself
in here?

Speaker 7 (10:01):
So this is kind of maybe a dumb question, and
please forgive me, but could this affect charges? Could this
be seen as guilt like you had just mentioned. Could
this be seen as like, you know, I'm somehow admitting
guilt and I'm hiding my assets in preparation.

Speaker 4 (10:17):
Well, I would make an argument it's consciousness of guilt.
It's an act of a guilty person insulating himself from judgment, restitution,
things of that nature. Right, And the counter argument could be, hey,
you'd have to be a fool to not know people
are coming for David over this body. Whether or not
he's the slayer is another question, but I would use

(10:39):
it again. I would say that's a pretty profound act.
You're taking a property you own to property in another
state and transferring them. Did he did the same thing
he was starting to do this when he was anticipating
charges and ultimately.

Speaker 3 (10:53):
Charged complicated business.

Speaker 8 (10:57):
Well listen, thankfully, Jarrett Farentino is here to make the
complicated comprehensible for us all clearing up all legal questions
for true crime. Tonight, I'm Courtney here with Stephanie and Body,
and we were just discussing the case with David and
Celeste Riva Hernandez, and now I wanted to bring up
Donna Adelson. So granny has been convicted. Now Donna Adelson

(11:22):
has been sentenced to life in prison for her role
in the murder for higher plot. She plotted this to
kill her son in law. He was a professor, Dan Markel,
a lovely guy by all means. This all had to
do with custody of her grandkids. So she has now
been sentenced to life. It was a nasty business. And

(11:45):
even when during sentencing she was making a scene in
the court and the judge had to tell her to
be quiet multiple times. So she seems like a real
piece of work. But I had a legal question. The
prosecutors are looking over seven hundred thousand dollars in restitution
for the trial costs. The defense right now is asking

(12:07):
for documentation. I thought that if the state brings any case,
I don't know. I didn't know that the state could
ask for restitution.

Speaker 4 (12:18):
Generally, the state can ask for restitution. I've done it
a thousand times. Okay, here's what's allowable restitution for the state.
Certain costs associated with the claim, expert fees, testing, the
payment of funeral expenses for a victim, for example, medical
expenses for a victim. These are the kind of things

(12:38):
you typically see. You very rarely see a price tag
that high for restitution. Now, this was several prosecutions. The
prosecution appears to be taken in position that Donna Adelson's
actions kicked this whole thing, kicked this whole hornet's nest
into action here and in soliciting the assistance of her son,

(13:01):
all of these prosecutions, all of this overtime pay, all
of this work, all of this testing, is attributable to
her criminal conspiracy and conduct. Therefore, she has to flip
the bill here. That's what's being pursued against Donna Addelson.
And remember, ninety nine percent of criminal defendants are indigent.

(13:21):
The Adelsons have very deep pockets, so the prosecution's probably saying, hey,
we have an opportunity to actually collect our money.

Speaker 3 (13:29):
Wow.

Speaker 8 (13:30):
Wow interesting right, and also with Donna Markel, So excuse me,
Donna Addelson. She's convicted. What are the prospects of her appeal?
What arguments could her team possibly pursue?

Speaker 4 (13:43):
Well, a couple of things. I think there were some
jury issues that they could pursue. I think there was
a post on TikTok. I don't think that's going anywhere.
I think the judge on rung that bell ineffective assistance
to counsel for not calling her son to the stand,
I think may be an issue.

Speaker 3 (13:58):
And wearing that cretle suit.

Speaker 4 (14:00):
Yeah, so that could be it too, But I don't
see any issues jumping off the page. I think her
days as her opportunity for appeal is extremely limited.

Speaker 2 (14:12):
Yeah, and also, my daughter hasn't been arrested yet, No,
I lay, I check every day. Yeah, granny was basically
in her messy mind, was looking out for her grandchildren
and her son. So the brother of the mom also
behind bars, but mom is still out.

Speaker 3 (14:33):
So do we think that charges are I do for her?

Speaker 7 (14:37):
Do I absolutely think charges are coming for Wendy. I
check every every morning. I do my check. There's a
Twitter account called was Wendy arrested Today? I check it
every single day, and every day it tweets, no tweets.

Speaker 3 (14:48):
What that's part of your morning routine. It is part
of my morning cup of tea. I do my medicube
wond and I amazing.

Speaker 8 (14:58):
Well listen, stick around because after the break Jarrett Farentino
will stay with us to help clear up legal questions.
We have the latest with Luigi Mangione and at the
second hour we have an arson expert coming to clarify
all sorts of things Palisades fire and otherwise.

Speaker 3 (15:16):
True Crime Tonight.

Speaker 2 (15:27):
Welcome back to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio. We're talking
true crime all the time. I'm Stephanie Leidecker here as
always with Courtney Armstrong and Body move in, and we
have our esteemed trial attorney, Jarrett Farentino is back with
us this evening.

Speaker 3 (15:44):
Listen. He's tried all of the scariest cases, murder cases
in Pennsylvania. He is in the beehive.

Speaker 2 (15:49):
He has all of the answers because frankly, we need
some Mark Sanchez, for example, the NFL star who is
really in some big trouble in Indianapolis. He was released
from the hospital and already booked and is already out,
and we're so curious to know what's next.

Speaker 3 (16:08):
So before we go any further, let's go to a talkback.

Speaker 6 (16:12):
Touching base on the Mark Sanchez situation. I'm wondering if
the reason why they're suing Fox is because he.

Speaker 3 (16:23):
Might have been on travel.

Speaker 6 (16:26):
During work hours or during work time to go out
there to do his announcement for the Sunday Night football
So maybe he was being paid like per dim or
something to travel out there.

Speaker 3 (16:42):
On some deep pockets.

Speaker 7 (16:43):
Yeah, that was smart talkback, right, She's thinking like why
is he know? And she's got the answers. I think
I think so too, and we forget even before Sorry
to cut you up, but before we go further, just
as a reminder, talk back Tuesday tomorrow, so we want
to make sure we have those talkbacks come in. We
love the dms, but we really love to hear your voice,
So keep the talkbacks come in and yeah, Mark Sanchez, Jared,

(17:06):
I'm sure you'll weigh in on this for us.

Speaker 3 (17:09):
Rite a mess. Huh.

Speaker 2 (17:10):
This is a really bad scenario for him. It is
not looking great.

Speaker 4 (17:16):
He's got a lot of problems. This is the kind
of case I look at, I say to myself, it's
got to work out. I don't know where you begin
to defend him in this. Only thing I can think
of is if somebody slipped something into his drink right
and caused him to act as erratically as he was acting.
There's video of him doing sprints up and down that

(17:38):
alley right twelve thirty at night. Certainly not the kind
of behavior typical of somebody alone in an alley that
late or that early in the morning.

Speaker 3 (17:48):
So you haven't hung out with the armstad. She's got
a waited best on as well.

Speaker 4 (17:57):
I might add I should, But you know, I look
at this and I think that this is just so.
It's bizarre behavior, and it's behavior that's caught on video.
There's independent witnesses that are corroborating the victims version of event.
Sanchez was made. Then he had to be subdued with
a knife, somehow still managed to injure the driver. It's

(18:21):
just it's wild, right, So for.

Speaker 7 (18:23):
Those who don't know, so for those who don't know.
On October fourth, a dispute over parking outside a hotel
bar escalated between Mark Sanchez, who were talking about and
you know, the victim in this case, he was sixty
nine year old truck driver named Perry Tole and according
to the court filings and the police records, Mark Sanchez

(18:44):
allegedly climbed into his truck while he was doing these
sprints in this alleyway and blocked him from calling for
help and told the victim pepper sprayed Mark Sanchez and
then claiming that Mark Sanchez was like still kind of
coming at him and he felt threat and so ultimately
started stabbing Mark Sanchez. And while you know, Sanchez sustained

(19:07):
stab wound to his like upper terso and he was hospitalized.
And while he was hospitalized, he was arrested by the
Indiana Indianapolis Metro Police. He went to jail yesterday and
he's already out.

Speaker 3 (19:19):
So he's out.

Speaker 7 (19:20):
And by the way, the victim in this case is
suing Mark Sanchez. They filed a civil lawsuit against him
and Fox Corporation alleging severe permanent disfiguration, loss of function,
and emotional distress. And that was what the talkback was about,
because we were wondering, why is Fox being sued? How
did they get roped into this well Mark Sanchez was

(19:41):
apparently on this PR event for the Super Bowl?

Speaker 3 (19:46):
Right?

Speaker 4 (19:47):
What is that?

Speaker 3 (19:47):
What am I reading that?

Speaker 4 (19:49):
Right?

Speaker 3 (19:49):
He was on some kind of PR.

Speaker 7 (19:50):
Event for the Super Bowl and therefore being paid by
his employer, which is Fox new or Fox Sports, and
that's why Fox is being in lawsuit.

Speaker 3 (20:00):
We think, we think very interesting. Is that, right, Jared?
Does that track with why Fox? I mean?

Speaker 8 (20:06):
Or is it just the deepest pockets? Is it a
reach or is it a reasonable suit?

Speaker 4 (20:12):
It may be a reach. I think that it's a
reasonable reach at this point because you're at an early stage.
You have to really it's nuanced, so you have to
know what was Sanchez doing in the moments before? Was
he truly in the scope of his employment? Or here's
the other theory. Have there been issues like this in

(20:32):
the past when he's on a junket for fun and
they have not addressed it appropriately? So their argument would
be there's a negligent hiring or maintaining Sanchez as an
employee with that knowledge creates an issue for Fox. It's
a little premature to say that yet, but that's what
the discovery process will meet out.

Speaker 7 (20:54):
So if he's off, let's say he's off of work,
but he's still on per dm Like they give him
some much money per day for food and drink and
he got drunk. I'm not saying oh that, I don't know,
I'm assuming and he gets drunk on this per diem.
Could Fox be held civily liable for this?

Speaker 9 (21:12):
Well, again, typically a company wouldn't.

Speaker 4 (21:15):
Be held liable for an off duty voluntary intoxication of
an employee. I mean, you just couldn't.

Speaker 3 (21:22):
Ensure you even if they're paying for it.

Speaker 4 (21:24):
Right. We all know that guy or that gal who's
who goes away on a company trip and they asked
themselves in a jam, but the reality is they're no
longer under the umbrella or protection of the company. When
you're out on your own or commit a criminal act.
That's a stretch. But if Fox, if it's shown he
has a propensity for this kind of conduct and Fox

(21:45):
knew about it and didn't adjust or kept him on board,
they could have a liability there.

Speaker 3 (21:52):
It's pretty wild.

Speaker 2 (21:53):
This is one of those cases where had he just
gone to bed that night, perhaps you know, you see.

Speaker 3 (21:58):
These images of the victim and it's astounding.

Speaker 2 (22:02):
This is a you know, it's said many times a
sixty nine year old man, not the biggest man in
the world. Imagine Mark Sanchez coming at you full throttle.

Speaker 3 (22:11):
He is so big.

Speaker 2 (22:12):
He's an NFL, former NFL star, He's massive. He's been
sprinting in the in the alley way, so he's probably
like all heated up and frenzied and intense.

Speaker 3 (22:24):
That must have been so so scary, and drinks and
goes running down alley like not me, just out of
his mind. Or is it possible that maybe he was roofied.

Speaker 2 (22:34):
I'd be curious if there was a toxicology report done
for him and maybe there was something, you know, lost
in the sauce in his cocktail, if you will, If
I'm him, I would.

Speaker 3 (22:46):
Hope that's the case, because.

Speaker 2 (22:49):
Boy, you wake up a from a bad night of drinking,
and boy, is there a lot to pay for it.

Speaker 7 (22:55):
I saw photos of the victim and like he had
a gash in his face.

Speaker 3 (23:00):
Yes, and it's really brutal. So did Here's the thing.

Speaker 7 (23:03):
I'm not really one hundred percent up to speed on
this one. Did Mark sanch just grab the knife from
him and start stabbing the victim?

Speaker 3 (23:10):
Because there's some sort of a struggle, there's a huge.
Oh maybe in the struggle it happened.

Speaker 2 (23:16):
And that's why he's, you know, claiming he's deformed. Yeah,
I mean it's a permanent scarsh that he has and
his face is horrifying. Like I can only imagine the
middle of the night, some guy comes lunging in your
vehicle and is massive. What else are you supposed to
do other than stab him? Thank goodness, he had some
way of protecting himself. But this is just I'm a

(23:38):
night gone real bad.

Speaker 3 (23:39):
Do you have mece? I do have mace? Courtney? Do
you have mace? I do not have mace?

Speaker 7 (23:45):
Okay, well, I think maybe we should get some mace
because this guy had mece and it might have saved
his life.

Speaker 3 (23:50):
That's right. Spread some pepper. Spread, that's true.

Speaker 7 (23:54):
That's true, Jared, Why are you gotta harsh my buzz
I was all excited about getting some mace.

Speaker 2 (23:59):
No, And I got it on a key chain and
I gave it out as like a.

Speaker 3 (24:03):
Smart girl, little thing to have around.

Speaker 2 (24:06):
And when I went to show how to use it,
I sprayed toward myself.

Speaker 3 (24:10):
Stop.

Speaker 2 (24:10):
So the downs to pepper spray or mace is that
it could go. It also could go a little bit
sideways if you're at and it looks like me.

Speaker 4 (24:20):
The fact that it didn't work on Sanchez may suggests
he was under the influence of something else. And again,
I'm not an expert in that field, but I've seen
mace have little or no effect on somebody who's under
the influence of very very serious and toxic.

Speaker 3 (24:39):
This is true Crime tonight and I Heart Radio.

Speaker 7 (24:41):
I'm body moving here with Courtney I'm Strong, and Stephanielei
Decker and we are joined by Jarrett Farantino. He is
a season trial attorney out of Pennsylvania, and we're talking
about Mark Sanchez and we want to hear from you.
Give us a call eighty eight thirty one Crime or
hit us up on the talkbacks on the iHeart Radio app.
Have you ever maced yourself? I want to know, give
us a call.

Speaker 3 (24:58):
I mean, that's hurt yet hurt.

Speaker 2 (25:02):
It hurt real bad, and it was wet and messy
and then it's on your hand. Everything about it was
a foul ball. I also should have read the instructions
and I recommend it. I recommend it, but with better
care than me. I got taste once it was on
purpose best ones. Yeah, it was on purpose. It was
a friend of mine, but yeah, it was that really.

Speaker 3 (25:23):
Hurt friends like that kind of goodness. We were stupid
and we were playing all stupid. Don't do it hurts.
Don't battle with body.

Speaker 8 (25:34):
But listen while we have you, Jared, I am dying
to get some questions answered. All of us are about
Luigi man Geone. Ah, yes, so a lot has happened.
Luigi man Gione Manngioni his lawyers are seeking to dismiss
really pivotal charges, including the only death penalty eligible count.
They're also seeking to suppress critical evidence. They are arguing

(25:58):
that the procedural via elations by law enforcement may mitigate everything.
If you don't recall Luigi Manngione. He's accused of fatally
shooting United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. This was back in
December of twenty twenty four, broad daylight, early morning, Manhattan,
right outside of Manhattan Hotel. And the defense again is

(26:24):
seeking to dismiss a bunch of the charges, including the
federal firearm charge. And also they argue that the interstate stalking,
the predicate defense for the federal firearm charge, doesn't qualify
as a crime of violence.

Speaker 3 (26:40):
And therefore can't support it.

Speaker 8 (26:43):
What do you make There's also more, But Jared, what's
your what's your top line on what's going on here?

Speaker 9 (26:48):
Well?

Speaker 4 (26:48):
These are complient. Let me just say that this is
why you paid me the big bucks. Right, Yeah, maybe
complicated the two big issues you got to knock. They're
trying to knock the death penalty out right. And one
of the aggravators in support of death here is the
allegation is Mangione committed multiple crimes of violence. Obviously, the

(27:09):
shooting was a crime of violence. One of the chargers
was terrorism that got kicked, that was a crime of violence.
They said, the only remaining other crime of violence is stalking.
And Mangioni's team is saying, you can't say you have
multiple crimes of violence because stalking is not inherently violent.

(27:31):
So that is a legal challenge to the aggravators in
support of death. Very very strong argument the prosecution, I
would hope before they listed stocking as a crime of
violence know the answer to that question. Now, My position
would be this stalking in this instance led to violence.

(27:51):
Therefore it is a violent app He stocked him to
murder him. What could be more violent than that, so
that would be my position. The next issue is, which
is a pretty big big issue, is whether or not
the police had probable cause without a warrant to get
into his backpack and altuna when they found them in

(28:12):
McDonald That's another big issue, and they're saying the defense
is saying, you should have gotten the warrant after the
bag was secured from Mangione. You didn't do that. Failing
to do that is the search of the container and
the contents of that bag, which included the murder weapon
and his notebook, should be suppressed. That's a big, big issue.

Speaker 2 (28:35):
That's a huge issue, and I understand the technicality of it,
but boy, does this get under my skin because in
that said backpack is the murder weapon and his manifesto,
which of course is tying him to this case. There's
footage allegedly of him on the sidewalk murdering somebody. I
wonder if, given the climate post the Charlie Kirk assassination

(28:57):
and Tyler Robinson's arrest, a huge moment that was in
the world, has Luigi taken a back seat in terms
of the spotlight and now people are feeling a little
easier on him because I get a little stuck. I mean,
he assassinated somebody in cold blood in New York City

(29:18):
and broad daylight. That's a living, breathing human. How does
that not count as much as another?

Speaker 7 (29:26):
I think I think they would give it a lot
of you know this, I think that a lot of
people are thinking Luigi's the inspiration for like these kind
of these kinds of assassinations because of the writing on
the bullets originate right.

Speaker 2 (29:40):
Which Tyler Robinson may have been a copycat for right.
And by the way, why are we not hearing more
about Tyler Robinson? Well, he is court on the thirtieth,
we here on the thirtieth. But still I feel like,
again it was front page, front page, front page, and
now there's zero page about it, which you know, either
is just a reflection, is that there's a crime right
behind it. But boy, a lot has changed, even just

(30:03):
in the last year or less than a year since
it changes to admitted this crime, it.

Speaker 7 (30:07):
Seems like a lot of time has passed, and I
do think the culture kind of has shifted a little bit, Stephanie,
to your point, But I just don't know that the
OJ I think they're going to try to use full
core press on this, I really do. I want to
thank Jarrett for spending so much time with us tonight. Jarrett,
thank you for joining us. You can find more, can
we can? You can find more of Jarrett's amazing work
as a legal expert on YouTube at Jarrett Farantino and

(30:31):
Instagram at Jarrett Farantino. Jarrett, thank you so much for
joining us, as always, appreciate it. Thank you so much,
man add to everything.

Speaker 2 (30:43):
He's in all of our podcasts, by the way, and
if you haven't heard in Cells out now, please please
check it out. It's it's really important stuff. Courtney, your
extraordinary on it has done such a great job and
body you as well, of course as always. And then
also the Idaho massacre three. We're getting a lot of
it's very controversial right now, so please download on the

(31:05):
iHeartRadio app as well. And uh put nama waited vest
for the next few moments, at least just for this segment.

Speaker 3 (31:13):
I'm not wearing mine tonight. My back hurts and I
felt you wore it for too long. I did it.

Speaker 2 (31:17):
If I worked with half an hour, forty five minutes,
I wore forty five minutes. We have to do it
in fifteen minute increments. You cannot go by body by
not do what I do because I'm hurting today. NFL
wear it for way too long, and she's just tough.

Speaker 3 (31:30):
She's been working out for a while.

Speaker 8 (31:32):
Hold on today I found I went for my very
first chiropractic adjustment.

Speaker 3 (31:37):
Oh, actually, it's unbelievable.

Speaker 8 (31:41):
And I mentioned the vest because it's apparently all any
of us can talk about these days. But what he
said was interesting. He said, for however long you wear it.
He's like, people in general wear it too long, So
it may have been, but he's.

Speaker 3 (31:55):
Like, people wear it for hours.

Speaker 8 (31:56):
But he said, for however long you wear it, then
keep it off for that amount of time until you
put it back on. Because I said, oh, I'll wear
it often for like fifteen minutes, take it off for five.

Speaker 3 (32:07):
But anyway, that was so you should take it off
to me segments. That's so that's exactly all of us.

Speaker 2 (32:14):
Anyone listening who's also we're getting a lot of feedback
about the vests just by the way, we get.

Speaker 3 (32:19):
Such a kick out of it.

Speaker 2 (32:20):
Keep the dms and talkbacks coming regarding the vests.

Speaker 3 (32:23):
We have big ideas going on here.

Speaker 2 (32:25):
So we got to like, we are not experts, but
I'm the weakest in the room for sure. But just
for one segment and then we'll take it off for
the other and listen, we're going to be We're going
to be so ripped, it's going to be unimaginable, speaking
of all things, you know, speaking of ripped, we want
to make sure we're hearing your ripped talkbacks tomorrow, talk

(32:46):
back Tuesday, so keep them coming. Any topic, nothing is
off limits.

Speaker 3 (32:51):
We also just even want to hear a little tale.

Speaker 2 (32:53):
Of happiness if you have one as well, because we
talk about a lot of tough things, including no exception,
this Ellen Greenberg case is just unbelievable.

Speaker 3 (33:06):
So, Boddy, why don't you kick us off?

Speaker 7 (33:08):
Yeah, So I have a DM to read And this
comes from listener Tracy, and she said, Racy, I would
love to hear a deep dive with Joseph Scott Morgan
about the documentary Death and Apartment six oh three. Now,
if you aren't familiar, Death and Apartment six o three,
By the way, Tracy, thank you for the DM.

Speaker 3 (33:27):
Death and Apartment six.

Speaker 7 (33:28):
O three is a new documentary on Hulu and it's
drowned the Ellen Greenberg case which is what we're going
to be talking about. And you know what, I would
love a deep dive with Joe Scott Morgan too. We're
going to be talking about this on our True Crime
and Chill next week, which I believe we're going to
probably be doing Wednesday, so we have a whole week.

(33:48):
You have a whole week in like a couple of days.
And Yeah, I would love to talk to Joseph about
Ellen Greenberg because he's kind of an expert on this case.
You know, he is friends with the family, He's been
following it for years. He you know, is a forensic
death investigator. This is like his wheelhouse and he's very
passionate about this case.

Speaker 3 (34:06):
And he's not happy today, Courtney. Can you tell us why?

Speaker 8 (34:10):
Well, he's not happy because the Philadelphia Medical examiner has
once again ruled that Aaron Greenberg's twenty eleven death is
a suicide. Her family has been fighting to have it
ruled as a murder, and it has TikTok back and
forth in the Medical Examiner's office. So Ellen Greenberg, she

(34:34):
was found stabbed many multiple times in her Philadelphia apartment,
and this happened again way back in twenty eleven, and
her parents are still fighting for justice for their daughter.

Speaker 4 (34:46):
Right.

Speaker 3 (34:47):
The initial ruling was a homicide.

Speaker 8 (34:50):
It was pretty quickly changed to a suicide by the
medical examiner. And listen, a lot of people think that
it's bec because Ellen Greenberg, who she was involved with,
that they had close family members that have initients in
high positions. Let's see, and so this is just TikTok

(35:14):
back and forth and again it changed today and it
became this ruling came out just before a court hearing
that scheduled for tomorrow. The review apparently it considered reports
from several experts who were hired by the Greenberg's a family,
including doctor sarrihl Weck, who's.

Speaker 3 (35:35):
Very he's very famous but very very.

Speaker 8 (35:37):
Famous, and Wayne Ross as well, and the former assistant
medical examiner, doctor Osborne, who initially ruled it a homicide,
now states that he excuse that he no longer believes
it was a suicide.

Speaker 3 (35:56):
Yeah, so how does that even add up?

Speaker 2 (35:58):
I mean, I listen, this is so badly and well
timed all at the same time that we're going to
be doing a deep dive. Because when you watch this
documentary or listen to Joseph who in large part he
Nancy Grace, who he works with often. They've really kept
this case in the forefront, and it is really hard

(36:19):
to believe that somebody could possibly do this to themselves.
It's unfathomable. And the parents must be just annihilated right now.
They've been holding on for so much hope and pushing
through and selling things and the financial implications to keep
your daughters memory alive and to fight for justice for her.

(36:42):
You know, we just have to remember that there are
real people attached to this, And man, is it hard?

Speaker 3 (36:49):
Is it okay? If I read something?

Speaker 7 (36:52):
So I was, because of course I was gobbling up
as much news as I could about Ellen Greenberg today
because I too just mortified that this is still ruled
a suicide. And it says here at least one of
the many knife wounds on Greenberg's body was to the
back of her neck. While Simon, she's the medical examiner,

(37:13):
found that the pattern of wounds was admittedly unusual, she added,
and I'm gonna quote here, the fact remains that Ellen
would be capable of inflicting these injuries herself. Simon described
many of Ellen's injuries as consistent with hesitation wounds. Tentative
self inflicted injuries that can proceed a fatal wound. So

(37:37):
I don't know if if many of you have seen
the graphic that the parents had made of Ellen's wounds,
but you know, it shows it's so well done. It
shows the many knives in her neck.

Speaker 5 (37:53):
Basically, and it was in her neck and her back,
and yeah, like that's the part that's so confused. How
could you even stab yourself multiple times?

Speaker 3 (38:01):
Multiple times?

Speaker 8 (38:03):
She was stabbed more than twenty times, and the wounds
were on her neck, her back, her head, and heart.
The knife was ultimately lodged in her chest. Yeah, that's
a number.

Speaker 2 (38:13):
Like your body has a response, you know, like you
it's very difficult to harm yourself more than once. It's
like you couldn't tattoo your own arm. Well maybe people do,
but you get my point. Like the dumbest example would
be if you've ever tried to, you know, wax your
own leg, and how much anticipation it requires to do
it twice. Imagine it's a stab wound and then you're

(38:36):
in agony, and then to do it again. It seems
virtually impossible that your body would even allow for yourself
to do that you'd go into show.

Speaker 5 (38:45):
Yeah, that's how it sounds to me. I know, body
you said, you've been sort of following it. Did she
have any kind of like they said she had any
I don't know, suicidal past or anything like that, or
have you heard anything like that?

Speaker 7 (38:57):
The medical examiner did elude to her being completely stressed
out about teaching. She was a teacher that and she
was going through grading and she was she had a
lot of anxiety over it. But that's about it. I mean,
that's about a line. Know, there could be more that
I'm just not familiar with. I haven't, like, you know,
done a whole like body moving victimor assessment on her.

(39:19):
But but you know, I really like Layman's terms kind
of one.

Speaker 3 (39:25):
But I'm not sure. But they did say that she
was going through massive anxiety due to these grades that
she was giving.

Speaker 5 (39:33):
Yeah, but that's what I said.

Speaker 2 (39:36):
Even if she was completely depressed, that would still be impossible.
You know, if you were going to stab yourself, you
would do it in an area that's probably around your chest.

Speaker 3 (39:46):
Again, God forbid.

Speaker 2 (39:47):
These are heinous things to even be thinking about, but
to be stabbing yourself from behind unless the goal was
to set somebody up to make it appear that somebody
killed you.

Speaker 3 (39:59):
And again this is wild.

Speaker 2 (40:01):
And where is the boyfriend now and has he been
speaking out?

Speaker 7 (40:06):
No, he's not saying anything. And you know, it's interesting
and it's important to remember. I think with this case
in particular, that it was initially ruled a homicide and
then the medical examiner met with the police. The original
medical examiner met with the police, and after they met
with the police.

Speaker 3 (40:24):
It was ruled a suicide. It's very interesting.

Speaker 5 (40:27):
I'd be curious to ask Joseph how often something like
that happens, where it goes from one, you know, one
stage I'm signed to a suicide. That sounds very unusual
to me.

Speaker 8 (40:37):
So yeah, although he has I know, he has said
it happens, I mean, the rate of it, we should
ask him. But because it stuck with me because I
was very surprised to learn that. Another thing to note
in Ellen Greenberg's case is that she had multiple bruises
on her body somewhere in various stages of healing. So

(40:57):
that would indicate however she got the bruise. Is uh,
that they were at different times, so that leading up.

Speaker 7 (41:05):
And you know, and another thing that I think needs
to be underlined a little bit. And Courtney, You've already
said it, but I kind of want to say it again.
Is that the Greenberg's Ellen's parents hired you know, very
expensive and important forensics experts to review Ellen's you know case,
and they they they said it was a suicide.

Speaker 3 (41:27):
I mean, I'm sorry, homicide. I spoke. I got my
tongue twisted. I got my tongue twisted.

Speaker 2 (41:33):
I think even Nancy Grace did a whole reenactment, and
they did, she did a forensics deep dive on the
side of Joseph, and you know, if you watch this stuff,
it just seems like common sense would suggest there's no
human possible way that she did it. And my just
my heart goes out to her family, who's been really pushing.

Speaker 7 (41:54):
Yeah, that was my first thought because we know, in
speaking with Joseph, how just sweet and nice and caring
they are, and you know they're getting older, you know,
they want to see their daughter's name be restored, you know,
like exactly I am. My heart just goes out to them,
like I was my first thought. I think we were
on the phone. We were on the phone when we

(42:14):
found out, and I.

Speaker 3 (42:14):
Was like oh my god, our parents and maybe want
to cry immediately.

Speaker 7 (42:18):
Yeah, we were all on the phone. I forgot about
that when we found out. It was just it was
just awful. What do you think about the Ellen Greenberg case?
Give us a call eighty eight thirty one Crime or
leave us a talkback. Listen Tomorrow's talkback Tuesday, and I
want to talk about Ellen Greenberg, So please go ahead
and leave us a talkback. I just I don't know,
I just feel so bad and I just don't know

(42:38):
how you skew The medical examiner did say there were
hesitation marks, right, and usually with those hesitation I did
this whole thing on Elliott Smith, who stabbed himself in
the chest twice, and I did this for a show
called Resolved on Vice, and I had to do this

(43:01):
whole thing about people who stabbed themselves and like hesitation marks.
And what I learned is that when when you're stabbing yourself,
a hesitation mark is just it goes in just a
little bit. Like So I'm wondering if it is that
what she sees, or is that what she's considering hesitation marks.

Speaker 3 (43:18):
I'm not sure.

Speaker 7 (43:19):
I don't know. It just it goes in just a
little bit. I'd like to talk to Joseph and ask
him what a hesitation work looks like. Yeah, inflicted stab wound.

Speaker 5 (43:28):
Yeah, this is definitely one. We need to bring Joseph back.
And I think he was one of the first people
that I knew I found out about case from, so
I'm sure he'd be great to be to do a
deep dive into it.

Speaker 7 (43:40):
I don't know, I know, I mean, and they spent
so they've spent so much money, you know, doing hiring
people to investigate this, like basically their life savings.

Speaker 3 (43:53):
Wow, can you imagine much?

Speaker 8 (43:57):
And I'll be because this case happened to while ago
and and of course it has come up again over
time because of the changing medical examiners, you know, rulings,
but highly anticipating watching the documentary.

Speaker 3 (44:15):
Yeah, I just to get my facts. I haven't either.
I have to renew my Hulu membership, but I haven't
done that yet. It's Apartment Taha. Can you remind Apartment
six o three is that correct?

Speaker 9 (44:26):
You are correct?

Speaker 5 (44:28):
Let me double check because we were just talking about
death and Apartment six o three and it's a Hulu
documentary and like body, I have to renew my Hulu account.
So I have not seen it either. Has anyone anyone
here seen it?

Speaker 3 (44:42):
I have you? Did you skipped ahead? I'm not gonna
I'm not gonna.

Speaker 2 (44:48):
Say, but yeah, it's really important stuff. I'm really glad
we're covering it. I think the more eyes the better,
the more support for her family the better.

Speaker 3 (45:00):
You know, there's there's no like.

Speaker 2 (45:02):
Secret piece of pie or instant fix or a well
wished that's really going to ever replace their daughter. But
to not actually have answers and then to feel so
gas lit again and again and again, I'm curious what
even happens next?

Speaker 3 (45:18):
Are they even having a hearing?

Speaker 9 (45:19):
Now?

Speaker 3 (45:20):
What's the point? I don't know what's next. Actually that's
a really good question.

Speaker 7 (45:24):
You need to find out what's next, Like what what what.

Speaker 3 (45:27):
Can the parents do now?

Speaker 4 (45:28):
Right?

Speaker 7 (45:29):
And they appeal this medical examage decision, I don't even know.
I think that's what they've been trying to do this
whole time, Right, I think they're going to have to
start tagging the governor or something like in this.

Speaker 3 (45:40):
And I don't know, you have to be something.

Speaker 2 (45:43):
I mean, it's difficult, and they're going to need our help, right,
They're going to need our help to do it, so
we all it's all hands on deck for Ellen Greenberg exactly.
So listen, stay with us for the next hour because
we are doing a deep dive with a very very
important arson expert who's going to be joining us to
break down all things in the Palisades fire that happened

(46:04):
on January seventh, and we're going to be talking about
what makes a serial arsonist. So stick with us. This
is True Crime Tonight. Welcome back to True Crime Tonight
on iHeartRadio. We're talking true crime all the time. I'm

(46:27):
Stephanie Leidecker here as always with Courtney Armstrong and body
move in.

Speaker 3 (46:33):
Listen.

Speaker 2 (46:33):
If you've missed any of the first hour of the show,
no problem, you can catch it right after as a podcast.
Please do and if you want to join us eight
eight eight three one Crime or you could always leave
us a talkback as a reminder. Tomorrow is talkback Tuesday,
so come on, get those questions going. We want to
hear from you or your dms because listen, talk back

(46:55):
Tuesdays are a blast, and no opinions or any talkbacks
are unwelcome. You're in a safe zone and.

Speaker 3 (47:04):
It's fun to hear your voice on the radio.

Speaker 2 (47:06):
It is it just is period the end, So thank
you for that, and kind of switching gears to something
that's a little close to my heart personally. The Palisades Fire,
as we all witnessed, happened on January seventh, and you know,
there's been this months and months and months since then

(47:26):
where many people who have lost their lives have had
to not only start over, but are just trying to
get their brain around the fact that their homes and
lives are gone, right, the material stuff, And I want
to preface by saying, I feel so grateful.

Speaker 3 (47:45):
It's stuff. It's just stuff.

Speaker 2 (47:48):
Twelve people lost their lives, but as I say, just
I can promise you there's close to seven thousand people
who have been displaced and have lost frankly every thing.
So starting over is an ongoing thing. And even though
the event was many months ago, the aftermath, you know,
truly continues. So we're really just grateful to have ed

(48:11):
Nordskog here. He is an arson profiler also in Los Angeles,
very close to the case, and is really going to
kind of share a bit about arson profiling and what
makes a serial arsonist. These are all such scary words ed.
First off, welcome, We're so grateful that you're here.

Speaker 9 (48:31):
Thank you for having me.

Speaker 2 (48:33):
There's so much to discuss, you know, it's a it's
it's hard to even know where to begin.

Speaker 3 (48:38):
What do you make of the.

Speaker 2 (48:39):
Recent arrest of this gentleman, an uber driver who allegedly
lit the match that started so much?

Speaker 9 (48:50):
Well, that's that's the question. Did he light a match?
The reason I say that is because I've read the
Federal Asst. David about his arrest. They don't actually know
how he started the fire, which that's that's not case killing,
but it could be problematic, you know, for a court,
and that's something the prosecutor will have to deal with.

Speaker 3 (49:13):
Mhmm. I read they found a barbee lighter in his
blog box. Is that did? Did you? Is that something
that could have started it? This this barbecue lighter that
they found in his glovebox?

Speaker 9 (49:26):
Sure, any flame source. So in the world of arson,
we say things an open flame source is what usually
ignites things. And when we say that, we mean either
a match, a lighter, barbecue lighter, or even one of
those little torches they sell at the liquor store so
you can cook your methamphetamine. So any anything like that

(49:47):
is an open flame will start just about anything on fire, right,
and just.

Speaker 8 (49:52):
To catch people up, it was the gentleman who Stephanie
referred to who has been arrested and charged with starting
the initial fire is a man named Jonathan rinder Neck,
and the allegation is that he started the Lochman fire,
which ultimately led to the deadly and destructive Palisades fire.

Speaker 3 (50:14):
But that was days after the Lochman fire.

Speaker 8 (50:18):
So Ed wanted to know how we had never understood
the fact or heard that it's possible for something to
smolder underground for many days before traveling a pretty great
distance and reigniting.

Speaker 3 (50:33):
Can you explain that a little bit?

Speaker 9 (50:36):
Yeah, And so people that work wildland fires, which I
have worked a couple hundred wildlands fires and vegetation only
not in homes, understand that, especially in big timber like
where there's big trees and things like that in the mountains,
fires can burn up the tree forest fire and then

(50:58):
go into the root systems and remain underground for weeks
or months, even through even over a winter wow, even
if the ground's covered with snow. And then when the
spring comes and everything dries out and the snow goes
away and the winds pick up. It can move away
some of the surface surface ash and then reignite the

(51:19):
ashes or the embers that are still glowing underground. It
doesn't happen very off. It happens all the time in
the mountains. So wildland firefighters are used to this phenomena.
It's actually quite common, and they have protocols in effect
to limit that. But when you get to the coastal
regions where the Palisades was, they're just a couple miles

(51:41):
from the coast. We don't have tall timber. We have brush.
You know, it's pretty high brush, sometimes up to twelve
feet high fifteen feet high, but the brush doesn't have
as deep root systems, and it's easy to remove brush,
or easier to remove brush than a big tree. So
this case, I know what the fire department's put out,

(52:02):
but it's put out into the media, But in reality,
the roots are just a couple inches underground, and the
fire can remain smoldering in those roots, and it did.
There's visual evidence of it for a couple of days
prior to the bigger fire, that there was some sort
of smoldering activity going on, and it doesn't travel, doesn't

(52:25):
travel through these roots systems more than a couple of feet.
So really the fire was put out on the Lockman
fire was put out on January first, probably three or
four in the morning. It was put out for the
most part. It was a cool night. It was semi
foggy that night and not much wind, so good conditions

(52:45):
for firefighting. And they knocked the fire down and then
they put a hose line in a scratch line around that.
So scratch line is when you see the firefighters out
there with those tools scraping away the brush. They put
an entire hose line and scratch line around this fire.
It was about eight acres in size. So they remained

(53:06):
on scene till about half the day on the first
of January, and then they left the scene. And then,
as everybody in La knew, by about the third of January,
the National Weather Service and the fire departments were predicting
once in a lifetime catastrophic wins coming. And it's not

(53:28):
the usual media hyperbole, but that actually happened. And I've
been in Los Angeles for forty years. Those were the
worst wins I'd ever seen that I'd never seen winds
to stain that long in the Los Angeles basin, and
so these were extraordinary winds, they were anomalies, odd odd things,
and so the fire agencies had about a four or

(53:50):
five day period to prepare for them. And I think
that's where you're going to see the headlines these days
and the controversies. What was done between the Lochman fire
being considered out on January first, or at the latest
January tewod to the ignition of the Palisades fire in

(54:10):
the exact same spot five or six days later.

Speaker 2 (54:15):
And it doesn't seem And listen, by the way, if
you're just joining us, we're talking about the Palisades fire
and speaking about the idea that it was a single
arsonist allegedly at work. And if that's the case, you
know what happens next. So it's possible that this one
person on New Year's Eve, allegedly having a breakup with

(54:36):
his girlfriend, a little down on his luck, agitated, according
to a report who was an uber driver. The report
is that the passengers in the uber said he was,
you know, kind of ticked off, if he were ritated, irritated,
just not in a good mood. By the way, it's
New Year's Eve. Some people get a little you know
down on New Year's Eve if they're not celebrating with

(54:58):
the one that they love. So so he climbs onto
this mountain listening to some random French song that has
some video, and in the video the person is like
lighting things on fire. It seems like again were there
has to be more forensics in my opinion, and listen.

Speaker 3 (55:16):
Any would agree.

Speaker 2 (55:17):
Very few people want there to be justice in this
more than me, right, I mean, I have loved ones
and neighbors and friends, people that are still displaced, staying
at the house with their five family of five, you know,
with the people that there they evacuated to nine months
ago in an apartment.

Speaker 3 (55:35):
There's just it's not easy to start over.

Speaker 2 (55:39):
There's not enough you know, trips to home goods to
make losing everything Okay, Is it possible that this one
man is responsible for all of this devastation in your opinion?

Speaker 9 (55:51):
Well, the US attorney thinks so, and that's the person.

Speaker 4 (55:54):
Who counts, because that's.

Speaker 9 (55:56):
Going to bring charges for this fire. And right now
they I've seen the evidence that links him to the scene.
So one of the questions people say was, how do
you figure out what happened. It's a wildland fire. Yeah,
there's not much forensic And you hit upon that there's
not a lot of forensics if they use a hot

(56:21):
set ignission, which means just using a lighter or a
match or something, so they don't leave a lot of
evidence for us to find. The first problem that investig.

Speaker 8 (56:32):
Do you know what, We're gonna address the audio real quick.
The guys are going to get on that. But this
actually gives me a really good moment to kind of
lay out exactly who we're speaking with with. Ed Nordskog.
He is a fire death scene and expert. He is
a serial arson analyst, and he is one of literally

(56:54):
the most decorated arson investigators in the world. He's a
Master certified fire investigator and a cold case consultant who
has handled more than twenty one hundred arson cases, has
testified in over one hundred trials, and now consults with
law enforcement nationwide. He also is the author of Tortured Minds,

(57:16):
The Arsonist Profiles, and Fire Death Scene Investigation. So, I
know that's a lot, but we should know exactly who
we're speaking with and who can help clarify these really
complicated issues, particularly as it pertains to the Palisades fire.
Right now, right, it's literally the expert, the number one expert.

Speaker 3 (57:39):
So ed with. Is it unusual to have this amount?

Speaker 8 (57:45):
Does this seem like a small amount of forensics or
is this kind of are you dealt the cards?

Speaker 3 (57:50):
You're dealt.

Speaker 9 (57:52):
Well, your delta cards. You're dealt with on a wildland fire.
And our first thing is to find out where the
fire started. And the investigators look at things on the ground,
they look at video, of course, at they listen to
civilian witnesses who first saw the fire. Once they figure
out where the fire started, which is actually quite detailed process,

(58:15):
then they have to figure out is this a crime,
how did it start? Is this an accidental event? And
they have to start eliminating potential accidental causes. Power Line
is one of the most common ones. There are no
none in that area. Lightning is the next most common
one in California. There's no lightning that night, so those
are easy to exclude. Human activity is the next cause,

(58:40):
or machinery operating. So there's no roads where the fire started,
so there's no vehicles to consider, no electric fences, no generators,
things like that, so now it's down to human activity.
And as you pointed out, this happened in New Year's Eve,
just after midnight. It is reasonable to expect fireworks in
Los Ane Angelus. If anybody's been around and sober on

(59:03):
New Year's Eve, you'll see half a billion fireworks in
the air, and that is a common ignition source for
wildfires near the urban areas. The federal report says they've
eliminated that possibility by cambing the area of origin and

(59:24):
finding no evidence of fireworks. Fireworks leaves a lot of
paper and cardboard evidence, and we can find those even
after big fires. However, there's a problem with that theory.
Although the federal report says they eliminated fireworks, actually there's
a huge problem in that the Lockman fire started on

(59:46):
New Year's Eve, and there's no information that the city
fire department sent any arson investigators over the next couple
of days, and I've never heard them rebut that, so
I'm going to assume that they did not send any right,
and that's a huge problem because the Feds didn't get
involved until after the Palace Sades fire, and we already

(01:00:09):
know that there was eighty mile per hour winds on
the Palas Sages fire. And if there's paper or cardboard
evidence laying on the ground in that burn zone and
that burn scar, it could have been blown all the
way to Santa Monica and of course they wouldn't find it.
So that's an issue they're going to have to deal
with that trial to firm that up.

Speaker 2 (01:00:31):
Yeah, and it doesn't really change the fact that nobody
could escape. So there were just city issues. I can
say that firsthand that just were not properly in play
period the end to be able to survive something like this.

Speaker 3 (01:00:45):
People couldn't get out.

Speaker 2 (01:00:46):
There was no necessarily even water in the fire hydrants,
and it was apocalyptic to say the least. If it
is this one person and it was unintentional, you would
have to assume that they were lighting a match in
this Lachman fire, not to obviously murder or kill twelve
people and destroy so much. Does that matter in any universe.

Speaker 9 (01:01:12):
Or they just because because arson's one of the weird
crimes that it's a general intent crime. You just you
don't have to have the intent to kill anybody. You
just have to have the intent to start the fire
and whatever happens after that, you're generally responsible for It's
one of the very few crimes that's a general intent crime.
In murder and stuff like that, you have to have intent,

(01:01:34):
not so much for arson. You're responsible for everything after
the fire starts.

Speaker 8 (01:01:40):
Wow, I absolutely didn't know that. Listen, keep it here,
because we are going to have a lot more with
Arson analyst Ed Nordsgog. He's going to explain what truly
separates a serial arsonist from a one time offender. We
will likely continue with more on the Palisades fire.

Speaker 3 (01:02:00):
We have that much more true crime tonight. We are
talking to true crime all the time.

Speaker 2 (01:02:16):
Welcome back to true crime tonight on iHeartRadio. We're talking
true crime all the time. I'm Stephanie Leidecker here with
Courtney Armstrong and body move in, and we're doing a
deep dive into the idea of arson. We've been really
down the rabbit hole on this Pacific Palisades arrest. There's
an arsonist who has been taken into custody. He claims

(01:02:39):
to be not guilty and is sort of waiting for
next steps in Florida where he was apprehended.

Speaker 3 (01:02:47):
Courtney, do you want to jump in? Absolutely so.

Speaker 8 (01:02:51):
We are really thrilled and honored to be back with
fire death scene expert and serial arson analyst Ed Norskog.
You have so many accolades, it's a little bit of
a mouthful. So Ed is literally one of the most
decorated arson investigators in the world and has authored books
including The Arsenist Profiles as well as Fire Death Scene Investigation. So, Ed,

(01:03:16):
can you walk us through a little bit what is
the profiling aspect? For example, we know the top line
of a serial killer, things you can look out for
in your life, you know, late stage bedwetting, hurting or
killing of animals, and it escalates from there. Can you

(01:03:37):
just give us one oh one on arsenist profiling?

Speaker 9 (01:03:42):
Yeah? Sure. So the big well profiling is is courts.
When I go into quarts, courts roll their eyes that
the word profile, and they they understand that some of
the early profiling that didn't really cover our and they
threw it in with all the homicide profiling, which is

(01:04:02):
not accurate. And the old theory was that all serial
killers were serial arsens when they were young. That's not
true at all. There's a there's a sizeable percentage and
maybe up to forty percent of serial killers did have
fireplay or some sort of arsen activity. But there's a
lot more serial arsenists than there there are serial killers.

(01:04:25):
There's tens of thousands of serial arsen and more every day.

Speaker 3 (01:04:29):
And there's a lot of reasons. I had known that
many what why? What? What would cause a person to
do this?

Speaker 9 (01:04:38):
Well, so right away you're trying to add common sense
to a nonsense to coll act. Starting a fire and
generally for people that aren't crazy, is something done out
of anger and frustration and passion. Those are the big
reasons that people set a fire. They're lonely, they're frustrated,

(01:05:00):
they're angry. And I've spoken to I've arrested about three
hundred and fifty arsenists and cial arsenists, and I'm the
one that interviews them in a little room, and so
I get into their deep dark thoughts and listen to
them and get into their childhood if I can. So
I get to play you know, psychologists.

Speaker 4 (01:05:17):
Without a psychology degree.

Speaker 3 (01:05:20):
And I was going to say, yeah, so interesting, but
they're all different.

Speaker 9 (01:05:26):
And so a profile that was generated I used to
I make fun of in my book called the Arsen's Profile.
I make fun of the profile that was the old
profile from the eighties was it's a lone white male
eighteen to thirty four who doesn't do well at work,
doesn't do good in relationships, has bad marriages if married,
has sexual identity issues, possibly has obsession with pornography and masturbation,

(01:05:52):
things like that, doesn't get along with people at work,
as an obsession with police and fire That was sort
of the generic profile. After you know, I read that
after being in the job for quite a while. I
looked around, and that's everybody in my office.

Speaker 3 (01:06:06):
I was just going to say, and history, what do
you mind?

Speaker 2 (01:06:11):
I just thought of about eleven people who might be potential.

Speaker 3 (01:06:14):
Arm and Stephanie are volune at this point.

Speaker 9 (01:06:18):
That fIF tops and firefighters. I know. I'm like, oh,
that can't be a good profile, because it's not. It's
garbage right right. There's there's just as many serial arts
in this per capita in the Asian community as there
is in the Caucasian There is just as many per
capita in the black community as there is in the
white community.

Speaker 4 (01:06:37):
So it's.

Speaker 9 (01:06:40):
It's just in certain communities we don't catch that man,
we don't we don't see them, or we're not looking
for them. And people don't report them. So there's a
lot of issues. It's it's law enforcements problem. But just
rest assured. There's a lot. And the number one reason
that there's more every day is methamphetamine. Our friend. Methamphetamine,
which which is the worst scores on the planet ever,

(01:07:03):
causes brain damage one of its many attributes, and almost
virtually every serial arsenist has a form of brain damage.
A significant number of serial killers have brain damage too,
but virtually, well over ninety percent serial arsenists have a
form of brain damage, and that could be they could
be borne that way if they're fetal alcohol syndrome, if

(01:07:25):
they're if they're fetal any any drug, meths babies, heroin babies,
something like that. Also, sports injuries and military injuries caused
brain and for a for a certain amount of people
that will lead to later life addictions, uh, mental health issues,

(01:07:48):
and one of those is fire setting amongst some of them.
So you'll have there's some very famous athletes that were
serial arsenists that you don't know of. And I'm not
going to say their names, but I.

Speaker 4 (01:07:58):
Was just going to say, what's that.

Speaker 7 (01:08:02):
I was just going to say name them, but I understand, Yeah,
I understand.

Speaker 8 (01:08:06):
I understand that's fascinating and that potentially could be attributed
Yeah to CTE.

Speaker 3 (01:08:12):
I guess is the or some type of brain damage.

Speaker 9 (01:08:17):
Right, And if you remember when COVID was here, there's
some effects of COVID that Ceial arsenests have, which is
they can't taste their food, they don't sleep, they can't
smell their food. And that is from me temperate. COVID
caused a temporary brain injure and in some people and
some some'm a permanent one. And so when I interview

(01:08:39):
Ceial Arseness, I asked, and can you taste your food?
You sleep at night, you smell things, and a large
number cannot taste their food. They don't. They have insomnia.
That's why they wander the streets at night lighting things
on fire. So there's a lot of issues, chemical issues,
and the number one reason is self induced brain trauma
through through Matthews and metham. Fetamine, different than any other drugs,

(01:09:03):
is not made from any natural materials like cocaine or heroin. Right,
So if you have a brain damage from math at
age sixteen, you will not get better. You will have
the same brain damage the rest of your lives. Where
people can recover from some of the other more natural drugs.
So anyway, all this stuff comes together, and then start

(01:09:25):
treating people like that with psychiatric drugs, which actually makes
it worse sometimes if they don't know that you're on
mental health drugs and pain pills and sleek drugs. And
so this concoction of drugs is very common in people
who set fires. So when we look at somebody like that,
we try to get their whole background, mental health, medical

(01:09:47):
and lifestyle background.

Speaker 3 (01:09:50):
Does the offender in this case, the alleged offender in
this case render neck, Does he fit any kind of
profile that you can ascertain?

Speaker 9 (01:10:01):
Yeah, And and we don't really profile people anymore. We
profile what did they do?

Speaker 4 (01:10:05):
How did they do it?

Speaker 9 (01:10:06):
But that's fine, We'll go with that. He is described
by people already as a loaner and lonely, So he
is lonely, and it was a holiday time. As you
pointed out, that is that is that is important in
overall consideration, possibly and that I like that word trigger

(01:10:26):
for some some people. And also he was he appeared
to be listening to that same song over and over,
supposedly nine nine times in a fairly short period of time,
and so that's somebody that's obsessing. And most serial arsen
are obsessive people, obsessive compulsives. So that fits. Plus the

(01:10:49):
fact most serial arsonists do not pick random targets, or
most arsens don't pick random targets. They pick familial targets,
something they have a personal connection to for what a reason.
And in this case, he used to live in that neighborhood.
And he even told the investigators that he used to
come to that very spot where the fire started and

(01:11:10):
hang out with a past friend. And so that's a
very familiar thing. That's a big deal. And like I said,
they just don't pick random targets to light on fire.
That's something that means something to them. So all these
things are in there. And I was told that he
was agitated and angry, and like I said, the common

(01:11:31):
emotions are anger, loneliness, agitation, and frustration.

Speaker 7 (01:11:36):
Well, it sounds like maybe the combination of the holiday
and the location might have been some kind of trigger.
What do you think give us a call? Eighty eight
thirty one crime. This is true crime tonight. I'm here
with Stephanie of course, Fortney of course, and we are
here with fire, death, scene expert and serial arson analyst

(01:11:57):
Ed Nortzkog. He's one of the most decorated arson investigators
in the world. And right now we're talking about the
alleged suspect in the Pacific Palisades fire. Give us a
call eight and eight thirty one crime. What behavioral signs
do investigators look for early on? Because they interviewed this
guy in late January, so he was on their radar

(01:12:17):
somehow do they look for any kind of signs behavioral
signs early on?

Speaker 9 (01:12:24):
Well, first of all, he put himself on their on
their radar.

Speaker 3 (01:12:27):
He did made.

Speaker 9 (01:12:31):
He made multiple nine and that's a behavior that's very important.
Now citizens call nine one one, So just calling nine
one one isn't weaned anything. But a significant number of
arsonists report their own fires. Maybe they lit the fire
and they go, oh my god, it's bigger than I
thought it was going to be okay, and and they realized, oh,

(01:12:53):
that was really stupid, and then maybe they tried.

Speaker 4 (01:12:55):
To put it out.

Speaker 9 (01:12:56):
I don't know what he did, but he certainly call
all nine one one multiple times. He then left the scene,
and then when the fire engine started arriving, he pulled
in behind them and followed him back to the scene.
There are a significant significant number of serial arsis to
do that very thing and then engage in a mitigation

(01:13:17):
of the fire, trying to assist interact with the firefighters.
There's a there's a decent amount of serial arsenists to
engage in that sort of behavior as well. They try
to so from ah standpoint, that means a lot. Yeah,
they're trying to help. Maybe they're trying to be viewed
as people like to read into it, only only that

(01:13:37):
the defendant knows why. People go, well, he's trying to
be a hero. Some people do that, some firefighter, serial
arsens do that. Some of them are excitement thrilled. They're
thrill seekers some of them, and that's part of the thrill.
I don't know that that's his case. He sounds more,
you know, like his traits are already popping up as

(01:13:58):
more kind of the card and variety of arsonists, somebody
who's alone, upset and life's not going real well for
them at the moment.

Speaker 2 (01:14:08):
You know, you had said that you have personally, you know,
interviewed hundreds of arsonists. It's such an interesting thing because
here's somebody is they light a fire, allegedly they get
away with it, and now months, months and months later
in this case, you know, we're coming up in a
year almost, you know, a few months shy of course,

(01:14:29):
how does that go down in your world?

Speaker 4 (01:14:31):
Ed?

Speaker 2 (01:14:31):
You know, does somebody just suddenly get a knock on
their door and they're like, oh, surprise, it's us. You know,
we've been tracking you for nine months, and you thought
you got away with it. I would imagine people go
back to their lives and just pretend that everything is fine.

Speaker 9 (01:14:48):
Sure they do, and they talk to them a long
time ago. And then investigators we have our own little tricks.
I won't tell you all of them, but one of
them is just to drop from the sky. And that's
a little in It unnerves the offender who may have
thought they got away with something. Just okay, we interviewed you,
you were really suspicious eight months ago, and now you

(01:15:08):
haven't heard from us in eight months, and maybe you
let your guard down, and then we swoop in. We
drop from the sky out of nowhere, and they I know,
they lured him out of his house with a pretense
phone call, and then it took him down in a
traffic stop. And it's a good thing to unnerve somebody
because and this is what I tell everybody, though, all

(01:15:32):
the work that we do is investigators that scene work,
listening to the victim, seeing the damage. We are documenting
the data, stockpiling it put in our head and waiting
for the moment we can sit and talk to this person.
And usually they're the most honest right after we arrest them,
and that is the most likely chance you'll get the

(01:15:56):
most honesty you're ever going to get out of that person.
Because get into a custody setting, they become institutionalized, and
that means you'll have jailhouse lawyers, they have real lawyers,
and they have court pointed psychiatrists who are telling them
what to say and all this stuff. Any interviews, people

(01:16:16):
always say I want to go to the prisons and
interview people. It's a waste of time in in my opinion,
because they say what they need to get things in
life and to get perks in life, and they've learned
they've learned how to mimic psychiatrists, which is really interesting.

Speaker 2 (01:16:33):
It's also unique that in this case the accused he
also left Hollywood where he was living when he started
these fires, and then moved to Florida.

Speaker 3 (01:16:43):
He was ultimately arrested in Melbourne, Florida.

Speaker 2 (01:16:46):
I believe is that also kind of a tell that
somebody would, you know, get out of town and relocate
in the months.

Speaker 3 (01:16:54):
After starting a fire allegedly allegedly.

Speaker 9 (01:16:56):
Allegedly, Well see you that ended up in para way,
maybe I would consider that. I mean, right, he did
distance himself. His name came up, so maybe he's concerned
that people are going to turn on him because, as
you mentioned, you know, a big swath of Los Angeles
lost everything and people are not happy, of course, And

(01:17:17):
maybe he lost his job with Uber. I'm sure as
soon as he was interviewed, so he took a different
job in Florida. So maybe a bunch of things came
to a head. But I'm sure the fact that the
FEDS interviewed him unnerved him quite a bit.

Speaker 7 (01:17:31):
Stick around, because we've got more to dig into more
with arson analyst Ed Northgog, he's the expert. We're going
to continue exploring the mind of an arsonist and covering
the destructive Palas States fire in Los Angeles. Keep it
right here at True Crime Tonight.

Speaker 2 (01:17:55):
Welcome back to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio. We're talking
true crime all the time. I'm Stephanie Leidecker here with
my mates Courtney Armstrong and body move in on tough topic.
You know, I'm not going to de lie this whole
idea that there was a single person potentially responsible for
the Palisades fire that destroyed so much for so many.

(01:18:19):
It's really hard to wrap our brains around. We have
Esteemed Arson profiler, an expert at Nordskog here really breaking
down for us some of the real basics when it
comes to Arson.

Speaker 3 (01:18:31):
He's the guy. This is the guy that.

Speaker 2 (01:18:34):
Literally, when arrested, he does the interviews sometimes up to
thirteen hours to get answers in this very nebulous thing,
this very nebulous crime. Let's assume that this person is
in fact the guy. For one second, again he claims
his innocence. Does that now mean that the city of

(01:18:56):
Los Angeles is off the hook for all of the
things that I could say, per suddenly seemed to have
really also amplified a very terrible scenario, only to be
made into a complete nightmare.

Speaker 3 (01:19:09):
Is it possible that.

Speaker 2 (01:19:10):
One man will take this responsibility and that takes the
heat off perhaps the city and the state.

Speaker 9 (01:19:19):
Well, I don't think that's going to happen in this case,
but maybe that's the intention or hope of some officials.
There is some significant issues with the overall event, as
you mentioned earlier about the lack of water and things
like that, fire hydrant issues and not enough firefighters. But

(01:19:40):
before that event even happened, you have to address the
Lockman fire, which was the first one, that's eight acre
fire on January first. A good question to ask is
was it truly out? And they've admitted that it was not.
Then the next question is what did they do to
make sure is out? And that's been really vague, And

(01:20:02):
there's certain protocols that are common in the firefighting field,
use of hand crews to go in and physically check
over the next couple of days, the use of dozers,
the use of thermal imaging cameras to look for hotspots.
But there's also another mistake that there wasn't even an
investigator sent to the first fire, so we don't really

(01:20:24):
know much about that first fire until after the FEDS
get involved after the second big fire. And so those
are some huge issues that for major agency are almost unforgiven.

Speaker 2 (01:20:37):
Missions the firefighters themselves who have put their lives on
the line with no resources. You know, I can say also,
trying to even get out from the Palisades was close
to impossible, and firemen were trying to come into the fire,
and you know, people were abandoning their.

Speaker 3 (01:20:56):
Cars, et cetera. So that was a real problem.

Speaker 2 (01:20:59):
So here's a who's telling their law enforcement and their
firefighters that we have your backs while you save others,
we have your back, And it's egregious because it doesn't
really seem like that was the case.

Speaker 3 (01:21:12):
So if this is the guy.

Speaker 2 (01:21:14):
You know, listen, you don't want to know my opinion
if this is the guy. But it also makes me
worried that everything is getting pinned on one guy when
there were a lot of others escapegos, real issues that
lent itself to to twelve lives being lost. It's not
just about all of our stuff in our lives. Listen,
your world has changed forever, but people lost their lives,

(01:21:36):
their pets, their loved ones, they're everything, and it's still
a mess. So I guess that's my two cents. I
don't want to grand stand here with you, Ed, but
I hope it really does you know, refuel the conversation
about the fires to make sure that this type of
thing doesn't happen to anyone else. I literally had to
leave the state because it's too scary to be there,

(01:22:00):
in my opinion, and I loved it so well.

Speaker 9 (01:22:04):
To your point, my last thing on this subject is,
we've had riots in LA and we've had some other major,
huge things, and after every one of those hugely traumatic,
dramatic things, they appointed an independent commission to find out
everything about the entire thing A to Z. And that's
what they need to do here. And I've said that

(01:22:26):
on some television interviews. Not have fire chiefs run it,
and certainly not the mayor's office. So the governors have
an independent commission like they had after the La riots
and find out everything from the start of the Lockman
fire till you know, two weeks after the Palisades fire,
and for the sole purpose of we're going to have
the same weather, the conditions will repeat themselves. We just

(01:22:50):
don't want the event to repeat itself.

Speaker 3 (01:22:52):
That's right. Yeah, that's right man. That is that is powerful,
and that's definitely how it feels. Yeah, you having been
physically in it, there's something productive we can take from this.

Speaker 2 (01:23:07):
So you know, it's a tough one, right because you know,
I personally was so incredibly unprepared. You know, you think
that there's some smoke, You grab your phone in your purse,
thank god I did. But you know you don't have
gas in your car. You're wearing the clothes on your back,
and that's a wrap of your whole life. That is
the story for For Frankly, everyone was in the thick

(01:23:28):
of it, right, So you know, now I'm down this
like crazy path of like get a go go kit,
make sure you have sneakers in your car and you
have cash in your car, and I've turned into a
weird prepper, you know, candidly since then. But is there
something that we can be doing or even you know,
looking for in in young people or you know, if

(01:23:49):
parents could you know, notice something in their own children
that might you know, prove to be a little air
quotes wayward that would suggest, hey, this is some this
is some arson potential and we need to put a
lid on it.

Speaker 3 (01:24:02):
Is there are there.

Speaker 2 (01:24:03):
Traits that young adults may be presenting that we should
be aware of.

Speaker 9 (01:24:10):
Sure, So if you have a twelve year old and
they're engaged. They start a couple of fires over a
week in your backyard or the lot next to you.
You've got a problem in the path. People say, well,
that's just juvenile fireplay. A twelve year old with normal
intelligence and emotional issues should not be playing with fire.

(01:24:32):
That's what four year olds and six year olds do
at the max. Now, if there's some mental health or
or diagnosed emotional issues, that extends the age a bit
to you know, eight, ten, twelve, even adulthood for special
needs people. But it's not curiosity, it's not innocent fireplay.

(01:24:53):
It's you have a fire setter that needs counseling. And
by the way, going to visit the firehouse doesn't solve
an and talking to the firefighters. They're not trained counselors.
Great people, really good professionals at what they do, but
they don't. They don't counsel people. You need to go
to a therapist, a psychologist, somebody like that.

Speaker 4 (01:25:14):
Yeah, reading, that's.

Speaker 9 (01:25:18):
Yeah, and there's it's it's an impulse control issue, is
exactly what it is. And it's a parenting issue. By
the way, there's usually no parents in the picture, not
available or something else, and there's much deeper issues of
course that are really ugly. But all that, if everything
else is relatively safe in your house and you have
a juvenile fire setter, you've got a problem. So mental

(01:25:41):
health professional is a place to.

Speaker 3 (01:25:42):
Go, Thank you very much.

Speaker 8 (01:25:45):
Anything actionable is always what we do look for.

Speaker 3 (01:25:48):
It's so important. This is truecrime tonight.

Speaker 8 (01:25:51):
I'm Courtney, I'm here with Stephanie, I'm here with Body
and tonight we're really honored to be here with Ed Nordskog.
He's a fire death scene expert and a serial arson profiler.
If you want to weigh in and ask any questions
eight A eight three one crime anything Stephanie had mentioned.

Speaker 3 (01:26:11):
Before, a go go bag?

Speaker 8 (01:26:14):
Or what do you do as someone living in a
fire fire city or not? I mean again, the weather
will happen again.

Speaker 9 (01:26:24):
Well, the biggest issue, and no one's going to like
this answer, is if you live in the brush line,
you're going to have fires. And there are certain celebrities
who I know because we've been to their houses whose
houses have burned down multiple times. In Malibu.

Speaker 3 (01:26:37):
Oh my good.

Speaker 9 (01:26:38):
Now there's two canyons in Malibu where every seven years
you're going to have a catastrophic fire. The Pala Stage
isn't like that. It's a few miles removed and so
that the topography is not the same there, but it's closed.
But in Malibu, Laguna Neguel, even the Altadena area, it's predictable.
You're going to have those fires. Sooner or later. Your

(01:27:00):
house is going to burn down. There's nothing the firefighters
can do to stop a wind driven brush fire.

Speaker 3 (01:27:06):
I left Californa right after the Laguna Canyon fire in
the nineties.

Speaker 9 (01:27:10):
That's when I love yeah, and Laguna Canyon burns every
seven day years at light clockwork, and there's nothing anybody
can do to stop. But if you build there, you're
going to your house is going to burn. You're not
going to be able to get insurance. And it Stephanie,
I know one of you said this. One of the
big repercussions that's affecting me personally and I live away

(01:27:31):
from that is we will not be able to get insurance.
This will change. This has changed all insurance for people
to live. If you can see the brush from your
house five miles away, you probably won't be able to
get insurance.

Speaker 3 (01:27:45):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (01:27:46):
So, and by the way, I lived in a very simple,
little neighborhood it was you know, this is not a
schmancy you know big there's always this like feeling that,
oh it's all huge mansions.

Speaker 3 (01:27:57):
Who cares.

Speaker 2 (01:27:58):
It's like I lived in a very simple, darling, beautiful
little street and it was just like a suburban street.
There wasn't like excessive amounts of brush. It didn't seem
like this kind of a thing was even possible to
have happened there. But in our case, like you couldn't
get out because getting onto sunset, you know, it's gridlock
on a good day, let alone when it's you know,

(01:28:20):
sheer chaos. And people really were abandoning their cars. So
when the car in front of you was abandoned, you
can't get around it, as in my case, and then
the fire trucks can't get in. By the way, I
understand why they did that, because it was that scary
and people were running on foot. I think that's number
one I guess not to do that, right, because it
really did disrupt the fire department from being able to

(01:28:41):
being able to get in and do.

Speaker 3 (01:28:43):
Their job effectively.

Speaker 2 (01:28:45):
And and yeah, I keep guessing your car man, that
is the tick. People saws were breaking down because they
were running out of gas.

Speaker 9 (01:28:55):
So I know your show goes it all over and
it's not. We're all la center here and so we're
all stuck in our own little world. But I read
after action report on a major event like this from
the nineteen sixties, and if nothing has changed, the worst
case scenario for southern California, the single worst case is
a fire like that on a day like that in

(01:29:16):
the Hollywood Hills, because the roads are even narrower and
there's more people on top of the hills, and there's
no way a fire truck can go up any of
those roads into the Hollywood Hills and with people being
able to come down, and so that is always been
considered the worst possible case. And I've heard so many

(01:29:39):
fire chiefs talk about that that they just dread the
thought of it. Something like that even worse than a
Malibu scenario or the Palisades. So I'm not trying to
spread doom and gloom, but well, no, it's true.

Speaker 7 (01:29:51):
The roads are so narrow and when somebody's coming on
you have to kind of stop and pull.

Speaker 3 (01:29:56):
Over a little bit to let them go by.

Speaker 9 (01:29:58):
Like how we're smoke while your panicky and flames coming
up the side.

Speaker 3 (01:30:03):
Of the road with the iron with people trying to
exit the neighborhood.

Speaker 9 (01:30:08):
Yeah, oh my god, I know everybody in Iowa listening
to you, says, who cares?

Speaker 8 (01:30:12):
But well, I bet Iowa. Yeah, I bet everyone in
Iowa does care. What is happening with your next book?

Speaker 3 (01:30:21):
Oh yeah, I do?

Speaker 9 (01:30:23):
Oh so, I've written eight books and published sixth so far.
The seventh and eighth have not been physically published once
on cereal bombers, serial bombers. But the next one that
I'm publishing, and I'm trying to publish it this month,
actually is on a series of arsen fires. Nine hundred

(01:30:44):
arsen fires in the area in your Palm Springs. And
it's over. It's over a twenty five year period. Nine
hundred unsolved arsen fires by twelve different serial arsenists that
I've identified so far, Oh my god. And half of
them work for public agencies. That's all I'm going to
say about that. And during that time, the worst part

(01:31:09):
of this story is during that time, eleven on duty
firefighters died in fires set by these arsenals. Wow, and
none of them have been solved.

Speaker 3 (01:31:20):
Nine hundred fires, Oh my goodness.

Speaker 9 (01:31:23):
At least nine hundred that I've documented. There's probably more,
but I can only find documentation on about nine hundred.

Speaker 7 (01:31:29):
And the people responsible for these nine hundred fires are
documented in your book. And it's spread across How many
serial arsenists.

Speaker 3 (01:31:36):
Did you say?

Speaker 9 (01:31:38):
At least twelve but probably four main ones, but at
least twelve. And they're not working together. That's all individual people, oh,
at different times. And I interviewed eighty old investigators from
the state agencies and the Forest Service and from sheriff
departments and stuff like that. And I got court transcripts

(01:31:58):
and the records from the state fire age. She's to
piece all this together. It's taken me probably ten years
to piece it all together.

Speaker 3 (01:32:04):
Wow.

Speaker 9 (01:32:05):
And I think I've solved two of the eleven. That's
not nearly enough. And there's there's another major case in
there that's going to get turned on its side, probably
because of it. But that's what I'm trying to publish now.
It's true crime, and it's and I explained how this happened,
how we could miss this stuff.

Speaker 3 (01:32:25):
I'm definitely.

Speaker 9 (01:32:27):
So the flaws in our system that caused this to
be missed. So anyway, that's that's set to come out.
I hope. I'm looking for a different publisher than I've
had before, so that's why it's a little slower than that.

Speaker 3 (01:32:42):
You'll have to.

Speaker 2 (01:32:42):
Come on and talk to a striker about this because
of that, I mean, edge of our seats already, we're
all leaning in again despite the fact that we're not
wearing our rest.

Speaker 3 (01:32:52):
Listen.

Speaker 2 (01:32:53):
I know it's this is a tough topic, but it's
an important one. And again, thank you for sharing all
of your insight and kind of bringing us into your world,
which seems like a very dangerous one, ed, So make
sure you stay safe as you're making all of these
arson arrests throughout the country and keeping us all safe.
Very important stuff you do, so thank you for that,

(01:33:15):
and you'll definitely have to come back and join us
when when it's time to promote the book. And for
everyone listening, thank you for doing so. It's been a
really it's been a really important night. And listen, tomorrow
is talk back Tuesday, so we will lighten the mood
and hear from you. So bring it, Bring all your opinions,

(01:33:35):
make them count.

Speaker 3 (01:33:37):
We love you.

Speaker 2 (01:33:37):
This is true crime tonight, Stay safe, Good night night,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

Crime Junkie

The Breakfast Club

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Adelson Sentenced, Sanchez Charged, D4VD Under Scrutiny, and What Makes an Arsonist?

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Stuff You Should Know

Crime Junkie

The Breakfast Club

All Episodes

Adelson Sentenced, Sanchez Charged, D4VD Under Scrutiny, and What Makes an Arsonist?

Stuff You Should Know