Mystery Donor Could Free Madeleine McCann Suspect, Diddy's Charge Conference, and Remembering DJ Broadus: The Fight for Justice

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's Wednesday, June twenty fifth, and
we have a stacked night of headlines. Did he want
to continues explosive day in court today, very unexpected. The
charges are up for question and there's a lot of
confusion about it. So at last we have Jarrett Farantino

(00:40):
back attorney. He's going to explain all the ins and
outs about it. Also, journalists Connor Powell will be joining
us to unpack the new details in the Idaho murders.
And of course he also has been working on this
anti sex trafficking organization and that has a very dark secret.
So he's going to fill us in all those details.
But first body, let's get right into Diddy. Thank you, Stephanie.

Speaker 3 (01:01):
Okay, So today was the charging conference, and every trial
has a charging conference. And what a charging conference is.
It's like a meeting hearing between the judge and the
attorneys for both sides. And they meet and they come
up with this charging document. It's basically a set of
instructions for the jury that explains each charge and what
has to be met. Well, guess what the charges have changed?

(01:23):
And it's a mess and they're you know, the news
is all over the place on it. So here to
explain it all is former homicide prosecutor Jarrett Farantino. Jarrett
is a veteran trial attorney who has handled some of
Pennsylvania's most high profile murder cases. He's now a legal
analyst and true crime expert, and he's also the co
host of a YouTube series called Prime Time Crime and

(01:44):
the host of podcast True Crime Boss.

Speaker 2 (01:46):
Jarrett.

Speaker 3 (01:47):
Thank you so much for joining us. Can you explain
the charges and what the changes are? Because everybody's kind
of confused.

Speaker 4 (01:55):
I'm going to try. So let's let's say this right
out the gate. No charges have been dropped. The theories
in the allegations against him of arson and kidnapping as
predicate offenses in the Rico charge have been pulled by
the government. Basically, here's the thing did He is accused

(02:18):
of running a corrupt organization his enterprise, and the government
is required to prove that he committed at least two
criminal predicate acts and further into that business. Two of
the acts would have been arson and kidnapping along with
transportation of escorts for seg witness tampering, bribery. They pulled

(02:39):
those two charges. That's what happened today, those two predicate offenses.
It's a big deal. But he's still facing the same charges.

Speaker 3 (02:47):
It's a huge deal because like with kid Cutty, we
had the arson we think or we thought in the
kidnapping when he put his assistant in the room and
had to do light detector for like three days, that's kidnapping.
So those predicate acts for Rico. Again, they only need
two predicate acts to prove Rico, right, So now the
scope of these charges it's much smaller. So the things

(03:08):
that they're accusing him under Rico have to be really tight, right,
like the evidence in order to get too predicate, you know,
charges accurate. The evidence again on those cases have or
those charges have to be so good, right.

Speaker 4 (03:21):
Well they do, and you said it it's the arson
of kid Cutty's car, and it's the kidnapping of his assistant.
Capricorn Clark cat get to kid Cutty's house. So here's
the thing. Those were two explosive and major issues. Now
they're off the table. The government saying, oh, we were
streamlining our theory, MA get it easy for the jury.
If I'm ditty, I feel pretty good. I'm like, wait

(03:43):
a minute, two of the biggest blemishes against me are
not going to be considered in support of a Rico charge.
It's a big deal.

Speaker 3 (03:50):
It's a huge And like this whole time we've been
talking about Diddy, I've been repeating over and over again,
they only need two predicate acts for Rico, and I
think they've got it with the arson and kidnapping. And
now we're here, we are the day before closing arguments,
and the two ones that I thought was kind of
a slam dunk are gone.

Speaker 2 (04:06):
And what does that mean? So if there's you know,
there's articles that we've been reading and the research that
we've been doing. They keep using the word streamlined, right,
So streamlined they're streamlining things for the jurors. Does that
streamlining make it less likely that he's going to do time? Like,
is this like all falling apart suddenly and he might
get off?

Speaker 4 (04:27):
Streamlining sounds like an excuse to me. It's like I'm
streamlining by case by removing two of the predicated offenses.
I spent hours and days proving. That's not streamlining, right,
that's removing cases. That's removing theories you don't think you
sufficiently proved. But at the same time, they're saying, we're
focusing our jury on the transportation charges, on the witness

(04:48):
tampering charges, on the bribery charges. If we believe so
strongly we've proven them, we're pulling these other predicate offenses
off the table. That's what the government saying. I'm sorry,
don't buy it.

Speaker 5 (05:01):
Eleven.

Speaker 4 (05:02):
It's an eleventh hour decision. I would have left it on.
Who's to say there are jurors in there that don't
believe those predicate offenses were committed in support of Rico.

Speaker 6 (05:11):
But one question for you, Jared, if there was potentially,
if those were the weakest links, could that have made
the jury hang up on the entire Rico charges if
they weren't in agreement.

Speaker 4 (05:23):
I think the jury is going to be smart enough
to break those charges down independently. To me, when I
don't see them there and I'm told half of Capricorn
Clark's testimony, half of kid Cutting's testimony is not to
be considered. I start to wonder, why should you believe
anything of that? They said, so, yes, I think the
government's thinking along the line, maybe we get rid of

(05:45):
these and it builds our credibility on the other cases.
To me, it's a huge, huge missing component of the case.

Speaker 2 (05:53):
Now And did you think that one week ago? Like,
has your feeling changed in the last couple of days
because you know, even just the idea that Diddy is
not going to be giving, you know, any witnesses for
his side of the story or not taking the stand.
I know that's pretty customary. Are you surprised by any
of this or is this kind of how it goes?

Speaker 4 (06:14):
Well, it's a strategy and his you know, we keep
hearing Didty's team didn't put up a defense? Really, they
mounted a hell of a defense and their cross examinations
of Cassie and Jane and talking about their motive, intent,
and bias, whether or not they were living this lifestyle consensually.
The defense did a good job of establishing their theory.
During the prosecution's case of chief, my opinion has changed

(06:37):
a little bit, though I felt much more strongly about
the prosecution as time has gone on. I think Ditty's
team did a nice job of raising doubt. Is it
going to be enough?

Speaker 5 (06:46):
Who knows?

Speaker 2 (06:48):
Wow? Wow, So it is possible that he is going.

Speaker 4 (06:51):
To walk, well, I don't know that it's what It's
not necessarily likely. I mean, the Feds have a ninety
eight percent conviction rate, as they say, I think he's
going to to be convicted on the transportation charges under
the Man Act. But when you're looking at a rico charge,
which carries decades in prison versus the lesser charges, I

(07:11):
could see a likelihood of conviction there. It's just not
clear at this point what exactly is going to happen.
But it's definitely a closer game than people thought.

Speaker 2 (07:20):
I would agree. I'm kind of flabbergasted. We were doing
like holes amongst ourselves and in the studio, and you know,
up until probably this week, it seemed pretty oh, did
he's going to be away forever? He's never going to
see the light of day. And honestly, I think I
think yesterday I was the only one that thought maybe
he would be seeing an extensive amount of jail time,

(07:41):
And you know, today I feel like I'm for sure
the only one I'm kind of surprised at the turn
of events, and I guess that's why you're so good
at what you do. Having an important lawyer who really
knows how to defend their clients matters.

Speaker 6 (07:56):
Jared talking about as Stephanie was saying, the importance of lawyering.
Do you think going in that the defense's side had
any thought of, hey, we might just not put up
any witnesses or do you think that evolved over the
course of the trial.

Speaker 4 (08:12):
Well, I think they really they had to gauge how
well and what the judge allowed them to do in
cross examination, and as I said, their crosses were extensive.
You have to realize, too, Diddy was Diddy's reputation, and
these charges were all we read about for months and
months and months. The prosecution puts their case on and
everybody's realizing this person they once believed was this phenomenal

(08:34):
entertainer is a pretty bad guy. Now his lawyers are saying, Okay,
we accept the fact that maybe he didn't live the
life you live or find acceptable, but what are the motives, intent,
and biases of these witnesses? And all of a sudden,
when assessed against the law, people are saying, wow, you know,
those are good points. He is a bad guy. But

(08:55):
is this a RICO case? Is it a racketeering operation?
That's the most important question. And I'm going to be
posed to the jury.

Speaker 3 (09:02):
And they just took two of what I thought was
the strongest testimony, with the arson and kidnapping. I thought
that was really strong personally. Now those aren't even on
the table anymore. It seems weird. It seems counterproductive to
remove those and let them only consider a like two
other predicate acts which I didn't think I personally didn't

(09:22):
think was as strong. Well, maybe the transportation, but.

Speaker 2 (09:25):
I don't know, why are we looking at it, Like
what are we boiling this down to? So the Rico thing,
you know, it appears might be a stretch, right, so
maybe there's a real crack in the armor on that one,
which you know, this has been debated and discussed so
many times, including here, about overcharging or undercharging. And it's
not a domestic violence case, even though you know, it's

(09:46):
hard to see this video of what appears to be
domestic violence, et cetera. That's not what he's being charged for, right,
So at this point, what can they prove in your opinion.

Speaker 4 (09:55):
Well, he's also being charged for compelling Cassie and Jane
to engage in sex through force, fraud, coercion, financial coercion,
the release of that sex tape, threat making, So those
things I believe they've also proven. So the question becomes
now it's was this consensual or was it coerced? Who

(10:16):
do you believe? Which side do you believe? Nobody's disputing
these freak offs happened. Is a question of were they
voluntary or was this a lifestyle? Does that lifestyle rise
to a criminal organization or a series of crimes? That's
really what the jury is going to have to weigh,
and the prosecution's got to do a really good job
of defining why the arson and kidnapping may not be

(10:37):
on the table at this point. What's really got to
be the focus in their assessment. And then that's what
I expect to see in the closing arguments.

Speaker 2 (10:44):
I mean, it's pretty unfathomable. So we know, for example,
the cee Ann tape that we've all seen of you know,
did he you know, beating up his ex girlfriend Cassie
Ventura at that hotel at the elevator. We know that
a bribe was given. We also know that you know
who I think is the hero of this trial Israel Flores,
who was a security guard there that witnessed that abuse

(11:05):
but did not take the bribe, which is you know,
all Mary could everybody else seemed to. We know one
hundred grand was paid for that. Does that matter or
is that also kind of not under a Rico charge
or is that it.

Speaker 4 (11:19):
Is so the bribery is a component of a predicate
offense for Rico. If I was summing this case up
for the prosecution, I would do exactly what they did
in the beginning. I play that tape and I would say,
if you believe this is consensual, then he's not guilty.
If you believe this is coercion assault, then go to
the bribery for trying to bury that tape, then he's

(11:41):
guilty of predicate acts and running a corrupt organization and
transportation for sex, etcetera, etcetera.

Speaker 2 (11:48):
You bring up such a good point last thing, and
I just can you stay forever where I know we're
losing this, but you know the reality of it is,
you know that tape is such a big thing. I
think there might be fatigue at this point because it's
been what twenty nine days. We're going on a month
of seeing tapes and videos and hearing about freak offs
and x'es and texts, and you know, at some point

(12:11):
it loses its emotional prowess, or you don't, it doesn't
affect you as much if you're a jeror you know,
maybe I'm just talking from a strategy perspective. You just
dropping the mic and showing that tape and just saying
if you do or do not believe that up to
you and walking away.

Speaker 6 (12:25):
Jared will be staying with us to unpack this a
little more, and later we have journalist Connor Powell joining
us to talk about the Idaho college murder. Later, it's
Pride month and we have a really important story to share.

Speaker 7 (12:39):
Don't forget to call.

Speaker 6 (12:40):
Us eight to day through One Crime with your thoughts
on tonight's stories True Crime.

Speaker 2 (12:44):
Tonight Listen, all Things Diddy Continue. Today was a day
in court. The judges and attorneys all meant to discuss
kind of the charges and how to sort of equip

(13:06):
the jury with the right information so they know about
what they're up for in the coming days. And it
was nothing short of explosive, so Thankfully we have attorney
Jared Farantino is back to kind of explain some of
this because it's been really messy and a little confusing,
and we have been following it closely. So Jarrett, thank
you so much for adding some insight to this because

(13:28):
we were all like super confused right before air because
it seems as though there's been misinformation out today and
now this new information. So if you were to break
it down in the you know, layman's terms, as you
do so, well, it's rico right, that's the main thing,
and then the predicates for that that are still up
for conversation remain transportation.

Speaker 4 (13:48):
Transportation, witness, tampering, bribery, forced labor, and I believe some
drug offenses are still on the table under the drug.

Speaker 3 (13:56):
We were wondering about the drug offenses. Okay, under this
there is still a lot that from and they only
need two right of those predicate acts to be basically
proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But the arson and or
attempted arson and attempted kidnap being have been removed from
the charging document.

Speaker 4 (14:14):
That's correct, and that's basically the answers A through D
or all of the above. They have to choose from
at this point. But like you said, those two very salacious,
high profile acts involving Kid Cutty are off the table
for predicates.

Speaker 2 (14:29):
Wow. I just found it so surprising.

Speaker 6 (14:31):
What did you think of Kid Cutty's testimony because we
all kind of thought it seemed super compelling and also
why what reason would he have to make this story up?

Speaker 4 (14:42):
Well, and the other thing I thought, I thought he
was fine, And I also think it was supported by
Capricorn Clark as well as the.

Speaker 2 (14:48):
Fact that corroborated Yeah.

Speaker 4 (14:50):
Yeah, it was. And that's one of the things you
look at as a prosecutor who's putting together a case.
Are you taking a leap of faith with one particular
witness and can you butchers their test sestimony with other
witnesses or documentary evidence. The car was burned, there was
a black suv at his house around Christmas time in
twenty eleven, there was damage in a breaking in his house,

(15:11):
all of which coincided with Capricorn Clark and Kid Cutty's testimony.
So to me, there was this wrapping up of his
testimony support in that case, I would have moved forward
on those charges too.

Speaker 2 (15:23):
I feel like very surprised.

Speaker 3 (15:24):
That's why I'm kind of like boisterous about this.

Speaker 2 (15:27):
Now we're all very little wild right now.

Speaker 3 (15:29):
Yeah, these specific charges, which again when I was citing
too predicate acts forco Arson was number one because of
Kid Cutty's testimony and Capricorn, you know, basically corroborating it.
I found it very compelling, and if I'm a jury
member listening to it, I'm going in and though Arson
is the one thing that I'm digging into in the
jury room because I believed it. I thought it was.

Speaker 2 (15:51):
I mean, I don't know. I just am very confused.
Is there a.

Speaker 4 (15:53):
Reason they would do this?

Speaker 2 (15:54):
Do they think the jury's going to be confused?

Speaker 4 (15:57):
I think they. I think they feel like they haven't
met the burden with regard to those charges. That's part
of this, and certainly if they did, they would have
kept them. On the other thing, the jury's not going
to disregard it. Let's say they believed Kid Cuddy and
Capricorn Clark. The toothpaste doesn't go back in the tube.
At that point, you know, they've.

Speaker 2 (16:16):
Heard these horrible things.

Speaker 4 (16:17):
They believe these things. And again, when you wrap it
all together, it paints the picture that not only is
Anny a bad guy, he may very well be a
criminal and a criminal who's part of a larger enterprise.
So to me, it factors into the cocktail of what
they are going to consider. Even though it's not on
the page, I just would have left it on the page.

Speaker 3 (16:38):
Right, Like, the totality of everything leads to this racketeering charge.
The totality of it all. And you're right, the toothpaste
doesn't go back in the tube. And they still have
their jury notes. I'm assuming I'm assuming they're taking those
into the deliberation room.

Speaker 4 (16:53):
I don't know, yes, And I can't imagine after twenty
nine days the testimony you're going to forget some of
those more salient points.

Speaker 3 (17:01):
Well, it was such a big deal when it happened.
I mean we talked about it like it's like a
lot because it was such compelling testimony. And this the dog,
Remember there was the dog in the portion, right, I mean,
there was just so.

Speaker 2 (17:14):
Much of it. I just I'm very surprised.

Speaker 4 (17:16):
And what you can spend that much time on that
part of the case and not use it as a presidice.
That's a big question.

Speaker 3 (17:22):
As a juror, I'd be kind of like upset they
wasted my time. I mean there was a couple of days.

Speaker 2 (17:27):
But also that could be strategy because you know, like
you both are saying, if the toothpaste doesn't get back
in the genie doesn't get back in the bottle, or
the toothpaste doesn't get back in the thing the tube,
you know, it's still information that they can't necessarily erase.
I'm curious, like, even just right now, what is it
like in the beehive in these situations, because you've prosecuted

(17:47):
so many big cases. Are they on fire right now?
You know we've all seen like a few good men.
I'm imagining them all like in a huddle, and its
high stakes and super stressful. Can't handle the drus, You
can't handle the truth. I can't seem to handle the
truth here because it's this is big stuff.

Speaker 4 (18:05):
Well, the most boring day for me was always charging day.
I would always have a smarter second chair sitting next
to me, and they would take the wheel during charging
day because I like my eyes would glaze over and
I'm just getting ready to make my closing argument, my
big day in court. So the night before a closing argument,
you're just refining it you're basing. If there's things the
judge told you cannot be said, or there's directions that

(18:26):
have changed like that have happened today, you got to
make those adjustments to your closing. That's what I'd be
doing tonight in the war room with the folks I'd
spent months with preparing for this day.

Speaker 3 (18:36):
It's funny that you mentioned that, because I was reading
an article about this today and it was reported that P.
Diddy was just kind of like he had an earbud
in his ear and he was just kind of like
looking down, and that his kids that were sitting in
the hearing room were kind of like falling asleep. So,
I mean, for us, it's explosive, but apparently inside the
room that day or today, it was still boring.

Speaker 2 (18:59):
A lot of journals us left midday because they were like,
this is just news too much, a snoozefest. Yeah, but
you know, let us know how it all shakes out.
But it ended up being kind of a late in
the day's shakeout, so it's still really interesting. What happens next?
What's your you know, what goes on tomorrow? What do
you think?

Speaker 4 (19:17):
Well, I'm very much looking forward to the closing arguments
in the case. You know, and as a prosecutor, you
want to highlight your again, i'd pound in that video.
I make sure they see that, you know, primacy and recency.
What's the last thing you leave them seeing is that video.
It's going to be compelling. You got to take twenty
eight days on both sides, wrap them up. The defense
is going to attack the credibility of every witness like

(19:39):
they did in the trial, and that's it. And then
at that point it's in the jury's hands. You know,
the lawyer's lawyering is done, the judging is done. You
just sit back and all of a sudden, all these
lay people have to make the most important decision in
the world.

Speaker 7 (19:52):
Wow.

Speaker 6 (19:53):
So, Jared, you earlier had mentioned witness tampering. What what
witness did?

Speaker 4 (20:00):
I hear that correctly, There's an allegation that even after
the arrest, he was attempting to contact witnesses and quell
their testimony. So anything that he did and the wake
of the charges, or once he knew the charges were pending,
and he contacted those witnesses and made any threat or
offer to pay them could be viewed as witness hampering.

(20:22):
So there's been some testimony about that.

Speaker 2 (20:24):
And let's be honest, anybody who has testified against him
right now, they're in a very vulnerable spot because you know,
we can definitely all agree that, you know, did he
and the people around him have violent tendencies. So you know,
should he get off or you know, should he be
found innocent of these charges and is released, is there
a target on people's backs? Is that something that is

(20:46):
going to prevent witnesses from coming forward in the future.

Speaker 4 (20:50):
Well, I mean that's a powerful point, but the reality
is the threat to those witnesses is greatest prior to
their testimony. Once Let's just say, in your scenario, he
walks out and kisses the ground, the last thing he's
going to want to do is talk to Cassie or
Capricorn's Park or anybody. So that's fair, but it's always look,

(21:12):
I bet witness is killed. I mean, it's always a
huge concern.

Speaker 2 (21:16):
But much witness what you've had witnesses, Oh yeah.

Speaker 4 (21:20):
In case I have, I've prosecuted cases where informants were
killed for being informants. It's sadly, it's it's, oh my god,
something we have to deal with.

Speaker 2 (21:32):
That's racketeering, and I guess that's the fear, and I
guess that's why this case is so troubling for us.

Speaker 3 (21:37):
So I have a question, Jared. So I read that
the both prosecutors and the defense will need four hours
for closing arguments, in that the prosecutors are going to
do one tomorrow and that the defense is going to
do one on Thursday.

Speaker 2 (21:52):
I'm sorry, Friday.

Speaker 3 (21:53):
Does after the defense is done, does the prosecution get
a chance for a rebuttal close at all?

Speaker 2 (21:58):
Do you know?

Speaker 4 (21:59):
I belie leave they do, and I'm not one hundred
percent sure, and states you have the opportunity for rebuttal.
In Pennsylvania, we do not have the opportunity to. But
so where I've practiced, I've never had the occasion to
rebut a defense closing but we go last. That's why so, oh,
federal system, I'm not sure, But if you look at it.

Speaker 2 (22:22):
Yeah, I'm just nosy too. It's all I will say
this though, you know, and again this is just as
an outsider looking in, and I know a lot of
this is optics and a lot of this is strategy,
but it seems like there was such very powerful testimony
and you know, to end the whole thing after twenty
nine days on summary witnesses that might have been a
little flat for lack of a better word, but maybe

(22:45):
that's just customary. And again, you know, not being in
the room makes a big difference. So I'm just saying
this as an outsider kind of looking in. You know,
thirty days is a long time to hold the role
if you will, and look, if you didn't do it,
he shouldn't go to prison. That's also true too.

Speaker 4 (23:01):
Agree, thirty days is an awful long time and the
drudgery of some of those chain of custody type witnesses
is pretty dry. I mean, you know, but it's necessary
to meet those elements and to get that evidence in.
Although some of those were text messages, they were pretty compelling.

Speaker 2 (23:19):
Summary was compelling, yeahs, But I would have the person
read the you know, read their own texts. You know,
why have there not been any celebrities or any you know,
the chief of staff KK, things like that. Do you
have an opinion on any of that?

Speaker 4 (23:32):
Well, KK, it's whether or not KK was willing to testify.
So her texts came in as business records and things
of that nature. So we talked about that when I
was on with you last time, Yeah, it was in
doubt whether or not she was going to testify, and
we we actually discussed the fact that much of her
evidence was documentary evidence that could commit into an investigator,

(23:52):
and that's exactly what happened. So even though she's not
on that stand, she's providing powerful evidence against Ditty in
this case.

Speaker 6 (24:00):
We're so excited that you'll be joining us tomorrow for
more Diddy. Jared Farantino is the co host of the
YouTube series Primetime Crime and host of the podcast True Crime.
Boss journalist Connor Powell will be breaking down the Idaho
college murders.

Speaker 7 (24:16):
Keep it here True Crime tonight.

Speaker 2 (24:29):
We're going to do some comparisons because there have also
been some new developments in the r Kelly case. He's
serving time behind bars and sort of what that Diddy
connection and family tree kind of looks like. But also
we have Connor Powell with us today. Connor is not
only dear to our hearts here at KT because he
makes many of our podcasts with us, he's also doing

(24:50):
his own called The Opportunist, and he's also going to
kind of talk to us a little bit about the
new developments and the Idaho murders and also about this
very dark, dark, dark documentary he's been working on as well.
So we'll be bringing him on very shortly. But Courtney, first,
why don't you give us a little background on the
latest in the Brian Coburger trial.

Speaker 6 (25:10):
So what's been going on now is there's a hearing
next week in Pennsylvania and that's going to decide if
six people will have to travel to Idaho to go
to testify in Brian Coburger's trial. So they've been naming
so more people have been coming out. There's William C. Force,
a corrections officer who allegedly has nice things to say.

(25:30):
He was there when Coburger was arrested at his family home.
Jesse Harris, who owns the boxing gym in Pennsylvania where
Coburger worked out, And I mean, it seems like things
are reaching Another guy, Ralph Faccio, he worked at an
auto shop that Coburger frequented. So I'm curious what you

(25:51):
guys and Connor think about just the witnesses that are
coming out, and do we think that the defense is
just trying to make them see like a normal guy
with people who interacted with him.

Speaker 2 (26:03):
She didn't have a ton of friends, you know. You know,
by all accounts, he was sort of a loaner, right,
he was. He was kind of a loaner in his childhood.
He didn't have too too many friends. So it wouldn't
seem completely preposterous to have others that are in his
world that could at least speak to his character, right,
I think.

Speaker 3 (26:21):
It's I think it's important to have these kind of
character witnesses for the defendant. You know, it goes to
their how they presented themselves to the public, you know,
and for instance, this this guard, right, he might have
Coberger might have been very compliant, he might have been polite,
you know, like those are things that go to his character,

(26:42):
or he was masking completely.

Speaker 2 (26:43):
I mean, we don't know, we don't know. But that's
why it's also asing like did he not having that,
you know, the fact that nobody really showed in his
defense as a character witness. Yes, I understand, And it
makes total sense when Jarrett says it as he did
in the last segment that look, that's just a part
of the strategy and it opens you up to a
cross examination, I would assume. But in this case, you know,

(27:06):
Brian Coberger is, you know, on a death sentence trial.
This is life and death and somebody has to speak
up for him and the jury can do what they
want with that information.

Speaker 6 (27:16):
Yeah, fair point. Shall we bring in the Yeah, honor Power.

Speaker 5 (27:22):
Hello, how are you guys doing, Honor Hi, it's great
to be with you, guys. Congratulations on the show.

Speaker 2 (27:29):
Oh listen, you are you are a family of the show,
So welcome, welcome back, and we're so happy you're here.

Speaker 5 (27:37):
Thank you. I appreciate you guys having me on. Yeah.
I mean, you know, this thing that's fascinating about these witnesses,
it's not exactly clear how they're all connected to Brian
Kilberg or some of them are obvious, some of them
you know that they don't appear to have any connection
to them. But I do think you're overlooking one thing
that the defense might be trying to do with some
of these witnesses, not only to try to humanize them

(27:59):
in but I think they're also trying to set up
whether or not maybe he's autistic. This is something that's
been floated about as possibly a part of their defense,
particularly in defense of like not getting the death penalty,
and that maybe they're also looking to sort of explain
people who've known him for a long time these weird
mannerisms and chicks and the piercing stare and things like that.

(28:21):
Maybe they're trying to establish that he's sort of always
been odd and that if the jury's looking at him
in the courtroom and they see these sort of odd
stairs or ticks or whatever, it's to set up that,
you know, he has some type of mental disability, whether
it's autism or something else, so that they're taking the
death penalty of the off the table. And the defense
is really trying to do two things right. They're trying

(28:41):
to one prevent him from being convicted, but if he
is convicted, also prevent him from being executed as well.

Speaker 2 (28:47):
I remember when that happened, and this, you know, a
lot of this was brought up in some paperwork regarding
him potentially having autism, and by the way, the autism
community really kicked back on that, because, you know, just
because you're autistic does mean that you get to go
and kill four people and get away with it. That's
not you know, that's not how that rolls. But all
that to be said, we have heard, by the way,

(29:08):
if we haven't said this. Connor made the Idaho Massacre
podcast with us, So he is really the officionado in this.
And we've all talked about this kind of behind the
scenes many times. Everybody we've spoken to throughout the years
really has said that he had sort of an odd
way about him and that he just didn't really get
social cues.

Speaker 3 (29:28):
I do think it's important, though, that the jury know
about his autism, so that he's not judged for his
like his maybe his lack of reaction to certain things,
or you know, the way he's sitting, you know, because
people people that do have you know, asd as Brian
Coberger does, can fidget a certain way or you know,
seem quote unquote different, right, And I don't I think

(29:49):
it is important that the jury not judge him for that.

Speaker 2 (29:52):
I do well. It also could speak to maybe him
being targeted for that because he had, you know, he
sometimes couldn't like hang with the crew, or you know,
sometimes like somebody would laugh and maybe he didn't get
the joke right away. You know, who knows there's shades
of all of this, you know, does that matter?

Speaker 5 (30:08):
Going to that effort to try to humanize, to try
to put him as something other than a cold blooded killer, right,
Like they're trying they're going to try to paint some
type of picture that he is something other than what
the prosecution is, right, And you know, I'm sure family
will testify that he was a lovely brother or a son,
or a good friend or somebody who you know is
serious about boxing, which you know that was part of

(30:29):
his background, that he was really serious about boxing at
one point. You know, the procetuson is going to try
to paint him as a cold blooded killer, but the
defense is going to try to pain him as something else,
and so they're going to probably offer several different things
and hope that a couple of them stick.

Speaker 2 (30:42):
Totally fair. Yeah, yeah, that's fair, Connor.

Speaker 3 (30:46):
Let's talk about this drive all right across.

Speaker 2 (30:51):
Country, Connor. So, yeah, just to set the stage and
set you up for this. After the murders, before the holidays,
Brian Coburger returned home with his father. His dad had
flown out to pick him up basically and bring him
home for the holiday, and they drove home across you know,
many states and got pulled over twice. Connor, fill us

(31:12):
in on all of this, because this is the infamous
drive that is, we're all always contemplating what happened in
that car if anything.

Speaker 5 (31:19):
Well, I mean, I think it's crazy about this drive
is that he's pulled over with him twice within a
few minutes. I think it's a nine minute time span
or something like that by state police. And you know,
the official line from the FBI and state police is
that they were not pulling him over because of any
connection to the potential murder or the murders right of
the Idaho students. And yet it seems crazy that he

(31:42):
would be pulled over twice on the same stretch of
road within a short period of time. Minutes. Yeah, it's
just it doesn't happen. I mean, everyone has been pulled over,
but how many deals have been pulled over twice? It
just doesn't regularly.

Speaker 3 (31:54):
Happen, right, But I remember it when it did happen.
Actually made a video about this because everyone was like, look,
get his eyes, he's so evil, and I'm like, no,
he's surprised that he's getting pulled over again. Like I
would be like, what is going on?

Speaker 2 (32:06):
You would be petrified too, especially if you committed a
major crime and the knife was sitting next to your
dad and your the knife may or may not allegedly
allegedly allegedly potentially be in the trunk. That takes a
level of cool and calm that is, it's really unprecedented
in many ways. It almost makes it unbelievable. But you know,

(32:27):
the more we're seeing some of this stuff, it's becoming,
you know, harder and harder to dispute some of this.
You know what's weird about this drive too.

Speaker 3 (32:34):
My friend Peachy and I we mapped the drive because
he was seen in Colorado on a specific day. In fact,
that's what flatpiety is that he was driving right in
no route to Pennsylvania from Pullman, Washington. Do they go
through that Colorado?

Speaker 2 (32:47):
And it's yeah, he took it interesting, strange way back
right And was he avoiding things.

Speaker 3 (32:53):
Or maybe they wanted to see like some monument or
something like his dad to see, maybe the biggest ball
of yarn or I don't know one I was, but.

Speaker 2 (33:00):
It was very interesting. I was like, why did he
go that way? And Connor, we haven't spoken about this,
you know, since the last time you and I have
connected about this. You know, now it's come out due
to these dateline leaks, and I'm sure you've seen this
as well that you know, he called his dad, so
Brian Coberger in the hours after the murders, allegedly, but
prior to the discovery of the bodies, he called his dad,

(33:22):
you know, for pretty lengthy amounts of time.

Speaker 8 (33:24):
You know.

Speaker 2 (33:25):
Is that interesting? Is there something to read into that?
I know we don't know at this moment, but I'm
so curious what your take on that is.

Speaker 4 (33:32):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (33:33):
I mean everything that we ever heard talking to people
and have read and you know, just seeing interviews is
that he had a very close relationship with his father
and his parents, and they were constantly sort of worried
about him, checking in on him. I mean, they understood
that they had a unique child. It's probably the most
polite way to phrase it. Based on those you know,
experiences in high school and college in Pennsylvania and so

(33:54):
you know, there was always this relationship. I think that
going back to that conversation about the drive, you know,
you have two police officers who are going to be
able to testify to the way he acted, to what
he was doing, to the way he carried himself. You're
going to have two police officers that are going to
be on the stand who can talk about whether or
not he was wearing gloves or had any visible cuts

(34:15):
or anything like that. So you know, even though he
wasn't arrested or you know, detained in any meaningful way,
police were speaking to him really in the aftermath of
these murderers and not really knowing that they were that
this was the suspect. So they're going to have some
interesting takes that will probably end up, you know, a
testimony on the stand from these two officers.

Speaker 2 (34:35):
And can you imagine because we also know that, yes,
that he was pulled over twice while driving back to
back within nine minutes. But additionally, there were feds up
above watching all of this go down, probably losing their
minds that their big investigation is getting thwarted not by
one cop but by yet another nine minutes later. I mean,

(34:55):
what are the odds of all of that happened? It
almost seems like it's divinely guided in some way. And
and look, you know that some of these some of
these leaks are not looking great for Brian Coburger. But
you know, how do we get a fair how does
he get a fair trial? And you know, our hearts
are so with the victims as I know you you
know hold that so closely as well. You know this

(35:16):
is going to be a big summer. It's it's a
big trial.

Speaker 5 (35:19):
Journalist, I think this conversation about all these leaks is
a little bit crazy. I mean, yeah, obviously the defense
wants to limit Indian all leaks. I mean that goes
with help saying, right, that's always the goal of any defense,
you know team. But I would say as a journalist,
there has been a gag order since day one almost
in this entire process, and you know, after Coburger was arrested,

(35:43):
there's actually been very few leaks if you compare it
to even OJ or Casey Anthony or a lot of
these others where there were a ton of leaks throughout
the entire process leading up to the trial, during the trial,
and I do think it's kind of ironic that the
there's this whole conversation about all of these leaks and
that really hurt Brian Koberger and defense and ultimately, the
evidence is what's going to be convicting or not convicting

(36:06):
Brian Coberger. It's not the leaks that are on date
line and other things. And in comparison to most trials,
I actually think this has been a pretty leak free
process so far. And you know, I think this is
the defense sort of playing for time. They're trying to
stretch this out. They want a lot more time to
go through all the data. And that's really what this
is about, not about any you know a huge amount
of leaks that are really going to hurt Brian Coberger's

(36:28):
defense totally.

Speaker 2 (36:29):
And we've been saying that too, is we just don't
want the trial to get delayed further because you know,
we're told that the family really doesn't want that to happen, right,
they want this trial to happen, and it's taken years
to get us to this point. Obviously, it's a death
sentence trial, so that shouldn't be rushed. But even since
we were making the podcast, you know, even then this
was up for conversation and they were getting delays and
delays and delays. So I think the real scary part

(36:51):
with the leak was just the defense having a reason
or being armored with something to cause a delay.

Speaker 5 (36:58):
Yeah, but there's always leaks, I mean, and that's you
know the real issue for the defense is that is
just what is it sixty eight terabytes worth a data
which is as saw someone. It's like sixty six million
songs they would have to listen to in order to
go through that much information. I mean, the amount of
information that was provided to the defense is really the
big issue, and that they probably aren't going to have

(37:19):
a pypically strong case because of the DNA, the potential
of the eyewitness with the door dash driver, you know,
and other issues with his searches and the purchases of
of the Knight. You know, that's the real issue. But
whether or not a little bit of information has been
leaked to dateline is not going to ruin the jury
pool by any means. And what do you think about
what the leaks and theory are supposed.

Speaker 3 (37:40):
To prevent connor what do you think about the door
dash driver story that's being told that you've heard about this?
This woman, you know, got pulled over and basically she
was telling the cops basically her life story and then
went into you know, I'm the DoorDash driver. I saw
Brian that night. Have you heard this?

Speaker 2 (37:58):
What do you think about this?

Speaker 5 (37:59):
Yeah, yeah, I think this is a fascinating part of
the story you know that has come out, which is
that you have this woman who is in some way
connected to the Brian Koberger investigation. She was pulled over
for being under the influence, and as part of her
sort of breakdown from the police, she says, you know,
I'm the person. I'm the door dash driver who delivered
the food to the house just before the girls were

(38:21):
and Ethan Chafin were killed. And I saw Brian Coberger.
You know, we don't know if she saw his car
or if she saw him specifically, but either way, she
could put his car at the house. She could put
him in the neighborhood. I mean that changes everything, because
that DNA on the knife hold.

Speaker 3 (38:39):
That thought A breaking story regarding Madelman Kaine's coming up
more with Connor Powell, this time an anti sex trafficking
organization with a really apparent dark side.

Speaker 2 (38:49):
It's Pridelinth. Stick around for crime tonight. We have some
headlines that Courtney, you're gonna fill us in on. What's
the latest.

Speaker 6 (39:07):
Well, the man hunt for Travis Decker. He is the
man who has been wanted since June second. He is
accused of murdering his three young daughters, all under ten,
and there has been really a monstrous and cohesive manhunt
looking for him, but a cadaver dog just joined the
man hunt, and it seems like the county sheriff or

(39:30):
the sheriff did. Mike Morrison stated that they plan to
deploy this cadaver dog as the search engers the fourth week.
So it's it was indicated a little bit yesterday.

Speaker 7 (39:40):
That things might have changed. So that's weird.

Speaker 3 (39:43):
That's really a sad, you know, turn of events, because
the sheriff seemed really confident that they were really hot
on his trail. In fact, at one point, the sheriff
said they basically Adam surrounded. I mean I was expecting
breaking news in any minute. Yeah, we all did and
say sad because, like, you know, there's not going to
be any kind of answer. I mean, not that one

(40:05):
would help the mom that's foster three beautiful daughters, but
I'm sure some kind of some kind of answer might
be a little comforting. Maybe I don't know, I just
feel really really terrible for this mom.

Speaker 2 (40:16):
And yeah, the same here, And what's the takeaway, Like
what do we take from this to even I mean
that the only take away.

Speaker 3 (40:22):
Did every come up with is there has to be
some meaningful change for our veterans.

Speaker 2 (40:26):
It's the only thing. But I don't know, I don't know,
I don't know the answers.

Speaker 6 (40:29):
That's right, because Travis Decker, as body mentioned, was a
veteran and he was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder and
part of his wife's great concern about him was that
he was untreated. And you know, conditions when treated are
very different than conditions when not treated.

Speaker 2 (40:49):
So and keep in mind, you know, I know we've
said this before. He was a veteran and he served
our country and he came back with PTSD allegedly from combat.
And again, like, if we can't take care of our
this is a really big example of that. So yeah,
we would be remiss not to really take a second
and see what can be gleaned from this tragedy because yeah,

(41:09):
and again sending so much love and support to their mom,
because it's a really it's a real place to go
from here.

Speaker 7 (41:17):
That's right.

Speaker 6 (41:18):
In other news, Madeline McCain, a suspect, could be released
this year after a mystery donor paid the fine. So
Madeline McCain is a young British girl and she disappeared
back in two thousand and seven, and people might remember
the face of this missing girl. She was one of
the most publicized missing persons.

Speaker 2 (41:39):
I believe, they say in the world. In the world, yeah,
the most that's right, because she.

Speaker 6 (41:46):
Was on holiday with her family in Portugal and they
were there from the UK and she went missing, huge
media attention, public interest. And if you can picture her,
she has these big beautiful eyes and one has sort
of a birthmark.

Speaker 3 (42:01):
In it, like a pupil It's like a pupiled tear
like it, you know, has like a little line, right, beautiful, beautiful.

Speaker 6 (42:11):
But this just happened. So the man who authorities believe
is responsible for Madeline McCain's death is a German Man,
Christian Bruckner, and he could be released right after the summer,
in mid September, and that is because an outstanding fine
was recently paid in connection with earlier charges against him

(42:33):
related to forgery and bodily harm and the identity of
the person who paid this was not disclosed.

Speaker 3 (42:42):
So it's nasty, yeah, but they have so much evidence
in the case against against him for even Madeline. You know,
like they dug up that hard drive that was buried
under his dog and it had all these like horrible
images on I don't understand how paying a fine is
getting him released. I mean, he's in prison right now
for sexually assaulting a seventy year old woman.

Speaker 2 (43:04):
And literally they had like toddler outfits, didn't they find
like toddler bathing suits, bathing bit at his home and
he does not have any toddlers.

Speaker 3 (43:12):
I mean, it's like, guess that's not a crime. But
like this hard drive that was buried under his dog,
you know, these thumb drives. Basically, this cash of thumb
drives had pretty compelling evidence that convinced German and Portugal
authorities that he was responsible for Madeline McCann. But I'm
wondering if they knew this was coming and that's why
they did that big search just recently. You know, recently

(43:33):
there was a massive search that was undertaken in Portugal
that you know, led by the German authorities, well I
shouldn't say led by, but in conjunction with the German
authority that they were looking for Madeline in this area
that you know, Christian the suspect kind of worked and
lived in Portugal. And I'm kind of wondering now that
this has come to light, I wonder if they knew

(43:55):
that he might be getting out, and they you know,
if it's related somehow.

Speaker 2 (43:58):
What a great because yeah, if you know there's a
ticking clock and a release happening of somebody who could
be considered dangerous to the general public, which this person
would fall under that category, and they need to have
a couple of more pieces of evidence to hold him
further or longer. I should say that. Holy tracks to me.
It does to me too. I just I don't know

(44:19):
if it's connected.

Speaker 3 (44:20):
I just kind of was the first thing that popped
into my mind, like, oh, interesting.

Speaker 7 (44:23):
It is interesting, and that kind of goes. I listen.

Speaker 6 (44:26):
I don't have one thousand percent confirmation of this, so
I wasn't even going to say it until you said that.
But again, the identity of the person who paid the
fine has not been disclosed. However, a German outlet reportedly
said that this individual was a former employee of Germany's
Federal Criminal Police Office. And here's where it gets even stranger. Apparently,

(44:51):
this person reportedly tried to get the money back after
realizing what the payment was for. So I don't know
if this person was what not swindled, but somehow paid
the debt.

Speaker 7 (45:04):
That will get him out of dale, but I want
it too. It feels real unclear to me.

Speaker 2 (45:09):
Can I just do a dummy check here? So just
sort I'm making sure that I understand it. Is that
like bail? What is this debt? Is that just like
Ah just said, debt that you get out of jail.
We're going to find a German lawyer.

Speaker 6 (45:20):
Yeah, it was an outstanding fine for something that Christian
Bruckner that was related to something totally different. And take
your pick, because as Buddy said, I mean he's been
he's in prison for doing horrible things to an elderly woman.
But no, it was it was a fine related to
another crime.

Speaker 2 (45:38):
Wow, Wow, unbelievable.

Speaker 7 (45:41):
Wow, But I will keep.

Speaker 3 (45:42):
Well if this is something I absolutely want to dig into.
So we're probably going to be talking about this a
little bit more. And listen, we're going to be switching
subjects very quickly. You mentioned something about this some kind
of correlation between R Kelly and P Diddy. Now I
know this is your favorite subject in the world. So
I try to take I can't be. She's like jumping

(46:02):
right now. She's so excited to talk about this.

Speaker 2 (46:06):
So this didty one just has me confused. Because I
do think part of why we're all here is to
be able to share all different perspectives, right, Like we're
not pushing ours, but it's like the law is so
confusing sometimes, and you know this fall from grace and
we we look up to certain people. As you know,
many years ago, I was a big fan of Ditty's
until I saw that video, the CNN video. I was

(46:28):
like you when Tupac died, I wasn't so enough in
the weeds in that. And if you you know, we've
talked about this a little bit that Tupac is a
very famous rapper if you're not familiar, and he was
executed allegedly by another gang member air quotes, and you know,
it's there's been a lot of suspicion around it. So

(46:48):
the story has always been, or the rumor I should say,
has always been that somehow Diddy was connected. So you
obviously heard that rumor, and you feel pretty committed to that.
Why do you feel so committed to that?

Speaker 3 (47:00):
I mean, it was like the first thing there was
this big rap war clos West Coast. I'm clearly West Coast, right,
you know, like I just I just that was the
immediate and you know, and I live in Vegas, the
where it happened, and in fact, I drive by the
Tupac memorial. There's a memorial here, and it was just
the word on the street. That was that was it.

Speaker 7 (47:20):
That was it.

Speaker 2 (47:21):
And by the way, we mentioned this last night too,
is that you know that trial for the accused in
that you know, killing is basically saying that did he
was involved, and you know that is a bottom line.
So it all kind of shows a world, right that
we're all kind of scratching out a little bit that
you know, Listen, nobody didn't think that there was violence
in some of this before, but maybe not to this level.

(47:44):
And you assume that people get to a certain level
of affluence maybe and they kind of grow out of
certain behaviors when they don't have to fight for stuff.
But you know, that's clearly not the case, and we're
seeing that real time. R Kelly was always kind of
a confusing one also because he was, you know, an
R and B star if you're not familiar with his music,
and then Lifetime you may remember this is several years

(48:04):
ago now, did an expose a documentary that was really
powerful that really highlighted some women that were coming forward
saying that they were being basically, you know, kind of
held against their will or becoming sex slaves. To R Kelly,
that was.

Speaker 6 (48:18):
A big deal, that documentary. I mean I remember seeing it.
My jaw dropped. I felt like I'd almost never seen
something quite like it because that happened before.

Speaker 7 (48:29):
Correct, he was in prison.

Speaker 2 (48:30):
Yeah, it's correct. Yeah, that kind of like kicks a
lot of things off. And you know, he's been behind
bars and he's come up kind of recently, and he
used to kind of travel in the same circle, the
R Kelly circle, the Diddy circle. You know, there's so
many photographs of them all together back in the day,
and the list goes on. But he's been back in
the press recently because he's been saying I'm there's a

(48:53):
hit on me behind bars. That the he's been saying
out loud and even like had a special hearing with
the judge basically saying that he believes that the prison
guards are trying to kill him and that he's being
targeted behind bars, and it kind of went nowhere because
they were like, well, look, I guess don't go to
prison and you won't have to worry about getting killed

(49:13):
behind closed doors, and then he suddenly was rushed to
the hospital and almost died. And apparently he was getting
his medicine that he takes every night, or his vitamins
whatever they give them at night to rest, and he
almost was drugged to death. And you know, again, these
are kind of heavy topics that are missed. This odd

(49:35):
timing to be happening kind of in a parallel universe
while Diddy is going on and this trial is going on.
So I bring it up just to sort of share
the information. I don't know what that boils down to,
but it does seem like there's just like a lot
of players in this. We have Sugar Knight, who was
in the car with Tupac again in this infamous night
in Las Vegas when Tupac was killed. He's, you know,

(49:59):
yapping and yelling from behind bars about the Diddy case.
I'm so curious what his opinion on all of this
is in terms of these new charges or the lack
of charges. He should call in, he should call in,
Can we get Shade Knight show? You should get Sad
Night please. I'd be curious what you have to say.
But you know, suddenly, when you put it on a board,
you know, which we have and you start seeing all

(50:20):
of these players and is it slightly connected? I guess
there's no way really to know. We actually would like
your opinion too, so please call us eight eight eight
three one crime if you have any opinions about any
of this or any insider info. We definitely want to
hear it. But you know, just trying to piece it
together is is, frankly a full time job.

Speaker 3 (50:39):
Well stick around because next Connor Powell is back with
a horrifying case.

Speaker 2 (50:44):
So, Connor, so many things going on in your world.
We can't wait to hear more. You want to fill
us in a little bit on the.

Speaker 5 (50:49):
Background, and working on a podcast called The Opportunist, which
sort of tells the story about regular people who turn
sinister by you know, sort of embracing opportunity. You know,
how does the normal person next door essentially turns a
crime or how does the rich person why do they steal?
And it looks at all types of stories like that, and.

Speaker 2 (51:08):
What's the takeaway? Do you have any like a takeaway?
Just having made that, you.

Speaker 5 (51:13):
Know, we're in our tenth season now. I've been working
on this for the last couple of seasons. That didn't
start series, but you know, I think people just get
tempted by this sort of desire to do more, to
want more. And we've told a lot of single story
episodes where it's just you know, a CFO who steals

(51:34):
from a fund of money that's meant to help kids
who have been hurt, you know, by medical accidents, or
you know, people who are part of a fishing tournament
who find a way to stuff fish that they can
win more money. I mean, there's endless amount of stories
people who sort of do things that you're like, well,
you didn't need to do that. This wasn't something you know,

(51:54):
this wasn't a life choice. This is something that was
sort of extra, an extra demand for more money, for
more fame.

Speaker 4 (52:00):
More power.

Speaker 5 (52:01):
And that's kind of what we look at in the
series called The Opportunities.

Speaker 6 (52:04):
It's so good, by the way, and everyone should really
really be listening because these stories are so well produced.

Speaker 7 (52:11):
Obviously because your hands in it.

Speaker 6 (52:14):
So connor get us up to speed on Tim Ballard
because this guy, this guy tell us what's going on.

Speaker 5 (52:21):
Yeah, we do a lot of single story episodes, but
we did a season on Tim Ballard and a lot
of people might remember him from the Sound of Freedom
movie that came out a couple of years ago, which
was sort of Tim Ballard's personal story. He's known as
a guy who is combating sex trafficking around the world.
You know, somebody was saving children and get sort of
this dramatic life story about, you know, rescuing a kid

(52:43):
at a He was working for a department of Home
od security and he rescued a kid and another kid
from sex traffickers, and a lot of his story turns
out to be completely false and made up and exaggerated,
and even worse for somebody who's supposed to be fighting
sex trafficking, he's credibly accused by multiple women of rape,
of sexual assault, of trafficking them himself. And this is

(53:08):
a guy whose name was made as sort of a
hero of ending and combating sex trafficking, and yet he
himself is now accused of it.

Speaker 2 (53:18):
So it's a story as old as time.

Speaker 3 (53:20):
Right, it's like a beard, right, it's like the guy
who This is not a surprise, I mean really.

Speaker 4 (53:26):
Right, it's not a surprise.

Speaker 2 (53:31):
It's not a surprise. Wow, I was surprised. I really
related to the movie. I thought the movie was incredibly
powerful and scary and sad, and it was I knew
it was propaganda. You knew it at the time, absolutely well.
It did so well. The movie did very, very well.
At the time.

Speaker 3 (53:46):
I only knew it because I did that show on Vice,
The Resolve Show where I had to dig into a
vich and Chris. You know, I just I knew it
was propaganda one hundred percent.

Speaker 2 (53:54):
Wow wow.

Speaker 7 (53:56):
It did gross what two hundred and fifty million? It was.

Speaker 6 (53:59):
It was very popular, but it was divisive and yeah,
would you he's a maa celebrity.

Speaker 2 (54:05):
Yes, I'm not here, but he's he's a celebrity.

Speaker 5 (54:09):
Tony Robbins, the coach Glenn Back. He was invited to
the White House and to Congress to testify in child trafficking,
which you know is really big in the sort of
mag of world. And you know, he was the star.
He was the celebrity.

Speaker 7 (54:21):
Yeah, wow, right, I know he was.

Speaker 6 (54:23):
Even Trump personally invited him to an advisory board. So
while Tim Ballard is out saying, look at what I
have you known? Founded and run and I'm helping everybody,
can you tell us a little more about behind the
scenes what was going on with quote the ruse and
what he would do with women who were trying to

(54:45):
authentically help children who needed help.

Speaker 5 (54:47):
Yes, so part of what they would do Tim Balard
would do with his organization of yours. They would go
to foreign countries and he would pretend that he was
going into a massage parlor to ask about, you know,
sort of where can he find young women in order
to have a reason not to engage with a young
girl who might be presented to him. He'd always bring
his a wife and it was always sort of another

(55:09):
American woman that he would bring that he would recruit
from his network, and they thought they were there to
sort of help with this ruse, but what they found
is that he would allow it to go really far.
He would allow other people massuses and stuff to touch them,
the women who was supposed to be there like partner,
and he would rub up against them, he would sort

(55:31):
of grope them. One claims that she was sexually assaulted
by him as well, And so he was sort of
running this couple's ruse that in theory was to sort
of help him and have a reason for him not
to have to engage where with young girls and boys
that he was looking for as part of his combating
and sex trafficking, but he was also using that couple's

(55:53):
ruse to essentially assault women.

Speaker 3 (55:54):
What else can you tell us about this organization and
some of the things that they've done.

Speaker 5 (55:58):
Yeah, I mean ou R was his organization, and they
were the ones that sort of helped make Tim ballor
to his name and the ironies. At the exact moment
that that movie Sound of Freedom was coming out, he
was actually being forced out of ou ARE because of
these allegations of sexual assaults and sexual abuse and and
just he was being forced out at the exact moment
that he was most famous. And you know, he's started

(56:20):
another organization, but he's really struggled to overcome these accusations
and in just in fact, in the last couple of weeks,
he was down in Argentina, and Argentina is now accusing
him of espionage, broad and sex trafficking. Yep.

Speaker 3 (56:35):
Well, he's still very active on X. I went his
profile today and he's still very active on x and
still has thousands of supporters, right, He's still he does.

Speaker 5 (56:46):
But he's lost some of the biggest supporters, people like Leunback,
and he's been excommunicated from the Mormon Church. Which was
this big source of money. Yeah, he was claiming that
the church supported him, and you know, there's a real
tie with the more In church, and the Mormon Church
is finally like, we don't want to be a part
of what's going on here, and they kicked him out
of the church and he's he's basically sort of a

(57:07):
free agent in the religious world these days. He's been
going from different churches and sort of embracing different spiritual groups.
But the snek might say he's hitting these groups up
as a way of fundraising.

Speaker 2 (57:18):
Wow, I mean to be excommunicated. That's massive. But like, listen,
you don't seem very surprised because you called it. I
guess when you saw this movie. I saw this movie
and was so over the top sickened by it. And
at the very end you see his like real life picture.
You know, it's based on a true story. There's actors,
and then at the end it's like his you see

(57:41):
it alack.

Speaker 3 (57:42):
To like Fostgate and like you know, the q an
on people. It all goes back to all this And
I'm very in that world because I enjoy debunking those
kinds of things don't come at me don't come at me,
but I enjoy the discourse surrounding what I consider to
be those crazy people. And so it's the sound of

(58:05):
freedom is tied in with all that.

Speaker 2 (58:08):
I didn't know that as a as a as a
viewer at the time at the theater, I was as
somebody who's sex trafficking is a very important topic as
a company, and we think about it and we work.
These are people that believe that kids are being sex trafficked,
you know, for a drenal comb like the dreanacomb like that.
You know they'll they'll kill babies and drink the blood
and be young forever. Wait, am I thinking of the

(58:30):
right movie? Like this is the Marine and save all
these Save all these kids? And it's that harrowing scene
where the kids are in the bed with the trafficker
and he has to crawl in and saves them, and
then we see his real life image at the end
and he's a hero wearing a US uniform, and I

(58:50):
was brought to tears. I felt sick by the way
I've made decisions at work because that movie inspired me.

Speaker 3 (58:58):
Well, the thing though, whether or not he's a wacko,
it's still a good movie. Right, it's still inspired you you.

Speaker 2 (59:04):
Should still based on a fraud. Well, but it's still
the story.

Speaker 8 (59:08):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (59:09):
So, but how good of the story is it? Because Connor,
what about the claims that Oh you are that? What
about the rescue claims? How credible are they compared to
sort of what he and the organization, you know, put
out there and what happened.

Speaker 5 (59:25):
I mean, Oh you Are, even to this day, is
claiming that they've helped rescue tens of thousands of children
from trafskying. And we spoke to several journals who have
been investigating Tim Ballard and Oh you Are for for
years now, and they said that it's impossible to verify
even one claim of a child being rescued. That they
were raising, you know, twenty thirty fifty million dollars a

(59:47):
year at its height, and that that's the only thing
you could sort of credibly say that they were accomplishing,
which was raising a ton of money. And we talked
to some of the women who worked there, and we
talked to people who were you know, left the organization,
and they said that most of the money was spent
as part of o r to sort of promote Timbalard.
The rescuer, and there were some things, some training and

(01:00:10):
things like that done with local sheriffs and other you know,
law enforcement organizations. But the idea that they rescued or
helped rescue tens of thousands of kids is completely inaccurate.
I can't tell you if they've rescued any but I
know that they haven't tens of thousands or even thousands.

Speaker 7 (01:00:27):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:00:28):
Wow, wow, Well, it still doesn't change the fact that
I guess it was a portrait of what could have happened.

Speaker 6 (01:00:34):
Sure, it would have been great if it actually happened,
if this guy wasn't sexually assaulting women along the way
who actually wanted to help.

Speaker 3 (01:00:43):
And here's why it's dangerous, Like this is like those
kinds of things really happened. Kids are really getting sex trafficked,
and you have donors spending money on frauds, and then
the real children who are being sex trafficked are getting ignored.
And that's why I get angry at this kind of stuff.
It's very upsetting. Connor, We're going to continue to follow
this because I'm very interested in this. So thank you
so much to Connor Powell, journalist and executive producer for

(01:01:06):
the Opportunist podcast. Connor has worked with us on a
number of projects, including Death Island and the Idaho Massacre. Connor,
we can't wait to have you back, super glad that
you were able to join us.

Speaker 6 (01:01:17):
We have all worked together for a good long time
and we appreciate you.

Speaker 2 (01:01:22):
And yes, thank you all that you do.

Speaker 7 (01:01:24):
We'll have you back really soon.

Speaker 2 (01:01:25):
Hi Connor, Bye.

Speaker 3 (01:01:28):
Coming up, it's Crime up in we're spotlighting a controversial
standard ground case with major implications for the LGBTQ community.

Speaker 2 (01:01:36):
Stick around True Crime Tonight. Listen. We really want to
hear from you, So call us anytime eight eight eight
three one crime, or you can hit us up on
our socials at True Crime Tonight show on TikTok and Instagram,

(01:01:58):
or at True Crime Tonight on Facebook. So it's Pride
Week and you know Pride month rather and every day
this week we really want to highlight a special case
that's maybe not getting enough attention, and one of those
is about DJ brought us and we have a special
talk back that is a really important one because his
father has left word with us. So Courtney, can you

(01:02:18):
give us a little of the backstory, or body, can
you give us a little of the backstory.

Speaker 3 (01:02:22):
Sure, yeah, So in twenty eighteen, DJ brought us. He's
thirty one years old and he's a black. He's a
black Florida man. He was shot four times and killed
by Gardner Kent Fraser, who's twenty nine, the white man
he had been seeing. They're both closeted and one day
they're both in closet, right, they met up one day

(01:02:42):
after some turmoil in their relationship, and their meeting ended
with Fraser shooting brought us four times, twice in the
face and twice in the back of the head. Due
to Florida's controversial strands standiard ground laws, though Fraser has
never been charged. Like, it's it's crazy so Gardener.

Speaker 2 (01:03:00):
Because he had the gun and he was on his
own stand yourd ground. He was on his own property
in the state of fam He's.

Speaker 3 (01:03:07):
From like a really prominent family in the area. His
dad is a former deputy sheriff. His great uncle J. E.
Fraser was a leader within the Florida KKK the guys.

Speaker 2 (01:03:19):
Yes, and his.

Speaker 3 (01:03:20):
Great grandfather is an elected state representative. Their relationship broke
a lot of taboos, right, they both gay. He's white,
he's black, you know, there's there's a lot of taboos breaking,
especially within this white guy's family. Right, this this this
Gardner Kent Fraser. So investigators uncovered one hundred and fifteen

(01:03:42):
phone calls and over one hundred text messages between the
two men, and many of them were you know, they're
in a relationship, so they're there sexual in nature or
you know loving.

Speaker 2 (01:03:51):
Right, yes, there may be falling in love. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:03:53):
So but Gardner, the white guy got rid of DJ's
phone after the murder, it has never been covered, and
deleted all of their texts from that day to this day.
He's only been charged for obstruction of evidence. That's because
he got rid of the phone.

Speaker 2 (01:04:09):
You are kidding me right now. So, like, just because
you come from a prominent family and have connections into
law enforcement, that doesn't mean you should be able to
get away with murder Fraser.

Speaker 3 (01:04:20):
And this is insane, No, I know, it's really sad.
So Fraser, he had a girlfriend at the time, and
you know again he's closeted, right, he had a girlfriend
at the time, and he feared the DJ brought us
would expose their relationship, especially after broughd Us played a
prank on him in which he threatened it, right, Like
they're arguing, you know kind of thing, and they're teasing,

(01:04:41):
I'm going to tell your girlfriend if you you know,
and he freaked out.

Speaker 2 (01:04:45):
Like he just got scared. I guess.

Speaker 3 (01:04:46):
So it's just they were at Fraser's house that had
this happened behind the home. So again it's a standiard ground.
State Fraser claimed to investigators that DJ brought us, who
was an unarmed by the way, attacked him and that's
why he shot him in self defense.

Speaker 6 (01:05:04):
So he said he shot him in self defense. Yet
if I remember what you said, he shot him four times,
including two times in the back of the head. Correct,
and you have everything rightation, it.

Speaker 3 (01:05:15):
Feels very obvious to me, right, Like this is almost
like a slap in the face kind.

Speaker 2 (01:05:21):
Of type situation. Yeah, yeah, I hate crime. Yeah, that's
a terrible, terrible thing. It's very sad.

Speaker 3 (01:05:27):
The state attorney declined to prosecute Frasier brought Us. His family, members,
who have joined forces with the state and local activists
like in their area, say the killing was cold blood
and murder to cover up a socially unacceptable relationship. And
I one hundred percent agree with their family and friends.
Now we have some some notes from the family. The
two individuals of Wald were closeted until this incident and

(01:05:50):
never openly labeled their sexualities or identified the relationship. You know,
they have to you know, like somebody else's life.

Speaker 8 (01:06:00):
Yeah.

Speaker 6 (01:06:00):
Yeah, So we are going to that very important talk
back that Stephanie mentioned earlier.

Speaker 7 (01:06:06):
It's from DJ's father.

Speaker 9 (01:06:08):
Hi, I'm the father of Dominic Jerome brought us the
second affectionately known as DJ. I want to thank the
station for doing this broadcast to my son, and I
hope you join my family in the fight of a
legal system which continues to fail families like yours and
mins whose love wants are gunn down under the pretense
of staying your ground. More information can be found on

(01:06:29):
my son at hashtag justice the number four DJ broad us.

Speaker 2 (01:06:34):
Oh we're sending him so much love. Just the sound
of his voice. Yeah, I mean, this is I'm so
glad we get to talk about this stuff. Yeah, I know,
these are uncomfortable topics. These are you know, we're not
accusing people of things, and you know, listen, but if
we don't talk about it, we don't know how to
do better. And you know, it is not okay.

Speaker 3 (01:06:52):
Every time I hear this kind of story, Yeah, I
feel like there's something we're missing, right, Like there's something
we don't know because this seems so obviously it seems
like a slam dunk for the prosecution, right, so it
just seems it just seems very I just feel like
I just feel like we're missing something. But when you

(01:07:13):
actually dig into it to it and you read about this,
we're not missing anything. This is actually happening in twenty
twenty five, well in twenty eighteen in Florida.

Speaker 2 (01:07:21):
Still, but it's been have we come that far seven years? Yeah?
We can do better, I think. And again if we
don't talk about this stuff, we don't know how to
you know, set it straight.

Speaker 3 (01:07:32):
And you know this is this all goes back to
to strand you stand your ground. And not to conflagrate
this with other cases, but why do we think that
stand your ground laws appear to disappropriately like protect white
shooters when the victims are black, Like it's just like
Trayvon Martin.

Speaker 2 (01:07:50):
This was in Florida too, right.

Speaker 6 (01:07:52):
Absolutely, No, that's exactly what I had in my head
was Trayvon Martin when I was thinking about this, and
this stands your ground I don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:08:00):
It just seems I just maybe maybe I just haven't
heard of cases where you know, it's the other way
around and the black eye gets away with it.

Speaker 2 (01:08:10):
Am I crazy?

Speaker 5 (01:08:11):
No?

Speaker 2 (01:08:12):
You are not crazy. No, the stats are staggering. Actually
it's staggering. It's actually a little sickening. Even as we're
talking about it right now, I get a not in
my stomach because it's like, how could that be? Okay?

Speaker 3 (01:08:24):
I don't know if staniel ground laws are shown to
increase homicides, because it seems like you can just use
as an excuse rather than prevent crime, why do they
remain in place in so many states? Like why is
it still in place in Florida? Do you think it's
something that listen, do you think I'm at the point
right now where I feel like it's almost intentful, like
they're okay with it because it's getting rid of people

(01:08:46):
they don't care about.

Speaker 6 (01:08:48):
You know, I agree with that, and it is really
hard and I literally I can't. I'm so confounded that
the fact that there was no prosecution, they denied to
prosecute him with you know, shots directly to him, and
that he was unarmed at the time.

Speaker 3 (01:09:05):
He was unarmed in a shot twice in the face
and twice in the back of the head. How do
you shoot somebody twice in the back of the head
when you're defending yourself.

Speaker 6 (01:09:13):
And you have to wonder how much sort of what
did you say that it was? He was tied up with, Oh,
a state representative.

Speaker 3 (01:09:22):
His uncle is a grand master in the KKK or
something like his. His great grandfather is a state representative,
his somebody else's a sheriff. Yeah, he's got families, you know,
in power in this area of Florida.

Speaker 2 (01:09:39):
I'm sorry.

Speaker 3 (01:09:40):
His great uncle, his great uncle was a leader with
the Florida KKK, and his great grandfather is an elected
state representative.

Speaker 2 (01:09:48):
Yeah, I just it's it's really unfathomable. I think it's
like a theme we're seeing, even just in this evening.
You know, if you're looking at the ditty case, you know,
there's so much power and maybe control and maybe some
abuse against women. I mean that's pretty obviously the case.
And you know, we listen to this, you know, the

(01:10:09):
sound of freedom film being a fraud because somebody wants
to work the system or make some more money on
the backs of tragic stories that really do happen, and
therefore they're undermined by somebody who's a creep and a fraud.
And now we're hearing this where there is obvious information
that would would put justice at least for poor DJ's father.

(01:10:31):
Thank you for giving us that callback, by the way,
and let his family grieve and have justice. But somehow
the system gets skirted so confusing.

Speaker 3 (01:10:40):
In the standard ground law under the justifiable Use of
force statute as it's called, it's just called the Standiard
ground law. Like by Layman right, the killer who claims
self defense may be legally immune from homicide charges and
not be required to prove that lethal actions were truly

(01:11:02):
in self defense. It feels like it's written for people
to be able to commit legal murder, do you know
what I mean?

Speaker 7 (01:11:08):
Yeah?

Speaker 6 (01:11:08):
Can I just give you the opposite? And I live
in a very different state. I live in California, But
quickly we had someone break into our house. One night,
they broke in, the alarm went off, and my husband
ended up landing a punch on this person. Thankfully that
was the only quote violence that occurred. Scary, So yeah,

(01:11:31):
three o'clock in the morning, it was this. It was
literally the scariest in any case that happened. As I said,
my husband threw and landed a punch, and when the
police officers came to our house with the alarm blaring
at three o'clock in the morning and sorted out that,
in fact, it was a college student on bath salts,
in fact, who had broken into our house. Yeah, but

(01:11:53):
the officers they indicated, like, all right, we'll try not
to make a big deal about the punch.

Speaker 7 (01:11:59):
I'm like this, I came in raving lunatics screaming.

Speaker 6 (01:12:03):
And it was almost we who were in trouble, or
my husband specifically for bunching him. I mean, I like
that opposite, No I did. I thought middle ground here, Yes,
let's find a middle ground from standard ground and what
I just described.

Speaker 2 (01:12:22):
Your window, you know, like they're like, what's the middle
And I guess that's why it's so great that we
get to discuss it, because what is the middle.

Speaker 3 (01:12:29):
What's the middle ground? I don't know if there is
any But if you're interested in learning more about this
case and you want to support the family, definitely they
do have a GoFundMe. Just do a Google search for
Justice for dj broad Us go fundme and on their GoFundMe.
They have links to all their social media profiles, so
you can donate or and or you can go to
their their social media profiles and support them that way too,

(01:12:51):
because I you know, listen, they lost their son.

Speaker 2 (01:12:53):
This is.

Speaker 7 (01:12:55):
That's right. Thank you for sharing that.

Speaker 2 (01:12:57):
Listen, guys, we have a very big night tomorrow. So
just out there because you know, the defense is going
to do their closing statements in the ditty case as
we've been reviewing, and you know, who knows what is
going to happen with this. It seems as though this
suddenly has a very wide pendulum.

Speaker 3 (01:13:14):
Well from the defense, I'm so curious what they're going
to say in closing arguments. Yeah, we haven't heard anything
from them except for crosses right.

Speaker 6 (01:13:22):
Well, yes, what we do have I feel like a
little bit of insight is that are they each are
they each allowed or given four hours? Because in Karen
Reid's everyone was set to seventy five minutes. And then
this is harkening back to the piked and massacre of

(01:13:43):
the podcast, and in that case, the prosecutor Angie Caneppa,
who's fabulous, but her opening statement was three and a
half hours.

Speaker 7 (01:13:55):
I believe is Actually I.

Speaker 8 (01:13:56):
Thought it was like two days. It might have been
somewhere I was. I thought it was like two days.
At some point the jury just their eyes break so much.

Speaker 2 (01:14:07):
You know, that's I think generally with the fatigue, and
I mean we talked about this briefly because you know,
Courtney and I have sat in, you know, so many trials,
and particularly that one because it was so devastating, we
felt very connected to that area that in the in
the gruesome imagery was so unbelievable, unparalleled, frankly, the things
that we all saw. And even with that level of

(01:14:30):
high stakes, there were days that you you know, were
like fidgety and it was hard to stay focused and
because you get a little loss in the sauce, frankly,
So I think I'm so, I'm glad there is a
limit on the time because you have to kind of
stick to the point, right, So four hours is still
a lot of time.

Speaker 7 (01:14:48):
Right enjoy say, but yeah, four hours.

Speaker 3 (01:14:54):
Well, according to the USA today, they said the prosecutors
will take four hours tomorrow and then the following day
the defense will take three to four hours. On Friday,
So I don't know, maybe maybe the judge is giving
them four hours, but maybe they'll only talk for two.

Speaker 2 (01:15:09):
You know, it's up through the room, I suppose at
that point. But it does seem as though everybody we've
spoken to, including you know, even last night, that did
he's feeling pretty confident.

Speaker 3 (01:15:19):
Well, I would be two if they started dropping predicate
acts of reco on my charging slip.

Speaker 2 (01:15:23):
Yeah, I mean.

Speaker 3 (01:15:24):
Especially the ones that I think are pretty dang solid,
like Arson and I just listen.

Speaker 2 (01:15:29):
I was really compelled by Kid Cutty. I was very
how could you not be? Yeah?

Speaker 3 (01:15:35):
And the dog, the dog got me, Yeah, all of us.

Speaker 6 (01:15:38):
The dog is their dog was locked what in a
separate room from where he usually is. The allegation is
that did he win in, moved or opened Christmas presents
and did something with the family dog. It was really
it seemed like psychological warfare.

Speaker 3 (01:15:55):
And then threw a Malotov cocktail into the sun roof
of Kid cutting car.

Speaker 6 (01:16:01):
Yes, and stood there looking like an evil supervill.

Speaker 2 (01:16:04):
Villain, Marvel supervillain. If you don't know the story, it's
because he was dating briefly Cassie Ventura and then he
found out about this, meaning Diddy found out about it
and then went on a terror and wanted to terrorize
them and basically show them you know whose boss, And
I guess you know, I guess that doesn't matter. It

(01:16:27):
feels like it doesn't count. So I'm so glad again
this is one of those times onto soapbox. But I'm
just glad we get to talk about it because it's
confusing and it's complicated, and for victims and for the accused.
Of course, he should not go away for something he
isn't guilty of. Nobody is saying that, but it's just
really hard to divide up seeing some of the things

(01:16:47):
we've seen and heard that he could actually walk, So.

Speaker 7 (01:16:50):
I believe my lion eyes.

Speaker 2 (01:16:52):
Yes, yes, yes, yes, well said Courtney. I'm strong. So listen,
make sure you come back tomorrow to join us. We'll
be here live and so much to unpack. This is
true crime tonight. We are talking true crime all the time.
Have a great night, Stay safe,

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

24/7 News: The Latest

.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;}Mystery Donor Could Free Madeleine McCann Suspect, Diddy's Charge Conference, and Remembering DJ Broadus: The Fight for Justice

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

New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce

24/7 News: The Latest

All Episodes

Mystery Donor Could Free Madeleine McCann Suspect, Diddy's Charge Conference, and Remembering DJ Broadus: The Fight for Justice

Stuff You Should Know