Who is Ghislaine Maxwell — and why Kohberger cannot personally profit from book or movie deals about his crime. Talkbacks on Epstein have the team questioning the current state of things. Tune in for all the details.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
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. We're talking true crime all
the time here on iHeartRadio. It's Thursday, July fifteenth, and
we have a stacked night of headlines. So this Epstein
mess begins to get messier. We discussed it to nauseum
last night about the fact that there was this raw
footage taken at the prison that Epstein took his own
(00:40):
life in allegedly, and now they are saying it's not
just one minute as it had been described, but rather
almost three minutes according to metadata, which is maddening. And
I think we're all collectively feeling like we need answers
and why is this a cover up? I feel like
we're making more of it than it needs to be.
(01:02):
Or this lie is a crack in the system, and
maybe that's going to bring us together. Also, we're going
to start digging into this other very disturbing sex trafficking case,
the Abercrombie and Fitch sex trafficking scandal, which is international
and has a lot of crossover also to the Epstein
case and possibly even to the Ditty case. And then
(01:23):
later in the show, we're going to be unpacking the
Hillside Strangler serial killer. This is a gruesome one. He
has been denied parole for the eighth time, and Body's
been following this one closely and is going to be
giving us all the details on that. I'm Stephanie Lai Decker,
and I head of Katie's Studios where we make true
crime podcasts and documentaries and I get to do that
(01:44):
every night with Courtney Armstrong and Body move in. We're
here and we want to hear from you. So listen.
There's a lot going on in the news right now,
so jump in join the conversation. We're at eight eight
eight three One Crime again eight eight eight three one Crime,
or you can hit us up on our socials at
True Crime Tonight's show on TikTok and Instagram, or at
(02:06):
True Crime Tonight on Facebook. So listen, we actually have
a talk back right now. Why don't we start there.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
I'm listening to the show tonight, and I would pose
a different question if Biden had the list and it
and Trump was on the list, why don't we think
you would release the list in order to get elected.
My thought is, Eve, is that everyone is on this list,
and everyone it would be their their mutual assured distruction
(02:37):
if anyone released it, which is why it's not getting Boy.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
Are you in my head right now? It's Steph and
I could not agree more. If this is not a
Trump versus Biden, versus Clinton versus whomever, it's not even
a political thing at this point. This is potentially world leaders,
some of the biggest influencers of our time, making decisions
that are affecting every single one of us, and we
don't even know who to believe. It's like a pox
(03:03):
on everybody's house. I couldn't agree with you more.
Speaker 4 (03:06):
Yeah, absolutely, I think it's very astute as well. And
it really does seem totally agree with Stephanie taking politics
entirely out of it. It just as a nation, I
feel like everyone is feeling duped. It's almost like with Watergate,
except instead of just a couple of journalists down in
the garage getting the information, we're all kind of finding
(03:27):
out little bits and pieces and demanding where's the actual
entirety of all of this information?
Speaker 2 (03:34):
And again, I think we can all agree, every single
one of us, no matter what our political beliefs are
or aren't. You know, in a very confusing time. Speaking
for myself, I find myself right in the middle, super confused.
This is about victims, hundreds and hundreds of underage girls
being tossed around and victimized by very powerful people. Why right? Why? Absolutely?
Speaker 4 (03:58):
And also just the other day, Pam Bondy, the Attorney General,
she had gone on to release what was slated to
be the completely the raw video of outside perpetrator Ebstein's cell.
Speaker 5 (04:13):
So that speaks to the missing minute we reported on
I think a couple of nights ago. The video jumps
from eleven fifty eight fifty eight to midnight, which is
like a minute in two seconds of missing footage in
this raw I'm using air quotes here, the raw footage
that was released by the DOJ. So what Pam Bondi
(04:34):
is saying there, if you couldn't hear her, is that
what she learned from the Bureau of Prisons is that
every night the video resets, and every night the same
missing minute in two seconds is going to be missing
from the video. Except for now. There's it's possible that
actually three minutes are missing from this video.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Okay, what a night? What did I know this? I mean,
it's the lie on top of the lie. And I
think that's the problem here.
Speaker 5 (04:59):
I think you're right in the the more they lie,
the worse they're digging their hole. And I exactly like,
I feel kind of insulted a little bit. No, you
guys feel like, yes, man, they think we're stupid.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
Absolutely, I guess that's like and it all falls under
this category of well, that's just politics, you know, double speak.
Everybody just you know, everybody's dishonest, and I got to
be honest myself. I don't believe that's true. I think
that there are more honest people and great people and
light people at very dark times. I hope we all
kind of find our way to that, and we all
(05:33):
deserve a little better.
Speaker 5 (05:34):
So Wired magazine, their publication is it's all tech and
you know they're fairly fairly respected. Well, they examined the
metadata forensics and they found that this eleven hours of
raw footage and that's directly from the DJ raw footage
has been cut. Surveillance footage from outside the cell released
(05:55):
by the DOJ and the FBI, which really is the
same thing had nearly three minutes cut out. Metadata from
the raw Epstein prison video shows approximately two minutes and
fifty three seconds were removed from one of the two
stitched together videos. Do you remember a couple of nights ago,
I was talking about how the aspect ratio kind of
like the frame size changes a little bit. What it
(06:18):
looks like they did and what the metadata is showing
is that two videos, two separate total videos were stitched
together and that's why the aspect ratio changes.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
Oh my goodness.
Speaker 5 (06:29):
Yeah, So they're they're saying now that through these this
digital forensics that two minutes and fifty three seconds were removed,
and that you know, I asked Joseph that night that
we talked about this, Joseph Scott Morgan, forensics expert who
we have on the show all the time, beloved member
of our family, and you know, I asked him. I said,
could this Epstein killing situation, how he was, you know,
(06:52):
hung himself or killed? Let's say, could it have happened
in one minute? And Joseph said, no, I don't think so,
because I wanted to know why this minute was missing. Well,
why are three minutes missing?
Speaker 6 (07:02):
Now?
Speaker 5 (07:02):
I want to ask Joseph when we have them on next,
could this have happened in three minutes?
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Yeah, And like again, if you haven't been paying attention
to this, you know, these Jeffrey Epstein client list has
been long discussed. It's been long talked about. Allegedly there
were all of these very high profile, important, important, potential
world leaders, billionaires, influencers on this list, and that there
may have been some nefarious behavior, and that even may
(07:28):
have been there was nefarious behavior, and likely there were
cameras throughout this infamous island where some of this behavior
was likely caught on tape and perhaps being used as revenge,
and you know that scary stuff at a very scary time.
So then they released this tape like whoa, well, there's
no client list, and you know, we'll prove it that
(07:50):
he committed suicide Jeffrey Epstein while in prison and wasn't murdered,
which has always been this like alternate theory. We'll prove
that that didn't happen. We'll release this eleven hour video
and then everybody realizes the eleven hour video was missing
one minute. Now we're realizing it's almost three minutes, right.
Speaker 5 (08:09):
And U c Berkeley professor was consulted on this digital
forensics analysis that Wired magazine did. His name is Hanni Frid.
He criticized the chain of custody and he said that
if this was brought to him to present in court,
he would say would not meet his standards. Ooh, and
this is from the Department of Justice the United States
(08:29):
of America. I mean, this is not some law clerk.
This is somebody's got some splainin to do. This is
true crime.
Speaker 4 (08:37):
Tonight on iHeartRadio, I'm Courtney Armstrong here as always with
Body Moven and Stephanie Leidecker. We're talking about Ebstein and
everything and kind of what keeps unfolding day after day,
which is different information. We want to hear your thoughts,
so it give us a call. We're at eighty to
eighty three to one crime or hit us back on
the talkbacks, which if you're on the Heart Radio app,
(09:00):
you just go up into the upper right hand corner,
you click that little red microphone and record a message
and you will be on the show. So, Body, I
wanted to ask you to clarify metadata.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
So what is metadata?
Speaker 5 (09:13):
Is that what you want to like get like a
little overview so like when you create a video where
you're creating in your cell phone or video camera or
surveillance video, you're not just capturing like the visuals and sound.
There's a whole layer of like hidden elements in the video,
and it's attached to the file that gets created on
your computer or your cell phone, whatever device. And that's
(09:36):
called metadata, and it's data about the data. So think
of it like behind the scenes, like like the credits
of a movie. So the kind of the best way
to kind of describe it, you know, it contains things
like the data was created, the time of it, the
user name that edited it, what encoding was used, the
location of the file on the device.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
There's all on cell phones.
Speaker 5 (10:00):
It might even have GPS coordinates of where the photo
was taken. That's like when sometimes you upload a picture
to Instagram, it says, oh, are you in Barcelona? You know,
and you can I know, I was fantasizing for I
like it, you know, and you can say, yeah, I'm
in Barcelona, and it tags your location as Barcelona. And
that's because it's reading that metadata. It's how I knew
(10:22):
Luca was in Toronto when we.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Were looking for him. I don't have with cats. That's
what metadata is.
Speaker 5 (10:27):
And this metadata on these files shows really significant discrepancies
in what we're being told. For instance, we can tell
that it was edited with Adobe Premiere Pro, which is
not you know, unusual. I mean, there has to be
some kind of extraction from the surveillance software. Okay, so
that's fine, it's no big deal. But it also shows
(10:48):
us that the file was edited and saved several times
over the period of more than three and a half hours.
So there's no reason to keep saving it unless you're
edits right, Why did you do that?
Speaker 2 (11:02):
Unless things have changed, I've been poking around.
Speaker 4 (11:04):
We have at this point no knowledge of who well
we do these changes except for the user name.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
Right, we have the username.
Speaker 5 (11:13):
So remember I was telling you it has like the
location on your computer where the file is saved. And
in that location, you know, it's like ce the c
drive users. In my case it would be body moving slash,
document slash, you know whatever. And in this case it's
m J. Cole And that's all we really know. That's
the person's name. So like, can I just have a go?
Speaker 2 (11:36):
That's like they're sign on to the computer, right, Like
how they sign in and if I send you a photograph,
because this happened to my girlfriend when she caught a
guy you dirty, sent a photo and he was like,
oh yeah, I'm here, you know, with my kids, and
sent a photo and then she did some little chef
of course, and it doesn't really look like that photo
(11:56):
was from today real time. That was from three.
Speaker 5 (12:00):
Listen, if you get a photo and your question about that,
click the little information button you know on your iPhone
and it will tell you the metadata, and it will
tell you and if you presslong, you can see the
live photo.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
So all the things they don't want you to see.
Speaker 4 (12:14):
Oh careful what you do and what you send.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Listen, keep it here.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
We're going to continue to follow this when we come back,
and we'll be digging into the Abercrombie and Fitch International
sex trafficking case. Also we will be talking about the
Hillside Strangler serial killer, and a bit on Beyonce True Crime.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
Tonight. I'm feeling a little worked up about all things Epstein,
and I got a laser facial so it hurts to smile.
So sorry, guys, sorry for the room. I apologize. Here
we go. Epstein. He had a right hand woman named
(12:57):
Gilaine Maxwell. We've heard so much about right, he's currently
serving time. She was brought up on five counts and
is looking at you know, I think twenty years or so,
and she's been living kind of a quiet life behind bars.
Now with these new developments in the Epstein case, it
feels like there's a lot of attention being brought back
to her. If there was not a client list, and
(13:18):
you know, hundreds of girls were not being trafficked, then
why is she serving time? By the way, I'm not
suggesting she should not be serving time, but I just
think it's an interesting point of this conversation because again,
this is all about grooming, right, This was happening for decades.
This was happening in international places. So how do we
(13:39):
stop it if we don't talk about it. So Gelaine Maxwell,
who wants to give us a little of that background?
So I'll talk a little bit Glaine Maxwell.
Speaker 4 (13:47):
She was a British socialite and like you said, really
Jeffrey Epstein's right hand woman, and it seemed like they
had a really symbiotic relationship. Glaine Maxwell was really a
society woman and had connection to you know, infamously Prince
Andrew who came down but she was the daughter of
(14:09):
a British media tycoon, a guy named Robert Maxwell, who
died under strange circumstances over a yacht. And so as
she grew.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
Up she had this father who was very.
Speaker 4 (14:21):
Strict, we learned through watching some documentaries all about her life,
who was very strict with his children. But she worshiped
and idolized her father and they lived a fancy life.
Although once Guleene Maxwell's father died, it turns out this
sort of piles and piles of money that they thought
(14:42):
they were living on was all a mirage and in.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Fact here was a scoundrel.
Speaker 4 (14:47):
Yeah, he was a scoundrel, and the finances were a mess,
and you know, a lot of people who knew them well,
both Epstein and Galen thought, you know, they needed each other.
Eulaine went sort of right from her father and they
would be together in social situations, just rubbing elbows with
the fanciest people in the world. And she needed another
(15:08):
man with a lot of money. Seemed like what she
was looking for, And what Jeffrey Epstein was pretty well
known for looking for was clout in society. He wanted clout,
He wanted to be fancy, I mean he was forever
wearing the Harvard shirt. Yet not that he went there,
not remotely, no, which is not a dig on wherever
(15:29):
you went. But it's just he wanted to be perceived
as that. And Gulayne was known more than almost anything
as a connector. She connected people and so and so
maybe you can scratch so and so's.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
Back, and just to that point, you know, going back
to when she was in Britain, you know, this is
somebody who was you know, had access to the palace right,
who had access to the royal family. And her father was,
you know, a media mogul of sorts, and he was
allegedly her favorite and even named his yacht after his
you know, beloved Gilain daughter. And you know, to your point,
(16:05):
she totally idolized him. So in many ways she had
to leave there to be able to sort of start
over because she was she was ashamed. You know, it
turns out dad was a complete liar and as a result,
she was kind of left penniless and the family was shamed,
and she started over again by coming to the United States,
(16:27):
you know, meets Epstein, allegedly another scoundrel. And is that
an example of an amazing trauma bond, toxic relationships that
are brought together. Were they together, They were very much together. Yes,
they were together, and she apparently idolized him and adored
him much like her you know deceased now father, and
(16:47):
the father did die under suspicious circumstances, if I'm not mistaken.
You know, it was either a suicide or he was killed.
There there was something kind of odd about it. And
then you find out he actually had no money, that's right, So.
Speaker 4 (16:59):
Either he whether he jumped off this yacht or was
thrown off this yacht, no one knows the clear answer
on that, but it was very strange.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
It's very strange. So then she gets with Epstein, and
those two, you know, were a socialite couple, very divine,
hobnobbing in the big leagues. And then it turns out,
you know, her boyfriend has a bit of a sexual
appetite for young ladies. And this is where it gets
a little creepy. So I mean, that's an understatement. Yeah,
(17:28):
there's not a word to actually use that will make
sense in this case. So I guess they split up.
She still pines for him, and maybe in an effort
to keep him, she starts feeding the beast. Right, she
starts grooming young girls, bringing young girls into the equation,
what point do you make that concession?
Speaker 5 (17:46):
Like, Okay, well, to keep this guy, I'm gonna feed
this disgusting, illegal, disgusting thing.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
But again, if you's coming from a scenario where her dad,
again I'm not justifying it, but just for the play along,
is her backround an example of where her boundaries may
have already been stretched. You know, sometimes we choose what's
that famous saying, we choose a familiar hell to an
unfamiliar heaven. It's like, what she knew was this kind
(18:12):
of behavior. So she starts feeding the beast. That beast
gets bigger and bigger and bigger. And you know, we
know at this point Epstein was not a financier. You know,
he was many things, but no one can really understand
where his money fully came from. Yet he was hanging
out with the big leagues. Wow.
Speaker 5 (18:30):
While you're listening to True Crime tonight on iHeart Radio,
I'm Body Moven and I'm here with Courtney Armstrong and
Stephanie Leidecker, and right now we're talking about Epstein's circle,
in particular Glane Maxwell. We want to hear from you,
So give us a call at eighty to eight thirty
one Crime or use the talkbacks on the iHeart radio
app and give.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Us a little message.
Speaker 5 (18:48):
Courtney, Yes, what do you think happened to Glane to
make I just can't get I can't let go of
the fact that she made these concessions, like in her mind.
Do we know like what her firm, did she testify
to anything, like what her first concession was? Did she ever?
Speaker 4 (19:05):
Well, I don't think this woman had to argue with
her own this is my perspective of it.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Yeah, I don't think she was arguing.
Speaker 4 (19:12):
With her own morals very hard or long or at all,
because really I think that to whatever means possible, she
was to keep him for clause on this man, and
also to keep herself happy and keep herself rich and
keep herself true.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
It's a very good point. Course. Yeah, I'm strong because
she didn't have her own money at this point. Now, well,
and that's my understanding too. She even would participate in
some of these activities.
Speaker 4 (19:38):
Yes, and it was when in watching we spoke about
the other night Filthy Rich and the Glaine Maxwell portion
of it. Yes, she was going out and she would
go to Bendel's or other fancy department stores and find
a young girl working at the front and say, oh,
you want.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
To go to what college? Oh?
Speaker 4 (19:58):
Absolutely, I know a guy who knows a guy will
will help you figure out an internship. Just come on
over to the house. And she was doing this as
many as three times a day. I forget if this
was a reporter saying this or one of the victims,
but she was feeding him up to three victims a
day at certain points.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Can you imagine, So it's not horrible, who's living in
a really fancy place in New York City? That Brownstone is,
you know, like no other. And also in West Palm
Beach where he was also brought up on charges and
kind of slapped on the wrist for all intentsive purposes.
Let loose again on in the wild bought an island,
you know little Saint John's slate, Little Saint John's or
(20:42):
Little Saint Thomas Again. It's like, if we know this
monster exists and that the clients are so high profile,
why are we not just releasing it. Just because you
went to the island doesn't necessarily mean you did something nefarious.
If you have nothing to hide then let it rip
like you said you would not, even as though we
(21:02):
were begging for it. I mean, I guess we've all
been begging for thisized and it's coming. It's coming, no
matter what side of the equation you're on politically. Don't
get me started. But yeah, Guilay Maxwell, now behind bars,
is trying to get herself released. I'm sure well she is.
Speaker 5 (21:19):
Actually, she filed the DOJ had the deadline was yesterday,
remember to file the objection to her appeal. So Jeffrey
Epstein pled, and part of his plea agreement was this
term that none of his co conspirators would be prosecuted. Right,
that was the like one of the arrangements. And part
of her argument for her appeal is like, hey, listen,
(21:42):
you said in this plea agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that
nobody else would be prosecuted. Why am I in prison?
And now on top of that, there's no client list,
there's you're not releasing anything.
Speaker 4 (21:53):
So who's the victim here exactly? It's very curious to
me legally. I'm just trying to work that out.
Speaker 5 (22:00):
The appeal was filed a while ago, the clientlest not
being released and whatnot is totally new and it wasn't
part of the appeal. I'm just throwing that in there
as myself.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
Yeah, I understand that.
Speaker 4 (22:09):
What is confusing to me is the fact that if
my timeline's correct, it may not be Epstein went child
first and then he pled out and in his plea agreement,
as you just said, Boddie, it said no one that
what was the word cotors a co conspirator. Then A
I'm curious how Gulaye Maxwell even was actually persecuted unless
(22:34):
it's the fact that Jeffrey Epstein said she is innocent
of everything, which I have heard Epstein say that in recordings.
So maybe that was the problem that he said, oh,
she was totally innocent, and that nullified her as being
a co conspirator.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
Do you understand, I do, I absolutely do. I just
don't know. I thought the co conspirator agreement that was
given to Epstein came from his previous case in West
Palm Beach. Oh, maybe in two thousand and eight we'll
do a fact check on this, because it's all important stuff.
And now that raises the question where is Jeffrey Epstein
(23:10):
getting in all of his money? Allegedly Les Wexner, who
is the person who owned Victoria's secret and the limited
you know, a billionaire. Dare I say that there was
some connection between Epstein and Wexner and you know, the
depths of which we do not know, and nor do
we understand fully what that means. I guess I feel
(23:33):
like I'm just losing the plot line here, Like, what's
the plot line? It's not Democrat versus Republican that I know,
So let's go a step larger. What's the plot line
and mutually throwing you know, all big names around, et cetera,
But like, what is the bigger picture? I feel a
little lost in the sauce and I think them versus us? Right, yeah,
(23:53):
And personally it makes me feel scared. You should be.
I'm a little terrified actually myself.
Speaker 5 (23:59):
Well, coming up now the story of infamous serial killer
who was denied parole again for the eighth time just
this week. Stick around for True Crime tonight where we're
talking true crime all the time.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
So we've been talking a lot about Epstein and Delane Maxwell,
and again we want to hear from you. Eight eight
eight three one crime. Please jump in join the combo.
We actually have a talkback right now. A Hi.
Speaker 7 (24:31):
My name is Sarah again, and I was wondering if
you guys think that the victim of Broome has to
be a child or a minor. I only ask because
I feel like there are certain instances where somebody has
influenced like money. I'm thinking of like Diddy and the
idea of persuading someone slowly into your life to do
things and then all of a sudden it's something it
(24:51):
wasn't in the beginning. What do you guys think about that?
Speaker 2 (24:54):
That's a good question, great one, go ahead. Who wants
to go first? Yeah? I think I'll chime in that
it is a great question.
Speaker 4 (25:01):
And it's interesting to think is there a line or
if there isn't, should there be a line? And it's
one of those things I almost I don't think there
should be because there are so many different power dynamics.
I mean, you can really take anything, Like your employer
has power over you because they supply you money to
pay your bills. So it seems like that could be
(25:23):
a person who could groom you. So now, I bottom
line know, I don't think that you need to be
a child. I think given circumstances, anyone can be a victied.
Speaker 5 (25:31):
I think I'm going to disagree, respectfully disagree. I think grooming,
when somebody is called groomer, I think it has a
connotation to it, and I think it it has the
idea that they're grooming somebody who's vulnerable and not able
to concede, not able to consent, you know, and that
usually implies like a minor or a protected person of
some kind, maybe somebody with some mental disabilities. I think
(25:55):
when you say grooming can happen to adults who are
capable of making their own decisions and whatnot, I think
it it waters down the word.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
It's so funny because I you know, I think a
groomer can really just go for anybody who's vulnerable, right,
So even adults could find themselves in very vulnerable situations.
And sometimes victims feel extra shame because they're like, Wow,
I'm a grown adult, how did I get groomed into
this situation? Because you know, look, power, fame, you know anything,
(26:25):
you know, holding family relationships over your head, promise of
a job, et cetera, or a promise of love. Maybe
even at its core, yes, it does have this underage connotation,
but I think it does be a different room very easily.
And I also fear that if you find yourself in
a situation where you're like, well, how did this happen?
(26:46):
You know, because it's slow and steady, and they know
that you want something, or you want to be loved,
or you're in a desperate or vulnerable moment in your life,
somebody who's looking to take advantage of that can really
crack the doors open, and that can be so garrassing
for victims. So I would hate for someone to feel
extra shame just because of their age, because sometimes you know,
(27:09):
we just sometimes don't know, You don't know that the
big bad world is sometimes out to get you and body.
Speaker 4 (27:14):
Because I absolutely I hear your point, and I do
feel like there does need to be some sort of
dependency again, whether it's financial, whether it's this.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just thinking
through what you said.
Speaker 4 (27:26):
But let me ask you this. So, given the age parameter,
which is a totally reasonable boundary to set, and maybe
the legal one, I would need.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
To look that up.
Speaker 4 (27:35):
Given that, would you consider what we were just speaking
about with Jeffrey Epstein and Gulaye Maxwell, with her grooming,
where she would go and entice women. I'm not talking
about someone who's fourteen or seventeen. I'm talking about someone
who is of age. Do you think Gulaene Maxwell going
(27:57):
and bit by bit and saying, oh, oh hey, I
can help you and I'm gonna make your world better.
Speaker 5 (28:03):
Okay, you're shaking your head, so that's you don't know.
I think that's just manipulation. I think everybody does to
get into relationships with other people. I think everybody puts
their best foot forward. When you're entering some kind of
relationship with somebody and they're not, you know, you're you're
kind of masking who you really are.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
Everybody does that, you think, yes, everybody I've dated, Yeah,
I know you don't do that. I disagree with that.
I do disagree with that. I don't think you.
Speaker 5 (28:29):
Don't think when you meet somebody, you're not you're not
getting their best, their best foot forward. You don't think,
yeah at first I the first date self is what
I'm talking about. I'm not talking about hiding like that
they're a serial killer, like, and I'm just like, you
put your best foot forward. You know, you look nice,
you smell good, your hair is done. You know, they
don't get to see when you're just waking up and
(28:49):
you're like a monster and you got like the breath
of the devil.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
You know, By the way, So are you grooming me
right now? You look so beautiful, You're all dolled up,
you have full makeup, look like a million bucks? Am
I getting groomed right now? Because sometimes there is a
difference between yeah, like you know, presenting yourself. You know,
I do your best way.
Speaker 5 (29:10):
I just don't want to water down a word that's critical,
and grooming is a word that I think the masses
a tribute to pre predator behavior behavior right.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
About a cult? So many of the cults, for example,
you know how first of all, it's shocking that I'm
not in Welt. How did I get into cults? You
know what I mean? So as an adult, you're in
the Bravo cult. Right, Maybe that's fair, that is fair,
But you know, like adults get pulled into cults all
the time, and they're like being manipulated and they're being
(29:46):
promised a bigger future heaven above, and next thing you know,
you're drinking the kool aid.
Speaker 6 (29:51):
Right.
Speaker 5 (29:51):
I just think grooming is just a strong word. I
think that's more like coercion or manipulation, grooming and listen,
I want to hear you. Give us a call at
eight eight eight thirty one crime or use the talkbacks
on the iHeartRadio app. We're kind of in the middle
of this grooming conversation, which I'm kind of obsessed with
right now.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
It's a good conversation like hair and makeup.
Speaker 5 (30:11):
No, Like you know, when I'm when I'm thinking of grooming,
I'm thinking of, let's just you know, the stereotypical man
or woman of power of some kind. You know, whether
it's a teacher or somebody that has some kind of
control influencing a minor or a vulnerable person. And by
(30:31):
vulnerable person, I mean somebody who cannot consent or make
their own decisions into bad things. I'm not thinking of
like relationships, And I'm thinking of somebody that's a predator,
like like a legal predator. And I think if we
wash that word down, the people that are predators or
whatnot aren't getting are kind of getting off scott free
(30:52):
because they can say, oh, well, groomer just means I
you know what about.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
I hear you on that just for the play along.
So going back to the Sean diddy Combe's case, and
he had some of his victims, some of whom were
ex girlfriends of his who maybe hadn't participated in so
many you know, exotic sexual things, but to please him,
to make him happy, to get you know, little by
(31:17):
little next thing. You know, there's this little added thing,
next thing. You know, there's this little added thing. Would
that be considered grooming? Not in my opinion interesting? But
I might listen. I might be the odd ball here.
I might be wrong too. I'm looking it up right now.
What's the actual definition, just so we're hearing it.
Speaker 4 (31:34):
By the way, about it, I definitely respect, not wanting
to move the line lest it lose power. It loses
I'll give you a pet peeve of mine. It's different,
but triggered forever. Everyone's you know, triggered because you look
at them the wrong way versus.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
You had you know, an actual an actual trigger trigger. Right, yeah,
so right, anyway, here's the actual definition of grooming. Grooming
is not just about physical abuse, It's about psychological manipulation.
The goal is to break down boundaries, make the victim
feel dependent, often to normalize abuse so the victim doesn't
recognize what's happening to them until it's too late. Stages
(32:12):
of grooming targeting the vulnerable victim often considered underage or
someone who lacks emotional supervision or agency of themselves, but
that could be an adult. I think trust. You know,
abuser acts kind, helpful, generous, offering things that are of
value to their victim and fulfilling a need. They promise gifts, attention, affection, mentorship,
(32:35):
and promises of success, and also isolate them, perhaps from
their their greater community or your family, people who would
be like, really, this clown. You know you're getting manipulated,
my friend. We all need that friend who can sort
of give it to you straight and then control an exploitation.
And yeah, this happens online a lot as well. Something
just to be mindful of.
Speaker 5 (32:57):
I guess very vulnerable. I think the key word there
is vulnerable. And I didn't mean like adults can't be vulnerable,
because certainly they can, you know, like, of course adults
can be vulnerable. But I just think that the word
loses its power if we apply it to every situation
where we got manipulated or coursed. Yeah that's just my opinion,
and I listen, I'm okay, with being wrong with it.
Speaker 4 (33:18):
I'm totally okay, no, it is an opinion, so there, yeah, yeah,
And I like that we're talking about it, and again,
like you know, anyone listening, please join the conversation.
Speaker 2 (33:27):
We want to hear your stories, you know, because also
I just don't want people to be afraid to come
forward with their their feelings of being victimized, because it's
just incredibly embarrassing if you're an adult, or you feel
too much shame because you know you didn't know better.
Speaker 5 (33:44):
So they we're talking about it. Yeah, I don't want
anybody to think that. I you know, if you came
forward with the story, I would think, oh, you weren't groomed.
I mean I'm not a you know, a heartless woman.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
Of course, an incredible event.
Speaker 5 (33:55):
I just you know, I just feel like, you know,
the vulnerable and kids need a special protection and grooming
is the word that we've decided as society to use
for them, and we should reserve it for them.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
M hm. I guess love bombing is another version of
grooming or is it someone comes in?
Speaker 5 (34:11):
I know that's another word. It's like the word trigger.
I hate the action of blah, but I can tell
when it's happening, and it's like, oh, I can't.
Speaker 2 (34:20):
It just grosses me out. Yeah, it's such a red flag.
Speaker 4 (34:23):
I can Okay, I'm not going to out my husband
on a red flag, but honor and he was he.
Speaker 2 (34:28):
Actually he was not a great bomber, his husband.
Speaker 4 (34:31):
But our very first date was two days before my birthday,
and he had when we were walking into the date,
I was confirming with someone, yes, that's my birthday plans,
and he said, oh, I wish you told me.
Speaker 2 (34:44):
I said why. He said, I would have brought you something.
And I said, you don't know me like I was.
You're a tough cookie, though you are.
Speaker 4 (34:53):
You are.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
Courtney is like the barometer of what's what you know.
I'll leave a situation and be like that was a
They seem wonderful, and then Courtney gets in the car
is like hard. Note.
Speaker 5 (35:05):
I think the reason you haven't joined a cult is
because of Courtney.
Speaker 2 (35:11):
The night is still young, The night is still young.
Speaker 5 (35:14):
If you want Stephanie to join your cult, give us
a call at eighty and eight thirty one Crime and
tell us about your cult. She might be interested, especially
if you guys have Bravo.
Speaker 2 (35:25):
My summer house rules true. Hey, we have ourselves a caller, Elon,
Welcome to the show. What's your question?
Speaker 8 (35:32):
Hi, there have an epscene inquiry. I've worked with medical
examiners before that go out to the scene for a suicide,
and I am just perplexed why Epsteine was removed and
taken to a hospital before anything was done with his body,
like whether pictures taken up the scene. I'm just unsure.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
It's so funny you say that because we had Joseph
Scott Morgan, the forensics expert, on Sunday and he had
shared with us the autopsy photographs, and I had a
similar question because he had made mention that they were
taken at the coroner's office. And to your point, oftentimes
a medical examiner or a coroner will go to the
scene and as a result, there was that puddling in
(36:15):
the back of his back, Courtney that you had noted,
and that seemed it was because it had been sitting
for a while, or he had been sitting for a while,
and it maybe had been in a refrigerator if I'm
remembering Christley. Yes first, well, so gross. Sorry, but I
have that same thought, and I regret not asking, and
I feel like we should phone a friend right now.
It's a little late to call Joseph, but I kind
(36:37):
of want to. That's a great question.
Speaker 5 (36:39):
We know for sure that there weren't photos taken from
the inside. Look, I actually like I could from us right, Yeah,
there could be different.
Speaker 4 (36:48):
We don't know for a certain tude. We do know
for a certain tude that the photos that we were
seen from the autopsy those are the autopsy photos. And
we do know that there were photos taken when the
body and.
Speaker 5 (37:01):
We've seen the photos from inside the cell, but none
of Epstein in the cell.
Speaker 2 (37:06):
Right, No, we've seen the photos in the cell. That
was you know, a mess right, it was messy. It
was kind of disastrous, which seemed interesting just because you know,
you think of a cell, it's supposed to be so
neat and tidy. You know, you're cleaning everything with a toothbrush,
is at least how we picture it. Apparently that was
not the case. That also kind of makes you think
of maybe there was a hustle or a stir or
(37:27):
some sort of something active happened, which maybe would not
be the case in a suicide. And then we saw
the photographs that seem to have been taken while he
was on a gurney, right, and those photographs, Yeah, those
definitely were not in the cell, at least not the
ones that I see. Well he's wearing he's wearing like
a hospital gown. Yeah, yeah, photos. Right, thank you so much.
(37:49):
That's so interesting.
Speaker 4 (37:50):
I love to Actually, we want to try and find
out that information because I feel like, honestly, it's necessarily
going to be. Yeah, it's necessarily you're hanging. It's necessarily
a suicide or a homicide. It's not one hundred. I
can't imagine have natural causes you think.
Speaker 5 (38:07):
I can't imagine that some sort of medical officer didn't
visit him in the cell.
Speaker 2 (38:12):
I do find that hard to imagine.
Speaker 5 (38:13):
I can't imagine they just put him on a in
a body bag and no put attendance to Joseph on
his podcast body Bags, which we love, that they put
him in a body bag and shipp him off to
the medical examin er.
Speaker 2 (38:23):
I can't imagine that somebody didn't come out like. I
can't either. But the question that Elon raised is very curious. Ballent.
Speaker 4 (38:29):
We just listed off a bunch of pictures that we
have seen, and none of them include right, you know
the crime, the crime scene with the body.
Speaker 2 (38:40):
I wish I hadn't seen your photos. They really disturbed me.
They didn't bother me stuff. I know, you guys were
pretty good sports about it.
Speaker 4 (38:47):
Well, I didn't like being surprised, and I saw it
after I said, oh, I said that I don't like us,
and then I started studying.
Speaker 5 (38:53):
It and now I was like pension on my phone
and zooming in a problem too.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
But I but I like it like you. I would
for whatever reason, it really like got in my gourd
a little bit for what it was.
Speaker 5 (39:06):
I think if it was like a victim, it would
like a murder victim or somebody I cared about, I
would bother me. But Epstein, Okay, that looks good to
met them off.
Speaker 2 (39:15):
Well, you know, and thank you for the call. Keep
them coming, everybody, eight eight eight three one crime. We're
going to be right back talking more about the Hillside
Strangler serial killer. Yeek, body's been following that closely. This
is true crime tonight. We're talking true crime all the time,
(39:40):
So we're going to be kind of switching gears a
little bit to the Hillside Strangler serial killer. If you
haven't heard about him, he's actually been denied parole for
the eighth time, and body's been following this very clearly
and carefully. And also later in the show, God, well,
when we get to it, we're going to be unpacking
(40:00):
this Abercrombie and Fitch international sex scandal. I mean, my goodness,
it never seems to end on that front. And also
a little bit more on the Gary coleman Lie Detector
ex wife mess. More on that to come. So, Courtney,
where would you like to begin?
Speaker 4 (40:19):
So the Travis Decker search, it sadly has not concluded,
and Travis Decker is the man we may remember. He
it's alleged that he murdered his three young daughters, all
under the age of ten. There has been a gigantic
multi agency search for him. But what was breaking news
(40:40):
was we found him for a moment. And unfortunately, it
turns out that a hiker named Nick just had a
really bad case of mistaken identity and he only learned
that he was the actual subject of the police search
when a friend texted him about the man hunt and
(41:01):
he immediately contacted the authorities confirmed he wasn't Decker, and
he voluntarily, as I said, did reach out and said
I quote, oh my god, they think I was that guy.
So in fact, Nick was not that guy. And uh
so good news for Nick. He is free to continue hiking.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
And I wonder how he knew they were talking about him.
I guess the tattoos. They were like the tattoos, and they
said that he had the ear plug. Yeah, it was
pretty specific. And by the way, that could be very dangerous.
There could have been a vigilante on the loose that said,
you know, oh, that's the kid killer, the man that
murdered his three daughters. Thank god, taking out myself.
Speaker 5 (41:44):
The family that saw him contacted the authorities, right, well,
thank god they did what they were supposed to do.
They didn't take the law into their own hands. They
called the authorities. Thank god, you know, and thank god
Nick wasn't hurt. My goodness, imagine. And so there was
that what do you have body, Beyonce? I got listen,
(42:04):
I'm on Beyonce's Internet. I'm willing to talk about Beyonce. Okay,
let's go beyond this. I didn't know this happened. So
during Beyonce's Cowboy Carter tour stop in Atlanta on July
eighth last week, thieves broke into a vehicle belonging to
her choreographer Christopher Grant and dancer DeAndre Blue, and they
stole a bunch of stuff. And one of the things
(42:25):
that they stole were some flash drives with unreleased music,
set lists and show footage plans, along with like some
designer items and electronics. And so now this, you know,
Beyonce's tour is kind of in jeopardy because this, this
unreleased music is supposed to be done at the last
leg of her concert, isn't that right?
Speaker 2 (42:46):
Wow? Like it's compromised. It's compromised.
Speaker 5 (42:50):
And so the Atlanta Police Department is tracked stolen laptops
and AirPods, identified a suspect vehicle and may have attained Oh,
they have obtained an ear to warrant, though no arrest
has been made. Beyonce's tour in Atlanta wrapped up in
July fourteenth, with a tour continuing through July twenty sixth
in fabulous Las Vegas where I live.
Speaker 2 (43:10):
Wow, that would be such a big pace of theft.
Speaker 4 (43:14):
I mean, what is the monetary value putting on that?
Speaker 2 (43:19):
Millions?
Speaker 5 (43:20):
I want to know why unreleased music is sitting on
an unsecure flash drive in somebody's car.
Speaker 2 (43:26):
That's a good point. Comfortable oversight, that's f Yeah, but
like also you're comfortable, you know, you're on the road.
Who hasn't been on the road sometimes? I mean I
haven't been on a concert tour, but you know, on
TV shows and things, you get on the road to
get comfortable. After a while, you're not.
Speaker 5 (43:43):
Really but still it's an unsecure I mean, I'm guessing
it's an unsecure flush Listen, if you're Beyonce's like manager
or whatever, hit me up. I'll help you secure that
stuff on your flush drives. Like, let's get some protection
for that stuff. Like, come on, you tell us in
general about protection?
Speaker 2 (43:57):
Is there anything that just like the wise women we
are need to know that, just like the basics, don't
get on the internet. Oh, don't get on the internet.
So like, if you're on the internet, you're curious, you're
you're in troubled waters. That's a whole other show.
Speaker 5 (44:13):
I mean, it's a whole there's a whole nother show.
Like fine, one thing I will tell you is keep
your things private. Don't post things from inside your house
on Instagram. You know, things like that. You know, that's
why I wonder one of the reasons I never film
in my home. For the shows that I've been on,
I've been three or four shows now, none of them are.
Speaker 2 (44:31):
Filmed in my home. You have a little fake home. Yeah,
they get airbnbs h Yeah, we do that as well
for people and there, you know, just for their security, right,
you know.
Speaker 5 (44:41):
I think, well, I think that's how possibly Brian Coberger
from you know, of course the murder of the College
Idaho student murders.
Speaker 2 (44:50):
I think that's how he kind of knew the layout
of the home. Yeah, that's kind of my takeaway too,
having you know, quick ninded the podcast together and then
having now done the doc sort of the take away
way really was you have to really be careful of
what you're posting. We all do it, but we all
go in stores and entrances and exits in your mailbox
number or your car license plate, you know, just like
(45:13):
the stuff that's in the background. That can be really
telling if you're a weirdo looking to find out more
about a person.
Speaker 4 (45:20):
And you're aware about you know, instead of I'm about
to be on vacation for ten days, which is basically
just a sign saying come rob my empty house.
Speaker 2 (45:31):
Yeah, that happens a lot too. It does happen most
from vacation.
Speaker 9 (45:34):
Either.
Speaker 2 (45:34):
If you're going to post about your vacation, do it
when you're back, exactly, exactly.
Speaker 5 (45:39):
Yeah, don't be like I'm in Barcelona. Yeah, my house
full of all my electronic equipment is you know, available
for you, and it's unprotected and unsecured. My bitcoin wallet
is available as well. You know, don't do that. Those
are really simple, simple things. But yeah, you're listening to
true Crime tonight on iHeartRadio. I'm body Moved and I'm
(45:59):
here with Stephanie and Courtney and we're about to get
into the Hillside Strangler. If you want to weigh in,
give us a call at eighty eight thirty one Crime
or leave us a talkback Courtney.
Speaker 2 (46:09):
What do we got? Okay?
Speaker 4 (46:11):
So, the convicted Hillside Strangler, he's a serial killer aka
Kenneth Bianki. He since changed his name though, real quick
about that. So Kenneth Bianki. People know the name Kenneth Bianki.
If you are into your crime, you know Kenneth Bianki
is the Hillside Strangler. He changed his name in twenty
twenty three to something to motto Anthony Demo Anthony Demoto.
Speaker 5 (46:32):
Thank you in twenty twenty three, and the reasons for
that change have never really been made public, but a
lot of people think it's to distance himself from like
his past, right, Like, he's a new person for potential
parole hearings. So keeping that in mind, keeping that in mind,
So his new legal name is Anthony Dimatto. We're gonna
(46:53):
call him the Hillside Strangler for the purposes of the show,
but keeping that in mind, Go ahead, Courtney, yep.
Speaker 2 (46:59):
Okay, stand the rational more.
Speaker 4 (47:01):
Yeah, So Hillside Strangler has been denied prol and this
is the eighth time in his forty six years behind bars,
and he'll be eligible again in a decade. So we
thought this was a good time to go into the
Hillside Strangler because it's sort of a name a lot
of people know but don't know a lot about the background.
Speaker 2 (47:20):
Right.
Speaker 4 (47:20):
So, he has admitted to five murders in California and
two in Washington State. But then he seemed to have
changed his tune and said, oh no, I'm innocent. I
was coerced by hypnotic manipulation.
Speaker 5 (47:36):
Right, and he like he basically was trying to come
up with an insanity defense. Right, he was trying to
say that, you know, despite him pleaing guilty and despite
his confession, he insisted over appeal left or appeal and whatnot,
that he was innocent and he was coerced and he
had this hypnotic manipulation and all the facts of his
(47:57):
confession did not match the physical evidence, which is some
semi true, but he was They found him to be lying.
Bianki eventually pled guilty to the because he murdered throughout
Washington in California, and he pled guilty to the Washington
murders and the five murders in California testifying against his cousin.
(48:17):
By the way, that's why oftentimes you'll hear hillside strangler
or hillside stranglers because his cousin was also involved. Which
is very very interesting because normally serial killers is one
you don't share, you know, most in many, many times,
serial killers it's a very intimate thing, right, It's very private.
(48:40):
It's obviously you're not going to go around saying you're
still care serial killer. And it's also special to that person.
It's like their special thing, right, their thing, and so
it's often not shared with the experience is not shared
with other people. And that's why the Hillside strangler is
so interesting. Well, one of the reasons because he did
share this with a cousin.
Speaker 2 (49:00):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (49:01):
Yeah, And do we know how many of the crimes
the cousin are?
Speaker 5 (49:06):
Just not off hand? I don't not off hand. You know,
it's been so long. This happened in the seventies. I
was like two years old, so it's it's something that
you know, I just gave away my age. Oh my god,
it's not good, thank you. So it's not something that I,
you know, of course, was old enough to follow as
it was happening, so I was always going, you know,
back in time about it. So I don't really know
(49:27):
how many the cousin was involved with. I think it's
the five in California, but I could be wrong about that.
If you know, let us know, give us a call,
eighty to eight thirty one crime, let's talk about it.
Speaker 2 (49:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (49:37):
Absolutely, And it just seemed I mean, do you even
stand a chance Is it even worth anyone's time to
go before a parole board if you're a convicted serial murderer.
Speaker 5 (49:50):
I don't think so. I don't think so. I mean, no,
I don't. I think it's a waste of time. But
I think they have to procedurally do it, right. I
think it's a now Brian k Coberger won't because he
has life without the possibility of role.
Speaker 2 (50:06):
Right, so he won't right to sign it. I mean,
I think the purpose of prison is rehabilitation. I do.
I believe in that.
Speaker 5 (50:15):
I do think it can work, possibly for the Menenda's brothers,
for instance, who have seemed to flourish and done well
in prison and maybe have changed, you know, their outlook
on life and aren't going to kill people. And of
course they've killed people that were close to them, so
they're probably not a danger to society at large. But
people like this are a danger to society at large.
(50:37):
So I think it requires a little bit more rehabilitation.
And I just don't think they can be rehabilitated.
Speaker 2 (50:43):
That's exactly right.
Speaker 4 (50:44):
And I just if you could see what was going on,
I was raising my hands up, like, what do you mean?
Of course you are a danger to society. I mean
there are different levels that I think all of us
in society, you know, cand of agree on. If you're
out literally discriminately murdering to please yourself, it's probably not
(51:05):
a thing that's gonna change any time too soon in
your DNA.
Speaker 5 (51:10):
No, No, I don't think so. But you know, he's
seventy four. Now, he is seventy four, So his next
PARL hearing, he'll be eighty four years old and he's
been in jail forty five years? Is that long enough time?
Do you think to heal somebody to be a new person.
Speaker 2 (51:25):
I don't know. I know I'm a different person. Listen.
Speaker 5 (51:28):
I'm fifty. I just gave my age away. But I
am a different person than I was when I was thirty.
You know, I'm a completely different person. But I was
never a demon, you know what I mean. I was
never a serial killer or even remotely you know, in
that frame of mind. So I don't know if that's
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (51:46):
Yeah, I'm going to hold on my standard of serial
killers with again the indiscriminate killing. You can stay where
you are and listen, we have a talk back. Let's
go to that first.
Speaker 10 (51:57):
Hi, I just want to add something on the Epstein
video thing. I used to work loss prevention in a
different life and in my experience using multiple different types
of DVRs and brands as models. When you're missing footage,
it's because either the camera itself was down intentionally, maybe
the system was shut off from maintenance, or the camera
itself was set to motion to safe space on the DVR.
But it doesn't seem like that was the case. So
(52:19):
I think the problem with BONDI in this administration is
they think they're the smartest people in the room and
they're not.
Speaker 5 (52:25):
I'd rate him, Yeah, seriously, you know there was in
twenty twenty three, the doj oh I DO report noted
chronic camera failures at this facility where Epstein was the MCC,
including outages in the shoe, which is where Epstein was,
further complicating the integrity or the surveillance.
Speaker 2 (52:45):
So he's got a really good point and also just
the idea of being the smartest in the room. And
I guess that goes back to your original point by
the earlier in the show. And by the way, if
you've missed any of the show, you can catch it
right after as a podcast. So no sweat is that,
you know, Yeah, we feel like we're just being made
to feel foolish, like we all understand how to not everybody,
but you know, even in our work, we know how
(53:06):
to edit on Adobe. I feel like I could have
done a better job on that, and I'm a dumb
dumb you know, on editing, and it does. It feels
like we're just being tossed some silly information and expected
to just keep it. And again, this is not a
small matter. It's a really big deal. It's international sex
trafficking of young underage girls and that's got to stop. Yeah,
(53:29):
and I've really loved eight. Yes, it has to stop.
I totally agree with that, Steph, Stephanie. And then also
what you said with your talk.
Speaker 4 (53:38):
Back, You know how Bondie or whomever has a microphone
in front of them thinks of the smartest person in
the room at the moment.
Speaker 2 (53:45):
You know, for those who haven't been paying attention. Essentially,
this was this infamous client list that was being promised.
Then we were told there was no client list. Then
we were told no sweat as proof though that Epstein
actually did in fact commit suicide. We're going to release
this unedited, raw, eleven hour video, only to find out
that it was in fact edited. And then Pam Bondy,
(54:08):
whether it's just her or she's getting that order from above.
I have to assume many people were in the know
at this point basically said okay, sorry about that. It
was really just one minute that was missing, and that's
a common thing. You know, every night, at a certain hour,
one minute of a tape goes missing. Okay, So that's
like that was the bone they threw us. This was
(54:28):
just you know, moments ago, days ago, and now today
it's like, actually that's not true. It's actually almost three minutes.
And again it's like maybe the lie is just the
tip of the iceberg, and it just makes maybe all
of us And this is one thing, I like, the
all of us. We feel kind of this collective unity
of everyone feeling like, huh, you're gonna lie to us
(54:50):
about that? Well, what else is getting misrepresented to us
as a whole, not just as a political side. And
you know, maybe that's the only thing that good could
come out of this, is that we're kind of all
in unison right now as a community and as a country.
Maybe this is the thing that brings you know, Americans together. Yeah,
I think we all could agree we don't want this
(55:11):
to continue.
Speaker 5 (55:12):
Right, And I think it's important to note too that
we all expect that, you know, the metadata would show
that it was edited by a premiere pro because they
have to do with the extraction from the surveillance system
and it has to be then loaded onto some sort
of device for upload to the dj website. That's completely understandable,
and that's not what we're talking about. The metadata is
(55:35):
showing that the video was edited and saved many many
times over the course of like a three hour period,
and then of course we're missing you know, two minutes
and fifty eight seconds. So it's not that it was
you know, the metadata shows that it's been edited by Adobe.
It's the missing time and all the saves that are
the red flags. So yeah, that was the first report
(55:56):
from the digital forensics at people at Wired was that
it's missing minute. And you can clearly see you don't
need forensics to tell you that the time jumps from
you so shocking. It's a lesson eight to midnight, right, Yeah,
So that's the first excuse because that was the first
thing that was called up, Oh there's a minute missing.
Speaker 2 (56:12):
Well, that's like an snl skit.
Speaker 4 (56:15):
It's like candy gram like it's that obvious and ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (56:20):
And I guess it does show I guess to the
you know, caller's point. Maybe that's just the lead here
we are thought of as really dumb, right, and that
is pretty scary, and that the lead is that it's
really common to lie, whether that's to get into office
or to make big deals happen. Again, not Republicans or Democrats.
(56:41):
I think it's like everybody seems to be in on it,
and that we're the jokes, jokes on us.
Speaker 4 (56:47):
Well, I think things will continue coming to a head.
So let's see what kind of clarity maybe we all get. Maybe,
So this is true crime tonight. We are on iHeartRadio
Courtney arm Strong here with Body Moven and Stephanie Lydecker,
and we have just been talking about Epstein and the
tape and the leaks and the sex trafficking and all
(57:10):
of the above. We've been hearing from you and we
want to continue to do so. Always give us a call.
We're at eighty eight three to one Crime or you
can hit us on the talkbacks. But now we're going
to hop from that mess into another. And this is
the case.
Speaker 2 (57:28):
Yeah, that's.
Speaker 7 (57:31):
Right.
Speaker 5 (57:32):
I think that there's just so many of these stories.
Of course, we're going to be talking about the abercombian
Fitch story and the former CEO of Abercombie and Fitch
whose name is Michael Jeffries. He was charged with running
an inner national sex trafficking ring a couple of months
ago in May, and he unfortunately was found unfit to
(57:52):
stand trial because he has Alzheimer's. In the judges ordered
that he, you know, go to this medical facility to
be under observation to see because condition improves. So that's
kind of where we're at right now. But it just
seems like one scandal after another with these people, and
quite frankly, I'm tired of them. I'm tired of these
stories because it's just it's disgusting. It grosses me out
(58:15):
as a person, and it's just but it's happening right
under our noses.
Speaker 2 (58:20):
We have to talk about it. Some people are speculating online. Again,
I look at all the sources in terms of far right,
far left, and then everything in between. So you know,
there is chatter that this was a huge sex trafficking ring, right,
young boys being lured, drugged, you know, trafficked under the
(58:41):
guise of furthering their modeling career. Yeah, if I remember
that store, Abercrombie and Fitch, sure, you know, like they
always had like the young hot kind of you was
really more boys, right, like topless, good looking male models,
but they were young that were always like outside the
store kind of telling people to come in. It always
kind of melt like cologne. By the way, I used
(59:02):
to love this store, so they used to have the
best genes and probably still do. And sure enough, again
powerful people dragging these young boys and essentially drugging them
and sex trafficking them in a manner that is really
a hideous. But also the magnitude is pretty unparalleled, if
(59:23):
not by Epstein. It's again same level, same amount. I mean,
it's happening internationally, maybe at a different you know, Epstein's
a little bit more high profile men and maybe being blackmails,
right and in this case it's this is similar file men, Yeah,
taking these young boys and subjecting them to unspeakable things, right.
Speaker 5 (59:46):
Well, and it's alleged that he was working with his
romantic partner Matthew Smith and a third person, James Jacobson,
so the CEO, mister Jeffries, he would use those two
to lure men to see sex parties with the possibility
that they received modeling jobs. So it's kind of like
they were his glean. Maxwell exactly they were grooming dare
(01:00:09):
we say, right? So another version of grooming yet again.
And it's so sick and it's been happening for so long.
Speaker 2 (01:00:15):
So a like gross as it is, Thank god we're
talking about it, so at least we know what to
look for in the world. Also, some we're saying that,
you know, maybe all this EPSTEINSS and the Diddy case
was a distraction to get us off of this case,
because it's also massive and by the way, it hasn't
gotten a ton of mainstream news. I haven't seen this
on the ticker on just about any network that I watch,
(01:00:38):
and all there was a documentary about that.
Speaker 4 (01:00:41):
There was It was actually a documentary from the BBC
that broke the story. And the allegations are that all
of the nefarious things you guys have been speaking about
it went on from all the way from two thousand
and eight till about twenty fifteen. Dozens of men were involved,
(01:01:01):
and as you said, it was you know, using his
position to cource these victims into sexually exploitative situations. And
it was really according they were forced into having sex,
they were forced to have alcohol and drugs and viagra,
So it was really brutal.
Speaker 9 (01:01:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (01:01:24):
And they used their money and influence, just like Jeffrey
Epstein right to prey on these vulnerable men. I mean,
and they used, of course the underlings, these two other men,
his romantic partner and another guy to lure these men
to these parties.
Speaker 2 (01:01:38):
Can it be any creepy or too?
Speaker 9 (01:01:40):
Like?
Speaker 2 (01:01:40):
Why are all of these people into underage sex?
Speaker 9 (01:01:44):
Like?
Speaker 2 (01:01:44):
Can we just knock it off with the grossness? It's
just so inappropriate, And it's amazing to me that this
is so widespread. We always heard about it. It always
seemed like something that the weirdo down the block maybe did.
But we're talking about really successful, influential peace people who
could have very healthy lives. It's so scary. Honestly, hold
your baby's clothes. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (01:02:06):
Well, for an update on where this is right now,
you know, he's in the hospital being observed for his
Alzheimer's to see if he can stand trial, and the
doctors are saying that you know, he's an older man
and based on independent evaluations of three separate doctors, he
has severe dimension Alzheimer's, which ensures and this isn't quotes
(01:02:27):
ensures continuing decline over time.
Speaker 2 (01:02:29):
So it doesn't look like perfect, right, Yeah, it is
all nice. It was kind of like Weinstein, you know,
crawling in on a walker, I know it, you know,
or Cosby crawling in on a walker. How convenient, right?
They seemed pretty healthy when they were assaulting young men. Okay, well, anyway,
we're going to move on to lighter subjects. Dare I
say thank you for keeping his convo going eight eight,
(01:02:51):
eight to three one crime. We absolutely want to hear
from you. This is true crime tonight. We're talking in
true crime all the time. We're talking true crime all
the time. I'm Steph. I'm here with Courtney and body
(01:03:12):
and listen. We're so happy to be hearing from you.
Thank you for the calls. We have a talkback right now.
Speaker 6 (01:03:17):
Hi, this is Tam from Greenfield, Indiana. I'm the Brian Cooldberger.
Do you think that he took this play deal because
now he's going to make millions on a book deal,
And do the families have a way to file a
civil suit so that he cannot profit from that?
Speaker 5 (01:03:40):
Yeah, that's a got This is such a good question,
and it's actually a whole segment I wanted to propose.
I'm kind of glad we're talking about it. So Idaho.
First of all, the son of Sam Law. So if
you guys remember David Berkowitz, the son of Sam, Right,
he's the serial killer out of New York. Remember he
was saying his dog was telling him to kill people.
Speaker 2 (01:03:59):
Do you remember he was like going up to lovers
that were making out in their cars in New York
back in the day. Right, this is like in the seventies, right,
And he called himself the son of Sam because he
would write letters and Okay, so the son of Sam
Law was passed in New York because there were concerns
that he was going to sell his story and make money.
Speaker 5 (01:04:18):
So New York passed a son of Sam Law. And
what that basically said was you can't profit from your crime.
And other states kind of picked up that same in
the vein of the same son of Sam Law. Well
in I think the early nineties, the Supreme Court said
it's unconstitutional because it also prevented people from profiting from
(01:04:39):
even talking about the crime. So like, for instance, true
crime creators wouldn't it wouldn't be a thing, right, he decided,
So it became unconstitutional to have a son of Sam Law.
So states had kind of adapted the Son of Sam
law to fit, you know, constitutional requirements. Idaho has one,
(01:05:00):
but it doesn't prevent the person from speaking about or
profiting from the crime, but it does allow for the
families of the victims and other things to get the
restitution from the sales.
Speaker 2 (01:05:11):
Of those things. I see.
Speaker 5 (01:05:13):
Okay, So, because it has to be a really narrow
scope to be constitutionally appropriate, that's what Idaho decided to do.
You can, of course write a book and make profit
from it, but the family has the right to get
restitution based on that. So to answer the caller's question,
I don't necessarily think that's why he pled because he
(01:05:35):
wants a profit, because there will be no ability for
him to really profit from anything the fam I mean,
do you really think do you really think that Steve
Gonsalvez is going to let that happen?
Speaker 2 (01:05:44):
I certainly don't. Ooh, that's a tough one. I mean, man,
I would hope not. But we have seen, you know,
loved ones of killers make some money, and we know
full well that that money that a loved one perhaps
made was put to their defense, you know, a killer's
defense potentially. So that's complicated stuff. I would hope that
(01:06:05):
Brian Coburger does not see it dime. And even the
Karen Reid case, you know, like she obviously signed a
very lucrative book deal. We talked about that briefly yesterday,
and look, her life was put on hold. She's you know,
had to go through two trials. You know, no doubt
that's a financial, complete loss. I can only imagine how
(01:06:27):
intense that must be. So on the one hand, I'm like, oh,
I guess she should, you know, finally get paid and
maybe get her life back on track. And then on
the other You're like, you know, a person did die,
and you know, does that money or half of that
money go to John O'Keefe's family or something. Is there
some way that victims can also get some of that money.
(01:06:47):
It's a complicated one. That's tough. I don't know, you
would hope.
Speaker 4 (01:06:51):
But with Karen Reid being you know, she was not guilty,
so yeah, she's I mean, she didn't kill him, right,
right sort of law standard. She didn't kill them, So
certainly don't stand of someone who's convicted apply I hear
what you're saying in terms of being a tasteful human being.
Speaker 2 (01:07:11):
Well, speaking of Karen Reid.
Speaker 5 (01:07:13):
Can can we talk about this really closs this breaking
news about Karen Reid, And I don't really completely understand
this is breaking by the way, so a juror, So,
do you guys remember there was this federal probe into
the investigation of the Karen Reid case. Yes, and there
was a federal grand jury convened. And one of the
jurors who sat on this grand jury that heard evidence
(01:07:34):
about the FBI investigation into the case has pled guilty
to leaking secret information about the witnesses who testified and
what their testimony was. And it's not clear. Her name
is Jessica Leslie. It's not clear like what she leaked
or who she leaked it too, or even what the
information was used for or who it was used by. However,
(01:07:57):
she pled guilty, okay, and her sentence is one day, really.
Speaker 2 (01:08:03):
Day she has bananas. This goes back to the sequestering again.
I al, I struggle with this.
Speaker 5 (01:08:07):
People are really kind of worked up about this because
they're kind of wondering, like, Okay, this is a grand
juries are It's kind of like a sacred thing in
our country. It's secret, so very secret. What happens to
these grand juries, and so for her sentence to only
be one day, she violated one of the most sacred
tenets of our country, one of them.
Speaker 4 (01:08:27):
You know.
Speaker 5 (01:08:27):
Well, people are saying, is it possible she's working with
the United States government for further probes into this investigation?
Like so, but again, there's no proof of that. We
don't know.
Speaker 2 (01:08:42):
This is just what people are talking about online. Oh
so that suggestion.
Speaker 4 (01:08:47):
And I'm sounding a eureka ah, because we were talking
about this. I said, I don't understand the implications, but
hearing you describe it, body, do I understand it that
perhaps this means that there might be a federal case
into the matter of John o'keith's death that would be
completely separate from anything now I understand.
Speaker 2 (01:09:10):
I think, so, oh wow, that's interesting. So that would
be like the people, the people that were you know,
some of the cops that were brought into question. We
won't name names. That's interesting. This doesn't affect Karen Reid
and her verdict, however, No, not at all. I mean,
for sure, doesn't you just go to sleep for once
(01:09:30):
and have like nothing breathing down her throat?
Speaker 5 (01:09:33):
I tend to think it has to do with the
investigation itself, and not necessarily what happened to John O'Keefe.
I mean, obviously, I think that's incredibly important, and I
think there could be federal chargers brought to somebody for that.
But I think that it means something about the investigation.
But I don't know what the grand juror would have
to do with that. I don't know how I.
Speaker 2 (01:09:52):
Think it might be.
Speaker 5 (01:09:53):
I think it might be a way like a door
open to John O'Keefe's investigation. But it's interesting and it's
making the round, so I thought maybe know I bring
it up.
Speaker 4 (01:10:01):
Yeah, absolutely, Well, we'll definitely keep everyone updated as the
news comes out and listen. If you have any questions
or cases you wish we were following, give us a call.
We're at eighty eight three to one prime and we
do want to hear from you. And we actually have
another talking back also on Brian Coberger.
Speaker 2 (01:10:22):
Let's see. Oh hi, my.
Speaker 3 (01:10:24):
Name is Haley.
Speaker 9 (01:10:25):
I am curious as to when you think Brian Foldberger
best to his defense attorney that he was guilty. I'm
having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea
as a defense attorney to just send someone I know
is guilty of burnering for beautiful and experienced college students
just write features ahead of them.
Speaker 2 (01:10:47):
So that was kind of hard to hear.
Speaker 5 (01:10:48):
Can I read? Because we got we have a transcript
of what she said. She said, Hi, my name is Haley.
I'm curious as to when you think Brian Coberger confessed
to his defense attorney that he was guilty. I'm having
a hard time wrapping my head around the idea as
a defense attorney to defend somebody I know is guilty
of murdering four beautiful, innocent college students with bright features
(01:11:10):
ahead of them.
Speaker 2 (01:11:11):
That's a good question. And not only that, but Ann.
Speaker 5 (01:11:14):
Taylor was fully prepared to accuse and condemn four innocent
people of being alternate perpetrators in this crime. So I
have to think, you know, Anne Taylor is an excellent lawyer.
She has a really good reputation. She's death penalty qualified.
She's only one of a handful in the state of Idaho.
I have a hard time imagining she would be willing
(01:11:36):
to do that if she knew her client was guilty. So,
in my Pollyanna world, I want to say it came down.
Speaker 2 (01:11:42):
To the last minute. Oh what Courtney, you were going to.
Speaker 4 (01:11:46):
I was gonna say, Okay, Pollyanna, Pollyanna one hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (01:11:49):
I agree. I don't know.
Speaker 4 (01:11:51):
I mean, I certainly don't know at which point Coburger
did teal Anne Taylor. And I learned this from We've
had many conversation Stephanie and I with defense attorney Perknermi.
He defended Jody Arius as one of his many clients,
and I asked kind of the same question to him, Haley,
(01:12:12):
how do you know if you think someone's guilty or no,
it doesn't matter. It is your legal and ethical obligation
as a defense attorney, and particularly with the standard of
when you are defending someone against the death penalty, you
have to go forth with an absolutely vigorous defense. Now,
(01:12:33):
what you can't do is you can't perjure yourself. But
even that said, anything within the law. So let's take,
for example, and I have zero inside knowledge, but take
for example what you said body about Ann Taylor was
going to present the potential that they were up to
(01:12:54):
four other people and they were planting it. Let's say
that Coberger had said, I did it. You know, well,
is it possible that while you were there, maybe there
were some other people there and maybe they had the
chief and dropped it.
Speaker 2 (01:13:07):
Okay, I don't know, but that that makes sense.
Speaker 4 (01:13:09):
That wouldn't be necessarily Alie, do you see what I'm saying?
Speaker 1 (01:13:13):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (01:13:14):
But anyway, the bottom line is, no matter how greosome
the crime, if you were a defense attorney, you must
be vigorous in your defense.
Speaker 2 (01:13:21):
That I definitely agree. I mean, her number one thing
is defend her client no matter what. Right.
Speaker 5 (01:13:25):
I just I have a hard time with her getting
up in court and saying for you know, alternative perpetrators
and these are the people and hear their names, and
I want to blame them for this when I know exactly.
Speaker 2 (01:13:36):
Yeah, I struggle with this too, and especially if the
state is paying for it, right, so why am I
paying for it? In that case? You're using the Coburger example,
and it was a very expensive defense attorney because it
was a death sentenced trial. So as a state, why
are we paying for the defense of somebody who's lying?
Speaker 4 (01:13:56):
Well, there is you are not allowed to perjure yourself.
And listen, even the exact ample I just gave that
may well have been a step too far. But even
if you know your client one hundred percent, did it.
Speaker 5 (01:14:08):
You know, wants to be Maybe we could get Jarrett,
Maybe we could get Jared, Maybe we could get Jarrett
to come on and talk about the son of Sam
stuff and this.
Speaker 2 (01:14:16):
I mean, that's a good point, Courtney Armstrong. You know
you're right. I remember very well the Kirk Nurmi who
infamously defended Jody Arrius even tried to get off that case,
and he wasn't able to because he was like, this
one's a killa. He knew that she was up to
no good and by law, by the job he had,
he was not able to be removed as the defense
(01:14:37):
attorney of Jody Aarius who infamously killed Travis, her then boyfriend, maliciously. Well,
we should kind of dig into that a little bit
more because I'm a little more confused. What a great
talk back, Haley. We will be, you know, we'll be
digging in, hopefully even later this week. Listen, We're shocked
and in awe here. If you watch Vander pump Rolls,
it's just come out that Brock cheated on Sheena. What
(01:15:00):
is happening with this world? Enough is enough?
Speaker 4 (01:15:02):
Stephane a get on board broadcast Family in Australia for
she'da past behavior determines future behavior.
Speaker 2 (01:15:10):
I'm not shocked.
Speaker 5 (01:15:10):
God almighty, we need another show just for Stephanie's like
scandals and reality TV.
Speaker 2 (01:15:15):
Can we believe it? Like I was holding out some
hope in this humanity? All right, well we have a
talk back and it won't be brought.
Speaker 11 (01:15:22):
Hey, y'all, Indy from Oakland here, and I just don't
know if you guys have been following the Sam Hascoll case.
Sam Heskell Junior is the son of like an LA producer,
and he killed his wife and her parents and then
chopped up their bodies and put them in like dumpsters
or dumpster in LA. Anyway, very gruesome, very traumatic case.
(01:15:42):
But yeah, I just don't know if you guys have
been following it.
Speaker 2 (01:15:45):
Love you guys feel like we're doing a podcast about it.
In fact we are. Yeah that is. Yeah, it's actually
something we're kind of needy. Been a wow moment. Yeah,
it's a really hideous. Yeah, Banana's case, that's such a
great one, Indy, thank you for the call on he
killed himself.
Speaker 5 (01:16:00):
I don't think she said that in the talk back,
but he killed himself yesterday and in jail. Yeah, so wow,
that's crazy. I didn't know that he did. I mean,
I know the case, and you know, this guy is
so stupid. He hired a bunch of day labors. He
chopped up his wife in her parents, and he put
their body parts in garbage bags and hired day labors
to carry it to the dumpsters. And they were like
(01:16:22):
what is this? And they opened the bags and they're
presented with like limbs and heads and stuff.
Speaker 2 (01:16:28):
That's how we got a prominent family, like you really loving,
really sad, you know, and you know, dismemberment.
Speaker 6 (01:16:34):
Man.
Speaker 2 (01:16:34):
Yeah, it's like I can't things we can't understand. That
is certainly one of them. And again some somebody who
had a very affluent life or affluent I say that.
So yeah, but whatever the word is that, you know,
I had a lot of promise and really loving family,
and you know, this clown really really destroyed a person's legacy,
(01:16:55):
his family's legacy, and obviously dismembered his in laws. Yeah great,
his wife.
Speaker 4 (01:17:01):
Yeah, I don't know this at all. We should definitely
talk about locally upcoming.
Speaker 2 (01:17:05):
Yeah, it's a local thing in La.
Speaker 5 (01:17:07):
Yeah, I say that like I still live in La,
you know, I still in my mind I still live
in California, still here.
Speaker 2 (01:17:13):
I'm coming home. All things good, All things good. Yeah,
thank you for that though. And by the way, we've
been getting so many great cases from you allso it's great.
Keep the cases coming. We definitely are getting them if
we are, if you don't hear about it right away,
just because we're doing the deep dive so that we
can share some new information. So yeah, keep cases coming.
Definitely hit us up.
Speaker 4 (01:17:34):
And speaking of this was a talk back from yesterday
and we only got to dig in a little tiny
bit on Gary Coleman, but we will do a deeper dive.
But basically, Gary Coleman, he suffered a fatal head injury
at his home in Utah when he fell and at
the time he was home only with his ex wife,
Shannon Price. And then what has come out is that
(01:18:00):
she failed a lie detector test on a TV show
Light Detective Truth or Dare on A and E. So
we are kind of getting the facts together of that death.
But basically his ex wife, Shannon Price feels like she's
been living under a cloud of suspicion.
Speaker 2 (01:18:16):
She does not deserve right.
Speaker 5 (01:18:18):
I want to correct myself real quick on something I
don't want to. I don't want to be completely wrong.
Sam Haskell killed himself on Saturday.
Speaker 2 (01:18:24):
Now, yesterday. It's been one long feu day. It truly
has seems like yesterday, yaday, It truly has I don't
even know what day it is. It's Tuesday, right, It's
Tuesday only because that was rare? Do I know that?
Speaker 9 (01:18:36):
Right? Man?
Speaker 2 (01:18:38):
I have to write it on a post it so
I know how to track my days. So, yes, we
have some interesting cases that we're going to be following
tomorrow too. We're going to get a little bit more
into this, you know, sweet Gary Coleman, America's sweetheart from yesteryear.
We're going to do a deeper dive into that. I
know we didn't get to a lot of the cases
(01:18:58):
we were going to tonight, So make sure you stay
with us because big show tomorrow. It's true crime tonight.
We're talking true crime all the time. Have a great night.
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. We're talking true crime all
the time here on iHeartRadio. It's Thursday, July fifteenth, and
we have a stacked night of headlines. So this Epstein
mess begins to get messier. We discussed it to nauseum
last night about the fact that there was this raw
footage taken at the prison that Epstein took his own
(00:40):
life in allegedly, and now they are saying it's not
just one minute as it had been described, but rather
almost three minutes according to metadata, which is maddening. And
I think we're all collectively feeling like we need answers
and why is this a cover up? I feel like
we're making more of it than it needs to be.
(01:02):
Or this lie is a crack in the system, and
maybe that's going to bring us together. Also, we're going
to start digging into this other very disturbing sex trafficking case,
the Abercrombie and Fitch sex trafficking scandal, which is international
and has a lot of crossover also to the Epstein
case and possibly even to the Ditty case. And then
(01:23):
later in the show, we're going to be unpacking the
Hillside Strangler serial killer. This is a gruesome one. He
has been denied parole for the eighth time, and Body's
been following this one closely and is going to be
giving us all the details on that. I'm Stephanie Lai Decker,
and I head of Katie's Studios where we make true
crime podcasts and documentaries and I get to do that
(01:44):
every night with Courtney Armstrong and Body move in. We're
here and we want to hear from you. So listen.
There's a lot going on in the news right now,
so jump in join the conversation. We're at eight eight
eight three One Crime again eight eight eight three one Crime,
or you can hit us up on our socials at
True Crime Tonight's show on TikTok and Instagram, or at
(02:06):
True Crime Tonight on Facebook. So listen, we actually have
a talk back right now. Why don't we start there.
Speaker 3 (02:11):
I'm listening to the show tonight, and I would pose
a different question if Biden had the list and it
and Trump was on the list, why don't we think
you would release the list in order to get elected.
My thought is, Eve, is that everyone is on this list,
and everyone it would be their their mutual assured distruction
(02:37):
if anyone released it, which is why it's not getting Boy.
Speaker 2 (02:42):
Are you in my head right now? It's Steph and
I could not agree more. If this is not a
Trump versus Biden, versus Clinton versus whomever, it's not even
a political thing at this point. This is potentially world leaders,
some of the biggest influencers of our time, making decisions
that are affecting every single one of us, and we
don't even know who to believe. It's like a pox
(03:03):
on everybody's house. I couldn't agree with you more.
Speaker 4 (03:06):
Yeah, absolutely, I think it's very astute as well. And
it really does seem totally agree with Stephanie taking politics
entirely out of it. It just as a nation, I
feel like everyone is feeling duped. It's almost like with Watergate,
except instead of just a couple of journalists down in
the garage getting the information, we're all kind of finding
(03:27):
out little bits and pieces and demanding where's the actual
entirety of all of this information?
Speaker 2 (03:34):
And again, I think we can all agree, every single
one of us, no matter what our political beliefs are
or aren't. You know, in a very confusing time. Speaking
for myself, I find myself right in the middle, super confused.
This is about victims, hundreds and hundreds of underage girls
being tossed around and victimized by very powerful people. Why right? Why? Absolutely?
Speaker 4 (03:58):
And also just the other day, Pam Bondy, the Attorney General,
she had gone on to release what was slated to
be the completely the raw video of outside perpetrator Ebstein's cell.
Speaker 5 (04:13):
So that speaks to the missing minute we reported on
I think a couple of nights ago. The video jumps
from eleven fifty eight fifty eight to midnight, which is
like a minute in two seconds of missing footage in
this raw I'm using air quotes here, the raw footage
that was released by the DOJ. So what Pam Bondi
(04:34):
is saying there, if you couldn't hear her, is that
what she learned from the Bureau of Prisons is that
every night the video resets, and every night the same
missing minute in two seconds is going to be missing
from the video. Except for now. There's it's possible that
actually three minutes are missing from this video.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Okay, what a night? What did I know this? I mean,
it's the lie on top of the lie. And I
think that's the problem here.
Speaker 5 (04:59):
I think you're right in the the more they lie,
the worse they're digging their hole. And I exactly like,
I feel kind of insulted a little bit. No, you
guys feel like, yes, man, they think we're stupid.
Speaker 2 (05:10):
Absolutely, I guess that's like and it all falls under
this category of well, that's just politics, you know, double speak.
Everybody just you know, everybody's dishonest, and I got to
be honest myself. I don't believe that's true. I think
that there are more honest people and great people and
light people at very dark times. I hope we all
kind of find our way to that, and we all
(05:33):
deserve a little better.
Speaker 5 (05:34):
So Wired magazine, their publication is it's all tech and
you know they're fairly fairly respected. Well, they examined the
metadata forensics and they found that this eleven hours of
raw footage and that's directly from the DJ raw footage
has been cut. Surveillance footage from outside the cell released
(05:55):
by the DOJ and the FBI, which really is the
same thing had nearly three minutes cut out. Metadata from
the raw Epstein prison video shows approximately two minutes and
fifty three seconds were removed from one of the two
stitched together videos. Do you remember a couple of nights ago,
I was talking about how the aspect ratio kind of
like the frame size changes a little bit. What it
(06:18):
looks like they did and what the metadata is showing
is that two videos, two separate total videos were stitched
together and that's why the aspect ratio changes.
Speaker 2 (06:28):
Oh my goodness.
Speaker 5 (06:29):
Yeah, So they're they're saying now that through these this
digital forensics that two minutes and fifty three seconds were removed,
and that you know, I asked Joseph that night that
we talked about this, Joseph Scott Morgan, forensics expert who
we have on the show all the time, beloved member
of our family, and you know, I asked him. I said,
could this Epstein killing situation, how he was, you know,
(06:52):
hung himself or killed? Let's say, could it have happened
in one minute? And Joseph said, no, I don't think so,
because I wanted to know why this minute was missing. Well,
why are three minutes missing?
Speaker 6 (07:02):
Now?
Speaker 5 (07:02):
I want to ask Joseph when we have them on next,
could this have happened in three minutes?
Speaker 2 (07:06):
Yeah, And like again, if you haven't been paying attention
to this, you know, these Jeffrey Epstein client list has
been long discussed. It's been long talked about. Allegedly there
were all of these very high profile, important, important, potential
world leaders, billionaires, influencers on this list, and that there
may have been some nefarious behavior, and that even may
(07:28):
have been there was nefarious behavior, and likely there were
cameras throughout this infamous island where some of this behavior
was likely caught on tape and perhaps being used as revenge,
and you know that scary stuff at a very scary time.
So then they released this tape like whoa, well, there's
no client list, and you know, we'll prove it that
(07:50):
he committed suicide Jeffrey Epstein while in prison and wasn't murdered,
which has always been this like alternate theory. We'll prove
that that didn't happen. We'll release this eleven hour video
and then everybody realizes the eleven hour video was missing
one minute. Now we're realizing it's almost three minutes, right.
Speaker 5 (08:09):
And U c Berkeley professor was consulted on this digital
forensics analysis that Wired magazine did. His name is Hanni Frid.
He criticized the chain of custody and he said that
if this was brought to him to present in court,
he would say would not meet his standards. Ooh, and
this is from the Department of Justice the United States
(08:29):
of America. I mean, this is not some law clerk.
This is somebody's got some splainin to do. This is
true crime.
Speaker 4 (08:37):
Tonight on iHeartRadio, I'm Courtney Armstrong here as always with
Body Moven and Stephanie Leidecker. We're talking about Ebstein and
everything and kind of what keeps unfolding day after day,
which is different information. We want to hear your thoughts,
so it give us a call. We're at eighty to
eighty three to one crime or hit us back on
the talkbacks, which if you're on the Heart Radio app,
(09:00):
you just go up into the upper right hand corner,
you click that little red microphone and record a message
and you will be on the show. So, Body, I
wanted to ask you to clarify metadata.
Speaker 2 (09:12):
So what is metadata?
Speaker 5 (09:13):
Is that what you want to like get like a
little overview so like when you create a video where
you're creating in your cell phone or video camera or
surveillance video, you're not just capturing like the visuals and sound.
There's a whole layer of like hidden elements in the video,
and it's attached to the file that gets created on
your computer or your cell phone, whatever device. And that's
(09:36):
called metadata, and it's data about the data. So think
of it like behind the scenes, like like the credits
of a movie. So the kind of the best way
to kind of describe it, you know, it contains things
like the data was created, the time of it, the
user name that edited it, what encoding was used, the
location of the file on the device.
Speaker 2 (09:58):
There's all on cell phones.
Speaker 5 (10:00):
It might even have GPS coordinates of where the photo
was taken. That's like when sometimes you upload a picture
to Instagram, it says, oh, are you in Barcelona? You know,
and you can I know, I was fantasizing for I
like it, you know, and you can say, yeah, I'm
in Barcelona, and it tags your location as Barcelona. And
that's because it's reading that metadata. It's how I knew
(10:22):
Luca was in Toronto when we.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
Were looking for him. I don't have with cats. That's
what metadata is.
Speaker 5 (10:27):
And this metadata on these files shows really significant discrepancies
in what we're being told. For instance, we can tell
that it was edited with Adobe Premiere Pro, which is
not you know, unusual. I mean, there has to be
some kind of extraction from the surveillance software. Okay, so
that's fine, it's no big deal. But it also shows
(10:48):
us that the file was edited and saved several times
over the period of more than three and a half hours.
So there's no reason to keep saving it unless you're
edits right, Why did you do that?
Speaker 2 (11:02):
Unless things have changed, I've been poking around.
Speaker 4 (11:04):
We have at this point no knowledge of who well
we do these changes except for the user name.
Speaker 2 (11:12):
Right, we have the username.
Speaker 5 (11:13):
So remember I was telling you it has like the
location on your computer where the file is saved. And
in that location, you know, it's like ce the c
drive users. In my case it would be body moving slash,
document slash, you know whatever. And in this case it's
m J. Cole And that's all we really know. That's
the person's name. So like, can I just have a go?
Speaker 2 (11:36):
That's like they're sign on to the computer, right, Like
how they sign in and if I send you a photograph,
because this happened to my girlfriend when she caught a
guy you dirty, sent a photo and he was like,
oh yeah, I'm here, you know, with my kids, and
sent a photo and then she did some little chef
of course, and it doesn't really look like that photo
(11:56):
was from today real time. That was from three.
Speaker 5 (12:00):
Listen, if you get a photo and your question about that,
click the little information button you know on your iPhone
and it will tell you the metadata, and it will
tell you and if you presslong, you can see the
live photo.
Speaker 2 (12:12):
So all the things they don't want you to see.
Speaker 4 (12:14):
Oh careful what you do and what you send.
Speaker 2 (12:18):
Listen, keep it here.
Speaker 4 (12:19):
We're going to continue to follow this when we come back,
and we'll be digging into the Abercrombie and Fitch International
sex trafficking case. Also we will be talking about the
Hillside Strangler serial killer, and a bit on Beyonce True Crime.
Speaker 2 (12:35):
Tonight. I'm feeling a little worked up about all things Epstein,
and I got a laser facial so it hurts to smile.
So sorry, guys, sorry for the room. I apologize. Here
we go. Epstein. He had a right hand woman named
(12:57):
Gilaine Maxwell. We've heard so much about right, he's currently
serving time. She was brought up on five counts and
is looking at you know, I think twenty years or so,
and she's been living kind of a quiet life behind bars.
Now with these new developments in the Epstein case, it
feels like there's a lot of attention being brought back
to her. If there was not a client list, and
(13:18):
you know, hundreds of girls were not being trafficked, then
why is she serving time? By the way, I'm not
suggesting she should not be serving time, but I just
think it's an interesting point of this conversation because again,
this is all about grooming, right, This was happening for decades.
This was happening in international places. So how do we
(13:39):
stop it if we don't talk about it. So Gelaine Maxwell,
who wants to give us a little of that background?
So I'll talk a little bit Glaine Maxwell.
Speaker 4 (13:47):
She was a British socialite and like you said, really
Jeffrey Epstein's right hand woman, and it seemed like they
had a really symbiotic relationship. Glaine Maxwell was really a
society woman and had connection to you know, infamously Prince
Andrew who came down but she was the daughter of
(14:09):
a British media tycoon, a guy named Robert Maxwell, who
died under strange circumstances over a yacht. And so as
she grew.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
Up she had this father who was very.
Speaker 4 (14:21):
Strict, we learned through watching some documentaries all about her life,
who was very strict with his children. But she worshiped
and idolized her father and they lived a fancy life.
Although once Guleene Maxwell's father died, it turns out this
sort of piles and piles of money that they thought
(14:42):
they were living on was all a mirage and in.
Speaker 2 (14:45):
Fact here was a scoundrel.
Speaker 4 (14:47):
Yeah, he was a scoundrel, and the finances were a mess,
and you know, a lot of people who knew them well,
both Epstein and Galen thought, you know, they needed each other.
Eulaine went sort of right from her father and they
would be together in social situations, just rubbing elbows with
the fanciest people in the world. And she needed another
(15:08):
man with a lot of money. Seemed like what she
was looking for, And what Jeffrey Epstein was pretty well
known for looking for was clout in society. He wanted clout,
He wanted to be fancy, I mean he was forever
wearing the Harvard shirt. Yet not that he went there,
not remotely, no, which is not a dig on wherever
(15:29):
you went. But it's just he wanted to be perceived
as that. And Gulayne was known more than almost anything
as a connector. She connected people and so and so
maybe you can scratch so and so's.
Speaker 2 (15:42):
Back, and just to that point, you know, going back
to when she was in Britain, you know, this is
somebody who was you know, had access to the palace right,
who had access to the royal family. And her father was,
you know, a media mogul of sorts, and he was
allegedly her favorite and even named his yacht after his
you know, beloved Gilain daughter. And you know, to your point,
(16:05):
she totally idolized him. So in many ways she had
to leave there to be able to sort of start
over because she was she was ashamed. You know, it
turns out dad was a complete liar and as a result,
she was kind of left penniless and the family was shamed,
and she started over again by coming to the United States,
(16:27):
you know, meets Epstein, allegedly another scoundrel. And is that
an example of an amazing trauma bond, toxic relationships that
are brought together. Were they together, They were very much together. Yes,
they were together, and she apparently idolized him and adored
him much like her you know deceased now father, and
(16:47):
the father did die under suspicious circumstances, if I'm not mistaken.
You know, it was either a suicide or he was killed.
There there was something kind of odd about it. And
then you find out he actually had no money, that's right, So.
Speaker 4 (16:59):
Either he whether he jumped off this yacht or was
thrown off this yacht, no one knows the clear answer
on that, but it was very strange.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
It's very strange. So then she gets with Epstein, and
those two, you know, were a socialite couple, very divine,
hobnobbing in the big leagues. And then it turns out,
you know, her boyfriend has a bit of a sexual
appetite for young ladies. And this is where it gets
a little creepy. So I mean, that's an understatement. Yeah,
(17:28):
there's not a word to actually use that will make
sense in this case. So I guess they split up.
She still pines for him, and maybe in an effort
to keep him, she starts feeding the beast. Right, she
starts grooming young girls, bringing young girls into the equation,
what point do you make that concession?
Speaker 5 (17:46):
Like, Okay, well, to keep this guy, I'm gonna feed
this disgusting, illegal, disgusting thing.
Speaker 2 (17:52):
But again, if you's coming from a scenario where her dad,
again I'm not justifying it, but just for the play along,
is her backround an example of where her boundaries may
have already been stretched. You know, sometimes we choose what's
that famous saying, we choose a familiar hell to an
unfamiliar heaven. It's like, what she knew was this kind
(18:12):
of behavior. So she starts feeding the beast. That beast
gets bigger and bigger and bigger. And you know, we
know at this point Epstein was not a financier. You know,
he was many things, but no one can really understand
where his money fully came from. Yet he was hanging
out with the big leagues. Wow.
Speaker 5 (18:30):
While you're listening to True Crime tonight on iHeart Radio,
I'm Body Moven and I'm here with Courtney Armstrong and
Stephanie Leidecker, and right now we're talking about Epstein's circle,
in particular Glane Maxwell. We want to hear from you,
So give us a call at eighty to eight thirty
one Crime or use the talkbacks on the iHeart radio
app and give.
Speaker 2 (18:47):
Us a little message.
Speaker 5 (18:48):
Courtney, Yes, what do you think happened to Glane to
make I just can't get I can't let go of
the fact that she made these concessions, like in her mind.
Do we know like what her firm, did she testify
to anything, like what her first concession was? Did she ever?
Speaker 4 (19:05):
Well, I don't think this woman had to argue with
her own this is my perspective of it.
Speaker 2 (19:10):
Yeah, I don't think she was arguing.
Speaker 4 (19:12):
With her own morals very hard or long or at all,
because really I think that to whatever means possible, she
was to keep him for clause on this man, and
also to keep herself happy and keep herself rich and
keep herself true.
Speaker 2 (19:28):
It's a very good point. Course. Yeah, I'm strong because
she didn't have her own money at this point. Now, well,
and that's my understanding too. She even would participate in
some of these activities.
Speaker 4 (19:38):
Yes, and it was when in watching we spoke about
the other night Filthy Rich and the Glaine Maxwell portion
of it. Yes, she was going out and she would
go to Bendel's or other fancy department stores and find
a young girl working at the front and say, oh,
you want.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
To go to what college? Oh?
Speaker 4 (19:58):
Absolutely, I know a guy who knows a guy will
will help you figure out an internship. Just come on
over to the house. And she was doing this as
many as three times a day. I forget if this
was a reporter saying this or one of the victims,
but she was feeding him up to three victims a
day at certain points.
Speaker 2 (20:19):
Can you imagine, So it's not horrible, who's living in
a really fancy place in New York City? That Brownstone is,
you know, like no other. And also in West Palm
Beach where he was also brought up on charges and
kind of slapped on the wrist for all intentsive purposes.
Let loose again on in the wild bought an island,
you know little Saint John's slate, Little Saint John's or
(20:42):
Little Saint Thomas Again. It's like, if we know this
monster exists and that the clients are so high profile,
why are we not just releasing it. Just because you
went to the island doesn't necessarily mean you did something nefarious.
If you have nothing to hide then let it rip
like you said you would not, even as though we
(21:02):
were begging for it. I mean, I guess we've all
been begging for thisized and it's coming. It's coming, no
matter what side of the equation you're on politically. Don't
get me started. But yeah, Guilay Maxwell, now behind bars,
is trying to get herself released. I'm sure well she is.
Speaker 5 (21:19):
Actually, she filed the DOJ had the deadline was yesterday,
remember to file the objection to her appeal. So Jeffrey
Epstein pled, and part of his plea agreement was this
term that none of his co conspirators would be prosecuted. Right,
that was the like one of the arrangements. And part
of her argument for her appeal is like, hey, listen,
(21:42):
you said in this plea agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that
nobody else would be prosecuted. Why am I in prison?
And now on top of that, there's no client list,
there's you're not releasing anything.
Speaker 4 (21:53):
So who's the victim here exactly? It's very curious to
me legally. I'm just trying to work that out.
Speaker 5 (22:00):
The appeal was filed a while ago, the clientlest not
being released and whatnot is totally new and it wasn't
part of the appeal. I'm just throwing that in there
as myself.
Speaker 2 (22:08):
Yeah, I understand that.
Speaker 4 (22:09):
What is confusing to me is the fact that if
my timeline's correct, it may not be Epstein went child
first and then he pled out and in his plea agreement,
as you just said, Boddie, it said no one that
what was the word cotors a co conspirator. Then A
I'm curious how Gulaye Maxwell even was actually persecuted unless
(22:34):
it's the fact that Jeffrey Epstein said she is innocent
of everything, which I have heard Epstein say that in recordings.
So maybe that was the problem that he said, oh,
she was totally innocent, and that nullified her as being
a co conspirator.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
Do you understand, I do, I absolutely do. I just
don't know. I thought the co conspirator agreement that was
given to Epstein came from his previous case in West
Palm Beach. Oh, maybe in two thousand and eight we'll
do a fact check on this, because it's all important stuff.
And now that raises the question where is Jeffrey Epstein
(23:10):
getting in all of his money? Allegedly Les Wexner, who
is the person who owned Victoria's secret and the limited
you know, a billionaire. Dare I say that there was
some connection between Epstein and Wexner and you know, the
depths of which we do not know, and nor do
we understand fully what that means. I guess I feel
(23:33):
like I'm just losing the plot line here, Like, what's
the plot line? It's not Democrat versus Republican that I know,
So let's go a step larger. What's the plot line
and mutually throwing you know, all big names around, et cetera,
But like, what is the bigger picture? I feel a
little lost in the sauce and I think them versus us? Right, yeah,
(23:53):
And personally it makes me feel scared. You should be.
I'm a little terrified actually myself.
Speaker 5 (23:59):
Well, coming up now the story of infamous serial killer
who was denied parole again for the eighth time just
this week. Stick around for True Crime tonight where we're
talking true crime all the time.
Speaker 2 (24:19):
So we've been talking a lot about Epstein and Delane Maxwell,
and again we want to hear from you. Eight eight
eight three one crime. Please jump in join the combo.
We actually have a talkback right now. A Hi.
Speaker 7 (24:31):
My name is Sarah again, and I was wondering if
you guys think that the victim of Broome has to
be a child or a minor. I only ask because
I feel like there are certain instances where somebody has
influenced like money. I'm thinking of like Diddy and the
idea of persuading someone slowly into your life to do
things and then all of a sudden it's something it
(24:51):
wasn't in the beginning. What do you guys think about that?
Speaker 2 (24:54):
That's a good question, great one, go ahead. Who wants
to go first? Yeah? I think I'll chime in that
it is a great question.
Speaker 4 (25:01):
And it's interesting to think is there a line or
if there isn't, should there be a line? And it's
one of those things I almost I don't think there
should be because there are so many different power dynamics.
I mean, you can really take anything, Like your employer
has power over you because they supply you money to
pay your bills. So it seems like that could be
(25:23):
a person who could groom you. So now, I bottom
line know, I don't think that you need to be
a child. I think given circumstances, anyone can be a victied.
Speaker 5 (25:31):
I think I'm going to disagree, respectfully disagree. I think grooming,
when somebody is called groomer, I think it has a
connotation to it, and I think it it has the
idea that they're grooming somebody who's vulnerable and not able
to concede, not able to consent, you know, and that
usually implies like a minor or a protected person of
some kind, maybe somebody with some mental disabilities. I think
(25:55):
when you say grooming can happen to adults who are
capable of making their own decisions and whatnot, I think
it it waters down the word.
Speaker 2 (26:04):
It's so funny because I you know, I think a
groomer can really just go for anybody who's vulnerable, right,
So even adults could find themselves in very vulnerable situations.
And sometimes victims feel extra shame because they're like, Wow,
I'm a grown adult, how did I get groomed into
this situation? Because you know, look, power, fame, you know anything,
(26:25):
you know, holding family relationships over your head, promise of
a job, et cetera, or a promise of love. Maybe
even at its core, yes, it does have this underage connotation,
but I think it does be a different room very easily.
And I also fear that if you find yourself in
a situation where you're like, well, how did this happen?
(26:46):
You know, because it's slow and steady, and they know
that you want something, or you want to be loved,
or you're in a desperate or vulnerable moment in your life,
somebody who's looking to take advantage of that can really
crack the doors open, and that can be so garrassing
for victims. So I would hate for someone to feel
extra shame just because of their age, because sometimes you know,
(27:09):
we just sometimes don't know, You don't know that the
big bad world is sometimes out to get you and body.
Speaker 4 (27:14):
Because I absolutely I hear your point, and I do
feel like there does need to be some sort of
dependency again, whether it's financial, whether it's this.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm just thinking
through what you said.
Speaker 4 (27:26):
But let me ask you this. So, given the age parameter,
which is a totally reasonable boundary to set, and maybe
the legal one, I would need.
Speaker 2 (27:34):
To look that up.
Speaker 4 (27:35):
Given that, would you consider what we were just speaking
about with Jeffrey Epstein and Gulaye Maxwell, with her grooming,
where she would go and entice women. I'm not talking
about someone who's fourteen or seventeen. I'm talking about someone
who is of age. Do you think Gulaene Maxwell going
(27:57):
and bit by bit and saying, oh, oh hey, I
can help you and I'm gonna make your world better.
Speaker 5 (28:03):
Okay, you're shaking your head, so that's you don't know.
I think that's just manipulation. I think everybody does to
get into relationships with other people. I think everybody puts
their best foot forward. When you're entering some kind of
relationship with somebody and they're not, you know, you're you're
kind of masking who you really are.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
Everybody does that, you think, yes, everybody I've dated, Yeah,
I know you don't do that. I disagree with that.
I do disagree with that. I don't think you.
Speaker 5 (28:29):
Don't think when you meet somebody, you're not you're not
getting their best, their best foot forward. You don't think,
yeah at first I the first date self is what
I'm talking about. I'm not talking about hiding like that
they're a serial killer, like, and I'm just like, you
put your best foot forward. You know, you look nice,
you smell good, your hair is done. You know, they
don't get to see when you're just waking up and
(28:49):
you're like a monster and you got like the breath
of the devil.
Speaker 2 (28:52):
You know, By the way, So are you grooming me
right now? You look so beautiful, You're all dolled up,
you have full makeup, look like a million bucks? Am
I getting groomed right now? Because sometimes there is a
difference between yeah, like you know, presenting yourself. You know,
I do your best way.
Speaker 5 (29:10):
I just don't want to water down a word that's critical,
and grooming is a word that I think the masses
a tribute to pre predator behavior behavior right.
Speaker 2 (29:23):
About a cult? So many of the cults, for example,
you know how first of all, it's shocking that I'm
not in Welt. How did I get into cults? You
know what I mean? So as an adult, you're in
the Bravo cult. Right, Maybe that's fair, that is fair,
But you know, like adults get pulled into cults all
the time, and they're like being manipulated and they're being
(29:46):
promised a bigger future heaven above, and next thing you know,
you're drinking the kool aid.
Speaker 6 (29:51):
Right.
Speaker 5 (29:51):
I just think grooming is just a strong word. I
think that's more like coercion or manipulation, grooming and listen,
I want to hear you. Give us a call at
eight eight eight thirty one crime or use the talkbacks
on the iHeartRadio app. We're kind of in the middle
of this grooming conversation, which I'm kind of obsessed with
right now.
Speaker 2 (30:08):
It's a good conversation like hair and makeup.
Speaker 5 (30:11):
No, Like you know, when I'm when I'm thinking of grooming,
I'm thinking of, let's just you know, the stereotypical man
or woman of power of some kind. You know, whether
it's a teacher or somebody that has some kind of
control influencing a minor or a vulnerable person. And by
(30:31):
vulnerable person, I mean somebody who cannot consent or make
their own decisions into bad things. I'm not thinking of
like relationships, And I'm thinking of somebody that's a predator,
like like a legal predator. And I think if we
wash that word down, the people that are predators or
whatnot aren't getting are kind of getting off scott free
(30:52):
because they can say, oh, well, groomer just means I
you know what about.
Speaker 2 (30:56):
I hear you on that just for the play along.
So going back to the Sean diddy Combe's case, and
he had some of his victims, some of whom were
ex girlfriends of his who maybe hadn't participated in so
many you know, exotic sexual things, but to please him,
to make him happy, to get you know, little by
(31:17):
little next thing. You know, there's this little added thing,
next thing. You know, there's this little added thing. Would
that be considered grooming? Not in my opinion interesting? But
I might listen. I might be the odd ball here.
I might be wrong too. I'm looking it up right now.
What's the actual definition, just so we're hearing it.
Speaker 4 (31:34):
By the way, about it, I definitely respect, not wanting
to move the line lest it lose power. It loses
I'll give you a pet peeve of mine. It's different,
but triggered forever. Everyone's you know, triggered because you look
at them the wrong way versus.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
You had you know, an actual an actual trigger trigger. Right, yeah,
so right, anyway, here's the actual definition of grooming. Grooming
is not just about physical abuse, It's about psychological manipulation.
The goal is to break down boundaries, make the victim
feel dependent, often to normalize abuse so the victim doesn't
recognize what's happening to them until it's too late. Stages
(32:12):
of grooming targeting the vulnerable victim often considered underage or
someone who lacks emotional supervision or agency of themselves, but
that could be an adult. I think trust. You know,
abuser acts kind, helpful, generous, offering things that are of
value to their victim and fulfilling a need. They promise gifts, attention, affection, mentorship,
(32:35):
and promises of success, and also isolate them, perhaps from
their their greater community or your family, people who would
be like, really, this clown. You know you're getting manipulated,
my friend. We all need that friend who can sort
of give it to you straight and then control an exploitation.
And yeah, this happens online a lot as well. Something
just to be mindful of.
Speaker 5 (32:57):
I guess very vulnerable. I think the key word there
is vulnerable. And I didn't mean like adults can't be vulnerable,
because certainly they can, you know, like, of course adults
can be vulnerable. But I just think that the word
loses its power if we apply it to every situation
where we got manipulated or coursed. Yeah that's just my opinion,
and I listen, I'm okay, with being wrong with it.
Speaker 4 (33:18):
I'm totally okay, no, it is an opinion, so there, yeah, yeah,
And I like that we're talking about it, and again,
like you know, anyone listening, please join the conversation.
Speaker 2 (33:27):
We want to hear your stories, you know, because also
I just don't want people to be afraid to come
forward with their their feelings of being victimized, because it's
just incredibly embarrassing if you're an adult, or you feel
too much shame because you know you didn't know better.
Speaker 5 (33:44):
So they we're talking about it. Yeah, I don't want
anybody to think that. I you know, if you came
forward with the story, I would think, oh, you weren't groomed.
I mean I'm not a you know, a heartless woman.
Speaker 2 (33:53):
Of course, an incredible event.
Speaker 5 (33:55):
I just you know, I just feel like, you know,
the vulnerable and kids need a special protection and grooming
is the word that we've decided as society to use
for them, and we should reserve it for them.
Speaker 2 (34:06):
M hm. I guess love bombing is another version of
grooming or is it someone comes in?
Speaker 5 (34:11):
I know that's another word. It's like the word trigger.
I hate the action of blah, but I can tell
when it's happening, and it's like, oh, I can't.
Speaker 2 (34:20):
It just grosses me out. Yeah, it's such a red flag.
Speaker 4 (34:23):
I can Okay, I'm not going to out my husband
on a red flag, but honor and he was he.
Speaker 2 (34:28):
Actually he was not a great bomber, his husband.
Speaker 4 (34:31):
But our very first date was two days before my birthday,
and he had when we were walking into the date,
I was confirming with someone, yes, that's my birthday plans,
and he said, oh, I wish you told me.
Speaker 2 (34:44):
I said why. He said, I would have brought you something.
And I said, you don't know me like I was.
You're a tough cookie, though you are.
Speaker 4 (34:53):
You are.
Speaker 2 (34:54):
Courtney is like the barometer of what's what you know.
I'll leave a situation and be like that was a
They seem wonderful, and then Courtney gets in the car
is like hard. Note.
Speaker 5 (35:05):
I think the reason you haven't joined a cult is
because of Courtney.
Speaker 2 (35:11):
The night is still young, The night is still young.
Speaker 5 (35:14):
If you want Stephanie to join your cult, give us
a call at eighty and eight thirty one Crime and
tell us about your cult. She might be interested, especially
if you guys have Bravo.
Speaker 2 (35:25):
My summer house rules true. Hey, we have ourselves a caller, Elon,
Welcome to the show. What's your question?
Speaker 8 (35:32):
Hi, there have an epscene inquiry. I've worked with medical
examiners before that go out to the scene for a suicide,
and I am just perplexed why Epsteine was removed and
taken to a hospital before anything was done with his body,
like whether pictures taken up the scene. I'm just unsure.
Speaker 2 (35:53):
It's so funny you say that because we had Joseph
Scott Morgan, the forensics expert, on Sunday and he had
shared with us the autopsy photographs, and I had a
similar question because he had made mention that they were
taken at the coroner's office. And to your point, oftentimes
a medical examiner or a coroner will go to the
scene and as a result, there was that puddling in
(36:15):
the back of his back, Courtney that you had noted,
and that seemed it was because it had been sitting
for a while, or he had been sitting for a while,
and it maybe had been in a refrigerator if I'm
remembering Christley. Yes first, well, so gross. Sorry, but I
have that same thought, and I regret not asking, and
I feel like we should phone a friend right now.
It's a little late to call Joseph, but I kind
(36:37):
of want to. That's a great question.
Speaker 5 (36:39):
We know for sure that there weren't photos taken from
the inside. Look, I actually like I could from us right, Yeah,
there could be different.
Speaker 4 (36:48):
We don't know for a certain tude. We do know
for a certain tude that the photos that we were
seen from the autopsy those are the autopsy photos. And
we do know that there were photos taken when the
body and.
Speaker 5 (37:01):
We've seen the photos from inside the cell, but none
of Epstein in the cell.
Speaker 2 (37:06):
Right, No, we've seen the photos in the cell. That
was you know, a mess right, it was messy. It
was kind of disastrous, which seemed interesting just because you know,
you think of a cell, it's supposed to be so
neat and tidy. You know, you're cleaning everything with a toothbrush,
is at least how we picture it. Apparently that was
not the case. That also kind of makes you think
of maybe there was a hustle or a stir or
(37:27):
some sort of something active happened, which maybe would not
be the case in a suicide. And then we saw
the photographs that seem to have been taken while he
was on a gurney, right, and those photographs, Yeah, those
definitely were not in the cell, at least not the
ones that I see. Well he's wearing he's wearing like
a hospital gown. Yeah, yeah, photos. Right, thank you so much.
(37:49):
That's so interesting.
Speaker 4 (37:50):
I love to Actually, we want to try and find
out that information because I feel like, honestly, it's necessarily
going to be. Yeah, it's necessarily you're hanging. It's necessarily
a suicide or a homicide. It's not one hundred. I
can't imagine have natural causes you think.
Speaker 5 (38:07):
I can't imagine that some sort of medical officer didn't
visit him in the cell.
Speaker 2 (38:12):
I do find that hard to imagine.
Speaker 5 (38:13):
I can't imagine they just put him on a in
a body bag and no put attendance to Joseph on
his podcast body Bags, which we love, that they put
him in a body bag and shipp him off to
the medical examin er.
Speaker 2 (38:23):
I can't imagine that somebody didn't come out like. I
can't either. But the question that Elon raised is very curious. Ballent.
Speaker 4 (38:29):
We just listed off a bunch of pictures that we
have seen, and none of them include right, you know
the crime, the crime scene with the body.
Speaker 2 (38:40):
I wish I hadn't seen your photos. They really disturbed me.
They didn't bother me stuff. I know, you guys were
pretty good sports about it.
Speaker 4 (38:47):
Well, I didn't like being surprised, and I saw it
after I said, oh, I said that I don't like us,
and then I started studying.
Speaker 5 (38:53):
It and now I was like pension on my phone
and zooming in a problem too.
Speaker 2 (38:59):
But I but I like it like you. I would
for whatever reason, it really like got in my gourd
a little bit for what it was.
Speaker 5 (39:06):
I think if it was like a victim, it would
like a murder victim or somebody I cared about, I
would bother me. But Epstein, Okay, that looks good to
met them off.
Speaker 2 (39:15):
Well, you know, and thank you for the call. Keep
them coming, everybody, eight eight eight three one crime. We're
going to be right back talking more about the Hillside
Strangler serial killer. Yeek, body's been following that closely. This
is true crime tonight. We're talking true crime all the time,
(39:40):
So we're going to be kind of switching gears a
little bit to the Hillside Strangler serial killer. If you
haven't heard about him, he's actually been denied parole for
the eighth time, and body's been following this very clearly
and carefully. And also later in the show, God, well,
when we get to it, we're going to be unpacking
(40:00):
this Abercrombie and Fitch international sex scandal. I mean, my goodness,
it never seems to end on that front. And also
a little bit more on the Gary coleman Lie Detector
ex wife mess. More on that to come. So, Courtney,
where would you like to begin?
Speaker 4 (40:19):
So the Travis Decker search, it sadly has not concluded,
and Travis Decker is the man we may remember. He
it's alleged that he murdered his three young daughters, all
under the age of ten. There has been a gigantic
multi agency search for him. But what was breaking news
(40:40):
was we found him for a moment. And unfortunately, it
turns out that a hiker named Nick just had a
really bad case of mistaken identity and he only learned
that he was the actual subject of the police search
when a friend texted him about the man hunt and
(41:01):
he immediately contacted the authorities confirmed he wasn't Decker, and
he voluntarily, as I said, did reach out and said
I quote, oh my god, they think I was that guy.
So in fact, Nick was not that guy. And uh
so good news for Nick. He is free to continue hiking.
Speaker 2 (41:22):
And I wonder how he knew they were talking about him.
I guess the tattoos. They were like the tattoos, and they
said that he had the ear plug. Yeah, it was
pretty specific. And by the way, that could be very dangerous.
There could have been a vigilante on the loose that said,
you know, oh, that's the kid killer, the man that
murdered his three daughters. Thank god, taking out myself.
Speaker 5 (41:44):
The family that saw him contacted the authorities, right, well,
thank god they did what they were supposed to do.
They didn't take the law into their own hands. They
called the authorities. Thank god, you know, and thank god
Nick wasn't hurt. My goodness, imagine. And so there was
that what do you have body, Beyonce? I got listen,
(42:04):
I'm on Beyonce's Internet. I'm willing to talk about Beyonce. Okay,
let's go beyond this. I didn't know this happened. So
during Beyonce's Cowboy Carter tour stop in Atlanta on July
eighth last week, thieves broke into a vehicle belonging to
her choreographer Christopher Grant and dancer DeAndre Blue, and they
stole a bunch of stuff. And one of the things
(42:25):
that they stole were some flash drives with unreleased music,
set lists and show footage plans, along with like some
designer items and electronics. And so now this, you know,
Beyonce's tour is kind of in jeopardy because this, this
unreleased music is supposed to be done at the last
leg of her concert, isn't that right?
Speaker 2 (42:46):
Wow? Like it's compromised. It's compromised.
Speaker 5 (42:50):
And so the Atlanta Police Department is tracked stolen laptops
and AirPods, identified a suspect vehicle and may have attained Oh,
they have obtained an ear to warrant, though no arrest
has been made. Beyonce's tour in Atlanta wrapped up in
July fourteenth, with a tour continuing through July twenty sixth
in fabulous Las Vegas where I live.
Speaker 2 (43:10):
Wow, that would be such a big pace of theft.
Speaker 4 (43:14):
I mean, what is the monetary value putting on that?
Speaker 2 (43:19):
Millions?
Speaker 5 (43:20):
I want to know why unreleased music is sitting on
an unsecure flash drive in somebody's car.
Speaker 2 (43:26):
That's a good point. Comfortable oversight, that's f Yeah, but
like also you're comfortable, you know, you're on the road.
Who hasn't been on the road sometimes? I mean I
haven't been on a concert tour, but you know, on
TV shows and things, you get on the road to
get comfortable. After a while, you're not.
Speaker 5 (43:43):
Really but still it's an unsecure I mean, I'm guessing
it's an unsecure flush Listen, if you're Beyonce's like manager
or whatever, hit me up. I'll help you secure that
stuff on your flush drives. Like, let's get some protection
for that stuff. Like, come on, you tell us in
general about protection?
Speaker 2 (43:57):
Is there anything that just like the wise women we
are need to know that, just like the basics, don't
get on the internet. Oh, don't get on the internet.
So like, if you're on the internet, you're curious, you're
you're in troubled waters. That's a whole other show.
Speaker 5 (44:13):
I mean, it's a whole there's a whole nother show.
Like fine, one thing I will tell you is keep
your things private. Don't post things from inside your house
on Instagram. You know, things like that. You know, that's
why I wonder one of the reasons I never film
in my home. For the shows that I've been on,
I've been three or four shows now, none of them are.
Speaker 2 (44:31):
Filmed in my home. You have a little fake home. Yeah,
they get airbnbs h Yeah, we do that as well
for people and there, you know, just for their security, right,
you know.
Speaker 5 (44:41):
I think, well, I think that's how possibly Brian Coberger
from you know, of course the murder of the College
Idaho student murders.
Speaker 2 (44:50):
I think that's how he kind of knew the layout
of the home. Yeah, that's kind of my takeaway too,
having you know, quick ninded the podcast together and then
having now done the doc sort of the take away
way really was you have to really be careful of
what you're posting. We all do it, but we all
go in stores and entrances and exits in your mailbox
number or your car license plate, you know, just like
(45:13):
the stuff that's in the background. That can be really
telling if you're a weirdo looking to find out more
about a person.
Speaker 4 (45:20):
And you're aware about you know, instead of I'm about
to be on vacation for ten days, which is basically
just a sign saying come rob my empty house.
Speaker 2 (45:31):
Yeah, that happens a lot too. It does happen most
from vacation.
Speaker 9 (45:34):
Either.
Speaker 2 (45:34):
If you're going to post about your vacation, do it
when you're back, exactly, exactly.
Speaker 5 (45:39):
Yeah, don't be like I'm in Barcelona. Yeah, my house
full of all my electronic equipment is you know, available
for you, and it's unprotected and unsecured. My bitcoin wallet
is available as well. You know, don't do that. Those
are really simple, simple things. But yeah, you're listening to
true Crime tonight on iHeartRadio. I'm body Moved and I'm
(45:59):
here with Stephanie and Courtney and we're about to get
into the Hillside Strangler. If you want to weigh in,
give us a call at eighty eight thirty one Crime
or leave us a talkback Courtney.
Speaker 2 (46:09):
What do we got? Okay?
Speaker 4 (46:11):
So, the convicted Hillside Strangler, he's a serial killer aka
Kenneth Bianki. He since changed his name though, real quick
about that. So Kenneth Bianki. People know the name Kenneth Bianki.
If you are into your crime, you know Kenneth Bianki
is the Hillside Strangler. He changed his name in twenty
twenty three to something to motto Anthony Demo Anthony Demoto.
Speaker 5 (46:32):
Thank you in twenty twenty three, and the reasons for
that change have never really been made public, but a
lot of people think it's to distance himself from like
his past, right, Like, he's a new person for potential
parole hearings. So keeping that in mind, keeping that in mind,
So his new legal name is Anthony Dimatto. We're gonna
(46:53):
call him the Hillside Strangler for the purposes of the show,
but keeping that in mind, Go ahead, Courtney, yep.
Speaker 2 (46:59):
Okay, stand the rational more.
Speaker 4 (47:01):
Yeah, So Hillside Strangler has been denied prol and this
is the eighth time in his forty six years behind bars,
and he'll be eligible again in a decade. So we
thought this was a good time to go into the
Hillside Strangler because it's sort of a name a lot
of people know but don't know a lot about the background.
Speaker 2 (47:20):
Right.
Speaker 4 (47:20):
So, he has admitted to five murders in California and
two in Washington State. But then he seemed to have
changed his tune and said, oh no, I'm innocent. I
was coerced by hypnotic manipulation.
Speaker 5 (47:36):
Right, and he like he basically was trying to come
up with an insanity defense. Right, he was trying to
say that, you know, despite him pleaing guilty and despite
his confession, he insisted over appeal left or appeal and whatnot,
that he was innocent and he was coerced and he
had this hypnotic manipulation and all the facts of his
(47:57):
confession did not match the physical evidence, which is some
semi true, but he was They found him to be lying.
Bianki eventually pled guilty to the because he murdered throughout
Washington in California, and he pled guilty to the Washington
murders and the five murders in California testifying against his cousin.
(48:17):
By the way, that's why oftentimes you'll hear hillside strangler
or hillside stranglers because his cousin was also involved. Which
is very very interesting because normally serial killers is one
you don't share, you know, most in many, many times,
serial killers it's a very intimate thing, right, It's very private.
(48:40):
It's obviously you're not going to go around saying you're
still care serial killer. And it's also special to that person.
It's like their special thing, right, their thing, and so
it's often not shared with the experience is not shared
with other people. And that's why the Hillside strangler is
so interesting. Well, one of the reasons because he did
share this with a cousin.
Speaker 2 (49:00):
Wow.
Speaker 4 (49:01):
Yeah, And do we know how many of the crimes
the cousin are?
Speaker 5 (49:06):
Just not off hand? I don't not off hand. You know,
it's been so long. This happened in the seventies. I
was like two years old, so it's it's something that
you know, I just gave away my age. Oh my god,
it's not good, thank you. So it's not something that I,
you know, of course, was old enough to follow as
it was happening, so I was always going, you know,
back in time about it. So I don't really know
(49:27):
how many the cousin was involved with. I think it's
the five in California, but I could be wrong about that.
If you know, let us know, give us a call,
eighty to eight thirty one crime, let's talk about it.
Speaker 2 (49:36):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (49:37):
Absolutely, And it just seemed I mean, do you even
stand a chance Is it even worth anyone's time to
go before a parole board if you're a convicted serial murderer.
Speaker 5 (49:50):
I don't think so. I don't think so. I mean, no,
I don't. I think it's a waste of time. But
I think they have to procedurally do it, right. I
think it's a now Brian k Coberger won't because he
has life without the possibility of role.
Speaker 2 (50:06):
Right, so he won't right to sign it. I mean,
I think the purpose of prison is rehabilitation. I do.
I believe in that.
Speaker 5 (50:15):
I do think it can work, possibly for the Menenda's brothers,
for instance, who have seemed to flourish and done well
in prison and maybe have changed, you know, their outlook
on life and aren't going to kill people. And of
course they've killed people that were close to them, so
they're probably not a danger to society at large. But
people like this are a danger to society at large.
(50:37):
So I think it requires a little bit more rehabilitation.
And I just don't think they can be rehabilitated.
Speaker 2 (50:43):
That's exactly right.
Speaker 4 (50:44):
And I just if you could see what was going on,
I was raising my hands up, like, what do you mean?
Of course you are a danger to society. I mean
there are different levels that I think all of us
in society, you know, cand of agree on. If you're
out literally discriminately murdering to please yourself, it's probably not
(51:05):
a thing that's gonna change any time too soon in
your DNA.
Speaker 5 (51:10):
No, No, I don't think so. But you know, he's
seventy four. Now, he is seventy four, So his next
PARL hearing, he'll be eighty four years old and he's
been in jail forty five years? Is that long enough time?
Do you think to heal somebody to be a new person.
Speaker 2 (51:25):
I don't know. I know I'm a different person. Listen.
Speaker 5 (51:28):
I'm fifty. I just gave my age away. But I
am a different person than I was when I was thirty.
You know, I'm a completely different person. But I was
never a demon, you know what I mean. I was
never a serial killer or even remotely you know, in
that frame of mind. So I don't know if that's
I don't know.
Speaker 4 (51:46):
Yeah, I'm going to hold on my standard of serial
killers with again the indiscriminate killing. You can stay where
you are and listen, we have a talk back. Let's
go to that first.
Speaker 10 (51:57):
Hi, I just want to add something on the Epstein
video thing. I used to work loss prevention in a
different life and in my experience using multiple different types
of DVRs and brands as models. When you're missing footage,
it's because either the camera itself was down intentionally, maybe
the system was shut off from maintenance, or the camera
itself was set to motion to safe space on the DVR.
But it doesn't seem like that was the case. So
(52:19):
I think the problem with BONDI in this administration is
they think they're the smartest people in the room and
they're not.
Speaker 5 (52:25):
I'd rate him, Yeah, seriously, you know there was in
twenty twenty three, the doj oh I DO report noted
chronic camera failures at this facility where Epstein was the MCC,
including outages in the shoe, which is where Epstein was,
further complicating the integrity or the surveillance.
Speaker 2 (52:45):
So he's got a really good point and also just
the idea of being the smartest in the room. And
I guess that goes back to your original point by
the earlier in the show. And by the way, if
you've missed any of the show, you can catch it
right after as a podcast. So no sweat is that,
you know, Yeah, we feel like we're just being made
to feel foolish, like we all understand how to not everybody,
but you know, even in our work, we know how
(53:06):
to edit on Adobe. I feel like I could have
done a better job on that, and I'm a dumb
dumb you know, on editing, and it does. It feels
like we're just being tossed some silly information and expected
to just keep it. And again, this is not a
small matter. It's a really big deal. It's international sex
trafficking of young underage girls and that's got to stop. Yeah,
(53:29):
and I've really loved eight. Yes, it has to stop.
I totally agree with that, Steph, Stephanie. And then also
what you said with your talk.
Speaker 4 (53:38):
Back, You know how Bondie or whomever has a microphone
in front of them thinks of the smartest person in
the room at the moment.
Speaker 2 (53:45):
You know, for those who haven't been paying attention. Essentially,
this was this infamous client list that was being promised.
Then we were told there was no client list. Then
we were told no sweat as proof though that Epstein
actually did in fact commit suicide. We're going to release
this unedited, raw, eleven hour video, only to find out
that it was in fact edited. And then Pam Bondy,
(54:08):
whether it's just her or she's getting that order from above.
I have to assume many people were in the know
at this point basically said okay, sorry about that. It
was really just one minute that was missing, and that's
a common thing. You know, every night, at a certain hour,
one minute of a tape goes missing. Okay, So that's
like that was the bone they threw us. This was
(54:28):
just you know, moments ago, days ago, and now today
it's like, actually that's not true. It's actually almost three minutes.
And again it's like maybe the lie is just the
tip of the iceberg, and it just makes maybe all
of us And this is one thing, I like, the
all of us. We feel kind of this collective unity
of everyone feeling like, huh, you're gonna lie to us
(54:50):
about that? Well, what else is getting misrepresented to us
as a whole, not just as a political side. And
you know, maybe that's the only thing that good could
come out of this, is that we're kind of all
in unison right now as a community and as a country.
Maybe this is the thing that brings you know, Americans together. Yeah,
I think we all could agree we don't want this
(55:11):
to continue.
Speaker 5 (55:12):
Right, And I think it's important to note too that
we all expect that, you know, the metadata would show
that it was edited by a premiere pro because they
have to do with the extraction from the surveillance system
and it has to be then loaded onto some sort
of device for upload to the dj website. That's completely understandable,
and that's not what we're talking about. The metadata is
(55:35):
showing that the video was edited and saved many many
times over the course of like a three hour period,
and then of course we're missing you know, two minutes
and fifty eight seconds. So it's not that it was
you know, the metadata shows that it's been edited by Adobe.
It's the missing time and all the saves that are
the red flags. So yeah, that was the first report
(55:56):
from the digital forensics at people at Wired was that
it's missing minute. And you can clearly see you don't
need forensics to tell you that the time jumps from
you so shocking. It's a lesson eight to midnight, right, Yeah,
So that's the first excuse because that was the first
thing that was called up, Oh there's a minute missing.
Speaker 2 (56:12):
Well, that's like an snl skit.
Speaker 4 (56:15):
It's like candy gram like it's that obvious and ridiculous.
Speaker 2 (56:20):
And I guess it does show I guess to the
you know, caller's point. Maybe that's just the lead here
we are thought of as really dumb, right, and that
is pretty scary, and that the lead is that it's
really common to lie, whether that's to get into office
or to make big deals happen. Again, not Republicans or Democrats.
(56:41):
I think it's like everybody seems to be in on it,
and that we're the jokes, jokes on us.
Speaker 4 (56:47):
Well, I think things will continue coming to a head.
So let's see what kind of clarity maybe we all get. Maybe,
So this is true crime tonight. We are on iHeartRadio
Courtney arm Strong here with Body Moven and Stephanie Lydecker,
and we have just been talking about Epstein and the
tape and the leaks and the sex trafficking and all
(57:10):
of the above. We've been hearing from you and we
want to continue to do so. Always give us a call.
We're at eighty eight three to one Crime or you
can hit us on the talkbacks. But now we're going
to hop from that mess into another. And this is
the case.
Speaker 2 (57:28):
Yeah, that's.
Speaker 7 (57:31):
Right.
Speaker 5 (57:32):
I think that there's just so many of these stories.
Of course, we're going to be talking about the abercombian
Fitch story and the former CEO of Abercombie and Fitch
whose name is Michael Jeffries. He was charged with running
an inner national sex trafficking ring a couple of months
ago in May, and he unfortunately was found unfit to
(57:52):
stand trial because he has Alzheimer's. In the judges ordered
that he, you know, go to this medical facility to
be under observation to see because condition improves. So that's
kind of where we're at right now. But it just
seems like one scandal after another with these people, and
quite frankly, I'm tired of them. I'm tired of these
stories because it's just it's disgusting. It grosses me out
(58:15):
as a person, and it's just but it's happening right
under our noses.
Speaker 2 (58:20):
We have to talk about it. Some people are speculating online. Again,
I look at all the sources in terms of far right,
far left, and then everything in between. So you know,
there is chatter that this was a huge sex trafficking ring, right,
young boys being lured, drugged, you know, trafficked under the
(58:41):
guise of furthering their modeling career. Yeah, if I remember
that store, Abercrombie and Fitch, sure, you know, like they
always had like the young hot kind of you was
really more boys, right, like topless, good looking male models,
but they were young that were always like outside the
store kind of telling people to come in. It always
kind of melt like cologne. By the way, I used
(59:02):
to love this store, so they used to have the
best genes and probably still do. And sure enough, again
powerful people dragging these young boys and essentially drugging them
and sex trafficking them in a manner that is really
a hideous. But also the magnitude is pretty unparalleled, if
(59:23):
not by Epstein. It's again same level, same amount. I mean,
it's happening internationally, maybe at a different you know, Epstein's
a little bit more high profile men and maybe being blackmails,
right and in this case it's this is similar file men, Yeah,
taking these young boys and subjecting them to unspeakable things, right.
Speaker 5 (59:46):
Well, and it's alleged that he was working with his
romantic partner Matthew Smith and a third person, James Jacobson,
so the CEO, mister Jeffries, he would use those two
to lure men to see sex parties with the possibility
that they received modeling jobs. So it's kind of like
they were his glean. Maxwell exactly they were grooming dare
(01:00:09):
we say, right? So another version of grooming yet again.
And it's so sick and it's been happening for so long.
Speaker 2 (01:00:15):
So a like gross as it is, Thank god we're
talking about it, so at least we know what to
look for in the world. Also, some we're saying that,
you know, maybe all this EPSTEINSS and the Diddy case
was a distraction to get us off of this case,
because it's also massive and by the way, it hasn't
gotten a ton of mainstream news. I haven't seen this
on the ticker on just about any network that I watch,
(01:00:38):
and all there was a documentary about that.
Speaker 4 (01:00:41):
There was It was actually a documentary from the BBC
that broke the story. And the allegations are that all
of the nefarious things you guys have been speaking about
it went on from all the way from two thousand
and eight till about twenty fifteen. Dozens of men were involved,
(01:01:01):
and as you said, it was you know, using his
position to cource these victims into sexually exploitative situations. And
it was really according they were forced into having sex,
they were forced to have alcohol and drugs and viagra,
So it was really brutal.
Speaker 9 (01:01:23):
Yeah.
Speaker 5 (01:01:24):
And they used their money and influence, just like Jeffrey
Epstein right to prey on these vulnerable men. I mean,
and they used, of course the underlings, these two other men,
his romantic partner and another guy to lure these men
to these parties.
Speaker 2 (01:01:38):
Can it be any creepy or too?
Speaker 9 (01:01:40):
Like?
Speaker 2 (01:01:40):
Why are all of these people into underage sex?
Speaker 9 (01:01:44):
Like?
Speaker 2 (01:01:44):
Can we just knock it off with the grossness? It's
just so inappropriate, And it's amazing to me that this
is so widespread. We always heard about it. It always
seemed like something that the weirdo down the block maybe did.
But we're talking about really successful, influential peace people who
could have very healthy lives. It's so scary. Honestly, hold
your baby's clothes. Yeah.
Speaker 5 (01:02:06):
Well, for an update on where this is right now,
you know, he's in the hospital being observed for his
Alzheimer's to see if he can stand trial, and the
doctors are saying that you know, he's an older man
and based on independent evaluations of three separate doctors, he
has severe dimension Alzheimer's, which ensures and this isn't quotes
(01:02:27):
ensures continuing decline over time.
Speaker 2 (01:02:29):
So it doesn't look like perfect, right, Yeah, it is
all nice. It was kind of like Weinstein, you know,
crawling in on a walker, I know it, you know,
or Cosby crawling in on a walker. How convenient, right?
They seemed pretty healthy when they were assaulting young men. Okay, well, anyway,
we're going to move on to lighter subjects. Dare I
say thank you for keeping his convo going eight eight,
(01:02:51):
eight to three one crime. We absolutely want to hear
from you. This is true crime tonight. We're talking in
true crime all the time. We're talking true crime all
the time. I'm Steph. I'm here with Courtney and body
(01:03:12):
and listen. We're so happy to be hearing from you.
Thank you for the calls. We have a talkback right now.
Speaker 6 (01:03:17):
Hi, this is Tam from Greenfield, Indiana. I'm the Brian Cooldberger.
Do you think that he took this play deal because
now he's going to make millions on a book deal,
And do the families have a way to file a
civil suit so that he cannot profit from that?
Speaker 5 (01:03:40):
Yeah, that's a got This is such a good question,
and it's actually a whole segment I wanted to propose.
I'm kind of glad we're talking about it. So Idaho.
First of all, the son of Sam Law. So if
you guys remember David Berkowitz, the son of Sam, Right,
he's the serial killer out of New York. Remember he
was saying his dog was telling him to kill people.
Speaker 2 (01:03:59):
Do you remember he was like going up to lovers
that were making out in their cars in New York
back in the day. Right, this is like in the seventies, right,
And he called himself the son of Sam because he
would write letters and Okay, so the son of Sam
Law was passed in New York because there were concerns
that he was going to sell his story and make money.
Speaker 5 (01:04:18):
So New York passed a son of Sam Law. And
what that basically said was you can't profit from your crime.
And other states kind of picked up that same in
the vein of the same son of Sam Law. Well
in I think the early nineties, the Supreme Court said
it's unconstitutional because it also prevented people from profiting from
(01:04:39):
even talking about the crime. So like, for instance, true
crime creators wouldn't it wouldn't be a thing, right, he decided,
So it became unconstitutional to have a son of Sam Law.
So states had kind of adapted the Son of Sam
law to fit, you know, constitutional requirements. Idaho has one,
(01:05:00):
but it doesn't prevent the person from speaking about or
profiting from the crime, but it does allow for the
families of the victims and other things to get the
restitution from the sales.
Speaker 2 (01:05:11):
Of those things. I see.
Speaker 5 (01:05:13):
Okay, So, because it has to be a really narrow
scope to be constitutionally appropriate, that's what Idaho decided to do.
You can, of course write a book and make profit
from it, but the family has the right to get
restitution based on that. So to answer the caller's question,
I don't necessarily think that's why he pled because he
(01:05:35):
wants a profit, because there will be no ability for
him to really profit from anything the fam I mean,
do you really think do you really think that Steve
Gonsalvez is going to let that happen?
Speaker 2 (01:05:44):
I certainly don't. Ooh, that's a tough one. I mean, man,
I would hope not. But we have seen, you know,
loved ones of killers make some money, and we know
full well that that money that a loved one perhaps
made was put to their defense, you know, a killer's
defense potentially. So that's complicated stuff. I would hope that
(01:06:05):
Brian Coburger does not see it dime. And even the
Karen Reid case, you know, like she obviously signed a
very lucrative book deal. We talked about that briefly yesterday,
and look, her life was put on hold. She's you know,
had to go through two trials. You know, no doubt
that's a financial, complete loss. I can only imagine how
(01:06:27):
intense that must be. So on the one hand, I'm like, oh,
I guess she should, you know, finally get paid and
maybe get her life back on track. And then on
the other You're like, you know, a person did die,
and you know, does that money or half of that
money go to John O'Keefe's family or something. Is there
some way that victims can also get some of that money.
(01:06:47):
It's a complicated one. That's tough. I don't know, you
would hope.
Speaker 4 (01:06:51):
But with Karen Reid being you know, she was not guilty,
so yeah, she's I mean, she didn't kill him, right,
right sort of law standard. She didn't kill them, So
certainly don't stand of someone who's convicted apply I hear
what you're saying in terms of being a tasteful human being.
Speaker 2 (01:07:11):
Well, speaking of Karen Reid.
Speaker 5 (01:07:13):
Can can we talk about this really closs this breaking
news about Karen Reid, And I don't really completely understand
this is breaking by the way, so a juror, So,
do you guys remember there was this federal probe into
the investigation of the Karen Reid case. Yes, and there
was a federal grand jury convened. And one of the
jurors who sat on this grand jury that heard evidence
(01:07:34):
about the FBI investigation into the case has pled guilty
to leaking secret information about the witnesses who testified and
what their testimony was. And it's not clear. Her name
is Jessica Leslie. It's not clear like what she leaked
or who she leaked it too, or even what the
information was used for or who it was used by. However,
(01:07:57):
she pled guilty, okay, and her sentence is one day, really.
Speaker 2 (01:08:03):
Day she has bananas. This goes back to the sequestering again.
I al, I struggle with this.
Speaker 5 (01:08:07):
People are really kind of worked up about this because
they're kind of wondering, like, Okay, this is a grand
juries are It's kind of like a sacred thing in
our country. It's secret, so very secret. What happens to
these grand juries, and so for her sentence to only
be one day, she violated one of the most sacred
tenets of our country, one of them.
Speaker 4 (01:08:27):
You know.
Speaker 5 (01:08:27):
Well, people are saying, is it possible she's working with
the United States government for further probes into this investigation?
Like so, but again, there's no proof of that. We
don't know.
Speaker 2 (01:08:42):
This is just what people are talking about online. Oh
so that suggestion.
Speaker 4 (01:08:47):
And I'm sounding a eureka ah, because we were talking
about this. I said, I don't understand the implications, but
hearing you describe it, body, do I understand it that
perhaps this means that there might be a federal case
into the matter of John o'keith's death that would be
completely separate from anything now I understand.
Speaker 2 (01:09:10):
I think, so, oh wow, that's interesting. So that would
be like the people, the people that were you know,
some of the cops that were brought into question. We
won't name names. That's interesting. This doesn't affect Karen Reid
and her verdict, however, No, not at all. I mean,
for sure, doesn't you just go to sleep for once
(01:09:30):
and have like nothing breathing down her throat?
Speaker 5 (01:09:33):
I tend to think it has to do with the
investigation itself, and not necessarily what happened to John O'Keefe.
I mean, obviously, I think that's incredibly important, and I
think there could be federal chargers brought to somebody for that.
But I think that it means something about the investigation.
But I don't know what the grand juror would have
to do with that. I don't know how I.
Speaker 2 (01:09:52):
Think it might be.
Speaker 5 (01:09:53):
I think it might be a way like a door
open to John O'Keefe's investigation. But it's interesting and it's
making the round, so I thought maybe know I bring
it up.
Speaker 4 (01:10:01):
Yeah, absolutely, Well, we'll definitely keep everyone updated as the
news comes out and listen. If you have any questions
or cases you wish we were following, give us a call.
We're at eighty eight three to one prime and we
do want to hear from you. And we actually have
another talking back also on Brian Coberger.
Speaker 2 (01:10:22):
Let's see. Oh hi, my.
Speaker 3 (01:10:24):
Name is Haley.
Speaker 9 (01:10:25):
I am curious as to when you think Brian Foldberger
best to his defense attorney that he was guilty. I'm
having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea
as a defense attorney to just send someone I know
is guilty of burnering for beautiful and experienced college students
just write features ahead of them.
Speaker 2 (01:10:47):
So that was kind of hard to hear.
Speaker 5 (01:10:48):
Can I read? Because we got we have a transcript
of what she said. She said, Hi, my name is Haley.
I'm curious as to when you think Brian Coberger confessed
to his defense attorney that he was guilty. I'm having
a hard time wrapping my head around the idea as
a defense attorney to defend somebody I know is guilty
of murdering four beautiful, innocent college students with bright features
(01:11:10):
ahead of them.
Speaker 2 (01:11:11):
That's a good question. And not only that, but Ann.
Speaker 5 (01:11:14):
Taylor was fully prepared to accuse and condemn four innocent
people of being alternate perpetrators in this crime. So I
have to think, you know, Anne Taylor is an excellent lawyer.
She has a really good reputation. She's death penalty qualified.
She's only one of a handful in the state of Idaho.
I have a hard time imagining she would be willing
(01:11:36):
to do that if she knew her client was guilty. So,
in my Pollyanna world, I want to say it came down.
Speaker 2 (01:11:42):
To the last minute. Oh what Courtney, you were going to.
Speaker 4 (01:11:46):
I was gonna say, Okay, Pollyanna, Pollyanna one hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (01:11:49):
I agree. I don't know.
Speaker 4 (01:11:51):
I mean, I certainly don't know at which point Coburger
did teal Anne Taylor. And I learned this from We've
had many conversation Stephanie and I with defense attorney Perknermi.
He defended Jody Arius as one of his many clients,
and I asked kind of the same question to him, Haley,
(01:12:12):
how do you know if you think someone's guilty or no,
it doesn't matter. It is your legal and ethical obligation
as a defense attorney, and particularly with the standard of
when you are defending someone against the death penalty, you
have to go forth with an absolutely vigorous defense. Now,
(01:12:33):
what you can't do is you can't perjure yourself. But
even that said, anything within the law. So let's take,
for example, and I have zero inside knowledge, but take
for example what you said body about Ann Taylor was
going to present the potential that they were up to
(01:12:54):
four other people and they were planting it. Let's say
that Coberger had said, I did it. You know, well,
is it possible that while you were there, maybe there
were some other people there and maybe they had the
chief and dropped it.
Speaker 2 (01:13:07):
Okay, I don't know, but that that makes sense.
Speaker 4 (01:13:09):
That wouldn't be necessarily Alie, do you see what I'm saying?
Speaker 1 (01:13:13):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (01:13:14):
But anyway, the bottom line is, no matter how greosome
the crime, if you were a defense attorney, you must
be vigorous in your defense.
Speaker 2 (01:13:21):
That I definitely agree. I mean, her number one thing
is defend her client no matter what. Right.
Speaker 5 (01:13:25):
I just I have a hard time with her getting
up in court and saying for you know, alternative perpetrators
and these are the people and hear their names, and
I want to blame them for this when I know exactly.
Speaker 2 (01:13:36):
Yeah, I struggle with this too, and especially if the
state is paying for it, right, so why am I
paying for it? In that case? You're using the Coburger example,
and it was a very expensive defense attorney because it
was a death sentenced trial. So as a state, why
are we paying for the defense of somebody who's lying?
Speaker 4 (01:13:56):
Well, there is you are not allowed to perjure yourself.
And listen, even the exact ample I just gave that
may well have been a step too far. But even
if you know your client one hundred percent, did it.
Speaker 5 (01:14:08):
You know, wants to be Maybe we could get Jarrett,
Maybe we could get Jared, Maybe we could get Jarrett
to come on and talk about the son of Sam
stuff and this.
Speaker 2 (01:14:16):
I mean, that's a good point, Courtney Armstrong. You know
you're right. I remember very well the Kirk Nurmi who
infamously defended Jody Arrius even tried to get off that case,
and he wasn't able to because he was like, this
one's a killa. He knew that she was up to
no good and by law, by the job he had,
he was not able to be removed as the defense
(01:14:37):
attorney of Jody Aarius who infamously killed Travis, her then boyfriend, maliciously. Well,
we should kind of dig into that a little bit
more because I'm a little more confused. What a great
talk back, Haley. We will be, you know, we'll be
digging in, hopefully even later this week. Listen, We're shocked
and in awe here. If you watch Vander pump Rolls,
it's just come out that Brock cheated on Sheena. What
(01:15:00):
is happening with this world? Enough is enough?
Speaker 4 (01:15:02):
Stephane a get on board broadcast Family in Australia for
she'da past behavior determines future behavior.
Speaker 2 (01:15:10):
I'm not shocked.
Speaker 5 (01:15:10):
God almighty, we need another show just for Stephanie's like
scandals and reality TV.
Speaker 2 (01:15:15):
Can we believe it? Like I was holding out some
hope in this humanity? All right, well we have a
talk back and it won't be brought.
Speaker 11 (01:15:22):
Hey, y'all, Indy from Oakland here, and I just don't
know if you guys have been following the Sam Hascoll case.
Sam Heskell Junior is the son of like an LA producer,
and he killed his wife and her parents and then
chopped up their bodies and put them in like dumpsters
or dumpster in LA. Anyway, very gruesome, very traumatic case.
(01:15:42):
But yeah, I just don't know if you guys have
been following it.
Speaker 2 (01:15:45):
Love you guys feel like we're doing a podcast about it.
In fact we are. Yeah that is. Yeah, it's actually
something we're kind of needy. Been a wow moment. Yeah,
it's a really hideous. Yeah, Banana's case, that's such a
great one, Indy, thank you for the call on he
killed himself.
Speaker 5 (01:16:00):
I don't think she said that in the talk back,
but he killed himself yesterday and in jail. Yeah, so wow,
that's crazy. I didn't know that he did. I mean,
I know the case, and you know, this guy is
so stupid. He hired a bunch of day labors. He
chopped up his wife in her parents, and he put
their body parts in garbage bags and hired day labors
to carry it to the dumpsters. And they were like
(01:16:22):
what is this? And they opened the bags and they're
presented with like limbs and heads and stuff.
Speaker 2 (01:16:28):
That's how we got a prominent family, like you really loving,
really sad, you know, and you know, dismemberment.
Speaker 6 (01:16:34):
Man.
Speaker 2 (01:16:34):
Yeah, it's like I can't things we can't understand. That
is certainly one of them. And again some somebody who
had a very affluent life or affluent I say that.
So yeah, but whatever the word is that, you know,
I had a lot of promise and really loving family,
and you know, this clown really really destroyed a person's legacy,
(01:16:55):
his family's legacy, and obviously dismembered his in laws. Yeah great,
his wife.
Speaker 4 (01:17:01):
Yeah, I don't know this at all. We should definitely
talk about locally upcoming.
Speaker 2 (01:17:05):
Yeah, it's a local thing in La.
Speaker 5 (01:17:07):
Yeah, I say that like I still live in La,
you know, I still in my mind I still live
in California, still here.
Speaker 2 (01:17:13):
I'm coming home. All things good, All things good. Yeah,
thank you for that though. And by the way, we've
been getting so many great cases from you allso it's great.
Keep the cases coming. We definitely are getting them if
we are, if you don't hear about it right away,
just because we're doing the deep dive so that we
can share some new information. So yeah, keep cases coming.
Definitely hit us up.
Speaker 4 (01:17:34):
And speaking of this was a talk back from yesterday
and we only got to dig in a little tiny
bit on Gary Coleman, but we will do a deeper dive.
But basically, Gary Coleman, he suffered a fatal head injury
at his home in Utah when he fell and at
the time he was home only with his ex wife,
Shannon Price. And then what has come out is that
(01:18:00):
she failed a lie detector test on a TV show
Light Detective Truth or Dare on A and E. So
we are kind of getting the facts together of that death.
But basically his ex wife, Shannon Price feels like she's
been living under a cloud of suspicion.
Speaker 2 (01:18:16):
She does not deserve right.
Speaker 5 (01:18:18):
I want to correct myself real quick on something I
don't want to. I don't want to be completely wrong.
Sam Haskell killed himself on Saturday.
Speaker 2 (01:18:24):
Now, yesterday. It's been one long feu day. It truly
has seems like yesterday, yaday, It truly has I don't
even know what day it is. It's Tuesday, right, It's
Tuesday only because that was rare? Do I know that?
Speaker 9 (01:18:36):
Right? Man?
Speaker 2 (01:18:38):
I have to write it on a post it so
I know how to track my days. So, yes, we
have some interesting cases that we're going to be following
tomorrow too. We're going to get a little bit more
into this, you know, sweet Gary Coleman, America's sweetheart from yesteryear.
We're going to do a deeper dive into that. I
know we didn't get to a lot of the cases
(01:18:58):
we were going to tonight, So make sure you stay
with us because big show tomorrow. It's true crime tonight.
We're talking true crime all the time. Have a great night.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.