The Matthew Perry Sentencing, Epstein Island Images, and New Twists in Luigi Mangione’s Trial

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

Speaker 2 (00:19):
Welcome to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio. We're talking true
crime all the time. It's Wednesday, December third, and yes,
we have a stacked night of headlines, lots of things
to uncover tonight. Listen. The doctor linked to the overdose
death of our beloved friend, Star Matthew Perry learned his
fate today and it speaks to an entire ring of

(00:41):
things that I think are seeing their moment. Also, in
breaking news, shocking and disturbing images have been released about
the Jeffrey Epstein Island. I need you guys to see this.
Please log on look in the pictures if you haven't
seen it yet. There's literally a dentist chair in a
room with a massage table behind it. What does this

(01:03):
all mean? Also, the trial for accused wife killer Brian
Walsh continues with some really crucial physical evidence revealed today
in court. Needless to say, body has been following this
very very closely. Plus, we have our most favorite prosecutor
here with us Jarrett Farantino, as you will always be
on Wednesdays to discuss all of your big burning questions.

(01:27):
Thank you for the talkbacks. We're going to try to
get to all of them in all of the big
cases that we've been talking about all week, Luigimi and
Gione back in court. We have questions also, why hasn't
David the pop star been named as suspects or brought
into custody or frankly will he ever? And also, let's
be real, we want to be able to talk about

(01:47):
any of the questions that you have regarding the Rebecca
Park case that we've been following so very closely. And
if you have any other prosecutor type legal questions for Jared,
you obviously can call us at eight eight h ts
three to one Crime, or you can leave us a
talk back on the iHeartRadio app, or you could always
hit us up at our socials at True Crime Tonight's

(02:08):
show on Instagram and TikTok, or at True Crime Tonight
on Facebook. I'm Stephanie Leidecker and I'm here with Courtney
Armstrong and body move in and look, we have a
full house tonight. We have Adam and Sam in the
control room, and of course producer Taha with us looking
all handsome and ready to rumble. Let's do it, body,

(02:32):
where should we begin. Let's talk about Matthew Perry. Let's
talk about Matthew Perry.

Speaker 3 (02:36):
So the doctor who illegally supplied Matthew Perry with the
ketamine he was sentenced today to thirty months in prison
for his role in the Actress twenty twenty three death.
For those who aren't familiar, actor Matthew Perry was best
known for playing Chandler Bing on one of our favorite shows,
right like of All Time Friends. He had long battled addiction.

(02:57):
It was very public. He had recently kind of been
receiving ketamine therapy and started to reach out to this
doctor to get it legally supplied to him, and this
doctor agreed, And this doctor now has been sentenced. So
doctor Salvador Placentia exploited actor Matthew Perry's vulnerability by repeatedly

(03:19):
supplying him ketymine despite knowing the actor's history.

Speaker 2 (03:23):
So that's what happened. By the way, the ketamine was
being used for therapeutic reasons, right, So sometimes ketamine is
used in like club environments and environments. So we believe
in Matthew Perry's case, he was you know, sober and
was dealing with addiction and was using ketamine as many
do in specifically Los Angeles, where they you know, it's

(03:46):
a means to kind of keep them healing from addiction.

Speaker 3 (03:48):
So this I know couple people that are in ketymine
therapy and they say it's quite.

Speaker 2 (03:53):
People swear by it, and it's been apparently very helpful
with post traumatic stress for multiple scorocys who were returning
for more. I don't know, I've you know, not my
personal I don't know enough about it. But who's to say.
But in Matthew's case, this was a part of what
he thought was his recovery. Perhaps, But this doctor said
something so horrifying. Quote, I wonder how much this was

(04:16):
caught on text, by the way, I wonder how much
this moron will pay. That's what the former doctor said.
Now again he had to face the music today, this
doctor in the courtroom where he had to face Mom,
Matthew Perry's mother to I who had to actually look
him in the eye and let him see her complete devastation.

(04:38):
And also his sister spoke up just basically saying that
you know, you weren't trying to help him, you were
physically exploiting him and ultimately did lead to one of
our most beloved human's death. Right, Like, everybody loves Matthew
Perry name, raise your hand if you don't love Matthew Perry.
Everybody loves Matthew Perry. He's everybody's friend.

Speaker 3 (04:58):
Well, and you know his is married to Keith Morrison.
Morrison also by the way right True Crime Royalty, and
you know that's kind of a strange connection. But yeah,
like you know, he had apologized to his mother. He
did say that terrible text. You know, I wonder how
much this moron will pay. Doctor Salvador Placentia did apologize

(05:19):
in court today to the family, which I acknowledged. He
acknowledged he failed after the actor Matthew Perry and his family,
you know, and again he referenced this text. Federal prosecutors
noted that the doctor had supplied actor Matthew Perry with
twenty vials of ketymine lozenges and syringes between late September

(05:40):
and mid October, So in the period of you know,
one month, he gave him twenty vials of I don't
know what's normal.

Speaker 2 (05:46):
Well this is not.

Speaker 4 (05:47):
This is well above and well beyond according to the information.

Speaker 2 (05:51):
Yeah, so it did.

Speaker 4 (05:52):
It started out as therapeutic, which does work wonderfully for
people who are being treated sure by doctors who know
what's going on. And then, you know, being a lifelong addict,
it seemed like it was a slippery slope for him.
And he then turned to this doctor Placentia who gave

(06:12):
gave this medicines through unsafe methods, and you know, it
was illegal what he was doing, and the ketamine should
not have been given to him in those doses or
in that manner.

Speaker 2 (06:24):
And this guy gets thirty months. To me, this seems
like a really low blow. And let's remember the entire ring,
the Queen of Ketamine as she's now known as, you know,
really the henchman of this whole clan. She hasn't been
sentenced yet. I don't believe, right, she hasn't. Thirty months
is a walk, it is? What is it to give me?

(06:44):
Tell that to Keith Morrison again, Keith Morrison, if you
don't know who that is. On a cold wintry night,
he's like the distinguished, gray haired dateline expert who's the
voice comforts all of us. And I feel like I've
watched him on every episode and he's been annihilated. This
is I've never.

Speaker 3 (07:02):
Heard anybody say anything bad about Keith Morrison.

Speaker 2 (07:05):
Because we all love He's an American treasure. He is
an American treasure, right, as was Matthew Perry. Correct.

Speaker 3 (07:11):
I mean we all you know, we're all children of
the nineties, right, we all grew up in the Friends
era that you know, we're the same kind of age exactly,
you know, and you know, it was just really really devastating.
The court documents show that he was chart met. Matthew
Perry paid fifty seven thousand dollars for these these drugs,
So that is exactly how much that moron would pay
Doctor H and.

Speaker 4 (07:33):
I act to believe that it was thirty months, given
that he was up for a maximum sentence of forty
years for his plea agreement.

Speaker 2 (07:42):
Thirty months is a walk in the park and by
the way, but I was still living in la prior
to the fires. I lived very nearby where it did
really where the country club was not super near nearby
enough that I kind of know the area where Matthew
Perry was allegedly living at the time he was infamously
in his hot to he was putting at bat signals.

(08:02):
So he was an addict who was using ketamine, you know,
allegedly for healing purposes, but was probably down a very,
very slippery slope. That is the danger zone here where
a celebrity and cash and greed far out weigh a
doctor's oath to do right by humans to help them heal.
And this is egregious. Thirty months is a joke. My

(08:26):
two cents, My two cents. No, I totally agree on it,
but you're not gonna get an argument for me.

Speaker 4 (08:29):
Yeah, it's hard not to well listen, we want to
share that news and of course as the other people
who are involved in this ring come up to trials,
we will keep you informed in the meantime.

Speaker 2 (08:40):
This is true crime. Tonight. We are on iHeartRadio.

Speaker 4 (08:43):
I'm Courtney Armstrong and I'm so happy to be here
with Stephanie Laideker and Body Movin and we have been
talking about the doctor who illegally supplied Matthew Perry ketamine
and he was sinced thirty months. If you have any
thoughts on that. Collectively, I think it was unanimous. We
think the sentence is far too late. But give us

(09:03):
a call eight A eight three to one crime or
hit us on the talkbacks. And I was gonna move
to Epstein if that works for Oh, I is dying
to photo talk about this.

Speaker 2 (09:15):
Has everybody seen the photographs, so there was this new jump.
Courtney will fill us in. If you haven't seen the photographs,
definitely check them out online because this will make a
lot more sense if you do.

Speaker 5 (09:26):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (09:27):
So these newly released photos as well as videos from
Jeffrey Ebstein's private island, they were reveal glimpses of the
estate's interior and this is being released as congressional pressure
intensifies for the full release of the Epstein files. As
a reminder, Jeffrey Ebstein, He's decease, was a convicted sex

(09:47):
offender and financier who used his private island as the
center of many alleged crimes involving underaged girls. And since
sex offender Jeffrey Ebstein's twenty nineteen dea in federal custody,
lawmakers as well as the public have pushed for transparency
and perhaps this is one step in the correct direction.

Speaker 2 (10:10):
We are sixteen days away, so again the countdown continues this,
you know, dump of photographs. We're pretty staggering and I
think wildly disturbing. I had never seen any of these before.
So it's a little inside look and just the premise.
You see the beautiful pool, you see some of the rooms,
and then you also see your room where there's an

(10:30):
actual dentist chair, like a dentist chair, an actual chair
that you the light at the dent bud. Yeah, it's
like nothing other than that. Right behind it is like
a weird massage table. And then there are masks like
the kind that you put on your face of weird men's.

(10:50):
These are men. This is the kind of thing that
you see in the scariest movie, as if there are
some kind of experiments happening there. And again I did
just watch the Diddy doc I have remembered back in
the Epstein early days where the initial allegation, or at
least the chatter or what's the word you use, bodies
scuttle butt. The scuttle butt was that, you know, every

(11:14):
inch of this island was covered with cameras and that
everything that was being done here was being filmed, potentially
for blackmail against very powerful people in the world. Policy leaders,
think tank leaders, et cetera. Which is why it's so
important because that would affect us real time, right, But
there has also been that chatter that there are even

(11:36):
scarier things that were happening there. You see it, and
by when I say that, that where everyone's brain should
go to. As young girls are being drugged. Listen, we
know they're being raped, we know they're being trafficked. That's
what Gailaine Maxwell was actually sentenced for. Hopefully one time
soon we'll see the transcripts from that grand jury testimony. However,
what if it's even worse. What if there's a universe

(11:59):
where young girls are being lured there, they're being drugged,
they're being used, and they're being displayed in experiments. Why
in the world would there be a dentist chair for
a young girl to be in, for men to put
masks on around her.

Speaker 3 (12:15):
Why we've got listen, My mind goes to like the
most disgusting places, like when I like experimentation of some kind,
Are they like these masks? I'm trying to figure out
if they look like somebody? Can I recognize any of
the faces because they're very or neat well, and they're

(12:36):
also very stylistic.

Speaker 4 (12:40):
Yeah, exactly. I've been trying to figure out like what
I feel like. There's symbology a lot too. But what
I remember that Stanley Cooper movie.

Speaker 2 (12:50):
There's that Stanley Cooper movie called Eyes White Shot that
Tom Cruise start in, I believe with Nicole Kidman back
in the day, Adam, I feel like you're going to
know the answer here, so jump in if you do.
It's it's older movie. I remember. I've seen it. I
kind of like dozed off during it, but then I
watched it again with different eyes because it's been alleged
that much of those scenes that were shot in that

(13:10):
movie had to be removed because there were two close
to real things that happen. Is that accurate?

Speaker 6 (13:17):
That is accurate and it's not neither here nor there.
But Stanley Kubrick died before the movie was released officially.

Speaker 2 (13:25):
So and it was supposed to be a little in
the dark world of what we're seeing secret society, secret
society or numnati I hate to even say the word,
and somehow that was going down or a version of that,
similar to the movie Blink Twice that we saw Zoe
Kravitz put out a year ago that she claimed was

(13:47):
based on true events that she had heard from close friends.
What does that mean? What are we even seeing here?
What we are getting dumbed is information that's not files.
These are photographs and videos that are harrowing. Honestly, can
you imagine being a young woman fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, nineteen
years old and being asked to be put in a

(14:08):
dentist chair as pictured, and then there are men around
you who you don't recognize because they're all wearing masks.
Now it's it is un and what in the hell
were they doing to the girls in a dentist chair?
I don't know. I don't even want to go there.
I don't. So we have sixteen days and we're going
to find out, and I'm looking forward to it. But
there is a chorus of victims who are speaking out

(14:31):
actively on Capitol Hill real time. They are reminding everyone
that the time is nearing and that the bank files.
There have been a lot of documents dumped by Deutsche
Bank and JP Morgan. Apparently there are may be some
subpoenas coming for twenty plus more banks, and I think
in the coming days we'll be hearing more of that.

(14:52):
Is that accurate.

Speaker 6 (14:53):
Court.

Speaker 4 (14:54):
Well, I know that the committee received records from JP
Morgan and Deutsche Bank and that will be released after
internal review. So with regards to the twenty depositions, I
don't know, but I'm very intrigued. Well listen, keep it here,
because coming up, Jarrett Farentino, legal expert extraordinaire joins us.

(15:16):
Who's going to help us separate some fact from some speculation.
We've got that more true crime tonight.

Speaker 2 (15:33):
Welcome back to True Crime tonight on iHeartRadio. We're talking
true crime all the time. I'm Stephanie Leidecker here with
Courtney Armstrong and Body Moven and listen, we have our
favorite prosecutor here with us, Jarrett Farantino, fresh off of
all Things All Things. We have a lot of cases
to get to, so Jared, we've been stacking some questions

(15:54):
for you all week, and we have some talk packs
for you as well, so we're gonna have to speed
talk through all of them. Welcome back. First of all,
how are you happy Thanksgiving? Have you post Thanksgiving?

Speaker 7 (16:04):
Thanksgiving? Everyone?

Speaker 2 (16:06):
All right, So let's go to talkback right now.

Speaker 8 (16:08):
Hi, ladies, I've been listening to your coverage on the
Jeffrey Epstein case. I have to admit I lean a
little more towards the pessimistic side, but I do appreciate
hearing Stephanie's optimism. I would love to hear Jarreed Farrantino
talk about some of the legal lees in the bill
to release the files that limits their reactions. And then
also how likely it is that the lawyers for the
victims might already have full access to these files. So

(16:31):
if they're not released in full, somebody still potentially has
them and could.

Speaker 2 (16:36):
Oh my god, what a good question, clever question, What
a great question.

Speaker 3 (16:40):
Throw So I guess she's asking, like, through the process
of discovery, right, would the lawyers for the victims have
these files already?

Speaker 2 (16:48):
Right? But is there any discoveries there has been?

Speaker 5 (16:51):
Okay, yeah, so if there are, it all depends on
what stage certain litigation is at. It's when you exchange
that documentation in discovery, those redactions, the protections of those
redactions may not apply.

Speaker 7 (17:05):
It may be the very person.

Speaker 5 (17:07):
Whose name is typically redacted asking for the records, so
they would have in that scenario unredacted records in the
event discovery has taken place.

Speaker 7 (17:18):
Now, there are a lot of claims that.

Speaker 5 (17:20):
Are at various stages, so it's hard to sell. But
that would be an exception to the redaction.

Speaker 7 (17:25):
So it's an.

Speaker 5 (17:26):
Insightful question, and quite honestly, it puts the redaction and
some of that information that remains confidential into a scenario
where it would be unredacted.

Speaker 2 (17:37):
Interesting.

Speaker 4 (17:38):
Oh, interesting, So if if that's the case, that sounds
like potentially there could be more transparency if it brings
that into a lane of being an adacted.

Speaker 5 (17:51):
Well between those folks, it would be. And then there
are protections afforded to how it can be disclosed, how
it could become part of a filing court. So it's
hard to say whether or not. Because they may have
unredacted information, they're still certainly bound by certain public disclosures
of it. You know, there are privileges that attach to
that kind of documentation.

Speaker 2 (18:13):
Can I ask a question just as a follow up
to that I had read earlier today? And I've seen
multiple reports of this that Gilain Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's co conspirator,
who we all know, is serving a twenty year sentence.
Initially she was in a very bad place. Now she's
in a very cushy situation. And allegedly Glee Maxwell will
be following a petition challenging her sex trafficking conviction that's

(18:38):
allegedly coming next week, and could that possibly encourage the
DOJ to keep certain files kind of stander wraps in
the event that shed a new trial. Yeah, yeah, she's
She's yes.

Speaker 9 (18:56):
Isn't that convenient according to her lawyer, correctly if I've
heard otherwise, But according to her lawyer, Giley Maxwell, sometime
in the next two weeks will be following a petition
challenging her sex traffic and conviction, and if so, the
DOJ could use it as a reason to hold.

Speaker 2 (19:15):
Certain files in the event that Gilaine maxis is why
she has such a trial position right now? So is
it possible that from a timing perspective, here we are
sixteen days out, we are seeing the you know, we're
seeing pictures and things that are being released, whether it's
from the Epstein estate, et cetera. Let's assume the best
and you know, all of the inner workings in our

(19:37):
government are signed and ready to share. However, if in
the eleventh hour, Gileaene Maxwell suddenly raises her hand from
her cushy, uh, you know, facility, let's call it, and
says I want to have a new trial, and I'm
going to say that my last trial is bunk. Therefore

(19:58):
all of these files should be ce because that could
affect my freedom.

Speaker 5 (20:04):
There's a carve out in the Disclision Disclosure Act, so
great catch. The carve out specifically says you will not
get child sexual abuse materials, you will not get victims' names,
and you will not get filings or names that would
impact a federal investigation.

Speaker 7 (20:22):
So there's the magic word.

Speaker 5 (20:23):
Now, does Galaine Maxwell's challenge does that spring a federal
investigation back to life? Great thought, It's an argument that
could be used her attorney, I know she filed that appeal.
She was represented by Arthur Idalla in New York. They
were challenging whether or not she was protected under no

(20:45):
prosecution agreement that Jeffrey Epstein had, which I thought was
far reaching, but the thought provoking them it was.

Speaker 2 (20:51):
An interesting argument.

Speaker 5 (20:52):
Right.

Speaker 2 (20:53):
So the two thousand and seven, two thousand and eight
conviction that you're speaking of that happened in West Palm Beach,
which were state charged, not federal charges, and in those
state charges, Epstein declares no co conspirators, meaning nobody who's
doing the deed in my circle can be convicted moving forward,
and then Gilie Maxwell gets convicted federally, so they're kind

(21:16):
of like, ooh, this is a little like there's some
strategy here where she might find a crack in the system.

Speaker 7 (21:23):
Right, that's what Phil positived.

Speaker 5 (21:25):
Now, that was all state, but he extended a promise
from one prosecutor into the term of another.

Speaker 7 (21:31):
He's a free man today because of that. So it
is interesting.

Speaker 5 (21:35):
I am hoping they don't use the Glain Maxwell case
springing back to life on her own motion to say
that now there's an ongoing federal investigation, her case is
pretty frozen in time in that it is the law
of the case. She's already been tried and convicted.

Speaker 7 (21:53):
I don't know that they could make that argument, but
there is.

Speaker 5 (21:56):
That language which could be narrowly used to drive that
affection throw.

Speaker 2 (22:02):
Yeah, it's a funny thing. I can't imagine a universe
well that will happen. But you know, everybody, even internally here,
is like, there's going to be a catch. There's going
to be a catch, and could that possibly be the
catch in the armor I've had at my heart that
everybody wants transparency, nobody even this is again not political,
It could be of so many things follow the money,

(22:26):
and I do think that the Deutsche Bank and the
JP Morgan Bank and the twenty plus other banks that
may be subpoena in the coming weeks, I think that
is where the answers lie.

Speaker 5 (22:37):
Absolutely. I think if you look at what are they
going to be releasing, Uh, there's documentation, bank records, phone records, travelogues.
As much as people want to see the salacious list,
the devil's in the details and they're very hard to
run from.

Speaker 2 (22:51):
But this delay Maxwell thing is something we should keep
a quloose watch on and not on my Bengo card.
Was the dentist's chair that we saw today, so we
can move on from that. But it gets weirder even
for me, and I'm down the weird hole in every way.

Speaker 3 (23:07):
Well, when you combine it with the photo from twenty
twenty four with the medical equipment next to the bed, yeah,
it's week right, it's weird.

Speaker 2 (23:14):
Courtney.

Speaker 4 (23:15):
Oh, I just one more thing on the glean if
I may, which is apparently the letter indicates that she
will file the request without a lawyer.

Speaker 2 (23:27):
Representing her number one who needs a lawyer.

Speaker 4 (23:30):
And number two that the grounds have not been stated
on what she'll file on, but that it's known as
a Habeas petition. Which doesn't the habeast petition mean you've
got me on lawfully? So I guess, A, how could
she possibly say that since she was convicted? And B
is there benefit to not having a lawyer represent her?

Speaker 2 (23:52):
She's doing it? Pro se what this is?

Speaker 5 (23:56):
So?

Speaker 4 (23:56):
According this is New York Times I'm looking at. The
letter was submitted by Gilainne Maxwell's lawyer. It offers no
details about the grounds that miss Maxwell will cite in
her filing known as a Habeas petition, but the letter
indicated that she would file the request shortly and it
would be done without a lawyer representing her.

Speaker 7 (24:16):
So I wouldn't recommend that approach, especially.

Speaker 2 (24:20):
My prosecutor, Jared Garantino, is not doubt.

Speaker 5 (24:23):
With that secutor, you don't ever want to be the
guy that.

Speaker 7 (24:26):
Loses the someone without a lawyer. I can tell you that, oh.

Speaker 5 (24:28):
My goodness, name will like be put on a plate
and put in the law library. But I don't know,
And the fact that there's no details suggest to me
there's a problem here, and there's there's probably no taste
to this thing.

Speaker 2 (24:41):
More, there's a strategy behind it in some way that
we just are not seeing at the moment. I can't
wait to discuss this with you and Jarrett, as I
said to you during the break, you have to watch
the Diddy doc, The Puff Daddy, the Reckoning. I just
want to talk to you about it legally, because so
many things were accused in that rarely that I'm just
so curious about the legal part. So we can talk

(25:03):
about that next week.

Speaker 7 (25:05):
Absolutely.

Speaker 10 (25:06):
All right, let's go to another talk that do you
think it's possible that Gawayne Maxwell has turned States evidence
and in turn has received a better prison area for
her to.

Speaker 2 (25:21):
Spend her time.

Speaker 10 (25:22):
You know, I find it hard to believe that she
just got moved and gave nothing, and with the Clinton
thing getting opened up, maybe she has something to.

Speaker 11 (25:30):
Do with that.

Speaker 2 (25:33):
There's never a version of this story that has ever
been told that Clinton is not involved with. Right, let's
just say that, let's start there, right, So, just to
have a pox in a lot of houses. My opinion
doesn't count here, but I think we could all infer
what mine is? Well, what is it?

Speaker 11 (25:50):
Yeah?

Speaker 2 (25:50):
One hundred percent. She has been transferred to a lower
security prison in exchange for silence or for you know,
just being mindful, as only and from me that she
may have. And again this is not a specific person.
I don't think this is about as specific grouping. I
don't think it's political. I think it's even far bigger
than that, as the dentist chair would suggest.

Speaker 5 (26:14):
So I think she still looks like she's in an
ad although prison, comfortable prison setting aside, she remains in
an adversarial posture here. She's still filing, she's still fighting
for details not to come out. She's on the wrong
side of the v here. She has not come over
onto the government side. The question was is it possible?

(26:36):
It's certainly possible. Is it likely there would be a
paper trail that would be.

Speaker 7 (26:40):
Coming out too?

Speaker 5 (26:41):
You can only do so much of this under the
cover of night, can you know?

Speaker 2 (26:45):
Is it at some point? I don't think a lot
happens at night.

Speaker 5 (26:49):
Well, it certainly does. But I think we're getting further
down the road here. At some point, this woman is
sitting in jail. She's gotten no break other than a
pushy or prison for her crime. People have look at
look at Sammy de Bull Gravano. He killed nineteen people.
He's a free man today. Like, there are crimes if
you give the right information that you will be excused of. Okay,

(27:11):
I'm not so publicly, I'm not seeing this. The cynic
in me joins your company and says it's entirely possible.

Speaker 2 (27:22):
That is so well said. You are so right about
the mob stuff too. It is.

Speaker 3 (27:27):
I see Sammy the Bull on TikTok's like, it's crazy
to me. I'm scrolling and I'm like, oh my god,
that's Sammy.

Speaker 2 (27:36):
Yeah in my Instagram right now. He's like in my algorithm.
I know it's a yeah.

Speaker 5 (27:41):
He's kind of sofy looking at this.

Speaker 2 (27:45):
Because we work in true crime, it says it all frankly. Wow,
I we have to talk about Luigi as well. So
we've been saying it all week. Finally we have the
guy who's going to know all of the answers, soash
we go to a talkback or just move on to Luigi.

Speaker 11 (28:02):
Talk back the talk back.

Speaker 12 (28:05):
Hi, True Crime tonight. This is Andy from Minnesota. I
was just listening to last night's episode and I just
need to apologize Steph. I do not think that we
will see these files unredacted, the Epstein files. I think
there are too many important people in there. They have
too much money and too much power.

Speaker 3 (28:25):
Yeah, I agree, that's my girl, Andy, thank you. Yeah,
I agree you are. I think the combination of Bill
Clinton investigation being opened, you know, and this Gilain Maxwell
business that's just kind of I just learned about just
now live on the air, I think those those two
things in combination with one.

Speaker 2 (28:46):
Another are going to hold. And I think that's I
think that all sets a really big stage for things
being withheld. But I think I think the general mass
public is able to see beyond anything political again being political,
and actually just see that we're talking actually about a crime,
a very real crime that could be happening real time,

(29:07):
and that the collective generally speaking in general public, whether
Democrat or Republican or from Mars or whatever, are all
going to collectively not be okay with any shannetigans. Right.

Speaker 3 (29:21):
But the general public and the general collective of people
that were that you're speaking of are not in charge.

Speaker 2 (29:28):
I don't know. I feel like we've gotten pretty quickly
to a signing of a bill that happened. We had
that conversation two weeks prior to the bill bill getting
going on, And.

Speaker 3 (29:37):
Do you understand what I'm saying, Like they signed this
bill because Trump was like, go ahead and googree. Now
even though they were the day before going no way,
no way. They Trump said go ahead and sign the bill.
And suddenly now there's this investigation into Bill Clinton. They
knew that was going to happen.

Speaker 2 (29:51):
They almost like running for something that it wouldn't come out.
I see the point that's not lost on me. But
I am going to still hold that's some hope that
the I love the light will overshadow of the dark.
I hope you're right.

Speaker 3 (30:06):
I think some files will be released, like no question,
but it's and we don't know what.

Speaker 2 (30:11):
We don't know, right, we don't know.

Speaker 3 (30:13):
If it's going to be the full thing until you know,
we will never know that, by the.

Speaker 2 (30:17):
Way, show me on. We don't know to share. It's
getting even worse in my head, like I get it,
like the list. I already have the list in my head,
Like that's even going to be old news to all
of us at this point. Like I think we're like
actually going into a category in a place mentally that's
far scarier than may even.

Speaker 3 (30:33):
Be the truth, so let it rip scary. Well, this
is true crime tonight on iHeartRadio. I'm Bobby Movin and
we are joined right now by Jarrett Farentino. We also
have Courtney Armstrong and Stephanie Leidecker. Of course, we've been
talking about the Epstein Files and we want to hear
from you. Give us a call it eighty eight thirty

(30:54):
one crime or hit us on the talkbacks on the
iHeartRadio app.

Speaker 2 (30:57):
And we have our favorite prosecutor in the house, Jarrett
Farantino is back, by the way. Thank you for all
of the questions that we've been stacking. You've been doing
such a good job with your talkbacks and your dms.
We've been stacking them for Jarrett. Jarrett, little do you
know that for the last seven days, since you were
here last we have had questions. You've created a swell

(31:19):
legally speaking, So needless is say we have to talk
about Luigi because not only is it a case that
you follow so closely, but it's also a case that
you also are a lawyer in, so you have a
unique perspective. So what do you think. Let's go right
to a Courtney tell us everyow.

Speaker 4 (31:35):
Let me just lay baxt story catch people up a
little bit.

Speaker 2 (31:38):
So twenty seven year old Luigimanngione.

Speaker 4 (31:41):
He appeared in the Manhattan Supreme Court this week and
this is all for pre trial evidentiary hearing. So the
accused killer, Luigimanngione, is facing nine state felony charges, including
second degree murder. Is also facing federal terrorism and capital
murder charges. All of this relates back to the December

(32:03):
twenty twenty four killing of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson.
It happened in broad morning daylight in the middle of Manhattan. Now,
Mangion's defense is seeking to suppress physical evidence as well
as statements. And what the defense is arguing is that
a three D printed handgun, silencer and manifesto, as well

(32:27):
as Mangion's comments to the police officers were obtained unconst usually.
It is important to note that Luigimangion has pled not
guilty to all charges. So last thing, and we covered
this quite a bit last night, the details of it.
But after a five day manhunt, Luigi Mangione landed at
a McDonald's in Altoona, Pennsylvania. Someone who worked there called

(32:51):
nine one one police officers came to the scene. At
that point, the police officers approached Luigi Mangione and it
was nineteen minutes and forty eight seconds or something before
his miranda rights were read. That is the crux of
basically everything is what it seems, Jared. So what's your

(33:13):
take on the ongoing legal battle regarding you admissibility.

Speaker 5 (33:18):
Well, first of all, it's not a question of whether
or not Luigi Mangioni did it or not at this stage.
This is a question of what is going to be
allowed in at the trial. So what they've objected to.
The key objection is the search of his backpack. You
have the likely murder weapon in that bag, ammunition, a laptop,

(33:39):
and his notebook slash manifesto. Okay, the defense obviously does
not want those items in, so they are going to
do the best they can to say the constitutional rights
of Luigi Mangioni have been violated. These searches were warrantless searches.
So let's break it down first. Number one, what is
a warrantless search? Ninety nine point nine percent of searches

(34:02):
include a warrant, which means an officer filled out an
Affidavid went to a judge and said, we want to
search this person's backpack, car, person, or home. Okay, there
are exitgen circumstances where you don't need a warrant, so
we don't have one here. The question for prosecutors, the
onus goes back on them to answer, what exigen circumstance

(34:25):
did you have that justified going into that young man's backpack.
They're arguing two major ones.

Speaker 7 (34:31):
One there was a public safety concern that this was.

Speaker 5 (34:35):
An active shutter act right that they believe his backpack
could have obtained contained explosive.

Speaker 7 (34:42):
Great position.

Speaker 5 (34:44):
I'd buy it if that if there was a bomb
in there it went off. What's the first thing everybody
would say? Why didn't they check that backpack?

Speaker 2 (34:50):
Right, there's a guy from New York who does shot
a guy in point blank range, and they're saying he's
eating a hash brown in an empty McDonald's. All of
those workers are in danger. If that's not a secure scenario.

Speaker 5 (35:03):
Here's the problem the defense, and that's a great point.
The defense is saying, wait a minute, you were so
worried that that was a bomb, it didn't even clear
the McDonald's. You didn't call a bomb squad and the
officer that handles the bag. She says, checking for explosives,
you know, like, and they're saying she's play acting for
the body. Can a judge is going to look at
this and say, most likely.

Speaker 7 (35:24):
I buy this.

Speaker 5 (35:25):
I would check that backpack to make sure even when
I take it to go get a warrant or I
secure it, the officer securing it don't blow up. You
got to check that stuff.

Speaker 2 (35:34):
And let's assume that they didn't think it was an
actual bomb. They thought it was a gun that just
probably shot a guy in New York and cold blood.
Is that possible nobody thought he was a bomb threat?
Is that a distinction the gun.

Speaker 5 (35:46):
Yes, it's a critical distinction because a gun in a
backpack doesn't pose a threat to public safety. So the
next question is, if it's not a bomb, how can
we get to that search another way? The other option
is an inventory search, where basically you take someone into
custody and you do what's called an inventory search of
their belongings. They're arguing, well, inevitably, we would have taken

(36:10):
that backpack and conducted an inventory search. The defense is saying,
this wasn't an inventory search. You weren't inventoring it, you
were rummaging through it, you were scattering what was in there.
This was a straight up search of that backpack. So
those are the two major exeged circumstances. The other one
is the threat to the officers. You can search a

(36:32):
defendant for an arrestees immediate grab area like in a car,
the center console or areas they have some control over.
They're saying the bag was in his immediate grab area.
The defense is saying he was handcuffed, he wouldn't have
been able to grab any pose no threat to you.
You still should have got a warrant.

Speaker 2 (36:48):
I see. Can I just stop on that from one
point because I've been stuck on this because I've never
understood if the gun was not found in New York
and he was possibly in this Altadena McDonald's where we
know there were people there because somebody called in the
threat that if in fact it was Luigi Mangioni and
he had a gun, and he's known to be a

(37:09):
pretty good shoot, he just maybe murdered a man in
midtown Manhattan, why would that not be a pose of
threat to the general public or to the police officers
who are unless he was handcuffed.

Speaker 5 (37:23):
It's not once he's secured. So yes, being secured, you
have a stronger argument. Now I think these items are
going to come in under one of those. Then there's
a concept, a fourth concept called this is why people
don't like lawyers. I got to say it, But the
fourth concept is we really like you inevitable discovery where

(37:44):
the police would have taken that. They did eventually get
a warrant, and they would have had access to that anyway,
and it would have inevitably been discovered. This show is
going to find a reason to uphold this search. But
the defense is doing a good job. I have to say,
these arguments are very good. And body cams are everywhere.
It's hard to out run those.

Speaker 2 (38:02):
And it's hard to unsee it. So even as they're
like seeking a jury pool in the near future, this
is active news everywhere. We're all seeing this footage. There's
no question that yes, he was apprehended, he was put
in handcuffs. It looks a lot like Luigi the guy
that I'm seeing, and it looks like he had a manifesto.
That last one is really interesting and I wasn't aware
of that, So that tracks meaning Okay, maybe he in

(38:26):
that same nineteen minutes that they were not reading his
Miranda rights. Eventually the same information would have gotten out.
That makes sense.

Speaker 5 (38:36):
Well, the Miranda rights are a little different. They really
govern the statements he made. So, and what the defense
is trying to cover up is that he said his
name was Mark Rosario and provided a fake ID. The
police don't just walk up to some Mirando and automatically
read you your Miranda right.

Speaker 7 (38:50):
They don't just walk up so yere's the right. It
just doesn't work that way.

Speaker 5 (38:54):
He was not in It was not a custodial interrogation
at that point, and that is a big distinction.

Speaker 7 (39:00):
They were identifying him.

Speaker 5 (39:02):
Miranda does not attach unless there's a custodial situation and
he's being interrogated. He was not being interrogated at that point.
So I think those statements are going to survive.

Speaker 2 (39:14):
Oh and Jared, do you think that also?

Speaker 4 (39:16):
The defense was tying the two together, like just adding
that on because I didn't understand why they were making
such a quote stink about the miranda.

Speaker 2 (39:27):
But in those nineteen minutes, who cares because of what
you said? They were just saying, you know, who are you?
And yeah, the guy that they could have he could
have been, could be the killer in the York.

Speaker 5 (39:37):
The answer is the defense is saying, you knew damn
well who he was, and this was all pretext to
get him talking and to get him talking and violation
of his rights. So but from what I've seen, even
though they may have suspected the officers that he watched
Fox News, you see this whole thing. But but again,
even if that was in their mind, you go to

(39:58):
what was being asked. They were simply identifying him and
then they were talking about it if he was in New
York recently. Those kinds of things eventually lead to a
custodial situation where he was then mirandized. To me, it
flowed pretty naturally from what I've read. I think the
bigger concern is the search of the backpack. But I
think they're going to be okay in all of this.

Speaker 3 (40:19):
Does there any world we live in where like state
laws in Pennsylvania versus New York are going to be
at play?

Speaker 7 (40:26):
Oh?

Speaker 5 (40:26):
Yeah, So the state laws in Pennsylvania are at play here,
the constitutional rights apported to someone in.

Speaker 7 (40:32):
Pa orc and those are.

Speaker 5 (40:33):
The laws I fought with throughout my career and there
are pretty extensive constitutional protections in Pennsylvania.

Speaker 7 (40:39):
We provide a greater Fourth.

Speaker 5 (40:40):
Amendment protection than even the federal law, so that here
it survives here, and that's a great question. If it
survives here, in all likelihood, it's going to survive in
federal court too, almost one hundred percent.

Speaker 2 (40:53):
How interesting. I hadn't occurred to me. That is so interesting,
because yes, the state to state is so important. And
what do you think he's thinking right now? Do you think, Luigiman?
I know you can't think. This is not your job
as a lawyer to like your you know, feelings don't count.
But I find it so interesting. And Jarrett, you should
know how many times we've talked throughout the week of like,

(41:14):
oh my god, we have to ask Jared this, Oh
my gosh, he'll know the answer, because it does seem
like there is such strategy And manned, does your lawyer
count in this exact scenario? Whoever has the best lawyer?
You know, frankly sometimes wins right. So it's not about
right or wrong or did he didn't he? Now we're
talking real strategy. Is there anything that you've seen so

(41:38):
far that you thought was a left ball or a
foul ball.

Speaker 7 (41:43):
I think the Anfilios are fine lawyers.

Speaker 5 (41:45):
Certainly they have prosecutorial experience, defense experience, high profile experience.
Who am I to say? But I didn't like the
fact that attorney infilio took a shot at the officer
from New York when she said there were a thousand
other shoes in New York. Did they get as much
attention on Fox News? It's like that officer doesn't control
Fox News Break.

Speaker 2 (42:06):
I thought the same thing.

Speaker 7 (42:08):
I didn't like that. I know what she was saying.

Speaker 2 (42:10):
In a statement way right, right right.

Speaker 5 (42:14):
And then the suppression in front of the judge.

Speaker 7 (42:16):
That's not going to move the judge.

Speaker 5 (42:17):
But again, believe me, I've been in trouble many times
in court for running of my mouth. I'm not saying
I haven't, but I'm just saying I get it, and
emotions are high. She just wanted to take her shot,
and that's great.

Speaker 7 (42:27):
They're fine lawyers.

Speaker 5 (42:28):
They say, a good lawyer knows the law, but a
better lawyer knows the judge. Right I would have I.

Speaker 2 (42:33):
Would have I would have attacked the show.

Speaker 3 (42:36):
The helicopter walked the Purp walk instead of the Fox
News angle.

Speaker 2 (42:40):
Right, the purp walk was insane, and it was in
New York anyway, And I would have thought the optics
in the room were interesting. I've been fascinated by the
optics in the trial itself. When you see, you know,
Luigi himself smiling and grinning, you see him as this
young cables photographs in her design. I know, but it
does look like he has the whole world ahead of him, right.

(43:02):
It seems like a shame that this life is wasted.
That's the optics, right, That's what they are presenting like
a reality show. And I also thought it was equally
interesting when Luigi was faced with some of the harder details,
or having to watch body cam footage of himself being
arrested allegedly, or of you know, the shooting. Let's go there.

Speaker 7 (43:24):
I always say this, though, Stephanie.

Speaker 5 (43:26):
If I'm charged with the crime I didn't commit, last
thing I'd be doing in that courtroom is I'd be
weeping like a child like this, thank you.

Speaker 2 (43:34):
I'm begging he's out there, the active shooter is out there.
Please find the man who killed the CEO of the
insurance company.

Speaker 3 (43:43):
There's been plenty of people that have been convicted and
not and men completely innocent and exonerated.

Speaker 2 (43:47):
That didn't like weep in court every second they were no,
but you think you had it by being wildly accused wrongly.

Speaker 7 (43:56):
But body, they weren't smiling, like look at remember Damon
Eckles when Damien he smiles and that in that case
he's that smile out of the police car, if you remember.

Speaker 2 (44:06):
Like was smiling court too. Yeah.

Speaker 5 (44:11):
I always tell people you can you can control the message.
You can control your smiling, you cannot control how it's
received by a jury. And I promise you, like you know,
chances are what you think they're going to see is
not what they're going to see.

Speaker 2 (44:27):
One more I think quick legal question.

Speaker 4 (44:29):
So you said earlier it's not at question whether or
not Luigi, Oh, you just meant for this evidentiary hearing
that it's not in question because I'm honestly struggling.

Speaker 2 (44:43):
I feel like I'd be very bad on the jury.

Speaker 11 (44:44):
I'm sorry.

Speaker 4 (44:45):
I'm like, I've seen the guy on camera, you know,
do the shooting, but he is pleading not guilty, so
his no, and they're.

Speaker 2 (44:52):
Banking on people he has not seen that. That just
he's not the guy. Wrong guy. Well, I mean, if.

Speaker 7 (45:00):
That's his plea.

Speaker 5 (45:01):
But at this stage, really this is a matter of
what his plea is not guilty, But at this stage
it's not even the question. It's the question of the
police tactics and the investigative techniques and things of that nature.
So we don't even get to that question yet.

Speaker 7 (45:16):
You know, that's just not the focus of what they're doing.

Speaker 3 (45:18):
This is setting the stage for the trial, right, And
is there a universe that he could lead, he could.

Speaker 5 (45:23):
Walk, Well, it's entirely possible.

Speaker 7 (45:28):
Likely is another question.

Speaker 2 (45:30):
Wow, But just the fact that that's even an option
on the table. By the way, we stranger things have happened.

Speaker 3 (45:38):
Right, I mean, if this, if this bag search, if
those items in that bag doesn't get admitted, there's going
to be a problem for the process.

Speaker 2 (45:47):
The fruit of the poisons so to speak.

Speaker 5 (45:49):
Right, Well, and that's the term. If I get a question,
it's always what does that mean? Through to the poison street.
It means if that search was bad, anything from the notebook,
anything from the laptop is the fruit of the poison streets,
a biblical reference, and anything that flows from it is out.

Speaker 4 (46:04):
Wow, Jarrett, my gosh, Well keep it here because we
are going inside day three of the Brian Walsh murder trial,
and Jarrett Farantino is going to help break it all
down for us. And if you have questions for our
legal legal Jared Farandino, give us a call. Eighty eight
three one Crime True Crime Tonight.

Speaker 2 (46:37):
Welcome back to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio. We're talking
Courtney Armstrong, body move in time for us sprite officially
to all, and we have our favorite prosecutor, Jarrett Farentino.
He's seeking feel free. You can ask him all the
questions because he's answering all of them, and you break

(46:58):
it down so clearly and simply that number one, thank you,
and number two we have a lot more questions, so Tah,
I know, let's go to you first.

Speaker 11 (47:09):
Okay, Yeah, this is a quick one.

Speaker 13 (47:11):
Even in the break, we were just saying how many
listeners all have questions specifically for Jared, Well, even the
staff members do. Because our producer Ava, she had a
question last night and I'm just going to paraphrase it
a little bit and it's gonna toss with your way,
but producer Ava. Shout out to Ava, because I know
you're listening right now. She mentioned she lives in New York,
and she mentioned that in New York, everywhere she's going

(47:33):
and diners and everywhere else, every new station is broadcasting
this info. This is regarding Luigi about the unconstitutional evidence.
Her question is, more or less, even if the defense
is successful and the evidence is suppressed, how are legal
teams going to find a jury pool that isn't tainted
with prior knowledge?

Speaker 11 (47:53):
What's your thought?

Speaker 5 (47:54):
So that's a great question. It never ceases to amaze
me how ill informed some people are are. So there
are people who have no idea, who not certainly not
in our world right nights a week, so they have
no clue who Luigi n Angioni is or what evidence

(48:16):
was suppressed in his case. That's the reality. So what
you're how you avoid that, though, and not to be facetious,
the way you fix that problem is jurors are brought
in and they are asked, do you know about this case?

Speaker 7 (48:28):
Now?

Speaker 5 (48:29):
That question alone won't will not disqualify you from jury duty.
The question becomes, are you aware of any information that
will prejudice your ability to be a fair and impartial
juror if they're like, yeah, I know they found them
with a gun that matched the body. But if you say, no,
you know, I know they caught him, I don't know

(48:49):
a lot of the details, which is a lot of
what witnesses would say or jurors would say, you'll you
will see or in panel the jury. It's just you
got to get to that point. There will be a
lot of people that will say, though I'm aware of
evidence that's been excluded, they're out, because really, even if
they even if they commit that, it won't factor into

(49:09):
what they do. It's just not supposed to be in
their mind because at that point, the court would have
ruled Mangioni's constitutional rights have been violated.

Speaker 2 (49:18):
But it's an interesting question because say, for example, New York,
not even New York City anywhere for that matter. Sometimes
this footage becomes core memories. Right. You might not know
what you're watching, but you remember the guy getting off
a helicopter in you know, in New York City, the
mayor strives with the mayor may You kind of remember
it's like a core memory. You remember somebody with a

(49:40):
gun that was you know, in midtown and we saw
a man get shot. We saw this Brian Thompson and
you know, my heart goes out to his family that
you know, he was shot in cold blood. We all
had to witness that. So some of that, even if
you don't think you remember it is slightly tucked way
in your subconscious potentially unless you're really under a rock.

(50:04):
And let's be honest, a lot of people are under
a rock and that's maybe a happy place to be.
But also to say that.

Speaker 7 (50:11):
The jury you want another.

Speaker 14 (50:14):
Rock guy, Yeah, nobody wants the guy under a rock,
you know, deciding your entire future or if you're a victim,
you don't want under the rock person to you know,
decide if your you know, perpetrator is going to see
justice or not.

Speaker 5 (50:32):
Complicated, so complicated, always looking for that person that is
just enough knowledge of the case to understand the who's
and what, but not the great detail that someone into
the true crime world and that would bring to the table.

Speaker 7 (50:46):
That's a dangerous situation, yea.

Speaker 3 (50:48):
So it's part of the questioning when the jury, when
the potential jury members are being seated as part of
the war doir right, they'll ask like do you know
about this case?

Speaker 2 (50:58):
And you're allowed to know?

Speaker 3 (51:01):
Oh, yeah, I know, I remember this guy was shot,
and they might even be able to recall details like
it had denied, defend the pose on the bullets and
things like that. But as far as this evidence right
that it was excluded. If they know that, oh yeah,
there was a printed gun and it's not going to

(51:22):
be presented in trial, am I going to be able
to throw that out? No, you're dismissed. Right, That's basically
the situation.

Speaker 2 (51:28):
And by the way, everybody goes to jury duty wanting
to be dismissed. But it's so important, Like it's such
a if you've never been on a juror before or
a jury before, it's really important and interesting and such
an important rite. You know, it always comes at the
worst time, you know, notifications come at that like, really,
I'm going on vacation for the first time in ten

(51:49):
thousand years. Welcome to jury duty. But it really is
an important piece of the puzzle. So jump in and
you know, cases some real civic duty. You know, everybody
needs smart jurors.

Speaker 3 (52:04):
And luefully, you don't on it like some boring insurance
case or something.

Speaker 2 (52:08):
You know, like you know, like insurance, it's very expensive.
It could be important. Stuff reminded unbiased jurors who.

Speaker 5 (52:17):
Are I would always say to the jury like, congratulations,
you made it, and it's a murder, you know, to
set the room, you know it's like and then they
want to like, oh my god, this is a nightmare.

Speaker 7 (52:28):
I'm living a nightmare.

Speaker 4 (52:30):
Right, Given how high profile has been so far, do
you have any way to gauge if you think that
the jury will be sequestered.

Speaker 2 (52:41):
Or not, or is it way too they have to
be sequestered.

Speaker 5 (52:45):
Yeah, I think that's always a logistical question to you know,
how long is the trial going to be?

Speaker 7 (52:51):
When is the trial?

Speaker 5 (52:52):
There's a good chance though, that the jury could be sequestered,
and that means basically they would be removed from society
for a while. You know, they have to stay in
a hotel and not night or they can read the
sports section.

Speaker 7 (53:04):
They can't read the regular news.

Speaker 5 (53:08):
It's a tremendous inconvenience for a case that's probably going
to last as long as this one. I think judges
Judge Carol in this case would probably do his best
to ensure that they're going to follow the rules. But
again it's hard to say it is likely.

Speaker 7 (53:24):
Though, but I don't know.

Speaker 2 (53:25):
By the way, not to be on a loop. But
again Diddy's trial, how they were not sequestered is do
they shocking? Do they do they? That's a good question question.
I know I am like a one trick pony right
now talking about Didy. Everything leads back to the Diddy doc. So,
but what they don't ever do in the doc, which

(53:46):
is why I like it and feel free to disagree
with me and jump in. I can't wait for you
guys to watch. It's not that exciting. It's not that
there's no real heavy hand in it. It's not opinion based.
It shows I think it's pretty weighted. It shows all.
But it does show what could happen when people in
influencers outside of a trial, how that can be influenced,

(54:10):
and that how jurors also can How do you avoid it?
It's impossible to avoid the real world when you are
going home to the real world the end. And again
the alternative is under the rock guy, and that's a
little complicated too when you have somebody who lives under
a rock who doesn't understand anything about you know, I

(54:32):
don't know purpose in the case of Luigi, if I'm
in his defense attorney's head or in Diddy's scenario, you know,
the cycle of trauma, like if you're under a rock.
I don't know if that's helpful either. So it's it's
apox on all houses, I guess.

Speaker 5 (54:48):
So to answer body's question, you can be sequestered on
a federal jury. Okay, it's rare, but it happened. The
other thing I was going to point out.

Speaker 7 (54:56):
Too, though, all the sequestration in the world.

Speaker 5 (54:59):
Here's the problem. Everybody has a phone. News comes at you.
It's very difficult. You got to put this jury under
a rock. That's what has to happen.

Speaker 2 (55:08):
You do not have a phone. If you're a sequestered
do you still have a phone?

Speaker 7 (55:11):
I can, but but again I think you could. It's
only for phone.

Speaker 5 (55:16):
You don't have internet access, so you could.

Speaker 2 (55:18):
Have better, but better if you're on a reality show
you don't have a phone. Yeah, that's what I meant.

Speaker 3 (55:25):
I was when I was on the show and sequester
I did not have a phone.

Speaker 2 (55:28):
Yeah, like people on the Bachelor are getting sequestered, But
why can't the jury? But again, it's such an upset
to your life or it's a little you know, break
from their life. I don't know.

Speaker 3 (55:39):
It depends Yeah, that's true. It does depend. So I'm
going to transition. This is true crime tonight on iHeartRadio.
We're talking true crime all the time. We're kind of
finishing up the Luigi Manji on talk. If you have
any questions, give us a call, EIoT thirty one Crime.
I'm going to hop right into Brian Walsh, if that's okay.
So today was the third day in the murder trial
of accused Massachusetts life killer Brian Walsh. Today's testimony, again,

(56:03):
it was the third day. Today's testimony centered on detailed
forensic evidence, including blood stained items, tools, and possible tissue
found in trash bags. The defense questioned the reliability and
origin of that physical evidence. The accused Brian Walsh, is
standing trial for murdering and dismembering his wife, Anna Walsh,

(56:24):
who disappeared on New Year's Day in twenty twenty three.
And I guess really the dismembering part of this is
kind of off the table at this point because he's
already pled guilty to that. However, he remains that he
has you know, he says that he found Anna and
she was already dead and she rolled off the bed.
Basically that's how dead. She was, it's such a weird

(56:45):
argument was.

Speaker 2 (56:49):
Rolled off the bed. Norvous would call nine one one
in that scenario, right right.

Speaker 3 (56:54):
So a life insurance agent confirmed victim Anna Walsh had
two life insurance policies totaling one point two five million buckerinos,
both payable, both payable to the accused Brian Walsh, and
another agent testified that Brian Walsh had attempted to obtain
his own life insurance but had been denied repeatedly due

(57:17):
to ongoing federal charges related to that art fraud. Because
it's a fraud, because because he's he's literally goofball, right. So,
early early police response time was outlined with an officer
recounting Brian Walsh's calm demeanor during the January fourth missing
person report and a canine handler testifying that a thirty

(57:37):
minute sweep of the property produced no findings.

Speaker 2 (57:42):
Now this one was interesting.

Speaker 3 (57:43):
The crime lab analyst David Gold testified that the family's
Volvo had red and brown stains on both visors exam
style kind of gloves, five areas that tested positive for blood,
and a hair sample from a door handle at the
trash facility crime At the same the same crime lab

(58:04):
guy David Gold found multiple trash bags containing red and
brown stained clothing, towels, rugs, a bathrobe, wallets, and a
potential human tissue, along with tools like a hammer, hatchet,
wire snips, a hacksaw, tape, god frogside, and a taped

(58:25):
up tarp.

Speaker 2 (58:28):
Like, why why are we even wasting our time?

Speaker 3 (58:31):
Right? Well, he's again, for those who aren't familiar, he
did plead guilty to dismembering and basically distributing her body
throughout you know, the state of Massachusetts, but remains not
guilty in you know that he actually committed the murder,
but he panicked in the state that he was, you know,
in this panic.

Speaker 2 (58:50):
Because she had a what was it called a Courtney Armstrong?
What is it called?

Speaker 4 (58:54):
So this was driving me crazy, jareded So. In the
opening statement, what Brian Walsh's defense attorney said was that
Anna died of sudden, unexplained death.

Speaker 2 (59:07):
Come on, okay, But my problem is.

Speaker 4 (59:11):
And listen, I appreciate, or I believe the fact is
that you really can say anything you want during opening statements.
But how can a lawyer go up there and say
this is what this woman died of.

Speaker 2 (59:22):
When Brian Walsh the accused is not a doctor who
could diagnose or disease. It's just like as of all
things ahead.

Speaker 5 (59:35):
He says it, he'd better be able to back it up,
because otherwise the jury is just going to nail him
over the head with I mean, you don't go up
there and give a cause and manner of death and
then not deliver. I mean at that point, by the way,
this guy already will admit he hacked her to death,
but it was after or hacked yeah, and.

Speaker 2 (59:54):
Put her her body parts all over the country.

Speaker 5 (59:58):
Yeah, it's not it's not you cannot as a lawyer. Yes,
it's argument Yes, you could make certain claims.

Speaker 7 (01:00:06):
Yes, you could be argumentative.

Speaker 5 (01:00:07):
If you commit to a cause and manner of death
of the victim, you better have a morsel of truth
to back that up.

Speaker 7 (01:00:14):
But so that's what cooked.

Speaker 4 (01:00:16):
Yeah, because I was so crazed about this, and I'm
glad that what you just said, and I mean is
the fact that the body we everyone knows the body
doesn't exist, because he did said, yeah, I just you know,
chopped her up, not to be crass, But is that
cover enough for the attorney to say, well, prove me wrong.

Speaker 5 (01:00:39):
He could probably get that in by a cross examination
question to say to a medical examiner, you cannot disprove
that this is right. Now, that's a weak way of
doing it. He could also get an expert on sudden,
unexplained death to come in and say, yes, it could
happen after New Year's Eve and going to bed, and

(01:00:59):
so those are the two scenarios in which he could
make that claim.

Speaker 2 (01:01:04):
Thanks, I want it.

Speaker 3 (01:01:05):
I wanted to ask real quick, and I think this
is an important one because this is a no body case, right,
and how does the lack of the body or known
cause of death impact the likelihood of conviction.

Speaker 5 (01:01:18):
Well, it's not easy, I mean, but it's doable in
a scenario like this. It's a highly circumstantial case. Okay,
But when you look at her body, how it was
disposed of, and his searches and his behavior, you would
make the argument she met her untimely and violently. He's

(01:01:39):
covering it up in a series of steps, all supported
by his actions and his searches, and you backdoor it
up on a totally circumstantial case. It's doable. Don't get
me wrong. It's not a preferred situation for prosecutors. Okay,
but you're not required in a no body type situation
to prove cause death. You're just that she died at

(01:02:02):
the hands of Brian Walsh and with malice period.

Speaker 2 (01:02:05):
Okay, keep it here.

Speaker 4 (01:02:06):
We are all like chomping at the bid to ask
legal expert Jarrett Farantino more questions. We're going to be
continuing our conversation about accused wife killer Brian Walsh. We
are also going to dig into new evidence in the
death of Celeste rebus Hernandez True Crime Tonight.

Speaker 2 (01:02:32):
Welcome back to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio. We're talking
Courtney Armstrong. Body move in, and we have our most
favorite prosecutor, Jarrett Farantino in the house answering all your questions.
So if you have any more talkbacks, feel free to
leave them on the iHeartRadio app, but without further ado, Courtney,

(01:02:54):
what do you have? Okay?

Speaker 4 (01:02:56):
So this is one of the first points that body
mentioned in the Brian Walsh, the accused wife killer who
is facing trial now, and the victim, Anna Walls. She
had two life insurance policies totally one point two five
million dollars payable to her husband, the accused Brian Walsh,
does this get you thinking anything or another, Jarrett, because

(01:03:19):
I find it honestly a normal thing that to professional
married people with children.

Speaker 2 (01:03:24):
I don't know if they're own a house. That doesn't
seem crazy to me.

Speaker 4 (01:03:27):
But I know people get real crazy about insurance policies.

Speaker 7 (01:03:31):
Well, it certainly has been motive in the past. Someone.

Speaker 2 (01:03:34):
Yeah, that's why we all get crazy about it. Everybody
kills for the insurance package.

Speaker 5 (01:03:38):
Right, So, Courty, you're saying, yeah, the defense would say
this is pretty natural. They have an earning capacity, they're
ensuring one another in the event of their death. Here's
here's the issue. There were financial problems, there were marital problems.
This guy was faced those federal charges, so things were
trending downward in ISFE anyway, firally, why not go for

(01:03:59):
a score?

Speaker 7 (01:04:00):
Right?

Speaker 5 (01:04:00):
That's I mean, you know, so that's basically like greed
took over.

Speaker 7 (01:04:04):
He's at the end of his rope.

Speaker 5 (01:04:06):
So as a prosecutor, I'm looking at motive. Money is
often a motive. But a defense like you said, would say, hey,
I mean married couples have life insurance policies on them.
People have life insurance policies for the benefit of people
they care for. So there is a I would say
less salacious explanation for that. But to me, as a

(01:04:27):
prosecutor and a bit of a cynic, it's motive.

Speaker 2 (01:04:30):
I thought I misheard that. Then I thought that she
had two life insurance policies on her specifically, she did
not just.

Speaker 5 (01:04:39):
Want she did right Brian as the beneficiary. So basically,
you go to two different companies max out like let's
say there's a million dollar policy here with State Farm,
or you go to Liberty Mutual or Airy and get
another million for whatever reason. But there's two different policies

(01:04:59):
on her life. In the event of her death, all
those moneys go to Brian, and that's where they're saying
was his motive.

Speaker 2 (01:05:06):
So that's unusual, right, is too, Courtney, even in your
humble opinion, is two policies on one person versus like,
so it's a husband and a wife is in this case,
in the Walshes case, we have Brian, we have Anna.
Somehow Anna has two life insurance policies on her, but
Brian only has one.

Speaker 3 (01:05:27):
Well, I don't think it's not unusual, especially since her
husband is like a loser, you know what I mean?

Speaker 2 (01:05:32):
Like, I'm so serious. Why wouldn't he have the life
as a loser.

Speaker 3 (01:05:36):
Because if something happens her, she wants her three kids
to be taken care of.

Speaker 11 (01:05:40):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:05:41):
So it's earning and people understand that it got my
got it, got it, got it.

Speaker 4 (01:05:46):
My experience, people will get a second insurance if they say,
have more children. Yeah, because you are more expensive. I
got to consider these things. Huh, yeah, you should do
put it puts a mark on your back.

Speaker 2 (01:05:58):
R quick, we need some Should we go to a
talk back? Let's do it.

Speaker 11 (01:06:04):
Let's do it.

Speaker 15 (01:06:06):
Hi, this is Alisha from New Jersey. I have two
questions about the David case with the grand jury. For
the I know they didn't indict him. How long do
they have to wait until they can bring it to
another grand jury, like if they get new evidence or
is there a certain amount of time they have to
wait or is there a certain amount of time that

(01:06:27):
they can even bring it to the grand jury. And
then my other question is if the family brings a
civil suit against David, does any of the information from
that grand jury is that able to be included in
that or it's just always sealed forever.

Speaker 2 (01:06:44):
Thanks, Really good question, really good question.

Speaker 3 (01:06:48):
So they don't even have to go to grand jury though, right,
they could have a prelimb, right, sure.

Speaker 7 (01:06:53):
Right, So that was a loaded question. That was a
really good jury land.

Speaker 5 (01:06:57):
There's no timetable, really, you can. A grand jury is
an odd animal in.

Speaker 7 (01:07:03):
The low Pennsylvania.

Speaker 5 (01:07:04):
We have the option of utilizing them. It's often a
tool not only to indict, it's a tool to lock
testimony in so to bring people in David's inner circle,
put them under oath, not of their own choosing. You're
compelling their testimony.

Speaker 7 (01:07:20):
Right.

Speaker 5 (01:07:21):
A lawyer may say, hey, bring my guy in. He's
not coming involuntarily, but if you put him under.

Speaker 7 (01:07:25):
Oath, he'll tell you the truth. Right.

Speaker 5 (01:07:26):
So it's often an investigative tool, so that testimony can
be used in putting the case together and then ultimately indicting.
The second part of the question was can the testimony
be used the testimony before a grand jury is sealed,
typically if it is unsealed and that person ultimately testifies

(01:07:48):
in another proceeding, Yes, it can be used in.

Speaker 7 (01:07:51):
A civil case.

Speaker 5 (01:07:52):
But again, the integrity of grand jury testimony is so
it doesn't impact the criminal prosecution, So there are times
when that testimony will be unsealed and subject to use
later on because the person is under oath, right.

Speaker 3 (01:08:10):
And I don't know for those of you who remember,
but you know, Brian Koberger was indicted via a grand
jury and it was all very hush hush, and we
only learned about some of the testimony in the grand
jury because the judge referenced it in some of his
opinions and he would say things like in the grand
jury testimony, Dylan Mortenson said, da da.

Speaker 2 (01:08:30):
Da da da da da dah. And we were like, oh,
so we were able to get pieces.

Speaker 3 (01:08:34):
So if you start reading the documents, you might find
out some cool pieces of information. But of course, there's
been no case yet in David's case, because this is
still an ongoing investigation. And for those who aren't familiar,
a grand jury in Los Angeles did hear evidence in
the case involving the death of fourteen year old Celeste
Reevas Hernandez, whose remains were found on September eighth. So

(01:08:55):
what is that three and a half months ago?

Speaker 2 (01:08:57):
Now?

Speaker 7 (01:08:58):
Almost?

Speaker 1 (01:08:59):
Oh?

Speaker 2 (01:08:59):
My goodn No, September eighth, it's almost three months.

Speaker 3 (01:09:03):
Almost three months, Okay, Oh my goodness, I just can't
believe I quickly turns my.

Speaker 5 (01:09:07):
Point about a grand jury, though, that's worth noting. It's
no longer just in the hands of the police. The
das have taken over direction.

Speaker 2 (01:09:18):
I had a different case, wouldn't you say, Like the
pace really changes at that point sometimes, and they've.

Speaker 7 (01:09:23):
Made some forward statements like things are.

Speaker 5 (01:09:25):
Going to happen, you know, and that's when the prosecutor says,
you could take it.

Speaker 7 (01:09:29):
To the bank.

Speaker 2 (01:09:30):
Yeah, I'm going to say that's a little I heard
it the same way. I was like, Oh, someone's foreshadowing
a big moment. You're like giving a little Easter egg
kind of because yeah, you know, there's a big moment
coming soon. I thought it was going to be last week.
I was way wrong. It doesn't appear that it's going
to be this week either. What's the prediction.

Speaker 7 (01:09:54):
It's coming. I would say by the end of the year,
by the end.

Speaker 2 (01:09:57):
It really depends on the end. It's dangerous to society.

Speaker 3 (01:10:01):
They're not going to want to go in front of
another grand jury and have you know, witnesses come in
and testify again, because in a grand jury, witnesses can testify.
They're not going to want to do that over and
over and over again until they know they're going to
get an indictment, so they're they're the da in la
is going to want to make sure that he's got
all his buttons, you.

Speaker 2 (01:10:19):
Know, buttoned up and zipped. In my reelection, but like,
I feel like things have gone much quicker and faster
in different cases period the end. That's number one and
number two end of year. Think about it. If this
guy is an actual danger to society because he's hacking
up fourteen year olds and leaving them in trunks and
walking away and going on tour, that's pretty dangerous if

(01:10:40):
in fact that's accurate. Right, But let's talk about this logically, right.

Speaker 3 (01:10:44):
We know that this trip to Santa Barbara happened in
the springtime, okay, and she was found in September. So
let's just say four to five months between the death
of Celeste and her discovery. That's a long time to
clean up e it's sure thing, right, right, that's a
long time because nobody she was missing, quote unquote missing.

Speaker 2 (01:11:04):
So nobody was really looking for her.

Speaker 3 (01:11:06):
I know that sounds kind of like insane, but because
she was missing, nobody was really looking for her.

Speaker 2 (01:11:11):
That's so true, right.

Speaker 11 (01:11:13):
Well, if anything, I'm so sure.

Speaker 13 (01:11:14):
Another question that came up, like, why hasn't David been
brought up on charges related to that inappropriate.

Speaker 3 (01:11:19):
R I would love to know that. I would love
to know that, Jared. So there is evidence of that.

Speaker 5 (01:11:27):
Yeah, So the evidence of that that I've seen, and
body correct me if I'm wrong.

Speaker 7 (01:11:31):
It's a lot of.

Speaker 5 (01:11:32):
Internet speculator, a lot of photographs and things. But again,
could do you glean from that they were in an
inappropriate sexual relationship? I mean, certainly suspicious that he's hanging
around with somebody of such a young age, and they
were certainly very close and acting close, and he supposedly
wrote a song and all kinds of things. So it's
certainly there's smoke there. But I don't know what evidence

(01:11:55):
has been presented in support of that particular issue.

Speaker 3 (01:11:59):
For the only thing that we know is concrete, and
it could even be considered hearsay. Maybe is that David's
friends say, you know, people that he was, you know,
he saw that. They believed Celeste went to USC and
was a nineteen year old, and they did not really mention.

Speaker 2 (01:12:17):
But she could have also been escaping a dangerous. You know,
she ran away. She ran away many many times from
a home. And again we're not saying anything disparaging about
her home life. We don't know any of the details.
But is it possible that she was like a fourteen
year old hanger honor or groupie that just wanted to
be in a safe space and David allowed that for her.

(01:12:38):
I don't know. I mean, it sounds inappropriate, but is
there a world that maybe she was around older people
because she didn't have someplace else to be right, No,
it's good.

Speaker 5 (01:12:51):
And all of that is possible. The answer is we
don't know what has actually been put forward.

Speaker 7 (01:12:58):
Like I said, there's a lot of suspicious.

Speaker 5 (01:13:00):
Circumstances there, and why hasn't that charge come It's because
particular pieces of evidence of that relationship are not likely
have not likely been presented to the grand jury yet.

Speaker 3 (01:13:12):
Or maybe it's just like the murder or you know,
the reason that she's gone. There isn't enough evidence and
the grand jury hasn't been able to indict him over
it yet.

Speaker 5 (01:13:22):
You know, I bring that all together though, I would
bring all of those charges together that I want the
jury to be as horrified that he's in a relationship
with a fourteen.

Speaker 7 (01:13:31):
Year olds as he was, as they are if he
killed her.

Speaker 5 (01:13:35):
So I want them to know every detail in the
event was going on.

Speaker 3 (01:13:39):
Can I ask you like a strategy question, and it
might be kind of stupid, but I'm gonna ask it anyway.

Speaker 2 (01:13:44):
Is there any world that.

Speaker 3 (01:13:45):
We live in where they bring him in on the
you know, being with a minor and charge him with
that and put him in jail and get him talking,
and then, you know, and then present something in a
prelimited a hearing of some kind on the murder charters.

Speaker 2 (01:14:02):
I'm surprised that hasn't happened. Is that a strategy or
is that dumb?

Speaker 7 (01:14:07):
No, it's not dumb.

Speaker 5 (01:14:08):
If it could be done, there's a million reasons to
do it that way. Let's say the murder prosecution is
moving slower and you can't get it done. You want
to take clearly David, if he's the person off the street,
you do it strategically. Get him talking in jail, get
him talking on the phones, get him I mean, but
realistically breaking up those two cases strategically.

Speaker 7 (01:14:30):
I'd want to bring them together.

Speaker 5 (01:14:31):
You can break them up too, because then you get
two shots at the guy, So I mean, that's another
reason you can.

Speaker 3 (01:14:37):
Can you now let me ask another dumb question, can
you fold them into the same I'm just saying, can
you fold them into the same case at a later time?

Speaker 5 (01:14:49):
Like you can consolidate them later too. But if I'm
the defense lawyer, I don't. I would say, wait a minute,
we're willing.

Speaker 7 (01:14:56):
To defend against this issue.

Speaker 5 (01:14:58):
We need to deal with their relations ship first, then
her life. And there's an argument to buy furicate the too,
but again, you know the process. He has the option,
you're losing.

Speaker 11 (01:15:12):
You're using fancy.

Speaker 2 (01:15:14):
What did they say? What does a furicate mean? You
said it so boldly? What does a mean? Do I
to google it? Body? If we have to google? Right now?

Speaker 13 (01:15:29):
Yeah, okay, I'm going to read the actual definition real time,
so we're all going to learn together because I like it,
and then.

Speaker 2 (01:15:36):
We're all going to use that all the time. I'm
going to use it ten times tomorrow. Whoever says at
the moment separate into two make in this in parentheses
someone extremely angry or impatient? What does in fury cake infuriate?

(01:15:58):
Is that what you googled? I just I'm for guessing.
Is it bringing glasses are terrible.

Speaker 11 (01:16:08):
Break into two. Okay, yeah, that makes sense.

Speaker 5 (01:16:11):
You would infuriate the charges if you could bring them together,
I'd make a motion to bipuricate.

Speaker 11 (01:16:17):
All right.

Speaker 2 (01:16:17):
I fascinating that.

Speaker 7 (01:16:20):
You would infuriate the prosecutors.

Speaker 11 (01:16:23):
To infuriate the prosecute.

Speaker 7 (01:16:26):
Yes, right in.

Speaker 2 (01:16:29):
Minute by furiicate, Okay, I like it.

Speaker 4 (01:16:33):
So we have just about one minute, Jared, So this
can be a quick question and answer in this case
that there's been a lot of infighting it appears between
the police and the medical examiner. Is it unusual to
see this publicly, to see this infighting?

Speaker 5 (01:16:51):
It's again I say this a lot in case, like
it's not great when you have people that are supposed
to be moving in the same direction fighting at this stage.

Speaker 7 (01:17:01):
I would always say.

Speaker 5 (01:17:02):
Let the medical examiner do what they got to do.
The police do what they got like, police are not
medical examiners. I don't know necessarily what the nature of
that fight is. I know there's been some delay and
results and things of that nature or statements that have
come out, but fighting within your prosecution and your key
witnesses is never good. Never good.

Speaker 11 (01:17:28):
Does that sound effect, Jared?

Speaker 2 (01:17:32):
Does what is happening right now.

Speaker 11 (01:17:36):
It's frightening.

Speaker 2 (01:17:38):
Okay.

Speaker 3 (01:17:38):
I don't know what that was, but Jared, thank you
for sticking around and putting up with us. We can't
thank you enough for helping us understand all the major
legal developments happening this week. You can find more of
Jarrett on Instagram and YouTube at Jared Farentino and pre
order is upcoming book on Amazon called Mothers, Murders and Motivation.

Speaker 2 (01:17:57):
Stick around because we've got more to get into.

Speaker 4 (01:18:10):
Welcome back to true crime tonight. We are talking true
crime all the time, and we have had the best
night with Jared Farantino as always, just bringing all the
you know, legal strategy h and answering all of our
questions and talkbacks and speaking of let's go to a
talk back now.

Speaker 5 (01:18:29):
Hey, I'm brought long time listener, a long time caller.
I'm just wondering this.

Speaker 3 (01:18:34):
Is a little bit off topic, but I'm wondering from
each of you real trees, real Christmas trees or our
official Christmas trees.

Speaker 2 (01:18:42):
Thanks. Good question.

Speaker 4 (01:18:47):
Wow, I was like mustling up to you, like I
can answer this.

Speaker 11 (01:18:53):
Go ahead, Well, does anyone have a tree up?

Speaker 5 (01:18:56):
I do?

Speaker 2 (01:18:56):
Yeah, Okay, I've had it up since for two weeks
and to be a show or a weirdo, totally artificial
all fronts. I have an artificial one with white lights
and ornaments, all bought from home goods and I love
it and it's big. And then I have a small
one that's white. Don't hate me, go ahead, I know

(01:19:18):
I've never done it before. First time a white Christmas
tree and it only has like pastel colors and appreciate
pain colors and kind of pinks and rouges. And it's
in my other room that's like a like a suase den.
I have like a weird layout. So I'm double Christmas

(01:19:38):
treeing totally different styles. And the white one has multi
colored lights, also artificial, and again I love and I
have a suddenly I'm in a Christmas spirit. So typically
last year I was putting it up twelve hours before Christmas.
So this is not new, this is a new behavior.

(01:20:00):
But like with the artificial ones, they were really inexpensive.
And you like step on a little like a light
switch that you step on, and you can have it multicolored,
you could have it white, it could do you know,
it could blink. I don't know why anybody would want
the blinking. But when you're a kid, they're kind of fun. Yeah,
when you're a kid, that is good point. So yeah,

(01:20:22):
I'm on board with. And then I have a little
scent a dispenser diffuser that we've talked about. I got
as a gift and I put the Christmas scent in that,
and no one's going to know the difference. You might
totally don't think it's real though it doesn't look real.
Neither of them do, right.

Speaker 11 (01:20:41):
What about your body or Courtney?

Speaker 4 (01:20:44):
Yeah, mine as well as artificial, and it has it
is up.

Speaker 2 (01:20:48):
I love it so much.

Speaker 4 (01:20:50):
And the way the plug goes so it kind of
my living room in kitchen you can see one from
the other. And the light switch that Stephanie was talking
about to switch the lights on my counter, which is
very easy. And so depending upon who's in the room,
it's white when I'm in if my kid, it can.

Speaker 2 (01:21:07):
Be colored, it can be colored. I'm blinking, it can
be That's what's up in my house about you guys.
I don't have one.

Speaker 3 (01:21:17):
I'm like you, Yeah, I I but I when I
when I do, I prefer the real trees. But you know, listen,
I live alone. I'm you know, in my fifties. Now
it's okay, you.

Speaker 2 (01:21:30):
Know what I mean.

Speaker 11 (01:21:30):
It's difficult.

Speaker 2 (01:21:31):
Yeah, so I.

Speaker 3 (01:21:33):
So what I've done is I bought like a little
Charlie Brown Christmas tree, do you know what I mean,
like those little love and it sits on like an
end table kind of thing.

Speaker 2 (01:21:42):
It's like maybe.

Speaker 3 (01:21:42):
Two feet tall, and I just haven't put it. I
just haven't put it up yet, but I will.

Speaker 11 (01:21:47):
You're gonna put it up, Okay. I love traveling for
the holidays.

Speaker 2 (01:21:52):
And I'm traveling for the holidays.

Speaker 5 (01:21:54):
So what I get.

Speaker 13 (01:21:56):
But then I did I help friends decorate theirs this
past weekend, and I was like, gosh, it would be nice,
and there's.

Speaker 11 (01:22:01):
Just real that it was beautiful.

Speaker 13 (01:22:03):
It costs two hundred dollars, so that was maybe twice
about it.

Speaker 11 (01:22:06):
But I'm like, a real tree is amazing.

Speaker 2 (01:22:08):
I do love a real tree. I do well they
burn down, so I have hesitation for the care. And
also there is a little bit of pressure because I've
always been the like last minute tree person of like
do you have your tree? Yeah, it's supposed to be festive.
There is a lot of like tree pressure. So I
was feeling a little bit of like you know what,

(01:22:31):
I want to take that back. I want to solve
the tree problems really right now. The artificial tree is
real easy. I love artist is hard. And I reacted
because I was like, oh no, no, no, like you
can get it. The easiest tree you literally it is
Dubby proof. Trust it. Take it for me. It is
your other thing is to but I get it. I
get it, and you're traveling and that is so I

(01:22:53):
just want to take back the pressure that you might
have just felt.

Speaker 3 (01:22:56):
No, no, no, I'm kind of teasing, but I'm to
be an all serious note. My mom's dog who I have, Yogi.
You know, she passed away and I have Yogi, and
he likes to pee on the tree.

Speaker 2 (01:23:08):
So that's another reason, do you know what I mean?
Like I was going to send you a tree tomorrow,
but not solve it.

Speaker 11 (01:23:17):
Love it.

Speaker 3 (01:23:19):
He likes to pee on the It's annoying because I
have a real tree and he's like, oh, this is
for me, you know. So that's when I kind of
switched as well to the artificial little Charlie Brown tree.

Speaker 2 (01:23:29):
I just get it out of the garage and put
it up. I just haven't like the Charlie Brown's always
sounds because I've had it. I've done it for so long.
Why do I suddenly inner Chris? I feel like I'm
pushing christ Christmas Christmas pusher all of a sudden. I
hated the Christmas pusher last Yeary, I'm just turning over
and this is this is a new thing. Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:23:51):
No, I love the Christmas. I love Christmas spirit. I
love all the lights, I love the decorations. I love
everything about Christmas. I just haven't It's just so I've been.

Speaker 2 (01:24:00):
To I know, I don't know why all of a sudden,
I crossed over last year. This time last year, I
was like, if somebody talks more to me about trees
and Christmas, they're gonna alone. It's their own though, and
that is the truth.

Speaker 11 (01:24:16):
Yeah, Adam, do you and Rita have a tree?

Speaker 4 (01:24:20):
No?

Speaker 6 (01:24:20):
You know, I mean I hardly have any space in
my apartment for Rita herself.

Speaker 2 (01:24:25):
But but I'll go.

Speaker 6 (01:24:28):
Home and my mom will have the tree set up
and you know.

Speaker 11 (01:24:32):
There you about Sam, Sam, do you have a tree?

Speaker 6 (01:24:35):
I'm like, body, I sort of have like a little
mini Christmas tree that's like less than two feet.

Speaker 2 (01:24:42):
I imagine Sam's is black like guitar picks.

Speaker 11 (01:24:49):
That's cool.

Speaker 2 (01:24:51):
Cool tree, right like that? If I sent you a
tree tomorrow, everybody would be annoyed because they're leaving and
everybody's peeing on it.

Speaker 7 (01:24:59):
Is that?

Speaker 2 (01:25:00):
Yeah? Pretty much? Pretty much? I have one. I just
haven't put it up, okay, So that's where my brainwen.
I was like, oh, I can solve that tomorrow. Oh no,
it's not. Yeah, you're just king on it. And then
Ta has gone and he's like, I end up with this.
Damn s Trea. She wants a photo.

Speaker 6 (01:25:18):
What do you guys do about ornaments? Do you have
like uniform ornaments or crazy ones or what?

Speaker 2 (01:25:23):
I buy new ones every year? I did, and I
had a theme. I would do a theme every year,
like candy canes and wheels or you know, a traditional
like popcorn.

Speaker 3 (01:25:33):
I would do a theme every year, or I would
if I had like five different themes in my garage,
I would just pull one, you know what I mean,
Like that's what I like.

Speaker 2 (01:25:42):
Yeah, it's cool and you do home goods and listen. Honestly,
one of the very few things that I have from
the fires are some really awesome ornaments, so you know,
you could imagine they're so they feel so important. Suddenly
I'm crazy for the ornaments that live to tell the tale.
And then everything else and I want to say, every

(01:26:03):
single thing in my house at this point, which I
love so much and it's like furnished and totally functional
now is from Home Goods. Is from Home Goods or Wayfair,
which has a small shelf life because you've got to
put things together. No offense to Wayfair good product, but
putting furniture together is real bear. And but at Home

(01:26:26):
Goods you can walk out with the weird side table
or the ornaments or you know, the Christmas lights, and boy,
there was a lot of Christmas selections. So I feel
like it's one category this year that I can really
throw down and I'm all about it. I'm into Christmas
this year way more than any other year before, and

(01:26:48):
I'm starting new.

Speaker 11 (01:26:50):
I love that. Yay, Christmas is special for me.

Speaker 3 (01:26:54):
Yes, wait, Christmas Day Christmas.

Speaker 2 (01:27:02):
Baby, which kind of hard to have a birthday party. Yeah,
it's the worst.

Speaker 11 (01:27:08):
We had a birthday party.

Speaker 2 (01:27:10):
Birthdays on Christmas Eve. So yeah, oh my god, we're
gonna have to do that for you this year. Would
it be a better if it was a before or
after birthday?

Speaker 13 (01:27:20):
That's what if someone has said to me before they
know Christmas babies who do like do a halfway point
like a summer silly, it feels weird. I usually wind
up celebrating it late. And then of course everyone always
asked you get cheated out of gifts? Yes, I've actually
of course you do a set of gloves like one
glove is for a Christmas the.

Speaker 2 (01:27:39):
Other where they can put those gloves? Yeah, thank you. Yeah, guys,
you got to do a celebrate.

Speaker 13 (01:27:50):
How about my first Chris Christmas wish is to play
another talk back because I have a good topic.

Speaker 2 (01:27:55):
I wanted to do. Let's get you it in honor
of your birthday. Absolutely, yo, you guys.

Speaker 3 (01:28:02):
The Shawan Comb's documentary fifty cent went hard on this one.

Speaker 2 (01:28:08):
This this is wild.

Speaker 3 (01:28:11):
It's just going off since day one and like way
to break it down, like the history and this is nuts.

Speaker 2 (01:28:21):
If you haven't watched it, highly recommend.

Speaker 3 (01:28:24):
Wow, Am, we're from north of Boston, get into it.

Speaker 2 (01:28:31):
Animal. I had to say it. We're supposed to be
best friends. I wish I was in the car with
you driving across country right now talking about Diddy. I
think they lay it on. They do it like heavy
sometimes and then they slow it down and then they
give you a little history lesson that might seem boring,
but it is off. It annihilates. Definitely want it. I

(01:28:54):
started to watch it last night, but I was I'm
overselling it. I'm overselling and I are over selling.

Speaker 11 (01:29:00):
I don't like I think.

Speaker 2 (01:29:03):
It people fifty cent thing I thought was going to
add like a perspective that was maybe his, and I
got to give credit where credit due and listen. I
like documentaries. I make documentaries. This one is not. It
seems really weighted and it doesn't seem slanted, and I
think he has to be sitting back and giggling because

(01:29:23):
the director did an awesome job, and it does. It
has powerful moments, it has new moments, It fills in
a few blanks that I never knew, and like just
there is a little history lesson in it, but it
it annihilates him in a very classy, graceful way.

Speaker 11 (01:29:43):
Okay, I can't wait.

Speaker 2 (01:29:45):
It's not heavy handed. It's not a reality trashy like
a trash piece.

Speaker 11 (01:29:50):
It's just not okay, you we talked about this already.

Speaker 13 (01:29:53):
I'm just going to ask for if someone called earlier,
but we had Jarrett, so we couldn't take the call,
and they didn't want to wait around, and they sent
their question oh, which was they were on hold, and
I guess they hung up, but they really wanted to ask,
can you explain how the documentary got the ditty footage
that he's yes?

Speaker 2 (01:30:10):
So, well, we're actually digging into it real time because
I'm dying to know. So my understanding is it's two parts.
There's like a theoretical understanding and we don't have the
exact deep but Diddy's team, apparently his lawyers are very
very angry, and he's very very angry behind bars, and

(01:30:31):
when you watch the documentary there are parts of it
that you'll see that he will truly enjoy. However, it
does bring him squarely to account and accountability and a
couple of key things that I think unless you look
at the totality of Diddy, it gets blossed over real quick.
So the footage, imagine the guy we talked about this

(01:30:52):
last night. So this guy has a he hires a
filmmaker with a crew to follow him around because in
his mind, and he's that interesting that he should have
a film camera following him at all times. So allegedly
he followed he had this guy and perhaps didn't pay him,
perhaps allegedly allegedly allegedly, suddenly it became hard to get

(01:31:15):
paid when you're going to prison and you're in a
trial and suddenly you're behind bars, and it became call
my this, call my that. This is the alleged this
is the what is the word again, the scatterbotch subtle.
So this is allegedly, allegedly, allegedly allegedly that this filmmaker

(01:31:38):
takes all this time to follow him around this like spngali,
this narcissist around town, and then gets stiffed. Then legally, wait,
watch the dop when you talk when you say legally,
there's no such thing. Legally and nobody pays anybody. Everyone's

(01:31:58):
I could hire anybody, but oh yeah, I'm gonna pay you.
After then I'm in court and then I'm behind bars.
You're like, call my business managiner, call this guy called
this guy, and suddenly fifty cent gets it. I mean,
and I'm sure they went through all the legal channels.
Trust me when I tell you that Netflix and the
production company and the director, they are legally vetted. You know,

(01:32:21):
we do is vetted so did. He can probably cry
all he wants, but likely this filmmaker was like, what
am I holding this film? I'm holding the bag right
now and I may as well get paid. And by
the way, it's not a ton of it, but it's
enough to just show the behive in the moment and

(01:32:43):
that in contrast to where did he had been? And
there's so many pieces of it that, honestly, as a
person who just is impressionable and listens to pop culture,
I had to question myself. Honestly, it's a real look
at ourselves because I really jumped into the conversation at
the JLO moment and thereafter, and so much had happened prior.

(01:33:07):
I didn't see the totality of Diddy. I didn't remember
I met him. I met him at a Versace dress
and then I like kind of went with it, and oh,
the best friend of Biggie who he was like a victim?
Was he a victim or was he a victim of
something that he actually was a part of? And that
is just a really critical, nuanced thing that I think

(01:33:28):
they do really well. I can't wait to talk to
you guys about it. Keep the talk backs coming. Boston. Listen,
we're going to be back tomorrow. So I can't believe
it's Thursday. Tomorrow. There are all of these cases and more.
We will be back. Thank you for listening. We love you.
Thank you Jared for being such a great prosecutor. Stay
safe out there, and we will see you tomorrow

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

Dateline NBC

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

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}The Matthew Perry Sentencing, Epstein Island Images, and New Twists in Luigi Mangione’s Trial

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

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

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

Dateline NBC

All Episodes

The Matthew Perry Sentencing, Epstein Island Images, and New Twists in Luigi Mangione’s Trial

Stuff You Should Know