On today's MKD, we start the week off with special guest Jarrett Ferentino! We talk about Brian Walshe's sentencing, suspicious items found in D4vd's rental home, Nick Reiner's defense team, Jarrett's career, and more!
Follow Jarrett - Instagram (@jarrettferentino) // Youtube (@JarrettFerentino) // Website (jarrettferentino.com)
Pre-order Jarrett's book - Mothers, Murders, and Motivation
Shop our new merch! Use code GrossVIP15 at checkout - theduramatershop.com
Submit your stories, questions & comments to stories@motherknowsdeath.com
Support The Show:
🖤 Sponsors
🔬 Buy Nicole's Book
🥼 Merch
Follow:
🔪 Nicole
🪩 Maria
📱 TikTok
More Info:
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:08):
Mother Knows Dad starring Nicole and Jemmy and Maria qk Hi.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Everyone welcome The Mother Knows Death.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
On today's episode, we have a very special guest, our friend,
Jared Farantino. Jarrett is a nationally recognized former homicide prosecutor
and legal analysts featured on ABC's twenty twenty Crime Nation
Crime Stories with Nancy Grace and Moore. Some of our
listeners might recognize him from as many appearances and true
crime documentaries, including a recent appearance in The Idaho Student
(00:45):
Murders on Peacock. Jarrett has prosecuted serial killers, gang members,
domestic murders, and drug dealers. Notably, he represented the family
of Britney Drexel in their decade long pursuit of justice
and as champion community seeking claims against big farmat and
distributors during the opioid crisis. One of Jared's most compelling
(01:06):
stories is this decade long court battle against infamous serial
killer Hugo Selensky, culminating in a landmark victory. He is
the host of the podcast True Crime Boss and author
of the book Mother Murders and Motivations, which will be
coming out on April twenty first. Twenty twenty six. Today,
we're going to talk to him about some of the
(01:26):
crazy cases that have been going on in the news
over the past few weeks, his upcoming book, and more.
Please welcome Jared to the show. Hi Jared, how you doing.
Thanks for being here.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
I'm great. Hello, Maria and Nicole. It's my honor and
pleasure to be here.
Speaker 4 (01:42):
No, this is so awesome. We just had dinner with
you last week in New York City. It was really awesome,
our first time meeting you in firston, but of course
we were on your show before.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
So I was I enjoyed dinner. I was not disappointed.
It was great to meet you both, and we were
looking forward to coming on today and talking. You know,
it's a good thing. It's a quiet time in the
true crime world, right.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Oh my god.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Right, and we want to talk to you about so
many different things, and some of them are kind of
all related. I guess we should just start off with
Brian Walsh since that just happened a second before we
got on the call with you, so we haven't even
discussed it with you off camera, So why don't Ray,
why don't you talk about it, and then we'll talk
(02:25):
about it.
Speaker 4 (02:26):
Well, it just got sentenced, truly thirty seconds before we
came on this recording, so I definitely want to talk
about it with you. So whenever we're talking about cases,
we never understand how the sentencing works. So I'm really
interested to pick your brain about it because we don't
understand how some people get bail some people don't, so
we are going to have a million questions for you.
But we talked about Brian Walsh on our emergency episode
(02:46):
this Monday, because he had been found guilty of murdering
and dismembering his wife, even though her body has not
been found. So as of thirty seconds before this recording,
he has been sentenced to life in prison with no parole,
which I don't think is surprising for anybody that was
following the case, not at.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
All, And the appropriate sentence for mister Walts, that's for sure.
Speaker 4 (03:04):
Oh yeah, and I don't think the judge had any
sympathy for him at all.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
No, I mean, he's a clown. Even their defense was.
You know, if you look at that case, first of all,
he starts off by she disappears on New Year's Eve.
If he lies to the police, creates this manhunt and
search for his wife through New Year's and then his
(03:29):
attorneys plead guilty to dismembering her body. And their defense,
which they really didn't put on a defense they used
this in cross examination of the Commonwealth or the States
case was she died of some sudden death syndrome, right,
this strange situation, and he got so freaked out, died naturally.
(03:52):
He gets so freaked out he dismembers her body and
dumps her throughout the area in a series of dumpsters.
It makes zero sense, especially when you look at and
it's a tough case. It was essentially a no body
case in that you couldn't get a cause of her death.
You couldn't determine that she was murdered. So you have
a situation where you have to look at the circumstances.
(04:14):
Walsh was in trouble. He was facing the federal charge
for the art fraud, His marriage was falling apart, he
owed money, he was facing economic challenges that set the
table for this murder, and she was on her way
out of the marriage.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
It is interesting, I think a lot of people are
also comparing this to Scott Peterson's case a little bit,
because you know, Lacy wasn't found for so long, and
a lot of it was circumstantial evidence.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
It was And again, in circumstantial evidence, I say to
people is still evidence. But you know, television and media
and shows like we do set an expectation for jerors.
They expect to see DNA, they expect to see video evidence,
things of that nature. So as a prosecutor you have
(05:00):
to basically explain to them that's not the only thing.
You can consider somebody's circumstance and use your common sense
to get to that beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
Stand this is like reminding me of Casey Anthony. Like
defense attorneys are going to use this all the time, like, well,
if we say they died from an accident or from
a natural death, and they don't have the body and
they can't really prove it, you're going to put some
doubt inside of the jury, right that.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
Well, in theory, I guess that could.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Have happened because we don't have her body and we
don't really know what did happen to her. But for
his particular case, I mean, Casey Anthony was kind of
the same thing. Honestly, there was a lot of circumstantial evidence.
This is the text messages and all that. So as
a prosecutor, do you ever look at cases from Afar
(05:52):
and say, oh, god, that's an easy one. That would like,
I personally think this one's easy, whereas we're going to
talk about Karen Reid in a little bit that that
one might have been a little bit more challenging to handle.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
So all the ones I don't have to handle, I
think look easy, right, But you know, obviously some of
them were a lot more challenging than others. Karen Reid
still gives me a headache. I still debate that case
with people. But we're talking about Casey Anthony too. Her
approach much like Walsh's. She it worked for her. You know,
the jury didn't. The jury couldn't get to a point.
(06:27):
You know. The thing about Casey Anthony's case and Kayley's
death was it had gone on them for so long.
There was this mystery, there was this lie she was
telling and all these stories. Walsh was like a locked
room murder mystery. He was the only one with her
that night they were in the house. She then vanishes
(06:48):
off the face of the earth, and then he's seen
buying all these tools to cut her up. You didn't
necessarily have that. In Casey Anthony, you had some speculation
of that, so the chemicals that were traced in her
trunk and things like that. So Walsh's case was a
little bit tighter than Casey Anthony.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
We're talking about too, like, how is there not some
system alert at these home improvement stores that if you're
buying a very specific combination of things like he was,
that you're not like, m hello, this is not okay.
Because we had a story a while ago about a
door dash driver that got a weird order like that
and actually didn't follow through with delivering the order and
called the police.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
Well, and that's an interesting thought. It's like, what does
a guy clearly he's amassing materials to hack up a body, right,
he's got a hack sites got this. But there's also
wawful explanations for those things too. You know, if somebody's
doing a whole improvement project, they're going to need some
of those very tools. So unfortunately, when you're in the
(07:48):
true crime world like we are, we jumped to that conclusion.
But if you're selling these items and loads, you're thinking, oh,
they're going to use them. In the lawful legal sense,
you're not thinking this guy's going home to kuind of body.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
I actually brought it up to Gabe when we were
driving home, and he was just like trying to give
me scenarios of why you would need those items. He's
just like, if you're doing demo in a house, like
you would need a soul and you would need a
tie x suit if there was some kind of lead
pain or something like. He's just like, you could in
theory buy all those things and use them for a
home project.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
Right, and you could also be cutting up a body. Yeah,
but you know there are interestingly you said that, though, Maria,
because there are times where, like I represent companies, and
if certain chemicals are sold, for example, to a vendor
to a particular customer, that could get flagged and the
(08:42):
government can look into why is this particular customer buying
a particular item. So you do have that, but with
everyday items such as this, anything could become a weapon
at some point or many things, and many things can
become tools to utilize in the disposal of a body.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
Fortunately, well we I just and I didn't even think
about talking about this, but I just heard that this
singer David, you know, the guy that spells his name.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
Weird. Yes, that they found someone.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
Yeah, they found some weird thing in his house that
would be capable of incinerating a human body.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
Right, an incinerator, and it was found by a private
investigator hired by the landlord. Okay, this guy, by the way,
the private investigator has found a couple things. Why the
landlord has hired a private investigator is a little odd,
But his investigator has found some interesting things in that case,
not the least of which was an incinerator that I
(09:40):
heard was unopened that the police didn't take. And I
look at that. Now, if I'm at that home and
they're executing the warrant and I see an incinerator capable
of burning a body, I would say, and it was unopened,
I believe I would say, go ahead and take that
into evidence, because if you're following that case, she was
not Her body was in the front of the tesla,
(10:03):
not disposed of yet. Could that incinerator have been purchased
to ultimately then get rid of her body? Again, you
don't make that call when you're gathering the evidence of
the scene. I would have taken that and then ran
it down In the investigations like.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
Who and especially a famous person living in la or
where you know, like did you see the neighborhood he
was living in?
Speaker 2 (10:28):
What would be why would anybody need that?
Speaker 1 (10:31):
Well, they're legal there. You can't have that kind of
burning there, So why would anyone have it? There is
a great question. And they're not lawful. You can't open
burn there, so at which you have the Palisades fires
and everything else that you've had there. So in that situation,
if somebody could say, oh, there could be a legal explanation. Yeah,
but this guy happened to have a body in his
(10:53):
trunk too. It could also have been prepared and purchased
to eventually get rid of her body.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
It's actually scary because if he did that, like nobody
would even have known that. No, you know what I mean,
because she wasn't really connected with him much.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Right, And eventually maybe they could have put it together
that she's well obviously missing. But the fact that they
even the fact that they found her body though, and
I don't know how close nucoy you're following this, but
they have not at least to date, released a lot
of information and been able to glean a lot from
her body as far as cause and manner of death either,
(11:30):
and that may have changed. But my understanding is her
body was in such an advanced point of decomposition that
they were unable to make that determination. And we're awaiting
some toxicology as well.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
Yeah, we requested the autopsy report when September, right when
I missed.
Speaker 4 (11:50):
I like my thirty four dollars back because it's been
a really long time and I don't have any documents
about it.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Yeah, they still have.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
I don't think they finalized it yet, so I mean,
obviously they're waiting for talks ecology, and because everybody's on
this case so hard, they want to really make sure
that they have everything situated ahead of time.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
You know, you know, and they have a grand jury going,
so people are talking, they're bringing witnesses in, blocking people
to a story that really to me means it's in
the hands of the district attorney and it's moving forward.
It's no longer just in the hands of the police.
So something's going to happen soon. There.
Speaker 4 (12:27):
Can you explain for our listeners and lay people how
a grand jury works?
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Exactly?
Speaker 1 (12:32):
Sure, So when you hear the word jury, you think
of a traditional jury that's in the courtroom for a
jury trial. But a grand jury is a jury that
is built within the population, a jury of your peers
brought in and ask to consider testimony. It's not a
trial situation. Prosecutors just appear in front of the grand jury,
(12:54):
usually with witnesses, and they present evidence and say, based
on this evidence, do you believe we have enough information
to move forward with a charge. So there's two kinds
of grand juries. There's a charging grand jury that would
do that, like in the David case, if they're bringing
in evidence and saying, this is what we have, do
we have enough to move forward with a murdered charge?
(13:15):
Or there's an investigative grand jury where you're subpeding witnesses
and locking them into a story and only getting their
testimony on the record, And that grand jury wouldn't necessarily indict,
but they're locking testimony and transcripts of these witnesses under oath.
So that's kind of and it's all secretive. It's not public.
(13:36):
Long after it's over, the transcripts could be secretive. So
there's a big fight over the Epstein grand jury testimony
now both in Florida and in New York based on
the Epstein Disclosure Act. The grand jury records have been
unsealed in New York and Florida, or will be unsealed
on December nineteenth, when allegedly the records are going to
(13:56):
be released.
Speaker 4 (13:57):
Yeah, that's interesting because I feel like it's a term
always seeing in the news and I really am just like,
I feel like I have an understanding of what this means,
but I also really don't as a normal person.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
Grand juries are like flight club. I'm gonna date myself.
We don't talk about flight club.
Speaker 4 (14:12):
Right, that's a good compared.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
So how do they pick those people?
Speaker 1 (14:18):
Well, usually it's a voter registration list and a driving list,
at least in Pennsylvania. That's how they're chosen. And then
you cannot be on a jury if you're a felon,
if you're not a citizen, if you don't understand the
English language, or of some kind of an impairment. Those
are the things that would prohibit you from serving. So
you couldn't serve on a grand jury, for example, if
(14:41):
any of those would apply, or some kind of hardship.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
So that essentially just wrapped into normal jury duty services.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
Yes, yeah, but a grand jury could sit for an
extended period of time where they could hear testimony, leave
and then reconvene the following week or two weeks later.
So it it's a little bit of a unique animal.
But in most states you don't have to do that.
Like das the district attorney for the most part is
(15:08):
very powerful. They don't need to put a case before
a grand jury. They can charge without. Oftentimes they use
the grand juries as a backsteller in making their decision
to move forward and testing the strength of their case.
Speaker 3 (15:23):
So in this day and age with social media and everything,
and you're just getting regular people off the street to
trust them with like high level information that you don't
really want leaking to the press, right, Like how do
you control that?
Speaker 1 (15:38):
Well, it's not easy. And they take an oath that
they're going to abide by the confidentiality provisions and ensure that.
I mean the major part of this, like this system
has to work for everyone, and you have to follow
the rules. If you don't, there could be consequences. Look
at the Murdock case when the jury, the woman that
(15:59):
was the jury commissioner down there in a low country,
she was talking to the jury and talking about the
case like she's been consequent she had complete guilty over that.
So jury confidentiality and sanctity is something that we have
to respect for the system to work, but it's difficult
(16:19):
to control. Sometimes they go as far as like taking
the jury and paneling them and sequestering them where they're
staying at a hotel and they can only have limited
access to their phone so they're not reading about a case.
And that is an extreme situation. But otherwise you just
have to avoid any accounts of a case and you
(16:40):
have to just promise you're doing that. Are they doing it?
Who knows.
Speaker 3 (16:45):
I just would assume that the press would be trying
to figure out who these people are and could offer
them money for inside do you.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
Know what I mean?
Speaker 1 (16:55):
That would create now and again, if you have somebody
in the press doing that, that's something that could create
a problem because they're interfering with the justice system. That's
almost like an obstruction to approach a juror and pay
them or entice them to do anything. You could be
criminally liable for that.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
Now, like the case jumping to another case of the
Brown University thing that's going on right now, this is
not the same thing, but kind of as far as
a leak goes, like someone I guess they had arrested
someone and then they let that person go, but someone
had leaked that person's name to the press and it
was all over social media. And if that guy truly
(17:36):
has nothing to do with this, I feel bad for
that guy. And who, like who was not supposed to tell?
And could that person if they find out who's told,
get in serious trouble for.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
That well, you know, the thing about it is it
may have been like a defamation type situation, but the
reality was he was taking to custody. He was a
person of interest, so it was true. And those types
of things, although you try to keep them under wraps,
they're not necessarily protected with that same level of sanctity
(18:11):
as a juror's confidentiality. Like these things get out, you know,
when a person of interest is taken into custody, like
in the Brown University shooting, they pass a lot of people.
You know, Although you try to keep these things as
close to under close to the vest as you can,
there's administrators, there's staff, there's other police officers talk to
(18:35):
one another. Word gets out, and the media has relationships
with these folks, you know, I worked as a DA
for twenty years. I know every reporter for all the
news stations. I mean they were camped out in front
of my office many days. We all got to know
one another and spoke pretty frankly off camera sometimes, but
you have to maintain that professionalism when confidences are in play.
Speaker 3 (19:00):
It's interesting too, because I saw it just happened with
the Rob Reiner case that I'm listening to the police
do their press conference and not saying anything. They wouldn't
even admit at the time that the people that were
dead inside the house were the Rob and his wife, Michelle.
And then at the same time, I'm looking on my
phone and people magazines like they're both dead. They were
(19:24):
murdered and it was their son who did it.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
So it's like that was a little curious. I don't know,
they were trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube, right,
I mean like it was everywhere and the chief was
being evasive, and I think he was pretty criticized for
that after it happened. I mean, word was out there,
you know, before everyone went to bed that night, they
had a pretty good inkling of what happened, you know,
(19:49):
Sunday night, into Monday.
Speaker 4 (19:51):
Yeah, said though I don't always mind that because I
think law enforcements often criticized for that. But I also
think people just expect information immediately, and there's a lot
of people putting information out on social media that's not
always true, and then we're getting false facts. Like speaking
about the Rob Bryer case, for example, there was a
million reports that the daughter who found them had said,
(20:13):
my brother definitely did this, And now all of a
sudden they're like, oh, no, she didn't say that, she
never suggested the brother.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
Well, which one is it?
Speaker 4 (20:19):
Why did we rush to put that information out when
maybe it wasn't true, right, And now.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
It sounds like that was the case, by the way, Yeah,
and she said that he was dangerous at least what's
being reported. But again I don't know why. I mean,
you're talking about Los Angeles, extremely famous, extremely powerful people.
You're going to have that rampant speculation. And it's a
situation where although that officer that's giving that press conference
(20:48):
is holding a lot of that information close to the vest, again,
you have other officers and other individuals who are on
site that are aware of what happened. I mean, one
of the things they kept reporting was that Larry. Every
report said Larry David and Billy Crystal were there, you know,
which I thought was a little I mean, those are
obviously dear friends of rob Ryders, and if something happened
(21:09):
in front of yours, you would go to the house.
But that was something that kept getting reported. And then
what President Trump said like sucked all the air out
of the room like the following day, you know. So
that story was just it had a lot of tentacles
and was being covered in a lot of different ways
and still is quite honestly, and will be for a
long time. Oh yeah.
Speaker 4 (21:29):
And it's quite the opposite of other cases we've seen.
We always cite Bob Saggitt and his death and then
Gene Hackman. Everybody jumped to think it was this horrific,
nefarious thing that went down, and know, they really just
died from either an accident or some natural thing. And
this is really the most horrific thing we've seen in
a while of somebody this famous.
Speaker 1 (21:48):
Well, and it was clear and just by the nature
of your both of your work and your show, it
was clear this was not a natural death. I mean
what's being reported is their throats were slacked, and so
it's a violent, bloody and you know, so the odds
of that being natural are great.
Speaker 3 (22:08):
Well, Like, I mean, you know, I'm writing a celebrity
death book. And it's funny because a lot of people
have so much interest in celebrity deaths, but there's not
really a whole lot of celebrities that have been murdered
as as far as if you want to do a
comparison of one hundred people, the percentage of homicides, it's
the same as it occurs in the normal population. It's
(22:30):
the lowest manner of death among celebrities as well. So
and a lot of them are like weird kind of murders,
like Michael Jackson and Princess Diana that were considered murdered
even though they weren't murdered in the traditional sense of
getting attacked with a knife like in this case. So
this is just a really rare thing to happen in Hollywood,
(22:53):
to be honest.
Speaker 1 (22:54):
Right, So it's an anomaly, but it doesn't feel like
an anomaly because of the ramp and coverage it gets.
And it's so you know, this thing is going to
be huge for a long time. I mean, Rob Reiner
over many generations, was beloved and as I said, powerful,
He was politically active, like everybody knew who this guy was.
(23:14):
And then you look at the situation at this day
and age with the social media and all the videos
of he and his son Nick over ten years ago
talking and talking about Nick's problems. I mean, it's fascinating.
You know, their lives were just open and they were
speaking openly about their challenges. And one of the things
I've noticed, like in this case, and I've been spending
(23:35):
a couple of days looking at it very hard, is
kind of the evolution of Nick Reiner himself. If you
look at Nick Reiner in twenty fifteen as opposed to
how he looked in this past September at the premiere
for Spinal Tap. I think it was where that photograph
is with his film. They're beautiful people and Nick and
(23:55):
this isn't a judgment, like appeared to be disheveled, had
gained way, was unkimped but in twenty fifteen looked well,
looked healthy, looked like he was on top of his game.
This is indicative of someone who was in the throes
of drug addiction or terrible mental health. Situation.
Speaker 4 (24:13):
They were even saying at Conan O'Brien's party too in
the news that he, I guess this part. I know
about this party, have heard about it before in pop culture,
but apparently it's this really fancy or deal. And he
just showed up looking exactly like you just described, completely
disheveled and off to the point where it was noticeable
to all the other guests.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
And you know how sad is that, Like the writers
are invited to Colin O'Brien's, who's a friend of theirs,
and they like, can we bring our thirty two year
old son with us? You know, It's like because they
what was being reported is they didn't want to leave
home because they were worried about it, you know. And
I look at this, it's tragic in so many ways
because I don't doubt that Robin Michelle Rynder loved their
(24:54):
son tremendously to the extent he was in rehab seventeen times.
They provided for him. They were trying, you know, And
I've had patricide type cases like this in my career
in oftentimes the child that's getting all this love and
attention grows to resent their parents and they underestimate the
(25:16):
potential violence that could unfold with these kinds of cases.
You know, this is someone who clearly his mental health
and his drug addiction threw him into a place where
he became is alleged to have become very, very violent
and killed them in this episode. It's a horrible situation.
Speaker 4 (25:35):
Yeah, even when you watch those interviews from ten years ago,
I mean, he does look definitely more put together and everything,
but he's not home when he's talking. He's just not there,
and it's a little worrisome. And then you see all
these new pictures of him and he doesn't look mentally
sound well.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
And again, one of the things that's going to become
a major issue in this case is, you know, it's
it doesn't appear to be a who'd done it? Okay,
Alan Jackson is representing Nick Ryander. Now it's not a who.
It doesn't appear to be who'd done it. Ela Jackson's
a phenomenal lawyer. He may turn it into a who'd
done it once this thing gets investigated. They can challenge
(26:13):
the investigation, certainly, but we're going to end up in
the realm of some kind of mitigation via mental health
and drug induced situation, and I look at you know,
they're playing the videos of Nick walking at the gas
station shortly before getting to his parents' house and then
buying a drink before the cops picked him up in
(26:35):
another service station. It's been reported he got a hotel
room at four am, and that there was blood in
the shower, and that he puts sheets on the windows.
I look at that pre homicide and post homicide behavior,
and I say, this is someone who was in control,
understood where he was, who knew to get out of there,
(26:57):
get a hotel, get a shower, put the sheets up.
All of those things are intentional behaviors, and that's what
you're looking for in assessing somebody's level of intent. When
they're going to claim some kind of diminished capacity. It's
not going to fly in this case, though it's such
a high bar in California. You have to be literally
out of your mind to say, when I stuck this
(27:18):
knife in my parent's neck, I was so gone I
didn't realize it would kill them or that it was
illegal at that time.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
Do you think there's going to be some kind of
Menendez like defense of like he was abused something something
like he was abusing me my whole life. And this
is I mean, it appears now is what's being reported
is that they were both sleeping when they had their
throats cut, which means it's not like the dad had
(27:47):
attacked him and he was fighting back, and you know
it wasn't a fight, which is even weirder honestly, if
a person's sleeping and then you decide to do something
like that, right, at no.
Speaker 1 (27:59):
Point do you say, like, this isn't a good idea,
Maybe I should just tiptoe out of here, right, I mean,
you're committed at that point. He has the weapon and
he kills one then the other. We don't know which order.
But your question of whether or not it could become
a Menandez situation, well you have to remember in the
Menendez situation, Lyle and Eric were the only two in
(28:20):
that house. You have is it Rammy and Jake or
two other siblings in that house. So I don't know
if you're going to be able to make that kind
of a claim if it's not true, because the Rhiners
were raised Jake and Romy were raised with Nick, so
I certainly hope not. I think you have like a
(28:42):
guy like rob Ryanders kind of on a pedestal. I
would certainly hope not, but anything's possible. And if that
is the case, Alan Jackson would be committing malpractice to
not at least address it and find a way to
get that in. But there's really no indication at this
point that there would be any credit ability to that
kind of a defense.
Speaker 4 (29:02):
I was surprised to see Alan Jackson jumping on this
case because I just feel like, from what we know
in the public right now, it's pretty clear what happened.
I mean, of course we don't know all the all
the details and everything, but I just can't see what
angle he could possibly come in from and try to
defend him well.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
And I thought the same thing, because you're so used
to him spinning this tale of corruption in the fleet
with the Karen Reid case, or remember he defended Arbi
Weinstein in Los Angeles and lost the Weinstein was convicted.
You know, Jackson is a phenomenal lawyer, and we're familiar
with cases that he's actually won, spacey and read. But
(29:42):
at the same time, if we only took cases that
were slam dunks or winnable, you'd have a tough time.
You just wouldn't have any business. I mean, you know,
this is his job. He's a criminal, high profile criminal
defense lawyer, and he'll defend Nick to the best of
his ability. That means mean instead of it being done
it it's some kind of mental health issue. But it
(30:05):
may be a whodune. I mean, you know, the state
is still going to be required to prove this case
if it can't be resolved by way of a plea,
And how are you going to resolve it? I mean
you just walk in and plead and say I'll do life.
You know, there's very limited options in this case as
far as a resolution that would be acceptable to the
surviving family, the people of California, and the defendant.
Speaker 4 (30:36):
This episode is brought to you by the Gross Room.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
Guys, it is holiday time in the Gross Room, and
we have so many articles over the course of the
past six years to get you in a gross holiday mood.
Recently we did our high profile death dissection on freak
accidents that happen around this time of year. A lot
of deaths, but some people end up surviving.
Speaker 2 (30:57):
Luckily.
Speaker 3 (30:58):
We have our annual Christmas time post that is really
an accumulative post of over the years of the Grossroom.
That shows all of the different deaths that we covered,
including freak accidents. We had a high profile death dissection
on dangerous toys that seriously injured and killed people, and
we had a really funny one last year going over.
(31:21):
We did a dissection on all of the injuries that
happened during the home alone movies and what we.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
Think could happen.
Speaker 3 (31:29):
And most of the time usually it's like the first
one that happens, the person would die.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
So check that out.
Speaker 3 (31:35):
All that and more in the Gross Room, and plus
we have some New Year's episodes coming up of all
of the deaths that could happen around New Year's.
Speaker 4 (31:42):
Head over to the Grossroom dot com now to sign up.
I guess the question we always have too about criminal
defense attorneys is in some cases you'll see they'll just
throw out this crazy accusation that somebody else close to
a victim or something committed the crime. If that's completely
unfounded and untrue, are those lawyers responsible for saying that
(32:03):
and defamation of any sort or they could just say
whatever they want to defend their client.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
Well you would hope they don't just say whatever they want, right,
I mean that it's tied to something and if you remember,
I'm trying to remember which case it was, they had
a third party theory and they were prevented from I
think it was Karen Reid. They were saying it was
Karen Reid. No, no, no, it was Colberg. Colberger's lawyers
were barred from saying there was this third party responsible
(32:32):
right before the plea. That was one of the last
motions they lost, was their ability to blame this third
party that was cleared by the evidence. So if you're
going to name someone in your defense, you know, another
big bad wolf, so to speak, you better have a
monoicum of evidence or some thread of evidence that links
(32:54):
that person to it, because you could be subject. I mean,
there's immunity with regard to pleadings, but if it comes
from out of nowhere and you defend someone with no
tie or no evidence to the case, you could be
consequence for that, or least somebody would try and you
would hope I mean the profession itself. I mean, that
is a hell of a thing to do, and it
could wind up blowing up in your face and really
(33:15):
harming your client.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
So in the case with Rob Reiner and Nick Reiner,
like who so he's he's in jail, Like, how do
people who are arrested just have access to their credit
cards or whatever to just call this lawyer? Because he
didn't have assuming his own money, He didn't have a
(33:39):
job or anything, So.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
Where is he getting money to pay this lawyer?
Speaker 1 (33:44):
I would think what I think is this? Knowing what
I have learned about this family, I believe his parents
had a trust fund for him, which is managed by
a trustee. So when someone is on and that level
of abusing drugs, if they get money, they're going to
try to score, right, So Nick, I'm sure it was
(34:06):
on a short leash money wise was probably provided with
and this is pure speculation on my part, but probably
provided with a weekly allowance or pay. But there is
a trustee, an individual who manages his money, and that
person would be authorized to secure an attorney for him.
So I don't think his sister or brother were rushing
(34:28):
out to buy the best criminal defense attorney they confined
for their brother immediately following this MRD. So I suspect
there is a trustee involved and that's how And again
I'm only speculating, but that would explain the ability to
procure a lawyer at Jackson's level.
Speaker 3 (34:47):
That quickly, did you hear that this is a potential
death penalty case or it could be just because of
the manner in which it was done. Is that something
that you think, whatever happen in this case.
Speaker 1 (35:02):
Well, it certainly qualifies in that it meets an aggravator.
The aggravator that the aggravator is the use of a
deadly weapon. The multiple victims, particularly heinoused if they were sleeping,
that would potentially qualify it as a death penalty case.
But in California, Governor Newsom has a moratorium on the
(35:24):
death penalty, so you can seek it, but while he's
governor it will not be imposed, so that's kind of
a deterrent from seeking it. And in family situations, so
the victims that survive here are Nick's siblings. So typically
I've done many death penalty cases in my career. You
bring the surviving family members and you say, look, this
(35:47):
qualifies for death. We're looking at this as a potential
death penalty case. What are your thoughts. Now, they don't
make the decision for the DA, but their input is
weighed quite heavily on that decision particular. So there's a
lot that goes into the cocktail of that decision, so
it remains to be seen. I don't know that it's
(36:08):
going to be a death penalty case, though I don't
think so.
Speaker 3 (36:11):
So in the case of Coburger, I know that some
of the parents really didn't want to drop the death
penalty charge. So was that, like what made the prosecutor
in that case go against that when it was kind
of clear they had a lot of evidence to support that.
Speaker 1 (36:29):
Well, some parents were okay with the plea. Steve Gonsalves
was not. I know that, But really it's the prosecutor's decision. Okay.
The prosecutor is approached by the defense with the deal
that Coburger sits for the rest of his life in jail.
You no longer have the risk of trial, the unpleasantness
(36:52):
of trial if you take death off the tape. Okay,
And if you look at the life Brian Colberger is
currently living by behind bars, it is not you know,
it's not a five star situation. He's in right, he's
if you've seen the complaints, he's made all this stuff.
So in the end, I think the families will come
to accept that plea. But in making the decision whether
(37:17):
or not to take debt, put it on the table
or take it off. Family input is considered, but it
is not the deciding factor. Ultimately, the DA has to say,
I got to make the coal. I'm the one who's
got to try this thing. I'm the one who's got
to take the risks and tie up the resources. When
I have a sure thing of putting Brian Colberger away
for the rest of his life, I got to consider
(37:39):
that pretty hard. And I've done that, and death penalty
could be a tool to get please. I've had cases
where we're seeking death and one of the reasons you
seek it is well, we'll take it off the table
if you plead to life. And that's what happened Coburger,
and it's happened in many cases i've had.
Speaker 3 (37:55):
How did you feel about that when that was going down.
Do you ever put yourself in these situations and be like,
if this was my case, I would have handled it
this way or something.
Speaker 1 (38:06):
Oh, I'm an emotional basket case, of course. I Like
they say, don't get emotionally involved. I was emotionally involved
in every homicide case I had, so yes I was.
But on the death penalty case I used to tell
people you know you're gambling. You're putting your life in
the hands of a jerk. If you want to gamble,
go to Bally's or go to Mohegan sun Right, this
(38:27):
isn't the place to gamble. One of the examples I
used to use toward the end was I said, look,
President Trump was shot in Butler, Pennsylvania, in front of
a crowd, and on television. How many different versions of
events were people talking about? Was he shot? Did he
get hit? Was it trapped? All this and that. I
(38:48):
used to say, like, you're going to trust eyewitness testimony
and witnesses to convince twelve people that some twelve people
you never met, from all different backgrounds, who are not
legally trained to make this decision, or we can make
this decision on our own and it's a sure thing.
So there were times I hedged my bet, but there
(39:08):
were more often than not. When a deal like that
comes to you as a prosecutor, you take it, even
if you're personally involved. And we have a moratorium in
Pennsylvania on the death penalty. In fact, the biggest case
in my career was a death penalty case. We're picking
the jury and the governor who was a friend of mine,
imposed the moratorium during the jury selection, So I wasn't
(39:30):
necessarily thrilled at that moment, but you know, we slogged ahead,
and fortunately that individual got life in prison and was
not given the death penalty.
Speaker 3 (39:41):
Let's talk about some of your cases, like that particular
one you're talking about.
Speaker 1 (39:48):
So that case was the Hugo Selenski case in northeastern Pennsylvania,
which was a case that really captivated our region for
a long time Becauseinsky went on trial with the first
prosecution team for the first two murders he was charged
with in March of two thousand and six, he was acquitted.
(40:10):
So I joined the prosecution team in March of two
thousand and six and was on that the many manifestations
of the trial team through January of twenty fifteen, believe
it or not, when he finally went on trial and
we were able to secure a conviction finally to two
counts of first degree murder, but Selinsky had escaped our
(40:33):
jail from the fifth floor. He tied bed sheets and
escaped from our jail. At one point. He was pretty
infamous here and his case had attracted some national attention
as well. So that case because of how long it
went on, because I had gotten to know Selinski himself,
because through the course of nine years, I got married,
at babies and lived with this thing for so long.
(40:55):
It was just a major part of my life. So
that one, and got very close with the family involved
and the individuals to the point where I felt like
I was just like another player in this crazy world.
That case in particular, whenever people ask what cases immediately
come to mind. The other my first homicide, our County
(41:16):
Fair Queen was murdered in a botched robbery. She was
living in a little converted garage behind her boyfriend's grandmother's house.
They were only nineteen years old. These kids and two
guys went there to steal their marijuana at a PlayStation,
and she tried to stop them. Her boyfriend wasn't home,
and they brutalized them, and they stabbed her forty times.
(41:38):
And that was the first case I ever had. One
of the individuals hung himself in its jail cell shortly after,
and then the other individuals stood trial and was convicted.
So that's how it started. I was on the job
like three weeks. I was at my first murder scene
almost immediately and I've handled every type of case you
(41:58):
could have. Gang bangers, wife killers, baby killers, serial killers,
you name it. I mean, we've seen our share of bad,
tough cases here in northeastern Pennsylvania. That's for sure.
Speaker 3 (42:12):
When you're a prosecutor, you actually go to the crime scene.
Speaker 1 (42:17):
Yes, yes, so we would have so our office and
Loser County has about anywhere from twenty five to thirty
assistant das. And of that twenty five to thirty, I
would say five of us are primarily homicide prosecutors, although
we do a little bit of everything. There would be
usually a rotating group of five that would go out
(42:38):
to murder scenes. So basically I'd be out to dinner
with my wife and kids. The phone would ring and say, hey,
we have a murder. You got to go. They got
quite used to this over the years. I would run
everybody home and get out and next thing you know,
you go from having dinner or just sitting around the
house to standing over a dead body trying to put
it together, and all hell breaks loose. That never got old.
(43:01):
I have to say, like you're adrenaline gets going. It's
a wild thing to go from normal life to that
in a matter of minutes.
Speaker 3 (43:09):
So do you talk about So let's talk about your book.
And obviously you're going to talk about these cases in
the book, but you also talk about like what was
going on behind the scenes in your real life too
as you were going through these cases.
Speaker 1 (43:22):
Yes, so the book is called I'm Just like an
Italian Moms boy, I tell people, right, So the book
is about I never set out to write a book
about moms, but like, I can't tell my story without
talking about my mom. Who's awesome. My mom is Uh.
We lost our dad when I was very young, so
I'm one of four boys, okay, and our dad got
(43:43):
sick when I was five, died when I was seven.
Good guy Maleman really battle cancer for two years. And
my mother, who was a homemaker with four kids, not
unlike being Jimmy Girling, not unlike you guys, just goes
out into the world and just lit the world on fire.
She became an executive in the insurance business, was very successful,
(44:07):
and she promised my dad she would never let anybody
hit us and she would educate us. So you could
imagine my dad's dying and he says, please make sure
you educate the boys like that's a pretty tall order,
you know, but she did. And we used to tease
her and say, Ma, you know how we ever going
to repay her for everything you did? And she used
to say, when you encounter a mom that needs your help,
(44:29):
help her. And that's basically what the book is about.
So when I was going through some of the cases
that I wanted to highlight, there was a thief, you know,
there was always this mom whose child was killed, or
one of the cases I highlight is a mother who
killed or allowed her child to be killed, okay, by
failing to protect her child. So that's why the book
(44:52):
is called Mother's Murders and Motivation. So it's about these cases.
It's about my mom and the moms that I encountered
along the way, all the way way to South Carolina,
where I represented Don Drexel in the search thirteen year
search for Britney Drexel, which was a nationwide case. We
had met in the last three years of the search
(45:12):
for Britney. She was Eventually her body was found and
the individuals responsible were brought to justice six hundred miles
away from where I typically practice, I have to say,
So that's where the book kind of I don't want
to give away the end. It kind of gets to
that point. So we went from young rookie prosecutor mom's
boy to you know, this national case and we ended
(45:33):
up on Good Morning America and this now true crime
little world that we're dabbling in. But that's what the
book's about. So if your mom, if you love your
mother and your mother loves murder, this is the book
for you.
Speaker 3 (45:45):
I was just thinking that, like, it's perfect timing. It's
coming out right before Mother's Day. Yes, it's like it's
so great.
Speaker 4 (45:52):
I love better place to promote than Mother Knows Death.
Speaker 1 (45:55):
Yeah, absolutely, So we have all this synergy here, right,
but you know, pre order it today and and and
they wanted us to promote the book. I said, who's
going to get excited about a book that's coming out
in five months? But interestingly enough, I spoke to four
hundred lawyers a couple of weeks ago, and like, a
lot of people ordered the book and it's exciting and
(46:17):
I'm really proud of of the book. And Nancy Grace
wrote the foreword, which is great, and she's a mom,
you know, and she was excited about the theme of
the book, and like I said, I'm a proud mother's
of mama's boy. You know I'm tougher because of it.
You know, I I am, you know, quick to tears,
and I'm an emotional guy. But let me tell you,
(46:41):
I mean I've I'm yet to encounter a guy that's
as tough as my mom. And it's funny you think
this young woman who worked so hard was really the
reason a lot of people are in jail today. I
prosecuted my cases because of the example she set, And
that's really what the book is about, you know. It's
(47:02):
it's homage to her and to those moms and cases.
So it was very therapeutic to write because I was
I never looked back. I'm not necessarily like a nostalgic person,
so to sit down and look back at all the
crazy cases and start to think like this was nuts.
While I was having a family, so a lot of
it's about that too, Like my wife and I got
(47:25):
married and started our family throughout these cases that are
in the book, so I talk about that too, and
so it was very eye opening time in my life.
And it's this book is very exposing of me too,
maybe too much.
Speaker 4 (47:38):
So you're making me emotional as an Italian woman about
to have a son.
Speaker 1 (47:42):
So see that, Well, someday he'll someday he'll write a
book about you, Maria.
Speaker 4 (47:48):
Right, hopefully, hopefully I don't damage it.
Speaker 1 (47:52):
And my mother keeps that she's seventy. My mother's seventy
nine years old. She looks like she's fifty, right, and
she keeps saying, no, what is this up. I tell
her it's about you, and it's you know. I just
think she likes me to tell her I wrote a
book about her, but she has not read it yet.
No one's really read it yet.
Speaker 3 (48:09):
I love that so much. I'm so I'm excited for this.
I think that the true crime world we know all
of these statistics. I don't know if I've ever told
you this story that not the past year, but the
first time we went to crime con we had Gabe
go with us and he was looking around and he's like,
I'm gonna tell all my friends about this place.
Speaker 2 (48:30):
There's women everywhere, there's no dudes here. He just thought,
he was like mind blown.
Speaker 3 (48:36):
He's like, there's and what crime Colon gets, like what
eight thousand people?
Speaker 2 (48:40):
Seven thousand people?
Speaker 3 (48:42):
And it's I don't know if if Kelly actually does
the statistics on who's attending. There's men that are presenting,
for sure, but as far as attendees, and we could
say that for our line too, it's mostly women. And
then when guys are there, they're usually there with their woman, right, Yeah, interesting,
So you have a good target audience with this book.
Speaker 1 (49:03):
I'm planning on being there this year. I have not
been able to go because I've had conflicts every single time,
But this year i want to be there to promote
the book and I'm looking forward to it, and some
of our friends in the true crime world will be there,
and it's nice, you know, it's nice to get everybody
together and share stories. You know. I've really enjoyed this
journey and getting to know both of you, certainly, but
(49:26):
I had always been interested in getting on and I
love talking about these cases, especially cases I don't have
to personally prosecute. It's liberating to be able to stay
like instead of we will move on to the courthouse
and we will prove this case. To be honest about
cases and say like this case sucks or this is weak,
(49:50):
you know, or comment on a case I don't necessarily
have to worry about prosecuting, and it's been fun to
get out of that prosecution. Mold call balls and strikes
on both sides of the ball. So that's why I
really enjoy it too.
Speaker 3 (50:05):
So one question I asked that I like to ask
people that have jobs like yours, is what, like how
did this affect Because you have children that are young adults,
Let's say, how how did that affect you raising them
as far as how to stay vigilant and protect themselves,
Like I know that your sons in school things like that.
(50:28):
Just with everything crazy going on in the world and
everything you saw at your job, what are some things
that you won't let your kids do or that you're
just you know that you that affects your relationship with
your wife or anything when you go home after seeing
crazy things like that.
Speaker 1 (50:43):
Well, so for with regard to my wife, Nicole, like
she Nicole is a professional. She was a chiropractor, I
had a clinic and now is in the academic world.
So Nicole understood as a professional like she understood her career,
my career. You know, we were on that together. She's
always very supportive, but there were some dark times, like
(51:04):
you know, I would come home and like many days
I'd play Mario Kart with the kids after a murder case.
But some days Daddy just felt like having a cigar
on the ports and not bothered, you know. So there
was tremendous understanding, but we didn't shelter the kids like
the cops used to be our detectives, Like our house
was kind of centrally located. Even when our kids were born,
(51:26):
the detectives were at the hospital, Like it was crazy.
It was just such a part of my life, like
and then as they were growing up, we would have
meetings at the house around my back porch, and like
an Italian house, as you know, is open to everyone,
like our kitchen, we would have state troopers there and
I'd be looking at a warrant for some warrant we're
executing the next day. So the kids were used to
(51:49):
I would have to say that we didn't hide the
amount of work Nicole and I had to do every day,
and they were not sheltered from what I was doing.
Although my daughter used to think I was fighting. We
were in oursel arts too, and my daughter used to
think I was physically fighting these defendants.
Speaker 3 (52:05):
So until we're Italian, that's how you talk to each other.
Speaker 2 (52:10):
People think that I think.
Speaker 1 (52:11):
I was boxing these people. You know, she think like,
don't get don't get hurt dead. You know.
Speaker 3 (52:16):
Yeah. People sometimes say like, we don't like when you
and Maria fight, and we're like, we're not fighting, trust
me this, We're just talking.
Speaker 2 (52:23):
Yeah. Wow.
Speaker 3 (52:24):
You know, in an Italian house, it's like whoever talks
the loudest is the one that's heard kind of, you know,
you're talking over a lot of big personal.
Speaker 4 (52:33):
Especially in the Philadelphia scrit and area. It's like a
way more overpower here than any others in the country.
Speaker 1 (52:40):
Oh yeah. And but without the support of my brothers
and my friends and our family, I'm where I grew up.
We're in this, you know. And now we're taking it
a little bit more on a larger scale with television
and stuff. But this community really supported our das you know.
It would be nothing for us to go out and
people come over to the table and say hell low
and nice job on this. Because we have like two
(53:03):
news stations, two newspapers, like this is a big news area.
They followed all these cases. So I used to think
like I could be like a lawyer, suing slip and
fall cases and making all this money, but it was
pretty cool over the which I do now, but it
was pretty cool over those years to have people really
celebrating the work too, myself and my colleagues, so but
(53:25):
I didn't shy away from them. I loved that for
it and I love that people wanted to talk about
the cases that I have.
Speaker 2 (53:32):
That's awesome.
Speaker 3 (53:33):
Well, thanks so much for being here today. We love
you and we love your story and we're so excited
about your book and all the best of luck to it.
Speaker 1 (53:41):
Well, thank you. I love you both, and I'm enjoying
this true crime journey and sharing it with both of you,
and we'll do this again. I want to come on
when the book is about to drop.
Speaker 4 (53:51):
Yes, please, and please tell everybody where they could follow
you on your socials and your show.
Speaker 1 (53:56):
So I have on Jarifaratino dot com. There's Instagram and Facebook,
same deal. And the book is Mother's Murders and Motivation,
and my show is True Crime Boss when we do it.
But I just mostly have been doing like lastnightrun Core TV.
I like to do that stuff and stuff like this,
so when I do the show, it's True Crime Boss.
Speaker 2 (54:19):
Awesome.
Speaker 3 (54:20):
Thank you so much, thank you, thank you, thank you
for listening to Mother Nos Death. As a reminder, my
training is as a pathologist assistant. I have a master's
level education and specialize in anatomy and pathology education. I
am not a doctor and I have not diagnosed or
(54:41):
treated anyone dead or alive without the assistance of a
licensed medical doctor. This show, my website, and social media
accounts are designed to educate and inform people based on
my experience working in pathology, so they can make healthier
decisions regarding their life and wellbeing. Always remember that science
(55:03):
is changing every day and the opinions expressed in this
episode are based on my knowledge of those subjects at
the time of publication. If you are having a medical problem,
have a medical question, or having a medical emergency, please
contact your physician or visit an urgent care center, emergency room.
Speaker 2 (55:23):
Or hospital.
Speaker 3 (55:24):
Please rate, review, and subscribe to Mother Knows Death on Apple, Spotify, YouTube,
or anywhere you get podcasts.
Speaker 2 (55:32):
Thanks
Mother Knows Dad starring Nicole and Jemmy and Maria qk Hi.
Speaker 2 (00:21):
Everyone welcome The Mother Knows Death.
Speaker 3 (00:22):
On today's episode, we have a very special guest, our friend,
Jared Farantino. Jarrett is a nationally recognized former homicide prosecutor
and legal analysts featured on ABC's twenty twenty Crime Nation
Crime Stories with Nancy Grace and Moore. Some of our
listeners might recognize him from as many appearances and true
crime documentaries, including a recent appearance in The Idaho Student
(00:45):
Murders on Peacock. Jarrett has prosecuted serial killers, gang members,
domestic murders, and drug dealers. Notably, he represented the family
of Britney Drexel in their decade long pursuit of justice
and as champion community seeking claims against big farmat and
distributors during the opioid crisis. One of Jared's most compelling
(01:06):
stories is this decade long court battle against infamous serial
killer Hugo Selensky, culminating in a landmark victory. He is
the host of the podcast True Crime Boss and author
of the book Mother Murders and Motivations, which will be
coming out on April twenty first. Twenty twenty six. Today,
we're going to talk to him about some of the
(01:26):
crazy cases that have been going on in the news
over the past few weeks, his upcoming book, and more.
Please welcome Jared to the show. Hi Jared, how you doing.
Thanks for being here.
Speaker 1 (01:37):
I'm great. Hello, Maria and Nicole. It's my honor and
pleasure to be here.
Speaker 4 (01:42):
No, this is so awesome. We just had dinner with
you last week in New York City. It was really awesome,
our first time meeting you in firston, but of course
we were on your show before.
Speaker 1 (01:51):
So I was I enjoyed dinner. I was not disappointed.
It was great to meet you both, and we were
looking forward to coming on today and talking. You know,
it's a good thing. It's a quiet time in the
true crime world, right.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Oh my god.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Right, and we want to talk to you about so
many different things, and some of them are kind of
all related. I guess we should just start off with
Brian Walsh since that just happened a second before we
got on the call with you, so we haven't even
discussed it with you off camera, So why don't Ray,
why don't you talk about it, and then we'll talk
(02:25):
about it.
Speaker 4 (02:26):
Well, it just got sentenced, truly thirty seconds before we
came on this recording, so I definitely want to talk
about it with you. So whenever we're talking about cases,
we never understand how the sentencing works. So I'm really
interested to pick your brain about it because we don't
understand how some people get bail some people don't, so
we are going to have a million questions for you.
But we talked about Brian Walsh on our emergency episode
(02:46):
this Monday, because he had been found guilty of murdering
and dismembering his wife, even though her body has not
been found. So as of thirty seconds before this recording,
he has been sentenced to life in prison with no parole,
which I don't think is surprising for anybody that was
following the case, not at.
Speaker 1 (03:01):
All, And the appropriate sentence for mister Walts, that's for sure.
Speaker 4 (03:04):
Oh yeah, and I don't think the judge had any
sympathy for him at all.
Speaker 1 (03:08):
No, I mean, he's a clown. Even their defense was.
You know, if you look at that case, first of all,
he starts off by she disappears on New Year's Eve.
If he lies to the police, creates this manhunt and
search for his wife through New Year's and then his
(03:29):
attorneys plead guilty to dismembering her body. And their defense,
which they really didn't put on a defense they used
this in cross examination of the Commonwealth or the States
case was she died of some sudden death syndrome, right,
this strange situation, and he got so freaked out, died naturally.
(03:52):
He gets so freaked out he dismembers her body and
dumps her throughout the area in a series of dumpsters.
It makes zero sense, especially when you look at and
it's a tough case. It was essentially a no body
case in that you couldn't get a cause of her death.
You couldn't determine that she was murdered. So you have
a situation where you have to look at the circumstances.
(04:14):
Walsh was in trouble. He was facing the federal charge
for the art fraud, His marriage was falling apart, he
owed money, he was facing economic challenges that set the
table for this murder, and she was on her way
out of the marriage.
Speaker 4 (04:29):
It is interesting, I think a lot of people are
also comparing this to Scott Peterson's case a little bit,
because you know, Lacy wasn't found for so long, and
a lot of it was circumstantial evidence.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
It was And again, in circumstantial evidence, I say to
people is still evidence. But you know, television and media
and shows like we do set an expectation for jerors.
They expect to see DNA, they expect to see video evidence,
things of that nature. So as a prosecutor you have
(05:00):
to basically explain to them that's not the only thing.
You can consider somebody's circumstance and use your common sense
to get to that beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 3 (05:10):
Stand this is like reminding me of Casey Anthony. Like
defense attorneys are going to use this all the time, like, well,
if we say they died from an accident or from
a natural death, and they don't have the body and
they can't really prove it, you're going to put some
doubt inside of the jury, right that.
Speaker 2 (05:29):
Well, in theory, I guess that could.
Speaker 3 (05:31):
Have happened because we don't have her body and we
don't really know what did happen to her. But for
his particular case, I mean, Casey Anthony was kind of
the same thing. Honestly, there was a lot of circumstantial evidence.
This is the text messages and all that. So as
a prosecutor, do you ever look at cases from Afar
(05:52):
and say, oh, god, that's an easy one. That would like,
I personally think this one's easy, whereas we're going to
talk about Karen Reid in a little bit that that
one might have been a little bit more challenging to handle.
Speaker 1 (06:03):
So all the ones I don't have to handle, I
think look easy, right, But you know, obviously some of
them were a lot more challenging than others. Karen Reid
still gives me a headache. I still debate that case
with people. But we're talking about Casey Anthony too. Her
approach much like Walsh's. She it worked for her. You know,
the jury didn't. The jury couldn't get to a point.
(06:27):
You know. The thing about Casey Anthony's case and Kayley's
death was it had gone on them for so long.
There was this mystery, there was this lie she was
telling and all these stories. Walsh was like a locked
room murder mystery. He was the only one with her
that night they were in the house. She then vanishes
(06:48):
off the face of the earth, and then he's seen
buying all these tools to cut her up. You didn't
necessarily have that. In Casey Anthony, you had some speculation
of that, so the chemicals that were traced in her
trunk and things like that. So Walsh's case was a
little bit tighter than Casey Anthony.
Speaker 4 (07:08):
We're talking about too, like, how is there not some
system alert at these home improvement stores that if you're
buying a very specific combination of things like he was,
that you're not like, m hello, this is not okay.
Because we had a story a while ago about a
door dash driver that got a weird order like that
and actually didn't follow through with delivering the order and
called the police.
Speaker 1 (07:28):
Well, and that's an interesting thought. It's like, what does
a guy clearly he's amassing materials to hack up a body, right,
he's got a hack sites got this. But there's also
wawful explanations for those things too. You know, if somebody's
doing a whole improvement project, they're going to need some
of those very tools. So unfortunately, when you're in the
(07:48):
true crime world like we are, we jumped to that conclusion.
But if you're selling these items and loads, you're thinking, oh,
they're going to use them. In the lawful legal sense,
you're not thinking this guy's going home to kuind of body.
Speaker 2 (08:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (08:01):
I actually brought it up to Gabe when we were
driving home, and he was just like trying to give
me scenarios of why you would need those items. He's
just like, if you're doing demo in a house, like
you would need a soul and you would need a
tie x suit if there was some kind of lead
pain or something like. He's just like, you could in
theory buy all those things and use them for a
home project.
Speaker 1 (08:22):
Right, and you could also be cutting up a body. Yeah,
but you know there are interestingly you said that, though, Maria,
because there are times where, like I represent companies, and
if certain chemicals are sold, for example, to a vendor
to a particular customer, that could get flagged and the
(08:42):
government can look into why is this particular customer buying
a particular item. So you do have that, but with
everyday items such as this, anything could become a weapon
at some point or many things, and many things can
become tools to utilize in the disposal of a body.
Speaker 3 (09:00):
Fortunately, well we I just and I didn't even think
about talking about this, but I just heard that this
singer David, you know, the guy that spells his name.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
Weird. Yes, that they found someone.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
Yeah, they found some weird thing in his house that
would be capable of incinerating a human body.
Speaker 1 (09:19):
Right, an incinerator, and it was found by a private
investigator hired by the landlord. Okay, this guy, by the way,
the private investigator has found a couple things. Why the
landlord has hired a private investigator is a little odd,
But his investigator has found some interesting things in that case,
not the least of which was an incinerator that I
(09:40):
heard was unopened that the police didn't take. And I
look at that. Now, if I'm at that home and
they're executing the warrant and I see an incinerator capable
of burning a body, I would say, and it was unopened,
I believe I would say, go ahead and take that
into evidence, because if you're following that case, she was
not Her body was in the front of the tesla,
(10:03):
not disposed of yet. Could that incinerator have been purchased
to ultimately then get rid of her body? Again, you
don't make that call when you're gathering the evidence of
the scene. I would have taken that and then ran
it down In the investigations like.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
Who and especially a famous person living in la or
where you know, like did you see the neighborhood he
was living in?
Speaker 2 (10:28):
What would be why would anybody need that?
Speaker 1 (10:31):
Well, they're legal there. You can't have that kind of
burning there, So why would anyone have it? There is
a great question. And they're not lawful. You can't open
burn there, so at which you have the Palisades fires
and everything else that you've had there. So in that situation,
if somebody could say, oh, there could be a legal explanation. Yeah,
but this guy happened to have a body in his
(10:53):
trunk too. It could also have been prepared and purchased
to eventually get rid of her body.
Speaker 3 (10:59):
It's actually scary because if he did that, like nobody
would even have known that. No, you know what I mean,
because she wasn't really connected with him much.
Speaker 1 (11:09):
Right, And eventually maybe they could have put it together
that she's well obviously missing. But the fact that they
even the fact that they found her body though, and
I don't know how close nucoy you're following this, but
they have not at least to date, released a lot
of information and been able to glean a lot from
her body as far as cause and manner of death either,
(11:30):
and that may have changed. But my understanding is her
body was in such an advanced point of decomposition that
they were unable to make that determination. And we're awaiting
some toxicology as well.
Speaker 3 (11:43):
Yeah, we requested the autopsy report when September, right when
I missed.
Speaker 4 (11:50):
I like my thirty four dollars back because it's been
a really long time and I don't have any documents
about it.
Speaker 2 (11:55):
Yeah, they still have.
Speaker 3 (11:55):
I don't think they finalized it yet, so I mean,
obviously they're waiting for talks ecology, and because everybody's on
this case so hard, they want to really make sure
that they have everything situated ahead of time.
Speaker 1 (12:08):
You know, you know, and they have a grand jury going,
so people are talking, they're bringing witnesses in, blocking people
to a story that really to me means it's in
the hands of the district attorney and it's moving forward.
It's no longer just in the hands of the police.
So something's going to happen soon. There.
Speaker 4 (12:27):
Can you explain for our listeners and lay people how
a grand jury works?
Speaker 2 (12:31):
Exactly?
Speaker 1 (12:32):
Sure, So when you hear the word jury, you think
of a traditional jury that's in the courtroom for a
jury trial. But a grand jury is a jury that
is built within the population, a jury of your peers
brought in and ask to consider testimony. It's not a
trial situation. Prosecutors just appear in front of the grand jury,
(12:54):
usually with witnesses, and they present evidence and say, based
on this evidence, do you believe we have enough information
to move forward with a charge. So there's two kinds
of grand juries. There's a charging grand jury that would
do that, like in the David case, if they're bringing
in evidence and saying, this is what we have, do
we have enough to move forward with a murdered charge?
(13:15):
Or there's an investigative grand jury where you're subpeding witnesses
and locking them into a story and only getting their
testimony on the record, And that grand jury wouldn't necessarily indict,
but they're locking testimony and transcripts of these witnesses under oath.
So that's kind of and it's all secretive. It's not public.
(13:36):
Long after it's over, the transcripts could be secretive. So
there's a big fight over the Epstein grand jury testimony
now both in Florida and in New York based on
the Epstein Disclosure Act. The grand jury records have been
unsealed in New York and Florida, or will be unsealed
on December nineteenth, when allegedly the records are going to
(13:56):
be released.
Speaker 4 (13:57):
Yeah, that's interesting because I feel like it's a term
always seeing in the news and I really am just like,
I feel like I have an understanding of what this means,
but I also really don't as a normal person.
Speaker 1 (14:08):
Grand juries are like flight club. I'm gonna date myself.
We don't talk about flight club.
Speaker 4 (14:12):
Right, that's a good compared.
Speaker 2 (14:15):
So how do they pick those people?
Speaker 1 (14:18):
Well, usually it's a voter registration list and a driving list,
at least in Pennsylvania. That's how they're chosen. And then
you cannot be on a jury if you're a felon,
if you're not a citizen, if you don't understand the
English language, or of some kind of an impairment. Those
are the things that would prohibit you from serving. So
you couldn't serve on a grand jury, for example, if
(14:41):
any of those would apply, or some kind of hardship.
Speaker 4 (14:43):
So that essentially just wrapped into normal jury duty services.
Speaker 1 (14:48):
Yes, yeah, but a grand jury could sit for an
extended period of time where they could hear testimony, leave
and then reconvene the following week or two weeks later.
So it it's a little bit of a unique animal.
But in most states you don't have to do that.
Like das the district attorney for the most part is
(15:08):
very powerful. They don't need to put a case before
a grand jury. They can charge without. Oftentimes they use
the grand juries as a backsteller in making their decision
to move forward and testing the strength of their case.
Speaker 3 (15:23):
So in this day and age with social media and everything,
and you're just getting regular people off the street to
trust them with like high level information that you don't
really want leaking to the press, right, Like how do
you control that?
Speaker 1 (15:38):
Well, it's not easy. And they take an oath that
they're going to abide by the confidentiality provisions and ensure that.
I mean the major part of this, like this system
has to work for everyone, and you have to follow
the rules. If you don't, there could be consequences. Look
at the Murdock case when the jury, the woman that
(15:59):
was the jury commissioner down there in a low country,
she was talking to the jury and talking about the
case like she's been consequent she had complete guilty over that.
So jury confidentiality and sanctity is something that we have
to respect for the system to work, but it's difficult
(16:19):
to control. Sometimes they go as far as like taking
the jury and paneling them and sequestering them where they're
staying at a hotel and they can only have limited
access to their phone so they're not reading about a case.
And that is an extreme situation. But otherwise you just
have to avoid any accounts of a case and you
(16:40):
have to just promise you're doing that. Are they doing it?
Who knows.
Speaker 3 (16:45):
I just would assume that the press would be trying
to figure out who these people are and could offer
them money for inside do you.
Speaker 2 (16:54):
Know what I mean?
Speaker 1 (16:55):
That would create now and again, if you have somebody
in the press doing that, that's something that could create
a problem because they're interfering with the justice system. That's
almost like an obstruction to approach a juror and pay
them or entice them to do anything. You could be
criminally liable for that.
Speaker 3 (17:14):
Now, like the case jumping to another case of the
Brown University thing that's going on right now, this is
not the same thing, but kind of as far as
a leak goes, like someone I guess they had arrested
someone and then they let that person go, but someone
had leaked that person's name to the press and it
was all over social media. And if that guy truly
(17:36):
has nothing to do with this, I feel bad for
that guy. And who, like who was not supposed to tell?
And could that person if they find out who's told,
get in serious trouble for.
Speaker 1 (17:50):
That well, you know, the thing about it is it
may have been like a defamation type situation, but the
reality was he was taking to custody. He was a
person of interest, so it was true. And those types
of things, although you try to keep them under wraps,
they're not necessarily protected with that same level of sanctity
(18:11):
as a juror's confidentiality. Like these things get out, you know,
when a person of interest is taken into custody, like
in the Brown University shooting, they pass a lot of people.
You know, Although you try to keep these things as
close to under close to the vest as you can,
there's administrators, there's staff, there's other police officers talk to
(18:35):
one another. Word gets out, and the media has relationships
with these folks, you know, I worked as a DA
for twenty years. I know every reporter for all the
news stations. I mean they were camped out in front
of my office many days. We all got to know
one another and spoke pretty frankly off camera sometimes, but
you have to maintain that professionalism when confidences are in play.
Speaker 3 (19:00):
It's interesting too, because I saw it just happened with
the Rob Reiner case that I'm listening to the police
do their press conference and not saying anything. They wouldn't
even admit at the time that the people that were
dead inside the house were the Rob and his wife, Michelle.
And then at the same time, I'm looking on my
phone and people magazines like they're both dead. They were
(19:24):
murdered and it was their son who did it.
Speaker 1 (19:26):
So it's like that was a little curious. I don't know,
they were trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube, right,
I mean like it was everywhere and the chief was
being evasive, and I think he was pretty criticized for
that after it happened. I mean, word was out there,
you know, before everyone went to bed that night, they
had a pretty good inkling of what happened, you know,
(19:49):
Sunday night, into Monday.
Speaker 4 (19:51):
Yeah, said though I don't always mind that because I
think law enforcements often criticized for that. But I also
think people just expect information immediately, and there's a lot
of people putting information out on social media that's not
always true, and then we're getting false facts. Like speaking
about the Rob Bryer case, for example, there was a
million reports that the daughter who found them had said,
(20:13):
my brother definitely did this, And now all of a
sudden they're like, oh, no, she didn't say that, she
never suggested the brother.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
Well, which one is it?
Speaker 4 (20:19):
Why did we rush to put that information out when
maybe it wasn't true, right, And now.
Speaker 1 (20:25):
It sounds like that was the case, by the way, Yeah,
and she said that he was dangerous at least what's
being reported. But again I don't know why. I mean,
you're talking about Los Angeles, extremely famous, extremely powerful people.
You're going to have that rampant speculation. And it's a
situation where although that officer that's giving that press conference
(20:48):
is holding a lot of that information close to the vest, again,
you have other officers and other individuals who are on
site that are aware of what happened. I mean, one
of the things they kept reporting was that Larry. Every
report said Larry David and Billy Crystal were there, you know,
which I thought was a little I mean, those are
obviously dear friends of rob Ryders, and if something happened
(21:09):
in front of yours, you would go to the house.
But that was something that kept getting reported. And then
what President Trump said like sucked all the air out
of the room like the following day, you know. So
that story was just it had a lot of tentacles
and was being covered in a lot of different ways
and still is quite honestly, and will be for a
long time. Oh yeah.
Speaker 4 (21:29):
And it's quite the opposite of other cases we've seen.
We always cite Bob Saggitt and his death and then
Gene Hackman. Everybody jumped to think it was this horrific,
nefarious thing that went down, and know, they really just
died from either an accident or some natural thing. And
this is really the most horrific thing we've seen in
a while of somebody this famous.
Speaker 1 (21:48):
Well, and it was clear and just by the nature
of your both of your work and your show, it
was clear this was not a natural death. I mean
what's being reported is their throats were slacked, and so
it's a violent, bloody and you know, so the odds
of that being natural are great.
Speaker 3 (22:08):
Well, Like, I mean, you know, I'm writing a celebrity
death book. And it's funny because a lot of people
have so much interest in celebrity deaths, but there's not
really a whole lot of celebrities that have been murdered
as as far as if you want to do a
comparison of one hundred people, the percentage of homicides, it's
the same as it occurs in the normal population. It's
(22:30):
the lowest manner of death among celebrities as well. So
and a lot of them are like weird kind of murders,
like Michael Jackson and Princess Diana that were considered murdered
even though they weren't murdered in the traditional sense of
getting attacked with a knife like in this case. So
this is just a really rare thing to happen in Hollywood,
(22:53):
to be honest.
Speaker 1 (22:54):
Right, So it's an anomaly, but it doesn't feel like
an anomaly because of the ramp and coverage it gets.
And it's so you know, this thing is going to
be huge for a long time. I mean, Rob Reiner
over many generations, was beloved and as I said, powerful,
He was politically active, like everybody knew who this guy was.
(23:14):
And then you look at the situation at this day
and age with the social media and all the videos
of he and his son Nick over ten years ago
talking and talking about Nick's problems. I mean, it's fascinating.
You know, their lives were just open and they were
speaking openly about their challenges. And one of the things
I've noticed, like in this case, and I've been spending
(23:35):
a couple of days looking at it very hard, is
kind of the evolution of Nick Reiner himself. If you
look at Nick Reiner in twenty fifteen as opposed to
how he looked in this past September at the premiere
for Spinal Tap. I think it was where that photograph
is with his film. They're beautiful people and Nick and
(23:55):
this isn't a judgment, like appeared to be disheveled, had
gained way, was unkimped but in twenty fifteen looked well,
looked healthy, looked like he was on top of his game.
This is indicative of someone who was in the throes
of drug addiction or terrible mental health. Situation.
Speaker 4 (24:13):
They were even saying at Conan O'Brien's party too in
the news that he, I guess this part. I know
about this party, have heard about it before in pop culture,
but apparently it's this really fancy or deal. And he
just showed up looking exactly like you just described, completely
disheveled and off to the point where it was noticeable
to all the other guests.
Speaker 1 (24:32):
And you know how sad is that, Like the writers
are invited to Colin O'Brien's, who's a friend of theirs,
and they like, can we bring our thirty two year
old son with us? You know, It's like because they
what was being reported is they didn't want to leave
home because they were worried about it, you know. And
I look at this, it's tragic in so many ways
because I don't doubt that Robin Michelle Rynder loved their
(24:54):
son tremendously to the extent he was in rehab seventeen times.
They provided for him. They were trying, you know, And
I've had patricide type cases like this in my career
in oftentimes the child that's getting all this love and
attention grows to resent their parents and they underestimate the
(25:16):
potential violence that could unfold with these kinds of cases.
You know, this is someone who clearly his mental health
and his drug addiction threw him into a place where
he became is alleged to have become very, very violent
and killed them in this episode. It's a horrible situation.
Speaker 4 (25:35):
Yeah, even when you watch those interviews from ten years ago,
I mean, he does look definitely more put together and everything,
but he's not home when he's talking. He's just not there,
and it's a little worrisome. And then you see all
these new pictures of him and he doesn't look mentally
sound well.
Speaker 1 (25:52):
And again, one of the things that's going to become
a major issue in this case is, you know, it's
it doesn't appear to be a who'd done it? Okay,
Alan Jackson is representing Nick Ryander. Now it's not a who.
It doesn't appear to be who'd done it. Ela Jackson's
a phenomenal lawyer. He may turn it into a who'd
done it once this thing gets investigated. They can challenge
(26:13):
the investigation, certainly, but we're going to end up in
the realm of some kind of mitigation via mental health
and drug induced situation, and I look at you know,
they're playing the videos of Nick walking at the gas
station shortly before getting to his parents' house and then
buying a drink before the cops picked him up in
(26:35):
another service station. It's been reported he got a hotel
room at four am, and that there was blood in
the shower, and that he puts sheets on the windows.
I look at that pre homicide and post homicide behavior,
and I say, this is someone who was in control,
understood where he was, who knew to get out of there,
(26:57):
get a hotel, get a shower, put the sheets up.
All of those things are intentional behaviors, and that's what
you're looking for in assessing somebody's level of intent. When
they're going to claim some kind of diminished capacity. It's
not going to fly in this case, though it's such
a high bar in California. You have to be literally
out of your mind to say, when I stuck this
(27:18):
knife in my parent's neck, I was so gone I
didn't realize it would kill them or that it was
illegal at that time.
Speaker 3 (27:26):
Do you think there's going to be some kind of
Menendez like defense of like he was abused something something
like he was abusing me my whole life. And this
is I mean, it appears now is what's being reported
is that they were both sleeping when they had their
throats cut, which means it's not like the dad had
(27:47):
attacked him and he was fighting back, and you know
it wasn't a fight, which is even weirder honestly, if
a person's sleeping and then you decide to do something
like that, right, at no.
Speaker 1 (27:59):
Point do you say, like, this isn't a good idea,
Maybe I should just tiptoe out of here, right, I mean,
you're committed at that point. He has the weapon and
he kills one then the other. We don't know which order.
But your question of whether or not it could become
a Menandez situation, well you have to remember in the
Menendez situation, Lyle and Eric were the only two in
(28:20):
that house. You have is it Rammy and Jake or
two other siblings in that house. So I don't know
if you're going to be able to make that kind
of a claim if it's not true, because the Rhiners
were raised Jake and Romy were raised with Nick, so
I certainly hope not. I think you have like a
(28:42):
guy like rob Ryanders kind of on a pedestal. I
would certainly hope not, but anything's possible. And if that
is the case, Alan Jackson would be committing malpractice to
not at least address it and find a way to
get that in. But there's really no indication at this
point that there would be any credit ability to that
kind of a defense.
Speaker 4 (29:02):
I was surprised to see Alan Jackson jumping on this
case because I just feel like, from what we know
in the public right now, it's pretty clear what happened.
I mean, of course we don't know all the all
the details and everything, but I just can't see what
angle he could possibly come in from and try to
defend him well.
Speaker 1 (29:19):
And I thought the same thing, because you're so used
to him spinning this tale of corruption in the fleet
with the Karen Reid case, or remember he defended Arbi
Weinstein in Los Angeles and lost the Weinstein was convicted.
You know, Jackson is a phenomenal lawyer, and we're familiar
with cases that he's actually won, spacey and read. But
(29:42):
at the same time, if we only took cases that
were slam dunks or winnable, you'd have a tough time.
You just wouldn't have any business. I mean, you know,
this is his job. He's a criminal, high profile criminal
defense lawyer, and he'll defend Nick to the best of
his ability. That means mean instead of it being done
it it's some kind of mental health issue. But it
(30:05):
may be a whodune. I mean, you know, the state
is still going to be required to prove this case
if it can't be resolved by way of a plea,
And how are you going to resolve it? I mean
you just walk in and plead and say I'll do life.
You know, there's very limited options in this case as
far as a resolution that would be acceptable to the
surviving family, the people of California, and the defendant.
Speaker 4 (30:36):
This episode is brought to you by the Gross Room.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
Guys, it is holiday time in the Gross Room, and
we have so many articles over the course of the
past six years to get you in a gross holiday mood.
Recently we did our high profile death dissection on freak
accidents that happen around this time of year. A lot
of deaths, but some people end up surviving.
Speaker 2 (30:57):
Luckily.
Speaker 3 (30:58):
We have our annual Christmas time post that is really
an accumulative post of over the years of the Grossroom.
That shows all of the different deaths that we covered,
including freak accidents. We had a high profile death dissection
on dangerous toys that seriously injured and killed people, and
we had a really funny one last year going over.
(31:21):
We did a dissection on all of the injuries that
happened during the home alone movies and what we.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
Think could happen.
Speaker 3 (31:29):
And most of the time usually it's like the first
one that happens, the person would die.
Speaker 2 (31:34):
So check that out.
Speaker 3 (31:35):
All that and more in the Gross Room, and plus
we have some New Year's episodes coming up of all
of the deaths that could happen around New Year's.
Speaker 4 (31:42):
Head over to the Grossroom dot com now to sign up.
I guess the question we always have too about criminal
defense attorneys is in some cases you'll see they'll just
throw out this crazy accusation that somebody else close to
a victim or something committed the crime. If that's completely
unfounded and untrue, are those lawyers responsible for saying that
(32:03):
and defamation of any sort or they could just say
whatever they want to defend their client.
Speaker 1 (32:07):
Well you would hope they don't just say whatever they want, right,
I mean that it's tied to something and if you remember,
I'm trying to remember which case it was, they had
a third party theory and they were prevented from I
think it was Karen Reid. They were saying it was
Karen Reid. No, no, no, it was Colberg. Colberger's lawyers
were barred from saying there was this third party responsible
(32:32):
right before the plea. That was one of the last
motions they lost, was their ability to blame this third
party that was cleared by the evidence. So if you're
going to name someone in your defense, you know, another
big bad wolf, so to speak, you better have a
monoicum of evidence or some thread of evidence that links
(32:54):
that person to it, because you could be subject. I mean,
there's immunity with regard to pleadings, but if it comes
from out of nowhere and you defend someone with no
tie or no evidence to the case, you could be
consequence for that, or least somebody would try and you
would hope I mean the profession itself. I mean, that
is a hell of a thing to do, and it
could wind up blowing up in your face and really
(33:15):
harming your client.
Speaker 3 (33:17):
So in the case with Rob Reiner and Nick Reiner,
like who so he's he's in jail, Like, how do
people who are arrested just have access to their credit
cards or whatever to just call this lawyer? Because he
didn't have assuming his own money, He didn't have a
(33:39):
job or anything, So.
Speaker 2 (33:42):
Where is he getting money to pay this lawyer?
Speaker 1 (33:44):
I would think what I think is this? Knowing what
I have learned about this family, I believe his parents
had a trust fund for him, which is managed by
a trustee. So when someone is on and that level
of abusing drugs, if they get money, they're going to
try to score, right, So Nick, I'm sure it was
(34:06):
on a short leash money wise was probably provided with
and this is pure speculation on my part, but probably
provided with a weekly allowance or pay. But there is
a trustee, an individual who manages his money, and that
person would be authorized to secure an attorney for him.
So I don't think his sister or brother were rushing
(34:28):
out to buy the best criminal defense attorney they confined
for their brother immediately following this MRD. So I suspect
there is a trustee involved and that's how And again
I'm only speculating, but that would explain the ability to
procure a lawyer at Jackson's level.
Speaker 3 (34:47):
That quickly, did you hear that this is a potential
death penalty case or it could be just because of
the manner in which it was done. Is that something
that you think, whatever happen in this case.
Speaker 1 (35:02):
Well, it certainly qualifies in that it meets an aggravator.
The aggravator that the aggravator is the use of a
deadly weapon. The multiple victims, particularly heinoused if they were sleeping,
that would potentially qualify it as a death penalty case.
But in California, Governor Newsom has a moratorium on the
(35:24):
death penalty, so you can seek it, but while he's
governor it will not be imposed, so that's kind of
a deterrent from seeking it. And in family situations, so
the victims that survive here are Nick's siblings. So typically
I've done many death penalty cases in my career. You
bring the surviving family members and you say, look, this
(35:47):
qualifies for death. We're looking at this as a potential
death penalty case. What are your thoughts. Now, they don't
make the decision for the DA, but their input is
weighed quite heavily on that decision particular. So there's a
lot that goes into the cocktail of that decision, so
it remains to be seen. I don't know that it's
(36:08):
going to be a death penalty case, though I don't
think so.
Speaker 3 (36:11):
So in the case of Coburger, I know that some
of the parents really didn't want to drop the death
penalty charge. So was that, like what made the prosecutor
in that case go against that when it was kind
of clear they had a lot of evidence to support that.
Speaker 1 (36:29):
Well, some parents were okay with the plea. Steve Gonsalves
was not. I know that, But really it's the prosecutor's decision. Okay.
The prosecutor is approached by the defense with the deal
that Coburger sits for the rest of his life in jail.
You no longer have the risk of trial, the unpleasantness
(36:52):
of trial if you take death off the tape. Okay,
And if you look at the life Brian Colberger is
currently living by behind bars, it is not you know,
it's not a five star situation. He's in right, he's
if you've seen the complaints, he's made all this stuff.
So in the end, I think the families will come
to accept that plea. But in making the decision whether
(37:17):
or not to take debt, put it on the table
or take it off. Family input is considered, but it
is not the deciding factor. Ultimately, the DA has to say,
I got to make the coal. I'm the one who's
got to try this thing. I'm the one who's got
to take the risks and tie up the resources. When
I have a sure thing of putting Brian Colberger away
for the rest of his life, I got to consider
(37:39):
that pretty hard. And I've done that, and death penalty
could be a tool to get please. I've had cases
where we're seeking death and one of the reasons you
seek it is well, we'll take it off the table
if you plead to life. And that's what happened Coburger,
and it's happened in many cases i've had.
Speaker 3 (37:55):
How did you feel about that when that was going down.
Do you ever put yourself in these situations and be like,
if this was my case, I would have handled it
this way or something.
Speaker 1 (38:06):
Oh, I'm an emotional basket case, of course. I Like
they say, don't get emotionally involved. I was emotionally involved
in every homicide case I had, so yes I was.
But on the death penalty case I used to tell
people you know you're gambling. You're putting your life in
the hands of a jerk. If you want to gamble,
go to Bally's or go to Mohegan sun Right, this
(38:27):
isn't the place to gamble. One of the examples I
used to use toward the end was I said, look,
President Trump was shot in Butler, Pennsylvania, in front of
a crowd, and on television. How many different versions of
events were people talking about? Was he shot? Did he
get hit? Was it trapped? All this and that. I
(38:48):
used to say, like, you're going to trust eyewitness testimony
and witnesses to convince twelve people that some twelve people
you never met, from all different backgrounds, who are not
legally trained to make this decision, or we can make
this decision on our own and it's a sure thing.
So there were times I hedged my bet, but there
(39:08):
were more often than not. When a deal like that
comes to you as a prosecutor, you take it, even
if you're personally involved. And we have a moratorium in
Pennsylvania on the death penalty. In fact, the biggest case
in my career was a death penalty case. We're picking
the jury and the governor who was a friend of mine,
imposed the moratorium during the jury selection, So I wasn't
(39:30):
necessarily thrilled at that moment, but you know, we slogged ahead,
and fortunately that individual got life in prison and was
not given the death penalty.
Speaker 3 (39:41):
Let's talk about some of your cases, like that particular
one you're talking about.
Speaker 1 (39:48):
So that case was the Hugo Selenski case in northeastern Pennsylvania,
which was a case that really captivated our region for
a long time Becauseinsky went on trial with the first
prosecution team for the first two murders he was charged
with in March of two thousand and six, he was acquitted.
(40:10):
So I joined the prosecution team in March of two
thousand and six and was on that the many manifestations
of the trial team through January of twenty fifteen, believe
it or not, when he finally went on trial and
we were able to secure a conviction finally to two
counts of first degree murder, but Selinsky had escaped our
(40:33):
jail from the fifth floor. He tied bed sheets and
escaped from our jail. At one point. He was pretty
infamous here and his case had attracted some national attention
as well. So that case because of how long it
went on, because I had gotten to know Selinski himself,
because through the course of nine years, I got married,
at babies and lived with this thing for so long.
(40:55):
It was just a major part of my life. So
that one, and got very close with the family involved
and the individuals to the point where I felt like
I was just like another player in this crazy world.
That case in particular, whenever people ask what cases immediately
come to mind. The other my first homicide, our County
(41:16):
Fair Queen was murdered in a botched robbery. She was
living in a little converted garage behind her boyfriend's grandmother's house.
They were only nineteen years old. These kids and two
guys went there to steal their marijuana at a PlayStation,
and she tried to stop them. Her boyfriend wasn't home,
and they brutalized them, and they stabbed her forty times.
(41:38):
And that was the first case I ever had. One
of the individuals hung himself in its jail cell shortly after,
and then the other individuals stood trial and was convicted.
So that's how it started. I was on the job
like three weeks. I was at my first murder scene
almost immediately and I've handled every type of case you
(41:58):
could have. Gang bangers, wife killers, baby killers, serial killers,
you name it. I mean, we've seen our share of bad,
tough cases here in northeastern Pennsylvania. That's for sure.
Speaker 3 (42:12):
When you're a prosecutor, you actually go to the crime scene.
Speaker 1 (42:17):
Yes, yes, so we would have so our office and
Loser County has about anywhere from twenty five to thirty
assistant das. And of that twenty five to thirty, I
would say five of us are primarily homicide prosecutors, although
we do a little bit of everything. There would be
usually a rotating group of five that would go out
(42:38):
to murder scenes. So basically I'd be out to dinner
with my wife and kids. The phone would ring and say, hey,
we have a murder. You got to go. They got
quite used to this over the years. I would run
everybody home and get out and next thing you know,
you go from having dinner or just sitting around the
house to standing over a dead body trying to put
it together, and all hell breaks loose. That never got old.
(43:01):
I have to say, like you're adrenaline gets going. It's
a wild thing to go from normal life to that
in a matter of minutes.
Speaker 3 (43:09):
So do you talk about So let's talk about your book.
And obviously you're going to talk about these cases in
the book, but you also talk about like what was
going on behind the scenes in your real life too
as you were going through these cases.
Speaker 1 (43:22):
Yes, so the book is called I'm Just like an
Italian Moms boy, I tell people, right, So the book
is about I never set out to write a book
about moms, but like, I can't tell my story without
talking about my mom. Who's awesome. My mom is Uh.
We lost our dad when I was very young, so
I'm one of four boys, okay, and our dad got
(43:43):
sick when I was five, died when I was seven.
Good guy Maleman really battle cancer for two years. And
my mother, who was a homemaker with four kids, not
unlike being Jimmy Girling, not unlike you guys, just goes
out into the world and just lit the world on fire.
She became an executive in the insurance business, was very successful,
(44:07):
and she promised my dad she would never let anybody
hit us and she would educate us. So you could
imagine my dad's dying and he says, please make sure
you educate the boys like that's a pretty tall order,
you know, but she did. And we used to tease
her and say, Ma, you know how we ever going
to repay her for everything you did? And she used
to say, when you encounter a mom that needs your help,
(44:29):
help her. And that's basically what the book is about.
So when I was going through some of the cases
that I wanted to highlight, there was a thief, you know,
there was always this mom whose child was killed, or
one of the cases I highlight is a mother who
killed or allowed her child to be killed, okay, by
failing to protect her child. So that's why the book
(44:52):
is called Mother's Murders and Motivation. So it's about these cases.
It's about my mom and the moms that I encountered
along the way, all the way way to South Carolina,
where I represented Don Drexel in the search thirteen year
search for Britney Drexel, which was a nationwide case. We
had met in the last three years of the search
(45:12):
for Britney. She was Eventually her body was found and
the individuals responsible were brought to justice six hundred miles
away from where I typically practice, I have to say,
So that's where the book kind of I don't want
to give away the end. It kind of gets to
that point. So we went from young rookie prosecutor mom's
boy to you know, this national case and we ended
(45:33):
up on Good Morning America and this now true crime
little world that we're dabbling in. But that's what the
book's about. So if your mom, if you love your
mother and your mother loves murder, this is the book
for you.
Speaker 3 (45:45):
I was just thinking that, like, it's perfect timing. It's
coming out right before Mother's Day. Yes, it's like it's
so great.
Speaker 4 (45:52):
I love better place to promote than Mother Knows Death.
Speaker 1 (45:55):
Yeah, absolutely, So we have all this synergy here, right,
but you know, pre order it today and and and
they wanted us to promote the book. I said, who's
going to get excited about a book that's coming out
in five months? But interestingly enough, I spoke to four
hundred lawyers a couple of weeks ago, and like, a
lot of people ordered the book and it's exciting and
(46:17):
I'm really proud of of the book. And Nancy Grace
wrote the foreword, which is great, and she's a mom,
you know, and she was excited about the theme of
the book, and like I said, I'm a proud mother's
of mama's boy. You know I'm tougher because of it.
You know, I I am, you know, quick to tears,
and I'm an emotional guy. But let me tell you,
(46:41):
I mean I've I'm yet to encounter a guy that's
as tough as my mom. And it's funny you think
this young woman who worked so hard was really the
reason a lot of people are in jail today. I
prosecuted my cases because of the example she set, And
that's really what the book is about, you know. It's
(47:02):
it's homage to her and to those moms and cases.
So it was very therapeutic to write because I was
I never looked back. I'm not necessarily like a nostalgic person,
so to sit down and look back at all the
crazy cases and start to think like this was nuts.
While I was having a family, so a lot of
it's about that too, Like my wife and I got
(47:25):
married and started our family throughout these cases that are
in the book, so I talk about that too, and
so it was very eye opening time in my life.
And it's this book is very exposing of me too,
maybe too much.
Speaker 4 (47:38):
So you're making me emotional as an Italian woman about
to have a son.
Speaker 1 (47:42):
So see that, Well, someday he'll someday he'll write a
book about you, Maria.
Speaker 4 (47:48):
Right, hopefully, hopefully I don't damage it.
Speaker 1 (47:52):
And my mother keeps that she's seventy. My mother's seventy
nine years old. She looks like she's fifty, right, and
she keeps saying, no, what is this up. I tell
her it's about you, and it's you know. I just
think she likes me to tell her I wrote a
book about her, but she has not read it yet.
No one's really read it yet.
Speaker 3 (48:09):
I love that so much. I'm so I'm excited for this.
I think that the true crime world we know all
of these statistics. I don't know if I've ever told
you this story that not the past year, but the
first time we went to crime con we had Gabe
go with us and he was looking around and he's like,
I'm gonna tell all my friends about this place.
Speaker 2 (48:30):
There's women everywhere, there's no dudes here. He just thought,
he was like mind blown.
Speaker 3 (48:36):
He's like, there's and what crime Colon gets, like what
eight thousand people?
Speaker 2 (48:40):
Seven thousand people?
Speaker 3 (48:42):
And it's I don't know if if Kelly actually does
the statistics on who's attending. There's men that are presenting,
for sure, but as far as attendees, and we could
say that for our line too, it's mostly women. And
then when guys are there, they're usually there with their woman, right, Yeah, interesting,
So you have a good target audience with this book.
Speaker 1 (49:03):
I'm planning on being there this year. I have not
been able to go because I've had conflicts every single time,
But this year i want to be there to promote
the book and I'm looking forward to it, and some
of our friends in the true crime world will be there,
and it's nice, you know, it's nice to get everybody
together and share stories. You know. I've really enjoyed this
journey and getting to know both of you, certainly, but
(49:26):
I had always been interested in getting on and I
love talking about these cases, especially cases I don't have
to personally prosecute. It's liberating to be able to stay
like instead of we will move on to the courthouse
and we will prove this case. To be honest about
cases and say like this case sucks or this is weak,
(49:50):
you know, or comment on a case I don't necessarily
have to worry about prosecuting, and it's been fun to
get out of that prosecution. Mold call balls and strikes
on both sides of the ball. So that's why I
really enjoy it too.
Speaker 3 (50:05):
So one question I asked that I like to ask
people that have jobs like yours, is what, like how
did this affect Because you have children that are young adults,
Let's say, how how did that affect you raising them
as far as how to stay vigilant and protect themselves,
Like I know that your sons in school things like that.
(50:28):
Just with everything crazy going on in the world and
everything you saw at your job, what are some things
that you won't let your kids do or that you're
just you know that you that affects your relationship with
your wife or anything when you go home after seeing
crazy things like that.
Speaker 1 (50:43):
Well, so for with regard to my wife, Nicole, like
she Nicole is a professional. She was a chiropractor, I
had a clinic and now is in the academic world.
So Nicole understood as a professional like she understood her career,
my career. You know, we were on that together. She's
always very supportive, but there were some dark times, like
(51:04):
you know, I would come home and like many days
I'd play Mario Kart with the kids after a murder case.
But some days Daddy just felt like having a cigar
on the ports and not bothered, you know. So there
was tremendous understanding, but we didn't shelter the kids like
the cops used to be our detectives, Like our house
was kind of centrally located. Even when our kids were born,
(51:26):
the detectives were at the hospital, Like it was crazy.
It was just such a part of my life, like
and then as they were growing up, we would have
meetings at the house around my back porch, and like
an Italian house, as you know, is open to everyone,
like our kitchen, we would have state troopers there and
I'd be looking at a warrant for some warrant we're
executing the next day. So the kids were used to
(51:49):
I would have to say that we didn't hide the
amount of work Nicole and I had to do every day,
and they were not sheltered from what I was doing.
Although my daughter used to think I was fighting. We
were in oursel arts too, and my daughter used to
think I was physically fighting these defendants.
Speaker 3 (52:05):
So until we're Italian, that's how you talk to each other.
Speaker 2 (52:10):
People think that I think.
Speaker 1 (52:11):
I was boxing these people. You know, she think like,
don't get don't get hurt dead. You know.
Speaker 3 (52:16):
Yeah. People sometimes say like, we don't like when you
and Maria fight, and we're like, we're not fighting, trust
me this, We're just talking.
Speaker 2 (52:23):
Yeah. Wow.
Speaker 3 (52:24):
You know, in an Italian house, it's like whoever talks
the loudest is the one that's heard kind of, you know,
you're talking over a lot of big personal.
Speaker 4 (52:33):
Especially in the Philadelphia scrit and area. It's like a
way more overpower here than any others in the country.
Speaker 1 (52:40):
Oh yeah. And but without the support of my brothers
and my friends and our family, I'm where I grew up.
We're in this, you know. And now we're taking it
a little bit more on a larger scale with television
and stuff. But this community really supported our das you know.
It would be nothing for us to go out and
people come over to the table and say hell low
and nice job on this. Because we have like two
(53:03):
news stations, two newspapers, like this is a big news area.
They followed all these cases. So I used to think
like I could be like a lawyer, suing slip and
fall cases and making all this money, but it was
pretty cool over the which I do now, but it
was pretty cool over those years to have people really
celebrating the work too, myself and my colleagues, so but
(53:25):
I didn't shy away from them. I loved that for
it and I love that people wanted to talk about
the cases that I have.
Speaker 2 (53:32):
That's awesome.
Speaker 3 (53:33):
Well, thanks so much for being here today. We love
you and we love your story and we're so excited
about your book and all the best of luck to it.
Speaker 1 (53:41):
Well, thank you. I love you both, and I'm enjoying
this true crime journey and sharing it with both of you,
and we'll do this again. I want to come on
when the book is about to drop.
Speaker 4 (53:51):
Yes, please, and please tell everybody where they could follow
you on your socials and your show.
Speaker 1 (53:56):
So I have on Jarifaratino dot com. There's Instagram and Facebook,
same deal. And the book is Mother's Murders and Motivation,
and my show is True Crime Boss when we do it.
But I just mostly have been doing like lastnightrun Core TV.
I like to do that stuff and stuff like this,
so when I do the show, it's True Crime Boss.
Speaker 2 (54:19):
Awesome.
Speaker 3 (54:20):
Thank you so much, thank you, thank you, thank you
for listening to Mother Nos Death. As a reminder, my
training is as a pathologist assistant. I have a master's
level education and specialize in anatomy and pathology education. I
am not a doctor and I have not diagnosed or
(54:41):
treated anyone dead or alive without the assistance of a
licensed medical doctor. This show, my website, and social media
accounts are designed to educate and inform people based on
my experience working in pathology, so they can make healthier
decisions regarding their life and wellbeing. Always remember that science
(55:03):
is changing every day and the opinions expressed in this
episode are based on my knowledge of those subjects at
the time of publication. If you are having a medical problem,
have a medical question, or having a medical emergency, please
contact your physician or visit an urgent care center, emergency room.
Speaker 2 (55:23):
Or hospital.
Speaker 3 (55:24):
Please rate, review, and subscribe to Mother Knows Death on Apple, Spotify, YouTube,
or anywhere you get podcasts.
Speaker 2 (55:32):
Thanks
Elvis Duran and the Morning Show ON DEMAND News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.