March 12, 2025 • 46 mins
On November 26, 2024, OpenAI whistleblower Suchir Balaji was found dead in his San Francisco apartment—a gunshot wound to the head, a firearm registered in his name, and toxicology reports showing alcohol and amphetamines in his system. Authorities ruled it a suicide.
But his mother, Poornima Balaji, isn't convinced. She has publicly challenged the official narrative, pointing to inconsistencies in the autopsy, the rushed investigation, and the powerful forces that may have wanted him silenced. In an emotional interview with Firstpost, she insists her son was murdered for what he knew—and she's demanding answers. Was Suchir Balaji silenced for speaking out?
In this episode, we uncover the chilling details behind his whistleblowing claims, the corporate and legal pressures at play, and the growing public skepticism surrounding his sudden death. Joining us is international cybersecurity attorney Irina Tsukerman, who weighs in on the legal, ethical, and security implications of his case. What was Suchir Balaji exposing before his death?
This is more than a mystery—it’s a cautionary tale of power, corruption, and what happens when the truth becomes too dangerous to tell.
Chapters
00:00 The Mysterious Death of Suchir Balaji
02:59 Whistleblowing in the Tech Industry
05:51 Legal and Ethical Implications
09:08 The Role of AI in National Security
11:54 Investigating Suspicious Deaths
14:48 The Impact of Corporate Interests
17:58 Elon Musk's Involvement with OpenAI
21:12 The Need for Whistleblower Protections
23:53 The Investigation Process
26:53 Analyzing Evidence and Inconsistencies
29:56 The Future of AI Regulations
Clip Credits:
Firstpost - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8uvwwTrTuw
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/killer-psychologist--6020549/support.
But his mother, Poornima Balaji, isn't convinced. She has publicly challenged the official narrative, pointing to inconsistencies in the autopsy, the rushed investigation, and the powerful forces that may have wanted him silenced. In an emotional interview with Firstpost, she insists her son was murdered for what he knew—and she's demanding answers. Was Suchir Balaji silenced for speaking out?
In this episode, we uncover the chilling details behind his whistleblowing claims, the corporate and legal pressures at play, and the growing public skepticism surrounding his sudden death. Joining us is international cybersecurity attorney Irina Tsukerman, who weighs in on the legal, ethical, and security implications of his case. What was Suchir Balaji exposing before his death?
This is more than a mystery—it’s a cautionary tale of power, corruption, and what happens when the truth becomes too dangerous to tell.
Chapters
00:00 The Mysterious Death of Suchir Balaji
02:59 Whistleblowing in the Tech Industry
05:51 Legal and Ethical Implications
09:08 The Role of AI in National Security
11:54 Investigating Suspicious Deaths
14:48 The Impact of Corporate Interests
17:58 Elon Musk's Involvement with OpenAI
21:12 The Need for Whistleblower Protections
23:53 The Investigation Process
26:53 Analyzing Evidence and Inconsistencies
29:56 The Future of AI Regulations
Clip Credits:
Firstpost - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8uvwwTrTuw
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/killer-psychologist--6020549/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Welcome to Killer Psychologist. I'm Dana Anderson, a forensic psychologist
and your host of the show. Killer Psychologist is for
true crime fanatics and anyone intrigued with the dark side
of psychology. On November twenty sixth, twenty twenty four, Open
(00:22):
AI whistleblower Secure Balgee was found dead in his San
Francisco apartment from a gunshot wound to the head. Authorities
ruled his death a suicide, citing no evidence of forced entry.
There was a firearm registered to his name, and toxicology
(00:43):
reports showing alcohol and amphetamines in his system. His mother, Poornima,
has strongly disputed the suicide ruling. In an interview with
First Point, she stated that she suspected foul play from
the beginning and refuses to accept the official findings. Listen
(01:06):
to her interview here where she's describing that they did
not finish investigating the crime scene.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Actually, I was there at the scene when they found
a body. I have more to say this step one,
from step zero onward. There was foul play. First of all,
at two pm, police told me, ma'am, you go home,
will inform you in five six of us. That's not right.
They know he said, and they wanted me to go,
(01:35):
and about three twenty they came on four o'clock. The
media decision very quickly. When the medical examiner came and
spoke to me, he just handed over the apartment case.
Didn't even collect his devices. They left behind the evidences.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
This case has gained national attention from Elon mass posting
on Twitter and questioning the official ruling. The Baljee family
has filed a lawsuit with the city and County of
San Francisco, alleging that they are not transparent in the
(02:14):
investigation and are deliberately omitting missing details around her son's death.
Porni matt she took matters into her own hands. She
hired an independent medical examiner, a private attorney, and a
private investigator. Listen to her analysis of the crime scene evidence.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
What we've found from the autopsies that the gun short
angle cannot be triggered by himself. It was very suspicious
because the entry point of the wound and where the
bullet stuck, the angle of the bullet cannot be self inflicted.
So it was a very strong determination factor that came
out from the private autopsy.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
In today's episode, we explore the legal and ethical implications
of the allegations against open AI, the potential motives behind
the death, and the broader challenges whistleblowers faiths in the
tech industry. Joining us is national security and human rights
(03:19):
lawyer Arena Suckerman, who will provide expert analysis on this
complex case. She serves as editor and chief of The
Washington Outsider and is president of Scarab Rising. Arena. Thank
you so much for joining us today. I'm excited to
hear about your expertise and how you get tangled up
(03:42):
in these cases like this. I know you deal with
white collar crime and you are a licensed as an
attorney in New York, so tell me a little bit
about how you get involved in these cases.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Thank you so much. Well. Actually is both academically and
professionally includes issues such as cyber policy and cyber crimes,
as well as basically complex international crimes, which can include massive,
complex frauds, assorted conspiracies, and a lot of It is
(04:18):
also entangled with investigations of foreign malign influence, counter intelligence,
and issues of that sort. I operate in a news
area that comes in increasingly hangy as the big tech
industry is becoming also involved in issues beyond its thet
scope and also is becoming increasingly influential far beyond technology.
(04:45):
It plays a role in government affairs, it plays a
role in the energy sector, and of course innovation tech
raise in the context of the Great Power competition. All
of that explains why it's extremely important to understand the
geopological context, the conflicts of interest involved, and the connections
(05:06):
between different actors when embarking on these investigations and providing
legal advice to private parties. For in ten golblets. This
advice may vary depending on the client. It may be
linked to efforts to avoid sanctions, to avoid fore related
designations as a result of a lobbying efforts by these
(05:27):
companies or some of the government actors linked to these companies.
It may involve assistance with the parties who have been
somehow defluded or breaches of contract. But at the end
of the day, a lot of these crimes end up
impacting people who are not necessarily even directly involved in
that company or that industry. And this is where I
(05:50):
come in.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Poornima, the mother in this king, says she's outraged. She
said that her son was perfectly happy and content in
his life. He celebrated his birthday the day before, and
she believes that he knew insider information that he was
going to testify on. And she said he had sent
(06:13):
emails about this and that they deleted his emails. And
she said, now she believes that they deleted her son.
And you know what she wants. She said, she wants
justice means to her a death sentence. She said, whoever
(06:34):
is responsible, she wants them put to death. And she
has not taken it. She is very outspoken. In fact,
I listened to an interview this morning and the dad
chimed in and said, this is a warning shot, like
shots fired. I have to give props to the parents
because they did what I would wish everyone would do
in situations like this. Know your rights, get an attorney,
(06:58):
get a second opinion with the metal examer, get a
private investigator. So she's on it. I think she foresaw
something coming, so before it happened, she was aware that
the seriousness of what her son was involved in.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
Now I have to say that this is not the
first case involving technology, major allegations, some special circumstances and
the reflex surrounding alleged suicides that have encountered. There are
several cases that I will reference later on that will
(07:35):
explain why it's sometimes reasonable to question official conclusions by
medical examiners and other investigative buggies. But before we get
to that, I think it would be good to lay
out what the story is. For those in the organs
who are not all that familiar with the story, they
(07:55):
may have probably heard of open Ai as a groundbreaking
technology company that has masterminded generative AI that many of
us use in professional or personal practice, but beyond that,
I think the story is not necessarily well known to
every party. So Suchier Balaji is known as the open
(08:16):
Ai whistle blower, who is described as an insider allegedly
exposing unethical practices and concerns within the company. There is
a sense that the information that he had related to
AI development and ethics, which at one point was questioned
by over a thousand professionals in the industry, including even
(08:39):
Musk himself, were highly sensitive. So OpenEye is a leading
organization in artificial intelligence research. It has garnered a lot
of interest due to its partnerships with the US government
agencies including the Pentagon and DUGM, as well as with
other tech giants. Its mission, which basically tries to combine
(09:02):
private enterprise and public policy in a way that sometimes
is somewhat ill fitting, made it both a valuable asset
and a vulnerable target for criticism, including concerning AI's role
in military technology such as AI guided missiles and global
power dynamics. So all of that leads to many, many
(09:25):
questions about who would benefit from this situation. Regarding the
vestle blower, there's questions about form, align, influence, and corporate interests,
and the many red flags that came along this way.
So basically what happened to what exactly did he uncovered? Specifically,
(09:46):
his focus in his vessel blown activity was the handle
of technology and how it was used in terms of safety,
development of autonomous weapons, and other high stakes uses. Because
of the connection to private and public interests, including assorted
Silicon Valley leads, the original allegations attracted a ton of attention,
(10:12):
and of course, because the company itself works with government
interests with military technology, with its as certain corporate dominance,
any this will blowing activity, especially if such caliber, could
be potentially very sensitive, and there's of course questions whether
he was silent due to the sensitive nature of the
information about AIA development and its potential abuses. AI is
(10:35):
increasingly central to geopolitical power, especially in the realm of
defense in the context of the Great power competition between
US and China, and as well as various middle power
country and aspiring middle power county countries, cybersecurity, economic competition.
If what he alleged meant that particular types of technology
(10:59):
will bring a used or were not safely designed to
begin with, this death could be interpreted as an effort
to suppress that sort of information, and the red flags
around US include lack of public details about his background,
which didn't come out until much much later in the process,
and the exact circumstances of his death. It took a
(11:21):
very long time to get to the ruling of suicide,
and no motive for this allegedly suicidal tendency was ever explained.
The nature of delegations about aioni's risk massive implications for
US and other countries' national security, global power dynamics. Potential
cover up of the true cause of death. Drug overdoses
(11:43):
are not uncommon, but the fact that this is being
ruled as suicide is particularly contentious. Had it been said
as an accidental overdose of someone who partied a little
too hard, that at least could have been somewhat more believable.
But someone who all of a sudden then overdosed on
amphetamines and then supposedly shot himself, well in that in
(12:08):
that state seems to be a little bit too much
of different things. And of course there's a disconnect between
the rapid rise of variety technology and the absence of
transparent overside ethical safeguards or basically internal self regulation that
is very hard to assess by outsiders. So the combination
(12:29):
of all of these factors, you know, made his death
highly suspicious. And of course there didn't seem to be
a clear independent investigation that was sufficient to answer many
of the questions about his life leading up to his
alleged suicide, the nature of his discoveries, what actions were
(12:51):
undertaken to protect him, because whistle glowers sometimes i intimidated
by their employers, where the open AI has attempted to
pressure him in a significant way, whether he's been receiving
any threats at any time prior to his death, and
there is a difference between an active cover up and
(13:11):
a lack of thorough investigation. But both raised also allegations
concerning potential corruption with the investigative bogies meaning the US
law enforcement involved in his death. The corruption that may
have contributed to his death, whether assisted or unassisted, could
(13:32):
it have extended as far as the law enforcement. So
all of these legal and political issues intersected in a
kind of very convoluted way, which makes it sometimes kind
of difficult to separate and address independently. But of course
there are questions about whether foreign online influence and not
(13:54):
just US government agencies or his former employer work, could
have attributed to the suspicious nature of his death because
AI is also, in addition to autonomous weapons, is used
in surveillance technology, and that has been a subject of many,
many investigations, propaganda, capaides, lawsuits, sanctions, and the quest for
(14:19):
surveillance dominance is at least as big as the quest
for defense dominance. And that brings me to another case
I want to mention briefly the case of Jamacrafy, a
guy very much involved in cybersecurity an time more where
software designs found that allegical of suicide under high less
(14:42):
suspecious circumstances in a prison cell in Spain, in Catalonia.
Of all places, Catalonia is well known for significant Russian
influence and influenced specifically by intelligence agencies. Many many questions
common analogies remain. Foreign actors which are involved in AI,
(15:02):
in developing AI for military purpose in a race against US,
could have been trying to silence social because they wanted
to other minor suppress any information about an ethical AI
practices that they themselves could have been privy to. And
of course, if any abuse of that technology benefited authoritarian
(15:24):
regimes such as China, which has been a leader in
AI development, they would also want to control the narrative
around AI ethics to avoid their own scrutiny. And there's
also a possibility of corporate espionage, meaning if he exposed
serious vulnerabilities in AI development, pipelines or business practices that
(15:46):
rival companies to Open AI or foreign tech firms whould
have exploded, they are also under suspicion, and that competition
includes both American companies and foreign companies such as firms
from Russia, China, other major tech players around the world.
Now nearly every major tech giant has its own version
(16:08):
of AI, and it's competing with the open AI and
to add an extra layer of interest to the story,
Mosk has attempted to purchase OPENII Open E through a
hostile takeover, which was for now rejected by some oldman
who himself was nearly ousted from the leadership of his
(16:30):
own company to a convoluted series of events with the
involving his former board. All of that leads to many
questions about the really count ruth competition, even on the
domestic level, And of course, Ilan Musk has had his
own level of personal and business acrimony with Open II
(16:53):
founders due to his early interest in this industry and
his apparent failure to benefit from it, which led him
to essentially try to compete with them and then try
to purchase that.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
So who currently owns open AI.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
It's still under sam Opments control, but there is now
an active effort to take it over by Mosk and
a group of other investors who've come up with a
huge sum of money in an effort to make this
offer to go to pass, kind of what like Mask
did with Twitter, But so far open A is resisting
(17:30):
and then drawing up plans to stable a hostile takeover,
including by potentially changing their own regulatory practices, they aboard
a bible as to prevent this from happening.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
Wow, I mean, just thinking of how Twitter went for sale,
TikTok Upper grabs open Ai. The bidding like there's only
so many narrows down the playing field of who has
that kind of money to buy that.
Speaker 4 (17:58):
It's my understanding open ai was founded as a nonprofit.
Speaker 5 (18:01):
Is that go true?
Speaker 3 (18:03):
I think they still have a non profit component, but
they clearly have also a profit aspects to them. I'm
not aware of details on how they managed to keep
it separate, but this is now has become very common
to with a lot of big tech corporations. They have
some social responsibility aspect. Or they start and found an
(18:26):
a jewel, or they create status and joel, but then
they later go public monetize in some way to attract
investors and funding. So masks plans for it is clearly
to really use it as a for profit entity, as
a corporate entity, rather than Enjoel all of his companies
are for profit.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
What are your thoughts on elon Musk taking over open ai.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
There's clearly a potential conflict of interest here, first of all,
because he's been competing with open ai. Second because this
sort of adversarial takeover leads to questions about how that
impacts investors, slush funders, not to mention any other stakeholders
shareholders if it's a corporation. The Twitter takeover drew a
(19:16):
lot of controversy, and as it later turned out, Mosk
was not even He did not have the financing that
he promised at the outstart. His bid was based on
expectation that he would attract investors later he had to
scramble for funding. He ended up taking a lot of
funding from various foreign sources of very very dubious legitimacy,
(19:38):
including two Russian lagarchs, the government of Qatara, which came
with assorted strings attached, and a group of Saudi funders
who are known tech infests investors, but also links to
assorted fundamentalist religious movements, all of which created a perfect
storm of conflicts of interest, especially once he started using
(20:01):
Twitter for a worldly political purposes, and once he started
prioritizing his political and personal agenda over the profit of
the company that created he had another layer of conflux
of interest and very questionable business practices that could be
outright illegal and for sure unethical on many levels. So
(20:23):
the parallels between the Twitter purchase and the attempt to
take of open ai are very stark. There's also an
element of personal resentment in both cases, and concerns about
even Musk's overall consolidation of power in the media and
tech sector, especially now that he is also playing a
(20:44):
role in the federal government in alleged cost cutting and
also fairly broad and somewhat undefined authority on many directly
and indirectly intersected issues. So imagine somebody with that brought
power or reading who is it's an extremely controversial and
not exactly transparent role in government managing while also managing
(21:06):
multiple other tech and other companies. Now trying to take
over a company with a very significant defense linkage, There's
no question that there is any number of things that
could go wrong, especially given that some of the other
(21:27):
companies are based in hostile countries such as China.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
This all sounds very shady. Now if I'm too secure,
his mom and I want to hire you to investigate this,
because I know you have experience investigating cyber crimes from
Russia to Africa to Eastern Europe. If she were to
reach out Henry, retain you for this case, how could
(21:54):
you help her? Because that seems very complex.
Speaker 3 (21:57):
Well, a lot of it actually, on some level is
very basic common sense investigation. You retrace the steps, You
look at all the communications and all the circumstances around
this young man's life. You look at his network of
social acquaintances. Who was surrounding him in the last weeks
and months preceding his death? Did he receive any threats?
(22:20):
Did his behavior change in any way? Was he a
regular user of unfetterments or a social user? Was he
a heavy drinker? What were his habits? Was he receiving
any mental counseling? Did he experience any pressure from Open
AI or from any other party? Did he travel to
(22:41):
locations he would not have normally traveled to in at
times leading up to it? Did his financial situation change
significantly as a result of his disclosures? What motivated his
concern to begin with? And what was the chain of
command that he pursued in trying to deliver the bad
news to his original inmploer and who did you go after?
(23:04):
Would need to examine the exact process. I would have
to examine every aspect of his life and then start
looking at things that just don't add up, and at
parties who have there owned the rock, to interest in
his disclosures in his life, and whether there were any
efforts made to silence him in other ways, to potential offers,
(23:26):
was he being surveiled in any way, was his pham infected,
and so on and so forth. It would be a
tremendous work and would probably require a big team of
people and not just me.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
His mother indicated he felt like he was being followed
and was going to her house frequently, it sounded like
on the weekends and staying there. One of the things
that I wanted to mention was that the gun where
it was located, it gives conflicting information. So at first
(23:59):
they said the gun was found under his legs, and
then another time they changed it and said it was
near or proximal to his body. A lot of inconsistent
information or information changing that doesn't make sense, and it
sounds like an absolute mess. It sounds like they underestimated
(24:22):
this family.
Speaker 3 (24:24):
It also sounds like there were mistakes made very early
in the process that, regardless of broader geopological implications and interests,
the law enforcement wanted to cover up for their own reasons.
Just it could have been basic sloppiness confusion in cases
that they wanted to silence for reasons independent of any
(24:45):
corruption outside corruption allegations. And this happens more frequently than
people understand, and it's very easy to fudge up reports
right after the scene of crime, especially if they don't
expect anyone to really look into it. So any good
investigation would also require you to look to examine the
(25:06):
entire law enforcement coverage of the scene of the crime
and everything that's followed.
Speaker 4 (25:11):
Yeah, and I'll chime in on that because I have
a lot of experience with these kinds of investigations as
my former law enforcement role. So what I would like
to know is when the San Francisco Police Department responded
to this scene. You know, obviously this is a death investigation,
so they should start with an open mind and not
make assumptions about whether or not it was a suicide
or not just because a gun is found by his
(25:33):
body in proximity to his body, because suicides can be staged,
as we know. What I'd like to know is how
did they frame the investigation initially, because when the first
officer or officers get to the scene, they generally have
to when there's a death and it's unattended, they generally
will speak with a supervisor, and if there's any indication
(25:53):
of suspiciousness, that investigation is determined suspicious and they would
treat it not necessarily anitially as a homicide, but as
a potential homicide. And that changes the way the investigation
is conducted because if they, if the officers at the
scene make the determination this appears to be a suicide,
you know, just based on what they see there. The
(26:13):
apartment was apparently dead bolted, the windows only open four inches,
so somebody presumably couldn't get out the window if there
was a perpetrator involved in this, so they might and
again assumptions sometimes are made, and I'm wondering about that
if they just sort of said this is probably a suicide,
and then then that changes the investigation because then there's
no homicide call out.
Speaker 5 (26:34):
Generally in those.
Speaker 4 (26:34):
Kinds of cases, the corner is called the corner. A
corner investigator will respond to do their own investigation, and
then the body is removed and then autopsy performed later.
So it's that initial stage when law enforcement arrives that
kind of makes a decision about how deep they go
in the investigation.
Speaker 3 (26:53):
There's a lot of very strange things about this. Besides
there are obvious inconsistency. Is one issue that's not necessar
is positive, but is a red flag. Is the issue
of Sue Saide notes, somebody who is trying to kill
themselves with a gun and has not until that point
appeared to be visibly depressed or known to have been
(27:14):
visiting a mental health professional. There's a question where wouldn't
they leave a note and leave the question of their
death open to potentially blame other people, and that's certainly
racist questions. I would also look into the arrangements in
his location. Was there anything that appeared to be disturbed
or art of order? Did he have a specific way
(27:35):
of with his personal belongings that could have set off
alarms in the minds of the people who knew him.
Because that brings me to another quote unquote Sue said
case that I've looked into involving a British French dual national,
Mark Bennett, who worked for the Qatari Airways in Qatar,
(27:59):
and he he was switching positions to the Saudi arrival
of that company. He was apparently bringing a laptop involving
some sort of sensitive information. He was detained by the
Katari authorities, tortured and eventually released after giving up some
(28:19):
portion of the information, but his widow found out that
he apparently committed suicide by hanging right before going to
a Christmas party at the local British embassy. His clothes
were laid out for him to go to the party,
and he had talked to his wife shortly before that
and appeared to be in good mood and eager to
(28:40):
get out of the country. His laptop was actually eventually
recovered and given to his widow was managed to get
a hold of it somehow, and there was an inquest
in UK after his body was returned home, which also
raised a lot of questions and was apparently not conducted
the way Truth had.
Speaker 4 (29:00):
Same issue, same point in terms of how law enforcement
approaches these cases. When those first officers get on the
scene of where the body is found, if their decision
at the initial investigation points to this appears to be
a suicide, that's how it will be handled, and they
won't initiate what's called a homicide call out, which is
a far more in depth investigation where the homicide detectives
(29:23):
respond if the death is deemed suspicious, So they have
to make a decision at that scene, because if they
don't make that decision, that the evidence is at that
scene needs to be preserved. And so if they think
that it's a suicide, then the investigation will not be
as in depth as it would.
Speaker 5 (29:40):
Be if a homicide investigation were conducted.
Speaker 4 (29:42):
That's just flat out, that's across all jurisdictions.
Speaker 5 (29:46):
That's generally how that works.
Speaker 4 (29:48):
I do want to make a point about whether or
not somebody exhibits mental health symptoms prior to a suicide.
It is true that, yeah, we know that depression and
certain mental illnesses certainly predisposed people for suicid. But there
are cases where individuals they will go into what's called
a suicidal crisis with no warning sign and you know,
prior to that, and they will kill themselves and no
(30:11):
warning signs. In other words, the family and the friends
and people don't even you know, said hey, nothing seemed
to be wrong, you know.
Speaker 5 (30:17):
So that's rarer.
Speaker 3 (30:19):
But that can happen, sure, absolutely, and I'm certain of
them ruled it out. But again that would mean asking
witnesses whether he met anyone that morning, At what point
did he purchase the gun? Has he used it before?
You didn't even know that he had one.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
Yeah, the gun was a glock, which is a fairly
calm and semi automatic firearm that is readily available to
purchase anywherehere, even including in California. So when did he
get that gun and how long has he had it?
And you know, what was the motivation for that? You know,
people buy guns for a number of reasons, but you know,
self protection.
Speaker 5 (30:52):
But when did he get this gun? And you know,
was this because he was fearing for his safety? Perhaps?
Speaker 4 (30:57):
I don't know, you know, that's that's something that obviously
we want to find out.
Speaker 3 (31:02):
If there was no evidence of forced entry. There could
be two reasons for that. One slopping us by the
investigators who ignored clear science or just didn't think out
of the box and didn't check carefully. The other is
that if there was something indicating potential foul play, he
may have known whoever it was that opened the door,
(31:24):
and he may have trusted that person enough to let
them in.
Speaker 5 (31:27):
Yeah, and the fact that the door is dead bolted.
Speaker 4 (31:30):
I want to dispel that sort of issue in terms
of like, well, you know, oh, it's it couldn't have
been an intruder because the door was dead bolted and
there was no sign of forced entry. Well, it's not
that difficult to pick locks. It's not that difficult to
lock if you have the right tools to secure that
door after you leave and make it appear as though it's.
Speaker 5 (31:48):
Been locked from the inside.
Speaker 6 (31:50):
Right.
Speaker 4 (31:50):
So these are and by the way, the issue of
surveillance footage, my understanding was, and maybe you know, were
there surveillance cameras in this apartment building, because I the
bread one report that said that there was a surveillance
camera maybe at the front or something. But then I've
seen other reports suggesting that there was no reliable surveillance
cameras on the property.
Speaker 3 (32:10):
It's not clear what the story is, but what is
clear is that they did not retain surveillance footage and
they did not attempt to secure it.
Speaker 4 (32:20):
That's a big problem. Yeah, that's a big problem.
Speaker 3 (32:23):
There is also other possibility that it was deliberately ignored
or destroyed, but that's also impossible to tell at this
point because no one even raised those questions.
Speaker 4 (32:32):
See that's the stuff that you know, those the first officer,
I mean, I'm going back to when I was working,
you know, and the surveillance cameras were around when I
was in I've been out of law enforcement for a
good eight or nine years now, but that's the first
thing we check. We want to see who's coming in
and out out of this building around the time that
this occurred, assuming that they discovered him shortly after the
gun was fired, we want to look at surveillance footage
(32:55):
to see who's coming and going, Like who's in that
hallway right, there's an internal hallway to his apartment.
Speaker 5 (33:00):
Who might have been visiting his apartment? Was that even
looked at?
Speaker 3 (33:03):
Another basic question is security logs. Was there anybody indicating
how someone could have entered the building? Was their security presence?
Do they have to sign in? Do they have to
have whoever is in the apartment open the door? How
do people even get in and out of the building.
I would look at his call log. Was anyone contacting
(33:24):
him through a regular phone or through secure depths? None
of that has been released as far as I see,
none of that information.
Speaker 4 (33:33):
Yeah, law enforcement may not have even you know, obtained it,
because again, if they're ruling it a suicide, they're not
going to necessarily go into that depth of that investigation.
If it's suspicious and that's the track they're going, then
they're going to be doing a deeper dive. They're going
to be looking at all of those contacts he's had
over the past, you know, two to three weeks even,
they're going to trace his life, right and kind of
(33:55):
look at it retrospectively to see who intersected him in
his life in those days and weeks prior to this happening.
But they probably didn't do this because it was deemed
a suicide. If they initially you know, considered that's probably
what it was, then it's going to be a different
kind of investigation.
Speaker 3 (34:13):
I wonder if they established the sources of them fetamines
from his blood.
Speaker 4 (34:18):
I mean, this is where you would talk to his friends, right,
because if he's using emphetamines or I'm not sure if
it was methamphetamine, but generally, if someone is using illicit
you know, they're going to use either methamphetamine or cocaine.
Metham fetamine is more readily available and it's cheaper, but yeah,
he has to get it from somewhere, right, and so
that would be part of that investigation.
Speaker 3 (34:39):
Even in understanding you know, a suicide. You know, if
somebody's mental state before suicide was influenced by an illicit substance,
that would certainly be something that the law enforcement should
look at anybody, even if it was you know, an
accidental death or you know, you know, suicide and definite.
Speaker 5 (35:02):
Yeah, absolutely. And here's the thing about the drugs.
Speaker 4 (35:05):
So there was alcohol found from what I saw from
the autopsy report that was released their information as they
found ethanol, which is basically alcohol, and then they found amphetamines. Well,
efetamine is generally again you can take amphetamine pills, but
I don't know if this was methamphetamine, but let's assume
it was. That's a stimulant. Now, alcohol is a depressant.
Alcohol can disinhibit people.
Speaker 5 (35:26):
And so a lot of times when you.
Speaker 4 (35:28):
Know, we do see people do die by suicide, they
do have alcohol that they've consumed because alcohol has a
disinhibiting effect on the on the frontal lobe of the brain.
But I don't know how, I don't know what his
levels were. Right, So you can drink alcohol, you know,
and I have one or two drinks and you're not
to the point where you're intoxicated, where you're disinhibited. But
if you're intoxicated to the point where your judgment is impaired, right,
(35:51):
and decision making is impaired and all of that, that
would be a factor too. So they probably looked at that,
but you know, those do influence behavior absolutely.
Speaker 1 (36:01):
His mother pointed out that he wasn't a drinker. He
was socially, but it wasn't It was out a character
for him. I didn't hear her comments about the amphetamines
or not. But if you're gonna stage something stage or suicide,
it's going to make people question if you inject them
with something, and.
Speaker 3 (36:22):
It would also force you to examine the body whether
there was any signs of force consumption of any those items.
Speaker 4 (36:30):
There was also evidence, I think of a contusion to
the back of the head that was suspicious that was
found in the secondary autopsy. Do you know anything about
that that the family has raised concerns saying that there
was a contusion.
Speaker 3 (36:41):
Well, the way they're claiming it is that he hit
his head after the gunshot, but that you know, if
he was already dead, presumably the impact on the bar
would have been different from when somebody is still alive
when they fall. And also if he had fallen, well,
he was just allovers as dead. It would mean that
someone else had to have shot at that point. I
can't imagine how somebody who has fallen and hit their
(37:05):
head would have then shot themselves at the particular angle.
It seemed to be a plausible scenario no matter how
you look at it's psychologically.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
His mother mentioned there was inconsistent gun shot residue evidence.
That didn't make sense. That information was gleaned because they
hired a private investigator to like recreate the crime scene
and get that information, which I think is a win
move on their part to immediately hire someone like this
(37:36):
to reconstruct the crime scene. It's pretty incriminating. I don't
have the autopsy. I know Tucker Carlson had it and
the family went on the show and he was looking
at it and he just basically was saying even a
five year old could see this is not.
Speaker 3 (37:52):
Yeah, but is also not an expert in dollistic or anything.
Speaker 4 (37:56):
Else for that, Yeah, they definitely need a ballistics expert
to look at that trajectory to see whether it's consistent
with how you know, somebody who is self inflicting a gunshot?
Is that consistent right with where the trajectory of the
bullet goes right, and I think there's some questions about
that as well as whereas that's not making sense, what
about the gunshot residue? At least the official report said that.
(38:17):
So what they do is what's called the GSR test.
They will swab the decedent's hands and look for evidence
of gunshot residue, and that then draws the inference that
the individual had a gun in their hand when they
fired it, because when you fire a gun, you know,
there is this residue from the gunpowder during the explosion
(38:39):
that disperses, right. But again, that doesn't mean that it's,
you know, that he self inflicted this. Somebody could be
you know, they could have the gun put in their hand, right,
and they could be forced to have done something during
a struggle. That's not necessarily a conclusive in and of
itself that it's self inflicted.
Speaker 3 (38:55):
Right, We're not going to put it this way. If
there was an whistle blowing element could have led to
any suspicious circumstances, it would be on his ex employer's
best interest to get this clarity if they're not involved
in any way, to get clarity on that issue and
to release the findings as soon as possible to show
that there is no conflict of interests and that they're
(39:17):
not tied to the story in any way, and so
would be the case of anybody else who is allegedly
at domestic suspect. So I think a good move by
the mother would actually be to go to these people
and say, listen, if you are serious about clearing your
own name, it's in your best interest to cooperate with
our investigator and to share your findings. I would not, however,
(39:40):
take their investigators and hire them independence. I would just
use them to compare and share find Yes, see.
Speaker 4 (39:46):
What's different, right, Like, yeah, yeah, they should be transparent
about that, right, They should be willing to share that
information with her investigator because she has a private investigator.
Speaker 5 (39:56):
Right, Dana, she has her own Yes, Yep, that's a
smart move.
Speaker 3 (40:01):
That's what definitely suggests, because otherwise it just it's not
a good look. Nobody wants to have a dead body
hanging over them, especially if they're accused of potential ethical
violations with the in the way of controversial technology.
Speaker 1 (40:18):
So one of the things that the parents really want
as an outcome of this, they want AI to be
a safer community. They want the laws to change, and
I think that really speaks volumes about them. They would
like a new law named after their son, and they're
actually on an AI safety steering committee.
Speaker 2 (40:42):
We're actually being part of the AI safety community steering committee,
and we are adding more about opinions and being part
of the discussions, and we know how they're placing rules.
So we are taking active rule more than a message
to these companies. I think the message would be there
will be regulations which people are working on. We're seeing
(41:04):
that in early stages. I wish Ova Sun was allowed
to see that.
Speaker 6 (41:09):
And also we are trying to pass a build in
the name of such Suci biology, so that the future
visual blowers should be protecting a better way, which the
laws are very weak, should be strengthened.
Speaker 3 (41:23):
Here's the problem that many of the AI safety people,
not them specifically, but the actual developers of a people
like you and Musk, have inferent comforts of interest. So
a lot of this AI safety is driven by the
very people who would benefit from limiting their rivals and
empowering themselves. You need to really have a very independent
(41:45):
task force that comprises a lot of people who in
no way have any ties to any of the people involved,
which is extremely difficult for farewellsh reasons.
Speaker 4 (41:55):
Yeah, we got the fox guarding the henhouse here.
Speaker 3 (41:57):
Basically, I also think that passing such a level would
be extremely difficult in the current political climate. In general.
At best, they may succeed in passing some state laws,
but on a federal level, I'm questioning that that is
something that is doable, And I think, if anything, there
should be a strengthening of whistle blow or protection provisions
(42:19):
and some way to get law enforcement or some sort
of a private stakeholders in providing assistance to people who
have come out as whistle blowers and provide security for
them and ensure that nothing happens to them, kind of
like a government witness protection program.
Speaker 4 (42:35):
Yeah, kind of like a secret witness program or something,
especially when the.
Speaker 5 (42:39):
Stakes are this high.
Speaker 3 (42:40):
The fact that he eventually became known and that his
name was leaked in itself is a huge violation and
a huge problem. You know, up until the point that
there is a conclusive investigation of his blowing information, it
should be kept private as best as possible. It just
(43:01):
seems like common sense. Well, thank you so much for
joining us.
Speaker 1 (43:05):
Today. I don't know where this case is going to
end up, but I want to follow it and have
you on the show again. It seems to be a
lot of suspicious deaths in the media that I'd like
to highlight on this show.
Speaker 3 (43:20):
I do wonder if it makes sense to reach out
to the parents in the background and ask them if
they'd be interested in cooperating where they're investigator and sharing
additional findings and maybe the crowdsourcing some of this stuff
in some way.
Speaker 5 (43:35):
You thinking we reach out to the family, see if
they come on the show.
Speaker 1 (43:40):
I did tag her on Twitter and I said, come
share your story. I said, We're doing it anyway. I'm
sure they're so busy. But on the next episode, I'm
going to cover another suspicious death. But I always invite
the family so I hear it from them first person
and just to honor their love that's died and get
the information firsthand. And in cases like that, where family
(44:02):
can come on my show, I'll get the autopsy, I'll
have the evidence. I'll be able to actually look at it,
speak to it. And one of the things we do
as forensic psychologist is psychological autopsy, kind of like we
discussed today someone's psychological state of mind leading up to
the death and it being conflicting and all that can
(44:23):
be used in court. And in this case, it doesn't
sound like he was somebody that was He.
Speaker 4 (44:29):
Had a lot of reasons to live, right, Yeah, he
had a lot of reasons to live and was in
a successful career path and so it is inconsistent right
with someone who would want to take their life.
Speaker 1 (44:40):
Arina, How can people get in touch with you and
hire you for some of these complex cybersecurity crimes. I
know you have international connections and you have a unique
niche skill set, Like where is the best way for
people to find you and connect with you? Well?
Speaker 3 (45:02):
I am very very active with LinkedIn as a professional.
To me, it's much better suited than other social media.
And of course I have my professional email which is
also listed on my law from website. I Sukerman at
I took him on at law dot com basically just
(45:23):
my initial and last name, which is always a great
way to wish me as well. I checked that that
email verger and try to get back to people as
soon as possible.
Speaker 1 (45:35):
Arena Superman, thank you so much, and thank you doctor
Craig Wetter for joining me today.
Speaker 3 (45:41):
Thank you so much. It was great meeting you and
great hearing and this is a wonderful conversation. Thank you
so much.
Speaker 1 (45:49):
Thank you for listening to Killer Psychologist. To watch full
video episodes or if you want to interact with me,
you can find Killer Psychologists on YouTube. You can also
get notified of new episodes by signing up in my
stand store. Now, if you want to work with me,
you can book a console. My website is psychologydoctor dot com.
(46:13):
That's psychology dr dot com.
Welcome to Killer Psychologist. I'm Dana Anderson, a forensic psychologist
and your host of the show. Killer Psychologist is for
true crime fanatics and anyone intrigued with the dark side
of psychology. On November twenty sixth, twenty twenty four, Open
(00:22):
AI whistleblower Secure Balgee was found dead in his San
Francisco apartment from a gunshot wound to the head. Authorities
ruled his death a suicide, citing no evidence of forced entry.
There was a firearm registered to his name, and toxicology
(00:43):
reports showing alcohol and amphetamines in his system. His mother, Poornima,
has strongly disputed the suicide ruling. In an interview with
First Point, she stated that she suspected foul play from
the beginning and refuses to accept the official findings. Listen
(01:06):
to her interview here where she's describing that they did
not finish investigating the crime scene.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Actually, I was there at the scene when they found
a body. I have more to say this step one,
from step zero onward. There was foul play. First of all,
at two pm, police told me, ma'am, you go home,
will inform you in five six of us. That's not right.
They know he said, and they wanted me to go,
(01:35):
and about three twenty they came on four o'clock. The
media decision very quickly. When the medical examiner came and
spoke to me, he just handed over the apartment case.
Didn't even collect his devices. They left behind the evidences.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
This case has gained national attention from Elon mass posting
on Twitter and questioning the official ruling. The Baljee family
has filed a lawsuit with the city and County of
San Francisco, alleging that they are not transparent in the
(02:14):
investigation and are deliberately omitting missing details around her son's death.
Porni matt she took matters into her own hands. She
hired an independent medical examiner, a private attorney, and a
private investigator. Listen to her analysis of the crime scene evidence.
Speaker 2 (02:36):
What we've found from the autopsies that the gun short
angle cannot be triggered by himself. It was very suspicious
because the entry point of the wound and where the
bullet stuck, the angle of the bullet cannot be self inflicted.
So it was a very strong determination factor that came
out from the private autopsy.
Speaker 1 (02:59):
In today's episode, we explore the legal and ethical implications
of the allegations against open AI, the potential motives behind
the death, and the broader challenges whistleblowers faiths in the
tech industry. Joining us is national security and human rights
(03:19):
lawyer Arena Suckerman, who will provide expert analysis on this
complex case. She serves as editor and chief of The
Washington Outsider and is president of Scarab Rising. Arena. Thank
you so much for joining us today. I'm excited to
hear about your expertise and how you get tangled up
(03:42):
in these cases like this. I know you deal with
white collar crime and you are a licensed as an
attorney in New York, so tell me a little bit
about how you get involved in these cases.
Speaker 3 (03:57):
Thank you so much. Well. Actually is both academically and
professionally includes issues such as cyber policy and cyber crimes,
as well as basically complex international crimes, which can include massive,
complex frauds, assorted conspiracies, and a lot of It is
(04:18):
also entangled with investigations of foreign malign influence, counter intelligence,
and issues of that sort. I operate in a news
area that comes in increasingly hangy as the big tech
industry is becoming also involved in issues beyond its thet
scope and also is becoming increasingly influential far beyond technology.
(04:45):
It plays a role in government affairs, it plays a
role in the energy sector, and of course innovation tech
raise in the context of the Great Power competition. All
of that explains why it's extremely important to understand the
geopological context, the conflicts of interest involved, and the connections
(05:06):
between different actors when embarking on these investigations and providing
legal advice to private parties. For in ten golblets. This
advice may vary depending on the client. It may be
linked to efforts to avoid sanctions, to avoid fore related
designations as a result of a lobbying efforts by these
(05:27):
companies or some of the government actors linked to these companies.
It may involve assistance with the parties who have been
somehow defluded or breaches of contract. But at the end
of the day, a lot of these crimes end up
impacting people who are not necessarily even directly involved in
that company or that industry. And this is where I
(05:50):
come in.
Speaker 1 (05:51):
Poornima, the mother in this king, says she's outraged. She
said that her son was perfectly happy and content in
his life. He celebrated his birthday the day before, and
she believes that he knew insider information that he was
going to testify on. And she said he had sent
(06:13):
emails about this and that they deleted his emails. And
she said, now she believes that they deleted her son.
And you know what she wants. She said, she wants
justice means to her a death sentence. She said, whoever
(06:34):
is responsible, she wants them put to death. And she
has not taken it. She is very outspoken. In fact,
I listened to an interview this morning and the dad
chimed in and said, this is a warning shot, like
shots fired. I have to give props to the parents
because they did what I would wish everyone would do
in situations like this. Know your rights, get an attorney,
(06:58):
get a second opinion with the metal examer, get a
private investigator. So she's on it. I think she foresaw
something coming, so before it happened, she was aware that
the seriousness of what her son was involved in.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
Now I have to say that this is not the
first case involving technology, major allegations, some special circumstances and
the reflex surrounding alleged suicides that have encountered. There are
several cases that I will reference later on that will
(07:35):
explain why it's sometimes reasonable to question official conclusions by
medical examiners and other investigative buggies. But before we get
to that, I think it would be good to lay
out what the story is. For those in the organs
who are not all that familiar with the story, they
(07:55):
may have probably heard of open Ai as a groundbreaking
technology company that has masterminded generative AI that many of
us use in professional or personal practice, but beyond that,
I think the story is not necessarily well known to
every party. So Suchier Balaji is known as the open
(08:16):
Ai whistle blower, who is described as an insider allegedly
exposing unethical practices and concerns within the company. There is
a sense that the information that he had related to
AI development and ethics, which at one point was questioned
by over a thousand professionals in the industry, including even
(08:39):
Musk himself, were highly sensitive. So OpenEye is a leading
organization in artificial intelligence research. It has garnered a lot
of interest due to its partnerships with the US government
agencies including the Pentagon and DUGM, as well as with
other tech giants. Its mission, which basically tries to combine
(09:02):
private enterprise and public policy in a way that sometimes
is somewhat ill fitting, made it both a valuable asset
and a vulnerable target for criticism, including concerning AI's role
in military technology such as AI guided missiles and global
power dynamics. So all of that leads to many, many
(09:25):
questions about who would benefit from this situation. Regarding the
vestle blower, there's questions about form, align, influence, and corporate interests,
and the many red flags that came along this way.
So basically what happened to what exactly did he uncovered? Specifically,
(09:46):
his focus in his vessel blown activity was the handle
of technology and how it was used in terms of safety,
development of autonomous weapons, and other high stakes uses. Because
of the connection to private and public interests, including assorted
Silicon Valley leads, the original allegations attracted a ton of attention,
(10:12):
and of course, because the company itself works with government
interests with military technology, with its as certain corporate dominance,
any this will blowing activity, especially if such caliber, could
be potentially very sensitive, and there's of course questions whether
he was silent due to the sensitive nature of the
information about AIA development and its potential abuses. AI is
(10:35):
increasingly central to geopolitical power, especially in the realm of
defense in the context of the Great power competition between
US and China, and as well as various middle power
country and aspiring middle power county countries, cybersecurity, economic competition.
If what he alleged meant that particular types of technology
(10:59):
will bring a used or were not safely designed to
begin with, this death could be interpreted as an effort
to suppress that sort of information, and the red flags
around US include lack of public details about his background,
which didn't come out until much much later in the process,
and the exact circumstances of his death. It took a
(11:21):
very long time to get to the ruling of suicide,
and no motive for this allegedly suicidal tendency was ever explained.
The nature of delegations about aioni's risk massive implications for
US and other countries' national security, global power dynamics. Potential
cover up of the true cause of death. Drug overdoses
(11:43):
are not uncommon, but the fact that this is being
ruled as suicide is particularly contentious. Had it been said
as an accidental overdose of someone who partied a little
too hard, that at least could have been somewhat more believable.
But someone who all of a sudden then overdosed on
amphetamines and then supposedly shot himself, well in that in
(12:08):
that state seems to be a little bit too much
of different things. And of course there's a disconnect between
the rapid rise of variety technology and the absence of
transparent overside ethical safeguards or basically internal self regulation that
is very hard to assess by outsiders. So the combination
(12:29):
of all of these factors, you know, made his death
highly suspicious. And of course there didn't seem to be
a clear independent investigation that was sufficient to answer many
of the questions about his life leading up to his
alleged suicide, the nature of his discoveries, what actions were
(12:51):
undertaken to protect him, because whistle glowers sometimes i intimidated
by their employers, where the open AI has attempted to
pressure him in a significant way, whether he's been receiving
any threats at any time prior to his death, and
there is a difference between an active cover up and
(13:11):
a lack of thorough investigation. But both raised also allegations
concerning potential corruption with the investigative bogies meaning the US
law enforcement involved in his death. The corruption that may
have contributed to his death, whether assisted or unassisted, could
(13:32):
it have extended as far as the law enforcement. So
all of these legal and political issues intersected in a
kind of very convoluted way, which makes it sometimes kind
of difficult to separate and address independently. But of course
there are questions about whether foreign online influence and not
(13:54):
just US government agencies or his former employer work, could
have attributed to the suspicious nature of his death because
AI is also, in addition to autonomous weapons, is used
in surveillance technology, and that has been a subject of many,
many investigations, propaganda, capaides, lawsuits, sanctions, and the quest for
(14:19):
surveillance dominance is at least as big as the quest
for defense dominance. And that brings me to another case
I want to mention briefly the case of Jamacrafy, a
guy very much involved in cybersecurity an time more where
software designs found that allegical of suicide under high less
(14:42):
suspecious circumstances in a prison cell in Spain, in Catalonia.
Of all places, Catalonia is well known for significant Russian
influence and influenced specifically by intelligence agencies. Many many questions
common analogies remain. Foreign actors which are involved in AI,
(15:02):
in developing AI for military purpose in a race against US,
could have been trying to silence social because they wanted
to other minor suppress any information about an ethical AI
practices that they themselves could have been privy to. And
of course, if any abuse of that technology benefited authoritarian
(15:24):
regimes such as China, which has been a leader in
AI development, they would also want to control the narrative
around AI ethics to avoid their own scrutiny. And there's
also a possibility of corporate espionage, meaning if he exposed
serious vulnerabilities in AI development, pipelines or business practices that
(15:46):
rival companies to Open AI or foreign tech firms whould
have exploded, they are also under suspicion, and that competition
includes both American companies and foreign companies such as firms
from Russia, China, other major tech players around the world.
Now nearly every major tech giant has its own version
(16:08):
of AI, and it's competing with the open AI and
to add an extra layer of interest to the story,
Mosk has attempted to purchase OPENII Open E through a
hostile takeover, which was for now rejected by some oldman
who himself was nearly ousted from the leadership of his
(16:30):
own company to a convoluted series of events with the
involving his former board. All of that leads to many
questions about the really count ruth competition, even on the
domestic level, And of course, Ilan Musk has had his
own level of personal and business acrimony with Open II
(16:53):
founders due to his early interest in this industry and
his apparent failure to benefit from it, which led him
to essentially try to compete with them and then try
to purchase that.
Speaker 1 (17:05):
So who currently owns open AI.
Speaker 3 (17:08):
It's still under sam Opments control, but there is now
an active effort to take it over by Mosk and
a group of other investors who've come up with a
huge sum of money in an effort to make this
offer to go to pass, kind of what like Mask
did with Twitter, But so far open A is resisting
(17:30):
and then drawing up plans to stable a hostile takeover,
including by potentially changing their own regulatory practices, they aboard
a bible as to prevent this from happening.
Speaker 1 (17:43):
Wow, I mean, just thinking of how Twitter went for sale,
TikTok Upper grabs open Ai. The bidding like there's only
so many narrows down the playing field of who has
that kind of money to buy that.
Speaker 4 (17:58):
It's my understanding open ai was founded as a nonprofit.
Speaker 5 (18:01):
Is that go true?
Speaker 3 (18:03):
I think they still have a non profit component, but
they clearly have also a profit aspects to them. I'm
not aware of details on how they managed to keep
it separate, but this is now has become very common
to with a lot of big tech corporations. They have
some social responsibility aspect. Or they start and found an
(18:26):
a jewel, or they create status and joel, but then
they later go public monetize in some way to attract
investors and funding. So masks plans for it is clearly
to really use it as a for profit entity, as
a corporate entity, rather than Enjoel all of his companies
are for profit.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
What are your thoughts on elon Musk taking over open ai.
Speaker 3 (18:52):
There's clearly a potential conflict of interest here, first of all,
because he's been competing with open ai. Second because this
sort of adversarial takeover leads to questions about how that
impacts investors, slush funders, not to mention any other stakeholders
shareholders if it's a corporation. The Twitter takeover drew a
(19:16):
lot of controversy, and as it later turned out, Mosk
was not even He did not have the financing that
he promised at the outstart. His bid was based on
expectation that he would attract investors later he had to
scramble for funding. He ended up taking a lot of
funding from various foreign sources of very very dubious legitimacy,
(19:38):
including two Russian lagarchs, the government of Qatara, which came
with assorted strings attached, and a group of Saudi funders
who are known tech infests investors, but also links to
assorted fundamentalist religious movements, all of which created a perfect
storm of conflicts of interest, especially once he started using
(20:01):
Twitter for a worldly political purposes, and once he started
prioritizing his political and personal agenda over the profit of
the company that created he had another layer of conflux
of interest and very questionable business practices that could be
outright illegal and for sure unethical on many levels. So
(20:23):
the parallels between the Twitter purchase and the attempt to
take of open ai are very stark. There's also an
element of personal resentment in both cases, and concerns about
even Musk's overall consolidation of power in the media and
tech sector, especially now that he is also playing a
(20:44):
role in the federal government in alleged cost cutting and
also fairly broad and somewhat undefined authority on many directly
and indirectly intersected issues. So imagine somebody with that brought
power or reading who is it's an extremely controversial and
not exactly transparent role in government managing while also managing
(21:06):
multiple other tech and other companies. Now trying to take
over a company with a very significant defense linkage, There's
no question that there is any number of things that
could go wrong, especially given that some of the other
(21:27):
companies are based in hostile countries such as China.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
This all sounds very shady. Now if I'm too secure,
his mom and I want to hire you to investigate this,
because I know you have experience investigating cyber crimes from
Russia to Africa to Eastern Europe. If she were to
reach out Henry, retain you for this case, how could
(21:54):
you help her? Because that seems very complex.
Speaker 3 (21:57):
Well, a lot of it actually, on some level is
very basic common sense investigation. You retrace the steps, You
look at all the communications and all the circumstances around
this young man's life. You look at his network of
social acquaintances. Who was surrounding him in the last weeks
and months preceding his death? Did he receive any threats?
(22:20):
Did his behavior change in any way? Was he a
regular user of unfetterments or a social user? Was he
a heavy drinker? What were his habits? Was he receiving
any mental counseling? Did he experience any pressure from Open
AI or from any other party? Did he travel to
(22:41):
locations he would not have normally traveled to in at
times leading up to it? Did his financial situation change
significantly as a result of his disclosures? What motivated his
concern to begin with? And what was the chain of
command that he pursued in trying to deliver the bad
news to his original inmploer and who did you go after?
(23:04):
Would need to examine the exact process. I would have
to examine every aspect of his life and then start
looking at things that just don't add up, and at
parties who have there owned the rock, to interest in
his disclosures in his life, and whether there were any
efforts made to silence him in other ways, to potential offers,
(23:26):
was he being surveiled in any way, was his pham infected,
and so on and so forth. It would be a
tremendous work and would probably require a big team of
people and not just me.
Speaker 1 (23:36):
His mother indicated he felt like he was being followed
and was going to her house frequently, it sounded like
on the weekends and staying there. One of the things
that I wanted to mention was that the gun where
it was located, it gives conflicting information. So at first
(23:59):
they said the gun was found under his legs, and
then another time they changed it and said it was
near or proximal to his body. A lot of inconsistent
information or information changing that doesn't make sense, and it
sounds like an absolute mess. It sounds like they underestimated
(24:22):
this family.
Speaker 3 (24:24):
It also sounds like there were mistakes made very early
in the process that, regardless of broader geopological implications and interests,
the law enforcement wanted to cover up for their own reasons.
Just it could have been basic sloppiness confusion in cases
that they wanted to silence for reasons independent of any
(24:45):
corruption outside corruption allegations. And this happens more frequently than
people understand, and it's very easy to fudge up reports
right after the scene of crime, especially if they don't
expect anyone to really look into it. So any good
investigation would also require you to look to examine the
(25:06):
entire law enforcement coverage of the scene of the crime
and everything that's followed.
Speaker 4 (25:11):
Yeah, and I'll chime in on that because I have
a lot of experience with these kinds of investigations as
my former law enforcement role. So what I would like
to know is when the San Francisco Police Department responded
to this scene. You know, obviously this is a death investigation,
so they should start with an open mind and not
make assumptions about whether or not it was a suicide
or not just because a gun is found by his
(25:33):
body in proximity to his body, because suicides can be staged,
as we know. What I'd like to know is how
did they frame the investigation initially, because when the first
officer or officers get to the scene, they generally have
to when there's a death and it's unattended, they generally
will speak with a supervisor, and if there's any indication
(25:53):
of suspiciousness, that investigation is determined suspicious and they would
treat it not necessarily anitially as a homicide, but as
a potential homicide. And that changes the way the investigation
is conducted because if they, if the officers at the
scene make the determination this appears to be a suicide,
you know, just based on what they see there. The
(26:13):
apartment was apparently dead bolted, the windows only open four inches,
so somebody presumably couldn't get out the window if there
was a perpetrator involved in this, so they might and
again assumptions sometimes are made, and I'm wondering about that
if they just sort of said this is probably a suicide,
and then then that changes the investigation because then there's
no homicide call out.
Speaker 5 (26:34):
Generally in those.
Speaker 4 (26:34):
Kinds of cases, the corner is called the corner. A
corner investigator will respond to do their own investigation, and
then the body is removed and then autopsy performed later.
So it's that initial stage when law enforcement arrives that
kind of makes a decision about how deep they go
in the investigation.
Speaker 3 (26:53):
There's a lot of very strange things about this. Besides
there are obvious inconsistency. Is one issue that's not necessar
is positive, but is a red flag. Is the issue
of Sue Saide notes, somebody who is trying to kill
themselves with a gun and has not until that point
appeared to be visibly depressed or known to have been
(27:14):
visiting a mental health professional. There's a question where wouldn't
they leave a note and leave the question of their
death open to potentially blame other people, and that's certainly
racist questions. I would also look into the arrangements in
his location. Was there anything that appeared to be disturbed
or art of order? Did he have a specific way
(27:35):
of with his personal belongings that could have set off
alarms in the minds of the people who knew him.
Because that brings me to another quote unquote Sue said
case that I've looked into involving a British French dual national,
Mark Bennett, who worked for the Qatari Airways in Qatar,
(27:59):
and he he was switching positions to the Saudi arrival
of that company. He was apparently bringing a laptop involving
some sort of sensitive information. He was detained by the
Katari authorities, tortured and eventually released after giving up some
(28:19):
portion of the information, but his widow found out that
he apparently committed suicide by hanging right before going to
a Christmas party at the local British embassy. His clothes
were laid out for him to go to the party,
and he had talked to his wife shortly before that
and appeared to be in good mood and eager to
(28:40):
get out of the country. His laptop was actually eventually
recovered and given to his widow was managed to get
a hold of it somehow, and there was an inquest
in UK after his body was returned home, which also
raised a lot of questions and was apparently not conducted
the way Truth had.
Speaker 4 (29:00):
Same issue, same point in terms of how law enforcement
approaches these cases. When those first officers get on the
scene of where the body is found, if their decision
at the initial investigation points to this appears to be
a suicide, that's how it will be handled, and they
won't initiate what's called a homicide call out, which is
a far more in depth investigation where the homicide detectives
(29:23):
respond if the death is deemed suspicious, So they have
to make a decision at that scene, because if they
don't make that decision, that the evidence is at that
scene needs to be preserved. And so if they think
that it's a suicide, then the investigation will not be
as in depth as it would.
Speaker 5 (29:40):
Be if a homicide investigation were conducted.
Speaker 4 (29:42):
That's just flat out, that's across all jurisdictions.
Speaker 5 (29:46):
That's generally how that works.
Speaker 4 (29:48):
I do want to make a point about whether or
not somebody exhibits mental health symptoms prior to a suicide.
It is true that, yeah, we know that depression and
certain mental illnesses certainly predisposed people for suicid. But there
are cases where individuals they will go into what's called
a suicidal crisis with no warning sign and you know,
prior to that, and they will kill themselves and no
(30:11):
warning signs. In other words, the family and the friends
and people don't even you know, said hey, nothing seemed
to be wrong, you know.
Speaker 5 (30:17):
So that's rarer.
Speaker 3 (30:19):
But that can happen, sure, absolutely, and I'm certain of
them ruled it out. But again that would mean asking
witnesses whether he met anyone that morning, At what point
did he purchase the gun? Has he used it before?
You didn't even know that he had one.
Speaker 4 (30:33):
Yeah, the gun was a glock, which is a fairly
calm and semi automatic firearm that is readily available to
purchase anywherehere, even including in California. So when did he
get that gun and how long has he had it?
And you know, what was the motivation for that? You know,
people buy guns for a number of reasons, but you know,
self protection.
Speaker 5 (30:52):
But when did he get this gun? And you know,
was this because he was fearing for his safety? Perhaps?
Speaker 4 (30:57):
I don't know, you know, that's that's something that obviously
we want to find out.
Speaker 3 (31:02):
If there was no evidence of forced entry. There could
be two reasons for that. One slopping us by the
investigators who ignored clear science or just didn't think out
of the box and didn't check carefully. The other is
that if there was something indicating potential foul play, he
may have known whoever it was that opened the door,
(31:24):
and he may have trusted that person enough to let
them in.
Speaker 5 (31:27):
Yeah, and the fact that the door is dead bolted.
Speaker 4 (31:30):
I want to dispel that sort of issue in terms
of like, well, you know, oh, it's it couldn't have
been an intruder because the door was dead bolted and
there was no sign of forced entry. Well, it's not
that difficult to pick locks. It's not that difficult to
lock if you have the right tools to secure that
door after you leave and make it appear as though it's.
Speaker 5 (31:48):
Been locked from the inside.
Speaker 6 (31:50):
Right.
Speaker 4 (31:50):
So these are and by the way, the issue of
surveillance footage, my understanding was, and maybe you know, were
there surveillance cameras in this apartment building, because I the
bread one report that said that there was a surveillance
camera maybe at the front or something. But then I've
seen other reports suggesting that there was no reliable surveillance
cameras on the property.
Speaker 3 (32:10):
It's not clear what the story is, but what is
clear is that they did not retain surveillance footage and
they did not attempt to secure it.
Speaker 4 (32:20):
That's a big problem. Yeah, that's a big problem.
Speaker 3 (32:23):
There is also other possibility that it was deliberately ignored
or destroyed, but that's also impossible to tell at this
point because no one even raised those questions.
Speaker 4 (32:32):
See that's the stuff that you know, those the first officer,
I mean, I'm going back to when I was working,
you know, and the surveillance cameras were around when I
was in I've been out of law enforcement for a
good eight or nine years now, but that's the first
thing we check. We want to see who's coming in
and out out of this building around the time that
this occurred, assuming that they discovered him shortly after the
gun was fired, we want to look at surveillance footage
(32:55):
to see who's coming and going, Like who's in that
hallway right, there's an internal hallway to his apartment.
Speaker 5 (33:00):
Who might have been visiting his apartment? Was that even
looked at?
Speaker 3 (33:03):
Another basic question is security logs. Was there anybody indicating
how someone could have entered the building? Was their security presence?
Do they have to sign in? Do they have to
have whoever is in the apartment open the door? How
do people even get in and out of the building.
I would look at his call log. Was anyone contacting
(33:24):
him through a regular phone or through secure depths? None
of that has been released as far as I see,
none of that information.
Speaker 4 (33:33):
Yeah, law enforcement may not have even you know, obtained it,
because again, if they're ruling it a suicide, they're not
going to necessarily go into that depth of that investigation.
If it's suspicious and that's the track they're going, then
they're going to be doing a deeper dive. They're going
to be looking at all of those contacts he's had
over the past, you know, two to three weeks even,
they're going to trace his life, right and kind of
(33:55):
look at it retrospectively to see who intersected him in
his life in those days and weeks prior to this happening.
But they probably didn't do this because it was deemed
a suicide. If they initially you know, considered that's probably
what it was, then it's going to be a different
kind of investigation.
Speaker 3 (34:13):
I wonder if they established the sources of them fetamines
from his blood.
Speaker 4 (34:18):
I mean, this is where you would talk to his friends, right,
because if he's using emphetamines or I'm not sure if
it was methamphetamine, but generally, if someone is using illicit
you know, they're going to use either methamphetamine or cocaine.
Metham fetamine is more readily available and it's cheaper, but yeah,
he has to get it from somewhere, right, and so
that would be part of that investigation.
Speaker 3 (34:39):
Even in understanding you know, a suicide. You know, if
somebody's mental state before suicide was influenced by an illicit substance,
that would certainly be something that the law enforcement should
look at anybody, even if it was you know, an
accidental death or you know, you know, suicide and definite.
Speaker 5 (35:02):
Yeah, absolutely. And here's the thing about the drugs.
Speaker 4 (35:05):
So there was alcohol found from what I saw from
the autopsy report that was released their information as they
found ethanol, which is basically alcohol, and then they found amphetamines. Well,
efetamine is generally again you can take amphetamine pills, but
I don't know if this was methamphetamine, but let's assume
it was. That's a stimulant. Now, alcohol is a depressant.
Alcohol can disinhibit people.
Speaker 5 (35:26):
And so a lot of times when you.
Speaker 4 (35:28):
Know, we do see people do die by suicide, they
do have alcohol that they've consumed because alcohol has a
disinhibiting effect on the on the frontal lobe of the brain.
But I don't know how, I don't know what his
levels were. Right, So you can drink alcohol, you know,
and I have one or two drinks and you're not
to the point where you're intoxicated, where you're disinhibited. But
if you're intoxicated to the point where your judgment is impaired, right,
(35:51):
and decision making is impaired and all of that, that
would be a factor too. So they probably looked at that,
but you know, those do influence behavior absolutely.
Speaker 1 (36:01):
His mother pointed out that he wasn't a drinker. He
was socially, but it wasn't It was out a character
for him. I didn't hear her comments about the amphetamines
or not. But if you're gonna stage something stage or suicide,
it's going to make people question if you inject them
with something, and.
Speaker 3 (36:22):
It would also force you to examine the body whether
there was any signs of force consumption of any those items.
Speaker 4 (36:30):
There was also evidence, I think of a contusion to
the back of the head that was suspicious that was
found in the secondary autopsy. Do you know anything about
that that the family has raised concerns saying that there
was a contusion.
Speaker 3 (36:41):
Well, the way they're claiming it is that he hit
his head after the gunshot, but that you know, if
he was already dead, presumably the impact on the bar
would have been different from when somebody is still alive
when they fall. And also if he had fallen, well,
he was just allovers as dead. It would mean that
someone else had to have shot at that point. I
can't imagine how somebody who has fallen and hit their
(37:05):
head would have then shot themselves at the particular angle.
It seemed to be a plausible scenario no matter how
you look at it's psychologically.
Speaker 1 (37:15):
His mother mentioned there was inconsistent gun shot residue evidence.
That didn't make sense. That information was gleaned because they
hired a private investigator to like recreate the crime scene
and get that information, which I think is a win
move on their part to immediately hire someone like this
(37:36):
to reconstruct the crime scene. It's pretty incriminating. I don't
have the autopsy. I know Tucker Carlson had it and
the family went on the show and he was looking
at it and he just basically was saying even a
five year old could see this is not.
Speaker 3 (37:52):
Yeah, but is also not an expert in dollistic or anything.
Speaker 4 (37:56):
Else for that, Yeah, they definitely need a ballistics expert
to look at that trajectory to see whether it's consistent
with how you know, somebody who is self inflicting a gunshot?
Is that consistent right with where the trajectory of the
bullet goes right, and I think there's some questions about
that as well as whereas that's not making sense, what
about the gunshot residue? At least the official report said that.
(38:17):
So what they do is what's called the GSR test.
They will swab the decedent's hands and look for evidence
of gunshot residue, and that then draws the inference that
the individual had a gun in their hand when they
fired it, because when you fire a gun, you know,
there is this residue from the gunpowder during the explosion
(38:39):
that disperses, right. But again, that doesn't mean that it's,
you know, that he self inflicted this. Somebody could be
you know, they could have the gun put in their hand, right,
and they could be forced to have done something during
a struggle. That's not necessarily a conclusive in and of
itself that it's self inflicted.
Speaker 3 (38:55):
Right, We're not going to put it this way. If
there was an whistle blowing element could have led to
any suspicious circumstances, it would be on his ex employer's
best interest to get this clarity if they're not involved
in any way, to get clarity on that issue and
to release the findings as soon as possible to show
that there is no conflict of interests and that they're
(39:17):
not tied to the story in any way, and so
would be the case of anybody else who is allegedly
at domestic suspect. So I think a good move by
the mother would actually be to go to these people
and say, listen, if you are serious about clearing your
own name, it's in your best interest to cooperate with
our investigator and to share your findings. I would not, however,
(39:40):
take their investigators and hire them independence. I would just
use them to compare and share find Yes, see.
Speaker 4 (39:46):
What's different, right, Like, yeah, yeah, they should be transparent
about that, right, They should be willing to share that
information with her investigator because she has a private investigator.
Speaker 5 (39:56):
Right, Dana, she has her own Yes, Yep, that's a
smart move.
Speaker 3 (40:01):
That's what definitely suggests, because otherwise it just it's not
a good look. Nobody wants to have a dead body
hanging over them, especially if they're accused of potential ethical
violations with the in the way of controversial technology.
Speaker 1 (40:18):
So one of the things that the parents really want
as an outcome of this, they want AI to be
a safer community. They want the laws to change, and
I think that really speaks volumes about them. They would
like a new law named after their son, and they're
actually on an AI safety steering committee.
Speaker 2 (40:42):
We're actually being part of the AI safety community steering committee,
and we are adding more about opinions and being part
of the discussions, and we know how they're placing rules.
So we are taking active rule more than a message
to these companies. I think the message would be there
will be regulations which people are working on. We're seeing
(41:04):
that in early stages. I wish Ova Sun was allowed
to see that.
Speaker 6 (41:09):
And also we are trying to pass a build in
the name of such Suci biology, so that the future
visual blowers should be protecting a better way, which the
laws are very weak, should be strengthened.
Speaker 3 (41:23):
Here's the problem that many of the AI safety people,
not them specifically, but the actual developers of a people
like you and Musk, have inferent comforts of interest. So
a lot of this AI safety is driven by the
very people who would benefit from limiting their rivals and
empowering themselves. You need to really have a very independent
(41:45):
task force that comprises a lot of people who in
no way have any ties to any of the people involved,
which is extremely difficult for farewellsh reasons.
Speaker 4 (41:55):
Yeah, we got the fox guarding the henhouse here.
Speaker 3 (41:57):
Basically, I also think that passing such a level would
be extremely difficult in the current political climate. In general.
At best, they may succeed in passing some state laws,
but on a federal level, I'm questioning that that is
something that is doable, And I think, if anything, there
should be a strengthening of whistle blow or protection provisions
(42:19):
and some way to get law enforcement or some sort
of a private stakeholders in providing assistance to people who
have come out as whistle blowers and provide security for
them and ensure that nothing happens to them, kind of
like a government witness protection program.
Speaker 4 (42:35):
Yeah, kind of like a secret witness program or something,
especially when the.
Speaker 5 (42:39):
Stakes are this high.
Speaker 3 (42:40):
The fact that he eventually became known and that his
name was leaked in itself is a huge violation and
a huge problem. You know, up until the point that
there is a conclusive investigation of his blowing information, it
should be kept private as best as possible. It just
(43:01):
seems like common sense. Well, thank you so much for
joining us.
Speaker 1 (43:05):
Today. I don't know where this case is going to
end up, but I want to follow it and have
you on the show again. It seems to be a
lot of suspicious deaths in the media that I'd like
to highlight on this show.
Speaker 3 (43:20):
I do wonder if it makes sense to reach out
to the parents in the background and ask them if
they'd be interested in cooperating where they're investigator and sharing
additional findings and maybe the crowdsourcing some of this stuff
in some way.
Speaker 5 (43:35):
You thinking we reach out to the family, see if
they come on the show.
Speaker 1 (43:40):
I did tag her on Twitter and I said, come
share your story. I said, We're doing it anyway. I'm
sure they're so busy. But on the next episode, I'm
going to cover another suspicious death. But I always invite
the family so I hear it from them first person
and just to honor their love that's died and get
the information firsthand. And in cases like that, where family
(44:02):
can come on my show, I'll get the autopsy, I'll
have the evidence. I'll be able to actually look at it,
speak to it. And one of the things we do
as forensic psychologist is psychological autopsy, kind of like we
discussed today someone's psychological state of mind leading up to
the death and it being conflicting and all that can
(44:23):
be used in court. And in this case, it doesn't
sound like he was somebody that was He.
Speaker 4 (44:29):
Had a lot of reasons to live, right, Yeah, he
had a lot of reasons to live and was in
a successful career path and so it is inconsistent right
with someone who would want to take their life.
Speaker 1 (44:40):
Arina, How can people get in touch with you and
hire you for some of these complex cybersecurity crimes. I
know you have international connections and you have a unique
niche skill set, Like where is the best way for
people to find you and connect with you? Well?
Speaker 3 (45:02):
I am very very active with LinkedIn as a professional.
To me, it's much better suited than other social media.
And of course I have my professional email which is
also listed on my law from website. I Sukerman at
I took him on at law dot com basically just
(45:23):
my initial and last name, which is always a great
way to wish me as well. I checked that that
email verger and try to get back to people as
soon as possible.
Speaker 1 (45:35):
Arena Superman, thank you so much, and thank you doctor
Craig Wetter for joining me today.
Speaker 3 (45:41):
Thank you so much. It was great meeting you and
great hearing and this is a wonderful conversation. Thank you
so much.
Speaker 1 (45:49):
Thank you for listening to Killer Psychologist. To watch full
video episodes or if you want to interact with me,
you can find Killer Psychologists on YouTube. You can also
get notified of new episodes by signing up in my
stand store. Now, if you want to work with me,
you can book a console. My website is psychologydoctor dot com.
(46:13):
That's psychology dr dot com.
Popular Podcasts
New Heights with Jason & Travis Kelce
Football’s funniest family duo — Jason Kelce of the Philadelphia Eagles and Travis Kelce of the Kansas City Chiefs — team up to provide next-level access to life in the league as it unfolds. The two brothers and Super Bowl champions drop weekly insights about the weekly slate of games and share their INSIDE perspectives on trending NFL news and sports headlines. They also endlessly rag on each other as brothers do, chat the latest in pop culture and welcome some very popular and well-known friends to chat with them. Check out new episodes every Wednesday. Follow New Heights on the Wondery App, YouTube or wherever you get your podcasts. You can listen to new episodes early and ad-free, and get exclusive content on Wondery+. Join Wondery+ in the Wondery App, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And join our new membership for a unique fan experience by going to the New Heights YouTube channel now!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
Fudd Around And Find Out
UConn basketball star Azzi Fudd brings her championship swag to iHeart Women’s Sports with Fudd Around and Find Out, a weekly podcast that takes fans along for the ride as Azzi spends her final year of college trying to reclaim the National Championship and prepare to be a first round WNBA draft pick. Ever wonder what it’s like to be a world-class athlete in the public spotlight while still managing schoolwork, friendships and family time? It’s time to Fudd Around and Find Out!