Clash Over Guthrie Notes, Blaise Taylor Found GUILTY, and Animal Advocate Faces Decades in Prison, with Dean Guzman Wyrzykowski

Criminal Lawyer, a former prosecutor and former police officer. I'm very happy to be joined today

“by my co-host, my friend and my colleague Ashley Merchant. She's a criminal lawyer also from the”

Atlanta Georgia area. And actually, before I toss to you, I want to take just a quick moment of personal privilege and congratulate you and congratulate me because you and I are finishing up presently a case that we have been working on together. That's right. We do work together. We're finishing up a case, a capital case, even, that involves very serious claims that we're probably unfounded. Let's just say that there was a false allegation and we're getting a case

dismissed after four years. Ashley, so I just want to say thank you and congratulations on that. Well, and thank you to you, also Phil, that was a exciting case to work with you on and a pretty good result. We got a capital case. Yeah, and sometimes to just ask. The justice system works slow, but sometimes slow gets it right. Yeah. Anyway, Ashley, I'll toss to you what we got going on today. All right, and yeah, so now you all know, just like we're here on TV, we're also in

real-life lawyers, but let's go over what we have on the docket today. So we've got yet another note in the Nancy Guthrie case. We'll discuss the claims and demands that sent to TMZ as the FB I now is claiming that some of the notes are fake. Plus, the search assistants, the Pima County Sheriff's Department, reportedly rejected. And the jury, and we have breaking news here, a jury in Tennessee has reached a verdict in the poisoning trial of former college football player,

Blaze Taylor. We'll review the defense witnesses, the closing arguments, share some great video, and then we'll get into that verdict. Yeah, and later we've got a really exciting program,

“animal rights activist, Dean Guzeman, and I'm going to say this right. Where is a Kowsky?”

He is here. He is joining us to discuss the Riglin Farms animal breeding and testing facility. And I may have said that wrong, Riglin, but we're going to give you all the details. It's a now close Wisconsin Research Center. And we're going to share where Dean is facing major prison time

for saving these sweet little beagles who are mistreated. But first up, Phil, he's going to update

you on the poor Guthrie family. And what all has happened since once again, they've heard from an anonymous party who says they have information about the people responsible for Nancy's disappearance earlier this year. Yeah, that's right, actually. And we actually now breaking today as we record this on July 1st. We have seen these like a dispute between the federal bureau of investigation and TMZ. The breaking news is this. The FBI has told Reuters that the three Nancy Guthrie kidnapping

“notes that have been highlighted quite a bit in the media are fake. And FBI official,”

speaking exclusively with Reuters, said the three debunked messages include two ransom notes. These were sent to the media back in February just days after she was reported missing. And then

there was a third note that was sent out last week. The FBI official says, quote, "None of the

ransom notes are believed to be genuine." However, TMZ is pushing back. The first note reported by TMZ demanded millions in cryptocurrency and set two payment deadlines. The second note claimed Guthrie had died and was, quote, buried in nature. We've discussed that note, particularly in detail, here on the program, go back and check that out. But sources that say they're close to the investigation have told News Nation's Brian Inton, both of those notes were verified by the

FBI as legitimate, actually. So we have something of a dispute already. And then there's this third note that was sent last week. Email TMZ claiming that the sender knows that the suspect, who the suspects are, there's two of them, and has proof of their identities. And again, of course, the FBI and I should say, Sheriff Nanos are claiming that those were fake. We have some video here. We've got Sot 1. This is Harvey Levin. He's discussing this most recent note. This is an email

that goes to say, quote, "I have a phone stashed in a secure location guaranteeing both the information at stores and the safety of the phone." What it contains is my definition of delivering them that being the killers on a silver platter, a short video of the main guy with Nancy that age, which was probably her last, pictures of both involved names and addresses in their age. So let's check out Sot 1. Harvey Levin over at TMZ says, "Look, if this is real, send us a screenshot to prove it."

If this person is real, then go to wherever that phone is and get a screen grab of something

If you have that information, I would assume I don't know, but I would assume that they would

“play ball with you. But send us something because there are a lot of fraudsters out there, and”

we have been open and we were allowed to say this, we know the FBI is still looking for you and they believe you might be real, but they must have enough doubt that they haven't paid you the money. Send us a screen grab of something that would allow authorities to say, "This guy is the real deal, and maybe they will deal with you." Phil, this is literally the definition of pouring salt and open wounds, but keeps happening,

whether it's fake or not fake, it's just it's disgusting.

It is, and you know, so we've got Harvey Levin acknowledging that there are fraudsters out there,

we've got sources, you know, talking about Brian into the reporting that claimed law enforcement officials close to the investigation say all those notes were legitimate. Savannah Guthrie has said she believed that they were legitimate, but we also now have Sheriff Nanos, who is taking the side of the FBI. He tells the butt master show, which is a local radio show, that he believes the most recent note, the one where they say they've got this phone with all this proof on it that's hidden

away, he says that one was fake, sought to. The FBI is partners with us in this investigation, and there are parts of this investigation that our team looks at in handles, maybe the DNA, there's parts that the FBI is dealing with. One of those is all the ransom notes, and we speak of two that were most recent this morning, those two were that someone believes may or may not have some legitimacy to them, and that the FBI is working that. I can't tell you much more on that,

“because it would be inappropriate, it is ongoing, and I think that the FBI has done a number of”

arrest for false or fake ransom notes. This has shamed that that happens, but I think we're looking at another one of those today with what's been reported, but we'll let the FBI do their work. So it sounds like they're just investigating all of these leads, and still hoping, still praying that one of them is going to come through, but maybe they're having a little bit more coordinated resources at this point. I'm just surprised, Phil, why they haven't been able

to get more actual concrete evidence. I know this a large field, but you were out there, you were on the ground, and you saw this area, it can't be that large. I mean, how far could her body actually have gone? Why don't you? I think that was good. I think my personal sense is that it's probably reasonably close to her home, but it's a big desert out there, and speaking of the big desert, we've got the, you heard of the United Cajun Navy, right? They are the 501c3 non-profit

that sort of became prominent in the post-Catrina disaster relief efforts in New Orleans, and the United Cajun Navy, they have offered their search and rescue assistance, which they do commonly in these, these types of situations across the nation. They've offered their assistance

to the Pima County Sheriff, and the Pima County Sheriff basically says, no, we don't want any help,

but I'm just going to say, at this point, we have a cold case here. Let's just go ahead and say, it's a cold case that's going colder by the minute, and every bit of assistance that they are offered, they need to give serious consideration to accepting that assistance. You're one law enforcement agency. It's kind of absurd to think that you have the only agency that can solve this, or civilians can't even contribute. They need to be out there with the Cajun Navy, they need to be out there with

volunteers, they need to be out there combing the desert with people locked, you know, that they should have had people locked in their arms and making these sweeps across these areas, looking for evidence, they should have cadaver dogs, there's lots of things that should have been done, but I just think it's a bit absurd to turn down the Cajun Navy.

“I think it's ridiculous. I think it's an effort for them to control things and control the”

crime scene and the crime gathering of any evidence for prosecution, that they have to think of the humanity at the end of the day, the family just wants closure, so that should be their priority. Giving some closure to this poor family, hopefully we can prosecute and hold accountable, whoever did this, but the primary goal should be giving this family closure and bringing this poor poor mother home on their family.

This episode is sponsored by Varacity, who's founder and CEO Allie Egan has a story you should hear.

firsthand. For years, she struggled with undiagnosed Hashimoto's. That's an autoimmune disease

“that impacts the thyroid. It was functional medicine that ultimately treated the underlying root”

causes and now she is Hashimoto's free and the mother of two beautiful kids. Allie created Varacity so that everyone can access the holistic solutions and optimal health we deserve. Varacity says it's metabolism ignite formula is the number one doctor recommended glp1 booster and natural glp1 alternative made from a unique blend of high-biscous extracts, green coffee bean extract and magnesium. They say there are no side effects and no allergens, just two capsules with breakfast,

safe, simple, and natural. So consider trying Varacity, head to VaracityHealth.co and use the code Megan for up to 65% off your order. Once again, that's Varacity. V-E-R-A-C-I-T-Y-HELF. That CO for up to 65% off and make sure you use our promo code Megan so they know we set you. As speaking of prosecuting and holding accountable, we've got this blazed tailor trial going on out in Tennessee and you know what? We've got a verdict and I know you and I saw

you and Dave on the program earlier this week going over all the evidence in this case. But now blazed

tailor has been found guilty of first degree murder as it pertains to the unborn child of his

girlfriend and second degree murder as well. What's going on there? Right. Yeah. So the jury just came back moments ago. You know, we're recording this late Wednesday and the jury was out for a little bit under three hours. So we've got some updates about what happened since we brought this story to you first. Earlier this week, Dave and I talked about it and we talked about what had been presented at that point. It was flipping over to the defense. So we were getting ready to hear from the

defense and essentially we had an idea of what was happening with the defense. They were poking holes in this theory that the defense is overwhelming theory was really that she ingested this medicine herself that she ingested, you know, the cocaine and possibly fentanyl alcohol, whatever drugs were in her system that it was self-induced, that she's the one that actually took it. And the state was arguing that he spiked her drink and he was trying to kill her. And one of the things that Dave

and I talked about and I think the jury, their verdict kind of tells us that maybe this is what happened is that blaze was probably not trying to kill Jade the mom but actually was probably trying to cause an abortion. And we thought that because there was some evidence from an ex girlfriend of blaze tailors who testified and said that he had been trying to get an abortion pill for her. So we sort of thought, well, maybe the jury is thinking that this cocaine was sort of his, you know,

backdoor abortion pill. He was trying to kill the baby. And the baby, you know, she would have been named Ivy. So I'm going to use her name Ivy. But the jury, I think they believe that too because they found that they found that it was intentional murder for the baby Ivy, but that for the mom Jade that it wasn't necessarily premeditated intentional murder that it could have potentially

“been accidental and that's what they found with that second degree homicide charge for her.”

But, you know, since we've since we talked about this case earlier this week, the defense put their case up and it got spicy. I'm not going to lie. It got a little spicy. So the defense called a toxicologist. They called in her name as a doctor, Lindsay. She's a toxicologist. She testified for the defense and she testified about a lot of different things. But the big one was what was found in Jade's body in her system. And she testified that there was the presence of fentanyl and that

that essentially complicated the state's theory, the state's case that Jade died from this high overdose of cocaine. Because fentanyl was found in her system, she actually said, well, maybe maybe she died of an ingestion that was something that she, you know, that she had actually taken herself. Yeah. But then there are problem with that. And in the problem with that, actually, that the prosecutor had evidence that the fentanyl was administered by the hospital during her

hospitalization. Because she didn't die immediately. She was hospitalized, right? Right. So she did, she did. But there was vomit that was found. So there was vomit that was found on the comforger at the scene. So apparently Jade had actually vomited. And the vomit did also

test positive for fentanyl. So they believed that, you know, it was basically a situation of

either Jade interested in voluntarily or blaze spiked her drinks. It was an, it was an interesting

“mix. And that's what this doctor testified to. That's what this doctor testified to.”

You know, that all of that was found. I had a time. But the big thing that she said was that the cocaine metabolites that were in Jade's blood, she thought were more indicative of repeated cocaine exposure over a one time large dose. So that's what she said, which I thought was a big deal, but clearly the jury didn't care. But the best part, the best part was the fiery exchange

let's listen to it. It saw three. This, this real fiery exchange. I mean, they got real

fired up here. And the hospital receiving medication after medication after medication trying to keep her alive on life support, because she ingested liquid cocaine. I don't know that. Dr. Lindsey, you have her, excuse me, you don't have to bring her to the tribe. Okay, I have a seat. Just ask your point. Dr. Lindsey, you have had heard three experts testify. It was ingested and it had to be a liquid. It was in her trade. Are you testifying? Because there's not

anything you don't interject here today. Just keep yourself calm as well. You don't ask what? Okay? I'm sorry. Keep yourself calm as well. You don't ask questions. All right,

“so look, lots to unpack there. And what I'll say is, I've been there. I think you've been there”

in court where you just, you know, it's been a long trial. It's the end of a long week or two weeks,

or whatever. And you're a little bit exasperated. You're frustrated. You're tired. And you're very stressed out. However, if you're going to be a courtroom trial lawyer, you've got to be able to sort of keep it together. And if you're going to cross examine a expert witness, you're going to have to treat them with some degree of courtesy. I mean they are, you know, presumably, hopefully qualified experts and they, you know, they're not necessarily bad people. You may disagree

with their opinions. But you've got to go through their testimony piece by piece and, you know, you ask them, well, did you hear the other witness who testified this? Yes, I did. And so you disagree with it. And then you break it down, bit by bit and go through it piece by piece,

“rather than just come at them and essentially argue with them. Because that's what I saw.”

It just doesn't make for good courtroom advocacy in my view. It doesn't injure us hate it. You know, I've talked to jurors repeatedly about that. I've asked them about this type of exchange and they don't like it. They don't want the, you know, the aggravation. I mean, they want to hear the facts. They want to move on. They don't want this stress. So I definitely don't think it helped either sides case. But we do know that there's another expert that testified

again, didn't make a difference because he was found guilty. But there was an ER doctor, Dr. Kelly Larkin. And she testified, I thought that was also interesting. Again, to support the defense of theory that she may have been Jade may have been using drugs. One of the things she noted was that the autopsy results showed that Jade had enlarged cells in her heart, which could have been caused by long-term cocaine use. However, though, I don't know that that really held a lot of water,

because it also could have been caused by other things such as high blood pressure and anyone who's been pregnant, there's your blood pressure goes all sort of crazy. Yeah. So I don't know if that really carried the day, but I do applaud the defense for at least trying. But the state in response,

they recalled their medical examiner who basically said everything that those two people said

“is crap. And so I think there was a scene for like that from my cousin Vinny, you know, in the”

prelim when he got up and he's like, everything that I just said was crap. That's pretty much what the Emmy said. You know, everything that those people said now. So it was kind of a battle of the experts until we got to closing. And we did get closing. Um, closing arguments were actually early this morning, and so, you know, they had closing arguments, and then they had three hours, a little bit under three hours of deliberations. But essentially the state argued in their closing, and we've

got sought for, we can play that Jade bedding did better than call 911. She called her friend, which I thought was interesting, because, you know, intuitively, I would call 911. But, you know, hey, it works. So if we could play sought for her. You did this. So something would happen to the baby. Jade bending, she did not call 911. She did better than calling 911. Jade bending called the one person. The one person who knew where she was, knew who she was with, would know that

she was calling scared and for help. Now Jade Jackson said, if soon as she heard her best friends boys, she knew she was scared, and she needed help. Jade bending did better. She made sure that ladies Taylor was not the only person to hear her last words. She made sure that you heard her last words.

we have some video and sound from her testimony earlier in the trial. This is the testimony where

“she's testifying about the call she received right before Jade died. So I think since we just heard”

that reference, let's go ahead and listen to Sot 5. I need a phone call from Jade, and I answered it. I was like, "Hello?" Just normal, and she immediately started saying, "What did you do?" "What did you put it by a jury?" "No, I haven't ever say. Blaze, you're scaring me." And he was like, "You're scaring me." And she was like, "I know you put something in my dream."

She's like, "I know what I'm doing. It's too funny."

I think she was asking you to do his pockets. She was like, "Let me see. What's in your pocket? Let me see."

“It was like, "I don't have anything." So this whole time, I'm like, "J, J, like, trying to get a response."”

She was saying that she couldn't feel her legs. And then she said it again. She was like, "You put something in my dream." And you did it so something. And you repeat the last thing that you heard, J, J. She said that you did this so something could happen to the baby. Well, clearly the jury believed this witness and believed the testimony of the prosecutor, you know, the testimony that the prosecution brought them and they're closing

argument because we've got in our new slot, we've got the actual verdict. "All right, if you would, please, man, stand and announce that verdict on behalf of the jury."

“We could jury find the defendant's place, Allen Taylor, for tab one, guilty of second degree murder.”

For tab two, guilty of first degree, premediting murder.

For tab three, guilty of first degree, fell in murder during the commission of a felony. "For tab four, guilty of first degree, and fell in murder during the commission of a felony." All right, well there you have it, guilty. First and second degree murder, we'll see what the sentence entails when we get there guys. So stay tuned right here to the program and to the channel and in K True Crime. But I would bet you it's going to be a lot, probably life.

Next we have coming up animal rights advocate, Dean Guzeman, where's the cask he's joining us here to discuss why he is now facing get this decades behind bars for doing what, for saving beagles and I mean a lot of beagles from the notorious, vigilant farms, testing facility where he just egregious acts of cruelty to these dogs took place. So you don't want to miss it stay tuned right here, you'll be up after the break. Starting something new, especially a business is hard.

So much work goes into the thing that you're not entirely sure we'll work out and it can be hard to make that leap of faith. It helps when you have a partner like Shopify on your side. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e-commerce in the US. With hundreds of templates, Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store that matches your brand's style. It's packed with great AI tools that write product descriptions,

page headlines, and even enhance your product images. Their marking tools also help you create email and social media campaigns wherever your customers are schooling. Plus Shopify provides world-class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns. All of that with 24/7 award winning support. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.com/mktc. Go to shopify.com/mktc. That's shopify.com/mktc.

Welcome back to the M.Patreon crime show. Joining us in a moment is Dean Guzeman, where's a cow ski. He's one of the animal activists responsible for shutting down a notorious animal testing facility in Wisconsin. So to catch our audience up quickly,

that was long accused of animal cruelty. Our guest dean and his fellow animal rights activists,

“non-violently, very important there, took matters into their own hands and rescued over a thousand”

beagles from the facility. Dean was arrested and he was charged with multiple felonies, including burglary, theft, and criminal damage to property. He is now facing up to 31 years in prison for his actions. We are very excited to hear from Dean personally and so Dean, thank you so much for joining us and welcome to the program. Yeah, Ashley, thank you so much for having me.

So we have talked about this case, we have talked about this facility, this atrocious facility, but tell us about your charges. I mean, tell us about how you ended up getting arrested in this case. Yeah, it's wild. I am facing 31 years in prison on multiple felonies charges because I saved dogs from criminal abuse. I'm being charged with criminal damage, theft, and burglary because I saved dogs from original farms, a biomedical research facility.

It's the second largest in the nation, but I should say was because they've recently announced

that they're shutting down entirely after all graduations. And I think that was mostly you're doing, right? It sounds like it. We're very happy about it. There has been so much attention on this case. I mean, the New York Times ran two articles on the rescue efforts since March. And like it's just showing, I mean, Americans do not want dogs to be abused for research experiments. And so I see us as not advancing some cause as activists. We're just people who are

trying to get the government to act on what people already care about and that's dogs.

“And that's what this country was founded on. I mean, if you think about it, this country was founded”

on protests. So, you know, I applaud your efforts. And I can't believe that you're facing charges, but we want to get into all of that. We want to get into how this experience has been for you. Yeah, absolutely. Well, look, and look, I just want to say, I look, I personally have applaud your efforts. I found it a bit disturbing, frankly, that you're being prosecuted on this. And I want to talk more about why I feel that way.

But before I do, let's go ahead and play SOT 9, which is a news story on Rachel and Farms. And this includes some video footage from inside the facility. So if you're listening to us on podcast, go ahead and check us out on YouTube as well at MK True Crime. And you'll be able to see this compelling footage from inside this horrific facility. This is Richard Farms, located just outside Mt. Torb, which has for decades bread and sold dogs to assist in medical research.

Along the way, accusations of animal cruelty have been levied towards the company. But it wasn't until a small group broke into the farm in 2017, but those accusations began to ramp up and pushed the public perception of the farm to a tipping point. Wayne Shung is one of three activists from the organization called Direct Action Everywhere, or DXC that went inside, recording this footage and stealing three dogs

and what's referred to as an open rescue. The only comparison I have to experience that I had at Rachel and Farms was being in dog meat markets in China. He said what the team found and documented was beyond belief. We saw so many thousands of animals trapped in cages spinning, clawing at the cage bars. And from them when I walked in, I could just feel at a deep and crystal level with fear there was young. The dogs are

in really tiny cages in their own filth and some of them have medical needs that have been tended to. That's all documented in the DACA report itself. So I would say that legally, if you treat animals that way, I could take the position that you have abandoned any claim to those animals as your property, but I want to talk about your charges.

So one of those burglary, which basically is if you enter into someone else's property,

in this case, the business for lack of a better word, torture chamber, for the purpose of committing a felony or a theft. And so you've also been accused of theft of their property, IE, the dogs themselves. Now, as I understand it, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I want you to talk to us about your planned defense because you guys have been very open about this. You have said that this was essentially justified. And so you're saying that you had the legal justification

“to do what you did. You don't deny doing what you did, but you say legally, you should not be prosecuted”

and that you're not guilty because you're justified. If I've got that right, sort of walk me through how that works. Absolutely. That is the core of why we're excited to go to trial. The short answer is that animals are someone, not something. The prosecution is saying that

they feel pain, they get scared and they get excited. These are not just things for powerful

companies who just test on an experiment on. These are individuals who deserve to be protected. And they are already entitled to legal protections under the law. The short answer here is we will use an necessity defense to argue that our actions were legally and morally justified. And essentially what an necessity defense says is that you are allowed to take actions that otherwise might be illegal if you are doing so to prevent a greater evil or bodily harm to

someone. Now the key word there is someone, right? And so now the courts will be forced to ask is a beagle puppy, someone or something. And we're excited because if we were able to make this argument in front of a jury, we believe that people will agree with us. So, Dean, I'm so fascinated

by how, I mean, you clearly have a love of animals and I'm sure that has driven you here,

but you know the law. And you know, you definitely are paying attention to that. Is that

“something you have a passion for or have you educated yourself because of your animal activism?”

Yeah, well, I thought I was going to go to law school for the longest time. I was. Why aren't you? We don't think we've ever done anything. Yeah. Well, yeah, I mean, I thought about it for a long time. I was a senior at UC Berkeley. I was taking practice outside. I wanted to go working government in public service. And then I met activists like Wayne Shang who himself is in attorney and said,

look, animal cruelty laws are rarely ever enforced in this country, right? And when they are,

it's never against the most powerful corporate abusers. You get people who are getting locked up

for maybe dog fighting, right? People who come for really tough backgrounds, but it's the powerful corporate abusers that are almost never held accountable in this country, right? And so, for example, California Proposition 12, it is in theory, Cal America's strongest farm animal protection law anywhere around, right? Preventing animals for being confined in cages so small that they cannot stand up or turn around. And left and right, this is being routinely violated, even though

it was one of the most popular ballot initiatives in California history, right? And so, district attorneys are so reluctant to hold these powerful corporations accountable to buy a medical industry, these big factory farm industries. And so, for me, right, I'm like a idealistic college kid who wants to do good in the world. And I'm seeing just how fundamentally broken our political legal systems are. And so, I met activists who said, look, we're just going to do

“the right thing and ask whether Jerry's think that we did the right thing. And so, that's what I did.”

And so, for the last seven years, I've been working with activists with a legal nonprofit called Simple Heart, which does activist defense. And we represent folks who engage in things like open rescue, because people are just walking into facilities, no masks, no hiding, right? And saying, look, we believe that we have a legal and moral duty to help animals in need. And we are willing to set case law and precedent within the judicial system to try to create

change through those means. And so, now, I am now going from non-profit co-founder to felony defendants. That is my most speaking of felony defendant. So, let me ask you real quick. So, there was a, as I understand it, there was an investigation back last year in 2025. A was constant judge appointed a special prosecutor to investigate the allegations of animal cruelty inside this facility. And the investigation found that most allegations were unsubstantiated

“or outside the statute of limitations. I think that's important because outside the statute of”

limitations doesn't mean unsubstantiated. And in one specific allegation concerning an eye surgery was substantiated. It was reportedly being performed to call this cherry-eye, outside the current veterinary standards at vigilant farms, although they dispute that characterization. They nevertheless entered a settlement agreement, which included surrendering their breeding license, effective July 1st, 2026, which is today the day we are recording this program. This is

in order to avoid criminal prosecutions, but they are still allowed to continue operating as a licensed research facility. Tell me your thoughts and reaction to that. Right. Well, I'm very happy that vigilant is officially shutting down. And they've announced that they are going to close down. And so, to this point about this deal with this special prosecutor, right? I mean, I think we should be skeptical that the vigilant farms actually

would have stopped torturing dogs even if this deal went through. Right. So today, July 1st is the day that even before our activists went into vigilant farms that they were supposed to give up

even for the laws and the agreements that are on the books, right? Maybe they could have

done some corporate restructuring or reorganizing. But the bottom line is I'm very happy that now

as a combination of public pressure and legal enforcement that vigilant farms is shutting down. Wow. Well, and it sounds like you're getting that pushback that you were talking about, you know, with these big pharmacy groups and big corporations, because the President of the National Association of Biomedical Research is saying they're grateful for the alleged break-in and theft not resulting in injury, but they're concerned by it. They're concerned by the magnitude of

the event, and they want people like you to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. And they're saying that law enforcement should set a precedent for other animal rights extremists who target animal research and testing facilities and threaten the biomedical

“research enterprise. So I think that's the pushback that you're talking about, Dean. And that's”

probably why the prosecution hasn't let your case go. They're probably getting pressure from that. What's been going on with your defense team, I assume Wayne is part of it and do you think that you're really going to have to go to trial or do you think the prosecution is going to have a heart and see that you are not trying to break the law? Yeah. Our attorneys in Wisconsin are telling us that the prosecution is very motivated to keep pressure loss. So actually, right to your point,

there's been so much public support around this. We've gotten bipartisan support from Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Everybody loves the animals. And I love the stats of bipartisan issue. So it is, and I'd love to talk more about that. And so when the when the district attorney hit us with those initial felony charges, there was this outcry of public support for us, right?

“But then even after all of the public outrage and the condemnation of the farm, prosecutors announced”

three additional felony charges for me and each of my three fellow code defendants. So now we're

all facing 31 years in prison. And so, right, the industry is very powerful. You mentioned the

National Association of Biomedical Researchers. This is an industry lobbying group. They successfully passed the 2003 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, which was sponsored by my California Senator Diane Feinstein. This is a powerful industry. The biomedical industry is coming on full force. And so even this is an example of democracy being corrupted, right? When the public overwhelmingly supports these dog rescue efforts, but now you have these shadowy corporate forces with their

with their lobbying groups behind the scenes that are putting pressure on district attorney's offices. And this is why we have to be out in the open and keep on fighting.

Well, here's what I would say sort of been response to that. I've got it. I kind of get to the

same place, but in a different way. I don't see it as sort of the majority rule, we don't have democracy. I don't think that 50% plus one of the public sentiment really ought to dictate how a prosecutor prosecutes a case or the decisions that they make in whether to approve a case. In fact, I would say that we really don't want a system where prosecutors act at the whim of the public, whether the public's outraged about this or another thing or something else. Prosecutors

ought to look at this essentially from the position of fundamental fairness. Now, sometimes the at what we think is fundamentally fair might coincide with public sentiment that sometimes it doesn't. Prosecutors have a great deal of discretion. And I would urge anybody to to, you know, to con if they want to contact the prosecutors, they look, use your discretion. This isn't maybe not how we want our taxpayer dollars to be used, prosecuting this kind of case, but at the end of the

“day, I think we have to recognize that prosecutors really should not be led by purely public sentiment.”

Now, that being said, we've got more good video here. We've got slot 10, which is the Beagle Freedom Project Day 1 of the Richland Release. I want to play that video and then talk about it with you on the other side. Today, Beagle Freedom Project went into Richland Farms and we got out 150 dogs. We loaded them up into our RVs and we drove them to Dan County Humane Society. We're all of our amazing volunteers lined up to bring the Beagles in. Our awesome volunteers

took them outside, they had time to decompress, fill the sun on their face and see what this world is like. After that, they were assessed by our amazing volunteer veterinarian team. They got their microchips and their vaccines. After they were assessed, they were picked up by our amazing rescue

testing labs. And Beagle Freedom Project is thrilled to help them get a new chance at life,

in a home with a family snuggled up on the couch under a blanket, just as dogs should be. Thank you to all of our donors for making this possible and we can't wait for day two where we will be taking out another 150 dogs. And by the end of the week, we will have gotten out 500 dogs. You know, I said I wasn't going to cry throughout this program, but that one just about did me and those dogs looked so happy. I bet you felt, I bet whatever you're going through

when you saw those dogs get released and have freedom probably made it worth it to you. Absolutely. Absolutely. So, you know, we can talk about jury nullification, right? Because you've got, and I'm not a fan of jury nullification, but it's worth acknowledging that it is a real thing. It does exist. And if you get just one juror on the trial jury that believes, you know what, he was, these people were morally justified, even if they weren't legally justified. If they don't

buy that part of the defense, they can say, look, you know, you're morally justified and I'm not going to vote to convict. Has that ever crossed your mind that this might be a case where it's just going to get a, you know, you look at those videos and I just have to ask myself, how could any, how could any jury convict when they see what the result of this was? Right, fill out a love that you're bringing up these points. And I think this actually hits a

kind of fundamental questions of democracy and what law even means, right? And if you're perspective as a form of prosecutor, I'm super fascinated to dive deeper into this. I believe it's going to be really hard for a jury to see the full facts of our case and decide to convict us. But I think there are a legal and moral questions here. I believe that there's a case,

“a Supreme Court case. I believe state-free Duncan in Mississippi, jury nullification is an essential”

part of checks and balances for prosecutor overreach, right? And so even if something matches the facts of a criminal conviction, right? We recognize that oftentimes our laws are broken and

even our democratic processes are not always set up to structure the law in a way that is just

or representative of what the people want. And so that's all to say, I think for a random selection of ordinary people to be on a jury and decide whether we are criminals, that is an essential check and balance to what I'm seeing is a broken broader system of political corruption going on in Dane County. I take your point about fairness very well, right? It can't just be about majoritarian rule in all cases. I think we have a case where these are legal puppies who have been invisible

to the law for the longest time. And the clearest example to me of this is it took so long and a lot of police brutality for these dogs to get freed, right? These dogs have been in cages their entire lives for decades, right? Since 2017 and before when investigators have been exposing these abuses, why did it take almost a decade after that initial investigation,

along with grandmother's getting shot with rubber bullets and tear gas for these dogs to finally

“get free, right? And so I think that there's something about the unresponsiveness of our political”

system and some part of this is sure the traditional mechanisms of political corruption and you know political connections, but also just this broader political ecosystem where attention is so difficult. We have these social media corporations that are harnessing the way that we look at laws and preventing people from actually engaging meaningfully democracy. And I think something about how our current political ecosystem is structured is making it very difficult

for the preferences of ordinary people to actually get into our legal system. And right now these dogs are showing other ways that ordinary people in compassion can shine through. You know, I think with jury nullification you hit a good point because it's it's very American, you know, the fact that a jury can decide whether or not you really broke the law or not. I mean, I think that's in a very American concept. So I think it'll be really interesting. I've got

a question that, is your do you think your trial is going to be broadcast or have you guys broke that yet? Are we going to be able to watch it? I do think that some media has been allowed

“to film in this case. And I think so. I mean, I'm hoping for a very public trial right now.”

We are scheduled to go to trial in January, which is pretty absurd because we have a certain hour right to speedy trial and still they've actually pushed it back. And though apparently in Wisconsin, if they deny you're right to a speedy trial, the only remedy is they let you out of jail. We're already out of jail. Right. That's most states. Yeah. The right to a speedy trial is kind of a fallacy in this country. Well, thank you so much Dean, so tell our audience where they can find

you where they can how they can support your cause and all of that could stuff. Yes. Well, this is super important because there isn't even larger dog testing

size of original informs. They're currently torturing dogs with even chemical gas experiments

“that have been booked sposed by whistleblowers in 2024. So we need to shut this place down and we”

need to save those 15,000 vehicles who are still over at Marshall Bio Resources. We are organizing right now to get activists to rescue those dogs. Whether it's through political outreach or whether it's becoming rescuers ourselves. And so that's going to happen up through October and we encourage people to go to save the dogs.io so that they can join in and join the rescue and political efforts and we'll loop you in via email. And I also have this stuff that I read about my

case. I've written about my $1,000 bail amount and so people can read about my prosecution and follow up urbananimal.substack.com. On substack, okay, great. Well, thank you so much, Dean, it was really great having you and we'll definitely follow your case and look forward to it. And everyone else, yeah, our closing arguments are next, stay tuned.

Washington politicians are always getting in your wallet. Now they're messing with your credit card.

Your credit card and the security that it offers are under attack. Senators Dick Durbin and Roger Marshall want to change the nation's payment system to benefit corporate megastores like Walmart and target at the expense of everyday Americans. Credit cards keep your payment secure and provide rewards that families use to help make everyday purchases more affordable. The Durbin Marshall mandates would let corporate megastores cut corners on credit card processing,

routing transactions over cheaper, untested networks with weaker security and even fewer protections. That means higher risk of fraud, greater chance of stolen personal data and the loss of rewards programs, just so corporate megastores can pocket billions of dollars in higher profits. Tell Congress to guard your card, visit guardsercard.com to take action and learn more. Welcome back to the MK True Crime Show. I'm Phil Holloway along with my co-hostess today,

Ashley Merchant. It's time for our closing arguments. Ashley, would you please do us the honor and get us started? Yes, I'm happy too. Well, we just heard about a tragedy and so I thought it might be fun to talk about on that fun, but do a little closing argument on this case. So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is really going to be about jury nullification, and I wouldn't be telling the jury that. So let me start over. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury,

at the end of the day, this case asks a simple question, who is the criminal? These people who are trying to rescue these little tiny sweet animals are they the criminals? The person who walked towards the suffering, or the person who walked away from it, who is truly the criminal here. The state wants you to see this case through a certain lens. They want this case to be nothing more than a trespass and a taking and a burglary. They're looking at that property. They are

not looking at these sweet innocent little animals, but trials are about more than checking boxes. They're about justice. They're about the jury and the jury being able to find whether or not

“a criminal defendant actually has criminal intent. They're about why people act. What does that mean?”

Why people act? That's intent. The evidence in this case, I believe will show that there was no criminal intent. You just heard from Dean. Dean didn't sneak onto that property with the intent to damage to the actual property. He didn't want to make money. He wasn't trying to exact revenge or violence on anyone. Nothing like that. He was trying to release these little innocent animals who were being tortured and being abused by their captors. It wasn't for personal gain.

He went there because he believed that living creatures were being abused and that he needed to act. He had to help. It was necessary. You may ultimately disagree with him. You may not think that his judgment was right. You may think that there were better ways to handle it. But disagreement with someone, their decision is not the same as proving someone has criminal intent beyond a reasonable doubt,

not whether or not they acted with criminal intent. Our system has always recognized the difference.

It's always required. Criminal intent. That is how we get between a thief and a rescuer. Someone who's motivated by greed, someone who's motivated by conscience. Those are two very different

“things. So, in Dean's case, I think the state is going to ask the jury to ignore that difference.”

If Dean honestly believed those animals had been abused, abandoned and that rescuing them was lawful and necessary. You heard necessity. Then the state has failed to prove criminal intent that the law actually requires. Our justice system doesn't just punish people, simply because

It shouldn't. And the jury is here to determine whether or not that punishment and the government

has actually proven every essential element beyond a reasonable doubt, whether or not they have

“actually proven criminal intent. So, I think that when the jury actually hears what Dean and his”

what they probably are calling co-conspirators were doing, I think the jury is going to agree that what he did was okay. Because our law requires proof. It requires proof of actually acting with criminal intent. And I don't think any jury is going to find that Dean was doing that when he was rescuing these little pups. So, thank you, Phil. Great stuff as always, actually. All right. So, let me set my closing argument up just a little bit with this plug for

subscribing to the program because we're available everywhere you get your podcast, but we're also

on YouTube. And so, if you haven't subscribed on YouTube, I want you to do that because if you're listening to the sound of my voice, I'm going to talk to you about the Caroline Pena murder case out in Del Rio, Texas. On the video here on the screen, you're going to see the arrests of three co-conspirators or co-dependents in a case, which are Kitty Diaz, age 21, her sister, Amaya Cookie Diaz, age 19, and their friend, Keandra Faz, age 21. They are being

arrested on June 25th of 2026 in the stabbing death of 32-year-old mother of five, Caroline Pena,

who is allegedly now beaten and stabbed death outside this home in Del Rio, Texas. And so,

we're going to have more about this really terrible murder case here on the program in future episodes, no doubt it's going to be a big case and we'll be following it. But for purposes of today's closing, I wanted to talk to you about a key concept in criminal law that often confuses people. Why can someone who's just an accessory or an accomplice to a crime get charged and convicted of

“the exact same crime as the perpetrator? And that's what's going on in this case. There are”

some claims here that only one person may have been the main perpetrator. Back in the old English common law days, there were strict distinctions between people that were accessories or parties to the crime in the principal perpetrator. The principal was the one who was accused of actually committing the act while accessories before the fact helped plan or encourage it. But weren't necessarily present and there weren't all kinds of special procedural rules about when and even

where they could be tried. Modern law has simplified this quite dramatically. Instead, today, we use what's called a copeless liability or the eating and abetting doctrine. For example, under federal law, under title 18 USC section two, it says plainly that anyone who commits an offense or aids or abets or counsels commands induces or procures its commission is punishable as a principal offender. They get charged and convicted under the very same statute with the very same

penalty as the person who did the alleged deed. The legal reasoning is based on what we call derivative liability. The accomplice doesn't have to perform the physical act, but because they intentionally assisted or encouraged the crime with the purpose of making it happen, their conduct is tied directly to the offense itself. This creates a parity of culpability. They share the same level of blameworthiness as the principal. It also serves

important policy goals like deterring group criminal activity, which is big in today's news and in today's society, and ensures everyone involved in the enterprise is held fully accountable for the harm they've caused. Just a quick note, this applies to help given before or during the crime. If someone steps in afterward to hide or potentially cover up for the perpetrator, that's treated as a separate and less serious offense called being accessory after the fact.

So in the end, the law recognizes that when you purposefully join a criminal venture. Even in a

“mere supporting role, you become a full party to the crime itself. That's how the system tries to”

match punishment to actual culpability and intent. With that, we'll have to leave it right here for today's program. I want to say a special thanks to my co-host Ashley Merchett today, and thanks to you all who are our audience, whether you're on podcast or on YouTube or on

Dean Guzman, words of Kowski, who has a trial coming up for saving those vehicles. Thank you, and good luck to you, Dean, and everyone else. Have a great week. We'll see you back here next time on the MK True Crime Show.