Disturbing Evidence at D4vd Hearing, Brooke Hanlon Murder Mystery, and Lindsay Clancy Jury Selection, with Vinnie Politan

Welcome to the MK True Crime Show.

“Dave Aaronberg, aka the Florida Lawman, former state attorney from Palm Beach, County, Florida,”

Managing Partner at Dave Aaronberg Law. I'm joined today by Mike co-host, Ashley Merchant, former Florida law woman. Now, a criminal defense attorney in Atlanta, GA, hello, Ashley. Hey, Dave, how are you? It's good to see you.

It's great to be back with you. Yes, it's good to be back. I hope everyone enjoyed their time away, brief time. But let's talk about what we've got on the docket today.

So first up, we've got singer David D4 VD, aka David Anthony Burke.

And he is in court. He's been in court this week for his preliminary hearing. And the alleged murder of his 14-year-old, apparently girlfriend Celeste Rivas Hernandez. So we'll talk about the troubling evidence

that prosecutors have been presenting so far this week. And then we'll get into the sad mystery of Brooke Hamlin. And that's the New Jersey therapist and mom who has stabbed a death inside her home. With no rest and few details released by investigators,

over a month after Hamlin's death, we'll discuss our outstanding questions about the case. Yeah, and there's a lot of them. And later, we are very excited to have a award-winning legal journalist and court TV lead

anchor Vinnie to Palitan. He's going to join us to catch us up and discuss Lindsey Clancy's murder trial that's happening this week and the ongoing investigation into the ciders.

That's the Ohio family that was arrested for holding 16 children in dangerous isolated conditions. We call it the Ohio House of Horrors.

But first, let's talk about the details,

coming out of David's preliminary hearing this week. So just as a reminder for our audience, the 21-year-old singer David has pled not guilty to charges a first-degree murder with special circumstances of continuous sexual abuse of a child under 14

and mutilation of human remains. His apparent girlfriend, 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez, her dismembered body, was actually found in September. In his impounded Tesla, prosecutors alleged that he murdered her Celeste because she threatened to reveal

their sexual relationship and ruin his lucrative music career. So we have been hearing some of the evidence day of this week, the preliminary hearing started yesterday and prosecutors, they put up a lot of really gruesome photos. I mean, this was just this was a horrible, horrible facts

about how this poor girl was dismembered in her remains. And there's been a lot of the defense probing how the evidence has been handled. And for me as a defense lawyer, I thought, okay, well, they're definitely trying to set a scene,

set a stage for maybe trying to challenge some of the admissions of this evidence later on. But what do you think about the case so far, Dave? Well, pretty much what we thought.

The first observation I'll make,

actually, we've been following this case for a while. Well, before there was an arrest, is how transparent the system has been in this case compared to the Tyler Robinson case, where it's like pulling teeth to get them to allow cameras in the courtroom and to release evidence to the public.

I mean, they're so careful. And when that case has so many conspiracy theories, like, hey, let everyone see everything here, this is how public records supposed to be. I think that we're seeing it.

And that's a positive. But there are not many conspiracy theories floating around.

“I don't know, it's either, did he do it or did he not do it?”

And he does have plenty of motive. In fact, actually, there is a thought we have, where David, D4, VD, and Celeste are in a twitch live stream, and apparently Celeste said something controversial. And so you can hear them say delete everything,

everything goes. So they're a very clip, quick to know that they had something illicit going on apparently and needed to destroy the evidence. Let's play a song one. - Can't really go.

- Joe, I immediately trained you. - Maybe. - That's controversial. - It's controversial of kids. No, I need it. - Really good. - It's mine.

- It's been a good one, bye. - Bye, guys. - Wow, oh my, oh my, oh my, oh my, delete everything, delete, delete everything, everything goes, everything, everything, pray, prayers, career chat. - Moss can we delete all vives and then as soon as the stream ends, delete the stream too. - Can we delete anything? - Can we delete anything? You don't for bro? Y'all are not dead.

- No, you're gonna have to go, go, go, go, go, way, way, way, way. - Oh, lucky. And so that one that's so mean if you don't have to. - Wait a minute, wait a minute. - Yeah, there's so much, so much I want to say, just a lot.

“But I can't help but wonder, this is in 2024, okay?”

And her parents knew that they were in this relationship.

They had taken her phone, you know, and then she got in a phone back,

but she got missing a couple different times. I think it's kind of undisputed that they knew. She was in a relationship with this guy. And I think it's sort of undisputed that she lied about her age. He probably knew that she lied about her age, probably knew that she was a lot younger. You know, but you're looking at her, I mean, she could have passed for 18. So what I don't get is the prosecution's theory is that

he David killed her because she threatened to expose their relationship, okay? And so there's financial means, you know, that he doesn't want to hard to go public because he's going to lose all this money. So are they extorting him? I mean, is that why would you threaten to go public?

If this is your boyfriend, why are you going to threaten to go public? What are you threatening?

I'll go public unless you pay me money. I mean, what's the threat? What is she threatening him with? Really? And did the parents know this? I mean, I don't get it because she's 14 is that's kind of an elaborate scheme for a 14 year old to come up with. I'm going to threaten, I'm going to go to the authorities if you don't what. There's got to be a, if what would that threat? So the state is saying she threatened him,

threatened to go to the authorities. But what they're not saying is what she was threatening him with. And I just feel like that's something that needs to be addressed. Well, Amber, the line from Medea, Hell, Hathno, Fury, like a woman's scorn? Oh, man. I choose that in closing arguments. That's a theme I've used. Right. So this couldn't just be a threat for money. This could just be a woman's scorn.

This could be a teenage girl who was in love with this older man. And then found out perhaps that he was cheating on her or whatever. And it was like, I'm going to go public. That is the one thing she had over his head because what they had, there was illegal, could have destroyed his career,

“could have put him in bars for decades behind bars. And so why do you need to have something”

else there? Like money or another threat? It could just be she got mad at something. And this was a threat she made to respond. Hell, Hathno, Fury, like a woman's scorned. Yeah, no, I mean, that's a good point. And I think that's the prosecutors are going to have to hope for that because I know if I was on the jury or if I was on the defense, I would be wanting something more. I would wanting to understand a little bit more. I would also want to hear some

proof. And we haven't heard it yet. And I think maybe we will, that he knew she was younger, that he knew she was underage. Because what the reports are that we're hearing from this from the actual prelim, is that the prosecutors, they actually introduced body cam footage of the investigators

visiting his home back after her parent had first reported her missing. And the body cam

shows that they told David her age and had to show him a yearbook photo to prove it to show the age. And that he told the deputies that she said she was 18. But he acknowledged that everyone's saying she's 13. Doesn't make it clear if they're saying, well, everyone's saying she's 13. Now, after she went missing or that he heard that before, you know, so I would want to know when he heard that. Did he actually think she was 18? Did he think she was 13? And we do also

know some of the evidence was that they went a lot of places with fake IDs. So, you know that, that's confusing to me. Another thing that was really confusing to me is apparently we heard that she went to London with him. So, one of his managers or somebody testified earlier today about a trip to London that she took with him. And immediately, I'm a parent. I've had to get passport for my kids. If you get a passport for a kid, you, I mean, I couldn't get one without my husband being there.

“Like, you have to both be there. You have to sign, you know, in eight billion places because”

they're terrified of someone kidnapping. So, I'm like, how do her parents not know what's going on? If you have a 14-year-old or 13, she had to been what 13 at the time. A 13-year-old going to Europe with this guy. There's, I feel like there's just something that we are not hearing here. Like, some big piece of this puzzle that's missing. Well, he did tell deputies that Celeste had claimed she was 18, but he acknowledged that everybody is saying she's 13. When you start hearing that,

you're not just letting it go by well, okay, everyone's saying she's 13. So, what? Well, no, no, you're going to investigate. You're going to look into it and he was around her enough that he should know that she was not 18 that she was younger than that, especially if they had to get a passport for her. I mean, there are certain manners and things that you could tell that someone is, is much younger than she lets on. Now, one thing that I understand is that he told

the deputies that he'd met Celeste and discord Instagram and that he had met her once in person in November of 2023, but they were boyfriend and girlfriend apparently. So, it was he lying there.

“They met her once in November of 2023. It sounds like he was. That's what I'm saying. I think they're”

all lying. I mean, he's, he's clearly toast. Like, it's disgusting. He bought all this stuff and had this murder dismembering shop and did this to this poor girl. He was the one person who's innocent in all this. I just feel like we're not getting it. I love that they're being transparent. I don't think that they have it. I don't think that they know what happened. And that's the one thing that's kind of bothering me. You know, I don't, I don't know that he would have

killed her just for money. I feel like with his songs, which I didn't know until he started

there's this missing part of this case and maybe they'll maybe they'll get to it during the

closing arguments. But we have heard recently just just today, we heard some updates about some of the evidence that they found. And it's, I mean, it's disturbing talking about the hermains. I mean, we've covered that before, how she'd been dismembered. But apparently, one of the bags, the bag, the body bag that David had bought had a time. I mean, he bought this body bag that this poor girl is found in. Apparently, it had even disintegrated to the point where

it couldn't be tested. So, I mean, there's just, you know, a lot of evidentiary problems with this crime scene. Let's just put it that way. You know, well, you weren't grossed out by and you've seen a lot of shady stuff, actually. I mean, you've had a lot of gruesome cases. I'm

sure. And what? Right? Yeah. And I remember when we had that guy on who was the doctor of death,

what was the forensic guy? Yeah. I mean, yes, yes, he's talking about the chainsaw. Like, that's, that's, I mean, and you were, and you were like, like, why, love this stuff, right? But yeah.

“But here's the thing, when he saw the photos of this then 14 year old girl, her torso was”

without limbs. She was in a black plastic bag. She was totally dismembered. He didn't even react to it. And I showed no reaction. Really? To me, tells you something. Oh, it definitely tells you something. I mean, I think there's no way that the defense will ever get around the fact that he purchased, you know, all of these tools to dismember her body, her body was found in the Tesla, all of that. I think this, I wish that they, I think sometimes jurors don't like it when the prosecution can't

answer all their questions. And when there's things left behind, you know, motivation. Like, just these loopholes, I just feel like there's some loopholes that I'm hoping that they'll cover up. I don't think he's going to walk on it. I just hope it's something where they complete the story. You know, unless they completely botched the forensics, and it sounds like, I mean, it sounds like some of the questions the defense was sort of setting that up. They asked, you know, about that

bag I was mentioning, the bag has apparently been destroyed. You know, that bag, like, they didn't test it. The bag that had her head, her torso, was not preserved as evidence. It wasn't tested for DNA. And they said it was it because it was too damaged to preserve beyond removing the handles and the zipper. So, too damaged to preserve, at the defense lawyer and me, I'm like, wait, but the handles in the zipper you removed, why didn't you test those? Like, you could test those for

DNA. Why? Why are those destroyed now? That's something that a good defense lawyer is going to really make the police look incompetent over. Why would you not? If you have a body bag that apparently had handles, and you had to use those handles to carry the body, why the hell aren't you testing those handles? I don't get it. Why are you not preserving them? All good points. It's why you're the top of your field. This is what good defense lawyers do. Something just to go back to why I said earlier.

I'd mentioned that he had said that he only met her once in November of 2023. And how is that possible? She was allegedly killed in April 2025. So, I guess it is possible that in his timeline, that's

“when they met, he didn't know her, but then he spent enough time with her, that you have to know.”

If you spend enough time with someone, that she is underage, and you don't get a pass by the fact that she lies if you had enough opportunity to observe her. And so this is, I don't know, right? I don't see a way out of this other than if maybe there's some reasonable doubt by because of the things that you say, Ashley, just that maybe the investigation was bungled, but even if you don't have a motive, I don't think you need one when it's right there in front of you. He's having an elicit

related to with a 13, 14-year-old girl. He's worth millions of dollars. Something was said and she was gone.

So, she's never getting out of prison. I mean, he's never getting out of prison. Look at the

Amazon purchases. I don't know why these things. Body bags and like furnaces? Right. I know. It's insane. It's absolutely insane. I mean, he's definitely not seeing the way the day. But I do think that there's little, those little holes might factor into their decision whether or not to seek the death penalty. And they still haven't decided that, you know, and they've got to prove these extra thing. They've got to prove that he was doing it for some sort of financial, you know,

financial gain to try to get her to not, you know, make him lose money and not extort him. So,

“I think that might factor in, and we may not see the death penalty actually saw in this case.”

But we'll keep following it. I mean, it's, there's a lot with this case. It's gruesome. It's awful. It's an innocent girl who clearly was murdered by this man. And it's a very sick situation. So I hope they give us the entire story and we'll keep following that. Did you know that many US homes have toxic chemicals in their tap water? Even though contaminated water looks clear, it could put you at risk for devastating health concerns,

including fatigue, hormone disruption, cognitive decline, even cancer. Surprisingly, standard fridge and picture filters do little to remove most contaminants and bottled water contains microplastics. So what's one solution? Introducing Aqua True, the countertop water purifier,

lead forever chemicals and microplastics. It's patented four stage reverse osmosis system goes

way beyond ordinary filters for pure healthy water you can trust, no plumbing, no installation. Aqua True has been featured in business insider popular science and named best countertop water filter by Goodhousekeeping. Go to Aqua True, that spelled TRU.com right now. For 20% of your purifier using the promo code true crime. Aqua True even comes with a 30 day best tasting water guarantee. That's Aqua True.com, a QU A, a QU A, TRU.com, okay? Aqua True.com,

promo code true crime. We've got another case that we want to talk to you all about. I think it's the first time covering it. It's a newer case, Brooke Handlin. So she is a mom, a very new mom, 35 year old New Jersey therapist. She was found unresponsive in her home recently by her husband who goes by Connor's name as James Handlin back in June 6th and apparently he called 911 and we'll listen to that in a few minutes, but he called 911 and I thought this was

interesting. He says that it's a woman in cardiac arrest, but then he always on the phone he says,

“well, she's got a cut on her breast and then we later find out that apparently that's how she”

died. She cuts everywhere, which you know, if you see a body that has cuts, I certainly don't think you're going to jump to cardiac arrest, but we could talk about that in a minute, but if we can place that too, that's the actual 911 call, or he's trying to get help for his wife. Well, my God, I need an ambulance. Okay, the chest of town trip is that correct? Oh, we're getting out there to stand the line in this information, okay?

Please, I don't know what to say, but I need to hear, I need to hear our media. She is bleeding, and she's not, okay. Oh, my God, oh my God, oh my God, oh my God. That's heartbreaking to hear. You know, that to me is kind of convincing. I mean, I can be acting, I don't know the truth behind it, but that was really horrible. I mean, that was person who was in

“real pain and severe, just just frantic hysterics, and I think that would play well in front”

of the jury, but how about beyond that? Let's see. Now, apparently Connor Handling was instructed on CPR, how did you see him power by the dispatcher? Let's play sought three. Okay, please put your phone out, speaker, speaker, so your hands are free to help her, sir. I don't want to speak her, I don't want to speak her. I didn't want to be broke, no, please. I'm not going to be dating, I'm not going to be one moment. Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

Listen carefully, and I'll tell you how to do test compression. Sir, please, we can't live your hand on the respawn in the center of the chest. Right, but there's a cut that, what does it cut? I'm sorry, what was that, sir? There's blood everywhere. Okay, can you place the hand of the heal of your hand on the respawn in the center of the chest, right between the nipples, and put you the other hand on top of that?

Yep. Okay, all right, pump the chest, hard and fast, at least twice per second, and two inches deep.

Okay, count out loud so I can count with you, okay? One, two, three, four, one, two, three, four, one, two, three, four, one, four, three, four, search, I think it's a good answer. Try and take a deep answer. One, two, three, four, one, two, three, four, no, and two, three, I need you. I need you. Try and take a deep rest there. Three, four, one, two, three, one, no, no, no, you need you. That is heartbreaking. I agree with you, Dave. I mean, it's not surprising that he hasn't been charged because it sounds absolutely heartbreaking,

but there's the thing about this case is really what we don't know. You know, there's been a lot that, you know, that remains unknown. The investigation is still active. The prosecutors have said that no further information is being released because they want to protect the integrity of

“the investigation, which is typical. You know, that's what we expect, but we don't know an estimated”

timeline of the attack of her death. We don't know whether or not they have any people that they're looking at a person of interest. We don't know where her husband Connor was, prior to the death, was he even with her. We don't know if someone else was at the home at the time that she was attacked. We don't even know if her baby, she had a newborn baby was there. There's really nothing. We don't know if there was, if it's a crime scene, if there was forced entry, if something was stolen.

I mean, there's just, there's so much that's out there missing in this investigation.

which is more than three weeks after her death. That strike you as unusual. Why couldn't I

identify her sooner than that? I don't know. And I thought that was really odd, too, because that's something that a family really does need. I mean, there's things that happen, unfortunately, legal things that happen when a person dies with probate and, you know, closing on accounts and

“things like that. So, I mean, that seems like a really long time. The only thing that typically”

takes a long time with the coroner or a medical examiner is actually getting like toxic screens back. You know, things where you have to send off things to a lab and you have to wait for those results. But other than that, I mean, they should have been able to identify her. They should have been able to identify her with Connor right away. You know, so that did seem like a really long time to me. We don't even have any reports on like her autopsy or anything. I mean, it's really,

it's just, it's bizarre. Yeah. Well, we're going to keep following here on our show. This is the first time we've discussed it. As you correctly said, Ashley, but so many questions. I don't recall a case where right away, we have no leads, no ideas. Like, normally, I, and for the prosecution,

I'm like, ah, we know who did it. It's always the spouse or the same spouse, right? Here. That

guys, 911 calls, especially that last one we're, they're trying to get the new CPR and he's like

“desperate and he's just totally crazed. That seems real. I agree with you. I think that.”

I know, he, and they, so they were college sweetheart from Boston. They moved to New Jersey a couple of years ago back in 23. They just had a new baby. I mean, they had a little baby July, 2025. Like, no problems. I mean, it, it, it just, I think there's got to be something at this crime scene. I mean, it just seems really odd that she would die. I mean, the cause of death, the last duration that Emmy actually, when they did give a cause of death, they said it was homicide

by multiple sharp force injuries. So, I mean, there's some foul play here. Yeah, it was a force

entry. You know, did she have enemies? It was, it's the motive. I mean, there's so many questions unless the guy is a good actor, which we're not pointing the finger at him at all because right now there's no indication. No, and I think he probably walked in on them. I mean, immediately when I heard

“multiple sharp force injuries, I was like, did she fall into a glass table? You know, I mean,”

there's only so many things that can cause multiple sharp force injuries. But I mean, he definitely sounded absolutely distraught. We do know the only other thing we do know is that their child luckily is with a family member safe and that, you know, her family is caring for the little girl and so she's safe with the family and, you know, he is hired a lawyer, which is the smart thing to do. It does not indicate guilt at all. It sounds like he is just a grieving husband who probably

also wants to find out what happened to his to his wife to espouse. Hopefully, we will find it out and we'll be like a Nancy Guthrie situation where we're just like, what's going on here for months. I mean, our day and eight, 20, 26, we shouldn't have unsolved mysteries anymore. I mean, it cameras everywhere. I mean, what if you have a DNA advances in all of a sudden, you know, the people who just die without our knowing what happened and that shouldn't be, so, you know,

who is going to be the, maybe the best interview that our show has had, it's a guy named Vinnie Polyton. I'm so excited. Right. So Vinnie is one of the top guys at court TV and I've been on a show many times. He's had different shows and he's just top dog and so insightful and we are so excited that in our next block, we're going to have V Vinnie Polyton here to answer questions about a number of cases. So stay tuned with right back with Ashley Vinnie and me. All right. I've got

a wellness product to tell you about and before you roll your eyes, trust me, I get it. The wellness spaces packed with promises. Well, velocities, metabolism, ignite is so simple. No complicated routine, no major lifestyle overhaul. You take it in the morning and you move on with your day. And I'm going to be constantly thinking about food. You know, that feeling when it's been afternoon and suddenly you're wandering into the kitchen looking for something, anything that's

not gone. Trust me, I've been there. With metabolism ignite, you'll find that happening a lot less. So before metabolism ignite sells out again, make this switch to GLP ones, the natural way, head to veracityhealth.co and use code mkTC for up to 65% off your order. Once again, that's V ER AC, I, T, Y, health.co for up to 65% off and make sure use our promo code mkTC. So they know we sent you. Welcome back to the MK Tree Crime Show. Joining us now is Emmy Award winning legal journalist and

lead anchor of court TV and my friend Vinnie Palitan. It's so good to see you, Vinnie. Welcome.

great seeing your crime, recently. And it's been really good catching up with what you're talking about with the Lindsey Clancy trial because your coverage of it has been amazing. So we want to start talking about that just to catch our viewers up. Jerry's selection began on Monday. This is the case of a Massachusetts mom who has admitted to causing the deaths of her three children just tragic case. And she is arguing that she was not criminally responsible because of some post-partum

psychosis and severe mental health crisis that she was suffering. And so as of Wednesday afternoon, we have 17 out of 18 jurors already seated in the case. So opening arguments could actually begin as early as Thursday when this show is actually airing. So Vinnie does it surprise you about how quickly they got this jury seated? Here's my thoughts on jury selection. It's up to the judge. The judge sets the tempo. You could have the same pool of jurors and you have one judge. You could

take you a week. Another judge could do it in a day and a half. So I'm never surprised by how long

“it takes. Well, it started slowly, but picked up very quickly. I think there's lots of fair”

minded people out there. I trust our jury system. They do the best that they can. And then I think they're going to, this case is not Karen Reed. It has not reached that level. I think the biggest challenge though was here we are in the summer time and you're asking people to hang out for a couple of months. Yeah, July is always a really tough month. I mean in Georgia we just pretty much don't have a lot of jurors in July. It's just I always joke with people and say we're kind of

like France where they don't work in the month of August in the criminal legal system. We usually don't work in the month of July. Everybody's on conference or vacation. So yeah, that's surprised

me too. And I always think it's hard in these types of cases when you've got such a tragedy like

this. You're going to have people that are going to say I just can't listen to this case. It's too emotional for me. I mean, I can't give her a fair shake. I can't give the state of fair shake. So it definitely surprised me that they seated at this quick. But I'm with you. Judges can move jury selection along and you know, they also I did notice they had jury questionnaires and I always think that moves things along a lot faster. So I was happy about that. So do you think we'll hear

opening arguments this week? Opening statements? Yeah, absolutely. The judge wants to get going. I mean if you're looking at 68 weeks you want to get things going sooner rather than later. And as a case that's been churning for a while now there's been some pretrial litigation

“and some back and forth. And I think it's time. It's time for the jury to hear this case.”

And it's not an easy one. This is not an easy one. This is a tough one. Both sides have facts that are really good and really bad for them. So this is going to be a tough case for a jury to figure out. And you usually don't say that in a case where you're talking about some form of a insanity defense, which is what it is even though they call a criminal responsibility and Massachusetts, you know usually go into those cases you're like, okay, okay, yeah, whatever.

But that's not necessarily the situation here. It's a much closer call. Yeah, Vinnie, it's great to be within this format because when we were at CrimeCon it was tough to get to you. You had the longest line of anyone at all those fans. Yeah, yeah, so we were giving away. We were giving away some really good stuff. I didn't see any of that. Other than maybe sign pictures of any politics. So my question to you both is that I'm not sure, first tell me what

is the gender breakdown of the jury. And then the question you both and especially like, love to see what Ashley says, who would be a better juror for the defense? Would it be a woman or a man in this kind of case? You see, I don't, I don't think it's about woman or man. Well,

“when it comes to women, I think there's two types of women. There's women who have given birth”

and had children and those who haven't. And those who have, I think got some extra questioning during the course of all this, but I want some of them on the jury. And it's not for prosecution or defense. It's just for, you know, bringing some real life experience into the courtroom and having some related ability. So I hope that some of the jurors are indeed moms. And it was pretty well split the last time I spoke with our eyes and ears in the courtroom. That it was

a pretty even split between male and female. But my real question is, are there moms on this jury? Yeah, it is a play because you'd have to have people who believe in the concept of post-part and depression and something even worse because if you have someone who's a mom who's like,

I would never do that under any circumstances to my children. That's who I'd want as a prosecutor.

The ones you don't want are people who gone through types of, to either depression in their life or post-partum. So I think you're right. It depends on who it is. And then there's guys who, I don't know if they can even identify with it. I think for men, maybe you want as a prosecutor

shoes of a woman who's going through severe post-partum depression.

Unless they had a wife who experienced it, right? If they had a mom experience it, actually,

“right? Yeah. If they had a wife, I think it would be important if they did have a wife and that”

wife had really talked them about it, and had involved them in it. I would, for a defense, I would 100% avoid people that did not have children. I would not see a single woman on that jury that did not had not given birth to a child. And that's a distinction, too. And that's a distinction for me. I was adopted and I've given birth to two children. And so I'm saying that from personal experience, I would be happy with mothers, but I would want mothers that were later

along in the journey. I would not want newer mothers. And there's a lot of reasons for that,

but I think it would be really difficult for them to be able to see pictures of young kids.

You know, there's just different points in my life that I think I would have been a better juror on a case like this versus not. But I do think that women are in a unique position to be able to understand how much not only hormones fluctuate, but also how much sleep deprivation factors into it. And that's one of the things that I think a lot of folks don't talk about a lot, but like if you don't sleep for two days, you go into delirium naturally. I mean, you naturally

are going to hallucinate if you don't sleep for two days. And you know, if you have been the primary

“caregiver of young children and gone without sleep, you, you, you, you, you know, you remember that.”

And so I think they're going to be a little bit more open to this defense. So I would hope to see some older mothers on this jury without a doubt. And like Vinnie said, men who had experienced it through their loved ones. What's also interesting with women who may have experienced it. And I think there may be some good prosecuting prosecutor adures in there as well, because if you experienced it,

but you're like, I would never take the life of my child. And there was pretrial litigation on this

issue because the defense wanted to bring in women who had experienced it. And then the prosecution came back and said, yeah, well, with then then we, then it opens the door for us to bring in 15 women who experienced it, but would never have killed their children. That would do whatever they could to make sure their children were safe, like get themselves out of the house, or, you know, do something, knowing that your children were potentially in danger. So it does cut both ways. But that's

why I want, like me, I'm always in search of a fair trial, obviously, in the truth. And when I look at a jury, if you have a jury and you don't have any moms on it, I just don't feel like that's an appropriate jury for this case. And I'm gonna say in all moms, but there has to be that perspective inside the jury box. No, I definitely agree. And I mean, I think it's going to be an uphill battle, but in the state of Massachusetts, the prosecution actually has the burden, which is a

unique. Most states don't have that. Most states that defense actually has to prove an insanity.

“It's what we call a debutable presumption. That's what most states are. But Massachusetts is in”

the unique minority. It's a very liberal state. And they don't, the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, sanity. So they come out with this pretty massive burden of proof in a case, like this. Yeah, no, that's, that's not easy, Dave. I'm not, you know, you're, you're almost proven in negative, like you're proven that you're not insane. Why is Massachusetts do that? That puts such a burden on prosecutors. Look, if you're gonna raise the insanity defense,

it should be on you to raise it. And that's one reason why it doesn't succeed very often. I mean, we remember, right? For those of us who are old enough to remember John Hinkley, Jr., made it seem like, oh, anyone get away with trying to kill someone that was the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan. But it is rarely a success because you have to prove that the person did not know the difference between right and wrong. And in this case, I am not so sure.

I mean, afterwards, he tried to commit suicide. So does that tell you that she knew what she did was wrong? Or not because she was so messed up in the head that she kills them, then tries to kill herself. Maybe it doesn't. I don't know which way that cuts. I would think it probably helps the prosecution because people who don't think their guilty may not want to commit suicide. So I don't know. Right. Well, I want to, I'm curious because, you know, Dave listened to me

earlier this week and, and knows I was pretty proud of fence on this case. So Vinnie, tell me, what do you think? Well, I just want to address the, the last point on suicide. I don't think the prosecution is going to concede that she attempted to take her own life. Think it's fine. There's really, they would argue it's going to be staged, right? There was, there was stages of the rules in that she didn't really jump out the window.

They have some physical evidence that she sort of shimmyed herself down. And then maybe slipped at the end and that's what caused the paralysis. But her intent was not to leap out of that window and take her own life. And they also point to some of the cuts that she had as well.

Massachusetts. Again, I bring it back to Karen Reed. The Karen Reed trial changed the way the

folks up in that part of the country view the prosecution and view the state. There is now a level of skepticism that is extremely high, extremely high. And Massachusetts usually think of like, you know, Boston and cops and stuff like that. No, it, it, it flipped, it flipped. Karen Reed flipped that perspective. So with that skepticism, with the advantage that the defense has in presenting this type of defense that you have in Massachusetts that you know how many

were else. They don't even have to prove that she knew what she was doing was wrong. It's like

“she just couldn't help herself from doing it. She couldn't stop herself. That's what this trial”

is going to be about. Could she or could she not prevent herself or control herself from taking

the lives of her children one at a time? So I think there's, there's, and Kevin Readington for folks who haven't seen Kevin Readington try case. I've seen it on court TV more than once. This guy, I'm telling you, I covered a trial and insanity case, muckel McDermott. This was years ago before, you know, all this digital evidence and he Googled how to fake mental illness. He literally Googled that on his computer and this is before we knew that you could

get all that information, right? That was, and legal insanity was his defense by the end of his argument. By the end of his closing argument, and you know me, I'm skeptical of the defense. This is why I was asking my headlines. That kind of makes sense what he says, but no, no, no, no, no. So he's that good. He's that good and he speaks the language of the folks in Massachusetts.

“So there's big advantages. So I think the defense actually has a huge opportunity here to do it.”

To win this case, it's going to depend on how they view, because these are horrific killings. Like the time that it took to do one at a time, the amount of strength that it takes to use an exercise band. Oh, I know. It's getting the lives of pictures that are going to be awful. God, they're going to be, I mean, I mean, she gets a phone call in the middle of all of it. She gets a phone call like nothing's wrong. So there's there's a strong narrative that they have that she is

cold and calculated and had planned and plotted. She knew what she was doing. She timed it out and she wasn't going to be stopped and she knew she was having these feelings, but she did nothing to stop them herself when she could have. All she had to do was say, I'm killing the children or don't leave. There's all these things that could have could have happened. So stay at the hospital, you know, or have more follow-up. I mean, that's the, yeah, that would bother. Right. So what's,

“I think it's going to be difficult for 12 people to agree. I usually don't go with that, right?”

I usually don't, I say no, they usually, that's a cop out, usually, right? Yeah. It's a cop out, usually. Here, and the way the audience is reacting, social media, it's a split. It's split. It's not 80, 20 can read, you know, 80% and I guilty, but it's a much more even split than I suspected it would be. So. No, I, I'm with you. I think the, I think the national view is split. I think you're right, though. I think Massachusetts, you know, they, because of Karen Reed, their jurors tend to be liberal,

you know, and that's one of the things that we have to think about. There's no liberal, not liberal liberal, like the county, not politically liberal, not politically liberal. Okay. I'm saying, yeah, I should, I should say, like, crim, in the criminal legal mind, like we have certain counties, you know, in Georgia, and we'll say, well, that county tends to be liberal for jury selection, you know, I'm not talking about politically liberal. I'm talking about more skeptical,

the police, you know, I'm talking about it in our world. I think we have more of that Massachusetts. So aren't, aren't they politically liberal Massachusetts? They are. Yes, they're both. They're both. Well, some of them, some of them aren't. Depends where you are. Depends where you are. That's true. If you spend time with the Karen Reed followers, right? Obviously, there's, it's not, they're not all the same. But overwhelmingly, and it begins with the turtle boy who was like their leader,

basically conservative. These are like, the, consistently, before all that, pro cop, all of that,

but then the level of skepticism, and the way I describe it, is skepticism of the government, skepticism of those in power. And the way that breaks down politically, these days is way different than it used to be, right? It's way different. It does. Very different. And I don't want to get an political discussion, but, but that level of skepticism that exists across the country is amplified when it comes to crime injustice and Massachusetts now. And if you're a prosecutor, you need to bring it

telling me the truth? And that's the, the advantage that they're going to have, and they're going to

have that for a while. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, it's going to be interesting. We're going to continue it, but we want to talk to you about another case. This case is, it's gripping, and it's just shocking, the slider family. This Ohio house of horrors. I mean, I don't even know what to begin to think. So we've got them up on the screen. These folks that y'all are looking at, you got Mama Elizabeth, you got Gary Dad, and then you've got Grandpa Gary Senior and Grandma.

And I mean, I've been going down lots of rabbit holes in this case because everybody wants answers. You know, they found the police went to this home because Gary Junior had apparently exposed himself four or five separate times. Yeah. And I'm like, well, you know, okay, so he's exposing himself on the street several times, they go to the house, thank God, to serve a summons, and walk into this absolute atrocity, 16 children in a 12 by 12 room, filth, feces, stink, bugs, no food.

I mean, it's just, it is absolute horrific. I mean, it just, it makes your stomach turn. There's nothing, there's nothing else about it. But then you're wondering, like, how did this happen? How, I mean, how in the hell did this happen? You know, we know that, you know, the mom, she was 15 when they got married. Dad was 18. I can't help but thank the grandparents. Like, there's some link here, you know, and I've heard rumors that Grandma is mastermind. I mean, you think that's possible.

Someone had to be the mastermind here. Yeah. Well, piece, we took a look at the arrest videos, right? You take a look at how they were acting and reacting to the situation of being arrested. And when you talk about grandma, she was cool as a cucumber. Yeah. Really weird to see. Like, why are you that calm? And it's such a contrast to the children's mother who look like she had been through the ringer, right? And I'm not excusing anything that she did. I'm not

providing a defense. I'm just just plain observation her body language was so defensive and like this. And grandma's like, oh, hey, take a look at TTH, like she's been through this time. Nothing was phasing her. Grandpa was in a wheelchair. Here's grandma, right? Like, you could her compared to the

“children's mother that the contrast and the way they are. And here's the thing, like we're looking”

at grandma and grandpa today. But this is behavior that started 18 years ago. So we have to

never much younger than it. They were younger. And everybody was younger. But especially, you know,

in grandpa wasn't in a wheelchair. So why would you choose this life for your children? And that's the question for Elizabeth. So she got married when she was 15. She was pregnant likely when she was 14. She has given birth to, I believe, 18 children. The two of them did not, two of them did not survive, can join twins. There are three other sets of twins of the 16 who survived. So four sets of twins, one did not set to not survive. They can join twins. But three sets of twins did survive.

All of that within like 18 years. It's, it's absolute madness. And they were on to them. Like, I guess they had been registered for school at some point in some jurisdiction. And nobody showed

up for the whole year. So they go looking for them. And they get up and they leave. And they basically

“bounce around from county to county. And I think at one point they even left for Wisconsin. So they've”

been on on the run to a certain extent. But the real question, the two questions, right? Who is the one that came up with this idea? This is what we're going to do with these children. And then why is everyone going along with it? Why is this okay? It's, it's sadistic. Where are the family members? Where are the neighbors? Where? I mean, and why did these kids not? They had truancy notices. And nobody followed up. That's the whole point of truancy. If kids don't show up at school, there's usually

a reason. I mean, it's insane to me. There's just so many things that that we don't know here. And it's, it's just such an awful case. Yeah. And with the parents are with the relatives of the mother. She had a brother who said she hadn't seen her in 15 years. So I think it's a little bit sort of separator self from her own family. Once she got married and became part of this family,

“this bizarre family was living with them. And I think they just avoided. She just cut off communication,”

didn't spend time with her own parents, and just spent time with her husband's parents. And that to me, that is the, the one. And Dave, what would you do as a prosecutor? Would you try to

Because she was so young and they got married. I could see her being influenced by them. But if anyone's going to cut a deal, so you get the whole story, would it be her? Yes. In fact, I said on one of our previous podcasts that that's the one you want to target as a prosecutor to get her to flip, get her a deal, and testvide against the rest of this allegedly despicable family. I mean,

“it took advantage of her when she was, she was a child. And so yeah, so that's what she would want to”

do. And also you made it correct point by looking at their images in the videos and their pictures. And it's just so stark how different the one woman looks than the older woman looks. It really is striking. They really do. They look extremely different. Well, I wish we had more time because this case is really interesting, but thank you so much, Vinnie, hopefully we'll have you back. Can you tell our audience where they can find you? Sure, sure. So every night, eight o'clock on court TV, Vinnie

Palitan investigates, but the show also is posted on court TVs, YouTube channel. So if you miss an episode or you just like to watch your stuff online, which most people like to do these days, you can find me at court TVs, YouTube channel. And I also have my own YouTube channel where I pop on from time to time as well. So yeah, we'll thank you for the fancy coverage too. It's been amazing because you've really been taking us in there and giving us the inside scoop on this very interesting

case. So hopefully we'll see you again soon. Next up, everyone are closing arguments. Stay tuned.

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

Your credit card and the security it offers are under attack. Senators Dick Derbent 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 payments secure and provide rewards that families use to make everyday purchases more affordable. The Derbent Marshall mandates would let corporate megastores cut corners on credit card processing, routing transactions over cheaper

untested networks with weaker security and 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 guardyourcard.com to take action and learn more. Welcome back to the MK True Crime Show. Now it's time for our closing arguments.

Ashley Merchant, after you. Thank you Dave. One of the oldest things in the law is hard cases make bad law. Sometimes you'll hear it phrased bad facts make bad law. Either way, the points the same. The more horrific the facts are, the more willing we become to give the government

powers that we would never tolerate in ordinary cases. The cider case is a perfect example.

I actually had this conversation with my kids earlier today. They asked me how could something like this actually happen in America? And it's a fair question. We all want an answer because cases like this make us desperate to believe there was some system that should have

“caught it. But then you have to ask yourself the next question. What system do we want? Do we want”

a government database that tracks every child from birth? Do you want mandatory government inspections of every home? Do you want state officials checking in on every family to make sure children are okay? Because that's the tradeoff. In America when you have a baby, you don't even have to give birth in a hospital. You can have a home birth. There isn't some massive government agency monitoring every child's daily life. And I think most of us are grateful for that. Instead,

we rely on a series of checks and balances that respect both parental rights and children's safety. A lot of people don't realize that one of the primary purposes of regular pediatric well child visits isn't just measuring height, weight or developmental milestones. Pediatricians are actually trained to look for signs of neglect and abuse. Those appointments are one of society's safety nets. The same is true with school attendance. People think truancy cases are

just about making sure kids are actually in math class. They're not. One of the biggest reasons schools in juvenile courts become involved is actually because children who disappear from school also disappear from the eyes of every mandatory reporter who might notice something

is terribly wrong. But those safeguards only work if families participate. If a child's never

taken to a doctor, if they're never enrolled in school, if truancy proceedings are ignored, like they were in this case, those safety nets start to disappear. And that's exactly why cases like this are so unsettling for us because we wonder how can something like this happen? But here's

“where I think we have to be careful. Every time a tragedy happens, there's a natural instinct to say”

the government should have done more. Okay? Well, what does more actually mean? More surveillance, more databases, more authority to enter our homes, more monitoring of parents who have done

every case. That's why lawyers get nervous when legislation is driven by the most horrifying facts imaginable. Like in this case, it's easy to write laws for the worst one-tenth of one

percent of cases. The problem is those laws are going to apply to the other 99.9 percent of us too.

Now, having said all that, this case also illustrates something else. Government is not the only safety net. Communities matter, neighbors matter, extended family matters, people at the local dollar store matter. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that a child that a household with 16 children could remain completely invisible forever. At some point, someone noticed something, doesn't seem right. Sometimes the person we jokingly call the neighborhood care and the one asking

“questions that everybody else thinks is nosy is actually performing a very important civic duty.”

If you genuinely believe a child may be in danger, call for a welfare check. It's not meddling. It is the very thing that saves a life. It could have helped these children. The challenge is finding the balance. We don't want to live in a police state where the government monitors every family, but we also don't want children falling completely through the cracks like they

did in this case. The answer is not always giving the government more power. Sometimes it's strengthening

the systems we already have in place and reminding ourselves that protecting children has always been a shared responsibility between families, communities, neighborhoods, professionals. Once we start making law based solely on the most horrific cases, history tells us something very

“important. Hard cases don't just test our emotions. They test whether we're willing to sacrifice”

liberty for the promise of perfect safety. Well said, Ashley, thank you. That was a good ending to a serious show we had today. We've dealt with some heavy topics on today's show. So how about a light fun one about justice, state administrative errors and the ungratefulness of humanity? Of course it comes from the great state of Florida. You may have seen her online. It's the new Florida woman. She's 77 years old,

living the sunshine dream. Until one day she opens her mail expecting her new Florida license plate. And she gets one at random that reads, S Q Z A 55. Oh my god. Well, most people would recognize

“a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. But unfortunately she viewed it as yellow snow.”

Instead of slapping that plate on the back of her buick and hitting i95 and wearing it as a badge of honor. She instead called the media. She demanded a Florida recount. She complained to the DMV. Now I get it. Deeps their own. A lot of people didn't see the humor in the movie. This is spinal tap. I favor it. The office and signfeld. They all struggled in their first seasons. Okay. But knowing that many Floridians pay good money for vanity, license plates only get rejected by

a humorless bureaucrat in Tallahassee. Makes me think that perhaps she should not look a gift horse in the mouth. It seems that most people on the internet share my opinion. As one person wrote, it's like complaining to the waiter that my stake is too tender and my lobster is too buttery. Now there's no crime in this story and the state did the right thing and offered her replacement. But based on the reaction from a worldwide jury pool, the verdict is clear.

Keep the plate. Embrace it as a winning lottery ticket and squeeze every last drop out of life. That's my closing statement. I want to thank Ashley Merchant. I want to thank Vinnie

Paula Tan our amazing guest. Thank you for joining us this week on the MK True Crime Show. We'll see you next time.