Holdout Clancy Juror DOXXED, Elizabeth Siders Pregnant, and Tate Brothers Bail Denied, with Ian Runkle

>> Welcome to the MK True Crime Show.

“I'm Dave Aaronberg, former state attorney from Palm Beach County,”

aka the Florida Law Man, and current managing partner of Dave Aaronberg Law. I'm joined today by my co-host Ashley Merchant of that Lana GA criminal defense attorney extraordinaire, low Ashley. >> Hey, Dave, it's good to see you.

Let's talk about what we've got on the docket today. So there is a new attorney that has joined the Lindsey Klancy team, as she pursues this double jeopardy motion in her case, and also the holdout juror has allegedly, we'll talk about that given a phone interview

to an independent news outlet. We'll discuss. >> And Nick Reiner, who's accused of stabbing his Hollywood royalty parents, Rob and Michelle Reiner to death in 2025, will not face capital punishment if convicted.

We'll give you the details, and we'll update you on Nick's efforts to access his trust fund must be nice, and Elizabeth Ciders, pleaded not guilty to all charges of child engagement, and sexual battery will bring you all the details. >> And later today, we're going to be joined by Ian Runkle.

He is a Canadian criminal defense attorney and host of the popular YouTube channel, Runkle of the Bailey. He's going to discuss the latest development in your favorite story, The Tate Brothers. That saga, Dave, and we'll also get into why they're denied bail,

and the numerous legal battles that they currently face in three different countries. But Dave, I don't love that, I know you are. >> I saw having following it every single day. I've been doing videos on a personal channel on it, but I'm so excited to talk with our audience about it here.

>> I know, I'm excited, I'm excited. I'm going to let you take that one away. But first, let's get started with Martin Weinberg. He has joined the Clancy team, and just so everyone knows who he is. He was one of Karen Reed's attorneys.

And apparently, he is going to handle the double jeopardy motion, and also the motion to dismiss, which I talked about earlier this week on the show on our last episode. I went into detail on that rule 25 motion. So apparently, he is joining the team,

and he is going to be talking about both of those. And Dave, what that really signals to me is that the defense is really taking this double jeopardy angle very seriously. They must think that they have a good case. I have my doubts on it.

I mean, I've been a fan of a lot of their legal work, but I don't think this one's really going to get it. But they're bringing in someone who has the Karen Reed pedigree, specifically for this constitutional issue. This is a double jeopardy.

It's always a constitutional type issue,

and that suggests that they think that they've got a real issue here. So it's something to watch. And I just want to catch our viewers up. Double jeopardy claims, essentially, it's a pill battle. This is a post trial motion where they're trying to argue

that they can't try Lindsay Clancy a second time around, that the government should not get unlimited swings at this conviction, and that really wants the trials over. That's it. But the problem here is that there was a hungry.

And so the hungry isn't really an ending. It's sort of like a baseball game that got rained out, but nobody won, nobody lost. It just was over. So there's no real resolution.

“And that's what they're going to be arguing.”

They're going to be arguing whether or not there was a manifest necessity. We talked about that term earlier in the week in the show. And manifest necessity just is really a judge's finding that the mistrial had to happen.

It was not avoidable. Like, in my example, the rain, something that's not avoidable. And so it's something that really shouldn't take away the state's right to try the case again. And so they will probably be able to try this case again.

But I think it'll be interesting to watch this. What do you think that this signal is having this new lawyer in the Lindsay Clancy case, Dave? Desperation. Hey, look, it also exposes the bluster as false

that the very fine defense lawyer, Reddington, had after the verdicts is like, yeah, bring it on. I'm ready to do it again, need it. Tim Cruz doesn't want this. And now he's like, well, let's try everything

possible to avoid a second trial.

Let's even bring in the lawyer from the Karen Reed Kate, he's who made the same argument to the appellate court there that she should not be retried. By the way, how that turned out? Yeah, that didn't turn out so well.

“So I think this will turn out just the same.”

Right, exactly, they're going to lose this, but it does show that they're dealing-- I think they're playing with house money. I mean, they want essentially 11 to 1. And they are putting as much pressure on the prosecutor

to say, we gave, we gave, let's not retry her. Because it is, Tim Cruz's discretion. He gets the decide. This is the power of the prosecutor. Now, I think he will move it forward to keep the pressure on

to try to get a deal. But I think in the end, it will be a deal between both sides because who's a benefit to put her on trial again? We sort of know where the outcome's going to be. This jury wasn't even close to convicting her.

11 to 1 is a signal from the jury not to do it again. Right, it was. I mean, I think that was a very specific signal from the jury.

We've talked a lot about manifest necessity.

And like I said, I talked earlier this week about the standard on the motion to dismiss. It's essentially a 13th juror standard where the judge can do what's called direct verdict. So we'll hear a lot of that, which is where he could direct

a non guilty verdict.

“But there's another thing I think we're going to hear”

come up in this argument. And they haven't filed their motion specifics yet. So we don't know what they're going to argue. But reading T leaves, I think we're going to hear something called a structural defect or structural error.

And that's really a term. It's very specific legal term. But it means that the trial mistake is huge. It's a big deal. And most trial mistakes are what we call harmless error,

which when you do a pellet work is like the worst phrase you can ever hear harmless error because it means something bad happened. But it doesn't matter. And that is literally the worst.

I always try to explain it as, you know, it's like building a house.

You know, the building instructor inspector is there. And there's a crooked picture frame. OK, it's annoying. But how still stands? Still has, you know, it's job.

It's still functionally sound. That's a harmless error. But a structural defect is like the foundation is cracked. Doesn't matter how good the paint job is or how straight it is. If that's cracked, the whole structure is compromised.

So that's kind of what we look at when we hear this structural error.

“And I think we may hear them try to get into that,”

because it's a much stronger ground. And, you know, we actually saw this in the Carmella Anthony case. We saw a similar argument where they were arguing that he was denied or right to a public trial. Perhaps we'll hear something like that because of all the side bars

that weren't in public. But also one of the things I kind of think we may be looking out for is a defective reasonable doubt jury charge. Because, you know, at the end, this juror Mr. Reddington was arguing should not have been dismissed.

And the judge should have given a much stronger jury charge. We heard this banter back and forth, you know. The judge was like, what do you want me to do? Give a stronger jury charge and he's like, yeah, you gave a soft one. I think we may hear something with that.

You know, what are you saying? Like, what do you want a brass band? Right, it's not like he invented that instruction. That instruction came from a law book where people have used it before. So I think this is a fool's error.

I mean, I should maybe, I'm not calling anyone a fool here. This is what lawyers do. But I think it's an unwinnable fight. I don't think they're going to win this the way they win this is to just convince the prosecutor that it's not worth it.

You can't win a trial. But to do all these things double jeopardy and these instructions, that though the judge had it wrong, I don't think it's going anywhere. Right. And, yeah, maybe the defense lawyer should have played a little nicer

to the DA before he needed the DA's help in avoiding a second trial.

Remember, at the time, the 11 to one verdict came out. The defense lawyer, Rennington, glowed it. He went before the cameras. And not only was he glowed it about how great his team was and how lousy the prosecution was.

He also called out the prosecutor by name. He said, Tim Cruise says that he cares about the victims, but he had a look down at the children's names to know who they were. Oh, you know, it's tough. Just to say those things. And then after it's like, hey, no harm, no foul guys.

We're all buddies now. Right. Let's not do this again. You know, you got to dig your well before your thirsty and he wasn't digging. No, he wasn't. He was definitely not making any friends with the prosecutor. But at the same time, you've got to think about this prosecutor and the judge. They don't really want to go through this again.

And so I'm sure they're trying to broker some type of a deal. And so it's, you know, it's one of those times where the judge could make the case go away, if he wants to. But another interesting thing that's happened in the Clancy case, just, you know, within the last couple of days, the juror names and questionnaires. So they all feel about a questionnaire prior to trial.

And that happens a lot. You know, it's where jurors come in. They get questions about where they live. If they have a criminal history, if they've ever been arrested, if they have court proceedings, things like that, we use them to try and speed water along. It's very helpful to have them ahead of time. So they use that in this case. And you know, it's very common to use that.

But judge Sullivan has now ordered that the Clancy jurors' names and their questionnaires are sealed indefinitely, which is definitely an uncommon practice.

“But I personally, Dave, I think that that is something we're seeing more of because of the”

advent of social media. jurors are a lot more nervous about their identities being out there, their names being out there. And so it doesn't really surprise me that the judge took this extraordinary step. What about you? Yeah, I'm glad the judge did. I mean, I saw that people were accusing turtle boy, remember him, the blogger from, yes, every case of doxing the loan hold out juror. So I went and I tried to see it for myself and I saw something blurred. So I didn't see it,

but that may be out there. Just, you know, when you do jury service, you're giving up yourself, you're sacrificing, you're leaving your family, your work. And last thing you want is to be doxing harass and threaten online. Or else, no one's going to want to be a juror. You know, but people who want to write a book about it monetize it. So it's a judge. No, I think that's necessary because you know, jurors aren't going to be willing to serve. And I think I'm sure they're

worried about future jurors when they're up there and they're questioned saying, I don't want to be on this jury because I'm scared for my family. Life insurance. We all would know we need it,

you will handle it later. Okay, that's just postponing something that you really need to get done.

“And consider taking care of it today with select quote. Think of this. All right, in 15 minutes,”

you could have coverage that fits your life and budget and then you can stop worrying about this forever. If you have people who depend on you, life insurance is not something to keep pushing down the road. It's not a luxury. It's a must-have. Select quote has licensed insurance agents working for you, not for one insurance company. They compare multiple carriers to help find the right coverage at the lowest price. They've been doing this for nearly 40 years. They've helped over two

million people find coverage. And whether you have high blood pressure, diabetes, heart disease,

or your perfectly healthy, they can help find options that fit your situation. In fact, some healthy applicants can even get same day coverage about that with no medical exam. So get the right

“life insurance for you for less at select quote dot com slash mk go to select quote dot com slash mk”

today to get started. We have a little bit of an update. We're not really sure how to handle it. We'll let you all know when you all can decide. But there was a the holdout juror. There's a lot of mystery around this holdout juror. And what just aired on an independent account and independent journalist's name is Ray Marselle from fugitive tv. He just aired within the last 24 hours. What

he claims is this holdout juror on a phone interview. He says that he did some independent verification

of who this person is. We cannot verify this. So you got to take it with a full amount of caution. But there has been a lot of discussion about this interview because of the things that this juror allegedly told Ray. So I want to kind of walk our viewers through some of those and we can listen

“along and you know talk about what what all we heard. So basically this is the juror who said that”

he told Ray that he voted to convict based on the evidence and that he felt that several other jurors behaved much more like activists than jurors. If we could take a listen to psi yeah, let's take listen to psi 1 and 2 and I'm curious what you think about this this interview. He said he knew that she was guilty because of the evidence that he saw he saw he said because of the evidence that was presented in court he said he felt that she was not insane at the time and knew what she was doing.

That is what came from out of Michael's mouth on the phone and what he told me. He said eight of them were going for Lindsey Clancy not guilty that was on day one and then on an eight were going not guilty. Two were for guilty and two didn't know they didn't make up their mind. Now that was on day one. He told me that the eight that on day one were going for a Lindsey not guilty. He said to him those eight felt he felt like they were activists. He felt like they were

activists is what he told me and every day he said they would vote. Every day they would vote. He said the eight that felt that Lindsey was not guilty. We're trying to convince the other four. Hey, Lindsey's not guilty. They were doing their best to convince. He said it got all the way down to the last wire as in it wasn't just him. It was another juror which I'm not going to say her name but she has done an interview but has not shown her face. She was also voting not she was

voting sorry guilty. She was voting that Lindsey was guilty along with Michael and at the last moment Michael said she came in. I'm shocked that eight jurors were trying to convince the other four jurors. Wow. What is this jury system about? He makes it sound like he would have been right. He's supposed to do. I have had the loan jurors back in this thing. That's a jury system. Whether you like it or you don't, that's the system. They're eight people. They took a vote every

day. Yes and they tried to convince the others. I did. I also was using the name. I'm not going to repeat

that name. He was using the guy's first name. He was. He was using the guy's first name and he's

even posted some photos where he said, well, this is the right guy. Someone else is asking for money because now there's a Gibson go and this crowdfunding campaign to try to help this juror. So now there's some financial incentive which makes me just suspect of the entire scenario and why he would call this gentleman but you know there's one other side I want to play before we move on to our other story. This guy who talks with Ray said that he thought that he was being targeted because of his

He's a Republican. He is a black Republican. He has conservative views.

He believes he might be getting targeted because of that. Because the media and the reporters as you see they kind of have left views. He was in a juror panel with people of the democratic party. Now we don't know if that is the reason but we talked about it and then as soon as he told me that he was a Republican it just comments sense. I said this makes sense now. Yeah, did they talk about their political affiliations behind closed doors? Is that why it was

targeted? I suspect they did. I know why you do this whole interview just gives me the

“HEVGVs honestly. Like there's something weird about it that you know this guy called up and they”

weren't in person. I can tell you during the whole funny well as Trump case in Georgia. I came and tell you how many people called me and wanted to do interviews and we would have to you know make sure that they were legitimate sources and most of them aren't so you know take it with a grain of salt but we've got a couple other cases we want to talk about one of them. Oh one of these cases. Elizabeth Cider. Dave? Oh yeah. Yeah you got you got to scoop on this one. Tell everyone what

your scoop is on Elizabeth Cider. What you heard first here on a K-tree crime back in July.

But she's pregnant again. Oh that was impossible. Oh well she'd been in jail the whole time. I would they still have conjugal visits in jail or was this a holdover from before she was arrested. I don't understand. How long has she been incarcerated? I haven't done the math but I'm thinking that it was you know something that happened and I mean I know this is awful even say but I mean clearly she gets pregnant pretty easily because it out what is it? This is her 18th pregnancy.

I think that's her 19th pregnancy. Host of her life she's been. Yeah and that's one of the things they're arguing. That's right that's that's the argument is that she is just been used and and it's not the right state of mind and she doesn't know any better and she just become just a tool for the others to manipulate and I mean this actually could play with that but there's so many questions I have about this. I'm sure you have the same questions actually and

you're a mother so you can talk to us about what you think about this. I question anyone who has been pregnant over the past two decades 19 times and given birth to 18 human beings. I just question that because it is significant and it's significant on your body. I mean that's just it is

“significant on your body. I certainly don't think it raises to the level of a defense and that's what”

her lawyers are talking about. We have that we have sought be if we could play that and then I'll give you my thoughts on that one. We have an individual in the Elizabeth who was married at age 15

who has essentially been pregnant for the better part of two decades who has never fully gone through

any postpartum period who has not been receiving regular medical care that would be appropriate for someone who has had 16 18 children. I mean one thing they tell you when you have a child is you need 18 months for your body to repair itself before you have another child. This lady clearly was not getting good medical care. I mean you have to wonder does she know what's causing it at that point? That's a lot of kids. I do wonder. I mean I know that they've raised competency as an issue.

I don't know. I mean I think I've continued to stay on this case whenever we cover it. I feel like there's something that we just don't know about this family because all of these things are so bizarre. How can all of this stuff happen? It's just so bizarre. I feel like there's just so many holes in the case. I'm hoping that we'll hear more in the future. But you Dave broke the story

“about her being pregnant. If we could play that song back in I think it was July.”

The mom is she currently pregnant again? Yes. We've uncovered that she is indeed. I've been told she is pregnant again. I started hearing some things about that. They were initially if you recall charged with 17 counts of child and dangering. But they were only 16 children in the home. I'm trying to verify about. I'm trying to verify as to whether or not those counts that 17th count of child and dangering related to this

unborn child because all of the sudden it was paired back to 16 counts of child and dangering. But I started asking around, poking around, people were asking me, look at her in the jail jumpsuit or stomachs out. I've been told that yes indeed Elizabeth is currently pregnant.

I guess this is already, you know, her dairy or senior. Yeah. So we don't have for competency report yet, though.

I love I've never seen a shot with me in it. That was kind of cool. That is cool.

“That's why that's why they call me the most trusted name and news. You know, I break stories.”

I mean, you totally broke it back into lie. It should have been viral. Oh my gosh. Well, maybe as an engineer who gets credit because maybe I love how he said I broke it. I asked the question. It was actually a leavey who broke it. Yeah. Hey, but if you hadn't asked the question, you know, would she have given that information? But yes. So now she is pregnant and we will be following that. She got a bond, but it doesn't sound like it's a bond. She's ever going to be able

to make. So I think Elizabeth as will her codifindance remaining custody for quite some time. Yeah. But what do you do this though? What do you go on? It's still. How did she get pregnant again? And you don't have to explain to me like, you know, pregnancy for dummies. I just want to know like, oh, it is someone who's been behind bars for an extended period of time get pregnant. My guess is that she was pregnant when she got arrested. So it was probably in the very early stages

of her pregnancy whenever she did get arrested. And if she was showing back in July, that would make sense. You know, she started to show at that point. So I'm thinking, you know, if you do the math, but at this point, who knows? So she was showing back that because that's why

“we and that's why I asked the question was, you know, but I really, I think I was just asking”

it because she's, it's past his prologue and she was continuously pregnant for the her whole life. I, I don't know if I actually saw a bump or anything. You had a premonition. You just knew it.

I mean, it was just, it was just some intuition. It was amazing. Amazing. Well, men's intuition,

right? Yes. Yes. Exactly. Man's intuition. I'll take it. Thank you. So yeah. So we'll watch her, watch her pregnancy. We'll keep up with that case. I'm sure there will be more things to report, but Nick Riner. So there's a big decision about Nick Riner. What's going on with that, Dave? Well, the prosecutor Nathan Hockman, who is quick to seek the death penalty because he ran on a law and order platform. He's a guy who ousted Garsone who was the, the reform prosecutor

out there on Los Angeles. Well, he's saying he's not going to seek the death penalty in this case. And he said that it was in consultation with the Riner family because Rob and his wife, they both did not believe in the death penalty. Neither do the siblings who were survivors. And so they are not supposed to the death penalty. They didn't want it for their son and quite frankly. If you're the DA, you're not going to want to pursue the death penalty when

there's clear evidence of mental impairment. It just slows everything down. It means it'll be endless appeals up to the Supreme Court. You want faster justice in that. So Hockman, to the right thing. Yeah. And I agree. It's, you know, a lot of people don't understand that a death penalty case. You get a lot more procedural safeguards. So you have extra lawyers, you get extra appeals. You have a lot of rights that you don't have in just an everyday murder case.

It's really kind of crazy. But the rights are significantly higher in a death penalty case. And so in a case like this, where the DA is very unlikely to get it, I mean, you've got no family support. So there's no victim that's going to be crying saying, please give him the death penalty. And then you've got some significant mitigation, which I know, you know, mitigation. It's, everybody argues whether or not you can use this mitigation. But it is mitigation

that he had drug issues and he had mental health issues. Yeah. So they're probably, you know, made the decision they weren't going to get the death penalty. And it's a discretionary decision. We actually have his, um, him saying that he, the DA saying that he didn't want to see the death penalty at 6/7. In deciding whether or not the DA's office was going to seek the death penalty. He had gone through a rigorous review where we look at the aggravating factors as well as

the mitigating factors. But we have spoken to the victim's family. We have spoken to prosecutors, law enforcement. I've worked with the most senior people in the district attorney's office. After a careful and thorough review of all these factors, the district attorney's office will not be seeking the death penalty in this case. That means that the maximum sentence that Mr. Minor will be looking at is likely out the possibility of parole.

Yeah. By the way, I've had people say, well, isn't that mean he lost leverage in this case. He's giving up his leverage, which is to hold the death penalty over this guy's head. No, the death

“penalty in California is not real. I mean, what was the last time he had a right execution? What 2005?”

I mean, right? And there's a moratorium by the governor or so. No, I hopped into the right thing. I like that guy by the way. And I'm just hoping for justice for for Robin Michelle because here's a case where their son had issues over the years, severe issues. They tried what they could in the end. He murdered his parents. And now he's seeking his trust fund to pay for his death. Yeah. That's the next thing we're going to be hearing in court. So there's a the California

Slayer statute. You know, they have a very well-known Slayer statute, one of the first in the country,

million in order to pay for his defense. And so, you know, you remember Alan Jackson was his lawyer.

He would Drew said there were some issues. We all know it was money. But Alan Jackson actually came on and talked to our good friends and our co-hosts about the fact that if the money came around, he would come back on the case if we can listen to Saute. There's an over under right now, whether or not you're coming in on Nick Riner. And I don't want to put you on the spot. And I don't want to, I don't want to, I don't want to, I don't want you to give away any. Wow, he went there.

“He went there Alan. Oh, it's just he went right to the heart of it, didn't he?”

I would love to see it. I would love to see you come come back in on that one.

And I'd love to come back in. I really would. I think Nick is entitled to the defensive

his choice and my hope is we can the the world flattens out to a point that we can everybody can see their ways clear to to let our team back on. This is money that was his. It was his, it had been his for not years decades. Okay. It's been a one way or the other from anybody's death. So it should not be a matter in controversy, Matt. It's driving me nuts that we're having to litigate to this degree. It's his money. Yeah. Actually, right here earned a fair and square. How did he get his money?

He was a newspaper stand, a lemonade stand. What was it? You know, he earned a fair and square by being born. But I will say his family left that money to him. And, you know, there's got to be some middle ground. I keep thinking like maybe an escrow, a cap to release just for defense funds, something like that. So maybe we'll see some, you know, middle ground, hopefully, because I'd love to see Alan Jackson give us a good trial in that case. And, you know, have justice be done and a fair

“trial. And I think everybody wants that. This case. Yeah, that's true. Actually, great segment.”

And now we're going to the Great White North Ian Runkle Canadian criminal defense attorney and host of Runkle of the Bayley we explained where that name came from the last time he's around, but we may ask him again. He joins us to discuss why the notorious Manoist fear influencers Andrew and Tristan Tate will remain in federal custody. Stay tuned. You know, those pieces in your closet that you find yourself reaching for over and over again, the sweater that works with

everything, the jeans that fit just right or the bag carry everywhere. Well, that's exactly what Quinn's does so well. And I can tell you, I'm a customer. I wanted to do this read because I believe in Quinn's because they make elevated everyday essentials using premium materials like Mongolian Kashmir, organic cotton and washable silk. Their timeless designs are thoroughly crafted for every day where women and men, too. They're 100% Mongolian Kashmir sweaters started just $50 giving

you luxury softness without the luxury price tag. Quinn's also offers premium stretch denim, leather bags and footwear and beautiful 14 karat gold jewelry. I become a big fan of Quinn's because they make pieces that I wanted. My closet, beautiful, comfortable, well made things that I can wear all the time. I love that their styles are classic rather than overly trendy because after all, you know, me, I'm not exactly Mr. Trendy. I want my clothes to work season after season.

So you can find the fall pieces that you'll reach for most at Quinn's. Download the Quinn's app for app exclusive offers or go to Quinn's dot com slash mkTC, get free shipping on your order 365 day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK, too. That's Quinn's QU-I-N-C-E dot com slash mkTC. Welcome back to the MkTC crime show. Joining us now is Ian Runkle. He is a Canadian criminal defense attorney and also host of the very popular YouTube channel Runkle of the Bailey.

Welcome back to the show. Ian, we haven't talked much about the tape brothers. We'll Dave has on the program yet. He's raised it several times. But let's start. Yeah, I know this is one of your favorite topics and it's one of Dave's. So let's start with some background on the tape

“brothers. If you want to catch us up on what's going on, Ian, I know you've been talking about it a”

lot on your show. I mean, it's kind of a landmine of words that various places will nuke you for,

but he is accused of some very serious, basically human trafficking and sort of pimping offenses

and various other things. So he's facing charges in Romania, but he's also the UK wants him. And so he, while the UK is looking for him, he was boasting. He's like, yeah, the UK's looking for me. I dare the government to arrest me and he went to the US and the arrested him, which was a huge

expedition proceeding. And one of the things about when you're facing an expedition proceeding is that the default is that you get no bail because it's already kind of assumed that you're, you know, you fled, which is why they need next tradition proceeding. But also, it's just, you know, for reasons of sort of international politics, the default rule is your held-in custody pending

that hearing. So he wanted to try to get bail pending that. And ultimately, not only did he fail

at that, but he failed at that in a way that is probably going to cause him serious problems down the line because it's not looking great for him based on sort of what we've seen so far.

“Can you expound on that Ian? What did they do to make them, it was from the down the line?”

I will bring up that they did something at their bail hearing that most people did not expect them to do. And that is, take the stand, Ashley. They testified. That was a terrible mistake. Right, you're under oath and they got on there and the under cross-examination had admit that their entire persona is a lie that that plays the boogodies, that the obsidian, blade, yod,

all rented or fake. In fact, they said, you know, you know, they remind me of that they

understand it like we're a character, like Ali G. Like, oh my gosh, you're asking the judge, believe me now, but everything else I've said up to this point is a lie. That doesn't work like that. I mean, that's the, as a starting place, that's a terrible place to be. Like, look, you can believe me because everything else I've ever said in public is a lie is just a week

“positioned to be in. It's like, you know, you're on her. I'm trustworthy because I'm such a huge liar.”

And it's one thing if this was presented as a public character, but it's not. It's presented as this is who he is. And not only that, but this is who he is, enough that he sells courses to try to be like him, which if it's all fake, if it's all a caricature, there's a whole bunch of people who paid for courses to try to have his way of living. And it's like, he may have just admitted to another crime. He might have, and that's actually

a problem, but he also bombed himself in several ways. Like, he got up there and he said that this one Twitter account, he said, that's not me. It's just run by some kid. It's not affiliated with me in any way. I don't know what that's about. And then the prosecution is like roll tape. Here's a video of you saying this account is you and it's the best place to get your, you know, the updates and it's very clear that the judge at several places stopped short of just going like

you outright lied to my face, but it's kind of clear from what's, you know, what's said there. It's like he makes this claim. There's other places where he's like, look how transparent I'm being. He said, I provided a flight log. You can see all the places I've been. And the court was like,

okay, cool. First thing is your flight log is actually in of itself really concerning because

you're flying around a whole lot. This doesn't say not a flight risk. It says flight risk. But also, they're like, you left a bunch of stuff out on this. So you're trying to tell us that you're, you know, not a flight risk because you're providing us with all this information, but you're not really being fully candid. So there's a, you know, and that's even without getting into things like Tristan Tates of Vladimir Scorpius passport that he made a bunch of claims

about that the judge also clearly didn't believe. And if you're wondering, where do you get the name Vladimir Scorpius? That sounds like a bond villain? It is really a bond villain. It really is. Who are these people? Didn't he go on and talk about go online and, you know, one of his social medias and talk about getting as many passports as he possibly could?

“And you should get as many passports as possible because you cannot live off-grid,”

but you can live on as many grids as possible so that it's much harder for one single government to damage you. Problem is you're an American citizen. You have an American passport. You have American banks. You have an American driver's license. You're an American. You piss America off. Cool. And you're fucked. You're just over. Right? Whereas if you're, have passports everywhere at bank accounts everywhere and driver's license is everywhere. If you piss America off, that's fine.

You'll deal with your things. I'm not advocating anyone to break the law, but you can leave. Or you can go somewhere else. I see this all the time. People say, I've got three year driving ban. I can't believe it. Then just fucking move. But they can't. Well, I can't.

a country, that means every time I tried to get a job, I had to go through a CPS check and it showed

I was a criminal. I'd once again leave. Oh, God. You're so amazing. What's afforded to you when you

can bounce? A lot of people can't bounce because they can't afford it. But if you can't afford it, then you need to have the ability to live in many different jurisdictions. He says this is literally worse to ever for a bond hearing. That is literally, I could just imagine a client walking in my

“office and knowing that and being like, you need to get me a bond and thinking, have you lost your mind?”

I mean, and with the allegations he's got, it's literally and his claims of being a billionaire. I mean, if you're trying to get to bail on something like this, it's something that's got to be something like, look, we're going to put up $500,000 cash or possibly even if he's claiming to be a billionaire, we're going to put down 500 million cash and then maybe I could see it being discussed. But even then it's a problem because by his claims of being a billionaire, you can live a really

comfortable existence in some country that's a non-extradition country for the rest of your life on the rest of his money. So how do you avoid him just walking away from it? He was boasting about giving like one driver's license and, you know, like switching up names and all of this and I'm

going, this is the worst case scenario for bail. I have never had a client who was a worst candidate

for bail and that includes people who are like alleged to have slit people's throats and stuff like that. So you just read over it and you're going, I mean, this is one of those things where is a lawyer.

“You have to have a talk with your client and go, look, you're not getting bail.”

This is pending an extradition hearing. Let's fight the extradition hearing. But you're not getting bail and all you can do is make it worse. Like he calls up his wife to go up there and say, you know, he's such a great guy. He's buying me all these luxury items and he's spending so much money on us. Meanwhile, he's testifying that the Romanian government has taken every dollar he's got. It's like you could have just not testified. Like stay and he also complaining about the

conditions, like saying that the conditions and the jail are awful, the detention conditions and then they've gone and shown that he's completely lying about the conditions.

Yeah, they said, you know, I've lost so much weight and the judge is like first,

they weighed you and you have not lost weight. Second, I can see you. Like, do not realize that I can see you. You are a person who appears in front of me and I can see that you haven't lost weight, man. So what do we do in here? They're like, we haven't had access to our commissary and they're like, here's their commissary records. And all of this could be used against them later. Like, if they go to a trial and they're trying

to testify, it'll be like, look at all the stuff you said under oath at your bail hearing. So you're lying sack of lies. How are we going to believe you? Like, this actually makes their trial so much worse. It's an absolute disaster for them. And their lawyer was saying, they didn't expect it. The prosecutors didn't expect to use saw them on this day. We got nothing at high. Also, the prosecutors, excuse me, the defense lawyer,

also said, if you believe them and all their bluster and that they had all these planes and they

“were really a trillion, remember, they said they were actually a trillionaire. They said,”

they were the richest people in the world more than Musk. And if you believe, then any of that stuff, you're a fool. So we told all the supporters that you guys are fools or shrubs. But my favorite thing was just recently, where I at least took it on faith that they were indeed held in solitary confinement for their own safety. And then the judge in her order, rejecting bail said, actually, you're not in solitary confinement. You guys are cellmates.

So what it is is that they're actually in the shoe for their own protection, especially housing unit, but the shoe is not automatically solitary confinement, no matter what you see on a orange to the new black, you can be in the shoe and not be in solitary confinement as they are. They're even working as orderlies inside the shoe. They've got jobs that they're out in the playground, they're talking to their lawyers more than anyone else talks to their lawyers.

So there are whole existence, even behind bars is a line. Yeah. Well, how long do you all think it's going to take to actually do the extradition? I mean, extradition takes a while, but apparently the UK hasn't actually filed the formal extradition requests?

a formal request. So that wasn't in place at the time of the bail hearing, but now apparently

“they've taken that step. As much like Tate was online boasting about how he wants to go and”

face these charges and clear his name. So we should expect him to fight it to the nail and drag this process out exactly as long as it possibly can because everything he said is not to be believed. When you can do that, you know, you can have like an extradition hearing can be sort of like a preliminary hearing, which we just saw in Tate Robinson's case, you know, and we saw it in David's case, like we've been watching a lot of preliminary hearings. So they may have the preliminary hearing

in the form of an extradition hearing, which will be interesting if they do that. And I know you mentioned Andrew St. Romania is his home. He's looking forward to being found innocent. I think we've got him talking about that at Sott and Nine if we can play that.

We're not the first affluent wealthy man who have been on fairly attack in our in our situation

unfortunately happens quite often. So I want to thank the whole world for all the support we get. I also want to give a very special thanks to Romania and the Romanian people, the number of Romanian people who send me messages to support is absolutely fantastic. This is my home. I love this country. I'm going to stay here regardless no matter what and I look forward to being found innocent at the end of everything. So thank you all very much.

Looks forward to being found innocent. Other way that that was before they were recently indicted by the Romanian government for much more serious charges than the first time around. So it's gotten from bad to worse for them. So they're facing charges in the UK and in Romania and another year in jail in the shoe in the United States pending their extradition to the UK.

So who's going to get them first? UK or Romania?

“My bed is the UK, yeah. I mean that's what I'm thinking.”

The thing is they could fight over it but right now Romania has not registered like that was one of the issues that the the Tate's lawyers tried to raise is like look you're going to be prejudicing Romania because Romania can't get access to them and Romania filed documents in that preceding basically provided some additional information but not once did they say we object to this because we want him. I think Romania might just be fine with him going to the UK and I mean from Romania's

perspective if he goes to the UK and gets a 20-year bit they're probably just fine going yep. Yeah exactly. Right think about it because extraditions expensive, trials expensive and corporations expensive if the UK can foot that bill and justice is served and you know he's in custody I'm sure Romania will be okay with that. Or they may wait for him to get you know go through the court process in the UK get sentenced and then say and we now want him to come here as a

serving prisoner and we're going to try him as well for the offenses here and you know he may end up getting you know whatever sentence in the UK whatever sentence from in Romania he'd probably be able to serve those at the same time although not necessarily guaranteed so I mean this may well be the end of the the tape empire. Wow wow well I know Dave will be we be following it a lot we want to talk to you also about Lindsey Clancy for a few minutes so we want to specifically talk

about something that happened during the trial and we've talked about it we've touched on it because the jurors have come forward and talked about this now and that is this exercise band demonstration and just to catch all of our viewers and listeners up one of the things that the prosecution did during the trial is they actually tried to do a demo and if we could start we can play that at slot 11 and then let's talk about it you're not aware there's been no testimony

no evidence nothing shown that they were nodded and left their current. The important part to me was they were wrapped several times and then whether we had a bowl or a knot would not really be important it was secure and wrapped around the next several times. So you thank Dr Schraper on the child's next several times and then left there I guess you can't see it from where you are but it just fell apart and it didn't say in a circle. Well so that demonstration you know and the standard the

legal standard is whether or not the prosecution's demonstration fairly represents the mechanism and whether or not it's also misleading to the jury if it's untested and so you actually did your own demonstration so if we could play for so many yeah I bet they were oh my gosh I bet and I'm

“sure they're going I'm sure we're going to get comments on on this too but I think it's important”

it's an important issue and it's now even more important now that we know that some of the

jurors talked about that and we'll talk about that in a minute but first let's let's see your

demonstration we've got so 12 and then I'm curious if you can tell us after we watch that what

bit of flex to it too if it cuts off circulation in my arm I'm not going to immediately pass out

“and be in distress I'll be able to sort of correct that and three it'll allow me to sort of feel what's”

going on now because I'm doing it with an arm it is a little more difficult to do because you know yeah and got one arms sort of caught up okay so there it is and it's holding and it's applying a lot of pressure like I can feel that this is a fairly significant bit of pressure and not only that I can feel it in my fingers my fingers are starting to tingle this is the same sort of thing that you'd get when you're giving blood at you know giving blood and I don't know if you can

see it but my veins are starting to pop out because the blood flow is getting constricted so what do you find from that well I mean she does a demo where she just holds the bands up in the air it makes a loop and then just kind of drops them and anybody who's gone fishing or try to set up a tent or anything knows that there's a whole bunch of knots that you can tie that don't actually hold unless they're around something right knots but she doesn't even

try to make you know anything but we saw Patrick Clancy testified that it was sort of tied like a shoe lace but without the bow so sort of a one you know one half of the shoe lace not which is exactly what I did in the demo and that won't hold very well if you're dealing with something like you know boot lace or something it just it doesn't hold very well but when you're

dealing with an elastic material like the exercise bands and these exercise bands are basically

the closest thing I could figure out like I looked and I saw that they have like the same sort of design it may be the same set I don't know but certainly unlike the jurors it's not the set from the you know from the evidence bags but the elastic means that it holds and will continue to apply pressure if you've ever had blood blood drawn you know for lab testing or giving blood they'll put a like an elastic strap around your arm and just tuck it and just that tucking it is enough

to hold it you know enough to cut off blood flow and the mechanism that was described by Dr. Lopasata is that because your arteries have higher pressure you know it doesn't typically cut off the artery like the arterial blood flow but it cuts off the veins the blood that's

returning and then basically everything backs up it's like you know it it's like if you have a

parking lot and you block off the exit the parking lot you might have cars that can get in but pretty

“quickly it fills up and nobody can get in or out and it's just you know a giant disaster that's what”

was going on there and so the reason why this is important is because the prosecution made this central to their timeline they said that she had to have been sort of in the process of killing for a lengthy period and such she must have been kind of halfway through it when she takes the phone call she had to and it you know had to take more effort whereas what seems likely based on the testimony of Patrick Clancy and Dr. Lopasata and I mean Patrick Clancy was a prosecution witness

is that it's likely that she applied the band for long enough to get or to you know cause unconsciousness which is somewhere 10 to 30 seconds and then left the band in place with a sort of with that tie and it continues to cut off blood flow but then she moves on and starts in on the on the next victim and the issue is that that cuts the whole time frame down to potentially is little as a minute and a half of her actually being involved in you know needing to

physically engage with it as opposed to the prosecution timeline of you know at least like six minutes

“so it's a very different timeline in that sense and I think it's a real problem that the”

prosecution is like making those loops in air and so forth because it does mislead the jury. It does create a misconception and it appears the jury at least had some dispute over how this would work and what it would look like and so forth which is concerning.

jurors and particularly about that holdout juror who his own demonstration during deliberations of this band and you know the alleged jurors talking about that so it so definitely

“was something that I think they'll the prosecution will probably pay better attention to if they”

do decide to retry this case hopefully they'll resolve it for everybody involved but thank you Ian so much for joining us. Can you tell our audience where they can find you? I can be found at Runkle of the Bayley at on YouTube and it's RUN KLE if you just put that in and it'll autopopulate and yeah thank you so much for having me these are important topics to discuss

and always happy to come on and chat about them. Great well we look forward to the next time

thank you so much and next up for everyone else our closing argument stations. You might already own a firearm but we need to start with less lethal methods to avoid financial and mental repercussions of pulling the trigger. This is where burner comes in. That's BYRNA. Burners less lethal launchers are equipped with tear gas and kinetic ammunition and design to

“incapacitate an attacker for up to 40 minutes and burner is excited to introduce the all new”

compact launcher. It's sleek, slim and hits like a sledgehammer. The same size is a smartphone allowing everyone to conceal carry everywhere comfortably and with confidence. Their pistols are American made and hand assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana with over 80% of the components in the compact launcher being sourced in the United States. Burner is legal in all 50 states requires no background checks and can be shipped directly to your door and burner is trusted by hundreds

of police departments and government agencies worldwide. Try before you buy visit burner.com to find a burner dealer near you that's burner.com BYRNA.com. Welcome back to the MK True Crime Show now it's time for our closing arguments Ashley Merchant after you. Thank you sir. I want to talk about the jury system and how it's a little bit in crisis. Let's be honest about what is actually broken though

jury duty was never supposed to be fun. That's not what it was. It works because people actually

don't want to be there. They have no agenda, no fans, no stake in the outcome, no gifts and go, no public anything, just 12 strangers doing math on the truth, trying to get to justice and the truth and then going home. But now we've built this system that attracts exactly the wrong type of people and it scares off the right ones quite frankly. On one end you've got jurors who are running their own science experiments in the jury room. They're becoming characters in this entire case

and they're maybe even caching in. Then on the other end you've got jurors that are so afraid of being hunted down online that the courts have to actually seal their identities just to keep a jury box full and the jurors safe. You can't run a justice system on want to be influencers and terrified hostices, hostages. It does not work that way. Both of them are the same failure. Anonymity is dead. Anonymity was the whole deal the reason it worked. You lose that and you don't

have a jury system anymore. You really just have a reality TV show with a verdict. Thanks Dave.

“That is so important. And along those lines, I also want to call out some despicable behavior”

in the Lindsey Clancy case. But unlike you Ash, I'm not going to talk about the jurors or the attacks on the jury. I'm referring instead to some members of the public who have been pushing conspiracy theories about Patrick Clancy. That's the greeting father of those three innocent victims in this case. Let's stop pretending that this is harmless internet sleuthing and call it for what it really is. Go to desk. Lindsey Clancy confessed to taking the lives of her three

children. That's an established, undisputed fact in this case. Yeah, across TikTok and read it, there's a cottage industry of amateur conspiracies who has spent months trying to frame Patrick

Clancy as the real killer. You kidding? First off, her defense lawyer Kevin Rettington who did a great

job on the trial. But he did this case, no favors by being coy with this baseless theory voted by a bunch of ignoramuses. It wasn't until just recently a national television where he finally said what he should have said earlier that nobody in their right mind could accuse Patrick. He pointed directly to the 911 call. He said that anyone who has actually heard that call knows that the guttural soul-shattering horror and Patrick's voice was too real.

We can't fake that grief. No actor on Earth could do it. The sick compulsion online to

Clancy lost his entire world in one afternoon. To point fingers at a devastated father just a

“beager algorithm is pure cruelty designed or disguised as curiosity. For those out there referring”

to, my advice is to put down the conspiracy boards log off and do better. That's my closing statement.

So before we let you go, we want to give you a reminder to subscribe to the MK True Crime Show

“on YouTube and wherever you get your podcasts. I also want to thank my co-host Ashley Merchant”

and to our guest Ian Runkle. And thank you for joining us. Have a great week.