[MUSIC]
>> Welcome to the MK True Cruncho.
“I'm Dave Aaron Burke, aka the Florida Law Man, former state attorney for Palm Beach County,”
and current managing partner at Dave Aaron Burke Law. I'm joined today by Mike Cole-Hose, Ashley Merchant, formerly Florida Law woman. But now she's a criminal defense attorney in Atlanta, GA. Hello, Ashley. >> And hey, Dave, how are you?
It's good to see you. So let's go over what we've got on the dockin' today. We've got a lot to talk about on Sunday convicted killer Brian Hobbert, or gave an interview to the New York Times. And he claims now that he wants to abandon his guilty plea and is seeking a new trial.
We will discuss. >> That guy needs to go away. >> We say. >> Right? We also have the preliminary hearing of David, that's D4VD.
Not the way I would spell my name, but okay, that's continued Monday.
We'll discuss the digital and the forensic evidence of the state of the legislature's proves that the indie pop singer abused, murdered, and disposed of his underage, victim, Celeste Rivas Hernandez. >> And later on this show, we've got the host of the crime. Law and crime network shows crimes of passion.
Sierra Glepspie, she's going to be joining us to discuss the Lindsey Clancy murder, which we've been following, which is in the trial, and she will give us the inside scoop from her vantage point, has an actual courtroom observer. And in a special segment today, we're going to have Steve Heller. He is the scene, helling, I'm sorry, Steve Helling.
He's the senior news reporter for the Daily Mail. He's going to join us to discuss new revelations in the notorious, Chris Watts, family annihilator case.
“And if you remember that case, but it's definitely an interesting one.”
But first, let's talk about Brian Coburger. So he's back Dave, where you surprised that he's seeking a new trial. >> Well, a little bit, because he had to appear before the judge and say yes, I'm entering into this plea of guilty voluntarily. No one is threatening me, no one's coursing me, and that he was guilty of those crimes.
And after going through this whole colloquie, now he's saying, you know what, I'm going to say, let's do it all over again. And at first, I was like, really, but then I thought about it. I was like, yeah, this guy is a social path. He has last bit of power that he has, as this criminologist who was pursuing a doctorate in
serial killing, apparently, right? He wanted to be a serial killer. >> Yep. >> Well, it's last bit of power is to string the family along. He's already tortured this poor family's poor, poor families enough after slaughtering their loved ones.
And when the family told him when he was leaving the courtroom that essentially,
go away, we never want to think of you ever again.
This is his way of saying, no, I'm going to make you think of me again. Even though there's a very little chance of undoing this plea deal and really, he's not getting a new trial. He's still, though, is back in the news. He's relevant, and it's his last gas of relevance of power that he has.
As soon as this thing is rejected, good rins to this dude forever. >> I completely agree with you, Dave. I think this is just part of his psychopathy that he wants to be relevant. He wants to be important. And I mean, look at it, he studied criminology.
He definitely had those interests already.
“And if you think about what his life is probably like in prison,”
besides the fact that it's prison, and it's miserable, he's also, he's nothing. You know, he's just getting up, eating his meals, doing his laundry, you know, whatever his little prison job is, and then going to bed. Like, there's nothing happening in his life. And this is a way for him to, I mean, he's now in the New York Times.
Everybody's talking about it. It's a way for him to become relevant again. Yeah, like it's sick, it's so sick. You know, but if we think about if he's actually going to be able to get this plea withdrawn. Because I think that's the question a lot of people are having.
It is so unlikely. The court system likes finality. That's like the biggest thing. I mean, they like finality over getting it right. I've learned.
I'm sure you've learned the same thing. I mean, they really do. But they're not going to overturn his plea unless there's something significant. You know, and typically when we see a plea being overturned like this on a motion for New trial, it's because there's some DNA, you know, something that's actually exonerating someone.
And that's a mechanism really where we've had these, you know, rape cases where the DNA maybe wasn't tested in years later. The DNA comes out and it's like, oh, oopsie, it wasn't you. That's where you get these motions for New trial coming about. And then the other instance is, you know, really, really awful luring.
In effect of assistance. And I just don't see that here. What do you think, Dave? No, his lawyers in a great job. They say death penalty.
I mean, the death penalty was for anyone who'd be for a guy who slaughtered for innocence. And who was an aspiring serial killer. I mean, this guy deserved capital punishment. He was saved from because his lawyers, public defender did a really good job here. And it's very interesting.
You said that the two main ground, something new, shocking evidence, which hasn't existed. You're not even thinking he's even alleging. I mean, everything that he had was already in the public wasn't anything new. In effect of assistance accounts. I think he'll try to go there.
You've got to show more than in effect of assistance.
It's got to be like, so agree just where they coerced him.
Where they pretty much threatened you will take this deal around. That kind of stuff. Then the other is another potential grounds where he says that at the time he was under some mental incapacity where he had like a mental break or he was not himself. But that's not going to work either.
So he's got nothing. Because the loser, he's a social path, goodbye by Felicia. Right. Well, you know, my opinion would be depending on what the families want. If he wants to go to trial and get the death penalty. If the families are for it, I'd say, bring it on, you know.
That's one thing.
“If the families, if the families want a finale though, then I think that's what”
finale is what they should get exactly.
So I think without the family and the the states support in this, it gets very unlikely that the judge is ever going to, you know, overturn this case and give him a new chance. A new trial because, you know, most defendants that what they're talking about really is he's talking about pressure when he took the plea, you know. And in those conversations, you've been into my film, they're not, it's not pressure when you're
saying these are your choices, your choices. And, you know, I know you want a door number three, but there is no door number three. That's not pressure. That is just the facts, you know. And as an attorney, you know, we have that conversation often and we might press, you know,
hey, I think it's probably a good idea to take a plea and not get the death penalty.
But that doesn't mean that it's an inordinate amount of pressure.
“So I think it'll be interesting to see what he alleges his attorneys actually did.”
But I really, I got to say, I think it's this guy, you know, who we talked about in a couple of weeks ago, it was last time I think it's Baker and he's got that book and he, he's the one that, you know, was the defense witness and he broke the confidentiality agreement by having this book and talking on the news about, oh, well, there's a lot of unanswered questions. Most of those unanswered questions were things that didn't really matter.
You know, he wonders, oh, well, you know, what about this test? Why was this test not finished? And there were things that they didn't necessarily need because they had enough evidence. But I can't help but think that he's gotten in Brian Cober's mind somehow. And he's selling books. I mean, if you think about it, this guy's selling books and he's fueling this conspiracy theory, you know, and he's gotten in Brian Cober's head and now Brian Cober's like, oh,
well, hey, I can use this. And now I can, you know, not only have my day in court again, but I can become relevant. And I can get moved from the prison back to the jail, hopefully.
“So I can sit for a new trial because I get, I bet you anything he had a much better gig in the”
local jail than he does in the state prison system. Absolutely. You know, behind bars in the prison, he's like the lowest form of life. Oh, yes. This nerd who has gotten all this national attention and the other prisoners are probably waiting in line to put his head in the toilet, give him a swirly or something. And of this guy is, is probably hating life behind bars. Oh, sure. And just so people don't forget exactly how he had to elicute and explain how he was
guilty of this crime. Let's place sought one flashback of Cober, pleading guilty in July of 2025. And then let me ask you, did you on November 13th, 2022, enter the residence at 1122 King Road in Moscow, Idaho with the intent to commit the felony crime of murder? Yes. Did you, on November 13th, 2022, in Laita County, state of Idaho, killing murder, Madison, Moghin, a human being? Yes. And did you do that willfully
unlawfully, deliberately, and with premeditation and malice of thought, or forethought? Yes. Did you honor about that same date in Moscow, Idaho, kill and murder, Kaylee, Gonzalves, a human being? Yes. And did you do that willfully, unlawfully, deliberately, and with premeditation and malice of forethought? Yes. And did you on that same date in Moscow, Idaho, kill and murder, Zanik Kornado,
Kornado pardon me, a human being? Yes. And did you do that willfully unlawfully, deliberately, with premeditation and malice of forethought? Yes. And then on, or about November 13th, 2022, again, in Laita County, Idaho, did you kill and murder, Ethan Chapin, a human being? Yes. Did you do that willfully unlawfully, deliberately, with premeditation and malice of forethought? Yes. Yes. I mean, yeah, one thing when I watched that, that I want to point out, is he did not
plea under what's called Alfred versus North Carolina. And we've talked about that on the show before, and just to catch our viewers up and remind them of what that means, because it's a complex legal concept. But essentially, when you plea guilty, if you're saying that you're plea and guilty, because you are trying to avoid the death penalty, just for example, or you're trying to get a lesser sentence, but you're maybe not guilty, or maybe the facts are a little different than what the
state says the facts are. You can plea under a Supreme Court case called Alfred versus North Carolina.
It's a case where the defendant said, you know what, I'm not guilty, but I wa...
I want the benefit of the bargain. Here, it would be, I want to avoid the death penalty, so I'm
going to enter a plea, and I'm going to do it under Alfred versus North Carolina. And it's very
“different in that that thought we just saw where those questions are asked, are you in fact guilty?”
The judge doesn't ask that. The judge asks, are you plea and guilty under Alfred versus North Carolina? And do you believe that if the state went to trial, they would be able to prove you guilty? Not, did you do it? So it's very different. He was sworn in, and he pled guilty and said, yes, in fact, he did those things, which I think that really undercuts what he is now arguing, that he was coerced, or he didn't actually do what he's saying. He's innocent at this point.
Exactly. And I think maybe what's going on here also is that, you know, these killers have their fans behind bars. There are people out there. You could show them a confession. You can have it
on video, and they still would never believe that the person they love, whether it's coerber,
or Luigi Manjoni actually did it. And so Luigi Manjoni was ready to, to member a site, a insanity defense saying that he did it. He admits it, but he was not just right mind. And the fan said, what? What? And then all of a sudden he said, no, no, no, we're going to change that. We're still going to say we're going to say, I want to have the same thing happen here, where he got all these letters from all these people who believe in him. And then he's like, you know, this is all I got.
Now, I got these true believers. Why don't I just make it go? At least pretend that. Yeah, I'm innocent. Now, forever, these people will send them brownies and be their biggest fans and conjugal visits or whatever they want to provide this guy. So maybe that's part of it. He just couldn't resist the temptation of being a hero to, unfortunately, too many people.
“Right. Now, I think that's what it is. And, you know, it could be that he just hates the”
prison system. We've got sought to, which is, you know, the family, some of the families of his victims, speaking out to him when he was sentenced. Click message from our youngest daughter. I'll be wanted to say, you may have received A's in high school in college, but you're going to be getting bigdies in prison. Thank you. There's nothing that infuriates a social path who has these visions of grandiosity more than laughing at them than making fun of them,
that mocking them. And, and that's the last memory of this guy. Was that kind of comment. And I'm sure he hates prison. This is way though of now saying, you know, at the very least, he's going to go down being a martyr. And that is apparently a higher form of life than a loser sociopath that we all believe he is. Apparently. The wellness space is packed with promises. I get it. But I've got to tell you about
varacities, metabolism, ignite. No complicated routine, no major lifestyle overhaul. You can take it in the morning and move on with your day. You know, that feeling when it's mid afternoon and suddenly you're wandering into the kitchen looking for something, anything to snack on, well, this might be able to help. So before metabolism ignite sells out again, make the switch to GLP ones the natural way. Head to varacityhealth.co, use the code
MKTC for up to 65% off your order. Once again, that's V-E-R-A-C-I-T-Y health.co for up to 65% off and make sure you use our promo code MKTC so they know we sent you. You know, we've had another interesting case in the news, the David case. I want to talk about that a little bit. David D4 V-D, for those of you who aren't following his actual name,
how it's spelled, it always catches me every time. But we've had the preliminary hearing going on.
It was supposed to go on for maybe three days. It's been going on for almost a week now. But we've heard quite a bit. We've been covering on the show about the 14-year-old Celeste Hernandez, who was murdered and the state is trying to prove probable cause. That's the standard at a preliminary hearing. Trying to prove that the singer David is actually responsible for her death and that he's the one that did it and then he did it with certain reasons. And some of
those reasons were she was going to out him, essentially, for their sexual relationship, because they
“had been, I think it's pretty undisputed having a sexual relationship and she was under age and so”
she threatened him and the state is now trying to prove and what they said even in their preliminary hearing brief is that she became extremely upset threatened to disclose damaging information about her relationship with him and ending his career and destroying his life. So we've heard quite a bit of testimony from different defense witnesses. But I don't know David, it's just I still feel like there's something missing for me. I don't know if you as a former prosecutor feel like they could have
presented more. I just feel like they're presenting a lot of evidence to show that he's a bad person
Then he sexually abused her and that she was under age and that she was horri...
But the linkage for me with him actually being the one that killed her and dismembered her body,
“that's what I just keep waiting to hear and I just, it just hasn't been there for me.”
You think you're playing hide the ball because unlike the preliminary hearing that we saw in Utah, for Tyler Robinson, where the prosecutor was trying to debunk every conspiracy theory out there and saying here is all the evidence. Prosecutors here look like they're playing hide the ball to say that we're not going to give the other side anymore than we need to. This is just problem caused to find problem caused, right? Where this is not the trial. At the trial you'll get everything else.
Why would we show our cards this early? And they don't have to. There's plenty there to get him held pre-trial without any bail and also to keep him there because there's problem caused,
you don't need to show any more before you get to trial. Once you get to trial then it's
beyond a reasonable doubt. I think that's a really good point, David. I agree with you. I think that's probably what they're doing because it's a free crack for the defense lawyers at their experts. And the evidence that they've been putting up is a lot of DNA evidence, a lot of evidence showing that it was the less and that she was at David's house and that she was in his car. But nothing yet linking David in that car when she was there and David in that house when she was there. So maybe
“that's what they're sort of holding on and maybe they just don't want to give the defense that”
crack at those experts right now to sort of pick them apart and get them locked into that testimony. That would be a really good strategy and you're right. I mean, that's typically what happens because
probable cause is a really low standard, a really low burden of proof. So the prosecution doesn't
want to give the defense a crack at all of that evidence and all of that testimony. We have heard that some of the new updates that we've got is that there were some texts, some pretty disturbing texts about Celeste having an abortion and talking with David about that about her baby and having an abortion. And it seems kind of disturbing the types of testimony that her family is having to listen to in that courtroom. Apparently she said to David, realistically, I care about you.
I killed my kid for you. She went on to say that she would have been there for it if they had chosen to keep the pregnancy and you know, back and forth. So I mean, you can see this building up that this was going on for a while. And the list of relief should be have to wonder how many people knew about it and said nothing including parents. You just have to wonder, I mean, what's unlike
“they were totally in secret here. And then she apparently had an abortion and that's something that”
will perhaps build on you when. So what David is cheating or showing he doesn't really care about her. They was using this poor girl. Then all of a sudden she could have blown up at him and said that I'm going to go public. That was the biggest piece of leverage she has against and could ruin his career. And then he's buying like furnaces from Amazon and body bags and all these things that are so obvious. I mean that the circumstantial evidence here is overwhelming. The direct
evidence here is not where it should be. Yeah. And I wonder if the defense is also hiding the ball a little bit. And that's a tactic as well. Just like you were talking about the state kind of hiding some of their key evidence. Because when I heard the testimony about him buying all these things on his Amazon account, immediately I thought he's famous. I mean, I guess famous. I don't know. You know, I'm not that cool. But he's famous. And so he probably has other people managing
his Amazon account. I'm sure he's not the only person that has access to his Amazon account. And so I was wondering as the defense mind, as soon as I saw that, I said, what about all the other people that have access? You know? And the testimony they had some cell phone testimony where they were doing what we call triangulation, where they're saying that his so his car where her body was found is hooked up to a cell phone device. Which a lot of us have that. You know, we have Apple
playing all that stuff in our cars. And so his car was pinging off of cell phone towers. So they can sort of place where the car was and they're saying, well, that's his device. But as the defense lawyer, I'm thinking, I'm sure other people drove his car. I'm sure he's not the only person that ever drove his car. So I'm thinking all of those things. And I'm like, oh, wait, this is a probable cause hearing. They're not going to throw that all out there. Exactly.
But there's a lot of holes like that. There's a lot of things that just really for me are, you know, aren't really clicking. But we did hear from more autopsy details, which were difficult and our friend Lauren Conlin at LA Magazine. We have a sought from her where she talks about the testimony from the autopsy from Dr. Ho, if we could play sought three. Celeste weighed 71 pounds when her remains where we're identified. He actually referred to them as markedly decomposed. And he explained
that the condition they were in severely interfered with the autopsy examination, which made me a little bit nervous. He also said that he did observe the evidence of trauma to the body that was consistent with dismemberment. And then he also observed metal hardware in her mouth, which can also be known as braces. And again, it was, it was heartbreaking. I mean, I think I said this
To you the other night.
you feel awful. I mean, awful. It's indescribable. It is. That's a tough fact. That's, I mean, she has braces. She's a chiming. So, I mean, this goes in so many levels. First, the jury is just when they see this braces. They're like, what? And then the fact is that he's not going to be able to say, no, oh, why would I try to kill her? I didn't know that she was under age.
We never talked about it. Right. You didn't see her braces? Is that something that like a lot of
adults have? I mean, it really is, like I said, circumstantial. But circumstantial cases can be good enough. And it's just that when a good, when you have a good defense sort of like you Ashley, you can find the holes in the circumstantial evidence without the direct evidence and just say, oh, I need to ease them all down. Someone else may have driven the car. Someone else may have ordered these very incriminating items from Amazon. And I'll take this one juror. That's a hungry.
“Yeah. No, definitely. Yeah. That's why prosecutors have a tough job. You got to prove it. You”
can anonymously be on to reasonable down. They do. They've got to answer all of the unanswered questions. And I always say that, you know, if there's questions on answer, the jurors tend to hold the state responsible for that. You know, and we saw a little bit of what the defense of glimpse of what the defense might be with one of the questions, the defense asked Dr. Ho, the person who did the autopsy. You can't rule out that she was holding an instrument that caused the wounds, the wounds that killed her.
So it sounds like they may still be pursuing this, you know, she killed herself. Defense that may be one of their theories. So that's, you know, we'll have to wait and see when this case actually goes to trial. If that's going to be one of the defenses they use. Yeah. I can see that because there were only two people there when this happened. One of them is dead. And so awful stuff. And we'll have to move on because we're going to talk this here at Gillespie.
“Now, she's the host of the Times of Passion Show. And she'll come here to join us to”
discuss her experience inside the courtroom at the Lindsay Clancy Murder Trial. Thank you.
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 Durbin and Roger Marshall want to change the nation's payment system to benefit corporate mega stores like Walmart and Target at the expense of everyday Americans. Credit cards keep your payment secure and provide rewards that families use to make everyday purchases more affordable. The Durbin Marshall mandates would let corporate mega stores 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 mega stores 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 M. Patreon Crime Show.
“Joining us now is the host of Long Crime Show Crimes of Passion. Welcome Sierra. How have you been?”
Yeah. Thank you so much for having me. I'm so excited. I'm such a fan of the show. So I'm really excited to come on with you guys. Thank you so much. We're a fan of you and you have been covering this Lindsay Clancy Trial up in Massachusetts, right? You even were in the courtroom last week. I think you were just telling us. Yeah. I was there for jury selection last week, which was a lot longer than any of us anticipated. I mean, this has been a very contentious case.
It's been in the media. So I guess we figured it would be kind of difficult to see to jury, but
I have never experienced seeing potential jurors go up during Vaudear and bring tissues with them.
Like, I saw multiple wow, Ryan having to leave the courtroom and that this is before any witness testimony at all. So it's emotions are really heightened in Massachusetts. Oh my gosh. Well, okay. So we saw that they had 18 females. I think seated on the jury so far. So it must be six alternants and we don't know which ones are alternants. But what was the sense of the type of jurors that ended up like the women? I mean, I'm particularly interested most of the women have
kids. I mean, is that what you saw? So there's 18 total jurors and you're right. We don't know who the six alternants are, but 12 are women and then six are men. So there are some men here. And the age ranges are kind of interesting. I saw some women who were probably early 20s, maybe just graduated college a couple of years ago. And then other women looked like they were in their retiree age. So kind of a wide range of people. I would guess that some have yet to have children. Others
could be both mothers or grandmothers at this time. And it was tricky because during Vaudear, they played white noise so I couldn't hear exactly everything that was said. But I'm going to guess that there are definitely parents on this jury. Oh yeah, you can probably tell by looking at them. I was curious about the X. We're not getting to see them. So I was curious if it was a young women, you know, all different ages. Wow. Wow. Yeah, it's hard because I don't want to stereotype
People totally.
saw walking and I was like, okay, this is a mom. The way that she's carrying all of her bags,
she's planned, she has her water bottle. She has her snacks. She has everything. Because she doesn't know how long she's going to be here. And I was thinking, okay, that's a mom. Like they're have to be you. You can tell. You can know. You can totally tell. Yeah, someone asked me the other day if I had any snacks in my person. I was like, why are you asking me that? And I'm like, you look like mom. I'm like, oh, okay, thanks. Well, my kids are old enough to carry their own snacks. But, you know,
“I totally get it. And that's what we were curious about because we were talking about the types of”
jurors that we thought would make sense for this trial. So today, we had opening statements. I know my thoughts on it. Curious what you thought of the prosecution versus the defense on their opening statements. You know, I was kind of interested with the way the prosecution came out. I kind of thought that it was going to be Jen Sprag who was going to come out and give the opening statement just because we've heard so much from her before. And last week during motions hearing, she was very
animated. Let me say when things kind of got tense between the Commonwealth and the defense. But, needless to say, I mean, they came out and they, you know, presented their opening statement. And it was kind of what we would expect, right? I mean, they're saying that Lindsay Clancy acted with deliberation with premeditation that she planned all of this out. They really highlighted the apple maps. Facts here. That Lindsay Clancy went into her phone and looked up how far is my house
from CVS and from the three V restaurant, then sent Patrick her then husband out to pick something up from CVS and then to go pick up dinner at this restaurant. And the prosecution is saying, she did this to get him out of the house. She clocked how long he would be gone so that she could kill her kids murder, they say. And then the defense, I mean, I really wasn't surprised with the emotion that Kevin Ridington came forward with just because he's been covering this case for, you know,
almost three and a half years at this point. And I mean, the defense and even Patrick Clancy himself has been really steadfast that this was a mental break with Lindsay Clancy. This isn't cold blooded murder. This is the fact that she had postpartum psychosis. They talked about all of the medications
“that she was on. I think I counted 13 different medications that she was on. Essentially the”
defense came out and said there was red flag after red flag. She was filled by the medical system. So I mean, again, emotions are charged. Both sides are coming out swinging. And I guess we're going to have to wait and see what the jury agrees with. Well, Sierra. Dave Aaronberg. We're so happy to have you with us. This, you know, I take the prosecutions point of view most of the time as a former state attorney. But this one is a tough case. I mean, they're seeking, I think, an overcharge
here because I, this is, I mean, you can just see it from both sides. And I don't know how you're going to get beyond the reasonable doubt here for them with serious charges. But I want to play the prosecutors opening and see what you think about it. There were, we have a few clips on that.
So let's, let's, let's play the first prosecutor clip. I believe is that sought for her.
She sends a text to Patrick and asks if he wants to get take out. If three of you is okay, she didn't feel like clicking dinner. It was a long day. He said, sure. She calls in the order. Patrick leaves to go to three of you and he's going to stop just at CBS on the way there. That's when the clock starts, ladies and gentlemen. She knows it's approximately how much time she has for him to go there and come back. She then takes the children down into the basement.
She separates Dawson from Korra and Kalin. And then she proceeds to wrap exercise bands around each child's neck and pull until they're dead. She leaves the band wrapped around each child's neck and goes back of stairs. In the kitchen, she gets a knife and then she proceeds to the second floor of the home. In the middle of this, she misses a call from Patrick. He's at CBS. He misses the call. She calls him right back and they talk for 14 seconds. Nothing that she does or says in that phone call
is a concern to Patrick. He proceeds on his task and she proceeds with hers.
She goes to the second floor master bedroom, locks the door, crushes up some pills,
and it comes to take her own life. I mean, wow, after that, it's really, really stark to hear, you know, those openings. And I mean, something that I thought that stood out to me right away was the fact that she said that's when the clock starts. Because again, they're whole argument here. The fact that Lindsay Clancy wanted
“Patrick out of the house, they say, so she could commit murder. And I think something else that”
they talked about kind of a lot in the openings was the fact that they say Lindsay was of sound mind. She made texts that made sense. She spoke to Patrick on the phone and he didn't notice
Her slurring her words or her saying things that didn't make sense to him.
going off. You just, you know, went over to CBS and got what he needed to get and came home.
“So they did touch on the whole mental health aspect of it all. But they said, regardless of any”
of her diagnoses, it wasn't a play here. She was of sound mind and she knew what she was doing and did it. Right. And they, I mean, they argued that flat out. We've got such sex where they said, you know, this, this is not a woman in the throes of psychosis and really just really hit home. They're belief that she was fine if we could play such sex. This was not a woman in the throes of psychosis on January 24th, 2023. This was a woman who acted intentionally, rationally and swiftly
to accomplish a very specific bowl to kill. You'll see in here evidence about all the things that she did that day, what she did in the days leading up to this incident, leading to the murders, bill here, her spending time with her family and friends. You'll hear her appearing to be in good spirits and doing better for all intensive purposes. I'm at very Daniel here. She interacted with people at the doctor's office. She came home and took care of the kids. She talked to people on the phone
and but be a text message. The evidence will show you she was not psychotic that day. This just makes me mad. I'm not going to lie. This makes me mad because it's almost like and I hope there's jurors on here that feel this. It's almost like they expect for you to be mentally ill.
“You have to literally be unable to function. You have to be sitting there drooling or like on the floor.”
It's not that that's not what it's about. All these things that they're saying, well, she was able to do that. She's able to do that. It doesn't mean she's not under psychosis. You know, in most places how premeditation can happen instantaneously. It doesn't mean you have to like plot this murder for months and months in advance. It could happen kind of at the snap of a finger. What if that's the same for a mental break? What if she was okay when she was outside,
you know, building the snowman and all of that? And then when Patrick left, she had the break that the defense is alleging. I mean, I think it's something we're going to talk about at length. That trial. Well, you know, Massachusetts makes it easier to claim a break. And normally you can't know the difference between right and wrong. And the fact that she tried to commit suicide right afterwards shows that she knew the difference between right and wrong. She knew what
she did was wrong. She wanted to save herself. But that's a different standard of Massachusetts where you're allowed to do something like this and still claim the insanity offense. And you know,
it's when I post my question earlier, like, why would the prosecutors file charges in first
remurder? Why would they go after for that most serious charge like that when it's going to be really hard to get a unanimous verdict? But you see the way they're going. They're saying either it is insanity or it's first remurder because she clearly had in ten how else, why also she send her husband out and then she had to plan this and then she had the aftermath. So I see where they're going. It's just that to when you have a case like this where it's so divided. I mean,
if talk to two people and they have different thoughts immediately, how are you going to get a unanimous jury to agree on not just a conviction, but the most serious conviction that I'll put her in prison for the rest of her life? I mean, it's really complicated, right? Because in the commonwealth of Massachusetts, to your point, Dave, they have this specific thing. It's not, you know, not guilty by reason of insanity, but in their statute, it's criminal responsibility.
And the judge laid this out for jurors and was like, okay, the burden of proof is on the commonwealth here to prove that he was criminally responsible. And so, you know, even in jury selection,
“people were like, I don't understand what does this mean? And that's why a couple of jurors”
were dismissed. They weren't ultimately stated. But to your point, Dave, I totally agree. I,
I don't know how we're going to have a unanimous verdict here. I mean, there are, if I was a juror, there would be questions. I think that's, I think a lot of people are going to do that. And the, you know, the defense is actually hitting that. The defense and they're opening hit about why are they even bringing these charges? We've got sought seven, which is the defense is opening. The government says that this is a situation. It's not a referendum or in women's.
Having babies and having postpartum, psychosis, postpartum, depression, but it sure as hell is, because you're going to hear consistent with what is on its whole human instructions. Consistent with the obligation that the government has when they brought this charge, they brought this charge to him proves the DNA right in the front world brought this charge. He knew as did his office the facts of this case. And he knew when he brought this charge,
that it was going to kill the soul of this young woman. These children will love and nurture
Care for by her.
government indicates. She loved those children right up to the time of the death.
All right. Can I say something? He decided to go after Tim Cruise there. He is the state attorney or Commonwealth attorney, wherever the counter pro. When I was state attorney, I was a member of the National District Attorney Association and Tim Cruise was very prominent. He used to give out his, his badges. And so I used to wear a state attorney. His badge, like his ill-appelpin. Because he gave it out. I only had one or two of mine. It was much easier just to keep
“his on my suit. So one day, I met the governor of Massachusetts at an event governor Haley, right?”
And right, more Haley and she's looking at my lapel, like with squid like, why are you wearing Plymouth County DA? I was like, oh, that's Tim Cruise. So now I wanted to fend Tim Cruise a good man. And the fact that that defense attorney is out there calling him out is really interesting. He's sitting there in the front row. Also, I do think it helps at the DA just like Tim Cruise. Excuse me, the public defender who you just heard, just like Tim Cruise, both have these thick
Massachusetts accents. And even though Sierra lives in Massachusetts, you don't hear that from her. I think it gives a sense of authenticity. There are one of you. And so I mean, I, I still go back to the point that as much as I love Tim Cruise, this is going to be a hard case for them to win. Yeah, I think it is. I definitely agree Dave. I mean, it's your point. And by the way, Sierra doesn't have that thick Massachusetts accent because she's going to scancet.
But I could. Yeah, you guys don't want to hear my Wisconsin accent. It's too much. But that is something that I picked up though on Kevin Readington because he said, you know, I'm from Mashfield. And I was like, oh, he's really connecting with the local people there. But I noticed that during openings to what he called out the DA. And I guess this is almost even a question for you, Dave, because when the DA or the prosecution is bringing charges,
it's for justice. But Patrick Clancy here has said, from the start, this isn't my wife. This wasn't her. She had a mental break. So a lot of people are kind of going against the commonwealth
and mad at them for bringing these charges in the first place. Well, it's a good point because first off,
he called thought to post-patterm. And that's a, right? That's post-patterm. And that's Massachusetts thing. That's to connect with the jurors. But also, after the Karen Read case, there are a lot of people in Massachusetts who really don't trust prosecutors in the police. Meanwhile, I'm one of those, I guess, in the minority that believes and knows that Karen Read's guilty. But that's another video for another day. But when it comes to the jurors, all it is one. And if you go find one juror,
who just says, yeah, you're calling out that district attorney. I don't like any of these district attorneys anymore. Call them out by name. Well, maybe that works for them because all of these
“is one for a hung jury. And so I think this is all calculated. This is not a coincidence”
that is using a thick Boston accent, or that he's calling out the head guy, the head elected official, who's not even trying this case, but is sitting in the courtroom. This was a way, I think, to play on what's going on out thereafter, Karen Read is mistrust of authority. Oh, 100%. I'm totally with you Dave. I think he was, he was definitely laying that on thick. And I think, you know, that's what happens in jury trials. I mean, everyone's trying to get the favor of the jury, you know,
draw the favor of the jury. I think the fact that Patrick Clancy does not support this prosecution. As we've seen today, we've had him testifying. And he is, I mean, every one feels about for him. He lost his children. He lost his wife. He lost everything. It's interesting to your point what you asked Sierra, if the prosecution, if the victim supports the prosecution, then we're all victim rights. But if the victim doesn't, then we're all, oh, we want justice. And I think it's interesting
because Patrick is 100% of victim. And it sounds like his thoughts and his wishes were just really discounted here for justice. And we only see that when the victim or the victim's family doesn't want a prosecution. So it's really interesting how that kind of shifts. It's so hard because the prosecution even talked about in, you know, their jury selection that Patrick Clancy is the fourth victim. And I don't think any of us can really deny that. The fact that he's had to move on with his life
after all of this. And now go through testimony today. He's going to be back on Wednesday. I mean,
“this is so emotional for him. I can't even begin to imagine. But I think it's really going to be”
interesting to when the defense starts to question him and kind of what we hear from their line of questioning. Because again, he, at this point, seems to support Lindsay. He does. And it was, it was heartbreaking. I watched someone has testimony earlier today. And it was, it was absolutely heartbreaking. And I just didn't really understand the need. I get why the prosecution has to prove certain things. They have to prove then you, for example. So, you know, the address where these were at,
but I mean, they were going through every little birthday party. And to me, it almost showed that
she was a good mom, you know, that she loved her kids because she was planning all these amazing
birthday parties and doing all this stuff. And it's super happy to have a family. And it was just, it was just torment for him. And I wonder if the jury is going to hold that against the state because it just didn't necessarily seem necessary. You know, and, I don't know, the fact that he has
To come back, it's all brutal.
actually, you know, the live stream, we are ordered that we have to go to the seal. We can't
“be like videotaping or live streaming at that point. But my photographer in the courtroom said”
at multiple side bars when he kind of had a break on the stand, Patrick Clancy lost it. Like he was just bawling and crying. And I, I mean, I would do if I was him. I would, oh my god, it would be, I would be like, not crying. Like I wouldn't even, I don't know how I speaking. I can't, I can't imagine. But we do have some of his testimony. The prosecution talked about Lindsay and this was one thing that was interesting. The came out today talking about how much medication she took. So we've got
sought nine where they're talking about her taking. She was prescribed more medication than she even took. Maybe indicating, I guess, they're trying to prove that she wasn't taking what she was prescribed. I don't know if we can play sought nine. After switching to Julie Paul and then Rebecca
Jolata did Lindsay start coming home with different prescription bottles. Yes. Okay. Were you always
with her watching and monitoring exactly what she took? Not always, no. We have the, the Zoloth that was prescribed by Dr. Tufts. You weren't aware that only seven pills were taken out of this, correct? That's correct. Okay. And then there's another prescription in here for add-of-an that was filled on October 26, 2022. Were you aware that only six pills were
“taken out of that bottle? No, but I think the context is important. Okay.”
Were you aware that there was a prescription for abuse bar or abuse bar filled on October 26, 2022 in which only two pills were taken out of the 30 that were prescribed? I found out about the abuse bar later and I didn't know about the number of pills taken. So, there were a lot of pills prescribed but not a lot of pills taken. Correct. Out of those. Yeah. It's possible that not a lot of taken.
Okay. This was just as a relief. Okay. Sorry to interrupt you. When I was watching this video, it really stood out to me because so I personally am prescribed prescription for anxiety and depression. That's just, I live with that, whatever. And I was thinking about it and I asked my husband, "Do you know what prescription I'm on? Do you know how many milligrams I take or how often I take it?" And he was like, "No, I just assume you take it every day. I'm not watching and making sure
you do." And that, I was like, it's almost unnecessary to go through every single one and say, "Do you know if she took seven pills, do you know if it was eight?" You know, like, it just was interesting to me. Now, I totally agree. I was thinking that as well and I was thinking, "How many prescriptions have I been on for years?" And maybe I have extra bottles because, you know, I just, a prescription overlap. And so the new bottle maybe only took three out of, because that's
what? Because I still had an old prescription. You know? Or, I mean, this, this poor girl was being stopped, stopped and started prescriptions. I mean, people mess up also, and it is historically a well-known fact that people who suffer from mental illness aren't necessarily medically compliant. It's one of the reasons we have long-acting injectables taking over the world because compliance with medication is a big issue. But, yeah, don't even get me started. We could go on for so long.
Sierra, thank you so much. We will continue to watch your coverage of this trial since you're right there. But thank you. And tell our audience where they can find you. Yeah, thank you both so much for having me. You can check out my show Crimes of Passion exclusive on Spotify. We also have a show on YouTube. We have a channel that's Crimes of Passion. And then scandal is my other show that's on the lawn crime YouTube page. So you can find me all over the place.
That's awesome. Well, thank you so much. It was great to have you. So next up, we've got senior news reporter from the Daily Mail, Steve Helling. He is going to join us to talk about an notorious case, the notorious family annihilator. Chris Watts stated. Life insurance. We all know we needed, but we keep putting it off because we think it's complicated or expensive or that will live forever. Stop telling yourself you'll handle it later and take
care of it today with select quote. In 15 minutes, you could have that coverage that fits your life and budget. Look, if you have people who depend on you, life insurance isn't something to keep pushing down the road. It's one of those adult responsibilities that feels easy to delay until
“suddenly it isn't. That's why select quote makes so much sense. Their license insurance agents”
work for you, not 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 and have helped
over 2 million people find coverage. And whether you have a high blood pressure, diabetes,
heart disease, or you're perfectly healthy, like Ashley Merchant, they can help find options that fit your situation. In fact, some healthy applicants can even get same day coverage with no
Medical exam.
select quote.com/mk today to get started. Welcome back to the MK True Crime Show. We're joined now by Daily Mail. Senior news reporter Steve Helling was an update on the Chris Watts case.
“This is from Colorado. Remember? Welcome, Steve. Thank you for having me. Steve,”
want to give us a quick refresher on the Watts case before we get into the details that you've
uncovered. Okay. If anybody doesn't remember the Chris Watts case, here's what happened.
Back in 2018, he went ahead and he killed his wife, his pregnant wife, and his two daughters, ages four and three. He basically, what he did was he strangled his wife, loaded her body into the van, or into the truck, took his two little girls with him. He buried her body in a shallow grave, and then he smothered both girls and shoved them in oil rigged oil tankers that he worked in. And then he went on the news and said, "I can't find my kids. Please, somebody help me find my family
and come to find out he was the one who killed them all." I'm just a special place in hell for him. That is just awful. Seeing that picture. Well, so you've been covering this a lot lately and have some pretty explosive things coming out. So catch us up on what's been going on recently. So recently, what we've started to do is kind of revisiting the case. We're eight years out of it.
And one of the things about a case like this is that it never went to trial. He pleaded guilty.
So because it never went to trial, a lot of things have never come out. And there's still the questions, why would he do this? How did he do this? And you know, all we've had is his own confession of what he did. But his confession changed so many times that it was hard to tell who was, you know, what of his confessions are true and what are false. So we've been talking to people. We've been talking to sell mates. We've been talking to former
girlfriends. We've been talking to everybody around him to try and piece together really what happened. And yes, we have spoken to his mistress. One of his mistresses at the time of the murders.
We've talked to people who he's confessed to and we're kind of comparing all their stories with each other.
One of those mistresses. So there's more than one. Yes, there was. Now the big one that everybody knew about was Nicole Cassinger and she was the one who, you know, he had seen the in the weeks up to the up to the murder. But there was another one named Amanda McMahon, who was briefly talked about in the police documents. And the reason why you haven't really heard about her is that she didn't have to testify.
But she sat down with us and she kind of explained her whole story. And she met him. Like he met all of his girls on Tinder. And he said that he was separated. That his wife was a be word who was trying to keep the kids away from it. He had this whole story. Just to kind of get this woman. And then he, you know, they started a little affair there. But he was married the entire time. So she was explaining that with her.
Okay, so she was what they were together when he killed her, right? Yes. Yes. So I'm sure that people would lie about themselves on Tinder. I'm just just shocked. Oh, well, please. And that's the thing. There's sarcasm. Well, of course. But, you know, I almost say that, like, I say to anyone who asks, if he says to you that my wife and I are separated, not divorced,
“you need to see some sort of documentation for that. Because that is the oldest trick in the book.”
Yeah, you know, my wife is going to leave me at some point. No, she needs to have left if you're going to date him. So Amanda explained the whole thing and said, you know, everything was fine. And it felt good. But then he started talking about his wife and getting more and more agitated. And then she talked about some of the twisted sexual stuff that they did together. And just how much it just sent her and a tailspin once she found out that she, you know,
had been sleeping with a guy who could kill his entire family. I mean, that picture really brings it home. I, you know, I even heard about this case in a while. And that picture, especially as I'm about to start a family is just heartbreaking. And I think we'll kind of monster would do that. And it doesn't mind me a little bit of Scott Peterson. And I know we have a difference of opinion with one of our contributors here on this channel of Mark Garagos.
“But, you know, Scott Peterson had the affair. And that's what led him to kill Lacy Peterson.”
And here you've got a guy who's a cheater and is on Tinder. And, you know, this is a motive that is so easy to understand for any jury. I mean, I don't think that you can find an easier
Motive because this is real world.
It's not like co-burger. Why do you do it? Well, here. Here's a guy who's sleeping around.
And he wants to be single again. Case closed.
“And you know, here's the thing. I, for the record, I am anti murder in any way, shape or form.”
I do kind of understand sometimes when you hear about a guy who, like, kills his wife. Okay. That's wrong. It's awful. But I don't even know what type of monster you have to be to then turn on a four-year-old in a three-year-old. Oh my god. It's a whole year. I don't think it's wrong. But that's a whole another level of evil. Yes. Exactly. And so, that to me. And the fact is, everybody who I've talked to, his pen pals, the women, just so you know,
he has dozens of women who are writing him in prison right now. I've spoken. Oh my god. I know their names. I know that. And they're in love with him. Oh my god. Well, yeah. It's, it's like we just talked about that with Brian Cobrager and Luigi Manjoni and that evil monster all the tattoos on his face in Southwest Florida. I mean, this is a phenomenon that this, it doesn't start with this guy. I don't understand it. Actually, maybe you can explain
“about it. I don't understand it either. I mean, one of the things that I think is coming out in your”
story, I want you to tell us about is him putting on Shutter Island the movie. Tell, yeah, tell me about that because I thought I was very hard to find out who I am when we talked about this. So forgive my face. I have no opinion. Oh my god. No, I'm bad at the faces too. I get it. So yeah, so he has a movie date with Amanda McMahon. His, his, his mistress and he chooses the movie Shutter Island,
which is basically a man about a man who kills his wife after she kills their kids, which was
a defense that he gave first off. He said, oh, yeah, I didn't kill the, the girls. She killed the girl. So I killed her in a rage, which was of course an absolute lie. And, you know, the idea that he watched this movie with his mistress before he killed his family and then tried to use the plot of that movie as, as an alibi as an excuse. It's just, it boggles the mind. It's just a totally different level of delusion, of evil, of manipulation, just all of that. It really is. So tell us
about his life now. What's his life like behind bars? Well, I wish I could tell you that he's living in the hell that he created every day. And, I mean, on some level, he's behind bars, but he does, you know, he does his Bible study and he goes, you know, he did, you know, he is, he's telling women that he, you know, accepted Jesus Christ as a Savior, which maybe he did, I don't know, but I can tell you this. The number of women that he writes and sends sexual messages to
certainly doesn't seem like Christ like behavior in my mind. You know, he's, he's talking to these women. He's, he's making them a lot of promises. Like when I get out, this is what will happen. If you were here, this is what would happen, but none of that could happen because he's not ever going to get out of jail. Right. I mean, so they're just, he's just blatantly lying to them,
“continuing the lies because he, I mean, he's never getting any serving life without parole, right?”
Yes, exactly. And the best part is whenever we run a story of a woman who comes forward, I, I've seen so many of these letters now. I, I could recognize Chris Watts handwriting if you gave me a hundred writing samples. I could pick up his out. And so these women will come to me and they'll be like, hey, I have these letters and I'll look at them and like, yeah, this is exactly him. Um, you know, and then we'll run a story and like clockwork, another woman will reach out to me
on social media, whatever, and basically be like, I thought I was this girlfriend. I thought I was the one. And it's like, oh, sorry, honey, you're not like, you're one of many. Wow, why don't you get the death penalty? Because he pleaded guilty. Um, okay. So he didn't, yeah, that was part of the plea deal.
Hmm. Yeah, he's never disputed his guilt. I mean, at least once he pled guilty, I mean, he's never
come back like Brian Cobrager now and saying, oh, I didn't actually do it. And I, he's never put, he's never disputed his guilt. But what he disputes is his responsibility for it. In a lot of his letters, he blames the mistress. He says, she was a Jezebel that's basically took me away from what I knew was what was right. She, he blights to, or he's blamed his wife that he killed for being overbearing and difficult. And, um, you know, amasculating him and minimizing him, um, what we never
see from him is taking responsibility for himself. It's always somebody else's fault. And it's always
A woman's fault, always.
the name of that, uh, this sounds like the guy who had a tattoo on his face. I'm going to come
“up with the Southwest Florida. Oh, yeah. Um, yeah, um, I'll come up here this morning when I'm asleep.”
He's still, he still has all these women who are believed that they're the only one because,
yeah, I just think, you know, some people need higher self esteem. Um, Wade Wilson. That's his name.
“Wade Wilson. Wade Wilson. And I will say this. I always say this. I don't want it just to be that”
the women do this because there are dozens of men who are writing to Susan Smith and Jail and South Carolina
who killed her, her, her, her, her kids and they think that they're going to be her night in
“shining armor. It's a weird one. And it's just crazy that people do that. Yeah, but haven't she slept”
with half the prison guards? So I mean, they've just got to stand up. I haven't done a poll lately, but it's a lot. So now, brutal man, uh, we got to have y'all more often. I mean, this is the kind of, a body conversation that people really enjoy. Oh, yeah. Yeah. These are the type of cases that you're just, I mean, they're, they're horrifying. And in some way, we almost have to just because they're so awful. You almost have to almost laugh at how pathetic these murders are. It's the only
way to cope with what they did. It's true. It's very true. Steve, thank you. Thank you. And now I want to let our audience know that all the exclusive new details on Chris Wattswee published by Daily Mail and covered in forthcoming episodes of Chris Watts on Mass, starting on Wednesday, July 29. So check it out. And thank you to my co-host Ashley Merchant for our guest, Sierra Gillespie, and Steve Helwing. And thank you for joining us. Have a great week.
