Law&Crime Sidebar - ‘Monster’: Ruby Franke’s Best Defense in Child Abuse Case Dissected by Famed Defense Attorney

Episode Date: September 13, 2023

The YouTube mom accused of abusing her kids faces six counts of aggravated child abuse after she was arrested when her 12-year-old son escaped from her business partner’s home. Ruby Franke remains locked up awaiting a bail hearing on September 21. Famed criminal defense attorney Fred Perri, who said Franke “looks like a monster,” breaks down the 41-year-old’s best defense at trial with the Law&Crime Network’s Jesse Weber.LAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergWriting & Video Editing - Michael DeiningerGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa Bein & Kiera BronsonSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieThey Walk Among AmericaDevil In The DormThe Disturbing TruthSpeaking FreelyLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. Some days parenting requires uncomfortable conversations, bold confrontations and lots of squabbles. Today I have all three. She's the YouTube mom going viral for all the wrong reasons. There's so much to talk about when it comes to Ruby Frankie, the woman behind the now defunct Eight Passengers YouTube channel and now charged with six counts of felony child abuse.

But let's talk about her potential defenses with renowned defense attorney, Fortunato Perry. Welcome to Cybar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Ruby Frankie is the 41-year-old mom. of six, who's currently charged with six counts of aggravated child abuse. As we've been talking about, she rose to fame when she and her husband, Kevin Frankie, started a YouTube channel called Eight Passengers in 2015 to document the lives

of their family and the kids. And those kids were heavily featured in these videos. Now, over the years, there's been concerns from fellow vloggers about Frankie's parenting style and the way that she doles out punishments. For example, in 2020 video, she and her then 15-year-old son, Chad talked about Chad sleeping on a beanbag chair for seven months after he pranked his younger brother. Then there was also this video of her six-year-old daughter not being provided lunch because

she didn't make it herself. Really weird and disturbing stuff. But then you fast forward to August 30th of this year. And a 12-year-old boy, who we now know to be Frankie's son Russell, climbed out of a window at the home of Frankie's business partner, Jody Hildebrand. According to a 911 phone call, he went to a neighbor's home, asked for food and water. The caller told dispatchers the boy was emaciated. He had duct tape around his extremities.

And when first responders went inside the Hildebrand home, they found a 10-year-old girl, who we now know to be Frankie's daughter, Eve, in similar condition. Both children were taken to a hospital and are said to be doing well. Well, Ruby Frankie, Jody Hildebrandt, they were both arrested, charged with those, as I said, six counts of aggravated child abuse. They're both in the Washington County Jail and Utah. They both have bail hearings later this month.

Now, it seems like, pretty open and shut case. or is it? What could be a defense for Ruby Frankie? Well, I'm joined right now by renowned criminal defense attorney, Fortunato Perry, who famously represented Beanie Siegel. This is our first time meeting, sir. Thank you so much for coming here on Sidebar, and great to meet you. My pleasure. Great meeting you as well. I love that the first case I have you on is probably not the easiest case to defend, but hey, listen, you're a great criminal defense attorney, so that's what we've got to talk about. Before we even get into a potential defense, I ask everybody I've been talking about with this case. What are just your overall thoughts on this

case when you see it? Outraged, horrific. You know, the more I look into it, it's a terrible situation. If these allegations are true, it's outrageous. And I wonder, look, every criminal defendant, no matter what the allegations, no matter what the crime, they are all entitled to a defense, they are all innocent and so proven guilty. But talking about representing somebody like Ruby Frankie with what she's accused with and all the public backlash, what the public perception is, how difficult do you think it's going to be for an attorney to stand in the shoes as her criminal defense attorney? Well, this is one of those cases.

Like you say, there's public outrage over the allegations. But, you know, we in our profession like to always kind of start off with, let's not rush to judgment. Let's have an opportunity for due process to work itself out. Everyone in this country is presumed to be innocent. It's, you know, the threshold of our criminal justice system. So you kind of kind of start that way and then start to review the allegations in the case. But no going into it that you're going to be the focal point.

If you're the attorney in this case, you're going to be the focal point of some outrage and some high levels of emotion that people have in these cases. And just focusing on that, do attorneys in this position, they have a conversation with their families, their friends, their law firm, hey, before we take this case, we have to, to know what we're getting ourselves into. There are some cases that we have that discussion internally in our firm, not necessarily my family. My family has gotten over years ago, what I've been doing for the past 35 years. But there are times internally in the office where we'll say, hey, does it make sense to get involved in something like this? Because there may be some type

of backlash that we really don't want to be involved in. Oh, I get it. I get it. So now let's move to the really tough question. You've seen the allegations. You've heard the police report. How would you defend Ruby Frankie? Difficult. Yeah. I mean, you start off with reviewing the evidence in the case. I have not seen any of the interviews from the children, whether they be the two children involved in these allegations or the other children that may or may not have been involved in prior abusive behavior. But, you know, I'd like to review the statements from the children. I'd like to have the medical evidence provided so that we can take a look at the medical evidence to see how

recent these injuries are. There may be some injuries that date back years, even prior to the separation of Ms. Frankie and her husband. You know, I'd like to kind of gather all the facts before I make a decision on whether or not we're going to put our mouthpieces in and go to war on something like this for a trial, or we're going to kind of start sitting down with prosecutors and try and work the case out. So you need to get all of the information in front of you first. There may be a need for your own pathologist to review the medical records.

to see if they are consistent with what our client is telling us or not. So those are some of the things you might want to take a look at before you get started. And when you said to have a conversation with prosecutors, you mean if you look at the case and it looks really bad, then you have a conversation with your client about possibly taking a plea deal? Yeah, and I think before you do that in this case, I would want to have my client evaluated by medical professionals to see if there's any type of mental health issues

involved here. There may be some levels of stress within her life or her relationship or something, you know, and you might want to have someone take a long, hard look at her to see what is going on inside because if these allegations are accurate, this is someone who really has some issues going on mentally. And I think once that is accomplished, when we see what's going on, if there's a mental health diagnosis, then I would meet with process. and try to work the case out in some fashion. Let's expand upon that. I did a quick research under Utah law, and I saw that it says it is a defense to a

prosecution under any statute or ordinance that the defendant, as a result of a mental condition, lacked the mental state required as an element of the offense charged. I then took that, and then I looked at the six aggravating, six aggravated child abuse charges that she faces, and there is an intentionally or knowingly component to each one of those. What could be a potential mental defect that she had where she didn't, I guess she didn't realize this is child abuse or didn't intend for this to be child abuse? Am I thinking about that the right way? Generally speaking, for someone to be what we refer to as criminally insane, you have to have a diagnosis so that as a result of your mental health defect, you do not

understand the difference between right and wrong. For you to be completely acquitted due to your insanity, criminal insanity, you have to have that mental defect. I'm assuming Utah law is the same way. That's how it is here in Pennsylvania. And what law enforcement would look to kind of combat that defense would be what steps did a criminal defendant

take to in any way try to cover up what their criminality was at the time they were committing these acts, because if you're starting to cover up, even in the slightest opportunity, cover up what you did, hide what you did, you then, that's evidence that you know right from wrong. Because you know what you did was wrong, and you don't want anybody to find out about it. So I think you'd have to rise to that level to present a mental health defense at a trial. Let me tell you what I think makes that tricky, and I'm curious your thoughts on it. So before she was even arrested, we know that the Department of Family of Child Services had been contacted.

We know they visited the home. We know that Ruby Frankie understood she was receiving a ton of criticism online about her parenting techniques. She always doubled down from what we saw saying, you know, she was shocked by this allegations that she was an abuser or neglectful of the children. It's about taking responsibility. So it always seemed to me that she, at least in public, has been doubling down on her parenting style. And if, you know, DCFS, whatever reason, they didn't find any evidence of abuse. Can she say, listen, you know, obviously I never thought anything that I was doing was wrong. People have different parenting techniques.

I was shocked that I was arrested for this. I say that because what's complicating, I just interviewed Kevin Frankie's attorney. Kevin Frankie is Ruby Frankie's husband. And he said, if I understood it correctly, that Kevin had a call with Ruby right before she was arrested, saying she knew that law enforcement was coming and that he wanted her to take care of the kids. So it's always that prime example. If someone commits a crime and just is hanging out and then the police come and they're

totally confused, that's like really insane. Like you didn't know what you were doing was illegal whatsoever. But here, if she had the understanding that people were looking into her, she was being criticized the police were on their way, does that complicate the mental health defense? I think it does. And let's just use these facts as an example. Let's assume that when she's confronted initially, whether it be in this circumstance or as you were talking about prior occasions, and there's evidence of abuse. And she says, well, the family dog told me not to give my children food for seven days and then duct tape their hands and lock them in a closet.

And our dog has been telling me that for years to do that. And so I did it. And she doesn't hide anything. And then she's evaluated and she sees that she has that mental defect where she's listening to the family dog. But we don't have that here. We have a woman, as you said, has been doubling down on how great of a parent she's been. She knows what it is to be a good parent and she knows what it is to be abusive. That's obvious from the facts of this case.

It's obvious from her history in these circumstances. So I would say that there's no opportunity to present a mental health defense at a trial. I think the only mental health issue that can be utilized in this case would be for mitigation purposes for plea negotiations, for sentencing purposes. I think you start that process now, and I think that's the best way to resolve the case. The likelihood that she points the finger at Jody. So in other words, I didn't know what was going on, but these kids were found at Jody's house. Police have indicated that Ruby had filmed a video with Jody, I believe, two days prior to this. So they said she would have had the knowledge that this abuse was going on.

She is charged with not only inflicting the abuse of herself on these kids, but allowing it to happen, causing someone else to do it as well. It's quite broad with what she's charged with. And, you know, also the idea that you put it all on Jody, Hildebrand, and you didn't know what was going on, I believe might also be complicated by the fact that, according to the police, when they arrive, instead of Ruby Frankie immediately saying, what's going on? I didn't do this. She immediately lawyered up.

And you couple that with the idea she knew the police were coming based on, My conversation with Kevin Frankie's attorney, it just seems like she had the knowledge, right? How do you think she's going to say at any point she had no idea what was going on to her kids? Well, let's think that through now, okay? So let's assume this case is in front of a jury. And most people who would be sitting on the jury have children, maybe have grandchildren. So this is not a bank robbery case or something where you're going to point the finger at your co-defendant. if she goes down that road and tries to point the finger at another person that we know she was in the house two days before that people on the jury just will immediately look at her and say how can you let your children go to a place where you don't know what's going on inside that house where you were in that house two days prior she's going to look like a monster trying to do something like that in my opinion look i've raised four children i have two grandchildren

And I, you know, when my children were young, if they were out of my sight, I knew exactly where they were, who they were with, what they were doing, what time they were coming home, how they were getting home, and everybody on the jury is going to be the same way, who have raised children who have been mothers and fathers. So you can't go down that road. I think that would be absolutely ridiculous. When I was talking to Kevin Frankie's attorney, I got the sense that there was this idea of manipulation. He talked about how his client was manipulated by Ruby, but I also got the sense that there was manipulation on the part of Jody, that Jody might have been manipulating Ruby. Even based on the reporting,

it seems things change when Ruby was connected, when Ruby was connected with Jody. Curious, again, is there any possible defense of saying that person manipulated me and caused me to do something? Because I haven't seen that work before. I'm curious if that's a possible defense that, again, and not saying that putting all the blame on Jody that she's the one who abused the kids,

but hey, I was manipulated. I did not know what was going on. And I don't know if that's a defense at all. Well, the word in Pennsylvania would be you would raise a, what they call a duress defense. That you committed a crime, a criminal act under duress, which means that your will was overcome in such a fashion that there is no way

you would have committed a crime other than the pressure that overcame your will. Again, to have someone manipulate you in such a fashion that you're going to do this to your children, again, I think is completely out of the realm of possibility in raising that type of a defense. And I see what you're saying in the manipulation and all that. Again, people in a jury would say,

if somebody tried to manipulate me to harm my children, I would cut that person out of my life and I'd never see them again. I'd keep them away from my children because, again, this is not your typical criminal act. This is not, you know, a robbery or, you know, something like that. This is, you know, this is affecting your children. And I think that kind of takes those things out of play. There was something bizarre that happened at her most recent court appearance. It was reported that Ruby Frankie in court, I mean, she was over Zoom, but in court,

basically called out one of her own children, said that one of her own children had been abusing one of the siblings, abusing cousins, abusing neighbors. It was a shocking statement. I don't know what that does to her case. I will tell you that when I interviewed Ben Chu, Johnny Depp's attorney, he said that was a big mistake because it looks like if she knew that was going on, why didn't Ruby Frankie report it? Why did she have to wait until she was arrested and in court to admit that? I think that's such a bizarre statement. and I don't know how that would affect her case at all. What do you think?

I agree with Mr. Choo. I think it's bizarre. I think it's detrimental to her case. But what I think it also dovetails into is this whole mental health defect issue. She is now painted in a corner. And maybe she knew about the issue she spoke about at this Zoom hearing. And that's why she's abusing her children the way she is. but I think it all circles back.

She has some type of a mental defect that surfaces when it comes to her children or care of her children, whether or not she's somewhat manipulated by the other woman involved in the case. But I think it all comes back to that issue. You talked about going to the beginning, taking a look at all the evidence, seeing what's there. I mean, I guess the first part would be trying to argue that maybe this isn't abuse. You look at the statute and say, does it match up to what's actually abuse? You talked about the kids, how important they are. I imagine if they're called as witnesses, how do you cross-examine those children as a defense attorney about what happened to them?

You can't. You don't do it. You don't do it. You can't do it. I mean, you certainly can't lay blame at their feet for being ducted. and not fed and having injuries all over the body and climbing out a window and running to a neighbor. You can't, what are you going to say?

You, you were acting badly. You spilled your glass of milk. You didn't come home when you, you know, the time you were supposed to come home. You didn't make your bed. I mean, it's, you just, you can't, you can't do that. That's, that's incredible. The YouTube videos, the channel had been taken down,

but the videos are circulating online. I can't imagine that there wouldn't be an ability to get all the videos. How important are those videos for evidence for either the prosecution or the defense? I'm talking about the eight passengers videos, all the videos they made over the years about parenting and disciplining. I haven't seen them, so I'm not up to speed on how they would impact the case. But assuming they talk about properly parenting and how that's done, and you compare that to what is going on, here. I mean, if I'm a prosecutor, I shove that right down her throat. You know, it looks like they were making money on talking about being great parents and this is how it's

done and things like that. And then with your own children, this is what you do. And so I think it would have a negative impact on the defense case. Anything. And by the way, I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I'm just trying to anticipate what a defense argument could be. Could they look at those videos and say, hey, listen, if my client was really a child abuser, would she go on YouTube and admit these things she didn't think anything she was doing was wrong i actually have to say i think that's not a bad argument but i i don't think it's going to work but what do you think if you have to go in front of a jury and argue that um you know my client's too smart to have committed this crime or my client's not dumb enough to have committed this crime um again you probably shouldn't be picking

a jury and going to trial in that case i'm picking at straws here i'm trying to make the best of what i see here let's talk about the jury let's talk about the jury so i think the first battle for a defense attorney representing Ruby Frankie would be how do you get a fair and impartial jury when this case has absolutely blown away. It's blown up. Everybody knows about this. And in that community, how do you get a fair and impartial jury? Well, I've been involved in quite a few high profile cases in a couple of different jurisdictions in Pennsylvania. And we've been successful a couple of times in having the venue changed from the county where the act occurred to somewhere across the state, it's a very, very difficult

standard to meet. You'd have to be going through the jury selection process, and while that's happening, you have too many people who have, number one, heard about the case, and then number two, can't be fair. They're just something about the case, the facts of the case, the defendant, that they just can't be fair. So it's not just knowing about the case. That's not an issue. It's Has the news and media reports impacted your ability to be a fair and impartial juror under the circumstance? And if you're going through that process and you see that that can't happen, you have to raise that motion with the court. And again, it's a very, very, very difficult standard to meet. Fortunato, I want to ask you real quick before I let you go about Kevin Frankie.

So Kevin Frankie, Ruby Frankie's husband, at the time of this recording, not criminally charged in any way. um his attorney has said that he didn't know anything about this abuse what was going on he was separated from ruby frankie for 13 months i questioned him about how is it possible he didn't know what was going on with the kids it basically seemed like ruby and him agreed that he should stay away and you know she she it's it's interesting to say the least but um do you think he's going to play a significant role in this case um and what are you looking out for with him because people were even before Ruby Frankie was arrested, they were suspecting he was part of the abuse. Again, he hasn't been criminally charged.

I imagine he's going to be an important witness for the case, but could he also be an important witness for the defense? What do you think? Well, if I were his lawyer, I'd be concerned about this whole 13-month hiatus, and if, in fact, that's accurate, then that's significant that he would not be involved in this current issue that's going on. But if I were looking back at medical records and you see evidence of injuries from a year ago, two years ago, when he was still part of the family in their lives, I'd be a little concerned about that, that either they could point the finger at him or he's

allowing her to engage in this conduct with the children. He'd be just as culpable. So if I were his lawyer, I'd be concerned about that. I don't know how he would help the defense case. I can't imagine he would come in and say she's a wonderful human being. She would never do it. I can't imagine him testifying to that. So those are the issues I'd be looking out for if I were representing him. I guess they would ask him if he ever observed her physically abusing the kids in the time. But again, that wouldn't take away from what actually happened to the kids at the time in question. But listen, I just think it's an interesting discussion. We'll probably get more facts. We'll get more evidence. We'll get more of the story as it

develops and maybe we'll see more of what the possible defense is. Or, like you said, perhaps we'll see a deal being worked out if that's opened by the prosecutors. Fortunata Perry, thank you so much for coming on. Really appreciate it. Nice meeting you. My pleasure. Nice meeting you as well. All right, everybody. That's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. Please subscribe on Apple Podcast, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jess See, Weber. I'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this long crime series,

ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.