Serialously with Annie Elise - 58: Special Guest Joins! 8 Passengers Ruby Franke Update, Manhunt for Murderer, & Alex Murdaugh Getting A New Trial?

Episode Date: September 7, 2023

Welcome to this week’s Headline Highlights! In today’s episode, we are going to discuss the latest news on everything going on in the true crime world. This week, there have been some disturbing new cases as well as updates to ongoing cases. We have some news on Ruby Franke, the Florida 16-year-old Stephen Lee Rodda, who was killed by his father with an angle grinder, the Pennsylvania Convicted Murderer on the loose, and I can’t even believe I’m saying this, Alex Murdaugh, because yes, he will not go away, and he is back in the news once again, and a special guest at the end of the episode joining me to discuss everything you need to know about that situation and what Alex Murdaugh new jury tampering filing means.  Sources/Audio Credit https://www.thestate.com/ KUTV2 Salt Lake News Fox13 News Beam! Subscribe and save 20%. Plus get an additional 20% off and a free frother with my code 10TOLIFE when you click my link. Thats up to 40% off!  shopbeam.com/annieelise  Merch: https://shop10tolife.com/  All Social Media Links: https://www.flowcode.com/page/annieelise_  About Me: https://annieelise.com/  SERIALously FB Page: https://www.facebook.com/SERIALouslyAnnieElise/ For Business Inquiries: [e-mail] Peter Tragos, Lawyer You Know Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@LawyerYouKnow  Podcast: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-lawyer-you-know/id1341132473 Twitter:  https://twitter.com/LawyerYouKnow 69df3a99a9424917f3dd0d0f99073169f0d9f082

Hey true crime besties, welcome back to an all's episode of Headline Highlights. It's me, Annie, and this is the podcast Serialistly. As a reminder for those of you who are like, uh, hi, I'm new. I have no idea what Headline Highlights is. Headline Highlights is a new series, well, relatively new series, I should say, that we started a few weeks ago where every Thursday I'm jumping on the mic and I am breaking down for you all of the updates that have happened this week in the true crime world. Whether it is an update to an ongoing case that we have been discussing, whether it is a brand new case that is hitting the headlines, we talk about it all because sometimes some of these updates and some of these new cases don't really have enough information around them to warrant their own episode or their own video

over on YouTube. So if you're coming on every Thursday, giving you the whole breakdown of everything going on in the week is a good way to just keep everybody up to date and on the pulse of what's going on. And this week, guys, there is no shortage. It has been a crazy week in the true crime world. So before we jump in, I do want to just give a quick reminder. Merch is officially live. It has taken us about a year, guys, because you know I have like a huge fashion background. I was in the fashion industry for 15 years. I really wanted to get it right. I also wanted to make sure that the designs were universal, that it wasn't just logos or the channel name or the podcast name. I wanted it to be just like true universal true crime merch

that people could wear if they are a true crime enthusiast or advocate. Also, if you wanted to gift it to somebody who you always binge true crime with. So that is officially up. I will put the website in the show notes below, but it is shop10tolife.com. It's 10 to life because that's my YouTube channel's name. And it's very limited quantities this first round. So some items are already sold out. So snag it while you can. All right. So welcome officially to this week's headline highlights. So in today's episode, we're going to discuss the latest news on everything that's been going on in the true crime world,

because this week there have been some disturbing new cases as well as updates to ongoing cases. We have some news on Ruby Frankie. We have news on the Florida 16-year-old Stephen Lee Rhoda, who was killed by his father with an angle grinder the Pennsylvania convicted murderer that is out on the loose and I can't even believe that I am about to say this but we also have updates on Alec Murdoch because yes he will just not go away and he is back in the news once again and when we talk about Alex, or with Alex Murdoch, I actually have a very, very special guest joining me who is going to discuss everything we need to know about this situation and what the Murdoch new jury tampering filing really means. So without

further ado, guys, let's just get right into it. Let's start with Ruby Frankie, also known as the eight passengers, vlogger, mother, monster. Ruby Frankie and Jodi Hildebrandt may be let out of jail and back to lead their normal lives while they await trial. This following the six counts of second-degree felony aggravated child abuse that both women have been charged with after Ruby's 12-year-old emaciated son escaped Jodi Hildebrandt's home with wounds and duct tape on his wrists back on August 30th. Now, just as a quick reminder too, if you want a full deep dive on this case, it is uploaded. I uploaded it a couple days ago on this podcast, so after this you can go and listen to that but we did a full deep dive and more to come. Both of their initial court appearances are scheduled for Friday September 8th

so it will definitely be interesting to see what the judge in that case decides. Ruby Frank has been in the Washington County Jail for the past week. There appears to be now some disagreement in the courts of just how dangerous she is or isn't. Once a YouTube star, now Ruby Frank and her business partner Jodi Hildebrandt, seen in a video referenced in court documents, are each charged with six counts of aggravated second-degree felony child abuse. More than the two counts they were first arrested for, and more counts could be coming. There were two additional children that were removed from the home by DCFS that had yet to be interviewed. So this could potentially be a case where we see an amended information

alleging more counts. Local defense attorney Sky Lazaro, who's not involved in this case, gives us some insight on suspects being held without bail. I don't think that that is unusual given the severity of what they're alleging. Police say one week ago, two of Frank's children were found malnourished and with deep cuts from being tied up. That day, a judge ordered Frank and Hildebrandt held without bail, writing there's clear and convincing evidence that Ruby Frank would constitute a substantial danger or is likely to flee the jurisdiction if released. But I've accessed the court safety assessment, which grades someone's risk and if they should be released. It comes to a different conclusion, saying she's a fairly low risk and recommending

her release before trial, just being required to check in once a month by phone. This could go either way. Frank's initial appearance in this case is set for Friday. As part of that, her attorney could ask for the new judge to grant her bail. This case is in Washington County, but Ruby Frank's home is in Springville. And this week, neighbors there told NBC News they'd been trying to get authorities involved for more than a year. Interestingly the lawyer at the end of that clip Sky Lazaro while not involved in this case she is also Corey Richen's attorney. Just a little fun fact there. So video is coming out tomorrow I hope about this case but the full story on this family, at least the audio version, is over on my podcast.

Next up, let's talk about the Florida 16-year-old who was killed by his father with angle grinder. Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd called a father evil after he was arrested for killing his own 16-year-old son Monday afternoon. He was quoted saying, It breaks our heart. There aren't adequate words to explain how horrific this event is. Investigators said they arrested Stephen Thomas Rhoda after he took off from the homicide scene and tried to leave Polk County. Now this quote is from Fox News. Sheriff Judd said Monday afternoon that the 16-year-old who was identified by authorities as Stephen Lee Rhoda was an 11th grader at Frost Proof High School. The teen, who had dreams of becoming an electrician, was staying with his grandfather at the mobile home to help him while his grandmother was in rehab.

Officials said the grandfather left the home Monday morning to go visit his wife in rehab, but when he returned home at around 11 a.m., the grandfather saw the dad outside. That's when the dad told the grandfather, I wouldn't go in there if I was you. I killed someone. You may need to call the police. The grandfather told investigators that it wasn't uncommon for the suspect to say bizarre things, and this was according to Sheriff Judd. Now, according to authorities, Stephen, the dad, has a history of using methamphetamine and

has had psychotic episodes previously. When the grandfather went inside his mobile home, detectives said he found his grandson dead. Sheriff Judd said preliminary information from their investigation revealed that the suspect used an angle grinder, which is a heavy-duty saw, to kill the 16-year-old. And they are quoted, again Sheriff Judd is quoted saying, to have this worthless individual murder his son is inexplicable. And he said this during the news briefing on Monday. Authority said that the suspect's motive for attacking and murdering his son is unknown and under investigation. So this is an extremely disturbing case and I have seen a lot of your comments asking me to cover this and at the time I'm not sure if there's any more details out but I will definitely be keeping up

with this case. So let's talk quickly too about the inmate who is now out on the loose. Convicted murderer Danilo Calvocante is the Chester County, Pennsylvania 34-year-old inmate who escaped after climbing onto a roof and he has now been on the run for six days and is still on the run. He is considered extremely dangerous. Authorities say he killed his ex-girlfriend in a brutal 2021 stabbing in front of her two children. Apparently, he escaped from Chester County Prison using a similar method as a previous inmate in May, and none of the guards who were on duty noticed that he escaped at first. There is surveillance of his escape, where he essentially crab-walked up a narrow wall in one of the prison's exercise yards,

doing that to access its roof, and then climbed down to another, less secure part of the property. There have been so many reports, too, guys, of sightings. Specifically, one caught him on surveillance footage walking through someone's yard near the woods. Additionally, a Westchester man said that Danilo broke into his home late Friday and took some food. According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, the prison warden couldn't say whether Danilo, who was also wanted for murder in his home country in Brazil from 2017, had any assistance in planning the breakout. According to reports, prosecutors say Debra Bernardo, Danilo's ex-girlfriend,

was outside her home with her two children on April 18, 2021. Danilo arrived, grabbed her by her hair, threw her to the ground, and stabbed her 38 times in virtually every vital organ, causing her to bleed to death. Debra's two children, a seven-year-old and a four-year-old, ran to neighbors asking for help and Daniello fled. Specifically, her seven-year-old daughter told police that Daniello showed up at their house and said he was going to do something bad to their lives and then pulled two knives out from a black bag that was behind his back. These quotes were all according to a probable cause affidavit. Before he was arrested, police and prosecutors later believed that he was attempting to flee to Mexico and then into Brazil. There is an ongoing

massive manhunt happening to locate him, and authorities warned the public by saying people need to be on high alert. He has killed someone. He's alleged to have killed another person, so people need to take every precaution possible. Lock your doors, keep your eyes on your kids, and keep your eyes on your neighbors and your friends. Everyone needs to be on high alert. Further, authorities say that they believe he is desperate and an extremely dangerous person. Danilo is described as five feet tall, weighing 120 pounds, with curly black hair, brown eyes, and fluent in both Spanish and Portuguese. So any insights should be immediately reported to law enforcement. So now let's go into Murdoch because this is like the case that just won't go away. I'm going to give you a little breakdown of what's going on, but then we'rech trial have now stunned a lot of people following Alex's defense team's latest press conference.

To those who witnessed the trial, including media personnel, police officers, and legal professionals, Ms. Hill was seen as a helpful mediator, ensuring that the trial ran smoothly. Her efficiencies, coupled with her pleasant and calm nature, seemed to inject a dose of Southern charm into a story that was already ripe with Southern drama. However, Alex's lawyers suggest a different picture. They claim that Miss Hill swayed the jury for personal benefits, including a potential book deal and media exposure, something that wouldn't have been achievable if the trial had ended in a mistrial. Further, they state that Ms. Hill prioritized personal gains over her duty. A 65-page court document recently filed in the South Carolina Court of Appeals brings several allegations against her. She's accused of meddling with the jury selection, urging jurors to doubt Murdoch's testimony, and holding unsanctioned

private discussions with the jury foreperson, telling them not to be fooled by Alex before his testimony and more. Now what's crazy is Alex's lawyers aren't exactly making this up out of nowhere. Some of these claims are supported by snippets from her recent book titled Behind the Doors of Justice, which she co-authored with Neil Gordon. civil servant with religious undertones, yet also depicts a local officer swept by the media attention of the famous trial, where she believed the defendant was guilty. So who exactly is Becky Hill? Well, according to her book, she views herself as having an affinity for legal matters leading up to her election as the county's clerk of court. While her election as a clerk was recent, so much as November 2020, she had previously served as a court reporter for over a decade. Before this, she was involved in various roles ranging from teaching middle school, working at a disability agency, to administration

roles in legal offices. Her memoir also details her encounters with both the Murdoch family, his father Randolph, him, all during her tenure as a court reporter. Interestingly, Miss Hill and the Murdoch family's histories are pretty intertwined. Her memoir recounts a tale of her grandfather, a mechanic and moonshiner, partnering with Alec's grandfather, Buster Murdoch Sr., in illicit ventures. In her book's initial chapters, Ms. Hill doesn't mince words about her views on the trial's outcome, asserting her strong belief in his guilt, a conviction that only strengthened during a site visit to Moselle with the jury. Following the trial, her interactions with the jury didn't cease. She joined three jurors for

TV interviews in New York, and during this trip, she learned about a juror's financial assistance from friends to remain on the jury, raising further questions about the trial's integrity. She also described the experience of being picked up at LaGuardia Airport in New York City in a black Chevy Tahoe and being driven into Manhattan where they were put up in a hotel and had an opportunity to eat at a restaurant on Madison Avenue. She said in the book, the jurors told me they felt like they were heard and loved their 15 minutes of fame in the Big Apple. All right, so all that being said about Alex Murdoch and everything going on with the updates in the case,

I thought, who better than to answer some of these questions to really break it down for us and explain the details and the complexities, quite honestly, of what this all means. Who better than Peter Tragos from the channel Lawyer You Know? We've had Peter on in the past. He is a legal expert. He has an incredible way of breaking down all of the legal jargon and the facts in a way that we can understand so peter has joined me to answer a few burning questions i have about this case and kind of just give us some better insight into all of this so thank you so much for joining peter i want to just start by talking about everything as a whole. We know that in a

new motion that was filed by the defense team for Alex Murdoch, they are alleging that they have evidence that the clerk of court, Rebecca Hill, also known as Miss Becky, tampered with the jury. And because of this, they are asking for a new trial. There are two affidavits from jurors stating these allegations. So my question for you first is one of the allegations states that she misrepresented information about a Facebook post from a juror's ex-husband, misrepresented this information to the judge, which ultimately resulted in the juror being tossed out of the trial. It's alleged that Ms. Becky told this juror that law enforcement spoke with the ex-husband and he verified

information about them speaking and her sharing information about the case. However, now in a sworn affidavit, the ex is saying that the conversation never happened. Documents also allege that the post belonged to someone else entirely. So can you explain what happened here and what it means if she did, in fact, mislead the judge about the post and then lied about the ex-husband, confirming that a conversation took place? So lying to a judge as the clerk of court is a major no-no and something they can absolutely lose their job over. And with this situation where it seems like allegedly the clerk told the judge that a

juror that has been reported to her that a juror was making statements to other people as evidenced by a Facebook post by her ex-husband. And the clerk then couldn't produce the post on Facebook when the judge or the court or someone asked her for it, but then was able to produce an apology and a recanting of that post by the ex-husband, allegedly. But then as it turns out, after more digging, it was not even the ex-husband who made the original post or the apology post, but somebody with the same last name. And to do something that is so easily discounted and disproven by the defense is foolish by this court clerk if she did in fact do this

because the ex-husband went so far as to allow the defense team to download his entire Facebook in the time period in question to prove that he didn't make the original post or the apology post, which the defense argues is the reason this juror was struck and removed. But if you listen back to the court's reasoning, when he removed this juror known as the egg juror that brought a dozen eggs to the jury for whatever reason that day, he said it was not because of the ex-husband's post or this Facebook post. And it was because SLED, which is interesting enough that they were involved here, interviewed some people that she purportedly spoke to about this case and about some evidence in this case. And based on those interviews, the judge felt there was enough to remove her as a juror. Now there's also statements recorded by

the judge saying he is not very happy that this clerk interrogated a juror without just bringing it to him first. So a lot going on in that situation, but it would not be good if the court clerk is proven to have lied to the judge that totally makes sense and i appreciate you breaking that down for us in the documents it also alleged that miss becky lied and misled jurors allegations that she told them that alex couldn't be trusted and is most likely guilty also not to be misled or fooled by him so does the clerk of court normally have these conversations and have conversations like these with jurors? Absolutely not. The clerk of

the court should not have any conversations with the jurors or anyone else in the courtroom about how they feel about the evidence, about how they feel about guilt or innocence, about how they feel about the defense team or the prosecuting attorneys, and how they should not be fooled by certain arguments and how the defendant has practiced his statements and can cry on cue. Those types of statements are always inappropriate by court staff, including the clerk, because they are seen as an unbiased party that the jury trusts. The clerk and the judge are figureheads in the courtroom that the jury looks to to be unbiased and fair. And if they start leaning one way or the other, it is almost assuredly going to impact a jury and how they view the evidence and the case. Okay. I appreciate you clarifying that.

And we are going to get a little bit more into this, that specific stuff in just a second here, but that really does help because I know there have been a lot of questions about that. In another allegation, it states that Ms. Becky told the jury if they didn't come back with a quick verdict, they would have to stay the night at the hotel overnight, and they didn't bring overnight bags. And we know that the verdict came back in three hours. Could that have been because of this? And even more, it's alleged that smoke breaks were actually withheld once the jurors went out and they were told that they needed a verdict first before they could get a smoke break. So if this is true, how would something like that impact the verdict and pressuring or tampering with the jury?

So if Ms. Becky actually told the jury that they should come back quick and it should be a quick guilty verdict, that's obviously inappropriate. But something that's interesting is if she made the decision to take away smoke breaks, something that had been given throughout the entirety of the trial. And we know that six of the jurors, or at least I should say, allegedly six of the jurors were smokers that can have a major impact in jurors folding and not standing their ground and how they may feel to fight it out because anybody that is a smoker that has a nicotine habit realizes that it is very difficult to stay of sound mind, to not be stressed, to not be anxious, to not have any issues and be able to clearly and fairly think about something that is as important and stressful as making a decision

when somebody's life is on the line that could be heavily impacted. And I will say it is absolutely common for lawyers to ask for accommodations to be made for jurors that are smokers, that have to have sugar every so often, that have to stand up because they have back issues, that have to call in with childcare or call into work every few hours. Those accommodations are always granted if a jury asks the judge to make those accommodations or if a lawyer asks on the juror's behalf. So I'd like to know, did the lawyers know that the smoke breaks were taken away? Did the judge know the smoke breaks were taken away? Or is this something that the court clerk did outside of anybody's knowledge? And again, that's something that has to be proven still if there is an evidentiary hearing.

But I will say the quote unquote threat that they would have to go to a hotel at the end of the night was not just made by the court clerk, but also by the judge. So that's not necessarily a nefarious threat, but just a reality of the situation. If they deliberated long into the night, they were going to have to obviously go to a hotel room and then come back the next day and continue deliberations. So that's really interesting. And with all of that, I'm curious, what is the role of a clerk of court and what is their role during a trial? Were these allegations and things that she allegedly did outside the scope of her job? So the role of the court clerk in any trial is to make sure that the trial is

run efficiently and appropriately by handling the evidence and the exhibits and the tags, making sure things are handled appropriately, that when lawyers come up and grab things that are entered into evidence and use it and put it on the Elmo or put it on the big screen for the jury to see that when it gets handed back to the court clerk, it's an order and everything is there and appropriate. Nothing gets taken back to council table. They will also sometimes arrange lunches, hotel rooms, and things like that for the jurors, juries. And they will accommodate the travel out to the site if there's going to be a jury view like at Moselle. That is really what the court clerk's job is. They're the judge's right-hand person and kind of operating procedures in the courtroom fall under the clerk of the court. Having any communication with jurors about the evidence,

about the case, about where they lean guilty or not guilty, trying to have jurors removed. Those are the allegations that are made, telling them not to be fooled by certain evidence or argument. All of that is absolutely outside the scope of her job, which she admits in interviews after the trial that her job is simply to be part of the process and make sure everything runs smoothly in the court, not to convince a jury one way or the other, or to control who's on the jury. I really appreciate you clarifying all of that because so many people, myself included, have wondered what was her true responsibility? How far out of that scope did she truly go if

these allegations are true? So with that, I'm curious, what does this do to other cases that she has served as a clerk for in the past? Does that bring all of those into question? Her actions in this case do not necessarily affect her actions in other cases. If she did create a situation where we need to do this trial over again, because she did either influence the jury or try to influence the jury or have conversations that were not allowed to be had between herself and juror members or the foreperson of the jury, that will absolutely affect and should affect this trial. But it will not affect previous trials unless she had similar conversations with jurors in those trials, unless lawyers in those trials and criminal defendants in those prior trials can

find evidence that she had inappropriate conversations or tampered with jurors in other trials. So just because she did something in this trial doesn't mean she did it in other trials. And even if this is a mistrial and we have to do it over again, it doesn't mean that any previous trial that she worked on will also be overturned because of her actions in this trial. So aside from just that, I guess my question is, is she liable for state or federal crimes as well? What happens to her if this is proven to be true? Well, the defense team has sent these allegations to the U.S. Attorney's Office. That's the federal prosecutor. And they have asked that FBI investigate Ms. Becky for federal criminal charges. They don't

want this to be in the hands of SLED. They said maybe some other sheriff's office or something like that, but they have sent it up to federal court. And if you look at jury tampering federal charges and obstructing the due process rights of a defendant violating their constitutional rights, there are certain charges that carry with them up to five years in prison, all the way up to some federal charges that could carry with them up to 20 years in prison as a maximum sentence. So these are very, very serious federal crimes that could be charged if these allegations are proven to be true. And then there are also some accompanying state crimes that would be analogous or similar to the federal crimes carrying very serious prison

sentences with them. I really appreciate you answering these questions and clarifying so much of the information. As I said, it's always so helpful having you on. So can you just kind of share with us, where do we go from here and what happens next with Alec Murdoch? Murdoch's attorneys have asked for an evidentiary hearing. They want these jurors to come to court. They want to ask them questions. The AG's office will be able to ask them questions. The judge will be able to ask them questions and they want to find out what happened. Is this stuff true? Is there more? Was it less? Was it exaggerated? Was this just based on facial expressions from Ms. Becky? Is a juror going to say,

well, based on what she did with her eyes, I thought she thought he was guilty. That's not going to be enough. But will these jurors testify openly at an evidentiary hearing? Will Ms. Becky make any statements or testify at an evidentiary hearing? Will these jurors or Ms. Becky hire counsel? It's been reported that Ms. Becky already has counsel and she's remaining silent at this point, but will at some point make a statement and answer some of these questions. It's going to be very interesting because as we know, in the criminal prosecution of a defendant, their silence cannot be used against them. But there can be inferences made in hearings like this if somebody pleads the fifth and remains silent when someone is asking questions of wrongdoing, that may affect a different case. So we'll see if Murdoch's team

uses her silence against her to prove that something nefarious went on and a new trial is absolutely necessary. So this case needs to be done all over again at trial. All right, Peter, thank you so much for joining today and for answering these questions. I know I'm going to have some more questions for you soon, so I will be picking your brain again in the near future, I'm sure, but I appreciate it so much. All right, guys, that is it for this episode of Headline Highlights. I appreciate you tuning in. Don't forget to go check Peter out over on his YouTube channel, The Lawyer You Know. I'm going to link all of his socials in the show notes below too. Make sure to go follow him and check him out. We're going to follow this very

closely. I will probably have Peter back on. Maybe we can have Emily Baker back on. She was on with us not too long ago talking about the Idaho murders. It's always great when we have an expert come in and help kind of just weigh in and break things down and give us their point of view. So let me know too in the reviews area or over on Spotify in the feedback Q&A part any experts you would like to have on or any other guests that you would like to see come on here and share their expertise and really weigh in on some of these cases. I will be back with you guys bright and early Monday morning for a brand new deep dive on a new case that we have not talked about before. And then of course, as you know,

I'm here with you every single Thursday for Headline Highlights. I hope you are finding these episodes helpful and useful to just kind of give you the updates throughout the week of what's going on in the true crime world. So as a reminder, please let me know in the review section on Apple Podcasts if you like Headline Highlights,

if you want me to keep doing this and or what other content you want me to cover so that I can make sure to always be delivering you guys the content you're looking for. All right, guys, thanks again for tuning in and I will be talking with you very, very soon. But for now, I'm signing off. All right, take care. Have a great weekend. Thank you.