The Megyn Kelly Show - Rob Reiner Son's Alarming Court Appearance, “Burn Cage” Found in D4vd’s Home, and Hope for JonBenét Case

Episode Date: December 26, 2025

Start 2026 right by subscribing to MK True Crime:Apple: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/mk-true-crime/id1829831499Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4o80I2RSC2NvY51TIaKkJWYouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@MKTrueCrime?sub_confirmation=1Social: http://mktruecrime.com/ MK True Crime contributors Phil Holloway, Ashleigh Merchant, and Dave Aronberg join the show to discuss Nick Reiner’s brief court appearance earlier this week for the murder of his parents Rob and Michele Reiner, why defense lawyer Alan Jackson pushed to delay Reiner’s arraignment until after the new year, the multiple defense strategies Jackson could explore, who is paying for Nick Reiner’s legal defense, why the “special circumstances” in Reiner’s murder charges could lead to a potential death penalty, the news that singer D4vd had an industrial incinerator in his rental home, renewed hope for the JonBenét Ramsey case as the Boulder Police reveal that they have procured new evidence and conducted new interviews that could finally help solve the 29-year-old cold case, and more.  Phil Holloway: https://x.com/PhilHollowayEsqAshleigh Merchant: https://www.criminaldefenseattorneysmarietta.comDave Aronberg: https://davearonberglaw.com  Veracity Selfcare: Visithttps://VeracitySelfCare.com& use code MK for up to 45% off your order!Riverbend Ranch: Visithttps://riverbendranch.com/| Use promo code MEGYN for $20 off your first order.Birch Gold: Text MK to 989898 and get your free info kit on gold Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

Welcome to M.K. True Crime. I'm Phil Holloway, your host today. I'm a criminal lawyer. I'm a former police officer and I've been in and around the justice system for the better part of 40 years now. And I think I know a great true crime show when I see one. And today, being our last show of 2025, we've got a great one in store. Here's what's on the MK True Crime docket today. We start, of course with Nick Reiner, the son of Hollywood legend Rob Reiner, who appeared in court this week in a California courtroom wearing an anti-suicide smock and shackles. He's charged with the brutal double murders of his parents, Rob and Michelle. What will his defense be? We will bring you the latest. Also, in California, we've got a burn cage reported to have been found inside

Senior David's rental home. We'll discuss how this could be relevant to the ongoing investigation into the death of the teen found brutally murdered in David's Tesla. And this holiday season marks 29 years, if you can believe it, since John Bonae Ramsey was found strangled in her Colorado home. There may be finally some answers on the identity of her killer in this coming new year. We'll bring you all the updates. Today I'm very pleased to be joined by my fellow M.K. True Crime Contributors and my friends and colleagues Ashley Merchant, criminal lawyer in Atlanta, Georgia,

and Dave Aaronberg, also known as the Florida lawman, former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, and managing partner at Dave Aaronberg Law. Welcome, guys, and of course, we're going to have to start with Nick Reiner. I know everybody's been talking about this. We've been following it. We've been talking about it offline a little bit.

Let me just give you the readout, and then we're going to discuss it. As I mentioned in the intro, Nick Reiner has officially been charged with two counts of murder, with special circumstances because it's a double homicides. and also because he's alleged to have used a dangerous weapon, specifically a knife. And under California law, that would, of course, qualify him should they seek it for the death penalty. His first appearance in the courtroom on Wednesday was what we call an arraignment,

but they didn't finish. They continued it until later on because his lawyer says it's a complicated issue and he needs just a little bit more time. We actually have some of that on video. So here is SOT 1 of defense lawyer Alan Jackson on Wednesday, and then we're going to discuss it after the site. This is a devastating tragedy that has befallen the Riner family. We all recognize that our hearts go out to the entire Riner family. There are very, very complex and serious issues that are associated with this case. these need to be thoroughly but very carefully dealt with and examined and looked at

and analyzed. We ask that during this process you allow the system to move forward in the way that it was designed to move forward. Not with a rush to judgment not with jumping to conclusions but with restraint and with dignity and with the respect that this system and this process deserves and that the family deserves. All right, Ashley, we'll start with you, ladies first.

So this is an arraignment. Now, you and I being in Georgia, Dave, of course, is in Florida, and this is all taking place in California, and every state has different rules, different practices, different ways of doing things. But look, an arraignment, right, it's like a first appearance. It's towards the beginning.

And there's not a lot substantively that happens. It's usually a formal entry of a not guilty plea. Ashley, can you see any advantage to sort of delaying the arraignment in this case? And why didn't he just go ahead and say we're going to plead not guilty? You know, I don't really see an advantage to doing it. But my guess, reading between the lines and knowing a little bit about the case, is that he's having some problems with the health of his client. I mean, you saw him, you know, we've seen a photo where he's actually appearing in what's a suicide garb,

you know, from, they call it like a suicide dress from the jail. So indicating he was on suicide watch, you know, his client's on suicide. side watch. Just some of the things that he said about it being such a difficult case and there being so many complex issues, that signaled to me as a defense lawyer that there's some mental health issues. And it is very difficult when you've got a client who is potentially not capable of assisting in their own defense. You know, this was a very violent crime. I mean, it was a crime that happened by the man's hands, you know, actually putting a knife into his family, you've got to assume that there's some serious issues there. And so I think the lawyer was smart about just

just wanting to get a grip on what all of those issues were before he actually does anything. Because when you have a client that's not mentally ill, you can actually ask them, hey, can you tell me what you want to do in this situation? The problem when you have a client who's suffering from such an extreme mental illness that they may not be able to assist you is that you as the lawyer have a greater burden because you're not just giving advice and letting them choose. You're also in a position where oftentimes you actually have to choose for them. And so it's just a greater amount of stress.

And I think that's probably why Alan was wanting a little bit more time to try and figure out what was going on here. You know, I think that sounds right. Dave, in Florida, you know, is there a lot that happens at an arraignment? Would it be standard or typical in your jurisdiction to waive an arraignment or to delay an arraignment as we saw here? Well, this is such an unusual case. And so it is not the unusual to ask for more time because you're dealing with a competent. issue. The issue here is not guilty or not guilty. It's whether he can assist, meaning the defendant, in his own defense, whether he understands the proceedings before him. And I think that's where Alan Jackson is going. And that's going to be key. This is different than an insanity defense. That's down the road. That's whether you're guilty or not guilty. This is just a threshold question

of whether or not you can appreciate the proceedings before you. And if you can't, then you get sent to a mental hospital. So what we're seeing here is out of the ordinary, but it is expected in a case like this that's very high profile where you have serious mental health issues that could play a big part in the case. You know, Ashley, apparently this all happened within a day or so of the, I guess the three of them, the family, if you will, the son and the parents at a Christmas party. And as it's been reported, there was some very bizarre behavior exhibited by defendant, Reiner, in the day, you know, prior to the alleged murder. And so it begs the question, you know, could this be, does it look like maybe there was some issue of a chemical

induced, maybe psychotic break? If you're the defense lawyer, Ashley, are you looking at that kind of thing to decide, okay, am I going to set up a not guilty by reason of insanity defense or perhaps, you know, my client is permanently or temporarily unable to stand trial? Is that what's going on here? Oh, yeah, 100%. And I think it's important to sort of walk everyone through that, you know, what that really looks like. As a defense lawyer, when you're talking to your client, particularly right after something happened, that's when you want to get all the information. You want to get accurate information and you want to get it when it's fresh in your client's mind. And so he's probably trying to gather all of that information. Where it's really compounded is when the client has been using drugs.

Maybe they're suffering from withdrawals. Maybe he was in a psychotic episode. Maybe he was manic. Maybe he was psychotic. Who knows what was happening? If he was manic, maybe he's now in a depressive low. You know, we know that he was on suicide watch. So I think there's a lot of different things that's going on right now with this case and with this client. And I think Mr. Jackson is probably trying to get as much information as he can so he can get the right experts to do evaluations. He can make sure that is client safe? Because, you know, that's a big burden for us as defense lawyers. You've got a client who is suffering from mental illness. They're in custody. Clients commit suicide all the time in custody. I mean, I would bet that you both have had clients commit suicide. I've had three clients

commit suicide. That's a lot. I mean, it's a lot. And I will never forget any of that. And, you know, so it's not lost on me. But I think what he's probably doing is trying to develop evidence to figure out where he wants to go with the case. Is it competency? And I know Dave mentioned, you know, competency. What is that? What does that look like? You have to actually be competent to assist your attorney. And what does that mean? That means you've got to be able to answer questions. You've got to be able to make decisions. You know, I give guidance to clients, but I can't make every decision for them. They have to decide, for example, if they want to enter a guilty plea or they want to plea, not guilty. That is really what arraignment is for. It's to enter a guilty or not guilty

plea and to make sure that you've got a lawyer. So, you know, you never know if this, this kid was saying, Alan, I want to plead guilty. I want to plead guilty. I did it. And he's saying, give me some more time because he doesn't know if his client's even competent to plead guilty. That could be what we're facing here, you know. You know, Dave, if you're a prosecutor, I know this is hard for you to do, but put on your prosecutor hat just for a minute. Okay. You're back in the, in representing the state here, and you've got this set of facts that's presented to you. and the allegations, or at least as reported by page six, right, six,

Nick was at Conan O'Brien's Christmas party, right, back on the 17th of December. And apparently, he got into an argument with his parents. He, according to someone who was present, someone named Bill Hater, he was harassing people. He went up to Hater reportedly and said, you know, what's your name? What's your last name? Are you famous?

he reportedly pestered other partygoers with the same questions and eventually he was asked to leave and this of course is after he showed up in the wrong attire he was apparently just wearing like a hoodie but this was like a nice more dressy kind of holiday occasion and so there was apparently lots of bizarre behavior in the hours or maybe day or so that preceded this so if you're the prosecutor dave what are you going to do with those facts to develop the rebuttal to the defense argument that maybe the client doesn't know right from wrong or maybe it's not going to be competent to stand trial. Let's take the easier one.

It is very difficult to sustain an insanity defense. And I know when John Hinckley Jr. got it, got away with trying to kill President Reagan, people thought, wow, this is too easy. You have these individuals getting off left and right under insanity defenses. but in reality, it's very rare. And here, he's not going to be able to take advantage of that because he knew the difference between right and wrong. And you know how we know?

Because he fled and was evasive after the murders. Why was he checking into a separate hotel? He didn't call police. He didn't sit there at the scene. He snuck out and checked into a separate location for an overnight stay, essentially to be evasive, to try to hide that he was involved in this because he knew what he did was a crime.

He knew what he did was wrong. So it's your actions after the fact that can easily disprove that you didn't know the difference between right and wrong. Now, as far as competency, that's harder. That's something as a prosecutor. You get your own experts and they interview the person

and you hope that your experts will say, yeah, he is able to assist in his defense. He understands the nature of the charge against him and if he doesn't, you want your expert to say he is malingering. You guys know what that is, right, malingering, which is the legal term for he's faking it. So that's what you're going to try to use to prevent him from being sent to the mental hospital until he becomes competent to stand trial.

Because the fear is that if he's ruled incompetent to stand trial, he goes to the mental hospital and then it could take forever until he's brought back to mental health. and then if he can't be brought back to health, he's released. So that is perhaps a strategy here for Alan Jackson is just to say he's not competent to stand trial. It won't even go to a trial. We don't have to worry about an insane defense. And that's perhaps why he's showing up wearing a smock

because I think the defense counsel wants him to look like that in front of the court and the world. Hey, it's me, Megan Kelly. Before we dive into our true crime topic of the day, I want to tell you about today's sponsor. If you are wondering how you're going to survive the holiday season without gaining 10 pounds, or if you're just sick of feeling sluggish every winter, listen up. Consider veracity.

Veracity says it provides an all-natural drug-free way to fire up your metabolism, crush cravings, regain your mental focus, and finally feel like yourself again. You've heard the GLP1 hype, but if needles and side effects worry you, meet Metabolism Ignite. The number one doctor recommended GLP1. booster and natural alternative. They say it's packed with healthy ingredients like ibiscus, green coffee, bean, and magnesium, and they also say it's safe if you are already on a GLP1 or breastfeeding. Veracity says it provides real self-care that tackles the

root cause of why our metabolism fails us. So consider Veracity this holiday season. Head to Veracityselfcare.com. Use the code MK for up to 45% off your order. Okay, don't forget that code mk when you check out for up to 45% off once again that's veracity self-care.com code mk check it out so look if if this was as many have speculated this was some kind of a drug-induced psychosis or something like that normally that would resolve itself once someone spends some time in jail and whatever they may have taken sort of works its way out of their system. So it would seem to me that if someone is that messed up on drugs, it might very well be that at that moment they may not be capable in doing much to assist their

lawyers. But that being said, that could be temporary. And there's not much that a lawyer really needs assistance with at this phase other than at some point being able to talk about the facts and circumstances. But whether or not you're going to waive an arraignment is typically, you know, that's something that maybe a lawyer can do without a whole lot of client input. But I will say, according to our friends Mark Garagos and Matt Murphy in California, we know that it is much more sort of unusual for lawyers to waive an arraignment. There's a lot of discovery. By that, by that, I mean, the defense is able to get, in this case,

they even had access to the crime scene, as I understand it already, but they're able to get a lot more of the information contained in the prosecutor's case file. It's not that way in every state, but in California, I think there can be some distinct advantages by delaying a little bit so you can see a little bit more about what kind of cards the prosecutor is holding. Speaking of defense lawyers, I want to move on to another issue. Okay, so we've got questions here about, all right, is this person, if he's convicted, able to inherit from the estate of his now deceased parents? And of course, California has the Slayer statute that basically says, no, even if you otherwise would be eligible to inherit, if you murder them, you're not able to do so. But there's a, I guess, a similar issue that has now presented itself who is paying for the expensive criminal defense lawyer. Reportedly, the fee to the lawyer is coming from the estate of the deceased parents paid for by family members who say that they want.

their loved one to not go to prison for the rest of his life, but maybe spend his life in a mental institution. So, Ashley, what I can say is that you know and I know and Dave knows it's not unheard of, not even uncommon, nor is it improper for victims to pay for the defense of the perpetrator, the alleged perpetrator, happens all the time. But what doesn't happen all the time is we don't see deceased victims paying for it. Right. Have you ever seen anything like this?

I've never seen anything just like this, but it actually does not surprise me. And I can't imagine what the brother and sister of this gentleman, you know, the other two children, that obviously the ones that are the victims here, I mean, you know, the parents were the victims, but they're without their parents. And I've seen where they were very close with their parents. I mean, now their brother's accused. So, you know, I can't imagine the burden and they're probably the trustees, but I can't imagine the burden on them to make this decision. The one thing I can say about it, though, is I understand why they would want him to have a good defense lawyer, because I think that the only way that everybody can sleep at night and feel like any amount of justice is done is when you have a good defense. When you have a good and ethical prosecutor and you have a good ethical, aggressive defense lawyer. And for me, if it was my family and my loved one, I would agree. I would want them to have the best defense possible because that's the only way I could sleep at night and know that the truth came out. And I think that's what they want, you know, there's got to be more here.

And so I would want the comfort of knowing that my loved one, because they have to love their brother. They have to. They have to be extremely angry of him at him. But I'm sure that they still have feelings for him, you know, especially if he was in some type of a rage or something like that. So I think it's completely reasonable. They also have the means. So, you know, the fact that they have the means and the fact that they want him to go to good defense, I think that's perfectly reasonable for them. So I'm operating under the assumption.

It may not be the case, but I think it's probably a fair assumption that this estate is in a trust of some kind as opposed to a traditional will. So if it is a trust, it's actually alluded to there would be at least one trustee, presumably some family member, maybe another surviving child. We don't know who that is. But the estate is worth reportedly around $200 million or so, right? This is a result of a long career in Hollywood. it's a lot of money, $200 million day, but look, what if there's a dispute? What if there are other beneficiaries of this trust, other individuals who might be set to inherit some of that, and what if they say, look, I'm a beneficiary of this estate,

and I don't want this $200 million corpus of this trust being used to defend, you know, the killer of the principles of this trust, right? what do you do when this dispute, and I think it's probably inevitable, I think it's going to happen. I think there's going to be a dispute about using their money for the defense of the alleged killer. Dave, what do you say? Well, Professor Holloway, this turned into a trust in the states class, huh? I thought we were here for criminal law, but let's talk about trust in the states. It depends on who the beneficiaries are, is it the kids?

And if it is, if there's a dispute amongst the remaining children, yes, that could be a court decision. But apparently, according to what we've seen, is that it's the decision of the estate to provide this guy Nick with an attorney, and not just any attorney, an aggressive criminal defense lawyer. That's the surprise here. You generally hire Alan Jackson not to cop a plea and go away. You'd do something to do a high-profile fight, perhaps to create a Menendez situation, which would be appalling. I mean, it would be appalling to the legacy of the Reiner's, and you've got to believe that those who are funding this criminal defense lawyer would not want their parents to be dragged through the mud like the Menendez brothers' parents were. So I would believe that that's where they

have some influence. Maybe that's why they want to hire the lawyer to make sure that he gets the best representation where he can perhaps go to a mental institution instead of a prison and perhaps to avoid having to come up with this narrative that he's the victim here and the parents who people all seem to really love. Rob Reiner and his wife, by all accounts, are good people who even people on the other side politically of them admire and love to prevent them from being dragged through the mud. So maybe there is an incentive here for the remaining children, if they control the estate, to pay for Nick's lawyer's fees because then they have a little bit of control. Well, this case is obviously going to be around for a while. So whoever they, you know,

is going to represent him, presumably Mr. Jackson. for the duration, has a lot of work ahead of him and his team, right? Ashley, because this could be a death penalty case. We have the allegations of special circumstances, which under most states that have the death penalty, not all murders will qualify. It's got to be certain murders that are arguably worse in some way and this way because allegedly there was a double homicide and because there was a deadly weapon use, such is the knife in this case. But actually, what is different about defending this case if the potential

for death is on the table? Remembering, however, that California is kind of weird, right? Yeah. It's kind of like in a hiatus. There's no, they're not currently carrying out the death penalty, but theoretically the jury, as I understand it, could impose it if the prosecutor seeks it. Right. They could. And they're on a moratorium right now, Phil. So the governor has actually said we're not executing anyone. So that means he's not signing any warrants, but that doesn't mean that he couldn't end up on death row. So the second that I read special circumstances, I immediately thought, oh, death penalty, because that's one of the terms of art that we use for death penalty cases. Back in the 70s, the Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court said that we could

not have death penalty cases anymore. But then within about a year, they said, well, actually, we can, but you have to make sure that it's proportional to the crime. There's got to be some special circumstances. And so when you see those special circumstances, immediately you start to think, oh, death penalty eligible. Is this a death eligible crime? Typically, special circumstances are if there's more than one person killed, or this is the one that I kind of get bothered by. It's sort of a catch-all if the death is in the commission of another felony. Every death is in the commission of another felony. You could be committing an assault and the person dies. So essentially, that special circumstance, in my opinion, is kind of null and void. But immediately I started thinking about that, and I'm

sure that that is something that Alan Jackson is thinking about because not only do we have what we've talked about with competency and with insanity, but now we've got death penalty. So death penalty, you're automatically thinking mitigation because how a death penalty case works is you first go through the innocence and guilt phase. So the jury, like we typically see, guilty or not guilty. But then you have a second phase of the jury trial. And the jury actually hears what's called aggravating circumstances, those special circumstances, but they also hear mitigation. They hear mitigating evidence. And so any mental health defense, any use of drugs at the time, any abuse, anything like

that is going to be factored in as mitigation. So he's probably already thinking about that. I need to start developing that mitigation now to try to help my client avoid the death penalty if the state does decide to pursue it. Dave, you brought up, to Ashley's point, you brought up something a minute ago. You were talking about whether or not we could be seeing the defense set up here for what we calling the Menendez defense, right? You're saying that there was some kind of abuse that just drove your client to act on this irresistible impulse or something along those lines that led to

this big blow up and, of course, the murder. So we don't know yet if that's going to be the case. We speculate that it could be headed that way. But in terms of mitigation, if you're the prosecutor, and this is the way that the defense goes, and they're saying, look, our client may have killed his father and mother, but it was because he was the victim of some kind of abuse over the course of his lifetime. As the prosecutor, what do you do to counteract that kind of mitigation? Because, look, we don't have the benefit of hearing from the deceased victims to counter any such allegation. You've got to look into any allegation and just disprove it. It's just a factual inquiry. You need to talk to your investigators at the

district attorney's office and just to show this is this is garbage i mean that that's what they did when it came to the menendez brothers when they try to use the abuse excuse plus you want to follow the public statements if he's never made nicks never made a public statement about this in the past and all of a sudden now brings it up you know that's that's telling also you want to see every time he speaks to someone like in the menendez brothers case they spoke to psychiatrists after the murder and only later, not right away, later did they bring up the abuse excuse. So that's the kind of thing, showing inconsistencies that could just punch holes through any such claim.

And as a prosecutor, I can just tell you, you're a human being. And if they try to victimize the victims yet again, it would make me extra angry to dig in my heels and to demand serious punishment, life and prison, even the death penalty, because it's one thing if you take responsibility, plead for mercy, and say I have dependencies issues. It's another thing we say, I did it because I was in fear of my life and make up some crazy story about someone who's so beloved in our community. Ashley, let's just say that you get the call to go out to California and assist in this defense. What direction would you take it? I would want to talk to him. I'd want to talk to my client about what was going on in his mind

at that time. I would try to really establish what he was thinking. I would try to create a timeline about his mental health also. Was he self-medicating? You know, is that what happened to try to negate intent? Because this is really going to come down to whether or not he had criminal intent and what his reasons were for trying to brutally kill his parents. And I would really focus on that because this is not, this isn't a shooting. You know, the goal was not just to kill someone.

This was an act, a very violent act. And that, to me, signifies that there's something going on. I would hire the best experts that I could to do full analysis of everything going on mentally with him, you know, get all of the records, get all of his history, and make sure that I fully understood his mental capacity. Well, this particular DA's office in Los Angeles is no stranger to this Menendez defense, if that's the way it's going, because they've, of course, recently just been through it with the actual Menendez.

So they certainly know what they're doing. And, of course, this is one that we're going to be watching very closely here at M.K. True Crime. So stick with us because we'll be in it probably for the duration. Now, coming up next, after the break, we have a listener request for updates on the John Bonnet Ramsey case. Ashley and Dave, I know you guys remember her. Here's a little fun fact. Maybe not so fun. John Bonay Ramsey's grave is very close to where Ashley's office is and where my office is in Cobb County, Georgia. And I don't know, Ashley, if you've ever been out there. but do you remember back in the, I guess, aftermath of her murder?

They actually put listening devices in the trees that are near her grave out there because they were thinking maybe someone would come and make some incriminating statements. But here we are in 2025, and there's still been no killer announced. But we may have some different news on that. We'll discuss that coming up after the break. Also, we have update on singer David. 4VD, as I call him. There is a new allegation that he was in possession, or at least in his home, there was an

industrial incinerator located, capable of reaching temperatures of over 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit. So stick around. We'll get into that after the break. I've been talking a lot about River Bend Ranch because I love their steaks. Well, this holiday season express your love with a very special gift of premium steaks from River Bend Ranch. They have spectacular beef bundles that are wonderful gifts to friends and family. Their prime rib roast and holiday bundles are only available while supplies

last and they're going fast. For the last 35 years, River Bend Ranch has been creating an elite Angus herd by using ultrasound technology to identify genetically superior cattle with a focus on flavor and tenderness. All River Bend Ranch cattle are born and raised in the USA. They never use growth hormones or antibiotics, and the beef is processed right at the ranch in their award-winning USDA-inspected processing facility. Avoid the costly middlemen because the beef is sent directly from River Bend Ranch to your home. This is not your average Black Angus beef. Order from RiverbenRanch.com. Use the promo code Megan for 20 bucks off your first order, and let me know what you think. That's Riverbendranch.com promo code Megan.

Welcome back to M.K. True Crime. I'm Phil Holloway. I'm here with my co-host, Ashley Merchant and Dave Ehrenberg. And we have been following here at M.K. True Crime, the case of Senior David out in California. We've been following this since September. And to be honest with you guys, the case gets more and more disturbing. By way of a reminder, the badly decomposed remains of 14-year-old victim, Celeste Rivas, her name. were found in the trunk of David's Tesla back in September.

The Los Angeles Police Department is investigating the case, as we understand it, as a homicide. They have confirmed that David is being seriously considered as a suspect, but no one has yet been charged with anything, not with destroying the remains, not with hiding evidence, or certainly not even a murder. Allegedly, there is an investigative grand jury that's hearing evidence, which in and of itself is very peculiar. But now in the case, we're told there are multiple witnesses that are close to David that are cooperating. They're testifying to this grand jury.

And now, guys, we have a private investigator claiming that he found this industrial burn cage inside David's rental home. As I said, the reports are that this item available, I guess, you can buy it online, but it's capable of reaching temperatures of close to 1,600 degrees Fahrenheit. height, more than enough to incinerate human remains. Of course, the remains were located, but still, this is a very, very bizarre and peculiar turn of events, Dave Ehrenberg. You're the prosecutor. Do you do something with this evidence? Yes. In fact, it was not subject to the search warrant, so it's not being used, apparently, in front of this grand jury. And the only answer to that as to why not is because apparently was discovered by a private investigator and perhaps the

authorities did not learn of this. What is this thing called a burn pit or something? What is this? Yeah, it's a burn cage. It says professional power done right, DR burn cage. I mean, my gosh, I don't know where you get one of those if it comes on Amazon Prime, but that is ridiculous. There's only really one reason why someone who's suspected of killing an underage girl who is found in his trunk would use that for. It's like a scene from Ozark. So I have to me is real evidence. That's circumstantial evidence, but it's real evidence. And perhaps the only reason why it has not been used allegedly is because prosecutors in the law enforcement and didn't know about it until now. Hey, look, you can't, don't, don't, don't bad mouth anything

about Ozart because yours truly was in season three episode one as an extra at the poker table. No, no, wait, wait. This one of the whole episode. First of all, I love the show. It's one of my favorite shows of all time. It's why I never do business with the Mexican cartel. And secondly... Oh, that's the only reason? There's a lot of reasons. Standards. Right, exactly.

But Phil, I'm sorry, but can you at least tell us where you were doing as an extra? I was a high roller at the poker table, season three, episode one. Check it out. I didn't say a word because then they would have to pay me more and put me in the Screen Actors Guild. But anyway, a story for another time. Ashley, this incinerator reportedly was still boxed and unused and it was discovered inside the residence on Doheny Street by someone named Steve Fisher, who was hired to comb through the $20,000 a month pad by the owner of that rental property.

What do you make of it? So if I'm the defense lawyer helping David, I'm going to come up with a really good reason that he's got a burn cage. There better be a really good reason, because that is an odd thing to have. I mean, you better be doing some neighborhood cremation of animals for a charity or something. I mean, there'd better be some really good reason. This isn't like a burn pit where you're in your backyard and you're just doing a fire pit burning up some leaves.

I mean, this is literally a device to cremate remains. And that's what this device is. It's insane to me that it's even sold like this. I mean, what do you need a burn cage for other than maybe trash? But I would want to have some really solid reasons. Again, the police aren't using it, but it might come up later on. And so you want to have some good reason why this man has a burn cage. And the thing about this case is that his music, his actions, they're just strange. And nobody can really piece it together. I would imagine that's why the police are taking so long. They're trying to put these little tiny odd things together. And they don't have any smoking gun. You know, they don't have anything like that. But they've got a lot of really bizarre things that he's been doing. Really bizarre things he's singing about, things that are bizarre in his house. And so I think they're just trying to put all of these little pieces together before they make an arrest.

Well, our intrepid producer Natasha has researched this issue, and she informs me that standard human cremation requires a temperature of at least 1,400 degrees, and of course this is apparently more powerful than that. Of note, these incinerators are illegal to use in L.A. David, by the way, being the most searched person on Google of 2025, Dave Ehrenberg, I thought it was going to be you. but you didn't make it it was David no no it was David they just didn't put my last name in right okay also I don't spell it with like a four I need to start doing that putting numbers on my name so but yes I have to admit I had not heard of David before all of this and I think one of the reasons why he was most searched is because you have a lot of people like us we're trying to figure out who this guy is as opposed to like Taylor Swift whoever everyone knows yeah 100% I think I contributed to that Google search because my kids immediately know, oh, yeah, of course I

knew who that is. And they knew all the stuff, but they learned it on TikTok. So if we're not on TikTok, we don't know who he is and we don't know all this stuff. And so we're all contributing to this Google search. Well, look, it's going to be interesting. This is another one that we've been following here. We're going to continue to follow it here on the show moving into the new year. This case is going somewhere. I think there's going to be charges. I thought, honestly, there would have been some charges by now because somebody destroyed that body. It was literally dismembered and found in this Tesla. Somebody did that, and that's a crime.

I think cops at least have some idea who that person was or persons maybe that did that. And of course, there's the other issue of this illicit relationship, allegedly, between David and the underage victim. Now, there's going to be an electronic trail. We've talked about that on the show as well before. I think that all that stuff is going to lead to some kind of criminal charges, maybe even a murder indictment. And if so, we'll have it for you here straight away at M.K. True Crime. Now, I want to turn our attention to John Bonae Ramsey.

Now, this is a case that goes back 29 years, all the way back to December 26, whatever 29 years ago is. And this was, for those of you who don't know, this comes, by the way, This is a listener suggestion from listener Melissa. We really do read the emails that you send us, mK.True Crime at Devil Maycaremedia.com. And Melissa has asked us to cover this show. She says, love the show. You're all so brilliant.

Love hearing the perspectives with the legal analysis on a variety of cases. Very well done. I wonder what the status of the case for John Bonae Ramsey is. All right. So, Ashley, can you give us sort of the Reader's Digest version on what this case, is about and what happened. Yeah, definitely. So, you know, this young girl, she was killed when she was

six years old. She was strangled. And so they found her. They knew what happened. And for a long time, they thought that her parents had done it. And then they looked at different family members, friends. I mean, they really had just about everybody as a suspect. And they narrowed all of it, those people down. And they were all cleared. Their names were cleared. I think there was always been a lot of suspicion about that. But what I think is really interesting right now is they're using new DNA technology to try to solve this case. And we're going to see this a lot more because is just evolving every day. I don't know if a lot of people have followed it, but after 9-11, they really established this new type of DNA technology where they were able to get DNA

and it's not necessarily what I would consider blood, semen, or saliva. So the standard old-school DNA is always blood, semen, or saliva, you know, a fluid. Now we've got DNA where it's touched DNA. Essentially, you're touching something and your DNA is on it. We also have more procedures. They're called amplification where you're able to actually, it's So let's say you've got four different people's DNA on an object. You're able to actually extract one profile so that you can try to match it to something else. So now take that a step further. And now we have all these people going into these genealogy databases.

And that's where they're trying to take this case. They're trying to really use those genealogy databases, you know, where you take that swab, you get it for Christmas. Some people may have it under their tree. 23 and me, I don't even know if they're still in business, but ancestry, all these places that have their DNA, you know, that is contributing to this. so they're really hoping that some of the advances in the DNA, particularly with genealogy, is going to at least narrow down to a family member maybe so that they can narrow down some

suspects and keep the case alive. Dave, I want to get your thoughts on this annual update from Boulder Police Department. So let's go ahead and hear SOT 2, and then we'll ask Dave about it. This case remains a top priority for our department. This past year, our detectives have conducted several new interviews, as well as re-interviewed individuals based on tips that we've received. We've also collected new evidence and tested and retested other pieces of evidence to generate new leads. Techniques and technology constantly evolved. This is especially true with technology related to DNA testing. Detectives continue to consult with outside experts from across the country, as well as our state and federal partners, to strategize and explore all options when it

comes to evidence testing. All right, Dave. So there you have it. That's the update. They say that they have new interviews and they have re-interviews. If you're the prosecutor out there, and I know it's not the same guys it was back when this happened, but if you're the prosecutor that inherits this still unsolved cold case, is that how you would proceed or is there anything else you would do?

Are they doing it the right way? Ashley hit upon it. The new technology is genetic genealogy. It's what helped catch Brian Coburger. Brian Coburger's relative was found through one of these 23ME databases as a match. And then that's how they traced it to Brian Coburger. We don't know who the relative is. In fact, this whole area is shrouded in secrecy.

And why? Because it relies on all of us who enter into these databases voluntarily. And the thinking is if people thought, hey, if I check the box that said, sure, I'll be in a public database. Then I'll get hassled by cops who are investigating a murder out there. And maybe the real murder will blame it on me because it's my DNA that's found when it's really his. So that's a thing that police are intentionally trying to be vague on this. They're talking about new technologies. The fear is, is that enough people know about it that they'll click, no, they do not want to be entered into the database. But now you have all these databases out

there, all these companies who do it. And so it is now a real chance that we could find a match that didn't exist before. Also, because of what Ashley said, you don't need all the stuff you needed before. You just need the touch DNA and you need a relative. So in the year 2025, maybe there's hope that we can finally catch the real killer here. And as Ashley said, it is not the parents. I know they still are under suspicion. The mother passed away years ago. And they've been drawn through the mud. It was not the parents. No, and I don't think it's the father. either. In fact, we've got SOT 3. If we can go ahead and roll that, this is Father John Ramsey saying that he's advocating for this DNA evidence to be investigated by Othram Labs.

Othrum is one of the few cutting-edge labs that can do investigative genetic genealogy, IGG, is the term for it. And we've been advocating that the Border Police do that, use that technology in our case. I think if they do, we've got to probably have 70, 80% chance to getting an answer. It's been very successful in solving old cold cases. It's kind of the latest and greatest use of technology and DNA to solve crimes. You know, Mr. Ramsey there, he's not wrong. earlier this year, I had the opportunity to interview here on this show. We did a special episode. I interviewed one of the owners of Authrum Labs. And I encourage folks to go back and take a look and a listen to that interview because this is really great technology. I think it's very promising. And this very well could be what gets us to some answer as to what happened in this case 29 years ago with the death of John Bonae Ramsey.

Stay tuned. Coming up, we have our closing arguments right after the bruce. There are a lot of politicians that should be getting coal in their stocking for Christmas, but Birch Gold thinks, as a smart planner, you deserve silver. That's why for every $5,000 you purchase between now and December 22nd, Berch Gold will send you an ounce of silver, which is up over 60% this year. See smart people diversify and have a hedge. That's why you should consider Birch Gold. With the rate cuts from the Fed in 20, 26, the dollar could be worth less. And what happens if the AI bubble bursts? Consider letting Birch Gold Group help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax-sheltered IRA in physical

gold. And for every $5,000 you buy, you will get an ounce of silver for you or your kids. Just text MK to the number 9898-98 to claim your eligibility for this offer. Again, text MK to 9-8-98 because Birch Gold's free silver with qualifying purchase promotion ends on December 22nd. data rates may apply. Welcome back to M.K. True Crime. I'm Phil Holloway, joined by my fellow contributors, Ashley Merchant and Dave Ehrenberg. And if you can believe it, guys, it's time for our last closing argument of 2025 here on the show. But first, did you know that you can now listen to MK. True Crime on the Megan Kelly Channel, Sirius XM, Channel 111. This is part

of our Megan's podcast playlist. M.K. True Crime will air Tuesdays at 10 a.m. and Saturdays at 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on Sirius XM. Channel 111. All right. Ashley, we'll continue with the theme of ladies first. If you're ready, we'd love to hear what your closing is for today. The last one of the year. So take it home.

I know. Last one of the year. So it's got to be epic. Normally I don't really rant. I do more of a, you know, lecture. type style, but today I'm going to rant a little bit. So earlier this week, we got to see Fannie Willis. We got to see her testify finally in front of the Senate, a committee that I testified in front of, I don't know, 18 months ago, immediately. And I'm going to just kind of walk you through a little bit of the differences first and then mention a couple things and sort of respond to them.

So first, it took the Senate, what, 18 months for her to actually sit her butt in that chair and answer questions. When they gave me a subpoena, I said, when do you need me? It is a public service. you want to hear from me, I've got nothing to hide. That's the first thing. When she testified, she definitely leveled her rage. I read that quote somewhere and I said, that is appropriate. She leveled her rage. But I wonder, why act like that? If you've got nothing to hide, if you're not upset about what you've done, if you are beyond reproach, why act like that? Why show such anger? But the other thing that I really wanted to talk about, it's just, you know, I was sitting in my chair as I watched it and I was kind of like wanting to scream, you know, oh, wait, that's wrong.

If you go back and you watch your testimony, and it's out there, you can find it. The Georgia General Assembly live streamed it. You can go watch it. One of the things that was asked was if she had had conversations before she took office, if she had done certain things before she took office on the Trump election interference case, the Georgia election interference case. Her response, kind of insane, that it's a dumbass question. So a state senator is asking her a question, calm, respectful, asking her.

a question in the state capital under the Georgia Gold Dome asking her a question about if she had taken action before she took office or had conversations about this case. She says that's a dumbass question. And she says, it's factually impossible. I'm literally screaming, where's my indictment? Because you know what? My indictment where my client was charged says he was charged with racketeering conspiracy. And guess what the date that that racketeering conspiracy started? November 4th, 2020. Guess when Ms. Willis took office? January 1st, 2021. So I don't really know if Senator Dolesal is the dumbass or who's the dumbass, but if you had looked at the indictment, you would clearly see that you yourself, Ms. Willis, had alleged that this crime started to occur before you

took office. So there's my rant. I hope everybody has a great holiday and a happy new year. All right. So there it is. We end 2026 with Ashley Merchant posing the question. Who is the dumbass? All right, Dave, your turn, buddy. What's on your mind today? What's your final closing argument to close out the year? Well, thank you, Phil. Thank you, Ashley.

I really enjoyed being partnered up with you guys here on True Crime. And when it comes to the last couple weeks, it's been a gut punch because we've seen such violence, such tragedy. We saw it at Brown University, where they still haven't caught the killer. We saw it at a Bandai Beach in Australia where 15 innocent Jews were slaughtered by jihadist. We saw it with Rob Reiner and his wife who were murdered by their own son. But just when you thought there was no hope for humanity, we see heroes. People like Ahmed al-Amed.

He's a 44-year-old Syrian-Australian Muslim shop owner, father of two, who disarmed one of the terrorists and got shot for it, became a hero, probably saving countless lives. Just contrast him with the radical Islamists who were trying to murder Jews in the name of ISIS. And we also saw when it came to Rob Reiner's tragic murder, we saw that there were people on the right who spoke up. And yes, I was very disappointed even by,

President of Trump's standards that he said the things he did about Rob Reiner. He should have let that go. But I was heartened by James Woods, who I often disagree with politically. And he said this in an emotional talk on Fox News said that because you disagree with people doesn't mean you have to hate people. He called Reiner a godsend and a great patriot, noting that they both loved the same country but had a different path to the same destination. Rob Schneider, formerly a Sire Night Live, who has expressed a lot of very conservative views and gotten in trouble for it, he said this, I really admire Rob Reiner and ask that everybody will be able to put aside our political affiliations and opinions and enjoy somebody for their true talents. We have

to agree to disagree and also agree that we can condemn a horrible, horrible tragedy. we've done it and asked for it in the past we can do it ourselves here today remember is Rob Reiner who condemned the murder of Charlie Kirk and so I'm looking at the best of humanity people on both sides of the aisle come together and say no

we must move out of this time of despair of senseless violence and in this our final episode of the year in the midst of Hanukkah and shortly before families around the world will celebrate Christmas this positivity is why I like to focus on. It's the hope that during these times of trolling and swatting and contrived consternation

that we light candles during Hanukkah and are taught that darkness cannot drive out darkness. Only light can. So my wish for all of us here at MK True Crime is that we all become the light in the lives of others. Never lose faith that the power to heal this world is within us all. all right you know look so one of the things i really love about this show like in the closing arguments we never know um what anybody is going to say it's completely up to the the individual co-host or contributor and so this is a perfect example of three people three contributors doing this show and we have three different directions that we go in because i'm going to talk to you a little bit about um the phenomenon known as stealth jurors and the

reason I want to talk about stealth jurors is because here at m k true crime among some other exciting changes that we'll talk more about later here on the channel and on the show we're going to be covering more trials and okay we're going to be focusing in depth on some of these high profile trials stealth jurors are people who intentionally concealed their biases their prejudice or their personal agendas during the jury selection process because they're trying to get on a jury That jury selection, of course, known as we mean, I actually say in the South we call it voir dire. Dave may call it voir dire, but it's the time when the lawyers and sometimes judges get to question jurors. And sometimes they're dishonest, and they do this just so they can get seated on a jury and influence the outcome of a trial.

So they oftentimes, they will lie, they will misrepresent what their views are, what their opinions are. They will misrepresent whatever conflict of interest they may have. have. They try to appear neutral. And they try to fly under the radar so that they can get put on this jury with some agenda. We've seen some examples of this, of course, in history. We have some allegations, for example, from the Scott Peterson trial years ago out in California. But, you know, what they do, they'll hide their opinions, they'll hide their personal connections. They will hide motives. A lot of times they might want to say, write a book,

or seek their 15 minutes of fame doing news interviews following whatever the verdict may be in these high-profile trials. So, stealth jurors, they're a real problem. They're a serious problem. They undermine the fundamental right to a fair and honest, impartial jury as guaranteed by law to every person accused

of a crime in the United States. They taint deliberations. They lead to biased. wrong verdicts. They hung juries, they hang juries, and they misrepresent themselves to result in mistrials and wrongful convictions or wrongful acquittals. Their presence in the jury box erodes public trust in the justice system and it leads to unjust outcomes, regardless of whatever the evidence is that's presented in the case. So detecting them is challenging, but it's crucial. It requires lawyers to ask probing questions, good questions designed to look for nonverbal clues,

inconsistencies in their responses, and they oftentimes have to resort to post-trial revelations to see if this has happened because these people can be prosecuted for lying during the jury selection process. That's it. That's my rant. That's my close for 2025. First, though, I want to say thank you to all of you who are our audience. You make this show what it is. whether you watch on YouTube, whether you listen on Sirius or you listen on podcast. Thank you. And thank you to my fellow contributors today, Ashley Merchant and Dave Ehrenberg. This has been a great year, and we have some very exciting things coming up in store for 2026. More on that, so stay tuned.

But until then, I wish all of you a very Merry Christmas. Happy Hanukkah, happy holidays, and of course, happy New Year from us at M.K. True Crime. Thank you.