The Megyn Kelly Show - Rumblings on Epstein "Client List," Kohberger Inspiration, and Grandma on Trial For Son-in-Law's Murder, with Dave Aronberg and Viva Frei | Ep. 1106

Episode Date: July 11, 2025

Megyn Kelly is joined by Dave Aronberg and Viva Frei, legal experts, to discuss important distinctions between a Jeffrey Epstein “client list” and a “list of clients,” whether any sort of list should be made public and if powerful people are being protected, whether we'll ever get more info about the story, why MAGA won’t simply accept the leaked Trump memo on Epstein saying to move on, the problem with AG Pam Bondi's past comments, why the Diddy prosecution failed and presented a “limited” case, why no other prominent names were introduced at trial, how Bryan Kohberger may have been inspired by a specific mass killer, what Kohberger might have been planning if he hadn't been arrested, alleged murderer Karmelo Anthony’s family spokesperson is trying to racialize the case and nullify the jury, claiming the family is fighting against “white supremacy,” the Donna Adelson trial coming up next month, the wild and horrifying story of the grandma charged with the murder-for-hire of her son-in-law, the revealing jailhouse call with her son, all the people already charged in the crime, and more. Aronberg- https://www.amazon.com/Fighting-Florida-Shuffle-Corruption-Treatment/dp/1964686482Frei- https://vivabarneslaw.locals.com/ Firecracker Farm: Visit https://firecracker.FARM & enter code MK at checkout for a special discount!Grand Canyon University: https://GCU.eduDone with Debt: https://www.DoneWithDebt.comIncogni: Visit https://incogni.com/MEGYN for 60% off our annual plan Follow The Megyn Kelly Show on all social platforms:YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/MegynKellyTwitter: http://Twitter.com/MegynKellyShowInstagram: http://Instagram.com/MegynKellyShowFacebook: http://Facebook.com/MegynKellyShow Find out more information at: https://www.devilmaycaremedia.com/megynkellyshow

Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show, live on SiriusXM Channel 111 every weekday at noon East. Hey everyone, I'm Megyn Kelly. Welcome to The Megyn Kelly Show and happy Friday and happy birthday, Linda. It's my mom's birthday today. Love her a lot and I know she's listening. Okay, so we had to end this week with the Kelly's court with so much news going on. We've got updates on Epstein, Brian Kohlberger, Diddy and a shocking case in Florida that's about

to get underway with cameras in the courtroom next month where a mother-in-law is charged with a murder for hire of her daughter's ex-husband. Here to break it down, former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, managing partner now of Dave Ehrenberg Law, Dave Ehrenberg, and he's also the author of the new book, Fighting the Florida Shuffle.

And along with Dave, we've got former litigator and rumble creator, Viva Frye. This is a great panel. Okay, if you wanna know about something positive and upbeat, I have been telling you about Firecracker Farm Hot Salt. It's been a showstopper gift and must have item for anyone that enjoys spicing up their food. What is hot salt, you may be asking.

Well, it is a sea salt infused with a blend of hot pepper that's made by a wonderful little family company. It comes in sleek stainless steel push grinders that feel great in hand and are really satisfying to use. Their motto? Everything is better with hot salt. And based on the reviews, customers are in full agreement. So give it a try now. Go to firecracker.farm right now and use code MK at checkout for a special discount. Yes, that's firecracker.farm, code MK, and get some hot salt before it's all gone. You'll thank me.

Guys, thank you both so much for being here. Thank you for having us. Thank you, and happy birthday, Linda. Yeah, happy birthday, Linda, 84 years young. She's having a great day, and I'm looking forward to seeing her to celebrate in person. Okay, so here is where we're gonna start, Epstein.

A lot going on, we all know what the Trump administration did this week. Now we're getting dribs and drabs. And by the way, I said about 18 months ago on this show that people would be hearing from Jeffrey Epstein. And then I made clear, he's not alive. I was never suggesting that, but I knew of tapes of Jeffrey Epstein

that would get released. And let's just say I stand by my story. I mean it still 100%. Just stand by, okay? By the way, some already were released right before the election that were largely ignored because it was right before the election, but they're not done.

There will be more. And you can, trust me, trust me, I don't say things I can't back up. Okay? So that's happening. In any event, back to the actual substance. There's a clip of Alan Dershowitz that's gone totally viral. It was from an interview he gave Sean Spicer back in March. I'm gonna play it for you. I'm going to update it for you. And then we're going to talk about what, if anything, it all means for what we're

supposed to believe about the FBI's files. Here it is. So let me tell you, I know for a fact documents are being suppressed and they're being suppressed to protect individuals. I know the names of the individuals. I know why they're being suppressed. I know who's suppressing them, but I'm bound by confidentiality from a judge and cases and I can't disclose what I know. But I, hand to God, I know, I know the names of people whose files are being suppressed in order to protect them and that's wrong. Just out of curiosity without names, are these politicians, business leaders, both? They're everything.

And let me tell you, a lot of them are, at least one of them is somebody who was accused. Others are accusers. And the judges have said, if somebody calls themselves a victim, a victim, we're not gonna give any information about them, but they may not be victims. They may be perpetrators. So we don't have information about false accusers. And we know there have been many false accusers who have accused innocent people for money.

And those records are being deliberately, willfully suppressed. Very interesting. Everyone that's sort of a Roar Shark test for how you feel about this case because people who believe the FBI is withholding names of like a pedophile ring focus on the first half and people who don't focus on the second half. We know Alan very well. We covered very, very closely Virginia Dufresque's accusations against him. He came on the show when it was in its infancy and we did a very deep dive into all of it. Alan has been totally exonerated on those accusations.

He disproved this woman's accusations with actual receipts and plane tickets and so on. None of it held up. And ultimately, not surprisingly, she withdrew her suit against him and confessed she may have confused him with someone else, which is the best you're going to get as a guy who gets accused in these cases falsely. But we reached out to him about this soundbite and he said, I did not talk about a client

list. He said to us, let me tell you what the situation is. There are redacted statements in the FBI's file by the accuser, the same woman who accused me, Virginia Joufray. In her statement to the FBI, she never mentioned me because she never heard of me. She didn't know me. But in the statement to the FBI, she did accuse a bunch of other people and their names are in the report.

But the report has been redacted. That's been censored, kept secret. I've seen it, however. I do know who's in that list. And I know a couple of other people who have been accused as well. I don't know whether or not they actually did anything wrong.

I know they were accused mostly by the same woman who falsely accused me. We're talking about Virginia Jouffre. And one of the things that's been suppressed is all the information that is negative to the accusers, the information that proves the accusers made up the stories. So it's much more complicated.

There's no client list, he says. There are names of people who are accused and there are names of people who falsely accuse them. That's all there is. It's a redacted FBI report in which Virginia Joufray names people and I know who the people are and the court has kept the list secret

and has refused to unredact the list. Okay, so what he seems to be saying guys is it's not just Alan who was accused by Virginia or Prince Andrew who was accused by Virginia or Epstein who was accused by Virginia. The list goes on but that and there appears to be more than just Virginia as an accuser in these files. But she's got a very sketchy history with the truth. She's recently deceased but there's no question Virginia lied about Alan and I'm sure she did lie about others. And so he's basically saying history with the truth. She's recently deceased. But there's no question Virginia lied about

Allen and I'm sure she did lie about others. And so he's basically saying the so-called files are more ambiguous than people who believe there's a mass pedophile ring would want you to believe. And Allen believes it should all be released and that these other guys who get accused in these files should have to defend themselves the same way Alan had to. By, you know, disputing each charge, he doesn't like what's happening with either a court holding back redacted documents or the FBI just sort of saying in a sweeping manner, there's nothing to see here. Move on. Viva, I'll start with you on it and then I'll get to you, Dave. nothing to see here. Move on.

Viva, I'll start with you on it and then I'll get to you, Dave. Well, we're using this term client list in a very convenient manner where it either has a strict definition that can be weaseled out of. So they say it's not a client list. I think everybody understands what is meant by the client list, unindicted co-conspirators

or the actual clients of Jeffrey Epstein, not as said by Pan Bondi on pass on for a Fox interview as put to a letter that she signed to cash Patel in February 2025 where she says, I've got a list of Jeffrey Epstein and his clients that that's what people want to understand and want to know here. Not another or not. There's a mass pedophile listening at a client list. Here's Mr.

Jane Doe's favorite person you know, person, whatever. They want to know who was involved in the sex trafficking ring that involved thousands of people that spanned decades that warranted him setting up cameras in his island so that he could capture videos, not of himself only with these ladies, with these women and girls, but the people who went to his island. People have been told for years that there

were unindicted co-conspirators that there were other people involved in the sex trafficking. You don't go to jail for sex trafficking to nobody but yourself and then come out later and say there is no client list. There is no one indicted co-conspirators and when Pan Bondi wrote in a letter that we have Epstein and a list of his clients that she didn't mean a list of his clients.

So whether or not it has the title client list people I say not have been led to believe it only stands to reason from everything that we've known for the last decade plus other people were involved as Dershowitz as either as false accusers or as accused because Epstein wasn't doing this for himself. The videos that they had at his place that they seized were not only of himself, they are ambiguous as to whether or not it was child pornography that was downloaded or produced. And now they just want to sweep it under the rug with an unsigned, undated memo uploaded to the DOJ after it's leaked to Axios. Don't expect anybody to believe that. Go ahead, Dave.

Yes, I have a lot of respect for Professor Dershowitz. He was my law professor, and you don't have to just trust or believe him about Virginia Dufresque's credibility issues because prosecutors felt the same way. That's why she was not called to testify in the Glene Maxwell trial. And so yes, she did have credibility issues. And as far as what's still out there, one thing that I'm interested in is what's on the thumb drives that were taken from Jeffrey Epstein's apartment on

July 6th and 7th of 2019 when the authorities raided his place and had to use a saw to get into his safe and they recovered a bunch of thumb drives. It's not clear whether the contents that have ever been disclosed. And as you correctly said- Sorry, just to confirm what you said, Dave, because I lost it. Did you say his place in Florida or his place in New York? New York, this is from New York.

Okay, yeah. And yeah, there was a safe there and they had to use a saw to get in it and they recovered all these thumb drives and it's not clear whether that's ever been made public. They found cash, diamonds, and passports in these thumb drives and it's not clear whether that's ever been made public. They found cash, diamonds, and passports in these thumb drives. Now, part of the problem is that you're dealing with, as you correctly said, judges who have put a kibosh on it, as well as a decision

by the FBI. I think the FBI's decision is more discretionary because they are trying to protect names of victims, child porn, and all these things that they don't want disclosed. If there are names of individuals who are directly tied to this, then it shouldn't be disclosed. And even if there are names of people who are affiliated, like in the Black Book, who are not part of Epstein Island, I think the public is sophisticated enough where if you release everyone's names, they can sort out

who was part of the pedophilia ring and who just was an associate, someone who knew Jeffrey Epstein. Just because you're in his black book, just because you knew him, doesn't mean you're a pedophile. But I think the FBI and the Trump administration is being very careful about that. They don't want to tar people who are not guilty of any crimes. And perhaps the president himself is concerned, himself being mentioned in that same category, even though there's no proof he committed any of the crimes. So I get why they're very careful, but until you be more transparent,

you're gonna have all these questions out there and all these bloggers and Viva is right to ask these questions. And so they're gonna have to do something because the story is not going away. Mm-hmm, there's a woman, I wanna make sure I have her title correct. Her name is Sigrid McCauley, and she's an attorney representing people who are suing

Epstein's former accountant. This is one of the last Epstein cases that's in federal court. She went on News Nation spoke to Elizabeth Vargas, I think on Wednesday. and here's what she said take a listen to stop for what's really just astonishing about this recent disclosure from the government is that they know they are sitting on a treasure trove of information and they're not turning it over and I've worked on these cases for over 10 years now there's a plethora of information that the public has not been able to see

relating to Epstein and his co-conspirators. What kind of information? All kinds of information. And certainly if you look at what the government recently disclosed, the first time Pam Bondi came out and gave us some information, you'll see a list where they took multiple computers, multiple items from the houses.

What was on those computers? The public has not seen that. What did the financial records tell us? Did they tell us that money was being given to him by certain individuals, that money was flowing out to certain individuals? All of that is critical for the public to be able to know. That was a very good last question there, Viva.

People were involved in this, and we know that video was seized and now we're led to believe a decade later it was only child pornography and only for Jeffrey Epstein's personal pleasure. It doesn't it doesn't pass the smell test and it's not to hold people to their statements before they were in office. I happen to personally believe cash Patel and Dan Bongino what they said for years. What cash Patel said very recently December 2023. There's a list Bill Gates. You don't think Bill Gates is lobbying, you know, the government to not release the list. The bottom line is who went to the island.

What? Why was a hood Barack visit Jeffrey Epstein 30 times after he was a known convicted solicitor of child prostitution? Ehud Barak's explanation, I didn't know that he was convicted. My goodness, I do background checks on babysitters. I don't believe that the former prime minister of Israel didn't do background checks on Epstein. And we're sitting here after years and decades of this. Trump promised

to this, you know, declassify the information. You have binder gate. You have a bondi on letter saying a list of Epstein's clients. Then you have the binder gate which humiliates a bunch of influencers and then we're told phase one has now turned into nothing go home. There's an unsigned memo saying it was all conspiracy and

anybody perpetrate perpetrating or perpetuating this right now is doing a disservice to the victims in the government. I mean, I don't know how you expect people to believe that even if it's true, 10 hours of footage of a cell and we're, you know, we still have questions as to whether or not even the right cell is not going to confirm that Epstein killed himself. And even if you have 10 hours of Epstein cell showing nobody

went in and checked on him every 20 to 30 minutes, a man who was on suicide watched 20 minutes earlier itself is a conspiracy. So, you know, being told to sit down, be quiet and stop asking questions is itself a conspiracy. What do you make of that, Dave? I mean, I know you've been somewhat defensive of Pam Bondi, who you know, as a former Florida attorney. I believe she misspoke. I think I believe her when she says that what she was referring to was the file was on her

desk, not a client list. There's no evidence that there's a client list, the list of all the Johns out there. I mean, if that existed, Glenn Maxwell would have given that up in exchange for her freedom. There's been no evidence. And I also looked to the reporters who were the first ones, the Julie Browns, who helped break this story again, at least put it back in the public's consciousness, Tara Palmeri and others who are close to it. And they have said there is no client list. There's no evidence of any client list. So I think that the sin of the administration, perhaps,

is trying to appease the conspiracy theorists. And now when you're in the role of being in government, you have a different role than you were when you're a blogger. When Bongino and Cash Patel were out there blogging, yes, you can help perpetuate conspiracy theorists, but when you're in charge, you got to deal with facts and they're dealing with the facts. I think it was an embarrassment to have those individuals with the binders out there on the lawn, but that is the fault of trying to appease people who can't be appeased and who are going to be very angry if they don't get what they in their mind think exists, which is a clientless, which is proof that he was killed in prison by Hillary Clinton or something.

So I'm with the administration on that. I believe strongly that he killed himself. There is no clientless. But I hear what Viva is saying is that if you're gonna continue to hold back documents You're gonna open yourself up to questions of transparency and the conspiracy theories are not going away Megan I know I just have to say like I'm having a revulsion a little to the term conspiracy theorists conspiracy theorists Like I I understand why people use that term rather, but I just think this is more I think you know if you think there are aliens running around the United States, yeah, I mean, I'm okay

with that. If you think we didn't land on the moon, I think that's a conspiracy theory. If you think there's more to the Jeffrey Epstein story than we're being told, I don't think you're a conspiracy theorist. I think you've been paying attention to mixed messages we've been getting from administrations from Trump 1.0 to Biden to Trump 2.0. But I understand you're short forming, you know, the doubters. Dave, go ahead, Viva. You know, I was going to say if we can pull up that letter that Pam Bondi wrote to Cash Patel when she was complaining about. Yeah, we have it. Yeah. But when they're complaining about the FBI, the FBI's field office in the Southern District of New York among the corrupt

districts in America, withholding, destroying, concealing documents. And she refers to related to Jeffrey Epstein and his clients. I mean, this is not misspeaking anymore. This is putting it on a letter. But here's what she's saying. It's very small type. This is for you tweeted this out. Okay.

It's the cover letter. This is when she's she's purporting to be very angry that she didn't get all of her documents. This is after she's embarrassed the influencers. And she says, dear Director Patel, before you came into office, I requested the full and complete files related to Epstein in response to this request.

I received approximately 200 pages of documents, which consisted primarily of flight logs, Epstein's list of contacts, and a list of victims' names and phone numbers. I repeatedly questioned whether this was the full set of documents responsive. I was assured by the FBI that we had received the full set of documents. Late yesterday I learned from a source that the FBI field office in New York was in possession of thousands of pages of documents related to the investigation and indictment of Epstein.

Despite my repeated request, the FBI never disclosed the existence of these files. When you and I spoke yesterday, you were just as surprised as I was to learn this new information. Cash had just taken over. By 8 a.m. tomorrow, February 28th, the FBI will deliver, don't forget audience members, the FBI is under DOJ, so she has the power to tell them what to do. The FBI will deliver the full and complete Epstein files to my office, including all records, documents, audio and video recordings, and materials related to Epstein and his clients, regardless of how such information was obtained. There will be no withholdings or limitations

to my or your access. The Department of Justice will ensure that any public disclosure will be done in a manner to protect the privacy of the victims, blah, blah, blah. And then I want an investigation into why my order to the FBI was not followed to begin with." So she doesn't say exactly, there is an Epstein client list.

She says you will deliver all the Epstein files to me, including all records, documents, recordings, materials related to Epstein and his clients. So there's an implication here that she has an understanding he had clients and she has a belief the FBI has information on it. And one can wheeze a lot of it and say maybe they meant maybe she meant clients in a broader commercial sense investments, whatever people business dealings that he was doing business with but you're dealing in one of the same weather with a apparently patently corrupt field office in the southern district of New York that is either withholding or destroying evidence, an acknowledgement that Epstein had clients.

Now, if the if the answer is those were business clients and not sex trafficking clients, provide the evidence. Nobody's going. Why does she even want that then? Why is she so interested in that? And by the way, when she wrote this letter, it was five days after she said on Fox News to John Roberts, yes, the client list is on my desk. So like, well, it's just a little, the timing's pretty close.

No, and John Roberts said, is it true? The DOJ is going to be releasing a list of Epstein's clients. Well, that really happened. And she says the file is on my desk. So that one she could walk out of if you want to say the file. She doesn't say the file. That's that's her problem. She had said the files on my desk. She doesn't say the file. That's her problem. If she had said the file's on my desk,

there would have been less confusion. She says, it's on my desk right now, and I'm going through it. And that's what she's now trying to say that was a reference to the file, as opposed to the client list, which was a very specific question that was teed up to her,

and she did not expand it by saying, I have a file on my desk, I'm going through. She gave it to John Roberts as though she had, I mean, I don't know why she did that. She may have been in good faith and misspoke, or she may have been trying to stir the pot and sound like I've got juicy stuff and I'm going to give it to you, which is very weird because this is not how United States Attorneys General normally talk or handle themselves in media appearances. Go ahead, Viva, and then I'll give it to Dave. I was just going to say like the semantics of the client list is getting a little bit

not tedious, but it's becoming the the out for anybody who says, well, there's no technical list incriminating quote client list. So there might be a list of some people. It's not incriminating or it might not be a client list. It might just be a list of marks a list of unindicted co-conspirators and Dave back in 2019. I did some did some homework just to see if everyone's consistent over the years, and you're pretty consistent. But even in 2019, you're acknowledging the existence of unindicted co-conspirators involved in the Epstein

sex trafficking ring or whatever operation he was running. And if people are conflating unindicted co-conspirators with client lists, people who are soliciting sex trafficking, okay, fine, people will accept that. But what people will not accept is virtually a 180-degree volt of fast that is so in your face, people are saying there's a reason why the administration has to do this in order to conceal it so that the people who are unindicted co-conspirators think that they somehow got off the hook for the purposes of a more fuller investigation. That's a conspiracy I want to entertain, but transparency

is the least of what is needed right now and not getting defensive and then name calling everybody who is virtually literally listening to the words of Pam Bondi. Can I just say something about Bondi that still doesn't make sense to me, Dave? She comes out on February 21st, I think it was, and says to John Roberts, he says, client list being released by the DOJ? She says, it's on my desk right now and we're reviewing it. And that's the president's order for transparency, that MLK JFK. Then five days later, on Feb. Twenty six, she goes on with Jesse Waters and she says, Oh, you're about to get Epstein documents.

That let's let's just say they're coming. Now, the next day was the influencer event at the White House where she bragged to them that she had printed out Epstein file, the cover sheet for those binders. And they did not know they were there to receive any Epstein information. Liz Wheeler was one of them,

she was on the program yesterday, and explained they thought they were going there for like an influencer event to hobnob with the vice president, the president, which they did. And Bondi kind of like ambushed them in a way and said, hey, here's some Epstein documents. So they took them and they walked out the back

of the White House and they got photographed with them. But all along we've been asking, did Bondi know that these things were a nothing burger and like just try to embarrass some of the president's top allies in the media? Or has she just not done her homework and was negligent about not knowing what's in there and inadvertently embarrassed them? So here's what's weird.

Liz Wheeler says that Bondi that day in giving them the binders was like, yeah, there's not really a lot in here. And the real scandal is the FBI is withholding documents from me. And I'm about to like chastise them. And then she dropped that letter I just read. So according to Liz, Bondi knew in giving them the binders, there's really no there there.

So like, you know, just be patient cause I'm rattling cages and I'm gonna get whatever the there there is. But here was Bondi the night before she gave them the binders on Fox News with Jesse Waters. Watch. You said last week that you have the Epstein files on your desk. When can we see them and what's taking so long to release them? I do. Jesse, there are well over, this will make you sick, 200 victims, 200. So we have well over, over 250 actually.

So we have to make sure that their identity is protected and their personal information. But other than that, I think tomorrow, you know, the personal information of victims, other than that, I think tomorrow, Jesse, breaking news right now, you're gonna see some Epstein information being released by my office. What kind? Are we gonna see who was on the flights? Are we gonna see any evidence from what he recorded

because he had all of his homes wired with recording devices? What you're gonna see hopefully tomorrow is a lot of flight logs, a lot of names, a lot of information, but it's pretty sick what that man did. Okay, well we'll look for that. Along with his co-defendant.

Absolutely, and he had help, that's for sure. He sure did. This is just, there she is teasing. You're going to see a lot of information, names, and details. You're going to see, he was sick. This is a sick, sick man. And according to Liz, Pam Bondi knows she's going to give them a nothing burger and she actually doesn't have any information, which supports my theory that Pam Bondi

was trying to get on television and say salacious things to lead people along, to be popular, to get hits on Fox News, even though she didn't have anything. And that's why I tend to be not exactly in the Viva camp because you have to choose. Do you believe Pam Bondi then or do you believe her now? And I'm in the camp of camp, it's because you have to choose. Do you believe Pam Bondi then, or do you believe her now? And I'm in the camp of, I more believe her now,

that she actually doesn't have the goods beyond the child sexual assault materials that don't show other men. That just happens to be his sick, illegal, favorite form of pornography. Go ahead, Dave. It seems though that the interview with Jesse Waters you just showed was pretty consistent with what she told

Liz that she's going to release it and it's going to be flight logs and other things. But she didn't say that this was going to blow your socks off in that interview. So I'm going to give her the benefit of down on that one. I do understand why you'd be concerned based on the earlier interview where there was an implication that the client list would be released. But as I said, that could also be interpreted as the file was on her desk. That's what she's saying.

And I do think that if anything that you can get caught up in the moment when you go on Fox News and they're pushing you to say, hey, what's going on? And if you say it's a nothing burger, yeah, it's not a good interview. So perhaps that is a legitimate issue. But Dave, you tell me, you are a former state's attorney. You know very well how the average, the normal, like literally every other attorney general would answer those questions.

Number one, they would not be on television talking about the case. And number two, if for some reason they really felt compelled to go on television, you know exactly what they'd say. It's an ongoing investigation and I'm not at liberty to discuss it yet, period. Well, she's breaking norms in going on TV,

but so is her boss, right? She's taking the cue from her boss, doing things that no one has ever done before. The boss can do whatever the hell he wants. The president can always do whatever the hell he wants. The attorney general, the top law enforcement officer of the United States, under every administration, Republican, Democrat, 99% of the time

keeps their mouth shut because they don't want to get ahead of the facts, they don't want to get ahead of the investigation, and it's really not appropriate to be commenting because this is what can happen. She turned herself into the Brian Williams of DOJs where she just spewed a bunch of nonsense because she wanted attention and now she's been caught. That's how it looks to me Viva. I would say or she didn't what she said was accurate and that right right.

Right. Well, here we go. We believe her then or believe her now. She hasn't said anything since that memo came out. She hasn't spoken to that unsigned, undated memo that was uploaded to the DOJ website the day after it was leaked to Axios because she can't because that memo contradicts what she said earlier.

And the whole thing. Yeah. One hundred and fifty victims. Are we being led to believe that Jeffrey Epstein was a mass rapist? And I mean, I'm not trying to be. Wait, wait, wait. And now there's that now they say in that Axios letter that it's a thousand. So the numbers gone up a thousand victims, ten thousand pictures of what I understand to be child sexual assault material, which could be, you know, I think is random screen

grabs from Jeffrey Epstein's sick, deeply felonious sexual preference in online porn, but they're pegging the number of his victims at 1000 and they seem to be saying his victims for him to make your point even stronger. Go ahead. Well, the question is this, you know, are they suggesting that all of the victims, 250, 1000, all victims only of Jeffrey Epstein in the sexual sense. And in which case he would have been charged. I'll defer to Dave on this. Would he have been charged with rape versus sex trafficking? I mean, the whole thing is, everybody

knows other people were involved, at the very least Prince Andrew and others accused, you get charged with sex trafficking ring. If I would say all in quotes that he did was serial rape, I presume he would have been charged with that. So you have him convicted him and Galeen Maxwell for sex trafficking. And now you're referring to 250 to 1000 victims. And we're also being told to believe nobody else was involved. There were no conspirators, unindicted co-conspirators, no clients procuring sexual activity from his trafficking ring.

And all that it was was CSAM. In which case I would still have another question. Did he generate that CSAM all that it was was CSAM, in which case I would still have another question. Did he generate that CSAM or did he procure that CSAM? And to the extent that he did... Child sexual abuse material. Did he make it himself? Did he get it from the internet? And who involved in that child sexual abuse material proliferation is being charged? Nobody, nothing, go home? Megan, I do think that we're conflating the human trafficking with the child porn, because I think when you're talking about 250,000 victims, you're talking about images that he had

on those thumb drives of young people, naked young people, disgusting child porn. And I think that's the victim. So that's the thing, there's a lot of talk about that this is all one big sex trafficking ring, when a lot of his sins were not just in the sex trafficking, but also in just the possession of this awful pornographic material.

I'm not sure you're right about that. I'm not sure. And we haven't been able to ask any questions, so none of us is totally sure. But the way that document leaked to Axios read to me was 1,000 Jeffrey Epstein victims and 10,000 screenshots of child sexual abuse material that they found on his computers. Go ahead, Viva.

I was going to say a thousand of Epstein's victims doesn't necessarily preclude the implication of other people. It could have been his victims for trafficking to other people. And so agree. We don't know. Like you say, Megan, no press conference to talk about that memo. You have a Caroline Levitt doing her best under the circumstances to address the inexplicable, no answers as to why it's unsigned, undated, why it was leaked to Axios, why it was then uploaded to the DOJ website the day after, seemingly on like an undisclosed link. And nobody's answering to this.

So to me, if I were conspiratorial, I would say this is the best way to undermine Trump's administration, Trump's FBI, to basically in that memo make anybody who floated the Epstein quote conspiracy theories. And I think they're reality conspiracy theories, reality theories to paint them as conspiracy theorists. And lo and behold, it's the director and deputy director of the FBI. This is a great way to discredit Trump's FBI to make it look like conspiracy theorists. If someone wanted to sabotage the the campaign, the administration and so discord, what would they have done differently?

So it's not just the Pan Bonnie needs to answer on the Epstein file. The rollout needs to have answers and sooner than later, because it's not going away. OK, here, let me read you from the memo. This is from the the DOJ slash FBI memo that was leaked to Axios on Sunday night. Consistent with prior disclosures, this review confirmed that Epstein harmed over 1000 victims. Epstein harmed over 1000 victims. That does not answer the question

about whether he was the, you know, the participant in the sex act or was just farming these girls, sex trafficking these girls to others. But that appears to be more than just he looked at pictures online of them when they were children. Each suffered unique trauma.

Sensitive information relating to these victims is intertwined throughout the materials. This includes specific details such as victim names and likenesses, physical descriptions, places of birth, associates, and employment history. So yeah, to me that sounds very much like these are actual young women who were in Jeffrey Epstein's orbit

in some way, shape, or form, either his personal partners in some way or farmed out to others. The files relating to Epstein include a large volume of images of Epstein, images and videos of victims who are either minors or appear to be minors, and over 10,000 downloaded videos and images of illegal child sex abuse material and other pornography The through this review we found no basis to revisit the disclosure Of those materials and will not permit the release of child pornography, which literally nobody wants released I mean they keep Pam Bondi keeps asking acting indignant

Like I will not release the pictures of young children being sexually molested. Hello, there's not a single normal American who's speaking out on this, who wants that, has asked for that, or would ever expect that. It is such a straw man meant to diminish the criticisms, the legitimate criticism of her. It's just, it's very irritating. And to me, it's a tell she's on unsteady ground because now she's trying to defeat arguments no one is making to try to put herself in a place of like, I'm the protector of these children. It's like literally nobody wants to see that. Stop saying that. But what this seems to say, Viva, is 10,000 images of illegal child sex abuse material and other pornography in addition to what they say he

harmed over 1000 victims each suffering unique trauma. Yeah. I mean, and then they'll say, well, maybe the harm that they're referencing is in respect of having possessed or taken the pictures and whatever. As you say it out loud, I can make up a theory or a plausible situation in my mind where they can't disclose too much because they're going after the people that might have been producing the CSAM for Epstein's consumption and pleasure, in which case you don't comment on the ongoing investigation, in which case you say cannot comment on this. The idea of people out there thinking they need to mislead the public in order to better carry on an ongoing investigation.

I think is is a conspiracy theory that I wouldn't accept or adhere to because they didn't have to say anything. And you know, unless this is just one big thing to misguide everybody so they can conduct a better investigation, who the hell knows but the bottom line, we still don't know why that document is undated, why it's unsigned, who prepared it, who uploaded, who leaked it. Why don't they put their names behind it? Why don't they put their names behind it? If it is a, if it's sabotage, which is possible as well, sort of like they argued the Intel was on the Iranian strike, the, the leak of classified info, if it's sabotage, tell it,

repudiate the memo. Say, sorry, that wasn't, that was a draft. We don't know who, who prepared that or why it was released. We're looking into it. It's been a week and they haven't spoken to that. I mean, it's... But clearly they stand behind the memo. They stand behind. And look, it is very possible, Dave,

that Epstein was a pervert. Epstein took advantage of young girls over and over and over. And I'm putting it mildly, took advantage of. But, you know, I mean, there were acts of rape and sexual assault alleged there no question I mean I have it on very good authority that that his thing was to take in the barely legal type to ask for massages day after day after day and then the massages would turn sexual where he wanted to be finished off with you know I don't know how to say this nicely a hand job I'm not sure if there's a nicer way of saying that, but that was apparently his favorite thing to have happen.

And they, Galeen Maxwell would go and find young girls for him, understanding this was his thing. They would say that it was the barely legal type, but that they were legal. This was what Jeffrey Epstein's defenders would say. Obviously the government said that's were illegal. This is what Jeffrey Epstein's defenders would say. Obviously, the government said that's a lie. And now we know from Pam Bondi, the guy was legitimately turned on by images of little children getting sexually assaulted. So, yeah, no benefit of the doubt to Jeffrey Epstein.

But we have never seen proof that he sex trafficked young or illegal-aged girls to third parties. That remains true, Dave, I mean, either because it's there and it's being covered up or it doesn't exist in any way that any member of any DOJ has felt comfortable releasing to the public, meaning as Alan was implying, it's too thin to be supported, someone considers it unfair to the men who might be accused. They might get sued or there's a strong accusation, but both DOJs or three DOJs now,

Bill Barr, Merrick Garland, and now Pam Bondi all looked at it and said, these accusers are not credible and we cannot in our position release this stuff. Yeah, the one person who said that she was being trafficked as an underage person with Virginia Jew Free Accusers are not credible and we cannot in our position release this stuff. Yeah. The one person who said that she was being trafficked as an underage person with Virginia Jufre and she provided the picture with Prince Andrew and he settled. But yeah, she had credibility issues, but there are lots of credible evidence that he

didn't just want barely legal people. He wanted underage girls to give him those massages at his home. And in fact, according to many reports, he did not want 18-year-olds, 19-year-olds when offered. He wanted the 14-year-olds. He wanted the younger, the underage children to be doing it. And then there are individuals who have testified that they knew of people who have been trafficked.

But as far as the actual victim coming forward was Virginia Jufri, and we spoke about her already, you're right to say that there are other administrations that have looked at this stuff. When it comes to killing himself in prison, remember, this wasn't just Pam Bondi saying this. This is the New York City Medical Examiner who said this. This was Bill Barr who said this. This is the DOJ's Inspector General who said this. So this is not just on this administration. It's consistent

with the other administrations. I think the difference is, is that this members of this administration had been pushing some theories out there that have raised expectations amongst their base and now to be let down. I, I, okay. But yeah, and just to say, just like just to reiterate, the medical examiner, she wasn't totally solid from the beginning. She said undetermined, I think, initially. And Dr. Baden was brought in, and he's a world renowned forensic pathologist,

and he did an autopsy on Jeffrey Epstein and said, the hyoid bone that's in the front of your neck was broken. It was broken in three places and that he had never seen that in a hanging death. That it's much more consistent with strangulation. And the medical examiner disagreed with him. There was a disagreement. Epstein was hired by Jeffrey Epstein's brother, but I've never known Dr. Bodden to be a dishonest man. And he had his reasons for stating this looks much more consistent with homicide than it does with suicide to me.

Dr. Bodden is well-respected. I've met him. He's a really nice guy and I love his wife, Linda, but he's had controversies over the years. He's had a bunch of things. He was fired by Mayor Koch in 1979 for allegations of, you know, lost evidence and so forth. It was in 1982, he had this thing with this high tech murder. He made some comments that were very controversial.

I mean, he was dismissed from his position there. So he's had hiccups along the way. He's far from perfect. And he was contradicted by the medical examiner on the scene. So, you know, he's not infallible. No, he's not infallible. But I was not withstanding what you just said about him.

I trust Dr. Bodden. I interviewed him countless times. I think he's an honest broker. Now it is also true that sometimes when a forensic pathologist gets hired by a private party to go conduct a private autopsy, there could be direction from said private party. Like, hey, I'm convinced it was a murder. Please go in and tell me whether there's any evidence of a murder.

But I do believe that Dr. Biden, in those circumstances, if he went in and did an autopsy and found no evidence that it was a murder, would say to Mark Epstein, there's nothing. I do believe he would say that. And not only did he not say that, he had actual, you know, physical signs that he pointed to to say, this is why I don't think it was a suicide. I do think it was a murder.

And I'll say in the medical examiner's defense, she said, let me tell you why I think it was. By the way, Dr. Bodden she said, let me tell you why I think it was, by the way, Dr. Botten also said if you were hanging for two hours, as is the official story with Jeffrey Epstein, he hanged himself two hours before they found him, you would have seen levity in the legs. You would have seen blood pooling in the back of like the calves and the feet. And that wasn't there, which he said suggested to him this body had been supinated, supine on the floor and not hanging for two hours.

And the medical examiner who was opposed to Dr. Baden, she said on her side, if you were strangled by somebody, the broken blood vessels would look different in your eyes and in your face than they did on Jeffrey Epstein. She thought his broken blood vessels were much more consistent with the hanging. This is a lot of information for people to hold onto, but I just want you to know what

we know. Again, no clear answers. Viva, you clearly want to weigh in. It's irrelevant, actually, whether or not he successfully killed himself, whether or not he was murdered. I bypass the question entirely. Fine. Some people suggest he might have hung himself, ended up upside down. I would hang, sorry, which is how he might have broken that other bone.

The bottom line, I'll operate on the basis that he took his own life in the prison cell. Then that begs the question that, OK, he killed himself. Nothing to see here. Sorry, there's plenty to see here. How was one of the most wanted defendants in the world at the time unsupervised for 10 hours after having been taken off suicide watch for reasons that we don't know the psychiatrist. I don't know that we've ever heard from him or her as to why the order was given to take him off suicide watch because he had just attempted to take his own life.

He was unsupervised. Then he denied that he had done it. He was saying, I'm fine. I'm fine. I'm fine. I don't I don't want to kill myself. I I'm, I'm too weak. I'm too scared. I would I mean, it's possible he convinced somebody that he actually wasn't suicidal. But that's exactly right. That's exactly what happened. So that's fine. But then a man who allegedly attempted suicide two weeks earlier taken off suicide watch left unattended without a cellmate for 10 plus hours with nobody checking on him. And I appreciate the human error. And excessive bed linens. That was another thing that was in the report, excessive. Yeah, that don't tear like paper as they're supposed to. So it's very nice to let someone take their own lives

because dead men tell no tales, but that's a conspiracy. How the heck did all of those, the confluence of human errors, if we believe it, occur to facilitate him killing himself is itself a conspiracy. So I bypass all the questions of the debate between experts. It's funny. Experts always have a way of saying what their clients want them to say. And I'm not saying that in a cynical way. Let's just assume he was left unattended for 10 hours. Security

guard wasn't there. Cameras weren't working. Extra bed linens. No cellmate. I'm sorry. Someone let him kill himself. That's a good I have questions. Yeah. Oh, that's the question. Let me just play, I'll get you to respond to it, but I just wanna play this, because Michael Wolfe, a reporter, was on a podcast with the Daily Beast, I think it was, Wednesday, and spoke to,

he did a lot of reporting on Epstein, a lot of reporting on him and around him, and offered the following, listen to SOP3. When did you last talk to him? So you were due to meet him for lunch the day after or breakfast the day after he was arrested. When did you last speak to him? I believe that I was I got the last message from him before he died. And what was that message? And this came through one of his lawyers on a Friday evening. He died on Saturday morning. August the 10th.

Yes. And he died theoretically by hanging himself himself and his message to me Hours before this happened was and it was just in response to me asking You know how he was and he said Still hanging around. Oh boy. Oh boy. Go ahead Dave Well, yeah, cuz he was gonna kill himself again He convinced the authorities to take him off suicide watch. He did, without question, try to commit suicide two weeks earlier, and he got himself off suicide watch. And if you want to know why were the guards sleeping

and why weren't the cameras perfect, it's because it's government. I worked in government for 25 years. The New York City civil workers. Yes. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one. And as someone I worked in government for 25 years. The New York City civil workers. Yes. I mean, yeah, sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one. As someone who worked in government for 25 years, cameras don't always work. Technology kind of sucks. Guards fall asleep.

It happens. It's a much easier explanation than to think that Hillary Clinton climbed in on a cat wire and offed him. So I just don't think that happened. The, wait, wait, we did, I know you're not interested in it, but I just want to show it. Dr. Baden did go on Tucker Carlson's show, which was on Fox News. After all this went down and here's what he said.

I was present at the autopsy and there were three fractures in the windpipe that are much more typical of crush injury from homicidal strangulation than from hanging. Hemorrhages in the eyes, again, more typical of homicide. And the ligature imprint on the neck didn't match the ligature that was present in the cell. So I thought that made it more likely that this was a homicide. But we never got to find out how the body was found. Was he found hanging or not, for example, because the two guards were sleeping, the body was just cut down and brought out to a hospital where he was pronounced dead.

Well, and the other thing is, Viva, when they brought him out of the cell, they had him like intubated, and Jeffrey's brother has always been like, he was dead, why were they intubating him, or pretending to, and that he was photographed in like a hospital gown in the prison infirmary. Why did they put him in a hospital gown?

He was in his prison uniform when he was hanged. All these weird anomalies. And he's also been wanting to see the videotape of the trip to the infirmary, which hasn't been released. It's just still, you know. And then if you ask questions about this, you're called like a wacko conspiracy theorist who believes in the little green men

running around next to us. It doesn't make sense. And the it's government mistakes happen. Government is incompetent. Everyone on earth was saying they're going to kill him when he's in jail. You take care of a witness like that. You don't have one government error after another. And at some point orchestrated government errors become intense layered incompetence is intent.

It's similar to the butler point. It's a good reminder that everybody was saying they're going to kill him. Well, everybody was saying that when he was in there, I got to run because I only have a minute to take a break. But we're coming back on the opposite side. Don't go anywhere. Grand Canyon University, a private Christian University in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona, believes we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights

to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. GCU believes in equal opportunity and that the American dream starts with purpose. By honoring your career calling, you can impact your family, friends, and your community. Change the world for good by putting others before yourself. Whether your pursuit involves a bachelor's, master's, or doctoral degree, GCU's online, on-campus, and hybrid learning environments are designed to help you achieve your unique academic, personal, and professional goals. With over 340 academic programs as of

September 2024, GCU meets you where you are and provides a path to help you fulfill your dreams. The pursuit to serve others is yours. Let it flourish. Find your purpose at Grand Canyon University, private, Christian, affordable. Visit gcu.edu. Viva, you were on the show in May, talking about the P. Diddy trial trial long before we had a verdict. And this was your prediction.

You have this entire blackmail extortion ring. They went and raided Diddy's house. There were cameras there. We know that it involves the higher ups in the entertainment industry, if not the world of politics as well. And this entire prosecution is reduced to P Diddy and what we know of his abuse of Cassie and potentially Jane. And then once you flesh out the fact that for whatever the reason, Maureen Comey, James Comey's daughter is still involved as one of the, this trial, this trial is a show trial because we're, they're going to get them on something. It might just be the, you know, trafficking for prostitution purposes,

which seems undeniable, send them away for 10 years. Maybe he gets out after eight, and then you've successfully covered up the entire extortion ring that P. Diddy was running, much like what they did with Epstein. Oh, that's very interesting. It really is, and they did just get him on those two, trafficking for purposes of prostitution

or, you know, crossing transportation for purposes of prostitution. And your reaction to that was what? Well, I mean, the old expression is even a blind squirrel occasionally finds the nut. But I think I might be getting sufficiently cynical in my middle life age to see how things go dark quickly and apply all of that mutatis mutandis to the Epstein case. You know, EPS, they went after Diddy for sex trafficking to himself only, and they failed in the Epstein case because a jury, I guess, saw through it. If the only evidence of sex trafficking was him procuring

prostitutes for his own personal pleasure in the freak offs. But you know, in the Epstein case, they failed in the Diddy case. Keep going. Yes. In the Epstein case and Ghislaine Maxwell, they went after them for sex trafficking to nobody. So it failed in the diddy case but succeeded in the cover up. You have the same players involved in all of these sinister blackmail extortion operations alleged. How the heck Maureen Comey is still involved in this beyond me. But no, this was if you want to be

cynical and you want to predict But no, this was if you want to be cynical and you want to predict the conspiracy, this was the way it's going to go. Epstein did he is going to now. I don't know. We'll see how many years he gets for the transportation for prostitution, Man Act violations, and we'll see what he serves of that. But yeah, this is the prosecution was the cover up. I have my thought from the beginning. It's not going to be a lot of time. He appeared in court this week and the judge, it was two minutes, basically said,

you defense counsel and you prosecutors submit a joint memo on a sentencing recommendation. The prosecution has been saying five to six years. The defense has been saying no more than two. He's gonna get credit for the 10 months served. Each day in jail is another day accrued. That will count in his favor. And if it's more than like three years,

I think I'll be shocked. But even six years to me is a slap on the wrist for what this man's been accused of, Dave. He's now lionized by some. It came out that when he went back to the holding cell where they've been keeping him in the jail, he received like some sort of huge applause from the prisoners.

They're so proud of him because he beat the most serious rap. And his lawyer, Mark Agnifilo was saying, I think this is just, this is your, your fate in life to be the guy who wins. Those guys need to see that someone can win. The official sentence is on, will be imposed on October 3rd. Thoughts on it? It's very hard to beat the feds. They've got something like a 98% conviction rate. They've

got lots of built-in advantages, but these are different times where people mistrust government. The institutions are being undermined and now people just think that government's out to get people, and here you had, I thought, very strong evidence that he did engage in human trafficking with at least Cassie, and yet the jury didn't like that he was overcharged with the racketeering claim case. They didn't like that the victim that was supposed to appear did not appear.

The prosecutors over-promised in their opening statement. They didn't like that KK, who was Diddy's assistant, who knows where all the bodies are buried, did not testify, was not charged. Where is she? And so I think the jury decided that, you know what, government, we're gonna send you a message and we're gonna only convict on the lowest hanging fruit.

And I'm with you, Megan. I think that he deserved more. But in the end, I do think he's going to get a slap on the wrist. The judge supermanian just came out with a statement to both parties saying that I want you to pretty much give me a memo about what others in the same situation who are convicted of prostitution and only prostitution will get. Well, if that's the standard, then he's getting very little if anything.

Yeah, and also he's treating him as though he has no criminal record because his prior crimes didn't require jail time. Like in order to be counted, they have to have resulted in a certain high level of punishment, which never happened to Diddy, which is so perfect. He's gotten away with all

of his crimes thus far without getting any serious punishment, and therefore he'll get away with these without getting any serious punishment. And there's no question to me that they played the race card in this case, that he has enormous privilege, he has the best lawyers, and he went in there and they did a little dance in that courtroom on these jurors who I think got this totally wrong. I just think they completely dropped the ball. And once again, he skates, Viva. Well, I'm not sure that I think the jury got it wrong

based on the evidence that was adjuced or provided to them based on the charges. They're charging him with human trafficking, sex trafficking. And yet there are, again, no clients other than his own pleasures. He's trafficking women for his own personal pleasure for these freak-offs. It's kind of like a limited hangout,

but in terms of a prosecution, like a limited prosecution. We want to charge him with sex trafficking, but we don't want to implicate other potential clients who might be politically connected, I don't know, higher-ups in the world. And so we're just going to say he was trafficking clients who might be politically connected. I don't know higher ups in the world. And so we're just going to say he was trafficking them to himself. If that was the standard and only Cassie and only Jane Doe. If that was the standard that was the evidence submitted.

I don't blame the jury for saying no to the sex trafficking. The man act violations like, you know, everyone said from the beginning dead to rights. The only question is what's that going to get him by way of a sentence? So I don't think the jury actually got it entirely wrong in this case based on the evidence that was presented to them based on the charges that were brought against Diddy. I just think this was a limited prosecution. Go after him for sex trafficking, but don't implicate anybody else so that if they get a conviction, they move on. And if they get an acquittal, they move on. And lo and behold, what about the videos that were seized from his mansion?

What about the whole camera setup that was sort of a la Jeffrey Epstein in his mansions? Nothing there. All for his personal pleasure. I don't believe it. Period. I don't believe it based on evidence prior to the trial. And the trial didn't bring up all the evidence that we knew existed beforehand. I mean, I don't know. Why would Maureen Comey want to protect the people at a ditty party to whom they may have been or he may have been sex trafficking women. I mean, truly, what is the theory there, Viva?

If I'm being very cynical, the theory is that there were politically prominent New York figures, media types, media moguls that will get the protection. And so how do you prosecute Diddy without implicating others? How do you prosecute him for sex trafficking without having people to whom he was trafficking for sex? I mean, I could think of very cynical- The names that we heard just on the speculation, underscoring for the audience at home, these were speculative names, was like Ashton Kutcher. You know, it was like famous actors.

This wasn't a case of where it's like Bill Clinton was in there again, like we heard in the Epstein. I mean, for all I know, he might have been. But my point is simply we weren't hearing about heavy Democrat donors attending the white parties that did he had in the Hamptons. That one makes less sense to me than the Epstein connections. Connected wealthy moguls. And we're talking about the diddy parties became the iconic sort of term as Epstein's Island and people frequented these diddy

parties. I say this is purely speculative, but when you look at what evidence there was when they were seizing or raiding the home talking about, you know, intricate camera setups cameras in each rooms potential blackmail, and then they go after him for sex trafficking because bear in mind they didn't if they didn't go after him for that, if it was just straight up, I don't sexual assault, sexual abuse. They went after him for Rico sex trafficking. So based on their charges, you presume they had good reason to do it.

But if the only evidence they adduced the trial was Cassie, but you can sex traffic someone to yourself. I mean, Dave, what what they accused Diddy of doing with Cassie and Jane was illegal. The jury didn't buy it. But you can sex traffic someone to yourself. You don't have to be in the business of just pimping out women to third parties. Absolutely. And all it takes is one time that the woman refuses to consent.

All it takes is one time that there's force, fraud, or coercion. And you had that video from the Intercontinental Hotel that was so damning. There was the force right there in front of you and the defense was very successful in framing that as garden variety domestic violence saying that this should be treated as domestic violence in state court. This is not a federal crime of human trafficking, not a federal crime of racketeering and I think the jury bought it at least in part also didn't help that Cassie had text messages showing that she consented at least at the beginning

to some of these freak-offs. And the jury, I think, was persuaded that once you consent at the beginning, there are no take-backs. And that's unfortunate because it's clear to me that she refused to go along with it at some point. And she was the victim of force, fraud, or coercion. And he should have been found guilty of at least that count of human trafficking,

which would have required a 10-year mandatory minimum in prison, so yeah, I do think he got away with it on this one, but as a jury system, as a prosecutor for the last 12 years, I can tell you that the one thing that is predictable about juries is that they're notoriously unpredictable. Mm, and annoying. Okay, that's Diddy. that is predictable about juries is that they're notoriously unpredictable. And annoying. Okay, that's Diddy.

Let's go to Kohlberger, where a jury never got to weigh in on Brian Kohlberger's guilt or innocence, but anybody with eyes and ears could see this was an open and shut case against him. And nonetheless, the prosecutor decided to offer life without, well, not even life without the possibility of parole, Matt Murphy was putting this out. He did not get life without. The deal was that he'd get four consecutive life sentences, but he's pointing out that that actually means the guy could potentially

get parole at some point down the line. In any event, Kohlberger is now officially, I mean, he's pleaded guilty. And now we're learning a little bit more from people who knew him. And this is an interesting thing. Okay, Ashley Banfield spoke with a former Kohlberger classmate who went to, I think, to get the masters with him at that Pennsylvania college. And here's what's really interesting

about the discussion guys. Kohlberger, we believe was posting right after the murders under a name called Papa Roger online. He wasn't posting as Brian Kohlberger, but Papa Roger. And he posted among other things, the following. This is dated November 30th. Keep in mind that the murders, I think it was November 13th.

And he posted the following, under University of Idaho Murders case discussion in a forum. Of the evidence released, the murder weapon has been consistent as a large fixed blade knife. This leads me to believe they found the sheath. This evidence was released prior to audio tapes.

The police did not confirm for another 30 days after this post that they had found a knife sheath. So it's very interesting that Papa Rogers somehow knew that the knife sheath had likely been found. And the reason now even more that we're thinking Papa Rogers is Brian Kohlberger is one of his classmates, and I'll get to this guy who spoke to Ashley Banfield, but one of his classmates has come out and said when they were at DeSales University, that

was the one in Pennsylvania, one of the most depraved killers they studied was a guy named Elliot Roger. And in 2014, this guy, Elliot Roger, had killed six, wounded another 13, and a violent rampage near the University of California, Santa Barbara, before turning the gun on himself. Okay, take down that picture, that's disturbing. Two of Kohlberger's former classmates told the Daily Mail they recalled learning about Roger in class, including

his warped 137 page manifesto, laying out his incel motive, incel being involuntarily celibate, a guy who's never had an action with a woman, very angry about it. We believe that's the case for Brian Kohlberger. A hatred of women and writing that a former friend named Maddie, okay, still on the Elliot Roger case, a former friend named Maddie had eventually come to represent everything I hate and despise. They write now chilling parallels have been drawn between Kohlberger and that guy Elliot Roger,

which coupled with a curiously named social media account called Papa Roger have fueled questions as to whether he was inspired by his classes about the incel killer to carry out his own mass murder. There's Roger, you know, Elliot Roger. He stabbed to death his first three victims inside a home. Then he shot two women dead outside of the sorority house, Alpha Phi, targeting the house because he said the sorority sisters were the hottest in college. Kohlberger's victims were all part of a Greek life and Kaleigh Gonsalves was in Alpha Phi.

Rogers, Elliot Rogers, railed against a woman named Maddie in his manifesto, Kohlberger is believed to have chosen Maddie Mogan as his main target. And we've all wondered from the beginning why, because there was no connection between the two of them. It is possible he saw her and maybe had a brief exchange at a vegan restaurant where she worked that's never been officially confirmed. But the police have said,

at least in the Dateline special and elsewhere, they believe Maddie Mogan was his primary target and that Kaylee Gonsalves was killed because she was in the bed next to her. She had actually moved out and was just back visiting that night, Kaylee, that Maddie was the target. And then there's this post. OK, now here's Ashley Banfield speaking with a former Kohlberger classmate, Josh Ferraro. Listen to this.

Do you think, Josh, that Brian Colberger is Papa Roger who showed up in those crime discussion groups after the murders? Until someone else stands up and says that it was them, absolutely. I don't see any reason to say that it wasn't him. The pseudonym Papa Rogers in connection with Elliot Rogers makes a lot of sense, especially if he did idolize him as, you know, the king of the Insta community and wanted to do it, you know, even better pay homage to his name and what he had done in the past. And I haven't seen anything online or anywhere that says that he isn't or definitively that

he is. So it's all speculative, of course, right now, but it would not surprise me in the slightest if to relive that high, he entered that community just to feel everything that he felt that night again. For the viewing audience on YouTube, NewsNation must have lost their feed with their guests. So there's just a NewsNation graphic up for half of that soundbite. For the viewing audience on YouTube, News Nation must have lost their feed with their guests. So there's just a News Nation graphic up for half of that soundbite. Dave, former prosecutor, you've put a lot of bad guys like this in jail.

What do you make of that? Those parallels are pretty disturbing. Yeah, well, there's your motive. Unless someone else comes forward and said that's their page, then I think it is a strong assumption that that is Coburg's page. It's so interesting serial killers, how they just want to relive this. He went back to the scene of the crime after he committed the murders. Why do you do that when that can get you caught?

Because that's what serial killers, that's what murders do. That's apparently what happened here when he was revisiting it in trying to put out evidence that the public didn't even know at the time. So yes, this goes a long way to explaining what happened. Also, remember, this guy was a devotee of serial killers. This guy was a doctoral student in criminology. So who else would do something like this? Because there was no financial motive, nothing was stolen. And I'm just glad that they caught him before he did it more because when the people he followed that he he he liked like be

the BTK killer Ted Bundy those folks were able to do it for a while before they got caught he's still living in the 70s Coburger though today you have DNA on a knife sheath you have cell phone records you have things that you didn't have back then and it's much easier to catch a killer like him today. That's something he probably didn't learn in school. He's still fighting the last war, apparently. Eviva, the parallels, like the Maddie, that's who this other killer was obsessed with, Elliot Rogers, and now Maddie Mogan was the focus of him. The incel possible connection, the stabbing inside of a house,

the alpha-fee connection on top of it. And then this was also in the Daily Mail. Dr. Carol Lieberman, who is, they describe her as having more than two decades of experience analyzing criminal behavior, raises the following, which I do remember hearing about. There was a girl in Brian Kohlberger's high school or middle school with whom he was reportedly obsessed.

Her name is Kim Kennelly, K-E-N-E-L-Y, popular blonde cheerleader who was the target of unwanted attention for months from Brian Kohlbergerberger her mother has spoken publicly about how he would leave her love letters in her locker. Make repeated awkward declarations of interest you would always say oh kim i think you're very pretty just like weird comments said the mom. And she would say oh god leave me alone she did not give him the time of day he was creepy he was weird. He was i think at the time, morbidly obese, and then would become a heroin addict. So really not like probably the most popular kid in school.

And this Dr. Lieberman positing that the rejection delivered in a possibly public humiliating way may have planted the first seeds of rage, and that young woman looks remarkably like Maddie Mogan. I mean, I just, to me, it's so interesting because we've, unfortunately they let this case go to, you know, be pled out without ever forcing him to tell us his motive. But now it seems like we're getting closer to piecing it together.

Yeah. I was, um, it's funny. The last time we were on the show, we talked about this. Like I was following this case more tangentially, not as in as much detail as say the Johnny Depp Amber Heard type trials of the Kyle Rittenhouse. So I was always sort of not shocked, but I presume that the evidence was more circumstantial than direct evidence. I appreciate the DNA on the knife sheath and you know, the images of the vehicle. Then I saw that Dateline exposed and I'm like, all right, I can understand why they would ask for a mistrial or postpone the trial because

that was enough to convince me. They tell a compelling story. They tie the circumstantial evidence together very meticulously. You're dealing with a guy who gives you the heebie-jeebies through the photographs of him on the internet, whether or not that's because of what you already built into those photographs based on news reporting might show the prejudicial nature of pre-trial publications. But yeah, I was just shocked that there was a lot of circumstantial evidence, only two elements of direct evidence, that being the slight bit of DNA on the knife sheath and a knife sheath that was left at the scene. I presume they have ISP addresses on those accounts and can tie them to Kohlberger or

at least his vicinity, that the data creation of those accounts can be tied to his activity as well. It's a very compelling story and in the absence of video evidence or direct witness evidence, it convinced me and I don't know if that's because I'm easily manipulated by- You are not easily manipulated. No. Dave Ehrenberg, did you ever see this when you were prosecuting cases of like someone who so far had gotten away with it,

who just couldn't stop himself from posting about it or leaving a clue or somehow like teasing law enforcement. You know, for me, I'm thinking about the Unabomber who was getting away with it, absolutely, but kept posting publicly, which is eventually how he got caught. His brother recognized the musings as belonging to his brother, Ted Kaczynski.

But like, this is so reckless for him to go on and start posting, it's the knife sheath before it's been made public. There's no question in my mind that that's him, Papa Roger. And I think it's a very good theory that he named himself that after one of his favorite serial killers.

Yeah, you see that with serial killers. They're the ones trying to play cat and mouse with the police. You don't see it as much with other criminals, but yeah, remember serial killers have a different mindset. They're not there for pecuniary gain. They're not there for any reason other than sport or sexual gratification.

And it's the game for them. And here you have Coburger, who I think perhaps would have continued to do that, but he just got caught before he thought he'd get caught. Because as I said, he's still living in the 70s where these guys can go on for a long time. But thankfully modern technology makes it much harder for these guys. And that database is something that we use.

We caught a serial killer with a genealogical database. And law enforcement doesn't like to talk about it much because they don't want the public to uncheck that box when you enter into 23andMe where it says, are you okay with being in a database? Most people just check the box or don't uncheck a box. And that's something that really can help law enforcement catch killers because the way they caught him was because they found a DNA match with a relative.

It could have been a distant relative. We don't know and we don't want the public to know because if the defense found out, they would have put the blame on that relative. They would have said that person is the killer. They would harass that person. So that was a big issue going to trial, whether the law enforcement was going to have to disclose who this relative was. So kudos to modern technology. I'm glad we got this guy. I just believed he deserved the death penalty in the end. Absolutely right. And it was, I just think cowardly of this prosecutor not to see that

through. There was no question he was going to be found guilty. I mean, there's, I guess there's always the out, out, out, outside chance, but in this case, it was just overwhelming. I will say this, Dr. Catherine Ramsland, who was his professor at DeSales, as he was getting his master's before he went cross country to Washington state to get his PhD, which is where these crimes were committed in neighboring Idaho, 10 miles away. She gave an interview to Brian Enten of News Nation. We played this for our audience,

but now we didn't know exactly what she was referring to, but now it's starting to come into focus. And I wonder whether she was thinking about this Rogers case when she said the following here. Can you say Dr. Ramslen, what it was looking back now that sort of raises your eyebrows specifically in terms of things in the class? I think just the idea of wanting to study offenders

and what their thought process was, how they felt about their crimes, wanting to study that and then finding out that this is a person who then is now saying he's guilty of doing these things. I have to look at the framework of what I taught and wonder, did I inspire him in some way? Did I, you know, but I can't second guess that

because I may have inspired somebody else to become an FBI agent. And that's unfortunately in this field, you know, that's what we live with. You really have to wonder whether Catherine Ramsland was thinking about the Elliot Roger case and a man who broke in, who stabbed, who targeted a girl named Maddie, who was an incel, who focused on alpha fee sorority member. I mean, it's just, you really have to wonder.

Okay, let's move on. Another case has been very much in the news, but hasn't gotten as much attention lately, though there's been activity in it, is Carmelo Anthony, this 17 year old young man out of Texas who killed another 17 year old man out of Texas. This happened after they had a confrontation at a track meet and in just like a truly tragic exchange for some reason, this Carmelo Anthony decided to pull out a knife and stab 17-year-old Austin Metcalf in the heart, killing him almost instantly.

It's just, the whole thing is so confusing. It to me, it just shows like true depraved indifference to human life, true depraved indifference. His defense is going to be self-defense. Carmelo Anthony, for the record, Carmelo is black, Austin was white, race is being made an issue on the Carmelo side. He went under this tent that,

like I guess each team sets up their own tent and Carmelo Anthony wasn't part of this team's tent And so Austin Metcalf went over to him These are the early reports and said leave and he said no and and said I Guess I should quote exactly but said if you if you try to put hands on me, you're gonna be sorry Hold on. Let me get it exactly from the police report Reveals that Anthony told an officer right after I was protecting myself.

He heard the cop say he was the alleged killer and Carmelo Anthony said, I'm not alleged, I did it. He inquired to an officer if what he did was self-defense. The officer claimed he replied by telling him, I did not know what happened. Another officer states that a witness told him Carmelo Anthony told Austin Metcalf, touch me and see what happens.

And also that Carmelo Anthony told Austin Metcalf to punch him and see what happens before Austin did touch him. I didn't, I've not seen the word punched used anywhere, but Austin did lay hands on him in some way and asked him to move and Anthony then stabbed Metcalf in the heart thereafter. The full description by officer Taylor Wetzel was as follows. The witness said Austin Metcalf had told Carmelo Anthony

that Anthony needed to move out from under their team's tent. Anthony grabbed his bag, opened it, reached inside, proceeded to tell Austin, touch me and see what happens. No one nearby really thought that Carmelo Anthony had a weapon. Austin proceeded to touch Carmelo Anthony, and then Anthony told Austin Metcalf to punch him and see what happened.

Short time later, Austin grabbed Anthony to tell him to move. Anthony pulled out a black knife and stabbed Austin once in the chest and then ran away. Two witnesses were spoken to as well, one of whom was the victim's twin brother, but were too distraught at the moment to give an instant statement. He's been charged now. We've been indicted by a grand jury on first degree murder. First degree murder.

There is capital murder, meaning you could be put to death in Texas, Dave, but only if you've killed a police officer, killed more than one person, or committed murder for hire, among other limited exceptions not present here. Moreover, the Supreme Court said you can't impose the death penalty for someone who committed a crime

under the age of 18. This family, Carmelo Anthony's family, has tried to turn this into a race war. And they have repeatedly come out through their spokesperson, who seems like an absolute effing loon, to try to say, this is what it's like to be a black man in America. This is all about race. A black man in America can't even defend himself. And that seems to be the real defense as far as I see it because I'm not sure how he's gonna claim self-defense based on Austin Metcalf placing hands on him. Your thoughts?

Yeah, under the law of self-defense, you can't provoke someone and then claim self-defense. If you were the initial aggressor, we saw this in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, which Viva mentioned, and that's going to be the prosecution's argument, is that was the defendant the one who provoked the situation? And the answer seems to be yes. So you can't just provoke someone, threaten someone, and when the person touches you, that gives you the right to say, self-defense, I kill you. So I think that will

fail. And I think you've hit upon something. Prosecutors have their greatest fear, and that's jury nullification. It's not supposed to happen, but that's when the jury just ignores the law and just goes with their gut or sympathy for the defendant. And perhaps that's what they're going for here to try to create a racial divide, hoping to get jurors who'll be sympathetic to their arguments because they perhaps realize that their self-defense argument is failing. So this is going to be one in laws,

perhaps in jury selections. It's gonna be really important during what's called voir dire, that the prosecution sorts out those who can't follow the evidence and the law. So Viva, I think on the defense side, that the prosecution sorts out those who can't follow the evidence and the law. So Viva, I think on the defense side, doing their best to poison the jury pool right now, I'm gonna give you a flavor for the family spokesman,

just so you know who I'm talking about. What I'm gonna tell you, he's saying after this soundbite is not on tape, but I just want you to get the flavor of who we're dealing with now. His name is Dominique Alexander. This is him from April 17th, right after it happened, Saturday team.

Black people in America, while the current occupant sits at 1600 Pennsylvania, black people in America don't have to pull the race car. It's what we live as a reality every day is what we have to teach our children. We don't want to, but we have to. We don't like to, but if we want to sleep at night, we got to. I ain't pulling no race car. I live it. I'm reminded all the time that I'm a black man in America. My Lord. He's surrounded by Carmelo Anthony's parents right behind him. And so here's what he's saying now. Still the spokesman for the family. They're allowing this very clearly.

In a June 24th ex-post pleaded with Carmelo's supporters to stand with us in the fight against white supremacy. It came right after he was formally indicted. He added, quote, to the racists, the bigots, and those filled with hate who have targeted Carmelo, his family, even myself, you do not intimidate us. We are not backing down. This case is yet another example

of what it means to be black in America, where even our self-defense is questioned, scrutinized, and politicized. Unreal. He's reserved himself a special seat in hell. In the beginning, I'd say people on both sides were trying to racialize this. People were saying it's black on white violence. It shows the disparate perpetrators of violent crime. And I'm saying, you know, to me, this is a young kid with a not fully developed brain acting like an idiot, whether or not he thought he intended to just, you know, like whether or not he reasonably thought he could kill somebody with one strike of a knife.

Set that aside to claim self-defense in my humble view. Former Quebec attorney never did criminal law patently absurd. I don't care what the self-defense laws of the state are, stand your ground, etc. To say I touch your shoulder. I get to stab you in the heart and whether or not he thought it was the heart to stab you in the body in my view will never be legitimate self-defense even to a jury.

But I became more convinced that there was in fact a racial element to this because of what the family is doing now, which is trying to racialize it almost as a preemptive using a shield as both a shield and a sword to argue. I think this might have been racially motivated at the end of the day. The fact that there's a lot of video evidence that is captured on cell phones that hasn't been released yet. If it did reveal some sort of self-defense, I think it would have been, you know, leaked or whatever. There would have been mentions to it. This might turn out very well to be something that was racially motivated. A rich white kid and the views of Carmelo Anthony getting

what he deserved and they don't want to release it because, you know, the authorities don't want to create a race war. The fact that the defense is hell-bent on doing it as a preemptive strike leads me to believe it might be there. But bottom line, first degree murder warranted. Try him as an adult warranted. And this there's there's no element of self defense that is remotely commensurate or comparable to Kyle Rittenhouse, no matter how much they want to try. I would not be surprised one bit to have this defense team at trial try to invent some made up racial slur that was allegedly called out at Carmelo Anthony because they seem dead set on injecting race into this

when it seems like according to all the reports that happened right after it happened, he didn't claim that. The most he said was that he, a witness said was that he had said to Austin, put your hands on me and you'll see what happens. No one has alleged, just keep that in mind as we go closer and closer to trial, which is this time next year, no one has alleged any sort of racial slur. And meanwhile, this Anthony family, which is allowing this boon, Dominic Alexander, to continue doing this with race, They're asking for fundraise.

They're holding a fundraiser. They want another, well, what? They're already seeking, they've already got 600,000 and they want another 800,000. They're asking, they raised their fundraising goal from 600,000, which they achieved, to 1.4 million on Give, Send, Go. They're posting that some of the money would go to basic living costs, transportation, counseling, and other security measures. The Daily Mail reporting here that they will continue to use some of the cash for, quote,

safe relocation after the Daily Mail reported that they bought a new car and already live now, I think it's borrowed, but I'm not sure, in a sprawling $800,000 home in a gated community. Again, they've already raised, the precise number is 544,000 and change as of 6 p.m. on Thursday. So I'm sorry, but this family is looking very grifty. The dad is all over online threatening reporters

who are reporting on the case. None of this is gonna come into evidence, but I would strongly advise people to think twice before donating to this give send go from a family that's going to try to create a race war over their son's depraved indifference. That's what this looks like. Though that's, you tell me, Dave, cause that's what's the depraved indifference. That's what this looks like. Though that's, you tell me Dave,

cause that's, what's the depraved indifference standard? Which kind of murder does that come in on? Well, it depends on the state, but generally depraved indifference in human life would be a second degree murder. But you can get him on first degree murder here as a premeditated perhaps too. But either way, the maximum penalty he could get

would be life because he's a juvenile at the time. So he will be prosecuted for murder. And Viva's right. In addition to the fact that it looks like this guy provoked it, you can't really bring a knife to a fistfight. And if a guy pushes you, it doesn't give you the right then to take out a knife and slash him to death. So that is excessive force.

I don't think they have a good self-defense claim at all. And you can tell that they know it too, which is why they're trying to bring up different things like race into this and not the facts of the actual case. Dave, why is he out on bail? Why is he out on bail? And why are they seeking more and more money while he's out on bail?

I mean, if I were the prosecutor, I'd be a little concerned that they suddenly need $800,000 and there's a trial date set, or they suddenly need $800,000 and they need the $800,000 right after he officially gets indicted on first degree murder. There's obviously somewhat of a flight risk here. There's always a presumption in the law to give someone pretrial release, and especially if they're underage.

They convince the court to do that, obviously, but you're right. Generally in a murder case, you're not going to see people walk out of jail pretrial. So I don't understand what happened there, except they used the age of the defendant in his favor and probably had no priors. And they probably deemed that he's not a flight risk and that he is not a threat to the community

and that he's not a threat to intimidate witnesses. But in a murder case, generally, that's not the presumption given. Generally, in a murder case, you would see that person remanded into custody. Absolutely right. I don't know. To me, that jumps out as a real anomaly. And I think this guy's, I don't know, I think there's a real chance of risk, of flight, a real chance of flight because they got him. They got him dead to rights. He confessed, I'm not alleged, I did it. And you're gonna have cops testify to that, witnesses testify to that.

I have yet to hear one thing that helps him in the evidence that's come out so far. What his defense seems to be, I'm black and he was white. Good luck, okay? This is Texas. Yes, I grant you, Texas has gotten a little woker as a bunch of Democrats have moved down there, but they haven't lost their ever loving minds.

And I don't think this is gonna work. All right, standby, more with Dave and Viva right after this quick break. The American dream has changed. Forget the white picket fence. For most Americans, the real dream is getting out of debt. If you are feeling the pressure from rising prices, mounting credit card debt, and you're just trying to stay afloat, I want you to know there could be a way out with done with

debt. They've got one goal, break you free from debt permanently. They're not pushing loans or bankruptcy. Instead, they're tough negotiators go straight to your creditors, slashing what you owe, wiping out interest, and eliminating penalties. And the best part? Most clients see more money in their pocket in the first month. You've worked too hard to let debt steal your future.

With Done with Debt, your dream of being debt-free could be possible. Visit DoneWithDebt.com and speak with one of their experts. It's completely free. But some of their solutions are time sensitive, so don't wait. Go to donewithdebt.com, donewithdebt.com. We talk a lot about personal freedom on this show. Well, part of that is owning your privacy.

And let me tell you, if you have ever Googled your name and found your home address, phone number, or even your income floating around, it's not a coincidence. That data is bought and sold by data brokers without your consent. And this is why I want to tell you about Incogni, a service that fights back on your behalf.

Incogni contacts those shady sites and gets your personal data removed automatically. No forms, no emails. They handle the back and forth with these brokers and just update you through their simple dashboard. It can really be a relief. If you care about your privacy and you want fewer spam calls, junk emails, and less risk of identity theft,

consider this step. And right now you can get 60% off an annual plan at incognito.com slash Megan. You know, short for like incognito, it's incognito Use code Megan at checkout. By the way, I was checking out I'll get to it later But I was checking out on one of our brands the other day and I remember to enter the code Megan My order was cut in half. I was like, these are the best deals It's amazing and this this company in coffeeogny, is going to give you 60, up to 60% off.

All right, so check it out now. Incogni.com slash Megan. Enter that code, Megan, and seriously enter it. You could save yourself a ton of money. Take back control of your data with Incogny. I'm Megyn Kelly, host of the Megyn Kelly show on Sirius XM. It's your home for open, honest, and provocative conversations with the most interesting and important political, legal, and cultural figures today.

You can catch the Megyn Kelly show on Triumph, a Sirius XM channel featuring lots of hosts you may know and probably love. Great people like Dr. Laura, Glenn Beck, Nancy Grace, Dave Ramsey, and yours truly, Megyn Kelly. You can stream the Megyn Kelly show on SiriusXM at home or anywhere you are, no car required. I do it all the time. I love the SiriusXM app. It has ad-free music coverage

of every major sport, comedy, talk, podcast, and more. Subscribe now, get your first three months for free. Go to SiriusXM.com slash MKShow to subscribe and get three months free. That's SiriusXM.com slash MKShow and get three months free. Offer details apply. So this last case is right in your backyard, Dave, and I know you have a personal connection to it too.

Next month, a woman named Donna Adelson is going to go on trial in Florida for first-degree murder. This is the culmination of years of criminal trials and accusations involving Donna's now deceased son-in-law. Donna's daughter Wendy was married to a man named Dan Markle and they got a divorce and they had a bitter custody dispute over their two sons. Donna and sorry, Wendy, the wife, and Dan lived in Tallahassee, which is more north in Florida. But Wendy's mom, Donna, and her other family lived farther south in Florida, down by Miami. And she really wanted to move down there with her two boys. And the husband, Dan, the boy's father, did not want that.

He objected. The things was getting more and more bitter. He had just filed a petition in the court to stop the boys from having unsupervised visits with the grandma, Donna, Wendy's mom, because he alleged that she'd been constantly disparaging him in the presence of his sons. It was never ruled upon because Dan was killed in his garage after having just pulled in his car before it could ever be heard.

And within a day or two, Wendy Adelson moved from Tallahassee down to Miami with her boys near her mother. Well, it didn't take police long to figure out who had conducted the murders. They decided to, somebody had seen a Prius on the property. They started pulling up security cam and gas station cams and so on during that day to see if they could find anybody following Dan Markle's car. They did.

They found a green Prius. They ran the plates. It was a rental car. They traced it back to the two people who actually were in the garage committing the murder, Luis Rivera and another man named, uh, Sigfredo Garcia. Now, unfortunately for the Adelsons, one of those men, Sigfredo Garcia, had been married to a woman named Kate. And Kate was also involved with Wendy Adelson's brother, Charlie.

So in other words, the two shooters had a direct connection to Wendy Adelson, or at least her brother. So now the police managed to put those two shooters in jail. One copped a deal and got a better sentence than the other. The one who copped the deal got second degree murder and he'll be out at some point. The one who didn't cop the deal got first degree murder away for life. He turned in the ex-wife of the main shooter, Kate, and she at first said,

I had nothing to do with it, nothing to do with it. Well, she went to jail for first degree murder. They didn't believe it. They said, Kate, you clearly hired these two guys. They're both saying you hired them. So now she goes to jail forever. But eventually, Kate says, I did it because Charlie, the brother of Wendy Adelson.

Hired me. Char. This is Charlie. Charlie really, really, really loved his sister. Loved his sister so much, he really wanted her down in Tallahassee, Tallahassee. And so he said, Hey, Kate, my girlfriend slash employee, could you get your dirt bag ex-husband, who's a gang member, to kill Wendy's ex-husband? And that's exactly what she did. And he paid her a bunch of money.

And then she paid the two shooters a bunch of money. And now Charlie is in prison for the rest of his life. Eventually prosecutors, they went through the two shooters a bunch of money. And now Charlie is in prison for the rest of his life. Eventually prosecutors, they went through the two shooters, boom, convictions. They went to Kate who arranged it, boom, conviction for life. Kate rolled on Charlie, the brother of Wendy, you know, the one's getting the divorce,

and boom, Charlie gets put away for life. And that leads us to Donna. So how do we get to Donna, Dave Ehrenberg, the grandmother of those two little boys, the mother of Wendy? And by the way, what about Wendy? Thoughts on all of this? Because Donna is the one going on trial next month. She's in a lot of trouble. Megan, this is a case near and dear to me because I was friends with Danny Markell, who is the victim in this case. No one deserves his fate, but Danny Markell is a Harvard graduate who could have made

a lot of money in the legal field, but instead he wanted to teach and he went to Florida State University in Tallahassee to teach. Wendy did not like it there. She wanted to move back to South Florida. It was a rift in their marriage. He was traveling one day to New York to give a speech and he came, he found that when he came home that she had taken half of all the furniture and the kids and left.

And then the mother, Donna Adelson, was pressuring Wendy to do things to leave, to go to South Florida, to perhaps, I'm not making this up. The mother, Donna, wanted Wendy to dress their kids in Nazi uniforms because Danny was a devout Orthodox Jew and she wanted the kids to be dressed in Nazi uniforms or to say that they're gonna convert to Christianity

as a way to convince Danny to let them go to South Florida or else this was what was gonna happen. They even tried to bribe him. They tried to bribe him for a million dollars to let the kids go. And when none of that stuff worked, the family in coordination with these killers killed him. And it was just awful.

And so yes, Charlie's in prison, Donna's next. Donna made some incriminating phone calls with Charlie. There's some recorded messages that look bad for her, but nothing looks worse for her than the fact that she tried to flee. Talk about conscience of guilt. She got one-way plane tickets. I mean, at least by the round trip tickets, right?

She got one-way plane tickets to Vietnam, a country with no extradition treaty with the United States. And why did she go? Why did she do that? Because on a recorded phone call with Charlie, she said, I'm either going to kill myself or I'm going to go to a non-extraditable country. Well, she did the latter. She's in prison now awaiting trial.

But there's other things. She apparently gave Charlie the money the night of the murder. She came over and handed him money in an envelope and the money was moldy. Why was the money moldy? Because according to Kate McBannawah, Charlie's girlfriend, the money was washed. This was Donna Adelson, amateur criminal trying to launder the money by literally washing it. And that's why it was moldy. And then there are other things like she's on recording. There was this thing called the bump. The bump was this undercover officer

who went up to her on the street and made her think that he was related to one of the killers and he was asking Donna for money. And she responded in a way that was very complicit. That was something that you would never do unless you were guilty yourself. She didn't go to the police. She didn't say, what?

I had nothing to do with it. She called the guy afterwards on the phone number and tried to talk to him. And then at the end said, I'll call you back. Like, okay, that's not how an innocent person acts. Yeah, but we always say, if you've ever committed a crime and someone comes up to you and tries to talk to you about the crime,

the only proper response is, that is not a thing. No, I did not do the thing that you say I did. There is no world in which you should be entertaining the blackmail attempt against you or revisiting your crime. This is criminality one on one people. We have a bit of that, the bump. Yeah, go ahead, Dave. Well, she tried to say things like that, but then quickly, it was like when she was on the phone with him, that broke down. And she was like, well, OK, I'll call you back. No, not once did she call the police. If that happened to you, Megan, and someone said you'd call the cops,

or you'd take the note that the undercover cop gave you and throw it in the trash. She kept the note. She kept the number. She followed up with him. And she tried to negotiate with him and she's gonna get- Because what happened was those two shooters went to jail

and they hadn't yet gotten turned on to Charlie. But at that point, this guy, this FBI agent comes to her like, hey, you know, I'm connected with one of those shooters and he needs to be taken care of. And I like, I understand you might be giving some payouts to keep people quiet, you know, cause her family hadn't gone down yet and approached her as if like, you know,

there's a chance he's gonna turn on your son or somebody else unless you do something about this. So they got to her before she realized her own neck was on the chopping block and she still thought she was in control. Here is a bit of that, the bump, FBI sting moment in SOT 14. Excuse me, Mrs. Adleton? Hey, go. Just want to give you this. Listen, you know, don't

be scared. Listen, I just wanted you to know that we know that your family has been taking care of Katie and her friends who have been with them for a place and time. After your problem, I want them to be involved. And I want you to know that you're not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You

are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not alone. You are not family, taking care of Katie and her friends who have been in place of time after your problem on North End. And I want to let you know that my brother, he's incarcerated, he

helped your family with this problem you guys had on North and we want to make sure that he's going through some rough times and we want to make sure that you take care of what he's going through the way you're taking care of Katie and Susan. Well, this looks like it. Thank you. I just want to say that my hidden body camera in my Baby Lisa special was much more effectively operated than that FBI. I'm sorry, but you've got to point the breasts directly at the subject. It's government, Megan.

It's why the cameras are turned off in Jeffrey Epstein's cell, right? It's very simple. I don't know why he didn't nail that. But in any event, she sounds guilty. And Viva, before I give it to you, here's one more. After Charlie was convicted, okay, so like she messed up how she handled the bump.

Then her son Charlie did get indicted, convicted after just three hours of deliberation. The jury wasn't even tempted to find him not guilty from the sound of it. She called him in prison. She was very upset that he had gotten, I mean, this is what happens when you ask your son to commit a murder.

He could go to jail for the rest of his life. Those are the allegations against her. She denies them. And Charlie hung up, but she didn't hang up. You know how like sometimes you talk to an elderly person on the phone and they never hang up and you have to hang up? Well, she didn't hang up. You know how like sometimes you talk to an elderly person on the phone and they never hang up and you have to hang up? Well, she didn't hang up

and the jail house recording kept going. And that's how we know she thought she might kill herself or go off to Vietnam. Listen to SOT 12 and SOT 13 in succession. I'm actually a crime now. Am I one of two? Am I suicidal now? Go to sleep and not see my son? I do. Perfectly honest, I do.

Hey, what are we doing here? We're going to do it together. Leave a note. I'll know when to come and get it. And we'll do it together. That's what the boy looks. I'm going to make a decision at some point. So we have to speak to them this morning and knowing what they're thinking up there.

I don't know if we'll make it out in time. I really don't. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I'm going to make a decision at some point. So after speaking to them this morning

and knowing what they're thinking up there, I don't know if we'll make it out in time, I really don't. I've been looking it up over and over. It's been strange if there is extradition from Vietnam. Because we've looked at all the places, I mean, I could go to Korea and China, but there's no extradition.

She doesn't want to go to Korea. Yeah, she wants to go to Vietnam. And that video we were just showing was of her being arrested at the airport via law and crime when they nabbed her. The feds had been listening. They heard that jailhouse conversation and she did not get on board the flight to Vietnam, all of which is admissible against her. Viva. Look, I wasn't paying attention to this case.

It's so patently stupid. Like Robert Barnes and I on our Sunday show, we always talk about the fact that you can be dumb and you can be a criminal, but you can't be a dumb criminal. How anybody thinks you get away with this in this day and age, by the way, just for the police, you know, not for nothing, a GoPro costs 400 bucks. One of the, one of these little things get high quality HD. But I feel that it's it would be comical if this were a movie, but it's real life and someone's dead.

This is Fargo level, you know, stupid level criminality. And I don't know what kind of person thinks you deal with life's problems like this. My question about the old lady is whether or not she had a history of mental illness or anything else in her in her in her life that would indicate she would resort to murder for hire to solve a family dispute. But may they all rot in jail and burn in hell because I presume the case is tight, that there's evidence of payment, coordination.

I don't know if the case is tight. I think she did it. I think she did it, Dave. Donna. I think Wendy did it too. I think the ex-wife is totally tight. I think she did it. I think she did it, Dave, Donna. I think Wendy did it too. I think the ex-wife is totally involved. She's completely denied it. And she's also, Wendy, been given some limited

government immunity to testify in a couple of these trials. So you tell me, because the case, I'm not sure if the case against the grandma is anywhere near as open and shut as the one against Charlie, the son, was. And I also have real questions about Wendy. Why isn't she getting charged and does that limited immunity they've given her

to testify at a couple of these trials extend so far to like she could not be charged if Donna gets convicted. Could Wendy also find herself up next? I think that if and when I do think it's a win, Donna is convicted, then Wendy is likely to be charged next. Now, I'm friends with the prosecutor up there, Jack Campbell. He has not given me any inside information, but you can see where he's been going on this. The state attorney up there has taken the strategy of going one at a time. First, they went after the hitman. Then they went after

the conduit, the girlfriend, Catherine McBandewa. They had to try her twice. The first time was a hung jury, 11 to 1, and they finally got her on the second time. Unbelievable that one juror held out, but now she's in prison for life, just like the killer is in prison for life. And then they went to Charlie, and they got him, and now he's in prison for life. Now they're going to Donna. She could be in prison for life. And the reason why they're going one by one, in part

because it's a smallish prosecutor office, and I don't think they necessarily have the bandwidth to try them all at the same time, but also they got evidence on each one after they prosecuted the other. So for example, had they prosecuted Donna at the same time as Charlie, they wouldn't have had those audio recordings. They wouldn't have had evidence of her fleeing to Vietnam.

So that helps. And so I think they are being meticulous each time. And I don't think this case ends after this case, unless Donna is acquitted and she's not gonna be acquitted. How, what evidence would they have against Wendy though? Because you listen to the police interrogation of Wendy, and this is all public because Florida has such great sunshine laws.

Wendy in her initial interrogation after Dan showed up dead was like, oh my God, I have no idea who could have done this. And she does say, oh geez, my brother did make a joke about how he was going to hire a hit man for me to get me through my divorce, but instead it was cheaper to just buy me this TV. But she said, that's just a stupid joke. He's made it many times. And then she became very, very defensive of Charlie. And she certainly never sold her family up the river. And I just don't see how they're going without one of those family members.

Charlie, who's now, I'm sure, bitter and in prison about the fact that he, you know, bitter that he did this for his sister and lost his life. The mother's not going to turn. So you'd need one of them to turn on Wendy, wouldn't you? It would help. Mother's not going to turn. Maybe Charlie does to save himself. But I do think you can prosecute and convict Wendy without them.

It's going to be harder. She'll be more difficult because it looks like they kept her out of a lot of this. But did she know about it? Well, the code for the killing was TV. They talked about money for the TV. That was the code. Well, what was she doing the day of the murder? She was having her TV repaired.

Also, I mean, is that a thing that when your TV breaks, you get it repaired? Don't just buy a new one. I mean, is that still a thing of TV repair? But also, she went to the scene of the crime. She didn't live near it, and she didn't have to drive that way. She said she was going to get alcohol for a party.

She was bringing over a bottle of something. She went to the liquor store, which was near where Dan lived. But there was a liquor store a lot closer where she lived. And she found herself on the street right after the murder checking it out, and the police had to redirect her car away. Why was she there? And then there's questions that she was lying about, her route that she took.

There's all these unanswered questions. Also, when she found out that there was a police scene in the area of Dan's house, well, her kids could have been there, right? Wouldn't you inquire about your kids? She never inquired about her kids. Also, there's a very suspicious message that she left Charlie,

a text message out of nowhere that said, it was about the time that the murder was ordered, that said, I will never forget what you've done for me. Something like that, to that extent. I mean, it's very peculiar. Also, there's a boyfriend that she was with at the time when she was separated from divorce from Danny, a guy named Jeffrey Lacasse. Jeffrey Lacasse is testifying and has been open about how Wendy was trying to set him up for the murder, that Wendy was asking, when are you going out of town and tried to make sure he was out of town right during the time of the murder so that he could be blamed for it somehow and or not be out of town? during the time of the murder so that he could be blamed for

it somehow and or not be out of town. It's something about the scheduling of Jeffrey Lacasse. So he's going to be a key witness against her. And he also thinks she did it too. That's like the family appears to be diabolical. The only one not getting pulled into the web is Donna, the grandmother's husband, who hasn't been accused, but one by one, they are being methodical of holding people accountable for this man's murder, shot in the head in his own car. His keys were still in the ignition when they found the body.

Absolutely merciless, brutal, and that's what the prosecution has been with anyone suspected to be connected to it. We're gonna stay on it because the case launches next month. Again, there will be cameras in the courtroom and we'll see what this grandma's defense will be Dave and Viva you guys worked overtime today That's a long Kelly's court. Thank you so much for all of your expertise and offerings. Thank you very much for having us Thank you. All right guys. You guys have a great weekend. All of you have a great weekend

I'm heading down now to see Charlie Kirk at his Student Action Conference. Gonna do that tonight in Tampa. And I will be back live with you on Monday. Have a great weekend. Thanks for listening to the Megyn Kelly Show. No BS, no agenda, and no fear. you