transcript

Speaker 1:
[00:00] A text says, you're on my mind. A bouquet from 1-800-FLOWERS says, you're my everything. Heartfelt moments belong in the real world, not just your phone. For 50 years, 1-800-FLOWERS has helped millions of people make memories that'll last a lifetime, with gifts they'll cherish forever. They're expertly curated arrangements and gift baskets shipped nationwide with a 100% satisfaction guarantee. Don't wait for the next big moment. Make it when you visit 1800flowers.com/sxmtoday. That's 1800flowers.com/sxm.

Speaker 2:
[00:30] Substance Use Disorder and addiction is so isolating. And so as a black woman in recovery, hope must be loud. It grows louder when you ask for help and you're vulnerable. It is the thread that lets you know that no matter what happens, you will be OK.

Speaker 3:
[00:50] When we learn the power of hope, recovery is possible. Find out how at startwithhope.com.

Speaker 4:
[00:57] Brought to you by the National Council for Mental Well-Being, Shatterproof and the Ad Council.

Speaker 5:
[01:05] Welcome to MK True Crime. I'm Phil Holloway. I'm a criminal lawyer. I'm a former prosecutor and I'm an ex-cop and I have been around this business a very long time. And I know a great true crime show when I see one. And we've got one for you today. Here's what's on the MK True Crime docket. We have big news this week out of Los Angeles. Singer David has officially been charged with the capital murder of 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez. We've been covering this case since Celeste's body was found decomposed and dismembered in David's impounded Tesla back in September of 2025. We will be joined by former federal prosecutor Neema Rahmani to break down the special circumstances in the charges against David. As of this taping, Nancy Guthrie has been missing for 80 days. We learned last week that now the FBI is analyzing DNA from hair found at Nancy's home. We'll discuss why experts say this could be the clue that finally cracks the case. And happy Earth Day. We're going to revisit the disturbing case of Ira Einhorn. Remember that guy? He's the self-proclaimed founder of Earth Day and notorious unicorn killer. I'm very pleased to be joined today by my friend and my co-host and my colleague Ashleigh Merchant, criminal lawyer from Atlanta, Georgia. Ashleigh, before we get to the big news about the singer David, I want to talk with you about Nancy Guthrie. It's been 80 days now since Nancy Guthrie. Of course, the mother of today's show host Savannah Guthrie was abducted. She remains missing and there still Ashleigh is no suspect. And we learned from samples that have been taken from her home that these have now been forwarded to the FBI for advanced testing. Experts say they're cautiously optimistic, particularly about hair found at the scene. Ashleigh, what's going on with this?

Speaker 6:
[03:10] Yeah, Phil, you know, I think they're just looking for anything, any clues at this point. I mean, like you said, it's been 80 days now, which is a long time. And I think everyone's kind of given up hope that they're going to find her alive. And now they just want to solve this and see if this is a crime and what actually happened. But the FBI has reportedly recently received additional DNA evidence, including a hair sample that was found at Nancy's home. There's been differing reports about where it was found in her home, but we know it was submitted for additional testing. They sent it off to a new lab down in Florida. But the Sheriff's Department is saying that this isn't really a new development. They said that they've been sharing the information with the FBI since the start of the investigation, and they actually released a statement that said they have worked with the FBI since the beginning of the Guthrie investigation. This is not new information. The private lab we utilize in Florida continues to share information with the FBI lab and other partner labs across the country, and DNA analysis remains ongoing. But this was the first official statement regarding Guthrie's disappearance since March 24th. And so that's been quite some time. And what they announced when they announced this, not only did they announce this DNA and this new hair sample that they're waiting on, but they also issued some misleading press statements that made some people think that Nancy Guthrie had actually been found, Phil.

Speaker 5:
[04:27] You know, this whole thing, and I've said this from the beginning, Ashleigh, and even when I was out there in Tucson for the show and for MK Media, and I was on the ground, and I was talking to all of the other media and folks that were out there doing the same thing, and it was always kind of speculated, and I think with good reason, that perhaps it was going to come down to one of two things, or maybe both, one being digital or forensic digital evidence, and of course, DNA. But if you think about it, we all have lots of different DNA that can be found in our home, it could belong to us, it could belong to our family members, our kids, our spouses, it could belong to people that you meet out in public that you somehow track into your home. If we're talking about a hair, right? Imagine how many hairs or partial pieces of hair could be in any given person's home, and do we have any real hope that this particular piece of evidence, this hair, might be from a bad guy versus someone who would otherwise be expected to be in that home?

Speaker 6:
[05:38] Well, Phil, I just don't think they know a whole lot yet. I mean, what they've said is the previous analysis is that it's been fruitless. They've yield some samples, but all those samples were mixed, or maybe they didn't get a CODIS hit. And, you know, CODIS is the database that the FBI maintains with all of the DNA in it. So they weren't able to find any of that. What they did confirm that one of the samples, one of the mixed samples contained at least one contribution from an unknown male. So that's really the only bit of a lead that we've gotten. But we did hear, and we can play this at SOT1, we heard an expert, a genealogy expert. She's actually, it's pretty cool. We've had her on the show, a genetic genealogist, Cece Moore, and she explains how this process works if we could play SOT1.

Speaker 3:
[06:18] Well, I've been really hoping that maybe they did have some hair to work with. Because of the more recent advancements in the field, hair absolutely can make the case solvable. So I'm really excited. The fact that they sent it to the FBI is interesting to me because they don't have the technology to extract snips from rootless hair. I am assuming it's rootless hair because if it had a root, it would be really quite straightforward and the lab in Florida would have already done that. Maybe the case would already be solved. This is very likely a rootless hair or a hair shaft, which until recently we were all told did not contain any useful DNA for forensics or for this type of analysis. That's changed dramatically over the last couple of years or few years with Dr. Ed Green's innovation and his great team over at Astrea. He was able to refine a technology, create and refine a technology to extract snip profiles from rootless hair.

Speaker 5:
[07:19] That was CeCe Moore. Of course, she was speaking with our friend, Brian Enton on his show. Of course, Brian is somebody who's been all over this. He was the first person that I went and found literally when I got off the plane in Tucson because he agreed to help show me the lay of the land out there as it worked. He's been all over this too. And it occurs to me that when we are talking about referencing things coming from an unknown male, actually, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a male that was not supposed to be in her house. It simply means that it's an unidentified male sample, right?

Speaker 6:
[08:02] Right, it does. But you would think that they would have taken DNA samples from all of the known males. So it definitely could have been someone that she hugged. Let's just say, you know, some people are huggers. My mom's a hugger. She hugs everybody. Could have been someone she saw at the grocery store or at church or at dinner or something where she hugged. And you think about how much hair can get on your body when you give a hug to someone. So it could be someone that they haven't even thought of testing. It doesn't necessarily mean that it's sinister. You know, I hope that Cece's right. And this is some great investigative clue, but I can't help but think that this might not lead to any answers, but you know, I think it's interesting that hair has been this actual type of hair is what they use to convict and to link Rex Heuerman, who we've been talking about a lot lately. The investigators actually found his hair on most of the victims. And so they were able to use this technique to solve that crime. So hopefully this is something that will lead to Nancy's return, at least so her family knows what happened to her.

Speaker 5:
[08:55] Yeah, well Cece is optimistic. She remains very hopeful that this is going to be what solves the case. In fact, let's run SOT2, which is her explaining why she feels that way.

Speaker 3:
[09:06] I'm more hopeful about this. If they really do have a rootless hair and it is from that kidnapper, then this is going to be the piece of information that will solve the case.

Speaker 7:
[09:16] Does rootless hair take a long time to analyze?

Speaker 3:
[09:21] Generally it does. Yeah, my experience is it can take a number of months. I'm sure they would push this to the top of the priority list because it's still a hot case versus many of the cases we're using rootless hair on that are, you know, decades old. And so hopefully it will be quicker than my experience has been with it. But it can take many, many months. And sometimes it takes multiple tries. The first couple of times they just don't get anything or they don't get a viable profile or enough of the snips out of it. And they have to keep trying and eventually they're able to do that.

Speaker 5:
[09:54] Well, I certainly am hopeful myself that this might be the thing that breaks the case wide open. But I'm going to, of course, you know, I'm going to temper my enthusiasm because we've seen other instances of things we thought might be great leads like the gloves and everything like that, that just haven't panned out. But we shall continue to watch this and see. But Ashleigh, as you mentioned a few minutes ago, according to Pima County, Nancy has been located, right?

Speaker 6:
[10:23] This is heartbreaking. I can't even imagine seeing this.

Speaker 5:
[10:25] This is crazy. They went on and posted on social media this post, and I'm sure we can put it up for our YouTube viewers to see. Nancy has been located, is what the Pima County Sheriff's Department says, and they used a photograph. This is about a lady named Nancy Radakovich, who looks incredibly similar to Nancy Guthrie.

Speaker 6:
[10:49] Especially with that red located across her face.

Speaker 5:
[10:52] Located right across it makes it where you just, if you just look at it, you think it's Nancy Guthrie. And it's like, I don't know who runs those social media accounts, but they need to do better than that because this is really kind of insensitive, I think.

Speaker 6:
[11:06] I think it's completely insensitive. And I can't even imagine what the family felt when and if they saw this. I know the public was outraged. I know it got 500,000 views before it was taken down. It's obviously, I mean, it looks just like her, especially with that red lettering. So I wish that they had done a little bit better job of this. It's a little bit insensitive.

Speaker 5:
[11:26] I mean, obviously, it's great news for the Nancy Rudakovich, who was located. Right? Right. You know, that's obviously great news. But I think the messaging here and the way that was handled was just a little bit, I don't know, maybe insensitive. But hey.

Speaker 1:
[11:44] Looking for the best place to shop this Mother's Day? Go with the brand that makes it easy to send something thoughtful to everyone on your list. 1800flowers.com Right now at 1-800-Flowers, order one dozen roses and get another dozen free. More flowers mean more smiles, all backed by the quality, attention to detail, and trusted delivery experience that make 1-800-Flowers my top choice to send something beautiful Mom will love. Make Mom's Day at 1800flowers.com/sxm. That's 1800flowers.com/sxm.

Speaker 3:
[12:14] Courage. I learned it from my adoptive mom.

Speaker 1:
[12:17] Hold my hand?

Speaker 2:
[12:18] You hold my hand?

Speaker 1:
[12:20] Learn about adopting a team from foster care at adoptuskids.org. You can't imagine the reward.

Speaker 2:
[12:26] Brought to you by AdoptUS Kids, the US. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Ad Council.

Speaker 4:
[12:29] Did you know many US homes have toxic chemicals in their tap water? Even though contaminated water looks clear, it could put you at risk for devastating health concerns, including fatigue, hormone disruption, cognitive decline, even cancer. Surprisingly, standard fridge and pitcher filters do little to remove most contaminants, and bottled water contains microplastics. So what's one solution? Introducing Aqua True, the countertop water purifier, which they say has been tested and certified to remove 84 contaminants, including chlorine, lead, forever chemicals, and microplastics. Its patented four-stage reverse osmosis system that's what you're looking for, goes way beyond ordinary filters for pure, healthy water you can trust. No plumbing, no installation. Aqua True has been featured in Business Insider, Popular Science, and named best countertop water filter by Good Housekeeping. Go to aquatru.com now for 20% off your purifier, using the promo code TRUCRIME. This is a great product. Going RO is the way. It's very maja. We did it in our house, highly recommend. Aqua True even comes with a 30-day best tasting water guarantee. Again, that's aquatru.com, aquatru.com, promo code TRUCRIME.

Speaker 5:
[13:56] As I mentioned in the intro, Ashleigh, do you remember this Ira Einhorn to blast from the past here at MK True Crime? We're going to take you back a few decades.

Speaker 6:
[14:07] It is a blast from the past. It is, and I did not remember it, but I've got to tell you, this story is crazy interesting. I think this is really interesting, and I hope there's a movie made on this case.

Speaker 5:
[14:18] Well, he's called the Unicorn Killer because in German, Einhorn literally means one horn, right?

Speaker 6:
[14:24] Right.

Speaker 5:
[14:26] So we've got some video that we can play while we're talking about it of the Earth Day celebration back in 1970, right? This is when Ira Einhorn, he grabbed the microphone. He refused to give up the podium for 30 minutes thinking it would get him some free TV publicity. And I guess he's right because we're doing it right here on this show. But he later, he falsely said that he was the founder of Earth Day, which is something that's not true. It was a Democrat senator named Gaylord Nelson from Wisconsin. But hey, Ashleigh, tell us what Ira Einhorn, the unicorn killer, is really famous for.

Speaker 6:
[15:06] So this is crazy, especially since it's Earth Day. And I think that's what really makes this so unique. So ultimately he killed and was later convicted of composting his girlfriend. He buried her in a trunk in his home. He fled to France and then years later he was extradited. It was many, many years later. So first, so he lured his girlfriend, his ex-girlfriend Holly Maddox. He lured her in 1977 back to his house. Apparently, she had decided to leave him and he was furious. He demanded that she come back to Philadelphia to retrieve her belongings in a ruse to get her back. He said he'd throw them on the street if she didn't comply. So she came back and then all of a sudden she vanished. She was 30 at the time and Mr. Einhorn denied any involvement in her disappearance. He told everyone that she had just gone out to a local co-op and this is so classic, a local co-op to buy some tofu and sprouts and never returned. But later her body was found in a trunk in his closet 18 months later. He became a high-profile fugitive for nearly two decades. He fled in 1981 and then he was finally caught in France in 1997. But Phil, I think the most interesting part is what happened while he was abroad in France.

Speaker 5:
[16:20] Well, how did… wait a minute, before we get there. So was he out on bail? What happened? I know he had Arlen Specter as his lawyer, who by the way is famous for, of course, being a US Senator. But before that, he was famous because he was involved in the JFK investigation. And he was the one that came up with the so-called magic bullet theory, right? Oh, yeah. Because he was his lawyer and he got him out on bail. What's the story there?

Speaker 6:
[16:47] He did. All right. So back in 1979, they actually found her body. She was mummified in this steamer trunk. The neighbors actually smelled it from his apartment, called the police. I know. So he gets charged with murder and he hires this lawyer, Mr. Specter. And apparently Mr. Specter has a lot of great connections because he's the former district attorney for that city and he was able to get a really reduced bail. $40,000, which you know, back then was probably a lot. But to be released, he only had to put up 10 percent, which is very common for bail bonds, about $4,000.

Speaker 5:
[17:18] $4,000 for a murder.

Speaker 8:
[17:19] Well, yeah, it's a $7,000, but in the late 70s, yeah.

Speaker 6:
[17:24] But it was put up, who posted the bail was a Canadian socialite, and this was one of the several well-known people that supported him, supported him financially and who doubted that he actually could have killed her. So he posts this bail and then he flees. He flees to France in 1981 and he spends two decades over in Europe under different names. But here's the kicker, he married a wealthy Swedish heiress and settled down with her, Annika Flodin. Settled down with her and he concluded windmill in Forty, France.

Speaker 5:
[17:54] Wealthy Swede.

Speaker 6:
[17:56] But like how does this wealthy Swede not know who this is? I mean, maybe she knew who he was and that was part of the charm. Who knows? That's what's the interesting story to me. That's why I think this could be a great Netflix special.

Speaker 5:
[18:06] Well, he was tried in absentia, right? So normally, for the audience, normally the defendant is supposed to be in court.

Speaker 6:
[18:14] Kind of important.

Speaker 5:
[18:15] You can't normally try someone in absentia. It's a violation of due process. But there's an exception to that. And Ashleigh, please correct me if I'm wrong. But if the defendant cause is the reason for the improper absence from the jurisdiction, let's just say, then they waive their right to be present for their trial, right?

Speaker 6:
[18:37] Right. No, they do. And a lot of times those cases are reversed on appeal. And I think the prosecutor is probably just really frustrated that it had been so long. So, you know, they decided to try him back in 1993, anyway, in absentia and hoping that it would bring the case to a close. Obviously, the jury found him guilty very quickly, and the judge sentenced him to life without parole.

Speaker 5:
[18:57] But he's living in France.

Speaker 6:
[18:59] He's living in France.

Speaker 5:
[18:59] And so we've got to extradite him. And this is my favorite slot that I've ever called for and played on this show. Here is slot three. This is Ira Einhorn complaining about extradition after. Get this, folks. He tried and actually did slit his own throats. A little bit graphic, but it's not too bad. Let's have a look at slot three.

Speaker 9:
[19:20] I have something to say very directly to Mr. Jospin. Il crée ça. I want him to regard this. And I want him to begin speaking to his people, to remember that he's a socialist, to remember that he was a Trotskyite, to remember that he was part of my generation who cared about people and we still care.

Speaker 5:
[19:41] Well, Ashleigh, you know, like I said, that's probably the craziest site and video. If you're listening on SiriusXM or on podcast, check us out on YouTube because you really need to see that. It's quite interesting. The guy clearly has something going on upstairs or maybe doesn't.

Speaker 6:
[20:02] Oh, yeah, he definitely does. And when he came back, so he's gone for two decades, he finally is extradited after trying to kill himself and all this stuff, so he finally gets extradited, Phil. When he returns in 2001, he gets a new trial. So, you know, the abstentia didn't really stick that trial, which is not surprising. They, whenever prosecutors try to try you in abstentia, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but it doesn't usually withstand appeal. So he's extradited back, gets a new trial, and during the second trial, he takes the stand. And what he said when he took the stand, I think is one of the most interesting parts of this case. He said that the CIA had killed Ms. Maddox and planted her body in his apartment in an attempt to frame him because he knew too much about military research into the paranormal.

Speaker 5:
[20:51] Well, you know, that's actually kind of, you know, timely because now we've been talking here on the show, and I'm sure we will more. It's been in the news about individuals who have turned up missing and disappeared, scientists who are, you know, connected with various sort of top secret programs, but it's always the CIA, Ashleigh. It's always the CIA. Because let's blame everything on them every time we have a trial because it's a surefire winner every time.

Speaker 6:
[21:17] Oh, yeah. Well, he got convicted, shocker, shocker, in 2002, and he was sentenced to life in prison where he remained until he died at age 79 in 2020.

Speaker 5:
[21:27] All right. Well, we'll have to leave it there for this segment. Up next, we have former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast trial lawyers Neema Rahmani. Neema is joining us to discuss the bombshell arrest of David Anthony Burke, aka D4vd. Burke is accused of brutally murdering and dismembering 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez. We'll bring you the latest on all of that. Those charges just filed Monday and what they can tell us about the terrible crimes alleged to have been committed against Celeste by David. Stay tuned. Courage.

Speaker 3:
[22:07] I learned it from my adoptive mom.

Speaker 2:
[22:09] Hold my hand. You hold my hand.

Speaker 1:
[22:12] Learn about adopting a team from foster care at adoptuskids.org. You can't imagine the reward.

Speaker 2:
[22:17] Brought to you by AdoptUSKids, the US Department of Health and Human Services and the Ad Council.

Speaker 6:
[22:21] When it comes to supplements, there are two things that matter most. It has to work and it has to be something that you can trust. Both are absolutely essential and that's why relief factor stands out. Relief factor has been authentically endorsed by hosts for over a decade. That's more than 10 years of trusted voices helping people get out of pain naturally. Why do they continue to stand behind it? Because it works, plain and simple. For people dealing with inflammation and mobility issues, especially after injuries, it's been truly life-changing. There are movement, less stiffness, and a noticeable improvement in daily comfort. Relief factor offers a quick start option, and they actually lose money on this first offer. They do that so you can try it yourself and experience just how much it can improve your life. Relief factor was created by a wounded Vietnam combat veteran who became a doctor to help people heal drug-free. What began as relief for his own patients became something he wanted to share with everyone. Try the three-week quick start for just $19.95. Go to relieffactor.com or call 800-4-RELIEF. Let's see if you are next in getting out of pain. Welcome back to MK True Crime. Joining us now is former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, Neama Rahmani. Welcome to the show, Neama. It's so good to have you.

Speaker 7:
[23:42] Of course, Ashleigh, so excited to be on.

Speaker 6:
[23:45] Well, you have done a great job explaining the nuances of this tragic David case, particularly why it's taken so long to actually see this musician charged. Before we get into details, let's do a quick recap for our listeners. In September of 2025, the authorities were called to an impound lot in Los Angeles to investigate a foul odor coming from an abandoned Tesla. When they opened the front trunk, they found the remains of a missing 14-year-old girl, Celeste Rivas Hernandez. She had been dismembered and put in two separate bags. The car was registered to singer David. We've been expecting an arrest for a while now, and it finally happened last week. Can you walk us through, Neama, why it took so long to arrest and charge singer David?

Speaker 7:
[24:33] Ashleigh, Philip, I'm sitting here in downtown Los Angeles, and I live and work in LA. This case has really been a dark cloud hanging over the city. I do think some of the criticism is warranted. When you have a young girl, 14 years old, missing for more than a year, her decapitated body found in the front of a Tesla for seven months, and no arrest being made, it's a problem. Obviously, as a former prosecutor, as a current resident of the city, obviously, I want law enforcement to get it right. But certainly, I think it's a fair question as to what took so long. LAPD can be notoriously slow. I respect them, but that's just the reality of living in a big city like LA. But it does feed into the perception that crime has run amok. But to answer your question, I think the reason why it took so long is Deputy District Attorney Beth Silverman wanted to lock down members of David's inner circle. She wanted to flip them, she wanted to cooperate them, and she wanted to put them before the grand jury. They testify under penalty of perjury so they don't change their story and go sideways at trial. I think that is one of the reasons why there was a delay in this case.

Speaker 6:
[25:51] I totally agree. And I think that is such a brilliant move on their part to lock down this testimony. And that's not something that we normally see. I know we don't normally see that here in Georgia. So I'm curious if you normally see that out in LA. I mean, they've got the ability, prosecutors have the ability to lock down this testimony. And it's not cross-examined testimony. I mean, it's perfect. They don't have the other side, they don't have me or you or Phil jumping up and objecting and asking questions. So it's such a wonderful opportunity for them to actually get this live locked in testimony. I don't know why they don't use it more. Is this something that they use regularly in LA or is this something that is just for this special case?

Speaker 7:
[26:27] It's definitely not something that happens in LA. So obviously on the federal side, in many states, prosecutors proceed by grand jury indictment. But here in California and in LA, 99 percent of cases proceed by criminal complaint and a preliminary hearing, which is obviously something we're going to talk about. It's going to happen in this case. The defense hasn't waived time, but we may get a prelim pretty soon. But convening a grand jury in a state case here in California is very, very rare. The fact that they did so leads me to believe that there's some investigative purpose, because this was just an investigative grand jury. There was no grand jury indictment in this case. So there was a reason why the DA's office convened this grand jury, and the reason usually is to subpoena people, witnesses, or documents, evidence, other sorts of information. And we know that this district attorney went to get an arrest warrant in another state for one of David's friends, named Neo. That was public. So there was also some reporting that members of David's family resisted testifying before the grand jury. So there really was an investigative purpose here, which leads me to believe that there will be some cooperator testimony in this case.

Speaker 5:
[27:41] You know, Neema, we covered here on the show, we covered the whole thing where the witness, Neo was, you know, like you said, arrested and then I guess brought in from another state. But of course, somehow also got a bond on that. But anyway, we can save that for another day. You know, some of us have expressed frustration, myself included, that at least charges pertaining to the, let's just call it the sexual allegations in this case with the minor. It seems like those were charges that might could have been substantiated and brought much sooner. And then, of course, you can always do a superseding charging document, whether it's an indictment or some type of an information or criminal complaint, like you mentioned. Do you have any thoughts as to why at least those charges weren't brought a little earlier? Because they're part of this case now.

Speaker 7:
[28:35] Phil, I agree with you and I got to tell you, some of this is sort of armchair quarterbacking, but when I was a prosecutor, I would much rather bring in a defendant on lesser charges, even if I don't have the murder lockdown. Because this is why, if you believe that this is someone who is sexually abusing a young girl and murdered her, even if you can't prove it, why are you allowing this individual out free for months on end? Someone who is a danger to the community, other young girls, they can strike again. Obviously, we know that this is a case that's gotten a lot of attention, and David can easily flee the jurisdiction. He can obstruct justice, destroy evidence, tamper with witnesses. There's so many bad things that can happen when you leave a dangerous individual like this on the street. I agree with you completely. My personal preference, if I were handling this case, would be to arrest him, even if it's for the corpse or the sexual abuse charges, even if you don't have the murder locked down just yet, and you think the defense is going to jam you up and insist on a speedy trial and a quick prelim, I still think there is a significant benefit to making that arrest early in a case like this. And it's really a head scratcher as to why the prosecution didn't do so earlier.

Speaker 5:
[29:53] Speaking of the arrest, let's go ahead and listen to DA Nathan Hockman, who by the way, I'm just going to go out on the limb and say has a standing invitation to come on this show anytime to discuss this case or any of the things that we're talking about. But here is DA Nathan Hockman, sought for announcing these charges.

Speaker 10:
[30:15] Good morning. My name is Nathan Hockman. I'm the district attorney of Los Angeles County. Today, I am announcing the charges against David Anthony Burke, the musician known as David spelled D4vd in connection with the brutal and horrific murder of Celeste, a 14 year old at that time. These charges include the most serious charges that a DA's office can bring, that is, first degree murder with special circumstances. The special circumstances being lying in wait, committing this crime for financial gain, or murdering a witness in an investigation. These special circumstances carry with it, along with the first degree murder charge, a maximum sentence of life without the possibility of parole or the death penalty. The determination on whether or not the district attorney's office will seek the death penalty will be made at a later time.

Speaker 5:
[31:19] Lying in wait is one of the special, that's something we don't see charged every day. I mean, and it goes to someone who is literally sort of planning and waiting on someone so that they can kill them. I mean, that's sort of the basic of it. And I guess they're saying that David was waiting at his home and sort of lured her there. Am I getting that right?

Speaker 7:
[31:42] I think that's right. And I watched the press conference live and both Nathan, who I have to tell everyone I used to work with at the city of LA at the Ethics Commission. I have a lot of respect for it. He didn't provide a whole lot of information as to what the special circumstances entail, especially with respect to the lying in wait. It was essentially a conclusory statement. Neither did LAPD Chief, who also answered a few questions. But we know that any of those special circumstances, whether it's the lying in wait, whether it's the financial gain, Hockman did explain that that was to protect his music career, or killing a witness, in this case, Celeste Rivas being a victim of sex abuse and a witness to that. Any of those do carry the possibility of the death penalty. Now, of course, that's a theoretical possibility here in California. There's a moratorium on executions, and we haven't had an execution in California in 20 years. Now, it's possible that that moratorium is lifted. We're having a governor's race in November, especially if a Republican is elected to the governor's mansion in Sacramento. That's a possibility, but Hockman has raised the possibility of the death penalty in both this case and the Nick Reiner case. I don't think the defense is really worried about that possibility, given the political makeup of California right now.

Speaker 6:
[33:01] I had a question for you about these special circumstances. Here in Georgia, if they are seeking the death penalty, they're going to have to allege something like a special circumstance. But we don't normally see that in a murder case. Is it something in California that you would expect to see, or is that them tipping their hand that they want either a death sentence or, this is my other question, maybe life without parole? Do they have to seek the death penalty to get life without parole?

Speaker 7:
[33:24] They do need the first degree murder and the special circumstances to either get life without the possibility of parole or a lot or the death penalty. So you do have to file and allege both of them. So this case is very likely going to be a mandatory life without parole case. That's why I think it's very likely to go to trial because there is no death penalty to negotiate down. I don't think Cochran is going to offer any type of, he can't offer any type of deal.

Speaker 6:
[33:49] He's not going to offer a life with parole.

Speaker 7:
[33:51] I mean, there's no way that you're going to even consider parole in this case. You know the defense is going to try the case, right? There's no benefit to them to take any type of deal. It's going to be a life deal. And obviously, if and maybe when David's convicted, he's going to get life either way.

Speaker 6:
[34:08] Yeah, I think they're going to have a hard time around that, that sexual conduct, special circumstance.

Speaker 5:
[34:12] Yeah, speaking of special circumstances, we got SOT 5, which is part of that presser that you were referring to, Neama, where the DA is detailing the special circumstances. Let's have a listen.

Speaker 10:
[34:23] The special circumstances are lying in wait. That Celeste went to Mr. Burke's home on the night of April 23rd, 2025, as alleged in the complaint at his invitation, and again, was not heard from again. The second is a special circumstance being that this murder was committed for financial gain. As the evidence will show in court, the financial gain was for Mr. Burke to maintain his very lucrative musical career that Celeste was threatening on that particular night. The third charge, in addition to lying in wait and for financial gain, is murdering a witness to an investigation. In this particular case, as the evidence will come out in court, the witness to the investigation was Celeste. And the investigation was into the lewd and lascivious sexual acts committed by Mr. Burke. It is the subject of count two of this complaint with Celeste while she was under 14 years old.

Speaker 5:
[35:37] So clearly, yeah, he was being investigated for all of the sexual crimes related to the victim. I guess at the time of the murder, according to the DA, Neama and Ashleigh, I mean, that's, to me, that would, that would weigh in favor of, you know, obviously seeking the death penalty. And I think life without parole makes, makes good sense. But it also raises the question of why not go ahead and just charge him before he had a chance to kill somebody?

Speaker 7:
[36:08] Yeah, I definitely would have picked him up on the 288. That's the penal code section that you're talking about Phil here in California, Lude and Lasivius, a child under the age of 14. One of the most serious sex crimes here in California. I agree with you. I mean, obviously, I think the 288 is a very strong charge. I'm likely could have tried to get him held without bond on that count alone. I don't think the corpse alone would have done it, especially here in California. Judges are pretty liberal when it comes to bond. But certainly on the 288, I think they would have had a shot. And look, when it comes to these additional crimes, I think although they're not necessarily going to add anything to the sentence, if you do get that first degree and special circumstances, any one of those three, you get a conviction. But it's going to bring in a lot of really bad evidence into the case, right? I think probably it would have come in anyway as evidence of motive. But now you guarantee that all this terrible evidence of sexual abuse is going to come in. David is going to come across as very unlikable. When you start thinking ahead, if you're a good prosecutor, you start thinking about the potential defenses in the case. I think probably if I had to guess, what we'll see Blair Burke who was leading the defense team do is argue that there was no sexual contact, and that this was some sort of accidental death and overdose, something like that. They panicked and they disposed of and dismembered the body. That's typically what you would see in a case like this. I think it's going to be hard to really get away from the corpse mutilation count entirely, especially when it's so difficult to saw through bone, and this young girl was chopped up and placed into two bags in the front of his Tesla.

Speaker 6:
[37:52] The jury is going to be angry about that, I think. I got a question for you about the lewd and lascivious, just because I know a lot of our viewers, I know that term from legal worlds. We don't use it here in Georgia, but is that similar to child molestation? I mean, lewd and lascivious, I know in most states is just a sex act with a person under a certain age. That's considered lewd and lascivious. So is that kind of what we're talking about with California law?

Speaker 7:
[38:14] Yes, that's absolutely right. So it is a sex act and California law does distinguish it based on the age of the victim. And that's really sort of the lowest and the most serious. Under 14, you do a sex act. It really doesn't get worse than that. Obviously, I'm not saying that a 16 or 17 year old can consent to any sexual activity, but the way the law is written, it is a less serious offense under the penal code here. This is by far and away the most serious because it's considered obviously forcible rape, but also the age of the victim is a significant aggravating factor. Right.

Speaker 6:
[38:52] And consent doesn't have anything to do with it. I just think our viewers, it may be important for them to understand that because child molestation, lewd and lascivious, even if the person consents, they are not legally able to consent because they're 14. Is that how it is in California?

Speaker 7:
[39:06] That's absolutely right. You can't raise the argument of consent. Anyone under the age of 18 cannot consent to any sexual activity, or really engage in any kind of legally protected conduct, could be entering into a contract, but certainly not any type of sex act. And the law presumes that it's not consensual. And therefore, it's not only sexual abuse, it's sexual assault and rape.

Speaker 6:
[39:25] Right. So I think that's really significant for him and these charges that he was trying to kill a witness because it's, I mean, even if he says she was a willing participant, she wanted it. Whatever his defense is, whatever his defense might have been for that, it doesn't matter. It's not a defense. And so that strengthens, I think, when people understand that, strengthens that charge, that special circumstance.

Speaker 7:
[39:45] No question. It's not a defense. It can't be a defense that she presented in some way, which legally she can't. And it's also not an offense that I thought she was of age and she was 18. That is not a legal defense in California. And pretty much in any state, it is a strict liability crime, which means that you are responsible for a sex act, even if you reasonably believe that the victim was over the age of 18. That is not a legal defense.

Speaker 5:
[40:10] Well, she wasn't even close.

Speaker 6:
[40:11] Yeah, she wasn't even close. I'm glad you brought that up there because we do hear that a lot. Oh, they had an ID, something like that. And so I think it's important to make sure that our viewers understand that because I know that it's strict liability, but he was toast on those charges.

Speaker 5:
[40:24] And we have to remember this didn't start in California. This whole thing started, well, is it Texas, if I recall? And so I'm wondering if we have some federal issues here. Is there going to be maybe any federal indictments that we can expect or if you've heard or do you know, do you guys have any theories on whether that could even apply?

Speaker 7:
[40:46] It's always possible. Obviously, you know, sex trafficking is a federal crime, carries a potential sentence. I mean, the most recent case, of course, was Sean Diddy Combs and the federal nexus doesn't have to be significant, right? It's just the use of a cell phone, right? That's enough. You know, typically, before, I would say, this DOJ, we wouldn't see the feds filing on top of the state. I'd say, obviously, you know, Derek Chauvin for George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery, the McMichaels and Roddy Bryant, you know, there's a civil rights component. But the DOJ used to have this policy, this Pettit policy, where, unless there's a substantial federal interest that wasn't vindicated in the state case, we wouldn't see these subsequent federal prosecutions. But we are seeing the feds seek the death penalty in jurisdictions where there is no death penalty. Obviously, in New York. Yeah, New York is probably the best example, Ashleigh. You're absolutely right. So, you know, never say never. This is a high-profile case with a very sympathetic victim. So it's possible that we would see federal charges in this case. And obviously, we know in the federal system, they do seek the death penalty. So it's a possibility, and it's certainly a possibility that may result in some sort of plea. Again, if you see the US Attorney's Office here with approval from DOJ, you have to get approval from the attorney general, deputy attorney general to file this type of case after the state. But if that happens, obviously, that's a completely different type of case, and all bets are off with respect to some sort of plea deal.

Speaker 6:
[42:22] That's really interesting because he could have even sent a picture of her or something, because that's child porn. I mean, he could have sent a topless picture, she could have sent him a picture, and that invokes federal jurisdiction. So like you said, you never know with the DOJ, this DOJ, but we could end up seeing a death penalty case.

Speaker 5:
[42:38] There's a five-year, you know, the general five-year federal statute of limitations, and this has been dragging on for a while. So, you know, we can't, we can't forget if we're going to analyze the possibility, I guess we can't leave out the statute of limitations, but there's all kinds of legal issues that could present themselves such as tolling, whether the statute of limitations stops, whether it's extended for some other reason. But speaking of federal charges, I want to switch gears with you, Neama, if we can, and talk about the missing mom down in the Bahamas, Lynette Hooker, right? We've got some new news out of the Bahamas. We have Lynette's daughter visiting the area, visiting the yacht that was the home, I guess, of the couple. And we've got a bartender down in the Bahamas speaking out who says that he served them at the Abaco Inn. Ashleigh, what's that?

Speaker 6:
[43:37] Yeah, the Abaco Inn is a gorgeous place, but it's also very, very close to where he went later on and where he said that she went missing. I think that's really important because it's such a small area. I mean, there really just isn't a whole lot of space. I think people would have been hearing about it. You know, it's kind of a problem, I think, I think for this case. But apparently they spent the afternoon sipping drinks, sipping rum and cokes by the pool before she was found, or not found before she was alleged to have gone overboard from their dinghy.

Speaker 5:
[44:08] Neema, I want to play a video here of daughter Carly. She says she's afraid that Brian, who she believes is guilty of a crime, is going to get away with it. And I want to talk to you on the other side about that reaction and whether or not you think the federal government of the United States has any jurisdiction and if so, are they going to do anything? Let's take a listen.

Speaker 11:
[44:31] Still trying to grapple with the fact that she's just not here right now. Pardon me, feel like he's going to get away with this and walk away a free man. And I really hope that doesn't happen.

Speaker 6:
[44:45] I'm curious about this jurisdiction too. So they're in the Bahamas, but apparently the feds think they can somehow have jurisdiction over this. So I'm kind of curious.

Speaker 7:
[44:53] Yes. So under federal law, foreign murder of a US citizen abroad is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. It's a pretty famous case where a dentist from Colorado lured his wife to a safari in Africa and ended up killing her there. Obviously, this case is really in its sort of infancy. I know folks are upset that Hooker was allowed to leave the Bahamas. First, he said he was going to stay, then he said he had a sick mother, so he was leaving. Obviously, when you have a child speaking out, that just adds fuel to the social media fire. I think people are really upset. Now, just kind of analyzing this case, these two were sailors of sorts. I believe they were on this boat for four years, and it somewhat ends up being, to me, like the perfect crime. It's late at night, they're not on their boat, they're out on this smaller dinghy. She is washed overboard, he doesn't jump in after her, she happens to have the key wrapped around her and loses it. I think from a law enforcement perspective, if you're investigating this case, he did get a pretty extensive statement reportedly. I think the first thing you want to do is make sure that that statement is accurate to the extent that you can verify it. Because obviously, start catching him in lies, well, that's a different story. Then you want to start looking for any type of motive, extramarital. It's usually sex or money in these types of cases.

Speaker 6:
[46:16] Always sex or money.

Speaker 7:
[46:18] Sex or money. Look, if anything happens to me, I think I'll go on record and say my wife is probably going to be one of the number one suspects. Any type of thing. It always is. I think we're just getting started in a case like this. I think really members of the public and of course, the family, they're demanding answers. I don't think we're going to get them necessarily. It's the type of case that might take weeks or even longer to really fully investigate.

Speaker 5:
[46:43] I mentioned the bartender from the Abaco. I thought it was pretty fascinating what this guy tells the New York Post. He says that he served them drinks on the early evening of April 3rd out by the pool, sipping rum and cokes. That was the night where I guess she went overboard, allegedly on the Saturday the 4th. Search began the morning of April 5th. This guy says, Brian ordered drinks and was thankful for the quick service. He said though that the timeline of the events doesn't make sense to him or some of the locals. Quote, what catches my eye is they left here at 7, 730 and her going missing supposedly happened right after they left here and he didn't make it over to Marsh Harbor until 4 a.m. or something like that in 25 mile an hour winds. It's only four miles away. It shouldn't have taken 8 to 10 hours to get there. Even if he was only floating, it should have been a much quicker time. Now, that's the opinion of the bartender who says he served them. Now, other people have said, okay, I can see where it may take a little while to get to shore, but at least for some of the locals, guys, this isn't adding up.

Speaker 7:
[47:55] Well, I think, Phil, if, and a lot of people are speculating that Lynette was never even on this boat, right? Something happened to her before they even got on the boat or he even, Hooker even got on the boat. Obviously, if that's the case, then that is a very, very strong case because now you have someone that completely lied about when and where his wife went missing. That is very strong circumstantial evidence of his guilt and that he had something to do with her death and her disappearance.

Speaker 5:
[48:25] You're talking about the dinghy? She was never on that, the dinghy? Is that the theory?

Speaker 7:
[48:30] I think some of the folks are saying that she was never even on the boat and that he fabricated the story of her being, you know-

Speaker 5:
[48:38] You mean the yacht?

Speaker 7:
[48:39] The yacht. Again, this is just social media speculation, right? I think some people are saying that she was never even on the yacht, much less the dinghy, and obviously if she wasn't, then that is a very different topic. Again, I don't know. I'm just following the Internet sleuths on social media. Some of it's just, of course, conspiracy theories and true crime fans who I'm sure are watching the show. But again, I am seeing some of that speculation. And if that were true, and if that's what the bartender is saying, that the timeline doesn't add up, I don't think Hooker was there when he said he was. And if that leads to the conclusion that his wife was not there either, again, very different type of case if that turns out to be true.

Speaker 6:
[49:25] And very difficult when there's nobody. I mean, that is just a nightmare of a case for any prosecutor. But thank you so much, Neama, for joining us. This was fabulous. Where can our audience find you?

Speaker 7:
[49:37] Thanks, Ashleigh, Phil. Thank you so much for having me. Love being on. You can find me at Neama Rahmani. That's N-E-A-M-A-R-A-H-M-A-N-I on all social media. TikTok, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, you name it. And my firm is West Coast Trial Lawyers on all those same social media apps and channels.

Speaker 6:
[49:55] That's awesome. Thank you so much. Well, next, our closing argument. Stay tuned.

Speaker 3:
[50:02] Courage. I learned it from my adoptive mom.

Speaker 2:
[50:04] Hold my hand.

Speaker 1:
[50:05] You hold my hand. Learn about adopting a team from foster care at adoptuskids.org. You can't imagine the reward. Brought to you by AdoptUSKids, the US.

Speaker 2:
[50:15] Department of Health and Human Services and the Ad Council.

Speaker 5:
[50:17] All right, guys, here's a question. How many brokers does it take to insure your business? If you're like most business owners, the answer is, well, too many. Multiple policies, multiple applications, and no clear view of how it all fits together. And when questions come up, it's not easy to get the clarity that you need. Super Sure changes that. One broker for all your business insurance backed by a team that works with you year round, not just at renewal time. And if you've ever stared at a policy, wondering what it actually covers, Super Sure has a fine print fax tool that translates the legal jargon into plain English, so you know what's covered and what is not. Right now, you can go to supersure.com and get a full report on your current policies with no obligation. Find out if you're overinsured, underinsured or somewhere in between. Go to supersure.com. One super agency, one powerful platform, all your policies in one place. Go to supersure.com/megyn, that's M-E-G-Y-N. That's supersure.com/megyn. Paid for by SuperSure Insurance Agency, LLC, a licensed insurance agency. Welcome back to MK True Crime. I'm Phil Holloway along with my co-host Ashleigh Merchant. And before Ashleigh and I get into our closing arguments, we have a very special announcement here. We want to let our listeners know that starting next week, we're transforming this show. We will now be called the MK True Crime Show. Dave, Ashleigh and I, we're not going anywhere. We're just switching our schedule up a little bit. We're dropping new episodes every Tuesday and Thursday now. And we're happy also to report that our friends and colleagues and MK True Crime contributors, Mark Iglarsh and John Spilboer, will start their own show. It's called Positively Legal. That starts next week. Along with, and get this, we have a new show, In the Well, and that's going to be co-hosted by Mark Garagos and Matt Murphy. So we have big things happening here on the channel, all starting next week. So make sure you're subscribed to our YouTube channel, all of our social media, and of course, we're available on SiriusXM radio and anywhere you get your podcast. Ashleigh, it's time now for our favorite part of the show, right? This is our closing arguments. Ashleigh, you can take it away. Tell us what's on your mind.

Speaker 6:
[52:55] All right. Thank you so much, Phil. So last week in one of my closing arguments, I sort of went off on the Harvey Weinstein saga, this latest trial. We're talking about the third retrial in this case in New York. It's underway. We're hearing opening arguments this week. But apparently, I need to clear something up because people heard what I said, and everybody runs at about 10 different directions with it. When I said we shouldn't be giving someone, Harvey Weinstein, a third bite at the apple, I was not minimizing anyone. I was talking about the system because here's the reality. At some point, a case gets tried. It gets decided. A jury hears it, evidence comes in, a verdict happens. If the rule becomes we don't like the results, so let's just do it again, then what exactly are we doing here? And that's what happened in the Harvey Weinstein case. They didn't like the hung jury. They didn't like the fact that they couldn't get a conviction that second time around, and so they tried for a third time. That's exactly how we got this. For years, it was an open secret. People whispered, joked about it, winked at it. Then suddenly Harvey Weinstein becomes public enemy number one, not saying he's not. Again, not defending him. He's in prison. That part happened. That part's deserved. But now, now we're just collecting trials like trading cards, state court, federal court, civil court. I'm waiting for traffic court to step in and say, sir, you failed to yield. Also, we'd like to revisit that ticket from 1997. At this point, we've turned a prosecution into a traveling road show. We really have. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Harvey Weinstein tour. Next stop, another jury. Have you been harmed by Harvey Weinstein? Call now. Operators are standing by. It's starting to sound less like a justice system and more like a late night Mesothelioma ad. Here's the part nobody wants to say out loud. Every time we rerun this, every retrial, every third bite at the apple, every new venue, every let's try again and get a conviction this time, we're not just seeking justice anymore. We're not. We're using courtrooms. We're using judges. We're using prosecutors. We're using jurors. We're using real resources. And while we're doing that, and this is the key part, while we're doing that, there are real victims right now waiting for their first day in court. Their very first, not their second, not their third, but their first. So when I say third bite at the apple, what I'm saying really is this. At some point, the system has to accept that a case was tried. Because if we don't, we're just going to keep retrying it until we get the outcome we want. And then verdicts don't really mean anything. We're not doing justice anymore. We're just re-rolling the dice until we like the number. And meanwhile, there's a lot of people, a lot of people waiting in line for justice. And that line just keeps getting longer and longer. He's in prison. We've made the point loudly, repeatedly, globally. Enough is enough. Thank you.

Speaker 5:
[55:46] Well, great stuff, Ashleigh, as usual. Of course, you know, that's all about the wise and proper and maybe best use of limited judicial resources. I'm going to talk about something similar, but a little bit different. I'd like to discuss today judicial discretion. You know, in most cases, judges have a very, very wide latitude when it comes to imposing a criminal sentence, right? And that's a good thing because judges are in the best position to make sure that the punishment fits the crime. That's what we always want. But what happens? What happens when judges fail? When they abuse that discretion and when they sentence perhaps too harshly or even when they sentence too leniently. There's a recent case in Northern Georgia that highlights this issue. I'm referring to what's been come to be known now as the Diane Sykes Sentencing Controversy. It takes place in Oglethorpe County, Georgia. So back in 2021, 52 year old Diane Sykes, she took a box cutter and she slashed her 15 year old autistic son's throat from ear to ear. Quite literally, I've seen the pictures. She literally tried to kill him in cold blood, luring him outside and attacking him while he was distracted looking at the moon. She went to trial earlier this year. The jury heard everything, including her claims of mental incompetence, and they rejected it. They found her guilty of all charges. They deliberated for just two hours. They found her guilty of attempted murder, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, and cruelty to children in the first degree. As I said, they rejected her not guilty by reason of insanity defense, and they also also rejected a verdict that we have here in Georgia called guilty but mentally ill. The district attorney, his name is Parks White, he recommended 50 years in prison with 25 to serve, but Superior Court Judge Harvey Wasserman, well, he saw it another way. Instead of the expected long prison term that I think anyone who's been doing this for any length of time might expect, he sentenced her to, get this, just 90 days in the county jail for a mother who slit her own son's throat from ear to ear. And guess what? According to the judge's sentence, when she gets out, she can still have contact with her victim. And to make matters worse, even after the guilty verdict, the judge let her walk free on a bond. He gave her a bond after the jury's verdict, and it was only $25,000. And she walked out of the courtroom that very day. Normally what happens is they go out, the back door bond is revoked after a jury verdict, and they're taken into custody. So that fact alone, look, that's practically unheard of under circumstances such as this. So district attorney Parks White, he recently highlighted the case, along with another in neighboring Hart County, where a woman who abused her 13 year old, she got life plus 20 years. The side by side comparison shows just how widely sentencing can vary from one judge to another, from one county to another, even if they're next door. The outcome has sparked outrage because it seems to undercut the jury's verdict. In fact, some of the jurors have spoken out about this. They're pissed. So this is about the gravity, guys, of a violent attack on a vulnerable child. And it's a stark reminder of the wide discretion that judges have and how that discretion can lead to sometimes very wide sentencing disparities. And the debate has ignited over accountability for justice and for crimes against our kids. So join us back here at MK True Crime two days from now because we're going to have the district attorney Parks White. He's going to be joining the program to talk about this very case. And I want to say thanks, of course, to my co-host, Ashleigh Merchant, and thanks to our guest, Neama Rahmani. And thanks, of course, to all of you, our viewers and our listeners, because you are what makes this show possible. Thanks again, and we'll see you back here next time on MK True Crime.

Speaker 3:
[60:14] Courage, I learned it from my adoptive mom.

Speaker 4:
[60:17] Hold my hand.

Speaker 2:
[60:18] You hold my hand.

Speaker 1:
[60:21] Learn about adopting a team from foster care at adoptuskids.org. You can't imagine the reward. Thank you.