Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / 17 Most Horrifying Details Dropped in D4vd Hearing

Transcript

17 Most Horrifying Details Dropped in D4vd Hearing · Murder Files Unsealed

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: You know, you look at the landscape of modern internet
• 0:02
  fame right now, and there is just this incredibly glossy,
• 0:07
  highly curated facade to it all.
• 0:08
  Speaker 2: Oh absolutely, it is a world built entirely on esthetics
• 0:12
  and vibes.
• 0:13
  Speaker 1: Right like relatable tiktoks, and this totally manufactured sense of intimacy.
• 0:17
  It makes millions of fans feel like they truly actually
• 0:20
  know the person behind the screen.
• 0:23
  Speaker 2: Yeah, they feel like they're friends with them exactly.
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: But today you're going to see exactly how quickly that
• 0:30
  glittering digital fairy tale can just completely mask a deeply
• 0:34
  disturbing real world nightmare.
• 0:37
  Speaker 2: Because the narrative we are sold online it unravels with
• 0:41
  terrifying speed when it gets subjected to the cold, hard
• 0:44
  light of the justice system.
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: It really does.
• 0:46
  Speaker 2: I mean, the contrast between a carefully managed pr image
• 0:49
  and the forensic reality of a crime scene, it is absolute.
• 0:52
  There's nowhere to hide.
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: So our mission for this deep dive is to guide
• 0:56
  you through the shocking, just multi layered preliminary here of
• 1:00
  a twenty one year old gen Z R and B
• 1:02
  sensation named David Anthony Burke. Right you probably know him
• 1:05
  professionally is de four vague.
• 1:06
  Speaker 2: Yeah, massive start right.
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: And drawing on incredibly comprehensive reporting from the Law on
• 1:12
  Crime network, We're going to dissect the timeline, the intersection
• 1:16
  of modern forensic evidence with digital data, and the complex
• 1:19
  legal strategies being deployed.
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: It's a lot to unpack, it is.
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: And it's all on both sides of a horrific first
• 1:25
  degree murder case.
• 1:26
  Speaker 2: And at the center of this legal labyrinth is a
• 1:29
  fourteen year.
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: Old victim, Yeah, Philistrivus Fernandez.
• 1:32
  Speaker 2: The gravity of what is at stake here is just immense.
• 1:36
  I mean, it requires us to examine not just the
• 1:38
  actions taken, but the specific legal frameworks that define those actions.
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: And we really need to establish the chilling irony at
• 1:46
  the very center of this case before we dive in.
• 1:48
  Speaker 2: Yeah, the context is wild.
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: This is a young man who's skyrocketed to fame. Back
• 1:52
  in twenty twenty two, he had a massive breakout hit
• 1:55
  song and the title of that song, right, I know
• 1:59
  where you're going this romantic homicide. It's so dark it
• 2:02
  really is. Now, just a few years later, he is
• 2:04
  sitting in a Los Angeles County jail, held without bail,
• 2:07
  facing literal heimicide charges.
• 2:09
  Speaker 2: With special circumstances attached.
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: Right, the irony is so dark it almost feels scripted,
• 2:14
  you know it does.
• 2:16
  Speaker 2: And while the details we are going to explore are
• 2:18
  frankly undeniably gruesome, analyzing them provides a masterclass in modern
• 2:24
  criminal justice, oh for sure. This case is a prime
• 2:27
  example of how modern digital footprints like app data, deleted
• 2:31
  text messages, and vehicle telematics, how all of that intersects
• 2:35
  with traditional forensic science.
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: And high stakes court remneuvering too.
• 2:39
  Speaker 2: Exactly, So we have to look at the specific legal
• 2:42
  arena we are stepping into here, because it.
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: All starts with a very macabre discovery in the physical world.
• 2:48
  It's September eighth, twenty twenty five. Workers at a tow
• 2:52
  yard in the Hollywood Hills start noticing a foul smell
• 2:56
  and it's coming from an abandoned tesla that had been
• 2:58
  towed in from the streets.
• 2:59
  Speaker 2: Which is such an incongruous image, right, a luxury vehicle
• 3:03
  just left abandoned for weeks on a public street.
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: Yeah, just accumulating parking.
• 3:06
  Speaker 2: Tickets until it is finally hauled away to a municipal
• 3:09
  tow yard.
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: So when the LAPD goes to investigate that smell. They
• 3:12
  open the front trunk, the front of this tesla, and
• 3:16
  inside they find heavily decomposed and dismembered remains.
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: It's horrific, just awful.
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: A week later, the medical examiner officially identifies those remains
• 3:27
  as fourteen year old Celeste revs. Fernandez. But and this
• 3:31
  is crucial, the body is discovered in September twenty twenty five,
• 3:35
  David isn't arrested until April twenty twenty six.
• 3:39
  Speaker 2: That's a huge gap.
• 3:40
  Speaker 1: Following a grand jury review in February twenty twenty six.
• 3:44
  That is an agonizingly long gap of seven months.
• 3:47
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it really is.
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: So why the mass of delay if they literally found
• 3:51
  the body in his car.
• 3:53
  Speaker 2: Well, when the public sees a prime suspect, especially a
• 3:56
  high profile one like a celebrity, they expect an immediate arrest.
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: Right like on TV they put them in cuffs that
• 4:01
  day exactly.
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: But law enforcement will often purposely slow things down. Making
• 4:06
  an early arrest based on thin evidence triggers the defendant's
• 4:10
  speedy trial rights. Oh I see, Yeah, it forces prosecutors
• 4:13
  to present a case before they have all their digital
• 4:15
  ducks in a row.
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: Yeah, and they had a lot of digital ducks here.
• 4:17
  Speaker 2: Tons of them. They needed those seven months to secure
• 4:20
  complex search warrants for tech companies. I mean extracting and
• 4:24
  analyzing terabytes of data from phones and vehicles takes time.
• 4:29
  Speaker 1: Right, and then they have to present it securely to
• 4:30
  a grand jury, precisely. I always think of the grand
• 4:33
  jury process as like building a nuclear submarine in a
• 4:36
  dry dock with the doors locked.
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: That's a great analogy.
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: You know, the public only gets to see it when
• 4:41
  it finally breaches the surface, fully armed, but the prosecution
• 4:45
  has spent months inside just welding every single rivet in
• 4:50
  total secrecy.
• 4:51
  Speaker 2: Yeah, because a grand jury operates entirely behind closed doors.
• 4:54
  There is no.
• 4:55
  Speaker 1: Judge wait, really no judge Nope.
• 4:58
  Speaker 2: And no defense attorney to cross examine witnesses either. It's
• 5:02
  just the prosecutor presenting evidence to a jury to secure
• 5:05
  an indictment.
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: That seems wild, but I guess it makes sense for
• 5:07
  building the case.
• 5:08
  Speaker 2: It allows the state to lock in witness testimony under
• 5:11
  oath without tipping their hand to the defense prematurely.
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: Which brings us to the preliminary hearing itself, which took
• 5:18
  place over five days in a Los Angeles Court room. Right,
• 5:20
  the prelim Think of a preliminary hearing like a movie
• 5:24
  trailer for the actual trial.
• 5:26
  Speaker 2: It's a rehearsal, Yeah, a really high stakes rehearsal.
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: It's where both sides get to test out their material,
• 5:31
  see how their witnesses hold up under pressure in front
• 5:33
  of a live audience, and get a preview of the
• 5:36
  other side strategy.
• 5:38
  Speaker 2: And legally speaking, the stakes and the rules at this
• 5:41
  stage are fundamentally different than a full jury trial.
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: Awso well.
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: In a jury trial, the burden of proof is beyond
• 5:48
  a reasonable doubt, requiring near absolute certainty. But a preliminary
• 5:52
  hearing is really just a gatekeeping mechanism just.
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: To see if there's enough to go forward.
• 5:57
  Speaker 2: Exactly, The judge only needs to find probable cause.
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: This is what they call the fifty one percent threshold.
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: Yes, exactly.
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: The prosecution essentially just has to show that it is
• 6:06
  more likely than not that a crime was committed and
• 6:09
  that the defendant committed it, just to convince a judge
• 6:12
  to bind the case over for trial.
• 6:14
  Speaker 2: They just need to prove that a trial is warranted,
• 6:16
  not that a conviction is absolutely guaranteed.
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: But even with that lower bar, the prosecution just came
• 6:22
  out swinging in a way that shocked the entire room.
• 6:24
  Speaker 2: They did not hold back, No.
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: They didn't. The reporting from Lawing Crimes Julia Dang really
• 6:30
  captured the emotional weight of this.
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it sounded intense.
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: On day one of this hearing, the prosecution showed gruesome
• 6:37
  autopsy photos in open court. We're talking photos of the
• 6:41
  victim's remains in cadara bags, still inside the front trunk
• 6:45
  of that tesla.
• 6:46
  Speaker 2: That is heavy.
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: Dang reported that the entire courtroom of seasoned reporters literally
• 6:51
  stopped typing. Everyone foes.
• 6:53
  Speaker 2: I can't even imagine.
• 6:54
  Speaker 1: And celeste parents were sitting right there in the gallery.
• 6:56
  Her mother, Mercedes, was just bowing her head and weeping
• 7:00
  as these images were projected.
• 7:01
  Speaker 2: It is an incredibly heavy burden for a family to
• 7:04
  bear in a public forum like that.
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: So this brings up a big question. If the prosecution
• 7:09
  only needs to hit a fifty one percent threshold just
• 7:12
  to get this passive judge, why subject the victim's parents
• 7:16
  and the whole courtroom to such unimaginably gruesome photos so
• 7:20
  early in the process.
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: It seems cruel.
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: Honestly, isn't that just emotional overkill, like why not save
• 7:27
  the shock value for the jury trial where the stakes
• 7:29
  are higher.
• 7:30
  Speaker 2: It's a totally fair question, But prosecutors have a strict
• 7:33
  legal burden they must meet right out of the gate.
• 7:36
  They have to establish the corpus delecti.
• 7:38
  Speaker 1: Okay, let's break that down for you listening. What is
• 7:41
  the corpus delecti in actual practice?
• 7:44
  Speaker 2: So it translates roughly to the body of the crime, right,
• 7:47
  It means the foundational fact that a specific crime has
• 7:50
  actually been committed by someone.
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: Give me an example.
• 7:53
  Speaker 2: Think of it this way. If someone's house burns down,
• 7:56
  the corpus delicti of arson isn't just the burned.
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: House, because houses burned down by accent all the.
• 8:02
  Speaker 2: Time, exactly. It's proving that the fire was set intentionally,
• 8:06
  not by a faulty wire.
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: Uh. Okay, that makes sense.
• 8:09
  Speaker 2: So in this case, prosecutors aren't just charging a standard homicide.
• 8:13
  They are charging first degree murder with special circumstances and
• 8:16
  unlawful mutilation of remains. Right to justify those specific enhanced
• 8:21
  charges to a judge, they can't just say, you know,
• 8:24
  she died. They have to tangibly demonstrate the severity of
• 8:27
  the act.
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: They have to show the judge the physical proof of
• 8:31
  the mutilation.
• 8:32
  Speaker 2: Yes, they have to show the mutilation. They are setting
• 8:34
  the concrete foundation of their case early, establishing the sheer
• 8:38
  brutality of the crime to match the severity of the charges.
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: Even if the visual evidence is absolutely devastating to the family.
• 8:45
  Speaker 2: Sadly, Yes, they have to prove the horror to justify
• 8:48
  the legal paperwork.
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: Wow, okay, so now that you know how this nightmare
• 8:51
  ended up in a Hollywood Hills tow yard, we have
• 8:54
  to rewind.
• 8:55
  Speaker 2: We have to go back to the beginning.
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: Right, because how did a fourteen year old girl from
• 8:59
  late elsin Or, California end up in the orbit of
• 9:03
  a twenty one year old celebrity in the first place.
• 9:05
  Speaker 2: It's a crucial question.
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: This brings us to what the prosecution laid out as
• 9:09
  the digital grooming phase and this chilling text thread they
• 9:12
  referred to as Operation Awesome.
• 9:14
  Speaker 2: Yeah, we were looking at the intersection of modern social
• 9:18
  media access and just age old predatory behavior.
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: Because the apps make it so easy.
• 9:23
  Speaker 2: The digital platforms provide unparalleled access for adults to reach
• 9:27
  directly into the lives of minors.
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: So the timeline presented by the prosecution alleges that David
• 9:33
  and Celeste first started communicating in late twenty twenty one.
• 9:38
  They were talking via social media apps like Instagram and Discord,
• 9:41
  and at this time David would have been sixteen or
• 9:44
  seventeen years old, right on the cusp of his massive fame.
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: And Celeste was just eleven years old.
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: Eleven. It's sickening they maintain this virtual relationship for years,
• 9:56
  only meeting in person for the very first time in
• 9:59
  November of twenty two, twenty three.
• 10:00
  Speaker 2: And what emerged during this hearing was a massive narrative shift.
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: Yeah, this was huge.
• 10:05
  Speaker 2: Because prior to the texts being presented in court, there
• 10:09
  are rumors circulating in the public sphere that Celeste was
• 10:12
  this stalker.
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: Fan right like an obsessed teenager, relentlessly pushing for a
• 10:16
  relationship with the celebrity.
• 10:17
  Speaker 2: Exactly the crazed fantrope. But the text messages read in
• 10:21
  court completely detonated that narrative out of the water. According
• 10:25
  to the data extracted from their phones, David was the
• 10:28
  one entirely in the driver's seat.
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: He was the one escalating the relationship.
• 10:32
  Speaker 2: He was texting her about moving in together, talking about
• 10:35
  a wedding, explicitly stating he wanted to have two kids
• 10:38
  with her.
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: He even bought her what appeared to be a diamond
• 10:41
  engagement ring.
• 10:42
  Speaker 2: Yeah, and photos shown in court depicted her wearing this
• 10:45
  ring on her left hand, on the exact same finger
• 10:47
  where she had David's name tattooed in red ink. Just wow,
• 10:52
  that tattoo, the ring, the explicit promises of marriage and children,
• 10:56
  I mean, these are classic textbook signs of grooming and
• 10:59
  coercive can.
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: He's basically building a completely alternate reality.
• 11:03
  Speaker 2: For a child, exactly. He is systematically isolating her from
• 11:07
  her actual life, her family, and her age appropriate peers
• 11:11
  by promising a fantasy future where she is the center
• 11:14
  of a wealthy celebrities world.
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: And the reality of that fantasy became incredibly dark, incredibly.
• 11:19
  Speaker 2: Fast it did.
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: The prosecution brought up evidence of the Morning After Pill
• 11:24
  plan B being discussed in their texts.
• 11:26
  Speaker 2: Awful.
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: Then they revealed messages discussing an abortion appointment for Celeste
• 11:30
  in January of twenty twenty four, which is just devastating
• 11:34
  if you do the math on that timeline. In January
• 11:36
  twenty twenty four, Celeste was thirteen years old, thirteen, this
• 11:40
  directly ties into the specific charge of continuous sexual abuse
• 11:43
  of a minor.
• 11:44
  Speaker 2: And when you look at the body cam footage from
• 11:46
  February twenty twenty four, when deputies did a wellness check
• 11:51
  at David's home because Celeste had been reported missing by
• 11:53
  her parents, David's immediate defense was to claim ignorance.
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: He played dumb.
• 11:59
  Speaker 2: He pulled up a yearbook photo of Celeste on his
• 12:02
  phone and told the deputies she told me she was eighteen.
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: He's playing the victim of a lie. He's saying I
• 12:07
  didn't know right.
• 12:09
  Speaker 2: But the family's attorney, Patrick Steinfeld, and the prosecutors made
• 12:12
  it explicitly clear. Continuous sexual abuse of a minor is
• 12:16
  a strict liability crime.
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: Okay, I want to make sure you listening understand the
• 12:19
  mechanics of this. I can totally imagine a defense attorney
• 12:23
  hammering on the idea that their client was tricked by
• 12:25
  a fake idea or a lie.
• 12:27
  Speaker 2: Oh, they try it all the time.
• 12:28
  Speaker 1: So how does strict liability neutralize that defense?
• 12:31
  Speaker 2: So in a standard criminal case, the prosecution has to
• 12:34
  prove two things, the act itself, which is the actus reus,
• 12:39
  and the mental state or intent men's rea.
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: Okay, act and intent.
• 12:43
  Speaker 2: Think of it this way. If you accidentally bump into
• 12:46
  someone and they fall down some stairs, that's the act
• 12:49
  the actus reus. But you didn't mean to do it.
• 12:51
  You were just clumsy, So there's no criminal intent, no
• 12:54
  men's rea.
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: It's an accident.
• 12:56
  Speaker 2: Usually to go to prison, you need both, but strict
• 13:00
  liability laws strip away the intent part entirely.
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: They just delete it.
• 13:03
  Speaker 2: It's the law saying to adults, we don't care what
• 13:06
  you thought, what you were told, or what fake documents
• 13:09
  you were shown.
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: So the excuse just doesn't matter.
• 13:12
  Speaker 2: Not at all. If you engage in this specific behavior
• 13:16
  with a minor, you are crossing a trip wire and
• 13:18
  the bomb goes off, regardless of your intent.
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: The law places the absolute burden of verifying age on
• 13:24
  the adult.
• 13:25
  Speaker 2: Legally speaking, his defense that she claimed to be eighteen
• 13:29
  is practically useless. It does not absolve him of liability
• 13:33
  for the act itself.
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: Because the act is the crime, regardless of the backstory. Precisely,
• 13:38
  and the text messages show he wasn't just passively receiving her.
• 13:42
  He was actively orchestrating her removal from our family. Yeah,
• 13:45
  he was driving it, which brings us to Operation Awesome,
• 13:48
  or OA, as they called it in their texts.
• 13:51
  Speaker 2: Such a chilling name for it.
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: It really is. These are the messages where David is
• 13:56
  actively plotting Celestes runaway from her home in Lake elsinor
• 14:00
  he is relentlessly pushing her.
• 14:02
  Speaker 2: Yeah. The texts show him repeatedly asking do you have
• 14:05
  your bags packed?
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: He instructs her to bring things that he couldn't immediately
• 14:09
  replace with his own money. He actually referred to their
• 14:12
  planned runaway date, which was set for the day before
• 14:15
  Valentine's Day in twenty twenty four, as the most important
• 14:18
  day of her life aside from their anticipated wedding.
• 14:21
  Speaker 2: It looks like coercive control masquerading as logistics.
• 14:25
  Speaker 1: Oh, that's a good way to put it.
• 14:26
  Speaker 2: He wasn't just directing a scenario. He was systematically isolating
• 14:31
  her from her actual reality. When you are dealing with
• 14:34
  someone who has experienced sudden, immense wealth and fame at
• 14:38
  a young age, there can be a dangerous detachment from reality. Yeah,
• 14:42
  because everyone just says yes to them exactly. They become
• 14:45
  accustomed to their demands being met instantly, to controlling their
• 14:49
  environment and the people in it. He is treating her
• 14:51
  relocation like a logistics problem for a tour, arranging transportation
• 14:55
  and packing lists.
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: Completely bypassing the moral and legal reality that this is
• 15:01
  literally the abduction of a child.
• 15:03
  Speaker 2: Completely bypassing it.
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: So, if he had successfully engineered this operation awesome, and
• 15:09
  he had her exactly where he wanted her in his home,
• 15:12
  what triggered a capital murder?
• 15:14
  Speaker 2: That is the million dollar question?
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: Why destroy the fantasy he just spent years building. We
• 15:20
  moved to the fatal breaking point and revolves around jealousy, threats,
• 15:24
  and a multimillion dollar empire.
• 15:26
  Speaker 2: Motive is often the glue that holds circumstantial evidence together
• 15:29
  for a jury.
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: It makes sense of the chaos.
• 15:31
  Speaker 2: Right, It answers the crucial question of why, transforming random
• 15:34
  acts into a cohesive, understandable narrative, and.
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: The why here starts with a new figure introduced in
• 15:40
  the hearing, an LA based influencer named Asia Collins.
• 15:43
  Speaker 2: And we should note it's important to state clearly that
• 15:45
  Asia Collins is publicly stated she never dated David Yes
• 15:48
  very important, and she has vehemently demanded justice for Celeste.
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: Right, the reality of their relationship didn't actually matter. It
• 15:56
  was the perception that ignited. The powder Keg.
• 15:59
  Speaker 2: Perception is every thing in these dynamics.
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: Celeste became fiercely, intensely jealous of David's rumored association with Asia.
• 16:06
  She couldn't stand seeing him tagged in posts with her.
• 16:09
  Speaker 2: Well, we are talking about a young teenager who has
• 16:11
  been isolated, groomed, and embedded into this intense, secretive world.
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: Her whole world is just him.
• 16:18
  Speaker 2: Her emotional regulation is going to be incredibly volatile. By default,
• 16:22
  the jealousy becomes all consuming because her entire envisioned future,
• 16:27
  her entire sense of self worth and security, is tied
• 16:30
  exclusively to this one person.
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: So if she perceives a threat to that bond.
• 16:34
  Speaker 2: The reaction is going to be explosive.
• 16:36
  Speaker 1: And that volatility exploded the night before her alleged murder.
• 16:40
  Speaker 2: It really did.
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: The prosecution detailed text messages Celeste sent to David that
• 16:44
  were beyond typical anger. She wasn't just saying she was mad.
• 16:48
  Speaker 2: No, she went much further.
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: She threatened to quote mutilate his penis. She threatened to
• 16:53
  completely ruin his career and.
• 16:54
  Speaker 2: Most dangerously for him, she threatened to contact his business
• 16:58
  associates and his mother, calling She.
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: Said she was going to expose damaging information about him,
• 17:04
  specifically the alleged child sexual abuse.
• 17:07
  Speaker 2: She had the contact info, and she was threatening to
• 17:10
  burn his entire world down.
• 17:12
  Speaker 1: She was holding all the cards.
• 17:14
  Speaker 2: This is the critical pivot point in the psychological dynamic.
• 17:17
  This is where the power shifts. He goes from controlling
• 17:20
  a compliant teenager to facing an existential threat from someone
• 17:24
  who intimately knows all his secrets and has the capacity
• 17:28
  to destroy his life with a single phone call.
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: And the stakes of that threat were quantified in court.
• 17:34
  The prosecution brought in financial witnesses to lay out the
• 17:36
  raw numbers of David's enterprise.
• 17:38
  Speaker 2: The numbers are staggering.
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: Between twenty twenty three and the end of twenty twenty five,
• 17:43
  David raked in gross earnings of ten to eleven point
• 17:46
  five million dollars.
• 17:48
  Speaker 2: Wow.
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: His record label Head alone made three point five to
• 17:51
  four million dollars off of just him.
• 17:53
  Speaker 2: It's a massive corporate machine.
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: We're talking about a multi million dollar corporate entity built
• 17:59
  entirely around his image and his music.
• 18:01
  Speaker 2: Which fundamentally changes the context of her text messages.
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 18:05
  Speaker 2: They are no longer just angry texts from a teenager.
• 18:08
  They are a direct threat to a highly lucrative corporate entity.
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: Let me explore this from a legal perspective with you,
• 18:14
  because influencers and celebrities get threatened with cancel culture all
• 18:18
  the time.
• 18:19
  Speaker 2: Sure, every day.
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: People threaten to expose them and careers take a hit.
• 18:23
  But the prosecution isn't just charging him with standard murder.
• 18:27
  They are elevating this to a capital offense.
• 18:30
  Speaker 2: They are going for the maximum.
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: How does a teenager's threat to expose a pop star
• 18:35
  legally transform into a special circumstance for first degree murder?
• 18:39
  Speaker 2: Well, the prosecution is actively avoiding framing this as a
• 18:44
  crime of passion, you know, where a lover's quarrel got
• 18:47
  out of hand and the heat of the moment.
• 18:48
  Speaker 1: I don't wanted to seem like a tragic accident, right.
• 18:51
  Speaker 2: They are utilizing three specific special circumstances attached to his
• 18:55
  first degree murder charge under California law.
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: Okay, what are those?
• 19:00
  Speaker 2: These are the specific aggravating elements that elevate a standard
• 19:03
  murder to a case eligible for the death penalty. The
• 19:07
  three circumstances filed here are one murder for financial gain,
• 19:12
  two lying in wait, and three killing a.
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: Witness heiling a witness.
• 19:17
  Speaker 2: By bringing in the financial data that ten to eleven
• 19:20
  point five million dollars, the prosecution is drawing a direct,
• 19:24
  undeniable causal line between Celeste's threat to expose his illegal
• 19:28
  acts of statutory abuse and the preservation of his immense wealth.
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: They are painting this alleged murder as a calculated corporate
• 19:36
  protection measure.
• 19:37
  Speaker 2: Exactly, the state is arguing, who didn't just kill a
• 19:39
  girlfriend in a rage. He systematically executed a witness who
• 19:43
  was actively threatening to dismantle an eleven million dollar enterprise.
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: That is bone shilling.
• 19:48
  Speaker 2: That specific intent to silence a witness to protect financial
• 19:52
  assets elevates it to a special circumstance capital offense.
• 19:55
  Speaker 1: They're basically arguing it was a ruthless business decision. Yeah,
• 19:58
  so we've established a ten million dollar motive to silence
• 20:01
  a witness. But having a motive is one thing. Executing
• 20:05
  it without getting caught is another.
• 20:07
  Speaker 2: That's where things get really technical.
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: Which brings us to the actual night in question and
• 20:11
  the fatal mistake of relying on digital alibis. We are
• 20:15
  looking at April twenty three to twenty twenty five, right.
• 20:19
  Speaker 2: Because committing a crime in the modern era without leaving
• 20:22
  an invisible digital wake is practically impossible, especially when utilizing
• 20:27
  modern technology to facilitate movement.
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: The fatal timeline starts with an uber ride. Prosecutors alleged
• 20:34
  that on April twenty third, David ordered an uber using
• 20:37
  an app simple enough. This uber picks Celeste up from
• 20:40
  her family's home in Lake Elsinore and drove her roughly
• 20:43
  eighty miles north to his home in the Hollywood Hills.
• 20:46
  She arrives okay. Then, according to the prosecution's timeline, shortly
• 20:50
  after she allegedly died inside the house, David's phone sent
• 20:54
  a text to celest phone. The text just said where
• 20:56
  you at?
• 20:56
  Speaker 2: The classic fake alibi text.
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: It's transparently if he just killed her, he sends a
• 21:02
  text to her phone to create a digital record, im
• 21:04
  playing she.
• 21:04
  Speaker 2: Never showed up or that she wandered off.
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: Leaving a documented paper trail of his supposed ignorance.
• 21:10
  Speaker 2: It's a very common tactic, but it requires a fundamental
• 21:13
  misunderstanding of how forensic data is actually analyzed.
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: Right, because investigators don't just read.
• 21:19
  Speaker 2: The text, No, they look at the metadata. They look
• 21:22
  at the timestamp of that text and compare it to
• 21:24
  the surrounding telematics and GPS data.
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: So they see the whole picture.
• 21:28
  Speaker 2: If the timeline is too compressed, like if she arrives,
• 21:32
  her phone stops moving, and ten minutes later he's sending
• 21:35
  a where are you text from the exact same geolocation.
• 21:38
  It actually proves the opposite of an alibi.
• 21:41
  Speaker 1: It highlights the exact narrow window of the crime exactly.
• 21:46
  And the digital data they pulled to prove this is
• 21:49
  just staggering. We're talking about vehicle telematics.
• 21:51
  Speaker 2: This part is fascinating.
• 21:53
  Speaker 1: Data shows David's Tesla, which reporters noted was heavily tricked
• 21:56
  out with software leaving his Hollywood Hills home. The gp
• 22:00
  VS data generated from the Tesla perfectly matches the exact
• 22:03
  path of David's iPhone.
• 22:05
  Speaker 2: You have a convergence of distinct data points there. The
• 22:08
  car's internal computer and the cell tower pins from the
• 22:11
  phone are moving in lockstep, corroborating each other.
• 22:14
  Speaker 1: Let's really dig into how this works, because I want
• 22:16
  you to understand exactly what a vehicle like a Tesla
• 22:19
  is doing when it drives down the street.
• 22:21
  Speaker 2: It's not just a car.
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: It isn't just a car. It's a rolling computer network.
• 22:25
  A TESLA is constantly pinging remote servers, recording speed, location,
• 22:30
  braking force, where the doors are opened, and even the
• 22:33
  weight distribution on the seats to manage airbag deployment.
• 22:36
  Speaker 2: It records everything.
• 22:37
  Speaker 1: When you combine those hundreds of data packets sent per
• 22:40
  minute with an iPhone that is doing the exact same thing,
• 22:43
  you know, pinging local cell towers and Wi Fi networks
• 22:46
  to maintain a connection, you create an unimpeachable digital map
• 22:50
  of movement.
• 22:51
  Speaker 2: Because the prosecution doesn't need a physical eyewitness to say
• 22:54
  they saw his car right, the satellites, the cell towers,
• 22:58
  and the corporate servers testify for them. The digital footprint
• 23:01
  is louder and more precise than human memory.
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: So this digital tandem drives ninety five miles northwest. They
• 23:08
  track it going along Sunset Boulevard, then heading north up
• 23:11
  the coast all the way into Santa Barbara County.
• 23:13
  Speaker 2: That's a long drive.
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: Specifically, the data pinpoints a prolonged stop at a location
• 23:19
  near Lake Kachuma, right off State Road one fifty four. Okay,
• 23:23
  guess what investigators found when they searched that exact specific
• 23:26
  coordinate in Santa Barbara county months.
• 23:28
  Speaker 2: Later, it's unbelievable.
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: So let's passport card and other personal items.
• 23:33
  Speaker 2: The alignment of the digital location data with the physical
• 23:36
  discovery of the victim's property is incredibly damning.
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: It's like leaving a neon sign. But the cover up
• 23:43
  wasn't just digital, it was intensely, gruesomely physical.
• 23:47
  Speaker 2: Yeah, the contrast here is wild.
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: The contrast between the high tech digital tracking and the
• 23:51
  primitive nature of the physical cleanup is jarring. Back of
• 23:55
  the Hollywood Hills house, LAPD criminalists found physical evidence of
• 23:59
  an attempted The prosecution detailed how they mapped out the garage.
• 24:04
  They lifted up these heavy black rubber garage floor mats.
• 24:07
  They found blood that had seeped completely through those mats
• 24:11
  and had actually soaked into the underlying porosity of the
• 24:13
  brick flooring of David's.
• 24:15
  Speaker 2: House, which is horrifying on a forensic level. Why is
• 24:18
  that the absorption of blood into bricks speaks to a
• 24:21
  massive volume of blood pooling in one location for a
• 24:24
  sustained period. It corroborates the medical examiner's findings of severe
• 24:28
  trauma and dismemberment occurring precisely.
• 24:31
  Speaker 1: At that spot, and the desperation to cover up continued
• 24:34
  for months as the body sat in the car. The
• 24:37
  tesla was ultimately towed in September, months after the April murder,
• 24:42
  as the California summer heat set in. The smell of
• 24:45
  decomposition obviously became unbearable even parked out on the street.
• 24:49
  Speaker 2: Yeah, you can't hide that.
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: The prosecution noted that someone at some point opened the
• 24:53
  front trunk of that tesla, looked at the decomposing remains,
• 24:57
  and threw in multiple standard car air fresh to try
• 25:00
  and mask the odor.
• 25:01
  Speaker 2: It's just so bizarre.
• 25:02
  Speaker 1: They just tossed air fresheners onto a dismembered body. By
• 25:05
  the time the medical examiner finally received the remains, they
• 25:08
  were already showing the early stages of maggot activity.
• 25:11
  Speaker 2: It paints a picture of a cover up that was
• 25:13
  simultaneously highly technical, attempting to manage digital alibis and GPS data,
• 25:19
  and incredibly primitive and.
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: Desperate throwing pine trees in there.
• 25:22
  Speaker 2: Throwing air fresheners onto a decomposing body and a luxury
• 25:26
  car shows a complete cognitive dissonance, a profound failure to
• 25:31
  grasp the reality of the situation.
• 25:34
  Speaker 1: As damning as all of this sounds, the digital trail,
• 25:37
  the blood and the bricks, the grooming texts. The fundamental
• 25:41
  job of a defense attorney is to stand up against
• 25:43
  that tidal wave of evidence and find every microscopic crack
• 25:46
  in the narrative.
• 25:47
  Speaker 2: And they have to do it. It's their job.
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: We get to see exactly how defense attorney Blair Burke
• 25:52
  and her team are fighting back, and it involves exploiting
• 25:55
  the forensic limitations.
• 25:56
  Speaker 2: This is where we really see the art of criminal defense.
• 25:59
  In a circumstantial case. You don't always have to prove
• 26:02
  your client is innocent. You don't, No, you just have
• 26:05
  to prove the state's story isn't the only plausible explanation.
• 26:08
  You just have to introduce in a friction into the
• 26:11
  narrative to plant the seed of reasonable doubt.
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: And they went right for the medical evidence. The host
• 26:15
  of the Law and Crime video noted a shocking conundrum
• 26:19
  regarding the cause of death.
• 26:20
  Speaker 2: Yeah, this was a major point.
• 26:22
  Speaker 1: Because the body was in such an advanced state of
• 26:24
  decomposition sitting in a hot trunk for months, the medical examiner,
• 26:28
  doctor Grant Hoe, could only officially attribute the death to
• 26:31
  multiple penetrating injuries. He had to stop short of officially
• 26:35
  calling them stab wounds from a sharp instrument because the
• 26:38
  tissue was too degraded by maggots and heat to be
• 26:41
  absolutely certain of the weapons characteristics, which leaves.
• 26:44
  Speaker 2: A crucial interpretive door open for the defense team and.
• 26:47
  Speaker 1: Defense attorney Marilyn Bidnarski took that opening and ran with it.
• 26:52
  She asked the medical examiner a series of highly specific
• 26:55
  questions during cross examination.
• 26:58
  Speaker 2: She was very strategic here.
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: If it would be helpful to know if the decease
• 27:02
  was suicidal? She asked if it would be helpful to
• 27:04
  know if she had mental health issues or a history
• 27:07
  of habitual drug use. Yeah, she was asking essentially, given
• 27:10
  the degraded state of the body, can you definitively rule
• 27:14
  out that she did this to herself?
• 27:17
  Speaker 2: It is a highly calculated defense strategy designed to exploit
• 27:20
  the limitations of the physical evidence.
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: But how can you suggest suicide when the body was
• 27:26
  found dismembered in a trunk? That seems absurd on its face.
• 27:30
  How does a person dismember themselves?
• 27:31
  Speaker 2: Oh, it sounds absolutely absurde to the late person. But
• 27:34
  legally you have to remember what the defense is trying
• 27:37
  to dismantle the charge of first degree premeditated murder.
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: Oh I see if the.
• 27:42
  Speaker 2: Defense can use her explosive threatening text messages from the
• 27:46
  night before to paint a picture that Celeste arrived at
• 27:48
  the house erratic, highly emotional, perhaps under the influence of substances,
• 27:53
  and then she harmed herself or provoked a chaotic physical altercation.
• 27:57
  Speaker 1: Then the death wasn't premeditated. It wasn't a calculated execution
• 28:01
  of a witness exactly.
• 28:03
  Speaker 2: Even if the defense concedes that David panicked found her
• 28:06
  dead or dying from a self inflicted wound or an
• 28:09
  accidental fall during an argument, and then he engaged in
• 28:11
  a horrific illegal cover up and dismemberment to save his career. Right,
• 28:16
  if they can plant the sea that he didn't plan
• 28:18
  to kill her, they break the first degree murder charge
• 28:21
  in those.
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: Special circumstances, then knock it down.
• 28:23
  Speaker 2: They reduce it to manslaughter an unlawful mutilation of remains.
• 28:27
  It is a massive difference in sentencing, potentially taking the
• 28:31
  death penalty off the table entirely.
• 28:33
  Speaker 1: That is a huge swing.
• 28:34
  Speaker 2: They are utilizing the degradation of the forensic evidence to
• 28:38
  build an alternate narrative of chaos and panic rather than
• 28:42
  cold calculated murder.
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: So the advanced decomposition actually becomes a shield for the defense.
• 28:47
  Speaker 2: In a weird way.
• 28:49
  Speaker 1: Yes, they applied this same tactic of pointing out missing
• 28:52
  or inconclusive evidence to the murder weapon itself. Right, the
• 28:55
  prosecution alleged that three chainsaws were purchased. Two chainsaws were
• 29:00
  found at the home, but they tested negative for blood.
• 29:02
  Blair Burke, the defense attorney, aggressively questioned the LAPD criminalist.
• 29:07
  She asked why touch DNA wasn't tested on the two
• 29:10
  clean chainsaws to see who handled them.
• 29:12
  Speaker 2: So touch DNA or trace DNA is the microscopic skin
• 29:16
  cells left behind when someone handles an object. The defense
• 29:19
  is asking why the police didn't swab the handles of
• 29:21
  the clean chainsaws to see if David or someone else
• 29:24
  entirely was preparing them.
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: And she hammered on the most obvious question, where is
• 29:29
  the third chainsaw? If you don't have the weapon, how
• 29:32
  do you know what happened.
• 29:33
  Speaker 2: It's a classic defense strategy. Focus on the empty chair,
• 29:36
  empty chair, focus intensely on what isn't there. If the
• 29:40
  state says a chainsaw was used, but the chainsaws and
• 29:43
  evidence are clean and the third is missing. It creates
• 29:46
  a physical gap in the narrative. Gaps are where reasonable
• 29:49
  doubt lives and breathes, and.
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: They use that exact same logic on the digital evidence.
• 29:55
  The prosecution proved with a beautiful bow that Dave's car
• 29:59
  and David's phone and traveled together to Santa Barbara, where
• 30:01
  the passport was dumped. Yeah, but the defense rightfully pointed
• 30:04
  out there is zero eyewitness testimony and zero surveillance video
• 30:09
  proving that David himself was sitting behind the steering wheel
• 30:12
  of that tesla.
• 30:13
  Speaker 2: They are saying to the judge, you tracked a phone
• 30:16
  and a car, You did not track a man. Wow,
• 30:19
  Is it highly likely it was him? Yes? But without
• 30:22
  a camera showing his face in the driver's seat, the
• 30:24
  defense will argue the prosecution hasn't met the burden of
• 30:27
  tying him specifically to the disposal of the evidence, Like.
• 30:30
  Speaker 1: Could an accomplice have driven the car?
• 30:32
  Speaker 2: Right? Could he have loaned his phone to someone else
• 30:35
  to create a false trail. Again, they don't need to
• 30:37
  prove an accomplice exists. They just need to create enough
• 30:40
  friction in the prosecution's story to make a juror pause.
• 30:44
  Speaker 1: Speaking of friction, the tension inside that courthouse wasn't just
• 30:48
  confined to the witness stand. There was a bizarre side
• 30:51
  show out in the hallway that highlights the immense pressure,
• 30:55
  the paranoia, and the high stakes of this specific case.
• 30:58
  Speaker 2: Oh this was crazy to look at the.
• 31:00
  Speaker 1: Clash between private investigator Steve Fisher and Deputy Da Beth Silverman.
• 31:05
  Speaker 2: This was a fascinating glimpse into the highly territorial nature
• 31:09
  of high profile prosecutions and the strict boundaries of legal secrecy.
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: So Steve Fisher is a private investigator. He was actually
• 31:17
  hired by David's landlord, the person who owned the Hollywood
• 31:20
  Hills house where this blood was found. Right, Fisher was
• 31:22
  the one who originally found a lot of the early
• 31:24
  physical evidence, like neighborhood surveillance footage and burn cages located
• 31:29
  on the property. Because of this, he had testified before
• 31:32
  the secret grand.
• 31:32
  Speaker 2: Jury, which is a big deal.
• 31:34
  Speaker 1: But on day three of the preliminary hearing, Deputy Da
• 31:38
  Beth Silverman stood up and officially booted Fisher from the
• 31:41
  witness list and had him removed from the courtroom entirely.
• 31:45
  Speaker 2: Her reasoning was rooted in the strict rules governing grand
• 31:48
  jury proceedings.
• 31:49
  Speaker 1: She accused Fisher of breaking the sacred rule of grand
• 31:52
  jury secrecy. Why because the day prior, Fisher was out
• 31:57
  in the hallway waiting to get into the courtroom, and
• 32:00
  he had a conversation with Patrick Steinfeld, the attorney representing
• 32:04
  the victim's family, just out in the open. According to Fisher,
• 32:08
  Steinfeld approached him, introduced himself, and they were just having
• 32:11
  a polite chat in the middle of a crowd of reporters.
• 32:14
  Silverman saw this came storming down the hallway, physically grabbed Steinfeld,
• 32:18
  pulled him away, and lightly accused Fisher of illegally talking
• 32:22
  to witnesses.
• 32:23
  Speaker 2: That's intense.
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: Fisher maintains he did absolutely nothing wrong. He argues that
• 32:27
  as an independent investigator, he isn't bound by grand jury
• 32:30
  secrecy in the same way an actual juror is, as
• 32:33
  long as he doesn't explicitly reveal what he learned inside
• 32:36
  the grand jury room. But to avoid causing a further scene,
• 32:39
  he agreed to leave.
• 32:41
  Speaker 2: What this friction signifies is the intense, almost paranoid protectiveness
• 32:46
  prosecutors have over their case, especially when a grand jury
• 32:50
  is involved.
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: Because it's supposed to be locked down.
• 32:51
  Speaker 2: The grand jury process is completely sealed to protect the
• 32:55
  integrity of the investigation and the safety of witnesses. If
• 32:58
  a district attorney feel that an outside investigator who has
• 33:02
  knowledge of the grand jury proceedings is mingling with their
• 33:06
  key witnesses, like the victim's family attorney, they will aggressively
• 33:11
  neutralize that perceived threat.
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: So she's just shut it down immediately.
• 33:15
  Speaker 2: They will sideline anyone they feel might intentionally or unintentionally
• 33:19
  taint the witness pool, leak their overarching strategy, or muddy
• 33:23
  the waters before the actual trial begins. It shows that
• 33:26
  the DA's office is treating this case like an active
• 33:28
  war zone and they are rigorously controlling the perimeter.
• 33:31
  Speaker 1: They are not taking any chances with information leaks. With
• 33:34
  Steve Fisher out in the hallway and the preliminary hearing
• 33:37
  wrapped up with the judge ruling there's enough evidence to
• 33:39
  bind this over for trial, we have to look at
• 33:42
  the legal horizon.
• 33:43
  Speaker 2: What comes next.
• 33:44
  Speaker 1: We are looking at the strategic chessboard as both sides
• 33:47
  prepare for the formal arrangement scheduled for August thirty first,
• 33:51
  twenty twenty six.
• 33:52
  Speaker 2: The preliminary hearing was just the opening gambit to get
• 33:55
  past the judge. Now the real high stakes maneuvering begins.
• 34:00
  Speaker 1: District Attorney Nathan Hafkman was interviewed after the hearing, and
• 34:03
  he openly confirmed what the defense was arguing, this is
• 34:07
  a circumstantial case. There is no direct eyewitness who saw
• 34:10
  David murder Celeste. But Hawkman also heavily hinted that the
• 34:15
  prosecution hasn't shown all their cards. They only showed exactly
• 34:19
  enough evidence to get over that fifty one percent threshold.
• 34:21
  Speaker 2: It kept a lot back.
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: There are major players we haven't even heard from yet.
• 34:25
  Asia Collins, the influencer whose rumored relationship sparked the fatal jealousy, hasn't.
• 34:30
  Speaker 2: Testified, which will be explosive.
• 34:32
  Speaker 1: And there's another figure, Neil Langston, who was reportedly in
• 34:35
  David's orbit and was actually arrested for failing to appear
• 34:39
  as a witness.
• 34:39
  Speaker 2: Those hidden witnesses are crucial to the final strategy. The
• 34:43
  prosecution is keeping their most impactful testimony in reserve.
• 34:46
  Speaker 1: Why not just use them now?
• 34:47
  Speaker 2: They don't want to expose their key narrative witnesses to
• 34:51
  aggressive cross examination by the defense. Before they absolutely have
• 34:55
  to at the trial. They gave the defense the forensic data,
• 34:59
  the cell tower ping, and the blood evidence, but they
• 35:02
  held back the human element that will explain the interpersonal
• 35:05
  dynamics to a jury.
• 35:07
  Speaker 1: And the biggest card the prosecution is holding is the
• 35:09
  elephant in the room, the death penalty.
• 35:12
  Speaker 2: Yeah, we have to talk about this.
• 35:14
  Speaker 1: California has had an official moratorium on the death penalty
• 35:17
  since twenty nineteen. Under the governor's executive order, nobody is
• 35:21
  being executed. The execution chamber was literally dismantled.
• 35:24
  Speaker 2: Right, it's not happening yet.
• 35:25
  Speaker 1: The prosecutors deliberately filed those three special circumstances to make
• 35:29
  this a capital case. If they can't execute him anyway,
• 35:33
  why bother with the massive legal hurdle of pursuing a
• 35:36
  death penalty case.
• 35:37
  Speaker 2: Because the death penalty, even under a moratorium, is the
• 35:40
  ultimate legal leverage leverage. Being sentenced to death row fundamentally
• 35:45
  changes the entire trajectory of a defendant's life in prison.
• 35:49
  The housing conditions are much more restrictive, the appeals process
• 35:52
  is entirely different.
• 35:54
  Speaker 1: Oh I see.
• 35:54
  Speaker 2: But more importantly, it is a tactical weapon used by
• 35:57
  prosecutors before the trial even starts. A capital case is
• 36:02
  incredibly complex and expensive. It requires what's called a death
• 36:06
  qualified jury, jurors who state under oath they are willing
• 36:10
  to impose a death penalty.
• 36:11
  Speaker 1: It's our jury defined.
• 36:12
  Speaker 2: It requires specialized mitigating experts to look into the defendant's
• 36:16
  childhood and psychology. It drags the timeline out.
• 36:20
  Speaker 1: For years, which is agonizing for the victim's family to endure.
• 36:23
  Speaker 2: Exactly and da Hawkman hinted at this broader strategy. He
• 36:27
  signaled that his office is open to a plea deal.
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: Okay, so connect the docs for.
• 36:31
  Speaker 2: Me, if you connect the dots. They are using the
• 36:33
  threat of the death penalty as a massive bargainingship. They
• 36:36
  are essentially saying to the defense, we will take the
• 36:39
  threat of death row off the table, and we will
• 36:41
  spare everyone, including the victim's family and the public, the
• 36:44
  profound trauma of a drawn out trial where all of
• 36:47
  these graphics, sexually explicit and violent photos will be displayed
• 36:51
  to the world. In exchange, your client pleads guilty to
• 36:54
  first degree murder and accepts life in prison without the
• 36:57
  possibility of parole. It is a brutal, high stakes negotiation tactic.
• 37:02
  Designed to force a resolution and a guaranteed conviction without
• 37:06
  the risk of a trial.
• 37:07
  Speaker 1: They built a mountain of terror to force a surrender.
• 37:11
  And throughout all of this the graphic photos, the discussions
• 37:15
  of his millions, the threat of the death penalty, reporters
• 37:19
  were intensely focused on David's demeanor in the court room.
• 37:23
  Speaker 2: Yeah, everybody watches the defendant.
• 37:25
  Speaker 1: He was shackled, though the judge allowed him to have
• 37:27
  his hands free to take notes. Reporters noted he remained
• 37:31
  chillingly calm. He just stared straight ahead, completely emotionless, as
• 37:36
  they described the dismemberment of a girl he claimed to
• 37:39
  love and promised to marry.
• 37:40
  Speaker 2: It demonstrates a complete dissociation from the horrific reality being presented,
• 37:44
  which is a common defense mechanism in high stress legal environments.
• 37:48
  Speaker 1: But there was one very specific exception to that stoicism.
• 37:52
  The reporter noted that the only time David lost his
• 37:54
  composure was when the court began discussing the incredibly explicit photos,
• 37:59
  the sexual video, and specifically the dick pics found on
• 38:02
  his phone during the digital extraction. When his own sexual
• 38:05
  exposure was discussed in open court, he physically shrank in
• 38:09
  his seat, He started fidgeting, and his legs started nervously
• 38:13
  jiggling up and down.
• 38:14
  Speaker 2: That is a fascinating and deeply revealing psychological detail, it
• 38:18
  really is. He can sit completely still while the gruesome,
• 38:21
  violent destruction of another human being is detailed at length,
• 38:25
  But the moment his own personal ego, his own sexual vanity,
• 38:29
  and his private physical exposure is threatened in a public forum,
• 38:33
  the anxiety leaks out uncontrollably.
• 38:35
  Speaker 1: That says a lot.
• 38:36
  Speaker 2: It's just a profound narcissism where the only pain that
• 38:40
  truly registers on an emotional level is damaged to his
• 38:43
  own image and self perception.
• 38:45
  Speaker 1: The curated image is the only thing that matters, even
• 38:48
  when facing a capital murder charge. Let's recap this truly
• 38:52
  tragic trajectory.
• 38:53
  Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a lot to take in.
• 38:54
  Speaker 1: We have explored a case where a digital fairy tale,
• 38:57
  a reality carefully crafted and funded by wealthy rising pop star,
• 39:02
  slowly morphed into an alleged campaign of grooming, statutory abuse
• 39:06
  and coercion.
• 39:07
  Speaker 2: And when that fantasy was threatened by reality, it culminated
• 39:10
  in a barbaric murder and a highly technical, yet ultimately
• 39:14
  feudal cover up. It's a stark reminder that the digital
• 39:18
  footprints we leave behind our texts, our GPS data, are
• 39:22
  search histories, They are permanent, and they're incredibly loud when
• 39:26
  the law decides to listen.
• 39:28
  Speaker 1: Think about the terrifying question this leads us with. We
• 39:31
  live in an era where we feel we intimately know
• 39:35
  our favorite artists. We feel connected to them through their
• 39:38
  emotional lyrics. They're behind the scenes tiktoks, and they're carefully
• 39:42
  curated online Personas.
• 39:44
  Speaker 2: We build deep parasocial relationships with strangers on screens right.
• 39:48
  Speaker 1: And as our digital worlds and our real lives become
• 39:50
  increasingly inextricably entangled, how easily can the barrier between a curated,
• 39:56
  harmless online fantasy and a violent real world nightmare be
• 39:59
  a road before anyone even notices.
• 40:01
  Speaker 2: It really challenges the very nature of how we consume
• 40:04
  culture and how implicitly we trust the avatars we see online.
• 40:07
  Speaker 1: We want to thank you for joining us on this
• 40:09
  deep dive into these sources. We invite you to keep
• 40:11
  questioning the narratives you are presented with, both in the
• 40:13
  courtroom and on your feeds.