Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / D4vd Preliminary Hearing, Day 3: Testimonies Continue

Transcript

D4vd Preliminary Hearing, Day 3: Testimonies Continue · Murder Files Unsealed

0:00
Speaker 1: I want you to just take a second and imagine
0:02
a ninety thousand dollars Tesla.
0:04
Speaker 2: Right, a really high end, pristine electric.
0:06
Speaker 1: Car, exactly, And I mean it is basically a rolling supercomputer.
0:11
Speaker 2: You know, oh absolutely, It is hyper connected. It is
0:13
constantly pinging satellites, mapping its surroundings, doing all of that, yeah.
0:19
Speaker 1: And silently logging every single time a door opens or
0:22
a battery charges. It is the absolute pinnacle of clean
0:26
modern technology. So now I want you to imagine that
0:30
exact vehicle is parked illegally on a really busy, just
0:34
Sunbake Street in Los Angeles, and it's just sitting there,
0:37
sitting there for months, And inside the front trunk of
0:40
that pristine electric car is the decomposing, mutilated body of
0:44
a fourteen year old girl.
0:46
Speaker 2: It is just a horrifying image.
0:48
Speaker 1: It really is. And well, you have to add one
0:50
final piece to this picture. That car belongs to a
0:53
twenty one year old pop.
0:54
Speaker 2: Star, a musician with a multimillion.
0:56
Speaker 1: Dollar record deal, right, a guy who is just forty
0:58
eight hours away from releasing the absolute biggest album of
1:01
his entire career. Yeah, welcome to the deep dive.
1:04
Speaker 2: It is a scenario that. I mean, it almost defies comprehension, true,
1:08
not just because of the sheer brutality of it, but
1:11
because of the massive clash of elements here.
1:13
Speaker 1: Yeah, the contrast is wild.
1:15
Speaker 2: We are talking about unimaginable violence colliding with the highest
1:21
tiers of digital surveillance and modern celebrity exactly.
1:25
Speaker 1: And that is why we are so glad you are
1:27
here with us today. Yeah, because we are setting out
1:29
on a very focused, very serious mission with this deep drive.
1:33
Speaker 2: We really are.
1:34
Speaker 1: We're going to cut through the massive amount of media
1:37
noise surrounding a highly publicized, deeply disturbing legal proceeding.
1:42
Speaker 2: And there is a lot of noise out there on
1:43
this one.
1:44
Speaker 1: So much noise. But our goal is to understand exactly
1:48
how modern criminal cases are built from the ground.
1:50
Speaker 2: Up and crucially, how they're strategically dismantled by the defense.
1:53
Speaker 1: Right. So, our source material for this deep dive comes
1:56
directly from detailed court reporting excerpts, specifically day three of
2:01
the preliminary hearing for a twenty one year old singer
2:04
songwriter named David Anthony.
2:06
Speaker 2: Burke, though most people probably know him professionally as d
2:08
Ford v.
2:09
Speaker 1: Yes dfour VD, and he is currently accused of the
2:14
brutal murder of a fourteen year old girl named Celeste
2:17
Abigail Revas Hernandez.
2:18
Speaker 2: It is a harrowing case, and you know, we really
2:21
have to state right up front that the details we
2:23
are going to explore today are graphic, very they are heavy,
2:27
and they are deeply unsettling. But understanding those exact details
2:30
is really the only way to understand the mechanics of
2:33
the justice system here.
2:34
Speaker 1: Absolutely, and to be absolutely clear with you right now,
2:37
our mission in this deep dive is not to take
2:40
a side.
2:41
Speaker 2: No, not at all.
2:42
Speaker 1: We are not a jury. We are not here to
2:44
render a verdict on guilt or innocence, right, that is
2:47
not our job. Our job is to look at the
2:50
anatomy of this preliminary hearing. We are going to synthesize
2:53
the gruelling physical forensics, the chilling digital tracking data, and
2:57
the incredibly high stakes legal strategies being deployed by both sides.
3:01
Speaker 2: Because you really have the prosecution and the defense operating
3:04
at the top of their game here, you really do.
3:06
Speaker 1: We are looking at a courtroom battle that fundamentally boils
3:10
down to the prosecution's mountain of circumstantial data versus the
3:16
defense's absolute weaponization of investigative incompetence.
3:20
Speaker 2: That is a great way to put it.
3:21
Speaker 1: So, okay, let's unpack this before we even get to
3:24
the crime scene. You need to understand the legal arena
3:28
we are standing.
3:28
Speaker 2: In context is everything in a courtroom.
3:31
Speaker 1: It really is what is actually on the line for
3:34
the defendant here.
3:35
Speaker 2: Well, the very first thing to understand is that this proceeding,
3:38
which is being presided over by Judge Sherlana Filmitttedo in
3:41
downtown Los Angeles, this is a preliminary hearing, right, It
3:45
is emphatically not a trial. There is no jury sitting
3:49
in the box taking notes.
3:50
Speaker 1: Which is a distinction that I mean, it constantly gets
3:52
lost in the headlines, as it is all the time.
3:54
When you read day three of the hearing, you just
3:57
assume it.
3:58
Speaker 2: Is the trial, right, People think it is the main event.
4:00
Speaker 1: But the standard of proof here is entirely different, isn't it.
4:03
In a full trial, the prosecution has to prove guilt
4:06
beyond reasonable doubts, yes, But here at a preliminary hearing,
4:10
the prosecution only has to establish probable cause.
4:13
Speaker 2: Exactly, and probable cause is a significantly lower hurdle. It
4:17
essentially boils down to a two part question for the judge.
4:20
Speaker 1: Okay, what are the two parts?
4:21
Speaker 2: First, would a reasonable person believe that a crime was
4:25
actually committed?
4:26
Speaker 1: Right?
4:26
Speaker 2: And second, what a reasonable person believed that the defendant
4:29
is the one who committed it?
4:31
Speaker 1: So it is just the baseline check.
4:33
Speaker 2: It is a preliminary check by the judicial system, just
4:36
to ensure the state actually has a solid foundation to
4:40
strip a citizen of their freedom and compel them to
4:43
stand trial. That makes sense, and because of this much
4:45
lower standard, prosecutors almost never show their entire hand during
4:49
a preliminary hearing.
4:50
Speaker 1: Why give the defense a preview? Right?
4:52
Speaker 2: Exactly? They do not want to give the defense a free,
4:55
exhaustive look at every single witness and every single microscope
5:00
piece of evidence if they don't strictly have to.
5:02
Speaker 1: They just need enough to get past the judge, right.
5:05
Speaker 2: They only need to present just enough evidentiary weight to
5:09
tip the scales of probable cause.
5:11
Speaker 1: I always like to think of a preliminary hearing as
5:14
essentially a movie trailer for the prosecution.
5:16
Speaker 3: Oh, I like that analogy.
5:18
Speaker 1: Yeah, they are showing the judge just enough of the
5:21
explosive scenes, just enough of the dramatic dialogue to prove
5:25
that the movie exists.
5:27
Speaker 2: Right, to prove it has a plot and is worth
5:29
green lighting exactly.
5:31
Speaker 1: Meanwhile, the defense's job, even at this super early stage,
5:35
is to stand up and argue that the trailer is
5:37
entirely smoke and mirrors. Yes, they want to show the
5:40
judge that the special effects are fake, the actors are
5:42
reading the wrong script and there is actually no real
5:45
movie there at all.
5:46
Speaker 2: That is a brilliant way to visualize the dynamic. And
5:49
I mean, the stakes of this particular movie could not
5:52
possibly be higher.
5:53
Speaker 1: Let's talk about those stakes. What are the actual charges?
5:56
Speaker 2: Well, if we look at the charges Burke is facing,
5:58
this is not just a standard homis. He is charged
6:01
with first degree murder.
6:03
Speaker 1: Which automatically implies premeditation.
6:05
Speaker 2: Yes, premeditation and malice of forethought. But attached to that
6:10
murder charge are what California law calls special circumstances.
6:13
Speaker 1: Right, special circumstances.
6:15
Speaker 2: And furthermore, he is facing charges of continuous sexual abuse
6:19
of a child under fourteen and the unlawful mutilation of
6:22
human remains.
6:23
Speaker 1: And he is pleaded not guilty to every single one
6:26
of these counts.
6:27
Speaker 2: Correct he is pleaded not guilty to all of them.
6:30
Speaker 1: Let's break down those special circumstances for a minute, because
6:33
in the legal world, those two words are the mechanisms
6:37
that elevate the potential punishment.
6:38
Speaker 2: Right, they absolutely are. They change the entire landscape of
6:42
the case.
6:42
Speaker 1: They take it from standard prison time to the absolute
6:45
maximum penalties that exists in the system. Right.
6:48
Speaker 2: The Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office is alleging three
6:52
distinct special circumstances here.
6:54
Speaker 1: Okay, what are they?
6:55
Speaker 2: Murder of a witness, murder for financial gain, and lying
6:58
in Wait. Wow, If the prosecution secures a conviction on
7:02
the first degree murder charge and a jury finds even
7:06
one of those special circumstances to be true, just one
7:09
of them, just one. If they find one to be true,
7:12
Burke is facing either life in prison without the possibility
7:15
of parole, or the death penalty.
7:17
Speaker 1: Life or death. I mean, that is the gravity hovering
7:20
over every single fiber, every single digital ping, and every
7:24
single argument we are about to discuss.
7:26
Speaker 2: It is incredibly heavy.
7:28
Speaker 1: Now to understand the prosecution's theory of the crime, the
7:33
narrative they are actively building for judgble Meadow we really
7:36
have to move chronologically.
7:38
Speaker 3: We have to start at the beginning, right, We have to.
7:39
Speaker 1: Go back to the genesis of this tragedy. We need
7:42
to look at the timeline and the alleged motive, because
7:46
crimes like this do not just happen in a vacuum.
7:49
Speaker 2: They absolutely do not. And the timeline the prosecution laid
7:51
out spans several years.
7:53
Speaker 1: Which is deeply troubling when you analyze the ages involved
7:56
at each milestone.
7:58
Speaker 2: Yes, the victim, Celeste Reevas Hernandez, was born on September seventh,
8:02
twenty to ten.
8:04
Speaker 1: Okay.
8:04
Speaker 2: The prosecution alleges that Burke and Celeste first met online
8:08
around January of twenty twenty two.
8:09
Speaker 1: Okay, let's just do the raw math on that for
8:11
a second. If they met in January of twenty twenty two,
8:14
Celeste would have been eleven years.
8:16
Speaker 2: Old eleven, yes.
8:17
Speaker 1: And Burke would have been around seventeen or eighteen.
8:19
Speaker 3: That is correct.
8:19
Speaker 1: And at that time he was already gaining significant traction
8:23
as a rising personality on TikTok right, he was transitioning
8:27
into a serious music career.
8:28
Speaker 2: Yes, And according to the prosecution's timeline, this digital connection
8:33
eventually escalated into a physical one, right. They alleged that
8:37
a sexual relationship began in November of twenty twenty three.
8:40
Speaker 1: Okay, so doing the math again. At that specific point
8:44
in time, Celeste was thirteen years old and Burke was
8:47
eighteen or nineteen.
8:48
Speaker 2: Yes, and the sources indicate this relationship continued intermittently over
8:52
the next several months. It involved travel between her home
8:56
and Lake Elsinore and his residence in Los Angeles.
9:00
Speaker 1: But there is one specific, I mean very permanent detail
9:03
to prosecution highlight it that really anchors the dynamic.
9:05
Speaker 3: Between those the matching tattoos.
9:07
Speaker 1: Yeah, the tattoos. The sources specifically note that Celeste, a
9:10
middle school age girl, had the name David tattooed on
9:14
her left ring finger. It is a thirteen year old
9:16
with a prominent tattoo of an adult musician's name on
9:19
her ring finger.
9:20
Speaker 2: It is a detail that completely halts your momentum when
9:23
you read it.
9:23
Speaker 1: It really does. It speaks to a level of permanence
9:26
and entanglement that is incredibly disturbing. Absolutely, and what is
9:30
vital to the prosecution's case, what makes this a story
9:33
of escalating inevitability rather than a sudden snap, is that
9:37
law enforcement had actually intersected with this situation prior to
9:41
the fatal outcome.
9:42
Speaker 2: This is a critical anchor point in the timeline tell
9:45
us about that in February of twenty twenty four, deputies
9:48
conducted a welfare check at Burke's residence Okay, and during
9:51
this preliminary hearing, the prosecution actually played body camera footage
9:56
from that specific.
9:57
Speaker 1: Interaction, so they have it on tape.
9:58
Speaker 2: They have it on video. In the footage, the deputies
10:01
are heard explicitly informing Burke that celest is thirteen years old.
10:05
Speaker 1: So the prosecution doesn't just have a theory that he
10:08
knew her age. Now they have timestamped, on camera, documented
10:13
proof that he was made aware of her exact legal
10:16
age by sworn law enforcement officers.
10:18
Speaker 2: Correct and on that exact same bodycam footage, Burke tells
10:22
the officers that he had only met her once after
10:24
connecting online, and he claimed to the deputies that he
10:28
believed she was eighteen.
10:29
Speaker 1: Wow. This law enforcement interaction completely sets the stage for
10:33
the escalating panic and tension that the prosecution claims eventually
10:37
led to the murder.
10:38
Speaker 2: Which brings us to the alleged catalyst. April two, twenty
10:42
twenty five.
10:43
Speaker 1: Yes, April twenty two.
10:44
Speaker 2: If you are listening to this, I want you to
10:46
bookmark this date in your mind. What exactly happens on
10:50
April twenty two.
10:52
Speaker 1: Well, according to the prosecution's digital evidence, on April twenty two,
10:56
Burke and Celeste engaged at a very lengthy, very heated
11:00
text message argument.
11:01
Speaker 2: Okay.
11:01
Speaker 1: The prosecution claims that in these texts, c Less expressed
11:05
intense jealousy over Burke's other romantic relationships. But more importantly
11:10
for the legal foundation of this case, they alleged she
11:13
explicitly threatened to expose their connection to the public.
11:16
Speaker 2: She threatened to expose a sexual relationship between a rising
11:19
pop star and a fourteen.
11:20
Speaker 1: Year old girl exactly. And the prosecution is framing this
11:23
text exchange not just as a dramatic personal argument between
11:27
a teenager and a young adult.
11:28
Speaker 2: Right, it is much bigger than that for him. They're
11:30
framing it as a direct existential threat to Burke's entire livelihood,
11:36
his freedom, and his corporate partnerships.
11:39
Speaker 1: This is where the financial context becomes the absolute bedrock
11:42
of their motive, isn't it.
11:43
Speaker 2: It is the core of it.
11:44
Speaker 1: The sources note that prosecutors spent a significant amount of
11:47
time highlighting Burke's record deal with Interscope Records.
11:51
Speaker 2: Yes, a massive deal.
11:53
Speaker 1: We're talking about a deal reportedly valued somewhere in the
11:55
astronomical range of thirteen to nineteen million dollars.
11:58
Speaker 2: It is a stagger amount of money.
12:01
Speaker 1: And that is before you even factor in brand endorsements,
12:04
touring revenue, and merchandise sales.
12:06
Speaker 2: Right. So, when the prosecution formally charges him with a
12:09
special circumstance of murder for financial.
12:11
Speaker 1: Gain, they're not suggesting a robbery.
12:13
Speaker 2: No, not at all. They aren't suggesting he killed her
12:15
to steal money from her wallet.
12:18
Speaker 1: The financial gain allegation here is entirely about asset protection.
12:21
Speaker 2: Exactly, asset protection.
12:23
Speaker 1: The prosecution's theory is that Burke made a cold, calculated,
12:27
deeply rationalized decision to eliminate a witness to a serious felony.
12:33
Speaker 2: A felony being statutory rape.
12:35
Speaker 1: Right, and he did it specifically to protect a multimillion
12:40
dollar corporate asset.
12:42
Speaker 2: That asset being his own career, his public image, and
12:46
his impending album release.
12:48
Speaker 1: And the timing of this, I mean, if you map
12:51
it out, it is staggering.
12:52
Speaker 2: The timing is incredible.
12:54
Speaker 1: The text argument, the direct threat to his career happens
12:58
on April twenty two. Yes, the prosecution believes the murder
13:01
occurred the very next evening, April twenty three, correct, And
13:05
two days after that, on April twenty five, Burke's highly
13:09
anticipated album, which was titled Withered, was scheduled to be
13:13
released to the world.
13:14
Speaker 2: The pressure cooker environment the prosecution is describing to the
13:17
judge is just immense. You have a multi million dollar
13:20
album drop, the absolute peak of his career thus far,
13:24
colliding violently with a digital threat that could instantly send
13:27
him to state prison and bankrupt him.
13:29
Speaker 1: That is the powerful high stakes motive they're presenting. It is,
13:33
but you know, I have to push back on this
13:35
timeline for a second.
13:36
Speaker 3: Okay, let's hear it, because if.
13:37
Speaker 1: You're listening, you might be having the same logistical questions
13:39
I am having. I want you to really picture the
13:41
logistics of modern fame. We are talking about a twenty
13:45
one year old pop star who is presumably surrounded by
13:49
a massive, constantly moving apparatus oh.
13:53
Speaker 2: An entourage, manager's.
13:54
Speaker 1: Publicists, handler's personal assistance, security right, people whose entire full
13:59
time time jobs revolve around managing his schedule and his life,
14:03
especially forty eight hours before a massive global album release.
14:06
Speaker 2: It would be with him constantly.
14:08
Speaker 1: Exactly, And the prosecution is suggesting that in the middle
14:11
of all that intense professional chaos, he allegedly orchestrates an
14:15
unbelievably gruesome, highly complex, and deeply isolated crime in a
14:20
rented Hollywood Hills home entirely by himself.
14:23
Speaker 2: It is a lot to process.
14:24
Speaker 1: It requires a level of compartmentalization and isolation that is
14:28
incredibly hard to fathom.
14:29
Speaker 2: It is a profound logistical question, and frankly, it is
14:32
exactly the kind of friction the defense will likely lean
14:35
into when planting seeds of doubt.
14:37
Speaker 1: How could he possibly pull it off? Right?
14:39
Speaker 2: How does a highly surveilled, highly managed celebrity pull off
14:44
something so horrific, so messy, in the forty eight hours
14:48
before his biggest professional milestone, without anyone in his camp
14:52
noticing a massive shift in his behavior or his whereabouts?
14:56
Speaker 1: And what is the prosecution's answer to that?
14:59
Speaker 2: The prosecutions a, as we will see in the physical evidence,
15:02
is that he was desperate, He was acting under aliases
15:05
to create a shadow identity, and ultimately his attempt to
15:08
cover it up was incredibly panicked and.
15:10
Speaker 1: Flawed, which perfectly transitions us from the theoretical motive to
15:14
the terrifying physical reality of the crime. Yes, we've established
15:17
the prosecutions theory of why they believe this happened to
15:20
defensively silence a multi million dollar threat. Now we have
15:24
to look at the physical result of that alleged act.
15:27
Speaker 2: We have to look at the forensics.
15:28
Speaker 1: We are moving into the forensic evidence, starting with the
15:31
discovery of the body, which was covered in ruling detail
15:35
during the first two days of this preliminary hearing.
15:37
Speaker 2: The discovery is really what initiated this entire sprawling forensic battle.
15:42
Speaker 1: Walk us through that.
15:43
Speaker 2: On September eighth, twenty twenty five, authorities made a gruesome
15:47
fine at a Hollywood tow yard. They located the severely
15:51
decomposed remains of Celestory vest Hernandez, and where they found
15:55
her is a detail that fundamentally defines the horrific nature
15:59
of this case. She was found sealed inside the front
16:02
trunk commonly called the front of a tesla that was
16:05
registered to Burke.
16:06
Speaker 1: I mentioned this in the intro, but this contrast is
16:08
just wild. It is so jarring you have a high
16:11
tech electric vehicle designed for a clean, sustainable future being
16:15
utilized as a crude, macabre mobile tomb.
16:19
Speaker 2: It is a stark, almost dystopian contrast.
16:21
Speaker 1: And it sat like that baking in the Los Angeles
16:24
heat illegally parked on public streets for months before the
16:28
city finally impounded it.
16:29
Speaker 2: The testimony from LAPD detective Joshua Byers during the first
16:33
day of the hearing was incredibly graphic i can imalion,
16:36
but necessary to establish the state of the evidence. He
16:39
described the moment they responded to that tow yard and
16:41
opened the tesla's frunk.
16:42
Speaker 1: What did they find?
16:43
Speaker 2: The criminalists detailed a heavy, overwhelming stench of decomposition that
16:48
had permeated the plastics and fabrics of the vehicle.
16:51
Speaker 1: Wow.
16:52
Speaker 2: They documented active insect activity, maggots, dead flies, and significantly,
16:58
they cataloged a eleven individual.
17:01
Speaker 1: Air fresheners eleven, air fresh.
17:03
Speaker 2: Yes, eleven and they had been placed strategically near the
17:07
driver's seat and the front trunk area.
17:09
Speaker 1: Think about the psychology of that for a second.
17:11
Speaker 2: It is chilling.
17:12
Speaker 1: If you commit a crime of sudden blinding passion, you
17:15
might just.
17:16
Speaker 2: Flee, right, you run away.
17:18
Speaker 1: But going to a store buying eleven air fresheners and
17:20
placing them around a rotting body in your own car.
17:23
That speaks to a sustained, ongoing effort to manage a
17:26
horrifying reality over a long period of time.
17:29
Speaker 2: It's absolutely does.
17:30
Speaker 1: It speaks to an incredibly chilling level of day to
17:32
day containment.
17:33
Speaker 2: It points to ongoing concealment rather than a sudden panic. Right,
17:37
and the condition of the remains they found inside was
17:40
just as disturbing.
17:40
Speaker 1: Over the details on.
17:41
Speaker 2: That detective, Buyers described finding a partially opened black body
17:45
bag that contained a torso and a head. In a
17:48
separate heavy duty trash bag, they found severed limbs.
17:52
Speaker 1: Oh my god.
17:53
Speaker 2: The Los Angeles County Medical Examiner eventually ruled the cause
17:57
of death as homicide by multiple penetrating in injuries stabbing,
18:01
with the legs severed at the kneecaps.
18:03
Speaker 1: But there's one specific forensic detail from that autopsy that
18:06
connects directly back to the timeline we discussed earlier.
18:09
Speaker 2: Yes, there is.
18:10
Speaker 1: The detective noted that the victim's left hand was recovered,
18:14
but it was missing two fingers.
18:16
Speaker 2: Yes, and one of those missing fingers was the left
18:19
ring finger.
18:20
Speaker 1: The exact finger where this fourteen year old girl had
18:22
tattooed the name David exactly. The prosecution is not treating
18:26
that as a random act of mutilation.
18:28
Speaker 2: They no, not at all.
18:30
Speaker 1: They are clearly implying that the removal of those specific
18:33
fingers was a targeted, surgical act to eliminate identifying evidence
18:38
that directly and permanently linked the victim to the defendant.
18:42
Speaker 2: It is a devastating detail that supports their narrative of
18:45
calculated preservation. It really is, and we really have to
18:48
pause here to acknowledge the emotional reality of this proceeding.
18:51
Speaker 1: We do.
18:52
Speaker 2: The sources note that throughout this graphic testimony, throughout the
18:55
display of these horrific clinical photographs in the courtroom, parents
19:00
were present. They were the room, They sat in that gallery.
19:04
They were given the opportunity to step out of the
19:06
room by the court, and they actively chose to stay.
19:09
Speaker 1: I just want you to imagine the sheer horror, the unimaginable,
19:13
suffocating fortitude it takes to sit in a sterile, fluorescent
19:18
lit courtroom and listen to professionals clinically describe the dismemberment
19:24
and decomposition of your fourteen year old daughter.
19:26
Speaker 2: It is a sobering reminder that behind all the legal maneuvering,
19:30
behind the abstract discussions of probable cause and special circumstances,
19:34
there is a shattered family seeking accountability. Yeah, and their
19:38
silent presence in the courtroom undoubtedly changes the atmosphere. It
19:41
grounds the sterile legal arguments in a devastating human reality.
19:45
Speaker 1: It absolutely does so. If the towyard was the final
19:48
resting place of the remains, the next logical question for
19:52
LAPD investigators was where did the crime actually happen? Right?
19:55
They have to work backward to build their case for
19:57
the judge. They had to trace the physical evidence backward
20:01
from that tesla in the towyard all the way back
20:03
to Burke's rented residence in the Hollywood Hills.
20:06
Speaker 2: And they started tracing that path by looking at the
20:08
events of April twenty.
20:10
Speaker 1: Three, the day immediately following the text document.
20:13
Speaker 2: Yes, according to the prosecution, Burke allegedly arranged an uber
20:17
to pick Celeste up from her home in Lake Elsinore
20:20
and bring her to his Hollywood Hills house. Okay, the
20:23
digital receipt state she arrived around ten ten.
20:25
Speaker 1: PM and the prosecution alleges that she was fatally stabbed
20:29
shortly after arriving at that property. Yes, but what happens
20:33
next is where the prosecution attempts to show a calculated,
20:36
heavily premeditated cover up.
20:38
Speaker 2: Right, they introduced financial records showing a series of bizarre purchases.
20:43
Speaker 1: You talk to us about those purchases.
20:44
Speaker 2: The prosecution claims that in the days and weeks following
20:47
the night of April twenty three, Burke made several highly
20:50
suspicious purchases at local hardware stores. Okay, and crucially, they
20:54
presented evidence that he made these purchases using an alias,
20:57
so he.
20:58
Speaker 1: Created a fake identity. What did he buy?
21:00
Speaker 2: These items included chainsaws, a body bag, heavy duty laundry bags,
21:06
a blue inflatable kiddie pool, a shovel, and eventually a
21:10
metal burn cage.
21:11
Speaker 1: I mean, if you're listening to this, you're probably screaming
21:13
at your phone right now.
21:14
Speaker 2: It sounds so obvious, right right?
21:17
Speaker 1: He bought chainsaws, a body bag, and a kiddie pool
21:22
under a fake name, just days after a girl he
21:25
was arguing with goes missing. How is this even a debate?
21:29
I know, it sounds like the most damning shopping list
21:32
in the history of criminal justice.
21:33
Speaker 2: On its face, it is incredibly damning. It is the
21:37
absolute foundation of the prosecution's theory regarding the unlawful mutilation
21:42
of human remains charge.
21:43
Speaker 1: Right.
21:43
Speaker 2: They allege these specific items were bought to dismember the
21:46
body and contain the massive amount of blood evidence that
21:49
would result from that process.
21:50
Speaker 1: And when investigators executed a search warrant on Burke's Hollywood
21:54
Hills garage, they found a scene that seemed to perfectly
21:57
align with that theory, didn't.
21:59
Speaker 2: They they did. When criminalists entered that garage, they found
22:02
an absolute chaotic mess.
22:04
Speaker 1: What did it look like?
22:05
Speaker 2: They found rubber floor mats that had linear mechanical cuts
22:09
in them, and those cuts tested positive for blood. Oh,
22:12
they found blood indications on the brick floor itself. They
22:16
cataloged a rowing machine, various tarps, and a Tesla.
22:20
Speaker 3: Charging cable in the trash bags.
22:22
Speaker 2: Crucially, they found trash bags containing wipes and fabric that
22:26
were heavily stained with blood.
22:28
Speaker 1: But here is where the prosecution's forensic narrative hits a
22:31
massive speed bump, isn't it? Yes, it is, And this
22:35
is where the defense finds their opening to attack the investigation.
22:39
Speaker 2: It all comes down to the chain saws.
22:41
Speaker 1: Yes, the chainsaw paradox, as we might call it.
22:43
Speaker 2: Let's explain that.
22:44
Speaker 1: Investigators were covered two chain saws from the property, but
22:47
when they tested the blades and the housing of those
22:49
chainsaws for blood, the results were negative.
22:53
Speaker 2: Right. Let's explain exactly how that testing works, because it
22:56
is crucial to understanding the defensive strategy here.
22:59
Speaker 1: Go ahead.
22:59
Speaker 2: When invests stigator's test for blood at a scene or
23:01
on an object, they typically use a presumptive test like
23:05
the phenal falin.
23:05
Speaker 1: Test ghenal fhalin.
23:06
Speaker 2: Right, it is a chemical that reacts with the hemoglobin
23:09
in blood. If you swab a surface and apply the
23:12
chemical and it turns bright pink, you have a presumptive
23:15
positive for blood.
23:17
Speaker 1: So it's a very sensitive test, highly sensitive.
23:19
Speaker 2: But when they swab these two chainsaws, there was no reaction.
23:23
Speaker 1: Negative and this negative result becomes a major focal point
23:28
for Burke's lead defense attorney, Blair Burke.
23:30
Speaker 2: She leaned into it hard.
23:32
Speaker 1: During cross examination of LAPD criminalist Lauren Wallace. Burke absolutely
23:37
hammered on this point. Not only did the chainsaws test
23:40
negative for blood, but Burke aggressively questioned why the handles
23:44
and the triggers of those chainsaws were never swabbed for
23:47
touch DNA to see who had been holding them.
23:49
Speaker 2: Let's define touch DNA really quickly, good idea. We all
23:52
shed microscopics skin cells constantly. When you grip a chainsaw handle,
23:55
you leave those cells behind.
23:57
Speaker 1: Right.
23:57
Speaker 2: Touch DNA analysis allows forensic scientists to extract a DNA
24:01
profile from theirs few skin cells.
24:03
Speaker 1: So Burke is asking the criminalist point blank on the stand.
24:06
Speaker 2: She's asking, if you believe my client used these tools
24:10
to commit a horrific crime, why didn't you check to
24:13
see if his skin cells were on the handles?
24:15
Speaker 1: And criminalist Wallace's response was fairly standard for law enforcement, wasn't.
24:19
Speaker 2: It it was? She stated that items are collected and
24:22
tested based on their potential forensic value, which is determined
24:26
collaboratively by detectives and laboratory analysts.
24:30
Speaker 1: Right, they have limited budgets, limited time.
24:32
Speaker 2: Exactly, they prioritize what they think will yield the best results.
24:36
If they don't see visible blood on a tool, they
24:39
might not prioritize it for advanced DNA.
24:42
Speaker 1: Swabbing, But standard or not, the defense is actively painting
24:45
a picture of incredibly sloppy, incomplete police work.
24:49
Speaker 2: Oh absolutely.
24:51
Speaker 1: Burke also pointed out that there was a third electric
24:53
handheld saw found in a closet in the house that
24:56
investigators photographed but never even collected or analyzed depth.
25:00
Speaker 2: They just left it there.
25:01
Speaker 1: Yeah. Furthermore, and this is where it gets bizarre, she
25:04
highlighted the discovery of jugs containing what appeared to be
25:07
fake theatrical blood in the garage, fake blood, which also
25:10
tested negative for human hemoglobin.
25:12
Speaker 2: Okay, stop right there, fake blood.
25:14
Speaker 1: I know.
25:15
Speaker 2: Why is there fake blood in the garage of a
25:17
pop star?
25:18
Speaker 1: Was it for a music video shoot? Was it a
25:21
Halloween prop?
25:22
Speaker 2: The sources don't definitively say, But think about how a
25:26
defense attorney uses that. How So, if there is fake
25:30
blood in the garage, it introduces this chaotic theatrical alternative
25:35
explanation for the scene.
25:36
Speaker 1: Right.
25:37
Speaker 2: It allows the defense to say, look at this mess.
25:40
You have fake blood, you have uncollected tools. This isn't
25:43
a pristine crime scene. This is a contaminated garbage dump
25:47
of circumstantial nonsense.
25:48
Speaker 1: Exactly. It is what defense attorneys call weaponizing the negative space.
25:53
Speaker 2: I love that phrase.
25:54
Speaker 1: They aren't trying to prove Burke is innocent. They're trying
25:56
to prove the LAPD's investigation is too flawed to be
25:59
trust by a judge. Burke is arguing that when an
26:02
investigation is incomplete or contradictory, that evidentiary weight must be
26:07
held against the prosecution, not the defendant.
26:10
Speaker 2: It is a strong tactic.
26:11
Speaker 1: This is a perfect moment for a critical thinking prompt
26:13
for you listening, I want you to put yourself in
26:15
Judgemato shoes for a second.
26:17
Speaker 2: Play judge for a minute.
26:18
Speaker 1: Yeah. If the prosecution stands up and says the defendant
26:22
bought chainsaws under a fake name to dismember a body,
26:26
but the actual chain saws sitting in evidence boxes from
26:30
his garage test completely negative for blood, does that mean
26:35
he is innocent, that is the question. Or does it
26:38
simply mean he didn't use those specific tools. Maybe he
26:42
used the third saw they left in the closet. Right.
26:44
How does a judge in a preliminary hearing weigh a
26:47
negative forensic swab against the highly suspicion context of an
26:51
alias purchase at a hardware store.
26:52
Speaker 2: It's the crux of the tension in a preliminary hearing,
26:55
The defense argues that if the state claims a specific
26:58
tool was used and the science as it wasn't, the
27:01
state's entire story is fundamentally.
27:02
Speaker 1: Flawed and the prosecution.
27:04
Speaker 2: The prosecution will pounder by saying, we don't need to
27:06
prove exactly which saw was used today. We just need
27:09
to show that he was buying tools of dismemberment under
27:11
a fake name while a body was decomposing in his car.
27:15
Speaker 1: But the prosecution knows they cannot rely solely on the
27:18
suspicious purchases. No, they need more because if Blair Burke
27:21
successfully argues that negative tests mean a lack of proof,
27:25
the prosecution has to pivot to what did yield a positive,
27:29
undeniable forensic match they need to win. And that brings
27:33
us to the star physical evidence of day three of
27:36
the hearing. The trace analysis.
27:38
Speaker 2: Day three is where the forensics zoom in from the
27:41
macro scale of the garage to the microscopic scale of
27:44
trace evidence right. This phase was anchored by the testimony
27:47
of LAPD criminalists Lisa Lejandro. She is a twenty six
27:52
year veteran specializing.
27:53
Speaker 3: In trace evidence and what does she focus on?
27:56
Speaker 2: Her testimony focus heavily on two main things. The clothing
27:59
recover with the remains in the towyard, and that blue
28:02
inflatable kittie pool recovered from the Hollywood Hills garage.
28:05
Speaker 1: The kiddie pool. Let's talk about the condition of this pool.
28:08
Speaker 3: It strange.
28:09
Speaker 1: The sources note that when LAPD investigators found it in
28:12
the garage, it smelled strongly like it had been freshly
28:15
and heavily cleaned.
28:16
Speaker 2: It smells like bleach.
28:17
Speaker 1: There was even a folded dryer sheet left inside it,
28:20
presumably to mask odors. But despite the apparent bleaching and shrubbing,
28:25
when they hit it with a presumptive test, it's still
28:28
tested positive for blood.
28:30
Speaker 2: Yes, it did, But Lahndra's testimony went far beyond just
28:34
a pink swab for blood.
28:35
Speaker 1: Hell.
28:36
Speaker 2: So this is where her expertise and trace evidence comes in.
28:40
Trace evidence is based on Lecard's exchange principle, the forensic
28:44
theory that every contact leaves a trace. Okay, play that
28:47
whenever two objects come into contact, there is a transfer
28:50
of material. Using a high powered stereo microscope, Lahndro meticulously
28:55
documented hairs, microscopic fibers, and what she called foam like
29:00
flakes associated with the surface of the pool.
29:03
Speaker 1: Wow.
29:03
Speaker 2: She also identified four distinct areas of severe damage on
29:07
the pool itself.
29:08
Speaker 1: Damage like cuts.
29:10
Speaker 2: Yes, she documented straight and irregular cuts, some of which
29:13
penetrated completely through the heavy plastic material.
29:16
Speaker 1: But she didn't just look at the pool in isolation. No,
29:19
Here's where it gets really interesting, because we moved from
29:21
microscopic fibers to something much more visceral, a physical match.
29:26
Speaker 2: This was perhaps the most visually striking and undeniable moment
29:29
of day three.
29:30
Speaker 1: What happened.
29:31
Speaker 2: Landro testified about several small, jagged blue plastic fragments that
29:36
had been recovered by the Los Angeles County Medical Examiner's
29:39
Office directly from the victim's body and the body bag
29:42
during the autopsy.
29:43
Speaker 1: From the body itself.
29:45
Speaker 2: Yes, in court, she explained that she took those fragments
29:48
from the autopsy, compared them to the damaged kittie pool
29:51
from the garage, and found that they physically fit into
29:54
a missing section of the pool.
29:57
Speaker 1: Are you serious?
29:58
Speaker 2: In her exact words on the stage, and they fit
30:00
together like a puzzle piece.
30:02
Speaker 1: Like a puzzle piece, I want to emphasize how devastating
30:05
that is for the defense.
30:06
Speaker 2: It's huge.
30:07
Speaker 1: That is not a chemical probability, That is a physical
30:11
interlocking reality. It is an incredibly powerful intuitive image for
30:16
the prosecution to present to the judge.
30:18
Speaker 2: In forensic science, a physical fracture match, a puzzle piece
30:22
fit is the holy grail of.
30:23
Speaker 3: Trace evidence, really, the holy grail.
30:26
Speaker 2: Absolutely. It is the difference between class characteristics and individual characteristics.
30:30
Speaker 1: Let's break that down for people listening.
30:32
Speaker 2: Okay, A chemical test might show that two pieces of
30:36
plastic have the exact same chemical makeup. That is a
30:39
class characteristic.
30:41
Speaker 1: So they belong to the same class of items.
30:43
Speaker 2: Right, It just tells you they came from the same
30:44
manufacturer or the same batch. Millions of pools might have
30:48
that same chemical signature.
30:50
Speaker 1: Okay, But a fracture match.
30:51
Speaker 2: Is different, completely different. A physical fracture match, where the jagged,
30:55
random tearing of the plastic interlocks perfectly, is an individual.
30:59
Speaker 1: Characteristic because it is unique.
31:01
Speaker 2: The odds of two random pieces of plastic tearing and
31:04
the exact same jagged microscopic pattern are astronomically low. Right,
31:09
It means those two pieces were undeniably once a single object.
31:14
It definitively physically links the pool in Burke's Hollywood Hills
31:18
garage to the mutilated body found miles away in the towyard.
31:22
Speaker 1: And she didn't stop there, No, she kept going. Lehandro
31:24
also examined the clothing found with the remains in the
31:26
body bag, black leggings that had been cut in half,
31:30
a soiled tube top, and a thong.
31:32
Speaker 2: Yes, and from the fabric of those cut leggings she
31:35
recovered more fragments dark blue and medium blue plastic pieces
31:39
that she testified were visually similar to the ones recovered
31:42
by the medical examiner.
31:43
Speaker 1: So more pool fragments, basically right.
31:45
Speaker 2: She also found a black fragment with yellowish stains, along
31:48
with various hairs and fibers entangled in the fabric.
31:52
Speaker 1: But again you have Blair Burke, the defense attorney, stepping
31:57
up to the podium for cross examination.
31:59
Speaker 2: Right, she has to counter this.
32:01
Speaker 1: How do you cross examine a puzzle piece fit? How
32:04
do you attack the holy grail of trace evidence?
32:07
Speaker 2: You attack the limitations of the analysis, You attack what
32:10
the scientists couldn't do. Interesting Burke pointed out that Lehndro's
32:14
comparisons were largely based on physical characteristics and visual microscopic examination,
32:19
rather than exhaustive elemental chemical matching of the plastics.
32:24
Speaker 1: So she is saying you looked at them, but did
32:26
you test them?
32:27
Speaker 2: She essentially asked, you say they look alike, but did
32:31
you chemically prove they are identical compounds?
32:33
Speaker 1: I see?
32:34
Speaker 2: Furthermore, she highlighted the terrible condition of the clothing. The
32:38
garments were wet, heavily soiled with decomposition, fluid, dirt, and
32:42
insect activity, and were severely deteriorated.
32:46
Speaker 1: And that matters because.
32:47
Speaker 2: Because Lesandra had to admit on the stand that this
32:50
poor contaminated condition severely limited their ability to perform deeper
32:55
chemical analysis.
32:56
Speaker 1: And didn't stop at the chemistry.
32:58
Speaker 2: No, she didn't.
33:00
Speaker 1: Sticking to her overarching theme of incomplete police work, she
33:03
aggressively questioned why Leandro didn't attempt to lift possible footwear
33:08
impressions or shoe prints from the uneven textured surface of
33:13
the inflatable pool.
33:14
Speaker 2: It is brilliant defense work. She is forcing the States
33:17
expert to repeatedly say, no, I didn't test that, No,
33:20
we couldn't do that analysis.
33:22
Speaker 1: So again we have this intense fundamental contrast playing out
33:25
in the courtroom. Yes, the defense is constantly pointing out
33:27
the negative space. What wasn't tested, What wasn't swabed for DNA,
33:31
what wasn't chemically matched, what footprints weren't found.
33:34
Speaker 2: They are building a fortress out of reasonable doubt, right while.
33:37
Speaker 1: The prosecution is pointing to the visceral, undeniable imagery of
33:41
a jagged piece of plastic fitting perfectly into a cut up,
33:45
bloody kiddie pool found in the defendant's own garage.
33:49
Speaker 2: It is a classic courtroom battle over physical evidence. But
33:53
physical evidence, as we've just seen, can always be debated.
33:56
Always a smart, aggressive defense attorney can always ask, why
33:59
do you test this one more thing? Why didn't you
34:02
swab the ceiling?
34:03
Speaker 1: Right?
34:03
Speaker 2: That is exactly why the prosecution's next witness was so
34:07
vital to their overall strategy, because while physical evidence can
34:10
be explained away, while a messy garage can be blamed
34:13
on a chaotic lifestyle or fake blood.
34:16
Speaker 1: Digital evidence tells a very cold, unforgiving timestamp story exactly.
34:21
Blair Burke can argue that a missing shoe print ruins
34:24
the physical case, but she cannot.
34:26
Speaker 3: Argue with a satellite You really can't.
34:28
Speaker 1: And that is why the prosecution brought in the heavy
34:30
digital artillery. We're moving from the stereo microscope to the
34:34
GPS grid. Let's look at the digital footprint presented on
34:37
the afternoon of day three.
34:39
Speaker 2: This crucial testimony came from Detective William Roker. He is
34:42
affiliated with the Cellular Analysis Survey Team commonly known.
34:46
Speaker 3: As CASS CASS two.
34:48
Speaker 2: Okay, it is a highly specialized unit often associated with
34:51
the FBI that maps out complex digital movements.
34:54
Speaker 1: Right.
34:55
Speaker 2: His entire job is to turn invisible data signals into
34:58
a map of a suspect life, and in this case,
35:01
he was tracking two very specific, highly communicative devices. Really
35:06
first an international phone line that was directly linked to
35:09
the telematics of Burke's Tesla, and second, Burke's own personal
35:14
cell phone.
35:15
Speaker 1: Let's pause and explain telematics, because this is where modern
35:18
true crime gets incredibly dystopian.
35:20
Speaker 2: It really does.
35:21
Speaker 1: We're not just talking about a cell phone pinging a
35:23
tower in the distance. The car itself, the Tesla is
35:27
basically a rolling surveillance device. It is It is constantly
35:30
sending dense streams of data back to Tesla's servers. It
35:34
logs exact GPS coordinates, its speed, it's heading, exactly when
35:38
the doors open and close, and every time it connects
35:40
to a supercharger station.
35:42
Speaker 2: It is an incredibly dense, inescapable data stream.
35:45
Speaker 1: It is the ultimate digital witness.
35:47
Speaker 2: Right. Historical cell side analysis, which uses cell tower records,
35:51
can give you a general radius or a wedge of
35:54
an area where a phone is located. So it's broad right,
35:57
it says the phone is somewhere in this three mile second.
36:00
But Tesla telematics give you exact pinpoint GPS coordinates.
36:05
Speaker 1: Wow.
36:06
Speaker 2: When a classed expert like Detective Roker lays those two
36:09
data sets over each other, the cell tower radius and
36:13
the exact GPS dots of the car, you get an
36:16
inescapable digital net.
36:18
Speaker 1: And what are that netcatch?
36:20
Speaker 2: Roker showed the court how these two devices the personal
36:23
phone in the car traveled together in lockstep from the
36:25
Hollywood Hills residence to a very remote, rugged area off
36:29
State Route one fifty four in Santa Barbara County, and.
36:32
Speaker 1: The prosecution highlighted that this wasn't just a one time
36:35
random drive up the coast.
36:36
Speaker 2: No, it happened multiple times.
36:37
Speaker 1: The telematics data shows this specific trip from Hollywood to
36:40
this exact remote area happen on at least three separate occasions. Yes,
36:45
the night of April twenty three, to the twenty fourth,
36:47
again on May eight to nine, and a third time
36:49
on May thirty one.
36:50
Speaker 2: The first trip is the most critical for the prosecution's timeline.
36:53
It's right the night of April twenty three into the
36:56
early morning hours of April twenty four. Remember, Based on
37:00
the uber records and the texts, the prosecution estimates the
37:03
time of death was the evening of April twenty three
37:06
at the Hollywood Hills.
37:06
Speaker 1: House, right right after she arrived.
37:09
Speaker 2: Just hours after that estimated time of death, the digital
37:12
data shows both the phone and the car leaving Los
37:15
Angeles and traveling to this remote, dark area in Santa Barbara.
37:19
The telematics then show the car returning to Los Angeles
37:22
by about seven point zero seven am on April twenty four,
37:26
making a highly documented stop at a Tesla charging station
37:30
along the way.
37:31
Speaker 1: But it is what happened while he was allegedly in
37:34
that remote Santa Barbara area that is truly chilling. It
37:37
is the prosecution introduced evidence of a specific phone call.
37:41
Speaker 2: Yes, the call detail records show that at exactly twelve
37:44
point zero four am on April twenty four, while the
37:47
digital data firmly places Burke's phone and car in this
37:50
remote area, an outgoing call was placed from his device.
37:53
Speaker 1: And who was the recipient of that call?
37:54
Speaker 2: Celeste Revas Hernandez's phone number. The call went to her voicemail.
37:58
Speaker 1: Let's just sit with the psychology of that for a moment.
38:00
Speaker 2: It is dark.
38:01
Speaker 1: Why do you call the phone of the person you
38:03
allegedly just murdered hours earlier? Was it a panic mistake
38:08
in the dark? Was it a calculated, premeditated attempt to
38:11
create a digital alibi, you know, to make it look
38:14
to future investigators like he was trying to reach her
38:17
after she's supposedly left his house alive.
38:20
Speaker 2: It is a psychological detail that just hangs in the
38:22
air of the courtroom.
38:23
Speaker 1: It is deeply disturbing and it speaks volumes about the
38:27
mindset of whoever was holding that phone at midnight in
38:30
the middle of nowhere. Absolutely, and the prosecution didn't just
38:33
leave it at digital pings. They tied this remote location
38:37
to physical, tangible evidence as well.
38:39
Speaker 2: They did.
38:40
Speaker 1: A California Highway Patrol officer testified earlier in the hearing
38:44
that a Coltrans worker doing routine maintenance found Celeste's US
38:48
passport card lying in tall grass along that exact same
38:52
stretch of Highway one fifty four.
38:54
Speaker 2: So you have the car pinging there, the phone pinging there,
38:57
the twelve point oh four am call happening there, and
39:00
the victim's physical passport found in the grass there.
39:03
Speaker 1: That is a lot of connections.
39:04
Speaker 2: But of course, keeping with their strategy, the defense immediately
39:08
noted during cross examination that the caltran's worker handled the
39:12
passport without gloves when he found it.
39:15
Speaker 1: Well, of course they did.
39:16
Speaker 2: And that the passport was never fingerprinted by law enforcement
39:19
at the scene, continuing their narrative of contaminated, sloppy evidence collection.
39:24
Speaker 1: It is consistent defense work, you have to admit it is.
39:27
Speaker 2: But the contrast and the types of evidence is striking.
39:30
Speaker 1: The analogy here is so clear. The defense is desperately
39:35
trying to poke holes in a physical net. They're saying, look,
39:38
you didn't test this chainsaw, you didn't swag for footprints
39:41
on the pool, you didn't fingerprint the passport, there's fake
39:44
blood in the garage. They are finding every single loose
39:48
thread in the physical investigation and pulling it. But the
39:51
prosecution just dropped a massive, impenetrable digital net over the
39:55
entire map.
39:56
Speaker 2: The blanketed it.
39:57
Speaker 1: You can bleach a kiddie pool, You can put eleven
40:00
air fresheners in a car to high a smell, But
40:02
you cannot bleach a cell tower pin.
40:05
Speaker 2: You really can't.
40:06
Speaker 1: You cannot erase a Tesla charging station log from a
40:10
corporate server.
40:11
Speaker 2: The digital data is relentless. It doesn't forget and it
40:14
doesn't get contaminated by a caltrans workers bare hands. Fact,
40:18
it corroborates the physical puzzle pieces found in the garage
40:22
and the towyard, and that brings us to the final
40:25
phase of our deep dive, the legal calculus. We have
40:29
all the pieces on the board. Now we have the
40:31
alleged motive of financial preservation driven by texty threats.
40:35
Speaker 1: We have the grizzly discovery in the towyard.
40:37
Speaker 2: We have the physical trace evidence in the garage, the
40:40
alias purchases, and the digital map pointing to the highway.
40:43
Speaker 1: Now we have to look at how both legal teams
40:46
are arranging these pieces on the chessboard. As the hearing
40:49
nears its conclusion.
40:50
Speaker 2: Let's synthesize the prosecution's narrative first.
40:53
Speaker 1: When the district attorney stands up to give their closing
40:55
argument for this preliminary hearing, how are they tying this
40:58
all up? For judgual Nato.
41:00
Speaker 2: The prosecution is presenting a cohesive story of ruthless calculation
41:04
followed by desperate, highly flawed concealment. They are arguing that Burke,
41:10
a rising star, saw his entire thirteen to nineteen million
41:14
dollar future evaporating because of the text threats from a
41:17
fourteen year.
41:18
Speaker 1: Old girl, which sets up the motive.
41:20
Speaker 2: They allege he used an uber to lure her to
41:23
his isolated house, which legally supports the lying in white
41:27
special circumstance. They allege he violently killed her to silence her,
41:31
supporting the murder of a witness circumstance.
41:33
Speaker 1: And the financial game.
41:35
Speaker 2: And they allege she did it all to protect his
41:37
impending interscope record deal the financial gain circumstance.
41:40
Speaker 1: So they hit all three special circumstances.
41:43
Speaker 2: From there, they argue he used aliases to buy disposal tools,
41:48
mutilated the body in an attempt to hide her identity,
41:51
and used his high tech car to transport the remains
41:54
inadvertently leaving a massive timestamp digital trail in his way.
41:58
They will argue this mountain of evidence easily clears the
42:02
low bar of probable cause it.
42:03
Speaker 1: Is a comprehensive, horrifying narrative that connects the motive to
42:07
the map to the body.
42:08
Speaker 2: It is.
42:09
Speaker 1: So, how does Blair, Burke and the defense team counter
42:11
that at this stage? They can't just say, you know, uh,
42:14
what is their closing argument?
42:15
Speaker 2: The defense's counter narrative is entirely about emphasizing the gaps,
42:19
the shadows, and the failures of.
42:21
Speaker 1: The state the negative space.
42:23
Speaker 2: Remember, they aren't required to prove who did it. They
42:26
just have to show the judge that the state's story
42:29
is too flawed, too assumed to trust.
42:32
Speaker 1: So they point to the mistakes.
42:33
Speaker 2: They are highlighting the uncollected handheld saw left in the closet.
42:37
They are pointing to the theatrical jugs of fake blood
42:40
that confuse the scene.
42:41
Speaker 3: In the garage and the forensics.
42:43
Speaker 2: They are hammering on the lack of chemical matching on
42:45
the plastics, relying instead on subjective visual fits. And they
42:49
are stressing the contaminative passport in the grass.
42:52
Speaker 1: What is Burke's central thesis.
42:54
Speaker 2: Burke's central argument is that when forensic investigation is incomplete,
42:58
when police choose not to swab for DNA or footprints,
43:02
that evidentiary weight must be held against the prosecution, not
43:05
the defendant. Right, she will argue that suspicious behavior and
43:09
a messy digital trail do not equate to a competent,
43:13
legally sound murder case.
43:15
Speaker 1: And in the middle of this high level legal chess match,
43:18
we also have to mention the family's representation in the room.
43:21
Speaker 2: Yes, that is very important.
43:23
Speaker 1: Attorney Patrick Steinfeld is in the courtroom representing Celeste's family. Right.
43:27
While the criminal case is technically between the State of
43:29
California and the defendant, the family's attorney is there as
43:33
a silent force. He is there to focus the room
43:36
on their profound grief and their demand for absolute accountability.
43:41
Speaker 2: And Burke's team is making their own posturing moves too.
43:44
Speaker 1: Yeah, Burke's legal team has made a point to highlight
43:46
to the court that he fully cooperated with investigators after
43:50
the remains were discovered in the tow yard and has
43:53
consistently maintained his innocence.
43:55
Speaker 2: If we connect all of this to the bigger picture,
43:58
this preliminary hearing really encapsulates the dark reality of modern
44:02
true crime. Oh so we are watching traditional almost medieval
44:06
homicide techniques like dismemberment, concealment, and physical puzzle piece matching
44:11
violently clashing with the inescapable, cold precision of digital telematics
44:16
and cellular tracking.
44:17
Speaker 1: It is quite the clash, and all of.
44:19
Speaker 2: It is playing out under the intense, distorting glare of
44:23
celebrity media, massive wealth, and the rapid pace of the Internet.
44:27
It is a collision of human depravity and high technology.
44:31
Speaker 1: So what does this all mean? That is the ultimate
44:33
question Judge Olmato has to answer.
44:35
Speaker 3: She has a tough job based on.
44:37
Speaker 1: The sources we've explored today, the devastating texts, the alias
44:41
hardware purchases, the puzzle piece fit, the midnight cell tower pings,
44:46
and the defense's fierce counter attacks on the forensic gaps.
44:49
Has the prosecution presented enough to make a reasonable person
44:52
believe David Anthony Burke committed these crimes?
44:55
Speaker 2: Have they met the burden of probable cause.
44:57
Speaker 1: Right to move this out of the preliminary phase and into.
44:59
Speaker 2: A four The judge's ruling will dictate the next chapter
45:03
of this tragedy, and.
45:04
Speaker 1: If he is bound over for trial.
45:06
Speaker 2: If he is bound over for trial, we will see
45:07
this entire battle fought again, but next time it won't
45:11
be for a judge alone will be in front of
45:13
a jury of twelve everyday.
45:15
Speaker 1: People, a completely different ballgame.
45:17
Speaker 2: The standard will be raised from probable cause to beyond
45:20
a reasonable doubt, and the ultimate penalty of life in
45:23
prison or death will officially be on the table.
45:26
Speaker 1: Wow.
45:26
Speaker 2: The defense will have more time to prepare their attacks
45:29
and the prosecution will have to tighten every single forensic gap.
45:33
Speaker 1: It is a staggering amount of information to process, and
45:37
it is a deeply sobering look at how the justice
45:39
system attempts to find truth or at least legal certainty
45:44
in the absolute darkest.
45:45
Speaker 3: Of circumstances there really is.
45:47
Speaker 1: We've traced the timeline from a digital introduction on a
45:50
social media app to a horrific physical reality in a towyard,
45:55
mapping out the forensic and legal battles every step of
45:57
the way, and.
45:58
Speaker 2: We've seen how every piece of data, whether it is
46:01
a microscopic plastic fragment viewed under a stereo microscope, a
46:05
presumptive pink swab for blood, or a satellite ping from
46:08
a luxury car, becomes a highly contested weapon in the courtroom.
46:12
Speaker 1: As we wrap up this deep dive, I want to
46:14
leave you with a final lingering thought to mull over
46:17
We live in an age where our cars track or
46:20
every location, our phones log our exact movements down to
46:23
the minute, our text messages live forever, and our digital
46:26
communications are archived in the cloud.
46:28
Speaker 2: We leave a huge footprint.
46:29
Speaker 1: We are more surveiled now than at any point in
46:32
human history. Yet this entire case centers on a holific
46:36
crime that allegedly set undetected in the front trunk of
46:40
a parked car on a busy city street in Los
46:43
Angeles for.
46:44
Speaker 3: Months, right out in the open.
46:45
Speaker 1: If you walk away with anything today, consider this. Does
46:48
our modern, hyper connected, hyper surveilled world make the perfect
46:52
crime completely impossible to get away with? Or does the
46:56
sheer volume of data just force defense attorneys to become
46:59
absolent masters at highlighting the blank spaces hidden within it.
47:03
Thank you for joining us on this deep dive. Keep
47:05
questioning the narrative, look closely at the blank spaces, and
47:08
we will catch you next time.