Latest / Crime Stories with Nancy Grace / BOMBSHELL: STATE V. D4VD AKA DAVID ANTHONY BURKE

Transcript

BOMBSHELL: STATE V. D4VD AKA DAVID ANTHONY BURKE · Crime Stories with Nancy Grace

0:00
Speaker 1: Crime Stories with Nancy Grace breaking news bombshell State versus
0:11
Speaker 1: D four v D aka David Anthony Burke as it
0:15
Speaker 1: relates to the death of a little teen girl, Celeste Rivas,
0:20
Speaker 1: found in the trunk of D four VD David Anthony
0:23
Speaker 1: Burke's tesla. What's taking so long? But now we have
0:29
Speaker 1: seen a court document that says State versus David Anthony Burke.
0:36
Speaker 1: You know about that secret grand jury proceeding that was
0:39
Speaker 1: just an investigative tool looking into the death of Celestia Revas. No,
0:46
Speaker 1: David Anthony Burke is named as the official defendant. Good evening,
0:52
Speaker 1: I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. I want to
0:55
Speaker 1: thank you for being with us, joining us an all
0:57
Speaker 1: star panel to make sense of what we are learning
0:59
Speaker 1: right now. But I've got it in front of me.
1:02
Speaker 1: Dave Mac explain what we found.
1:04
Speaker 2: Well, when you look at this at the documentation from
1:08
Speaker 2: the State of California, Nancy, it it flat out says
1:13
Speaker 2: something that we've long thought was the case. But it
1:17
Speaker 2: actually the bombshell the people of the State of California
1:23
Speaker 2: versus David Anthony Burke. See, we thought, you know, it
1:28
Speaker 2: was just an investigation, because that's what they said an
1:31
Speaker 2: investigation into the death of Celestrevas Sernandez. However, this document
1:36
Speaker 2: proves beyond the shadow of a doubt legal paperwork that
1:40
Speaker 2: says the State of California versus David Anthony Burke.
1:45
Speaker 1: Now, what's interesting in this particular court document and what
1:48
Speaker 1: it is is an appeal to the Court of Appeals.
1:50
Speaker 1: They're in Texas. The reason it's in Texas is because
1:57
Speaker 1: his family, Burke's family is a Texas and they are
2:01
Speaker 1: appealing a subpoena to come to the grand jury. Now,
2:05
Speaker 1: the title of that document is in the Court of
2:08
Speaker 1: Appeals for the First District of Texas in Ray Dowod Burke. Okay,
2:13
Speaker 1: what does that mean in the matter of Dowd Burke.
2:17
Speaker 1: But in a footnote, in a footnote in this document
2:25
Speaker 1: you see the people of the State of California versus
2:30
Speaker 1: David Burke. Okay, I'm going to get back to everything
2:35
Speaker 1: else we are learning, but I'm going to go straight
2:37
Speaker 1: out to a veteran trial lawyer, Joanna Nievis is joining
2:41
Speaker 1: us from California criminal defense attorney and founder of the
2:44
Speaker 1: Nievis Law Firm. Joanna, thank you for being with us.
2:48
Speaker 1: So this is what's happening to my understanding, and you
2:52
Speaker 1: jump in. Joanna, the family of d four med David
2:57
Speaker 1: Anthony Burke pronounced as David, has been subpoenaed, the whole
3:01
Speaker 1: family to testify in a grand jury proceeding regarding the
3:05
Speaker 1: death of Celesta Rivas, the little girl found in Burke's trunk.
3:09
Speaker 1: Let's see that tesla. It was part in spot to
3:13
Speaker 1: spot to spot on Pass Street there in California until
3:18
Speaker 1: it was finally toad at the behest of one of
3:20
Speaker 1: the homeowners days sitting at the toe lot and it
3:25
Speaker 1: started a stench. Why because Celesto Rivas was decomposing in
3:32
Speaker 1: the trunk. We were told there is an investigative grand
3:36
Speaker 1: jury the US. I believe you will agree with me
3:39
Speaker 1: that grand juries have two tools, one a charging tool
3:42
Speaker 1: to indict people and one an investigation tool. For instance,
3:46
Speaker 1: in the John Binney Ramsey case. In the Ramsey case,
3:49
Speaker 1: the grand jury met and they met, and they met,
3:52
Speaker 1: and they met investigating John Benet's death. They ultimately did
3:58
Speaker 1: issue an indictment, but that case was prosecuted. So a
4:01
Speaker 1: grand jury can meet to investigate. They have subpoena power.
4:04
Speaker 1: They can bring in witnesses or they can charge. We
4:08
Speaker 1: were told this was an investigation into Celeste's death. Now
4:12
Speaker 1: we have an official court document filed by the parents
4:17
Speaker 1: contesting them having to come from Texas to California to
4:20
Speaker 1: textify in state the David Anthony Burke, So a case
4:26
Speaker 1: against him, a case investigating him does exist, explain what's happening, Joanna.
4:32
Speaker 3: Right, Nancy, So, I do believe that it does outline
4:35
Speaker 3: what the target of this investigation is. It's not just
4:38
Speaker 3: trying to uncover who it may be and get more information. Obviously,
4:43
Speaker 3: they're trying to focus their energies on identifying and criminating
4:47
Speaker 3: information against this particular person that's named in the footnote
4:52
Speaker 3: they're in the charging document. Assuming that that was cited properly,
4:56
Speaker 3: I would guess that they took that from the grand
4:59
Speaker 3: juries of pena that was perceived. The filing itself, I
5:03
Speaker 3: think is kind of more procedural. Right, they're in Texas,
5:05
Speaker 3: this is happening in California, and it's their attempt to say,
5:10
Speaker 3: you know what, I don't really feel like California can
5:12
Speaker 3: drag me over there based on this subpoena, and I
5:15
Speaker 3: want a court to say that, yes, absolutely, you have
5:18
Speaker 3: to you have the authority to make me come and testify.
5:23
Speaker 3: So I think it's kind of like one of those
5:24
Speaker 3: procedural things where you're contesting the validity of a confidential informant,
5:28
Speaker 3: or you're contesting the validity of a warrant or the
5:31
Speaker 3: validity of a search. They're really just saying, hey, just
5:34
Speaker 3: make sure that you really do have the arms reached
5:37
Speaker 3: to make me come from Texas to California.
5:39
Speaker 1: Here specifically what they are arguing it is de Woodburg,
5:45
Speaker 1: the father Dave four Fidi's mother Colleen, and his brother Caleb,
5:49
Speaker 1: all summoned to testify at a California grand jury. Now
5:54
Speaker 1: they are contesting that, claiming they're right have been violated.
6:01
Speaker 1: Why do they claim their rights were violated? They claim
6:07
Speaker 1: that they were given redacted versions of affidavits that were
6:12
Speaker 1: used in the court order summoning them to be witnesses. Okay, really, Celeste,
6:21
Speaker 1: a little girl, a teen girl decomposing, and their sons Tesla,
6:27
Speaker 1: and they're claiming their rights were violated silent tear because
6:34
Speaker 1: the affidavits supporting that warrant, that subpoena for them had
6:39
Speaker 1: a name redacted. That's the leg they're standing on.
6:45
Speaker 3: Good luck, I think we see this pretty often though, like, hey, you,
6:50
Speaker 3: there are rules that you have to follow, there is
6:52
Speaker 3: information that we need, give me proper notice. That's the
6:55
Speaker 3: basis of so many arguments when I even when I
6:57
Speaker 3: just mentioned like a confidential informant, I'm that kind of
7:00
Speaker 3: objection to the information is based on not being able
7:04
Speaker 3: to see what was in the affidavit that was drafted
7:06
Speaker 3: by the police officer, or even when contesting a search worm.
7:11
Speaker 3: We see this pretty often, so I don't think that
7:14
Speaker 3: they are making absurd arguments. I do think they're just
7:18
Speaker 3: trying to protect their interests and of course the interests
7:21
Speaker 3: of their son at this point, because he's still innocent
7:23
Speaker 3: until proven guilty.
7:25
Speaker 1: I was waiting for you to say that. But this
7:28
Speaker 1: is not an adjudication of guilt or innocence. This is
7:31
Speaker 1: telling a witness you must come to the grand jury.
7:33
Speaker 1: And yes, notice must be proper. In other words, they
7:37
Speaker 1: have to be served with subpoena properly. There has to
7:40
Speaker 1: be a date, a location, the name of the matter
7:44
Speaker 1: to which they will testify. But the fact that names
7:48
Speaker 1: have been redacted in the affidavit. They don't even have
7:53
Speaker 1: to see an affidavit, all right, but they do have
7:58
Speaker 1: an affidavit to support the subpoena. The fact that they
8:03
Speaker 1: got noticed correctly, there is the name of the matter
8:06
Speaker 1: to which they will end up testifying to. That's what
8:12
Speaker 1: they need. It was registered, it was certified. Bam. They
8:17
Speaker 1: don't need to know the state's case, and they don't
8:20
Speaker 1: need to know sensitive information such as names that are
8:24
Speaker 1: in the affidavit that is not required under the law. Yes,
8:28
Speaker 1: you're right, they have to have noticed. Yes, you're right.
8:30
Speaker 1: They have to know what the matter is on which
8:33
Speaker 1: they will testify. But that's it. So they don't have
8:39
Speaker 1: a leg to stand on. But I'm very curious. Let's
8:43
Speaker 1: talk about privilege such as attorney client privilege. I'm sure
8:48
Speaker 1: that your clients speak very openly with you. They may
8:51
Speaker 1: even confess they may prejudice themselves in front of you,
8:55
Speaker 1: because you're their trusted lawyer, and your duty is or
8:59
Speaker 1: you will be disbarred if you violate the attorney client privilege.
9:03
Speaker 1: Right the rest of your life, you may not speak
9:06
Speaker 1: of it. That's the duty of a lawyer. I have
9:09
Speaker 1: the same duty. So you've got the attorney client privilege,
9:14
Speaker 1: You've got priests, parishioner privilege such as what you tell
9:17
Speaker 1: to your preacher, your priest, your religious counselor your rabbi.
9:24
Speaker 1: That cannot be forced in court. The rabbi, the priest
9:30
Speaker 1: cannot be forced to divulge what the defendant said. You've
9:33
Speaker 1: got husband wife privilege. There are several privileges, but he's
9:38
Speaker 1: my daddy. Ain't one of them. Neevice, no, for sure.
9:42
Speaker 3: But you know, I do think there's a word that
9:45
Speaker 3: David's dad does have some type of affiliation with the church,
9:50
Speaker 3: and I do wonder whether or not he may take
9:53
Speaker 3: some stand that his son to just say him from
9:59
Speaker 3: that perspective, I.
10:01
Speaker 1: Thought you were going to hit me with the fact
10:02
Speaker 1: that his father's a lawyer, so he could try to
10:05
Speaker 1: use turning client privilege.
10:07
Speaker 3: His dad is a lawyer.
10:08
Speaker 1: But you're going he has an affiliation with the church.
10:11
Speaker 1: What affiliation would that be? He drives by it on
10:14
Speaker 1: Sunday mornings, you know.
10:16
Speaker 3: And here all of this is all reported, right, it's
10:18
Speaker 3: reported that he's some type of reverend with the church.
10:22
Speaker 1: Okay, you know what, There's a reason you win so
10:27
Speaker 1: many cases. See, she's smart, she's articulate, and she says
10:33
Speaker 1: things like that, and you almost believe it. He has
10:37
Speaker 1: some affiliation with a church. You just said that. Okay,
10:43
Speaker 1: So you're going from the angle that it is a
10:46
Speaker 1: pre parishioner privilege. Is that correct?
10:50
Speaker 3: It's an angle. I don't know that they're really actually
10:53
Speaker 3: going to to go with it, but maybe some of
10:56
Speaker 3: the conversations that have happened, if there really is this
10:59
Speaker 3: sort of affiliate, could fall under those protections. No, he
11:03
Speaker 3: doesn't have a father son privilege, and maybe he has
11:06
Speaker 3: consulted his father in an attorney client way, but we
11:10
Speaker 3: do know.
11:10
Speaker 1: That he is. I shouldn't have given you that idea.
11:13
Speaker 1: I gave her a bound. She's running with it. Okay, Well,
11:18
Speaker 1: you know what, You're not half wrong, Joanna, as much
11:21
Speaker 1: grief as I'm giving you. Remember when Rosie Greer, the
11:25
Speaker 1: football player, went and counseled O. J. Simpson behind bars,
11:29
Speaker 1: and according to the sheriff, Sipson confessed that was kept
11:33
Speaker 1: away from the jury under the same theory you're using
11:37
Speaker 1: right now. Greer was some kind of a counselor or pastor,
11:42
Speaker 1: some affiliation with the church, and it worked. The jury
11:45
Speaker 1: never heard that OJ Sipson confession. So you know what,
11:50
Speaker 1: maybe he hasn't led to stand on with the dad.
11:52
Speaker 1: But what about the mom, Colleen and the brother. Okay,
11:55
Speaker 1: I can't wait to hear this. Did they drive by
11:57
Speaker 1: the church on Sunday morning too? Well?
11:59
Speaker 3: You know, here's thing with that. We really don't know
12:02
Speaker 3: how much they know. They're living in another state. David
12:05
Speaker 3: is living in California. I mean, what do they know
12:08
Speaker 3: that he's hanging out with Celeste? Do they really have
12:11
Speaker 3: any details about whether or not there was a relationship.
12:14
Speaker 3: I'm still waiting to hear proof or some sort of
12:18
Speaker 3: evidence that he was in a relationship that was inappropriate
12:22
Speaker 3: besides contributing to the delinquency of a minor and you know,
12:25
Speaker 3: maybe doing drugs and drinking alcohol, which we can kind
12:27
Speaker 3: of gather from these photos. So there may have been
12:30
Speaker 3: an inappropriate relation to the extent that he was doing
12:33
Speaker 3: things that he should not have been doing, like engaging
12:37
Speaker 3: in abuses of substances, giving her alcohol in But whether
12:42
Speaker 3: or not there was a sexual relationship, we don't know that.
12:46
Speaker 3: I've heard no reportings besides suspicions that there's any proof regarding.
12:52
Speaker 1: That crime stories with anti Great Steve Fisher joining me
13:06
Speaker 1: right now, the Man of the Hour. He is a
13:09
Speaker 1: missing person's private investigator, search and rescue specialist, and he
13:14
Speaker 1: was hired by the owner of the mansion where D
13:16
Speaker 1: four VD was living to basically find out what the
13:20
Speaker 1: hay happened. Could you refresh Joanna Nievis's recollection regarding the
13:27
Speaker 1: relationship that you have cobbled together through photos. I know
13:34
Speaker 1: you were not in the room when any alleged sex
13:37
Speaker 1: activity occurred, which would be statutory rape because she's a child,
13:41
Speaker 1: But you've seen a lot of photos. You even recovered
13:45
Speaker 1: a photo stick that the lapd left behind in their wisdom.
13:50
Speaker 1: Tell me what relationship based on the photos that you
13:54
Speaker 1: have seen and what you have learned, what was the
13:57
Speaker 1: relationship between D four VD and this little girl, Celeste Rivas.
14:06
Speaker 4: Well, I'm certain that one thing that's become very apparent
14:09
Speaker 4: is he was aware when cameras around and and he
14:13
Speaker 4: made her aware of not to be in front of
14:16
Speaker 4: the camera. It's very very apparent because you know, she's
14:22
Speaker 4: captured in so few, you know, photos, although we know
14:25
Speaker 4: we have other evidence the link are there, and but
14:28
Speaker 4: is there direct evidence? I mean, I think it's this
14:31
Speaker 4: is one thing that's worried me about this case is
14:33
Speaker 4: that because it's the very highest level the of the
14:38
Speaker 4: the DA's office. These are the d's that prosecute you know,
14:44
Speaker 4: homicides and stuff. Will they if they can't meet that threshold,
14:48
Speaker 4: will they go after the sex crimes?
14:49
Speaker 1: I don't know.
14:50
Speaker 4: I don't know if they will, and that that worries
14:53
Speaker 4: me when he I can.
14:55
Speaker 1: Tell you right now they won't. Yeah, I can tell
14:58
Speaker 1: you right now well that sex assault will likely not
15:03
Speaker 1: be part of the claims against deforvid aka David Anthony Burke.
15:07
Speaker 1: And this is why Celeste is dead. Anthony will David
15:12
Speaker 1: Anthony Burke will likely never take the stand and without
15:16
Speaker 1: any DNA from her body or her eyewitness testimony as
15:21
Speaker 1: a victim, it won't be a You can't prove it.
15:25
Speaker 1: If there is a witness that walked in on them
15:29
Speaker 1: in any sex act, maybe they've got a leg to
15:34
Speaker 1: stand on, okay, And there were so many people in
15:38
Speaker 1: and out of that house, as you know, that may
15:39
Speaker 1: very well have happened if anyone ever saw him kiss
15:43
Speaker 1: her on the mouth. If there are any texts that
15:48
Speaker 1: surface romantic or sexual text between them, we may be
15:53
Speaker 1: able to get a charge on in decent expres elude A.
16:02
Speaker 1: But the state doesn't want to include account that is
16:07
Speaker 1: weak because it will then dilute a murder charge or
16:12
Speaker 1: a homicide charge if it's not murder one. I would
16:15
Speaker 1: not put that in my indictment. If I were indicting
16:18
Speaker 1: this case, I might believe it, I might know it
16:21
Speaker 1: to be true. But unless I have a witness, gethan
16:24
Speaker 1: tell they can tell me they observe D four VD
16:27
Speaker 1: having full on sex with celestial revice, I would not
16:30
Speaker 1: put that in the indictment. If I've got someone or
16:34
Speaker 1: text proving something else, kissing, fondling, sexual text, anything like that,
16:42
Speaker 1: I would go with delinquency to a minor or child
16:48
Speaker 1: molestation or leute acts. I wouldn't do anything that would
16:52
Speaker 1: dilute the most important charge, and that would be homicide.
16:56
Speaker 1: In fact, I believe I would have one count of
17:00
Speaker 1: homicide if I were prosecuting this case. Maybe account of
17:05
Speaker 1: mutilation to a corpse, which means hiding the corps, bearing
17:08
Speaker 1: the corpse, tampering with the corpse, because those are going
17:12
Speaker 1: to be provable according to reports. Now, Steve Fisher, we've
17:18
Speaker 1: got this document proving in a footnote you have to
17:21
Speaker 1: read it very carefully that there is a grand jury
17:24
Speaker 1: investigation state the David Anthony Burke. What you're seeing right
17:30
Speaker 1: there is from the family contesting their subpoenas. We can
17:35
Speaker 1: only imagine what he may have told them, what they
17:39
Speaker 1: know about this case, But they're going to have to testify.
17:43
Speaker 1: Just because you move to a different state or you
17:45
Speaker 1: are in a different state does not mean you don't
17:47
Speaker 1: have to testify in front of grand jury. Now, Steve Fisher,
17:52
Speaker 1: bring me up to date with your latest findings.
17:55
Speaker 4: We had the news of the car being say from
18:00
Speaker 4: going to auction at the very last minute. We were
18:03
Speaker 4: hoping to take a look at that and that didn't happen.
18:05
Speaker 4: These photos are showing now. We we released these photos,
18:09
Speaker 4: uh to kind of show there's a couple of reasons
18:11
Speaker 4: for this. I wanted to show some of the people
18:14
Speaker 4: that were around a lot and they appear in this photo.
18:18
Speaker 4: We believe Celeste is also just off frame here. And
18:24
Speaker 4: and also you know we talked about the phone right
18:29
Speaker 4: there that's shows that it's on connected to the Wi
18:33
Speaker 4: Fi system of the house. And we did this because
18:36
Speaker 4: we wanted to let everybody we've heard I've heard recently
18:40
Speaker 4: that there's a few people that still are not co
18:42
Speaker 4: operating and or aren't being fully truthful, and I think
18:46
Speaker 4: it's important that people realize that there are things like
18:48
Speaker 4: the Wi Fi router at the house that it's gonna
18:51
Speaker 4: log exactly when they were connected to that that router,
18:55
Speaker 4: and you know what days and what times and and
18:58
Speaker 4: things like that. So we just thought it might be
19:01
Speaker 4: important for those people to think about and maybe it's
19:05
Speaker 4: time to be fully truthful about you know, who was,
19:07
Speaker 4: who was there, and who was I'm.
19:09
Speaker 1: Sorry, hold on, you cut out on it. You're saying
19:11
Speaker 1: that the LAPD can mine the Wi Fi connections in
19:16
Speaker 1: the home from the time they believe Celeste began living
19:18
Speaker 1: there until her death, and they can determine who was
19:22
Speaker 1: in the home and get those cell numbers, connect those
19:25
Speaker 1: cell numbers to owners, and then get witnesses. Is that
19:29
Speaker 1: what you just said if if.
19:31
Speaker 4: They did the forensics on the router. Look, you know,
19:34
Speaker 4: we don't have that type of relationship with the LAPD
19:37
Speaker 4: where they're telling us exactly what they've done. These are
19:40
Speaker 4: things that we're throwing out there hoping that they are
19:43
Speaker 4: being done because we think they're very important, especially if there's.
19:47
Speaker 1: A lot See Fisher, You're absolutely right, but I want
19:51
Speaker 1: to talk to you about a neo aka Neo the
19:55
Speaker 1: Asian aka hiding under mommy's bed and another jurisdiction refusing
20:00
Speaker 1: to the grand jury. Guess what, he was arrested and
20:03
Speaker 1: brought to the grand jury. So if d Forbidy's family
20:06
Speaker 1: doesn't want the same treatment, they better hop on over
20:11
Speaker 1: to that California grand jury and start talking. Tell me
20:16
Speaker 1: what you know about Neo the Asian. His words, not mine,
20:22
Speaker 1: brought into the grand jury? Did he go to grand jury?
20:26
Speaker 1: Steve Fisher showed up at that building.
20:30
Speaker 4: They showed the prosecutor arriving at that building. He was
20:32
Speaker 4: only in there. They say thirty to forty minutes. The
20:35
Speaker 4: only thing that I confer from that, and I don't
20:37
Speaker 4: have any inside information on this, but I have to
20:40
Speaker 4: believe that he bleeded the fifth because there's not I
20:44
Speaker 4: can't believe there's a thirty or forty minute by the
20:46
Speaker 4: time you would arrive, get sworn in and all that.
20:50
Speaker 4: You know, He's got a lot more information than thirty
20:53
Speaker 4: or forty eight minutes worth, I would hope. So I
20:54
Speaker 4: think he pleaded the fifth, which is obviously is right
20:59
Speaker 4: to do so. But as a non lawyer, I can
21:03
Speaker 4: look at that and say, well, that said something to me,
21:07
Speaker 4: you know.
21:07
Speaker 1: And well, you're right, Steve Fisher, that timing cannot be denied.
21:13
Speaker 1: D four vd's friend D four vd's seemingly best friend,
21:18
Speaker 1: Neo Langston, did appear from of an LA grand jury
21:22
Speaker 1: and the investigation into the death of Celeste Rivas. He
21:26
Speaker 1: was arrested for failure to appear. He was dragged back.
21:29
Speaker 1: He did go into the grand jury. The twenty three
21:32
Speaker 1: year old was at the courthouse this past Wednesday, a
21:36
Speaker 1: grand jury, as you know, convened since November investigating this.
21:41
Speaker 1: But he didn't stay long, about forty minutes and then
21:45
Speaker 1: left the courthouse, refusing to answer questions as he left. Now,
21:49
Speaker 1: we tried to get a comment from the Deputy District
21:53
Speaker 1: Attorney Silverman, who was presenting case to the grand jury.
21:56
Speaker 1: No good, wouldn't taught agree. Don't blame her, but I
22:01
Speaker 1: do believe that Steve Fisher is correct. Straight back out
22:06
Speaker 1: to our friend Joanna and neevis veteran trial lawyer in
22:10
Speaker 1: this jurisdiction. You know what, fine, if you don't want
22:15
Speaker 1: to testify, you can be put on as a co
22:20
Speaker 1: defendant on that indictment, real simple, or you can be
22:24
Speaker 1: an unnamed co conspirator or I'm very surprised the state
22:28
Speaker 1: didn't do this, Joanna. Give him immunity and make him testify,
22:35
Speaker 1: because the reason you take the Fifth Amendment right to
22:37
Speaker 1: rein silent is because it could hurt you at your
22:40
Speaker 1: upcoming trial. But if the state says, okay, you have immunity,
22:45
Speaker 1: like you know you're immune from the flu or you
22:47
Speaker 1: get the COVID VATSA, you're immune, you think same thing.
22:51
Speaker 1: You are not going to try you. And if we're
22:53
Speaker 1: not going to try you, then you don't get to
22:56
Speaker 1: take the fifth I'm very surprised. What do you think, Joanna?
23:00
Speaker 3: I agree with you, Nancy. I mean, as a lawyer,
23:03
Speaker 3: I would have been talking to my client beforehand, talking
23:06
Speaker 3: to the district attorney and negotiating some type of immunity
23:10
Speaker 3: deals so to protect this interest. And so that also
23:14
Speaker 3: leaves that opening of like, okay, if he really went
23:17
Speaker 3: in there and led the fifth or why didn't that
23:21
Speaker 3: occur ahead of time? But maybe they just had some
23:24
Speaker 3: very straightforward cross examination questions, except some very or i'm sorry,
23:29
Speaker 3: investigative questions where they're getting their yes and no answers.
23:33
Speaker 3: And this is all I wanted from that witness and
23:37
Speaker 3: leaving the door open to pursue something later on if
23:40
Speaker 3: they need to. I just I do find it confounding
23:45
Speaker 3: that they would not have negotiated something prior to him
23:48
Speaker 3: going in there.
23:50
Speaker 1: How about this, Joeanna. Maybe they put him up and
23:54
Speaker 1: try to get him to testify without an immunity deal
23:57
Speaker 1: in place, and then when he would and then they
24:00
Speaker 1: had to go meet converse decide whether or not to
24:05
Speaker 1: Granham immunity or to charge him, because put Steve Fisher up. Please,
24:11
Speaker 1: Steve Fisher, you went before LAPD did You thought of
24:16
Speaker 1: it before they did, and you executed it before they did.
24:19
Speaker 1: You went to all the neighbors and you got their
24:21
Speaker 1: ring cam, their doorbell cam. And we see how important
24:24
Speaker 1: that is in the Nancy Guthrie disappearance, right, how valuable
24:28
Speaker 1: that is. And you got video of someone moving Defour
24:34
Speaker 1: VID's tesla around, we believe with Celeste body in the trunk.
24:40
Speaker 1: And you're telling me tonight that it was or was
24:45
Speaker 1: not Neo Langston.
24:49
Speaker 4: Oh, I'm not saying either of those. You know I
24:54
Speaker 4: can't do that. Here's here's the the you know the
24:58
Speaker 4: problem with the surveillance in that neighborhood. The car was there.
25:03
Speaker 4: I mean, this shoe was in that trunk for months,
25:05
Speaker 4: and that overwrites. And so although there's a lot of
25:09
Speaker 4: cameras in that neighborhood and there's a lot of surveillance
25:13
Speaker 4: to get some of it, doesn't go back far enough
25:16
Speaker 4: and from other ends.
25:17
Speaker 1: Steve Fisher again, Steve, I had no idea you could
25:23
Speaker 1: do the backstroke. So well, isn't it true that you
25:27
Speaker 1: told me, you told me you saw the face at
25:31
Speaker 1: least once of a person moving the tesla? Yes, okay,
25:39
Speaker 1: that's all. No further questions, but you're not telling me
25:43
Speaker 1: and I understand that, but I'm going to keep asking.
25:47
Speaker 1: Dave Mack, have we missed anything? Nea Langston appears at
25:50
Speaker 1: the grand jury, apparently takes the fifth I believe Steve
25:53
Speaker 1: Fisher and Joeanna and theevis are exactly correct. He may
25:57
Speaker 1: be named as an Underdidy codes Bert conspirator. He may
26:01
Speaker 1: be not named and given immunity in exchange for his testimony.
26:06
Speaker 1: The family refusing the family of d for we d
26:09
Speaker 1: David Anthony Burke refusing to honor a subpoena. I've got
26:12
Speaker 1: advice for them as a lawyer, not that you need it.
26:15
Speaker 1: Because mister Burke is a lawyer. Either HI tell it
26:20
Speaker 1: over to grand jury in your own car, or you
26:24
Speaker 1: can ride in the back of a sheriff's deputy. Those
26:28
Speaker 1: are the choices. Have we missed anything, No, you.
26:31
Speaker 2: Got everything, Nancy. The one thing that we talked about
26:34
Speaker 2: yesterday was about what we actually saw at the very
26:38
Speaker 2: last lines of the documentation yesterday, and that is the
26:42
Speaker 2: people of the state of California versus David Anthony Burke.
26:47
Speaker 2: That's our bottom line. We actually know that it's not
26:51
Speaker 2: just an investigation into the death of Celeste, it actually
26:54
Speaker 2: is an investigation of David Anthony Burke.
26:57
Speaker 1: If you know or think you know anything about the
27:00
Speaker 1: death of this little girl, Celeste Rivas Hernandez, please dial
27:05
Speaker 1: two one three four eight six six' eight nine. Zero
27:10
Speaker 1: thank you to our guests for being with, us but
27:12
Speaker 1: especially to you for joining us in our search for
27:15
Speaker 1: justice For. Celeste Nancy gray signing, Off i'll see you tomorrow,
27:19
Speaker 1: night and until, then good, night. Friend