Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / Influencer Gets Sweetheart Deal After Killing Mom and Two Kids

Transcript

Influencer Gets Sweetheart Deal After Killing Mom and Two Kids · Murder Files Unsealed

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: You know, when we use the word weapon, I think
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: most of our minds immediately go to a very specific
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: set of images.
• 0:06
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 0:07
  Speaker 1: Like for you listening right now, what pops into your head?
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: You probably picture something made of cold steel, right?
• 0:13
  Speaker 2: Yeah, exactly.
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: You picture something manufactured with this explicit, singular purpose of
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: causing harm, like a firearm, a hunting knife, something you
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: have to actively choose to wield against another person. Right.
• 0:27
  Speaker 2: Because the definition of a weapon is usually wrapped up
• 0:29
  Speaker 2: in intent. Yeah. We categorize objects by their intended use.
• 0:33
  Speaker 2: I mean, a kitchen knife is for cooking, right? Until
• 0:37
  Speaker 2: it isn't.
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: Exactly.
• 0:38
  Speaker 2: But even then, there is this physical, conscious shift in
• 0:43
  Speaker 2: how you hold it, how you use it. You have
• 0:45
  Speaker 2: to change the nature of the object in that moment
• 0:48
  Speaker 2: to turn it into a tool for violence. Right.
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: But then you look at modern life and you realize
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: we are entirely surrounded by objects that just, they don't
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: fit neatly into that category. Objects that we interact with
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: every single day, things that are so normalized, so completely mundane,
• 1:04
  Speaker 1: that we just forget the sheer physics of what they
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: actually are.
• 1:07
  Speaker 2: We really do.
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: And today, our mission for this deep dive is to
• 1:11
  Speaker 1: look at one of those objects. We are going to
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: look at what happens when the mundane becomes deadly. And
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: not through some sudden, unpredictable malfunction, but through a really
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: calculated chronic culture of absolute entitlement.
• 1:25
  Speaker 2: We are looking at the anatomy of a tragedy today.
• 1:28
  Speaker 2: But more importantly, we're looking at the architecture of the
• 1:32
  Speaker 2: legal system that is, you know, supposed to respond to it.
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 1:37
  Speaker 2: Because this isn't just about what happened on the street.
• 1:40
  Speaker 2: It's about what happens in the courtroom, in the jailhouse,
• 1:43
  Speaker 2: and in the bureaucratic blind spots that just exist everywhere.
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: Yeah, those blind spots are huge.
• 1:50
  Speaker 2: They are. And we're drawing heavily today on some really
• 1:53
  Speaker 2: brilliant foundational analysis from the Law and Crime Network show Sidebar.
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: Such a good show.
• 1:58
  Speaker 2: It is. The host there, Jesse Weber, alongside trial attorney
• 2:01
  Speaker 2: Aaliyah Roberts, they really broke down the mechanics of a
• 2:04
  Speaker 2: case that has just sparked absolute outrage.
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: And rightly so. I mean, we are talking about a
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: vehicular manslaughter case in Brooklyn. It involves a social media influencer,
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: a totally devastated family, and... a plea deal that has
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: left the public completely stunned.
• 2:21
  Speaker 2: And as we dig into this, the guiding question I
• 2:24
  Speaker 2: want you listening to keep in the back of your
• 2:26
  Speaker 2: mind is this.
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 2:28
  Speaker 2: When does chronic recklessness cross the line into becoming a
• 2:32
  Speaker 2: criminal weapon?
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: That is the big question.
• 2:35
  Speaker 2: And perhaps even more troublingly, is our modern justice system
• 2:38
  Speaker 2: actually equipped to penalize the modern influencer ego?
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: Wow. Yeah.
• 2:44
  Speaker 2: Because as we'll see, the legal framework we rely on
• 2:46
  Speaker 2: was built for a very, very different era of human behavior.
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: Okay, let's unpack this. We have to start on the
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: ground level here. We need to understand the absolute physical
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: reality of what happened. Because everything that follows in the courtroom,
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: you know, all the legal maneuvering, it all stems from
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: the sheer mechanics of this crash.
• 3:04
  Speaker 2: It does.
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: So it's March. We are on Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn.
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: And for anyone unfamiliar, this is a major, busy thoroughfare,
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: but it is heavily residential.
• 3:15
  Speaker 2: Lots of apartments. Yeah. Exactly. It's lined with apartments, homes, crosswalks.
• 3:20
  Speaker 2: It's a place where pedestrian life and heavy traffic are
• 3:23
  Speaker 2: just constantly intersecting.
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: And I was trying to picture the scene that the
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: sources described, and it's just, it is so profoundly heartbreaking
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: because it is so perfectly ordinary. It's a Saturday. The
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: Sada family is walking home from synagogue. They are observing Shabbat.
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: This is a family unit doing exactly what families do
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: on a weekend. You have a mother, Natasha Sada and
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: her three young children.
• 3:46
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: They are at an intersection. And what really strikes me here,
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: and this is something we absolutely have to emphasize, is
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: that they did everything right.
• 3:54
  Speaker 2: Everything perfectly right. And that is a crucial detail for
• 3:57
  Speaker 2: the legal analysis later.
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: How so?
• 4:00
  Speaker 2: Well, in a lot of civil and criminal traffic cases,
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: defense attorneys look for shared liability.
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: Like, were they jaywalking?
• 4:07
  Speaker 2: Exactly. Did the pedestrian dart out? Were they not paying attention?
• 4:11
  Speaker 2: But here, There is zero shared liability. None. They were
• 4:15
  Speaker 2: in the crosswalk. They had the walk sign. They were
• 4:18
  Speaker 2: holding hands. They were exactly where they were supposed to be,
• 4:21
  Speaker 2: behaving exactly as the law dictates pedestrians should behave.
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: They are literally holding hands in the crosswalk. And then
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: we have the other reality converging on this exact intersection. Yeah.
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: We have a 33-year-old woman named Miriam Urimi. And I
• 4:36
  Speaker 1: understand she's driving this luxury vehicle, an Audi, and she
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: has like a fairly prominent online persona.
• 4:43
  Speaker 2: She does. She is a self-proclaimed wig influencer on social
• 4:47
  Speaker 2: media platforms, you know, TikTok, Instagram. Her Audi even sported
• 4:51
  Speaker 2: a custom license plate that literally read wig maker. Wow.
• 4:55
  Speaker 2: So she cultivates this very specific image of wealth and status.
• 4:59
  Speaker 2: And the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office retrieved the black box data,
• 5:03
  Speaker 2: the event data recorder from that Audi after the incident.
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: And this is where the details just get terrifying.
• 5:08
  Speaker 2: This is where the narrative shifts from a tragic accident
• 5:12
  Speaker 2: into something entirely different.
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 5:15
  Speaker 2: According to the telemetry data presented by the prosecution, Urimi
• 5:18
  Speaker 2: was traveling 68 miles per hour.
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry, 68? In a residential Brooklyn neighborhood.
• 5:25
  Speaker 2: Yes.
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: What is the speed limit there?
• 5:27
  Speaker 2: It's 25 miles per hour.
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: So she is doing nearly triple the speed limit.
• 5:30
  Speaker 2: 68 in a 25. But, you know... The overarching speed
• 5:35
  Speaker 2: isn't even the most chilling part of the data.
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: It gets worse.
• 5:39
  Speaker 2: Oh, yeah. The telemetry data showed that the accelerator was
• 5:42
  Speaker 2: pressed all the way to the floor.
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: Oh, my God.
• 5:45
  Speaker 2: There was zero indication that the brakes were ever applied.
• 5:48
  Speaker 2: She just blew through a solid red light.
• 5:52
  Speaker 1: I just have to imagine, like, to be doing that
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: kind of speed in that kind of dense urban environment,
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: you'd have to be completely disconnected from reality.
• 5:59
  Speaker 2: Well, the DA's office provided the missing puzzle piece for
• 6:02
  Speaker 2: that disconnect.
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 6:03
  Speaker 2: They stated she was actively using her cell phone. Specifically,
• 6:07
  Speaker 2: she was taking a selfie.
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: A selfie?
• 6:09
  Speaker 2: Yes.
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: While doing almost 70 in a 25 zone.
• 6:13
  Speaker 2: Let's just break down the physics of that moment, right?
• 6:15
  Speaker 2: Because it explains the absolute inevitability of what happened next.
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: Please do.
• 6:20
  Speaker 2: A vehicle of that weight, traveling at 68 miles per hour,
• 6:24
  Speaker 2: is covering roughly 100 feet every single second.
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: 100 feet a second?
• 6:29
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: That is so fast.
• 6:31
  Speaker 2: Now think about the physical mechanics of taking a selfie.
• 6:34
  Speaker 2: You have to look at the screen, you have to
• 6:36
  Speaker 2: frame your face, angle your arm, and snap the photo.
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: Right, it takes a moment.
• 6:41
  Speaker 2: Even if that takes just three seconds, you have traversed
• 6:44
  Speaker 2: the length of a football field completely blind to the
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: world around you.
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: And at that point, I mean, an impact is just
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: a mathematical certainty.
• 6:51
  Speaker 2: Exactly. So if the Audi collides with a rideshare vehicle,
• 6:55
  Speaker 2: an Uber or Lyft, that was attempting to make a
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: legal turn in the intersection. Okay. The occupants in that
• 7:02
  Speaker 2: rideshare suffer minor injuries. But the sheer kinetic energy of
• 7:06
  Speaker 2: the Audi at that speed means a side impact collision
• 7:09
  Speaker 2: just doesn't stop it. Right.
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: It's going too fast.
• 7:12
  Speaker 2: It causes the Audi to roll. It rolls multiple times
• 7:16
  Speaker 2: upside down, and it rolls directly into that crosswalk.
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: Oh, no.
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: Directly into the Sada family.
• 7:23
  Speaker 1: It is just devastating. Three lives just wiped out in
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: an instant.
• 7:29
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: Natasha Sada, the mother, and her two daughters, who were
• 7:32
  Speaker 1: just five and eight years old, were killed.
• 7:35
  Speaker 2: That's horrible.
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: And Natasha's son, who was only four years old, he
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: miraculously survived the initial impact, but the toll on his
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: tiny body was just unimaginable. I was reading through the
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: scope of his injuries in the source material. Skull fractures,
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: a brain bleed, His injuries were so severe, he actually
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: had to have a kidney removed. A four-year-old boy.
• 7:56
  Speaker 2: It is a level of physical and emotional trauma that
• 7:59
  Speaker 2: permanently alters the trajectory of a family and really an
• 8:03
  Speaker 2: entire community.
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: Absolutely.
• 8:05
  Speaker 2: And it is entirely, 100% preventable.
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: It is so hard to even wrap my head around this.
• 8:12
  Speaker 1: When I think of a car, I know it's dangerous,
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: but this feels different.
• 8:16
  Speaker 2: How so?
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: It's like her Audi wasn't a car anymore. It was
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: an unguided missile launched into a residential neighborhood.
• 8:23
  Speaker 2: That's a very accurate way to look at it.
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: And I really want to push back on the terminology
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: we always use for these situations because it drives me crazy.
• 8:32
  Speaker 2: The word accident? Yes.
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: The news calls these accidents. We call it a car crash.
• 8:38
  Speaker 1: But how does the law actually differentiate between a tragic
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: accident like, say, a tire blowing out or hitting black ice?
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: And what happens when someone consciously chooses to floor the
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: gas pedal to 68 miles per hour in a 25
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: zone while taking a selfie?
• 8:52
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: Honestly, shouldn't this be considered premeditated?
• 8:56
  Speaker 2: That is a phenomenal question. And it's exactly the debate
• 8:59
  Speaker 2: that happens in the legal community constantly.
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: Really?
• 9:02
  Speaker 2: Yes. Attorney Leah Roberts brought this exact point up in
• 9:05
  Speaker 2: her analysis on Sidebar. The word accident implies a lack
• 9:09
  Speaker 2: of agency.
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: Exactly.
• 9:11
  Speaker 2: It implies an unforeseen, unavoidable event. Like you said, a
• 9:15
  Speaker 2: blown tire is an accident. What happened on Ocean Parkway
• 9:18
  Speaker 2: was highly foreseeable. Right.
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: If you drive totally blind at highway speeds in a
• 9:24
  Speaker 1: dense neighborhood, you know you are going to hit something
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: or someone.
• 9:28
  Speaker 2: Yes, but premeditation, in a strict legal sense, requires a
• 9:32
  Speaker 2: very specific mens rea, a specific state of mind.
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: Okay, lay that out for me.
• 9:38
  Speaker 2: Premeditation usually requires a specific intent to kill a specific
• 9:41
  Speaker 2: person or persons. You have to wake up and say,
• 9:45
  Speaker 2: I'm going to murder this individual today, and here is
• 9:48
  Speaker 2: my plan. Oh, OK. That is premeditated murder. What Aaliyah
• 9:52
  Speaker 2: Roberts points out is that this behavior falls into a
• 9:55
  Speaker 2: different legal category in New York.
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: Which is?
• 9:58
  Speaker 2: Depraved, reckless intimidation. to human life.
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: Depraved, reckless indifference. Man, that phrasing carries so much weight.
• 10:06
  Speaker 2: It really does.
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: How is that functionally different from just being, you know, negligent?
• 10:11
  Speaker 2: It's all about the degree of the risk and your
• 10:13
  Speaker 2: awareness of it. Okay. Negligence is when you fail to
• 10:17
  Speaker 2: perceive a risk that a reasonable person would see. Let's
• 10:20
  Speaker 2: say you're changing the radio station for a split second
• 10:22
  Speaker 2: and you bump the car in front of you.
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: Right. A fender bender. That's negligence.
• 10:26
  Speaker 2: Exactly. But depraved indifference means you are fully aware of
• 10:29
  Speaker 2: the severe risk and you proceed anyway with a totally
• 10:33
  Speaker 2: callous disregard for the outcome. Wow. It means that while
• 10:37
  Speaker 2: you may not have intended to kill the side of
• 10:39
  Speaker 2: family specifically, your actions demonstrated such a total and complete
• 10:44
  Speaker 2: disregard for the value of human life that the law
• 10:47
  Speaker 2: treats your mindset with a severity of very similar to murder.
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: That makes total sense.
• 10:52
  Speaker 2: You are operating a deadly machine in a manner that
• 10:55
  Speaker 2: virtually guarantees catastrophic harm, and you simply do not care.
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: It's the difference between aiming a gun at someone specific
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: and just firing a gun randomly into a crowded room.
• 11:06
  Speaker 2: Yes.
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: You might not care who you hit, but you know
• 11:09
  Speaker 1: someone is going down.
• 11:11
  Speaker 2: That is the perfect analogy. The law recognizes that firing
• 11:15
  Speaker 2: into a crowd is so inherently deadly that your lack
• 11:18
  Speaker 2: of a specific target doesn't excuse you.
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 11:22
  Speaker 2: And to truly understand how Miriam Urimi ended up treating
• 11:25
  Speaker 2: a crowded Brooklyn street like a firing range, how she
• 11:28
  Speaker 2: ended up doing 68 miles per hour through a solid
• 11:30
  Speaker 2: red light, we really can't just look at that single day.
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: We have to look at the history.
• 11:36
  Speaker 2: We have to look at the paper trail she left
• 11:38
  Speaker 2: behind in the years leading up to it, because this
• 11:41
  Speaker 2: crash didn't happen in a vacuum.
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: No, it didn't.
• 11:44
  Speaker 2: It was the climax of a deeply entrenched pattern of behavior.
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: And this is where we have to shift from the
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: physical crash itself into the background, into the systemic blind spots. Yeah.
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: Because when you look at the public records revealed in
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: the case, it will absolutely make your blood boil.
• 11:59
  Speaker 2: Staggering.
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: Urami had racked up nearly 100 tickets in just a
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: few years.
• 12:04
  Speaker 2: 100.
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: And she had thousands of dollars in unpaid fines.
• 12:08
  Speaker 2: 100 tickets is not a string of bad luck.
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: No.
• 12:11
  Speaker 2: It is not missing a speed limit sign once or twice.
• 12:15
  Speaker 2: It is a documented accident. chronic refusal to adhere to
• 12:18
  Speaker 2: the basic social contract of driving.
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: I really want you listening to think about this for
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: a second. Think about your own daily commute or like
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: the last road trip you took. Think about how stressful
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: it is to get just one speeding ticket.
• 12:32
  Speaker 2: Oh, it ruins your week.
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: Right. The anxiety when you see the flashing lights, the
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: massive fine, the hit to your insurance premiums. Now imagine
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: getting a second one a week later. Most people would
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: change their behavior immediately. Entirely. They would use cruise control.
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: They would be hypervigilant.
• 12:49
  Speaker 2: Exactly.
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: To get to nearly 100 tickets, you have to actively
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: view the law as something that simply does not apply
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: to you.
• 12:57
  Speaker 2: You do.
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: But I have to ask, if someone racks up 100 tickets,
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: why on earth are they even allowed to possess a
• 13:05
  Speaker 1: set of car keys?
• 13:05
  Speaker 2: That is the million-dollar question.
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: Where does the bureaucracy fail here? How is she still
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: on the road?
• 13:12
  Speaker 2: This is a massive structural failure. And it highlights a critical,
• 13:16
  Speaker 2: often misunderstood gap between civil traffic enforcement and the criminal
• 13:20
  Speaker 2: justice system.
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: OK, break that down for us.
• 13:23
  Speaker 2: You see, the vast majority of traffic citations, speeding by camera,
• 13:28
  Speaker 2: running red lights on camera, parking violations, these are treated
• 13:32
  Speaker 2: as civil infractions.
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: OK.
• 13:34
  Speaker 2: They are essentially municipal debts.
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: So it's just a financial penalty.
• 13:38
  Speaker 2: It's just a cost of doing business for her.
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: Exactly.
• 13:42
  Speaker 2: When a traffic camera catches you speeding, it doesn't actually
• 13:45
  Speaker 2: know who is driving. It only knows who owns the car. Right.
• 13:48
  Speaker 2: So it issues a civil fine to the registered owner.
• 13:52
  Speaker 2: If you have the financial means or if you simply
• 13:54
  Speaker 2: ignore the fines entirely, as she did, the tickets just
• 13:57
  Speaker 2: pile up in a municipal civil registry.
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: But surely that flags somewhere.
• 14:03
  Speaker 2: Here is the critical why behind the blind spot. Because
• 14:06
  Speaker 2: these are civil infractions, they do not trigger an entry
• 14:09
  Speaker 2: on your criminal background history. Wait.
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: Really?
• 14:12
  Speaker 2: Really. The criminal justice databases, like the NCIC, they track
• 14:16
  Speaker 2: misdemeanors and felonies where a person is arrested and fingerprinted.
• 14:20
  Speaker 2: Civil traffic tickets never cross over into that system.
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: Wait, so you're telling me a criminal court judge pulling
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: her rap sheet wouldn't see the hundred tickets?
• 14:28
  Speaker 2: In many jurisdictions, exactly.
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: That is wild.
• 14:31
  Speaker 2: The Department of Motor Vehicles tracks points and civil penalties,
• 14:35
  Speaker 2: and the criminal courts track crimes.
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: But can't the DMV suspend your license?
• 14:40
  Speaker 2: Now, the DMV can absolutely suspend a license for unpaid tickets.
• 14:44
  Speaker 2: But the enforcement of those suspensions is notoriously weak.
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: Right, because who's checking?
• 14:50
  Speaker 2: People drive on suspended licenses every single day in this country.
• 14:55
  Speaker 2: Because unless a police officer physically pulls you over for
• 14:58
  Speaker 2: a moving violation and runs your plate in real time,
• 15:02
  Speaker 2: the system largely relies on an honor system.
• 15:05
  Speaker 1: An honor system.
• 15:06
  Speaker 2: Yeah. Wow. You are supposed to stop driving when they
• 15:08
  Speaker 2: send you the letter. And clearly, Miriam Urimi was not
• 15:13
  Speaker 2: operating on the honor system.
• 15:15
  Speaker 1: That is maddening. It's like the left hand of the state,
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: the traffic enforcement, knows this person is an absolute menace.
• 15:22
  Speaker 1: But the right hand of the state, the criminal court,
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: doesn't get the memo until someone actually dies.
• 15:28
  Speaker 2: Tragically, yes.
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: And that lack of honor, that sheer audacity, it didn't
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: evaporate when the sirens showed up on Ocean Parkway.
• 15:35
  Speaker 2: No, it escalated.
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: The immediate aftermath of the crash is wild. So the
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: Audi is upside down. First responders are on the scene.
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: They have to physically cut her out of the car.
• 15:46
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: And she only sustained minor injuries, by the way. But
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: as she is being pulled from the wreckage of this
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: horrific scene she just caused, she allegedly starts telling the
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: EMTs and police that agents from the CIA are out
• 15:59
  Speaker 1: to get her.
• 15:59
  Speaker 2: Yes. And she also claimed that, quote, the devil is
• 16:03
  Speaker 2: in her.
• 16:04
  Speaker 1: Right. the devil is in me, the CIA is after me.
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: So based on these highly bizarre statements at the scene,
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: she is taken to Bellevue Hospital for a psychiatric evaluation.
• 16:14
  Speaker 2: The standard procedure for that kind of behavior, yeah.
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: Now, a layman might look at that and think, wow,
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: she was having a severe psychotic break. But looking at
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: it from a legal perspective, is that what was actually happening?
• 16:25
  Speaker 2: When you view those statements through the lens of a
• 16:27
  Speaker 2: defense attorney, it looks incredibly calculated.
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: Really?
• 16:31
  Speaker 2: As Leah Roberts pointed out, This appears to be the immediate,
• 16:34
  Speaker 2: frantic groundwork for an insanity defense.
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: You mean she was in the overturned car, realized she'd
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: just killed people, and her immediate thought was, I need
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: to act crazy right now.
• 16:45
  Speaker 2: It's highly probable. Think about her situation mechanically.
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: Okay.
• 16:50
  Speaker 2: If you are caught red-handed, literally, on intersection surveillance video,
• 16:56
  Speaker 2: with the black box data locking in your speed, your
• 16:59
  Speaker 2: accelerator position, and your total lack of braking... You have
• 17:02
  Speaker 2: zero factual legal avenues left.
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: Yeah, you can't fight the physics.
• 17:06
  Speaker 2: You can't claim it wasn't your car. You can't claim
• 17:09
  Speaker 2: you weren't speeding. You can't blame a mechanical failure.
• 17:12
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 17:13
  Speaker 2: The only defense left in the playbook is to attack
• 17:16
  Speaker 2: the mens rea, your state of mind. Ugh. You have
• 17:19
  Speaker 2: to claim you lacked the mental capacity to understand the
• 17:22
  Speaker 2: risk of what you were doing. You claim a sudden
• 17:25
  Speaker 2: onset of a psychiatric episode. You blame the devil. You
• 17:29
  Speaker 2: blame the CIA. Okay.
• 17:30
  Speaker 1: So you try to establish that an illness caused the crash,
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: not your own reckless choices?
• 17:35
  Speaker 2: Exactly.
• 17:37
  Speaker 1: That is a staggering level of self-preservation in the face
• 17:40
  Speaker 1: of three dead bodies.
• 17:41
  Speaker 2: It is.
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: But the insanity defense is notoriously difficult to pull off, right? Like,
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: you can't just say, the CIA's after you and walk free.
• 17:49
  Speaker 2: Incredibly difficult. In New York, you have to prove that
• 17:53
  Speaker 2: because of a mental disease or defect, you lacked substantial
• 17:56
  Speaker 2: capacity to know or appreciate evidence either the nature and
• 17:59
  Speaker 2: consequences of your conduct or that your conduct was wrong.
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: That sounds like a high bar.
• 18:06
  Speaker 2: It is. It requires a whole parade of psychiatric experts.
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: Which probably explains why, despite this dramatic performance at the
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: crash scene, her strategy completely shifted as the trial actually
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: loomed closer.
• 18:17
  Speaker 2: Yes, it did.
• 18:18
  Speaker 1: She abandoned the CIA story. And that pivot led to
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: what is arguably the most controversial and honestly infuriating part
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: of this entire case.
• 18:26
  Speaker 2: It leads us directly into the plea deal. And it
• 18:29
  Speaker 2: exposes a deep philosophical divide within the judicial system itself. Yeah.
• 18:34
  Speaker 2: Because once the dust settled and the actual criminal charges
• 18:37
  Speaker 2: were filed, the reality of the evidence became undeniable.
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: So initially, the district attorney's office threw the book at her.
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: She faced 20 charges. How does a case go from
• 18:48
  Speaker 1: 20 charges down to the plea deal we ultimately saw?
• 18:52
  Speaker 2: Well, the initial 20 charges reflect standard prosecutorial strategy. Prosecutors
• 18:57
  Speaker 2: will often stack charges.
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: Stack them.
• 19:00
  Speaker 2: Yeah, they will charge every single conceivable offense related to
• 19:03
  Speaker 2: the incident. Speeding, reckless driving, cell phone use, vehicular manslaughter,
• 19:07
  Speaker 2: and criminally negligent homicide.
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: Oh, to give themselves bargaining chips.
• 19:12
  Speaker 2: Exactly. They do this to create leverage. But eventually, in October,
• 19:16
  Speaker 2: she entered a guilty plea. Okay. She didn't plead guilty
• 19:19
  Speaker 2: to all 20 charges. She pleaded guilty to three counts
• 19:22
  Speaker 2: of second-degree manslaughter.
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: And this is where we see the warring factions of
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: the state come into play. Right. On one side, you
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: have the prosecution, led by Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez.
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: He took a very hard line.
• 19:33
  Speaker 2: He did?
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: Even with the plea, the state recommended the maximum penalty
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: allowable for those specific manslaughter charges, which was 5 to
• 19:39
  Speaker 1: 15 years in prison. The DA explicitly cited that she
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: used the car as a 68 mile per hour weapon.
• 19:46
  Speaker 2: But the judge has the ultimate authority on sentencing.
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 19:49
  Speaker 2: Justice Danny Chun was presiding over the case, and he
• 19:52
  Speaker 2: had a vastly different perspective. He rejected the state's recommendation
• 19:56
  Speaker 2: of five to 15 years.
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: And what did he offer?
• 19:59
  Speaker 2: Instead, he offered Urimi a significantly lower sentence of three
• 20:03
  Speaker 2: to nine years.
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: Three to nine years for three lives. So what does
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: this all mean?
• 20:08
  Speaker 2: It's hard to swallow.
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: How does a judge justify a sentence that effectively breaks
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: down to a minimum of one year per life lost?
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of the
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: public watching this, and it just feels like the system
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: is fundamentally broken.
• 20:20
  Speaker 2: To understand how this happens, we have to look at
• 20:23
  Speaker 2: the underlying mechanics and philosophy of the plea bargain system itself. Okay.
• 20:28
  Speaker 2: Judge Chun actually articulated his reasoning in court. He stated
• 20:32
  Speaker 2: that throughout his long career on the bench, he has
• 20:34
  Speaker 2: maintained a specific stance.
• 20:36
  Speaker 1: Which is?
• 20:37
  Speaker 2: When a defendant offers to plead guilty, generally the absolute
• 20:40
  Speaker 2: maximum offer is not given. He views a guilty plea
• 20:44
  Speaker 2: as a defendant legally accepting responsibility. And in return for
• 20:48
  Speaker 2: that acceptance, he believes the system owes them a concession.
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: A concession. For saving the court's time and money.
• 20:55
  Speaker 2: Essentially, yes. Okay. And we have to be intellectually honest
• 20:59
  Speaker 2: about the state of our judicial system here. It is
• 21:02
  Speaker 2: incredibly overburdened.
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: Yeah, the backlog is huge.
• 21:05
  Speaker 2: Over 95% of criminal cases in the United States are
• 21:08
  Speaker 2: resolved through plea bargains. If every single case went to trial,
• 21:12
  Speaker 2: the system would physically collapse under its own weight.
• 21:15
  Speaker 1: Wow, 95%.
• 21:16
  Speaker 2: Trials are extraordinarily expensive. They require picking juries, paying expert witnesses,
• 21:22
  Speaker 2: monopolizing weeks of court time, and crucially, they force the
• 21:26
  Speaker 2: victims' families to relive the trauma publicly.
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: Right, I didn't think about that part.
• 21:30
  Speaker 2: By pleading guilty, UNAMI saved the state from all of that.
• 21:34
  Speaker 2: Judge Chun's philosophy is that you must incentivize this efficiency.
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: Ah, I see.
• 21:38
  Speaker 2: If you drop the absolute maximum hammer on someone who
• 21:41
  Speaker 2: voluntarily bypasses a trial, future defendants will just take their
• 21:45
  Speaker 2: chances at trial, clogging the system further.
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: I understand the pragmatism of that. I really do. It's
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: a triage system.
• 21:52
  Speaker 2: Exactly.
• 21:52
  Speaker 1: But we are talking about three dead pedestrians. And here
• 21:56
  Speaker 1: is my question. When the judge hands down a sentence
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: of three to nine years, how does that actually translate
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: into time served?
• 22:02
  Speaker 2: That's the real kicker.
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: Does she sit in a cell for nine years?
• 22:05
  Speaker 2: The reality is that the nine-year mark is a ceiling,
• 22:09
  Speaker 2: not a guarantee. The prison system, the Department of Corrections,
• 22:12
  Speaker 2: has its own set of algorithms for release.
• 22:15
  Speaker 1: Like good behavior? Yes.
• 22:17
  Speaker 2: In New York, inmates can earn good time credit. If
• 22:20
  Speaker 2: you go into the facility, avoid disciplinary infractions, get a GED,
• 22:24
  Speaker 2: participate in rehabilitation programs, and demonstrate that you are a
• 22:28
  Speaker 2: model inmate, your sentence is reduced.
• 22:31
  Speaker 1: So she won't serve the nine years?
• 22:32
  Speaker 2: Under those circumstances, it is entirely possible to serve a
• 22:35
  Speaker 2: fraction of the maximum sentence. She could potentially be out
• 22:39
  Speaker 2: and walking the streets in three years. Three years? Yeah.
• 22:43
  Speaker 1: And what happens when she gets out? Will she ever
• 22:45
  Speaker 1: drive again? Can the state permanently take away her license
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: after something like this?
• 22:50
  Speaker 2: That was a major point of contention in the analysis
• 22:52
  Speaker 2: from Sidebar. Aaliyah Roberts strongly advocated that the prosecution should
• 22:56
  Speaker 2: have pushed for a permanent license revocation as a non-negotiable
• 23:00
  Speaker 2: part of the plea agreement.
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: Absolutely.
• 23:03
  Speaker 2: At the bare minimum, she argued for mandatory driving classes,
• 23:06
  Speaker 2: strict testing, and heavy restrictions if you or me were
• 23:09
  Speaker 2: ever allowed behind a wheel again.
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: But is a permanent lifetime ban actually realistic in our
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: legal system?
• 23:16
  Speaker 2: It is legally complex. We often say driving is a privilege,
• 23:20
  Speaker 2: not a right. But the courts recognize that in modern America,
• 23:23
  Speaker 2: revoking a license permanently severely impacts a person's ability to
• 23:27
  Speaker 2: hold a job and reintegrate it to society.
• 23:30
  Speaker 1: I mean, you need a car for almost everything.
• 23:32
  Speaker 2: Exactly. Therefore, permanent lifetime bans are exceedingly rare and very
• 23:37
  Speaker 2: difficult to enforce constitutionally. Usually, there is a path to
• 23:40
  Speaker 2: reinstatement after a certain number of years, even after vehicular manslaughter.
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: Wow.
• 23:46
  Speaker 2: The frightening reality is that, legally speaking, she very well
• 23:50
  Speaker 2: could legally drive again in the future.
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: It just feels like a massive slap in the face
• 23:55
  Speaker 1: to the Sada family.
• 23:56
  Speaker 2: It really does.
• 23:57
  Speaker 1: The judge gave her this leniency, this three to nine
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: year window, because he fundamentally believed she was accepting responsibility.
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: He thought the guilty plea was a genuine act of contrition.
• 24:07
  Speaker 2: Right.
• 24:08
  Speaker 1: But as we are about to see, if you look
• 24:11
  Speaker 1: behind the prison walls, if you listen to what she
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: was doing when she thought the cameras were off, it
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: reveals a profoundly different reality.
• 24:18
  Speaker 2: It reveals a carefully constructed facade. Totally. Her courtroom persona
• 24:23
  Speaker 2: was built for leniency, but the jailhouse tapes tore it
• 24:26
  Speaker 2: all down.
• 24:27
  Speaker 1: Let's talk about that courtroom facade first, because the contrast
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: is sickening. It is. At her sentencing, Urimi put on
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: quite a performance. She was sobbing. She read a prepared
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: statement where she expressed what she called birth regret.
• 24:39
  Speaker 2: Birth regret.
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Saying she felt so much sorrow and pain in
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: her heart that she wished she had never been born.
• 24:45
  Speaker 1: She said she thinks about the victims every single day.
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: And she even made a point to thank Judge Chun
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: for his, quote, gracious offer.
• 24:52
  Speaker 2: It is exactly what a judge wants to hear. It
• 24:55
  Speaker 2: hits all the required psychological notes of remorse to validate
• 24:58
  Speaker 2: a judge's decision to grant leniency.
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: But District Attorney Eric Gonzalez wasn't buying it.
• 25:04
  Speaker 2: Not at all.
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: Ahead of the sentencing hearing, his office filed a blistering
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: sentencing memorandum. This document completely pulled back the curtain on
• 25:12
  Speaker 1: Urimi's actual mindset, and they didn't rely on theory. They
• 25:15
  Speaker 1: did it using her own words.
• 25:17
  Speaker 2: Here is how that works mechanically. Okay. The Department of
• 25:20
  Speaker 2: Correction routinely records all outgoing phone calls from inmates, with
• 25:23
  Speaker 2: the strict exception of privileged calls made to their legal counsel. Right.
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: Attorney-client privilege.
• 25:28
  Speaker 2: Exactly. When you make a call from Rikers Island or
• 25:30
  Speaker 2: a state facility, an automated voice comes on the line
• 25:33
  Speaker 2: and explicitly tells both parties that the call is subject
• 25:36
  Speaker 2: to monitoring and recording.
• 25:38
  Speaker 1: So they know they're being recorded.
• 25:39
  Speaker 2: They do. The prosecution reviewed hundreds of these recorded phone
• 25:43
  Speaker 2: calls that Urimi made while incarcerated, mostly to her mother
• 25:47
  Speaker 2: and her ex-husband.
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: And the transcripts of these calls, which took place in
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: the spring of 2025, are just rage-inducing.
• 25:53
  Speaker 2: They are.
• 25:54
  Speaker 1: They are the complete antithesis of the sobbing, remorseful woman
• 25:57
  Speaker 1: in the courtroom. We need to look at these specific
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: dates and quotes because they tell you everything you need
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: to know about her psychology.
• 26:03
  Speaker 2: Let's hear them.
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: First, in one call, her ex-husband actually pleads with her
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: to just apologize for what she did. And her response...
• 26:11
  Speaker 1: Why should I apologize? I'm just as much of a
• 26:14
  Speaker 1: victim as they are.
• 26:15
  Speaker 2: That statement alone dismantles the judge's concept of acceptance of responsibility.
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: How do you even equate those two things?
• 26:21
  Speaker 2: Well, you can't. To equate the inconvenience of her incarceration,
• 26:25
  Speaker 2: which is a direct result of her own actions, with
• 26:28
  Speaker 2: the violent, horrific deaths of a mother and two young children,
• 26:31
  Speaker 2: requires a staggering lack of empathy. It's a complete inversion
• 26:36
  Speaker 2: of reality.
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: It gets worse.
• 26:37
  Speaker 2: Oh, I know.
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: On April 22nd, 2025, she was on the phone complaining
• 26:41
  Speaker 1: to her ex-husband that she was being framed.
• 26:44
  Speaker 2: Framed.
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: Framed. The entire crash is on multiple angles of surveillance video.
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: The black box data is incontrovertible, but she says she's
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: being framed.
• 26:52
  Speaker 2: Unbelievable.
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: And then she says this incredible line. I am playing
• 26:58
  Speaker 1: the games. I could also pretend, you know, put on
• 27:01
  Speaker 1: a show. Like, why don't I just pretend I'm schizophrenic?
• 27:05
  Speaker 2: And there is the smoking gun.
• 27:07
  Speaker 1: Yeah.
• 27:08
  Speaker 2: That right there connects perfectly back to the crash scene.
• 27:12
  Speaker 2: Remember the CIA? Remember the devil?
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, you're right.
• 27:17
  Speaker 2: She admits on a recorded state phone line that faking
• 27:20
  Speaker 2: a severe mental illness is just a strategic option for her,
• 27:24
  Speaker 2: putting on a show.
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: It completely obliterates any genuine mental health defense she might
• 27:30
  Speaker 1: have tried to muster.
• 27:31
  Speaker 2: Completely.
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: And like the experts pointed out, it is a massive
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: insult to individuals who actually suffer from from severe mental
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: illnesses like schizophrenia.
• 27:39
  Speaker 2: It really is.
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: People who struggle daily with real psychotic disorders are marginalized
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: enough in our society without someone like this using their
• 27:46
  Speaker 1: very real disease as a convenient get-out-of-jail-free card.
• 27:51
  Speaker 2: It is the ultimate cynical manipulation of the system. She
• 27:55
  Speaker 2: views psychiatric diagnoses not as medical realities but as tactical
• 28:00
  Speaker 2: tools to be deployed when convenient.
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: And her pure, unadulterated entitlement just bleeds through every conversation.
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: On April 30, 2025, she tells her ex-husband, you always
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: know how to contact people to get out of trouble.
• 28:14
  Speaker 1: Why can't you contact the judge to get me out?
• 28:17
  Speaker 2: That quote is fascinating because it perfectly encapsulates a specific
• 28:21
  Speaker 2: privileged worldview.
• 28:23
  Speaker 1: How so?
• 28:24
  Speaker 2: She doesn't see the judge as an impartial arbiter of
• 28:26
  Speaker 2: justice bound by the penal code. Right. She sees the
• 28:30
  Speaker 2: judge as just another person who can be influenced, networked with,
• 28:34
  Speaker 2: or bypassed if you know the right people.
• 28:37
  Speaker 1: It's exactly that. It's like she views the justice system
• 28:41
  Speaker 1: not as a moral or legal authority, but as a
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: VIP club where she just needs to find the right
• 28:46
  Speaker 1: bouncer to bribe.
• 28:47
  Speaker 2: That's exactly how she sees it.
• 28:49
  Speaker 1: She literally thinks her ex-husband can just make a phone call,
• 28:52
  Speaker 1: pull a favor, and have triple homicide charges dropped.
• 28:56
  Speaker 2: And she extends this transactional view to her community as well.
• 29:00
  Speaker 2: The very next day, May 1, 2025, she asks on
• 29:03
  Speaker 2: a call, why isn't the Jewish community helping me?
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: Which is astounding, considering she devastated a family that was
• 29:10
  Speaker 1: walking home from their synagogue.
• 29:12
  Speaker 2: It's mind-boggling.
• 29:13
  Speaker 1: She expects the very community she traumatized to rally to
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: her defense, simply because she expects to be insulated from consequences.
• 29:20
  Speaker 1: She thinks her identity should act as a shield.
• 29:22
  Speaker 2: What's fascinating here is the absolute cognitive dissonance regarding the
• 29:26
  Speaker 2: surveillance state of a prison.
• 29:27
  Speaker 1: Yeah, they know they're recorded.
• 29:29
  Speaker 2: As I mentioned, defendants are warned that jailhouse calls are recorded.
• 29:32
  Speaker 2: There are automated messages on the line reminding them constantly.
• 29:36
  Speaker 1: So why do they say this stuff?
• 29:38
  Speaker 2: Yet time and time again, prosecutors find that the isolation
• 29:42
  Speaker 2: of the jail environment causes inmates to drop their guard.
• 29:46
  Speaker 2: They crave connection. They get comfortable. And they revert to
• 29:49
  Speaker 2: their true baseline personality when talking to family.
• 29:52
  Speaker 1: Wow.
• 29:52
  Speaker 2: In Yurimi's case, the tapes expose the void where her
• 29:55
  Speaker 2: conscience should be.
• 29:57
  Speaker 1: But she wasn't just venting on these calls. She wasn't
• 29:59
  Speaker 1: just complaining about being a victim or asking her ex-husband
• 30:02
  Speaker 1: to fix it.
• 30:03
  Speaker 2: No, she was busy.
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: She was actively making business plans from behind bars. She
• 30:07
  Speaker 1: was plotting her financial future, which brings us to the
• 30:10
  Speaker 1: next massive issue in this case, the money.
• 30:13
  Speaker 2: Because for an influencer, image and wealth preservation are paramount,
• 30:17
  Speaker 2: even in the face of multiple fatalities.
• 30:20
  Speaker 1: Let's look at her financial facade. On social media, she
• 30:23
  Speaker 1: portrayed herself as living this highly affluent lifestyle. She was
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: flaunting luxury goods, designer items, the Audi. The prosecution noted
• 30:32
  Speaker 1: that she had access to multiple homes. Yet when she
• 30:36
  Speaker 1: was questioned at the hospital right after the crash, she
• 30:39
  Speaker 1: lied about her official address.
• 30:41
  Speaker 2: Which is very telling.
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: She gave them false information. She was already, in those
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: first few hours, trying to muddy the waters regarding her assets.
• 30:50
  Speaker 2: And that effort escalated significantly once she was incarcerated. The
• 30:55
  Speaker 2: jailhouse tapes didn't just capture her complaining. They captured calculated
• 30:59
  Speaker 2: financial evasion.
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: Let's get into those dates. Between October 22nd and October 26th, 2025,
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: she is recorded explicitly discussing her intent to move her
• 31:09
  Speaker 1: money to South America. She is referencing the impending civil
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: lawsuits and actively strategizing on how to hide her assets
• 31:17
  Speaker 1: from the victim's family so they can't touch her wealth.
• 31:19
  Speaker 2: Now... Let's explore the mechanics of this, because from a
• 31:23
  Speaker 2: legal standpoint, this is a very tricky area.
• 31:26
  Speaker 1: Okay, explain that.
• 31:27
  Speaker 2: Moving your own money is not inherently a criminal offense.
• 31:31
  Speaker 2: You are generally allowed to transfer your funds to different
• 31:34
  Speaker 2: bank accounts or even different countries.
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: Even if you just killed three people and know you
• 31:40
  Speaker 1: are going to be sued. How is that not a crime?
• 31:43
  Speaker 2: It comes down to the timeline of civil liability. A
• 31:46
  Speaker 2: civil lawsuit, a wrongful death claim, for instance, is completely
• 31:50
  Speaker 2: separate from a criminal trial.
• 31:52
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 31:52
  Speaker 2: The civil judgment that would legally force her to pay
• 31:55
  Speaker 2: damages to the Sada family hasn't been officially levied yet.
• 31:59
  Speaker 2: The lawsuit is still pending.
• 32:01
  Speaker 1: Ah, so technically she doesn't owe them yet.
• 32:04
  Speaker 2: Exactly. So moving the money is a blatant, calculated attempt
• 32:09
  Speaker 2: to dodge those civil liabilities before they take legal effect.
• 32:13
  Speaker 1: But civil attorneys aren't stupid. They must have a mechanism
• 32:17
  Speaker 1: for this.
• 32:17
  Speaker 2: They do. It's called fraudulent conveyance.
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: Fraudulent conveyance.
• 32:22
  Speaker 2: Yes. If a civil court determines you moved assets specifically
• 32:26
  Speaker 2: to avoid a pending judgment, they can attempt to claw
• 32:29
  Speaker 2: that money back.
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: Okay, good.
• 32:31
  Speaker 2: But that requires finding the money first.
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 32:34
  Speaker 2: By attempting to wire funds to South America, Urimi was
• 32:37
  Speaker 2: trying to exploit international banking jurisdictions. It is incredibly difficult, time-consuming,
• 32:43
  Speaker 2: and expensive... for a domestic civil attorney to track down
• 32:46
  Speaker 2: and freeze assets hidden in foreign banks.
• 32:49
  Speaker 1: So it's an exhaustion tactic.
• 32:51
  Speaker 2: Yes. It doesn't violate a criminal statute to move the money,
• 32:55
  Speaker 2: but it is morally bankrupt and designed to exhaust the
• 32:58
  Speaker 2: victim's family financially.
• 32:59
  Speaker 1: It is just so gross. She is sitting in a
• 33:02
  Speaker 1: jail cell waiting for a sweetheart plea deal and using
• 33:05
  Speaker 1: the phone to make sure the family she destroyed doesn't
• 33:08
  Speaker 1: get a dime of her influencer money.
• 33:10
  Speaker 2: It's awful.
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: And if that wasn't audacious enough, She executed the most
• 33:14
  Speaker 1: shocking legal maneuver I have ever heard of.
• 33:17
  Speaker 2: Oh, this part.
• 33:19
  Speaker 1: Miriam Urimi is attempting to deflect liability by countersuing the
• 33:24
  Speaker 1: Uber driver she struck.
• 33:26
  Speaker 2: Let that sink in for a moment. She floors the accelerator,
• 33:30
  Speaker 2: blows a red light at 68 miles per hour, hits
• 33:33
  Speaker 2: a rideshare vehicle, rolls over and kills three pedestrians, and
• 33:36
  Speaker 2: then turns around and sues the driver she hit.
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: I am assuming she is claiming they were somehow at
• 33:41
  Speaker 1: fault or contributed to the crash? Yes.
• 33:44
  Speaker 2: In civil litigation, this is a tactic used to muddy
• 33:47
  Speaker 2: the waters of liability.
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: How does that help her?
• 33:49
  Speaker 2: If she can convince a civil jury that the Uber
• 33:52
  Speaker 2: driver was even 1% at fault, perhaps they crept into
• 33:55
  Speaker 2: the intersection too early or didn't brake fast enough. It
• 33:59
  Speaker 2: complicates the payout structure.
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: Oh, wow.
• 34:01
  Speaker 2: It forces the Uber driver's insurance to absorb some of
• 34:04
  Speaker 2: the financial blow. It is the absolute weaponization of the
• 34:09
  Speaker 2: legal system. She is using civil litigation to harass, deflect blame,
• 34:13
  Speaker 2: and protect her own assets.
• 34:15
  Speaker 1: So what recourse does the Sada family actually have? If
• 34:18
  Speaker 1: the criminal system only gives her three to nine years,
• 34:21
  Speaker 1: how do they get justice?
• 34:22
  Speaker 2: The family's attorney, Herschel Kipsky, confirmed that they are pursuing
• 34:26
  Speaker 2: a wrongful death lawsuit. This is the civil mechanism to
• 34:29
  Speaker 2: seek financial compensation for the loss of life and the
• 34:32
  Speaker 2: catastrophic medical bills for the surviving son.
• 34:35
  Speaker 1: Will it be hard to prove?
• 34:37
  Speaker 2: The burden of proof in a civil trial is lower
• 34:39
  Speaker 2: than in a criminal trial. It's based on a preponderance
• 34:41
  Speaker 2: of the evidence rather than beyond a reasonable doubt.
• 34:44
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 34:45
  Speaker 2: Given her guilty plea in criminal court, establishing liability in
• 34:48
  Speaker 2: civil court is essentially a done deal. The battle will
• 34:51
  Speaker 2: be over the damages and finding where she hid her money.
• 34:54
  Speaker 1: But the attorney also noted that the family didn't even
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: want to be in the courtroom for her sentencing.
• 34:59
  Speaker 2: I don't blame them.
• 35:00
  Speaker 1: They refused to attend because they knew her tears were
• 35:03
  Speaker 1: just a show. And honestly, I want you listening to
• 35:07
  Speaker 1: pause for a second and reflect on what a family
• 35:09
  Speaker 1: can even do in this situation. The legal system has
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: essentially told them that three lives are worth three to
• 35:15
  Speaker 1: nine years, and the woman responsible is actively trying to
• 35:18
  Speaker 1: hide her money in South America while suing the other victim.
• 35:22
  Speaker 2: Trial attorney Aaliyah Roberts offered a very poignant, albeit bleak,
• 35:26
  Speaker 2: perspective on this.
• 35:27
  Speaker 1: What did she say?
• 35:28
  Speaker 2: She noted that the legal system often leaves victims with
• 35:31
  Speaker 2: the short end of the stick. A civil suit is
• 35:33
  Speaker 2: the only legal recourse left, but A financial settlement doesn't
• 35:37
  Speaker 2: bring back the dead.
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: Never.
• 35:39
  Speaker 2: Her advice to families navigating this nightmare was simply to
• 35:43
  Speaker 2: seek grief counseling, hold your loved ones tight, and focus
• 35:46
  Speaker 2: on the happy memories of those who were lost.
• 35:49
  Speaker 1: That's heartbreaking.
• 35:50
  Speaker 2: Because the courtroom is a bureaucracy. It's not going to
• 35:52
  Speaker 2: provide the emotional closure or the sense of cosmic justice
• 35:55
  Speaker 2: that families desperately crave.
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: It is a devastating reality. The justice system is a machine.
• 36:01
  Speaker 1: It's not a moral arbiter.
• 36:03
  Speaker 2: No, it's not.
• 36:03
  Speaker 1: But that brings us to the societal impact of this case,
• 36:06
  Speaker 1: because we can't just leave it at the tragedy of
• 36:08
  Speaker 1: one family. How do we as a society reconcile this
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: legal outcome with the reality of the crime?
• 36:15
  Speaker 2: We have to zoom out and look at the broader implications.
• 36:18
  Speaker 2: We have to look at what this case says about
• 36:20
  Speaker 2: public safety, driving culture, and the new hierarchies of privilege
• 36:24
  Speaker 2: we've created.
• 36:26
  Speaker 1: Here's where it gets really interesting to me.
• 36:28
  Speaker 2: Yeah.
• 36:29
  Speaker 1: The concept of influencer privilege. This was a major point
• 36:32
  Speaker 1: of discussion in the analysis we looked at.
• 36:35
  Speaker 2: It's a huge shift in our culture.
• 36:37
  Speaker 1: We all know that historically, traditional celebrities, movie stars, politicians,
• 36:41
  Speaker 1: athletes have often received kid gloves from the justice system.
• 36:45
  Speaker 1: But are we now extending that same deference to content creators?
• 36:49
  Speaker 2: It is a vital question for our era. We have
• 36:52
  Speaker 2: elevated influencers to a status where their entire existence is
• 36:56
  Speaker 2: predicated on being special, on being the main character. On
• 37:00
  Speaker 2: being above the mundane rules of society.
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: Right, the main character syndrome.
• 37:05
  Speaker 2: Exactly. Their currency is attention and the illusion of a perfect,
• 37:09
  Speaker 2: untouchable life. When that deeply ingrained mindset enters a courtroom,
• 37:15
  Speaker 2: does it unconsciously affect the judge?
• 37:17
  Speaker 1: That's a scary thought.
• 37:18
  Speaker 2: Does the aura of online fame, the performative tears, subtly
• 37:22
  Speaker 2: influence the leniency of a plea deal?
• 37:25
  Speaker 1: It certainly seemed to influence Yurimi's expectations. She expected to
• 37:29
  Speaker 1: be bailed out. She expected her community to save her.
• 37:32
  Speaker 1: She expected to manipulate the narrative from a jail phone,
• 37:36
  Speaker 1: just like she manipulates her image on TikTok. And the
• 37:39
  Speaker 1: terrifying part is she kind of succeeded. She got three
• 37:42
  Speaker 1: to nine years.
• 37:44
  Speaker 2: If we connect this to the bigger picture, it goes
• 37:47
  Speaker 2: back to the assertion made by the district attorney at
• 37:49
  Speaker 2: the very beginning. A car is a weapon. Yes. As
• 37:54
  Speaker 2: a society, we have become completely desensitized to driving. We
• 37:58
  Speaker 2: view it as a right, a chore, a background activity
• 38:01
  Speaker 2: while we listen to music or drink coffee. Totally. We
• 38:04
  Speaker 2: forget the sheer physics of it. We forget that it
• 38:08
  Speaker 2: is the operation of heavy machinery at lethal speeds.
• 38:12
  Speaker 1: And when you combine that societal desensitization with the narcissistic
• 38:17
  Speaker 1: culture of the influencer where every moment must be documented,
• 38:20
  Speaker 1: where capturing a selfie for your followers is more important
• 38:23
  Speaker 1: than looking at the road. You create an incredibly deadly environment.
• 38:28
  Speaker 2: You do.
• 38:28
  Speaker 1: A momentary distraction turns a vehicle into a 68-mile-per-hour projectile.
• 38:33
  Speaker 2: And that creates a profound public chill effect. Jesse Weber
• 38:37
  Speaker 2: voiced this fear perfectly.
• 38:39
  Speaker 1: He did. He talked about how he walks around Brooklyn,
• 38:41
  Speaker 1: he walks on Ocean Parkway, and now he has to
• 38:43
  Speaker 1: wonder if he is going to be wiped out by
• 38:46
  Speaker 1: a reckless content creator.
• 38:48
  Speaker 2: It's terrifying.
• 38:49
  Speaker 1: Anyone walking in a residential area, having the right of way,
• 38:53
  Speaker 1: Obeying the traffic signals like the Sada family did is
• 38:55
  Speaker 1: completely at the mercy of someone who thinks their Instagram
• 38:58
  Speaker 1: story is more important than a red light.
• 39:00
  Speaker 2: And what message does a three to nine year sentence
• 39:02
  Speaker 2: send to chronic reckless drivers?
• 39:04
  Speaker 1: That you can get away with it.
• 39:06
  Speaker 2: It tells them that the system is ultimately lenient. It
• 39:09
  Speaker 2: tells them that a hundred tickets won't lose you your
• 39:11
  Speaker 2: license and killing three people won't cost you your freedom
• 39:14
  Speaker 2: for very long. It fundamentally undermines the deterrent effect of
• 39:19
  Speaker 2: the law.
• 39:20
  Speaker 1: It tells them that as long as they can squeeze
• 39:22
  Speaker 1: out a few tears in front of a judge and
• 39:23
  Speaker 1: play the game, they can go back to their lives
• 39:25
  Speaker 1: in a few years. It is a staggering journey we've
• 39:29
  Speaker 1: tracked today in the deep dive. We went from a
• 39:31
  Speaker 1: woman racking up 100 ignored traffic tickets, exposing the massive
• 39:36
  Speaker 1: blind spots between the DMV and the courts. We tracked
• 39:39
  Speaker 1: a devastating 68-mile-per-hour crash caused by a selfie. We explored
• 39:44
  Speaker 1: the complex, often frustrating philosophy of plea bargains that resulted
• 39:47
  Speaker 1: in a controversial three- to nine-year sentence. And we listened
• 39:51
  Speaker 1: as jailhouse tapes exposed a terrifying lack of empathy, a
• 39:54
  Speaker 1: willingness to fake schizophrenia, and a calculated plot to hide
• 39:57
  Speaker 1: assets in South America.
• 39:59
  Speaker 2: It is a profound study in systemic failure and unchecked entitlement.
• 40:04
  Speaker 2: But I want to leave you with a forward-looking thought,
• 40:07
  Speaker 2: a piece of reality that hasn't played out yet, but
• 40:10
  Speaker 2: is the inevitable next chapter of this story.
• 40:13
  Speaker 1: It's the next chapter.
• 40:15
  Speaker 2: In just three years, Miriam Urimi could be up for parole. Wow.
• 40:20
  Speaker 2: She played the legal game perfectly in the courtroom by
• 40:23
  Speaker 2: taking the plea deal to secure that short sentence. She
• 40:26
  Speaker 2: gave the judge exactly what he wanted to hear. But
• 40:30
  Speaker 2: consider this. OK. The parole board operates differently than a
• 40:34
  Speaker 2: trial judge. Their sole job is to assess actual rehabilitation
• 40:39
  Speaker 2: and the risk to public safety.
• 40:40
  Speaker 1: Right.
• 40:41
  Speaker 2: When she sits before that board in a few years
• 40:43
  Speaker 2: and claims she has been rehabilitated, claims she is deeply
• 40:47
  Speaker 2: remorseful and ready to reenter society. they are going to
• 40:51
  Speaker 2: press play on those recorded jailhouse calls. Oh, man. Well,
• 40:55
  Speaker 2: the very system she thought she outsmarted, the VIP club
• 40:58
  Speaker 2: she thought she could manipulate, ultimately be the one that
• 41:02
  Speaker 2: keeps her behind bars, simply because she couldn't stop talking
• 41:05
  Speaker 2: to her ex-husband on a recorded line.
• 41:08
  Speaker 1: The arrogance that caused the crash might be the exact
• 41:12
  Speaker 1: same arrogance that keeps her locked up. I mean, it
• 41:14
  Speaker 1: just brings us right back to the beginning. The car
• 41:16
  Speaker 1: was the weapon that she used on the street, but
• 41:19
  Speaker 1: her own sense of untouchable entitlement that might be the
• 41:22
  Speaker 1: weapon she used against herself.
• 41:24
  Speaker 2: Exactly.
• 41:25
  Speaker 1: Well, I want to thank you for joining us on
• 41:26
  Speaker 1: this deep dive today. You know, it's a heavy topic,
• 41:28
  Speaker 1: but understanding how these systems work and how they fail,
• 41:31
  Speaker 1: it's the only way that we can ever hope to
• 41:33
  Speaker 1: navigate them or fix them. So keep asking the hard questions,
• 41:38
  Speaker 1: watch out for each other on the roads, and always
• 41:40
  Speaker 1: stay curious.