Crime Wire Weekly 8/14/26 | 800lb Meth Bust, Tupac’s Trial, Flock Camera Debate

Another packed episode with some wild crime related stories coming your way today! KJ and Jim talk about a missing family found after going tubing. In Louisiana a woman involved in a boating crash with injuries is arrested. The first arrest for grooming in Kentucky has occurred, and it may surprise you, who was arrested. A 23 year old man is sentenced in Indiana for horrific SA of mother and daughter.  A Flock Camera Secret Memo is leaked and you are going to be shocked at the contents. In Louisiana a drug bust of an 18 wheeler leads to the discovery of 800 pounds of meth. A doctor is involved in a lawsuit over using his own sperm to artificially inseminate a patient. 

Timestamps
01:10 Tubing Trip Turns Miracle
06:26 Boating Crash Charges Filed
11:01 Teacher Arrested Under Grooming Law
17:39 Home Invasion Ends in Sentencing
20:22 Flock Cameras and Privacy
33:11 Wife-Killing Plea Deal
36:44 Fertility Doctor Secret Revealed
43:45 Massive Meth Bust Uncovered
48:13 Teen Kidnapping and Assault
01:00:25 Tupac Killing Heads to Trial

Speaker 1: Hey, everybody, welcome back to Crime Whire Weekly. I'm Jim Chapman,

and guess what today? We have no topics. We're gonna

tell you in advance. It was a plan from the beginning.

That's what I'm sticking with, right, Kelly.

Speaker 2: Jimmy definitely weren't running late.

Speaker 1: Yeah, we definitely weren't running late and had to scramble

to get together what we were going to.

Speaker 3: Talk about today, and I didn't have time to write

it down.

Speaker 1: So guess what is going to be surprise week for

our listeners out there.

Speaker 3: I hope you enjoy that.

Speaker 2: Yeah, it's gonna be fine. We got this. We're professionals, Jim.

Speaker 3: We are pros.

Speaker 1: So let's get into this beautiful bean footage for today.

Speaker 2: And wait, wait, you introduced yourself? Should I introduce myself?

Speaker 3: Well, I said Kelly Jennings. Everybody knows you already got it.

Speaker 2: Go ahead, and I'm Kelly Jennings.

Speaker 3: All right, how did that feel? Awesome?

Speaker 1: Let's get Can we get into the stories now? Let's

get into them, and we're going to start off in

Michigan today, and I'm gonna tell you about two adults

and a child who disappeared Kelly after going tubing. Well,

they've been found safe and alive in the woods, and

some people are considering this just flat out miracle. They

were going for several days. It was two women and

a nine year old boy. They were tubing and what's

done is the Muskegon River that is in Michigan, and

they were there for three days straining in the wilderness

before they were actually saved. Jasmine Hawk who is twenty eight,

her cousin, Sarah Vita, who is twenty eight, Vida's son

who is named Caden, he's nine. They were all located

this past Friday afternoon by state Police a CA. Nine

teen in the Department of Natural Resources Servation officers. They

were discovered deep in the woods about three quarters of

a mile northeast of a boat launch in Muskegon County.

This is they were several miles downstream from where they

actually put in.

Speaker 3: At that boat launch on Maple Island, and.

Speaker 1: Michigan State Police said the three were alive, they were safe.

He described it as Lieutenant pat Agma described it as

amazing in a miracle. He netted the group was in

a remote area, far from roads and houses. He said

they were tired and worn out, and two of them

had to actually be carried out of the woods. You

don't think about it, but seventy two hours, that's three days, right,

that's a long time without food. And I mean, I

would imagine they drank something, but it probably wasn't much

and it was probably out of a stream. And you know,

they don't have the little capsules you can put in

there like the military does where it purifies the water.

So that's a good bit of time they went tubing,

and concerns started growing when Hawk missed a scheduled medical

appointment the day after their tubing trup. Her father later

found one of the women's vehicles still parked at that

boat launch with a broken window. So obviously police get involved,

and that doesn't look good. Searchers were covered tubes believed

to have belonged to the group, and they located footprints

before they were able to find them on This occurred

on a Wednesday or Tuesday. They were actually able to

locate them on a Friday. Family members said the group

had used pool rafts that were not suited for the river,

So yeah, these ain't tubing like you go around here.

We have tiki tubing places like that where they are

these heavy duty tubes. They were actually taking like their

pool floats and going tubing with it.

Speaker 3: Yeah, you don't want to do that. That's pretty thin.

Speaker 2: Is that something that's normally done there? Like that? People

just get in that river like that are actually not

I mean.

Speaker 1: It says the group had used pull rafts that were

not suited for the river and the floats were destroyed.

Speaker 3: So I would imagine not too many.

Speaker 1: People, you know, use I don't know, very thin residential

pull rafts, if you will. So they survived, all flowers,

barking ants. What do you think about that?

Speaker 2: That's an interesting choice. But I would be scared.

Speaker 1: I'll well, they didn't have a menu, no, but like

the ants of the bark tonight.

Speaker 2: Well, I'm just thinking I would have focused more on

the flowers. I don't know that I want to swallow

an ant, but I mean it's it's something when you're starving.

I guess it's something to put in your mouth. Yeah, so,

and I would have been scared too, Like, you know, mushrooms,

certain ones can kill you. And if you don't know,

like you're just taking a risk.

Speaker 1: Yeah, you eat a poisonous mushroom you can be seeing

the spirit horse and everything else.

Speaker 3: Yeah, high as a cake.

Speaker 1: So also to complicate matters even with the lack of food,

is that Hawk's foam battery died and that totally cut

off any way to get any sort of help. All

three they were picked up after they were found taking

the hospital for treatment, and two of the three are

still in the hospital. But everybody's going to survive all

that stuff, and it was an emotional moment for family.

They actually have some body camera footage if you're interested,

you can look online and it's pretty interesting.

Speaker 3: You can see.

Speaker 1: The the husbands and kids of these people being reunited

with them, and you know, they probably resigned to the

fact that they're not gonna make.

Speaker 3: It out of here.

Speaker 2: I do wonder something, and I'm not I'm just curious.

Why didn't they just walk back up the river where

they had put in? Why did they.

Speaker 1: Well, I think they were so far down river by

the point that you know, apparently the as I said,

these boat rafts popped or whatever and probably jagged rocks

things like that. Yeah, I mean, maybe they were making

their way back and got lost.

Speaker 3: I don't know.

Speaker 2: I don't know what the terrain would be. But for me,

I would have gotten out and just back the direction

I came from. But then again, I don't know all

the details.

Speaker 3: You did. You didn't end up and can it though somewhere.

Speaker 2: I probably would have ended up with third degree sunburns

and you would have found me a crispy piece of

bacon laying by the by the riverside getting eaten by

dad gumbe deer.

Speaker 3: Yeah, bark, Well, there you have it.

Speaker 1: Good ending to that story. They were found and that's

to be Okay, that's great.

Speaker 2: So we're gonna go to Louisiana. We're not far from here.

We're actually right here in this story where a sixty

three year old Denim Springs woman has been arrested and

booked into the Ascension Parish Jail on multiple charges stemming

from a three boat crash on the a Meet River

in July that left four people injured. And that's all

according to the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Nanette

Normand that's a lot of ends, Nanette Normand I can't say.

Speaker 3: That quickly, is it Nanette or Nannette?

Speaker 2: I would have said Nanette, But I'm Southern South, so

whatever miss Nan was taken into custody Monday and charged

with cares operation of a vessel, failing to file an

official operator's report, and four counts of negligent injuring. The

crash occurred July eighteenth, where two adults and two juveniles

were ejected from their vessel and transported to local hospitals.

An adult female remained hospitalized from injury sustained in the incident.

According to Wildlife and Fisheries, careless operation of a vessel

carries a maximum penalty of a three hundred dollars fine

and thirty days in jail. Each count of negligent injuring,

and the failure to file an official operator's report carries

a maximum of a five hundred dollars fine in six

months in jail. Earlier reporting on the July eighteenth crash

described the collision involving three boats around eight twenty pm.

One family, a couple and their two young children, were

ejected after what the husband described as an oncoming boat

that failed to yield properly. The fiance suffered or sustained

serious injuries, including multiple fractures and other trauma that required

surgery and hospitalization. Wildlife and fisheries investigated the incident. But

three boats in one crash.

Speaker 3: That's a lot.

Speaker 1: And you know, boating safety Unfortunately, when you hear about

crashes with boat boats, I mean.

Speaker 3: It's usually really bad.

Speaker 1: We have one here a couple of years ago that

killed several people and it was at night that this

boat crash occurred, and it was horrific obviously, But almost

every time you see accidents involving boats, people are seriously

injured or killed because it's just different than a car.

I mean that you don't wear a seat belt in

a boat. Of course, everybody needs to be wearing life

preservers things like that, but traffic laws are you know,

it's a lot easier to stop at a red light

than to or yield sign yielded a yield sign than

to do that on a river because they don't have signs.

You have to know the navigational rules, and I think

that's why you see a lot of these accidents. It's

people don't even roll, don't even know or pay attentions

to the navigation rules.

Speaker 2: Yeah, there's a lot that goes involved, that goes into

you know, being a captain of your boat, and I

sometimes get very nervous when I see that. A lot

of people like they'll turn out their teenagers and stuff

on the river and let them just go take the

boat and go do it, do what they do. And

you wonder why is everybody so comfortable just letting people

go out on that river without some sort you know,

we have drivers at and we have all that kind

of stuff or when you're driving, but boaters it's kind

of like they just uh, jump out on the water.

Speaker 3: Yeah they do.

Speaker 1: So, you know, prayers to those affected by that. And uh,

they're not playing in this area with boating safety. They've

got a whole department in Livingston Parish where we record

out of that is a marine division. It's all they

do is go up and down the river and there

they are a department. Uh I guess employed by the

Sheriff's office, so it's not wildlife and fisheries. They have

their own marine division, which I think is pretty cool.

Speaker 2: Well, my my brother in law was killed in boating

accident and it was because there's a lot of stuff involved,

but another boat was not properly navigating the waterway. Yeah,

and he ended up dying as a result of that accident.

And so you know it's personal. You know when people

you love get killed. And boating is a fun pastime,

but you are you have a lot at stake and

you you have to be in control and man your

vehicle or you can cost people their lives one hundred percent.

Speaker 1: And I used to couldn't stay in them wildlife and

fishery guys because I used to look at them as

guys that were just killing your fun. Right, Yeah, you

ain't got a life jacket on. Let me see your

life jackets, you know what I mean, stuff like that.

And now as I got older, this is when I

was eighteen, I had this attitude. Now, as I got older,

I realized what they were doing. But back then I

just thought, you know, these guys are just giving people

a hard time. I mean, who cares about life jackets.

But now you know, when you especially when you do

this for a living cover crime, Yeah, wear your life jackets.

All right, let's go to uh, let's go to a

another area of the country here, and we're going to

talk about a middle school teacher who is the first

and this is in Kentucky, the first teacher to be

arrested under the new grooming law in Kentucky, and that's

interesting because here in Louisiana, they just passed the grooming.

Speaker 2: Law here and we just covered that.

Speaker 3: Yeah, we just covered it.

Speaker 1: So this is a good example of a case where

this law was used. I'm going to tell you about it.

Graves County Middle School teacher Sadie Flores, who is twenty five,

was busted Friday and charged with grooming a minor four

years after marrying her husband, who is a machine operator,

and only a year after giving birth to their first child,

which is her daughter. As a matter of fact, she

had a Facebook post where she put, we are so

grateful God chose us to be parents of the sweet baby.

So the reason I bring that up is you just

never know who people are, sometimes person on Facebook and

a whole other person in reality. This is allegedly a

good example of that, if all these charges are true. Now,

so what happened here was police said that she attempted

to manipulate a minor and expressed feelings of love and

admiration more so than a student teacher relationship. That's what

the citation read. Police have not revealed the alleged victim's age,

but school board officials were contacted by a parent of

a fourteen year old, so they're making the assumption this

person was fourteen.

Speaker 3: The parents said that they had found text.

Speaker 1: Allegedly shared by Flores and the child, and they were

deemed not to be of a legitimate purpose and were

not school related. The educator and the student also met

in secret before a school function outside of school that

she was not directly a part of that, according to

the Graves County Sheriff's office. They also allegedly had late

night FaceTime calls that the parents were not aware of,

according to police, so it's not clear how long Floras

in the child were allegedly messaging before she was actually arrested.

Speaker 3: Flores has been charged.

Speaker 1: With grooming a minor under a law that took effect

there in Kentucky on July fifteenth, and the law allows

cops to charge predators before sexual assault occurs. Teachers must

also take part in sessions focused on preventing grooming. It's

not clear when she will appear in court, and it's

not clear she's enter a plea yet, but it is

clear that she's in a lot of trouble and yeah,

it's a very pretty twenty five year old lady.

Speaker 2: Let me tell you what this right here? Everything that

you've said that allegedly has taken place in that article

is absolutely grooming, because there is no reason whatsoever that I,

as a teacher, share my cell phone number with a

with a student, especially a student of the opposite sex.

You know, back in the day, maybe you know, fifteen

twenty years ago, if they were in a you know,

you were a coach of them or something like that.

And you need to be in contact with your kids

so you could find them whenever you get to the

schools and stuff. But we have too many programs today

in twenty twenty six, there are too many applications that

are provided to teachers for a communication forum that is regulated,

monitored and will keep you out of trouble and we'll

make sure that everything is on the up and up.

There's different platforms for that, and it is preached to

teachers do not have personal contact with the student. And

I'm going to tell you something else. I can't think

of any reason that a teacher outside of school late

at night needs to be facetiming a child a student.

Why would you need to be facetiming a student when

you're up to exactly There is no reason. Yeah, facetiming

them now if.

Speaker 3: Meaning you're wanting to see them on or show them.

Speaker 2: Or show them something. Yeah, it's totally inappropriate. And if

I was on my phone facetiming a kid, and I

don't know what grade she taught, but even if it

was an older kid like my husband would find that weird.

Why are you facetiming that kid? So that tells me

that that was done. Also, I doubt the husband had

any concept of any of this going on. And it's

a beautiful example allegedly until we go to court here,

but it's a beautiful example of that potentially saving a

child from, you know, a situation that would have been

out of the parents' control.

Speaker 3: Fourteen year old.

Speaker 1: Yeah, and you know there's a picture. You can look

up their pictures online if you want to. If you're

watching this on video, you're seeing the picture. But looks

like a I mean, she's got a handsome husband, got

a young baby. There faces blurred out, which it should be.

I agree with that, but just looks like a beautiful

young family. You're starting off your life together, and miss

girl is grooming allegedly a fourteen year old boy. Now,

until I got familiar with this article, you know, I wondered.

I'm like, these grooming laws are going to be kind

of hard to prove because you've got to prove someone's intent, right,

and sometimes it's hard to prove someone's intent unless you

have stuff like this. In her case, they've got proof

that she was texting and saying I love you and

stuff that's obvious grooming. And that is where this law

really comes into play and is really going to be

something able to stand up in court when you have

a paper record of it, you don't, you know, I

think it's great in that case because you don't actually

have to have sex to get charged.

Speaker 2: With something, nor should you, And I think that the

law is great. There should be a high standard here.

There should be a you know, it should meet the

muster of egregious because that's what grooming is. You know,

it's leading to something that's going to be horrendous. So

if she was overcharged, I'm hard pressed to believe it

based on what I'm reading on the report, because I

just can't understand any time that you would be texting

a child like this that you're not their coach, it's

not your event that you're or it's not like a

school event and the kids trying to figure out where

to go. Oh, you know, I can remember years and

years and years ago, you know, twenty years ago, when

you're teaching kids and you'd go to a like a

sporting event where kids drive themselves because they're seniors, and

you're like, hey, guys, meet behind the library because we're

all gonna be over here to take pictures and whatever.

And I totally get that, but because of stuff like this,

there's no excuse. There's no excuse. And I guarantee she

probably signed paperwork too at the beginning of the school

year that there is an electronic policy between you as

a teacher and students and there is not to be

communication on any forum except the approved applications through the

school board. So you knew better, no way, all right,

So this this case is actually kind of a follow

up to when it first broke. But we're going to

go to Indianapolis, where a twenty three year old man

has been sentenced to seventy six years in prison after

pleading guilty to child molestation and rape in connection with

a twenty twenty four home invasion on June twenty ninth

of twenty four, police were called to a home after

receiving a report of a rape. Responding officers made contact

with a woman who said that both she and her daughter,

who was twelve years old, so both mom and child

had been raped at gunpoint. As a mom, to think

that that would only not only be happening to me

in front of my child, but then to be helpless

while it happened to your child in front, you know,

in front of each other, that's just beyond. But they

had both been raped at gunpoint. She stated that a

masked man later identified as Tesshawn Gardner, came to the home,

showed her his gun and told her to let him in.

Gardner then raped her and asked if she was alone.

After looking at family photos on the wall, Gardner reportedly

walked down the hall to the woman's daughter's room and

raped the child at gunpoint. He filmed both attacks on

his cell phone. Gardner stayed in the home for about

an hour, according to the reports, and two other children,

ages one and eight, were also in the home at

the time. W xi in reports. Police tracked down the

suspect using cameras and arrested him during a traffic stop

and an interview, Gardner was asked if he had any

tattoos and told authorities he had one on his stomach.

Authorities confirmed it matched the description given by the victims.

He was charged with nineteen counts of rape, child molestation,

and sexual battery on August sixth. He pled guilty to

one charge each of rape and child molestation was sentenced

to thirty eight years for each charge.

Speaker 1: I almost felt like he should have got more than that.

Speaker 2: That's aggravated rape of a child on the age of thirteen.

That should be on death run.

Speaker 1: That should be it should be at least life in prison,

I mean for each count. And it said, you know

he's not getting aide.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 1: I never say never, Yeah, because I have seen people

get out that you would never think would.

Speaker 3: But thirty eight years on each count. He's got nineteen counts.

Speaker 1: So if you do the math, that's what six hundred

years something like that, which is essentially a life sentence.

Speaker 2: Yeah, but he only pled guilty to one charge each.

Speaker 3: Right, But they're not nineteen separate charges.

Speaker 2: Yeah, it's not very clear on here. If he played well,

if he only.

Speaker 3: Got thirty eight years total, that's not enough for that.

In my opinion.

Speaker 1: But you see that a lot with these you know,

these sexual assault cases that are not murders, that.

Speaker 3: Plea deals are.

Speaker 1: Worked, things like that, and sometimes that's where you land unfortunately.

All right, let's talk about Flock cameras scaling.

Speaker 3: All right, So for those of you.

Speaker 1: Not familiar with this, I'm gonna I'm gonna give you

a scenario that has occurred. A paper has been written

about this, but there's a huge debate. And Flock is

a brand that makes cameras that can read license plates. Okay,

so Flock cameras are not specific cameras per se. There

are several different companies that make these digital license plate readers,

and Flock is one of the companies that offers contracts

to police departments and things like that for this. But

Flock is the biggest one, and they are the one

causing the most controversy, especially here in Louisiana right now,

because law abiding citizens almost consider this harboring or creating

an issue of my privacy and privacy laws. So we're

going to talk about it, but I'm going to give

you an example of where a LKED document reveals that Flock,

the surveillance company, planned to tap roughly three hundred and

fifty thousand ride share drivers for data collection. So Flock Safety,

which is the company behind a nationwide network of automatic

license plate readers, they pitched a plan and they basically

went to Uber and Left and they said, look, we

want to put Flock camera digital readers on every Left

and Uber driver that will agree to it and will

kick it and a little money for that or whatever,

and we want to create a database of license plates. Okay,

like your state government would have, but Flock would have

this data private company.

Speaker 3: Okay.

Speaker 1: So the document which was written which was leaked by

written rather by a guy named Joseph Cox, described equipping

drivers with dash cams capable of scanning license plates along

their route, effectively expanding flocks network beyond its usual fixed

cameras mounted on poles.

Speaker 3: So right now it's just poles with a solar camera on.

Speaker 1: The top that is reading these license plate The presentation

centered on a proposed partnership with Netsar, which is a

maker of dash cams, biggest maker in the world probably,

And so they were trying to partner with them and say, hey,

when you make dash cams, I want this software automatically

installed and that way, we can just build a database

of everyone's license plate, whether they're law abiding or not.

And this has created a little bit of an issue,

but there was a lot of issue before this, just

on flock cameras in general. Now, and Kelly ot, I'll

let you go and talk about your feelings on it,

and then I'll kind of tell you my feelings on

it because I'm back.

Speaker 3: There's some ways I like it and there's some ways

I don't like it.

Speaker 2: Well, I think that the first hang up that people

have is why, like, why do you want to collect

that data? And I don't find that to be one

thousand percent clear on exactly why you want the data,

which makes people nervous. Why do you want it? However,

there's already you know, city buses and things like that

that are equipped with cameras and footage that are going

to record your move you know, your moveabouts through through

this city and all of that. Now, I'm not sure

that those are necessarily logging you by license plate or not,

because I don't know. But I mean, you don't have

a right to privacy out in public, Okay, So I

think that this comes down to what exactly the argument's

going to be about is the argument that there's too

much control and too much ability to track and follow people.

Well to that, I would counter your cell phones tracking

everything you do every second, down to the you know,

down to the letter of your movements, and you're being

tracked by all sorts of things. So again, I think

this kind of goes back to the question of what

is that data collection for? And I would want to

know more about that specifically before I understood, you know, like,

what are the ramifications from it and why and what

is the limit? Is there a limit? Is are there

rules to why this data collection is done? And I'm

not well versed enough in the law or in the

long reach goal of the flock cameras and that regard,

I do like the flock cameras in so far as

if people are stealing or if we we have people

that are on the run that we can read license

I do like that we can read the license plates. Kidnappings,

Silver alerts, Amber alerts. There's no doubt that it helps

to solve crimes. Matter of fact, the case that I'm

going to cover next week on Unspeakable, that's going to

come into play as to solving a very horrific murder.

So there's pros and cons.

Speaker 1: There certainly are, and that's why I go back and

forth on it because of cover cases. Where were it

not for license We'll say license plate readers, because Flock

is just a brand. There's several different brands out there.

But were it not for those license plate readers, kidnapping

suspect wouldn't have been caught before something horrible happened. That

happens all the time with these cameras. I think the

issue is and where some people would maybe debate you

on the cell phone theory, because I agree with that

as well. I think the major difference is they can't

track you from sitting in a location, you know, in

a police department. Okay, we'll just say that they can't

track your phone from just sitting there. But if you

have Flock cameras, they can literally pick up your entire

route to and from without you ever knowing about it.

You know, they would have to download your cell phone

to figure out where you've been.

Speaker 3: For most people.

Speaker 1: Now, if you're a law abiding citizen, a lot of

people say, who cares, I don't care if they follow

me all day long, But you're really staunch constitutionalist people

consider it a violation of privacy to be able to

follow you everywhere. Now, my argument to that in some

ways was, I mean they could get behind you and

follow you on the road.

Speaker 3: You know, we've done surveillance for years.

Speaker 1: What flock cameras do or any sort of camera like

that is you just make it easier.

Speaker 3: They make it quicker.

Speaker 1: But I mean the FBI for years has been sitting

outside people's apartment and watching.

Speaker 3: Them, you know, and following them everywhere they go. Ask

some mafia.

Speaker 2: So the thing here is that if maybe the look

this is huge, Okay, this is a big thing. We

can't sum it up obviously in one minute talking about

the topic. But if there was a level of clearance required,

like you probable cause to be able to access said information,

that would be kind of where this would need to

be going, because you shouldn't be able to just flagrantly

follow somebody about because what could happen there is I'm

just saying, what if it got into the wrong hands

of the wrong person who then says, well, it was

open access at my job, I wasn't breaking any rules,

and then they're following and stalking somebody that you never

know what people are doing. You know, it just could

open up doors. So like so like in a police unit,

I know rules in law, you know everything everywhere is

different every state, but like locally, there's no reason to

be running people through through your system unless you have

a reason within the scope of your job to be

doing so. There's already rules in place. Police officers don't

need to be searching Trump in the you know, in

the system in the vehicle. It's gonna flag it because

why are you looking up somebody that you're not having

an interaction with, or if anybody for that matter, big

profile names. There's already systems in place for people of

higher stature. I guess you could say in security com

place for everybody exactly. So you know, it should meet

the muster of in the scope of your job, you

have probable cause or a reason to be doing so.

It's not just an open access database for anybody. I

think it's a tool just like anything else.

Speaker 1: But you know, I'm not exactly sure what the law

is here in Louisiana, but I can tell you there

are several states, many states in fact, that you can

run license plates as a police officer. Just Willie Melly,

you can go into parking lot and literally run every

license plate in that parking lot just see if they

have warrants, and if it shows up, they have a warrant.

Speaker 3: Now you now, you can't stop somebody.

Speaker 1: You can't run a license plate and note this person's

doing nothing wrong, they're driving down the right, and then

stop them. But you can run the plate to see

if they have warrants, and then that gives you the

probable cause.

Speaker 2: Yeah, but you don't know if that's who's driving that

car either.

Speaker 3: So but you know that is the law in many

states you can in fact do that.

Speaker 2: Well, I'm going to state I'm going to tell you

that every state's we know this, every state's different.

Speaker 3: So what's the law here?

Speaker 2: I'm telling you what the policy here was. Last time

I was in the position was that you've got to

have a reason to be running a plate on You've

got to have a reason to be doing it. If not,

why are you in Because the database is intended for

criminal apprehension or for verification of no warrant or something

like that, or driving under a suspended license or something

like that. So why would you run the plate unless

you had a reason to be running the plate. Now,

if you know that Joe Blow, you believe Joe Blow.

There's an investigation that he was involved in an armed

robbery and drove a blue car and then you're in Walmart,

then you have probable cause. But but to just be

running plates, I don't know why you would do that,

Like I do. I don't even know why someone would

want to do that.

Speaker 1: There are a lot of states where they do it,

and they would literally go in a parking lot and

run plates until they find someone at warrants and then they'll.

Speaker 3: Basically pick them up.

Speaker 2: That might be may be legal, but policy is what

I'm going to follow as far as an agency goes.

So maybe that was a you know, maybe that was

a certain Maybe they have a certain I think it

was Colorado.

Speaker 3: If I'm not mistaken, then I read that.

Speaker 2: About it might be, but maybe they haven't a task

force or something where they are out and being proactive

and they're looking to try to clear up and close

some cases. So you know, there's a lot to it.

But flot cameras in general, you're you're on camera multiple

times a day. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

Speaker 1: So yeah, but being on camera multiple times a day

doesn't track you. There's a difference when you're on camera

multiple times a day because you pass a bank or

you pass someone's you know, someone happened to be on

the road with the dash can. There's a difference between

that and being able to track somebody's movements. Once that

thing takes a picture, it's in the database and they

can literally track you for a year.

Speaker 2: But it would depend on I'll never see you. It

would depend on where the flock camera though, was stationed.

But in this case, they're wanting to put them on

all these cars, so it's constantly moving about.

Speaker 1: Oh yeah, and in Baton, Richie, if you got over

one hundred, over one hundred, you can go to dflock

dot org and you can actually see where every flock

or driver license plate reader is because what it is

is it's regular citizens. It's a nonprofit that when they

see the cameras, they actually log in the coordinates.

Speaker 3: To this d D whatever it is, deflog dot Com,

Gota way.

Speaker 2: I just want more information on what it's going to

be used for and what is what are the stipulations

in what are the protections in place for this? And

I feel like there we're not getting enough of that information,

and so I would give pushback for those reasons. This

is going to probably become very big, much bigger than

it already is, because it does bring about a lot

of questions of why am I being tracked and why

would you have the authority to do so? Just because

it does.

Speaker 1: And law enforcement is always going to have a different

perspective because they're out there enforcing laws. So you know,

if you ask someone that's in law enforcement, Okay, if

you weren't in law enforcement, how would you feel about this?

Their opinion may be different. They may be like, you know,

you know what, You're right, I'm a law abiding citizen.

I don't want people to know where I'm going. It's

none of their business.

Speaker 2: Well, and then it also.

Speaker 3: On the other side of that, why would they care?

Speaker 2: But like, what if you were frequenting like a gentleman's

club and you didn't want people to know that, or

what if you were frequenting some kind of in some

kind of place that you know, that's your private life.

Wherever you're going is legal and you have a right

to be there and all of that. But then now

it's like, well, what if you were in a certain

position that if that information got out, it might would

affect your job or your you know, how you were

re seve because your marriage or your marriage. Really though,

so we shouldn't be tracking people for sure for morality reasons.

I mean, we don't legislate morality, Jim. How many spouses

should someone get away with killing before we raise an eyebrow?

Speaker 3: Probably one?

Speaker 2: Just get away with one.

Speaker 1: I mean, get away with I thought you meant how

many people should they actually kill?

Speaker 3: I don't know.

Speaker 2: Yeah, It's just my point is that that shouldn't even

be a question. I'm asking. That's so bizarre. So Yolanda

Morodi pled guilty to manslaughter in connection with the stabbing

death of her husband in two thousands. This is like

a brutal a stabbing death. She was sentenced to ten

years in prison, was released in November of twenty thirteen.

On August the fourth, she pled guilty to fatally stabbing

her second spouse, Rebecca Morodi, on February seventeenth of twenty five.

The couple had been married for two years, and Rebecca

had recently sought to leave the marriage. According to an

arrest warrant obtained home surveillance footage captured a blood covered

Rebecca Morodi being chased by Yolanda, saying, Yolanda, please, I

don't want to die. That's a quote end quote, and

she responded with you should have thought of that before.

Rebecca repeatedly asked Marodi to dial nine one one before

the couple went back inside home. Surveillance footage showed Morodi

leaving the residents. About ten minutes later, she placed several

items into her car and then left. Rebecca was found

by her mother inside the couple's home dead from multiple

stab wounds. Approximately seventy five minutes after killing her wife,

Marodi crossed the border into Mexico. According to the San

Diego County District Attorney's Office, She then sent a text

the following day that said, quote, Becky came home and

told me she was leaving me. She met somebody else.

All the messages were lies. We had a big fight

and I hurt her. I'm sorry. Marodi was arrested on

March twenty second of twenty five in Mexicoli, mec and

She was then transferred to the US by the marshals

through a US port of entry and booked into jail

on suspicion of murder. She then, on August fourth, plaged

guilty to second degree murder and admitted that she used

a knife to kill her wife. She entered a plea

deal that lowered the charge from first degree to second

degree murder, and the district attorney, Jared Coleman, said the

deal was a consideration of many factors, maybe the most

important of which was the desire of the victim's family foreclosure.

Rebecca had served as a firefighter since nineteen ninety two.

She had been promoted to captain in twenty twenty two,

and she also served as the caretaker of her elderly mother.

According to her obituary, at the age of seventeen, Becky

answered a different kind of calling the fire service. With

unwavering dedication and bravery, she embarked on a career that

was more than just a job. It was her passion.

Becky's commitment to protecting others, and her fearless spirit made

her a respected, an admired member of the firefighting community,

and it continued saying that she faced every challenge with

strength and grace. She will be remembered for her infectious smile,

kind heart, and the way she always put others before herself.

Her love for her family and her friends was boundless,

and her impact will never be forgotten. Morodi is scheduled

to be sentenced on September second, and she faces thirty

six years to life in prison.

Speaker 3: Well she deserves every bit of that sounds like to me.

Speaker 2: Stabs two spouses to death.

Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, they married the wrong woman.

Speaker 2: My god, and she doesn't look I know we always

say this, but she just doesn't look like what you

would expect.

Speaker 1: What would you expect? Yeah, that's the question. Horrific, terrible, horrific.

Let's go into Wisconsin and a Wisconsin mother and her

adult son have sued a retired fertility doctor, and they

allege he used his own sperm to impregnate her without

her knowledge or consent more than forty years ago.

Speaker 3: Can't make that up?

Speaker 2: Wait say it again? Who he impregnated his own mother?

Speaker 3: I'm gonna tell you the story. No, not his own model.

Speaker 2: Sorry.

Speaker 1: A Wisconsin woman and her son are suing an obgyn

they claim used his own sperm to impregnate her.

Speaker 2: Oh the doctor, Okay, sorry, that's all right, punctuation matters.

Speaker 1: Without her consent and potentially other patients The complaint was

filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court by Mary Ellen Luzak

and her son Joseph in nineteen eighty the twenty five

year old Marianne.

Speaker 3: At that time, she and her.

Speaker 1: Husband Thomas, they were trying to expand their family, right,

So they go do what you would do in nineteen

eighty and they went to anbgyn. And this is at

the early days of fertility studies, right, And they talked

to doctor Frederick Deetman, and he says, hey, there's this

new thing out. It's called artificial insemination, and we can

use your husband's sperm, or rather you sperm from an

anonymous donor. And so this anonymous donor that they were

able to choose was a medical student. They didn't know

his name, but apparently I didn't know this. But you

can kind of choose the type of individual you want.

I will I want someone that's tall. Well I know

that now, yeah, but.

Speaker 2: It's because a friend of mine told me she's they

did this.

Speaker 3: Yes, I know someone that did this.

Speaker 2: Wis factors that would make and her goal was I

want my children to look like my husband. And so

that's how she chose.

Speaker 1: Yeah, I have a very good friend that just had

her daughter just had a baby.

Speaker 3: And that's how they did it.

Speaker 1: They did like a six foot four, blue eyed man,

you know.

Speaker 3: Yeah, why not?

Speaker 1: So anyway, they go, this is nineteen eighty and they

start doing artificial insemination, and as as typical, it doesn't

work the first few times, and they keep going back

and eventually, in nineteen eighty two, Marianne does in fact

become pregnant, and she gives birth to a baby Joseph

the following year. But decades later, in twenty twenty four,

things took an unexpected turn when Joseph he does what

everybody's been doing these days that have really been telling

the tale, if you will, of what people were doing

in the eighties, because Joseph says, I'm going to go

to ancestry dot com and do a DNA thing, you know,

I'm gonna track my.

Speaker 3: Heritage and all that stuff.

Speaker 1: He does that, and guess what he finds out His

biological father is the doctor.

Speaker 3: Yeah.

Speaker 1: So it also revealed multiple half siblings and other family

members who he had never even known existed. Right So,

according to the attorney, deep Men never told deep Man

being the doctor, never told this lady Hey, I'm gonna

use my sperm to implant in you. And of course,

at this point in time, she's feeling pretty violated. She

didn't you know, yes, she chose an anonymous donor, but

you don't if you don't specifically tell the doctor I

want your sperm.

Speaker 3: Uh. It seems like this doctor was shady, right, Yeah, it's.

Speaker 2: A one sided Uh, it's a one sided secret. And

that's not fair.

Speaker 1: Well, And she chose a specific person, you know, she

didn't know his name, but she chose this medical student,

whoever this person was. That's why I want this doctor

put it put it on himself to impregnate this woman.

And basically she had his baby. And in addition to that,

they are thinking that she had something or he had

something to do with other pregnancies as well.

Speaker 3: Now, yeah, but it's.

Speaker 1: It's interesting that ancestry dot com and one two three

meters or whatever it is. Man, they are really busting

some people. There's some people out there that have kids

that aren't really their kids, and they're not finding out

until these kids are adults. And they're basically going and

doing these genealogy tests and finding out their daddy ain't

their daddy and then Mama's like.

Speaker 3: What, I don't know what you're talking about.

Speaker 1: Yeah, you never You never foresaw that twenty years ago,

that that you could literally just send your blood off

in the mail to a company and they can come

back and show you a family tree based off of

everybody that's done that same DNA test.

Speaker 2: Yeah. I would have questions about this about whether it

was that she chose one person and he switched it

with his, or did he have his profile in there

that he was a medical student whenever he filled it out.

Speaker 1: No, No, the doctor intentionally inserted his sperm.

Speaker 2: No, I'm not doubting that. What I'm saying is I

wonder if he had been a sperm donor and had

filled out his like that was his donor card, and

then he eventually went on and became a doctor, and

so he knows what he's doing is wrong. But what

I'm saying is, I'm wondering if he's going to try

to get away with it by saying, well, no, that

was actually my card. That was actually I am a

sperm donor. I just never told her that she had

chosen me. If I was a defense attorney. You understand

when I'm saying that.

Speaker 3: I don't think that's even in the realm of public.

Speaker 2: Okay, if he was a medical student.

Speaker 3: What you're saying, get what you're saying. I'm saying, I

don't think that's even in the realm of possibility of occurrent. Well,

I don't know how they get here was the doctor

and he gave her.

Speaker 2: I don't know how they do their database, Like I

don't know if a certain fertility clinic has certain donors

that only they use, like at that clinic, or if

it's like a national database and they can nail it him.

It seems like it has to be fresh. I don't know.

I've never looked into this, you know, the rules and

regulations of how that's done. I'd be interested to know, though,

but i'd be pissed because if it's supposed to be

an anonymous donor, that's supposed to be a two way street,

and this is not anonymous. If one side knows the secret.

Speaker 3: Yeah, that's the problem.

Speaker 1: That's I think that's the major issue, aside from the fact, Hey,

this doctor could have been five foot two ugly, and

maybe this lady was. I'm not saying that, but you know,

people look at looks and Heck, if you can choose

your kid and know exactly what they're gonna look like,

you're gonna pick what you find attract if everybody's gonna

do that, and this this guy may not been in

I don't know.

Speaker 2: I don't know either, but when your kid ends up

looking like your doctor, it's like, wow, y'all really looks similar.

Speaker 1: Yeah, well, there you have it. And you know this

lady's still alive. It's not like she's.

Speaker 3: Dad.

Speaker 1: I mean, she knows that this all took place, and

her son is now a grand man. I'm sure she

loves him very much, totally.

Speaker 2: And I would still feel violated as well. I think

she has a legitimate, a huge leg to stand on

here and say.

Speaker 3: That this is Yeah, they're gonna get some money out

of this, and.

Speaker 2: They should right here. In Denim Springs, a Russian nationalist

was taken into custody after Livingstone Pairs deputies discovered nearly

eight hundred pounds of methamphetamine concealed inside an eighteen wheeler

during a traffic stop on Interstate twelve. Eight hundred pounds,

my goodness. So the living spar Sheriff's Office K nine

Division conducted the traffic stop in Denhim Springs, and deputies

identify the driver as Anton raycoff Is how I think

you would say the middle name. I'm not even gonna try.

It's like valte velitch vy Daliavich either way, and he

was described as a deportable Russian national. Raycov was taken

into custody due to his immigration status. A subsequent investigation

into the tractor trailer led LPSO Narcotics to approximately three

hundred and fifty eight point fourteen kilos or seven hundred

and eighty nine and a half pounds of meth concealed

inside the trailer. The Sheriff's office described the seizure as

one of the largest meth seizures in Livingston Parish and

Louisiana history. The investigation is still ongoing. Raycoll remains in

ice custody and they're still checking into this. And you

can see in the pictures just bricks of this and

stacked up. Our sheriff. I think he's sixty three.

Speaker 3: That's a sheriff. Forward's about six.

Speaker 2: He's a tall fella. He's standing next to it and

it is way up there, and it's two layers deep,

two rose deep.

Speaker 3: Yeah, oh, yeah.

Speaker 1: And I actually talked to several individuals today at LPSO

about this bust. And it's interesting that this guy was

a Russian national, but this the these drugs came from Mexico,

so it was a cartel bust. Obviously, when you have

that much, I mean, your regular meth lab in yeah,

you know somewhere tim buck Too is not going to

produce eight hundred pounds at one time.

Speaker 2: And it's packaged nice.

Speaker 1: It's like, well, yeah, And that's what I was going

to get to is when you look at the picture,

it looks like a stack of silver bars.

Speaker 3: So when I initially.

Speaker 1: Saw that article, I thought they had, for whatever reason,

repossessed like eight hundred pounds of silver. And I was

going to hit up the sheriff and say, hey, how

do I buy that? Can I buy that at like

fifty percent off or something? I'll bring you in a check.

I mean, it looks exactly like silver bars, but that's

how they package this stuff. They wrap it a certain way,

and how you know, you know, each cartel actually packages

these differently. There's actually markings on this stuff to identify

what cartel's from, which is crazy to me because you're

you're it's an illegal drug, and so you're like basically

branding your own form of uh you know, heroin or whatever,

you know, meth in this case. And uh so, but

I'll tell you what eight hundred pounds, So a kilo

is two point two pounds. So I think they had

this broke down in kilos and it was just a

massive amount. What is that, you know, seventeen close to

seventeen hundred.

Speaker 2: Pounds or something. You always ask a math amount or seventeen.

Speaker 3: Hundred kilos a ton of a ton of mouth.

Speaker 2: It's funny that you say, you go to the actual.

Speaker 3: Bill serious about it. What I was.

Speaker 2: Gonna say, it's funny you go to the actual math

and I'm trying to describe it to him, And how

tall the sheriff is, how tall the sack.

Speaker 1: Well, you know, in all seriousness, there's no telling how

many lives that saved. In all seriousness, all joking aside,

that is one serious addicting drug.

Speaker 3: I don't, thank.

Speaker 1: God, know that by experience, but I know people that

have suffered, you know, being addicted to it, and it

is horrible. And so you take eight hundred pounds off

the street, you've done some good.

Speaker 2: And this guy better pray to his maker that he

remains in ice custody because there is a cartel that

is going to end him whenever.

Speaker 3: Oh yeah, I thought about that too.

Speaker 1: I'm like, you know, whoever, because at first I thought

it was a rushing cartel and I'm like, when he

gets back, Putin is going to be pitched.

Speaker 3: But apparently he's getting deported.

Speaker 1: You know, he'll eventually get deported back to Russia because

that's where he's from. But the Mexican cartel.

Speaker 3: Has got to mount form for sure.

Speaker 1: Yeah, that's a lot of that's a lot of stuff

to dope to get busted with in the cartel to lose.

But I don't feel bad for him either. Good job

Lpso for another another bust man. They've had some big

ones lately. All right, let's go to Florida and I'm

gonna tell you this is just a wild story right here.

Got up by the name of Brian Rosado. He played

guilty to kidnapping, sexual battery of the victim younger than eighteen,

and seventy five counts of possession of child sexual abuse material.

So for this he gets sentenced to twenty five years

in prison. After accepting a police deal. Absolutely disgusting. Despite

Florida's sentencing guidelines, which they're usually pretty tough on this stuff,

the guidelines recommend a minimum sentence of four hundred and

thirty years, he gets twenty five years. His sentence will

be followed by fifteen years of probation, and he'll obviously

have to be required to register as a sex offender.

Speaker 3: Whoop.

Speaker 1: He he should be in prison the whole time for this.

But to tell you what happened, this guy approached a

group of teenagers at an apartment complex and he offered

one of them twenty dollars to buy him food at

a nearby burger king. When a thirteen year old girl

returned with his order, he grabbed her from behind, forced

her into his car, and he just drives off. He

drives this girl with this girl for several hours, just

around town. He eventually takes her to a neighborhood that's

under construction, and he sexually assaults her. At one point,

she rolls down the window and screams for help before

he stopped her from escaping and locked the doors and

windows and continued this assault. Investigators identified him after receiving

a tip and matched both as vs vehicle and cell

phone to the victim's account. The investigators later recovered twenty

videos depicting portions of the assault, so he was video

in this entire thing, along with dozens of files that

were identified as child see SAM material from his cell phone.

Before accepting the plea agreement, the judge questioned prosecutors about

the significant difference between the recommended sentence and the negotiated

plea deal. So even the judges looking at this saying,

I mean, he's at a minimum should get three to

thirty years, and y'all give him twenty five years, the

prosecutors tell the judge the victims supported the agreement because

it spared her the mental and emotional anguish of testifying

a trial. And that was an interesting thing for me,

because until I got to that point in the story,

you know, I was like, this is crazy. In this case,

apparently the victim did not want to testify and was

begging prosecutors please do whatever you can to make a

deal with this guy. And I can certainly feel for

her and understand why she would feel that way. Defense

attorney Gabriel Biggs also said that Rosatto's lack of a

criminal history. His apparent remorse is how that was verbalized,

and decision to plead guilty without requiring the victim to

testify justified the sentence. Under Florida law, he does have

to serve eighty five percent of that sentence before becoming

eligible for release.

Speaker 2: This I have to tell you. Prosecutors have a job

to do, and we would love you know, you'd love

to throw the book at him. We have society, is

what I was going to say. But we would love

to throw the book at him and give him the max.

But there is something to be said about the victim

ultimately being the one that feels like justice was served

and that they got out of it what they wanted.

And so if the victim desperately did not want to testify,

and there's a lot of pressure to not have that happen,

I guess. I guess it's hard to argue with the

family of the victim if they say this is, this is,

we would really really like to spare them. I don't

understand the massive decrease though. Why was it decreased? I mean,

you have video and stuff too. I don't know.

Speaker 1: Maybe that he wouldn't agree to it unless it was

twenty five years and anything over that.

Speaker 3: Maybe, well that's not what they did.

Speaker 1: I know, But I'll tell you my feelings on this,

and I want to preface this with I totally understand

whether the young lady's going through, not what she's going through,

but where she's going with this, and that in that

she doesn't want to relive it, she doesn't want to testify.

I hate plea deals in sexual assault cases period of

any kind. Absolutely hate them, and I don't like Okay,

there are a lot of cases that I have covered

where if the victims did not want a plea deal

and the prosecutors made plea deals. Happens all the time

because the prosecutors justify it by saying, well, the victim

doesn't know the law, they don't know how to prove evidence,

they don't understand our cases a little bit shaky. We're

the experts here, and we don't want to take a

risk of going to trial and not getting a conviction.

Speaker 3: This guy's willing to cut a deal. All those things.

Speaker 1: Okay, but you here's a situation where you let the

family have to say, and then there's situations where you don't.

Speaker 3: I think it should should just be one way or

the other.

Speaker 1: Either you gonna let the families decide, or you're gonna

let the court system decide.

Speaker 3: Picking and choosing. The picking and choosing is where I

have an issue with it. Well, if you.

Speaker 1: Have video of this guy doing this, you've got enough evidence.

You don't even need her to testify. Why she got

to testify? You got a video?

Speaker 2: Well, I mean I think it's deeper than that. But

what was the maxim centis? Though it was twenty five

thirty years? No, no, no, I'm.

Speaker 3: Sorry minimum sentence had they not cut a.

Speaker 2: Deal, So twenty five years and he's got to serve

eighty five percent of the twenty twelve, So about twenty years?

And how old was he?

Speaker 3: I mean, it doesn't say Kelly, what does that have

to do with.

Speaker 2: Well, I'm trying to see what if they're what I mean,

if they're just a under looking guy looks to be

in his twenties. Well, what I'm saying is that I

don't know if their justification was that he would be forty, well, yeah,

that's not That's what I'm trying to get at, is

that he doesn't even look like he's Yeah, I know what.

Speaker 1: You were trying to say you were trying to say

if he was eighty, yeah, then I mean that's a

life sentence.

Speaker 3: But I don't like it.

Speaker 2: I don't either.

Speaker 3: I do.

Speaker 2: I understand, I understand it, but I don't like it.

And but obviously, you know, this is just an article.

We don't know all the ins and outs, and we

don't know other information or what that might affect.

Speaker 1: It seems like they had enough evidence with videos and

text and all these things that we're talking about. You

didn't need her to tell I try to get a conviction. Yeah,

if you got a video the guy sexually assaulting her,

I mean that's even better than to does it say.

Speaker 2: The video was her actually sexually assaulting Was it just

the video of the attack, like when he kidnapped her

and drove around.

Speaker 1: Twenty videos depicting portions of the assault. Twenty videos.

Speaker 2: Yeah, I don't know. I don't know. But I'm never

going to stand here and say they just screwed up,

because I don't think there's there's got to be something

that I don't.

Speaker 3: Know that just can I just screw up.

Speaker 2: I just would be hard pressed to believe that. I mean,

this is Florida, you know, Florida, is very tough on

this type of stuff, So not.

Speaker 1: Every prosecutor in Florida isn't lazy. I look at this

as lazy prosecution. That's what I look at this as.

Believe me, there's prosecutors out there, Kelly, that are burnout

and they cut plea deals all the time they shouldn't cut.

And listeners out there right now are like.

Speaker 3: He's right.

Speaker 2: Well, I don't know about that. I didn't jump to

that conclusion at all. I feel like it seems like

it to me. It just seems like they were maybe

so sympathetic to the victim that if the victim was

happy with that and it was a guaranteed, I don't

know that it's late. See, I'm very empathetic to a victim,

So I look at it from the lens of if

they were like, look, if he gets twenty five years

or more, we are happy. We don't want to put

our child through this. We don't want her to have

to relive this. She's already traumatized, she's already not wanting

to go to school, she's already not wanting to have

relationships with whatever.

Speaker 4: Then you'd Kelly, he's gonna get out and he could

do that to someone else. He could be, so they

don't get to choose when a sex offender gets out

and does it to someone else.

Speaker 3: Yeah, but you're also a That's what pisses me off. Yes,

I'm saying he's gonna I know, I know.

Speaker 2: But what I'm saying is the assumption that he's gonna

do it again, which I agree he would do it again,

But the assumption of that. I cannot put on the weight,

put that weight on the shoulders of a thirteen year

old girl and say you we got to do this

for the future person. I mean, we're dealing with your victim.

You were the victim here, and I just do really,

if this was a we don't know the condition of

that kid either, that kid this could have absolutely just debilitated.

Speaker 3: Oh I'm sure did so a normal kid, no condition would.

Speaker 1: But you are allowing allowing this person to make the

decision on whether this guy stays in prison for life

or gets released, Especially a thirteen year old, you're not

gonna want to. They don't understand the ramifications of if

he gets out. I don't believe sexual predators can be

rehabilitatd can't we know that? Okay, Well, he's a sexual predator.

Speaker 2: Yeah, but there's also you know, there's also he's got

to serve the eighty five percent twenty years. He's you know,

he's guaranteed to be in there for the twenty years.

And we also don't know that if there's any other

pending if there's any other pending cases against him, that

maybe they're looking at the long gala.

Speaker 1: You're speculating specular assuming there's not, because nowhere does it

say that.

Speaker 2: But if there was, but it could be part of

the long term game. I'm just saying, there's got to

be more to this. I just would be hard pressed

to believe there were, Like twenty five sounds good.

Speaker 1: I mean, when the judge is sitting there saying, you

sure you want to do twenty five years?

Speaker 3: I know it's three hundred and thirty years minim.

Speaker 1: You sure you went, and they're sitting there saying, oh, yeah,

she didn't want to testify, Well prosecute it without her testimony.

Speaker 3: You got enough evidence here. This is lazy pride, This

is my opinion.

Speaker 1: I understand that you don't want to believe that, but

if you got that many videos and you've got all

this other sea sand material on his boy's phone.

Speaker 3: People have been found guilty for assault.

Speaker 2: Just because it says assault twenty assault videos doesn't mean

that it's the sexual part of it. He could have

been slapping her, he kidnapped her, that's part of all

of that. So I don't know what the videos actually depict,

and so they may feel like she's got to testify

to the sexual component of it to meet the mustard

to get the three hundred and something years, And that's

what I'm getting at here. So without her testimony, Without

her testimony, I think that they feel like they would

have a damaged case to get that much of a sentence,

is what I'm saying.

Speaker 1: We don't know, We don't know, and I don't know

what they You're right, I don't know what they had

on the videos. One could infer that there was I mean,

some of the actual sex involved in this sexual assault

that were on those videos, because obviously that sort of

thing turned this sicko on.

Speaker 2: Yeah, just like the other guy that filmed when he raped.

Speaker 1: The mom and the daughter exactly, and he agreed to

the twenty five years, So he must have thought they

had enough evidence that if he didn't agree, he was

going to go to jail for at least twenty five years.

Speaker 3: I just I just could have fifty. It just seems

lazy to me. Fifty seems lazy to me.

Speaker 1: I just don't like plea agreements on sexual assault cases

unless there is just absolutely no evidence, and this, to

me seems like they had enough evidence.

Speaker 3: I've seen people get convicted with LUs.

Speaker 2: I agree, I agree, all right.

Speaker 3: Sorry, I got passion on that one. I don't like.

Speaker 2: Good. Passion is good. You know. Ted Nugent in a

video of a big video like years ago, he said,

I don't like repeat offenders. I like dead offenders. And

I will never forget him saying that because it kind

of fits here. I don't like sex offenders. I like

dead sex offenders, you know, because there's no there is

no way that you're going to ever make me feel

okay about offending a child like that. None. All right,

So I did you listen to Tupac Hawk's music? Yeah, yeah,

I did too. I grew Yeah, I grew up with Pack.

I liked him. I know I'm Pop.

Speaker 3: I grew up with Pop.

Speaker 2: I did, and I will admit that I am.

Speaker 1: As friends call him, Pac, not Tupac Popp man, I

get it hugging on my mama from a jail cell.

Speaker 2: My point is that that the loss of him affected

people that really did like his music and thought that

he was talented. And so this case of Tupac Shakers

killing has been unresolved for decades. But now well, the

man that is charged in his nineteen ninety six killing

in Las Vegas is going to trial and I'm looking

forward to this one personally. Keithds This is Dwayne Davis,

sixty three, faces one charge of murder with a deadly

weapon with the intent to promote, further or assist a

criminal gang in Shakur's death. Jerry's selection begins Monday, with

the trial scheduled to last about a month. The trial

will bring to head one of the biggest mysteries in

the hip hop world that gripped the public for decades. Shakur,

who also went by the stage names Tupac and Macavelli,

is considered one of the most influential rappers of all time.

Shakur was shot in Las Vegas on September seventh, nineteen

ninety six, and he was in a black BMW with

music mogul Marion Shug Night on their way to Club

six sixty two, where Shakur was scheduled to perform, when

a white Cadillac pulled up beside them, gunfire erupted. Shakur,

who is the passenger or in the passenger seat, was

shot multiple times and died six days later. While Night survived.

The case went cold until recent years when public statements

in a tell all memoir from Davis revived the case.

He was the leader of Southside Compton Cripps at the

time of Shakur's death. Davis was arrested in twenty twenty

three and pled not guilty, And so far we know

that the trial is going to take place in Clark

County District Court in Vegas with Judge Carly Kearny presiding

over the case. Jerry selections Monday. That's going to take

a couple of days. Inside the courtroom, seats for the

public will be in short supply, and they're going to

do a daily lottery to allow you the chance to

go in. A room on the second floor of the

court will be open to the public and will show

a live feed of the trial. Shakor's cousin I know,

was among the family and supporters outside the courthouse Monday morning,

and he's saying, you know, justice needs to be served

and whoever had anything to do with this, whoever set

it up, whoever had a hand in it, should be

locked up and in prison. The trial likely won't answer

who pulled the trigger because prosecutors are not arguing that

Davis is the one who actually pulled the trigger that night,

and it's gonna confront so it won't confirm that. But

they're still going to go through all of this expected

to testify. They say thirty five to forty five witnesses,

and there's a whole lot here that you can go research.

It goes on and on and on. But celebrities could

be at the trial and called into this and we'll

see where it goes.

Speaker 1: I'm gonna break it down for the people out there

just quickly, because I have studied this case for years

and so it is of almost everybody's belief in existence.

A baby Lane, who is Keifyd's nephew is actually the

one that killed Tupac. Now you may know, or you

may be familiar with a Las Vegas fight after the

Mike Tyson fight where Tupac Shug and a bunch of

these guys from Death Row Records were leaving the fight.

They see Baby Lane inside of the I believe it

was the Mirage, or it might have been the Grand

in Las Vegas where that fight was held. They got

in a fist fight Tupac did with him in the

lobby of that casino because he was wearing a death

Road chain that was stolen by one of Tupac's friends

that was in Death Row Records. Tupac sees this, Hey,

that's the guy that stole the chain, goes over there.

Speaker 3: And they get to fisticuffs.

Speaker 1: It gets basically Baby Lane gets stomped out by the

whole crew and Tupac Biggie leave. They're headed to Club

six two to six. I think it's called or something somewhat.

Speaker 3: To that, sixty six y two.

Speaker 1: They're headed to Club sixty six two and they get

shot at a red light. And what happened was two

girls pulled up. Tupac's hollering at him outside the car, hey,

what's up? Follow us to the club, and basically these

guys pulled up and just started shooting. Now everybody in

that other car is at this point in time, Baby

Lane was actually killed. A couple of days later in

a gang fight.

Speaker 3: Uh and there were.

Speaker 1: Two other people in the car aside from who's on

trial right now KEFD, and those other two people are

also dead. KEFD is the only one alive. They do

not think that he shot Tupac. They think he gave

the gun to his nephew and said you're gonna handle this.

And look, Baby Lane was about it. He said give

me that gun and he shot too. Allegedly he shot

Tupac and Biggie I mean and uh not Biggie, Tupac

and Chug And so this is this is prosecution really

for the direction that KEEFD gave Baby.

Speaker 3: Lane on this killing.

Speaker 2: And in the book, yeah, he talked to Davis. Alleges

in the book that it was Diddy who wanted night

in Chakoor dead and.

Speaker 3: He offered everybody in my podcast.

Speaker 2: Money to kill them.

Speaker 3: So two million dollars yea, I believe it was or

a million did.

Speaker 2: He's denied obviously any of this did. He just hasn't

done anything.

Speaker 1: You ask him, no, he says, that's all bs. He

doesn't admit to it. But he not only said that

in his book, he also went on a very popular

podcast that a guy that he basically podcasts all.

Speaker 3: The rappers out there.

Speaker 1: He went on his podcast and talked about it, and

the reason he talked about it was he had a

profit agreement that was in place during all of this

because they were trying to get to the bottom of

who killed Tupac. So at the time, when all these

people were alive, they were trying to get Keithy Dee

to tell them. They worked a profit agreement with him

where whatever he said.

Speaker 3: He could not be prosecuted for. But when he was

on these shows, he assumed he was.

Speaker 1: Still under that profit agreement and he wasn't, and he

went and talked about it. In the case of the book,

his defense for that is he said he had a

ghostwriter writing that.

Speaker 3: He didn't write it. He never said it, the ghostwriter

wrote it. That may be.

Speaker 1: I mean, I don't think that Keithy d really sat

down and wrote a book, so that may be really

true that he had a ghostwriter. But who do you

think told the ghost Yeah, I mean, so we'll see

what happens.

Speaker 3: It is a big case.

Speaker 1: Uh, But unfortunately, the person who really killed Tupac, in

the belief of just about everyone, is already dead and

won't face justice at least through our earth. He'll face

it from Jesus Christ. If you're a believer like I do,

he's gonna face that justice. But uh, they have it

all right, Kelly Jennings, I think that's a right for today.

Speaker 2: I had a good time. These were some good stories.

We'll have to keep following up.

Speaker 1: Thank you to everyone for listening, supporting Shiv his podcast

wherever you hear it, and uh, until next time, I'm

Jim Chapman and I and we're your host of Crime Week.