Diddy Fights for Freedom, Mom Still Missing in Bahamas, and Disturbing Florida “Dexter,” with Chris Stewart

If you dread dealing with your insurance more than getting stuck in an elevator with an overshare. Being burrito for lunch. You have insura noia. You should have NJM. They go to great lengths to do what's best for their policyholders. Insurance underwritten by NJM Insurance Company and its subsidiaries. When I need to impress someone with a gift, I go straight to 1-800-Flowers. There's a reason they've spent 50 years as the floral authority. Every stem is hand selected by a vetted florist, and with same-day delivery nationwide, 100% satisfaction guaranteed. That's why millions go to 1-800-Flowers to celebrate life's most important moments. Order now for up to 40% off. Don't miss out on this limited time offer. Act now and save up to 40% at 1-800-Flowers.com slash SXM. That's 1-800-Flowers.com slash SXM. Welcome to MK True Crime. I'm Dave Aaron Berg, former state attorney for Palm Beach County, aka the Florida Lawman. And current managing partner of Dave Aaron Berg Law. Here's what's on the docket today. Diddy's lawyers are back in court in a bid to overturn his prison sentence. Will he be set free ahead of his expected 2028 release date? And if so, all the neighbors think we'll bring you the latest. The 16-year-old Florida boy that's always a Florida connection. Accused of murdering his stepsister on a family cruise late last year, while he's prosecuted as an adult. What could the sentence be? We'll discuss. And later we joined by journalist Chris Stewart, a fellow Florida man, to talk the latest on the Michigan mom who went overboard in the Bahamas. Her husband was just released from custody with no charges for now. But local authorities in the US Coast Guard continue to investigate. I'm joined today by my co-host Phil Holloway, criminal defense lawyer, former prosecutor and former police officer. Phil, great to be with you. Let's do a quick review of the Diddy case for listeners before we get into his appeal. You know, in July 2025, rapper Sean Diddy Combs was found guilty of two counts of transportation for prostitution. That's also known as the MAN Act. That prohibits moving individuals across state lines for illegal sex acts. These charges stem from allegations regarding his involvement in coerced, drug-fueled, freak-off sexual encounters. In October, he was sentenced to 50 months in prison, where he sits today. Philip, you get the first word. What's your take? Well, great to be with you, Dave, as always. So this whole Diddy appeal, you know, it's very interesting. And, you know, one of the arguments that he's making is that he, this was protected first amendment stuff, right? That he's making pornographic videos. So he's making pornographic videos. And I think that this whole thing is kind of based on some weak tea. I'm not buying much of it, Dave. And, you know, the other piece of this isn't, and we'll get into some of this with some of our sound here in a few minutes, I'm sure. The other piece of this is he's saying that the judge sentenced him to too much time because according to Diddy's lawyers, the judge considered, let's just call it activities for which he was acquitted. But here's my take on both of those things. You know, you can't hide behind the first amendment and use it as a shield to protect you when you're videoing other criminal activities. That's just not how it works. And as far as the sentence goes, Dave, you know, the judge has every right under the statutory scheme to sentence him to every day that he sentenced him to. It's entirely discretionary and absolutely abuse of discretion. And it has to be strong showing a strong showing of abuse of that discretion. That sentence is not going to be overturned. You know, the judge in his sentencing acknowledged that there was conduct for which the man was acquitted. He is entitled to consider all of the evidence in the case, including things having to do with any coercive nature of these freakoffs. So I say he's going to do every day of his sentence, or at least maybe the 90 percent or so of it that the federal sentencing scheme requires. Well, we have a sought, sought one where the defense lawyer, Alexander Shapiro, argues that it is not enough for the judge to just acknowledge the acquitted conduct and sentencing that he improperly used acquitted conduct to throw the book out. And let's play sought one. If you read his statement of reasons, he simply says, I'm only sentencing you for the conduct you were convicted of. And then he goes on to discuss all of the acquitted conduct. But at the sentencing hearing, he acknowledges that the acquittals. And he says he acknowledges you were acquitted of these charges. Are you arguing that under Vaughn there needs to be a detailed explication as to each fact, how the acquittal on the other charges goes to the, quote, weight and quality of that evidence as to each piece of conduct considered? Or is it enough for the district judge to acknowledge, I get it, you were acquitted on these charges? No, it's not enough. The judge, obviously the judge acknowledged that he had been acquitted, but that's not enough. Let's just make weight. Will you agree? No, I don't know. The judge, you know, right out of her mouth, she says, the judge said on the record, he said, I'm sentencing you only for the things you were convicted of. Right. I mean, that's like a that's like a judge making a finding on the record. Exactly. And I just don't see how an appeals court is going to go behind that and say, no, judge, we think you're not telling the truth. We think you're lying about that. When you stated on the record that you're only sentencing him for what he was convicted of, we don't believe you. I just don't see that happening. Yeah. Also, when you're talking about the violations of the man act, it's hard to totally separate the stuff you were acquitted for from the stuff you were convicted for. I mean, this man act is you transport people across state lines for purposes of prostitution. Well, that's part of the freak off. So it's hard to say, I'm going to put the blinders on and not consider any of the conduct you were acquitted for when it sort of seeps into the stuff you were convicted for. In fact, given a shot to where the prosecutor says that the judge properly considered the aggravated manner here. Check it out. Stop to judge. Supermonion correctly applied the new acquitted, acquitted conduct guideline in this case. And moreover, in determining the appropriate sentence under section 3553A, Judge Supermonion properly considered the aggravated manner in which the defendant carried out his man act offenses, which is of course consistent. You say aggravated manner. Let's talk about that. Why shouldn't we hold you to the way you prosecuted the case? You went to the jury and you said, this man did all these terrible things for purposes of the RICO conspiracy, for purposes of sex trafficking, and they acquitted him. And then on the man act, it was just a sideshow and you put him, I don't think there was any, that ensured any life witness testimony. Just look at this, you said, look at these charts. And now you want us to rely on all this acquitted conduct that was presented to the jury that was presumably rejected for purposes of, or allow a district court for purposes of the guidelines calculation. So why should we hold you to what you present, are you to the jury? Yeah, essentially you're saying, hey, the man act violations, just a sideshow. They, these are the minor crimes. You know, you're, you use this conviction for the little stuff to sort as a makeup for losing the big stuff, you know, and the judge was probably aggravated that did he got away with the big stuff. And so he sent his pent up aggravation into the minor stuff to give him 50 months for something that normally you wouldn't get 50 months for. But it does seem like that appellate court is split. There's that one judge who seems to be pro-ditty and I could see a two one ruling here in favor of the government. What do you think? Yeah, for sure. I mean, yeah, you could have that kind of split, but it could also be three to nothing. It's important for folks to remember. And this is part of why I love doing this show here at MK True Crime, because it allows us to maybe help people come into the justice system and understand some things that you would not normally get. Because if all you heard was that clip. And by the way, I hate not having video out of federal courts, but anyway, the audio was pretty clear. You know, what you hear the judge doing in asking those questions in that way, if all you heard was just that snippet, you might think, well, that judge is on ditty side. But what happens is in these appellate arguments, judges will oftentimes they use the Socratic method, right? They want to, for the sake of argument, they will ask the appellate attorneys to you may be asked some probing questions, asked them to answer maybe uncomfortable questions to test the arguments a little bit. So just because he may seem like he's coming down on the prosecutor's case, that may not be how he ultimately rules, but be that as it may. I do think the judge's questioning misses the mark a little bit because as the prosecutor mentioned, a lot of this conduct, whether he was acquitted for some of the charges or not, some of the conduct, right, is relevant to other charges such as the Man Act violations. It's not just strictly limited to the charges for which he was acquitted. So I do think we're going to see on balance. We're going to see a ruling from the Court of Appeals that that sides with the government here. And I don't understand why like Judge Nardini says, you know, this case raises questions that have not yet been considered by any US appeals court, and this is an exceptionally difficult case. I don't agree, Dave. It's not that hard. He was convicted by a jury. The judge gave him a sentence that fits squarely within the statutorily prescribed time limits, right? And so he didn't exceed the maximum. He didn't go under any minimums. He was right there, sort of in the middle and gave a sentence that was authorized by law for for conduct that is not authorized by law, nor by the way, is it protected, Dave, by the First Amendment? Definitely not protected by the First Amendment. I love his argument. Yeah, this was a video that we're going to put on the Internet of Pornography. No, no, you weren't. And it's not. And they were free coughs and they were crimes committed. And he got away with the most serious stuff. But when it came to the 50 months, you're right, it's within the Senate and the guidelines. It's also in between what the prosecution requested and what the defense asked for. They he split the baby, the judge. And so I think it's a fair sentence, but we'll see what the appellate court says. Well, the other thing, remember, we this the appeals, we don't know when the ruling is going to come out, right? And so did he's currently serving his sentence. And let's just say the Court of Appeals sides with Diddy. I don't think that's going to happen. Then the prosecutor could ask the Supreme Court to take it up. Now, it will be a discretionary appeal. There's no guarantee they would take it, but they might. If it is truly as exceptionally difficult, as Judge Nardini says, but he may very well have served most, if not all, of what he was going to serve anyway before this appeals process runs its court. But, you know, you mentioned in your opening, I thought this was very interesting. Dave, we're talking about where the neighbors apparently are telling TMZ that they're dreading the day that that he comes home, whether it's now or at the end of his sentence. Yeah, wouldn't you? Apparently, as kids throw wild parties, their housing values decrease. I'd be worried to you. Probably a nice peaceful neighborhood, very nice neighborhood. And according to TMZ, which is our newspaper or a media source of record on this show, right? They can apparently. We keep voting TMZ. The kids are throwing these insanely loud parties and cops were always there. And so you have realtors who are showing nearby houses, prospective buyers have to disclose that Diddy owns a house nearby and then the buyers run. And so I understand that. I mean, would you buy a house in that neighborhood? I mean, I would if it was discounted, but not for what they're probably asking. All right. So I have a question for all the realtors in our audience. Maybe you can put this in the comments. I'll ask my wife. By the way, don't forget to like and subscribe here on YouTube and all the podcast platforms. And of course, you can listen to MK True Crime and some additional shows that we're going to be talking about soon coming to the platform, all of it on Sirius XM Channel 111, the Megan Kelly Channel. But look, for all the realtors out there, tell me in the comments to this video on YouTube, you know, you have to disclose when you're selling a house in a lot of states, you have to disclose things like whether a murder has occurred or death sometimes has occurred in the house. How would you like to have to tell a potential buyer that, well, you know, we have this nice home here and we're offering it for a great prize here. And it's a great neighborhood, great schools. But you really need to know about the wild freak off sex parties that happen in here. Is that going to be like a deal killer? If you're I hope you're not allergic to baby oil because that would mean you can't live here. All right. You're going to break out in hives. Oh my God. Yeah. Well, we've reached a new low, Dave, here. Yeah, let's let's move on for a lose sponsors. Although we may gain a sponsor in the baby oil industry. Johnson Johnson, you know, we want you. If you dread dealing with your insurance more than getting stuck in an elevator with an overshare. Bamburrito for lunch. You have insura noia. You should have in J.M. They go to great lengths to do its best for their policyholders. Insurance underwritten by NJM Insurance Company and its subsidiaries. You may have tried everything out there to aid your metabolism, right? And stay healthy. Diets, detox teas, juice cleanses and other so-called miracle fixes that are often just hype. But let me tell you about Veracity. It's a company founded by a hormonal health coach whose personal experience with metabolic issues inspired her to develop actual holistic solutions for achieving optimal health. Veracity's metabolism ignite formula is the number one doctor recommended GLP one booster and a natural GLP one alternative. Veracity says it has no side effects, no allergens and that it's just a plant-based blend clinically shown to reduce hunger and it's safe for everyone, they say, including expecting or new moms who are breastfeeding. You take two capsules with breakfast to feel more energized, clear-headed and in control, says Veracity. So before metabolism ignites cells out again, consider making the switch to GLP ones the natural way. Head to veracityhealth.co and use the code MK for up to 65% off your order. Once again, that's V-E-R-A-C-I-T-Y health.co for up to 65% off and make sure you use our promo code MK upon checkout. So let's discuss Anna Kepner and this is a tragedy. So again, this is another Florida connection because you have this case where this was a stepbrother who was alleged to have killed his stepsister. They were staying in the same room on this carnival cruise and it was a murder. Anna Kepner was found dead in the hotel room and all signs pointed to the stepbrother who was the last person to see her alive and they asked him, where were you last night? What happened? He's like, I don't remember. It's never a good response when you're the last person to see someone alive. And it took months, but now this stepbrother is being charged with murder, premeditated murder, felony murder and sexual assault, which is something new. We knew that there would be some sort of murder charge, but sexual assault. Well, we suspected it, nothing. Yeah, because remember there was an ex-boyfriend of Anna Kepner, the victim who said that, yeah, I remember the stepbrother being creepy and he was creeping around and he was being weird. And so he implied there was some sexual problem there with this guy, like he was trying to move in on her and stuff. And so she was found dead back in November 7th and only just a couple of days ago was this was now charged and not just charged as murder and sexual assault, but charged as an adult. And now, you know, today, as we record this show on the 14th of April, as promised, because he's being charged as an adult, the filings are going to be unsealed and they have been unsealed. And of course, the, you know, the indictment alleges that the murder occurred in the course of the sexual assault. It's a really, it's not a long charging document. I wonder if it might be replaced by one that has a few more details in it. But suffice it to say, now we have also the father of Anna Kettner. He's speaking out. Christopher Kettner has said his families, you know, they're outraged by a judge's decision to let Timothy Hudson live with a relative instead of being locked up in jail ahead of his trial. What do you make of that, Dave? The guy, the kid is being charged as an adult and he's being charged with the most serious crimes possible, premeditated murder. And he's been let out. This one boggles my mind. I know he's still a juvenile, but you don't think it's a danger to the community? You don't think he's a flag risk? Yeah. Well, the dad says, quote, I want to see him in the orange jumpsuit and handcuffs. He does not need to be free. He does not need to be in the general public around any kids or women in general. He's still saying that he can't remember. And that's about it. He hasn't apologized. He hasn't shown any remorse for anything. Christopher has added to that statement. So look, anytime you have someone who is allegedly murdered, obviously, that's a serious crime. But when you add the component of this alleged sexual assault to it, I think that does exponential, exponentially increase the argument that the person is a danger to the community and should be locked up now on the other on the other side of that coin. Of course, his age, you know, his age being what it is, otherwise would be a juvenile. But for legal reasons, he can be charged as an adult considering the the the fact that he's not extremely young and the circumstances of the case, the law does permit it. I'll tell you, Natasha, and for those of you listening, stay tuned for the end of the show when we do our closing arguments. I'm going to speak more about that. But she also asked what the sentence is going to look like. Well, if he's convicted, it's going to be a live sentence, I'm sure. But the fact the fact that he says he doesn't remember anything, Natasha wants to know, do we think maybe the prosecutor has some evidence that he does remember something? I think the answer to that question depends on whether or not he's, you know, made any statements to the contrary when he's been questioned by law enforcement or other people. But who knows, you know, this is the kind of thing that sometimes we see in our practices, Dave, I see cases sometimes charged as an adult right out of the gate. And recently, I had one that was by agreement with the prosecutor. It actually went back to juvenile court. It was a case where, in my opinion, it was way overcharged. And I think there's some significant evidence of actual innocence anyway. But as part of the agreement, it went back to juvenile court for juvenile probation, which, as you mentioned, is for rehabilitation purposes or things. It supports what's in the best interest of the child, actually. So it's less punitive, for sure, in juvenile court. That's right. It's an advantage. But also, if you're an adult court, you can be given juvenile sanctions and there can be blended sentences. And so you have a larger variety of options. And that's why juvenile court is less equipped to handle a situation like this. The adult court is better equipped. And yes, it means more publicity, more openness, more public records. And that's bad for the juvenile. But at some point, I mean, you've got to let the transparency in, the sunlight in. And in federal court, there's not enough transparency. There needs to be more, not less. There are not going to be cameras in the courtroom because we have this outdated federal system that doesn't like cameras or technology. You can't even be using your cell phone in there, apparently. I really think the fed needs to change on that. And as far as whether you can get life as a juvenile, you can. You cannot get the death penalty. The spring court ruled that capital punishment is unconstitutional for juveniles. But when it comes to life, you can give someone life. But unlike adults, you have to jump through a lot of hoops. You've got to do a whole valuation of the child's past and the circumstances. And then there are opportunities, at least under Florida law, state law, where the juvenile can get a review. It's not parole, but a review later on at the federal level. There is no parole, but there's the first step act. And there are opportunities to get a review so that you're not really kept in there for life. So in the federal system and the state system, when you're dealing with juveniles, life doesn't always mean life. Well, I think it's going to be interesting to watch. It's certainly one of the more sad cases, Dave, that we've talked about here. But I know that we'll be following it every step of the way. Yes. And I appreciate the discussion. And next, we will bring in journalist Chris Stewart, who's going to join us to discuss the latest developments in the search for Michigan mom Lynette Hooker missing in the Bahamas. Her husband, Brian, insists she went overboard in a terrible accident. But authorities aren't so sure. Neither am I. He was just released from police custody without charges, but he remains a person of interest. Stay tuned. Tax Act understands you haven't memorized the tax code. That's why Tax Act has live experts to help. Tax Act can even do it for you if you prefer. It's the easiest way to know you're doing it right. Well, other than going back to college and obtaining a bachelor's degree and accounting with a minor in finance, then interning somewhere and becoming fluent in all tax forms. But that might be hard to accomplish before tax day. So maybe just stick with Tax Act. Tax Act, let's get them over with. Waking up sneezing and congested every morning isn't just frustrating. Trust me, I know. It may be a sign the air inside your home isn't as clean as it should be. Even with regular cleaning, dust, odors, and invisible pollutants can linger in the air you breathe every single day. Air Doctor is a powerful air purifier designed to remove those hidden contaminants. Its advanced filtration system captures particles about 100 times smaller than what typical air purifiers can remove. Air Doctor runs whisper quiet, so won't disrupt sleep or daily routines. The Auto Mode feature monitors air quality 24-7 to maintain optimal performance. It's also backed by strong credibility. 98% of customers say their home's air feels cleaner, safer, and healthier. Over 93% notice fewer allergy symptoms. Plus, Air Doctor won Newsweek's Readers Choice Award for Best Air Purifier. So head to airdoctorpro.com and use promo code TRUECRIME to get up to $300 off today. Air Doctor comes with a 30-day money back guarantee plus a 3-year warranty and $84 value free. So get this exclusive podcast only offer now at airdoctorpro.com. I need to learn how to spell better. Using promo code TRUECRIME. Welcome back to MK TRUECRIME. I'm Phil Holloway along with my co-host Dave Ehrenberg. Joining us now on the program for the first time, Chris Stewart, who's a journalist and host of On the Case with Chris Stewart, presented by our friends over at Law & Crime. Chris, welcome to the program, buddy. You've been reporting a lot on this story about now missing Lynette Hooker, the Michigan mom who went missing down in the Bahamas. So just to remind our audience, Lynette's husband, Brian, has reported that she went overboard off of a skiff in bad weather on April 4th. She said she hasn't been seen since. And Brian was arrested, by the way, or at least taken into custody in connection with that disappearance, but ultimately he's been recently released without official charges. Things work differently down in the Bahamas, but he's been very busy on the media circuit this week. So to start with, Chris, I know you've talked to him. What are your thoughts on the media circuit that he's been on recently? Yeah, we've actually, we've spoke with his attorney quite a bit. We didn't get a chance to do one of the interviews with him today. So he gets released on Monday night, and that was as long as the Bahamian police could hold him for. I don't know how much that really changes where we are in the investigation and trying to figure out what happened to Lynette Hooker. It was just the amount of time that the Bahamian police could hold him for ran out. They say this investigation is still ongoing, but today he did a lot of the main networks, did sit down interviews, on the day that we're recording this. And I thought it was interesting because for the first time you heard a motion in his voice in talking about Lynette Hooker, we have voicemails that he sent, his stepdaughter, where you didn't really hear a lot of emotion in his voice and talking about Lynette and talking about what happened. And that was something that stood out to his stepdaughter when we talked to her. And then you have this conversation where he has friends in the boating community who recorded him. It was about like 45 minutes where he details everything that's been going on. And they recorded this conversation saying that they were going to help him just because he was listing all these coordinates. And so they would have information. And you didn't hear a lot of emotion in that part of what he was saying as well. So it was definitely interesting today, talking about Lynette, saying he's going to continue to look for her to actually see him get choked up, or at least it seems that way from what we saw in those interviews. So we're going to get to some of that. We got quite a bit of video and audio for our audience, but I want to start. You interviewed Carly, right? That's her daughter. You interviewed her on your program on the case. If we can call for SOT 3, that's a clip from that interview. How did he tell you that this happened? He called me. It was about 8, 8.30 at night on Sunday. And he told me, hey, your mom's missing. It happened late last night. But we're going to come up soon. So I hope to see you. And I was just like, okay. I didn't say much because I was like, what? And then he's like, oh, yeah, sorry. I'm going to search for her by and then got off the phone quick. So I don't know. It was a little sketchy. So it was as if he was going to come back to the US and just kind of like, hey, this just happened. But whatever, let's hang out when I come see you. And I'm like, what? Like, I don't know. I just, it didn't sit right with me. It took him so long to even tell me that she was gone. So, and I don't know why he didn't go to his boat and call on the radio to other sailboats. Hey, have you seen my wife? She's missing because I know boaters would probably go out and help look. Yeah. Why did it take so long? I mean, she's got a point. Like, he waited eight hours. He said he didn't have good cell service. He's there floating around with the boat. And we're supposed to believe that an experienced sailor boater like this woman is just falls off the boat and has her lanyard in a way that makes the boat engine shut off. And it seems like a perfect alibi for this guy. I don't, I don't buy it. Well, can I play devil's advocate here for a second? I don't necessarily believe him either. But so the argument or the, I guess, the presentation that he's making is that she was the one driving or operating the, the mode. I mean, this is not a big dinghy. It's really small. And if it's like, you know, it's like wave runners or things like that, sometimes there's, there, the keys are attached by a lanyard or something to your wrist. So if you fall off the, the, the boat or whatever, you're going to pull the key out. It's going to stop and you won't be able to restart it. So he's saying that due to the high winds and seas, and you know, he had no radio on there apparently. And all he had was like an ore. And he had to row a number of miles to shore. He's saying that that is the explanation for the delay. And look, if you can't disprove what he's saying, and it's going to be, look, you got to have some kind of evidence to disprove it. It may not be believable. We may, we may say to ourselves, this doesn't have the ring of truth to it. But really it's going to be very challenging, I think, for authorities down there to disprove his claims. Chris, what do you think? Yeah. And there's definitely a couple of parts to his story. Like even talking to his friends who recorded the conversation, and they're also part of the boating community and, and, and really good people to actually have the audio of them interviewing him because they're asking like boater questions that I don't think I would be able to ask. And the digital forensics in this case, I think are going to be very interesting because he said he had a cell phone with him, and he used it as a flashlight. He didn't sit, he said he did not have a SIM card, and that was a mistake. But he also mentions having Starlink, which is, you know, that satellite technology Elon Musk. Yeah. Right. Exactly. So what does the cell phone show? Because he also sent screen grabs of his location on maps to these friends, and then they provided it to us. When the authorities go through the phone, does it show that he is where he says he was when Lynette allegedly went into the water? And then the devil's advocate part of it is, if you were on the boat, and you're in 20, 25 mile per hour winds, are you able to really see where you're going and what you're doing and how much is from memory? And he said the reason that he didn't get to announcing that Lynette was missing until the morning was because he ended up drifting away. And for seven, eight hours, he said he was paddling until he came ashore to a marina in Marsh Harbor, Bahamas, then he told somebody there. And then that's kind of when things began. There is one other part that I think is interesting with the story, if I can add that too, is he said that he shot two flares into the air. And he said there was even a boat nearby, but the boat didn't respond to it. And the people we talked to, the friends of the hookers were seasoned boaters, said that is suspicious to them. They didn't use the term suspicious, but they said it raised questions. Because in the voting community, you know, someone is going to see that it would be an emergency and they're going to do it. And there hasn't been reports of people seeing a flare. And since we're on the topic now of specifically what Brian has said happened, let's skip ahead. We have Sot 4, which is Brian explaining on a phone call to a friend how he says all this went down. She basically just bounced off the dinghy in the middle of a little blow, like 20 some not wins, they popped up and a single thing nailed. Every single thing we weren't wearing light jackets, it was sundown and the sunset, like basically 10 minutes after she fell over, Dini key over with her because it wasn't clipped to anything or anybody. And she had to spare Dini key in her dry bag, which was with her. The wind blew us apart so fast that I think, I think she tried to swim back to the sailboat to back to our sailboat, which is probably, I don't know, 1000 yards or something. I yelled to her that I lost a ore and I threw the anchor out and anchored the dinghy. And just yeah, I yelled. I couldn't see her anymore. It was, it was the moon has not risen yet. And the waves were doing their thing. And you know, I saw her, I think twice. I threw her a flotation cushion that we used to sit on the dinghy, you know, right after she went in. Dave of the three of us, you're closest to the Bahamas. So tell me, what do you think? What do you think about that? This is an area that is kind of crowded. This is not some remote part of the Bahamas where there's no one around. If you fire up two flares, people are going to see it. There are going to be people around. And so I don't buy his story. She's an experienced boater. She knows her way around. She knows not to jump around on a boat with heavy seas. And all of a sudden she goes overboard and then she's gone. And he also doesn't sound too caught up. It's important. Chris said that in his latest interview, he started to show emotion. Okay, because he's been criticized for sounding like he is at a podium reading a script. And his statement that he put out sounded like a press release. His social media posts don't seem full of a lot of heart and compassion. And I just think that he is either being coached or he realizes that he's got a player role because I just, I know I can't prove it because it's circumstantial, but I don't believe him, especially when the daughter is out there as convinced as she is that there's some foul play here. Yeah. So look, we've got, we got Sot 3B, which is Hooker telling Brian Hooker, telling NBC news that he's never harmed Lynette. So if we could just run Sot 3B and then back to back, maybe 3C, which is Brian Hooker getting at least arguably a little emotional, saying it's been 10 days. I welcome any attention, anything that helps me further my goal of finding Lynette. Your attorney had told us that the line of questioning from police when you were in custody was leaning toward you having possibly caused harm to her. Did police ever explicitly ask you if you hurt your wife? Of course. What did you say to them? I said, I've never harmed Lynette and I never would harm Lynette and I want to find Lynette. We quit working to do this thing together. We had a plan. So I got to work the plan and without, there's no point in being an any of it. It's been 10 days. It's been a long time. I don't think I've ever been apart from her in 25 years for this long. I don't like it. She wouldn't stop in our nuggets. I think that's all I can really do, Jesse. Understand. Thank you Brian. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you very much. You buy that? It's either a hello the performance. It could be. He could be lying through his teeth. I'm surprised that he, if he has a lawyer, and apparently he does, I'm surprised the lawyer is even allowing his client to talk so much about it because it's like so many other things that if he were just keep his mouth shut, his claims, even if they're absolutely false, it'd be very difficult if not impossible to disprove them absent some physical evidence that might wash up or turn up. Chris, what do you think? Yeah, it's not to make, I'm not making light of it, but it's like when this story first broke, I thought about the movie cast away and you have that scene of Tom Hanks and Wilson and then Wilson is floating away and he's carried by the current and like I just kind of thought like in the way it was being described, like that's kind of in my mind how I pictured it. But then you have like especially his stepdaughter, Carly, and you played some of the sound there. I mean, she came out very quickly after this story and has not held back in making accusations that the marriage of the hookers was just incredibly toxic. And then you have Lynette's mom has also made those accusations and you have the friends, I think, you know, shared text messages from 2024 that Lynette sent a boating friend, I think CBS was the first to have him talking about how she wanted to leave the marriage in 2024. And it's just like watching that and seeing him emotional in that way. It was just so different than the person that had been described by the people who knew them over that period of time. So it's, it's, you know, how much did the domestic violence allegations, did that actually factor into what happened at night? He says nothing, but you know, it's, it's a it kind of is in your mind as you watch those interviews. Well, you mentioned Carly and she also spoke to News Nation in addition to speaking with you and others. SOT 3D is here's Carly on News Nation referencing Brian Hooker's release from custody. I mean, I'm happy, I guess that they didn't find enough, even though I know we're not done learning or not learning, but not done looking yet. I know the Coast Guard's gonna head down there and do their own investigation. I don't feel like this is an accident because she's a really fit woman. She used to run all the time. She can't anymore because she has shin splints, but she does yoga all the time and CrossFit working out. So she's a fit woman. So this doesn't make any sense. And they were really smart about not going in the water when it's storming out. They stay in the boat and they're usually pretty good about that. So maybe he convinced her to that they'll be okay. So I don't know. Yeah, she's a good swimmer. She's known for being an excellent swimmer. That's one reason why she's not wearing a life vest. And then she just floats away and no one can see her in an area. Again, that is not super remote. So I don't know. It's not, I wouldn't say a crowded area where there's gonna be a lot of people around, but not exactly in the road less travel. And not very deep, by the way, which those friends told me, I think, depending on the tides, and I'm no expert on that part of it, but between four and seven feet is the depth that we're talking about. Now you might have waves with the winds that we're going that night, but where all of this he says took place was not in an area. I mean, you think of four feet and I know it's not like a swimming pool when you're out there. But I mean, potentially is this something where she could even have had her feet on the ground? It definitely raises questions. Well, let me tell you this from a practical perspective. I was recently in the Bahamas just last month and I did a little scuba diving with my son. And one of the days that we were out there was a pretty windy day and the seas were two or three or four feet even in some places. And underwater it was fine. We're doing great. But getting back on the boat at the surface of the water, it was challenging because the boat's going up and down and you're trying to get yourself to the ladder without the ladder coming down and hitting you and all this. So you have to go very slowly. But if I had not had my scuba equipment on with my regulator in my mouth and being able to breathe that way and inflating my device so that I was absolutely on top of the water, it would have been almost impossible. So I can't imagine trying to swim around, particularly in the dark, in those kinds of seas. So I'm just throwing that out there. I'm not saying that what he is describing is actually the way it went down. But I'm saying that it's plausible that even in shallow seas, if you have that type of wind and surf conditions, it can be very, very difficult for someone without a life preserver to stay alive. Well, it was sundown, but the sun said just about 10 minutes after she fell over. That's what he said. So there was still sun out. So it wasn't really in the dark. It was kind of shallow, as Chris said. There were people around, if that's really where it happened. And what's interesting is that, as you've heard, she had the key on her, which shut off the engine. And there's a spare key, which could turn the engine back on. Where was the spare key? It was in her bag with her that went overboard. Interesting. Convenient. Very convenient. And we don't know where the bag is. And it's a dry bag that apparently can float. And then I thought another interesting part of it too, just with him being released from custody yesterday, is on that recording, he said that he believes his passport was in that dry bag that went over with the spare key. So just kind of an interesting, he says he's going to stay in the Bahamas and continue looking for her, but you just wonder what that's going to look like, moving forward, especially with all the attention that's now on him. Let's go ahead and take a listen to SOP 5, which is Brian Hooker describing how the search effort began. So after an hour of calling her, I could have never heard her voice. By the time I got the anchor set, I was probably a quarter to a half a mile away from her. And I decided I had to go get help, but I could not get to the island. It's one panel. It was many hours until I landed on Marsh Island about four miles away. The cops got there like four in the morning, but they didn't get searched in 430. And we didn't get rolled out until five. And by then she had been in the water for eight hours. And by midnight, I was already freaking out. So the thingy, I landed in some crazy spot, like a movie, it was a little tiny, 50 yard wide lagoon full of rocks. And I beached it and the cops, of course, are there thoroughly investigating me right now. So they came and tied the dinghy up. I just got the dinghy back today. I'm surprised that he got it back, Chris. I mean, it's like evidence, right? You would think so. And I know that they searched and have thoroughly, from what we understand, search soulmate, which is their yacht multiple times, but he did get that dinghy back. I mean, you would think of, and in both of you would probably know better than I, about going through that and seeing if there's anything that might lead you to understand what happened aboard the dinghy that night. The timeline is not exact here, but it doesn't, in order to his benefit. He said that she fell over about 10 minutes after sunset, which was around 730 p.m. that night. And then he said that she would have been in the water for about eight hours by that time that the search efforts were underway, which was not until 4.35 in the morning. It doesn't really match up. So I guess that means he would have been overboard around 9 p.m., right? So the math isn't working in his favor. Also, I still don't get why he couldn't hail someone down, call someone eight hours. He just left her out there to make sure. Well, I don't want to jump to conclusions, but you know where I'm going with that. It's all too convenient the whole way the story adds up for him. Chris, can you tell us about, if you're familiar with it, the security guard at the, I guess at the Marina area where he wound up, I guess early the next morning, the security guard described to the New York Post an exhausted Brian Hooker who told that security guard about the flares. Yeah. And it seems like that part of this, at least like physically, if you were to paddle for seven hours and be in that situation, they said he was very thirsty and all of that. I thought it was, and it might have been Fox that had the quote with him, where the security guard said something where the question of Lynette doesn't come up until a little bit later. Like it's not like immediately he's on shore and he says, please, my wife, she just, you know, went away. It's, you know, I need water, I need help. And then, you know, eventually they get to that point. You know, I think you hear this story and if he is telling the truth, he went through this incredibly traumatic experience, but there are questions that are being raised with each anecdote that comes out of people associated with the story. Where is it? Can you help us understand where the couple went on that dingy and they were returning to the yacht, but where had they been and what had they been doing? So you have on Abaco, and I'm not a huge expert on the Bahamas, but Abaco, you have Hopetown, which is a community there, very popular with boaters that we understand. And it's been reported that they're at the Abaco Inn, which is a restaurant that night, maybe having dinner, maybe having some drinks. We do know from the stepdaughter that they drank. And we call the Abaco Inn, they said no comment. So they're not really releasing a lot of information on that. Then around 730, they say they were going to go back. Brian says they were going to take this dingy and head back to soulmate, which is where they live. And you had tough conditions that night, 18 to 20 not wins, which is roughly 23 miles per hour. So not the best conditions to be on in a dingy, but you know, if you're on land and you want to go home, someone we've seen in the past might not make the right decision and try to muscle it home in the middle of the night. And it appears that from Brian's standpoint, that's what they were doing. And then on the way back is when he says that she fell into the water. Can we confirm that the sea conditions and maybe the wind were as he described them to be? That's it. Yeah. I mean, I know that there was a cold front coming in is what's been reported. He said that there was about three foot waves in the recording that you hear there. So to your point about, you know, it's easy to say, well, it's between four and seven feet. It's not like it was 100 feet deep when she went into the water. You know, if you think of someone, maybe they had some drinks and then on top of it, you have three foot waves. I mean, that would make some pretty difficult swimming conditions. And yeah, they went out there in the bad weather, right? And then dingy, right? No, I mean, if they were, if they had been drinking, maybe that could influence how maybe somebody makes a bad decision. You can like getting behind the wheel of a car after you've been drinking is a bad decision. But do we, as far as the Abaco in, is there any kind of security video or any, any photographic evidence or anything that can shed any light on the moments before they left? I'd love to see it. I mean, you would have to think so, right? And you'd have to think of what did they see that night if they were at the Abaco in? And I haven't seen any information elsewhere. They've been pretty tight-lipped about that part of it. So I'd love to see that part of video. And you wonder too, we don't know what evidence, we know they don't have enough to charge, but we also don't know what evidence at this point the Bahamian police have that went on. They claim they have probable cause to search the yacht. So what that is, I don't know, but they apparently did not have enough to to keep the man so they let him go. And look, we're going to have to keep following this case. And we will hear MK True Crime. And I know you will be as well. But I want to leave it right there for this story today, because before we let you go, we've got to talk about this Florida Dexter case, which is something I know that you've covered on your show. And to be honest with you, it wasn't on my radar. And still I started doing my show prep for this show here today. So we're talking about the investigation into the alleged murder of Collie Daniel, or is it Collie Daniel, aged 28 down in Florida, who was, I guess, murdered, right? By allegedly, by this individual that you're calling or others are calling, I should say the Florida Dexter, this guy named Lucas Jones, 19 year old. What's going on there? That's a fascinating case, because the body, or some of it at least has been recovered. But apparently we have issues of dismemberment and all sorts of things. Yeah. And he's been dubbed the Florida Dexter by some people online. I do think that there's some some discrepancies between the plot of that show and what we're dealing with here. But this case took place last month, Brevard County, Florida. You have a man named Collie Lee Daniel, 28 years old. He disappears, told his parents he was going to go over to, or said he was going to be back in time for dinner, but he never went back. And he, according to authorities, their surveillance video of him entering a home in Brevard County, and then his parents end up going looking for him about four hours later. And when they go to the house, the door opens and there's Lucas Jones, 19 years old says he has no idea where Collie is. And then apparently the story became, well, Collie's inside, but he doesn't want to come out. There's Lucas Jones, who you see right there. Then you have about eight days later, buzzards in an area that was known for illegal dumping in Palm Bay, Florida, called the Compound, and they end up finding human remains in a suitcase. And, you know, a lot very, very suspicious circumstances here. And then eventually you have the girlfriend of Lucas Jones speaking to police. Seems like she's a real linchpin in this case and putting it together, who said that Lucas Jones killed Collie Lee Daniel allegedly with a baseball bat, dismembered him with a meat cleaver. And the reason he did it is that Collie Lee Daniel was a registered sex offender. And so that is believed to be the motive at this point based off what the girlfriend is saying. Dave, this is down in your neck of the woods, of course, in Florida, like so many things that we talk about that are very bizarre here on the program. One of the most bizarre aspects of this is going viral. This is the video of Lucas smirking at the camera, I guess, while he's awaiting a court appearance or otherwise in custody. It's a really, really creepy thing. But while we're looking at that, Dave, Natasha, our producer, asks a question about the girlfriend that's rolling the subject of her. Could she be charged with anything? And if so, Dave, in Florida, how does that work? She can be an accessory. She can be an accessory after the fact. She helped cover it up, helped him avoid capture. She could be a principal if she was part of the murder. There are various things that mean you don't have to be the one who actually killed them. If she drove him to the house to kill the guy, yeah, that would be enough to be considered a principal. You can be the getaway driver and not the person who robs the bank and still be charged with the same crime. So it just depends on the facts. Now, what's interesting is that police have suggested that the girlfriend has suggested there may be another motive here besides the sex vendor statiff of Kali, but they won't release it. That's what I'm interested in. Yeah, and Chris will give you the last word here on this, buddy. What do you think that other motive could be? What do you think the other motive could be, if any? And do you think that the girlfriend is going to escape prosecution by cooperating? Well, that's a good question because when you read through the police documents, it seems like she was along for the ride for a long way, at least was aware of what was going on allegedly, according to what police are saying. She even told law enforcement the night that they came to the house at first, they weren't able to get in because they didn't have a warrant. She said, Oh, Coley Lee Daniel, he's inside. He's sleeping. Then she changes her story as things are developing along the way. Now, she's the one who had said that because he had printed out, she said Lucas Jones had printed out the sex offender registry. That's how he potentially identified Coley Lee Daniel. We still don't know how they got in touch, how they knew each other. Did they have any previous interactions? That's going to come forward. I did bury a piece of information on this just as far as the Dexter references concerned. When police eventually searched the home on top of blood that they found trace amounts in the house, he used cleaning products to clean it all up. There were microscopic slides allegedly with Coley Lee Daniels DNA on it. So you tie that into Dexter, who of course was known as a serial killer who took people out who were running from the law. In this case, you know, Coley Lee Daniel, you certainly don't support what he pleaded guilty to in 2018. But at the same time, you know, he was someone who was on the registry seemed to be following the rules other than one registration error that he made, I think in 2021. All right, well, great stuff. We'll leave it there with Chris Stewart. Chris, before you go, tell the folks where they can find you. Yeah, check me out on Law and Crime, our YouTube channel. We're also on Spotify streaming on Peacock as well on the case with Chris Stewart. All right. Thanks so much for joining us here on the program. Up next, we have our closing arguments. Stay tuned. If you dread dealing with your insurance company more than you dread being stuck in an elevator with a total stranger, hey, who's an overshare. Oh, being burrito for lunch. Tax Act can think of a million things more fun than filing taxes. Tax Act is going to name some now. Sitting in traffic, folding a fitted bed sheet, listening to your coworker talk about his fantasy team, digging a hole, digging an even larger hole next to that original hole. Unfortunately, Tax Act's filing software can't make taxes fun. But Tax Act can help you get them done. Tax Act, let's get them over with. Folks, spring is a glorious time of year, but it also reeks havoc on allergies. That's why beekeepers naturals should be a staple in your springtime arsenal. Their nasal spray max can be used daily during allergy season to flush out irritants, soothe sinus irritation, and reduce histamine response all while defending against germs. It's packed with other clean ingredients like saline and oregano oil to invigorate your sinuses. Paired with their immune support throat spray, your family can be protected with antioxidants that fight free radicals and defend against germs on the spot. The spray provides soothing relief with slippery elm and menthol calming inflammation without a single nasty additive. Today, Beekeepers Naturals is giving listeners an exclusive offer. Go to beekeepers naturals.com slash Megan or enter code Megan, MEGYN, to get 20% off your order. That's beekeepers naturals.com slash Megan or enter promo code Megan. Welcome back to MK True Crimes. Now it's time for closing arguments, but first, an anonymous listener asks a question regarding the Tanner Horner sentencing trial taking place in Texas. Tanner Horner pled guilty to the murder of seven-year-old Athena Strand. His offenses argued against the death penalty, citing his autism and mental illness. Our listener asks, I've been thinking about the use of autism or Asperger's as a mitigating factor in death penalty cases. When it doesn't affect intelligence or understanding of right and wrong, on the one hand, we're trying to normalize neurodivergence and treat people equally, recognizing that autistic people are just as capable and responsible as anyone else. But in court, it can be used to argue for reduced punishment. Doesn't that create attention? If someone understands right and wrong, why should it affect sentencing at all? Thank you. Bill. Well, I'll give it the first go at attempting to answer this. By the way, Ashley Merchant, our colleague, she and I on Friday's show here at MK True Crime, we discussed this case at length and we heard some of the arguments that were being made. And one of the things, of course, as the question mentions is the defense is saying, well, look, he's got Asperger's or he's got autism, I think, is what it is. So he shouldn't receive the death penalty. So the Supreme Court of the United States and each state is free to do things their way, but at least from a federal constitutional perspective, the US Supreme Court has greenlit the death penalty or at least said that they're eligible. Even if you have autism, what they have said, the Supreme Court said, if you have an intellectual disability, then that would not be someone who's eligible to receive the death penalty. So that's the legal distinction, an intellectual disability versus someone who has autism, which is not in that category, but it can be and it should be considered by the jury as a potential mitigating factor. So clearly that's why the defense is arguing this. It's based on the specifics of the case, though. Prosecutors have to first seek the death penalty. It's not something that they do in every case, but merely because someone has autism does not mean that they are ineligible. So prosecutors are going to have to look at the totality of the circumstances and making that discretionary decision on whether to seek the death penalty in the first place. There's been a case, in fact, in Texas. There's been cases in Utah on this. And so it's obviously a big topic of conversation in the criminal justice system, but in and of itself, that condition, if he has it, does not bar him from receiving the death penalty if that's what the jury decides. You know, another advantage for defense lawyers is that if a prosecutor wants a death penalty, they have to prove one or more aggravators, certain statutory aggravators set in the law. Was it cold, calculated, premeditated? Was it heinous, atrocious, and cruel? Certain things. But defense lawyers can use any mitigator they want, whatever. Their mother smoked while he was in the womb. That actually was one that was used in the Marjor Stoneman Douglas case, the mass murderer there. Yeah, they used that too. I think success because he avoided the death penalty. So you can say anything you want about the mental deficiency, anything. And that is an advantage defense lawyers have. So, Bill, closing statement time. So earlier in the program, Dave, we talked about the case there in Florida, federal court, the Anacapna murder and her stepbrother being accused of her murder on the high seas on a cruise ship. And so I wanted to talk about how we make that decision. And by we, I mean, those who are involved in the justice system, the lawyers, the prosecutors, and even the judges who have to deal with these issues. So let me start by explaining what the general rule is here. The general rule is that we do not hold children to the same legal standards as we hold adults to, right? The human child, the brain of a human child is not fully formed. And we know, for example, that it does not fully appreciate things like the nature of risk until it's about the age of 26 or so. So for purposes of the criminal law, the general rule is kids aged 13 or younger are deemed incapable of formulating criminal intent. Now, look, I know people are going to comment on this because each state can set the ages differently and they do. But generally, we're looking at 13 or younger can't form criminal intent, whereas kids aged 18 or higher are presumably capable of forming criminal intent and therefore treated as adults. Here in Georgia, in my state, the age is 17. So 17 or older is charged as an adult here in my state, but other states are different. So we have that area in the middle, though, between say ages 14 and 17, where it could be a little tricky and the law gives prosecutors in court some discretion on where these kids fit in the justice system. Sometimes a child commits a crime that's so brutal, so calculated and heartless that the word child really doesn't fit anymore, right? It's not appropriate for this individual. So we call them juveniles because of their age, but age is just a number on the birth certificate. It doesn't measure the depths of the malignancy in their heart or any evil or any malice that they hold. So it's just a number, right? So when a 13 year old, for example, plans a murder or stalks the victim and executes it with the cold precision of adult, that person might still qualify as a juvenile, but in some states they might be an adult. They're right on the cusp. Society has to ask itself, is this a child or is this a dangerous predator wearing a child's face? The law is not, as you discussed earlier, Dave, in the show about punishing kids. At least the juvenile court system isn't. It's about the best interests of the child. But the justice system is about protecting the innocent and innocent people. So if a teenager commits a heinous sexual assault or tortures or slaughters or murders another person with full awareness of what they're doing, then courtrooms and I think society and our prosecutors and judges and juries have to recognize reality, the totality of that reality over mere biology alone. That same brain can be a mastermind of a drive-by shooting or a school mass massacre. That brain is capable of understanding right from wrong. And if they understand right from wrong, they can be held accountable just like any other criminal defendant. So we don't charge every misbehaving teen as an adult. We don't and we shouldn't. We reserve it for the worst of the worst. The ones who show no remorse, no impulse control, they just act out of pure malice because letting them hide behind the I'm only 15, you know, that doesn't make sense. That would be silly when a juvenile defendant acts like a seasoned criminal adult. So justice is not blind to age nor should it be, but it's not blind to savagery. And when a so-called child commits an adult crime with adult intent, I think society has the right and the duty to respond with adult consequences. Anything less tells the next generation of potential predators, killers or criminals that youth is a get out of jail free card and we can't have that. And that folks is why sometimes children get charged as an adult. Dave? Bill, thank you for that excellent explanation. I'd like to wrap up with a master class on how to retreat from a fight you started. You know, Judge Nathan Mil-Iron, the Texas judge who went viral for berating a tech worker. You remember this because this is my third closing statement in a row on this controversy. When attorney James Stafford emailed the judge suggesting an apology, Mil-Iron hit back with a show cause order for sanctions, claiming a prohibited ex parte communication. Now in the legal world, ex parte is like whispering in the teacher's ear while the other kid is at recess. It's a one sided communication meant to gain an unfair legal advantage in the courts. But Stafford wasn't looking for a win in court. He was looking for a little humanity. His email wasn't a motion. It was a reality check on a judge's public tantrum. Didn't even have a case in front of this judge. And so because it didn't seek a legal ruling or an advantage in a specific litigation, Mil-Iron's ex parte claim was yet another abuse of power. The hearing, however, was a total bust. Stafford didn't even turn up. And even worse for the judge, Stafford's colleagues appeared instead, a wall of suits from the defense bar filling seats in a silent row of protest. In Mil-Iron, he walks in late with a brand new personality, no sanctions, no lecture, just a man being extra nice, cracking jokes and playing the benevolent judge. Maybe he's finally humbled, or maybe he just realized his personal kingdom looks a lot smaller when he's outnumbered. With a formal complaint now pending with the commission on judicial conduct, this sudden niceness may just be about strategy, then a change of heart. Either way, though, the bully's threat ended not with a roar, but with a very quiet whimper. Score one for the good guys. That's my closing statement. I want to thank our guest, Chris Stewart and my co-host, Phil Holloway, and thank you for joining us. Have a great week. Eyes can find relief that's Don't use if allergic to mybo. Remove contacts before using and wait at least 30 minutes before putting them back in. Eye redness and blurred vision may occur. For more info, talk to your eye doctor, call 1-844-MYBO-YEAH or visit mybo.com. You should have NJM. They go to great lengths to do what's best for their policy holders. Insurance underwritten by NJM Insurance Company and its subsidiaries.