Chilling New Nancy Guthrie Ransom Notes, Blake Lively's Legal Loss, and Missing Air Force General 911 Call, with Lauren Conlin

Welcome to MK True Crime. I'm Dave Ehrenberg, former state attorney for Palm Beach County, aka the Florida Lawman and current managing partner at Dave Ehrenberg Law. Here's what's on the docket today. Savannah Guthrie returned to the Today Show this week and on the same day TMZ received new messages from a person promising information on Nancy Guthrie in exchange for Bitcoin. Is there a reason to think the sender is legitimate? We'll discuss. The attempted murder trial of Hawaii Dr. Gerhard Koenig is expected to wrap up this week. We'll discuss what prosecutors expose when Gerhard took the stand in his own defense. And later will be joined by East Coast contributor for Los Angeles Magazine Lauren Conlin to discuss major developments in the legal battle between actors Blake Lively and Justin Baldoni. Sexual harassment claims are out, but retaliation claims are in. Will this case actually make it to trial? Well, I'm joined today by my co-host, Phil Holloway, criminal defense lawyer extraordinaire, former prosecutor, and former police officer. It's a lot of former's, Phil. What are you doing now? Well, you know, one of these days I'll figure out what I want to do, Dave. Great to be with you as always, my friend. Yeah, this, you know, I guess we got to start with Nancy Guthrie, right? I mean, she's back on the Today Show and she's, you know, I guess you've got to go ahead and put your, put yourself out there, even in times of grief. In fact, we've got SOT 1, which is Savannah's return to the Today Show. Good morning. Welcome to you today on this Monday morning. We are so glad you started your week with us and it is good to be home. Yes, it is good to have you back at home. Well, here we go. Ready or not, let's do the news. Yes, so good to have you back. We are back, back at 8 30 on this beautiful Monday morning and it's a special Monday morning for us and for this crowd as well. Special because we're welcoming back our North Star. SG, come on out here. Come on back out. These signs are so beautiful. You guys have been so beautiful. I received so many letters, so much kindness to me and my whole family and we feel it. We feel your prayers. So thank you so much. I'm glad she's back. That's a good thing and I think that a lot of us, our hearts have gone out to her and her family and just can't even imagine what she's been through. So it's important for her to be there with the people she loves. Oh, absolutely. And you know, I think that, you know, they say time heals all wounds and part of that is that as you move forward with your life, you get back into your routine. But at some point until she has closure, I just don't see how you can really grieve, right? Because we all have to go through that when we experience loss. We all have experienced it. We all experience grief, but it's essential to human well-being to be able to grieve, which brings us to these, you know, you're teased in the intro, Dave, these, I guess, allege ransom notes that TMZ is talking about and this comes out what on the same day that she returns to the Today Show? Yeah, this is awful. I mean, hasn't the family been through enough? I mean, this person is apparently the same person who's been dealing with or sending these notes. And it's been like two months now where this person apparently has said that they can rat out the kidnappers. And now they say they're demanding one Bitcoin, which how much is that worth? I'm not a Bitcoin person. I don't know if you know, Phil, to deliver them on a silver platter. This is something they've said before. I mean, if this person really were a do-gooder who wants to be a good Samaritan, give us the information. But instead, this is a despicable individual who's trying to monetize someone's pain. And this was right after she appears on TV, back to her show that she loves. TMZ gets this note that says from this person that I saw Nancy Guthrie alive with the kidnappers in the state of Sonora, Mexico. And this time, though, the note says she is dead. And it's just, I mean, this is hard-wrenching. So I hope that they catch this person. They may never catch the kidnappers, but I hope they can catch these evil people who are trying to monetize someone's grief. Well, they sent, TMZ says they sent the, of course, the alleged notes to, I shouldn't say alleged, I guess they are notes, but they're from the alleged witness, which we don't know if they're telling the truth or not. But TMZ says that the FBI doesn't seem to be buying it, which tracks with what we can see and hear with our own eyes. Because look, if the FBI thought there was something to these notes, I think there would have been more effort to pursue them in the days and weeks more immediately following Nancy Guthrie's disappearance. I, for one, I'm not necessarily buying it to me. They don't seem real. TMZ is reporting that, like you mentioned, on the very Monday morning, April 6th, that Savannah returned to the day show, they got two notes, and they say they're going to deliver them, I guess, meaning the perpetrator on a silver platter. As you mentioned, in exchange for one Bitcoin, I think we have some video, saw it too, is Harvey Levin over at TMZ discussing those new notes. And Harvey disagrees with me, apparently. He thinks that the sender does know something. I think the sender is full of shit, but let's see what Harvey says. We got another letter today from this person, an email, saying, I know where her body is and who the kidnapper is. Give me half a Bitcoin, and I'll tell you. And this person has been really persistent, knowing that if it's a scam, it's a federal crime. Right. But they also made the point that they wanted to make it clear that they have nothing to do with it. Right. They've been out of the country, but who knows? We forward it to the FBI as we have in the past. For whatever reason, and this is the thing we haven't figured out, you have to assume that the law enforcement, they believe that this person is not legit. Otherwise, they would have advised Savannah to pay the money. My spidey sense is telling me that there's something about this guy, because one of the emails he sent said early on, time is of the essence to do this. And then the next day he said, time is no longer of the essence. If he was pulling a scam, why would you say time is no longer of the essence? You want to keep the value high. You want to keep the value high. And the fact that he said this made me think this guy knows something. I did look it up, by the way, Phil. One Bitcoin, as of the market today, is worth $69,302.74. Well, irrespective, you know, that's true, and it does fluctuate. And here's the thing. I think it's a scam. And so let's put it this way, contrary to what we just heard in that video, look, if it's not a scam, why are you sending it to TMZ? If it's not a scam, aren't you sending it directly to the family or even to the FBI? Because if you're just wanting to run a scam, run a hoax, if you're wanting to, God forbid, they're doing this for the purpose of intentionally harming the, I guess, the psyches and the mental well-beings of the Guthrie family. If you're not trying to just traumatize them, why are you sending it to TMZ? Because this absolutely reeks. And the timing of it, which coincides with her return to the Today Show, I think it's malicious. I think that they are doing this out of some sense of malice. I think they're doing it because they get some kind of sick satisfaction out of taunting the Guthrie family. Yeah, that's what they're doing. I mean, they have exasperation about how much has been in their words wasted in the investigation, in this case, when they could just break it open for merely half a Bitcoin, which is what they asked for before, now one Bitcoin. No, dude, you're evil. That's an evil act to be taking advantage of this family. And also, I don't think you really know anything. So hopefully you're watching because I don't think you know anything. I think you're just looking for a payday and you're not going to get it. And hopefully you'll get yours in this world or the next one. That's my message to you. I have a question. So why, though, why is it so hard to track the sender of these emails? I mean, and I honestly don't know because I'm not a tech expert. Is it because they hide behind encryption? What is the what is the reason that they can send these ransom notes supposedly or whatever they are? Not even ransom notes. It's just, I think, extortion notes is what we should call them. Why is it they can send these to TMZ without fear of being found out? I'm not an IT person, but we do prize some level of privacy that still exists in this country, despite the fact cameras are everywhere and IP data is everywhere. So there is still ways the dark web is flourishing with child sex trafficking and drugs and people like this who know how to send things anonymously and use Bitcoin and crypto as a way to get paid. So not surprised by it. I can't really explain the details about it, the technology behind it. It's above my pay grade, but it exists, sadly. And if someone was stated turning for 12 years, we would see that crypto was the choice for these criminals out there who wanted to get paid anonymously. Well, you know, here's the thing. We do have privacy in this country, but I don't know that the person is even in the United States. They say that they saw her, I think they did, they said they saw her deceased in Mexico or they saw her in Mexico. So if they saw her in Mexico, then presumably they're in Mexico if you take it at face value, but who really knows? And you know, the thing about this particular Nancy Guthrie case, Dave, is we now have another case, right? You talked in the intro about the Oakland coffee shop owner that's missing, right? We have, according to New York Post is reporting Amy Hilliard, 52 years old, a mother of two, co-owner of a community spot known as Farley's Coffee out in Oakland. She's been missing for two weeks. She runs the business with her husband, Chris Hilliard. The shop was founded by Chris's father in 1989. And so she was last seen Dave on March 25th, around 2pm near her home. A neighbor saw her returning from walking her dogs. And shortly after that, her husband says that he came home and found her phone and the dogs inside, but there was no Amy anywhere to be found. And so this has some shades now of the Nancy Guthrie case, doesn't it? It does. You've had over 60 volunteers and multiple agencies searching for her because this is not the type of person that goes missing. She was important to a lot of people. She was a fixture in the community. And it looks like that there's no instant suspect because normally you look at the spouse, but here it looks like she had a loving husband and they owned this business. And the husband came out with a statement that said, as more time goes by without Amy, the agony of her absence is devastating. We're still holding on to hope. He thanked all the search parties. And it just, it doesn't seem like, as far as we know, that there are any obvious suspects here. It doesn't seem like he'd be involved in this. He's been out there helping with the search. We've seen other cases where the husband all of a sudden, he doesn't want anyone to search and he lawyers up. That's not what happened here. So we don't know what's going on. We're going to keep following here an MK True Crime. This is what we do here. We focus on True Crime and hopefully we get some positive news about these cases because no one wants all doom and gloom on this channel. Well, look, we we've got to talk about the elephant in the room though. We, you know, you know what I'm getting at. We have to because whenever there's someone missing or there's a murder investigation or criminal investigation with a human that's a victim, where do police start? They start with the people who are closest to the potential victim. Right. And they work their way out and they have to start ruling people out. So normally who is the closest person? It's usually a spouse or an immediate family member. And so in this case, they have to assume that everybody, including me and you as suspects until they can rule us out. Right. So that's right. That's right. But it wasn't me and I'm sure it wasn't you. And we're not accusing anybody of anything, but I know that they're going to be looking at all of the people close to her, including the husband. And you know, it's true. He has not lawyered up. He has not said or done anything that would cast any particular suspicion on him. But law enforcement is canvassing the community. They're getting video. They're looking to have any one in the public who might have any information about her, including from their surveillance videos. And we see this in all kinds of criminal investigations. Now we see the police turning to the public and saying, look, please look at your home security cameras. And and if you think there's anything of evidentiary value, send it to us. And that's what happened in the Nancy Guthrie case too. And it's still going on. So we can just see so many really crazy, I think parallels to this, including that Amy is just like Nancy Guthrie was considered to be at real at risk from a health perspective due to unspecified health conditions. Dave. Yeah, that's what's also scary is that it's been two weeks and every day that passes makes it less likely that there'll be positive news at the end, especially because he had someone like Nancy Guthrie who had medical conditions. So yeah, I don't know. I don't know what to think about this. I don't like to cast aspersions on anyone till we have real evidence and proof. But right now, seems like an entire community is working together. And there have not been any public leads that we know of that could help us find where she is. When it comes to your dogs, why does there often seem to be compromise on their food? It's either fresh and healthy, or it's easy to store and serve. But with Sundays for dogs, you actually can get both. Founded by Dr. Tori Waxman, a veterinarian and a mom who got tired of seeing so-called premium dog food full of fillers and synthetics and then giving it to her dogs. She designed Sundays, which is air dried real food made in a human food grade kitchen using the same ingredients and care you would use to cook for yourself and your family. Everybody's clean, packed with real meat, fruits and veggies, no weird ingredients, no fillers. Best of all, just scoop and serve. No freezer, no thawing, no prep, no mess. Just nutrient-rich food that fuels their happiest, healthiest days. Consider making the switch to Sundays. Go right now to Sundaysfordogs.com slash Megan50 and get 50% off your first order. Or you can use code Megan50 at checkout. That's 50% off your first order at Sundaysfordogs.com slash Megan50. We should move to the case that everyone's been talking about because this Gerhard Koenig trial, this is the case of the spouse who allegedly tried to murder his wife. Well, there's exactly what people always think. Look at the spouse, right? Well, here the spouse took his wife on a birthday walk on a cliff. Oh, the cliff was steep and at trial, it looked like he was looking at places where they should walk. And he chose one of the steepest, most dangerous places to walk. And he wanted her to take a selfie here. Go take a selfie. And she said, no, didn't trust him. And then he started beating her with a rock about 11 times. He claims self-defense. This small woman was the one who was trying to push him and he had to beat her in the head with a rock. And then of course, he disappeared for eight hours. So much for self-defense. You run away and hide for eight hours. That seems to be conscious of guilt. Oh, and they had marital problems where he accused her of cheating. And because it's self-defense, that's his claim, he had to take the stand. And by the way, when I say have to, by law, but you can't say that, yes, I was in reasonable fear of my life and not take the stand. You can't let your lawyer do it. You got to do it. And when you take the stand, that means you have to endure cross-examination. Oh, and we saw it. We saw it. Bill, I'd love to know your thoughts. Dave, have you ever, I said this with Ashley on the show last Friday. Have you ever heard the saying that it's better to keep your mouth closed and look like a fool rather than to open your mouth and prove it to the world? Because that's what happens sometimes when people testify for themselves. It's usually best to keep your mouth shut. Because if you don't come across, let's say there's reasonable doubt at the end of the state's case, it's very possible for the defendant just by the way he comes across to eliminate that reasonable doubt in the minds of one or more jurors. In fact, we've got some of the cross-examination. We've got SOP3, which is Dr. Gerhardt testifying about Dr. Gerhardt-Coney. There's nothing sexual in the messages between Ariel and Jeff Miller. Now look, to set this up before we run that side, he was claiming that she was having an affair and she said no. It was just a texting situation. So he's saying that this was like an emotional love affair or something like that. He considered that to be cheating. So that's what is really sort of driving some of the problems between these two, but he was questioned by the prosecutors about this. So let's take a look at SOP3. So you were able to see and record all the deleted messages from Sunday, December 1st, 2024, correct? Yes. And you read these messages, right? Yes, I did. You read them and starts out. We'll go for the first couple section. Mr. Miller says good morning, right? Yes. He says, I hope you're getting some good sleep, right? Yes. And you talked about his sleep, correct? Yes. Then Ariel says good morning, right? Yes. There's nothing sexual in these messages, is there, Dr. Coney? No. This is two people saying good morning to each other, right? Yep. And you were upset because in your mind, this is what spouses do, right? Say good morning. I wasn't upset that they were saying good morning to each other. I was upset about the entire relationship that they had. Dave, this was a toxic marriage relationship. I mean, there's a lot going on here. Yeah. And I think one of the reasons why they wanted to show that there was not any physical cheating going on, it was instead emotional cheating, was because that's the wife's testimony. She maintained that there was never a physical connection. She had met this guy and they had an emotional relationship. He lived in Washington state. They lived in Hawaii. So they had all that water between us. And by the way, the defendant called up Jeff Miller's wife to try to at least reach out to her and never got a response, reached out, never got a response. So this guy was obsessed. The defendant was obsessed with this emotional relationship. But if the defense could prove that the wife was lying, that there was physicality, then that would be really helpful to destroying her credibility on everything else she said, but they can't. And it's an important point for the prosecutor to show. So again, everything she has said is bearing out here. She said there's no physical relationship. You have to admit no physical relationship. So when she says you hit her 11 times with a rock and you say only hit her twice and she was the aggressor, who would you believe? And also you look at demeanor on the stand and he doesn't come across as totally credible. He seems a bit swarthy. In fact, I watched a lot of his testimony and he kept on cross examination, kept saying, I'm sorry, I didn't hear that question. Can you repeat it? And that's a way for him to try to think about the answer in his mind. You can get away with that a couple of times. And then at some point the jury is like, you're hearing is fine, dude. Well, it's been interesting to watch sort of some of the themes play out from each side. You know, Gearhart, the defendant, says that, you know, he's he's trying to, I guess, maybe take his wife out for this romantic encounter to try to, you know, rekindle the marriage. He said their last sexual encounter was December of 2024. She, Ariel, the victim is saying that she felt pressured for sex. He denied that. But she is saying that the doctor, her husband, threatened to expose the affair to coercer. I guess to coercer into what? Having sex with him? Yeah. The judge would not allow those claims because he said that would be too unfairly prejudicial. But the judge did allow in evidence of the defendant's sexual demands of his wife. But as you mentioned, Dr. Gearhart Koenig emailed this Mr. Miller's wife about the relationship who did not respond. And so the prosecution is really going deep into, I don't know, all of the details. I mean, the private details of this relationship is something you don't see all the time. I mean, this really, it's really a deep dive here. You want to show him as unsympathetic because if you listen to him, she's the one who was cheating, not him. He's the one who wanted to repair the relationship. But the reality is that this guy looked like a stalker. I mean, he was calling up this guy's wife or at least messaging her. He bought a camera to record her. He was surveying her for about 48 hours before she ever knew about it. And he went online to pick the right ledge, the right cliff to walk on. And it is, it's really spooky. And you want to show that this is the bad guy here. This is the one who's on trial, not the victim. In fact, there was some testimony where Gearhart admitted that he read an article about the dangerous hike where he wanted to take the wife. Let's sort four. Let's play that. And in January, 2025, you actually treated a woman in the course of your work for having a rock fall on her to waterfalls. Is that right? That's right. You saw the injuries that she got from that rock, correct? I did. You saw what kind of treatment she needed, right? Yes. And in February, at the end of February, that's when you started researching hikes, correct? That's correct. Now, your search for difficult hikes brought you to a website called journeyera.com. Is that right? That's right. The hike isn't necessarily dangerous, but much of the path is on the edge of a huge drop off. You read that, right? I'm sure I did. And you read the sentence that says, does that make it dangerous? You decide. I'm sure I did. You remember reading the part that says that the hike spits you out on the edge of a cliff with a huge drop off? If it says that, then I read that. You remember looking at this picture of the hike, right? Yes. And you see this picture and this is what you want to do. Yes. This is the hike you want to take Ariel on, right? Yes. You know, it's also dangerous if you take that hike with someone who's trying to kill you. Hey, but look, but this is this can be construed a couple of ways, right? If in all seriousness, you know, if you're the defendant, you're going to say, of course, I looked online at the hike because that's what you do. You're going to do something new. You you check out where you're going to go and all this kind of thing. And if it's interesting to you, you do it. The prosecution is going to say, no, you were looking for a place to take her and to pummel her with a rock. And I think we if we don't mind, we can show this video, the body camera video from the police showing these Good Samaritans basically trying to render aid to her as she's bleeding profusely from her face. And so we have all of this stuff coming together that paints, in my opinion, Dave, a picture of a guilty person, a person who doesn't want to be married to her anymore. He's jealous. And it's his basically thinking, if I can't have her, nobody else can either. I'm either going to beat her with the rock or push her over a cliff or both. And by the way, we've talked about the size of this rock. In fact, you and I, the last time we were on this show together, we talked about the size of that rock. And we have, let's say, we have shot number five, which is the prosecution questioning Gerhard at the hospital about the photos after the attack. And we can see the rock in some of these videos. This is the front of Ariel's face after those two hits, right? Yes. That's Ariel on March 25th, 2005, correct? I don't know when that picture was taken, but I'll take your word for it. That's Ariel the day afterwards, right? Like I said, I don't know when that picture was taken, but I'll take your word for it. And this is you again, correct? Yes. This is you on March 25th, 2025, right? I think that was like the night of, like just after midnight, but it was after the previous picture. That's right. This is you one day after Ariel hits you really good with this rock, isn't it? That's right. See how they zoomed in on that rock? The prosecutor, that was a slick move, by the way. The prosecutor just leaves that rock right there on the podium, right? For the jury to see. And it actually looks bigger in that view than it did in some of the other pictures I've seen. But clearly that rock is a deadly weapon if you use it that way. That was just great for the prosecution, really, because you had the defendant who was claiming that the victim hit him first with the rock and got at least one good hit in. And then he claims he only hit her twice. It was self-defense. And then you look at the pictures and you have Ariel looking like she'd been devastated, like destroyed with a rock. Like 11 times. Whereas he looks perfectly normal. Actually, the only thing is that that side profile made him look a little bit like Beavis in Beavis and Butthead. I don't know if you can show that on. Maybe I can get our control. They can just show that still photo again, if we can put it on the screen. And tell me that doesn't look like Beavis from MTV's Beavis and Butthead. To me, look, I think it was a very effective strategy by the prosecution to show those side by side pictures because it really does a good job of contrasting the two various claims. By the way, there was one bit of this case that surrounded the prosecution's claim of a financial motive. So the prosecutor has pointed out that Gerhard would have benefited from Ariel's death financially. He would get $500,000, which is a $250,000 life insurance policy plus her retirement fund. And that he would not have to worry about paying child support and would not have to worry about a custody battle. In fact, we have sought six, which is the cross examination on that point. If Ariel Koenig dies, you're not going to be paying her any child support, correct? If, if Ari dies and yes, I would not be paying, yes, I would not be paying that person child support. Yes. If Ariel dies, you get the $250,000 life insurance policy she took out, correct? Yes. That your direct or your suggestion, correct? Not my suggestion to take out the life insurance policy. It was a joint decision. If Ariel dies, you get $250,000 from her retirement, correct? Yes. As a sole beneficiary, correct? Yes. If Ariel dies, you get full custody of the kids, right? If Ariel dies, I'm the only parent left, yes. No further questions. Dave, I like those short leading cross examination questions, which is what you want. I'm going to talk more about that in my closing at the end of the show. But look, I wanted to ask you before we go to the break, Dave, what is your prediction? Because here we are recording this on April the 7th and we have closing arguments that are starting. And so by Friday's show, we're going to have a verdict. What do you predict? Guilty. I think this is a clear cut case where you had means, motive, and opportunity, and you have a likable victim and unlikable defendant. Throw the book at him. I agree. Guilty. That would be my vote. All right. And next, we've got someone who's not guilty, someone who's outstanding and East Coast contributor for Los Angeles Magazine, Lauren Conlon is going to join us to discuss the latest and the messy Justin Baldoni Blake lively legal battle stay tuned. Traditional home security companies can make the whole process a headache. You've got expensive monthly fees, long contracts, a lock in for years, and systems that require technician to come install everything. It can feel overly complicated. Simply Safe makes protecting your home straightforward. And the system is designed to cover everything that matters. What stands out about Simply Safe is that it's not just one device. It's a complete security system. You've got cameras that monitor the outside of your home, sensors on doors and windows, and protection throughout the home that can alert you to things like break ins, fires, or even floods. Everything works together in one simple system. So your home is covered from the outside in. It's all backed by Simply Safe's 24 seven professional monitoring agents who are ready to respond and dispatch emergency help if something happens. Over 5 million people trust Simply Safe every day and US News and World Report ranked them the best home security system of 2026. We want you to experience peace of mind, which is why we partner with Simply Safe to offer an exclusive discount. Right now you can get 50% off your new system by visiting simplysafe.com slash Megan. That's M E G Y N. And that's half off at Simply Safe dot com slash Megan. There's no safe like Simply Safe. Welcome back to MK True Crown. I'm Phil Holloway along with my co-host Dave Ehrenberg. We're pleased now that joining us on the show is East Coast contributor for Los Angeles Magazine Lauren Conlon. Lauren, so great to have you on the program. Listen, I was noticing that you have been all over this saga between Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively. So look, if you don't mind, I'm going to just turn it over to you because I would like to ask you if you would please just give us the reader's digest version of what this whole thing is about and what it is that's happened very recently in court. Yes, I will tell you Blake Lively has said this is not a celebrity drama, Phil and Dave. I believe at the core it is a celebrity drama. There has been so much going on since 2024 since this movie was made well before that it ends with us. But essentially what just happened is Blake Lively's lawsuit essentially was ripped to shreds by Judge Lewis Lyman. And look, that does not mean that the defense wins, right? I mean, that's going to be up to a jury. A jury could ultimately, you know, side with Blake here, but she had 13 claims and 10 of those claims were scrapped. Now, she is claiming the heart of her case, what is left here is all about the alleged PR smear campaign against her. She will have to prove that in court. However, what I find to be interesting is leading up to this and it has been very, very dramatic. We have heard her say as well as her lawyers this past summer, I specifically remember Sainte-Greid McCauley saying the heart of this case is sexual harassment. Well, now, apparently, you know, it's not it's about this PR alleged PR smear campaign and Blake Lively voicing her complaints on the set of it ends with us and then feeling like she was targeted and she was attacked and her reputation was damaged. Now, what I also think is so interesting about this is that there are lots of different actors involved, right? We have so many depositions, you know, Brandon Schlenar, Jenny Slate, these these up and coming actors who were involved, but I'm going to go ahead and guess that they didn't really want to be involved. I don't know if they're going to need these people to testify anymore because they can't speak to if Blake Lively felt attacked or how she felt. You know, if she was a target of this smear campaign, they could really only speak to a quote, a toxic work environment or again, sexual harassment. But that's all been thrown out. So, you know, who are we going to hear from? Well, Blake Lively as of April 7th, her attorneys are, you know, filing more motions saying you need to tell us who is testifying. It is strategic that you are not sharing this with us. And it's simply not fair. And the defense is like, well, look, we are reserving to the very end to decide who's going to testify because we don't even know who will be available. And you know, this is just it's not a thing. It's not that important, our witnesses. But I will just top this off by saying and I, you guys are lawyers and you are incredible at your job. Well, Blake Lively amid getting her lawsuit pretty much shredded, put out this statement saying that she was excited and that she was doing this for all of us and almost for the children, you know, she cites digital violence and how anybody could be a victim here. But, you know, I have to say she's not exactly relatable. And I think that's what she's going for. Not many of us can walk onto a set, you know, let's say as an actor and change the script, do whatever we want. I mean, there's so much here. So I feel like I'm not really... You're saying she's like a diva? Is that where you're going? I mean, I'm not. But really, Phil, this lawsuit was shredded because of her own words. She wrote this letter to this PGA letter, which is the producers, Gilded America, with over 70 bullet points saying, you know, what she did for the film, why, you know, she deserves the producer credit. She found the location, she dealt with this, she did that. And essentially, the judge is like, you were not an employee. You clearly were not an employee. Therefore, yeah, everything's gone. So I'm not saying she's a diva. I don't know her. I haven't met her. And I do feel like it's cliche to sort of pile on her. If that makes sense, I'm just going from the facts and what I've read. Well, there's some interesting legalities here. And I want, I'd like to hear you and Dave sort of break this down and maybe even debate it or talk about it, because what I found fascinating, the judge in throwing out the portions of the lawsuit related to sexual harassment, the judge noted that a lot of the specific allegations, which included unscripted kissing, and she says he walked into the dressing room while she was breastfeeding and things like that, the judge noted that a lot of these things took place in New Jersey. However, the case is founded upon California's sexual harassment. So even if those things are true, the judge didn't get into the merits of that. But he said, even if it's true, it doesn't work in this lawsuit because of those jurisdictional mismatch issues. And then the other piece of this, right, the judge wrote that, that quote, artists quote, must have some amount of space to experiment within the bounds of an agreed script without fear of being held liable for sexual harassment. I found that to be stunning and very interesting. I happen to agree with it by the way, but what do you guys say? Well, I agree with it. I think that you're talking about two actors in an intimate scene. This is a movie of romance, but also violence. And the, if you're going to start allowing lawsuits against people for, we're not talking about going from zero to 60. We're talking about a scene where he leans in for a kiss where it's nothing more than that. And it's part of an intimate scene of the two of them that he shouldn't then be on the receiving end of a lawsuit for that or criminal charges. But this was a civil case. But I do think that the judge is right here. And the judge did gut her case, although the retaliation claims are still around. And because of that, she still got a shot here. And this thing is still heading towards a trial, which would be a surprise because no one looks good in a trial. Because in this case, we've seen so far that both sides have looked bad. A trial will make them both look worse. The only time I've seen the celebrity emerge from a high profile celebrity trial doing better than before was Johnny Depp. But that was unique because Amber Heard was such an unlikable character in that trial. Right. And I was in the courtroom actually in January when all of this was discussed. And Louis, Judge Louis Lyman actually said something along the lines of, you know, so the precedent you're trying to set here, and you know, he's talking to Blake's team is like any director, any actor, if they want to improvise a scene that involves some kind of kissing or anything sexual, a touch, like it's going to have to go before a jury. A jury has to decide that. That's crazy. That's not a thing. And this goes back to sort of, you know, Lake Lively, I have to wonder who is advising her. And besides her team, besides her lawyers, who is advising her to keep pushing, to keep moving this forward? Because, you know, I don't know Hollywood, I don't think I feel safe necessarily working with her. It's pride. It's pride. It's pride. And that's I don't think anybody's pushed. I do think I do think both sides may be surrounded by people who are perfectly happy to, I don't know if the lawyers are billing by the hour or if it's who knows, but usually I imagine there's going to be some of this is being billed by the hour. So, you know, look, if you have deep pockets and a client willing to enable to pay the enormous costs of litigation, I would I wouldn't even begin to guess how many millions of dollars have been, in my opinion, wasted on this litigation. Litigation is a terrible, terrible way to resolve the dispute. But now we've got egos, we've got pride involved. We've got lawyers who have clients that have the ability to pay because a lot of us lawyers, our clients don't have unlimited funds. And so that that drives a lot of the decisions that we make. But I think that it's pure pride that is pushing these people to refuse to settle. But the question is, will they settle because statistically, most cases do. And the closer you get to trial, there'll be more pressure to settle. And that's what happened. You go to do brinksmanship and you can see ahead of you, all right, this is mutual, just assured destruction. Let's write a check on both sides. Let's do some releases and let's get out of here. So I think that's what's going to happen. I would be surprised if it actually goes to trial, especially because most of the claims have been dismissed. And so we were left with a retaliation claim and a trial that would really would just benefit the lawyers. This is going to trial. Sorry. I just, oh, really? This is so I, I mean, unless you just want to be in federal court, right? You want to go down there and watch? Listen, I don't want to go down there. Like I said, I'm going to be fighting with every content creator at five in the morning to get a spot in the courtroom. So no, unless we show up that day and, you know, there's some kind of settlement, but they had another conference on Monday, April 6th, and nothing was settled. I just think they want to go in and battle and they want, they want the satisfaction. I don't think it's about money clearly. I mean, they want the satisfaction of the other person being wrong here. And let me ask you guys this as attorneys, because this is so strange to me. You said it Phil, like how, how were her attorneys not privy to the fact that the sexual harassment wasn't going to hold up? I mean, you know, statewide, I don't understand that. How, how are they paying so much money for these attorneys? And they're like, well, you should have known this, it's California law, it doesn't hold up. This is why, see, this is why I quit doing domestic relations law many years ago. It's because it's the kind of thing where each side wants to win and they want the other side to lose and they want to make that happen publicly so that they can be vindicated. It's personal. They have personal emotions now that are deeply entwined in these decisions. Objectively, we can sit here on MK True Crime and the three of us can talk about it and say it makes no sense to continue this litigation. It's a waste of time, resources and money and everything else. But our emotions are not driving this discussion. Their emotions are, they hate each other. And so it's like, it's like a bad divorce where people, you know, they can agree on child custody, they can agree on sometimes visitation and things like that, but they're fighting over pictures and bookends and candlesticks and things that make no sense because they just want to get the upper hand on the other side. That's just my take. Well, there's a lot of money riding on it, especially for the lawyers. And I think we should move on to General McCastland. Phil, still missing. We talked about this before on a previous show. This is a retired 68-year-old major general from the U.S. Air Force who mysteriously vanished from his Albuquerque home on February 27th. He's got a distinguished 34-year military career and he was working in the past at the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, which is a site associated with UFO conspiracy theories. So you know what that means. Internet taken away on conspiracy theories. Maybe the aliens took him or maybe people who didn't want his work to get out there or didn't like his work. I don't know. But one person I know who has a lot of knowledge about this is Lauren. I'm so glad you're here. You know a lot about a lot of things, Lauren. Tell us what's the latest with the William McCastland case. Well, I got to say guys, I have been obsessed with the no really. And I am I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm just looking for patterns here and I see these very strange patterns. And again, General McCastland is clearly not the only one missing. But one thing I will say that kind of makes me take off my tinfoil hat, if you will, is the 911 call that was recently released made by his wife, which tells me a lot more than I knew when I first found out that General McCastland went missing. His wife says he- Hold on. Let me let me let me can I apologize you real quick because we're going to play the 911 call in a minute. But let me let me set up what you're saying because you're right. I totally understand why you're saying it's easy to get caught up in the conspiracy theories here. All right. So McCastland, a lot of people say he was taken because of his professional associations. He was the let's see, he was the commander of the research laboratory at Wright Patterson Air Force Base. And that happens to be the facility where the debris from the alleged Roswell UFO incident was taken back in July of 1947. So he has this, you know, real world connection to this alleged otherworldly kind of site, right? And so people start to do things in their head. They start adding things together and they start seeing the patterns you talk about because we're going to talk in a minute about the disappearance of Monica Reza, who was a rocket scientist with ties to missing to the missing Air Force General. And she also had ties to some of that same location and some of the work that he was involved in. But to your point, didn't mean to cut you off. But I did want to set up the 911 call. So if we can go ahead and listen to the 911 call, we'll see exactly what Lauren was talking about. This is April. How may I help you? Hi, April. My name is Susan Wilkerson. My husband is missing. And it's been about three hours. And I have some indication that he must have planned not to be found. He's left his phone. He changed his clothes into, I don't know what, I think he's on foot. All of our cars and bicycles are in the garage. I left for a doctor's appointment at about 1110. And he was here at that time at the house. And I got back from that at noon and he was gone. He turned it off and left it behind, which seems kind of deliberate because he's always got his phone. He has a smart watch. I don't know if that's with him or not. Has he ever done this before? Never. Nothing even remotely like it. He's a retired Air Force Major General. He's very responsible. But he's also facing some medical issues. We've been seeing a doc for both physical and mental in terms of anxiety, short-term memory loss, lack of sleep, other than pain if his brain and body keep deteriorating. He didn't want to live like that. But it seemed to me that was just a man, I hate how this is going kind of thing because I told him, yes, you do. Yes, you do. Okay. We're going to send some deputies up to talk to you, see if we can search a little bit and see what's going on. Okay. Sure. Reminds me of a class I took in law school called, well, it's for legal forensics, right? Legal medicine. And we studied about the concept of something called a psychological autopsy. And of course, we don't have any indication that anybody has deceased necessarily. But if you listen to that 911 call, we can learn a lot about the general prior to his going missing and perhaps his state of mind. Yes, totally agree. And I go back to what I said before in terms of like, she's telling us that he changed clothes. Maybe he doesn't want to be found. We know from what the authorities put out, he was dealing with something called, quote, mental fog. And this also was one of the reasons why he decided to retire, which was a number of years ago, by the way. But by them not sharing this with us initially, and I don't know if it should have been the, you know, Bernal Lillo County police, I'm probably butchering that that county. But if they, you know, should have put this out sooner, in my opinion, because again, it does seem to kind of cross out some of the conspiracies here, right? I mean, I don't know if you guys agree. But I'm thinking to myself, yeah, he might have known something and they, whoever they is did not want that out there. But now I'm thinking it could be something else. He did not want to be found. And she had said that, you know, she wasn't sure of any of the initially any of his guns were missing. She looked in the gun safe, she couldn't tell, but a revolver was subsequently missing. Dave, you know, the conspiracy theories, which I know that you're an expert in conspiracy theories, they are, they have the benefit of being malleable. And by that, I mean, they can be sort of manipulated to sort of fit whatever somebody's ideas are about them. Here's the thing, Dave. He disappeared just a few days after President Trump announced on Truth Social that he would have all government files related to UFOs and extraterrestrial life released. And as I mentioned, he commanded the research laboratory at Wright Patterson Air Force Base from 2011 to 2013. And that being where the infamous Roswell incident is said to have occurred, Dave. Well, I hate conspiracy theories. I was a prosecutor. We deal with evidence in the law, not conspiracies, but here I was glad to see that there was an 911 call that finally, I think at least sets us into a direction that he walked off. He was someone didn't want to be found. It wasn't like he was kidnapped by aliens or Walter White, who by the way lived in Albuquerque, my favorite show of all time, Breaking Bad, better call Saul. So I do think we have an idea of what happened to someone who had some mental ailments and someone who maybe, maybe was pushed over the edge by thinking that the files would be released and he needed to go. I thought it was pretty interesting how calm, cool and collected his wife was. And Lauren, did you read anything into that? I mean, it seemed like she was like, yeah, I always expected this day would come. Yeah, I mean, I am the queen of deciphering 911 calls, especially when, you know, we end up hearing these 911 calls that the murderer makes or, you know, whatever it is. So with hers, she was very calm. She was very stoic. She also works in the aerospace research field. Now, let's keep in mind, I mean, he had just gone missing. So maybe, you know, she, she was kind of thinking, you know, we'll find him eventually. It could be a number of things. So I almost don't want to judge her tone, I guess. I know that right before he left, he did talk to a repairman or, you know, someone like that who was at his home there to repair something. I would like to talk to him. I would like to know, you know, what was General McHastlin like? What were his mannerisms like? Did he want you out? Was he rushing you out? You know, I have so many questions. I will say one other thing, you know, President Trump putting that out on Truth Social, I think that means nothing. President Clinton wanted to release all of these files. Obama wanted to release all of these files. Why is it that we think it's going to be so different for President Trump, right? I just, I don't know how they've been released. I mean, what that? Well, look, I know I'm talking out of both sides of my mouth here, but see, I personally believe there's more to the UFO secrecy than we've been made aware of. I think there's more to it than we may ever know. I do think that UFOs could very well be real. I just don't know, but I know the government has things they're hiding from us too. I know all of these things it wants. So I can listen to that 911 call and I feel satisfied that there is no foul play afoot there, but more than one thing could be true, right? You can have conspiracy theories related to the UFOs. You can have our government lying to us about these things. All of that can be true at the same time, right? I think so, Dave. Sure. Yeah, yeah, absolutely. And you see how quick Phil was to make sure that Trump got credit for the release of the files. Clinton never did it, right? I don't know that they have been released, have they? No, they haven't been released, Dave. No, they haven't been released. And that's what I'm saying. They, the government always says this, but they never follow through. But we've got this, before we could the break, what is the deal, Lauren, with the Monica Reza disappearance? And how does that play into these conspiracy theories? That one is even stranger to me because Monica Reza worked with General McCaslin allegedly. And her disappearance is strange because she was hiking in California. She is a skilled hiker. And what gets me is that she, and again, there's not too many details about this available, but I have dug in and she was reportedly with a friend and she, her friend was, her friend was behind her. I'm sorry, her friend was in front of her. Monica was behind her friend about 30 feet. The friend kind of waves to her. And then a few minutes later, Monica is gone. I mean, gone. And they put search dogs on there. They, you know, they had drones. They did a legitimate search. And the canine dogs found some kind of hat that belonged to Monica. So they picked a percent at this hat that was left behind. And then it just stopped. Nothing, nothing else. And I mean, it, it is so strange to me just because I don't, I don't understand. You were with a friend. Where could you have gone? So I, yeah, and it didn't get any publicity really at all, none. Well, she had, this is what's so wild to me. So I'm certainly no expert on what happened in Roswell in 1947, but I can tell you that one of the claims that I keep seeing coming up from that, it has to do with the government allegedly reverse engineering a crash UFO to create, I guess, materials that can be used for spaceflight. And so one of the things that is fascinating, this Monica Reza, she had patented a nickel based quote, super alloy called Mondoloid. And that's what brought her into the orbit of General McCassan, who, like I said, he oversaw the Air Force group that funded that research in the early 2000s. So it's all just so bizarre in, in the connections here. I agree. I, I've also been diving into a Caltech astrophysicist, his death, his murder actually in February of 2026, just about two months ago, Carl Grillmer is his name. And this you guys, you, I don't want to, I want to be sensitive about it, but you would appreciate this because it has the elements of the strange and bizarre deaths of aerospace researchers. But also we're talking about a California judge who released a guy on a felony weapons charge. And then two months later, he goes in and kill somebody. And the crazy thing is this felony weapons charge, he was seen, this guy, Freddie Snyder was seen on Carl Grillmer's property in Lano, California with an unregistered AR-15 style type of weapon. Carl Grillmer calls police, he gets arrested and then released, the charges are dropped completely by February 5th. And then I think it's by February 16th, he's back and he murders him allegedly. He hasn't even been in a reindeer. This guy gets the rain April 29th, but I am so deep in that because it is just driving me crazy. And guys, in Los Angeles, it's so annoying. I actually had to write a letter to get the court docs and the indictments. I'm not local, I'm Los Angeles magazine, but I'm East Coast. So I got to wait for the court to actually mail me a letter for an indictment. So, Phil, this is what you were talking about earlier about the sunshine laws in, in Florida, how they are so much better than other places. I mean, here's California, where you have to write letters and plead with them to release stuff that should have been released right away. You notice in an unrelated case in the Tiger Woods, uh, body camera, uh, it was released like the day after, you know, here in California though, you got to pull teeth to get access to the public. If you're just in Timberlake, you can suppress it and keep it out of the media for years and years and years. But look, all right, we're going to have to leave it there for this segment. Who knew that we were going to get all into UFOs and conspiracy theories? I promise you folks, this is a true crime show. Sometimes we have fun and we digress. We want to say thank you to Lauren. By the way, before we let you go, tell the folks where they can find you. Oh, sure. You can find me on X, uh, conlan underscore Lauren. You can find my, uh, written work on LA mag.com, Instagram, Lauren Emily Conlan, uh, and our LA mag YouTube page, Los Angeles magazine videos. All right. Thanks so much. And next up, we have our closing arguments and your questions. Stay tuned. Mother's Day is coming up. Have you thought about what to get the busy mom in your life yet? Daily look, the number one highest rated premium personal styling service for women may be an amazing gift option. Daily look is a game changer for the mom on the go. She'll get her own dedicated personal stylist to curate a box of clothes based on her body shape preferences lifestyle. A real personal stylist, not an algorithm. So head to daily look.com and use code Megan, M E G Y N for 50% off your first order. She can try on up to 12 premium pieces per box in the comfort of her own home, saving time and effort, whether she needs something effortlessly chic for spring brunch or a polished look for the office or school drop offs. Daily look's got her covered. She can pick out what she loves, send back the rest. You'll get free shipping both ways. Head to daily look.com to get a style quiz and use code Megan for 50% off your first order. Once again, that's daily look.com for 50% off and make sure you use the promo code Megan M E G Y N. So they know we sent it to you one last time. Daily look.com and promo code Megan. Welcome back to MK true crime. We'll get to our closing arguments in a minute. But first, listen to Michelle asked, how was it decided whether or not code defendants will be tried together with separate juries or one after the other? What are the pros and cons for both the prosecution and defense? Thank you, Michelle. Bill. Well, it's a great question. Thank you, Michelle. Look, there's there's there's a couple of ways we could answer that if you're a prosecutor, which Dave and I both have been, we enjoyed it when we could try defendants together. Okay, it was it made our jobs easier because what would happen is oftentimes you'd have them pointing the fingers at one another, right? And so when that happens, it makes the prosecutor's job much, much easier. Now, sometimes though, we run into legal issues and it is grounded in the fact that everybody has a right to remain silent, constitutional right to fit the amendment. And each state has some corollary version of that. So let's just take a hypothetical where Dave and I go out and we rob a waffle house here in Atlanta, okay? And Dave and I get caught and I confess and I tell the police, yes, Dave and I robbed that waffle house. In fact, Dave is the one that had the gun. It was all his idea. So the police take my confession and it's part of the evidence in the case. The police and the prosecutor wants to use my confession. However, Dave has a right to remain silent. I have a right to remain silent. So Dave's lawyer cannot necessarily cross examine me about my statement. Now, normally your confession can be used against you easily. But when you mix up co-defendants in there, it creates a problem that we call the Bruton issue coming out of a Supreme Court case called Bruton. Dave, how does that work? I mean, you don't want to look, we've been over backwards to make sure that Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial is protected for the defendant. And so you don't want to impute one person's confession to the other. It usually benefits the defense, separate them, and that's really it. So that's why prosecutors like them to be combined. We want to impute the filth from the one to the other. It's called, in pro-wrestling terms, it's called giving them the rub and defense would like to separate them. It also creates more trials and more delays, which endures to the benefit of the defense. So I think maybe the defense might want to say, look, we don't want a separate trial. We want you to just exclude the confession all together. That would be probably the best for the defense and my hypothetical. But in reality, probably what a judge is going to do is say, fine, we're just going to have separate trials. We all decide which one to go first. Exactly. Good question, Michelle. Good answer, Phil. And now it's our favorite part of the program, closing statements. Why don't you start it up, Phil? Well, look, Dave, I appreciate the idea here. And look, I'm going to do this just like it's a real closing argument in a case because we've been watching some trials. In fact, we had the Gerhard Coney trial earlier in the show today where we had cross examination on display. So ladies and gentlemen, cross examination is not theater. It is not the time to show how clever you are. It is, in fact, the most powerful tool that a trial lawyer possesses to test the truth. The fundamentals are simple, but they demand discipline. First, you have to know your purpose. You can cross examine for one reason only, and that is to advance your theory of the case. If it doesn't advance your theory, don't do it. Every question must either impeach the witness's credibility, contradict their direct testimony, or illicit facts that support your side of the case. If a question does none of those things, do not ask it. Second, always, always. And we've talked about it with all the trials that we've covered here because it drives me crazy when we see this on cross examination. Lead your witness. Ask leading questions. Cross examination is not a conversation. At least it's not supposed to be. Use short leading questions that suggest the answer. For example, you never saw the light turn red, did you? You were texting at the time, correct? The witness should only be able to answer yes or no in most cases. Third, you must control the witness. Never, ever let them make speeches. If they try, then you interrupt. Your honor, I move to strike the non-responsive answer. You got to stay calm, but stay courteous, but always stay in command of the cross examination. Fourth, you impeach the witness when necessary. This means you talk about prior inconsistent statements. You elicit the witness's bias, their motive, perhaps to fabricate their testimony, the lack of personal knowledge, or perhaps they have bad character for truthfulness. Maybe they're just liars and you got to expose that. So these are your weapons. Use them surgically and remember that one devastating contradiction by a witness is worth a dozen weak ones. Finally, and this is, I can't underscore this enough, and we see lawyers falling into this trap all the time, know when to sit down. Sit down when you've made your point, that's the golden rule of cross examination. The longer you stay up there, the more chances you give that witness to hurt your case. And so you must master these fundamentals. You propose leading questions, control the witness, use impeachment, use brevity, be brief in your questions, and you will turn hostile witnesses into your strongest weapons in your quest for the truth. Thank you. Dave? That was a really good lesson, Phil. Thank you. That was helpful. You don't want to ask one question too many and never ask a question you don't know the answer to. So on my closing statement, last week I discussed that viral video of Judge Nathan Miliron on Harris County, Texas, the one where a minor tech glitch led to a get out of my courtroom moment for a county IT staffer. Now I'll admit, I'm an optimist, I was sincerely hoping that the public reaction might serve as a moment of healing, a chance for the judge to reflect on judicial temperament and perhaps become a better jurist and a better person. But it seems that we've skipped healing and gone straight to revealing because a well-respected local attorney named James Stafford wrote to the judge to express his concern over the judge's behavior. And instead of an apology, Stafford got a court order. Judge Miliron summoned him to appear before him this Friday to show cause why he shouldn't be held in contempt for a ex parte communication, which is a one-sided exchange between a judge and a party in a case without the presence or knowledge of the other party. An ex parte communication requires, you know, an actual case. But Mr. Stafford didn't have a case in that court. He's just a citizen who sent a polite email suggesting that the judge might owe that IT staffer an apology. If simply stating an opinion with a public official now makes you a party to a case, then our legal system is in for a very busy season, especially for us as true crime podcasters. Let me say this directly and respectfully. Your Honor, the robe is a symbol of authority, not a shield for thin skin. The bench is for justice, not for settling personal scores. I'm still holding out hope that this incident will become a teachable moment. But for now, if you're looking to find the person whose conduct actually brought the court into disrepute, Your Honor, you don't need a show cause hearing. You just need a mirror. And that's my closing statement. Bill, I've enjoyed our conversation today. I want to thank our amazing team at MK True Crime and thank you to our guest, Lauren Conlon. She was great, right, Phil? Look, it was a great time and I appreciate being with you, Dave, and we thank our folks and the audience for hanging out with us here at MK True Crime. Great. We'll see you next time. Have a great week.