‘How to Murder Your Husband' author on trial for murdering husband; Rejected lover hires hitman

A word of warning. This podcast explores graphic and disturbing stories and includes some strong language. It therefore may not be suitable for our young listeners or other folks who may find it disturbing. Hello and welcome to True Crime Daily, the podcast covering high profile and under the radar cases from across the country every week. I'm your host, Ana Garcia, and our case is this week. No one likes to be rejected, but federal prosecutors say that one man went too far when a woman that he met online called things off. And after meeting him, well, she said that he was creepy and was sexually aggressive and wanted nothing to do with him. So he tried to hire a hitman to kill her. But the hitman turned out to be an undercover FBI agent. But first, a huge development in the murder, she wrote case about the wife who writes crime and romance novels, who is herself currently on trial charged with murdering her husband. This woman who actually wrote a piece called how to kill your husband. Okay, well, now a former cellmate in jail is claiming that the wife confessed to murder. It is a bombshell. We are recording this on Wednesday, May 11, 2022. Our guest today is the one, the only, Alison Treason, a criminal defense attorney here in the Los Angeles area, a person friend of mine, and one of our favorite guests. Hey, Alison, how are you?

I am great. I love being on your show and I love our topics. I really love our topics.

Oh, me too. The cases are just amazing. We were chit chatting before we started that. Excuse me. The case of the romance novel is. We did a podcast on that two years ago. I'm obsessed with this case. I'm obsessed with the details of this case and the characters because it almost seems too impossible to be true and right. And apparently you and I are not so sure that she'll be convicted, which is interesting.

There's a lot of smoke there, but I'm just not sure the jury's gonna find that there was fire. I just. I just don't know.

I know. It's. It's really interesting. So let's talk about the facts. What is being presented by prosecutors, what the defense is saying. And you all decide. You all decide on this case. All right, so romance novelist Nancy Brophy is on trial for plotting and trying to execute that plot quite successfully because the man is dead. Trying to kill her husband in order to collect on life insurance policies. Which she wrote herself. Which she wrote herself. Now, the thing about her that makes her so interesting is in addition to writing these insurance policies, you know, she does that part time. She also self publishes what I would call schlocky books. You know, these are romance cases, murder cases, crime romance. And according to the prosecutor, because they were self publishing the books, they were in near financial ruin because of all the money they were spending on supporting her writing career. Now, the defense says that's not true, but it just is so interesting to me because here's the other thing. The prosecutors are saying, Allison, that she was falling behind on paying the mortgage because she was so determined to pay the policies for the life insurance. What do you make of this?

Well, first of all, the amount of the life insurance policies. There was one witness who testified for the prosecution that I did find very compelling, and it's someone who is a life insurance expert. And his testimony basically said that they were paying policies in excess of $8,000. They were paying policies that were equal to 20% of their monthly SAL or more, and that that's very uncommon. Also, she wrote the policies herself. And we're talking about $1.4 million in life insurance policies is a lot of money. As soon as he dies, she does try and collect on him. In fact, there's a conversation where she wants the police to say that she's not a person of interest so she can immediately collect on him. So the life insurance witness was very strong for the prosecution.

In fact, Anansi called the police three days after her husband is murdered asking for that letter, that she needs it for the insurance policy, that she needs to be cleared as a suspect. And I do believe that at that point, ding, ding, ding, ding, ding. All the red flags were going up even higher than before.

Well, it's a. It's an odd thing for a grieving widow, right, to immediately turn to the police and say, please make sure I'm not a person of interest so I can colle. But that's not the only troubles that Nancy has in this case.

And so, yes, yes, Nancy has many, many, many problems here. So let's talk about the murder and the murder scene and start piecing things together. So, Daniel Brophy was murdered on June 16, 2018. He was found dead in his classroom at the Oregon Culinary Institute, where he was a teacher. And he was so loved, honestly, every. His students loved Dan. This was the kind of person who, when he would make an assignment for the class, like to make pies, for example, for Thanksgiving, after the class made all their pies, then he would deliver those pies to homeless people. You know, that's the kind of man that Dan was. What I think is interesting also here, Allison, is that Dan and Nancy were married for 27 years. And. And based on all accounts from both sides of the family, they had a great and loving relationship. Like no one in this murder trial yet has been able to go on the stand and say, oh, they hated each other. She hated. No, none of this.

Correct. No love, no arguments. Nothing that would indicate that there was marital strife. I mean, there's financial issues. Sure. In terms of this couple not getting along or talk of any type of separation or divorce. The only thing that I read through that I thought was a little bit interesting is that, you know, she fancied herself as a novelist and that she wanted more adventure in her life. And Dan wasn't the adventurous type. He didn't really want to travel and do the things that she wanted to do. But that is not. That is not a motive for murder.

No, not. I don't think so. I really don't. I think if she had been really bitter and miserable, I have a feeling she may have shared that, or it would have manifested. It would have manifested somehow in the relationship and then observations that other people had of how they interacted. In fact, the year before Dan was murdered, she finally got her name on the title of the house, because prior to that, her. Her name was not on it. So it's kind. It's kind of interesting in the sense that the prosecution is saying, oh, well, there you go. That's premeditation. She got her name on the title of the house, so then she could kill the man and inherit the house. What I find interesting is they were married for 27 years. Why was her name not on the title? That's what I would ask.

Right. But if I'm the prosecution, I do argue that also, I do say that in her plotting and planning, this is one of the pieces that she was putting in place.

Yep. Because the theory was, as you said, that she really wanted a more adventurous life. She wanted to sell the house and he didn't. She wanted to travel, and he loved doing what he did. You know, he loved to grow his mushrooms and his garden and everything.

He has this expertise in mushrooms. I. I think that's interesting.

Oh, just. Honestly, a really lovable guy. As I said on the original podcast, if you all get a chance to see it, I said, you know, this is the guy I would love to have as a neighbor. The man had chickens, and he grew his vegetables and fruit. I'm like, who would not want to live next to Dan?

And really likable. Really likable.

Really likable. And frankly, you know, not to cast Any more on Nancy, although she is indeed charged here. You know, a woman who writes her own books is self published. You know, that sounds like a pretty interesting. Interesting couple.

The problem here. Yes, we'll get into it. Is that she wrote this book, entitled it how to, you know, how to murder your husband. Yes. And then he ends up dead. So, yes, that's a red flag for me. Yes.

But, but Alison, I will say this. You know, a lot of people, Stephen King, you know, can write a lot of truly dark things and not be a dark person or be a crim.

Right, right. And at the end of the day, and once we get into more of the facts, in the eve of trial, the judge kept this out, so the jury will never know about the fact that she wrote a book entitled how to murder your husband.

I believe it was an essay and part of one of her blogs. It wasn't a full on book, but it was definitely, I mean, immediately after the murder. It was a very big deal. And yes, I kind of understand why that was kept out because it is superficially very damning. And it goes to my argument, a lot of people write a lot of dark things and are not killers.

Well, it would unduly prejudice the jury. I'm sure it would be a central part of their discussions. And like you said, a lot of people write a lot of things in fantasy and whatever, but they don't mean for them to come to fruition. So I think that it would have unfairly biased the jury. And truly, it's not relevant. I mean, the relevant question is, did she actually murder him? And the prosecution thinks that they have enough evidence against her to believe it, but that evidence is circumstantial.

Yes, it's quite interesting, isn't it? So let's get back to the murder scene. I know you're. You're dying to get into this. So Dan was shot twice at close range. Once in the front, once in the back. There was no evidence of a break in, no attempt at stealing anything. In fact, his wallet, phone, and keys were still there. Shell casings were left at the scene. And they've never found the murder weapon. They have never found the murder weapon. Now, I really want to talk about the timeline because this is something I've been obsessed with since the murder happened. And I even, like, brought my crazy notes that I write all over the house as I'm like, getting ready for the podcast. So let's talk about the timeline because. Okay, so there were no surveillance cameras in the school or around the school. And he arrived in the morning to unlock the school, if you will, and to turn the alarm on, off, which is very important. So he gets to school at 7:21, and he turns off the alarm at 7:30. The next teacher arrives at 8:00'.

Clock.

The students arrive. When the students arrive, they find him on the floor. By this point, he's dead. And the students are just completely freaked out, like, who would kill Chef Dan? Who would kill our teacher? So, I mean, this becomes a huge case in the area now.

Can I stop you for one second?

Yes.

When the defense is arguing, and it has been their position that they. That the police and the prosecution solely focused on Nancy, they never turned their sights elsewhere. They sort of honed in on her, and she was gonna be their person, and that there were a lot of homeless people in the neighborhood, and it could have been them, and there was someone on surveillance that they didn't pursue. But we have to remember that in a case like this, when nothing is stolen, his phone, his keys, his wallet are still there. It is a fair assumption for police to make that this was not about money. This is not a robbery gone wrong.

Yes. And I also think you could look at the crime scene and say, because there was no struggle, was he surprised and. Or did he know the killer?

That's right.

You know, and if I'm in a culinary school, honestly, I would have been grabbing like, a steak knife.

Right. No, I mean, there is. There's no struggle. He. He. You're right, he doesn't seem surprised by this. So those are fair. And that's a very important argument for the prosecution to buttress any claim that the defense has that they didn't look elsewhere for other suspects.

So the timeline is also troubling because while there were no surveillance cameras inside the school, and immediately, you know, on the school property, there were traffic cameras and other security cameras around the streets that pick up a very distinct minivan that prosecutors insist belongs to Nancy. However, we don't know who is driving the minivan, but the minivan looks just like Nancy's.

And in terms of good police work, they're able to zoom in enough on the license plate. So the numbers, they're not identical. There's some confusion of whether it's a D or a C at the end, essentially, but it is. They get most of the letters and. Absolutely. Right. That's the statistical probability of a minivan matching the description of hers with the license plate so close to hers. That's something that the jury is going to listen to intently.

Yeah. That to me is probably equally as damning as the life insurance policies being so high and that you're determined to pay those bills before you pay the mortgage. Like, where's your priority? Cut back on the life insurance policy. Where's Dan going? Right. Oh, and there was a writer on one of the insurance policies. If Dan were to die at work.

Ding, ding, ding, ding, ding.

More money. And where is Dan killed?

More money. Work, work, work, work, work, work.

Okay, so that was very interesting. Okay, so according to the videos that pick up Nancy's van, and again, we don't know whether Nancy was in there. This is by the school. They first spotted at 6:39. Then they spotted again at 7:08, and then they spotted at 7:28, leaving. So when I looked at the timeline originally, I thought to myself, if she is the one who's in the minivan, is it possible that this murder occurred in what looks like maybe seven minutes? Yeah, again, my theory, you know, not the prosecution's theory, my theory on the timeline.

So. Well, and remember, she told the police that she hadn't left her house.

And then in the trial, the defense says that she was at Starbucks. Well, which is it? Was she at Starbucks or was she home? Or maybe both.

What's exciting is that she's supposedly going to testify. And if you don't think they're gonna spend a lot of time on her cross examination on that inconsistency, that's a very important piece.

Do you think she should testify?

I do not. I do think she should testify. I think that she has too much to answer for, and the prosecution's case is circumstantial, and why fill in the blanks for them?

Yeah, I kind of feel like it's not really going to help her to testify because it's not like they have any other forensic evidence or anything else that's really, really strong. They have the life insurance policies, which they say is the motive. But here's what's interesting, Allison, because the defense says they were not in financial ruins. They were actually doing financially. Okay, and that. And they've put up some experts to say, you know, financially they were fairly solvent. So you're making too much out of this. And I think that's going to be very important about money.

I do too. But it's not just the license plate and the minivan. It's not just the insurance. What about the gun? What about her searches for a ghost gun on the Internet? That is important.

Well, if you are a crime writer, you could make the Argument. I mean, we've said this so many times, if people looked at my Google search history, they'd be like, what kind of a lunatic, what kind of a mad woman lives in this house?

Agreed. So here's though that I have that she had purchased a 9 millimeter pistol at a Portland gun show right? Soon before her husband's death.

Yes, but did they match the casings to that gun?

They did not. But she then, according to the prosecutor, switched out the gun's barrel with a Glock slide and barrel she had purchased on ebay.

Right, so that's what they are alleging. But then can they prove this? What do you think? Do you think that's damning or not?

I think alone it's not enough. The question is, given the totality of these things, is a jury going to believe beyond a reasonable doubt that she did it? And any one of them may not be enough, but is the totality of the life insurance and the minivan and the gun? It only takes one juror to say, you know what, I just don't think they've got it. I mean, I just don't think that they've got it. And while each of them have a plausible explanation, I think this jury is going to struggle about all of the.

Coincidences that's true, because I don't believe in coincidence and crime. Yeah, it's interesting researching these ghost guns, you know, potentially switching out the barrel, you know, buying guns before his death, getting her name on the title of the house, you know, her. One thing that people do agree on, excuse me, was her insistence on selling the house. And there was some argument whether she was even willing to sell the house below market value at the time. Again, she was pressuring him to do these things because she wanted to travel. Or was she desperate for money for other reasons? And that's the part that I'm still trying to figure out here. Like, where exactly is Nancy going without her husband? Like, what is she going to do? Or does she have a fantasy book in her head that she needs to live out?

I think that if she takes the stand to give an explanation as to these circumstantial pieces, it may be her undoing. Because, look, right now it is the prosecution's burden. They've got to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she murdered her husband. There are no eyewitnesses to the murder. Her fingerprints, her DNA. They haven't even found the murder weapon. Allegedly. Right. They say, look, nothing that was on her person or in her property matches the casings. Found it's a problem. It's a problem for prosecution. But then again, and this is why I think you and I both find this case so interesting, when you unpeel the layers of this case, there's still a doubt.

Yep. Yep. Absolutely there is. For me, it's the minivan and the insurance policies. Those are the two biggest things. Yes. Do I find the search for the gun and the ghost gun and all of that? Yeah, but I think she could get on the stand and say, look, I write crime novels. I self publish. You know, here's everything I do. Of course I'm going to search for them. I was testing it out for something I was going to write. You know, some writers are like that. They want to do everything step by step. I think she can say all of that. And if her defense attorney can prove that really they were not in financial ruin, then the question is, why was your minivan there? Right. And then why did you have so much life insurance on your husband?

Well, Anna, you also have to worry about something else, and that is the judge has kept out this book. Right. I'm sorry, this piece that says how, how to murder your husband. If she takes the stand and explains that she does this research, that's why she did the ghost gun, that she does this research, she may very well open that door that will then allow the prosecutors. The prosecutors are going to say, look, she brought it up, she's an author and that he spins these fanciful tales and that she has to research ghost guns. The jury is left asking why? What is, what was she doing researching it? She may, by taking the stand, open that door where the prosecution can then talk about this self published piece.

I'm fascinated by this case and Nancy, I have to tell you, she's one of my favorite characters in years here on the podcast. So I just want to share a quote of Nancy and then we're going to get to the bombshell. This whole so called confession, which I think is very important, although I don't, I don't think it's worth much. But that's my personal. Okay, so let's. Nancy wrote on a blog quote, as a romantic suspense writer, I spend a lot of time thinking about murder and consequently about police procedure. After all, if the murder is supposed to set me free, free, I certainly don't want to spend any time in jail. And let me say clearly for the record, I don't like jumpsuits and orange isn't my color. Nancy, that foreshadowing.

What is that? I know, I know. But If I was a juror, and I heard that, and I heard about the piece, I would be biased against her. Really? Yeah.

You like orange? Is that what you're saying, Allison?

Well, what I'd say was, you know, if the shoe fits. If the jumpsuit.

If the jumpsuit fits.

I love it.

Okay, let's talk about this bombshell, all right? Because I. I don't know. I'm not all that impressed with it. So. So here's what's going on. Apparently, a cellmate of hers claims. Claims that they were talking about the murder, and. And the other cellmate, Andrea Jacobs is her name. That this woman claims that Nancy pretty much admitted. Confessed to the murder, but based on what has been. Has been shared publicly, it's not clear to me that that's what she said. Jacobs told detectives that Nancy said, quote, I was this far away when the shoot, and that she had her arms stretched out, like, fully, and that. Jacobs then says that Nancy then corrected herself when she realized what she had said, saying, oh, really? It happened at close range. And that the moment was very awkward. And right now, prosecution and defense are arguing with the judge to figure out whether this will be admitted or not. Is this a bombshell to you?

No. I'm gonna tell you why. I'm gonna tell you why. First of all, the prosecution has rested their case, so the judge has to decide that they can reopen their case to call this jailhouse informant. I have been a criminal defense attorney for 25 years of the most unreliable witnesses that either side can call is a jailhouse informant. Okay? First of all, they always have a motive for why they overheard this conversation or why. And it is to reduce their time in custody. Remember, this is somebody who is serving time in prison for a crime they committed. In her case, I believe it was. It was a fairly significant fraud charge. She has now been moved to a federal facility, this woman. So that is a crime of dishonesty. Okay? That is a crime of dishonesty. So if I'm the defense attorney, I say, look, she's a known liar, okay? And in case. In a case like this, to have a jailhouse informant say, well, she told me this conversation happened. It just doesn't seem credible for most jurors. They're going to say, well, why would she. If she didn't tell the police and anyone. And everybody on the outside said, well, she's never admitted to this crime. Why is she all of a sudden telling her cellmate that she committed a crime? It's very suspect to me, and I Think that they put her on the stand if the judge allows it, which I'm not sure the judge will, the defense attorney should have a field day with her. But I just doubt the veracity of.

The comment because my feeling is if some nugget of truth were told, let's say, an information exchanged by someone who presumably would have known, generally the authorities have records, because not everything is introduced in court. Let's face it, these jurors will not hear everything in this case, which is why I hate that about being a juror. It was probably why I've never been chosen to be a juror, because I'm suspicious of everything. But think about it. If there were a nugget of truth, something that no one else knew, then I would say, aha. Well, now you're giving me some information that no one could know other than the killer. But, but to just give a, you know, a degree of. Of space and wingspan, I'm like, what is that Hooky got? What are you telling me?

Right, so our. So our listeners can kind of get an idea of when jailhouse informants are very valuable and credible is when the person says, well, they told me where the body was buried. And then you go, and that's where the body is. Okay, so that is information that is not disclosed to the public could only come from the killer.

And it's verifiable, like, where's the gun? Like, if. If Nancy had told this cellmate where the gun was and then they dug up the yard or wherever and they found the gun, they'd be like, wow, she really did say that. But just, you know, a distance of how and where the husband was shot in relation to the killer, I just don't find that very valuable information.

And look, if the, if the judge allows the prosecution to reopen their case and present this witness, who, you know, would not necessarily be a rebuttal, literally be their case in chief that they're presenting, because it's not a rebuttal witness, I think that the defense can do major damage in terms of credibility. But the big question will be whether the judge will introduce. Will allow them to introduce the witness.

Well, we're getting close to the end, and we'll see whether Nancy does take the stand. The trial is set to conclude around May 20, but obviously there's never a clear date on those things. And we'll see whether this bomb, so called bombshell is allowed. If convicted, Nancy Brophy would face the possibility of life in prison with a minimum of 25 years, given her Age.

And given the charges, if she gets convicted, I don't think Nancy Brophy is going to see the light of day. She'll spend the rest of her life in prison.

Yeah. And she's never been released on bail. And she made a big to do during COVID that they that she should be released, and she was not.

So the judge was not having it.

Nope. Not having it with Ms. Nancy. All right, we'll see what happens with this one. Our next case is really interesting. A Beverly Hills man is accused of hiring a hitman to kill a woman because she refused his advances. Scott Burkett is 24 years old, and he is expected to take a plea deal after knowingly. Excuse me. Unknowingly hiring an undercover FBI agent to carry out a hit, according to the U.S. attorney's office. So here's the story on this guy. Young guy, right? 24 years old. He meets a woman on a Facebook fan page. They're both big fans of a Japanese anime show, and they connect. And they met around July of 2020. And by October of 2020, the woman flies to Los Angeles to meet this man, Scott, who she has met basically, you know, on the Internet. Well, they hooked up. Apparently, they had sex, but she found him creepy and, quote, sexually aggressive. She ends up telling authorities this much later. And so after meeting him, she doesn't really want to be in a relationship with him anymore, and she tries to break up. This is her version of events, but Scott would not have it. Scott was not about to let her go, according to the Justice Department, was stalking her and her social media, and it was coming on the verge of harassment. I mean, no matter what she said, he would not stop. So she tried. He wouldn't listen. So then when the harassment became too much, according to the Justice Department, her father apparently contacted his father, Scott's father, and said, look, if this doesn't stop, we're going to the police. Apparently, he comes from a wealthy family here in Beverly Hills. And so there was a response, according to the authorities, from that phone. Either, you know, Scott's father's phone, who wrote it, we don't know. But basically, this was the response. She is blocked from all social media. Will consider this matter closed. That was in the court record. So one would think we're done here, but we're not. Alison, are we?

Not even close. And it's the strangest response. We'll consider this matter closed. I don't even. I mean, this. That's the strangest response, whether it's from Scott or his father. Well, it's not closed for them. I mean, your son, you've been tormenting this woman and saying, she's blocked. That's not a. I'll stop doing this. I apologize. It's a very. I find it to be a very cold response. A very cold and a very strange response.

That's interesting on the words, because some of the words that were used in the exchange with the undercover FBI agent also I found really interesting, like, who talks like this? And maybe he does, because there is a clinical.

Right.

Yes. A consistency in the use of words and language that isn't like, I want her dead. You know, I hate her. Do you know what I'm saying?

Well, there's like a detachment there. Right. I mean, there's like a detachment where anyone, you know, if a father reaches out to another father and says, look, my daughter is terrified. This was not really a relationship. They met one time. She's just not interested. Oh, I'm so sorry that my son has been harassing. If it's from the father, I'm so sorry that my son has been harassing your daughter. Of course we'll talk to him and this behavior will cease. That was not the response. That was not the response at all. So whether it came from Scott or his father, there was no real recognition that this woman had been alarmed or harmed in any way.

Yeah, very fascinating. And one would think that that could have been the end of it, and frankly, in normal circumstances, that should have been the end of it. But no, according to the FBI, Scott really decides to ratchet this up to an unbelievable response to the rejection. Okay, so at a. At the time that this happens, that that text message is exchanged with her family, and this is done. We're done here. It's believed that Scott began searching for murder for hire services on the Dark Web. Okay. He contacted a group advertising contract killing services. How many times? What is it with people? I mean, if you're. I know there are a lot of things you can buy on the Dark Web, but over and over again, we have proven on this podcast how many times this ends up being, you know, either not only a scam that they're going to take your money, but that the FBI or the authorities are behind it and that they're going to warn the person that you're trying to kill.

As tricky as you think you're being, when you go onto the Dark Web, who do you think is trolling that as well?

Yes.

And people get scammed. I've had several cases where people have tried to Hire contract killers. They've tried to hire young, you know, they've tried to find young girls. And who's on the other side typing those keys? Law enforcement. Law enforcement.

Yes. Yes. They hire hackers who they convict or they give a sweet deal to and say, okay, now I need you to work for the government. You're going to help me out here.

And by the way, it's not entrapment because the person is, is fishing for the information without any police solicitation. So it's not an entrapment defense because the person's actually looking for those act. Those products. Right. So a hired killer or some crazy child pornography. So in this case, as we know, it was actual. It was actually a local media agency that turned it over to the FBI.

Right. So there, there was an advertisement for these services for contract killing. That was not an ad posted by the FBI. It was posted by another group that the FBI has said that they are kind of a scam group. And they did get money from the guy. Oh yeah, they got money from the guy and every ought to back and $13,000 in Bitcoin.

In bitcoin.

Bye.

Bye.

So he pays this, this organization, which the FBI saying is like a scam group, but give these scammers a little credit here because as you said, they turned over the information to a media organization who then turned it over to the FBI. And then the FBI begins investigating and they continue to pose as the original advertisers, if you will. So that's. It's not like the FBI was posing originally that way. So it's kind of interesting how that all worked. And hey, the original folks, they got their money, so what do they care? And they end up outing this guy. So all of a sudden now the FBI is posing as the hitman. And as you said, he originally paid in Bitcoin, $13,000. And that happened between April 5th and May 5th. So he's acting very quickly here. The FBI says then the order for the hit is placed on April 28th with very specific instructions. The FBI says this is what Scott requested. And we're going to quote here because now we're going to get back to that language he uses. Quote, I'd like it to look like an accident, but robbery gone wrong may work better so long as she is dead. I'd also like for her phone to be retrieved and destroyed irreparably in the process. Destroyed irreparably in the process. Who is this man?

No, I mean, it's like he's putting in an Order for a sandwich. Like, he wants extra mayo. He wants, you know, light, you know, light mustard. I mean, it's very, very strange. But, you know, I'm going to trace something back to Brophy and the informant in that case, the jail cell. So one of the things that he says to the undercover officer is he gives a detail that is unknown to anybody else. So that is the way that the prosecution can confirm that in fact, that he himself wants to do this. And he talks about.

You're talking about Scott, right?

This tattoo that she has. Nobody but him in this world of possible people. Right. He can't say it was somebody else they were reaching. No, he talks about a tattoo that's located on her body and that if they send proof, a picture of that tattoo, he knows that they did the job and they killed her.

Yes. He wants proof, and he wants proof of the tattoo to make sure they have the right person. Right. And who would know that it's very. It's not just her name, it's not just her handle on social media.

Correct. Yeah.

So the FBI obliges because he's going to want proof of everything. And the agent sends a photo to confirm the identity of the victim. And Scott allegedly asked the FBI, well, the hitman, to provide proof of a death photo that would contain that distinct tattoo as well.

Yeah, yeah.

So in order to finish this deal, and this is really where the FBI also gets them, because just because he paid 13,000 in Bitcoin to somebody else, to this other group, the FBI needs to. This is a contract, a business that. A business deal that needs to be completed. So Scott made a final payment of $1,000 through Western Union that was intercepted by the FBI.

And there we are.

And there we are.

That's. That is very strong evidence.

It is, yeah.

That. That sealed the deal.

So, you know, I find this case interesting for many reasons. First of all, we have a well to do family from Beverly Hills and their son, you know, meeting women, you know, it's fine. You have an interest in anime. That's fabulous. You know, good for you. And he had the resources and the family had the resources to help this man. Right. And I read something that the judge wrote that was about denying him any bail. She didn't want him released because she found him to be a real threat, which is so interesting. So he was denied bail. And in the judge's order on why she required him to stay behind bars, she wrote the following. Allison and I find this very interesting. Defendants mental health issues, including his admission that he has multiple personalities, including a violent personality, also indicate that his release.

Would pose a risk.

Now what is that about?

Well, what's interesting is she further goes on to say that him, him being confined in his parents home, she didn't think, she thought that he would flee, that he had the means to flee and that he not only was a danger, but he would leave the jurisdiction. So it's a very interesting. Right. It's a very, very interesting finding that the judge made that even in his parents home, they couldn't, they couldn't guarantee that he would return to court.

And she also wrote that leaving him in the parents home, in home detention, she said, how can we be sure that he wouldn't commit similar offenses because these offenses with which he is charged happened under their noses. And I thought, oh, finally someone is speaking with common sense in a courtroom. Right, Common sense, right.

You know, it's an interesting question because look, the parents aren't the one who hired the hitman.

Right.

The parents aren't the one who was harassing her. And he's an adult. He's 24 years old. So what duty do they have to intervene to stop their son? And that's certainly not one for the courthouse. He is not a minor. So whatever duties parents have in, you know, in preventing crime or in turning to law enforcement with minor children is not present here. Should they have done more? Did they know more than they did? They did they know about his mental health issues and why didn't they intervene? Questions like that are important ones, but they're not ones that you can really bring to a courtroom because, because they, they aren't the ones that did this.

Right. And we don't know how much help they were trying to give him and they may very well have. And look, if he's on the dark web, come on. Most parents are not going to know how to find the kid. Not the kid, but the young, their, their adult son. So there's a lot that would have happened without them really being able to trace Anna Garcia.

I'm going to give you one further. I had a case recently where it was a minor and he was searching inappropriate things on the dark web in his parents home using his father's computer.

Oh, no.

And when the police came to arrest them, they actually went to arrest the father.

Oh, God.

The IP address was directly connected to the father. And the parents had absolutely no idea what was going on. No idea at all.

Yeah. Okay. There you go. So I just, I just love the clarity of this judge and her common sense. Approach to this. And here's the other thing. While he was being held on this charge, he apparently tried to manufacture evidence and an alibi, trying to do this all online while he is still in jail. He is a resourceful one, this Scott. Yeah, right. He doesn't give up.

No, he. Which, by the way, is. That is worrisome because if after you have been apprehended and after you have been held in custody, if you're still willing to do anything and everything possible to conceal evidence or as a, as a judge, I'm worried about that because there's been no clarity for him.

No, I agree. He attempted, he used, he was offering $10,000 for anyone who, as a third party, could fabricate messages that would suggest that he was framed and that he didn't do this, and he's doing this from behind bars. Okay. So my concern is, you know, there's a plea deal. We haven't heard that. There's an agreement in place that hasn't been revealed, and it has to be approved by the judge. I'm hoping our common sense judge is going to be the one over this one, because so far, she's the voice of reason here. But Scott has agreed to a deal with prosecutors, and the federal charge that he's facing is a. Carries a sentence of up to 10 years. All we know, based on published reports and from the Department of Justice, that prosecutors have agreed to seek no more than five years. So that seems to be what the deal is on the table. And my concern is what happens? I mean, what is he going to try and do while he's in custody and he's in prison, and then what's going to happen when he gets out?

Well, that's why I think it's a very interesting variable where the. So the maximum on the charge is 10 years in prison. Right. If you have a de minimis criminal record, a plea to five years is not because you want to give the person a break if they're willing to plead the case and not go to trial. A plea to five years under the circumstances, is not an outrageously low amount of time, but because we don't know what the judge is going to do. If the judge is going to approve this plea, are there variables that the judge may say, you know what? I'm not going to accept this plea, because ultimately that's what has to happen. The prosecution can say, we're not going to ask for more than five. But then pretrial release in a federal court prepares a report. They. They come up with what they think is a reasonable sentence. But ultimately it's up to the federal judge to decide. And is this judge going to take in, is going to consider that after the crime, while in custody, they, that this man tried to do things to conceal his crime? And is that going to play a role? Or is the judge going to say, look, the prosecution and the defense worked this plea out. He is going to spend time in prison. And I'm assuming that there will be some type of parole or some type of supervision after his release. And maybe that's enough. But I'll tell you, at the end of the day, when these people go on the dark web, they have to understand that there are people there that are interested in catching them.

I think, you know, maybe one of the conditions is no WI fi for you, no computer time.

Right. By the way, that is a condition that they often impose. That is a condition that they impose that you cannot go onto the Internet.

I'm sure he'll find a workaround. Can he do that? Can they, in prison, can they say you are not allowed any computer time that you can only do, like visits and letters?

Yeah, yeah, sure, sure they can. But also, you know, there's a lot of computer programs now that you. That probation or a judge or a district attorney requires that the person install on their computer that basically blocks like a firewall for anything bad.

Oh, this guy can figure his way around this. That's the thing with this one, you know, I think he really can. Oh, it'll be very interesting. And even though, you know, while he's in, obviously while he was being held on, you know, without bail, that he was trying to get this $10,000 to, you know, set up this alibi, clearly they caught on because all these communications are monitored. I communicate, as do you, via email with a bunch of convicted felons. And I know that all of my emails to and from are being monitored, as are the letters that I write. And are the phone calls right?

I mean, I often tell people, look, our conversations, our phone calls, they are attorney client privilege. They are monitored. But understand that the jail, the prison is recording every single one of your calls and they're going to use it against you if you say something incriminating.

Well, I find this one fascinating. I love your insight on it and thank goodness for a judge with common sense on that. This one.

Agreed.

It is time for our comments section. These are the crime stories you all are talking about on our social media. And our producer, Will Updike is here with what y' all are talking about. Hi, Will.

Hey, how's it going? Hey Alison. Great to see you.

I will.

All right, so this one is like, it's an, it's an interesting effort but ultimately not successful. So we have a man here who allegedly tried hiding from police under a sheet and after he was kicked out of an inn. Now I'm going to describe this for our audio listeners but basically what you have here is it looks like body cam footage or something that's super grainy. But you have a chair outside of a motel and there is just a sheet draped over it very clearly. You can see like the knees of a person and their head and the suspect even has a bag of their stuff next to them.

So like, like a Halloween thing. It looks to me it looked very Halloween ish. Like there should be a lantern, a jack o' lantern in that shot.

Yes, yes, exactly. It almost seems like if they would have put like a little hat on top, it would have been. It would have looked more like a decoration or something. But anyways, this case came from Belfast, Maine. This suspect tried these Scooby Doo tactics after he was kicked out of an Inn around 9:30pm Admirals were called. The officers were called to the Admiral Ocean for a disturbance. And this suspect, Philip Delude, was allegedly drunk and he was subsequently removed. They told him he would be arrested if he tried to come back to the inn's property. So then a couple Hours later, around 12:40, police say a sergeant was searching around the Admiral Ocean Inns parking lot and he reportedly found someone in a chair hiding under a blanket. The sergeant then pulled the blanket off obviously and found the suspect hiding directly underneath it. This one people loved. In the comments, Aaron S. Said, I mean he almost pulled off a convincing chair. I don't know if I'm buying that. It's not that convincing. So a lot of people were really interested in the effort though that he put into this. Louise B. Said, that's not a sheet, it's an invisibility cape that was clearly malfunctioning.

That's what I thought.

I wonder if it's the thing like he thought. I think it's ostriches that like will hide their head and they're sure then that predators cannot see them.

No, he has the mind of a five year old. Allison and Ike, right?

Anna, that was the first time I was gonna say, remember when your kids were super little and they would put on a hat and they'd be like, no, it's not me, it's somebody else, right?

My son had this great phrase. It was always, don't see me. I'm like, okay, okay.

Warren Pease talked about the ridiculous of this situation. Warren Peace said, imagine sitting there under the white sheet as the cops stopped to take a picture before arresting you. I wonder. Cause you could hear footsteps and everything. I just wonder what his thought process was as he's sitting there underneath the sheet. I would have loved to see the expression when the cops eventually pulled it off. Sarah G. Said, clearly, this man was always the first one to be caught playing hide and seek as a child.

That's funny.

Everybody has that friend. There was always that one kid that was like, you do not get this game. A lot of people, like I said, they were grading his effort. Clara B. Said, he gets an A for apparition.

Close.

It's close. But anyways, that's gonna do it for this week's comments section. Thank you so much. And remember to leave those comments over on our Facebook page. Also the YouTube community page. We'd really appreciate it. Thanks.

Oh, you know what? Before you go, Will, last week you talked about. I know we didn't talk about this, Alison, but everyone is talking about it. The runaway inmate and the jailer right. From Alabama, and they were finally caught and she killed herself. So many people were reaching out to me on social media, were like, anna, are you going to talk about this on the podcast? And you know, it's got so many developments. Like literally, literally every hour more information's coming out. But for those. But, Will, you talked about it last week, and now they've released, like, dash cam video. They've released the 911 video. I don't understand why Vicki White, you know, the retired jailer, why she called 91 1. Because you can hear their exchange on the 911, you know, where she's saying, let's get out of here. Get out of here. God, it was crazy, right?

Strange. So, so strange. Yeah, I.

So strange.

This is so fascinating. Moving that I had covered it for a TV show and then when I left the studio, I got in the car and they actually was actually dead. So, yeah, everything that I just covered was. We had a scratch. So there we are.

Yeah. And so that's why we just wanted to mention it. I know all of you are talking about it, and Will, I know you've been updating social media on this case, and we're going to be doing that, but by the time this podcast drops on Friday, there's gonna be even more information. Right?

Yeah. This case went from like Strange to even stranger. And then, you know, unfortunately came to this end.

Yeah.

Yes. But where. Where did they think they could hide this massive man? It's like trying to hide Shaquille o'. Neal. Like, how is that gonna happen?

I love that he was wearing a pink shirt like that. To me, he's 6 foot 9 or something.

Yeah.

Yeah.

He's a huge man.

Huge man. Right?

And. And a Cadillac. Really? You want to blend in, so you drive a Cadillac to a $50 a night fleabag motel with bedbugs.

I know. Amazing, right?

I'm sorry. So I had to say something.

No, yeah, absolutely. Gotta keep people updated on that one.

Yeah. All right. Thanks, Will.

Absolutely.

So that's our program for this week. Filled with crazies, as I say, you know, hop aboard the crazy train. Alison, it's always such a pleasure. I love having you on the podcast. I wish I could see you every day. I would do a podcast every day if I could do it with you.

I'm telling you, Anna, I love talking about these cases because you are as passionate about cases and crimes and investigations as I am. We're both suspicious. We both like to get to the bottom of it. And, you know, you've been a dear friend of mine for a long time, and I cherish our friendship.

Oh, I cherish our friendship, too. We have to go back to the theater. My little theater buddy.

Let's do it.

Let's do it.

Yeah.

Excellent. So, Alison, where can people find you? I know you're on a bunch of programs doing crime commentary, right?

So I obviously have a law practice out of Los Angeles. Law offices of Alison Treasle. I am the legal expert for Access Hollywood. And I'm the legal expert for KTLA Channel 5 here in Los Angeles.

Excellent. You can find me@Anna GNews on all social media. Anna with one n. So, as we always say here, you can get this podcast wherever you get your podcast. Don't forget, we do a bunch of other podcasts like the My Favorite Case series, which is fascinating. Subscribe to our YouTube channel. We've got nearly 6 million subscribers. Get us over the edge there. We're almost at the 6 million. And sign up to receive our newsletter atTrue Crime Daily dot com. I'm your host, Dana Garcia. Until next week. As we always say, don't do crime.