D4vd’s Defense Team Says Evidence Will Show D4vd Is NOT The Killer As CSAM Evidence Comes Out

This is the audio part 4 for the newest updates of David's arrest with the David and Celeste Rivas Hernandez case. In part 1, 2, and 3, we went over the arrest, we went over the prosecutor's preliminary brief where they detailed the timeline of how they think David killed Celeste, when they think David killed Celeste, when they think he dismembered her body and what happened afterwards, what tools he used. We also went over the 27 page autopsy that was finally released to the public, all of her injuries, as well as things like the fact that her left ring finger, pinky eye, we're missing. There's just a lot of details in there that I would watch first before heading into this one. And now for this part, we're just going to go through all of the things that have been happening in court since his arrest. The previous part we went through the potential accomplices that Netizens have been pointing their fingers at. Now we're going to keep you updated, so when we go into the June preliminary hearing, you know what to expect, you know kind of what's going to happen and what it means and that is where we're headed. So with that, let's get into part 4. David's attorney Blair Burke is proud of what she is doing. Like maybe she's not proud about representing David, but you never know. She represented Harvey Weinstein previously and she stated in an interview, I am a feminist, which I mean, I think you can be a criminal defense attorney and be a feminist. That's not what I'm saying. Also, I guess it's not feminist to judge other women, but there's just a lot of statements that she made in this interview that are unhinged. She says in terms of sexual harassment, in terms of misconduct even, that's a conversation we should have. But these are very complicated conversations because human interactions, sexuality and sexual conducts is on a continuum. But while it's unacceptable or not allowed of us in a workplace, for instance, someone with more power to abuse their power by being vulgar or borish or putting their hand on a woman when it's not wanted, it's important not to conflate that with rape. Every one of these acts is not rape. Every one of these acts is not a crime. It is definitely something we should be talking about, but it's not necessarily something we should criminalize. She continues, "One of those very uncomfortable truths is that there are women who engaged in sexual contact with a man in situations when they're not necessarily attracted to that man, but that more powerful man was offering them something they wanted. Advancement, the golden globe. Something they want, and they decided to have that sexual encounter in order to get that, intentionally, consensually, and later regret that they did that. We can decide that that is a fundamentally coercive act and should criminalize it. But right now, it's not a crime. And I believe it shouldn't be a crime. I believe one of the dangerous things about what's happening here is we're treating women as children. We are infantilizing women." She's talking about this case? No. So this is an interview that she did around the time that she's representing Harvey Weinstein. So this is not particularly about David's case, but this is how she views what she does for work. She says, "We're infantilizing women. It's a thing as feminist. We don't want to do, which is to claim that a woman doesn't have the ability to choose." This is a very, very high-profile celebrity attorney, by the way. She's represented Mel Gibson, Leonardo DiCaprio, Carmen Diaz, Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears, Caitlin Jenner, Halle Berry, Queen Lativa, Kanye West, Reese Witherspoon, but also Harvey Weinstein. It seems that her career trajectory went from representing a lot of celebrities for celebrity-like crimes, divorces, intoxication, paparazzi, run-ins. But after repping Harvey Weinstein, it seems like she's become a defender of those that have been accused of essay. Which is dangerous. Considering she believes in says things like this, or at least it's dangerous in my opinion, right? I think it's dangerous. But what do I know? She says things like, "The idea of someone going on Instagram or Twitter and making accusations all of a sudden, that's enough to destroy a life. I don't think any of us want to accept that and we shouldn't. Because when they come to our son or our father or our husband, we would want someone to care about the process. It's also really dangerous because with that comes this horrible slogan, "Believe women," as if some gender, by definition, only speaks the truth. She also says that the statute of limitations is very important, but even the way she phrases it, she says, "If you were a victim of a crime, you need to report it, and there are reasons for it. Because the freshness of it allows it to be a reflection of evidence. If you wait 20 years just because you didn't feel like it, that creates a problem." No victim waits 20 years to go to the authorities because they just didn't feel like it. Because they felt like they had other things that they wanted to do. And in the interview, she does the thing that makes me just makes one instantly question her. She says, "My colleague, Alan Dershowitz." Alan fucking Dershowitz. Alan fucking lives in the Epstein files Dershowitz. Okay, so. She mentions an op-ed that he wrote, so there's that. But what do you expect from the woman who literally has said, "Just because you're a woman and make a claim on Instagram doesn't make you a victim." I do think that defense attorneys play an integral part of our justice system and sure it is her job, but she really did not have to do this interview. She really did not have to say these things and also say that she's a feminist while saying that just because a girl has an Instagram and an accusation doesn't make her a victim, putting down woman in such a condescending manner when they are probably going through some of the most traumatic moments of their lives to trivialize that, to be a girl in social media. You're not a victim. It's just so, like, it's harmful in ways that I can't even begin to express. Yes, she can be a criminal defense attorney and a feminist and she probably could represent people who have been accused of essay and be all those three things at once. But to me, I can't fathom how you can be a feminist and say these specific things. I don't think that anyone was upset with her for representing Harvey Weinstein. I mean, yeah, people were, but I think these comments in the interview were pretty assinine. David retained Blair Burke last year when Celeste Body was first discovered in his car. He has sent added Marilyn Bednarzky a death penalty defense attorney in LA because technically David could face the death penalty. She's also just very experienced with over a hundred jury trials tried in federal court under her belt, as well as Regina Peter from Blair Burke's firm. The judge presiding over the case is Judge Charlene Olmito. She is a former prosecutor. She runs a strict program. She has a reputation of precision fairness, composure, a lot of attorneys have stated you don't show up to her courtroom unless you're prepared. She has presided over the very high profile trial of Danny Master's Sin. That 70 shows actor that was accused and convicted of essay. He was the one where I think a lot of people this might ring a bigger bell. Ashen Kutcher and Mila Kunis wrote those character witness statements in favor of Danny Master's Sin. The man that is convicted of essay and they did this whole weird apology video. That was weird. But during the sentencing, she tells Danny Master's Sin, "I know you're sitting here steadfast in your claims of innocence and thus no doubt feeling victimized by a justice system that you feel has failed you." And I'm sure you're asking yourself how you can be convicted of each charge of a sexual incident occurring 20 years ago based on the testimony of a woman that you believe is disgruntled and has a vendetta against you. But you are not convicted on the testimony of one person, although the testimony of one person is sufficient evidence. You are not convicted based on rumors in UNDO, gossip, or speculation. You were convicted based on the testimony and evidence that 12 people from the community found to be credible. In addition, shortly after you paid Jane Doe 1, approximately $400,000 to keep quiet about the charged incident. And while some may argue whether you believed her story was true or not, you just didn't want the bad publicity. She was seeking money from you close to half a million dollars. And awful lot to pay for the silence about an incident you claim never happened. That's a bad look. So Mr. Master Sin, you are not the victim here. Your actions 20 years ago took away another person's voice and choice. Ultimately, one way or another, you will have to come to terms that with both your prior actions and subsequent consequences. She then slapped him with the maximum sentence, stating, "As to count one, a violation of penal code I sentenced Mr. Master Sin to be imprisoned in state prison for a term of 15 years' life, count two in prison for 15 years' life, I order them to run consecutive." So your terms can be concurrent, which means served at the same time, which I don't understand the purpose of that. So it's like, both let's say you have 15 years, 15 years. Technically, you would think it's 30, but they're like, you consider them simultaneously, concurrently, so you only serve 15 years, which she said consecutively. So charge one 15 years, once that's up another 15 years. The total sentence is 30 years to life. There have been a few hearings in court so far, all ramping up to the preliminary hearing. And the first three hearings, I will say the defense team Blair Burke seemed a bit not as collected as Deputy DA, Beth Silverman. So I'm assuming she's very, very expensive, right in that caliber. Yeah, yeah. Right. I don't know for sure, but there were estimates that Danny Master Sin's trial because he also had a really high profile team probably cost him like five, 10 million dollars easily. And that was SA charges. Yeah. This is we're already talking about lots of discovery, lots of evidence and murder charge, potentially death penalty. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. A lot of people are like, how can David afford Blair Burke? I don't necessarily know how much David has made previously in his career, but he was dropped from his label. And it sounds like a bad thing, right? It's like, oh, he was dropped from his label, which means he's not making any more money when the Celeste body was found. He was dropped from his label. However, it kind of almost gave him the rights to his songs. back. Like he doesn't have to split as much licensing. It appears. So he's still getting even on Spotify. He's still getting like 23 million streams a month. I tried to cross reference with how much other artists were reporting on Reddit that they were getting paid as being the sole owner of their songs. I mean, he still probably has to pay royalties to the people who co-wrote the songs, helped produce the songs. But it didn't, doesn't he make his own stuff in the closet? Yeah, but there's lots of producers that worked on his withered album. And he could potentially be making close to like a million dollars a month from streams. I don't know because streaming is like such a weird. I'm just going based off of what people said on Reddit of how much they make per stream on certain platforms. And then I try to add it up. My math could be horribly off. So don't trust me on this. Only a million listens right now. 23 million on Spotify. That's not including Apple Music or other streaming platforms. The only place that he's not making money is YouTube. So YouTube very quickly demonetized his account. So none of his music videos are bringing in money. Yeah. I think that he's going to end up using most, if not all, and more on his legal defense team. And I do think anything after that is, I mean, I do hope that Celeste's family bring on a civil suit. So, but I don't even know what would be left at that point. So it seems like Blair Burke is familiarizing herself with everything going on. She doesn't seem as quick with it as Deputy DA Beth Silverman, which is to be expected. It seems that Silverman has been working on this case for at least months and months and months. However, there are rumors that Blair Burke might not even take this case to trial. Someone who claims that they have worked with Blair Burke before states that she has a tendency to take on celebrity cases before really looking into them and that she probably may quit sometime during the trial or before the trial. One Reddit comment is talking about the person that knows Blair Burke. He apparently has a YouTube channel. He's an attorney. I think it's like Bruce lawyer. And they write, he says that she predicts she's going to step down before it even goes to trial, either because the family runs out of money or because she won't like what she sees in discovery or because it'll be obvious that he did it. And she's already said some bold things about this case that she's like, oh, it's going to show he didn't do it. People are also saying Blair Burke doesn't necessarily seem like the type to do murder trials. She seems like the Hollywood fixer type. Interesting. But she did say in a previous interview, I never hesitate to get a client. That's what I love. That's what I do. The most important time for a criminal defense lawyer is when the mob is out, right? I'm very proud of what I'm doing as a woman as a feminist as a criminal defense lawyer. We as women should not want injustice. But as for Blair Burke, one comment reads, she doesn't do many homicide trials. Her last murder client got life in prison. So not a stellar record there. That's what they write. Now during the first few hearings in court, David appeared to be emotionless. He doesn't really show a lot of emotions, just kind of looking around the courtroom. But he's not intently looking around the courtroom. It's just like he's just kind of gazing out seeing what's going on. Is that like the video clip that we saw? Yes. That was not judge Almedo. That was a different judge for his arrangement. And judge Almedo is not a fan of cameras in the courtroom. This is a state case, which usually lots of state cases are live streamed. I highly doubt this will be live streamed. How do you know she's not a fan of the cameras? So the same thing happened with Diddy's trial where all these legacy media's, they have attorneys representing them and they'll come and they'll try to talk to the judge in open court. So this is all in like court transcripts. And they'll be like, hey, we need to either see something or we want cameras in the courtroom. So this in this case, the attorney came up and was like, I'm representing legacy media and listing all the media companies and like, we want cameras in the courtroom. And she's like, no, she's like, no, she's like, it's up to me and no. And she's citing the law too. She's citing codes like law code. She's like, because of this, no, I can say no because of no. So I don't think she's going to allow cameras in the courtroom, which might be for the best. This is kind of similar to Luigi's trial in New York City, which is the first trial is going to be in state court, not federal court. So we know federal court, there's no cameras in the courtroom. State court, a lot of judges will let cameras in. It's up to the discretion of the judges, but Luigi's judge also does not seem to be a fan of cameras. But he looks kind of bored. That's the best way to describe David. He just kind of looks bored. There hasn't really been any notable intel about how he looks in any of the hearings. He just looks distant, bored, unengaged, except the last one, he apparently winked at his attorney allegedly. What do you mean? Just just a quick wink? Yeah, they were able to push back his preliminary hearing by a month. And it's reported that after hearing that when David was led back, he winked at his attorney. I don't know. Maybe there was something in his eye. It could have been a lint ball. It could have been a wink, but that's been the reporting. So he looked bored and he has pled not guilty and his attorneys have stated, let us be clear. The actual evidence in this case will show that David Burke did not murder Celeste Rivas Hernandez and he was not the cause of her death. We will vigorously defend David's innocence. We would like to have the evidence come into the light of day. Meanwhile, the prosecutors are like, oh, you want the evidence to come into light of day? We're going to drop a pre-proliminary hearing brief. Okay, this is where there's so much like legal context and I don't know how many people care about this, but it might be important. If you watch the very first audio episode of the updates, I kind of went into the grand jury, charging grand juries, which resulted in indictment. So there's multiple ways that someone can get arrested in state court in California, which is a grand jury comes with a true bill of indictment. So this is they voted. The DA went to the grand jurors and was like, can you vote? They're like, yes, here we go. Indicament. David Burke gets arrested. He's indicted. This is, you see this happened in federal cases because that's how it always happens in federal cases. Indicament arrest, right? Or it's like arrest and then we find out about the indictment, but it's already been filed. So then in California, this is not that common. What's not common in diamond? Indicaments are not common in the state of California on a state level. That's because, for example, in a lot of places, when you get indicted, you don't really get a preliminary hearing. Because you've already been indicted. So they're like, yeah, you can go to trial. A preliminary hearing, what that is is the prosecution presents evidence to the judge. And the judge decides if they're going to go to trial. The judge has to be like, okay, this is enough evidence that we have to try the case. I'm not saying you're guilty, but we have to try the case. So that's the whole purpose of a preliminary hearing. And lots of DAs, if they don't, they don't want a preliminary hearing. Because they don't want to give away their. Yeah. And also the defense in the preliminary hearing can actually prepare and ask questions to the witnesses that the prosecutors are bringing up, they can basically cross examine witnesses. Like a mini cross. Yeah. They don't like that. The DAs are like, we don't like that. That's annoying. We don't like it. Now in the state of California, even if you are indicted, you can legally request a preliminary hearing. So it's kind of pointless. It's pointless because you're indicted. So in most cases, like a federal case, you're going straight to trial. I mean, you're going to have tons of status conferences and all these things and hearings. But you're going to trial. Yeah. Why are we doing? Oh, why are we doing another? Yeah. But in the state of California, you can request it anyway. So people will usually just file a criminal complaint, which is the DA files a criminal complaint and then the suspect is arrested or the target is arrested, whatever. So who filed who requested this preliminary hearing? Well, you have to have a preliminary hearing. Okay. So basically, at any point, there needs to be a decision made where there is enough evidence to go to trial. Yeah. Right. Indipement, the grand jurors decide there is enough evidence to go to trial. Right. So on a federal level, there's go to trial. Yeah. If they plead not guilty, right? They go to trial. But in California state, even if the grand jurors say there's enough to go to trial, the defendant can say, no, I want the judge to reconfirm this basically. I want a preliminary hearing. Okay. But there was no indictment in this. Just a criminal complaint. Then David gets arrested. Well, David is arrested. Then there's a criminal complaint. So now someone needs to decide if there's enough to go to trial, which is they have to have a preliminary hearing. Right. Now, here's the interesting thing. Preliminary hearings legally, the defendant has allowed those in a timely manner. I think it's like 10 court days. So if within 10 court days, the prosecutors can't pull it off or the prosecutors are unprepared. They do the preliminary hearing, the judges, like you guys have nothing. Then the defendant is free to go. But you can't just keep them until you're ready to do a preliminary hearing. So the defendant is usually like, okay, maybe we'll go with the preliminary hearing. If they feel like there's not enough evidence. So Blair Burke, she's coming into these court hearings and she's like, yes, my client would like a timely preliminary hearing. Let's schedule it. So the first schedule was like, may first. Okay. Then they're like, we need some of the information that the prosecutors have. So we can prepare for the preliminary hearing. And this is where I can It's very tricky because just like the law, the defense is entitled to discovery for the trial. There is different, but you're not entitled to all the discovery for the preliminary hearing. There's certain benchmarks I think they have to meet, certain discovery they have to turn over. It's been a whole headache and then it got pushed to May 26th. Then the defense is like, "Maybe we need a little bit longer." Now it's June 29th. This is the thing. The fact that they were even wanting it so soon is unheard of. Usually the defendants don't want a quick preliminary hearing. They want the defense to prepare as long as possible. They want to go through the discovery. They want to study it. They want to know what to expect, who they expect to testify to cross examine. I don't think any of the star witnesses are going to testify. Just putting that out there. I think it's going to be lots of police officers and I think it's going to be forensic experts. This is my understanding. What I'm getting out of this is that at first David's team was like, "Okay, let's just do this thing because I think they think they maybe can get away with it. Let's just get it over with." Sometimes the, from what I can tell online is, and from lawyers who have been speaking up about this, is that a defendant will push the attorney to want it sooner because they're like, "I just want to get out of here." Just, "Let's go." As the day started to approach, they were like, "Hold on, hold on. We need to be better prepared. Can you guys give me more information?" That's when the real, "Okay." I see. I think there was a lot of conversation and even almost fear mongering of people saying, "Well, he wasn't indicted, so the prosecutors might not be ready. The prosecutors have no idea what they're doing because he wasn't indicted and it already took seven months to arrest him. There are a mess. But in the state of California on a state level, most felony charges do not come with an indictment. They come with a criminal complaint and there is a pre-lim. Okay. So you're saying they're, you think they're totally ready? Yeah. And then just like, seeing the way Beth Silverman is conducting herself in these hearings, she seems like she knows where the fuck is up. She's the DEAPI DDA. She's in charge of this case, yes. But there was also questions of, "Oh, well, David was arrested before the criminal complaint. So maybe the LAPD arrested them and the DA's office is scrambling, right? But it doesn't seem like that. Beth Silverman is coming here locked and loaded. She seems like she's been ready. She's the one that said there's 40 terabytes of evidence. Evidence, yes. And the defense was saying things like, "You know, we hope all the evidence will come to light and see the light of day." And that is when the prosecutors dropped the pre-pulmonary hearing brief, which is bit unusual. You don't really drop it at this stage. But it seems like they had the opening. The defense was already like, "We want the evidence to come to light." Prosecutors are like, "Okay, Beth, like we're going to drop this brief." And also it's a way to control the narrative for them. And it's, I guess in a good way, it's to educate the judge on what has been happening behind the scenes. So that the judge is also very aware. Now, Blair Burke and her team did not like that. They were like, "We got to seal this shit. Seal it. We know this cannot be public." Blair Burke said, "Your honor late this morning, we received a digital copy of what appeared to be a pre-pulmonary hearing brief filed by the prosecution. I come to the court with a very serious concern given the, I think what can be characterized as the extreme media attention so far in this case. The prosecution has appeared to file a rather unusual in my experience pre-pulmonary hearing brief that appears to be a very one-sided version of what is anticipated as the evidence in this case. But no evidence has been presented by the prosecution in a court room. Certainly there has been no adjudication of the admissibility of that evidence. There's no ruling, basically, of if that evidence is, you know, enough to go to trial. And we have a very real concern about the reasonable possibility of the jury pool at a future trial being tainted. She goes on to say that the brief even includes hearsay. Your honor, we would ask the court to seal the people's brief. We were not. Obviously we've come at the earliest possible opportunity to do so. Beth Silverman hits back. I've certainly never heard of the defense claiming that a people's filing is one-sided. I'm laying out what I believe to be the evidence that's been unearthed over the last several months and what the people intend to present the court during a preliminary hearing. It's interesting because whenever I handle these types of cases that tend to garner media attention by the time the trial rolls around, which is as the court is aware, years down the road, usually, many people on the panels don't even know about the case. Beth Silverman goes on to state, "We've had cases that garnered much more media attention than this one, and I can think of one that's going on right now. I think she's referencing Nick Reiner." Really? Okay. What is she saying about it? No, she's just saying I can think of one right now that's getting more attention than this one. I think that's a reference to Nick Reiner. I mean, this is LA County. You're talking about Menendez brothers, ASAP Rocky was recently tried. It's LA County. She goes on to state more or less, "Hey, so we're going to even bring all this to open court in a few weeks anyway." So what do you mean you want it sealed? There's nothing in there that's going to be sealed and open. What kind of logic is that? Basically, that's what Beth Silverman is saying. She says, "But I'd certainly like to see what the legal authority is that counsel claims it has before I make any other statements." Blareberg argues, "It's an entirely one-sided narrative regarding what the prosecution believes they will seek to admit in court at the preliminary hearing or what the prosecution claims will be the testimony in a preliminary hearing of witnesses. We do have a very real concern about the amount of white, hot focus of attention on this case for the last seven months and specifically in the last two weeks. We are very much concerned with Guaranteen David the right, as he is presumed innocent in this courtroom as we sit here today, the right to a fair trial. And we believe that this brief, if not sealed, will harm and compromise that right." The judge sides with Beth Silverman, the people, you know, that she will not be sealing the brief, hitting on the fact that LA County is the most populous county in the entire nation. LA County routinely has high profile cases, including celebrities, and quote, "This case is not unique in that aspect, and I know Miss Burke, and this is not to undermine your own characterization of extreme media attention. In this court's experience, this media attention is no different than the court has seen in other high profile cases." "Wow, wow, wow, wow." As for her saying that the people's brief is one-sided, she's like, "Yeah, it's the fucking people's brief, not the defense's brief." She says, "It's their brief, just like any filing by the defense would be one-sided in the sense that it would be a proponent of the defense position." Naturally, it's going to be one-sided, basically. Why would the people put in your two cents? The defense is like, "Okay, fine. We want to quickly get a preliminary hearing, and we want a lot of this discovery right now." Blair Burke was saying, "This is like before she kept pushing it back." She's like, "From the media reports apparently, there have been four months of secret grand jury proceedings. We believe that Mr. Burke is entitled, "At the earliest opportunity to an open preliminary hearing and the proceedings not be done in secret." So we are asking for a preliminary hearing to be set at the earliest possible date on the 10th day. So this is like, they keep pushing it back and back and back. And then. So they wanted a quick endowment, and then they keep pushing it back after that. She also states that she wants discovery, that they have no discovery, basically, quote, "We have been given almost no discovery thus far. We've received a three-page follow-up report, no autopsy report, and a copy of the complaint, and we would ask the people respectfully to produce discovery at the earliest opportunity." Beth Silverman is like, "Your honor, as I indicated to council, there's approximately 40 terabytes of discovery in this case, moreover in order to obtain the transcripts from a grand jury investigation." So she's like, "Blair Burke is asking me for grand jury transcripts. Council has to file a motion. She knows the way the system works." And she's not doing it? So she's like saying, "Well, I didn't get the grand jury transcripts." And Beth is like, "You don't fucking file a motion to get them." Because she didn't say it like that. Yeah, yeah. So Beth is like, she doesn't know what she's doing. Yeah, she's like, "She knows the way the system works. I'm not able to gather those. They have to be provided after the court orders them released because it was an investigation." Second of all, if council plans on going to a preliminary hearing within 10 days, it is unlikely that there will be very much discovery provided within that period, given the voluminous nature and how long it's going to take to copy into drives. In addition to that, the coroner's report was sealed in this case in order to prevent it from hampering truthful testimony from witnesses that testify at the grand jury, which is kind of interesting to think about. But. Wait, what is interesting? Oh, yeah. Like, how would anybody know? So they're implying they don't want someone potentially know the state of. Or how she died. To tell a lie, we're matched. Okay. Wow. Or it could be like the, I guess, the TV shows where nothing has been released and someone's like, "Yeah, I didn't know he stabbed her." And they're like, "Who said she was stabbed?" You know, something like that. So does Davis team seem like under-prepared or just. From what I saw, I know I think I'm sure. I'm sure Blair Burke is on her shit. And it seems like with every hearing, she's more on her shit, okay? But if he's paying that. that much, I mean, at that point, like get Brian Steele in there as well. Like, it's just, she doesn't seem to be as quick with all these little things. Yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Because usually when you are paying that much money, the defense, I mean, you're expecting them to be sharper than the prosecutors, no fence. Right? Because like, these are the top, top level. Yeah. Yeah, they're making the big bucks. Yeah. That's why they give you billions. Yeah. Like, you're expecting they're going to run circles around the prosecution. Yeah. But. Wow. Okay. Not saying prosecutors are not as intelligent. They're just overworked. They got a lot of cases going on. They're underpaid. They're overworked. So the prosecutors are like, you guys want a preliminary hearing and you want all the discovery. I'm telling you right now, you're not going to get that because there's so much evidence. It's going to take longer than even 15 days to get you the evidence that you want. Throughout the investigation, we've accrued approximately 50 terabytes of data over the last approximately month, maybe five weeks. Robert Hamaside's vision has been trying to upload their entire investigative file through a system that the county purchased for the DA's office, where we're also supposed to be able to share information with the defense counsel directly. After approximately four and a half weeks, five weeks, only 30% of the LAPD's case file has been uploaded and that is using multiple computers. There is a voluminous amount of digital data in this case. She also gives us an idea of what kind of evidence there will be. There are police reports and documents from the LAPD, from the Sheriff's Department, from the CHP. There's body-worn video. There are numerous forensic reports, including DNA trace evidence, field investigative unit services, chemical processing. There are property reports. There are vehicle reports. There are arrest and booking reports. All of those things we are going to endeavor to turn over. Hopefully tomorrow afternoon. Overall, Beth Silverman seems super confident. David's team seems a little less confident. There are a lot of interesting moments where David's team seems. Okay, maybe it just takes a second for them to get into the groove of things, but there's this moment where the defense requests the judge to unseal the search warrants. We'd ask that we'd orally move to unseal them so that the court can issue an order. So that we're just asking through mouth. The court is like, "Yeah, I'm not sure I can issue just a general order to unseal search without specific case numbers. I don't have a problem with issuing an order, but I think I would need to have the specific and by case number, it wouldn't be this case number." Beth Silverman talks with Detective and she's like, "Okay, I'll get you all the warrant numbers." And later Blair Burke is like, "By the way, I brought you this five terabyte drive for you since you told me last time an open court that the one terabyte drive I gave you wasn't enough." Wait, wait, wait. Okay, so previously, Blair Burke gave Beth Silverman a one-year-old. One terabyte drive. Okay, which is notoriously not a lot. This is one terabyte. There have been four year requests that we've done where they're like send us a fucking one terabyte drive and it's like police reports, right? So I'm assuming in this case, it's massive and they're sending one terabyte drive. She knows there's 50 terabytes. So then she sends a one terabyte drive and Beth Silverman and an open court is like, "What did you think you were going to do with that? What do you want us to do with that? That's nothing. We need a lot more than that." You keep asking us for discovery and you give us a one terabyte drive. So then she's like, "By the way, I brought this five terabyte drive." Okay, she's like waving it around, I think. Now they want specifically before this prelim, it seems that the defense clearly want the eye cloud data. Beth Silver, this is eye cloud from David's eye cloud account. They want that. What? That's what they want? And by the way, the CCM is not going to be on there. We're going to get into that in a second, but they want the eye cloud data. Whatever's on that eye cloud, I don't know. There's on a cloud, photos. Probably. Photos, voice memo, maybe. Notes apps these days. People have been doing lots of notes apps. He seems like the types do that. Yeah. So they're like, "We want the eye cloud data." Beth Silverman was like, "That eye cloud data in totality, just the eye cloud data is probably like eight terabytes." And this has been, again, mis-boken in the news and on Reddit of like, "Oh, it's eight terabytes of CCM. It's just eight terabytes of eye cloud data." And none of the CCM is going to be on there, obviously. They can't just like hand over CCM like that. So Beth Silverman is like, "Okay, we'll get your fuck ass five terabyte hard drive out of here." She doesn't say it like that, but more or less. She is like, "Absolutely." I will say, "Absolutely under no circumstances." Did she say that? I'm just making things up. It just sounds like that. Okay. I'm sorry. Just so Council's aware, and I'm sure the court knows this, "We can all place an item that is larger than the capacity of the drive you provided us on two different drives." She's like, "Like, really speaking, we don't do this. I can't split up evidence." So if the eye cloud data is eight terabytes, I can put four on this one and four on the other one. You've got to at least give me a 10 terabyte drive and I can put all the eight terabytes in that 10 terabyte drive. So basically, get your fuck ass five terabyte drive out of here. Is that not? And Beth Silverman is like, "It cannot be split. These are direct transplants." Not the fuck ass five terabyte drive, but like the rest of it. Blair Brex says, "So, Beth Silverman says, 'It cannot be split.'" I heard that for the first time today. We will do that and deliver tomorrow. So she's like, "I'll get you your 10 terabyte drive tomorrow." And she says, "Great." And also going forward, I've been informed that when you give up a hard drive, it needs to be sealed. In other words, you know, you give us an open box. We need a sealed hard drive like in the original packaging. Okay. Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Wow. Yeah, I do think, yeah, I don't know. Maybe I'll see her in her full glory soon, I guess. But there are, it's interesting. It's just interesting. Oh, and it's being of the CCM. So the CCM evidence, the way that they do it is at least in this county is they're going to put it on a law enforcement computer. That CCM will be placed in the courthouse in a very specific room that only the defense and the prosecutors can access. And the defense will have to go there and view the CCM or an expert will have to go and view the CCM on that specific computer. They can't bring it back. They can't have it on their devices because even just having it on a device is illegal. Even if it's for work, right? So, yeah. Which, I mean, Blair Rack knows that and she's like, yeah, absolutely. So it's not a problem. I'm just saying it was a part of the conversation. Yeah. Because I guess there were some concerns of like maybe David would like to see certain things. Right. Now, netizens think that this, the defense probably will not be insanity. It doesn't seem like there can be even a viable insanity plea, which I mean, hardly ever works to begin with. But there's just so many times you can see he's in the right state of mind protecting his tour, protecting his music, performing. A lot of people think that the defense will be that Celeste O'Deeid and that he is just responsible for freaking out and getting rid of her body or trying to get rid of her body. In the autopsy report, it looked like she tested positive for drugs being in her system. Those were presumptive positives. So this is the initial basic toxicology, which is just like a basic thing that they do for all the autopsy's. But how a lot of things could come back positive because of other compounds that are found in the body through the decomposition process. Such as meth, MDMA, but when they did further testing, those came back not detected. Other things that were found in her system were low amounts of ethanol, basically alcohol in her system, which we all know is naturally formed during the decomposition process. So really, there doesn't seem to be drugs in her system that the defense could point to and say, "See, she O'Deeid." I think the only thing the defense really has is everything the autopsy doesn't say. So the autopsy says the man I've got this homicide and by two penetrating wounds. But it doesn't say who's holding the knife, right? So it doesn't say it is a knife. It doesn't say it's David holding the knife. So I think that's going to be the main focus. I don't necessarily think they could even point the finger at anybody else, but I really don't know what the defense is going to be. These are just speculations. I just can't imagine what the defense is. As for, did David's family know that's been a huge topic of conversation because the court documents states this is the pre-priliminary hearing brief that Blair Burke wanted sealed. At 2024, the victim spent a significant amount of time with the defendant, including summer weekends at his home in the Hollywood Hills and traveling with him to Las Vegas, London, and Texas to meet his family. People cannot grasp the concept that David's parents believed that she was of age. She clearly doesn't look of age in any photos and videos that I've ever seen of Celeste. She clearly looks like a minor. Online sentiment agrees with that. The family have reportedly been very, very close with David. It seems like, I mean, there's footage of his sister going up on stage. There's alleged videos and photos from the concert at the fond of theater where Celeste is sitting with his parents in the VIP section. One comment writes, "Apanley David was telling people she was 19 and a college student at USC." And maybe that flies with his friends. Maybe that is okay if he's brought to a huge house party where the lights are dim and everybody's drunk and you're just like, "Oh yeah, this is my girlfriend. She's 19." I don't know if people would question it. in that context, especially if it's like a very passing greeting of like, hi. I think if you hung out with Celeste multiple times, you would know she's a minor. Like that, I just can't wrap my hand around the fact that someone could argue that they don't know, but I don't know. If you see her in passing, maybe. Now, if you're bringing someone home to your parents and you say she's 19 and she's a student at USC, his dad is an attorney, his mom is a teacher. I can't imagine that they would believe that. I just don't see that happening. You know, a high school middle school teacher? Is it? I don't know. But I mean, she has children around that age. Yeah. Yeah. That's crazy. It doesn't make any sense to me. She looks so young in all of her pictures. I know people are probably going to try to do the whole adultification thing of young girls, whether like she's mature for-- she looks 11. I just-- I don't know. I don't know how they could even possibly believe that. They did know, however, that David was at least being investigated before his arrest because they were subpoenaed to the grand jury hearings earlier in 2026. And that's part of why the information got leaked that there was a grand jury investigation into David because all of this is sealed. So it gets leaked in two big ways. So the first of them is that David's parents and his brother Caleb, the three of them, Caleb is now 18. They fight the subpoena. They're in Texas, and they file a petition of habeas corpus contending that the trial-- that the courts order summoning them to testify in California violates due process. So this is public. So they have to reference the grand jury investigation. And they have to reference that David is the target of the investigation. That's how people find out. So that's how they're like, oh, we can confirm. For sure, there's grand jury investigations into David. Because otherwise it's sealed. And then Neo gets arrested. And it's kind of like, OK, now we can definitely confirm, again, once more that this is happening. But they did end up going? No. The families? No, yeah. They still been fighting it out in court. Yeah. So the DA's office fought telling the judge in Texas. I would say if a car with a dismembered decomposing body is registered to your home address, because David's car was registered to Texas, you should expect to be questioned by the authorities about that. And that's what this is, judge. I'm asking you to find that the family witnesses are necessary in material. And I'm asking you to find that it will not cause them undue hardship. As for the birth parents, their attorney argues on their behalf. If the DA needs parents to testify, then they have no case. In my opinion, they're just doing that for harassment purposes. If a proper subpoena was issued, they would have already spoken. The attorney has stated that the Burke family has been somewhat aware that an arrest was a possibility, which is kind of crazy. Yeah. Which aside, no, David also transferred two of his Houston houses to his atrust under his mom's name. I believe his mom is the beneficiary of the trust. That was back in September of last year. So he moved quick with that. Really quick. Because September, the body was found in September. Yeah. And within like 10 days, he moved the house to his mom, both houses. And you know, that must be in the work already then. Yes. Maybe if I'm not mistaken, that's a very lengthy process to move a house title, deed, whatever, to a trust, to like move ownership. I'm sure you have to get-- I don't know if he has a mortgage. Like lots of people are involved. Yeah, yeah, yeah. He for sure started that before. Or got it done very quickly. Very, very quickly. Right. But it seems like that was a huge priority then. At that time is all I can say. But through the attorney, the family has made a statement stating, the parents are sad and disappointed that David was arrested. However, they fully stand behind him and believe he is innocent. They fully support him. Caleb, this is David's 18-year-old brother. He was seen in that video with Celeste and his little sister at the fond of theater. He has unfollowed David on Instagram since David's arrest. He takes to a story to write all pedophiles and rapists should die period. So that was kind of the very first statement that he ever made. During the grand jury investigations, because he also filed a habeas corpus to not testify in front of the grand jury, people thought that he was probably on the same sentiment that David's parents were on, which is they're going to stand by David. But then he posted that. And so people were wondering, OK, well, clearly, this is in the context of everything happening. It seems like he could really only be talking about David, right? Is what people were thinking? Then he was also seen liking comments like Justice for Celeste. Now, after David's arrest, though, around the time of David's arrest, Caleb starts releasing more music. I will say that he didn't just kickstart his career after David's arrest. It's not like a new thing, which I do think would be very problematic. He has been releasing music for a long time for the past three or four years. He actually went under a different stage name. So he went from being Caleb with a V. So C-V-L-E-B, that was his stage name, so I'm going to like David. But then he changed it to Karakova, to further distance himself from his brother. So he released two songs. One was titled Sex, which set the internet off on a witch hunt of people accusing Caleb at best, being insensitive, at worst, being involved. There were a lot of accusations being thrown about. Caleb Burke has, since come out to state, quote, "I've been wanting to say something for a while, but I have to be careful about what I say. This is an ongoing legal matter. I don't want to make this horrible situation about me. I want Justice for Celeste and her family. I've seen people say that I knew what was going on and was protecting my brother. This is not true at all. I have not lived with my brother for years and was not very close with him. We didn't speak often, other than when our family was brought on tour or he was visiting home. I was around Celeste a few times and I was 15. I did not know her well and I did not know her age. I think, I will say, maybe more believable when someone is 15 to not be able to identify. I think I give a lot more grace in this situation versus his parents. - Yeah, I agree for sure. - I mean, I'm like, you're 15, you probably don't know either, right? He continues, "People have been posting a video showing me backstage with her at one of David's concerts when I was 15 and I've been waiting to address it for a while." So when this video was circulating, some people were even thinking, what if Caleb and Celeste were dating and like there were so many weird internet theories which turned out to be entirely false? But he writes, "People have gone as far to say that I was sneaking her backstage." Which is not true. She was already at the show and the video takes place after the show had already ended. In the video, we were sent to grab something from a fan that was in the front of the stage and we were walking back. News companies such as TMZ, Daily Mail and others have started saying that I'm taking advantage of the whole situation to promote my music and that I am just now launching my music career. That is not true at all. I've been releasing and posting music over the last three to four years and I took over a half year hiatus due to what happened. I changed my online name from Caleb to Cove as I did not want to associate myself with any of this. I'm not once mentioned this situation or my identity on the new accounts. So on CarCovA, he never mentions that he's David's brother. TMZ even reported my agent correctly saying that I'm 20 when I just turned 18 in November. I had scheduled my first release under the new name before any of this became a headline again and the song came out two days before the arrest. This project, the music videos and songs were already in motion long before any news covered around my brother resurfaced. My intent has never been to use this to bring attention to myself or my music. This is the whole reason why I started over from scratch. My decision to continue releasing music is not about using any of this for attention. Music is my life. And after stepping away from months because of everything that's happened, I wanna build my own path. Medicine reactions have been mixed. There are two groups of people. They're very divided. One group who believed that Caleb, David's brother, is being incredibly insensitive and tone deaf with one person writing, even if Caleb had no malice in releasing music, at best it's still incredibly disrespectful and demonstrates a complete lack of empathy towards the less than her loved ones. I keep seeing comments following his statement along the lines of, "He should enough to pause his life or there's never gonna be a perfect time to do it and find the lack of empathy towards the less than her loved ones absolutely important." No matter how you spin it, even if he had nothing to do with this case, he is someone who is way too close to this case for this to be anything but in bad taste. Anyone who says, quote, "There will never be a perfect time "is being willfully ignorant. "Are you telling me there's truly no better time "than right fucking now?" One comment responds, "Justice for Celeste, I disagree though. "If my brother killed somebody, "what does I have to do with me? "I didn't do it." Y'all need to remember that David Anthony Burke is the murder, not David's family, not Celeste family, not David's friends, not Victoria Mendez, which is the fake name he ordered, supplies in. It was David, be mad at him. Another perspective reads, "First, nobody in this case deserves more sympathy "and empathy than Celeste and the Reves Hernandez family. "But people should really give Caleb a break. "He is not the same person as David. "Just because his older brother made a terrible decision "does not mean that Caleb should have to suffer. "He has already disowned him on Instagram stating "that he thinks all rapists and peddlers should die. "He basically voiced that he wants death for his own brother. "Consider how Caleb is feeling, "what he's going through right now, and what he's human too. "Imagine how difficult it would be "to find out that your older brother, who you idolized and drew inspiration from is not at all who you thought he was. Then while trying to process that, you're constantly being criticized and hated on just for being related to him, can we please try to have some more empathy here? He's 18, the dude is barely even an adult. One person comments, "Agreed. He denounced his brother's actions, and it's obviously not his fault. It's got a suck to have that shame and stain on the family." And of course, you'd give your family member the benefit of the doubt until you saw evidence to the contrary. We didn't even find out anything till just a few weeks ago. I doubt he knew any more than we did. Predators are professionals at lying and hiding their behavior. Their families want to believe the best of them, so it's even harder for them to accept. If he was defending him in spite of the evidence, it'd be a different thing, but he isn't. His life and character shouldn't be ruined due to his brother's shitty choices. My heart goes out to him because having a family member turn out to be a pedo and a murderer is a different kind of loss. One that you can't even really grieve without being looked at funny by the general public. It's got to be overwhelming AF, and I hope you have support beyond the parents who might be in denial for all we know. At least he came out and spoke on where he stands with it, which took a lot of spine in my opinion. Another comment disagrees though, writing, "But just saying if he wanted to, he could release all this shit later, it wouldn't have been the end of the world." One person writes, "I think the problem with the whole discussion of Caleb is that people are blurring the lines of, "This is tone deaf and poorly timed, and this proves malicious intent. That's why some of this starts feeling like a bias driven witch hunt. The standard becomes impossible to satisfy. If he releases music now, he's capitalizing on the tragedy. If he waits two years, people would probably say he only waited for the backlash to cool down. If he speaks publicly, he's manipulating sympathy. If he stays silent, he doesn't care. Once literally every action is interpreted in the worst possible light, it stops being about fairness and starts being about emotional projection. And to be clear, I completely understand why people are disturbed by the timing and the lyrics given the context of this case. The optics are awful, but this feels gross and unsensitive is still very different from this guy is intentionally exploiting a murder child for his career, his musical career. One is a reaction to optics in emotion. The other is a serious assumption about someone's motives with no direct evidence behind it. I will say I think the part that stuck out to me is that out of everyone on David's, I don't want to say side, but people that were closer to David than Celeste that have publicly spoken out, his brother seems to be the most transparent and straightforward with condemning David. His own brother. And I think that you can tell from the videos. And again, this is not me saying, oh, David's brother deserves all of our sympathy. You can tell from a lot of the videos he definitely looked up to his brother. Is he well established at all? Does he have no? Oh, so he's okay, barely having, okay, barely. Meaning he doesn't outright condemn his brother, but he basically does, you know, and so it seems like this is the most transparent response that someone from close to David has put out. Like far better than even Neo and Asia who are older than Caleb and also we're not related to David. As for Celeste family, they told Rolling Stone that they are in unfathomable pain. There were rumors circulating that Celeste parents were accepting money from David to hide the relationship that there were numbers thrown about anywhere between $9,000 a month to $15,000 a month that they were receiving this payout that they were being financially supported by David. They have flat out rejected that rumor stating, I mean, Celeste dad says, I have never had any contact with this guy. And we haven't received any money from him or anyone in this family. The Hernandez family attorney states, I had the heartbreaking responsibility of informing the Reves Hernandez family of the horrifying allegations in court that David Anthony Burke stab Celeste, stood by while she blood to death, used a chain sought to cut off her limbs and bought a burn cage with the plan to incinerate evidence. Delivering the news was the most difficult thing I've had to do in 37 years as a lawyer. He states for the family, the Reves Hernandez family is absolutely devastated by the findings contained in the Medical Examiner's report involving the horrible and gruesome death of their beloved daughter. Those findings have caused profound emotional pain for the family. They respectfully ask for your privacy, understanding and patience as they process this information. There are no words to express the indescribable pain the family is experiencing right now. They still have bills to pay and jobs to go to every day. All they want is time to grieve and heal. In another statement that's been released by the family, they say, we would like to thank the LAPD and DIA's office for their hard work. We'd also like to thank the people of like El Sonor for all their support. Celeste was a beautiful strong girl who loved to sing and dance. Every Friday night was movie night and we spent wonderful times together. We love her very much. And she always told us that she loved us. We miss her deeply and all we want is justice for Celeste. Some people don't like Celeste family. Some people don't like the statements that they put out. Some people don't like that specific statement writing, why do you feel the need to mention that she always told you she loved you? Is this? So no one thinks she hated you guys? Some people are saying it's almost like an admittance of guilt. She told us she loved us so we were attentive and loving parents. I do want to note that Celeste was reported missing the second time the police did open an investigation into the family. That beauty is interviewed at everyone at Celeste family home and they found no evidence of child neglect. So they concluded their investigation writing since they were unable to locate Celeste they were unable to determine if a crime had happened. Wait, this is the set during the time. Okay. And I mean, I think there could be a lot of factors. There's no evidence. There's Tik Tok re post. There's random statements from people who claim they were friends with Celeste. There's Tik Tok re post that allegedly Celeste made in an account and even that's really hard to verify where she might have liked things that insinuated that she had a rough home life. But I think having a rough home life is leaks away from having neglectful parents that played some sort of role in not protecting you enough. I think in a perfect world every parent should protect their child in a way that they can't go missing, that they cannot be groomed. But that's a very perfect world and there could be a lot of factors of why they didn't even feel comfortable going to the police. I think some people have drawn the speculation that Celeste family didn't really bother to continue bothering the police about Celeste going missing because they didn't care. I don't think that's the case. I mean, you're also talking about a time that's heavy with probably ice presence, immigration status could also play a role. Socio economic status definitely plays a role. I mean, she was missing for so many months and no one was the police weren't really looking for her. So even if they had gone to the police every day, which we don't know if they did or did not, we don't know why the police weren't looking for her. Maybe they have already had dealt with the police and they know the police is not going to look for Celeste because I mean, they didn't. I didn't look for a girl who's missing from a socio economically not a stable background. I'm sure if this was a missing girl from the Hollywood Hills, they would have looked for her. I think there's a lot of nuance that maybe we need to factor into this case. And I think out of everyone that the netizens should attack, Celeste family is probably last on that list. London, however, has been a huge issue. The preliminary brief has stated that Celeste traveled to London with David and traveling to London has been heavily just a point of contention because you cannot travel to a foreign country without your parents without some sort of form being signed. Usually every country has different rules. She did have a passport card that was abandoned in Santa Barbara and found remember the isolated highway stretch. So did her parents know that she was going to London was something forged was it not like what I guess that's been a huge point of contention. Because London is brought up, we don't know if David had gone to London multiple times, but recently he was talking about working on the withered album, writing the album and he says that he went to London to write the album. So just another London connection, but he says quote, I went to London with three of my friends and we made a song every day for two weeks. I love London because of the gloomy aesthetic and the gloomy vibe and environment that London has. There's barely any sun there and I love that because the music I make is really sad. So in the two weeks, I made a song every day and I came out with half the album and then I went back to Houston for another two weeks and I made the rest of the project on my phone just off a piece. You know, the people sent me with some things that I made. So if that's the case, maybe this is the London trip in question and if that is also correct, it seems like Celeste may have helped write a lot of the music and that is bringing more lyrics up into discussion. There is a whole interlude remember of Celeste voice, what seems to be Celeste voice in this new album, the string theory interlude. So the dots seem to all be connecting here. I do think that was Celeste family. We can't really be so rigid with our thinking. I think this is out of all the places to have some level of understanding. D.A. Hawkman says I had the chance to meet with some of the family members of Celeste and their grief is uncalculable and as to what happens to their daughter, what they have demanded, what we have assured them is that the D.A.'s office working with L.A.PD will give them the proof beyond a reasonable doubt on who killed their daughter on how their daughter was killed and bring that killer to justice. That killer that we have now charged is David Anthony Burke. But one person still writes, "I have no sympathy for them. They had one job which was to keep their kids safe." Another writes, "They chose to be a parent, then refused to even do the bare minimum. It amazes me that there are people having sympathy for these parents. It's disrespectful to that little girl that no one was protecting her. The devil doesn't always need an advocate. So stop with the old they tried to do it." be as David is just one person there will always be sick fucks like him around it's up to the parents to watch and protect their child That is why they need to be charged and made an example of so maybe the next time a parent will think twice a lot of people think That's a bit harsh with someone responding. I said it before and I'll say it again Whatever to less parents and family did or didn't do they're facing the consequences of it now by having lost their daughter and having to face the murder To me that's punishment enough you guys have a right to your own opinions But as for me personally, I don't feel good about rubbing it in as for David's family They're facing the consequences of their own too. Others right they see their daughter hanging out in nice houses and getting taken care of He had to have been buying her clothes Nails or whatever most predators do and they thought wow she's having fun and she's safe It's easy to place blame and yes, they should have done more but also David shouldn't have murdered her and she would still be alive I just think There's a lot more places to be angry about right now Prosecutors have yet to decide if they want to pursue the death penalty The defense has like I said requested the preliminary hearing be pushed back to June late June And as of right now he is in the LAPD 77th Street trail He's in the same facility as Nick Reiner who is accused of killing his parents David is also being segregated away from the other and made stood to his fame and notoriety He gets a shower every other day He gets a phone call the same day that he showers so every other day So it's a really big day for him shower days a couple hours of recreation time a week by himself I believe it's about three hours a week He's not on self-exit watch, but he's alone They think that something could potentially happen to him due to his status There also could be more charges headed David's way Just because I mean the C-sam That is that could be a state charge that could be a federal charge typically. It's the feds And specifically for C-sam. I mean Beth Silverman really emphasized it too In the court hearing she uses the words he also had an iPhone And that iPhone as it's been reviewed contained a significant amount of child pornography And under the law child pornography cannot be retained without there being certain orders in place I've consulted with our high tech division which also handles cases involving child pornography The protocol unless the court chooses to structure something different And she goes on to state that they're going to put it on a law enforcement device in the court house But she's like really honing in on the C-sam So that's like people think yes, it's to emphasize how deplorable the evidence is that they found But also maybe there are extra charges coming his way But if those charges will follow I guess is another question And I guess the big question is what's going to happen at the preliminary hearing I don't think it's going to be explosive in the sense of I don't think they're going to bring in star witnesses and all these other people I mean I might be proven wrong I think a lot of it is going to be law enforcement So in preliminary hearings things are a little bit different So you can actually bring in law enforcement And they can testify on what would normally be considered hearsay in a trial So in a trial you can't sit there on the stand and say This person told me this Interesting But in the preliminary hearing because it's a preliminary hearing A police officer can say his friend Neo told me this That's an example You know when I was talking I interviewed this person and they told me this So hearsay is allowed in preliminary hearings when it comes from law enforcement officers Interesting So you really that's why a lot of preliminary hearings You have in smaller cases You'll have like one law enforcement officer who's like okay So I investigated this case This is what I was told by this person that I went here They told me this and then pretty much that's like the whole witness Yeah, yeah But it's going to last A minute right Yeah I mean judging by the way things are moving So Beth Silverman says she can get it done in like 45 days 45 days Yes, but that's not factoring and the defense Also examining you know But also we don't know because she was also There was lots of scheduling happening She was like I already told my witnesses Cancel your vacations And Blair Burke keeps changing the timeline So we're going to hear some first hand Yeah I think we're going to get a lot of information I think that preliminary brief Yeah, I think we're going to get a lot more information And I think a lot of the questions in these few episodes Are going to get answered in the preliminary hearing It's like just to hear that there's 40 terabytes of Yeah And from like evidence Like can I imagine how much is how much they've gathered Oh and another thing just to clarify some talk on Reddit and online WDDA Beth Silverman stated that she plans to set a trial date within the next 60 days I have seen some people confusing that We're saying that we're going to go to trial in the next 60 days I think that's just setting a date Yeah and that date is probably going to be years from now That is if there is a trial I mean I think the judge is obviously the preliminary hearing is going to go in favor of the prosecution There's going to be a trial But that's if David doesn't plead guilty Is that a possibility you think? I don't think so I don't think the DA is going to give him any sort of plea deal that he would like Another thing there's like politics involved So D.A. Hawkman was recently elected And there's you know this is his career as with all D.A.'s And he definitely needs to prove himself He has some Not great wins under his belt already Some criticism under his belt So I mean this is a huge case I don't think they're going to give him a good plea deal That he would take Yeah and I just don't see him pleading guilty I mean I could be proven wrong But usually people like David don't plead guilty Because I mean what would he get out of pleading guilty? He'd rather probably just take his chances It's not like he cares about If he's going into debt paying for his attorney Or his parents are going into debt paying for his attorney Wow okay But yeah so I will keep you guys updated once the preliminary hearing starts And obviously with the future trial When and if that occurs But what are your thoughts on this case? Let me know in the comments So with that, be safe and I will see you in the next one.