Francois McKinnon: Welcome to the Miami PI Chronicles podcast. I am your host, Francois McKinnon from McKinnon Investigative Team, and I am Oscar Santamaria of Optimum Investigations.
Oscar Santamaria: We created this podcast with the goal to educate, inform, and entertain aspiring, beginner, and seasoned professionals in the investigative field. With over 60 years of combined experience, we offer invaluable insights and lessons learned. While we may not have all the answers, our knowledge can certainly benefit anyone interested in this dynamic profession. So sit back, listen, and enjoy these episodes. Please do not forget to like, share, and follow. Hello, Francois. Episode 17.
Francois McKinnon: Yes, we are. How is it going, Oscar?
Oscar Santamaria: It is going pretty well. How about with yourself?
Francois McKinnon: Doing well. I am glad we are at episode 17. Everything is moving along quite well, and we are getting more and more listeners. I am loving it. Thank you for downloading. Go ahead with your, we had some questions for this week. We have a big show today, so.
Oscar Santamaria: Yes, let us see. How often have you used drones in your career?
Francois McKinnon: I cannot count how many have you, how many times I have used them, but I carry a portable Mini DJI Pro in my backpack. So whenever I am on surveillance, if I need to get over a fence or something or get the lay of the land, I will send the drone up and then take a video and photos. I can zoom in on cars, and it is quite an effective tool. So I kind of deploy, I charge my batteries all the time. I have four battery packs, and I keep it ready to go at all times. It is a great tool. And I mean, I have solved some very big cases by using the drone. So I set it up. It is the size of a, I do not know, it is six inch by four inches probably. And I just open it up, start it, and I use my cell phone to fly it. It will go up and give me back live videos on my phone, but it is recorded as well. And then I can take still photos. I can zoom in. So it is a great tool. I mean, I think everyone should have one of those whenever they go out on an investigation.
Oscar Santamaria: Yeah. The thing is that you cannot really use any of the video unless you are a certified drone pilot. So I mean, it is good for Intel.
Francois McKinnon: I only utilize them for Intel to get myself the lay of the land. And sometimes you have buildings and obstacles. It is a great way to utilize the drone and to get quick answers of what, even if you use satellite mapping, it does not always give you the best lay of the land. This way, if there are vehicles that are parked in the driveway, you just fly the drone. You can take a picture of the tag and then it comes back. So sometimes I use it for like four minutes just to gather the Intel. And then it flies back to me. I put it back in the backpack and I have what I need.
Oscar Santamaria: Yeah. I haven’t really used drones too much. I think I used it one time in my career. I was a gated community. I was able to walk in the first time. So I kind of knew where the old setup was. It was one of these communities that had the double arms. You have to go through one, then the closes and another one opens and then the gate opens. So it is really, you cannot piggyback in. So I went in the first time and on foot and I saw where the residence was. It was a multiple day case. So I knew what cars I had to look for. So I bought a drone and I just, I used it on that case. I went and I parked in a parking lot. I felt kind of James Bond ish. I had this little car at the time with the sunroof.
Francois McKinnon: You flew it, you cranked it up in the car.
Oscar Santamaria: I did. I felt like, you know, of course, you know, coming back was kind of a problem. I ended up hitting my car and breaking one of the little propellers, but it did work. I did find out that the vehicle was in the driveway.
Francois McKinnon: It is a great tool to have. I mean, I use it as much as I can because I save time this way and I gather intelligence quickly.
Oscar Santamaria: Yeah. You know, with that drone, I went to North Carolina with it and stayed at my friend’s mountain house. And I figured, you know what, I am going to use this vacation to really practice using this drone and
Francois McKinnon: You lost it.
Oscar Santamaria: Yeah. I had pre programmed a pattern and I do not know what happened. I lost signal and that thing just flew into the mountain and I couldn’t go back and get it. It was too far and too steep. I tried to find mine. I spent hours in this thick foliage. I felt like I was in Vietnam or something. I never found it.
Francois McKinnon: I lost probably three or four so far, and I am sure it is not going to be the last time. I do fly it out in North Carolina in the woods. And once that it goes down in the tree lines, it all looks the same. You will never find it. Even though mine has an alarm that sounds off when it crashes for you to retrieve it, but it is not loud enough. Call it a loss at that point.
Oscar Santamaria: My recommendation is if you are going to get a drone and you intend to use it for this job is maybe get an inexpensive one at first and learn how to operate that before you go to the more expensive ones. And
Francois McKinnon: Oh, absolutely. Also try to put something if it does go down somewhere. I am not sure if the newer drones have this. Mine didn’t. But some sort of tracker where you are going to be able to That is what the DJI have. They have a tracking device. But like I am saying, if you are in a steep terrain and you are trying to get this tiny little device that falls down, there is leaves everywhere. It is not very tactical, but very useful though to have on surveillance. Are they coming to get you? They are on their way. They heard me. Oh boy. Yes, he is home. They heard it on a podcast. What else you got for me, Francois?
Oscar Santamaria: Well, I wanted to tell you a story since you mentioned the drones. Several years ago, I had a job that it involved a Russian man on the yacht and a couple of vehicles that were needed to be located and then repossessed the two vehicles and the yacht. The plane came in. He had a private plane. I had the tail number, but that is the only thing I had. I tried to run background check on him. I couldn’t get much, but I was able to find the tail number of his jet. So we set up surveillance at the jet center in Miami. And when the plane came in, we were four of us with radios. We followed them back to this mansion on Star Island on Miami beach. And once we got to the front, there is a huge gate. And once you get there, that is it. You do not see anything. The whole thing is surrounded by huge walls and stuff. And I kept thinking, this is not on the ocean. It is in Star Island, but they have the Intracoastal in the back and they have the tourist boats that go by there. So I decided to deploy the drone. And unbeknown to me, once I flew it to get the lay of the land of the residents. First, I saw a lot of security. I saw a lot of security guards armed, walking on the property. So I figured that was going to be a little bit difficult. So with the drone, we were able to obtain a boat from a friend of ours at Miami beach and downtown Miami. And then we took the boat out with the drone and we are able to fly it. And there was a huge dock, but we were able to locate the yacht that needed to be repo. So I had coordinated with some captains and one of them showed up with the boat. They brought him to the side. What we did is we had legal papers and I had the Miami police department involved. So they came in and they said, we are here to seize the vehicles. They said, they are not here. And I said, no, they are here. We know they are here. So after about 30 minutes, we are able to get, they figured they know that we have the vehicle. So this went on, there was an issue with one of the bodyguards and became a little violent during that time. I called the captain and I said, go get on the board right now. So he was with two other guys. They got on board of the yacht, they untold the yacht. And with the little boat, we took a rope and carried it in the intercoastal. And then the boat started and then they took it up and brought it. But these people were pissed off at us. The drone that day saved me. I didn’t even think about it. I said, well, we will follow him from the plane and see what kind of vehicles pick them up. But yeah, it turned out to be a crazy day, but we repoted Bentley, a Ferrari and a yacht. So our client was very happy with the results. It was dangerous though, I must admit.
Oscar Santamaria: Yeah, no, they are definitely good to have. And I should probably get another one.
Francois McKinnon: I suggest to anyone that want to start to try a DJI Mini. The series is called Mini and then you have Pro, but they are extremely small. They are foldable. You can get 25 minutes of flight time. And I am sure they have new batteries that I should look into purchasing myself. But yeah, you get four batteries, man. It comes right back to you, put another battery pack and off you go. It can fly for hours. You have segments of 20, 25 minutes. Well, it is food for thought. Exactly. Okay, Oscar, I have a question for you. What is the oddest, wildest, craziest thing that is ever happened to you while conducting a surveillance or an investigation?
Oscar Santamaria: Yeah, there is something that really, really sticks out in my mind. I was working a case, a surveillance in Miami and it was at a trailer park and it had a big privacy fence surrounding it. And the company that I was working for, I was a subcontractor, they required pretexts at a certain time, usually the four hour mark. And so four hour mark came, I didn’t see anything. I mean, like I said, the place had a big privacy fence surrounding the whole… It was a mobile home, surrounding the whole mobile home. At the four hour mark, I had to go and I had to see if the claimant was home. And I knocked on the outside door. They had like a little bell also that I guess you could hear it inside and nobody answered. I was able to open up the gate. I walk in and all of a sudden, these two, I do not know what they were. I do not know if they were ostriches or emus. They came right at me and stopped. They were just staring at me down. Meanwhile, this lady, not my claimant, comes out of the house like yelling and I do not know, I think she was Filipino or something. Hey, they are going to kill you. They are going to kill you. What are you doing? And I mean, let me tell you something. I was expecting maybe a dog to come out at me or something. In a million years, I would have not expected these two gigantic birds that were literally at my eye level. I mean, to this day, I do not know what kind of danger I was in, but all she was saying that they were going to kill you. What are you doing? Anyways, my pretext didn’t go well.
Francois McKinnon: Well, that is a first for me. I have never heard being attacked by ostriches or whatever. Whatever it was, that is a new one for the books. We are going to take a break and when we come back, we are going to have our dear good friend, criminal attorney Jonathan Friedman to discuss the Pete Diddy case, which is what everybody is talking about. Today we welcome back criminal defense attorney Jonathan Friedman to break down the Pete Diddy case. Hey Jonathan, thank you for being on the show. How are you doing today?
Jonathan Friedman: I am not too bad. Not too bad about yourself?
Francois McKinnon: I am great. Thanks for having me back. So Jonathan, how obsessed are you with this Pete Diddy case that just came out because everybody seems to be obsessed about it.
Jonathan Friedman: Yeah, I mean, I do not think I am as obsessed over it as most people are in general, just because this is kind of what I do. I deal with criminal cases. I have handled sex trafficking cases as well that have been charged in federal court, but it is exciting only because of the players and it gets a lot of news attention. Let us face it, it is all over social media right now. And so yeah, so it is sort of in your face everywhere you go.
Francois McKinnon: If you were handling this case, what strategy would you employ?
Jonathan Friedman: Well, number one, I would command a very large legal fee.
Francois McKinnon: What do you think this whole case is going to cost?
Jonathan Friedman: I mean, just the Well, it is funny because I have handled these of the same subject matter, of the same penalties involved where there is minimum mandatories and there is maximums up to life. And my legal fee probably wasn’t a fraction of what the lawyers in this case are getting. And that is only because of who your client is. A lot of times it depends on who your client is, especially if you are in celebrity business presenting very wealthy and famous people. What most lawyers could command for a legal fee gets elevated and extrapolated to the 10th degree with these guys. So what does this case really warrant? I would have to imagine this is a seven figure case in the millions of dollars for these lawyers. And I would imagine they have an investigative team behind them, probably several different investigators or outfits around the country that are doing background searches and maybe interviewing people and things like that. It is necessary for something like this. So yeah, I think the fee commands easily in the seven figures. And then of course, all the expenses that come along with it for guys like you.
Francois McKinnon: What are the charges if you are familiar with what the charges are?
Jonathan Friedman: So there is three main charges in the indictment that I saw. One is a RICO, racketeering type of charge. It is a little more complicated than just saying, well, he is charged with RICO. It is racketeering. There is predicate acts that are involved. So while there is just one count, they are alleging different types of criminal conduct that has taken place over, I believe, a 10 year period for the RICO charge. That is one of the counts. The other one is, I think it is like a sex trafficking charge, which is fairly common nowadays. You see a lot of these charges being brought in federal court. And then I believe there is a violation of the Mann Act. I call it the Mann Act, but I think on the indictment is called transporting somebody over interstate lines for purposes of, I guess, prostitution to use a lack of a better word. It is called the Mann Act. There was an act that was passed by Congress years and years ago. And I guess the gentleman who passed it, I think his name was probably a representative by the name of Mann. So he got the name, the Mann Act. And that is simply transporting somebody over state lines for the purpose of commercial sex acts. Just driving them from Tallahassee to Georgia over the line, that becomes a federal crime if it is for the purpose of facilitating a commercial sex act.
Oscar Santamaria: Is this case similar at all to Jeffrey Epstein? Because I hear there are similarities.
Jonathan Friedman: Well, I think the similarities are the fact that there are two very wealthy sort of profile individuals, number one. So that makes them similar. Number two, the nature of the substance behind the allegations have to do with sex and sex trafficking and this type of thing. And the extravagant parties that have been alleged, we hear about from both the Epstein case and for the Sean Combs, the P. Diddy case. So those are the three things that make people say, well, this is a similar type of case because you got very rich, wealthy people involved in, you know, sort of, I guess, throwing sex parties and things like that.
Oscar Santamaria: Do you think there was more to it than that? Do you think this could have been like people allege that Epstein was, was a blackmail scheme, getting people to do things that are inappropriate and then actually having these things filmed and then basically having them in their pocket?
Jonathan Friedman: I mean, that is possible. The only reason I would say no is because of the wealth, like of Sean Combs. I do not know exactly what he is worth, but I, you know, He was worth a billion dollars two years ago by Forbes. Okay. So if he is worth a billion dollars, I am not so sure he is trying to blackmail people to earn money or to somehow gain some sort of advantage. It seems like he is at the top of his game before I have started. Yeah.
Francois McKinnon: Oscar, I think your question was more as to he probably gain by videotaping people without their consent, utilize the films of having sexual parties with, with several different people to be able to blackmail those people. So that a lot of them are movie stars, allegedly are movie stars and music moguls. So I think that is what, where you were going at, right, Oscar?
Oscar Santamaria: Yes. Yes.
Jonathan Friedman: So in that case, that is different. I do not think he is hustling for money. I think he wanted favors from politicians, from music moguls, from actress. Well, yeah. I mean, yes. Money is one thing, but, you know, having them in their back pocket to maybe say things that they, you know, that they necessarily do not want to say just to maybe fortify one of their, one of their programs. I do not know. A lot of people have said that this is what the whole Epstein thing was, that it was every room had cameras, all of these things were being videotaped and whether they are going to be used later on to blackmail these people. Well, I mean, it could be, listen, Epstein was supposedly very close to having a billion dollars himself. And I do not think he was in it for, for the money and extorting people. I think a lot of it had to do with power. I think it is mostly an hour and to get leverage negotiations and whatever they want. Yeah. I mean, that is a thought. I think that is possible, you know, from what I am reading, it almost seems that I think he recorded this stuff to sort of memorialize these events, maybe for his own personal gratification, not really so much for monetary reasons, but I could see where you are going with it. But yes, if this does proceed the trial, we will hear about it because they seized a hell of a lot of electronic devices, phones and computers and things like that. And if things of that nature were discussed on these types of platforms, I am sure the government has gone through it and have identified and isolated, you know, these text messages or recordings or WhatsApp messages, if that is where they are going with it. So, but again, I just, I kind of, maybe I want to believe it was just for sex gratification motivations and nothing else.
Francois McKinnon: As Jonathan, they claim they found 96 electronic devices of recordings, right? Remember when we did this big narco trafficking case in Palm Beach, I had to spend four hours at the FBI just to learn how to open these discovery files. So my question is, they are setting up a court date for this thing to start on May 5th, 2025. Do you think that is like reasonable? Because you remember how complicated these devices were and so much information from them had to be retracted one bit at a time to be able to be put in a format, a comprehensive report format, which I remember it took forever.
Jonathan Friedman: Yeah, no, for sure. It is called Cellbrite, sort of the standard in the industry when they dump telephones and things like that. And that case that we handle was several many years ago. So the software, believe it or not, has advanced some, but again, I have cases now upload the files for Cellbrite and my computer crashes because the data is just so incredibly large that just a regular computer, if you are using a laptop, if it doesn’t have like the most maximum RAM and whatever else they have in these things, your computer just locks up and shuts down and that is frustrating. So that is another reason why I think there is got to be a whole investigative team, guys like you who are just going through this stuff and have other types of softwares to maybe locate keywords and things like that. Because for the lawyers to go through it by themselves is just, it is a monumental task and there is no way they would be ready in May because I could just tell you cases that I am handling where there is probably the same amount of phones. I have been on a case for two years now where there is probably a very similar number of cellular phones that were seized and dumped in Cellbrite and we are not even a fraction of our way through it.
Francois McKinnon: So how much time is he looking at if he is guilty on all charges?
Jonathan Friedman: I think there is a minimum mandatory on the sex trafficking counts of 15 years. I’d have to double check that, but I think that is accurate and I believe with all the charges, the guidelines will probably take him into a life sentence under, he probably maxes out at a certain level. It is up there. If you look at the sentencing guidelines in federal court, it is basically a life sentence.
Oscar Santamaria: Are those, is that going to run concurrently or consecutively?
Jonathan Friedman: Well, that is all up to the judge. That is sort of discretionary. I think there’d be a good argument if he is convicted of everything by the lawyers that all the sentences should run concurrently because it was really just one criminal episode or incident. It is not like he got caught and then arrested or charged or even caught and investigated and then continued the same criminal activity. But then again, some of the laws that are dealing with concurrent and consecutive sentences have to do with if the offender had an opportunity to reflect. If after they committed one crime, that is like in the indictment, if they had an opportunity to reflect on it, some courts have held that that may be a factor where the court that considers a consecutive sentence.
Francois McKinnon: Jonathan, they have also mentioned for three decades. So he must know something that a lot of people do not know yet. I am thinking as an investigator, I’d be going, okay, why did they make a point to say for over two decades or three decades? That is 20, 30 years. Why are they making that particular thing? I have a feeling that something started way back and it started to snowball. And recently with the girlfriend’s accusation that just opened up. That is what I am thinking. Yeah.
Jonathan Friedman: I think that video, there was a video from that hotel that they stayed at. The newsroom guests, he tried to persuade or bribe someone in the hotel to strike the tape, but it obviously never happened. I think that was the catalyst probably for all of this because anytime you have something on video, Francois, that could be. We have seen some wild videos and they are self explanatory, right?
Oscar Santamaria: What about the bond earring? He failed to make bond twice. I thought the bond package was actually pretty severe, pretty up there. I feel like they offer it a lot. But with that being said, the fact that just now, like you mentioned before, the fact that he tried to bribe people at the hotel where he was caught on the video beating his ex girlfriend and kicking her. I think that is why the judges sat back and they said, wait a minute, he is going to try to pay off people to shut up. In the Epstein case, I do not know if you are aware of the investigative team that Epstein had, but he had a lot of investigators being paid a lot of money to go and silence people. So this is not what a private investigator’s job is to do. But back then in Florida and Palm Beach County, that is what they utilized. They hired a very large PI company to go out there and reach out to these young teenagers and to say, hey, shut up or else something will happen to you. So I have a feeling that this is a big issue with a bond hearing. Apparently there’ll be a third bond hearing. What do you think about that? What would you recommend your client to do after he is offering? I do not know if it is, for some reason I never hear, is it 15 million or 50 million?
Jonathan Friedman: It was 50 million. I think his house was valued at maybe 48, 50 million. And I think he recently paid off another big chunk of the mortgage so he would own it outright. That is my understanding. The bond I think was proposed was 50 million. And so he is been denied at two, I think, requests, but I think it is now on appeal to the Court of Appeals, actually. I think in the second circuit Court of Appeal, which governs over the New York, Southern District of New York case, courts rather. So that is kind of where it is at. I did hear one thing that weighs probably against him getting a bond. The government, I think, argued that these crimes, most of them happened in his home. And for him to be home on house arrest, that is what they proposed. I know they went through there and searched the place and everything, you know, took video, I am sure, and seized all the evidence they need. But somebody suggested that, you know, if he is back in his home, he could potentially alter things or do something to the scene, the crime scene itself. After the fact, yeah. After the fact, you know. I could see that. It is possible. Yeah. Yeah.
Francois McKinnon: So if you were a betting man, and there is so many high profile people involved in allegedly high profile, I have heard a lot of names. I have heard Jay Z. I have heard Beyonce. I have heard a lot of names. So what do you think the chances are of A, a plea deal, or B, him being Epstein?
Jonathan Friedman: Well, right now, I think the authorities have learned from Epstein, and I believe that Sean Combs is on Suicide Watch. I believe that is where they are keeping him in the hostility up in Oakland. Well, so was Epstein. Yeah. Yeah. I heard he is on Suicide, like they have him in a suicide cell just because of publicity and what happened with Epstein and the nature of the charges. So yeah. So I guess that is what is happening. But I think Epstein may have been on Suicide Watch too. Yeah. Yeah. He was. Yeah. He was. But he had a roommate. Didn’t he have a roommate? The cameras didn’t work, and everybody was asleep. Epstein. He got Epstein all right.
Francois McKinnon: Jonathan, it would be great for you to join us some more. I just want to ask you now, because every other day we get news about this case, and I find it fascinating, and I have a feeling we will be talking about this till May and then some. I do not actually feel like they are going to meet that May 5th deadline, 2025. It is not going to.
Jonathan Friedman: Probably not. And I think, Oscar, you were talking or alluded to about a plea deal or something like that. That is always possible. I mean, listen, when the civil case was filed against him last year, I believe the day after he settled it, the next day. And I believe he settled 24 hours too late. That is what happened. He settled 24 hours too late, and then the charges were filed by her. Either way. So if he would have ponied up 24 hours before, it would have all gone away with the NDAs and everything else. It is quite possible. It is very possible that if that civil lawsuit was not filed, that maybe this criminal case wouldn’t necessarily have arisen. Because I do know that indictment sort of mirrors the civil complaint that is been talked about, like how it is set up in the civil complaint for the damages that she was seeking. This criminal indictment is set up very similar to that. And I am sure that her legal team provided the government all of their work product, obviously, to bring that type of lawsuit. I do not know what they settled for. Was it a confidential amount? They were talking about a number like 30 million. Yeah. So for a billionaire, it is not that much. But he should have settled 24 hours before, because the Fed is all over that. Anyways, what do you think about this case? What do you think it is happening in Hollywood? It seems like all of these super wealthy, powerful people are just doing their own thing, they have their own world, it appears. I find that fascinating.
Francois McKinnon: The book that I wrote, Many Faces, is from a case of sex trafficking that I did years ago. And it kind of opened my eyes. I went to Europe, to the south of France, and I saw the same behavior with extremely wealthy people in Monaco on yachts, on private yachts, abusing very, very young girls. I am talking about teenagers. And because of my work, I was able to work with the super wealthy sometimes. And you see the way that they act when nobody sees them is totally different than when you see. And I am not saying this is the case, but it kind of brings back the reason why I wrote the book about the girl that was kidnapped and sold to sex traffickers. And then was involved in this sex trafficking and human trafficking. I wrote a book about it, and I am proud to have written it, and it is coming out for sale next week. And you are going to see a lot of similarities, the way that they coach these young girls to do whatever they want. They just overtake their brain, and then they groom them, and then they do whatever they want.
Jonathan Friedman: Yeah, no, it is very sad what goes on, but can’t wait to read your book.
Francois McKinnon: Hey, listen, as a criminal lawyer, if you were approached by the civil lawyers that are suing, would you work with them?
Jonathan Friedman: I mean, if it didn’t conflict with anything I was doing, sure. I mean, as a consulting, as a criminal lawyer. Yeah, I think so. They would probably want to get some insight on…
Francois McKinnon: One of his home is in Miami Beach, in Starland, I think. So to get a perspective of the Florida lawyer that you are, do you think that is something you would do?
Jonathan Friedman: I think so, absolutely. I am just recalling in the past that I have been consulted a number of times on people that were victimized in a civil, criminal context, whether they were… Most of the time, it is white collar fraud. And I have assisted, and their legal counsel, in sort of directing them and navigating them through the criminal system, and what they really should be doing, and put them in touch with key people in prosecutor’s offices to pursue it criminally. So I have been involved in several matters like that. But yeah, I would certainly be a consultant and give my sort of insight into what I know criminally.
Francois McKinnon: Lastly, let me ask you, what if you were retained by the defendant to work in Florida? How would you feel about that?
Jonathan Friedman: Because I love it. Love it. Absolutely. Okay. Because they are not guilty until proven guilty. Well, you are not guilty until the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Doubt. For the criminal, yeah, yeah. Absolutely.
Francois McKinnon: So listen, can we count on you to give us an update, say next week? I know it is your Sunday, but people want to hear from real professionals like you.
Jonathan Friedman: Absolutely. I would be happy to. And it is kind of fun, because we know each other for a long time. You came to our little soiree, like Oscar calls it. Try to be fancy.
Francois McKinnon: Oscar, do you have anything else to ask Jonathan for now?
Oscar Santamaria: What do you know about the lawyer that is defending him? Is he like, would you consider him like a dream team type of lawyer? Or is he kind of-
Jonathan Friedman: I looked up his law firm, because I was interested and curious, because I always am curious about lawyers that get these big high profile cases. It appears that he is been practicing probably as long as I have, about 30 years, I think it said. But he does have a background. He worked in the US Attorney’s Office, I believe in New Jersey, which is the neighboring right over the river from NAP defending Mr. Combs. He has a few associates, it seems. He is handled some very high profile cases and some very big complex cases from what I can read on his bio. And I have seen him on the news, of course, giving commentary, or actually interviews, rather, about what is going on. He seems very confident and very certain about the position that they are going to take. So yeah, I have nothing other than probably positive things to say about his lawyer. I’d love to join the team. I’ll make a couple of phone calls. I used to know Vanilla Ice. Yeah, I have actually handled a couple of cases up in New York in the Southern District. But yeah, I would welcome that fantastic opportunity.
Francois McKinnon: What do you think of what is going on in the criminal world with all of the sex trafficking cases that are coming? Because that is something that opened my eyes way back when I started writing my, not when I started writing my book, but when I did this case in California, then Mexico, and then I saw the same thing happen in the South of France and Italy. And when you pay attention, as an investigator, you see this and going, wait a minute, this is not normal. We ended up in another country that I cannot mention because this could be getting me in trouble. But we ended up in another country where people’s helicopters were parked for a shopping spree. Like, you know what I am saying, a shopping spree, they were purchasing young women. Okay. And I just find it, I just find it crazy. And that is the bell right there. Jonathan, we are out of time. Thank you so much for coming, Oscar. Thanks for everything. And we will see you next Sunday, I hope, if you are available.
Jonathan Friedman: Yeah, we can talk about freak off parties and- Absolutely. One thing I do want to talk to you about in the future is that the Idaho murders. I know that case is coming up soon, and that seems like it is pretty an interesting case. Yeah. I have heard a little bit about it, but I’ll look into it more. I’ll be glad to answer your questions about it.
Francois McKinnon: Great. Thank you so much, Jonathan. And we will see you guys next week. Thanks for tuning in.
SHARE:
