MyronGainesX - Fed Explains YNW Melly Trial On Day 7

All Episodes

Previous Next

June 22, 2023 - MyronGainesX

02:04:01

Fed Explains YNW Melly Trial On Day 7

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The bold name.
	So, if you could read them out loud, all right.
	What's up, guys?
	I am live streaming the trial right now.
	So, without further ado, we're just going to get right into it.
	Just so you guys know, they're talking about the gang culture right now with the bloods, and they got a detective testifying.
	Clear for the record which particular document we're looking at.
	Number one, physically, physically, no, just the bold on that one.
	Number two, mentally, number three, spirit, spirit key, number four, economically, and number five, socially moving on to the next meaning meaning of G-Shine.
	You had mentioned that sometimes there are specific colors that individuals are told to wear.
	Is that reflected in this document here that was found in the YNW Melly booking email?
	Objectional meeting.
	What does this say about the uniform or fashion statements?
	It gives directions on the colors of the organization, what they mean, and as with the other signs and symbols that they have, like the five-point star gave each point of the star a specific meaning.
	They do the same thing with the colors.
	Come up with initialisms of what each letter of that color means and why it means something to them.
	Okay, in terms of the colors that were identified in this G-Shine document, what were they?
	The code that I already mentioned, red, green, black, brown, and black.
	The next stage here, what is this title?
	Okay, what's up, guys?
	So, you guys are probably wondering what's going on right now.
	We're covering the Melly trial live, and what's going on is they are talking about the G-Shine gang.
	They got a detective testifying on the gang hierarchy structure, that type of thing for the jury.
	Because, as you guys know, they're trying to get the death penalty.
	A big part of them being able to get the death penalty is they need to illustrate that Millie is a gang member.
	So, that's what they're going through right now.
	And I'll keep repeating myself as more and more people join in.
	But, yeah, let's get back to the trial.
	Meaning of G-Shine Ascari.
	And then it says in here, you've been what does DMV mean the Department of Motor Vehicles?
	No, it would be the like the council.
	I'm not sure exactly what that acronym is, but you, when you move up in the ranks, you'll be reassessed by it by your higher-ups by the council.
	Okay, is there a specific uniform that you talked about that was previously that's mentioned in this document?
	Yeah, wearing medium wearing brown and with a white t-shirt underneath, untucked.
	So, it says it in there just to signify that you're always ready for battle.
	Um, in terms of the email address that we have looked at previously: the one, the bang, bang, ascari is that consistent with what was said to be done in this last paragraph.
	Yes, that's that's typical with the gang name in general.
	All the members will just put the gang name at the end of their moniker or your Instagram handle or Facebook handle, whatever it is.
	Okay, going on to the next document in this, what is this title?
	Code, that's one of the old chapter number memorized.
	And now, this photo here: what is this illustrating?
	I can make it a little bit bigger.
	I know it's this is when they restructured.
	They were talking about the grass has been cut low and the snake's heads have popped off.
	So when they restructure, it was for, like I said, you know, when there's indictments, stuff like that, they need to restructure and change the rules up so that way they can meet out people that they might think are cooperating with law enforcement or just people who aren't being true to the organization.
	So this is talking about that basically.
	There's a line that says it talks about a memo.
	Is that something you've seen in your training experience that they, there are memos that are issued to update policy?
	Yeah, anytime it looks like a directive, anytime things are going to change within the organization, they usually will close the books.
	So no new members, they'll freeze everything, no movement, and they'll reassess what they have to do within the organization so that they can continue to reorganize and move forward.
	Okay.
	In terms of, you said the books, what are the books?
	Oh, to turn to mean literally the books, like the ledgers where they would write members' names.
	So when the books are closed, you're not going to put new members into the books.
	Most really, most well-organized gangs will have a national ledger where all the sets will be outlined with all the members and what ranks they currently hold.
	Okay.
	And in terms of this last email here, an image, that's the close-up, or I'm sorry, the last image was a close-up of this email header.
	Who was this email sent to?
	I say Apert.
	He was identified as subject named Goon on the phone.
	772-713-9807, that phone?
	That phone.
	Okay.
	And who was it sent to?
	So you mentioned a lot of the items in the phone that you've reviewed.
	Yes.
	We're going to start out with a question labeled as states triple V for identification purposes.
	All right.
	So guys, just so you know, this detective right here is masked up.
	Okay.
	I think he's an undercover detective.
	So he's speaking about the gang because he probably does undercover with gang stuff.
	But, yeah, he's actually wearing a mask, which you don't see this often.
	Coming to the fence.
	Detectives, you recognize what's been labeled as states triple D. Yes.
	How do you recognize that?
	This is a extraction report from the cell phone ending in 9807 of messages between that phone number and a contact state as GF stretch with the C crossed out using an X instead of a C. And does this fairly accurately depict the conversation that is on that cell phone?
	Yes.
	At this time, the state would request to move states triple B in and publish it to the jury.
	Second, okay.
	The fictional rule will be admitted.
	States triple B will be marked state 69.
	Okay, detective on this particular phone and this messages there's the term rise up and beloved.
	Is that something based on your training experience you can offer an opinion on?
	Yes mentioned throughout multiple.
	So they're using Melly's text messages right now guys to illustrate that he is in fact a gang member whether it's him crossing out of seas in his writing the way they communicate using gang vernacular they're establishing right now that he is in fact a gang member and they got a detective here who's a subject matter expert on gangs and does undercover with gangs to testify to it g shine vibrals the term rise up Beloved,
	it's just a term of endearment that they're using between each other.
	On its own, it doesn't really mean anything, but knowing that these guys are members of G-Shine, it does injection.
	So, if you guys remember, you know, in the famous Song 50 Cent, you know, what up, Blood, huh?
	What up, cuz what up, gangsta, right?
	So, that's, you know, you say, what up, blood, you're referring to another member of the gang in an endearing way.
	Same thing with Cuz Afir Crip.
	So, um, they're using this right now to show that Millie is in fact a gang member.
	So, in terms of the term HERK, H-U-R-K, on this particular message, is that something you've seen before?
	Yes.
	And what is PERK mean?
	HERK is a term used by members of G-Shine to refer to each other.
	It's like calling each other bro or dude, same thing.
	Members of G-Shine call each other Herk.
	That's one of the terms they use.
	In December 1st, 2018, this particular message, is there another term that would indicate G-Shine affiliation?
	The rank designation Askari receiving that message as an Ascari.
	Okay.
	He's not just saying the work SCARI.
	Understood.
	In terms of the last message here that looks like December 29th, 2018, you could read that one aloud, please, and I can make it bigger.
	You have many other hoods that have productable aspects in motion, and it's time for us to put a form of some businesses into existence so you can grow as a family.
	We are already established financially, so we want to combine with you in the form of growth and development and endure prosperous ventures as a collective.
	I'm going on to January 27th of Friday 19th, is it the same use of the term 11th?
	Yes.
	And then it says line up some venues.
	Detective Polar, I want to ask you: if someone is a member in any sort of music group, why wouldn't they be talking about venues with someone who is identified as a godfather?
	Because they would need to get sustained.
	So, Detective Pole, I want to back up and go into your training and education and experience on areas of control by specific areas under the blood gang irony.
	And you mentioned that there are different sets in different areas of the country.
	Correct.
	In terms of the various neighborhoods and various businesses within that neighborhood, do you have training and experience as to how access to those businesses are controlled?
	So if you're in a neighborhood that is predominantly controlled by the specific gang, whether it be the bloods, the crips, whoever, and you are trying to go to that neighborhood, you need to have almost like an approval to be there.
	If not, you might, if you're in the wrong neighborhood, you might get approached and the repercussions could be different for every person, but the point is, you'll probably get confronted.
	So I want to move on to some of the other messages that you've gone through with landmark as stateW has been previously provided to Defense Counsel.
	I'm showing you states, triple W, hard to come into court today.
	Did you have an opportunity to review this document?
	Yes.
	Does that document accurately depict five different conversations between the individual using the 9807 phone number and some of the individuals you talked about previously?
	Gino, Perk, Jaquan Burton, et cetera.
	Objection?
	I see objection.
	That is not in a position to attest to whether that accurately reflects conversations between two people that you cannot follow.
	Stay.
	Does that accurately reflect the conversations that were captured on the 9807 cell phone extraction?
	Yes.
	in terms of is there any additions or deletions from the cell phone instructions?
	I don't believe so.
	I didn't see any red.
	It would be when it was deleted.
	Do they share any conversations on the 9807 cell phone?
	Yes.
	At this time, the state would request a new state triple W. All right, since we got almost 700 of you guys in here, guys, what they're basically going over right now is they're going through Melly's phone, establishing that he is, in fact, a gang member for the G-Shine Bloods.
	Okay, they're establishing what the bloods are, then they're establishing this set.
	They're establishing terminology that they use when they communicate with each other, like HERC, for example, blood.
	These are terms of her endearment.
	The G-Shine Bloods in particular use the term HERC.
	So the prosecutor is going through that, and she has a detective on the stand right now that's identifying these terms and explaining it to the jury.
	And the detective has his headwrit covered for his safety, obviously, because he's probably undercover.
	So that's why they're going through this because they're trying to get the death penalty on Melly.
	And to get the death penalty, the enhancement to get that death penalty is they're going to need to establish that he's a gang member.
	That's why this testimony is so critical to the death penalty portion of the case.
	In and publish a jury.
	I object, General, from the Prophecy Foundation, Constitution Foundation.
	Suggestions, overruled.
	It will be admitted.
	No.
	States triple W. States triple W. Mark States 70.
	And, guys, she doesn't have enough for a conviction right now, but they're going through the case.
	So they already had their witnesses lined up.
	So now she's covering this section.
	But she's also going to bring, I think, the medical examiner in, which is going to be interesting because the medical examiner is going to explain how the two victims actually died, not through drive-by, but rather being shot in the vehicle.
	So I just have to go through and start with some of the pictures that are in this exhibit.
	We got almost 800 of you guys in here.
	Can you guys like the video, man?
	I don't normally live stream trials like this, but I know that you guys enjoy this stuff.
	So I'm doing it for y'all.
	We're watching it live together.
	I'm explaining terminology.
	So the only thing I ask is that you guys like the video.
	So starting and going on, which is labeled as page six, and this is a conversation that starts out with an initial name fully and the 9807 cell phone number.
	Are there pictures that are sent back and forth between these individuals?
	Yes.
	Oh, and with your honor's permission, I'm going to switch over so I can pull up the picture.
	So they're going to pull up pictures from Ellie's phone now and more text messages.
	So the records clear counsel, what's the exhibit number?
	This is still the same exhibit.
	This is just a digital copy so that we can access the photos.
	Exhibit 7702.
	Yes.
	Thank you.
	So in terms of the images that were sent, were you made familiar with Jamal Demons?
	Yes.
	Can you point him out in this particular photograph?
	Now if you guys noticed they did this with YSL as well using pictures back against them to show gang ties.
	I'm sorry it's no longer a touchstream on that actually because it's now on this page.
	The subject wishes jumping.
	In the center of the frame?
	Yes.
	May the record reflect that the state pointed to it and you get hidden by the person to whom the state belonged.
	So let's go to a different one.
	Do you see the defendant Jamal Devons in this photo?
	Can I stand up everywhere?
	Yes.
	Thank you for the problem.
	In terms of the hand gestures or signals that he is making, is that anything that you can comment on with your expertise?
	So Eastside summary, Eastside Blood.
	That's a whole blood sign.
	You have to speak up.
	So look, as you guys can see here, they're using these pictures against him to show his allegiance to the gang.
	I'm sorry, sir.
	Well, I'll talk to you now.
	And so you first said the east side one, is that he made out with his left hand or right hand?
	I don't know if the pictures east side being pointed forward out.
	And then that, the other hand, is kind of crooked, so I can't tell you how the East Center is doing this, which is a book, cancelling.
	Those are both from page 6 of State 70.
	Going now to page 14.
	You indicated that some of the emails were identified as a specific individual.
	Who was that?
	Derek Dixon in the emails was identified as Gino, and Gino, this phone number, was identified as Derek Dixon.
	In terms of the messages here on page 14 of state 70, the phone first message on September 16th of 2018, what does that say?
	I'm sorry, say that again, the first one?
	Oh, Gino locked me envelope and then took out the secret X. Okay.
	Then the next message, the response from the 9807 phone number, what is that?
	050 is blood code.
	Later on in this text thread, he explains it.
	Okay.
	Down to the next one from the number that's identified as Gino.
	And what message does that say?
	Me and the godfather, the GF, talked about you until we come into your show and our handable.
	Moving on to page 15.
	In this second message here on page 15, what are we looking at?
	The 050 means on point.
	You translate that, please.
	Gino's, the subject safe as Gino is explaining what the code means so that the recipient doesn't mess up when the godfather.
	So look, 050 means on point.
	DL means I got you or for show.
	Or yeah, okay means butter smoke.
	SL means shine love.
	Greetings and responses are rise and shine, I shine, you shine, rise up and boppin, shine right and shine bright.
	My shine, platinum, and gold.
	Why is this important, guys?
	Because this establishes gang vernacular for this set of the bloods, which is called the what?
	The G-Shine bloods.
	Questions him says it down below.
	Just a few things off I'll aid you with.
	I'll make you share your own point.
	So saying 050 means on point, DL means I got you.
	And he proceeds to give other definitions.
	SL means short and love.
	Greetings of responses are rise and shine.
	I shine, you shine, rise up, up and bop and shine, shine right, shine bright, my shine, plan, Google.
	So these are all things that were written in that original document behind over.
	And that original document in terms of the date on that, do you recall for the set date?
	September or something.
	I think I have it here.
	September 16th, 2018.
	So in some of the responses from the 9807, again, that term PERP.
	Again, it's just the term used between members of GCHIME.
	He's just responding, just using G-Shine terms.
	Okay.
	Continuing on through the month of September on page 16 and in terms of the message here from the 9807, what does it say there?
	Just checking in, the C is taken out and the B is put in its place.
	And Joe, can you explain what or translate the September 21st, 2018, 1126 p.m. message from Gino?
	Just asking if he's all right.
	Everything's good.
	response everything's good.
	Can you explain what is a square?
	It's referenced to page 19.
	Square is a narcotic slang for typically a kilogram of any type of narcotic.
	Yeah, they use squares when I was in South Texas, kilo of drugs.
	Injection, you're on it.
	What's the injection?
	404B.
	403.
	Punch them, sir.
	Sorry about that, guys.
	I'm muting it because they fucking...
	The one thing I don't like about this trial is that their audio fucking sucks.
	So let me turn it off just now.
	Hold on, let's see.
	to bring it down a bit so it's not it's not hurting you guys ears so much
	detective polo in terms of your training and experience in narcotics and gang investigation what is a square Square is in reference to a kilogram of any type of narcotic that is sold in kilograms because it's shaped like a square.
	Okay.
	So I want to talk now on page 21 on September 23rd, 2018, 625 p.m.
	Can you read those two text messages and then help to assist in the understanding of what they mean?
	21.
	So the guy is who he moves through on that.
	He got the skills.
	The next one, too?
	Yes, please.
	With that square, want to know what you want for a hook and a verse.
	Okay, and can you explain what the Skittles in that message?
	So that language has involved the Skittles because right now Skittles are something completely different.
	Back then it was talking about XSE pills and DMA pills.
	And in terms of looking in context, the message before that on September 23rd, 2018, 6:23 p.m. with what is the Z a Z is short for a zip.
	A zip is sland for an ounce.
	I want to call it that because you put everything in a zip like that.
	Okay.
	So going on to page 22.
	So not only are they discussing gang activity, they're also discussing drug trafficking as well.
	Fucking idiots.
	There's a different phone number that is listed on there to have him to call.
	Right.
	And what phone number is listed there?
	954-376-9158.
	Okay.
	The next message, if you could read that one on September 23rd, 2018, 9:58 p.m.
	He got it.
	Yeah, Herc, his name, image, he's very important.
	He's got, sorry, he's going to give you some baby.
	He's over the whole South Carolina.
	When you talked earlier about areas of influence, is that what you meant?
	Yeah, so especially with the lineups that cross state boundaries, you would need to know where your higher ups are reporting from.
	Because if you say, I report to stretch, they're going to say it was stretch, especially if they don't, they're not part of your lineup.
	You say, I report to stretch out South Carolina, then they can double-check you and reach out to their context, South Carolina, make sure that stretches are personally.
	Continuing on to September 25th, 2018.
	This is common, guys.
	When you go to another area, right, and you're a gang member of like a national gang, like the Bloods or whatever, you'll want to touch tap in with people in other states that you can kind of rely on when you're there.
	Protection, resources, you know, logistics, etc.
	Another message from on page 23 for Defense Council.
	Thank you.
	Is this again referring to the same image name from the previous?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Do you know what the dating is?
	I'll read it with the break.
	Okay.
	Small like baby.
	And the response?
	Haven't heard from between.
	So then moving on further down that page on 10.08 p.m., what does Gino ask?
	The member identified as Gino states, DL, did you get your date for the Savannah State Show?
	And with the DL, what does that mean?
	The DL.
	Hey, guys, we just crossed 1,000 live viewers, so you can be anywhere else.
	So thank you.
	The only thing I ask guys, just like the video, please.
	We're reacting to the trial right now.
	They're going through text messages between Melly and other people where they're establishing that he is in fact a gang member.
	I'm sorry.
	The DL.
	Does that have a specific connotation or meaning?
	Yeah, it does.
	I'm drawing light right now, sorry.
	That's okay.
	It's been a long day.
	We'll come back to it.
	So with regards to the next line on that, what is that one, Reed?
	Yo, the GF Godfather, kind of call you, take out the C, follow you today, and make sure you, you're on point.
	And the response was everything's good.
	So I want to go then again to the digital version to reference this picture here.
	So Gino sends the number identified as Gino ending in 4281 sends an image.
	And this is on page 24 for Council.
	In terms of this message, can you translate as to what it's talking about?
	So it's a picture of another phone taking my phone, contacting him tall, the person holding the phone rights.
	Did you ever skyline with him so that you ever connect with him or talk to him?
	He's dying to talk to you.
	Melly, that is.
	And then he says he's going to have to say, he's going to have to hit him up today.
	So then Sam to the DL online.
	So you'll be expecting that.
	Okay.
	And then the next response.
	Want me to agree with him, show them the meaning of the chain of command, safety and security, showed you something different.
	And the response?
	I got you.
	I just know that by him talking to you.
	Jake for the hearsay.
	This is an image of a conversation between two other people.
	Why don't you come for a second?
	My bad, guys.
	Okay, guys, courts on sidebar.
	What that basically means is when they're in sidebar, they're talking on the side.
	Like the two, the lawyers, the defense counsel, and the prosecution are meeting with the judge, talking to the side where no one can hear their conversation.
	So, and it's meant to be, you know, pretty much a lawyer-only discussion because judges are lawyers too, 99% of the time.
	So let's go ahead and see if we can fast forward this trial a bit.
	If they're at a sidebar, if I hit the live.
	Okay.
	Prejudices.
	So it's really going to depend on how they see this case, their own feelings about gang violence, for example, their own feelings about drinking some gorilla mine over here, guys.
	Make sure to use the code FRESH at checkout.
	Loyalty about betrayal.
	So all this plays into it, and it's something that's definitely weighing on their minds.
	Yeah, I would imagine so.
	And I would imagine during the Bois Dir process, jury selection process, both attorneys, both sides really question these jurors about their preconceived notions about gangs or gang violence.
	And very important fact in.
	That's why they say the case is one or lost in jury selection.
	Absolutely, absolutely.
	And Akeisha, you know that jury selection is so important here.
	And let's talk about the jury in terms of this testimony.
	Gang testimony, testimony regarding gangs tends to be riveting at times for a jury because it's just an intriguing set of facts to hear about.
	This feels a little dry.
	How do you think the prosecution could have been proved, not to be Monday morning quarterbacking this, but improve the presentation that we see here?
	I think they should have allowed the jury to just know that he was in a gang, period.
	I think the fact that they're now trying to explain this some more hurts them because the average juror, which is why we have an expert, right?
	The average juror doesn't know this about gangs.
	They just think that gangs are violent.
	They don't know that there are laws.
	They don't know that they're instructing you to love each other and to read and to go to school and not to be homosexual and to make sure your hygiene is good.
	And they don't know this about gangs.
	And so now you're introducing them to an element and an aspect that they aren't familiar with that undermines your case.
	And so I think that they have a problem.
	I disagree.
	No, I disagree, 100% disagree with these people.
	I ain't gonna lie, man.
	The law and crime network, some of the people that they bring on are kind of suspect.
	And it makes me question a lot of times their professional experience.
	It's actually extremely important to outline the gang's activities, practices, behaviors, structure, hierarchy, vernacular, you know, codes.
	All of these things are important to establish that they're an organized criminal faction.
	Okay, that's extremely important.
	I remember when I was an agent myself and I investigated gangs, I used to write reports extremely detailed about, for example, I did Land Kings for a bit.
	Incas, regional Incas, what enforcers, what they did, what their roles were, who was who, how they did meetings, what a violation was.
	All these things needed to be documented in reports.
	So I get it.
	It's a state level.
	So they might say, oh, this is overkill or whatever.
	But it is important to establish this so that the jury understands that this is organized crime.
	This isn't just like these dudes saying, oh, yeah, we blah, blah, blah.
	No, no, no.
	There's codes, rules, and regulations.
	It's an enterprise.
	Okay.
	That's why when you hit that people with Rico, they need to establish that it is a criminal enterprise.
	This is why gangs fall in that line because of all the structure.
	So they're incorrect.
	Yeah.
	No, absolutely.
	I 100% agree because what we just saw actually in that clip was sort of like a code of conduct there.
	And it doesn't seem nefarious.
	It doesn't seem violent, if anything.
	And this is the importance of having experience, guys, not just as like, you know, oh, I'm a lawyer, or I did this or whatever.
	How many criminal cases have you actually investigated?
	How many people have you put in jail?
	How many reports have you written?
	How many affidavits has you sworn to?
	How many search warrants have you done?
	I've done all this shit.
	You know what I mean?
	So that's why, like, I'll listen to these people over here on this law and crime network.
	I'll be like, man, some of y'all don't know what you guys are talking about.
	It's saying, love your brother, your fellow gang member.
	That's going to possibly hurt the prosecution.
	So great point there.
	Before we close out the show, Dr. Bober, I want to get your take.
	Quick 10-second take.
	Do you think the prosecution is going to get their conviction?
	Or right now, as it stands, do you think the defense has a chance to get an acquittal?
	I don't think this is a slam dunk by any means.
	I think the defense definitely has some inroads in there, and there's some reasonable doubt for sure.
	So I think it's not a slam dunk.
	I think they still have a chance.
	Great.
	And Dr. Bober, thank you for joining us today.
	Akea, I want to get you quickly for your 10-second take.
	Do you think the prosecution have a conviction or an acquittal possibly in the making here?
	Acquittal in the making.
	And I'll tell you why, really quickly, jurors are serious about murder cases more so than any other type of case.
	And they are not going to accept anything but the most ironclad type of evidence to send this young man to prison for suicide to his death.
	All right.
	Thank you for joining me, Aikisha, Dr. Bober.
	Hold on, I think they might be having a recess for the trial.
	Let's see here.
	Hmm.
	All right.
	So I guess, yeah, it's probably a recess right now.
	It looks like what's going on here.
	Let's see here.
	Okay.
	I'll hit some of the chats real quick.
	And if you guys have any questions, throw them in in the chat and I'll answer them while we wait for this thing to come back up.
	But yeah, more than likely what's happening is there's a recess.
	Let's see here.
	I'll refresh it one more time.
	Okay.
	All right.
	So while we wait for that, let's see here.
	We got Jerry Pacheco goes, Can you cover Edward Snowden?
	Also, side note: can the Tates seek asylum like Snowden did?
	I could covered Edward Snowden, but guys, you got to remember, Snowden is not in prison.
	So his indictment and criminal complaint are filed away.
	I can't pull them up because he hasn't been arrested.
	So since he hasn't been arrested, none of his court documents are available.
	So typically, when the person's arrested, they unseal the indictment so you can actually read the charges against them.
	So right now, at this point, I don't even know what the charges are exactly.
	I know it's probably, it's definitely going to be violations of the Espionage Act, 100%.
	Which is, as you guys know, if you've been watching the Trump trial, right?
	18 USC 793.
	I want you guys to learn that.
	18 USC 793.
	That's the Espionage Act.
	So that's what I think it is.
	And then we got Hedging Mastermind goes, Myron, your voice volume is too low.
	Okay.
	I turned it turning it up a bit.
	I think it's because the fucking trial thing is so goddamn loud with their ambient noise.
	And then them boys, CIA goes, fresh and monkey and monkey.
	Okay.
	I don't know if LOL, if you're trying to make one of us, but okay.
	Let's see here.
	So, yeah, guys, get any questions in while we wait for this thing to come back up.
	I think they're going to bring it back.
	I think they're just doing a recess right now.
	But I figured I was like, yo, let's go ahead and do this trial.
	You know, we could go backwards a bit to some of the testimony from before.
	Let's see here.
	When they first brought this detective in, he was, let's see what these guys got to say.
	It's always funny to hear their opinions.
	Or not there to report.
	All right.
	So let's see what they got to say.
	This was earlier in the day.
	This was approximately four hours ago or so.
	Report it.
	So maybe you can say, hey, we believe because of his absence, he must have been in the shooting, but that doesn't help.
	So to me, the strongest, even though it is pretty weak, is the video of him getting into that very seat that they say the trials came from.
	Our next question, I'll take this one.
	It's from Catherine Vargas from Facebook.
	How long is the case supposed to last?
	Will there be any guys?
	Do me a quick favor.
	We got 1,100 plus y'all in here.
	Do me a favor, like the video.
	Let's get to 100% engagement almost.
	Let's hit 1,000 likes if we can, guys, because it helps a lot with the algorithm.
	We've been getting a lot of haters that come on and watch our videos just to hate watch.
	We got a lot of hate watchers, which is strange to me.
	So let's kind of override their hate and like the video, please.
	It helps a lot with the algo.
	Breaks for July 4th.
	Well, Catherine, the answer is they're off the week of July 4th.
	Obviously, there's a holiday in there, and then they don't go have court on Fridays.
	So that would be a very short week.
	So they're off that week.
	And we think that this case could wrap up by the end of July.
	So that's what they're for.
	Oh, wow.
	They're for I didn't realize that they have that much evidence that they got to go after.
	Guys, this judge, this case is going to go for damn near a month.
	Casting right now.
	Our next question, Offie, is from Becky S from YouTube.
	If YNW Melly is found not guilty, will it be easier to convict Bortland?
	All right.
	So for all the idiots out there that are saying that, like, oh, Melly's innocent, blah, blah, blah.
	Guys, if the trial still has like another month to go, then, bruh, everyone that's saying this prosecutor sucks, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	Y'all are nah, then that means that the prosecution has ample time to prove their case.
	So everyone here is speaking way too early.
	And what charges is Bortland being charged with?
	I think that it would be equally difficult to convict Bortland.
	But I do think the prosecution, I don't know if it's going to be the same prosecutor, but they will have learned a lot from this trial with Melly.
	They will know what their pitfalls are.
	They'll know how to be prepared with their evidence and with the information that they're trying to introduce into court.
	For example, Mellie's girlfriend's mom and her testimony, they'll know how to treat that.
	You know, it's just this will essentially be a test run for them with Cortland.
	Bortland, excuse me.
	It kind of is a test run for them with Bortland.
	And just so you guys know, quick little reminder: who is YW Bortland?
	Y1W Bortland, guys, is Cortland Henry.
	That is one of Mellie's best friends.
	He is the individual that was driving the vehicle, okay, on the day of the shooting.
	And just to give you guys an illustration, right, of what it was, okay, this is how they were arranged in the vehicle, guys.
	Okay.
	You can see here, you got Bortland in the front, Melly, back passenger seat, Chris, and then you got Sack Chaser in the front.
	So this is how they were arranged in the vehicle.
	After the shooting happened and both individuals were deceased, the vehicle was driven to a desolate area out in Miramar, Florida.
	They shot on the right-hand side of the vehicle over here, okay, to make it look like a drive-by shooting.
	And then Bortland took the two to the hospital and said that they had been victims of a drive-by shooting.
	Melly was nowhere to be found.
	But they have surveillance footage that shows that Mellie did, in fact, get in the back of the vehicle earlier that evening.
	Okay.
	Next question, Terry, Zach P. Productions from YouTube.
	In terms of the overall legal system, what type of ramifications changes, pardon me, might arise from this court case.
	Well, I think the biggest ramification would be this death penalty issue, because if in fact the death penalty is something that the jury comes to the conclusion, I think that 8-4 new law that Governor DeSantis put into place will be something that not only the courts in Florida will be looking at, but an issue that could go back up to the Supreme Court.
	The Supreme Court has looked at this issue several times and ultimately, you know, Florida was able now to put it back to 8-4, but I do think that that's going to be challenged.
	So, obviously, it has other ramifications as to whether or not you can use music, whether or not you can include certain evidence in the trial.
	But I think the biggest issue here is the fact that they are asking for the death penalty on a case where most people are saying, even if he's found guilty, why would this be a death penalty case?
	We saw with the Parkland shooter that that case was a case that was a death penalty case.
	And even in that case, they did not elect to have him convicted and have him put to death.
	He obviously pled guilty.
	And at the sentencing phase, the jury decided: look, we're not going to put him to death, even though all those aggravating factors existed.
	So, I think the death penalty is probably the biggest issue in this case.
	I think so too.
	And with that new law, it'll be interesting to see how that holds up when it's challenged.
	TikTok question for you, Brian Buckmeyer.
	Official 2023 Mellifan asks, Why is he not allowed to talk to his family?
	And I think that Mellifan means inside the courtroom.
	Yeah, it's an issue that a lot of us defense attorneys have with both the courts and their court staff in the sense of they would argue is just the mechanics of it all doesn't work.
	They don't want to have anyone passing information, contraband, touching each other.
	There are very strict rules about what you can and cannot do in a courtroom.
	And oftentimes, those rules are limiting the access that a defendant, especially when the person is incarcerated, may have with family.
	Now, are there exceptions?
	Of course.
	Have I had the opportunity to have a client say goodbye to a loved one, a child of theirs, or family members, whatever it is, before they're sentenced and go off to upstate?
	We call it upstate in New York because they literally go from one of the five rules to upstate New York for a serious jail time.
	Yes.
	But during the trial, I don't know of any judge that will bend court rules to allow for any interaction.
	So that's why you'll see Melly kind of looking off to the side and voicing to family or friends because there's not that ability to interact with them more personally.
	Yeah, most courts have very strict rules about that and they don't want this to be social hour, but it just depends on which court you're in, how strictly they enforce these rules.
	Anna underscore Aaron Trout from Instagram, Offie, is he going to take the stand at some time?
	What do you think?
	Thanks, Anna.
	I doubt it very much.
	Defense attorneys usually do not, they do everything they can so that their client does not have to take the stand because, of course, the client has the right not to testify.
	Taking the stand is one of the dumbest things you can do.
	But also, I've said this thousands of times.
	Defendants are under so much scrutiny.
	Anything that they can, anything they do is going to be picked apart from how they breathe, how they speak, whether they sound remorseful.
	If they sound remorseful, why?
	Whether they're talking or speaking assertively, whether they're speaking gently.
	Anything they do is going to be highly scrutinized.
	And depending on how you lean, you are going to interpret it positively or negatively.
	And it's just, it doesn't matter what they say.
	It's all about behavior, mannerisms, and what you expect a guilty man or an innocent person to say on the stand.
	So it's just troublesome.
	And not only that, when a defendant takes the stand, you don't know what you're going to get all of the time.
	They can open the door to admitting evidence or admitting a line of questioning that previously would not have been admitted.
	So you don't want to do that.
	There are also prior bad acts that may be able to come into play that they may be questioned on.
	So it's just a minefield.
	And a lot of times it's just not worth it.
	Yeah, certainly.
	And defendants open themselves up to a lot of cross-examination when they take the stand.
	Let's get to our next question, Terry.
	We have less than a minute, so it has to be quick.
	Kick It's Mackle from YouTube.
	Does the court know that the undercover detective is known for making false accusations?
	This seems like this person's making a statement here.
	We don't know anything about that.
	Well, certainly the court may know, but I don't think anyone else in that courtroom knows.
	For instance, the jury or anyone in the audience that I'm aware of, that has not been introduced.
	They did the voir deer of the undercover agent, and none of that came up during that voir deer.
	The only issue that came up and the only issue that mattered to that judge was whether or not he was in fear of his life and whether he could wear that mask.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, that's a stupid question by the people because winds up happening, guys, before trial is they always do like Giglio conversations, right?
	So anytime an officer has like, you know, issues with, you know, candor or, you know, not being honest in the past or whatever, they would never put them on trial to testify.
	And before any law enforcement officers are supposed to testify, the prosecutor, a lot of the times and the defense gets files of anything that they have.
	So if they have any internal investigations going on, if they have any issues going on like that, giggie old guilty old problems, blah, blah, blah.
	They go ahead and they have to disclose that to the defense.
	So prosecutors, a lot of times, try not to use guys that have shady past or might be under investigation from an internal affairs standpoint or any type of internal investigations.
	So that's all made public to the defense and to the prosecutor.
	And I know this for a fact.
	Why?
	Because when I was an agent and I went to trial, I had to go ahead and sit there with the prosecutor and grill every single agent and every single law enforcement officer that came in that was testifying in the trial and asked them all these uncomfortable questions.
	So I know that for a fact.
	You must screen out every single law enforcement officer that comes in to testify in your trial.
	Well, Terry, thanks so much for being with us.
	Yo.
	Don't deMonko.
	Like the goddamn video because y'all are not going to get this type of insight anywhere else on YouTube because I've actually went to trial.
	I've won trial.
	I've sat there and gathered evidence with the prosecutors, sat there, I've testified hundreds of times, written a bunch of affidavits.
	This is my lane, okay?
	There's not many things that I'm super cocky and arrogant about, but this is one of them because I've actually done these cases.
	I know what I'm talking about when it comes to this stuff.
	So I've actually went to trial before.
	Most law enforcement officers have never went to trial before.
	I went to trial as the case agent, which means I was responsible with the prosecutor for putting everything together, making sure the case stuck and that we had all the evidence that we needed to conclude.
	It was like a three or four day trial.
	It wasn't too long, but it really, you know, shows it, it really tests the strength of your case and it tests your skills as an investigator because everything comes out in a trial, right?
	That's why most prosecutors never want to go to trial.
	So yeah.
	Thanks, everybody, for being with us as well.
	Brian Offi, thank you.
	I'm signing off and Michelle, you will be taking over.
	We'll be back right back.
	You're watching Law and Crime.
	Almost 1,400 of you guys in here.
	Do me a favor.
	Like the video.
	Let's go hit some chats here because this thing is still going here.
	Let me find a good part here that we can cover.
	This is the text messages again.
	Let's see when they bring in this officer and swear him in.
	Okay, so he's there.
	Okay, he's there still.
	Okay, this is a DNA guy from the day before.
	We could talk about him a little bit too, actually.
	You know what?
	So let me just have this right here for y'all.
	Let's read the chats and then I'll go to the DNA guy because he actually brought up some pretty interesting stuff too.
	We got Jerry Procheko.
	Oh, sorry.
	I read this one earlier with Snowden.
	Okay.
	I've noticed the texts are SMS.
	Can they pull up texts like this, even though they're iMessage and they don't have access to either phones?
	Yeah, I mean, they have the phones.
	That's how they're able to get these messages, though.
	I don't play Games of Mind.
	Did you cover Travis Rudolph case?
	No, not yet.
	In Adaze goes, Black Women, you had on the last pod is what a lot of black men want.
	Something feminine, what was your opinion on her?
	I think you mean the girl that sat next to me?
	Yeah, she was cool.
	The girls on the panel yesterday were cool.
	Guts goes, people like Melly need to be put to rest.
	They romanticize murder too much and bring nothing but destruction to the community.
	Yeah, it is what it is.
	I mean, I don't know if he needs to be put to death, but obviously, if you guys look at the crime scene photos, they're pretty bad.
	They're pretty bad.
	He should be put on the stand so he can dry snitch like all these other rappers.
	Homie literally made a song that aided to him being a suspect.
	Yeah, murder on my mind.
	Damn it, bro.
	I literally was looking for this video before it dropped and I was listening to your stuff yesterday.
	So I'm here now, W. Vladimir Gaines.
	I got you, my friend.
	I got y'all, man.
	Don't worry.
	Okay, let's go ahead and play this.
	This is a DNA expert that came in, guys, okay, and testified.
	And something that came out, which I'll talk about a little bit later, was DNA found on the door handle.
	So, let's see if it's covered here and then we'll continue.
	That was on June 1st, 2020.
	Three, approximately three weeks ago?
	Yep.
	Okay, so Matthew, we heard Terry before saying the reason this could be significant is does it not show what the defense amplified in their opening statement that this was sloppy police work?
	Remember, their theory was they targeted YNW Melly because he's famous.
	And maybe they rushed to judgment and not all the avenues were checked and not all every, not all the I's were dotted or T's were crossed.
	I always get that mixed up.
	Sometimes I mess that up, but I got that right there.
	But you know what I'm saying?
	Maybe, is that what this is a sign of?
	Well, yeah, you know, I'm not sure what this does for the prosecution's case other than, you know, make the water a little murky here.
	I mean, you know, why, why even bring it up?
	You have video of Melly getting into the vehicle.
	What do you need to have DNA or some test done while the trial to show that his DNA is there on the door handle?
	All that that does is muddy the water.
	It gives jurors some pause.
	You know, why wasn't this done earlier?
	You know, why take this up so late in this process?
	And it does point to shoddy police work, which is something that if I were a defense attorney, that I would pound away at.
	And this gives me fodder to do that.
	And the prosecution brought it up itself.
	It doesn't add anything significant to the prosecution's case, but it opens the door to the defense to pound away at this shoddy police work.
	Yeah, I think there's something to that in a way, you know, and I think that's what's a little bit concerning.
	And we know the defense has honed in on this.
	They brought up an argument, I think it was yesterday, where they said that you couldn't, and the judge, I think, agreed, you know, there was an issue.
	First, there was a discovery violation that the prosecution engaged in, and the judge was not too happy about that.
	Okay, real quick, just so let's bring this up.
	So, yes, guys, there was a discovery violation.
	I want to say it was either yesterday or the day before.
	What ended up happening, guys?
	So, let me explain what discovery is.
	Discovery, guys, is the process where the prosecutor gives the defense all of the evidence, all of the information on the case on their client, on the defense's client, right?
	And the reason for this is so that both parties have access to the evidence and are able to argue their points, whether it's the prosecution arguing this evidence as an individual too, and the defense defends against the arguments that says, well, you know, there's plausible deniability here.
	It wasn't really my client that did X, Y, Z, blah, blah.
	But the point is, is that both parties need to have the discovery.
	The prosecutor didn't have portions of her case put together for the defense and tried to bring it out during the trial.
	And the judge didn't like that and sanctioned her for it.
	What does that mean?
	Some of that evidence didn't come in.
	Okay.
	And he got a little frustrated with her and told her, Hey, does she have everything that you have?
	Oh, yeah, she has some of the paper.
	No, go get the shit.
	Go print it.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	So he likes, they made a recess for that so she could go print out all the printouts and give it to the defense.
	And obviously that makes the prosecutor look bad, not prepared, et cetera.
	So that didn't look too good.
	But she did get the stuff in.
	They ended up sanctioning her and not using some of the stuff.
	Does that mean that, oh, she's going to get fired?
	She's going to get in trouble.
	No, it just means the evidence doesn't come in.
	The jury wasn't there.
	But when it comes to discovery, it's a very important process, guys.
	And if you mess it up, right, from an agreed, a more egregious fashion, like not turning over everything, then it could be a problem pre-trial.
	But yeah, I mean, yeah, I mean, for them to have a trial and, you know, it's been damn near five years that Millie's been in and they don't have all their ducks in a row, et cetera, it's not good.
	And you could tell that the prosecutor, I'm actually surprised.
	She's pretty much there by herself.
	I haven't seen her with another prosecutor.
	Normally with a case this big, you would want two or three prosecutors on the case.
	Looks like there's only one, which is strange to me.
	Meanwhile, you look at Mellie's table, he has three defense attorneys.
	He has the female, the white guy, and that black male all on his defense team.
	And the prosecutor's pretty much by herself.
	I see like someone next to her, maybe that's like a legal aid or some shit like that.
	But I doubt that's a prosecutor.
	That's all she has.
	So yeah, the DA's office is probably like low on people or something.
	But basically, that's what the discovery issue was.
	There were some documents that the defense didn't have that came from the testimony from the phone information with that FBI agent that I told y'all about a couple of days ago.
	And that's what ended up getting having some discovery problems.
	But then there was also a question of, and that's what it was, right?
	It was the question of you can't do a surprise ambush on the defense by bringing in evidence that they didn't see, that you retested current evidence for a new result.
	And the judge said at one point there was a discovery violation.
	What'd you think of that?
	Well, yeah, the judge ruled that you can't surprise the other side by evidence that you've just unearthed.
	He said clearly, you can continue to investigate a case.
	And if you find exculpatory evidence, you have to turn that over to the defense.
	And it could change your view of prosecuting this case.
	But if you find inculpatory evidence that you discovered after the trial, after the discovery has been completed and the trial has begun, you can't use that.
	Even if it is, you know, it impacts the case, you can't use it because you can't surprise the other side.
	You can't surprise the defense.
	You can't ambush them by bringing up evidence that they've never had any chance to look into themselves.
	And the judge was adamant about that.
	Yep.
	Yeah, that's a big discovery violation.
	Anything that you're going to use for evidentiary purposes, the defense needs to have as well.
	They need to have a mirror image of everything you have.
	That's a good point.
	Let's take a break.
	When we come back, we're going to see what is happening in court.
	And if we're not back live, we still have so much more to talk about in the YNW Melly murder trial.
	back.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	How about the state of Florida?
	I'm sure there's other experts in the state of Florida.
	Is that correct, Madam?
	Yes, right.
	So I want to come in here on my face and testimony from the outside approach to the jury just to verify all that is.
	So Ms. Bradley, I went ahead and inquired.
	How are you as an employee?
	With the Broward County Sheriff's Office.
	How long have you worked in Broward County Sheriff's Office?
	This is 2015.
	Okay, so now they're introducing this detective that I told you about that has the mask on or whatever.
	So she's asking about his professional background.
	How long have you been assigned to the strategic investigations division?
	Since March of 2018.
	And your time in the strategic investigations divisions or SAD, have you worked undercover operations?
	Since that time and before.
	And the undercover operations that you work with, height are they?
	Majority of them are narcotic.
	I ain't gonna lie to you guys.
	This is, yeah, he's talking about narcotics and firearms.
	This is not common that you see an undercover, you know, law enforcement officer testifying in court with a mask on.
	That means that he's probably still very active.
	And from what I understand, he was like green lit by some gang members.
	Firearms, violent crimes, gang-related investigations.
	How many years did you spend specifically in the gang and organized crime section of the strategic investigations division?
	From 20 March 2018 to three weeks ago.
	Have there been credible threats on your life?
	Yes.
	Is there currently a critical threat on your life?
	Yes.
	In terms of the, is there enough?
	So he basically got green lit by somebody, which is why he's testifying in court right now with a mask on.
	And it looks like he was up in the gang unit until three weeks ago.
	They pulled him out, probably for his own safety.
	The money assigned to the death of you that has been offered up?
	Approximately $50,000.
	In terms of your safety and security, why do you wear the mask for that?
	For those reasons.
	So I'm not walking around Broward County, probably in Dick County, anywhere, and get ambushed by someone that might be looking for me.
	We've done cell phone works on multiple people in our county involved in the investigation workout threat.
	And outside of that investigation, there's photographs of deputies being sent around, people trying to figure out who I am and what I look like.
	And that's kind of a concern for me.
	I will say this, that it's a little strange to me that they had to bring him in as a subject matter expert to talk about gangs.
	I mean, you know, normally, whenever you have a subject matter expert, you bring them in to kind of like explain things, right?
	So for example, they asked me to do this before, be a subject matter expert on like human smuggling investigations.
	So like anytime there's a human smuggling case or whatever it may be, I would come in and I would testify and I would explain how it works, how organizations work with taking money, how people are moved, how much it costs, the whole entire process.
	I've explained how human smuggling works on this channel before.
	I don't want to beat you guys with board unless you guys want me to specifically cover it again.
	But you typically have subject matter experts in different disciplines, whether it's a computer forensic agent that comes in and testifies as to how they've got retrieved evidence from a device or Someone who talks about human smuggling, someone talks about human trafficking, someone who talks about drug trafficking, whatever it may be.
	So, I think it's a little weird that they would bring in a guy like this who's kind of pretty much under damn near laying low, right?
	Uh, protective custody almost.
	Well, not protective custody because obviously law enforcement officials so he's not in custody, but he's under uh, you know, he's obviously moving differently.
	It's strange that they would bring him in as a subject matter expert to talk about this, knowing that he's green lit.
	But I mean, I guess he's probably the best at it.
	So, they said, Hey, I want the best person in the county.
	But I mean, they could have easily grabbed someone from another agency to talk about this, right?
	Whether it was, you know, maybe someone from the FBI, someone from homeland.
	I mean, we had a gang unit when I was an agent, right?
	You could have easily brought someone from over there to talk about this stuff.
	So, I, it is a little weird that they're bringing this guy in in particular, but maybe he maybe it's because he has intimate knowledge of the G-Shine bloods.
	That might be why, which you could see when we were talking going through the text messages before that he did have some intimate knowledge of them.
	But it's like kind of a stretch to bring a guy like this that's pretty much wanted dead in Broward County to testify.
	So, person, I'd probably just write it off, but yeah, after five or six cell phones got downloaded, and uh, there was pictures of many deputies being sent around and saying, Is this Danny Polo?
	I'm like, okay, these guys are actually looking for me.
	And so, Detective Polo, with regards to the how many times you testified in court, did you testify earlier this month before the Honorable Judge Martin fine?
	Yes, how were you retired?
	I believe I was right in this suit, probably.
	And in terms of your case, how was that done?
	The same mask.
	Have you testified before the Honorable Judge Michael Usan in this courthouse?
	Yes, was that in or around February and March of this year, 12 injury?
	Yes, and what case was that on?
	That was the XXS sentence case, and that was the death of that individual?
	Yes.
	How many times did you testify in that case?
	I think it was twice.
	How were you retired when you testified then?
	Different suit, same mask.
	And in terms of during that particular testimony, were individuals trying to call your cell phone and get in contact with you during factual testimony?
	Yeah, that happened.
	And was this testimony life changed as long?
	It was live change.
	Thank you.
	Here you go.
	Yes.
	On this issue, go ahead.
	Yes.
	What time did you get to the courthouse today and sit outside just after nine o'clock?
	And were you wearing that mask?
	No, sir.
	In fact, you've been sitting out there for at least an hour on mask as people were walking in and out.
	Correct.
	Are you the only expert in dealing with gangs and DSO?
	I believe I'm the only one that's testified as an expert at the Broward Sheriff's Office currently.
	All right, so he has experience testifying.
	That's another reason why.
	How about State Flower?
	You know?
	I'm sure there's other high schools in the state as well.
	And for the last hour, you've been right outside this courtroom where the doors are, correct?
	Yes.
	Unmasked.
	Yes.
	As people in this group, including myself, were walking in and out, correct?
	Yes, sir.
	You weren't concerned about your safety then?
	No one knows who I was out there.
	And I was under the impression I wasn't going to be allowed to wear the mask.
	So I so if you guys can see here, the defense, you know, they're just beating him up a little bit.
	They're trying to attack his credibility.
	You know what I mean?
	Right.
	And this is what defense attorneys do.
	They kind of grill you and try to make you feel uncomfortable.
	trying to get a rise out of the guy who's saying this like oh you didn't have a mask on earlier blah blah blah thank you So detective or deputy, I'm sorry, which is detectives at the recording.
	You're telling me that there's you have fear for your safety.
	By the way, guys, we got 1,300 y'all in here, man.
	Do me a favor, like the video, man.
	Let's get to 1,000 likes, please, so that we can get this video out to the masses.
	For my safety, but more for the safety of my family.
	And that's if you're faciously broadcast.
	Yes, sir.
	And you're indicating now that there is intelligence from BSO that there's some type of a bounty or price on your life.
	I intercepted it on a court-authorized wiretap through the state of Brown County.
	It was a wire authorized by Chuck Siegel for the gang investigation during that investigation.
	There was conversation about placing a bounty on my head of upwards of $50,000.
	Okay, there we go.
	So there we go.
	So basically, what happened was the state was wiretapping phones, right?
	They had a, you said a court authorized intercept, but that's a fancy way of saying a Title III or a wire, like tapping phones, right?
	Listening to people's phone calls.
	And during the course of those conversations, that's when they heard the credible threat that they wanted to kill him, right?
	And he probably was working in an undercover capacity within the organization.
	So that's why he's in a situation that he's in now because they heard it over T3.
	So now it makes sense.
	And since then, we've, as I stated before, recovered several cell phones and had investigation, other narcotics investigations, firearms investigations, an investigation in South Carolina that was tied to Broward where photographs of deputies were sent with my name attached to it.
	People trying to figure out who I am, what I looked like.
	Thank you, sir.
	Thank you, sir.
	All right, we'll fast forward a bit here.
	And guys, get your questions in.
	I'll be on stream for a little bit longer.
	And then, because it looks like right now, I'm looking, it doesn't look like the trial is still going on anymore.
	Either it's a super long recess or they might have cut it for the day.
	I mean, it is 5 p.m.
	So they might have cut it.
	So let's go ahead and move forward.
	Distraction method or maybe qualitation method.
	So the laboratory will then provide a test.
	Okay, so this is a DNA analyst here, guys, that analyzed the vehicle.
	And just so you guys know, when they analyzed the vehicle the first time, they didn't find Melly's DNA anywhere.
	Then when they went through it a second time earlier this month, right, right before trial, they found Melly's DNA on the door handle.
	So obviously that's going to go ahead and make the prosecution look pretty bad because it looks like, oh, y'all were fishing, blah, blah, blah.
	How come the DNA wasn't shown the first time and now it's being shown this time as you get closer to the trial?
	So that's never a good look, even if it is legit, right?
	But yeah.
	The analyst would conduct, they would process this test and return the results to the agency to see if the results that they've gotten were appropriate for what they did.
	And you have to pass these competency tests or examinations before moving on to the next test.
	The competency tests are done to ensure that you are competent in the technology that is going to be employed in the future.
	So once you pass that initial testing, is there additional yearly or biannual proficiency testing then?
	As a data analyst, I have required to do two proficiency tests per year.
	And in my laboratory, the agency will purchase proficiency tests from a provider.
	I process them, generate my results, my answers, and those are then sent back to the providers to ensure that I'm getting the correct answers.
	Are those an in-house in terms of the scoring and completion of that proficiency testing for the process it in-house, it's reviewed, and then it's sent back to the central court.
	Does the proficiency test require any statistical imperfections?
	And is it we've has the statistical implications changed as the way they've been doing the other DNA and we're the last kind of ruling from the court and all they see with this witness?
	All right, so let me hit some of these chats real quick.
	3 Diglass goes, I'm late on this case, but there's a mugshot of the lady that is defending the kid who had murder on his mind.
	It's on the internet.
	You think that makes things worse for him?
	It doesn't, or it doesn't matter.
	There's a mugshot of the lady that is offending the kid who had murder on his mind.
	3D goes, I'm not too sure what you mean by that question.
	I'm confused.
	FedRex ever going to be on Rumble, WFED Gang.
	Maybe, man.
	Maybe.
	Yeah, I might have to bring some of FedReacts over to Rumble because there are some like violent things and stuff like that that I don't show y'all, especially like the shooting reactions.
	So that might have to come.
	So check this out, guys.
	This video right here, right?
	And this is from the channel.
	As y'all can see, they still have this shit going on.
	It's still not showing.
	that tells me that they might be done for the day with this.
	Sorry about that.
	My bad.
	Accidentally went the wrong way.
	Hit the wrong button.
	Sorry about that.
	So you go back here.
	We're going to go get me a Glock ASAP.
	Why NW Melly allegedly asked mom, right?
	So hold on, let me share the screen real quick with y'all.
	Boom.
	Okay, right here.
	Give me a Glock ASAP.
	And then there are text messages and conversations that are done at or about the time of the murder, including conversations with the defendant's mother.
	So, for example, I'll show your honor now what has been extracted from that same cell phone.
	And this is also information that predates horror.
	So there's no reason or motive to lie or anything at that point because at this point, the victims are still alive.
	And so we also then have the defendants' conversations before and after, which show the same pattern of speech.
	The same as you guys know, you remember this is the prosecutor on the case.
	Way he is communicating on these, which show that he is the individual that had care custody and control of that phone at the time.
	So I'm going to start.
	I appreciate the results on this one.
	And this is from a phone number that is identified as your honor.
	Before we continue, I would respectfully suggest that we take.
	This is the defense attorney talking.
	You know, of course, he's going to get in here and try to, you know, I mean, this is what good lawyers do.
	They object to everything, they question everything, they try to impede everything.
	This is what they do, you know.
	My retort to their argument, PC, so that we don't lose the significance.
	Thanks, Mo H. She's going to counsel for seeking referral.
	Okay, argument and you'll get a chance to speak.
	Thank you.
	So we have this is prior to the homicide.
	This is going to be August 30th of 2018.
	The phone number seven.
	So this is about two months before the murder.
	772-501-6942 that fed to a crazy lady.
	Again, we'll get into why it's a B shortly.
	And you guys, as you guys know, the reason why it's brazy lady instead of crazy lady is because blood gang members don't like to use the word letter C. The next witness in this.
	This is prior to them bringing that detective on.
	See how she's alluding to it.
	Hey, we're going to bring the next witness on.
	That's going to be the gang expert.
	This is the defendant's mother.
	This is Janie King.
	Because if you go to state 63 on the subscriber records, that is the other phone number that is subscribed to Miss Shannie King at that time.
	Okay, so three Diggas clarifies.
	My bad, I meant to say there's a mugshot YW Melly's lawyer going around on the internet.
	Do you think that will make things worse for YMW or things like that?
	Don't matter in this case.
	It won't matter.
	I mean, it could always somewhat hurt the public perception, but if the jury is doing what they're supposed to, they shouldn't be watching the news or watching anything on this case.
	The only thing that they should be getting information on, guys, is the trial, nothing else.
	It probably will do little to nothing to affect the case.
	I mean, people always complain: oh, how did OJ get off?
	How did OJ get off?
	Like, we all knew he was guilty.
	People need to remember that during the OJ trial, the jury members didn't watch the news.
	They were forbidden from watching the news, guys.
	They couldn't look at any outside media coverage on the case.
	They only can see what was displayed in court.
	So remember, the jury isn't there when they're fighting back and forth about discovery or this is going to come and this is going to come in, blah, blah, blah.
	The judge kicks them out and then lets the lawyers argue.
	Then they bring them in to see the evidence.
	So what the jury sees, guys, is a very skewed version of what all of us are seeing right now.
	Like, hell, all of you guys watching this podcast right now have more knowledge probably than the jury does in this investigation because they're specifically instructed to not watch anything pertaining to the Melly trial outside of what they see in the courtroom.
	So, you know, enforcing that's a whole other thing, but typically they're not supposed to.
	So that's why it probably will make little to no difference in the actual investigation because they can only use what was the evidence used during the trial to formulate their conclusions.
	And that's why OJ got off, man.
	His lawyers did a really good job of steering the evidence in a way where the jury was like, okay, there's reasonable doubt here, despite the fact that the general public was watching news coverage, saw all this other evidence, right?
	That didn't come into trial and thought, man, OJ did it.
	But if you're a juror back then, you're like, yo, I only had this stuff to go off of.
	It's not enough for me to say he's guilty.
	And that's how he got off.
	They created reasonable doubt.
	Additionally, defense counsel provided Jamie King's records to the state to show that that is her phone number and represented it as such.
	So this is discussions and where he is calling her mom about and talking about the argument and the fight between the defendant, Sack Chaser, and as he's referred to at this bottom message, where she is talking to Mr. Dennons about that person, showing that it is not Sack that is on the other end of this line or this particular phone call.
	Moving on, and then we also have.
	That's also another speculation for why Mellie killed Sack Chaser.
	It was because there was beef between Sack Chaser and Melly's mom.
	There was like some kind of disagreement.
	There's a bunch of rumors because one of the biggest things in this trial is like, well, why would Mellie kill his two best friends?
	And, you know, there's theories and stuff like that.
	There's one about, like I told y'all before, with Sack Chaser, and then the other one is that they were standing to make some money, right, from I think selling the YW copyright or trademark.
	And he would have had to pay them a couple hundred thousand dollars.
	And he didn't want to do that.
	So he had them killed so that he would get a bigger lump of the money.
	So that's another theory as to why he killed them.
	But it's not clear-cut yet why they're where the motive is.
	We're a discussion.
	This is still August 30th and talking about how I don't know what's all going on.
	He's talking, making a live video talking about your mother.
	It's going to make people hate you.
	That's why I have never and would never do that.
	I love you.
	And that's your best friend.
	This is not for social media.
	And then you repeat that, please.
	So if you go through this whole conversation here, starting with how is his sister going on social media talking about punching me in face, my fault, from the individual that's been identified as Jamie King by the phone records, by the subscriber records that are in evidence already.
	Then going on to reply is you started it by texting his mama.
	It's going to be problems and not even knowing what you're talking about.
	You a grown-ass lady doing childish shit.
	Ain't nobody tell you to text her.
	She minding her business going to work.
	Yeah, so this is hilarious.
	They're just going back and forth on you can see her and Sack Chaser arguing here.
	You effing with her.
	The response then, she could have called me or texted me back, not have you or daughter all on social media talking about fighting me like I cussed her.
	I didn't even say one cuss word when I texted her.
	I said nothing disrespectful and you know it.
	I wish you took up from me like that when Aunt cussed me out and tried to fight me.
	Again, this is talking about Anthony Williams on that.
	So like I said before, the next message on August 30th, I don't know what's all going on.
	You're talking about making a live video talking about your mother.
	It's going to make people hate you.
	That's why I have never and would never do that because I love you and that's your best friend.
	This is not for social media.
	So continuing on, next page.
	Hey guys, 50 more likes and we'll hit 1k likes.
	Do me a favor, like the goddamn video.
	All right, we got 1400 y'all in here.
	like the video.
	In this particular page, this is again referring to these social media conversations on that with regards to Anthony Williams and the defendant's mother.
	So for here, no, I'm not your actions.
	I take up for you.
	I have for those of you just joining, this is Mellie's mom talking to Sack Chaser.
	For some of you guys that might not know, one of the theories as to why Mellie killed his friends was because of the beef that Sack Chaser, who was the guy in the front seat, by the way, the darker individual, why Melly killed his friends.
	This argument between Sack Chaser and Mellie's mom, shown here through text, actually, brazy lady, might add some credence to that theory.
	People telling me your son doesn't care about you.
	That Jamal Demon's mother is Jamie King.
	Here she is identifying that she is speaking to her son in that.
	So then I want to go then to after the time of the homicide.
	All right, so now we're fast forwarding post homicide, post-murder.
	So these are conversations were in August of 2018, two months before the murder.
	In which Jamie King is sending a text message to her son, send me your location.
	I'm in Stewart.
	I love you so much.
	He then sends a return, the location showing at or about the time of the crime as to who was using and doing that.
	Oh shit, here we go.
	Okay, love you again from Jamie King.
	I'm at your gate.
	I'm going to get the trash.
	The next response is bring Mariah, which you honor already heard testimony that Felicia Holmes, her daughter, Mariah Hamilton, was in a dating relationship with this defendant and that at this time, and that there were conversations and that she has identified Mariah as Maria Hamilton.
	Okay, so maybe this, okay, was this is this Mellie then?
	I guess maybe this is Mellie's phone number here.
	It's confusing because it says, yeah, young Sack Chaser Howard.
	Okay.
	Then there is okay.
	It continues.
	He then asks his mother to buy him a Glock.
	Okay, so this is Mellie.
	All right, my bad about that, guys.
	Why the fuck does it say Sack Chaser then?
	That's confusing.
	Because that's the Sack Chaser is one of the people that people that were killed.
	ASAP.
	And telling her, like, go now.
	So she then responds, okay, what's wrong?
	She says, I got your 45.
	Then his response, I just don't want no illegal gun.
	Well, that's not illegal.
	Continuing on, but I'd rather have a Glock 40 for a 19.
	She says, okay.
	His response is, I'll pay you when you get down here.
	She then says, okay.
	Then.
	Your Honor, I object to this.
	Is she going to read the entire poem?
	This is not, this does not go to the heart of our objection.
	Okay, so obviously defense attorney is doing what defense attorneys do, Best objecting everything, right?
	Because, you know, this could be pretty damaging, right, to the defense.
	So he's objecting here, trying to get a prosecutor off her run here.
	Being done for the cameras.
	Counsel, I asked her to put on a prop of what she anticipated.
	This is what she's telling me and how it's rolled.
	Go ahead.
	Continuing on, there's been discussions about other witnesses.
	I'm waiting on track to cash at me the thousand.
	Who's track, guys?
	She's referring to track 100.
	That is Melly's manager.
	$10,000.
	And then she asks, Is someone threatening you?
	To which he replies, No, Ma.
	This is his mother that he's talking to.
	And he's saying, I'm not scared.
	Just listen.
	This is clear proof and evidence that this is Jamel Dimmon's phone because he's speaking with his mother on that one.
	So on the last one that showed November 3rd, 2018, love you too, Ma, Ma, and yes, son on that, where she is identifying that is the phone that is being used by her son, and that is on the subscriber list.
	However, that's not the only thing.
	In addition, the defendant also, in other conversations at or about the time of the homicide, sends a photo of his driver's license to someone to be able to authenticate.
	Oh, shit, bruh.
	Oh, shit!
	And show specific items in terms of going through and setting up a rental.
	And even has so much as puts the address of 805 Northeast 4th Avenue.
	What's the date of that, Counsel?
	That one is September 28th, 2018.
	That shows that the defendant has previously been to the studio and knows that.
	And this is a conversation with Adrian Davis, in which he is using this phone, sending in pictures of his driver's license in this phone.
	And some of the other pictures and items that Your Honor has in front of you, there's pictures of credit cards, front and back, with the defendant's name on them.
	There are multiple in things that show that this phone was being used by the defendant, Jamel Demons.
	There is no evidence before Your Honor that it was being used at the time of the crime anymore.
	In addition, the defendant is seeking on camera in possession of a phone as he is leaving the studio on October 26th of 2018.
	At that point, there's a phone in his hand.
	That phone then tracks, and you can follow on all of the call detail records and all of the mapping that was done put in yesterday to show that this phone goes from the studio and is consistent with the phone of Anthony Williams, which is the other phone that's on there on T-Mobile, and all the way out to the scene of the crime.
	Bam.
	So, you know, prosecutor doing a little bit of cooking right there.
	You know what I'm saying?
	We got 1,500 of you guys here right now.
	So there we have favors.
	Like the video.
	Okay.
	We got 1,000 likes.
	Let's get up to 1,500 if we can.
	Yeah, let's see what else we got.
	Okay.
	Let's go back to the law and crime network.
	Let's get to 1,500 likes, guys.
	Let's see here.
	YW Melly.
	Okay, so I think this just finally finished.
	All right.
	So, yeah, so they never ended up coming back, guys.
	So we saw the testimony from that guy.
	Let's see what else here we can find.
	You got the Kohlberger trial as well.
	Well, you know, let's see.
	Well, YW Bortland take the stand.
	Is a defendant smiling in court a normal thing?
	In your opinion, is the defendant usually found guilty when showing that type of body language?
	Well, I think a defendant smiling in court is a normal thing.
	You have to remember that it's very nerve-wracking and you automatically have responses that you really cannot control.
	So also, I just want you guys, if you guys notice, he asked for the gun after the murders, okay?
	This is very important, right?
	Why would he ask for a gun after the murders?
	I'm speculating because he got rid of the murder weapon.
	Because as you guys know, in this trial, one of the big things that the prosecution does not have is they don't have the murder weapon, guys, which is important because that would be able to establish, you know, the rounds, when the gun was shot, et cetera, the cat making caliber.
	They don't have any of that.
	Okay.
	So what I think is after the shooting happened, more than likely, Melly got rid of the weapon, either throwing it away or giving it away to a friend, which is why he needed a replacement gun right after the fact.
	Okay.
	So that's my, that's purely speculation.
	Obviously, we can't prove that, but that could be a reason as to why he asked his mom for a gun right after the murder.
	I think if you see someone smiling and they're fidgeting around, it could just very well be nerves.
	Now, I will say that in the past, I do think that Melly has been more active and more pronounced.
	Today, he is very serious.
	I've seen less smiles and certainly there are no antics going on.
	And as far as the jury is concerned, the jury does look at the defendant at every move and every motion that that defendant makes because they're trying to make a determination as to whether or not the defendant is guilty or innocent.
	And so I think they are looking at him.
	It doesn't seem to me because I'm looking at the faces of all these jurors.
	We have 15 jurors.
	We have nine women and six men.
	They actually seem to be paying more attention to the witness.
	And they think, you know, at least it seems as though they're thinking that whatever it is that's going on on the defense table is something that might be normal.
	It doesn't seem as though they're using it against him.
	So at the end of the day, I don't think that the antics will be used against him.
	No way to really tell.
	But right now, he is being very serious.
	And I think we should point out, in fairness to Melly, a lot of what we saw during the first week of the trial with the praying and the blowing of kisses and all this stuff, a lot of that happened outside the presence of the jury.
	It was captured by our camera, but the jury is not supposed to be watching anything regarding this case.
	Told you guys.
	So the jury probably won't see this right here, which you guys are about to see right now.
	At least not during the trial.
	They shouldn't have seen any of that.
	All they should see is what's going on right there in front of them in the courtroom.
	Next question comes from Miranda O'Gannier from YouTube.
	Linda Kenny Botton, are they going to revisit the evidence of the shots in the car?
	Because multiple of those bullet holes would have gone through Bortland and Melly if they was in the car.
	And that shows that they both got out.
	Well, that's interesting because I do not know because I don't have the list whether the defense has a reconstruction expert, a crime scene reconstruction expert, and whether or not they feel the need to use that or whether or not they feel that they poked enough holes in the cross-examination of the prosecution's expert to say that indeed it shows that, you know, only one of them maybe could have gotten out.
	But if I were the defense right now, and I'm a big one for putting on a defense case, I so you guys can see here, look at the bullet holes on the right-hand side of the vehicle, right?
	However, we know that the victims were shot from the left side of the vehicle, okay?
	So Melly was sitting in the back seat right here.
	One of the victims was sitting here.
	Another victim was sitting here.
	And then you had Bortland in the front driver's seat.
	So the gunshots came from here from left to right, not from right to left is how these bullet holes illustrate.
	So it doesn't make sense.
	It doesn't drive, which is a big hole in Melly and Bortland's story.
	Mellie didn't give a statement to the police, but Bortland did.
	And Bortland said that they had got shot in a drive-by shooting, which doesn't match with the wounds.
	I'm not sure I would use a crime scene reconstructionist here.
	But again, I'd have to see the reports.
	And sometimes you just have to live the case.
	But you see how close attention our viewers are paying?
	That's the same type of attention and questions in their head that jurors have.
	We got 1,100 likes, guys.
	Let's get it up to 1,500, man.
	We got almost 1,600 of y'all in here.
	Like the video.
	Let's get to 1,500 likes.
	Right now.
	Most certainly.
	One thing we should point out, too, that I think is really interesting.
	And we haven't heard this testimony yet, Linda, but Christine Bradley, the assistant state attorney, said in her opening that the evidence, the medical examiner is going to testify that Juvie and Sack Chaser were dead when the bullets were fired into the vehicle, not from.
	That's huge, guys.
	So, and they're going to be able to tell this because when the heart isn't beating anymore, you're not going to bleed as profusely.
	So that's how they're going to, that's how they knew that when they got shot during this drive-by shooting, that they were already dead.
	The back seat where they claim they were fired from.
	So that'll be some interesting testimony when that comes up.
	Yeah, Jay Sink.
	Yeah, guys, they're estimating that this trial is good.
	For the new viewers that just came in, they're estimating that this trial is going to be done by the end of July, guys.
	That means that they're going to go for over a month in this trial.
	So for everyone saying, oh, yo, the prosecutor is sucking it up, bro.
	She's got a lot of time, bro.
	So exclamation point from YouTube, Bridget, asks, question.
	When do you think they will start trying to bring in his music into it?
	And will it have a big impact on what the jury might think?
	I got an answer on this, but let's see what these chicks say and we can give you guys my answer.
	Not really sure, Bridget, that they're going to go there.
	Right.
	I don't think so either.
	That's an interesting question.
	I know that, you know, sometimes the state will bring in evidence from a defendant's social media, from their music, from their lyrics.
	He has a song that it's called Murder on My Mind.
	And so I don't know if the state is going to be bringing that in right now.
	It's their job to show that he, in fact, was the killer in this particular situation.
	And so if I were the prosecution, I would be focusing on, you know, the fact that he was in the vehicle at the time.
	He was the person who made the shots that came from within the vehicle.
	Yeah.
	And I hate to bring this up again, but in the opening statement, Christine Bradley said something like about music being artistic expression.
	We won't be getting into that, but she did talk about social media messages.
	So maybe the.
	Yeah, the prosecutor did say that they weren't going to use the music against them.
	And normally they don't use music, guys.
	They only use music if it aligns with what they said.
	And a lot of times they use the music, maybe like in Rico cases, like they use Casanova's lyrics against them.
	They use YSL's lyrics against them, which if you guys want, break it.
	You could look at my YSL video where I talk about this in more detail.
	But in this case, where it's murder, they're not going to use it as much because they got a lot of physical evidence too.
	They don't need to.
	But when it comes to gang stuff, RICO cases, they are going to use the music, and they did it for Bobby Shimurta as well.
	Now, the reason for that is because they're illustrating that the music in itself is done to increase the status and hierarchy of the gang, which plays into the racketeering statutes a lot of the times.
	Judge didn't let them go there.
	And maybe the prosecution is just saying we're not even going to touch it because bringing in rap music lyrics has been a kind of a controversial thing, bringing this stuff into trials across the country.
	And if you guys notice, it only works when you bring it into RICO/slash gang cases because they can use the music as an as a tool or a piece of evidence to show that the music is being used in furtherance of the criminal and gang activity to intimidate, you know, rivals, talk about rivals, brag about rivals, increase their stature.
	All of this plays into it.
	So even though you have that First Amendment right to free speech, it absolutely could be used against you, especially within the context of gang investigations.
	All right.
	So if you want to be a rapper and you want to talk about your gang, I wouldn't do it.
	Nope.
	That's definitely going to be wrong.
	Terry, let's get a question over to you now.
	This is from Jessica Ann from Facebook.
	Has the prosecutor lost the jury?
	Yeah, someone mentioned AR Ab and Philly.
	Yeah, that's a good example.
	Probably one of the worst self-snitches I've ever seen, man.
	And don't worry, guys, I'll do AR Ab as well.
	He probably, I would say, the worst self-snitcher ever.
	With all of this long testimony.
	Well, yeah, that's a very good question.
	I think in the beginning, yes, they had witnesses on the stand who went on and on talking about information that really wasn't relevant, just sort of trying to teach the jury what was going on from an evidentiary standpoint.
	But now they're putting on witnesses who are fairly quick getting up and down.
	And so I think the jury is paying attention to these witnesses because it's not prolonged.
	Now, on cross-examination, I do think the defense is doing a really nice job at disputing some of the information, making it seem like they didn't go far enough or they're not doing an analysis or they're not the expert.
	All right, guys, let's get 50 more likes so we can hit 1,200, okay?
	Let's get to 1,200 likes.
	50 more.
	Like the video, guys, please.
	Experts to really talk about the data.
	It's mostly forensic data and that can be boring.
	I agree.
	But I do think this is a very tentative jury and they are paying close attention to everything that's going on on that witness stand.
	I don't think they're being distracted by anything in that courtroom.
	They're paying very close attention.
	All right.
	Linda, this next question I'll send over to you.
	It's actually, we kind of have two questions put together from two different viewers.
	Nina Stanick from YouTube, who is from Switzerland.
	So thanks for tuning in from Switzerland.
	And Joe Nose from YouTube.
	Both are asking about Cortland Henry, the co-conspirator who's charged separately in this case and will face trial at a later date in a separate trial.
	Asked, do you think Cortland will take the stand and snitch on Melly?
	Is Bortland a state witness in the case?
	Will he have his own trial?
	So yes, he's going to have his own trial.
	I answered part of that.
	But Linda, the rest to you about, do you think Courtland will take the stand and will he snitch?
	That's a question that we just talked about with this a little bit different bet.
	Thank you, Nina and Joe.
	Because the question is, will he snitch now?
	Remember, he could be a witness, but I would imagine that if he gets on the stand and decides to snitch, right, what's the defense going to do?
	What did you do?
	You found God when it was decided that you had to have your own trial in your own death penalty case.
	And just so you guys know, he's also going to be put on trial for this murder as well.
	He's not looking at the death penalty.
	And he's been on house arrest all this time.
	So he's actually been out.
	Meanwhile, Melly's been in jail, didn't have Bond.
	So now you want to talk about YNW, Melly?
	You didn't say that before.
	You didn't say that before you got a deal.
	And the deal saves your life, not his, doesn't it?
	And there you go.
	The defense really has a lot to work with.
	My impression is, no, he won't take the stand, even though the prosecution may decide they need him because they're losing the jury.
	Yeah, I don't I don't I don't think Portland's going to be taking the stand.
	I just don't, I think it's too risky for the prosecution.
	Plus, he's accused of murder.
	I just don't think it's going to happen.
	TT by three from Instagram, can someone explain the car stealing or car stealing situation?
	Was it Melly in the?
	I think if the prosecution doesn't feel like they have proved their case, they're going to put him on the stand 100%, 100%.
	So I think that's kind of their X factor.
	You know, their ace in the hole is they have him ready to testify.
	They're trying not to use him, obviously, because they don't want it to be attacked just like that woman had said, oh, you got a deal.
	Oh, you're you're only testifying so that you don't go to prison for life or whatever it may be.
	So I think the prosecution is trying to not use Bortland if they can avoid it.
	But I think if push comes to shove and they don't think that they made the strongest case that they can make and they're not sure where the jury stands, they will absolutely put him on the stand and have him testify against Mellie.
	Rear drivers, Bortland in the rear because even though, right, they always say, oh, well, you know, one crook's testimony isn't enough to put another crook in jail.
	That's true.
	However, if Bortland gets on the stand and says, okay, I was driving and Melly shot them and, you know, I heard the gunshots, blah, blah, blah.
	Even though Bortland is looked at as a liar, because remember, he's the one that made this whole fucking drive-by shooting up bullshit in the first place.
	Even though he's a liar, the thing that's going to save him and make him credible is that his testimony against Melly will be substantiated and most importantly, corroborated by the physical evidence.
	It's going to show the wound patterns match up.
	It's going to show they stopped at this rural area to shoot into the car.
	It's going to show that he left Mellie and went to the memorial hospital to go ahead and drop the bodies off.
	And Mellie was there, you know, FaceTiming his girl and his mom saying, hey, come pick me up, blah, blah, blah.
	So even though he's not a credible witness because he's lied before and he's also on trial for murder as well, his testimony is going to be corroborated by the physical evidence, which that in itself is what authenticates his testimony and makes it valid because it's going to line up with the physical evidence that they have.
	So what I see or what I suspect is the prosecution is going to go as far as they can without Bortland, assess, can we win without him?
	If the answer is, eh, I don't know, they're going to put his ass on the stand and tell him, all right, tell us what the fuck happened.
	And then they're going to cut him a deal.
	That's what's probably more than likely going to happen if the prosecution isn't able to bring this thing full circle or some piece of evidence gets taken away that can't be used, etc.
	We've seen that there's been discovery issues during this case.
	So that's what I predict is going to happen.
	He's going to be the X factor.
	Passenger and the two victims in front.
	So Bridget, can you clear that up for TT by three?
	Okay, so that's an interesting question.
	She's asking.
	Like the goddamn video.
	I'm giving y'all better insight than these four bimbos on screen.
	If they're who was all located in the vehicle and where they were.
	So I guess I would say from the, we will go back to what the camera shows.
	And I mean, I think that's the clearest indicator of where these, where everyone was.
	You had where Mellie was in the back of the vehicle, and the forensics team is stating that that is where the initial shots came from, from the back of the vehicle.
	And that's why they are putting this murder on Mellie because they are saying that the shot initial shot came from the back seat of the vehicle that was from where Mellie was sitting at.
	Yeah, so they say they are saying Mellie was in the back driver's side and then one victim up front, another victim next to him.
	So that's why, kind of what they're saying here in this case.
	Our next question, Terry Austin, at user NQH1 or high one from YouTube, why doesn't the state seem to have solid evidence so far?
	Seems a reach to convict a man on such small evidence.
	So this is somebody who doesn't believe that the case is very strong.
	What do you have to say about that?
	I'll get my opinion on this here in a second.
	I want to see what the women say.
	Let's see.
	Well, this is a circumstantial case, and sometimes it's very difficult to prove a circumstantial case.
	You don't have a witness who can say, I was there.
	I saw exactly what happened.
	So to that extent, it is a weak case.
	But if they do it correctly, they can put forensics in.
	I mentioned this before, but they need to make sure they have the phone data.
	They need to make sure that they have any sort of cameras that might have been outside to view the cars.
	They need to get the information from the cars to see where the cars went.
	And so I think if they put all of that forensic data together and they do it well and they analyze it, they can pinpoint what exactly happened.
	You know, as far as the car, we do have the video of the individuals getting into the car.
	And what the prosecution is claiming is, yes, you're right.
	We have Melly in the back and he's in the back behind the driver.
	We have Christopher Thomas, who's in the back on the passenger side.
	And we have Anthony here.
	All right.
	So here you can see here, this is Melly right here, guys.
	You can see this is his satchel.
	It's weighed down a bit.
	We don't know what's in there.
	And Sack Chaser is already seated in the front.
	And then this dude, Chris, the light-skinned guy with the dreads, is seated in the back over here.
	And Bortland's already in the driver's seat.
	They went in first.
	And then Melly's the last one to come out.
	In the front on the passenger side, and they have Henry as the driver.
	So that is what the prosecution is claiming.
	And they're going to have to prove that with the forensic evidence that they have.
	And so far, that's what they're putting in.
	And I think it's really, I wouldn't say it's a weak case.
	I would say it's a difficult case.
	And it's a very interesting case.
	It's got a lot of people watching and paying attention.
	We are going to take a quick break.
	Keep the questions coming.
	Yeah.
	So the thing is that the reason why this guy said, oh, it's a weak case, blah, blah, bro, stupid.
	The case just started.
	It's been, it's day seven.
	This is going to be a month long plus trial.
	So obviously they don't have all the evidence out there yet.
	Like you don't have everything.
	You don't have the totality of the circumstances in front of you.
	So it's very, it's too early to make an assessment and say, oh, this case is weak, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	Like, yes, this is a circumstantial case.
	And I've talked to you guys about circumstantial cases where the evidence on its own typically doesn't look as good.
	If you get, put each piece of evidence, oh, well, his phone showed that he traveled like this.
	Oh, well, if you look at the wound pattern, it's not, it's from left to right.
	Oh, if you look at the bullets of the hole in the cards on the right-hand side, each piece of evidence by itself is weak.
	But when you put each piece of evidence next to each other in tandem, it tells a story that there's only one logical conclusion.
	Okay.
	So a case like this is going to take more time.
	So for the people that are sitting there saying, oh, this is a weak case, this prosecutor Dodo should do it, blah, blah, blah, blah.
	Is the prosecutor the best?
	Eh, it doesn't look like it.
	To me, it looks like she's still overworked.
	And I'm shocked that she doesn't have a second chair with her.
	That's actually really shocking to me.
	But that doesn't mean that the case isn't going to be strong.
	But when it's a circumstantial case, it means you have to sit there and wait and be patient and look for all the pieces of evidence to come out because all the evidence together tells a story.
	You can't go off of one piece here, one piece there.
	Oh, this is weak.
	That was it, blah, blah, blah.
	You got to blend everything together.
	And it's amazing to me how so few people don't understand how the justice system works and or how evidence is presented in a case, what circumstantial evidence is, why you need to look at everything.
	Like this case, right?
	If you just look, even if you look at the little clips here and there, it's not going to do it justice.
	You honestly have to watch damn near the whole trial to really understand everything.
	Obviously, I'm giving it to you guys and summarizing it for y'all, but the case is much more complex than a lot of people want to admit.
	So you have to pay attention to know what the hell is going on.
	But the prosecution absolutely does have a strong case.
	I've broken this down in other videos.
	But the problem is that it's circumstantial.
	But circumstantial cases can be strong cases if you hear out all the pieces of evidence because then it allows you to come to a logical conclusion of, all right, this is the only way that this could have been done.
	And then when you look at like the nonsensical story that the defendants came up with, which is what?
	They got hit in a drive-by shooting in a different location, right?
	Like on Interstate 75 or something like that, versus it was really proven that they got they were shot.
	The drive-by shooting was done in a more desolate area by Miramar and the police went back there, were able to find shards of glass that matched the Jeep, right?
	Like all these things of evidence, again, though on its own, it doesn't look strong when you put it all together to match up with the phone because the phone is what got them to the area to go back and look for the shards of glass.
	When they tested the shards of glass, it proved that it matched the vehicle that they had in custody.
	See how it all built upon itself, right?
	So that's what you got to do.
	You got to have critical thinking skills.
	But a lot of the people, I'll be honest, are fucking retards.
	If I'm going to be all the way 1,000, a lot of people are stupid and don't understand how circumstantial evidence works and how you need to pay attention and know every piece of evidence so that it all makes sense.
	So, you know, for all the people saying, oh, yeah, this is a weak case, blah, blah.
	Number one, they're not done.
	They still got another month, which I'm shocked that it's going to take that long.
	And then number two, the defendant's story is so asinine that there's no way that could have happened, right?
	Like if they had a better cover story, right?
	Like maybe someone else shot them.
	It wasn't a drive-by or whatever, then I'd be a little bit more inclined to be like, okay, maybe the prosecution doesn't have that strong of a case.
	But the defensive story is so fucking clown world that it's very obvious.
	And they lied.
	Like all the people that they interviewed, Fredo Bang, all Melly's friends, all the other people, not just Cortland Henry.
	They interviewed all of Melly's friends.
	All those guys that were there in the Red Mitsubishi that you guys saw, the police interviewed them too.
	And they all gave stories that didn't make sense.
	Oh, yeah, I drove Melly here.
	We went here, blah, blah.
	Police go ahead.
	They do cell location data on their phones.
	They show y'all niggas didn't go anywhere that you guys said.
	So everyone is lying.
	The physical evidence doesn't match the wound patterns and the DNA and the death records, right?
	The forensic examiner's information doesn't match up what they're saying, right?
	The people, the victims were clearly dead, but then the bullet holes were shot into the vehicle after the fact.
	All this shit is like, bruh, like he killed him.
	It's a thousand percent.
	Melly shot them and killed him.
	Now it's on the government to prove it.
	But if you look at the other story, it makes zero fucking sense.
	That's why I say so many people like lack common sense.
	Like, so many people are so dumb.
	Melly's innocent, bruh.
	He isn't.
	He definitely killed him.
	You know what I mean?
	Now it's on the government to prove it.
	Um, but yeah, I mean, and here, this is just so y'all know.
	Like, I like Wynne W. Melly.
	I think his music is great.
	I think he's very uh talented.
	I mean, if he beats the case, good for him.
	Like, I'll be like, all right, cool.
	We can listen to the music again.
	But for me to sit here and tell y'all, objectively speaking, that he's innocent would be a lie.
	Like, it's very, it's very obvious that he killed him.
	It's just on the prosecutor to prove it, but y'all got to give her enough time.
	She has another month of evidence that she has to go through a bunch of more witnesses.
	But I think by the end of this, he's probably going to get convicted, guys.
	He probably will because their story is so like far-fetched that there's no way that they got hit in a drive-by shooting.
	Like, come on, man.
	You know, it doesn't make sense.
	And on top of that, like, Melly tried to say he wasn't at the scene.
	And then later on, he releases a documentary where he admits he was at the scene.
	Yeah, I'll show y'all.
	Look, just so y'all know, I'm not fucking capping here.
	That's another thing, too.
	A lot of people don't know this case that well, and they're just like assuming they know, but they don't really know anything.
	So they're just like watching this for the first time.
	Look at this shit.
	Keep in mind, he said that he was not at the crime scene, or like he tried to make himself not be at the crime scene.
	Look at this shit four days after the completion of this film.
	Wynne W. Melly and his friends were targets of a drive-by shooting in Miami, Florida.
	Wand W. Juby and YW Sack Chaser were killed.
	Why is this important?
	Because it puts Melly at the scene.
	Like self-snitching in his own documentaries.
	Come on, man.
	Come on.
	All these idiots in the chat trying to say, oh, bro, like, oh, he wasn't even there.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	Nigga, in his own documentary.
	Look at this shit.
	Like, come on, man.
	Anyway, common sense is so common.
	It amazes me how stupid people really are.
	Like the video, guys.
	All right.
	But guys, I think that's going to conclude today's coverage on the thing.
	If I have time tomorrow, I'll cover it again.
	It seems like you guys really enjoy these live breakdowns.
	Give me ones in the chat if y'all like me doing these live breakdowns of the trial.
	Because I might start doing this more for you guys.
	Anytime there's like a high-profile trial, give me ones in the chat if you guys like it.
	Twos if you don't.
	One if you like it, two if you don't.
	Because what I'll probably do is anytime there's like big cases in there on trial live, I could watch it with you guys and give you more insight and everything else like that.
	Because, you know, I totally understand that watching trial can be dry and boring as fuck, which is why so many people don't know what the fuck is going on because they can't sit there, you know, through all the monotony and all the boringness and be able to cipher through all the bullshit and be able to get like the pertinent information.
	I understand that.
	I mean, hell, even for me, it's annoying.
	So I get it.
	But if y'all enjoy it, man, you get it.
	You want to watch trials with your boy Myron Gaines?
	So I can go ahead and explain shit to y'all.
	I'd be happy to do that.
	Okay.
	It looks like it's all resounding once.
	Cool.
	All right.
	Yeah.
	I'll do that for high-profile cases for you guys.
	But yeah, guys, do me a favor.
	Let's see here.
	How many likes we're at here?
	We are at we got 1600 y'all in here, but we only got 1.2.
	Come on, man.
	Get it to 1.5, guys.
	Stop being fucking ninja watchers.
	Just smash that like button.
	I really appreciate it.
	But let's see.
	I don't see any super chats here.
	If you guys got any last-second questions, get them in now.
	Get them in now.
	I'll answer it before I get off air.
	Give you guys a minute.
	Any last-minute questions, go ahead and shoot them here and I will answer them before I get off air.
	All right.
	Doesn't look like anything's coming in.
	Cool, cool.
	We got 1.3.
	And I'll get time stamps up for you guys here as well very soon.
	So, cool, cool, cool.
	All right.
	Love you guys.
	I'm going to catch you guys on the next episode of Fed It.
	I'll probably do.
	Yeah, I'll do Young Dolph eventually, guys.
	I just got to get the documents for him.
	Is a phone and gun shaved not really obvious on the case?
	It was him.
	Yeah, bro.
	Dude, people are stupid, dude.
	People are really dumb.
	You got to remember that a lot of people, right, are like kind of clouded by their judgment is clouded because they like Wynne W. Melly as a fan, which I completely understand.
	But you got to be able to be objective.
	Like me, for example, I like his music, but I can look at the evidence and be like, yeah, bro, like he shot these dudes.
	There's no way around it.
	You know?
	When the next party, Trey Gaines.
	I don't know when the next party is.
	Y'all know I don't drink like that.
	So, yeah.
	All right, guys.
	Like the video.
	I'll be back maybe tomorrow.
	Do another live stream for you guys before Fresh and Fit.
	Since you guys really like this trial coverage, that was the YMW Meli murder trial on day seven.
	We'll see what happens.
	I'll catch you guys on the next episode of Fed Reacts.
	Love y'all.
	Peace.
	I'm special agent with homelands investigations, okay, guys?
	HSI.
	This is what Fed Reacts covers.
	Defender Jeffrey Williams, an associate of YSL, did commit the felony.
	Here's what 6ix9ine actually got.
	I got to conspirate.
	This attack shifted the whole U.S. government.
	This guy got arrested for espionage, okay?
	Trading secrets with the Russian.

▲