Man wanted for allegedly stabbing estranged wife to death outside elementary school
Metropolitan Nashville Police Department
(NASHVILLE) — A man is at large after allegedly stabbing his estranged wife to death outside the elementary school where she worked, Nashville police said.
Niurka Alfonso-Acevedo, 52, was attacked Monday morning outside Chadwell Elementary when she arrived for her custodian job, according to the Metro Nashville Police Department. The stabbing occurred before students had arrived for the school day, police said.
Detectives believe her estranged husband, 54-year-old Candido Raul Rubio-Perez, was lying in wait for her in the parking lot, according to police. He fled the scene after the attack.
A school staff member found Alfonso-Acevedo — who had worked at the school since October — lying in the parking lot and called 911, according to police and the school district.
“Our thoughts are with the victim’s family, friends, and the entire Chadwell Elementary community during this time of loss,” Metro Nashville Public Schools said in a statement.
“There is no ongoing threat to the safety of students or staff,” the school district added.
Rubio-Perez is wanted for criminal homicide, police said.
Anyone with information about Rubio-Perez’s whereabouts is urged to call Crime Stoppers at 615-742-7463. A reward up to $5,000 is available, police said.
(NEW YORK) — A former assistant to Sean “Diddy” Combs concluded three days on the witness stand, with attorneys for the music mogul grilling her so intensely that a prosecutor asked the judge to stop the cross-examination, calling it “humiliating” and “harassing.”
The witness, testifying under the pseudonym “Mia,” told jurors last week that Combs tormented and sexually assaulted her during her time working as his personal assistant.
Defense attorneys tried to assail her credibility over her last two days appearing on the stand, pressing her about dozens of text messages and social media posts she authored about Combs that were playful, respectful and even adoring.
Combs’ lawyers argued Mia misrepresented how Combs treated her and fabricated part of her story. Mia largely stood by her testimony, telling jurors that she was “brainwashed” by Combs and explained that she now wants to speak truthfully about the years of harassment and abuse she endured.
“It’s the worst thing I ever had to talk about in my life,” Mia told the jury about her reluctance to talk about how Combs sexually assaulted her.
Mia’s testimony marked the beginning of the fourth week of testimony in Combs’ sex-trafficking and racketeering conspiracy trial. Prosecutors charge that Combs used his wealth and influence to run a criminal enterprise that served to protect his reputation and coerce women into sex.
If convicted on all counts, the music mogul could spend the rest of his life behind bars. Combs has pleaded not guilty, and his lawyers argue that, while he might have been violent towards romantic partners and abused illicit drugs, he did not commit the crimes alleged by the Department of Justice.
Defense attorneys stress Mia’s loving messages to Combs
Continuing his cross-examination from last week, defense attorney Brian Steel returned to Mia’s social media posts and text messages to challenge the woman and the version of events she shared with the jury.
“Life is f—— insane and supposedly it all happens for a reason in order to elevate us in our human experience, but it’s rough,” Mia wrote Combs in 2020, more than three years after she stopped working for him. “I love you with all of my heart and I’m here for you forever.”
Steel also showed the jury other text messages from the 2019-2022 time frame in which Mia expressed love and admiration to Combs.
“Hey. Saw our doc on Netflix top 10. Congrats I miss you,” read one text from July 2022.
Combs responded, “Love, love, love, love.” Mia wrote back, “And I love, love, love you.”
“Everything is positive and loving from you to Mr. Combs, would you agree with that?” Steel asked.
“Yes, of course,” Mia answered. She quickly explained to the jury she was still “brainwashed” by Combs from her years working for him.
Once the lengthy and contentious cross-examination of Mia concluded, federal prosecutors tried to minimize any damage that might have been done to her credibility.
“Did you post on social media as part of your job?” prosecutor Madison Smyser asked on re-direct examination.
“Yes,” Mia answered, adding that posting about Ciroc, Diddy Door, the Bad Boy reunion, and Combs himself were part of her job. She described her Instagram posts “like the highlight reel” of Combs and not meant for posts about the downside of working for him.
“Is that why you didn’t post about Mr. Combs slamming Cassie’s head into a bed frame?” Smyser asked. “Yes,” Mia answered.
“Is that why you didn’t post about Mr. Combs throwing a computer at your head?” Smyser asked. “Yes,” Mia answered.
“Is that why you didn’t post about Mr. Combs sexually assaulting you?” Smyser asked. “Yes,” Mia answered.
Steel tries to cast doubt on Mia by asking why she didn’t document abuse Throughout his searing cross-examination, defense attorney Steel tried to poke holes in Mia’s testimony by highlighting how she did not document the abuse she said she suffered from Combs, even as she documented the upside.
“Do you have any recording of Mr. Combs berating you?” asked Steel, who highlighted that part of Mia’s job was to carry a small camera to document Combs’ life. “No, I would not have been allowed to record that,” Mia responded.
“Because it’s not true, is it, Mia” Steel accused. “Your statements that you were the victim at the hands of Mr. Combs of brutality isn’t true?”
Mia fired back, testifying, “Everything I’ve said in this courtroom is true.”
Steel also questioned Mia’s account of escaping Combs with Ventura in Turks and Caicos by paddleboarding out to sea. Steel asked whether there were any text messages, emails or photographs documenting those allegations.
“Was that just made up by you?” Steel pointedly asked. “No,” Mia testified.
Steel’s next question — “How is it that all these events have no photograph or text message or email from you?” — was stopped by the judge after an objection.
At one point, prosecutors asked the judge overseeing the case to intervene, arguing the “humiliating” cross-examination borders on harassment and could deter other crime victims from coming forward in other cases.
“Eyes are on this trial. Victims in other cases are going to see how victims are treated,” Comey said in a clear nod to the global headlines being created by the Combs trial. “Our concern is that if this victim is not protected from further harassment, it will deter other victims in other cases.”
Judge Arun Subramanian said he heard no yelling and saw no improper treatment, but he did caution Steel about the form of his questions.
Steel suggests Mia fabricated her story after Ventura’s lawsuit
Steel suggested Mia timed her disclosure of alleged sexual assault by Combs with the filing of a civil lawsuit by the singer Cassie Ventura, Combs’ former longtime girlfriend. Ventura is the prosecution’s star witness, and she has alleged that Combs abused her for a decade. Her lawsuit, the starting point for the federal investigation that culminated with the current prosecution, was settled after a day for $20 million, Ventura testified. There was no admission of wrongdoing.
Steel questioned why Mia did not tell federal prosecutors about her claim that Combs sexually assaulted her until June 2024, six months after she began meeting with the authorities and seven months after Ventura’s civil lawsuit. The defense emphasized to the jury that Mia met with federal prosecutors a total of 28 times.
“Do you remember the first time you ever made a claim Mr. Combs ever sexually assaulted you was on June 18, 2024?” Steel asked.
“I don’t remember the dates, but I do remember that horrible conversation,” Mia answered.
On redirect examination, Smyser asked Mia to clarify why she met so often with federal prosecutors. “I met with the government so much in order to understand my story and because I was so terrified and I was learning at the same time,” she testified, and, using Combs’ earlier street name, said she was “terrified of Puff.” She said she has never been able to talk about her claim that Combs sexually assaulted her without looking down.
“It’s the worst thing I ever had to talk about in my life,” she explained.
Latest witness tells jury about damage to Combs’ hotel room
Prosecutors concluded the day by calling Susan Oken, manager of the Beverly Hills Hotel, to testify about the times when Combs was a guest of her establishment.
She said Combs checked into the Beverly Hills Hotel under aliases like “Frank Black” or “Phillip Pines” and Cassie Ventura was listed under Combs’ profile as a guest.
Oken testified that Combs once incurred an extra $300 charge to clean the drapes and another $500 charge to clean “oil damage.” Oken said the charge reflected something “beyond the scope of what we’d normally clean.” The prosecution’s questioning was a callback to earlier testimony about the so-called “freak-off” orgies that Combs would allegedly host and, according to testimony, featured gallons of baby oil.
Court is set to resume on Tuesday with Eddie Garcia, an employee of the InterContinental Hotel in Century City, CA., the scene of Combs’ caught-on-camera attack on Ventura that has created perhaps the most enduring images to come from the high-profile criminal trial.
(NEW YORK) — A federal appeals court on Friday declined to rehear President Trump’s challenge to a $5 million civil judgment after a jury found him liable in 2023 for the battery and defamation of the writer E. Jean Carroll in the 1990s.
A jury in Manhattan federal court found in 2023 that Trump attacked Carroll in the dressing room of a Bergdorf Goodman department store in the 1990s and later defamed her when he denied her claim.
Trump had sought a hearing before the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit after a three-judge panel declined to overturn the judgment.
A divided court left intact the decision upholding the jury’s damage award.
The appellate court denial of an en banc hearing came without explanation, as is common.
In a concurring opinion, three judges said they found “no manifest error by the district court” that would warrant additional review.
In dissent, Judge Steven Menashi, a Trump appointee, said the district court should have allowed the defense to present evidence that Trump believed Carroll’s lawsuit “had been concocted by his political opposition — and therefore that he was not speaking with actual malice.”
In a statement responding to Friday’s decision, Carroll’s attorney, Roberta Kaplan, said, “E. Jean Carroll is very pleased with today’s decision. Although President Trump continues to try every possible maneuver to challenge the findings of two separate juries, those efforts have failed. He remains liable for sexual assault and defamation.”
Trump is also appealing a separate defamation award of $83 million to Carroll.
(LOS ANGELES) — Erik and Lyle Menendez’s much-anticipated resentencing hearing will be held Tuesday and Wednesday with lawyers set to battle over whether the brothers should get a lesser sentence, clearing the way for a potential release from prison.
Defense attorney Mark Geragos, who is pushing for their release, said he plans to call seven witnesses.
Erik and Lyle Menendez are serving life without the possibility of parole for the 1989 murders of their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez. They have the support of over 20 family members in their efforts to be freed after 35 years behind bars.
Their resentencing case gained momentum in October when then-Los Angeles County District Attorney George Gascón announced he supported a reduced sentence.
Gascón recommended the brothers’ sentences of life without parole be removed, and said they should instead be sentenced for murder, which would be a sentence of 50 years to life. Because both brothers were under 26 at the time of the crimes, they’d be eligible for parole immediately under California law.
Gascón’s office said its resentencing recommendations take into account many factors, including rehabilitation in prison and abuse or trauma that contributed to the crime. Gascón praised the brothers’ conduct in prison, saying they rehabilitated themselves and started programs to help other inmates.
In November, Gascón lost his reelection bid to Nathan Hochman, who in March filed a motion to withdraw the resentencing petition, calling the brothers’ claims of self-defense part of a litany of “lies.” The judge denied Hochman’s request.
This resentencing hearing will be a face-off between Geragos and Hochman, who is trying to keep the brothers behind bars.
A hearing was held Friday to determine whether the resentencing case should include information from the California Board of Parole’s newly completed risk assessment, which was conducted as a part of a separate clemency path. The risk assessment came at the request of Gov. Gavin Newsom as a part of the brothers’ clemency bid; the brothers are pursuing multiple avenues to freedom, and the clemency path is separate from the resentencing path.
The risk assessment said Erik and Lyle Menendez pose a moderate risk to the community if they’re released.
The assessment revealed the brothers possessed illegal cellphones in prison, among numerous other violations, though many are not recent. However, Erik Menendez had a phone as recently as January of this year, which Hochman stressed was during the resentencing effort when he should have been on his best behavior.
Judge Michael Jesic indicated he will take some of the risk assessment into account for the resentencing case, but he added that the information in the assessment is preliminary and attorneys can’t question the psychologists who performed the examinations.
