EP 16: GoFundMe Scam: The Viral Fundraiser That Fooled the Nation

[00:00:00] Speaker A: Coming up on behind the Scams, a heartwarming tale that had America clutching its tissues and later, their wallets. A homeless veteran, a stranded woman, a random act of kindness, and the magical powers of GoFundMe. It was the feel good story of the year. Until it turned out to be the feel duped story of the decade. $400,000 raised by generous strangers, media outlets singing their praises, and even Ellen shedding a tear. But turns out, the only thing more fake than the gas tank was the entire backstory. So grab your popcorn, hide your Venmo, and prepare to question every viral story you've ever shared on Facebook. [00:00:50] Speaker B: Hey, Miles, buddy, you always hit the mark, but how about tossing it to me with some FL time? You know, like something like, here's Johnny. You remember Ed McMahon, right? [00:01:07] Speaker A: Ah, say no more, Nick. So let's workshop this. How about clear the Runway, folks. My man Nick is landing some truth missiles. Or. Time to drop the fraud hammer. Here comes Henley. Ooh, wait. Scam artist, beware. Your worst nightmare just clocked in. Too much, not enough sparkle, Nick. You just let me know, and I will make it happen, my friend. [00:01:38] Speaker B: You're on the right track, Miles. Just keep refining those, keep working on them. We'll have a classic catchphrase by season three. But for now, let's dive into this wild ride of a scam. Hey, everyone, and welcome back to behind the Scams, the podcast, where we peel back the layers of today's most outrageous scams and expose the con artists behind them all with a healthy dose of wit and real world insight. I'm your host, Nick, former federal agent, scam fighting advocate, and the guy who once spent 45 minutes on hold with customer service just to realize I was calling a scam number. Yep. Turns out the extended warranty department doesn't actually care about my 2007 Toyota. Who knew? [00:02:29] Speaker C: Hi, everyone. I'm Sue. And before we get started, let me apologize in advance for Nick's never ending supply of dad jokes. We're officially in the market for a new joke writer. Someone under 30 and with no parental puns on their resume. But today's episode is no laughing matter. We're digging into a massive GoFundMe scam that took the world by storm. A feel good story that turned out to be anything but. So settle in, because this one has twists, turns, and just enough outrage to make you double check your donation history. [00:03:09] Speaker B: That's exactly right, Sue. We've got something wild for our listeners today. This isn't your average scam. It's Not a romance scam, but it definitely plays on the heartstrings. As you mentioned, we're talking about a GoFundMe scam. So brash, so emotionally manipulative, it had the entire country reaching for their wallets and then shaking their heads in disbelief. This one didn't just make headlines, it made documentaries. You're not going to believe how far these scammers went to sell their story. [00:03:44] Speaker C: Ooh, I'm all ears. And. And you know how much I love it when we branch out a bit. Is it. Is it one of those tearjerker scams that make people open their wallets? I would say the suspense is killing me, but I heard Miles recording the intro, so I know what it's all about. Plus, I did all my homework on this scam already. This one is surely one for the books. The book of Scams, that is. [00:04:12] Speaker B: Exactly. It's actually a story that captivated the entire nation a few years back. Most people probably remember that homeless veteran who supposedly used his last $20 to help a stranded woman. [00:04:24] Speaker C: Oh, my gosh, yes. I remember that vividly, even to this day. And if I remember right, that GoFundMe campaign went totally viral, right? The one where. Where they raised, like an absolutely insane amount of money for him? [00:04:41] Speaker B: That's the one. It went more viral than a video of a chipmunk on skis. And it's got everything we love to talk about on behind the Scams. Viral media attention, a tear jerking backstory, and, well, a pretty shocking twist that I think our listeners will find fascinating. [00:05:02] Speaker C: I'm getting excited already because, you know, this case really shows how scammers can really manipulate our emotions. Right. People love a good redemption story, especially one with a. What do you call it? A feel good element. [00:05:17] Speaker B: Absolutely. And what makes this case so interesting is how played out so publicly, from heartwarming headlines to, well, courthouse drama. [00:05:27] Speaker C: Let me just say, folks, this one has it all. Compassion, greed, betrayal, and some pretty clever manipulation. I mean, it's like a movie plot, except real people got hurt. You know what I mean? [00:05:40] Speaker B: Today we're going to break down exactly how this scam worked, the red flags that eventually emerged, and most importantly, how to protect yourself from similar schemes in the future. Because these types of crowdfunding scams, they're unfortunately becoming more and more common. [00:06:01] Speaker C: And trust me, by the end of this episode, you'll be looking at those viral fundraising campaigns with totally new eyes. Not that everyone's running a scam, but. Well, you'll see what I mean once we dive into today's crazy story. Speaking of the end of this episode, we do want to mention that we recognize that this podcast episode is two hours, and we considered breaking it into two parts, didn't we, Nick? [00:06:29] Speaker B: We did try to split this episode in two. We really did. But it was like watching Dallas back in the day. You don't pause right before finding out who shot JR Every time we considered stopping, someone was lying to the media, cashing in at a casino, or pleading the fifth. We just couldn't cut away without feeling like we left you hanging worse than. Well, a soap opera season finale, Nick. [00:06:59] Speaker C: Really? A Dallas reference. Yikes. Let's try fast forwarding to a more relevant comparison. Something from the 21st century. How about it would have been like turning off the white lotus right before someone mysteriously floats face down in the infinity pool. You have to ride it out. And in this story, the only resort is regret. So please stick it out. [00:07:25] Speaker B: Absolutely no one will regret. Binge listening to this story. Let me take you back to November 2017. That's when this absolutely wild story first hit the headlines and, like, captured America's imagination. You do really remember this one, sue, right? You're not just pandering for the cameras? Oh, yeah, totally. Microphones. [00:07:49] Speaker C: This was the one about Johnny Bobbitt Jr. Right, the homeless veteran who. And this is what made everyone fall in love with the story. Who supposedly spent his last $20 to help this stranded woman. It was. It was everywhere for weeks. [00:08:05] Speaker B: Exactly. So the story went something like this. Kate McClure was driving on Interstate 95 near Philadelphia when she ran out of gas. She's stranded. It's late at night, and she's starting to panic, you know? [00:08:23] Speaker C: Right. And this is where our supposed hero comes in. Johnny Bobbitt Jr. Who was homeless and living under a nearby overpass, apparently saw her there and wanted to help. And even though he had literally nothing, he spent his last $20 to buy her gas so she could get home safely. [00:08:41] Speaker B: And what struck people about this story was that here's this guy who has absolutely nothing, right? But he gives everything he has to help a complete stranger. It's like. It's the perfect heartwarming tale. [00:08:57] Speaker C: Exactly. It's like it's this perfect little package of human kindness that just. That just makes you want to believe in people again. You know what I mean? And Kate was so touched by his generosity that she and her boyfriend, Mark D'Amico, decided they wanted to do something to pay him back. [00:09:17] Speaker B: Right? So they. They claim they kept coming back to that Spot where Johnny was staying, bringing him food, clothes, and even giving him a little bit of cash directly. But then they had this, this bigger idea. [00:09:30] Speaker C: They thought, why not create a GoFundMe campaign? Like if they could raise maybe $10,000, they figured they could help Johnny get back on his feet, get a place to live, maybe a used car, you know, basic necessities to help turn his life around. [00:09:48] Speaker B: And what happened next was just unbelievable. I mean, the campaign absolutely exploded. The story got picked up by local news, then national news, Good Morning America, the Ellen Show. Everyone was talking about this homeless veteran who had such a. Such a big heart. [00:10:11] Speaker C: Oh, my goodness, yes. And people were just, were just throwing money at this campaign. The original goal was, I think, only about $10,000, but they quickly blew past that and then it was $50,000 and then $100,000, and it just kept growing and growing. [00:10:33] Speaker B: Ultimately, they raised over $400,000 in just a matter of weeks, which is just. That's life changing money. Right. Especially for someone who had been living on the streets. [00:10:46] Speaker C: Totally life changing. And the media coverage was just intense. I remember seeing Johnny, Kate, and Mark doing all these interviews together. They seemed so happy. You know, Kate would talk about how grateful she was. Johnny would talk about his plans for the future, and it was this perfect redemption story. [00:11:07] Speaker B: And I think what really resonated with people was Johnny's backstory. He was a former marine and paramedic who had fallen on hard times due to addiction issues. So there was this whole supporting our veterans angle that really touched people. [00:11:25] Speaker C: Absolutely. And, and Kate and Mark would share these updates about Johnny, like, oh, he's looking at apartments now, or he's talking to financial advisors about managing all this money responsibly. It all seemed so, so perfect and wholesome. [00:11:43] Speaker B: There were even these heartwarming photos of the three of them together. Right. Like they'd formed this unlikely friendship through this random act of kindness, and people ate it up. I mean, who wouldn't love a story like that, right? [00:11:58] Speaker C: It had all the elements of a viral feel good story. A selfless hero, a damsel in distress, and a happy ending where the good guy gets rewarded for his kind. It's like, it's like a modern fairy tale, except it was supposedly real. [00:12:15] Speaker B: And I think that's what makes this case so fascinating for us on behind the Scams because it shows how effectively these kinds of emotional narratives can open people's wallets. I mean, $400,000 is just. That's an incredible amount of money. [00:12:32] Speaker C: It really is. And people Felt so good about donating, too. Like, I. I'm helping this homeless veteran who did something amazing. They could share the campaign on social media and sort of. Sort of signal their own virtue while actually doing something genuinely helpful. Win, win. Right. [00:12:52] Speaker B: Absolutely. And GoFundMe was still relatively new as a major platform back then, so people weren't as. As skeptical about these viral campaigns as they might be today. [00:13:03] Speaker C: Exactly. This was back when crowdfunding still felt, you know, pure in a way, before we'd seen so many scams and controversies. People just wanted to believe in this beautiful story of human connection and generosity crossing social boundaries. [00:13:20] Speaker B: So I want to dive a bit deeper into this GoFundMe campaign that Kate and Mark set up, because, like, this thing didn't just raise a little bit of money. It absolutely exploded, right? [00:13:32] Speaker C: Oh, my goodness, yes. So they actually launched it on November 10, 2017, and. And the initial goal was super modest. They were just hoping to raise about $10,000, which they thought would be enough to get Johnny, like, first and last month's rent on an apartment, maybe a reliable used car. You know, just the basics. [00:13:57] Speaker B: And the campaign had this really catchy title, something like Paying it forward or let's Help Johnny get back on his Feet. If I remember correctly, they included this whole heartwarming story about how he'd spent his last $20 to help Kate. [00:14:13] Speaker C: Exactly. And they added these photos of Johnny standing next to Kate on that same highway where he supposedly helped her. And they wrote this really emotional description about how he was a veteran who had fallen on hard times, which really touched people's hearts. [00:14:34] Speaker B: You know, what amazed me was the speed at which this thing took off. It wasn't like a slow build. It just went viral almost immediately, right? [00:14:44] Speaker C: Totally. Within the first few days, they'd already blown past their original goal. The local Philadelphia news stations picked it up first, and then, boom, suddenly it was everywhere. The Today Show, Good Morning America, cnn. Everyone wanted a piece of this story. [00:15:04] Speaker B: And I think what really fueled the campaign was how Kate and Mark kept updating it. They'd post these regular updates with new photos, little anecdotes about hanging out with Johnny, plans for the money. It kept people emotionally invested. [00:15:21] Speaker C: Right. They were really smart about it. They'd share things like, Johnny and I went looking at apartments today, or Johnny is so overwhelmed by your generosity, he can't stop crying. And they'd include these pictures of the three of them together looking like, you know, best friends. It was. It was brilliant marketing, honestly. [00:15:45] Speaker B: I remember they even did this. This video Update where Johnny talked about his plans for the money. He seemed so humble and grateful, talking about how he wanted to manage it responsibly and maybe even help other homeless veterans. [00:16:01] Speaker C: Oh, yes, and that video just made people open their wallets even more. By Thanksgiving, just two weeks after they launched it, they'd raised over $200,000. And then it just, it just kept growing through December. Everyone was sharing it on social media, celebrities were tweeting about it. It was absolutely everywhere. [00:16:23] Speaker B: The timing was perfect too, right? It was around the holidays when people are feeling generous and, you know, wanting to do good deeds. [00:16:31] Speaker C: Oh, my gosh, yes. The holiday timing was absolutely perfect. People were already in that giving space spirit. And here was this beautiful story about selflessness during Christmas time. It was like, like the perfect storm for viral fundraising. [00:16:49] Speaker B: And didn't GoFundMe itself start promoting the campaign too? I think they recognized what a positive story this was for their platform. [00:16:59] Speaker C: They absolutely did. They featured it prominently on their homepage and in their emails. I think they even waived some of their fees because it was such a heartwarmin cause. And this exposure just brought in even more donors from all over the world. [00:17:18] Speaker B: So by the time the campaign finally ended in December, they had raised. What was the final total again? [00:17:24] Speaker C: $402,000 from more than 14,000 donors. Can you believe that? From a simple goal of $10,000 to over $400,000 in just about a month. It was absolutely unprecedented for a personal campaign like this. [00:17:41] Speaker B: And there was a lot of discussion about how the money would be managed. Right, because suddenly this homeless man is supposed to receive almost half a million dollars, which is like a complicated situation. [00:17:57] Speaker C: Definitely. Kate and Mark initially said they were being really careful with the money. They talked about setting up a trust for Johnny and getting him financial advisors so he wouldn't, you know, blow through it all at once. They said they didn't want to just hand him a huge sum when he was still struggling with addiction issues, which. [00:18:17] Speaker B: On the surface seems reasonable. Right. They claimed they were trying to be responsible and help him transition slowly into this new life with financial stability. [00:18:28] Speaker C: Exactly. They talked about this three part plan. First, buying him a home. Second, setting him up with a steady income through investments. And third, a truck he wanted plus some living expenses. It all sounded so, so well thought out and responsible. [00:18:47] Speaker B: And the public reaction to all this was just incredibly positive. I mean, people were calling it the feel good story of the year. There were articles about how it restored people's faith in humanity. [00:19:00] Speaker C: Oh, absolutely. The media coverage was just, just Glowing. And Johnny became this symbol of selflessness, while Kate and Mark were praised for their compassion and follow through. It really seemed like this perfect story where everyone was winning. [00:19:19] Speaker B: What I find fascinating is how, how perfectly this story played into what people want to believe. You know, that kindness is rewarded, that strangers can help each other, that social media and technology can be forces for good. [00:19:35] Speaker C: Right. It checked all those boxes. And in a year with so much negative news and division, people were desperate for something pure and positive. This campaign gave them that warm, fuzzy feeling like maybe the world wasn't such a terrible place after all. [00:19:52] Speaker B: So at this point, with hundreds of people, thousands of dollars raised, and national media attention, it really seemed like Johnny's life was about to completely transform from homeless to homeowner, from struggling veteran to America's sweetheart. [00:20:09] Speaker C: Exactly. Everyone thought this was just the beginning of this amazing turnaround story. Like this time next year we'd be seeing follow up stories about Johnny in his new house, maybe starting a charity of his own. You know, the perfect Hollywood ending. [00:20:26] Speaker B: But of course, as we now know, things didn't exactly work out that way, did they? [00:20:31] Speaker C: Not even close. What happened next would completely shatter this perfect little fairy tale and reveal something much, much darker underneath. [00:20:41] Speaker B: So let's talk about how this story just completely captured America's heart. Because like, this wasn't just a local news story that got a little attention. Right. This thing became a national sensation. [00:20:56] Speaker C: Oh my gosh, Nick. It was absolutely everywhere. I mean, and, and it's really not hard to see why. This story had all the elements that people just, just love to share. You know, a homeless veteran, someone who served our country, using his last $20 to help this stranded woman. It's like, it's like the perfect feel good narrative that people were craving. [00:21:22] Speaker B: I remember turning on the TV and seeing Johnny, Kate and Mark on practically every talk show. They were like instant celebrities. The Today show had them on Good Morning America. They were getting the full treatment. [00:21:39] Speaker C: Totally. They did this whole media circuit together. And what was so powerful was seeing the three of them sitting there side by side, looking like they'd formed this incredible friendship. Kate and Mark would be talking about how they just couldn't leave Johnny on the streets after his kindness. And Johnny would be sitting there looking so, so grateful and humble. [00:22:05] Speaker B: The interviews were really emotional too. I think I remember Johnny actually crying during one of them when he talked about how this money would change his life. It was impossible not to be moved by that. [00:22:17] Speaker C: Exactly. And the media absolutely ate it up. Every outlet framed it as this Perfect redemption story. Here's this veteran who fell on hard times, battling addiction, living under a bridge. And then one selfless act completely changes the trajectory of his life. It was like, like a movie script, honestly. [00:22:41] Speaker B: What strikes me is how quickly everyone embraced it without questioning any part of it. It just instantly became this symbol of hope, right? [00:22:51] Speaker C: Oh, definitely. The social media response was just incredible. People were sharing it with comments like, this restored my faith in humanity, or see, there are still good people in the world. And remember, this was late 2017, right after a really divisive election year. People were desperate for something positive that everyone could agree on. [00:23:13] Speaker B: I saw celebrities tweeting about it too. I think even a few big names donated to the campaign. It really crossed over into mainstream culture in a big way. [00:23:23] Speaker C: Absolutely did. And what's fascinating is how the media coverage evolved over those first few weeks. It started with just reporting the facts of the story, but then it became this, this ongoing saga that people followed. Almost like a reality show. They do these updates like Johnny looked at apartments today or Johnny's thinking about what truck he wants to buy, and. [00:23:49] Speaker B: They would show these, these heartwarming photos of the three of them hanging out together. Right? Like they'd go to dinner or to sporting events and it looked like they had this genuine friendship developing. [00:24:02] Speaker C: Right? There was that photo of them at the Philadelphia Eagles game that went viral and. And they'd post these casual hangout pictures that made it seem like they were becoming this unlikely family unit. People loved that continuing narrative. It wasn't just a one time good deed, but this ongoing relationship. [00:24:23] Speaker B: What's interesting to me is how the story seemed to tap into different things for different people. Like for some, it was about veterans issues and how we should take better care of those who served. For others, it was about homelessness and second chances. [00:24:42] Speaker C: Exactly. It became this, this perfect blank canvas that people could project all their values onto conservatives, like the military aspect and the personal charity rather than government assistance. Liberals like the social welfare angle and the community coming together. Religious people saw it as an example of Christian charity. It really did manage to unite people across different backgrounds. [00:25:09] Speaker B: I remember reading these think pieces that would analyze the deeper meaning of why this story resonated so much. There were articles with titles like what the Johnny Bobbit Story Teaches Us about American Values and stuff like that. [00:25:27] Speaker C: Oh my goodness, yes. Suddenly everyone was an expert on what this meant for society. There were psychologists talking about the science of altruism, economists discussing crowdfunding dynamics, social workers talking about approaches to homelessness. It became this Huge cultural touchpoint. [00:25:47] Speaker B: The local impact in Philadelphia was particularly intense. Right. I think there were people who would go looking for Johnny just to take selfies with him. He became like a local celebrity. [00:25:59] Speaker C: That's right. The Philly media especially, covered it non stop. Local businesses started offering him jobs. People would recognize him on the street. He went from being invisible as a homeless person to someone everyone wanted to meet. Overnight. It Was this complete 180 in how society treated him, which was actually quite poignant when you think about it. [00:26:22] Speaker B: And didn't Kate and Mark become minor celebrities too? They were getting all this praise for being these amazing good Samaritans who went above and beyond. [00:26:32] Speaker C: Absolutely. They were held up as these moral exemplars. People would comment things like, we need more people like Kate and Mark in the world. They were getting stopped for photos, invited to events. I even think there was talk at one point about a book deal or movie rights. The attention they received was just. Just extraordinary. [00:26:55] Speaker B: What I find fascinating, looking back, is how the media narrative was so carefully controlled in those early days. Like, they always appeared together in interviews, always stayed on message about the plans for the money. [00:27:09] Speaker C: Totally. They had this perfect script they all stuck to. And journalists who really should have been asking tougher questions were just so caught up in the heartwarming story that they didn't push very hard. Nobody wanted to be the cynical one questioning this beautiful narrative. [00:27:28] Speaker B: You know, I think GoFundMe itself was really loving the publicity too. This was like the perfect advertisement for their platform, showing how it could literally change someone's life overnight. [00:27:41] Speaker C: Oh, absolutely. GoFundMe was featuring this campaign everywhere. It became like their poster child for successful fundraising. And honestly, donations to other campaigns increased during this period too, because people were feeling inspired to give. The whole crowdfunding sector benefited from this story. [00:28:04] Speaker B: So essentially, we had this perfect storm where everyone involved had a reason to keep the positive story going. The media got viewers, GoFundMe got publicity, and, well, the three main characters, they. [00:28:17] Speaker C: Got the money exactly right. It was this ecosystem where everyone was incentivized to keep the good vibes flowing and. And the public was so emotionally invested by this point. People who had donated felt personally connected to Johnny's journey. They wanted, no, they needed this story to have a happy ending. [00:28:41] Speaker B: So at what point did this perfect fairy tale start to, you know, unravel? Because things took a pretty dramatic turn, right? [00:28:50] Speaker C: Oh, my goodness, they really did. So the first major red flag came about about nine months after the GoFundMe campaign. This was around August 2018, and suddenly Johnny Bobbitt comes forward with this. This absolutely shocking claim that he wasn't actually getting the money that was raised for him. [00:29:11] Speaker B: Wait, so all those thousands of people donated over $400,000 specifically to help him, and he's saying he didn't receive it? That must have been a bombshell when that hit the news. [00:29:23] Speaker C: Total bombshell. And. And it completely flipped the narrative overnight. Johnny actually gave this interview where he claimed he only received about $75,000 of the money and that Kate and Mark were essentially, well, keeping the rest for themselves. He said they were controlling all the funds and only giving him limited amounts. [00:29:48] Speaker B: I remember being so confused when this news broke. Like, what happened to those heartwarming photos of them all hanging out together? What about all those plans they talked about with the house and the truck and everything? [00:30:01] Speaker C: Right. The contrast was just startling. Johnny basically said they had bought him a camper trailer to live in, which was parked on property owned by Kate's family. But then they later sold it and told him he had to leave. He ended up back on the streets and back using drugs. It was this complete reversal of the success story everyone thought was happening. [00:30:26] Speaker B: And didn't Johnny get a lawyer involved at that point? I think I remember reading about some kind of legal action. [00:30:33] Speaker C: He absolutely did. His attorneys filed this emergency petition in court seeking to have a guardian appointed to oversee the funds. They were essentially asking a judge to force Kate and Mark to provide a complete accounting of every dollar that had been donated. [00:30:50] Speaker B: That's when things got really messy. Right. Because Kate and Mark had their own version of events. [00:30:57] Speaker C: Oh, totally. Their response was. Was completely different. They claimed they were being responsible by not giving Johnny all the money at once because of his ongoing drug problems. They positioned themselves as being protective, saying they were afraid he'd spend it all on drugs. They claimed they always intended to give him all the money, but were just doing it gradually to. To help manage his addiction issues. [00:31:28] Speaker B: I remember them doing interviews, defending themselves, and there was this whole he said, she said situation going on in the media. It became this really ugly public dispute. [00:31:39] Speaker C: Exactly. And what was fascinating was watching public opinion start to shift. People were picking sides. Some were saying, well, maybe Kate and Mark are right to protect him from himself if he has drug problems. Others were outraged, saying, that's not your decision to make. The money was donated for him, not for you to control. [00:32:01] Speaker B: And then the courts got involved in a bigger way. Right. There was actually a pretty significant legal ruling. [00:32:07] Speaker C: Yes. So in September 2018, a judge ordered Kate and Mark to turn over all remaining funds to an escrow account controlled by Johnny's lawyers. And the judge set a deadline. They had to provide a full accounting of the money within 10 days. This was a huge deal because it was the first official acknowledgment that something might actually be wrong. [00:32:32] Speaker B: And what happened after that court order? Did they comply? [00:32:35] Speaker C: Well, that's where things get even more suspicious. Mark and Kate's lawyer actually told the court they didn't have the money anymore. They claimed all the funds were gone. And when pushed for details about where it went, they invoked their Fifth amendment right against self incrimination. I mean, talk about a red flag. [00:32:54] Speaker B: Whoa. So they essentially refused to explain where over $400,000 had gone. That doesn't look good at all. [00:33:02] Speaker C: Not at all. And then investigators started looking at their spending habits, and. And the picture got even darker. There were reports that they had purchased a BMW, took expensive vacations to places like Las Vegas and Florida, bought designer handbags, and were basically living this lavish lifestyle that they couldn't previously afford. [00:33:24] Speaker B: I remember seeing photos of them at the casino and on these fancy trips and thinking, wait, is that where the GoFundMe money went? It seemed like they were flaunting their sudden wealth without much concern. [00:33:38] Speaker C: Exactly. And you know what really caught media attention was when police actually raided their home. They executed this search warrant and were seen removing boxes of evidence and towing away a new BMW from their property. At that point, public opinion pretty much completely turned against them. Them. [00:33:59] Speaker B: It must have been so disillusioning for all those people who donated. Like thousands of people gave money thinking they were helping this homeless veteran. And instead, it looks like. Well, like they might have been funding this couple's luxury lifestyle. [00:34:16] Speaker C: Absolutely devastating for donors. People felt completely betrayed. And GoFundMe was scrambling to do damage control, too. They eventually had to issue a statement promising that all donors would get their money back if fraud was proven. The whole thing was becoming this massive scandal. [00:34:36] Speaker B: So what about Johnny? During this time, he had gone from hero to claiming victim status. But was he completely innocent in all this? [00:34:47] Speaker C: That's. That's the really complicated part of the story, Nick. While the investigation into Kate and Mark was happening, questions about Johnny's role started to emerge, too. There were inconsistencies in his story, and investigators were looking more closely at all three of them, not just the couple. [00:35:07] Speaker B: Right, because the original narrative about him spending his last $20 to help this stranded woman, People started to wonder if that was even true at all. [00:35:17] Speaker C: Exactly. And Johnny's Own statements sometimes contradicted each other in interviews. Plus, his lawyers admitted he had relapsed into drug use, which unfortunately played into Kate and Mark's claims about why they were managing his money. The whole situation was getting murkier by the day. [00:35:37] Speaker B: I think there was also that report that Johnny had sued other people before. Like this wasn't his first lawsuit claiming someone owed him money? [00:35:46] Speaker C: Yes. Reporters dug into his background and found he had filed similar claims in the past. And. And there were questions about his military service, too. Whether he had been honorably discharged as originally claimed. The heroic image people had of him was starting to crack under scrutiny. [00:36:05] Speaker B: So basically, at this point in the story, we've gone from this perfect, heartwarming viral sensation to this complete mess with accusations flying in all directions, the courts involved, and everyone's reputation being questioned. [00:36:22] Speaker C: That's exactly right. By fall 2018, the whole fairy tale had completely collapsed. The feel good story that had captured America's heart was now looking more and more like. Like a carefully constructed house of cards. And investigators were digging deeper, trying to determine if this was just a dispute over money or something much worse. [00:36:48] Speaker B: And I guess this is when the really shocking truth started to emerge, Right? Because what they uncovered next changed everything about how we understood this story. [00:36:57] Speaker C: Oh, absolutely, Nick. What came next was truly mind blowing. It wasn't just that Kate and Mark had misused the funds. The investigation was about to reveal something far more sinister about the entire situation. Something that would shock everyone who had followed this story from the beginning. [00:37:16] Speaker B: So let's talk about what happened next with the investigation. Because once authorities really started digging into this case, they found some pretty troubling inconsistencies, right? [00:37:29] Speaker C: Oh, my goodness, Nick. They absolutely did. So after the police raided Kate and Mark's home, the Burlington County Prosecutor's office in New Jersey really, really ramped up their investigation. And what they found was, like, completely shocking. [00:37:46] Speaker B: I'm curious about their approach. Did they start by following the money trail? Because that seems like the most obvious place to begin. [00:37:54] Speaker C: Exactly. They followed the money first. And. And what they discovered was pretty damning. Investigators went through thousands of text messages, financial records, and interviews. They found that within hours, literally hours of the GoFundMe campaign going live, Kate and Mark were already discussing how they would spend the money. [00:38:17] Speaker B: Wait, seriously? They were planning how to spend it that quickly? [00:38:20] Speaker C: Yes. There were these text messages where Kate literally wrote to a friend, something like, the gas part is completely made up, but the guy isn't. I had to make something up to make people feel Bad. Can you believe that? And in another text, she admitted. Okay, so wait, the gas part is a lie. But confirmed she did meet Johnny. [00:38:44] Speaker B: That's. Wow. So right from the beginning, parts of the story were fabricated. What about their spending? Did investigators find evidence of them using the money? [00:38:55] Speaker C: Oh, they found tons. The financial records showed that within months of receiving the funds, Kate and Mark had blown through more than $360,000 of the $400,000 they spent it on. On gambling, luxury handbags, a BMW, that Las Vegas vacation I mentioned, a helicopter ride over the Grand Canyon, designer clothes, you name it. [00:39:22] Speaker B: So they were basically treating this charity money like they'd won the lottery. [00:39:26] Speaker C: Totally. They went on this massive spending spree. And what's really interesting is that investigators found they made over $60,000 in cash withdrawals, including many near casino casinos in Las Vegas, Philly, and Atlantic City. The prosecutor's office documented that between December 2017 and March 2018, they spent. And this is shocking. Over $85,000 at casinos alone. [00:39:57] Speaker B: What about Johnny? How much did he actually receive from all of this? [00:40:01] Speaker C: Well, that's another interesting point. Johnny did get some money, about $75,000, according to investigators. But a large portion of what he received, he. He actually used to feed his drug addiction. Investigators found he spent a significant amount on drugs, and within just a few months, he had gone through tens of thousands of dollars. [00:40:25] Speaker B: I remember there was also that camper they bought him. What happened with that? [00:40:29] Speaker C: Right, so they did buy him this camper for about $18,000, but then they sold it for $10,000 and. And kept that money, too. Johnny was back on the streets by the summer of 2018, which is what prompted him to take legal action in the first place. When he realized they'd spent most of the money, he felt understandably betrayed and went public. [00:40:56] Speaker B: Was there a moment when investigators realized this wasn't just misappropriation of funds, but something, you know, more coordinated? [00:41:06] Speaker C: Yes. The real breakthrough came when they recovered deleted text messages between all three of them. And, Nick, these messages completely blew the case wide open. They found texts from a month before the GoFundMe campaign launched, where they were literally, literally planning the whole thing. [00:41:26] Speaker B: So they knew each other before the supposed gas station encounter. [00:41:30] Speaker C: Exactly. In fact, prosecutors discovered they had met near a casino in Philadelphia that Kate and Mark frequented. Johnny was homeless and hanging around that area. They had actually known each other for at least a month before they launched the campaign. [00:41:46] Speaker B: What about the timeline of events? Did investigators find inconsistencies there, too? [00:41:52] Speaker C: Oh, my goodness. So many Inconsistencies. They examined security footage, cell phone records, and social media posts. They found that on the night Kate supposedly ran out of gas and met Johnny, her cell phone data showed she wasn't even even on that highway. And Mark's truck had a full tank of gas that evening, according to their credit card records. [00:42:17] Speaker B: It sounds like literally nothing about the original story was true then. [00:42:21] Speaker C: Pretty much they fabricated the whole heartwarming rescue story. Johnny never spent his last $20 on gas for Kate. She was never stranded. The whole thing was a calculated scheme to exploit people's generosity. They just. They just needed a compelling story to make people open their wallets. [00:42:41] Speaker B: I'm still trying to wrap my head around the coordination this would take. Like, all three of them maintained this fiction for months, right? [00:42:50] Speaker C: They absolutely did. They even did multiple media interviews together, appearing on national TV shows, always sticking to their story. They posed for photos together, looking like friends. And behind the scenes, they were communicating regularly about maintaining the ruse. [00:43:10] Speaker B: What about GoFundMe itself? Did they have any responsibility in all this? I mean, shouldn't there be some kind of verification process? [00:43:19] Speaker C: Well, that became a major question during the investigation. GoFundMe does have some verification processes, but they're mainly designed to confirm the identity of campaign organizers, not necessarily the truthfulness of their stories. In this case, Kate and Mark were who they claimed to be. They just weren't telling the truth about. About Johnny or the situation. [00:43:44] Speaker B: I'm curious about the digital evidence. Did they find anything on social media that contradicted their story? [00:43:50] Speaker C: Great question. Investigators actually found that during the time Kate claimed to be fearful of Johnny and visiting him cautiously, she was posting friendly selfies with him on social media. They also discovered that while publicly claiming they were being careful with the money to protect Johnny, they were privately spending it rapidly on themselves. [00:44:15] Speaker B: So the investigation basically revealed layer after layer of deception. What was the final piece that made the whole case fall into place? [00:44:25] Speaker C: I think the damning piece was when one of them finally cracked. Kate McClure eventually admitted to prosecution that the gas story was made up. She claimed, and this is important, that she went along with it because Mark and Johnny had convinced her it would be a great way to help Johnny, while while also making some money for themselves. [00:44:47] Speaker B: Did the other two admit their involvement as well? [00:44:50] Speaker C: Eventually they all did, though with different versions of who initiated the idea. Johnny later admitted in court that. That the story was fabricated, and Mark also ultimately acknowledged his role. But they all tried to minimize their own involvement and. And shift blame to the others. [00:45:11] Speaker B: It sounds like the investigation was pretty thorough, considering how many different types of evidence they collected. [00:45:18] Speaker C: Incredibly thorough. The Burlington County Prosecutor's office did an amazing job. They combined financial forensics, digital evidence, witness interviews, and surveillance footage to build this comprehensive case. By November 2018, they had enough evidence to bring criminal charges against all three participants in what turned out to be one of the most publicized crowdfunding scams in history. [00:45:46] Speaker B: And I guess the thing that makes this so fascinating is how this went from. From being investigated as possibly just misappropriation of funds to a completely fabricated story from day one. [00:45:58] Speaker C: Exactly. What started as where did the money go? Quickly became, was any of this even real? And the answer was a resounding no. The investigation revealed this wasn't a good deed gone wrong. It was a scam from the very beginning, carefully crafted to pull at people's heartstrings and. And open their wallets. [00:46:21] Speaker B: I have to imagine the thousands of donors felt pretty betrayed when all this came to light. [00:46:26] Speaker C: Absolutely devastated. Many donors came forward saying they had given money because they believed in Johnny's selfless act. Some had donated significant amounts. Finding out it was all a lie left many feeling completely broken, betrayed, and it really damaged people's trust in crowdfunding platforms in general. [00:46:47] Speaker B: So now we get to the part where everything really blows up, don't we? The moment when the truth finally came out. [00:46:54] Speaker C: Oh, my goodness, Nick. Yes. This is. This is where things get absolutely wild. So after all that investigation work in November 2018, the Burlington county prosecution, Scott Cofina, called a press conference and dropped what I can only describe as a complete bombshell on everyone. [00:47:17] Speaker B: What exactly did he say? I mean, this must have been a pretty dramatic moment. [00:47:21] Speaker C: It was incredible. He stood there and basically told the world that the entire heartwarming story, all of it, was completely fabricated from start to finish. Like the whole gas station rescue never happened. Johnny spending his last $20. Complete fiction. The chance meeting totally made up. [00:47:43] Speaker B: So the prosecutor just laid it all out there. Everything we thought we knew about this story was a lie. [00:47:50] Speaker C: Exactly, he said, and I'm paraphrasing here, but essentially that the entire feel good story was an elaborate fiction concocted by the these three individuals, Kate, Mark, and Johnny, to exploit the generosity and kindness of people. And. And he actually used the phrase predicated on a lie to describe the entire campaign. [00:48:13] Speaker B: I'm really curious about the public reaction when this news broke. I mean, people had been following this story for months by that point, right? [00:48:23] Speaker C: Oh, the reaction was absolutely, absolutely just massive. People were completely stunned. I mean, this Story had been everywhere. Good Morning America, Ellen, countless newspapers. It had become this symbol of. Of human kindness and generosity. And then suddenly, boom, it's revealed as this carefully orchestrated scam. Social media just exploded with outrage. [00:48:50] Speaker B: What about the evidence? How did prosecutors actually prove that the whole thing was made up? [00:48:55] Speaker C: Well, that's where those text messages I mentioned earlier came in. The prosecutor actually read some of them out loud at the press conference. There was this one message from Kate to her friend that was sent like. Like an hour after the GoFundMe campaign went live, where she literally wrote, okay, so wait, the gas part is completely made up, but the guy isn't? I had to make something up to make people feel bad. [00:49:22] Speaker B: Wow. That's pretty damning evidence right there. [00:49:24] Speaker C: Totally damning. And there was more. They found texts between Kate and Mark from about a month before the supposed gas station encounter where they were discussing different angles they could use for. For a GoFundMe scam. They were literally brainstorming what kind of scam story would get people to donate. Who. [00:49:47] Speaker B: So they had been planning this for weeks before they even launched the campaign. [00:49:51] Speaker C: Yes. And what's even crazier is they found out that Kate and Mark had actually met Johnny about a month earlier near that Sugar House casino in Philadelphia. They hadn't just randomly encountered him at a gas station. They knew him. They had been seeing him around that area for weeks and. And decided to use him as part of their scheme. [00:50:15] Speaker B: That's really calculating. It seems like they specifically chose a homeless veteran because that would tug at people's heartstrings. [00:50:23] Speaker C: Absolutely. The prosecutor made that exact point. Johnny, being a homeless veteran was. Was perfect for their narrative. It had all these elements that would make people emotional. His service to the country, his fallen on hard times situation, and then this supposed selfless act of using his last $20 to help a stranded woman. It was like. Like they engineered the perfect sob story. [00:50:51] Speaker B: What about Johnny's role in all this? Was he equally involved from the beginning? [00:50:56] Speaker C: Yes. That was another shocking revelation. The prosecutor confirmed that Johnny was in on it from the start. He wasn't some innocent homeless man who was later taken advantage of by Kate and Mark. He was an active participant in creating and maintaining the fiction. When he later complained about not getting his share, he was essentially just unhappy with how the scam proceeds were being divided. [00:51:25] Speaker B: Did they find evidence of them planning how they would split the money? [00:51:29] Speaker C: They absolutely, absolutely did. There were texts discussing percentages and. And how much each would get. What's really interesting is that as the Campaign took off and raised way more money than they had anticipated. Their communications started showing increasing tension about who deserved what. They had never expected to get $400,000, maybe a few thousand at most. So they didn't have a solid plan for handling that much money. [00:52:00] Speaker B: I'm wondering about the timeline here. When did they realize their little scam had become this massive viral sensation? [00:52:07] Speaker C: From what investigators pieced together, they were completely shocked at how quickly it blew up. Within just 24 hours of launching the campaign, they had already raised over $10,000. And it just kept growing. There were messages between them expressing surprise and, honestly, excitement as the total climbed higher and higher. The media attention started almost immediately, which they hadn't fully prepared for. [00:52:36] Speaker B: So they kind of got caught in their own success. They created this story that worked too well. [00:52:42] Speaker C: That's. That's exactly what happened. The prosecutor described it as a perfect storm. They crafted this story with all the right emotional elements. It launched right before Thanksgiving, when people are feeling generous, and it just caught fire. Suddenly they're doing national TV interviews, and the money is pouring in faster than they could have imagined. But that meant way more scrutiny, too. [00:53:08] Speaker B: Did they ever consider coming clean before it all blew up? [00:53:11] Speaker C: You know, there's no evidence they ever considered that. In fact, the prosecution found messages where they discussed doubling down on the lie. When questions started coming up, there was this point where a reporter was asking for more details about the night they supposedly met. And instead of backing off, they actually, actually elaborated on the story, adding more fictional details. [00:53:40] Speaker B: What was it that finally made the whole thing collapse? [00:53:43] Speaker C: It was their own greed and mistrust of each other. When Johnny filed that lawsuit claiming he wasn't getting his fair share, it forced financial scrutiny. That wouldn't have happened otherwise. If they had just given Johnny a larger cut of the money, they might have gotten away with it. But once the courts got involved and demanded accountings of the money, everything started unraveling. [00:54:08] Speaker B: That's kind of ironic, isn't it? A fake story about generosity fell apart because of real greed. [00:54:14] Speaker C: Exactly. And what's really fascinating is how they maintained this fiction publicly, while privately their relationship was deteriorating. They were still posting happy photos together on social media and doing interviews about their friendship, while simultaneously threatening each other over text about the money, the prosecutor called it a house of cards that was bound to collapse. [00:54:40] Speaker B: Did the investigation reveal who came up with the idea first? Like, whose brainchild was this whole scam? [00:54:47] Speaker C: That's actually still somewhat disputed. Each of them tried to minimize their own role when questioned. Kate claimed Mark Came up with the gas story. Mark said it was a mutual idea between him and Johnny. Johnny claimed they approached him with the concept, but the text evidence suggested it was more of a collaborative effort that evolved over several conversations. [00:55:12] Speaker B: Um, it sounds like none of them wanted to take full responsibility. [00:55:16] Speaker C: Not at all. And that became a key part of their legal strategies later on. Even each of them tried to paint themselves as less culpable than the others. But the prosecutor was very clear that all three were actively involved and that this was a conspiracy from day one. There was no innocent party here. They all knowingly participated in defrauding thousands of donors. [00:55:44] Speaker B: And I guess that brings us to the big question. How did all this affect the 14,000 people who donated to their campaign? [00:55:51] Speaker C: Right, the victims. The prosecutor emphasized that the real victims were those 14,000 donors who gave money believing they were helping a homeless veteran. People from all over the country, from all walks of life, who were moved by this story and wanted to be part of something good. Finding out it was all a scam was just. Just devastating for many of them. [00:56:16] Speaker B: So let's get into the nuts and bolts of how they actually pulled this off. Like, what was the. The actual mechanics of this scam? [00:56:25] Speaker C: Oh, my God. Yes. So I got something super cool for you. The full breakdown of how they orchestrated this whole thing. And. And it's actually, like, way more calculated than most people realize. [00:56:40] Speaker B: I'm really curious about how they first connected. Do we know exactly how the three of them initially came together? [00:56:46] Speaker C: Right, so what actually happened was Kate and Mark would frequently visit the Sugar House casino in Philadelphia, and they'd see Johnny hanging around that area. He was, you know, one of the regular homeless people in that neighborhood. And instead of just. Just seeing him as a person in need, they saw him as an opportunity. [00:57:08] Speaker B: That's pretty cold. [00:57:09] Speaker C: Totally cold. What the investigation revealed is that they had several conversations with Johnny before they ever launched the campaign. They weren't just strangers who met at a gas station. They'd been talking to him for weeks, and they specifically chose him because he was a veteran. That detail was absolutely crucial to their plan. [00:57:37] Speaker B: So they were essentially casting for their scam, looking for the right character. [00:57:42] Speaker C: Exactly. They were casting for the perfect sympathy figure. A homeless veteran who served his country and had fallen on hard times. That's like gold for a crowdfunding scam. They knew people. People would respond to that. The texts they found showed them literally discussing how Johnny's veteran status would make people more likely to donate. [00:58:07] Speaker B: What about the actual story itself? How did they come up with the specific narrative about running out of gas and him spending his last $20. [00:58:16] Speaker C: So that was actually pretty clever in a really terrible way. They brainstormed several different scenarios according to the text messages. They considered different stories, like Johnny helping Kate when her car broke down or helping her when she was lost. But the gas story, that one was perfect because it was both believable and incredibly touching. [00:58:42] Speaker B: It does have all those elements of a perfect viral story, doesn't it? [00:58:45] Speaker C: It really does. It's simple, it's relatable. Who hasn't worried about running out of gas? And it has this beautiful contrast of someone with almost nothing giving everything they have to help a stranger. The prosecutor actually pointed out that they deliberately crafted a story that had what he called maximum emotional appeal. They understood exactly what would make people click that donate button button. [00:59:14] Speaker B: Were they surprised by how quickly it went viral? I mean, did they expect to raise that much money? [00:59:20] Speaker C: No way. Their texts show they were hoping for maybe $10,000, possibly up to $25,000 if things went really well. But when it hit $50,000 in just days, they were completely shocked. And then when it kept growing, there's this text from Mark to Kate where he says, omg, we might hit 100k with, like, a bunch of exclamation points. They were absolutely stunned by their own success. [00:59:48] Speaker B: So what did they do once they realized this was becoming so huge? Did they try to pump the brakes at all? [00:59:55] Speaker C: That's what's so fascinating about this case. For behind the scams, they did the exact opposite. When they saw how well it was working, they doubled down. They started doing more media interviews. They created social media accounts to document Johnny's journey. They took more photos together. They leaned into the attention completely. Kate even kept a journal of their fake interactions to keep their story straight. [01:00:22] Speaker B: Wait, she kept a journal, like deliberately documenting their fake relationship? [01:00:27] Speaker C: Yes. The investigators found it during their search. It had entries describing made up meetings and conversations with Johnny that never happened. It was like. Like a prop for their ongoing performance. And they used it to reference details when they were doing interviews so they wouldn't contradict themselves. [01:00:47] Speaker B: That's an incredible level of planning. What about the GoFundMe campaign itself? How did they manage that part? [01:00:55] Speaker C: So Kate set up the campaign in her name. Since she was supposedly the person Johnny had helped, they very carefully wrote the campaign description. Investigators found multiple drafts on her laptop. They made sure to emphasize Johnny's veteran status, his homelessness, and how he'd spent his last 20d to help her. [01:01:19] Speaker B: And then the money started pouring in. [01:01:21] Speaker C: Exactly. And this is where their plan start started getting complicated. GoFundMe has certain protocols for large campaigns. The money doesn't just immediately go to your personal bank account. So they had to open a special account for Johnny, which they controlled to receive the funds. And they made sure to post regular updates about how they were helping Johnny look for housing, get a job, etc. [01:01:46] Speaker B: But they were actually spending the money themselves, right? [01:01:49] Speaker C: Oh, absolutely. The financial investigation showed they started spending almost immediately. Within days of the first transfers, they were buying luxury items, booking vacations, gambling at casinos. Mark even bought a BMW. But publicly, they were very careful to maintain this image of responsibly managing Johnny's money. [01:02:12] Speaker B: How did they explain to Johnny that they were spending as much? [01:02:15] Speaker C: That's where it gets really manipulative. According to court testimony, they told Johnny they were investing his money or keeping it safe because of his history of drug use. They would give him small amounts, a few hundred dollars here and there, while spending tens of thousands themselves. They kept promising him that they were setting up trusts and financial plans for his future. [01:02:40] Speaker B: And I'm guessing Johnny eventually realized what was going on. [01:02:44] Speaker C: Yeah, but it took longer than you might think. For several months, Johnny seemed content with the arrangement. He was getting some money, had a camper to live in, and was part of this heartwarming story. But as time went on and he saw Kate and Mark's lifestyle improving dramatically while he was still basically homeless, he started asking questions. [01:03:06] Speaker B: That makes sense. So how were they managing the public narrative during all this? Were they still doing interviews and updates? [01:03:14] Speaker C: Yes, and this is where their real skill at deception shows. They created this whole public narrative about Johnny's journey. They'd post photos of him looking at apartments, talk about financial advisors they were meeting with, share stories about job interviews he was going on. It was all carefully crafted to show donors that their money was being used responsibly. [01:03:40] Speaker B: That's. That's a lot of work just to maintain a lie. [01:03:43] Speaker C: It was like. Like a full time job for them. The prosecutor described it as maintaining the fiction. They had to constantly feed the public interest with new developments in Johnny's story. And they were pretty good at it. Even when questions started coming up, they had answers ready. When people asked why Johnny wasn't in permanent housing yet, they'd say they were being careful to make sure he stayed sober first. [01:04:09] Speaker B: And all this time, the three of them were what, meeting regularly to coordinate their story? [01:04:15] Speaker C: Yes. They would meet to get their stories straight before major interviews. The investigation found Text messages, messages coordinating these meetings. Like before their Good Morning America appearance, there's a message from Mark saying, we need to talk about what we're going to say about the trust fund questions. They were very methodical about maintaining consistent details. [01:04:38] Speaker B: Did they ever worry about getting caught? Was there evidence they were concerned? [01:04:43] Speaker C: There absolutely was. As the money and attention grew, their texts show increasing anxiety. There's one message from Kate to Mark saying, what if someone finds out we knew him before? And Mark replied something like, no one can prove that unless we tell them. They were aware of the risk but convinced they could outrun it. [01:05:05] Speaker B: I'm curious about their relationship with each other. As this went on, did the three of them get along or was there tension? [01:05:12] Speaker C: Oh, there was tension, definitely tension. Especially about the money. The texts show arguments about how much Johnny should get. Johnny would complain he wasn't getting enough. Kate and Mark would argue about whether they were being too generous or not generous enough. The prosecutor described it as honor among thieves, breaking down as the amount of money grew. [01:05:39] Speaker B: It sounds like the success of their scammer ultimately led to its downfall. [01:05:43] Speaker C: That's, that's exactly what happened. If they had raised just a few thousand dollars, divided it somewhat fairly and moved on, they might never have been caught. But the enormous success put them under a spotlight they couldn't escape from. The bigger the lie got, the harder it was to maintain and the more people were watching. [01:06:06] Speaker B: And in the end, it was Johnny filing that lawsuit that really blew everything up. [01:06:10] Speaker C: Right, Right, exactly. When Johnny got lawyers involved demanding his share of the money, it triggered the investigation that revealed everything. The courts demanded detailed accounting of the funds which exposed all their spending. And then police got search warrants for their phones and computers which revealed all those incriminating texts and messages showing the whole thing was planned from the start. [01:06:39] Speaker B: What an incredible breakdown of how they pulled off one of the most notorious crowdfunding scams ever. It really shows how much work goes into something like this. [01:06:49] Speaker C: It really does. And you know what's maybe most disturbing about this whole thing? How calculated they were about exploiting people's generosity. They literally studied what, what makes people donate, what kind of stories go viral, and then engineered the perfect narrative to manipulate thousands of kind hearted people. It wasn't just opportunistic, it was methodical. [01:07:16] Speaker B: So after all that planning and deception, what actually happened to our three scammers? I'm really curious about the, the legal consequences they faced. [01:07:27] Speaker C: Oh my God. They got absolutely hammered by the legal system and, and honestly, they totally deserved it. The courts did not, like, mess around with this case at all. [01:07:39] Speaker B: I can imagine there were quite a few charges thrown at them. [01:07:42] Speaker C: There were. So the three of them were charged with multiple crimes. The big ones were conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. But here's what's interesting. Each of them ended up with slightly different legal outcomes based on their level of involvement. [01:08:04] Speaker B: Who got hit the hardest? Was it Mark? He seemed like the ringleader. From what we've discussed, you're spot on. [01:08:12] Speaker C: Mark D'Amico definitely received the harshest punishment. He pled guilty to misappropriation of trusted property, which was actually a state charge. But then there were the federal charges, too. In the federal case, he was sentenced to 27 months in prison. And. And he also had to pay restitution of $400,000. [01:08:37] Speaker B: Wow. That's the entire amount they raised, right? [01:08:39] Speaker C: Exactly. The court basically said, you're paying back every single penny. And on top of the federal time, he also got five years for the state charges, though those sentences ran concurrently. So he didn't actually serve seven to eight years, just the longer of the two. [01:08:59] Speaker B: What about Kate? She seemed pretty involved too. [01:09:02] Speaker C: She was. Kate McClure also faced serious consequences, but she got a slightly lighter sentence. She pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and she was sentenced to one year and one day in federal prison. The judge apparently took into account that while she was absolutely involved, Mark was really, you know, the driving force behind a lot of the scheme. [01:09:30] Speaker B: And she also had to pay restitution. [01:09:32] Speaker C: Oh, absolutely. She's on the hook for that $400,000 too. Plus, after her prison term, she'll have three years of supervised release. It's. It's actually really sad because before this she had no criminal record. She was working as a receptionist at the New Jersey Department of Transportation. Just like a regular person who made a terrible, terrible decision. [01:10:00] Speaker B: That's a life changing punishment. What about Johnny? Did the courts view him differently since he was homeless and potentially more vulnerable? [01:10:09] Speaker C: There was definitely some consideration of his circumstances. Johnny Bobbitt pled guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering, and he received a much lighter sentence of five years probation for the federal charge. The judge took into account his. His housing insecurity and struggle with addiction. [01:10:32] Speaker B: So no prison time for Johnny. [01:10:34] Speaker C: Well, that's for the federal charges. He was also sentenced to five years in a state drug treatment program as part of a plea deal with New Jersey state prosecutors. The court recognized that he had severe substance abuse issues that played a role in his participation in the scheme. [01:10:54] Speaker B: It's interesting how the legal system handled each of them differently based on their level of culpability. [01:11:01] Speaker C: Right. It's actually a pretty nuanced approach. The prosecutors and judges seem to recognize that while they all participated in the fraud, they didn't all have equal roles or equal ability to say no. Mark, as the mastermind, got the harshest punishment. Kate, who was definitely involved, but perhaps influenced by Mark, got an intermediate sentence. And Johnny, who was in a vulnerable position to begin with, received the most lenient sentence with a focus on rehabilitation. [01:11:33] Speaker B: What was the courtroom like during all this? Were there dramatic moments? [01:11:37] Speaker C: Oh, my God, there absolutely were. During Kate's sentencing hearing, she actually broke down in tears. She told the judge, I've been struggling with this shame and embarrassment for years. She said she was being used by D'Amico, though the judge wasn't. Wasn't entirely buying that excuse. [01:11:58] Speaker B: Did any of them show remorse? [01:12:00] Speaker C: Johnny actually seemed genuinely remorseful during his hearing. He admitted that he had been battling addiction for years and said he was ashamed of his role in the scheme. His attorney argued that he was an easy mark for Kate and Mark because of his situation. [01:12:17] Speaker B: And Mark, did he show any remorse? [01:12:20] Speaker C: Mark was interesting at his sentencing. He did apologize and said he took full responsibility. But the prosecutor pointed out that his apology came only after he was caught. The judge actually said something like, you can't deny that this was your brainchild and you were the one who kept it going. [01:12:42] Speaker B: What about GoFundMe's role in all this? Did they face any legal consequences? [01:12:47] Speaker C: No. GoFundMe wasn't held legally responsible because they were also victims of the fraud. But they did step up and refunded all the money to everyone who donated to the campaign. That's actually pretty remarkable when you think about it. That's over $400,000 they paid out of their own pocket. [01:13:06] Speaker B: I'm surprised that they covered all of that. That's. That's actually pretty impressive corporate responsibility. [01:13:13] Speaker C: It really is. They did it to maintain trust in their platform. After the scandal broke, they released a statement saying, GoFundMe has given refunds to all donors who contributed to this campaign. We have a zero, zero tolerance policy for fraudulent behavior. They knew this case could seriously damage people's willingness to donate on their platform. [01:13:37] Speaker B: Were there any other interesting legal details about the case? [01:13:40] Speaker C: Actually, yes. The investigation itself was fascinating. It involved the Burlington County Prosecutor's office, the FBI, and even the irs. They executed search warrants on Mark and Kate's home, went through thousands of text messages bank records, social media posts. It was extremely thorough. [01:14:01] Speaker B: Wait, the IRS was involved? Was there a tax angle too? [01:14:05] Speaker C: Good catch. Yes, there absolutely was. None of them reported this income on their taxes. So on top of everything else, they were potentially facing tax evasion charges. The $400,000 they received was taxable income, since it wasn't actually being used for charitable purposes as claimed. [01:14:26] Speaker B: So they managed to break both federal wire fraud laws and tax laws at the same time. [01:14:31] Speaker C: Exactly. It was like a layer cake of illegal activity. And what's really interesting is how the case changed the legal landscape for crowdfunding scams. Before this, there weren't many high profile prosecutions for GoFundMe fraud. This case established some important precedents about how these crimes are charged and prosecuted. [01:14:55] Speaker B: Has it had a lasting impact on how these cases are handled? [01:14:59] Speaker C: Absolutely. Now, prosecutors around the country have this case as a template for how to build similar cases. The charges, the evidence collection methods, the sentencing guidelines. It's all been established. Now. Since this case, we've seen more prosecutions of crowdfunding fraud using similar legal approaches. [01:15:22] Speaker B: Did any of them try to appeal their sentences? [01:15:24] Speaker C: Kate actually did file an appeal initially arguing that her sentence was too harsh, given her lesser role. But she later withdrew it. I think maybe reality set in that she was actually getting off relatively lightly compared to what could have happened. [01:15:43] Speaker B: And what's happened to them since sentencing? Are they still serving their time? [01:15:47] Speaker C: Mark has been serving his sentence at a federal correctional facility. Kate completed her prison term and is now on supervised release. And Johnny has been in the drug treatment program. The last reports I saw suggested he was actually making good progress with his recovery, which is, you know, one small positive in this whole mess. [01:16:10] Speaker B: Do you think any of them will be able to rebuild their lives after this? [01:16:14] Speaker C: It's going to be really tough. The convictions, the media attention, the restitution payments, these will follow them for decades. They've got federal felony convictions now. That affects employment, housing, all kinds of things. And that $400,000 rest institution, the government can garnish wages and tax returns for years to collect it. [01:16:37] Speaker B: The price of this scam seems to have been way higher than any of them anticipated. [01:16:42] Speaker C: That's the thing about behind the scams. The consequences almost always outweigh the benefits. In the end, they got to enjoy the money for what, a few months, and now they're paying for it with years of their lives and their futures. It's a pretty stark reminder that these schemes just aren't worth it. [01:17:00] Speaker B: It's a powerful example of how the Legal system responds to such a public and emotionally manipulative fraud? [01:17:07] Speaker C: Absolutely. The prosecutors even mentioned that fact that because they exploited people's charitable instincts and compassion for veterans and homeless people, they deserved especially serious consequences. The judge called it a deception that tainted the goodwill of thousands of people. [01:17:27] Speaker B: So this case seems like it really shook up the crowdfunding world. I'm curious about the. The ripple effects it had on platforms like GoFundMe and others. [01:17:39] Speaker C: Oh, my God. It absolutely did. This case was like a complete earthquake for the entire crowdfunding industry. And. And it forced these platforms to totally rethink how they operate. [01:17:53] Speaker B: What were some of the immediate changes that GoFundMe made after this scandal broke? [01:17:58] Speaker C: Well, first off, GoFundMe really doubled down on their verification processes. They started, like, requiring way more documentation for campaigns, especially ones that claim to be helping a third party. You know what I mean? Like, if you're raising money for someone else, now they want proof of your relationship to that person and. And proof that the funds will actually go to them. [01:18:22] Speaker B: That seems like a pretty reasonable response. Were there other policy changes? [01:18:27] Speaker C: Tons. They also expanded their fraud detection team, like, significantly. They hired more specialists whose entire job is just to look for red flags in campaigns. And they implemented more sophisticated algorithms to flag suspicious campaigns automatically based on certain patterns they've identified from previous frauds. [01:18:51] Speaker B: I've noticed they now have that GoFundMe guarantee prominently displayed. Was that a direct response to this case? [01:18:59] Speaker C: Yes, that's actually one of the biggest changes. So the GoFundMe guarantee basically promises donors that their donations will go to the right place or they'll get a refund. They had something similar before, but they really strengthened it and started promoting it heavily after the Bobbitt case. It was a direct attempt to rebuild trust because, you know, trust is absolutely everything in crowdfunding. [01:19:26] Speaker B: What about verification badges? I've seen those on some campaigns. [01:19:30] Speaker C: Oh, yeah, those definitely became more common after this case. GoFundMe and other platforms started using verification badges for campaigns they vetted. It's similar to the blue check mark on social media. It's a way of saying, we've checked this out and it seems legitimate. [01:19:48] Speaker B: Have they changed how quickly campaign organizers can access the funds? [01:19:52] Speaker C: That's a great question. And yes, they absolutely have. Before this case, it was pretty easy to withdraw funds quickly. Now, for larger campaigns especially, there are often holding periods and phased withdrawals. They might release the money in chunks rather than all at once, and they require ongoing documentation about how the money is being used. [01:20:16] Speaker B: Has gofundme been more transparent about their fraud rates since this happened? [01:20:20] Speaker C: They have. After the Bobbitt case, GoFundMe publicly stated that fraud on their platform affects less than 110 of 1% of campaigns. And they've been more open about sharing their fraud prevention tactics. It's like they realize that transparency is actually good for business because it builds trust. [01:20:43] Speaker B: What about other crowdfunding platforms? Did they make similar changes? [01:20:47] Speaker C: Absolutely. This case sent shockwaves through the entire industry. Platforms like Kickstarter, Indiegogo and smaller platforms all strengthened their verification processes too. No one wanted to be the next platform to host a viral scam. It was this, this industry wide realization that they needed to be more proactive rather than reactive. [01:21:12] Speaker B: Has there been any legislation or regulation proposed proposed because of cases like this? [01:21:18] Speaker C: Oh yeah. Several states actually started looking at new laws specifically targeting crowdfunding fraud. New Jersey, where this scam took place, was one of the first to propose stricter regulations. And some lawmakers at the federal level have pushed for more oversight of these platforms too. There's this growing recognition that crowdfund funding has become so mainstream that it needs proper regulatory frameworks. [01:21:47] Speaker B: Did the case change how the media covers viral crowdfunding campaigns? [01:21:52] Speaker C: It completely changed the media landscape around these stories. Before, bobbitt, media outlets would just run with these heartwarming crowdfunding stories without much verification. Now respond. Responsible journalists do way more due diligence. They ask for documentation. They interview multiple sources. They look for inconsistencies. The days of just amplifying a viral GoFundMe without checking it out are pretty much over. [01:22:25] Speaker B: Have donors become more cautious too? [01:22:27] Speaker C: They definitely have. There's been this noticeable shift in donor behavior. People are more likely to look for those verification badges we talked about to read updates carefully to check out the organizer's background. Like donors are just asking more questions before pulling out their credit cards. And they're more likely to report campaigns that seem suspicious. [01:22:53] Speaker B: Has GoFundMe made it easier to report suspicious campaigns? [01:22:57] Speaker C: Yes, they've made the reporting process much more visible and user friendly. Now there's a clear report campaign button on every fundraiser page. And they encourage users to report anything that seems off. They've basically deputized their entire user base as part of their fraud detection system, which is actually pretty smart. [01:23:19] Speaker B: What about the financial side? Did they change their fee structure or anything? [01:23:23] Speaker C: They actually did make some changes there too. In the aftermath of this scandal, GoFundMe eliminated their platform fee completely. For personal campaigns in the US they now just ask for voluntary Tips. I think that was partially a response to the criticism they faced for profiting from the bobbitt campaign. It was their way of saying, we're not in this to make money off potentially fraudulent campaigns. [01:23:52] Speaker B: Have these changes been effective in preventing similar scams? [01:23:56] Speaker C: The data suggests they have been, like, surprisingly effective. While there are still scams, there haven't been any that reached the scale and notoriety of the Bobbitt case. And GoFundMe claims they're catching suspicious campaigns much earlier now, often before they even go viral or raise significant amounts. Amounts. [01:24:19] Speaker B: I'm curious about the public perception now. Do people still trust crowdfunding platforms as much as they did before this case? [01:24:26] Speaker C: That's an interesting question. There was definitely a dip in trust immediately after the scandal broke. But surprisingly, crowdfunding has continued to grow year over year. I think the platform's quick responses and policy changes actually helped restore restore trust pretty quickly. And, and people still want to help others. You know, that basic human instinct to give hasn't changed. [01:24:53] Speaker B: Were there any unexpected consequences from all these new safeguards? [01:24:58] Speaker C: Oh, absolutely. One of the biggest complaints now is that legitimate campaigns sometimes get caught up in these stricter verification processes. There have been cases where people in genuine emergencies had their campaigns temporarily suspended while GoFundMe verified their information. So there's this constant tension between preventing fraud and not putting up too many barriers for people who really need help. [01:25:23] Speaker B: Has the case changed how nonprofits use these platforms? [01:25:27] Speaker C: It really has. Established nonprofits have had to adapt. Too many now provide much more documentation and regulate updates when they use crowdfunding. Some have even started doing regular third party audits of their crowdfunded projects to maintain donor trust. It's become standard practice to be super transparent about exactly how the money is being used. [01:25:51] Speaker B: Do you think the changes have gone far enough or is there more that could be done? [01:25:55] Speaker C: Honestly, I think there's still room for improvement. The platforms could implement even stronger verification for campaigns above certain dollar thresholds. And I think there could be more standardization across the industry. Right now each platform has its own policies, which can be confusing for users. A set of industry wide best practices would be really helpful. [01:26:21] Speaker B: How has GoFundMe specifically tried to rebuild its image after being associated with such a high profile scam? [01:26:28] Speaker C: They've been really proactive about telling positive stories. They've highlighted legitimate campaigns that made real differences in people's lives. They've shared success stories and follow ups showing how donations actually helped recipients. It's been a very deliberate PR strategy to associate their brand with verified Legitimate good news rather than fraud. [01:26:55] Speaker B: It sounds like this case really transformed the entire crowdfunding landscape. [01:26:59] Speaker C: It absolutely did. I think the Bobbitt case will be remembered as this crucial turning point for crowdfunding. It forced the entire industry to grow up and implement more sophisticated protections. And while that's created some new challenges, overall, it's made crowdfunding more trustworthy and sustainable in the long run. Sometimes it takes a crisis to push an industry to mature. [01:27:25] Speaker B: So I'm really fascinated by the psychology behind this whole scam. Why do you think this particular story was so. So effective at getting people to open their wallets? [01:27:38] Speaker C: Oh, my God. This is actually my favorite part to talk about. So the Bobbit scam was like the perfect storm of psychological triggers that just. That just completely bypassed people's normal skepticism. It's actually kind of brilliant in a really twisted way. [01:27:57] Speaker B: What were some of those psychological triggers? [01:27:59] Speaker C: Well, first off, they crafted this narrative that checked all the boxes for what makes a viral story. You had a homeless veteran, so someone who served his country but fell on hard times. And he uses his last $20, literally his last bit of money, to help this stranded woman. It's like it's the ultimate redemption story. Right? And people are absolutely hardwired to love redemption stories. [01:28:27] Speaker B: It does sound almost like it was designed in a lab to go viral. [01:28:31] Speaker C: That's exactly it. It totally was. The story had this. This perfect combination of. Of sacrifice, heroism, and vulnerability. And neuroscience shows us that stories like this trigger the release of oxytocin in our brains. That's the chemical that promotes bonding and empathy. So people weren't just emotionally moved. They were literally having a chemical reaction to this story. [01:28:58] Speaker B: Interesting. Were there other elements that made it particular, particularly effective? [01:29:03] Speaker C: Oh, absolutely. Another huge factor was what psychologists call the identifiable victim effect. See, we're much more likely to donate when we can identify a specific person who needs help, rather than, like, a general cause. Johnny Bobbitt wasn't just a statistic about homelessness. He was a specific person with a name, a face, and a compelling story. And McClure and D'Amico made sure to share photos of him, which. Which made that connection even stronger. [01:29:39] Speaker B: That makes a lot of sense. We relate to individuals more than abstract causes. [01:29:43] Speaker C: Exactly. And they also leveraged what's called reciprocity bias. This is our tendency to want to reward good deeds. So when people hurt that Johnny had helped this woman despite having almost nothing himself, they felt this. This really strong urge to reciprocate that kindness. It's like he did Something nice. Now we should do something nice for him. It's actually a deeply ingrained social norm across pretty much all cultures. [01:30:12] Speaker B: Was there also an element of social proof involved? I noticed the campaign gained momentum really quickly. [01:30:19] Speaker C: Oh, my God. Yes. Social proof was huge in this case, as more and more people donated and the campaign went viral. Others saw that and thought, well, if thousands of other people think this is legitimate, it must be. We're social creatures, and we look to others for cues about how to behave. And once the major news outlets picked up the story, that added another layer of credibility. People thought, well, if NBC is covering this, it must be real. [01:30:51] Speaker B: The timing of the campaign also seemed significant. It was around Thanksgiving, right? [01:30:55] Speaker C: Yes. And that was absolutely no accident. They launched it during the holiday season when people are already primed to be generous and thinking about giving. Studies show that charitable giving spikes during no November and December, so they tapped into what marketers call seasonal giving behavior. Plus, the story gave people this. This warm, fuzzy feeling that aligned perfectly with the holiday spirit. [01:31:25] Speaker B: I've also heard about something called the halo effect. Was that at play here? [01:31:29] Speaker C: That's such a good point. The halo effect was definitely in action. Once people decided that Johnny was this. This selfless hero, they attributed all sorts of other positive qualities to him without any evidence. They assumed he was honest, deserving, and would use the money responsibly. And similarly, because Kate and Mark presented themselves as these compassionate people trying to help a homeless vet, donors automatically viewed them as trustworthy and ethical. [01:32:01] Speaker B: What about the role of. Of the media in all this? How did they contribute to the psychological impact? [01:32:07] Speaker C: The media was like. Like the rocket fuel for this scam. News outlets love these kinds of heartwarming human interest stories because they generate tons of engagement. And the way they framed it with dramatic headlines and emotional interviews amplified all those psychological triggers we've been talking about. Plus, each time a new outlet covered the story, it created this. This sense of legitimacy through repetition. You know, if you hear something from multiple sources, you're more likely to believe it. [01:32:45] Speaker B: I noticed they also used updates about Johnny effectively. Was that part of the strategy? [01:32:51] Speaker C: Absolutely. The updates were strategically brief, brilliant. They provided what psychologists call intermittent reinforcement to donors. They'd share these small victories. Johnny looking for apartments or Johnny applying for jobs. And donors would get this little dopamine hit, knowing they were part of his success story. It kept people emotionally invested and also created this. This narrative that the money was being used appropriately. [01:33:20] Speaker B: Were there any specific demographics that were more susceptible to this particular scam? [01:33:24] Speaker C: That's interesting. The research suggests that this type of scam actually cuts across typical demographic lines. Like it wasn't just older people or just younger people. The psychological triggers they used are pretty universal. But one pattern that did emerge was that people who had personal connections to veterans or homelessness were especially responsive. Personal relevance is a powerful motivator for giving. [01:33:56] Speaker B: Why do you think people didn't pick up on the red flags earlier? [01:33:59] Speaker C: So this is fascinating. Once people are emotionally invested in a narrative, they experience what psychologists call confirmation bias. They start seeking out information, information that confirms their existing beliefs and ignore contradictory evidence. So when small inconsistencies in the story appeared, many donors just. Just rationalized them away because they were already committed to believing in this heartwarming tale. [01:34:29] Speaker B: Is there also an element of people not wanting to appear cynical? [01:34:33] Speaker C: Oh, my God, yes. Social pressure against cynicism is huge. No one wants to be that person saying, actually, I think this heartwarming story about a homeless veteran might be fake. You risk looking like a terrible person. So even people who had doubts might have kept them to themselves or pushed them aside. It's what social scientists call preference falsification. Publicly supporting something, even if privately you have doubts. [01:35:05] Speaker B: What about the sunk cost fallacy? Did that play a role once people had already donated? [01:35:10] Speaker C: Yes. Once people had already donated, they became even more committed to believing the story was true. Because admitting it was a scam would mean admitting they'd been fooled, and that's a really uncomfortable feeling. So they doubled down on their belief. This is actually related to a concept called cognitive dissonance, the discomfort we feel when holding two contradictory beliefs. It's much easier psychologically to just keep believing than to admit you were duped. [01:35:48] Speaker B: It's remarkable how many psychological principles were at work in this one scam. [01:35:53] Speaker C: It really is. And that's what makes made it so dangerously effective. It wasn't just one psychological trick. It was this perfect storm of emotional triggers, cognitive biases, social proof, media amplification, and timing. And. And when you combine all that with the ease of online donation platforms, you create this. This situation where people can act immediately on their emotional impulses without taking time to think critically. [01:36:26] Speaker B: Do you think people are more aware of these psychological triggers now? [01:36:29] Speaker C: I think there's definitely more awareness, but these psychological principles are so deeply ingrained in how our brains work that we're still vulnerable to them. The best defense is really just taking a pause before donating to any campaign that tugs at your heartstrings. Ask yourself, would I still donate if I waited 24 hours? Sometimes that cooling off period can help you think more critically. [01:36:59] Speaker B: Are there certain emotional triggers that people should be especially wary of? [01:37:03] Speaker C: Absolutely. Be especially careful with stories that seem almost too perfect, that hit all the emotional notes just right. Be skeptical of campaigns that create a sense of urgency or that involve someone who seems impossibly virtuous. And remember that legitimate causes don't usually disappear if you take a day to research them. Behind the scams is all about helping people recognize these patterns. Right. [01:37:33] Speaker B: What lasting impact do you think this case had on how people respond to emotional appeals for donations? [01:37:39] Speaker C: I think it's created this permanent tension for many people. On one hand, they want to help and be generous. On the other hand, they're now more aware that their emotions can be manipulated. The real tragedy is that this scam has made some people hesitant to donate to legitimate causes. That's why understanding the psychology behind these scams is so important, so we can protect ourselves without becoming completely cynical about giving. [01:38:11] Speaker B: So after unpacking all that psychology, I'm really curious about how our listeners can protect themselves. What practical advice do we have for spotting these crowdfunding scams? [01:38:24] Speaker C: So I got something super cool for you, Nick. And. And for all our behind the Scams list listeners, the truth is, there are actually some really clear warning signs once you know what to look for. Like, the first thing everyone should do when they see a campaign that's tugging at their heartstrings is to check if the organizer has a clear connection to the beneficiary. [01:38:53] Speaker B: That makes a lot of sense. How exactly would someone verify that connection? [01:38:57] Speaker C: Well, this is the thing. Legitimate campaigns usually have, you know, specific details about how the organizer knows the person they're raising money for. And if it's not super clear from the campaign description, don't be afraid to ask questions. Most platforms let you message the organizer directly. If they're legit, they'll be totally happy to explain their relationship with the beneficiary. [01:39:23] Speaker B: And what if the campaign is for someone the organizer claims to have just met? Like in the Bobbitt case? [01:39:30] Speaker C: That's. That's actually a really good point. Those cases definitely require extra scrutiny. Look for specific, verifiable details about the chance encounter. And, you know, see if local news sources have independently verified the story before the fundraiser got big. In the Bobbitt case, the media coverage came after the campaign went viral, which is kind of a red flag in hindsight. [01:39:58] Speaker B: Should people also be looking at the social media profiles of the organizers? [01:40:03] Speaker C: Oh, my God, absolutely. This is such an important step that People often skip take a minute to look at the organizer's social media history. Is their account brand new? New? That's suspicious. Or is it well established? With a normal history of posts and interactions you can also you can check if they have mutual connections with the supposed beneficiary. Real relationships usually leave digital footprints. Right? [01:40:32] Speaker B: That's really smart. What about the campaign updates? Are there red flags people should watch for? [01:40:38] Speaker C: There updates are are like they're such a huge tell. Legitimate campaigns usually provide regular specific updates about how the money is being used. If you see vague updates or long periods with no updates at all, that's definitely concerning. And watch out for campaigns where the story keeps changing or where the organizer seems to be adding dramatic new else elements to keep the donations flowing. [01:41:08] Speaker B: I've noticed some campaigns have this. This sort of escalating narrative. [01:41:12] Speaker C: Exactly. It's like they start with one problem and then suddenly there's another crisis and another and it just keeps building. Real life can certainly throw multiple challenges at people. But when every update introduces some new dramatic element, it might be something someone trying to milk donors for more money. [01:41:33] Speaker B: Are there any specific technical things people can look for on the crowdfunding platforms themselves? [01:41:39] Speaker C: Yes. So most legitimate platforms now have some form of verification system. Look for things like verified badges or Identity confirmed notifications. GoFundMe for example, has really stepped up their verification requirements since the Bio bobbitt case. And also pay attention to to how the withdrawal process is described. Legitimate campaigns are usually pretty transparent about who can access the funds and how they'll reach the beneficiary. [01:42:11] Speaker B: What about the the actual fundraising goal? Can that be a red flag? [01:42:16] Speaker C: Such a good question. Goals that seem arbitrary or excessive relative to the state stated need are definitely worth questioning. Like if someone needs $5,000 for a specific medical procedure, but they're asking for $50,000, that's worth questioning. And. And also be wary of campaigns that keep increasing their goal amount after reaching the original target without clear explanation. [01:42:45] Speaker B: I always wonder about campaigns that go viral. Should virality itself make us more suspicious? [01:42:51] Speaker C: That's. That's such an interesting paradox. The campaigns that get the most attention are often the most emotionally compelling ones, which can also be the ones most likely to be manipulative. I'm not saying viral campaigns are automatically scams. Many legitimate causes go viral too. But they definitely deserve extra verification. Verification precisely because they've triggered such a strong emotional response. [01:43:18] Speaker B: What resources can people use to verify these campaigns? [01:43:22] Speaker C: So there are actually some really helpful tools now. Charity Navigator and Guidestar are great for verifying established nonprofits for personal campaigns. Local news sources that have independently investigated the story, not just repeated what's in the campaign. Campaign can be valuable. And don't forget simple Google searches like like the campaign name plus words like scam or fake to see if others have raised concerns. [01:43:51] Speaker B: Is it also worth checking if there are multiple campaigns for the same cause? [01:43:56] Speaker C: Oh my God, yes. Scammers often create copycat campaigns for real tragedies or viral stories. Always check if there are multiple campaigns campaigns for the same beneficiary and try to determine which is the original or official one. Most legitimate platforms now try to flag duplicate campaigns, but it's still worth checking yourself. [01:44:18] Speaker B: What about the the actual story itself? Are there narrative elements that should make us suspicious? [01:44:25] Speaker C: This is where it gets really interesting. Be wary of stories that seem perfectly crazy crafted to hit emotional triggers, like the homeless veteran helping a stranded woman, which is almost like a movie plot. Real life is usually messier and less perfectly narrative. You know what I mean? Also watch for stories that align suspiciously well with current news cycles or viral trends. Scammers often piggyback on whatever's getting attention. [01:44:58] Speaker B: Should people also consider the campaign's timing or context? [01:45:02] Speaker C: Definitely be extra cautious around holidays when giving increases and people might be less skeptical. Same with major disasters or tragedies. Scammers know these events trigger generosity. And always be skeptical of campaigns that create artificial urgency with arbitrary deadlines. Most legitimate needs don't disappear if you take a day or two to verify before donating. [01:45:31] Speaker B: What's your take on campaigns that don't have any external verification? [01:45:36] Speaker C: That's that's where I'd really encourage people to do their homework. For medical campaigns, for example, there should usually be some verifiable details like the hospital name or the condition being treated that you could potentially confirm. For campaigns helping victims of specific events, check local news sources to verify the person was actually involved in that event. [01:46:01] Speaker B: Is it okay to reach out to the beneficiary directly if you have doubts? [01:46:06] Speaker C: If the beneficiary is directly named and contactable, then absolutely. A quick message saying, hey, I'm considering considering donating to this campaign. Could you confirm it's legitimate is totally reasonable. If they're truly in need, they'll appreciate your diligence. Just be sensitive. Some people might be going through difficult times while also trying to raise funds. [01:46:30] Speaker B: What do you think is the single most important thing people should remember when considering donating to a crowdfunding campaign? [01:46:38] Speaker C: I think. I think the most important thing thing is to take A breath and create some emotional distance before donating. These campaigns are designed to make you feel an urgent need to help right now. But taking even just 24 hours to do some basic verification can make a huge difference. The legitimate causes will still need help tomorrow, I promise. [01:47:03] Speaker B: That's really good advice. And I imagine it's also worth considering alternatives to direct donations. [01:47:09] Speaker C: Absolutely. If you're not sure about a campaign but still want to help, consider donating to established charities that address the same issue. Like instead of donating to an individual homeless person's campaign, you can't verify donate to a respected homeless shelter or advocacy organization in your community. You still get to help, but with much more confidence your money will be used properly. [01:47:37] Speaker B: I think that's all really practical advice that our listeners can actually use. Anything else you'd add? [01:47:43] Speaker C: Just one last thing. Trust your gut. If something feels off about a campaign, it probably is. And remember that being cautious doesn't make you a bad or cynical person. It makes you a smart donor who wants your generosity to actually make a difference rather than lining a scammer's pocket. And that's what behind the Scams is all about. Right. [01:48:08] Speaker B: So we've covered a lot of ground with this Johnny Bobbit case. It's been quite the journey, hasn't it? [01:48:15] Speaker C: Oh my God. Absolutely. I think, I think this case really shows us something profound about, you know, human nature and how easily we can all get swept up in a good story. Like there's a reason this scam worked so well and it's because we all wanted to believe in this beautiful moment of human connection and generosity. [01:48:37] Speaker B: I was thinking about that too. There's something almost like primal about how we respond to these kinds of narratives. Right. The homeless veteran spending his life last $20 to help a stranded woman is almost like a modern fairy tale. [01:48:54] Speaker C: Exactly. It's like it's the perfect storm of what makes a viral story. You've got the selfless hero who has nothing but gives everything, the damsel in distress. And then the. The opportunity for everyone else to join in and be part of this redemption story. It checks all the boxes that make us want to share and participate. [01:49:19] Speaker B: And the media really amplified all of that without much skepticism at first. [01:49:24] Speaker C: That's is. That's such an important point. The media coverage was just so enthusiastic and uncritical. They were reporting on the feel good story and the growing fundraiser, but very few outlets were actually, you know, doing the hard work work of verification before jumping on board. And this creates this, this cycle where more coverage Leads to more donations, which leads to more coverage. [01:49:52] Speaker B: I wonder if, if social media makes this kind of thing more dangerous now than it would have been 20 years ago. [01:49:59] Speaker C: Oh, without a doubt. Social media doesn't just spread these stories faster. It also creates this weird, weird social pressure to participate. When all your friends are sharing a GoFundMe and talking about how moved they are, there's this subtle pressure to show that you care too, by donating. And. And the platforms themselves are designed to make giving frictionless. Just a couple of clicks and you've done your good deed for the day. [01:50:27] Speaker B: That frictionless aspect is really interesting. Do you think people are less careful with their money when it's that easy to give? [01:50:34] Speaker C: I think that's absolutely what happens. It's like we're making these financial decisions based on emotion in the moment, not careful consideration. And crowdfunding platforms have mastered this, this perfect combination of heartstring, tugging stories with super easy payment processes. The bobbitt case really shows the dark side of that combination. [01:50:57] Speaker B: What do you think is the biggest lesson from all of this? [01:51:00] Speaker C: So I think the biggest lesson is that even when something feels so good and right and true, we still need to apply some healthy skepticism. Not in a cynical way that dismisses all generosity, but in a way that makes sure our generosity actually helps real people with real needs. Because the sad reality is that for every fake campaign like this one, there are legitimate people who really need help. [01:51:30] Speaker B: That's a really good point. I've been wondering about the. The impact on people with genuine needs who might have a harder time raising money. [01:51:39] Speaker C: Now that's actually the real tragedy here. Cases like the Bobbitt scam create this. This trust deficit that affects everyone. GoFundMe had to refund all that money to donors, which is good, but the damage to public trust isn't so easily fixed. And now when someone with a genuine emergency creates a campaign, they're facing an uphill battle against that skepticism. [01:52:06] Speaker B: Is there any silver lining here at all? [01:52:08] Speaker C: Well, I think one positive outcome is that platforms like GoFundMe have really strengthened their verification processes. And there's more public awareness about the need to verify before donating. We're collectively getting a little smarter about how we give online, and that's ultimately a good thing for legitimate causes. [01:52:32] Speaker B: Looking back at everything we've discussed today, what surprises you the most about this case? [01:52:37] Speaker C: What still blows my mind is just how, how elaborate this whole thing was. You know, the planning, the coordination between the three of them, the willingness to go on national TV and lie to everyone's faces. And for what? A temporary financial gain that ended with all of them facing criminal charges. It's just, it really makes you wonder what they thought the end game was going to be. [01:53:05] Speaker B: I guess it shows how, how people can get caught up in their own lies once things start snowballing. [01:53:12] Speaker C: Absolutely. They created this monster that they couldn't control. Once the media spotlight was on them and the money was pouring in, they were trapped in this web of their own making. And I think that's actually a pattern we see in many of the scams we cover on behind the Scams. What so starts as a simple deception quickly spirals out of control. [01:53:37] Speaker B: Well, this has been a fascinating deep dive into one of the most famous crowdfunding scams of all time. Before we wrap up, any final thoughts for our listeners? [01:53:46] Speaker C: Just that generosity is still, it's still one of our best human qualities. Don't let stories like this make you cynical or unwilling to help others. Just take that extra step to verify before you donate. And remember that established charities with good track records are always a safe bet if you're unsure about a personal campaign. Your kindness matters so much in this world. Just make sure it's going where it's truly needed. [01:54:18] Speaker B: And that's it for this episode of behind the Scams. Remember to follow us wherever you get your podcasts and leave us a review if you enjoyed the show. We'll be back soon with another wild tale of deception and drama. Thanks for listening. [01:54:33] Speaker C: Bye everyone. Stay savvy out there. And Miles, would you please close this episode out in your magical way with your magical voice? [01:54:41] Speaker A: My pleasure, Sue. And that, dear listeners, concludes another eyebrow raising episode of behind the Scams, where the gas tank was empty but the lies were running on premium. We started with a homeless vet, a stranded woman, and a $20 bill and ended up with FBI raids, luxury handbags, and enough legal drama to make Judge Judy spill her tea. Moral of the story if a viral feel good fundraiser seems too good to be true, it probably came with a side of fabricated text messages and a least BMW. So remember, folks, keep your hearts open, your wallets guarded, and your scams behind you. Unless you're listening to behind the Scams, in which case, bring popcorn. Until next time, I'm Miles, your friendly fraud narrator, reminding you don't believe everything you read online. Especially if it involves gas stations, viral redemption arcs, or three people who suddenly become besties in time for a TV deal. Bye for now.