JP Miller and D4vd: What a Former FBI Agent Found in Both Cases

SPEAKER_1 (0:02)

This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Dreeke.

Tony Brueski (0:09)

Well, JPMiller, here's a fun individual, everybody's favorite pastor, right? The release of the new Netflix documentary, Death of the Pastor's Wife, has reignited global outrage over the tragic death of Mica Miller. But while the documentary focuses on her harrowing allegations of abuse, the actual legal reckoning is happening right now. Former Myrtle Beach pastor JP Miller is facing a federal trial next month for cyberstalking and making statements to investigators. Charges that include allegedly tracking Mica's car, slashing her tires and releasing nude photos of her without consent. All the things a good pastor does. It's led many to ask, why did the FBI have to step in? This is a local thing that's going on, but nobody seems to be doing a whole lot to kind of tamper it down. Eventually the FBI gets involved, steps in because local law enforcement, some of whom actually moonlighted at the church as security, were simply maybe too compromised to investigate this powerful local figure. Joining us to analyze what's going on here in the saga of JP Miller and the death of Mica Miller is retired FBI Special Agent Jennifer Coffindaffer, along with retired FBI Special Agent and Chief of the Counterintelligence Behavioral Analysis Program Robin Dreeke.

Jennifer JP is going to be going to federal trial next month, not state, given that local officers seemingly actively work security details at Solid Rock Church for a while, which is common, people do that. But sometimes you're a little bit too close to the fire if there's a fire at the church.

Let's talk about the FBI stepping in to indict him for cyberstalking as a direct result of law enforcement being, were they too conflicted? Why did the FBI need to get involved in a case like this? Why was this not something the local authorities could take on?

Jennifer Coffindaffer (2:12)

I love this question, Tony, because this happens so often in cases like this, because the teeth of this cyberstalking is so much stronger than anything the locals could have charged him with. And also the 1001 statements. This was absolutely the right move to bring the Bureau in on this, and they actually had a statute they can use. I also want to call to mind, this is the statute, although it was tailored for him, that Luigi Mangione was also charged with by federal authorities. They're the same statute, but obviously tailored toward the facts and the differentiation of cyber-stalking versus what Luigi did. So it's got some teeth, Tony.

Tony Brueski (3:02)

Is it different when this is coming in on a federal level versus a state level in terms of weight, in terms of prosecuting it, in terms of what they're going to, the resources that they have to dig in and show a jury just how vital the allegations are against JP Miller? Was this one of those calls where we see so often where we look at cases and go, why did it take so long to get the FBI involved? Is this one where, okay, this is good. They did get them involved.

Maybe it should have done a little bit sooner. I don't know. You can look at that in a different way. But is this a case where, thank goodness, they got them involved because they're going to be able to do more than we can here to expose what the hell is happening allegedly?

Jennifer Coffindaffer (3:50)

Absolutely. This is a thank goodness moment and a thank goodness moment that the person at that RA, that resident agency in that office with the Bureau decided to take this case on. So often the local authorities come and we say, listen, we'll help out. We'll give you the help you might need, but we're not going to take it on. And to their credit, this FBI office and this agent decided to take it on.

It's only, by the way, a five-year hit under this specific statute and two years for that 1001 violation. But that's way more than he ever would have gotten if they could have even figured out what to charge him with locally. He probably would have gotten a misdemeanor. So this is good news.

Robin Dreeke (4:38)

Yeah, and like you said, Jen, very big kudos to the office for doing this very proactively and taking it on. Because like you said, taking it on is exactly what they're doing. When you go up on subpoenas, FISEs or Title IIIs, anything that requires a technical surveillance, it's a lot of paperwork. It's a lot of grit and resilience to actually put that through the criminal justice system because there's so many wickets you have to pass to get that approved of, and then you have to redo these renewals. I mean, it is a grind to do that. And at the same time, you're really potentially, and that's my question then, is you're really opening a potential bucket of worms here because if you have this kind of abuse, or alleged abuse, going on with one individual where there's stalking of one individual, the likelihood that this is the only one ever is slim to none. So what do you think the probability is? Again, we just talked about the potential sentencing if convicted on this, but what do you think the potential is that there might other charges come about because of this investigation?