Prior Felon Tied To Hollywood Killings

Hollywood Sign on hillside framed by trees — Photo: Maks Ershov / Shutterstock

Los Angeles prosecutors charged a onetime political candidate with three counts of murder after police said three men were executed inside a Hollywood apartment.

Story Snapshot

Los Angeles County prosecutors charged Patrick Kevin Spurlock with three counts of murder tied to July 24 killings.
Police said the shooter ordered the men to the floor and fired multiple close-range shots.
Authorities arrested Spurlock on August 14 near the crime scene; he is being held without bail.
Prosecutors noted the charges are allegations and Spurlock is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Charges Filed After Hollywood Triple Homicide

Los Angeles County prosecutors announced murder charges against Patrick Kevin Spurlock on August 20, 2026, naming him in case 26CJCF05140. The charges stem from the July 24 killings of Jeremiah Badeker, Jack Cartegena, and Michael Bogacz inside a Hollywood apartment, according to prosecutors and police. Prosecutors said Spurlock, who has prior felony history, faces three counts of murder and related allegations. Prosecutors also stressed that the charges are allegations and that Spurlock is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.

Police said detectives from the Los Angeles Police Department’s Robbery-Homicide Division identified Spurlock as the suspect and arrested him on August 14 in the 6600 block of Franklin Avenue, not far from the scene. Police reported that the victims were found days after the attack. Investigators said witnesses and evidence led them to Spurlock, who was booked and held without bail at the Metropolitan Detention Center. Authorities have not yet released a detailed motive, and the case remains in the early court stages.

Investigators Describe Close-Range Shootings

Police reports described a grim scene inside the apartment. Officers said the shooter ordered the men to lie on the floor, then fired multiple rounds at close range. Reporters cited police as saying the attack followed a dispute before the gunfire. The detail about victims being ordered to the floor suggests control and planning, which prosecutors often use to argue intent. Those specifics will likely be tested at later hearings where evidence faces cross-examination and stricter rules.

Local outlets reported that the arrest took place less than a quarter mile from where the victims were killed, underscoring how confined the search area became once detectives focused on a suspect. Police say the timeline began in the early hours of July 24, with the bodies discovered later, which often complicates forensic work. At this stage, officials have not released full forensic findings or detailed ballistics. Those items often surface at preliminary hearings or through court filings.

What “Charged” Really Means For The Case

Prosecutors filing charges signals they believe they can meet the probable cause standard now and a higher trial standard later. It does not prove guilt. The Los Angeles County District Attorney’s office stated the charges are allegations and Spurlock is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The next steps will likely include arraignment, a preliminary hearing on probable cause, and motions about what evidence can be used at trial. Early statements can shift as new disclosures arrive.

High-profile crime cases often follow a pattern. Police and prosecutors set an early frame, and media repeat those claims before a judge tests them in court proceedings. Research on coverage of major cases shows heavy reliance on official accounts and a pull toward sensational facts that may never enter evidence at trial. Readers should expect firm claims about timelines or intent to face scrutiny in court, where rules for proof are tighter and both sides can challenge each fact.

Why This Resonates Beyond One Case

This case lands in a country already on edge about crime, trust, and fairness. Many Americans, left and right, worry that the system swings between being too soft and too political, yet still fails to keep people safe. When a person with prior convictions and a recent public profile faces new murder charges, it deepens anger about how repeat offenders move through the system while communities live with the risk.

Public frustration also grows when facts trickle out slowly. Police must protect an active case, and prosecutors must build proof step by step. But long gaps and headline-driven leaks can feed doubts about transparency. The best guardrail is due process in open court. This case will test whether the system can deliver both accountability and fairness, without spin. For now, the charges stand, the presumption of innocence stands, and the search for verifiable proof moves to the courtroom.