All Episodes

June 17, 2024 61 mins

The state of Missouri has set a date for the execution of Marcellus Williams -- despite emerging evidence overwhelmingly indicating his innocence (and the prosecutor who wants to reverse the conviction). A Baby Reindeer update. Banana giant Chiquita is once again in court -- this time for funding the far-right paramilitary/terrorist organization AUC. Over in California, a 71 year-old man has been busted for running a massive LEGO heist ring. All this and more in this week's strange news segment.

They don't want you to read our book.:

See for privacy information.

Mark as Played

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
From UFOs to psychic powers and government conspiracies. History is
riddled with unexplained events. You can turn back now or
learn this stuff they don't want you to know. A
production of iHeartRadio.

Speaker 2 (00:24):
Hello, welcome back to the show.

Speaker 3 (00:25):
My name is Matt, my name is Nola. They call
me Ben.

Speaker 4 (00:28):
We're joined as always with our super producer Alexis codenamed
Doc Holliday Jackson. Most importantly, you are here. That makes
this the stuff they don't want you to know. It
is the top of the week Monday. If you're hearing
this evening comes out, which means it's time for some
strange news quick things at the top. A school board

of Florida banned a book about book bands hell in
their library.

Speaker 3 (00:54):
That's pretty meta right there.

Speaker 4 (00:56):
It's love to be an escape room with those guys.

Speaker 3 (00:58):
And no man nightmares probably.

Speaker 4 (01:01):
And before we get to our main stories, maybe we
can kick it off with some good news. FBI statistics
have proven that here in the United States, violent crime
is down significantly and the US murder rate is plummeting.
So millennials killed the diamond market, I guess right, and
now they're killing crime. So khudn't say yeah, Yay, who

could afford a crime in this economy?

Speaker 3 (01:26):
Are you kidding? Not me?

Speaker 4 (01:29):
So say we all. We may talk a little bit
about the recent conviction of Hunter Biden, but we are
definitely going to give you some updates on Baby Reindeer,
some unfortunate paramilitary news, got some neat legos stories. We
got a lot of stuff to get to.

Speaker 2 (01:47):
One last thing. As we are recording this today on
June twelfth, you are hearing it on June seventeenth. From
the day we record until the day you hear this,
there are four large Russian vessels parked just hanging out
in Cuba, in Havana. Yeah, and it's fine, Everything's fine.

Speaker 4 (02:08):
Yeah, but if you look at those four vessels, they're
not I mean, I don't think the US Navy is worried.

Speaker 2 (02:15):
No, but it's definitely a little Hey, remember that we
can kind of hang out down here, just just below Florida.

Speaker 4 (02:24):
He can reach out and touch each other or easily
now than at any point in history. Breaking news, fellow
conspiracy realist, our first story.

Speaker 3 (02:38):
Of this evening.

Speaker 4 (02:40):
There is a man who is set to be executed
in Missouri on September twenty fourth. His name is Marcellus Williams.
This was a decision of the Missouri Supreme Court, and
it's a decision that the prosecutor does not agree with.
Let's go to AP News article. Execution date set for

Missouri inmate even as he waits hearing on a claim
of his actual innocence. So Marcellus Williams, not Wallace as
fifty five. He was convicted of firstgree murder in the
nineteen ninety eight death of Lesia Gale during a robbery
at her home in suburban Saint Louis, and his story

has been quite a journey because in twenty seventeen he
was almost executed for this crime until the governor at
the time halted the process demanded an investigation. And this
demand for an investigation was based on the fact that
DNA forensic technology wasn't available at the time of this

guy's arrest, trial and conviction, and the new DNA investigation
found DNA on the knife used to stab this person,
this victim. The DNA does not match Williams, it matches
someone else. Add to this eyewitness testimony that appears to
confirm he was hours away from the location where the

crime occurred. The prosecutors said that they have clear and
convincing evidence that Marcellus Williams is innocent. This is the
prosecution saying this. They moved to vacate the conviction, and
I think, as we all know, it's fairly rare for
prosecution to go back and vacate this kind of stuff.

Speaker 2 (04:30):
Yeah. Absolutely, But what we're looking at here is absolutely
reasonable doubt. And if it was presented in a courtroom
that the DNA on the weapon used to cause death
was not the DNA of the person who is now
in prison awaiting death himself, I feel like the whole

thing would be over. But it is weird. It's almost
like we've already made this decision, so we're just going
to keep.

Speaker 4 (04:59):
It like this right exactly. And we also, to be
completely fair, we have to say finding different DNA on
the murder weapon could just be as simple as someone
touched it at some point, you know what I mean.
But it doesn't. While it doesn't absolutely prove his innocence,
it does go to reasonable doubt, which is one of

the big problems with the US death penalty policies well.

Speaker 3 (05:24):
And it's also a big problem just about the slow
grinding of the gears of justice and the bureaucracy of
it all, and just the kind of procedural nature. It's like,
once things are sort of set in motion, it takes
a whole lot to reverse things or to even get
things to kind of pause, right. I don't know. I mean,
it just seems like they're basically saying, nah, now we're

already moving forward based on the original information, and it's
too you know, I don't know, like it's too difficult.
There isn't there are enough processes in place to allow
for this kind of thing. Maybe, I don't know. It
seems like the kind of conversations we were having with
Lava for Good on that panel just about how there
are just so many cracks that these kinds of things
can fall through in the wake of like this.

Speaker 4 (06:06):
You know, machine and the Innocence Project is one of
the best sources for breaking news and backstory in context
on this case, So shout out to shout out to
our pal Jason flam as well as the rest of
the Lava for Good crew or community. I also want
to amend an earlier statement. Williams had almost been executed

twice on two separate occasions. His execution was suspended or
halted is the language they use. And it is true
that if this were in a court, the decision of
the court may well have been very different. No court
has officially reviewed this DNA evidence. And there was also

you know, there are also claims from a jailhouse informant,
an ex girlfriend who likes it's dirty. There was also
get this, no physical evidence ever presented that linked Williams
to the crime. And even after the prosecution agreed with
all of this and said, yes, let's vacate this conviction,

let's take back the conclusion, even after that, the Supreme Court,
the State Supreme Court said no, we are executing this
man in September. The decision has been made. So we're
working with live a live situation here. I'd like to
shout out one thing before we move on. If you

go to the Innocence Project and just search for Marcellus
Williams that's m A R C L l us, then
you will see a petition that I think is you know,
we don't ever tell people what to do, but if
this kind of stuff concerns you, I think this is
a good cause to support, a good petition to sign,

even if you don't live in Missouri.

Speaker 3 (07:58):
And the uh, the mechanism that you're referring to, ben
was a result of a twenty twenty one Missouri law
that created the opportunity for attorneys to file this motion
to vacate a conviction after the fact. But it does
seem that it's not as simple as that, right, Like
I mean, once someone has been convicted, we know how
difficult it can be to reverse that, you know, once

everything the chips have kind of fallen, right.

Speaker 4 (08:24):
Yes, that's correct. You can again, you can see this
on the Innocent Innocenceproject dot org. You can check out
writing about this. There was a great article from Salon
that came out just about twenty three hours ago that
talks about some of the back and forth stuff here
and the fact that this board we're mentioning was established

nearly six years ago, and it's a it's not a
grand scheme, it's a noble ambition, and they're trying to
do the right thing. But there are only five people
on the board, and once someone makes this decision, this decision, unfortunately,
it's not, as you said, it's a matter of snapping
one's bureaucratic fingers. It has to go to other places

for approval, And I'd love your opinions, guys, I'd love
the opinions of all of us listening along at home.
What gives? How could these different stakeholders in the illegal
process that are supposed to be on the same side,
How could they seem so contradictory?

Speaker 2 (09:27):
Well, it's weird because governor ultimately gets to say, right, yes,
what happens?

Speaker 3 (09:33):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (09:34):
I don't have answers for you. I was just looking
at the case, Ben, I'm sorry, I don't have an
answer to that question specifically, but I was looking at
the case and just saw that the victim was stabbed
forty three times with a nice yeah, which leaves some
traces well yeah, presoom, yeah. But it also speaks to

a pretty passionate crime, somebody who stabbed someone over and
over and over over to that extent. I don't know.
It doesn't seem like someone who breaks in through a
window the way the prosecutors alleged Marcellus. Did you know
Waited stabbed this person forty three times and then took
her personal laptop.

Speaker 3 (10:13):
It seems like a cover story that doesn't even line
up particularly Well, you're right, Matt, It's absolutely the indication
of a crime of passion. If someone was trying to
get in and out. First of all, you're not going
to murder somebody. Nine times out of ten. You might
knock them out and capacitate them. If you were going
to kill, it would not necessarily be your intent. You might,
you know, stab them once just to put them down

and then escape. But that level of ferocity or not, Yeah,
the hallmark of of breaking an entering job.

Speaker 2 (10:43):
It just makes you want to learn more about the
case and what evidence the Innocence Project you know, has
basically right, because I'd want to look at it with
fresh eyes.

Speaker 4 (10:53):
Yeah, and again, I do think Innocenceproject dot org is
objectively the best source to get, at your fingertips all
the relevant information that the public knows so far. I mean,
they even get into some of the problematic testimony that
was the real deciding factor for William's convictions. One this

prison informant that we mentioned here his name, we'll just
call him mister Cole. He apparently refused to participate as
a witness in the murder case until he was promised
that he would be paid for doing so. He would
not have come forward of prosecution if the prosecution had

not given him five thousand dollars.

Speaker 2 (11:39):
Well, yeah, and he was a cell maate right with
Marc mat Yes, So like that, we've seen that situation
before where if you've got something to gain, you'll quote
give up information on your celly if you know, even
if it's not true, if it helps a prosecutor somewhere, Well,
what do you have to lose?

Speaker 3 (11:58):
All you have to do is you know a little
bit of cushy, you know, funds for your time where
you're kind of stuck, and if it comes around that
you were lying or mistaken. I mean, depending on the
severity of the crime that you're being incarcerated for, you
might not have very much to lose at all. It
just seems like that should be inadmissible. Just the nature
of paying for that kind of stuff. It just doesn't

seem right.

Speaker 4 (12:20):
And one thing I would add, or I wanted to
add there in the conversation is that we also know
that if someone is already in these dire circumstances, they
will help law enforcement clear cases or help things look
right in exchange for things that you might think are
very small on the outside, you know, like Henry Lee
Lucas probably didn't kill all those people, right, he was

agreeing to say that he did that for better living
circumstances in prison, for literally better snacks.

Speaker 3 (12:50):
Part of a plea deal, right, more or less? I mean,
you can you make I mean, maybe that's not exactly
what that is, but it could be a situation where
as the result of a plea deal, you're agreeing to
admit to certain things you know.

Speaker 2 (13:03):
Right well, or he's just in prison already he knows
he's not going anywhere.

Speaker 3 (13:08):
That's right, Yeah, that's my previous thing. But are there
not situations though, where as the result of a deal
with prosecutors you might admit to more than you actually did.

Speaker 4 (13:18):
It could definitely happen because people who are in that
position are heavily incentivized to pursue a plea, to the
point where the implication that a lot of people genuinely
believe is that if they move forward with a jury trial,
there will be a retribution. If convicted, their sentence will
be tougher, because otherwise, what's the value of a plea deal.

Speaker 3 (13:41):
You should have taken it while you have the chance
kind of attitude, right. Unfortunately, that shouldn't be either that
level of adversarial prosecution. That just doesn't seem to be
the nature of how justice should work. It shouldn't be
based on these kind of whims. You know, I thought
it was supposed to be about finding the truth, but
we all know that that's not really case.

Speaker 4 (14:00):
That's why I'm a huge supporter of the Innocence Project.
I wanted to also say that in addition to being
heavily incentivized toward a plea bargain with the threat of
punitive sentencing, which unfortunately we do know happens, we also
saw that there was a curation of cherry picking even

of what parts of the witness testimony were supposed to
be treated as fact, even though the testimony was significantly
different did not match the evidence of the crime scene.
One example would be the ex girlfriend a Sorrow testified
that her former boyfriend had scratch marks on him. But
there's no foreign DNA president underneath the murder victim's fingernails.

The only evidence really connecting Williams is the testimony of
these two people, which has been called into deep, deep question.
And if you look at if you look at the
larger context here, which is I just cannot recommend this
source enough. If you look at the larger context here,

you go to places like the National Registry of Exonerations,
which says the following incentivized witness testimony help us and
we'll help you. Kind of stuff has contributed to fourteen
percent of death penalty cases that later led to DNA exoneration,
some perhaps posthumously. So lives are literally on the line.

Speaker 3 (15:30):
It's really tough.

Speaker 4 (15:31):
It's a tough one. And it also leads us to
another conversation that we've touched on a bit here in
past episodes or past listener mail programs. Should the death
penalty be around? Knowing that law enforcement, for a myriad
number of reasons, often gets things wrong, should state still

have the death penalty?

Speaker 3 (15:56):
It feels like a no from me. Yeah, it just
doesn't feel like it should. We've seen so many cases
where things have gone wrong. It just doesn't seem like
it should be a thing. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (16:11):
I might not have the same level of certitude with this,
because I do think there are some crimes that should
be punishable by death, such as, you know, treason, or
there are certain certain activities that simply cannot be justified
in any way. But but yeah, The question is how

many innocent people is this civilization okay with murdering?

Speaker 3 (16:38):
You know?

Speaker 4 (16:38):
And what will happen to mister Williams who has already
spent quite some time in incarceration, quite possibly for crime
that he did not commit. If you want to learn
more about stuff like this, check out wrongful Conviction. That
is a shore buddy Jason does. Check out also the
War on drugs. That's it. That's another one. And shout

out to our fellow hometown native Clayton English, who is
just on a lighter note. The guy's just hilarious. He's
so sharp. And guys, I'm gonna keep it short here.
I know we've got some adventures to get to. But folks,
please write in Conspiracy iHeartRadio dot com. Let us know
your thoughts on the justice system, your thoughts on the

death penalty. We want to know what you think is
the right answer or something more people need to think about. Please, please, please,
if you get a chance, check out the information about
mister Williams. You can find it on the news. You
can find it Innocensproject dot org. If you feel so inclined,
consider signing the petition and also give us your thoughts

on the case. We're gonna pause for word from our sponsors.
We'll be back with more strange news.

Speaker 3 (17:58):
And we're back with a couple of pieces of strange news.
I'm gonna keep this first one quick, Ben, you alluded
to some updates in the baby Reindeer controversy. Richard Gadd's
hit Netflix series about Well based on We Now seems
to be a little more accurate. But as they claim
a true story about Richard Gadd himself, who plays a

character that is based on his exact experiences, who is
relentlessly stalked by an individual who is depicted in the show,
who was later revealed through some Internet sloo thing to
be a woman named Fiona Harvey, who came out and
did an interview with Pierce Morgan. And we talked about

this previously, Pierce Morgan having some problematic bits of his reputation,
possibly not the greatest person in the world. But I
will say that the interview she did was very telling
and very interesting in and of itself. She is now
suing Netflix, not Richard Gadd himself, which I think is
interesting maybe a little telling as well. For one hundred

and thirty three million pounds alleging that the tagline this
is a true story defamed her, and the suit alleges defamation,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, gross negligence, and violations
of her right to privacy. Speaking of Morgan again, an

additional interview has now come out with a woman who
is telling her story again think what she will about
Pierce Morgan. It is a platform for this woman to
tell her story about being relentlessly stalked by Fiona Harvey
in the past, and that instance, she was the wife
of a member of Parliament and Fiona Harvey was getting

start to her like legal career, and this woman hired
her as part of her firm and alleges that she
was wildly inappropriate, making sexual comments to members of staff,
just making people very uncomfortable. And then when she was
let go, relentlessly stalking her and accusing her of abusing
her child who has a disability, leaving dozens and dozens

of voicemail messages or at the time I guess it
was more answering machine messages. All behavior that lines up
exactly with the kind of behavior that's depicted in the
series on Netflix. The big issue, though, remains and Morgan
brings this up to this woman whose name is Laura Ray.
She is also a lawyer, a currently practicing lawyer. She

agrees with Piers Morgan's assessment that Netflix did not do
a good enough job of veiling Fiona's identity, therefore her
own identity, because now she's kind of caught up in
this because they do depict the stalking case that is
being described by Ray on the Piers Morgan Show. And
she thinks that while all of this stuff is true,
she says, the fact that they are alleging that this

woman was convicted twice, not only of the case involving Ray,
but also of the case involving God that's depicted in
the series, it does seem like that aspects more some
creative license to give some kind of dramatic catharsis I guess,
you know, to the show, but potentially problematic if you're

accusing someone of something that did not happen at all,
you know, of being a convicted felon. So I don't know,
we'll see.

Speaker 4 (21:26):
Yeah, it's interesting. Brings up in my opinion, I'm sure
not the only entity thinking this. It brings up the
other question of the line between fiction and fact, right, Like,
if you take something and say this is a work
of fiction based on or inspired by a true story,
to what degree are you responsible for anything that might

be seen as as aspersion upon a real world character
or entity like that. Maybe that's one of the reasons
why the creator was so adamant that different people not
be identified from the story. Perhaps it was aware of
the risk and knew that he had embellished or at

least the accusations maybe were true.

Speaker 3 (22:13):
Oh for sure. But the thing that's so interesting is,
you know it does. There's lots of stories that have
come out indicating that this. You know, Fiona Harvey has
this history of this kind of behavior, this stalker kind
of mentality, and if you watch the interview with Piers Morgan,
she does have this sort of air of sociopathy about
her and the way she sort of responds to questions

and sort of does a lot of walking things back,
and just the sense that she's sort of kind of
creating things on the fly and that maybe she's living
in her own kind of psychic bubble where she believes
the things that the stories that she's spun, or the
justification that she's created internally about this type of stuff
and she's reacting and responding to that rather than the

facts or the way other people see her action.

Speaker 4 (23:00):
Then you know, perhaps also the law. Yeah, this is
all true. And again, you know, we are not experts
in UK defamation law thankfully we haven't been in that
situation yet, but it does have this strong, I think,
possibility to set a precedent for creators. And again, you know,

Baby Reindeer or what became Baby Reindeer on Netflix is
an adaptation of a one person play from a fringe
festival in Edinburgh, so he'd been doing this story or
some version of it for quite some time. In fact,
we could say it's just the massive amount of attention
and popularity garnered from Netflix that led to you know,

people doxing this person and hunting down the real identity
and then all the ensuing legal problems. But definitely still
a developing case. How do you think it's going to go?

Speaker 3 (23:55):
I don't know, I mean to your point, but it
does feel like a little bit of a precedent center
in terms of like the how important is it to
say based on a true story versus this is a
true story. You know, God has come out and said,
if I wanted it to be completely the real story,
I would have made it a documentary, which is a
very somewhat telling thing to say as well, which is true.

I mean, you know, what are the laws. I don't
Maybe I don't know. I've certainly gotten releases every time
I've done like an audio true crime story for the participants.
But you know, you do have to get legal counsel
as far as accusations that you're making about people that
didn't participate in the documentary. But like, if it's a
documentary and you're citing news sources and you're citing things
that interview subjects and people that participated in the real story, say,

I think you're covered, you know, But then it does
become a little different when it's a private citizen versus
a you know, person of note or a public figure.
You know all of that stuff and been to your point,
I'm no expert either, but I do know that defamation
law in the UK is a little, let's say looser
in America the United States, it is a lot more
difficult to sue somebody for defamation to prove actual malice

I think might be the term. But I know you
both have been involved in lots of audio documentaries as well.
Can you speak a little bit from y'all's perspective on
the difference between a fictionalized account of something and a
quote unquote documentary.

Speaker 4 (25:23):
Speaking just from one perspective, I would say one thing
I like about the work of our colleagues is it
rarely gets to a situation like the what we're describing
with Baby Reindeer, Because I like to think that all
of our cohort practices ethical act like what I would

just call good audio hygiene, and we're pretty ethical with
does this person want to be on record? Do they
want to be anonymous?

Speaker 3 (25:54):

Speaker 4 (25:55):
Are they As far as recreations or even something like
the use of AI, I think it's incredibly clear to
be transparent about when that is occurring so that you're
not quote unquote tricking or worse, misleading the audience that
has trusted you with their time and attention. I mean
that's we I think we're always pretty pretty open on

the shows we hear when we say, like, this is
a recreation, this is not actually recording of you know,
of people at a traffic jam playing a curse song
from Hungry d resulting in mass suicide in the end
of the world.

Speaker 3 (26:33):
I would just say that she doesn't seem I mean,
based on what I know, my you know, meager experience,
that she doesn't have a case outside of this accusation
of actual conviction and incarceration. Not only once did they
say this happened, but twice and the and the one
that happens spoiler alert in the show at the end

is very clearly meant to be this sort of like
narrative Catharsis. And you know, if you're writing something, even
if it is quote unquote a true story, you know,
it's still got to be it's got to hit the
beats man. You know, it's got to like have like
a beginning, middle, and end. And sometimes true stories aren't
like that. You know, they're messy and they don't have

some sort of neatly tied up resolution. So I would
argue that those bits were fabricated quote unquote, but a
TV series with a script and with actors I don't know, Matt,
your eyes are lightening up.

Speaker 4 (27:28):
Oh, and assumably hopefully a legal department.

Speaker 3 (27:31):
Well, it does seem like the Netflix is legal department
definitely pooped the bed a little bit on this one.
I would argue because they didn't didn't cover anybody's identity
up enough for the Internet to not be able to
figure it out really quickly. They could have cast them
one that looked different. They could have changed the setting,
they could have changed the locations that things took place.
But they were all and even used verbatim tweets that

still exist on the Internet. I believe was was part
of how this woman was tracked down Fiona Harvey. But Matt,
what are your thoughts on this? We can move on
real quick.

Speaker 2 (28:01):
Yeah, I get I guess there is your case. Like
probably the actual tweets, the actual locations.

Speaker 3 (28:07):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (28:07):
In my opinion, if you wanted it to not be you,
you say no, that's not me. You don't go on
Piers Morgan and talk about how it's you. And for me,
that's the strongest thing. That just indicates, you know whatever,
this isn't legal. This is my opinion. I think it
indicates an opportunity for her now to cash in on

something that's probably really hard to go through right now.
It's probably horrible, But at the same time, she didn't
have to ever raise her hand. She could have just
said nope.

Speaker 3 (28:39):
Could be.

Speaker 4 (28:40):
Yeah, there's the question too. Is it a guilty dog
barks situation for some people? But we haven't met this person.
We don't know what their full motives are. I think
it is. You know, it is important to note that
now more than ever, they're very much as a court
of public opinion, regardless of the legal system in your
neck of the Global woods. So this kind of stuff
could ruin your life. I mean, let's not forget that.

People who play villains it works of clear fiction, like
the kids in Harry Potter or one poor brilliant young
man in Game of Thrones who played a real asshole
came acting, Yeah, quit acting because people would come up
to him and say or do terrible things.

Speaker 3 (29:19):
The guy that plays one of the big bads in
the New Furiosa movie had to come out on the
internet and say, hey, y'all, just a reminder, this is
a fictional character. The horrible things that I do we
depicted in this film were based on the instructions of
a director and the script. I'm actually not a whatever.
I haven't seen the film yet, but apparently he does

some real gnarly stuff to a young Furiosa. And that's
got picture of me arms next to the other act.

Speaker 4 (29:47):
We're cool, she's also not really furiosa. Just gonna blow
some minds with.

Speaker 3 (29:53):
That, and not to tuck down to anybody. I think
for the most part, people understand these things, but a
lot of people some people don't. And I just want
to add, you know, the last thing on this one
that it is kind of a it's not kind of.
It's a total bummer that the conversation around this series
has really shifted to this. And I do get the
sense of this Fiona Harvey, especially based on the interview

with this other woman who is very versed in the
law and knows exactly what she's saying and is not
going to be seen as defamation. She says some pretty
gnarly stuff that this woman very clearly did, and it's
very much in line with what's de pict in the show.
So I do give the sense to this Fiona Harvey
as a troubled individual. And it's a bummer that the

conversation has shifted away from the contents of the show,
which I think is a very important story about a
man being sexually abused, about a man being stalked, and
you know, this is sort of the gender reversals of
this I think very interesting, and there are men out
there that are victims in this way that don't I'm
not being I'm like men's rights activists, see, I'm just

saying it's an interesting reversal of the story that I
think is of value. The fact that it's all being
called in a question, I think sort of you know,
cuts into that a little bit, you know, of the
of the social value of what the show represents. So
this moment a little longer than I thought. I will
just bring up this other story that I brought that
I that I found and maybe this is something for

another time to go into a little more depth on.
But have you guys heard about the uh, you know,
Elon Musk had this whole Starlink project to bring the
Internet to the Amazon. And now there's a fantastic article
from the New York Times by Jack Nikas about the
Marubo people who are an isolated community living very deep

in the Amazon rainforest, with their very own language, their
very own rituals, their very own you know, culture and
connection to the forest and all the kinds of things
that you think would come along with being an isolated
community and the fact that these are still around and exist.
I think is very good. I don't know, maybe it's
either good nor bad. Its given all of the saturation

of pop culture and internet addiction and all this stuff.
I like to think that somewhere out there there's somebody
that is either immune or just unaware of all of
those trappings. And the story headline or the title of
the story on the New York Times is the Internet's
final frontier, Remote Amazon tribes. Elon Musk's starlink has connected
an isolated tribe to the outside world and divided it

from within. So essentially what's happened is this Marubo tribe
has received internets and smart devices and it's caused all
kinds of problems in their way of life. Surprise, surprise,
teenagers just want to be on their phones, you know,
just like everywhere else, and they're lazy, and they are
no longer participating or seeming to care as much about

the traditions of this tribe and this culture. One could
also argue that they're positives where they can get connection
with the outside world, perhaps get medical attention quicker when
they're so far away from any hospitals, and you know,
there are obviously positive things that can be you know,
gained from having access to the Internet. But you know,
the article, which is super in depth, way too deep

to go into here, talks about the good and the
bad and the thing that I want to just mention,
just to keep maybe this one almost a little shorter.
And by way of an update, is that a lot
of the reporting, the kind of lazy news aggregation around
this mega in depth piece or this guy height fifty
miles into the deep Amazon and spent time with these people,

or one comment that he made about one of the
young people posting some sort of sexually explicit material on
a WhatsApp thread that other young people were participating in.
And from that, the reporting on places like the New
York Post, even the Economic Times, are really making this
about horn addiction. It got so out of control that

the writer of the article, Jack Nicas, had to post
a follow up piece, No, a remote Amazon tribe did
not get addicted to porn. A time story about the
arrival of high speed internet and a remote Amazon tribe
spiraled into its own cautionary tale on the dark side
of the web. And I'm just gonna quote this here.

During a week long visit I saw how they used
the internet to communicate between villages, chat with faraway loved ones,
and call for help in emergencies. Many in Marubo also
told me they were deeply concerned that the connection with
the outside world would up end their culture, which they
had preserved for generations by living deep in the forest.
Some elders complained of teenagers glued to phones, group chats

full of gossip, and miners who watch pornography as a result.
The story we published June second was in part about
the Marubos people's introduction to the ills of the Internet,
but after publication, that angle took on a whole different dimension.
Over the past week, more than one hundred websites around
the world have published headlines that falsely claim the Marubo

have become addicted to porn. Alongside these headlines, the size
published images of the Marubo people in their villages. The
New York Post was among the first saying last week
that the Marubo people were quote hooked on porn. Dozens
quickly followed that. Take TMZ's headline was perhaps the most blunt.
Tribes starlink hookup results in porn addiction. The Post in

TMZ did not respond for requests for comment. So, I mean,
I think, you know, the story and of itself is fascinating,
but maybe we could just take a couple of minutes,
since I did like two this time, just to talk
about that echo chamber of like, you know, this is
a great example of like serious journalism versus what I
guess can now be considered like the yellow journalism of

the Internet, the short attention span, theater of news aggregation
and clickbait, like to take someone's like in depth researched
and you know, a great personal cost safety wise and
physically to go out live amongst these people do a
serious piece of jobsjournalism to them be kind of co

opted into this what the writer himself calls a false narrative.

Speaker 2 (36:06):
Well, yeah, it gets into the whole. I only read
the first couple of words in the article or just
the title, right, because if you even if you look
at the New York Post article, you read about how
it's the culture that is being altered and the fears
of the elder members of the tribe that this kind
of influence is going to be detrimental to the generally

chaste culture that they have, and they've shared right for
a long long time. This new influence comes in, they're
nervous about it. It's not about what the headline even
says it is in this article I'm reading right now.
And they're nervous about all the things that everybody, every
parent gets nervous about, oh, first person shooter, video games.
They're nervous about the violence that the younger that the

younger members of the tribes are being exposed to, and
that they might want to try shooting people or be
violent in some way, or they might be a little
more aggressive in their sexuality. I mean, that is part
of the story, right, But yes, they even lay it
all out in the new or post article. They just

try and put that headline there to make you click
on it.

Speaker 3 (37:15):
That's right, that's right. There really isn't anything in the
body of the aggregate because you know, they can't really
do that. That's something. They can package it a certain way,
but they can't quote make up quotes that aren't in
the original piece. And you're right, Matt, there really isn't
anything in the writing or in the pieces that are
lifted or paraphrased from the original piece that indicates some

sort of widespread porn addiction. It is literally just you know,
clickbait headlining stuff. I think the closest thing we get
to is, just like what you said, Matt, the idea
of witnessing more aggressive and sexual type behavior in a
culture that prides themselves on modesty, you know, or rather
like lack of PD. Public displays of affection kissing I

think is even considered taboo.

Speaker 2 (38:01):
The most telling thing for me in the article, though,
is that the elders noticed already that members of the
tribe are not spending as much time interacting in person
with one another. People are already doing the things that
we Westerners and everybody else has been doing for so long,
just hanging out with our phones and that's about it.

Speaker 4 (38:21):
We've talked about this before many previous episodes. One of
the best, unfortunately most ubiquitous situations with this occurs with
science reporting. A hardworking scientist or group out thereof bust
their humps, and one line from the study is pulled
and becomes a viral headline. Because, like you said, Matt,

people need to read the stuff more in depth. The
last point I will make is that the story of
outside groups contacting indigenous people, especially in the Amazon is
often a story of genocide and terror and very very
bad things. One of the biggest concerns was the spread

of disease, that these tribes had no immunity for these communities,
And then with that, I would pause it really interested
in everybody's thoughts here is spreading social media and internet connectivity.
Is it kind of like spreading a disease.

Speaker 3 (39:22):
For the social disease? Absolutely? Reely? No, I think so. No,
I think especially when you don't have any immunity to
it yet at all, you're getting it, getting the most extreme,
fun attenuated version of it from scratch, right, Like we've
grown up around the internet, you know, our kids have

grown up with the Internet, so one would hope they've
developed some coping mechanisms or some ways of like dialing
it back and taking it with a grain of salt,
you know. But if you're like, can you imagine just
getting like the full dose of like a of a
disease without any ability of your immune system to have
worked up a resistance to it. So I think it's

a perfect analogy. Ben, And I'll just end with just
reading this one last quote. This is from the actual
New York Times piece referring to a tribal woman who
he's observing. She was needing jennapopo berries to make a
black body paint and wearing ropes of jewelry made from
snail shells. Lately, the youth had become less interested in
making such dies and jewelry, she said. A quote here.

Young people have gotten lazy because of the Internet. She said,
they're learning the ways of the white people. Then she
paused and added, but please don't take our internet away.
You can't put that genie back in the bottle. Is
the issue. I think that's it for me. Guys. Let's
take a quick break. You're a word from our sponsor,
and then come back with one more piece of strange news.

Speaker 2 (40:53):
And we've returned. Legos, Guys, Legos love them. Lego My
Legos is the title of this story coming out of
ABC News in California and Southern California, to be exact.
It comes to us on June third of twenty twenty four.
Thieves target several so Cow Lego shops in string of burglaries.

At this time. On June third, several of these very
specific Lego and minifig stores called Bricks and minifigs. They're
a whole bunch of them. You can find there's one
in John's Creek near US.

Speaker 3 (41:30):

Speaker 2 (41:31):
These stores in southern California have been broken into in
thousands of dollars worth of boxed Lego sets have been stolen.
Eyewitness News that's part of ABC there. They obtained surveillance
video from several of the incidents, and on June third
they showed some of the footage in their reporting. It

appears to be two thieves that are going it appears
at least and at the time, according to the owner
of these stores, they thought it was the same one
or two individuals that was going to each one of
these different stores and just taken as many Lego sets
as they possibly could. Riverside, California, Whittier, whit t I

e R. Whittier, Wittier. Maybe I don't know, well, I
don't know how to say that part of California. Sorry,
stores in Ontario, then in Anaheim and Coasta Mesa. In
Anaheim and coast O Mesa, the burglaries were unsuccessful and
only damage was done to the windows. That's very important.
But either way, on June third, it was already being

reported that there was a string of robberies at these
bricks and Minifig's stores. Then you guys. ABC News comes
back on June seventh to report that the Los Angeles
Police Department has discovered over two thousand, eight hundred boxes
of Legos like Lego sets in a single bust.

Speaker 4 (42:59):
Gotta be a change building a dream.

Speaker 2 (43:02):
Right, right, So it was a residential home that had
it looked like a store. To be honest, when you
with the photos that were shared by ABC News as
well as by CBS, it shows just huge, almost store
room looking shelves that are filled with like the same
R two D two Lego set that's worth a whole

bunch of money, the same whatever other set that's just
laid out of tons and tons of them in one place.
Turns out there's this guy named Richard Siegel, seventy one
years old, and another person named Blanca Gudino who is
thirty nine. They are both suspected of running these thefts

all over California, then collecting all the Lego sets together
theoretically or at least allegedly, to sell them on secondary markets, right,
whether it's Facebook marketplace or what are the other ones
that people still use, I don't know, eBay, yeah, Farmerly, Yeah,
probably Farmly.

Speaker 4 (44:05):
That's a bunch of yeah. Yeah. There are a bunch
of these different aftermarkets, and there are some probably Lego
brick specific forums, because if you ever watch videos of
uh of the Lego conventions, people do go very nuts
for rare minifigs or just for unopened packages of things,

or even personal favorite, the people who go bonkers building
out their own elaborate Lego worlds where you can get.

Speaker 3 (44:34):
At the individual pieces. They're all label they have their
own codes, each little tiny component and if you've seen
the Lego movie at the end of the first one,
I think it was with Will Ferrell, where he's like
a Lego adult and he's got like what amounts to
a workshop, you know, with every single possible piece in
their own drawer kind of tag. It's a whole world
around it, and they get quite expensive. Another example of

what you're talking about, Ben would be trace sets. Yeah,
Monald Chain said that mean, in terms of the things
that hold their value would be limited edition stuff that's
unopened that they no longer make, even though they are
all composed of the same pieces. You could technically do
it what Lego is really selling. Are these designs right?
It's kind of fascinating.

Speaker 2 (45:16):
Yeah, dude, shout out magic the gathering. Buy your old
packs somewhere and then just store them away so future
college fund. That's right. So the reason why these suspects
are currently in custody, why that home was searched, it's
because there was another another one of these stores on

they it says North Gaffey Street and San Pedro, where
ye old loss prevention personnel identified Gudino as the suspect.
Then they watched her take it to Richard Siegel's home,
and they got a search warrant for that home, and
they walked in and they went, Holy mackerel, these folks
are starting a Lego store. Uh two hundred boxes of

Legos if you can imagine, there are very tiny boxes
of Lego sets. Others are very large. Think I'm trying
to think of another like box that is that size,
you guys, But if you've ever walked into a Best Buy,
there's a little section that they have now that's Lego sets,
especially the nicer ones that usually have a black.

Speaker 3 (46:27):
Behind the counter.

Speaker 2 (46:28):
Yes, because some of them are like three hundred dollars
five hundred dollars and these.

Speaker 4 (46:33):
Folks far more expensive as well.

Speaker 2 (46:36):
Yeah, it's just it's just so crazy. Police on Wednesday,
according to ABC saw there were ads for a lot
of these toys online and uh, it gets deeper into this,
but anyway, the whole point of this was just it's
crazy that you could break into a bunch of brick

and mortar stores and bricks, yeah, bricks and collectibles whatever,
to break into these stores then just take it back
to your house and then try and just sell them.
And it's similar to the retail thefts that we saw
early right where it was an organized thing where one
person appears to have been paying a whole swath of

people to go out and make these thefts. These brazen
just grab and walk out the store thefts, take them
to a central location, and then sell them on secondary markets.

Speaker 4 (47:28):
Especially if you have a if you have a window
of time where you can retain these things and not
sell them immediately, wait till they get discontinued, and then
bang the price up, you know what I mean. It's yeah,
very it's very easy to do. It's not fun for
the people who would actually you know, enjoy the legos,

right or enjoy the lego bricks. I think the company
wants us to call us the call them those, but
it is I think, like you're saying, it is teaching
us there's a market for everything. High value, low weight,
easy to move product like this that doesn't have any
telling smells yep, is not itself inherently illegal. It looks

like too, with all the multiple copies of very high
end things like seeing the Star Wars collectors and stuff,
it looks like some of this might have just come
straight off a truck. It might not have made it
to a store. You know, maybe that guy had a
good operation going ethics aside, he was very organized.

Speaker 2 (48:31):
Well yeah, whoever was involved, because it's unknown if there
are other people involved, right, The LAPD is still asking
for tips. If anyone has any information on these crimes,
it says, to reach out to them. You can find
out how to do that if you wish, if you've
got some info. Last thing here, the boxes ranged from
twenty dollars a piece to well over one thousand dollars

a piece. Looking at several millennium falcons here, which are
not cheap.

Speaker 4 (49:00):
It's very difficult too, and we're not the only ones
saying this not to be too much of a nerd,
but it's very difficult as an adult entity to justify
spending that much. I like, looking at.

Speaker 2 (49:13):
It, very true, I will, I'll put this out here.
I splurged on my son's birthday and got him a
three hundred dollars set that I was like, this is
all we're getting, pal, this is all It was a Bowser,
a giant it's amazing, but it was three hundred dollars
and I just like, when I looked at it, it

was out of Barnes and Noble, and I just went
really because he then wanted he saw it in the window,
he wanted it. We talked about it for months, like okay,
if that's your birthday present, that's it. And I didn't
even know how much it costs until I picked up
the box and just had to like catch myself.

Speaker 4 (49:52):
You went past that emotional threshold for the kid you
picked it up. You can't put it down.

Speaker 3 (49:59):
Judah to scary and let's be real, Matt, it was
a little bit for you too.

Speaker 2 (50:03):
Come on, Yeah, no, for sure, because he was he
was he knew who Bowser was and he was into it.
And I was like, you know what all right together, Oh.

Speaker 3 (50:11):
I understand curses. I've come is the Fender guitar and
amplifier set, which I think is around one hundred. But
I got that because I'm a nerd. I like Fender guitars,
and Eden was into it and we built it together,
so it was super I think that's one thing that's
neat about legos is it is kind of for the
parents too. It's just this interesting middle ground. But I

mean to y'all's point though about this, this this resale
market for you know, fencing stolen items. It's interesting that
Lego is almost his own category. There are other categories
like that. There have been a rash of thefts of
lawn care equipment here in the Atlanta area, where a
lot of people keep that stuff on a trailer outside
their house. And a buddy of mine who does that

for a living. He's a musician, but he makes you
know his day day work is doing lawn maintenance and landscaping.
He got he said it was. He was on the news.
It was around probably thirty thousand dollars worth of landscaping
stuff still gone. That's your livelihood gone, because apparently you
know that stuff's easy and quick to flip.

Speaker 4 (51:12):
Yeah and that thank you for seeing the wait seeing
the Mandalorian.

Speaker 2 (51:17):
Pause. I'm just so proud that was the Mandalorian. Ben,
that's a.

Speaker 4 (51:20):
Joke for us, that's a joke.

Speaker 3 (51:22):
Oh, No, I missed it. I was I was let
in another window. Dang, I missed it.

Speaker 2 (51:25):
Ben. That showed us his model that was completed. I
think it looked amazing of the Mandalorian.

Speaker 3 (51:31):
Very awesome. That's very cool. Sorry I missed it.

Speaker 4 (51:34):
No, No, it's still going to be there for a
while until we sell it to someone. Right, that's true
decades since. But yeah, I think there there is that
power to collection. Obviously, we love nerdy stuff. We love
nerdy collections. I would love to hear somebody's weirdest collection

that you're passionate about, Like if you have, for instance,
if you just have a room of what are those
troll troll dolls called? I think there'stros Okay confirmed, I'm
very plugged in with the zeitgeist. Yeah, if you have that,
send it to us. I want to see. It'd be
cool to hear from listeners about like your biggest, most
extensive collection that you have, or your friend has bonus

points for specificity, the more weirdly specific.

Speaker 3 (52:22):
If I told you guys that I collect crucifixes, Yeah,
I have an entire wall covered in crucifixes, and I
now have to just get small ones because I got
to fill in the gaps. There's no more room for
big ones or I'm gonna have to spill out onto
another wall. But I love crucifixes, and there's so many
different styles and varieties of them. So that's that's mine.

Speaker 2 (52:40):
I don't want to tell stories out of school. But
my neighbor just found out collects hot wheels, and uh,
they show are They showed me the collection. It was
way more hot wheels than I've ever seen.

Speaker 4 (52:54):
That I didn't considered were produced.

Speaker 2 (52:56):
I didn't think there were that many, he assured me.
He also showed me the security system surrounding it, like
taking it seriously. And he's a sniper, so I was like,
you know what, I think you'll be safe there.

Speaker 4 (53:10):
Everybody's got a thing, man, everybody's got a couple of things,
sniping and hot wheels.

Speaker 2 (53:16):
Well, hey, speaking of snipers, Uh, we're not We're not
gonna spend a lot of time on this, but we'll
just put this story out there so you're aware of
it and you can look at look it up on
your own if you wish to. There's a very intense
story regarding ye old company, Chiquita.

Speaker 3 (53:32):
You know them.

Speaker 2 (53:33):
You've bought bananas before, or you've at least seen them
at a Kroger or publics or wherever.

Speaker 4 (53:39):
Jaquita Bananas shout out to the one person in the
audience who's like, I have never actually eaten a banana.
We wish you luck on your journey. Find a good
fear this part first before you try your first banana.

Speaker 2 (53:50):
Yeah, and then move on to plantains. They're amazing. Okay. So,
Chiquita Banana or Chiquita Brand's international rather, has been found
liable for funding, or rather financing, let's say, a Colombian
paramilitary group.

Speaker 3 (54:05):
We've heard about this before. This has happened in the past, right, yes, yeah.

Speaker 2 (54:09):
Yes, Well, there are several issues that this specific group,
the United Self Defense Forces of Columbia or the AUC,
They've been involved in several things. They are designated as
a terrorist organization by the United States. And it appears
that at least according to this court and the evidence

that was provided to it and presented Chiquida Brands International
was funding this group, or at least partly funding this
group on a monthly basis, and it all ties back
to several deaths. They pled guilty already in two thousand
and seven to making payments to this group. They've pled guilty.
So then the families of victims of this group came

forward and made a much larger case against Chiquida Brands International,
and it appears that they have won that case.

Speaker 3 (55:01):
So what is it.

Speaker 2 (55:02):
Thirty eight point three million dollars in damages will be paid,
or at least they've Chiqeta Brands International has been ordered
to pay that amount of money. We'll see how that goes,
because there is going to be an appeal. Of course,
it's a large company. That's a lot of money. But yeah,
it was a federal court case in South Florida.

Speaker 4 (55:23):
And they also they of course they're appealing, but they
also already, like you said, no one's debating whether or
not they did this.

Speaker 2 (55:32):
Yeah, well they admitted to it well years ago, yeah,
like a seven or something. Yeah, in two thousand and seven,
and they allegedly paid one point seven million dollars to
this group, Chiquita Brands to this AUC group, and that
was from nineteen ninety seven to two thousand and four.

Speaker 4 (55:52):
And you guys know, AUC's far right right politically, they're
They're not like the communist Garia the enemies thereof.

Speaker 2 (56:01):
Yes, well it gets complicated, right, freedom fighter versus whatever,
this terrorist.

Speaker 4 (56:08):
Yeah, the history is fascinating and I think it explains
some of these dirty corporate partnerships.

Speaker 3 (56:13):
Yeah, and I mentioned, you know, I think this is
what you guys. You guys knew what I was talking about.
The United Fruit Company actually helped fund a nineteen fifty
four Guatemalan Coup de ta. There is historical precedent for
this kind of thing in terms of making things more
beneficial to the corporations, you know, depending on who's in

power when it affects the other bottom line, it's it's
not unheard of.

Speaker 4 (56:37):
Shout out to Edward Burnees. Yeah, Edward Burnees instrumental in
the guatemal And coup. We know that these large companies,
the names may change and the tactics may evolve a
little bit, but this is not coming out of left field.
And if you want to learn more about CIA partnerships

with private organizations for resource extraction, check out our book.
In a burst of creativity, we named it stuff they
don't want you to know.

Speaker 2 (57:06):
Ay ay, I guess we'll leave you with this. This
is a statement from one of the leading lawyers for
the plaintiffs in this massive class action lawsuit that was
brought forth by the families. There were nine cases in
that case that were focused on out of hundreds of
cases that were available to be prosecuted. Basically, and this

is a statement from one of the one of the
plaintiffs quote. The verdict does not bring back the husbands
and sons who were killed, but it sets the record
straight and it places accountability for funding terrorism where it
belongs at Chiquita's doorstep.

Speaker 3 (57:42):
Wow. By the way, Jaquita is the corporate successor to
the United Fruit Company. Yes, that's why. Okay, sorry, sorry
what you meant like in general, but no that in
actual facts in this situation. Yes, that's who yeky.

Speaker 2 (58:00):
And this reporting, by the ways from the BBC on Tuesday,
June eleventh, you can read it. It's titled Banana Giant
held liable for funding paramilitaries and they note at the
very end of that article that there's a second case
that's being brought against Schaqida by another group of plaintiffs,
and it is beginning on July fifteenth.

Speaker 3 (58:21):
Can you get just entered?

Speaker 4 (58:23):
Yeah, live cooking here, folks. And these are stories that
sometimes can disappear from the news as the appeal process
whens on slowly and as we confront the ever present
threat of government and corporate corruption. So we'll have to
see how this develops. But I'm really glad there does
seem to be forward progress. We've got so much other

stuff we didn't get to that we mentioned at the top,
but I believe we're going to call it an evening
and take our noctivigations breaking that word back.

Speaker 3 (58:55):
And in the.

Speaker 4 (58:56):
Meantime, we would love to hear your thoughts. I'm so
excited to see weird elections.

Speaker 3 (59:00):
That's right, tell us show us yours. Jeez, we were
asking for cat picks. Show us your weird collection picks,
as long as it's not like human remainsers. Well, I
don't know, okay, bones are okay, just not like you know.

Speaker 4 (59:12):
Show us your collections. No questions asked, fair enough, but
you know what, I retracted everything I said.

Speaker 3 (59:17):
I actually bought a drum machine once from a very
nice fellow who showed me his display case of human skulls,
apparently illegal to transport across state lines, but not illegal
to own or to possess. You can find us at
the handle conspiracy Stuff, where we exist on Facebook, or
we have our Facebook group Here's where it gets crazy
on xfka, Twitter and on YouTube, or we have video

content rolling out every single week on Instagram. At TikTok
we're conspiracy Stuff Show.

Speaker 2 (59:43):
Hey, do you like calling people? Call us. Our number
is one eight three three st d wytk. Before you
choose to call in, why not put that number as
a contact on your phone. Call it std wytk or
Ben mattin Nole, whatever you want to do, just call it,
and when you do, give yourself a cool nickname. You've

got three minutes. Say whatever you want to include in
that message. If you would like for us to use
this message on air, give us permission to do so,
and to use your name in your voice. If you
don't want to do that one instead, send us a
good old fashioned email.

Speaker 4 (01:00:17):
Wherein we hope we hope you react to this question.
If possession of a human skull is illegal, then how
would you enforce it? Because we all possess at least
one to any other kind of shower thoughts. Let us know,
write to the void, be well aware. Sometimes the void
writes back any old day, any old hour. Conspiracy at

iHeartRadio dot com.

Speaker 2 (01:01:00):
If they don't want you to know, is a production
of iHeartRadio. For more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to your favorite shows.

Stuff They Don't Want You To Know News

Advertise With Us

Follow Us On

Hosts And Creators

Matt Frederick

Matt Frederick

Ben Bowlin

Ben Bowlin

Noel Brown

Noel Brown

Show Links

RSSStoreAboutLive Shows

Popular Podcasts

Who Killed JFK?

Who Killed JFK?

Who Killed JFK? For 60 years, we are still asking that question. In commemoration of the 60th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's tragic assassination, legendary filmmaker Rob Reiner teams up with award-winning journalist Soledad O’Brien to tell the history of America’s greatest murder mystery. They interview CIA officials, medical experts, Pulitzer-prize winning journalists, eyewitnesses and a former Secret Service agent who, in 2023, came forward with groundbreaking new evidence. They dig deep into the layers of the 60-year-old question ‘Who Killed JFK?’, how that question has shaped America, and why it matters that we’re still asking it today.

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang

Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.


© 2024 iHeartMedia, Inc.