Alex Murdaugh Bombshell, the Bahamas Missing Wife & the Latest on the Menendez Brothers

Journalist Robert Rand joins us live one year after Erik and Lyle Menendez became eligible for parole, as renewed attention explodes around the brothers’ case. The disappearance of Lynette Hooker in the Bahamas takes a darker turn after federal agents seize the couple’s sailboat. New FBI details emerge involving Bryan Kohberger’s family after the Idaho student murders, and Harvey Weinstein faces another mistrial. Tune in for all the details. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
This program features the individual opinions of the hosts, guests,
and callers, and not necessarily those of the producer, the station,
its affiliates, or sponsors. This is True Crime Tonight.

Speaker 2 (00:19):
Welcome to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio. We're talking true
crime all the time. It's Sunday, May seventeenth, and we
have a stack mat of headlines. Alex Murder, the man
convicted of murdering his wife and son, has been granted
a new trial. Also, a family friend has revealed shocking
new details about the timeline of missing mother and wife
Lynette Hooker. You'll remember she allegedly fell off a boat

(00:42):
in the Bahamas.

Speaker 3 (00:43):
Her husband is under some suspicion.

Speaker 2 (00:46):
Plus, the controversial new book about the Idaho student murders
and Harvey Weinstein has been back in court. Will he
get yet another trial? Also, we have our very favorite
journalist and author, Robert Rand joining us later in the show.
He's here to discuss the resentencing of Lyel and Eric Menendez.

(01:07):
Believe it or not, it's been it's been a year,
so lots to talk about there. I know he recently
spoke to them, so looking forward to having him back.
I'm Stephanie Leidecker and I had u KT Studios where
we make true crime podcasts and documentaries and I get
to do that with Courtney Armstrong and Body Move In.

Speaker 3 (01:26):
We're here every night.

Speaker 2 (01:27):
If you miss any of the show, please catch us
right after as a podcast, and of course we'd love
to hear from you Live eight eight eight three one
Crime if you want to join the conversation, or you
can just keep leaving us a talk back. Ladies, Happy Sunday.
How was your weekend long enough?

Speaker 3 (01:45):
Well?

Speaker 4 (01:45):
Your hair looks great though, so that's one important thing.

Speaker 5 (01:47):
I did a bunch of self care this weekend. I
got my eat done, I got my hair done. I
went and got a massage. That's why I mean. It
was not long enough like I could have had that,
you know, a bunch more times. Body, your hair looks beautif.
I love it.

Speaker 3 (02:01):
I'm living the bang.

Speaker 2 (02:02):
It looks fresh, it looks you're ready for summer, baby,
bring it.

Speaker 5 (02:06):
Yeah, I got a little little shad going on.

Speaker 4 (02:09):
Yeah, very Uh, it was very full and also not
long enough. A lot of two baseball games and a
lacrosse games. So that's that's the bulk of the weekend.
And I got a date in on Friday night, so
you know, that's what's.

Speaker 3 (02:27):
About you, Stephanie.

Speaker 2 (02:29):
Same just a lot of chores, a lot of you know,
kind of playing a little bit of catch up because
I was gone for a few days.

Speaker 3 (02:35):
So you know how that is the reality. Redo is real.

Speaker 2 (02:39):
So yeah, no complaints, nothing to complain about it all.
I am losing my voice, it appears a little bit,
so bear with me. I was just screaming so much
at a soccer game, and man, oh man, I live
to tell the tale. Plus, we of course had producer
Taha with us Hita and Sam and Adam in the
control room.

Speaker 3 (02:58):
So there is so much to get into. Let's start
right away with a talkback.

Speaker 6 (03:03):
Hayterr Crime tonight. This is Titty from Ohio. I want
to weigh in on the Murdau trial because the Becky
Hill thing is strange to me. Do we think that
it's possible that the Murda team actually paid Becky Hill
to tamper with the jury, because let's be honest, what
she did was so blatantly wrong and dangerous for a
very important trial.

Speaker 3 (03:23):
I'd love to know what you ladies think. Love what
you do. Have a great night, Tibby.

Speaker 2 (03:28):
This was a working theory that I was going to
share with you guys tonight. Yeah, this was like somehow
my theory is this. Is it possible that this is
a strategy?

Speaker 5 (03:40):
I mean, his lawyers are very well respected. I mean,
this would be egregious on so many levels if at
all true. I mean it's just listen though, I mean,
what she did, I agree, was so outlandish that it
almost has to be like it's like from a movie
what she did, right, it doesn't happen in real life.

(04:02):
So you have to go places that you normally wouldn't
go in your mind. And normally I would never question
attorneys of the stature, right, Like, these are incredible attorneys
that he's got. But man, it is weird. I don't know.

Speaker 2 (04:15):
I'm not even suggesting it has to be the attorneys.
Is it possible that this you know, now convicted former
drug addict who's now looking at many many years behind
bars for the murder of his you know, beloved wife
and son son who knows you know, dirty dog. You know,
he's done very dazzardly things. This would not surprise me either,

(04:36):
even if it was around the knowledge of his lawyers.

Speaker 3 (04:40):
Just a thought again we're theorizing it is.

Speaker 5 (04:43):
It is always very possible that Becky just wanted some
attention and money, and you know, this was a way
to kind of get it right with the book deal
and you know, the conviction and putting away this really
bad man. You know, I don't know. I think, yeah,
I think any of that's possible.

Speaker 3 (04:58):
I think she got swept up.

Speaker 4 (05:00):
I mean it was called by not one or two
by many journalists as the trial of the century, particularly
where it took place, and I think being on the
inside in the know, went.

Speaker 3 (05:12):
Through her head a little bit. That's that's what I think.

Speaker 5 (05:16):
She is, a bit of meybe dizzy got trials of
the century.

Speaker 2 (05:20):
Now here's the big factor though, This second trial, if
in fact it goes through, could in fact be a
death sentence trial. So this might also work against Alex
murdaw So something to really pay close attention to, Courtney,
Do you want to give us a little backstory in
case anyone listening is less familiar with this case?

Speaker 3 (05:38):
For sure?

Speaker 4 (05:39):
So just recently, the South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously overturned
former attorney Alex Murdoch's murder conviction. And this has to
do with the twenty twenty one fatal stabbings of his wife,
Maggie and his only nineteen year old son Paul. So
what the justices as unconstitutional was the jury tampering by

(06:05):
former court clerk Becky Hill that we were just referring
to and Gee Hill as she was pressuring jurors to
not be quote fooled by the fence. Also, the justices
ruled that the judge who oversaw the case improperly allowed
extensive testimony regarding Murda's financial crime, so that they were

(06:28):
just excessive and it shouldn't have happened. So this original
double murder trial, it previously exposed the absolute unraveling of
Alex murdau crumbling financial empire, his wildly severe opioid addiction
that was happening while he was going to work as

(06:49):
an attorney. Even though right now the murder verdict has
been overturned, Murda does remain imprisoned. He's serving a forty
year sentence for stealing about twelve million dollars from his
clients and his law firm.

Speaker 5 (07:04):
This guy, I mean, this was the trial of the century.
Everybody I know watch this one, everybody.

Speaker 2 (07:12):
And there's been so many different versions of things to
watch on this trial. You know, there were many documentaries
from different angles. If you haven't seen the one with
the children who were affected by Alex Murdau. Alex Murdaw's
son who was also the victim in this remember he
was as Paul Paul Murda. He was nineteen years old,

(07:33):
as you mentioned, Courtney, and he was in a boating
accident and in that boating accident one of his best
friends was killed to Mallory Beach and he was looking
at felony charges for voting under the influence. That trial
was about to happen, and of course he was murdered
prior to it. So you know, some of the chatter

(07:55):
around this case was that Alex, who was a very
prominent guy. If you've seen him on TV, he's the
red haired guy. You've seen him at some point on
the news. You couldn't escape this story. But basically the
son is brought up on charges was about to stand trial.
Alex's dad is a flaming drug addict in a way

(08:16):
that we can't describe. I mean, he was taking up
to sixty pills a day. Do the math on that,
and was really out to lunch and embezzling money out
of his clients' pockets. And this was like a generationally
fancy family in the town. You know, they'd been there forever.
Their name is on all sorts of buildings, so they've

(08:37):
kind of had elite status that obviously Alex the dad,
was clearly taking advantage of. But some speculated that because
the son had this upcoming trial that really could have
a not turned out well. Also would have been a
total financial strain on the family. This guy's hiding up
this crazy drug addiction, which is also not you know

(08:59):
hat he helping finances for the family, and I think
his wife was slowly starting to catch on. So these
were messy times for the Murdoch family. This trial was wild.
We actually weren't covering it real time often, so I'm
sort of playing a little bit of catch up to
it as well. In Boy, it's a tangled weave of terribleness.

Speaker 4 (09:24):
It really is, I mean, just complicated and yeah, to
your point, many documentaries. So in terms of what's happening
in this moment, the general, the Attorney General Alan Wilson,
intends to seek a speedy murder retrial, and they're aiming
for the end of the year. And actually, you know,

(09:46):
they're saying, in light of the Supreme Court's decision, we're
back to square one on this case, and that means
that all our legal options are on the table, including
the death penalty.

Speaker 5 (09:56):
Earlier point, I mean, this appealed to really backfire and
some ways right like the death penalty could be on
the table, and I don't know if that's ever happened before.
This is something that we really should talk to Jarrett
Farantino about. Has there ever been a case in recent
history where there's an appeal and it's been one and
the death penalty was added. I'd really like that.

Speaker 2 (10:20):
I mean, this is it's sort of yeah, this could
be one of a kind in many ways. Also, there
was the scripted version of this family Dynasty as well,
starring what is his name? Well, the actress Patricia Arquette
plays Alex Murdau's wife.

Speaker 3 (10:38):
In this film, and she's excellent in it.

Speaker 2 (10:40):
And it's a movie on Hulu, or it's a scripted series,
I should say, on Hulu. My point being is everybody
has seen some version of this case. If you haven't,
it's very interesting and there's tons of content to see
but if you're him looking at a death sentence trial,
surely that's going to play a role.

Speaker 4 (11:01):
Absolutely, And the defense attorney representing him Dick hert Uh
Carpooltian excuse me, yeah, Dick Carpuultian and Jim Gaffigan. So
they're saying that, first of all, that the Attorney General
is just using this as a political statement because he's
in a current gubernatorial campaign, so he's saying that that's politicized.

(11:25):
And then the defense attorney also hints it at potential
new evidence and third party culprits, and he promised fascinating
announcements at a news conference that's scheduled for tomorrow afternoon.

Speaker 5 (11:40):
Yeah, I'm going to be glued. We have right together.
We'll be covering the group chat and watch it together.

Speaker 3 (11:48):
And sister. Yeah. So that's that's what's going on legally.

Speaker 4 (11:56):
And meanwhile, Buster Murda, the surviving son, he has absolutely
stayed right by his father's side the whole time.

Speaker 2 (12:06):
I mean, this poor guy has been through a lot. Obviously,
he's lost his mother, he lost his younger brother, and
now dad behind bars. He also came under some suspicion
in the death of Stephen Smith. Do you guys remember
that he was a young man who was killed in
twenty fifteen and Buster was being sort of linked to

(12:26):
this that ended up not really panning out and kind
of frankly went away.

Speaker 3 (12:32):
And Buster has stood by his dad. He has since.

Speaker 2 (12:34):
Remarried or not remarried, married for the first time back
in twenty twenty five. And you know, again, all the
family members have to go through this yet again.

Speaker 5 (12:46):
This is true crime tonight. We're on iHeartRadio. We talk
true crime all the time. Or right in the middle
of giving an update on the Alex Myrdal retrial, if
he went away and give us a call. Eighty eight
thirty one crime Stephanie, was that the young man that
was hit on the road? That's correct, that's right, Yes,
I do remember that, Nyeah, I did that did kind
of go away? That is interesting, That is interesting. The

(13:09):
murder just made a lot of troubles go away. They
absolutely did. I mean they county.

Speaker 3 (13:15):
Yeah, that was kind of the lead to this.

Speaker 2 (13:17):
You know again, at the time, it seemed as though
this was a really clean example of what we're seeing
probably in many places and on many cases where whoever
has the most money wins, right, So this was a family,
or specifically a man, Alex, the dad who was pretty
used to getting what he wanted whenever he wanted, and
if not, his uncle would bail him out, or his

(13:38):
dad would bail him out, or his granddaddy would bail
him out. Like really being called to the carpet and
having to be accountable was.

Speaker 3 (13:45):
Really not the Murdoch law.

Speaker 2 (13:48):
And now here's this son, Paul, who's nineteen years old
looking to frankly could be up on these terrible felony charges.
Where this happened in their town, a loved one, one
of you know, the friends being killed. That was very
divisive and many people feel like they were trying to
pay their way out of having to deal with it.

Speaker 5 (14:08):
Well, and it went back, it went back really deep too.
There was an oil painting of Alex Murdau's grandfather, he
was the former solicitor Randolph Buster Murdall junior, and it
was temporarily removed from the walls of the county courthouse
because of this murder trial, Like they couldn't. The family
is so influential in that county they had to remove

(14:29):
paintings of their relatives or this trial, Well that's you
know it goes deep.

Speaker 4 (14:36):
Well, I gotta say, this defense attorney has me hook
line and sinker talking about the nursing party culprits and
brand new evidence and all kinds of stuff coming out.

Speaker 3 (14:49):
The initial attorney.

Speaker 4 (14:51):
Just to quick aside, the defense attorney mentioned that the
first trial costs six hundred one thousand dollars, but that
was he was hired on a flat fee. And quote him,
that case ain't over till it's over, So they're going
to represent him gratis, you know, for the flat fee.

(15:12):
And very understandably, the defense is pushing for a change
of venue for the new trial.

Speaker 5 (15:17):
Ooh, I want to buy it will be granted, I
have I don't know, I would imagine, but to.

Speaker 3 (15:22):
Quote Stephanie, you have to allot it on the moon.
That's what I'm saying.

Speaker 2 (15:26):
I think this one might actually not happen, or yeah,
it probably.

Speaker 3 (15:31):
Will get moved, but I don't know what good that
will do.

Speaker 5 (15:35):
I don't know either, but we're definitely going to stick
around and find out. And please stick around because we
have coming up next. The disappearance of Lynette Hooker and
the Bahamas takes a dark turn after federal agents sees
the couple's sailboat and questions her husband's story. Keep it
right here, True Grant Tonight.

Speaker 2 (16:01):
Welcome back to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio. We're talking
true crime all the time. I'm Stephanie Leidecker here with
Courtney Armstrong and Body Move in and listen. We have
Robert rand joining us later in the show. You'll remember
he's been on before talking about the Menendez brothers. He's
an author and a journalist and very close close to
the brothers. Believe it or not, it's been one year

(16:23):
since their sentencing was denied, so there's lots of new
activity happening around them. Plus this Bahamas story. You'll remember
Lynnette Hooker, who you know, apparently went overboard while you know,
with her husband on their boat, and she hasn't been found.
And now there are these new developments from one of

(16:44):
their family friends, Boddy.

Speaker 3 (16:46):
Do you want to give us a little bit of
the scoop on this one.

Speaker 5 (16:49):
Yeah, for sure. So the search for you know, she's
fifty five years old, Lynette Hooker, it's transitioned into a
federal criminal investigation after she went missing from this dinghy
right in the Bahamas on April fourth. So the story
is is that you know her husband, Brian Hooker. He
claimed there were a bunch of like rough waters and

(17:12):
Lynnette Hooker fell overboard with the dinghy's little key to
the engine, forcing him to like row this dinghy for
like eight hours to the harbor. Okay, Brian Hooker. He
was initially detained by the authorities for questioning, but he
was released without charges and returned to the United States.

Speaker 7 (17:35):
Well.

Speaker 5 (17:36):
Last week, the US Coast Guard intercepted and seized the
couple sailboats or the couple's sail boat right, and federal
agents are currently processing the sailboat for forensic evidence. Fox
News is now reporting that Blaine Stevenson, he's a friend
of Brian Hooker. He said that after a three to

(17:58):
four hour search with officials on the fifth, which is
the day he would have landed on shore to look
for her, Brian Hooker returned to his sailboat and remained
there for about twenty four hours.

Speaker 3 (18:14):
So bank of that.

Speaker 2 (18:15):
So that means he could have been with any evidence,
if there was any that was still there.

Speaker 3 (18:21):
Why would they let him do that?

Speaker 5 (18:23):
Right? Well, so I would am I thought they would
have like you know, uh, sealed off the sailboat, right,
But apparently they didn't really think it was criminal at
this point, so he just laughed out there is a
world that we live in in which he was exhausted
and had to get some sleep or something. Right, we
can live in that world for a moment, give him

(18:44):
the benefit of the doubt. He was searching for his wife.
He had been rowing all night long to get to shore,
and then he spends three to four hours searching with
the authorities for his wife. And then what do you do.
You leave and you go to your sailboat and go
to sleep, Like, what do you do in that situation?

Speaker 2 (19:03):
Well, just playing devil's advocate here, is it possible that
he was so exhausted and devastated, which is incredibly fatiguing.

Speaker 3 (19:11):
Obviously he's panicked.

Speaker 2 (19:13):
Now he needs to sleep while authorities in the Bahamas
are doing their job, so he decides to go maybe
rest his eyes for a little bit. I can get
on board with that. I mean, twenty four hours is
a little extreme, Like, that's Brian, I think we need
to get up a little early and get back looking
for your wife. That's the part that I think we
all get confused by. We're getting allegedly allegedly allegedly. We're

(19:35):
not accusing Brian Hooker of murdering his beloved wife, but remember,
Lynnette's daughter has some she had her own suspicions about
whether or not Brian was involved. Brian said he would
never leave the island until she was found, which you
would imagine would be so of course he left the island,

(19:55):
you know, twelve hours after saying that and really hasn't
been back. So was that a cleanup job that he
went to the boat to make sure that police would
never find any evidence, And maybe he had to go
back to the United States to also hide any information
that would suggest maybe they were fighting or there was
a problem.

Speaker 5 (20:14):
If something did happen on the boat. Let's live in
that world where something happened on the sailboat, wouldn't he
clean it up before he landed in marsh Harbor? Like,
wouldn't he have cleaned it up before getting on the
dinghy and pretending to be like lost and stranded and
that his wife you know, fell over?

Speaker 4 (20:31):
Well, But but I mean, did you ever leave your
house and think for a hot second, oh, did I
leave a light on or a burner on or something like?
Can you imagine the compulsion to double check your work.
Absolutely if in fact a crime occurred, you let see,
you thought you did a good job. But I'm sure
alarms would be going off in anyone's head if in

(20:54):
fact that's.

Speaker 2 (20:55):
Or maybe he thought she would returned to this boat.
I just can't believe that sweet Lynnette is still missing.
So there's no assumption of her being dead. Why is
there an assumption that she's not going to turn up?
Like why would Brian, her husband, go back to the
United States and not be compelled to be there for
her return. It's like he's almost jumped to the conclusion

(21:18):
that she's not coming home.

Speaker 5 (21:20):
Right. While the Blaine Stevenson hit the friend of Brian Hooker,
he went on, he kind of mimics what you just
said there. He said he was shocked that Brian Hooker
didn't make more of an effort to find his wife.
And he said, at no point did he really look
at the situation and give anybody any more details than
he had at the beginning when supposedly he was in shock.

(21:42):
So he lands he gives the authorities the general information
we were on this dinghy. The waters were rough and
the current and the crosswinds and whatnot. She fell off
the boat, she had the vessel I couldn't the engine
was dead. He didn't give them any more details apparently
after that. According to that part, it's just wild.

Speaker 2 (22:03):
And we've all interviewed, and I can just speak for myself.
This is a personal thought. We've spoken to so many
mothers and fathers who have missing children, and it's literally
all they can talk about think about. You can't eat, drink,
or sleep without this being the first and last thought
that you come to. It actually sounds like the worst

(22:23):
case scenario a human being could be in missing somebody
they love because you never have that closure, right, It's
never enough if you sleep for two hours, you should
only have slept for one because maybe you can find them.
So yeah, just the idea that from an optics perspective,
even that he is so low key about finding her,
and then furthermore, going past the optics, he would be

(22:46):
you would imagine him screaming and crying and the guilt
in the worry or the assumption until we find her body,
we are not giving up.

Speaker 3 (22:55):
He just goes back to the real world.

Speaker 2 (22:57):
That none of that makes sense, And I think I'm
not alone in this I think collectively we're all curious
why Brian Hooker isn't stepping up to the bat.

Speaker 5 (23:07):
Right, So let's just go through a timeline so that
the listeners and us to get re caught up right.
So this apparently happened the night of April fourth, that
she fell into the water. Okay, April fifth, because of
course midnight passes, so April fifth, Brian Hooker, he paddles
that disabled dinghy for about eight hours into Marsh Harbor

(23:30):
and he starts raising the alarm and according to the
friend Blaine Stevenson, after three to four hours and a
rescue patrol, Brian Hooker returned to the Soulmate, which is
her sailboat, and remained alone on board for nearly twenty
four hours. That was April fifth. April sixth, Brian Hooker.
He would go on to stay at the conch Inn,

(23:54):
which is in Marsh Harbor, and he stayed there until
he was arrested. On April eighth, a police force came.
They arrested him for questioning regarding cause harm resulting in
death due to narrative inconsistencies, which is interesting to me, right,
So they that's.

Speaker 2 (24:14):
Very interesting right, what lies meaning he's not keeping his
story straight, right, that's the implication in that, that's.

Speaker 5 (24:22):
The implication that maybe he said, you know, she fell
off and they had the key, and then maybe they
found the key on the dinghy in question, and he
was like, oh, I didn't realize it was there. You
know that kind of stuff. I think. You know, I'm
not saying they hip have the key. I'm just saying, like,
you know, things like that. So they arrested him on
April eighth, and they kept him as long as possible.

(24:45):
You know, they can only hold you for so long.
On April thirteenth, due to those statutory limits of holding him,
they did not file any formal charges, so they had
to release him, and then he left. He gets out
and he goes, I'm not leaving until I find my wife, right.
And he gets out and he goes home. He goes

(25:05):
home and he says that my mom is ill. I
need to get out of here. So he leaves the Bahamas.
That was April thirteenth. On almost a month later, right
May eighth through the tenth, the soul Meat, which is
the sailboat, is spotted leaving the Bahamas mooring and it
was crude by two men. The US Coast Guard intercepts

(25:27):
and seizes the sailboat just off the course off the
coast of Melbourne, Florida.

Speaker 4 (25:33):
Listen, if you are just joining us, this is true
crime tonight. And we're talking about fifty five year old
Lynette Hooker. She's the woman who allegedly fell off a
boat in the Bahamas. This happened in early April. She
is still missing. Her husband, Brian Hooker is being looked
at with the raised eyebrow.

Speaker 3 (25:52):
There are I don't.

Speaker 4 (25:53):
Believes unless it's changed body. There are no charges in
this moment.

Speaker 5 (25:57):
Correct, none right now? Yeah, none right now. And the
friend you know is really kind of questioning him. And
this is Brian Hooker's friend. And he says, you know
the friend, and it says other friends they noticed a
distinct lack of urgency, and they started criticizing Brian Hooker
for isolating on himself on that sailboat for nearly twenty

(26:19):
four hours instead of actively assisting in their recovery mission.
And here's what he says. So, the incident happened Saturday,
April fourth, at seven point thirty. He came ashore at
four a m. The search and rescue took him out
for three or four hours and brought him back to

(26:39):
his boat. He sat on his boat for almost twenty
four hours until the search and rescue brought him his dinghy.
So once he got his dinghy, he went to the hotel.
You know, he's kind of trapped on the on the sailboat. Really, right,
I don't know at no m. It is very strange,

(27:02):
it is. And listen, I'm not really familiar with the
Bahama Bahamas police force. Right, they might we have to give,
you know, some kind of devil's advocacy here. They might
have said, listen, this guy's becoming a nuisance. We can't
actively search for his wife with him in tow. Okay,
if we come across her body, that's the last thing

(27:23):
we want him to see. Right. They could have been like, dude,
you have to go back to your boat. They could
have right, you're a nuisance, you're caught. You know, you're
you're acting irrational because maybe he was frantic. I don't know,
but according to his friend that he was. You know,
there was really this no urgency. But if they dropped
him off on his boat, as this says, the police

(27:46):
dropped him off on the boat and he's moored. He's
stranded on the boat without a dinghy. Hmm, right, right,
they delivered the dinghy and he he goes and checkson
into a hotel. I don't know, but he had twenty
four hours to clean up that boat. If something did happen.

Speaker 2 (28:09):
Even the idea of him going to a hotel is weird.
This is all so strange, And again the jurisdiction is
an issue. So ultimately, if there is perhaps something found
or identified on the boat that now the US has
capsized or taken not capsized, capsize means it tipped over.

Speaker 3 (28:28):
I don't mean that. Yeah, I'm not the fisherman.

Speaker 8 (28:31):
I am not.

Speaker 2 (28:32):
But if they've taken that into custody and they find something,
then he would in fact be extradited, not back to
the Bahamas.

Speaker 3 (28:40):
Well, I don't know.

Speaker 5 (28:42):
This is an interesting legal question. The boat is an
American boat, it's got an American flag, it's registered to
the American like to the United States. Is it considered
United States land at that point? Right? Did the if
something happened on the boat and she was God forbid murdered,

(29:03):
would the murder have taken place on the United States
soil because it's a United States vessel. I don't know.
I'm not a lawyer.

Speaker 7 (29:12):
Yeah, that's a maybe a jagged question, or we'll have
to dig in.

Speaker 5 (29:18):
And I think that, you know, I think the officials
do think something happened on that boat, because right before
it was you know, captured, the coast Guard put out
a kind of a call. Uh, they said, who the
sailboat that was parked parked moored next to the soulmate,

(29:39):
if you were parked next to that you know, sailboat,
let us know. Obviously they think something happened that night
on that boat, and they want to know if anybody
heard or saw anything. And they're looking specifically for the
boat that was moored right next to them. So they
and and they captured the boat. They really think something

(30:00):
happened on the boat, right, I still don't you think?

Speaker 7 (30:04):
It's still odd though, that during a search and rescue
they would allow someone back onto the boat. Like that's
the part that I would I'm going to have to
dig into this to see in a search and rescue,
would you let someone who is let's say the only
person that was involved with that person back onto the boat.

Speaker 8 (30:20):
That that.

Speaker 5 (30:22):
If you're let's say your child goes missing, right, right,
and they go back in the house. The parents go
back in the house, right, something could have happened in there, right.
The default is that your child ran away or you know,
it's something. It's not that you did something. So the
default I believe for the police is we have to

(30:44):
find the missing. We have to find Lynette. This accident happened,
she fell off. You know, they're believing his story, right, right.
I mean, maybe things need to change the way investigations
are handled, but I do believe that's how it is
handled right now.

Speaker 4 (30:58):
Yeah, Brian Hooker does have He's hired an attorney. She's
based in Michigan, and her name is Crystal Marie Hauser,
and I just wanted to put out there she has
urged public restraint and suggested, you know, trauma shop they
manifest really uniquely in individuals, so we all handle things differently.

Speaker 3 (31:19):
So I just wanted to give voice to that.

Speaker 2 (31:22):
And we have a very special guest back with us,
Robert rand who's also an author and a journalist.

Speaker 3 (31:28):
He's been on many times.

Speaker 2 (31:30):
It's the one year anniversary of the Menendez brothers having
their resentencing. Basically tossed momentarily, as Robert will tell us,
and I know you've spoken to him recently, Robert, so
welcome back to the show. Because the Menandez brothers, Eric
and Lyle are really hoping that they'll have another swing

(31:53):
at freedom.

Speaker 8 (31:55):
Well, remember that this case is thirty six years old. Actually,
August twenty nineteen or twenty twenty sixth will be the
thirty six year anniversary of the crime. The brothers were
arrested in March of nineteen ninety and back in nineteen ninety,

(32:15):
you know, there was no Internet, there was no social media,
so you just had the old school, primary legacy media,
and the story they were putting out was green rich
kids killed this lovely couple on a Sunday night in
Beverly Hills. And that turned out not to be the story,

(32:38):
but that's the story that people were initially spoon fed.
So the fact that let's fast forward to a year
ago this week, that Eric, Alumnandez were resentenced from the
original sentence at the end of their second trial in

(33:00):
March of ninety sixth. The original sentence was life without parole,
and now they have been re sentenced to fifty years
of life, which makes them immediately eligible for parole in California.
They appeared before the par board at the end of

(33:21):
last August. They were found not suitable for parole. But
they're going to be back again in front of the
pro board, probably in sometime in early twenty twenty seven.

Speaker 4 (33:35):
Oh so, in the scope of things, twenty the beginning
of twenty twenty seven, given that this is now thirty
six years in time from the actual crime, you know,
that's a half a year away. And by the way,
if you're just joining us, this is true crime tonight,
and we're joined by Robert Rand.

Speaker 8 (33:53):
Now.

Speaker 4 (33:53):
Robert is an Emmy and DuPont winning award winning journalist
and he's covered the Menendez brother's case since the day
after those murders that all those thirty six years ago,
and Robert interviewed Eric and Lyle Menendez both before the arrests.
He has attended both trials and still speaks directly to

(34:15):
the family. Also, if you want more information, Robert Rand
also is the author of The Menendez Murders, The Shocking,
Untold Story of the Menendez Family and the killings that
stunned the nation. And lastly, Robert is executive producer of
Menendez and Menudo boys betrayed. So all that to say,

(34:39):
Robert knows the case of Eric and Lyle Menendez inside
and out, and they are in prison, of course for
shooting and killing their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez back
in Beverly Hills. So so Robert, So one year after
those resentencing hearings.

Speaker 3 (35:02):
Where are we today?

Speaker 4 (35:04):
So are we just waiting for for early twenty twenty
seven for a new trial or what's happening.

Speaker 8 (35:13):
In early twenty twenty seven, Eric Lyilemandez will go back
in from the California proward in separate hearings. Remember these
are actually two different cases. We think of them as
one case because they're Thennda's brothers, but they are two
separate individual cases. And in August twenty twenty five, the

(35:36):
brothers had their first chance to speak to the pro
Award and the first day was Eric Mendez's hearing, which
lasted about ten hours. The second day was Lylemandez's hearing
that lasted about eleven hours. The typical pro board hearing

(35:58):
in California is two to three hours, so this was
very strange. You know, I've actually read the hearings were
not livestream anywhere. There was a pool reporter in Sacramento
at the CDCR headquarters, and you know, obviously there was

(36:24):
a lot that went on in the twenty one hours
of hearings. But one of the things that happened was,
I think the pro board made it very clear to
Eric and Wile what they had to do to come
back and be successful in asking for their release, right.

Speaker 5 (36:50):
And that was followed like the rules, right, like to.

Speaker 8 (36:52):
The latteral law right. I mean, it's kind of crazy,
but actually both brothers had individual cell phone possession violations
after the rescensing process had started with former DA George

(37:12):
Gascon in October of twenty four And I know, you know,
the average person is going to say, yeah, what's the
big deal. You know, why is a cell phone such
a big issue? And here's the reason why. Because the
only way that inmates can get cell phones in a

(37:34):
prison is if they are smuggled in by a guard.
And that's obviously a problem. If inmates have cell phones,
hypothetically they could you know, be involved in criminal activity,
setting them drug deals, maybe setting up an escape.

Speaker 9 (37:56):
And so.

Speaker 8 (37:58):
That's why it's a serious issue to the person. Officials
and by the way.

Speaker 2 (38:04):
While that is for sure and infraction, I must say,
like so many of the prisoners that we've even dealt
with in projects, it's a pretty common thing as well.
So if you're looking to make sure someone gets dinged
and has a reason to not make this parole, yes,
that's something to point to. But it's not as though

(38:24):
they were egregiously doing something that is not air quotes
fairly common. I know, Robert, you spoke with the brothers
very recently. How are their spirits and how are they
holding up?

Speaker 8 (38:38):
Actually, they're holding up very well. Both brothers completed the
programs for their Bachelor of Arts degrees in twenty twenty four,
and there's a program at RJ. Devin Person near San
Diego that's run through youse See Irvine in which inmates

(39:04):
can take classes by zoom to achieve their college degrees.
And Lyle is actually working on his MBA degree, so
he's gone beyond the BA and now he's going for
an NBA. But basically they're good spirits. They're just really

(39:29):
doing the same thing that they were doing before the
spotlight came back on the case, which is they are
teaching classes to help other inmates. They are really have
become a service to their inmate community. And these are things,

(39:50):
as I said, that they were doing before. They are
not you know, they didn't just start, you know, doing
things after the media spotlight was on the case.

Speaker 5 (40:05):
You followed this case longer, I think than anyone. You've
followed it since the beginning, since nineteen eighty nine. If
you had to point out the biggest misconception people still
have about the Menendez case and the Menendez brothers, what
would that be.

Speaker 8 (40:22):
The biggest problem When the media coverage of the case,
particularly the original media coverage in the nineteen nineties, was
that Erkilil Menandez were a pair of greedy, rich kids
who killed their parents because they were in a hurry
to inherit their state. And that is not the actual story.

(40:44):
You know, the way things were back in nineteen ninety
when the brothers were arrested, the DA's office here in
La County had a dozen people that did nothing but
public relations. They did spin. In other words, if I
had to poison the potential jury pool by putting out

(41:04):
a story, and which was their story, their point of view,
and also mainstream media, you know, really signed on to
that greedy rich kids story, and so, as I said,
there was no internet, no social media, so it's very
difficult for a dependent to fight back once the media

(41:28):
had decided, oh, this is your story, this is your
log line.

Speaker 4 (41:34):
Absolutely, And you know, with TikTok and all of social
media in general, how much do you think that's shaping
the public perception of the brothers, particularly with younger audiences
who are consuming that.

Speaker 8 (41:50):
I believe that TikTok, Instagram, social media have become a
huge positive issue for the brothers. My son, who's fourteen
at the time, came to me in the summer of
twenty twenty and he said, Dad, you have to look
at TikTok. It's full of Menendez Brothers' videos and oviusly

(42:13):
I knew what kaktokws play, didn't have an account on it.
Now I do, And I went down the rabbit hole
and for three or four hours, I just watched video
after video, and I kept watching TikTok over the next
few months, and I called a friend of mine, an

(42:33):
editor at the New York Times, and I said, something
really strange is going on. And so they actually ran
a major story in February twenty one, and so this
whole you know, interest by social media goes back that far.
It didn't just happen with the Monsters Menandez that premiered

(42:56):
in twenty twenty four, followed by Netflix documentary. But this
was building not only in the stakes, but also all
over the world. There are people, actually there are more
social media followers outside of the US than in the US.

Speaker 2 (43:17):
Kind of interesting, you know, thinking of like you know,
when the murders actually happened, sort of, the infamy of
the case probably worked against them, right because their origin
story didn't really come out. They were subjected to an
imaginable abuse by their father, which you know may have
informed the sentencing. But ironically, I think I ironic would

(43:39):
be the right word. You know, cut to decades later,
because of that fame and infamy, they were selected to
be the story in the scripted version of the Menendez
Brothers story, which you know was a Ryan Murphy scripted
show on FX, and that really reinvigorates some of the

(44:01):
interest in the case.

Speaker 3 (44:03):
So many years later.

Speaker 8 (44:05):
I would like to thank Ryan Murphy because I sold
more books in the past eighteen months than in the
previous seven years since the original version of the book
came out. However, don't take Monsters Menendez as one hundred
percent fact because there are a number of fictionalized scenes.

(44:28):
But regardless, that's okay, because you know, the case was
so the coverage of the case was so one sided
by the media at the time of trials in the
nineteen nineties that the fact that you know, a major
dreamer would release something that was somewhat sympathetic to the Brothers,

(44:51):
I think that reflects the change of the public and
also the social media sport.

Speaker 5 (45:00):
Absolutely right. And you mentioned you know the books. We
know you're working on some new projects right now. Can
you tell us about about one of them or two
of them.

Speaker 8 (45:10):
I'm actually working out a new book I'm related to
the Brothers that will probably come out in about a year.
It's a story I've been reporting on for ten years.
I can't tell you or I will tell you that.

Speaker 3 (45:26):
Geezer.

Speaker 8 (45:28):
But I am about to launch a Menandez Brothers subsect
because I have so many banker boxes of files sitting
in a room in my house, and so I want
to unload some of my archives and most of the

(45:48):
post on the upcoming subsect will be available free to subscribers.

Speaker 5 (45:56):
Well, you're going to have to come back and tell
us all about the sub sect because I definitely want
to subscribe to it. Robert, thank you so much for
joining us tonight. We always appreciate your insight and insight
into this case. And for anyone wanting to go deeper
into the Menenda story, please check out Robert Rand's book,
The Updated Edition The Menendez Murders. It can be found

(46:16):
on Amazon and other major book websites. Also check out
the Peacock documentary Mendes and Menendo Boys Betrayed. Robert, It's
always so good to see you. And coming up at
the top of the hour, there's new FBI details from
Brian Coberger's family after the Idaho student murders, while Harvey
Weinstein's legal chaos deepens again. Don't forget to give us

(46:39):
a call eight at eight thirty one Crime Keep it
right here, True Crime Tonight.

Speaker 2 (46:54):
Welcome back to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio. We're talking
true crime all the time. I'm Stephanie Leidecker with Courtney
Armstrong and Body. Move in and listen. If you are
just joining us or missed any of the first hour
of the show, remember you can always catch us right
after as a podcast and you can call us live
eight eight eight three one crime. In fact, we have

(47:15):
a caller right now, Amanda, welcome to the show.

Speaker 3 (47:18):
We're so glad to have you. Hi. Yeah, I love
it so oh we're so.

Speaker 10 (47:23):
Glad to call you guys for a month. Yeah, me
and my husband are addicted. Oh yah, yeah, it's awesome.
We had a question about Lynette Hooker, So when was
the last time that she was seen with her husband,
because like our question is he could have killed her
before and then threw her off out in the ocean,

(47:44):
Like because it was me or my husband, we would
have jumped in in that boat thing. I saw the picture.
It's so small, Like, how would you not know that
she went in right? Amanda labbed her like, there's yes, you.

Speaker 5 (47:55):
Are hitting to the crux of the situation. In my opinion,
this is body by the way, you are hitting the
nail on the head. Because I don't know if you
remember the bartender, right, the bartender on the fourth they
supposedly went to this bar, right, and he said that
Brian Hooker was really nice to him, and you know,
he ordered a couple of drinks and he commented about

(48:16):
how at least he was with the service being so quick,
and he said that everything seemed very normal. But he
also said, very importantly, he also said he never laid
eyes on the wife. Right, the wife was never with him,
that's right. So could it be could it be that, yes,
your theory is correct that he did this maybe on

(48:38):
April third or the second, we did something terrible, right,
But yeah, you know, she didn't go to the restaurant,
and this was all just a ruse to kind of
like give attention that he was actually at the restaurant
with his wife when he actually maybe never was at all. However,
according to investigators and Brian Hooker's own account, Lynnette was

(49:01):
reportedly last seen alive on that evening of April fourth,
around sunset roughly at seven point thirty while in that dinghy.
But you know, it's really unclear though how accurate this
all is. This and remembered in another country.

Speaker 2 (49:17):
And by the way, Amanda, just to add to that,
this is Steph, just to kind of add to your
theory with your husband, and by the way, thank him
for listening as well. You know, is it possible that
maybe Lynette lost her life on land and listen, maybe
it was accidental. Maybe it was, you know, not nefarious.
I'm going to give Brian Hooker the benefit of the
doubt here because we don't want to accuse anybody of murder. However,

(49:40):
from an optics perspective, this is not looking great. And
if it's possible that this murder happened elsewhere and he
disposed of the body and then came up with this
pococta plan that would at least explain some of the
behaviors that we're seeing from him.

Speaker 3 (49:55):
On the flip of that.

Speaker 2 (49:56):
Is it possible that Look, yeah, the guy's been through
a traumatic event. Who's to say how he's going to respond.
Maybe he's sick in the bed, licking his wounds and
caring for his mother.

Speaker 3 (50:06):
Maybe this is just an.

Speaker 2 (50:08):
Issue of optics and not actually an issue of crime.

Speaker 5 (50:12):
What do you think, Court, I.

Speaker 4 (50:13):
Mean, I think it's fishy. And I was I was
the last one on board. I was like, leave this
man alone, letting him grieve. We don't know, you don't
know that's what you want to do.

Speaker 5 (50:24):
You want to you know, if he's a victim, you
don't want to like make him look bad, right, you
don't want to talk about him.

Speaker 2 (50:31):
Yeah, But remember even the daughter his you know, his
stepdaughter maybe was raised by for twenty plus years. Even
she came out and said that she had her suspicions.
She wasn't standing up saying, oh, my stepdad would never
do that, because they also had a pretty contentious relationship.
By several accounts, they've police were called to their home

(50:52):
more than once. So there's a little bit of history here,
is my point.

Speaker 10 (50:58):
Yeah, definitely, Ada, you're just a rock star.

Speaker 3 (51:01):
Yeah, thank you for calling.

Speaker 10 (51:03):
Yeah, thank you. Well, definitely call back. We listen every
night you guys are on.

Speaker 5 (51:08):
Oh great, Yeah, definitely love about that. Don't be a stronger.
Thank you, Amanda. We really do appreciate it. But yeah,
until this timeline is really setting stone on what when
Lynette Hooker was actually had the last eyes light on her.
It's really kind of murky right now. So stay tuned
for that. Will definitely be following it along. But I
have some news in Brian Coberger if we want to

(51:28):
dig into that for a little bit.

Speaker 3 (51:29):
Yes, yes, and the handle it.

Speaker 5 (51:32):
I know, I hate that we have to keep talking about,
you know, Brian Coberger, but you know, there's this new
book out and whatnot, and you know, there's a lot
of information that's coming out about it. There was a
book came out in April of last month. It's called
Broken Plea, and it's written by a former FBI agent
and a defense forensic expert, and it's revealed a lot

(51:55):
of sealed details about the investigation and all the trial
preparations that were happening in the Idaho student murderer's case. Right,
And these defense arguments never faced a jury because Brian Coberger,
of course pled guilty to those crime, that crime in
the summer of twenty twenty five, to that quadruple murders

(52:18):
in Moscow, Idaho, all to avoid the death penalty, right,
and he received four consecutive life sentences without parole. However,
the books disclosures have triggered backlash from Brian Coberger's defense counsel,
who accused one of the co authors of violating a
strict confidentiality agreement. This controversy is unfolding alongside a separate

(52:45):
criminal investigation into the highly sensitive pre pre leaks that
happened to NBC's Dateline and you know victims. Some of
the victim's families believe that these leaks fundamentally ended the
chance for a clean trial, which is why Brian Coburger plied.
I mean, there's a lot of things going on right now.

Speaker 3 (53:07):
I don't disagree.

Speaker 2 (53:08):
By the way, this is really messy and extremely unfortunate.
So it just to kind of set the table a
little bit if you're just playing catch up to this case.
We made the podcast The Idaho Massacre. You can also
download that on your iHeartRadio app. And then Kat also
made the documentary for Peacock that's out now called The

(53:28):
Idaho Student Murders. And I say that simply to make
the point that we have been following this case very
very closely for a really long time, and parts of
it really didn't add up. And I'm going to speak
for myself. You guys have heard this before. We've said
this many times. I was probably the last person to
really get on board with Brian Coberger's guilt. I was

(53:51):
really holding out hope that maybe he was not the guy,
and that this PhD student was just weird and maybe
not capable of something so grizzly, because remember, there was
no known connection between the accused Brian Coburger now convicted,
and the victims, and that level of stranger danger is
very is very rare, right, that would make this a

(54:14):
straight up thrill kill, which is extra disturbing giving the
circumstances that Brian Coburger was getting his PhD in criminal
psychology and he was going to become a criminologist, or
getting his PhD rather in criminology, and that he was
studying the exact thing that he would later be accused of.
So that's always been a backdrop that's hard to shake,

(54:37):
and we've heard many mixed things, and probably until the
date line leaks, I was still very much on the
what if he didn't, What if he didn't, What if
he didn't, What if he didn't. At that point it
seemed ooh, these leaks are pretty bad, and it had
some really very relevant information of the amount of pings

(54:58):
he'd been in and around the area. I think somewhere
around twenty three times. That's hard to explain away. That
he had purchased the cobar, the bar, the knife that
was used in this hideous murder. Remember, whoever did this,
Brian Coberger would have stabbed one hundred and fifty times

(55:19):
these beautiful four young children, young adults, I should say.
So this is a real grizzly typically an intimate thrill
kill if you're using a knife a k bar. That's
kind of when this all went a little fishy to
hear now after the fact that there was in fact
some real questions behind closed doors with his defense team,

(55:41):
and that the chain of custody, for example, with the
DNA under the snap, if that was being brought under
suspicion or if they were having a hard time piecing
stuff together. That's all very relevant information but is not
great information to hear about today like that to me
is a real a real shame. But at the same time,

(56:03):
what do you think, Boddy, I see you just made
it a face.

Speaker 5 (56:06):
So the whole chain of custody thing with the sheath
that you're talking about, I don't think it's anything. And
this is something that we really should discuss with Josephcott Morgan.
Maybe we can talk about it with him on Tuesday
when he's here.

Speaker 3 (56:18):
But it's a great idea.

Speaker 5 (56:20):
The whole thing that they're talking about in the book
is that you know, the handwriting something with the signatures
on the bag.

Speaker 3 (56:27):
That's right.

Speaker 5 (56:28):
The issue with that is is people don't really use those.
That's not like a legal chain of custody. It's all done.
It's all technical now, it's all done via barcodes that
are underneath all that stuff. So the front facing thing
that you and I see when we look at photos
is it's not really anything. It's not what they use
for chain of custody. So there's a lot of things
in this book. In my opinion, only in this something

(56:50):
that again we should just discuss with Joseph. I'm not
an expert, so let me just say that really quick.
I think a lot of it is explosive for book sales,
and I think that people need to be very careful
about what they believe.

Speaker 4 (57:07):
And I have to say that Ann Taylor, who was
Brian Coberger's defense attorney, who put up any and every
imaginable motion, she just really seemed to do an incredibly
excited job.

Speaker 3 (57:21):
Job she is.

Speaker 2 (57:25):
I think she yeah, alibi, I don't know. I'm not
sure that I agree. Sorry, oh, fair, that's fair.

Speaker 4 (57:31):
But you can't make something out of absolutely you can't
say that Julie saw you that night if Julie didn't
see you that night. But anyway, yes, the plea was ridiculous,
but what are you gonna do? But this book The
Broken Plete. It's co author, but it's a former FBI
agent and a defense expert, Brent Turvey. Well Ann Tayler,

(57:52):
the defense defense attorney, is is craised and saying that
Brent Turvey, he absolutely is still under a confidentiality agreement
that what he has put out should not it's outside
of his purview of expertise. And I got to hop
on what you said body of you know, some of

(58:14):
it may well be incendiary for book sales, and don't forget.

Speaker 3 (58:17):
It doesn't matter though, yes, go ahead, Boddy.

Speaker 5 (58:20):
This is the guy also that won't talk to investigators
about the dateline week. Same guy, okay, but he's you know,
doing a YouTube tour about everything, but he won't talk
to the investigators about the leak. Even though in her
statement and Taylor says that she has given him permission
to talk to investigators. He's saying, no, I can't because
I'm under this you know straight.

Speaker 3 (58:43):
You can't have it both ways, is the point.

Speaker 2 (58:45):
You can write a book in my tell all and
at the same time, you know, be kind of careful
about what you're saying because you have this non disclosure agreement,
just you know, for the inside baseball of it all.
It's very common to have a non disclosure agree basically
in anything we do in true crime, because it's sensitive information.
You don't want things being repeated. Stories change, they evolve,

(59:08):
so it has to be considered very sacred, certainly if
you're the defense attorney. By the way, this was a
death sentence trial who it had been through now at
change of venue, You'll remember it was moved from Moscow.
We were at the finish line for this trial. So
this is pretty sensitive, sacred stuff. That's not the kind
of thing that you think should be you know, paraded

(59:31):
about after the fact. The dateline leak, though, is extremely serious. Agree,
And if he was associated with that dateline leak, which
he claims he was.

Speaker 3 (59:40):
Not, that's also extremely serious.

Speaker 2 (59:44):
And much like the murder's story that we covered at
the top of the show, where you know, justice was
interrupted because somebody was being messy, this would apply here too.
I don't know if I'm on the coburger side or
if I'm the victims' families, I would feel an annoyed
by all of this because it did it undermined the process.

Speaker 5 (01:00:04):
You know, Steph, you mentioned the alibi and how silly
it was, and I agree it was one hundred percent silly.
The alibi was that he was out stargazing. Okay, right,
and I'm just making insistinct, but he was basically out
stargazing and he did have the service because he was
out in the middle of nowhere. Okay at I think
Laki Ki Park or something, I can't remember. Any who, AnyWho,

(01:00:24):
if Ann Taylor is going to submit that as his alibi,
and I do agree with Courtney, I do believe Ann
Taylor fought and she submitted motion after motion after motion.
If there was really an issue with chain of custody
and the biggest piece of evidence they had against him,
which was his DNA on that sheath, don't you think
she would have put in emotion to exclude that evidence.

Speaker 3 (01:00:46):
I do, I do, I mean I do too.

Speaker 2 (01:00:50):
But again, the chain of custody is a very big deal.
I would think generally speaking, this case had some flaws.
The crime scene hadn't been secured course, a bunch of
photographs of people tracking in and out of that that
were not wearing proper you know, gloves, and they were
not you know, sacred about the crime scene. If I'm

(01:01:10):
Ann Taylor, I'm defending somebody for their life. I think
there were enough holes in this case that this trial
might have surprised us. And I've often been curious about
why he pled out in the eleventh hour, because what
did he have to lose at that point he was
going full throttle one way or the other his life. Yes,
but again looking at his life now, there was a

(01:01:33):
lot of holes in this case. They didn't really have
his face in that alauntra Now there's being some chatter
online that there was another car in the area that
looked very similar. There's you know, other accounts in chatter
that there was more blood that was found at the
crime scene that was never tested. You know, this is
all stuff, But would that stuff have been meaningful a trial.

(01:01:54):
We truly will never know. And it's people like this
that would prevent that from happening in future trials.

Speaker 4 (01:01:59):
Shame them, Shame my goodness. Well, listen, do stick around
because we're going to talk about the Elon Musk and
the Sam Altman courtroom war that's happening.

Speaker 3 (01:02:10):
It's gotten dark.

Speaker 4 (01:02:11):
Keep it here a True Crime Tonight.

Speaker 2 (01:02:23):
Welcome back to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio. We're talking
true crime all the time. I'm step here with the
Courtney and with body, and we also have producer Taha
with us, and Sam and Adam are in the control
room in case you want to join us Live eight
at eight to three.

Speaker 3 (01:02:39):
One crime.

Speaker 2 (01:02:40):
So Harvey Weinstein at it again, his third time up
to bat and by the way, this might.

Speaker 4 (01:02:48):
Go on forever. Courtney, do you want to fill us in? Yeah,
third time for Harvey Weinstein. Schild is not a charm.
So on Friday, a Manhattan judge declared a mistrial again,
and this of course refers to the absolutely disgraced producer

(01:03:08):
Harvey Weinstein. And it's a rape trial where the jury
became hopelessly deadlock. They were deliberating for more than two days.
And this indeed is the third time that Weinstein faced
charges for allegedly raping a woman named Jessica Man. She's
an inspiring actress. And this goes all the way back

(01:03:32):
to an incident that was in a motel excuse me,
a Manhattan hotel room back in twenty twenty three. So
it just like you said, it just kind of keeps
going on infinitely. Initially the case resulted in a twenty
twenty conviction, but that was later overturned. The second trial

(01:03:54):
also had a deadlock jury on the rape count. And
you know, following this consecutive mistrial, the Manhattan District attorney
his name's al Alvin Bragg, So now it's time to
decide if his office is going to try to try

(01:04:14):
Harvey Weinstein for the fourth time. I mean, what do
you guys think?

Speaker 5 (01:04:19):
All right, listen, I'm not in the business of defending
sex crimes. I'm just not right. But at what point
do you say, Okay, this is the fourth time. There
is no legal limit, by the way, he can get
retried a bunch of times. But at what point, as
a taxpayer, let's say that has to pay for these trials,

(01:04:40):
at what point do you say, Okay, you've tried, you've tried,
you've tried, it's not working out. At what point do
you do that? However, the victim in this case, I'm sure,
wants there to be a conviction, which I completely support.
But I mean, what you have to face reality. This
is the now the third time that the jury's by
deadlock to not be able to come to a decision.

(01:05:02):
The case is either not ready or it's just they
don't have enough evidence.

Speaker 2 (01:05:09):
But it's possible that I don't know how to say
this correctly. I'm going to choose my words carefully. Is
it possible that the times have changed in terms of
juries and the jury pool. We were in the Me
too movement and maybe it's just a function of some
of the cases that we talk about here every night,

(01:05:29):
but it feels like we don't anymore. You know, the
Me Too movement had such a moment and everybody was rallying,
and it feels like so many of the cases that
we've covered that have at its core a sexual predator
or predators kind of goes no place that they get
light sentences, that they don't really get tried, or there's

(01:05:52):
no accountability whatsoever. So here's Harvey Weinstein, who really, did,
you know, take the hit frankly, rightfully so back in
the day, and now here we are years later, and
the climate seems to have changed to, hey, we don't
actually care that much about women who are being sexually assaulted.

Speaker 3 (01:06:13):
Sorry to me.

Speaker 2 (01:06:14):
That is a takeaway of twenty twenty six. On the
one hand, finally victims are feeling empowered to speak up
and speak their truths, and hopefully they're realizing that they're
so not alone, and that there's so many women especially,
but women and men who have faced some level of
either sexual or domestic violence in some way. I mean,

(01:06:36):
the numbers are staggering, and you know, we're all sort
of getting the courage to say something and speak up.
Let's be honest, it goes nowhere. So is that somehow
playing a role in this jury pool when it comes
to Harvey Weinstein?

Speaker 3 (01:06:52):
Does that mean sense? Do you see what I'm saying?
It does make sense?

Speaker 4 (01:06:55):
And that's you know, that's a lot of what There
was a statement from Jessica Man and we'll get to
more of it in a little bit, but what she
said was, you know, I've submitted myself to the highest
standards transparency and accountability and coming forward through the justice system,

(01:07:16):
choosing integrity even when the process flayed me open. The
power of predators remains too great. So true, it's this
the truth, though, it's like this horrible truth. Like on
the one hand, we're finally waking up and we're supporting
each other.

Speaker 3 (01:07:34):
We hear it here on the show.

Speaker 2 (01:07:36):
Daily we get emails of people who are saying things
for the first time because they've been wounded or traumatized
or sexually abused and now they can see, hey, you're
not alone. Turns out everybody else was also, but just
nobody gets accounted for. There seems to be no prison time.
And yes, of course the Epstein stuff, but that's just
like the most obvious thing to point to. But I

(01:07:59):
feel like every case we work on, it seems like
they kind of got away with it.

Speaker 3 (01:08:03):
Yeah, let's give me, you know, fifty months.

Speaker 2 (01:08:06):
H Let's just you know, see how that goes and
look the other way, and it's.

Speaker 3 (01:08:10):
Making me mad as hell.

Speaker 5 (01:08:12):
Well, I just don't think they have enough evidence without
so we should probably lay it out a little bit. Yeah,
don't you think court?

Speaker 4 (01:08:19):
Okay, I was just about to say, to give the
TikTok of what happened. So here is here's the timeline.
The first trial occurred in twenty twenty, so you know,
that's obviously six years ago, and that was it really
was in the time of Me Too movement, right, being
very prevalent in the news and on people's minds. So

(01:08:42):
at that first trial, Harvey Weinstein was accused of sexual
assault of a production assistant named Mariam Haley, as well
as the twenty thirteen rape of aspiring actress Jessica Man.
So he Weinstein was convince did on both counts and
he was sentenced to twenty three years and it was

(01:09:04):
an absolute landmark moment that this one of Hollywood's most
prolific producers who put out, you know, some generation making movies,
that he could be taken down. Well, that was overturned
in twenty twenty four by the New York Court of

(01:09:25):
Appeals and the conviction was overturned and a retrial was
set to be because there was testimony from women whose
allegations were not part of the formal charges, and the
argument was that that unfairly biased the jury, which I
mean I think is the right call, right.

Speaker 5 (01:09:45):
And without the testimony of those women moving forward, they
haven't been able to convince a jury with the evidence
that they are able to present that he is guilty
of these new these charges against the you know, the
vic don Jessica Man. And you know, I don't like that, right,
I mean, I feel terrible for this victim, But there's

(01:10:08):
just not enough, apparently, right.

Speaker 2 (01:10:12):
And we can't convict somebody just because they have a
bad rap, and that is that they've done this too
many women.

Speaker 3 (01:10:18):
I mean, as much as it's frustrating.

Speaker 5 (01:10:20):
I feel gross saying that.

Speaker 3 (01:10:22):
It makes me.

Speaker 5 (01:10:23):
Hey, I'm a girls girl, you know. I just but
the you can't convict someone with the right evidence, you
just can't.

Speaker 4 (01:10:31):
Well, and that does appear so in the second trial,
which happened in twenty twenty five. That retrial again was
prosecuted by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, and the outcome of
that trial was Harvey Weinstein was indeed convicted of a
criminal sexual act against production assistant Miriam Hayley. However, the

(01:10:55):
jury deadlocked on the Jessica Man rape charge. Because of that,
the judge Justice Cartiss Farber declared a partial mistrial on
the deadlock count and then ordered a new trial exclusively
for Jessica Man's allegations, which.

Speaker 2 (01:11:14):
I think I follow that which brings us here. Yeah,
can I just make sure that we're following. Can you
sum that up a little clearer?

Speaker 3 (01:11:22):
Court?

Speaker 2 (01:11:23):
Basically, the trials were separated essentially, right, So this most
recent trial is its own thing, separate of any other
ancillary allegations that may have swayed a juror.

Speaker 5 (01:11:36):
Yes, this is just the trial with the victim, Jessica Man. Yes,
because because Miriam he was convicted on it. So that's
done and put to bed, right, yeah, unless he appeals
it moving forward, but that's done and put to bed.
So the only one remaining, the only victim remaining is
miss Jessica, Miss Jessica. And you know they mistrialed again

(01:11:58):
on the mill again because yeah they did first time too.

Speaker 4 (01:12:02):
Or correct and so this this just happened, you know,
May two thousand, present day, and it was a single
count of rape against Jessica Man, and unlike the previous childs,
the prosecutors presented the story of just that one accuser
to your point, Stephanie.

Speaker 3 (01:12:22):
And the jurors.

Speaker 4 (01:12:23):
The jurors were asked to weigh Jessica Man's testimony directly
against Harvey Weinstein's denials, and there was no corroborating testimony
from anyone else, and there also was no physical evidence.
And then quite simply on Friday, the Justice said it

(01:12:44):
was very clear the jurors were hopelessly deadlocked, and he said,
you know, there's no reason to go further in deliberations.
It's not meant to be a coercive process, which I
think that's.

Speaker 2 (01:12:57):
Totally fair, and like that's the way it showed be
It's interesting, like the Weinstein time was such a unique time,
both in the industry but just in the world.

Speaker 3 (01:13:07):
Think about it.

Speaker 2 (01:13:07):
It was all those iconic movies that he was making,
and it was like the casting couch we always heard about. Right, Oh,
little woman, you want to have the starring role in
my upcoming film, Well, come to my hotel room. I'm
going to answer the door wearing a weird, creepy robe,
and I'm going to assume you're going to have sex
with me. That seemed to have happened time and time

(01:13:29):
and time and time again.

Speaker 3 (01:13:31):
Does that matter today? I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:13:34):
I feel like now we're encouraged to come out and
speak up. But tell that to Tina Farmer, who's still
waiting for justice, despite the fact that she's been you know,
dismissed for years and even the Epstein files corroborating her her.

Speaker 3 (01:13:49):
Part in this.

Speaker 2 (01:13:51):
In Epstein's case, for example, Like, nobody seems to be
signing up, and it's frustrating. I think all of the
industry in Holly would too, Like where is everybody speaking up?

Speaker 5 (01:14:04):
I think they're may be a little bit afraid to
some backlash too. Right, We're going to continue days Oh yeah,
I know. We're going to continue to keep following this. Obviously,
if there is a retrial in the charges that Jessica
is bringing, we will definitely fall through with a higher
Rewinstein thing. We'll keep everybody updated. This is true crime tonight,
give us a call eight to eight thirty one crime.

(01:14:27):
I wanted to tell you guys about this, this Elon
Musk thing. So, Elon Musk is suing open ai for
one hundred and fifty million dollars billion dollars okay. He
says he doesn't want the money personally, he wants any
damages redirected back to open AI's original nonprofit mission because
at the center of all this is Musk's claim that

(01:14:49):
open ai has betrayed its founding promise to remain an open,
nonprofit AI lab and instead it transformed into a Microsoft
backed commercial giant. Okay. Musk is asking the court to
force open ai to unwind for its for profit structure

(01:15:10):
and even remove CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman.
So yeah, this is just feels to me like a
power move right. It's it's being presented like Elon Musk
really cares and he wants us to be open and
available to everyone, and a this lab to be there
and whatnot. But I think in reality, you know, Elon

(01:15:33):
Musk has grock, which is a very popular AI, right,
and then open AI has chat gpt, which is probably
the most popular one probably I don't really know, and
were in direct competition with one another, right, Yeah, this
feels like a kneecap.

Speaker 4 (01:15:50):
Oh man, you know, I like justin Timberlake said crime
a river, Elon Musk, I'm with your I just was
in it for the charity of it all. Give me
a break.

Speaker 3 (01:15:59):
Yeah, it is right.

Speaker 2 (01:16:01):
It is gross though how they all start with the
whole we're a nonprofit, so we're a nonprofit. Is here's
chat gpt. Everybody start learning it. It's a nonprofit. Give
us all your information, and then you find out, oh no, no,
it's extremely profitable and that that is the goal. And
this whole nonprofit thing is really just code for give

(01:16:22):
us your stuff for free, and by the time we
infiltrate your entire world and you can't live without us,
then we're going to remind you that surprise, we have
all your info anyway, and we're going to sell your data.
It's a dirty game and It's also that same dirty
game is now being utilized in war. We're seeing this
surveillance becoming part of the deal. It's tracking us. So

(01:16:45):
whether it's Claude or Grock or whomever, it seems like
all of these guys are not helping our cause in
the long run, I totally agree.

Speaker 5 (01:16:55):
But Opening I kind of fired back though. They said
that the original chair already remains intact as a public
benefit corporation, holding a twenty six percent stake in the
commercial wing, and to counter Elon Musk's claims, they presented like, like,
this is drama, like when you have screenshots. They presented
text messages and a twenty seventeen proposal showing that Elon

(01:17:19):
Musk previously attempted to transition open Ai to a for
profit entity under his total personal control. So I mean
this is like, this is like billionaire mudslinging. And listen,
you know me, I am here for the screenshots. Give
me the screenshots of these text messages. Man, I want
to zoom in on them, I want to authenticate them.

(01:17:41):
I'm all up in it, So keep it here. We're
going to keep everybody posted on that too.

Speaker 4 (01:17:45):
Receipts proof timeline receipts, Yes, snaps out everything right, stick around.

Speaker 5 (01:17:50):
We have a lot more to dig into. We're going
to be listening to some of your talkbacks with your theories,
your thoughts, and all your opinions. Keep it right here
at Your Crime Tonight.

Speaker 2 (01:18:07):
Welcome back to true Crime Tonight at iHeartRadio. We've been
talking true crime all the time.

Speaker 3 (01:18:12):
I'm Steph.

Speaker 2 (01:18:13):
You're with Courtney and Body and listen those talkbacks keep
them coming because we are eating them up.

Speaker 3 (01:18:19):
Let's go to one right now.

Speaker 11 (01:18:21):
Hello, I'm My favorite true seachers is Amanda from Mississippi.
So you guys are talking about Cattypet right now and
how it's basically told is a god how to do
everything for murdering those two students. It's funny because I
try to use chat DPT to show me what I
looked like after my bood job, and it kept telling
me you couldn't do that, but it could tell people
how to murder and how to murder the mask, which

(01:18:43):
is ridiculous.

Speaker 10 (01:18:44):
Anyway, I love you guys.

Speaker 2 (01:18:45):
Bye, we love good job is amazing. Yeah, I hope
it turned out well. Oh man, if I had any courage, boy,
the things that I would do if I had courage
to so baby the I'm just to FLI same, same,
And I'm afraid I have this like little pocket of

(01:19:07):
fat over my eye and it's messing with my ability
to wear contact lenses.

Speaker 3 (01:19:11):
And even I'm too afraid of that. It's called an
upper leff is what it's called.

Speaker 2 (01:19:16):
Oh yeah, And they say it's like not a big deal,
but I don't know. I feel like I've seen several
real knail actors who have had it, and it seems
pretty noticeable and it kind of steals your I think
I want to live a wrinkles. I think I'm going
to try. This is going to be hilarious, famous last words.
In this moment, I will say, I think let's do less.

(01:19:37):
Let's not turn ourselves into artificial intelligence and actually embrace
some of our natural laugh lines. And you know, we
earned those sorrow lines. You know, it's nice to be human.
You know here at iHeart we sound human, but let's
physically look human too, so and it's so much less expensive.

Speaker 3 (01:19:59):
And that's my story. And I'm hoping to live up to.

Speaker 5 (01:20:03):
Get fish glasses.

Speaker 3 (01:20:05):
Yeah, I keep losing them. The problem a lip flanny.

Speaker 4 (01:20:11):
They I mean, they are like selling them at that
the corner bodega. They're like, come in thirty nine dollars special.
It's terrifying it it literally it flips your lip up
so it looks fuller.

Speaker 5 (01:20:23):
Yeah, and I don't fuller, Okay, I don't want it
for cosmetic reasons. My lip I have like pretty big lips.
I don't great lip, I do so, but my my
lip I have dental implants and my teeth are I
love my new teeth, but they're a little bigger than
my natural teeth were, and my lip gets caught on

(01:20:44):
them a lot. And so my dentist was like, you
need to get a lip flip so that your lip
doesn't rub up against your teeth, so that it's not
causing you issues. And so he's like, you need to
get a lip flip. So I looked into it and
I was like, oh, I haven't had a procedure ever,
a cosmetic one. Well, I guess the teeth would be. However,
like a you know, facial or I want I mean,

(01:21:06):
I want to do it, but I'm scared.

Speaker 3 (01:21:08):
I want to do it too, but I'm too scared.

Speaker 5 (01:21:09):
Totally, we totally just like do.

Speaker 2 (01:21:12):
It at the same time and just together. I think
both of those are very small, small, small, like you
don't even get put under or maybe you don't.

Speaker 3 (01:21:22):
I don't know. Sounds scary, though I don't know the
reason why.

Speaker 5 (01:21:26):
So the point of our talk back though she was
saying she can't even put in results, but chat, GPT
and the other AI systems are telling people how to
commit murder, and I think she's got a little bit
of a point. During Halloween, I was submitting, you know,
everybody was making pictures with the scream guy a ghost
face in the background, so I was going to upload

(01:21:47):
mine and it was chat GPT or Gemini told me
it's too violent. I can't do that, and I was like,
what what do you mean?

Speaker 6 (01:21:55):
What do you mean?

Speaker 7 (01:21:55):
I can do it almost daily. Well, a lot of
the stories as we're researching, occasional put something in and
look up something, but anything that has the word suicide
something to get flagged, like, oh what are you doing?
So I mean, I'm glad that they do have those
guardrails up and they're protective, but sometimes it's unusual the
things that you can look up and that you can't.
It feels like it's not it's not set up perfectly.

Speaker 3 (01:22:19):
Just therey.

Speaker 2 (01:22:20):
I can tell you for certain that chat GPD is
not always correct, so sure are using it in any
way you have to fact checked. You might have to
fact check from two different sources, maybe three. And I'm
also noticing on my Instagram account that some of my
usual suspects, if you will, and there are different experts,

(01:22:41):
you know, like Aaron Parness, who we'll have on hopefully
back soon. Aaron Parness, who's like an independent journalist.

Speaker 3 (01:22:48):
But I kind of try to.

Speaker 2 (01:22:49):
Find, you know, the far right, the far left, the
middle right, the middle left, the independent.

Speaker 3 (01:22:56):
You know.

Speaker 2 (01:22:56):
Oh, let's add the BBC, let's add London News. Like
I try to keep a wide net. And I can
tell you some of the ones that I always see
on Instagram, some of them are getting silenced, like they're
not popping up shuttle band?

Speaker 3 (01:23:12):
Are there been shadow bands? What does that even mean?
Shadow band? That sounds so scary.

Speaker 5 (01:23:16):
You're not you're not banned, but they're not recommending you
in the algorithm, right.

Speaker 2 (01:23:20):
But who who decides that? Who's getting who decide he's
the shadow band? Decide the button pusher?

Speaker 5 (01:23:28):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (01:23:29):
Is that these questions?

Speaker 2 (01:23:30):
Is that the epstein elite who are making these decisions
for us because they don't want certain pieces of information
to countradict what the greater messaging.

Speaker 7 (01:23:40):
Maybe well we'll have to We don't have the answer
to that one that's behind closed doors, but maybe we
have the answer to this next talk back. How wout
we go to that?

Speaker 3 (01:23:52):
How fun that would be? Hey, guys love the show.
It's Meghan from Vancouver.

Speaker 5 (01:23:57):
My mom decided to stop breastfeeding me little after a
year old because I looked her in the eye and
chomped down on her nipple.

Speaker 9 (01:24:06):
So sometimes the kids will tell you anyways, have a
good one too.

Speaker 2 (01:24:16):
Yeah, like if you have a full set of teeth,
that's pretty intense.

Speaker 3 (01:24:20):
Yes, I mean I mean when when you know, you.

Speaker 5 (01:24:22):
Know, toy chopping from Vancouver.

Speaker 4 (01:24:29):
Yeah, quite known that my game.

Speaker 5 (01:24:33):
When do kids get their teeth? I don't even know.
Did they get them at like one? Is that about
the time?

Speaker 4 (01:24:38):
I can tell you it's usually No, it's before one generally.
I mean I can start as early as like four months,
but by six you got a tooth or two usually.
And Deck my boy, he was one years old. He
did not have one tooth in his head, and I
was I was freaking out. I said, because you really

(01:25:01):
you're a little nuts. Well, I'll speak for myself, you're
a little nuts, you know. Is my baby doing what
they should? Are they falling behind whatever? So he didn't
have any teeth, and my pediatrician assured me they'll come.
If he has hair, he'll get teeth. I'm like, well, okay,
and then they all popped out and it's all fine.

Speaker 5 (01:25:17):
Wait a minute, so is your hair connected to your teeth? Somehow?

Speaker 3 (01:25:21):
That was just made me think of that either. I
don't know, it's.

Speaker 4 (01:25:25):
What she told me.

Speaker 5 (01:25:25):
The funniest video I've ever seen in my life. As
this girl she's sitting in her bedroom and she goes,
I just found out that your hair grows from your scalp,
and not like where your hair ends. She thought your
hair grew from the bottom of your hair. She didn't
realize that it came from your scalp. And oh my god,
it's the funniest thing ever.

Speaker 2 (01:25:46):
I candidly, I'm not gonna lie. I actually was surprised
to learn that. At some point longer, it was a
recent but I remember feeling pretty embarrassed in a group
of friends. We're like, tell me, tell me you knew that,
and I was like, well, funny that you mentioned.

Speaker 3 (01:26:03):
Maybe I just hadn't thought about it. I was an adult.

Speaker 2 (01:26:06):
I was for sure an adult, and I owned a
brush and probably drove a car, so no excuse, it's funny.

Speaker 7 (01:26:12):
So it was like really long in the head and growing.

Speaker 2 (01:26:17):
I mean candidly, I didn't really think about it. I've
always had sort of weak care. But then why am
I cutting it all the time? If I'm always trimming
off those dead ends?

Speaker 3 (01:26:25):
What does it matter?

Speaker 4 (01:26:27):
Because because the nutrients go to like try and repair.

Speaker 3 (01:26:31):
It, and it's a ways. It's like it's what you
do with.

Speaker 5 (01:26:35):
The guard Yeah, startmpy, we started tumpy.

Speaker 3 (01:26:42):
Hear you though, And.

Speaker 2 (01:26:43):
By the way, it's so terrible because first of all,
breastfeeding is not for everyone that everybody can and then
they get bullied into feeling like half moms or that
they're not good enough because suddenly you know, formula is
going to be the death of them.

Speaker 3 (01:26:55):
I was one of those people that got bullied.

Speaker 2 (01:26:57):
I felt like longer than I needed to, and I
would cry because you're trying to produce milk for a while,
and like the mental torture that I put myself through
was so unnecessary. You know you want happy, calm moms.
And he is as healthy as they come. And he
was on formula by eight months.

Speaker 5 (01:27:19):
Now days breaks my heart when I go into the
store and I see all the formula locked up breaks.

Speaker 3 (01:27:26):
They're going to steal something like.

Speaker 5 (01:27:28):
Why you need to steal baby formula for your baby.
I'm fine with that.

Speaker 3 (01:27:32):
I'm fine with you.

Speaker 2 (01:27:34):
I feel like that's like, if somebody needed it, they
should just yeah.

Speaker 5 (01:27:38):
I met you.

Speaker 2 (01:27:38):
If you asked a woman in the store and we're like,
I need to formula and I just don't have the money,
I would do it in a heartbeato.

Speaker 5 (01:27:47):
And if I got scammed, well you know what I mean,
Like I tried.

Speaker 3 (01:27:50):
That's right exactly.

Speaker 5 (01:27:52):
If you see me in the grocery store and you
need formula, please don't be afraid to ask the same
for me. Yeah, let's uh, let's go another third.

Speaker 9 (01:28:00):
Hey, y'all, this is Mary Kay and Cincinnati, and I
just have to say that I did have to represent
myself in court once I was going to court to
change my son's last name. His father, who I had
not seen in years, showed up with a lawyer, so
I had to represent myself in front of the judge,
and he contradicted everything I said, and I looked like

(01:28:21):
an idiot and it.

Speaker 5 (01:28:22):
Was scary and I would never choose to do it again.

Speaker 9 (01:28:25):
Love you guys, Bye Mary.

Speaker 7 (01:28:28):
Kay.

Speaker 3 (01:28:30):
How that's a curious process too.

Speaker 2 (01:28:32):
So there you are on you know, advocating for your
child who wants to change their name, and then you know,
deadbye dad who hasn't been in the mix for a
long time. All of a sudden he comes to the
party with a lawyer on top of it. Suddenly he
has cash to pay for a lawyer to make you
look bad.

Speaker 3 (01:28:48):
Sure, it's so.

Speaker 2 (01:28:50):
It's so eager driven, right, isn't it that at that
stage when all you care about is the name, let
your child be whatever they feel most comfortable. And if
that means it's not dad's name, that's okay. And if
it means it is Dad's name, that's okay too. Whatever
they're comfortable with. But the idea that you get browbeaten

(01:29:10):
or you know, get out lawyered because of something like.

Speaker 3 (01:29:15):
That, it's really hard on a kid. Well, they're lucky
to have you.

Speaker 8 (01:29:20):
Yeah, you.

Speaker 5 (01:29:23):
Know, she's thinking, Okay, this is going to be, you know,
an easy kind of process. Here's the paperwork judge, and
here's the reason. And you know, dad, who you know
apparently was not involved for many years, shows up suddenly.
You know that's also going to be kind of saftle
the son, right, Okay, that sucks. Mary, Kay, we should

(01:29:45):
have you talk with our judge too that we have period.

Speaker 2 (01:29:50):
Yea, she may have some more advice for you too,
and I'm sure would be happy to dole out some
advice if you want to set up another day to
come back on the show and discussed.

Speaker 5 (01:30:00):
Or you know, if you want to leave a talk
back in preparation, we'll just save it. Yeah, he's a
great idea, So leave us a little talkback. Get your
little question. Listen to me like little. This is a
big question, I'm sure, but your question, and we'll play
for the judge. And she says, I think that's a
really idea.

Speaker 3 (01:30:16):
I love that.

Speaker 2 (01:30:17):
It's so counterintuitive, having lived it myself, you know, really,
the process of trying to do what's best for your
child and have a consistent life, sometimes depending upon the
state you live live in, can be really difficult to
understand the system.

Speaker 3 (01:30:33):
It's really hard to navigate alone.

Speaker 5 (01:30:35):
It's navigating it right knowing what forms to fill out with.

Speaker 3 (01:30:38):
Yeah, it's just a little counter into different sometimes exactly.
They don't make it easy. And you know people like
Judge Michelle have all the scoop.

Speaker 7 (01:30:47):
She certainly do.

Speaker 5 (01:30:49):
Let's let's got another talk about high team.

Speaker 12 (01:30:52):
This is Alicia from Atlanta and this one is for
you body. I have to recommend the Cult of Nature
boy on who last say, I was hooked, confused, and
completely stuck on the audacity of this man.

Speaker 3 (01:31:07):
He was truly cuckoo for cocopuff. I love like hold.

Speaker 12 (01:31:12):
I think this will be a great watch for you
or the entire team.

Speaker 5 (01:31:16):
Have a good one, guy, let's watch it for I've
loved it. I've heard it's insane. I've heard it's insane.
I watched somebody. I watched somebody on YouTube cover it
a little bit, but I was doing other stuff around
the house. What's I've heard it's insane? Boy, there we go.

Speaker 4 (01:31:34):
It's four part It's on Hulu. I'm just learning about
this in this instant And by the way, thank you
for that. Alicia from Atlanta.

Speaker 7 (01:31:46):
Do I know?

Speaker 3 (01:31:48):
I think it's Alicia.

Speaker 2 (01:31:50):
We don't know what your line of work is, but
we think that voiceovers or being a radio star has
your name written all over it, so I want to
come on a little bit more often.

Speaker 3 (01:32:01):
We'd love to have you.

Speaker 5 (01:32:03):
I love that, So let's put a pin in that
one for a consideration for true Cremanhill. Because we do
have a couple other suggestions. I understand you are correct.

Speaker 7 (01:32:13):
We actually surprisingly I'm not sure why, but over the
past couple of days, we have about four or five
different people who are suggesting shows we should watch, so
we might have to sort of put a few out
there and then decide and then do all vote.

Speaker 3 (01:32:26):
Okay, this is Summer House. Is Summerhouse on the list, and.

Speaker 2 (01:32:30):
I would like to recommend Summer this final season, maybe
the last four episodes only it is so diaboliz Is
it good that Bravo they just know how to screw
a person? It seems like they went back in and
cut the show the last four episodes that are airing
right now, and yeah, you watch it, you're like, oh,

(01:32:51):
those two jing Dongs were fully having a relationship right
under everyone's nose. And it's a little ugly, but that's
what reality shows are great for. It's seeing real things
play out. You see feelings get hurt and you don't
do that, you know. So I think it's actually a
really good learning a learning tool.

Speaker 5 (01:33:13):
You know, the other suggestions going to ask you if
the crash was one of them. The crash is not
on our list. No, I'm not familiar with that.

Speaker 3 (01:33:20):
I watched it Crash this weekends.

Speaker 5 (01:33:23):
Oh really like it?

Speaker 3 (01:33:24):
Yeah? I did.

Speaker 2 (01:33:26):
I mean it's terrible, it's terrible material. Oh, it's good,
but it's very good. It's about a crash, a car crash,
one hundred miles an hour, girl driving one hundred mile
an hour into a building and two are killed. So anyway,
we will talk about that at a different time. We

(01:33:47):
will be back tomorrow on Monday. Taha, what are we covering?

Speaker 7 (01:33:51):
Oh you will have to tune in to see because
it's going to be good.

Speaker 3 (01:33:53):
Good night everybody, goodbye, good night.