Boy Band Murder Plot, Tennessee School Shooting Trial, and Austin Drummond Explodes in Court

A TikTok influencer, her attorney father, and a surf instructor are accused in an alleged murder-for-hire plot targeting former boy band singer Jack Avery. Accused quadruple killer Austin Drummond clashes with a judge after asking to represent himself in court. We also cover new listener reactions to the Alex Murdaugh case and fresh questions surrounding the Bahamas disappearance investigation. Judge Michele Locke joins us to break it all down. 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,
it's affiliates or sponsors. This is True Crime Tonight.

Speaker 2 (00:19):
Welcome to True Crime Tonight and iHeartRadio, where we talked
truecrime all the time. We've made it all the way
to Wednesday. It is May twentieth, and we have got
a stacked night of headlines. There's a TikTok star who
was arrested for an alleged murder for hire involving her
boy band baby Daddy.

Speaker 3 (00:37):
A lot to dig into with that one.

Speaker 2 (00:40):
Also, there's a six year old who shot his teacher
and involved in that crime. Now the assistant principle of
the school is on trial, and we're going to get
into Austin Drummond. He's the alleged quadruple murderer and there
was some absolutely explosive hearings last week. I am Courtney Armstrong.

(01:02):
I am so happy do be joined by my buddy
buddy movin. Stephanie Leidecker is out. Hello, Yeah, Stephanie is
out this evening. But also we have producer Taha, Sam
and Adam are in the control room and most excitingly
for all of us, we are joined by a former
family court judge, Michelle Locke. Michelle spent years overseeing domestic violence,

(01:27):
custody and high conflict family cases. And it's always just
a joy and a pleasure when Michelle does join us
because she always brings such a unique behind the scenes
perspective from the bench. And you can and should check
out her podcast and socials at Love Lust Law.

Speaker 4 (01:45):
What a name, What a good name. And she's one
of the girls too, right, Like she's one of the girls.
She's a girls girl. She's like a normal person, but
she's very clarified judge the time.

Speaker 3 (01:58):
Yeah, that's how a.

Speaker 5 (02:02):
Glove lust law came from divorce law. So where there
is love, there is lust, and there's definitely law at
the end of it.

Speaker 3 (02:10):
Oh. Perfect, it's perfect.

Speaker 4 (02:12):
Well, speaking of lust in law, have you guys heard
about this influencer story, this TikTok star. Oh okay, So
I read about it yesterday and I sent it to
Tahan and I was like, dude, we have got to
talk about this because it is.

Speaker 3 (02:28):
A wild ride.

Speaker 4 (02:30):
And okay, so it's it's a little complicated, Okay, So
I'm just gonna I'm just comingas at the table.

Speaker 3 (02:36):
All right.

Speaker 4 (02:37):
So this was a multi year investigation and it involved
the FBI, and it's led to criminal charges against three
different people.

Speaker 3 (02:46):
All right.

Speaker 4 (02:47):
Gabby Gonzalez, she's the TikTok star. Okay, she's twenty four
years old. And her father, Francisco Gonsales, he's fifty nine
and he's an attorney in Florida.

Speaker 3 (02:59):
Okay.

Speaker 4 (03:00):
And her Gabby's ex boyfriend, Kai Chowdry Okay, he's twenty six.

Speaker 3 (03:07):
All right.

Speaker 4 (03:08):
The group, the three of them, allegedly began plotting to
kill singer Jack Avery in twenty twenty after a custody
dispute over his daughter with Gabby. Okay, so they Gabby,
one of the accused, and Jack, the singer, have a
daughter together, and there was a custody dispute that became

(03:29):
like highly contentious. I'm sure Judge Michelle is very familiar
with these kinds of situations. Well maybe not this one specifically,
but so Gabby.

Speaker 5 (03:37):
Oh no, I actually had a murder for higher plot
in my court, but the dad ended up being killed.
Oh shoot, So yeah, I've actually had a case like this.

Speaker 4 (03:47):
Okay, Well I stand corrected. So Gabby, the TikTok Star.
She was arrested on May eighteenth, so just a couple
of days ago. She was arrested on May eighteenth, and
she's being held in an LA County jail on a
two million dollar bail for solicitation of murder, conspiracy to
commit murder, and attempted murder for hire. Now following the

(04:08):
rest the singer and the target in all this, Jack Avery,
he filed the statement in Los Angeles court seeking sole
custody of their seven year old daughter, Lavender. What a
beautiful name. And you know he wants now a restraining
order against his baby mama. And they accused Gabby Gonzalez. Like,

(04:29):
this is very convoluted. So Gabby wrote in her dad
and her ex boyfriend to kill her baby daddy because
of custody over their daughter. Is basically the rundown on
this all right. Missil started, you know, a couple of
years ago. So she created a dark web profile, all right,

(04:49):
named Lizard King sixty nine. I'm sorry, I can't help
but giggle to set up this murder for hire kind
of account on the dark web.

Speaker 3 (04:59):
Okay.

Speaker 4 (05:00):
The three plotters allegedly intended to make the killing look
like a car accident. The dad Francisco, Gabby's dad, allegedly
was going to fund the operation and he told one
of the witnesses that it would just be cheaper if
Jack Avery was dead the baby daddy, like, instead of
going through all the custody and you know, it would
be cheaper in the long run, ten grand flat fee, let's.

Speaker 3 (05:22):
Just get rid of them.

Speaker 2 (05:23):
I got to say, how do people get to that conclusion?
And it is a conclusion We've heard people time and
again get to, like Michelle, even in your experience, like
what is the tipping point where someone should just be dead?

Speaker 3 (05:38):
Is the answer to any question with custody?

Speaker 5 (05:43):
That should never be answered to a question. But that's
where there's a disconnect. That that is when your hatred
for the other parent exceeds your love for a.

Speaker 3 (05:54):
Child bottom line period.

Speaker 5 (05:58):
I mean, at that point, your level of hatred for
the ex is something that is indescribable. And really it
kind of like you flipped a switch in your brain,
because unless you are truly truly abusive to that child,
and that's not what I'm seeing in the reports here,
Like there's not a report that Avery was abusive to

(06:21):
the child. It was that their family, and Francisco in
particular became obsessed with them having sole custody of Lavender,
and so the switch flipped. And that's what happened in
one of the cases I had where the mom and
her dad had hired a hitman to go kill the dad,

(06:42):
and the dad was actually a lawyer and they killed
him outside of his law office. So and it was
and she worked for the provost to the university. She
was high up, like it was not anyone that you
would have expected, and dad ended up dead, but it
was her hatred of the opposing I'd exceeded or loved
the child, and that's what happened.

Speaker 3 (07:03):
So sad well.

Speaker 4 (07:04):
In ordinators investigators did confirm that there was a money
transfer too for this all to go down. There was
a ten thousand dollars transaction that happened in April of
twenty twenty one, and an additional four thousand dollars transfer
in June of twenty twenty one that was sent to
the ex boyfriend and one of the accused Kai Okay.

(07:27):
The funds were hidden under the guise of web development payments,
and then it was you know, they obviously used bitcoin
to do these transfers the group used. I mean, listen,
they thought they were really covering their tracks here. They
used bitcoin, they used encrypted messages, encrypted calls. They even
had a code word for this whole plan. They gave

(07:48):
it a name. It was called bull Run.

Speaker 3 (07:51):
Okay.

Speaker 4 (07:52):
So instead of saying, oh, the murder for higher plot
against you know, baby daddy, they just said bull run okay.
So they really kind of thought they were really covering
their tracks. They ultimately made contact with and I'm sorry
this is where it's silly. They ultimately made contact with
an undercover FBI agent that was posing as the hit man.

Speaker 3 (08:15):
Isn't this like the tale as old as time?

Speaker 4 (08:17):
Like the hit man is the FBI agent least recording everything?
I mean, this is like so it is it's so cliche, right,
So the Dad Francisco, well.

Speaker 5 (08:29):
Anything even on the dark Web, if you put it
out there, it's out there. It's out there, and you think, hey, criminals,
here's a piece of advice. The FBI is on the
dark Web.

Speaker 4 (08:44):
I remember when the whole Silk Road thing went down
and they basically made a whole copy of the dark
Web and like put the server in like the FBI
office and people were connecting to that anyway, I digress,
But they ultimately made contact with this undercover FBI agent
that was like pos using as a hitman. And the
dad who's also one of the accused, that Dad, Francisco,
the lawyer, mister smarty Pants. He spoke directly with the

(09:08):
undercover agent on the phone and he was referencing the
code word bowl run.

Speaker 3 (09:14):
And you know how.

Speaker 4 (09:15):
This scheme was all going to come to completion, Like
I mean, not the biggest smarty pants in the world.
He was arrested in Florida on a California warrant for
conspiracy to commit murder and he has waived extradition, which
means he's going to be, you know, said to California
to face to face those charges.

Speaker 5 (09:34):
Yeah, he's going to go back to California. Loses laws
for sure. Oh did you all know that Francisco Dad
had orchestrated an extensive campaign to track and photograph Avery
and Kawhai, Hawaii, where the singer lives, in an effort
to gather potentially damaging evidence that could be used against
him in the custody fight. So what I guess probably

(09:56):
happened is they could never quite get enough evidence, and
so they couldn't get enough evidence of this bad acts.
Well let's just take them out.

Speaker 3 (10:04):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (10:04):
Is it unusual for that kind of like surveillance, like
hiring a private investigator on baby mama or baby daddy?
Is that that doesn't seem so unusual to me?

Speaker 3 (10:17):
Necessarily?

Speaker 5 (10:18):
It's not. Yah, Hiring pis happens a lot more often
than you think. And then in addition to that, you've
got tracking through I mean, there's so many other different
ways to track other than hiring a PI. Quite frankly,
I think pis would be the low tech way of
doing it these days. But yes, pis are used quite often.

(10:39):
I know I have pis that we use quite often
in our cases as well.

Speaker 2 (10:43):
Sure, sure, if you're just joining us, this is true
crime tonight, and we're talking about an influencer murder for
hire case where three people tried to conspire to kill
a boy band member for custody of a shared child.
So with Michelle, with surveillance that people may employ on

(11:04):
their exes, I guess a couple of things. Is everything
always admissible in court assuming the PI gathered everything legally?
And is it effective?

Speaker 6 (11:19):
Yes?

Speaker 5 (11:19):
Yes? And yes, So let me tell you that the
biggest hint that I always give people is be careful
what you throw away in your trash, uh, because I
can't tell you how often pis will go through your
trash to figure out and pick out what they want
or what they need to prove their case. Because if
you put that trash on your like on the street,

(11:42):
that becomes guess what, public domain, and you have no
reasonal expectation of privacy in that trash. So quite often
pi's will do something as low tech as going through
your trash. And I've had cases where you buy like
alcohols an issue where there will be pictures of nothing
but the NonStop alcohol bottles in the trash. They can

(12:05):
get your DNA from your trash. If you clean out
your hair brush, put that in your trash can, put
it on your thing. Guess where they can get DNA
front people. So yeah, yes, it can be effective evidence.
It just depends on what the evidence is. The one
problem I know that can come up, because I've actually
had this come in a case is where the evidence

(12:27):
is planted in the trash and then a picture is
taken of it to show that as oh, it came
from their trash can. But in this particular case, it
was pretty easy to prove that my client hadn't had
any Jack Daniels probably in thirty years, because even if
he was going to drink, it wasn't going to be

(12:47):
Jack Daniels. And so we were able to show through
other contextual clues that someone planted that wasn't theirs. So
you have to be careful sometimes on the evidence that
is gathered but is useful, it cannot be useful in court,
absolutely absolutely, And sometimes the simplest piece of evidence can
be the most convincing.

Speaker 4 (13:09):
Wow, Well, Jack has Jack Avery the you know, the
I guess the victim in this case, right, he was
the target of this alleged murder for Higher Plot. He
has requested a sole custody and asked for a restraining order.
And listen, you guys, Jack Gab he said the FBI
warned him five years ago that it was not safe

(13:32):
to be around the baby Mama Gabby, the one of
the accused, And he said that the FBI believes their
murder for you know, higher Plot began around twenty twenty,
and that's really interesting to me, and I wanted to
ask the judge about it. So the FBI tells him
five years ago she's not safe to be around. How

(13:53):
come he didn't have soul custody already?

Speaker 6 (13:58):
Oh can't?

Speaker 3 (13:59):
Well, because how do you there?

Speaker 7 (14:00):
You are?

Speaker 5 (14:00):
Because one, you can't call the FBI to come testify
in your court case because they're not going to talk
about it, right because they've bet a criminal investigation going on.
So what does he go to court and say, Judge,
someone told me who. I can't verify who. I can't
get the evidence to you about the saying that my
life's in danger, so give me the child. Do you

(14:22):
have a constitutional right to parent your child? So unless
there's some actual evidence, you're stuck.

Speaker 4 (14:27):
Can you imagine you, guys, Courtney, if I came to
you and said you're not safe from your ex husband,
you're and then your ex husband has custody of your
son or daughter. I mean, wouldn't you be crawling out
of your skin? I'd never smile the safe Yeah, I'd
never sleep a wink.

Speaker 2 (14:45):
I mean that seems like the worst case scenario. Here's
this information, but we can't help you right this second,
right and now he can please you know we.

Speaker 5 (14:55):
Can't help you, but they want to kill you. Keep
your eye out right thanks.

Speaker 3 (15:03):
So apparently he he knew, right, well.

Speaker 5 (15:10):
He knew, And I think you know, it's always like, well,
he's filed for soul custody. Now, well duh. I mean
she's in jail with no bond, not getting out anytime soon. Yeah,
And I mean the to me, that filing is just
kind of like a no brainer. The court's going to
sign off when I've nerd done, and that kid's moving
to Hawaii. I mean, thank goodness for the kid. But

(15:32):
here's the other issue that I always think about is
what kind of legacy is that for your daughter?

Speaker 6 (15:38):
Oh?

Speaker 3 (15:39):
Such a good time?

Speaker 5 (15:40):
No, have my dad killed?

Speaker 3 (15:44):
Well, listen, stick around.

Speaker 2 (15:45):
When we come back, we're going to talk about former
assistant Principal Ebony Parker on trial. Keep it here, True
Crime Tonight.

Speaker 4 (16:04):
Welcome back to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio, where we
talk true crime all the time. I'm Boddy Movin and
I'm here with producer Courtney Armstrong and producer Taha House.
Oh my gosh, I almost mispronounced your name, Taha after
last night. We are also lucky enough to be joined
by former Family Court judge and practicing attorney, Miss Michelle Locke.

(16:25):
We call her Judge Michelle around here, but you can
just call her Michelle, she says. But later in the show,
we're going to be talking about Jess Michelle. Later in
the show, we're going to be talking about the alleged
mass murderer of Austin Drummond.

Speaker 3 (16:37):
There was an explosive.

Speaker 4 (16:38):
Hearing last week, and we really are kind of crawling
out of our skin to start talking about that. But first,
we have an update on that school shooting. Courtney, what's
going on?

Speaker 2 (16:51):
Well, this one involves a six year old sure, So
back in January of twenty twenty three, there was a
six year old student who shot and wounded his teacher.
And his teacher's name is Abigail's Werner. She survived the shooting.
This happened in an elementary school in Virginia, and the

(17:11):
shooter had taken his handgun from his mother's purse. So
the student's mother, the six year old's mother. She's been
sentenced in for two years of state child neglect as
well as twenty one months on federal charges, and ultimately
the mother has been released community supervision just this month. Well, currently,

(17:34):
the former assistant principal, Ebony Parker She's facing trial after
pleading not guilty to eight pounds of felony child abuse
for allegedly ignoring multiple warnings that the child was armed. So,
if the defendant, Ebony Parker, is convicted of these charges
and they include a reckless disregard for human life, she

(17:57):
faces one to five years her count.

Speaker 3 (18:00):
Which could be up to forty years.

Speaker 2 (18:03):
So I know, Michelle, have you dealt with cases where
school officials are involved and what kind of sort of
a layer of complexity does that add if so?

Speaker 5 (18:17):
So, I've been fortunate enough that most of my custody
cases do not involve the actual school officials other than
to come testify as to their opinion on matters. What
concerns me about this particular case because I actually did
a deep dive on and actually listened to the teacher's

(18:38):
testimony today in court, and she's really traumatized from it.
She actually almost died, and I think the city and
the school district have agreed to pay her family a
bunch of money as well. But she is really traumatized
from it, obviously for obvious reasons. But what's interesting is
it wasn't just the assistant principle that was charged the

(18:59):
principal was charged. I think another school official was charged.
Court dismissed those two from the actual case. They are
no longer facing charges, left with the assistant principle, So
I think that's what an interesting part of it. The
other interesting part is the assistant principle, if convicted, could
actually go spend more time in prison than mom did.

(19:23):
Where is that appropriate?

Speaker 3 (19:25):
Right? Right? Well, what are some of the details.

Speaker 5 (19:28):
I mean that was really my thought is Mom was
sentence the thing to two years, and the child got
the gun from mom. But this assistant principle is facing
one to five years for each count, and that's eight counts.
Let's say she gets maxed out. That's five times eight
forty years in prison and Mom got too. If the

(19:49):
judge stacks it, I don't know what a judge would
where's the justice in that? It's kind of like cases
I've seen in Texas where we've got the felony murder
rule where the person that actually commits the murder gets
less time than the person that was an accomplishing I've
seen that happen too. How does that happen? And it does?
So this case I think is a really interesting one

(20:09):
to watch I think in these types of school shooting cases,
they are looking for to find someone accountable and so what.

Speaker 3 (20:19):
Does she do? What did well?

Speaker 2 (20:22):
The prosecution, here's what the prosecution broad shokes with they
allege and they started their case by stating that while
the victim, Abigail's Werner's shooting was tragic, that the specific
victims in this case are the other students in the
classroom who were exposed to extreme danger. So, on the

(20:45):
day of the shooting, the victim, the teacher who was
shot Abigel's Werner, she warned Ebony Parker that the six
year old shooter was in a quote violent mood, and
the assistant principle just didn't do anything at that point.
There was another woman, a reading specialist, who searched the

(21:09):
six year old students backpack after being told by other
students that he had a gun, But she found nothing
because by that time, the six year old shooter reportedly
already had the gun in his jacket pocket on the playground.
Six is so little, six is kinder and first okay, okay,

(21:30):
And when another student reported seeing the gun, teachers and
a school counselor so yet another adult wanted to search
the little boy's person. But at that point the prosecution
a LEDs that the defended Ebitie Parker, denied permission to
search the child, said his pockets too small to hold
a handgun, and said, you know what, his mom's going to.

Speaker 3 (21:53):
Be here soon. So that, yeah, that's the main case.

Speaker 2 (21:58):
But even within that, what about the other teachers, the
reading specialist, et cetera. Aren't they also under a duty
to notify authorities if there's a suspected gun.

Speaker 5 (22:15):
If I'm going to jump in for a second, I
gotta tell you this is really concerning for a multitude
of reasons. It seems. I mean, one, it's perfectly reasonable
for someone to say, yeah, the pockets are too small
to hold a gun. That's probably accurate. Like a kid
is it's five or six, the pockets aren't big, y'all.
I mean, that's probably correct.

Speaker 6 (22:35):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (22:35):
And so the other issue is at what point, because
you have to look at the age of criminal responsibility
for a child, this kid, I don't know that can
have any criminal responsibility either like this, This is to
me a systemic flaw in what happened with this particular case.
But to hold someone and send an assistant principle to prison.

(23:00):
I just don't know it is appropriate given the circumstances,
and I should there be some kind of like change
in policy how we handle it. But y'all, who expects
on a on who's bingo card? Is a six year
old taking a gun to school and shooting a teacher? Well,
I mean, so do you frisk every six year old
when there's an allegation made? I mean it's almost also

(23:22):
where do we draw the line?

Speaker 3 (23:24):
But multiple children?

Speaker 2 (23:27):
Yeah, I was gonna say, I don't know that I
agree with you on that, Michelle, because in general, yes,
it's it's unimaginable that a six year old would bring school. However,
when multiple kids are saying so and so has a
gun and the teachers noting that he had to be
pretty incendiary, I think to go to the assensitive principle

(23:47):
and say he's in a violent mood.

Speaker 3 (23:48):
So I think the teacher was seeing probably some level
of rage. So I don't know. It's a tough line.

Speaker 5 (23:57):
Well, I agree, But they searched his backpack, right, didn't
find anything. I mean, so they did do some is
some actually investigation?

Speaker 3 (24:06):
And yeah, no they did. And that's the other.

Speaker 5 (24:12):
Issue is they looked in the backpack, which was the
most logical place to keep it. I mean, is this horrible?
Is it horrific? Yes? But is sending the assistant principle
to prison the answer?

Speaker 3 (24:26):
I don't yeh see, I don't know.

Speaker 4 (24:28):
I mean, I definitely think there is some responsibility from
the assistant principle because she denied the person search right
and said, well his mind, you know, the pockets are
too small, and his mom's going to be here any minute,
and then all of a sudden, now the teacher's been shot.
I mean, she could have been killed.

Speaker 5 (24:46):
If you listen to her testimony, she thought she was dying,
like she thought she was she was dying. It actually
broke my heart because she said I thought I was
going to heaven.

Speaker 3 (24:53):
Yeah, I mean it.

Speaker 5 (24:54):
Was It's pretty it was pretty powerful testimony.

Speaker 4 (24:57):
And all those little kids saw it too, right, So yeah,
the irreparable harm that they're going to be facing for
the rest of their lives and experiencing that trauma, I
do think there is some responsibility from the assistant principle,
and I do think there needs to be a message
sent to other school officials in the future, like, hey,
you know, if there's multiple kids reporting that there's a

(25:19):
weapon and you don't find it in the backpack. You
got to search the locker, you got to search the kid.

Speaker 3 (25:25):
You got it.

Speaker 4 (25:25):
But Lily, you know, people in the United States do
have rights, right, Like, I don't know at what age
the Fourth Amendment becomes appropriate to you.

Speaker 3 (25:38):
You know what I mean?

Speaker 4 (25:39):
Like I listen, I don't know the answer to this,
I clearly because I'm rambling, But I do think some responsibility.
It does follow the assistant principle forty years in prison,
though I don't know about that.

Speaker 5 (25:52):
Well, I mean, if the court stacks that, it could
be that much. The court could also say all the
sentences will do it. Yeah, we say run concurrent, which
means they run the same time. So then it's five years.
But then, y'all, she's still spending more time than the
mom than the link to me is if she gets punished. Okay,
I agree, maybe she did not do her job, but mom,

(26:17):
to me is the responsible party because mom has a
six year old that got access to her gun. Like right,
that should have been a prison sentence. But the assistant
principle going away for five years, I mean, because at
what point does the criminal responsibility end? Because when we
have school shooting. You can't be responsible for the criminal

(26:40):
acts of a third party in most actions, Like if
someone like we've got the case in Texas now where
they're trying to hold the school officials in law enforcement
officials responsible for one of our school shootings because they
didn't go in in enough time and so they're actually
criminally charging the officials and Texas related to that. And so,

(27:00):
but it's at what point is it really the criminal
that should be held responsible the person was directly involved
in it, as opposed to the first responders, as opposed
to the teachers that don't get paid enough anyways to
deal with this, Like we already have a hard enough
time getting teachers. Let's start throwing the professionals in jail
for the criminal acts of a six year old and

(27:23):
a bad mom, and let's deter more people from going
into the professions.

Speaker 6 (27:29):
Yeah, agreed.

Speaker 4 (27:30):
Well, I'm going through the testimony right now, and there
was a teacher named Jennifer West, and she testified that
she saw the six year old the shooter, acting suspiciously
at recess behind a rock wall and reported the concerns
to the office after a student told her that the
six year old threatened to blow them all up, and

(27:51):
that he had a gun. I mean, I feel like
there was like enough probable cause here I'm using that word,
but I don't even know if that's the appropriate word.
There was enough probable cause to search his person at
this point, you know.

Speaker 5 (28:05):
I agree. But here's the other thought. If if you
were on the playground and you are a teacher, why
are you passing the buck? Why are you thinking almost
going to go tel administration? And then it's not my
problem mm hm the.

Speaker 4 (28:19):
Last time, at what point, at what point does a
teacher take, you know, the authority in their own hands
to search the kid?

Speaker 3 (28:27):
But are they going to get in trouble for that?

Speaker 4 (28:29):
And I bet you that's probably in the back of
their mind, like I'm not supposed to touch a child,
you know, without a witness or you know, something along
those lines.

Speaker 3 (28:39):
They're protecting themselves.

Speaker 5 (28:40):
They could have taken that child to the principal's office
and made him until they get to the bottom of
whatever's going on.

Speaker 2 (28:47):
And that's exactly what the defense is saying. One of
their main points, Michelle, is exactly what you said. You
could have brought him there, you know, and the other
members of this staff, which I agree with this full heartedly,
that there was a shared responsibility for all of the staff,
the multiple people who the six year old came in

(29:08):
contact with, who had first hand, disturbing, honestly interactions with him.
I'm curious how often, Michelle, do civil verdicts come into
play in a criminal court. So in this case, they're
already a high profile civil trial finished up November of

(29:30):
last year and a jury did award the victim ten
million dollars in damages, and it was the assistant principal
who was found liable for failing to act. So does
that come into play at all in a criminal trial.

Speaker 5 (29:48):
It really should not, and in fact, that should not
be mentioned in the criminal trial. The burden of proof
in the civil is so much different than the burden
in criminal. Like base y'all, in civil it's a fifty
point one percent likelihood the person's responsible, right, it's literally

(30:09):
fifty to fifty, and just a point one can change
whether they're liable or not. In criminal, as we always hear,
it's beyond a reasonable doubt, and that is a much
It's not beyond all doubt, but it's beyond all reasonable
doubt and that's a much much higher standard, and so
typically the civil judgment should not be mentioned, excuse me,

(30:29):
in the criminal case. However, in a civil case, the
criminal conviction would come in.

Speaker 4 (30:35):
Oh really, oh interesting, Wow, that would really push it
over the edge, wouldn't it.

Speaker 3 (30:41):
In a civil case.

Speaker 2 (30:42):
You would think, well, not necessarily. I mean think of
famously of oj.

Speaker 3 (30:49):
Well, he was convicted crimwell.

Speaker 5 (30:51):
Civilly, Yeah, but I think the civil came after the criminal.

Speaker 3 (30:56):
Criminal came after, yeah, came. It was much better long after.

Speaker 5 (31:00):
Her, right, and that's because the standards lower.

Speaker 3 (31:03):
Right, Yeah, that's a good point. Yeah. Interesting.

Speaker 4 (31:06):
Interesting, Well, the principal was Breonna Foster, and she testified
that she had no idea there was a gone on campus,
and she conceded that, you know, she's ultimately in charge
of safety, but expected the staff to come to her
during a crisis, which she is saying did not happen.
We're going to continue to follow this case because it
is very interesting legally. What's going to happen here Later

(31:30):
in the show, we're going to be talking about some
Alex Murdau talkbacks. You know, they really lit up the
lines last night, and we're going to be playing them
Tonight Plus Judge Michelle Locke answered some listener questions regarding
emotional family court questions. But right now we're going to
get right into the explosive court room dramatics in the

(31:51):
Austin Drummond case.

Speaker 3 (31:53):
Courtney, what do we know? Right?

Speaker 2 (31:55):
So many of you may remember in July of last year,
a twenty nine year old guy named Austin Drummond. He
allegedly shot and killed four members of the same family.
This happened in Tiptonville, Tennessee. And then he is alleged
to have kidnapped a seven year old infant from the car,
ultimately abandoning that infant on unharmed in a stranger's lawn,

(32:20):
which could have been its own horrible ending. And it
took a week long manhunt before Austin Drummer Drummond was captured.
He then was indicted four counts of first degree murder
as well as aggravated kidnapping, and prosecutors are slated to
seek the death penalty well. In a hearing last week,

(32:43):
the judge grants it emotion to move the trial out
of Lake County because there's been so much media coverage.
The judge also strongly begged the alleged killer, Austin Drumman,
to reconsider his handwritten request to weave his right to
counsel and represent himself. Michelle, if you're getting a ball,

(33:06):
what I'm picturing is a balled up piece of paper.
That's just my imagination saying I should do it. I'm
a murder trial. What are your thoughts?

Speaker 5 (33:15):
I actually read his handwritten motion, y'all, because I'm that
much of a nerd. And let me go through his
list of complaints because it's really one entertaining and two
I just want to point out if they're seeking the
death penalty and he doesn't have an attorney representing him,
that's going to be some kind of I can't guarantee it,

(33:35):
but my real concern to be reversible error and it
gets kicked back down and gets retried. So that may
be one of his tactics. But he's complaining that his
attorney waved a fourteen day rule. He's complaining that the
attorney didn't make objections that he had asked him to make.
In addition to questions he wanted him to ask, that

(33:56):
the attorney agreed to a gag order, which is interesting
because it's a motion transfer venue. So it makes sense
there be a gag order that the attorney agreed to
protective order without his consent, that the defendant request is
phone records be subpoenaed in August twenty five, but the
attorney didn't do it until twenty twenty six. That there's

(34:18):
an information investcator should be passed like it's a if
he wants to mainline his way, like a direct, do
not pass go, do not collect two hundred dollars to
the death sentence. Represent yourself, dude, I mean yeah, quite Frankly,
he's not very smart.

Speaker 3 (34:35):
But I don't see that. You now it's granting this.

Speaker 4 (34:37):
Well, I don't see in a capital murder case a
judge allowing him to represent himself.

Speaker 3 (34:43):
I just don't. I mean, it has happened before, so
I don't.

Speaker 5 (34:46):
I mean, it's happened before. But I also can see
the judge granting it, but having an attorney sit at
council table if they grant it, if something goes south,
like I could see that happening. I just I can't
imagine the core would grant it.

Speaker 8 (35:05):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (35:05):
Well, also in death sentence cases, my understanding is you
need to be a death sentence, qualified attorney even to
move forward with a trial, is that right?

Speaker 5 (35:20):
So yet, yes, in order to be on a what
we call capital murder cases, like in Texas, I did
one at age twenty eight, I defended someone charged with murder.
I was but I was co chair and the person
that was on it had already tried several capital murder cases.
And so because of that I was able to get
the experience to qualify for what we call the wheel,
it's the death penalty wheel. But yeah, you've got to

(35:43):
have experience in criminal trials to do it because someone's
literally life is in your hands, and those are much
more complicated trials. The appeals are much more complex, usually
a direct appeal to the highest court of the state.
I mean, it's they're big deals.

Speaker 2 (35:58):
Yeah, well, well, so the judge right now is taking
under advisement and we'll come back with their answer. And
then we mentioned sort of disruptions and outbursts and this
was tragically sad. So James Matthew Wilson, he's the father
of the victim, Matthew Wilson in this case, and he

(36:20):
ends up being escorted from the courtroom because he was
shouting profanities and confronted the alleged killer, Austin Drummond from
the gallery and he was saying, open your eyes whenever
he says their name, open your eyes. And then the
judge ordered him detained and he was charged with contemptive

(36:41):
court and released. And then do you can't imagine, I
can't imagine. I mean, have you had have you had outbursts?
I'd have to imagine that you've seen at least one
in your courtroom.

Speaker 5 (36:55):
Absolutely. My ex husband was a prosecutor for the years
and tried eleven capital murder cases and I think it's
seven on death row, and so I've been in the
courtroom watching his cases when the death sentence has been
handed down, and we've been there was one time where
we actually were accosted in Sam's in the meat department
when my oldest was like ten months old by the

(37:17):
sister of the defendant that was convicted of murdering his
girlfriend and her mother. We've been in a courtroom coming
out of the courtroom when the mother of the defendant
who was sentenced to death for stomping at nineteen month old,
and she came at us in the elevator as we
were leaving the courtroom, So yeah, it is highly emotionally charged,

(37:40):
but think about the facts and think about all the
parties involved. Someone's lost their family member in a horrific way,
and then in the other case, they've lost their their
losing their child to the criminal justice system because their
child committed a murder. I mean, it's high emotions on
both sides.

Speaker 4 (37:58):
Right, And you know, Austin drum And has like a
history of being kind of manipulative and dismissive. And there's
video footage of this and Austin Drummond, you know, the
judges reading I think it was actually the prosecutor was
reading the victim's names, and Austin Drummond was just kind
of like not a care in the world, and it

(38:19):
really upset.

Speaker 3 (38:21):
The father of one of the victims, and he let
him have it.

Speaker 4 (38:25):
And I mean, listen, I know that that's disruptive even
court and it's not allowed, but secretly I was like
get them, get them, you know what I mean, Like
I secretly was like rooting the father on. Now, the
mother of that victim, Matthew Wilson's mom, Kim Kim Hamil,
she said that she attends these hearings and you know,
it's very emotional and it's it's hard, but she attends

(38:49):
those hearings with her son's light ashes. Isn't that Isn't
that something? Isn't that something? Anyway, I think it's really
interesting that she does that.

Speaker 5 (39:00):
I think everyone does what they need to do to
get yeah, to get through it, bottom line, And that's
how she gets through it. God bless her.

Speaker 3 (39:07):
Amen.

Speaker 4 (39:08):
And the dad gets through it by yelling at the killer,
the alleged killer, you know, but you.

Speaker 3 (39:14):
Know, I just don't Limes, there's nothing.

Speaker 4 (39:15):
Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do right right.

Speaker 5 (39:19):
Like I get it.

Speaker 3 (39:21):
I got too, I totally get it.

Speaker 2 (39:23):
Well, we'll continue following this case for sure as it unfolds.
And if you're just joining us, this is true crime tonight.
I'm Courtney Armstrong. I am here with Body Moven and
we are so happy to be joined by Judge Michelle uh.
And actually I think we have some talkbacks directly for Michelle.

Speaker 8 (39:44):
Hey. This is Patrick from Kentucky. Yes, the United States
can have jurisdiction over in turn murder law a boat
a general subject to well, if it's quiet fake the
country word, it's registers for the US federal law grant
the US jurisdiction over crime like murder committed on American

(40:05):
regis vessels as one church basis with that, And let
you know, I love y'all. God bless oh Patrick, thank you.

Speaker 5 (40:13):
You know. I love it when people can tell me
what the law is. It makes me feel like, okay,
thank you because I don't know it all. So I
appreciate that so much.

Speaker 3 (40:22):
No, yeah, we had kind of thought.

Speaker 4 (40:25):
We had mentioned in the previous episodes that you know,
this was a flagged America United States of America flag,
and I said on that show, I said, I'm not sure,
but I think the States would have some kind of
jurisdictional access to the boat because of that. And I
think Patrick was calling in to basically say, yeah, that's true,

(40:47):
because we weren't sure jurisdictionally what happens. And this is
all in relation to the April twenty twenty six disappearance
of Lynette Hooker. Her and her husband Brian Hooker are
in the Bahamas and they they're on their sailboat, the Soulmates. Okay,
that's the name of the sailboat, and they were apparently

(41:10):
taking a dinghy like one of those little boats from
shore to the yacht and in that trip he says
that there was rough waters and wind and she fell
off the dinghy and she's been missing ever since, and
since then there's been searches.

Speaker 3 (41:30):
He was held for questioning for several days.

Speaker 4 (41:33):
They had to let him go because the time limit
ran out before they could charge him. And when he
got released, he left the Bahamas and went back to
Michigan to apparently take care of his mother.

Speaker 3 (41:46):
And now the.

Speaker 4 (41:48):
Coastguard has seized that boat, and from my understanding, they're
looking for evidence on the boat at the Coastguard facility
in Florida.

Speaker 5 (42:00):
So that's basically that's an awful, awful case, isn't it.

Speaker 3 (42:05):
Yeah, what's your knee jerk, Michelle? Of this case? It's
been so all over the news.

Speaker 5 (42:11):
So my knee jerk, And you know, everyone's innocent until
proven guilty, we can start with that. But my knee
jerk is is you always look at the person closest
to the victim. I mean it's yeah, I wouldn't say
it's always the spouse, but it's almost always the spouse. MM.

Speaker 3 (42:27):
Did you guys see you know?

Speaker 4 (42:28):
Not?

Speaker 5 (42:30):
Sorry? No, my son listens to true crime, believe it
or not. He's eleven, and I always tell him, I'm like,
you always look for the simplest answer for the because
usually the simplest answer is the correct one. And so
for me, the simplest answer is I don't think she
fell overboard. But you know, he's innocent until proven guilty,

(42:52):
and he's not been formally charmed.

Speaker 4 (42:55):
There's new there's new information to uh. The daughter of
Lynette Hooker, she is saying that there's some surveillance photo
or surveillance video. She doesn't believe her mom made it
back to the boat before. Something may have happened. She
said that she told the Daily Mail. Okay, she told

(43:18):
the Daily Mail that there's some security footage of the
yacht that showed a bright flash of light on the
Soulmate about seventeen minutes after they left this dinner around
seven point thirty, and then another one around midnight, and
she says it's pretty suspicious. She said, it's kind of

(43:40):
weird that they couldn't make it to the boat. They
were right there. They could have almost walked in the
water to the boat from the Abaco Inn. It's very
shallow and it was relatively sheltered from winds there too.
It doesn't add up. And the whole other thing too,
is that these mysterious flashes of lights are supposed to have.

Speaker 3 (43:59):
Occurred while.

Speaker 4 (44:03):
Lynette and is missing and Brian is allegedly rowing around
trying to get to shore for the you know next
or whatever. So how are you doing that and having
these flashes of light on the boat at the same time?

Speaker 6 (44:18):
What are the flashes of light?

Speaker 9 (44:19):
Like is it I don't know, not that you would know,
of course, like a theory like is it a flashlight
or like a immediately went to a gunshot, like is
there some kind of light that people are seeing or.

Speaker 3 (44:30):
Yeah, I mean we're going to it could be anything.
It could be.

Speaker 4 (44:34):
I don't think it's I don't think it would be
a gun necessarily because that would make a lot of noise, right, Like,
you know, there's a there's a reportedly the coast Guard
is looking for a boat that was moored right next
to the Soulmate uh to ask them if they had
seen or heard or you know, anything there.

Speaker 3 (44:53):
Apparently. I think they're still looking for the owners of
that boat to talk to them to see that.

Speaker 5 (44:58):
I'm thinking the flashlight was beat was being used to
help so he could clean up. Uh, that would be.

Speaker 4 (45:07):
Probably something like that, like a lantern or a flashlight.
And he's going in and out of the cabin. Maybe
something like that, you know, throwing things overboard. Perhaps I
don't know.

Speaker 3 (45:19):
I mean, this is all.

Speaker 4 (45:19):
Allegedly, allegedly allegedly right, because Brian Hooker does maintain that
he is innocent and that he wants his wife found
and that this was a tragic accident.

Speaker 3 (45:29):
But the daughter, listen it if.

Speaker 4 (45:34):
I am really proud of this daughter, she is not
giving up good Lynette Hooker's daughter. She is like a
dog with a bone. She knows she's in her heart
of hearts good for her. Something happened her mom.

Speaker 6 (45:46):
Right, I agree, And you know, like.

Speaker 5 (45:50):
Your gut tells you you really are. I mean, if
I've learned older, I get the more you gotta follow
your gut. It doesn't stare you wrong.

Speaker 3 (45:59):
And I would imagine, oh please, I was gonna sae it, Michelle,
how much does it you know?

Speaker 2 (46:05):
In this exact case of Lynette Hooker, the daughter saying, hey,
I think my stepfather did it?

Speaker 3 (46:14):
Does that come into play at all? Or is it
just sweet?

Speaker 6 (46:20):
No?

Speaker 5 (46:21):
I think it comes into play because it looks like
the couple had a historically volatile relationship, and so the
nature of the relationship will be looked into by investigators.
They will also look at whether it's life insurance policies,
financial issues. I mean, they'll look at all aspects of
their couple's lives to kind of put the picture together.

(46:42):
They'll look to see if someone was having an affair
or not. I mean, they really look at the entirety
of the picture to put that puzzle together, to figure
out the who done it, like, you know and clue
like who did it? Who had the candlestick in the
you know, dining room.

Speaker 3 (46:56):
With the right in the Yeah.

Speaker 5 (46:58):
So I think they would look at it all, and
I think they do. Listen quite frank also, so people
say in the fanly at the.

Speaker 2 (47:05):
Top of that hour, we are going to talk about
Alex Murdach. Keep it here a True Crime Tonight. Welcome
back to True Crime Tonight and iHeartRadio. I'm Courtney Armstrong.

(47:26):
I'm here with my buddy Boddy. Move in and we
are joined by former judge Michelle Locke, producer Taha and
Sam and Adam of course are here as well, and
actually we should just get right into a talk bag
because people want to speak with you.

Speaker 3 (47:40):
Michelle.

Speaker 10 (47:41):
Hey, guys, I have a question for the judge. So
my daughter is over the age of eighteen and I
still receive arrears for her but.

Speaker 3 (47:49):
No current child support. She wants my current partner.

Speaker 10 (47:52):
To adopt her as a stepparent, and he also wants
to adopt her. So I do know that this is dual,
but I was hoping that I could get a little
bit of guidance from the judge on where to start,
because I know family Court is going to be involved.

Speaker 3 (48:06):
I'm out of Massachusetts, north of Boston. Actually it's Emily.
Emily from north of Boston. We love it.

Speaker 5 (48:15):
So that's actually a really easy answer. It depends in
the laws of various state to state, but it's an
adult adopting an adult. It should not be super complicated.
How do I know about this because my stepdad adopted
me as an adult after I turned eighteen. I had
my stepdad adopt me, so I'm very familiar with this
type of situation. But it really should not be very

(48:38):
difficult to do. But it's usually an adult adopting adult.
Petition varies by state to state to state, but I
would be willing to bet Massachusetts has it. Emily, by
the way, should not affect arears at all.

Speaker 3 (48:53):
Child stourriers good, that's good. What are arears? I've never
heard that word back pements for child's right.

Speaker 5 (49:01):
That's when you are behind in child support, and we
call them child support or rear. So if you are
behind in child support, you are in what we call
a rear edge of your obligation. And so looks like
whoever her father was was behind on his child child
support obligations. But because she's eighteen, there's no current child support.

(49:21):
He's just trying to catch up from what he had
from before. And that could have been a lot, could
have been a little. But if she's looking at to
have her stepdad or her partner adopt her, I'm guessing
dad hasn't been too involved in the life. But yeah,
just an adult birth, an adult and adult adoption can
be done.

Speaker 4 (49:39):
So Emily in north of Boston, you need to look
for an adult to adult petition for adoption, right, something
like that, and you should just be able to all
her out right in schedule hearing.

Speaker 3 (49:51):
Yeah, and your.

Speaker 5 (49:51):
Daughter can even change her last name.

Speaker 3 (49:56):
Well, that's going to be up to them. But thank
you Judge for Emily because listen, we she works hard,
he calls in all the time. He's a hot wooka
she I love her accent. He's a hot She drives
that car around all Boston. So good.

Speaker 4 (50:12):
Okay, Emily, hopefully you hear this and you got your
advice from Judge Michelle.

Speaker 3 (50:16):
Yeah, what else we got? Let's do another talk about
hi to your crime tonight.

Speaker 11 (50:20):
This is Mariam from Wisconsin and just a question I
wish I would have asked when Jarrett was there. But
can Becky Hill be charged with anything in the Alec
Murdoch jury tampering thing?

Speaker 3 (50:31):
Thanks so much, great question.

Speaker 2 (50:35):
I just wanted for anyone who doesn't know what that's
in reference to this is this is the Alec Murdock case.
It was everywhere back in twenty twenty one. He was
a big wig South Carolina fancy attorney who has been
convicted of killing his wife, Maggie and their twenty two
year old son.

Speaker 3 (50:57):
On his family's rural hunting estate. So there was. He was,
like I said, convicted of a double homicide.

Speaker 2 (51:05):
However there is now he's going to be tried again
because there was a court clerk Becky who you referenced,
who allegedly influenced the jury, which is a huge no. No,
well she pled guilty, right, she was, Yeah, she charged.

Speaker 3 (51:28):
You're right, I'm.

Speaker 5 (51:28):
Sorry about allegedly. Yeah, anymore.

Speaker 4 (51:33):
She pled guilty in twenty twenty five, I think it
was around Christmas time, and she pled guilty to Yeah.

Speaker 3 (51:41):
Yeah, actually I should have the judge, and we got
the judge. Here, go ahead, judge.

Speaker 5 (51:46):
She pled guilty to four charges, including obstruction of justice
and perjury for showing reporter photographs that were sealed court
exhibits and then lying about it, as well as two
counts of misconduct in office for taking bonuses and promoting
through her public office a book she wrote. On the trial.
She was sentenced to three years of probation, and the

(52:13):
judge had told her that her sentence would have been
much harsher if investigators had found that she had tampered
with the murderon jury. So it looks like they did
not find any evidence that she tampered with the murderon jury.
But she's no longer allegedly guilty of She pled guilty
to obstruction of justice and perjury charges, as well as misconduct.

Speaker 4 (52:32):
So yeah, conduct, Yeah, she's and I think she has
to pay restitution. Right, She didn't get a prison sentence
or whatever. And I don't know that any additional charges
are pending for her. But no, she definitely was found.
I mean, she played guilty to many of the charges,
and I doubt she will be I think a court

(52:52):
clerk anytime soon anywhere else.

Speaker 5 (52:54):
Nah, she got booted out of that. But the other issue,
which I think is really the irony at all, is murder.
His filed suit against her, a civil law suit against her,
which I'm just like.

Speaker 4 (53:08):
Four by the way, the amount of six hundred thousand
dollars against Becky Hill, this court clerk, which by the way,
was his flat fee rate to pay his attorneys the
exact amount, which I found, you know, interesting, very interesting.

Speaker 5 (53:27):
He's got some cohonies.

Speaker 2 (53:28):
Okay, so give Given your reaction, it sounds like you
don't think that that suit holds water, Is that right?

Speaker 5 (53:38):
I don't Well, I don't think it holds water. Listen.
The problem is she did something she shouldn't have done,
and it's resulted in a reversal of his case. Now
he's still sitting in jail for other issues. And so
I'm not really worried about him getting out, and he's
but he's not a good dude, and it's it's like,

(54:00):
come on, I just don't see how a jury, I mean,
a jury is not gonna like what she did. But
are they gonna like him anymore? I doubt it seriously.
I mean, is he really gonna go to trial and say, oh,
she made my life worse? No, dude, you made your
own bed.

Speaker 2 (54:15):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (54:16):
I can definitely see how a jury.

Speaker 4 (54:18):
It's really gonna depend I think on what the jury values, right,
if they're gonna if they're gonna look at Alex Murdau
as a person instead of looking at Alex Murdau as
an American citizen who pet potentially had his rights violated.
I think, you know what I mean, It's really going
to depend on how the jury looks at him, I think,
because if they look at him as just an American

(54:39):
citizen who potentially had his like civil rights violated, his
constitutional rights violated, there he might have a case. Listen,
He's never going to see six hundred thousand dollars from her.
It's never going to happen, I don't think.

Speaker 5 (54:53):
But it's never gonna happen.

Speaker 4 (54:54):
I think it's never gonna happen. I agree, I agree
with that never gonna happen. But how does he could
make money on her book sales?

Speaker 3 (55:05):
Well, if you could, But.

Speaker 5 (55:06):
All I can think of is what is the How
how do you do that? Vordire? How do you find
people that are actually going to tell you the truth?
That's whether they can separate? Like I'm thinking of logistics
of actually trying the case, And I'm like, and you're
gonna happy jury and are going to say, oh, no,

(55:27):
I can look at him as an individual and not
take into consideration his past offenses and looking at this verdict,
and they're gonna be lying through their teeth, despite agree
taking an oath that they're going to answer the truth
and the vordire questions. So good luck picking a jury.
How about one more talk back?

Speaker 12 (55:47):
Hey guys, it's Julia from South Carolina. I'm calling in
regarding the Alec Murdock case because I live here in
Murdoch Country and I have a lot to say about it.
First of all, if this or anyone else other than
Alec Murdoch, we wouldn't be where we are. The judge
in the murder trial Judge Newman individually pulled each juror

(56:09):
before the verdict was delivered. Each one of them had
to agree it was indeed their verdict, and no one
had coerced them to that decision. No other defendant in
this exact, same situation would have the resources to find
all the clerk's errors to get to where we are today.

Speaker 6 (56:27):
So I would like.

Speaker 12 (56:28):
Jarrett's opinion on why we have gotten to this point
if all the jurors were pulled and under oath said
that they stood behind that verdict.

Speaker 3 (56:38):
Oh, Julia, well, yain, she makes a great point.

Speaker 4 (56:42):
The jury was pulled, do you you know because because
the jury later said, yeah, we felt pressure from Becky
Hill to get the verdict done quickly.

Speaker 3 (56:53):
She told us, you know, don't listen to the defense.
I'm paraphrasing they you know.

Speaker 4 (57:00):
So they did tell later that, you know, they felt
these pressures, but when they were pulled, when they gave
their verdict, they said everything was fine.

Speaker 3 (57:08):
So how did we get here?

Speaker 5 (57:10):
So yeah, so let's talk about that. And I don't
know if you all know, but polling a jury after
a verdict before the verdict is read is a very
standard procedure. We do it in Texas as well, So
it's not an uncommon procedure. But think about and I
can think about cases that quite often, even after they're polled,
the jurors will they'll come out later with during misconduct

(57:32):
and you'll have affidavits filed by the jurors discussed various
misconduct that may have occurred during jury deliberations. And so
I think it happens more often than you would think.
I would love to be in that particular area of
South Carolina because I know that listener has so much

(57:52):
more information. You know, when you live in the community.
Boy does that community know like the details behind all
of it, And so she probably has much more insight
than the rest of us could ever hope to have
on the case. That being said, it doesn't surprise me
that a jury was polled and now they're saying after

(58:13):
the fact they felt pressured. I mean, I think it
happens more often than not. And then when you're doing
an appeal, you exhaust at least on this type of conviction,
for sure, you exhaust all avenues, right, and so one
of the avenues you look at is what happened with
that jury deliberation, was their misconduct was their undue influence.
I mean, and I probably agree with her that I

(58:34):
don't know that a regular, everyday Joe citizen would have
the resources to do this. I mean, I don't think
she's wrong about that, but neither doesn't surprise me.

Speaker 4 (58:44):
No, I don't think Julie is wrong at all about that.
I think she's spot on that Alex Murdau, this kind
of person, with all this influence, is probably one of
the only defendants that has the resources to make this
appeal happen in the way that did. However, I also
don't necessarily think that a court clerk would have written

(59:06):
a book about any other kind of trial.

Speaker 5 (59:10):
Right.

Speaker 4 (59:10):
Becky Hill, the clerk of courts in this wrote the
book because it was Alex murdall right.

Speaker 3 (59:18):
So it's almost like a back and forth, even kind
of Stephen situation.

Speaker 4 (59:24):
Right, Alex Murdaugh only is the only kind of person
that has the resources, but he's also the only kind
of target, right, And.

Speaker 5 (59:35):
We forget his actions made him the target well.

Speaker 3 (59:38):
For sure, of course, but I agree, I agree with
Julia on that half.

Speaker 4 (59:44):
But I also have the counter that he is the
only kind of target that would have been you know,
a victim of this of Becky Hill.

Speaker 2 (59:53):
I hate to say it, Oh I agree, I agree
with that. I mean I think he's a kind of
a generational jerk from everything out. But anyway, let's let's
leave Alex Murdoch okay where he is, which is in
prison at the moment, and what I actually want to
know Michelle is.

Speaker 3 (01:00:09):
A little bit more. We don't have that long at all.

Speaker 2 (01:00:12):
But what can we learn on your podcast and your
socials at Love Lust Law?

Speaker 3 (01:00:20):
Yeah, what can listeners know about?

Speaker 5 (01:00:24):
Well, listeners can know that. I talk a lot about relationships.
I mean, who better to tell you about how to
make a relationship work than a divorce attorney, Right, I
can tell you how they don't work for darn sure,
so I can definitely tell you how to make them work.
I also talk a lot about personality disorders and how
to co parent with someone with a personality disorder. I

(01:00:48):
talk a lot about narcissism, and it's not and I
think narcissm is overused, Like, not everyone is a narcissic
personality disorder. They just don't. But people have narcissistic traits.
But when you've got a co parent that has those
particular traits, it becomes a challenge to co parent, and
there's an art form to it, and so I explained
the art form. I also talk about the issues as

(01:01:11):
it relates to how you properly litigate a family law case,
because you've got to make your case a little bit
different so that the judges remember. And it's all about
putting the puzzle together correctly and how I employ always
what I and I told you about this the Kiss method,
keep it simple, stupid, and so I talk a lot
about family law litigation and how to do it properly,

(01:01:31):
and then some of it's just general like empowerment. I mean,
I went through fifteen surgeries in five years. I've had
both my knees replaced, my ankle replaced, I've got three
nex fusions, and I've lost one hundred and thirty five
pounds in an issue maintaining in addition to maintaining a
private practice, being.

Speaker 7 (01:01:50):
A mom.

Speaker 5 (01:01:53):
All around, and there were dark moments for me during
those five years that I was always in surgery. So
it's a little bit of an inspiration that I tell people,
like I've got one of my episodes called Ozempic and
a die Job, and I love it. Because I had
someone leave a terrible comment saying, Michelle, you know you're
still a terrible person ozempic and a die job won't
change who you are. And so I know the entire

(01:02:14):
episode saying I'm fabulous and it wasn't ozempic, it was
upbound and I wouldn't try for the world people and
bring it on brand.

Speaker 3 (01:02:23):
Yes, you're hair looks fabulous.

Speaker 5 (01:02:27):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:02:28):
So I love that that is I'm going to listen
to that next listen Michelle. As always, we thank you
so much for joining us. You always add so much
to the conversations. And again, if anyone wants to learn more,
and you should go to michellelcke dot com l O
c k E. And you could also follow Michelle Instagram

(01:02:50):
at Attorney Michelle Locke and check out that podcast and
socials at.

Speaker 3 (01:02:56):
Love Lust Law and keep it here.

Speaker 2 (01:02:59):
We've got more headlines, We've got more talkbacks, We've got
more true crime tonight.

Speaker 4 (01:03:15):
Welcome back to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio. We talk
true crime all the time. I'm Boddy Moving and I'm
here with Courtney Armstrong and producer Tahajaus and we want
to meet this segment some talkbacks so we're going to
get right into it.

Speaker 3 (01:03:29):
Let's go to the first one right now.

Speaker 13 (01:03:31):
Hi, y'all. Jackie from North Carolina, Love y'all, Thank you great.
I'm not completely convinced that Murda was a drug addict.
I believe he might have used drugs at some point,
but I do not think that he had the addiction
that he said he did. There would be some real
tell tale signs if he did.

Speaker 11 (01:03:48):
Thanks, bye, have a great day, y'all.

Speaker 6 (01:03:51):
I think we had a similar one to that yesterday. Yeah,
the same, Yeah, we did.

Speaker 2 (01:03:57):
We did, so you're not alone in your thinking, but
a couple of things that we did go through. So again,
this is not this is you know, something that quite
a few people are thinking, and understandably when you think
of someone who is you know, has come out to
be quite a dirt bag, I guess, but was prestigious
and a lawyer and wealthy, you know, you think, oh,

(01:04:20):
you know, could you be a drug addict? But really
a lot of the evidence in court kind of bore
out that he was, including where he was getting his
drugs from, who's getting his drugs from, and testimony.

Speaker 4 (01:04:32):
So yeah, like and not just his own testimony, right,
there was witnesses like his best friend and his son
and his surviving son, I should say, and whatnot. So
it does look like he did have some kind of
pretty terrible addiction, you know, and then he was like
all sweaty and but listen, I know that he might

(01:04:53):
have just been nervous, but I.

Speaker 6 (01:04:55):
Think he had a drug.

Speaker 3 (01:04:57):
Yeah, I think he did.

Speaker 6 (01:04:58):
Also, we really appreciated talk about it.

Speaker 9 (01:05:00):
I think there was earlier Courtney mentioned a really astronomical
amount that was spent.

Speaker 2 (01:05:04):
So it was fifty thousand dollars a week was alleged,
and I mean, I think he was getting a hose
on that. Not that I'm saying anyone should be getting
their black market drugs for cheap, but that's an expensive
fifty thousand a week rather, Yeah.

Speaker 3 (01:05:20):
That's crazy.

Speaker 4 (01:05:21):
And they found text messages from his son on his
phone that was like, hey dad, mom just found a
bags of pills in your computer bag, Like and those
you can't fake. Those those are predated, you know. So
I do think he had a He had a problem,
for sure, but we do appreciate the talk back though,

(01:05:42):
for sure.

Speaker 3 (01:05:43):
Let's go to another one right now.

Speaker 7 (01:05:45):
I came from Pensacola Florida. I just wondered if there's
a chance that Alex Murdoch maybe owed money to the
wrong people due to his drugs or due to taking
the money from some of the cases, maybe wrong a client,
and they decided to come after him.

Speaker 5 (01:06:01):
Love to hear what you think. Have a good night.

Speaker 3 (01:06:05):
You know you are not alone in that thought that,
you know.

Speaker 4 (01:06:09):
I think that was kind of the alternate kind of theory, right,
that this was kind of like a hit, kay, you know,
like kind of like a mob.

Speaker 3 (01:06:19):
The mob would do. Right, if you owe somebody money,
they break your kneecaps or you know, kidnap your wife
or something.

Speaker 4 (01:06:26):
Yeah, listen, I think anything's possible. I do believe Alex
Murdall is guilty for the murder of his wife and son.
I definitely do. However, I don't know what's going to
be presented at this retrial, right, and they mentioned the
defense mentioned they want to introduce third party culpability. So listen,

(01:06:51):
I can I can be convinced of pretty much anything
with enough evidence, right, who knows, I mean, who knows
what they're going to present that If it's compelling enough,
I might change my mind and listen, I'm the only
one that matters here. Okay, it might not get obviously
the jury. Obviously the jury is the one that's going

(01:07:11):
to have to, you know, come to that conclusion. But
in my mind, I'm the one who.

Speaker 5 (01:07:18):
I can't.

Speaker 3 (01:07:18):
I can't imagine the challenge.

Speaker 6 (01:07:21):
I can't imagine the challenge of trying to find a
jury now and this case is dead.

Speaker 4 (01:07:25):
We were talking about that, like, where are they going
to find a jury that is going to be able
to weigh this impossible new evidence against what they've already
seen in all the newspapers in South Carolina?

Speaker 3 (01:07:40):
Right, I don't know what they're going to do.

Speaker 6 (01:07:43):
I wonder, have you instances where they go out of
state to get jurors because it's such a saturated, popular case.

Speaker 3 (01:07:52):
I take on the tip of my tongue.

Speaker 6 (01:07:54):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (01:07:56):
That's a great question. But years here's the deal.

Speaker 2 (01:08:01):
There's you know, there are many many people who absolutely
don't pay attention to any true crime and ignore I
mean I can for example, there's there's sports that I
simply do not I don't engage with, I don't look
for and I mean there can be a World Series

(01:08:21):
and I may not know what's going on. Which would
seem unbelievable, but True Crime that there's a decent amount
of people who just.

Speaker 6 (01:08:32):
Don't don't actually that you have a really really good point.
I forgot.

Speaker 9 (01:08:36):
I even have friends occasionally I'll bring up different how
do you not know about Luigi? Or there are certain
cases that are really out there. So you're right, there
are people out there that may not follow.

Speaker 3 (01:08:47):
Things to Yeah, and I and I don't.

Speaker 4 (01:08:49):
I can't think of any case where they shift a
jury in from out of state. I think that might
be a constitutional violation, like a sick right problem. But
I don't. Please don't cat me on that is. But
I do believe the jury of your peers constitutes people
within your vicinity.

Speaker 6 (01:09:07):
That's a good point. Where's a judge when we need one?

Speaker 14 (01:09:10):
Michelle, judge meyju Michelle that we'll keep following that case
because of course everything about it is fascinating.

Speaker 6 (01:09:20):
But in the meantime, maybe Adam can tee us up
for another talk back at a different topic. What do
you got going?

Speaker 15 (01:09:28):
Hey, my True Crime Tonight crew. I love listening to
the podcast and I don't miss a show. This is
Darla from Ava, Missouri. I have a missing person's case
the Springfield three. You have Stacey Nicoll eighteen, Susie Streeter nineteen,
and Cheryl Love It's forty sevenness Susie's mom, all taken

(01:09:48):
June seventh, nineteen ninety two from Cheryl's home, all belonging
to the left behind, broken porch light and the unlocked
front door.

Speaker 8 (01:09:57):
Tell me what you think. It's a doozy.

Speaker 4 (01:10:00):
Oh my gosh, wow wow. All three were taken and
everything was left behind.

Speaker 2 (01:10:06):
Yeah, so we did a little that's a great case suggestion,
So thank you so much, Tarla.

Speaker 3 (01:10:11):
We did a little bit of digging.

Speaker 2 (01:10:13):
And you know, as you said, the two teenagers and
Susie's mom, Cheryl Levitt, they appear to vanish from the
mom's home. They'd been at graduation parties the night before
and we're last seen. So they were last seen arriving
at the house around two am on teen seventh, ninety two.

(01:10:38):
But when friends came by the next morning, the cars
were still parked outside, but all three women were gone.
So it's not just that the belongings weren't there, the
cars weren't either. And you know, interestingly, not only all
of the belongings money makeup purses, the family dog was

(01:11:00):
also left behind.

Speaker 6 (01:11:02):
So that's so it's like they.

Speaker 9 (01:11:04):
Just vanished, like the cars there, all their belongings, purses, cigarettes,
just that the three girls are just gone.

Speaker 3 (01:11:11):
Well you know, two girls and one of the.

Speaker 6 (01:11:15):
People.

Speaker 3 (01:11:15):
Yeah, so two girls and a woman.

Speaker 2 (01:11:18):
There was a shattered porch light globe that was found outside,
but the investigators, honestly, what they believe was that valuable
evidence could possibly have been cleaned up before police arrived.

Speaker 3 (01:11:31):
That in and of itself is interesting and to this date, these.

Speaker 2 (01:11:36):
More than thirty years later, no bodies, no rests, and
Springfield three is just crazy.

Speaker 4 (01:11:43):
Wow. See the shattered porch light. I don't know anything
about this case, but I know it's fascined. That is
very interesting. The shattered porch light is very interesting to me.
It makes me feel like it's somebody one of them
new because they shattered the portlight so that they couldn't
see who it was when they answered the door, because

(01:12:04):
they and not want to.

Speaker 3 (01:12:07):
I don't know.

Speaker 6 (01:12:08):
I love your brain that you went there immediately, like
that's a that's a great thought, but that that makes
that tracks and how that makes sense.

Speaker 3 (01:12:16):
Like it's somebody that they would not have wanted to
answer the door for maybe.

Speaker 2 (01:12:22):
But it's so interesting and not again, like I said,
we did a tiny bit of research of just the
cursory top line here, but a couple of things.

Speaker 3 (01:12:31):
I mean, how hard to take or move three grown.

Speaker 2 (01:12:36):
People and then also the two teenage girls and a
mom body you're shaking your head, No, I guess with
the right with the right weapon or strength.

Speaker 3 (01:12:45):
Women with If there's a man or even a woman
with a gun, women are.

Speaker 4 (01:12:50):
Typically very compliant, get in the car, don't say a word, right,
we're very compliant people.

Speaker 3 (01:12:58):
I don't know. I don't know. I don't know a
thing about this case. I'd have to.

Speaker 9 (01:13:04):
But what Courtney said is what I thought immediately too.
If there are three people, like someone would have said,
like grab his armor, like some something would have happened
to kind of slowed it down the process.

Speaker 4 (01:13:14):
But and if they listen, it sounds targeted to me,
you know, especially with all the belongings left behind, Like
it wasn't the robbery or anything, so it seems targeted
to me. And it might have been somebody that all
three of them knew, and they were like, they're not
going to do anything. Let's just do what they say
you know what I mean, like something like that the

(01:13:35):
very point fascinating.

Speaker 3 (01:13:38):
Interesting.

Speaker 6 (01:13:40):
Yeah, thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:13:41):
One last thing and then I will I will privately
go down the rabbit hole in this because.

Speaker 4 (01:13:45):
Now me too, I want to be missing person's one day,
because this is one's interesting that one.

Speaker 3 (01:13:51):
Yeah, oh that's a great idea.

Speaker 2 (01:13:53):
Maybe we'd dig into it, because even Johnny tell you
the one thing that I just guessed said, how did
investigators think that somebody cleaned up? Well, it's because the
next day when the friends came to visit, they kindly
cleaned up the glass that was on their friends porch.

Speaker 6 (01:14:12):
Oh yeah, okay, okay, anyway, but yeah, let's.

Speaker 3 (01:14:19):
So they didn't realize they were missing well exactly, I
don't know. I guess at the time. No, they were
just yeah, so anyway.

Speaker 6 (01:14:27):
Oh so that is a good one. We'll keep that
one on our back burner.

Speaker 3 (01:14:30):
And yeah, that's very interesting.

Speaker 6 (01:14:33):
Okay, But in the meantime, I think we have time
for one more.

Speaker 5 (01:14:36):
I'm true Crime tonight. Friends.

Speaker 16 (01:14:37):
It's smell from Fredericksburg. I was listening to your show
last night about the South Florida murders and the possibility
of AI being found as an accomplice to the murders.
And I'm just kind of trying to think through it.
Have there been any cases where someone has Googled something
about a murder and that then found as an accessory?
What would that line between AI and Google look like?

(01:15:00):
I kind of see it like the person who's committing
the murder is doing the searching rather than AI influencing
that person. Thanks for all you do, Love you.

Speaker 3 (01:15:12):
Well, love it. What a good question, right, This is
very on point. Right.

Speaker 4 (01:15:18):
I kind of said the same thing, like, what's the
difference between somebody asking their AI chatbot? Hey, how do
I dispose of a body? Versus searching how do I
dispose of a body? And putting everything together? And I
think the answer is is that AI is more chatty, right.
It's it's more conversational. It kind of almost humanizes it

(01:15:43):
a little bit, right, Like it makes it feel like
you're talking to somebody with a conscious a little bit,
and so it makes it feel on the on the
on the receiving end, if you're reading it like you're
talking to a person who's giving you the green light
for what you're about to do.

Speaker 6 (01:16:01):
Is that I agree?

Speaker 2 (01:16:03):
Well, it's also and listen this is up for debate,
and this is happening now, so that there's not a
standards although yeah, although to my knowledge, no Google has
not for Googling it has. But the difference is is
not just the perception of a conversation. It is the
the you know, agentic manner that with the agents who

(01:16:24):
actually they're going above and beyond just answering how do
I clean up blood? It's it's more it's going like,
how do we solve a problem together? It's more advisory,
it's giving you more complicated so it actually it is
providing you more information than a straight search.

Speaker 3 (01:16:45):
So I mean that's that's one of the differences.

Speaker 4 (01:16:49):
Right, And I mean we know, and we know like
from from cases of past, like famously case Anthony right, right,
core form searching for core for Karen Reid, right, how
long does it take to die.

Speaker 3 (01:17:05):
In the snow? Or something?

Speaker 4 (01:17:06):
I can't remember now, Jody Arius. I mean there's so
many cases. Brian Walsh, Brian Walsh just recently using his
son's tablet, right, how to dispose of the body? These
are all Google searches. And when we say Google, we
just mean search engine. Right, that's like, right, that's just
like the term they could have used duck duck go
for all I know. But you know, Brian Coberger looking up,

(01:17:29):
you know all the all the news articles about the
University of Idaho student murders, right, none of them, in
none of those cases has Google ever been accused of
being an accessory?

Speaker 3 (01:17:42):
None of them? Right?

Speaker 6 (01:17:43):
Do you do you feel that should change it all?

Speaker 4 (01:17:46):
Or now?

Speaker 6 (01:17:46):
Do you think that you don't?

Speaker 3 (01:17:47):
Okay, I did not Okay personally.

Speaker 6 (01:17:51):
Yeah, no, I'm just curious of picking your brain on it.

Speaker 2 (01:17:53):
Yeah, I mean, it's information out there. But again, the
it is it's building upon and it's it's having a picture.
Well I'm gonna try to make artificial intelligence sentient.

Speaker 3 (01:18:07):
So not, but it is, it's it is engaging with you.

Speaker 4 (01:18:12):
But these are conversations, Courtney, that you're having on your
new podcast. AI made me die, right, These are like
the kinds of conversations that you're going to be having
and challenging on your new podcast.

Speaker 3 (01:18:25):
I can't, I can't we tell listen.

Speaker 2 (01:18:27):
Yeah exactly. There's many roads to go down. It's very interesting.

Speaker 6 (01:18:32):
So it's great.

Speaker 3 (01:18:33):
Yeah, so listen, stick around. We've got some more talkbacks.

Speaker 2 (01:18:37):
We've got a couple of late breaking updates, so keep
it here. True Crime Tonight, we are talking true crime
all the time. Welcome back to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio.

(01:18:58):
We're talking true crime all the time. Time listen, We've
made it almost to the end of the evening. But
don't forget. If you missed any part of the show,
you can always catch us on the podcast. And if
you want to give us a call, We're at eighty
eight three to one Crime and right now we'd love.

Speaker 5 (01:19:13):
To go to a talk back.

Speaker 11 (01:19:15):
Hey, oh it's Alicia.

Speaker 16 (01:19:17):
I just wanted to let body know that if she
is in the market for a new car, they have
officially listed Karen Reeves Lexus for one hundred thousand dollars.

Speaker 3 (01:19:26):
Oh, I'll run right out. My favorite, my favorite person.
That's such a funny.

Speaker 5 (01:19:35):
You're hilarious.

Speaker 3 (01:19:36):
I love that so much. Oh my gosh.

Speaker 4 (01:19:40):
Yeah, I'll jump right on that one hundred grand Okay,
no problem, I'm gonna god my favorite, my favorite topic,
Karen read.

Speaker 3 (01:19:49):
Karen read.

Speaker 2 (01:19:49):
But that's someone someone, somebody's going to buy it one
hundred percent.

Speaker 3 (01:19:56):
One hundred percent.

Speaker 6 (01:19:57):
Yeah, maybe start thinking.

Speaker 9 (01:19:58):
I wonder how many people sort of want items that
were involved with crimes like collectors of that have you?

Speaker 4 (01:20:04):
Well, officially, tah, it wasn't involved in a crime. Officially,
she's been acquitted. Right, she's been acquitted. And it's very divisive.
But officially that car was not used during a crime. Ay, right,
stand corrected, right? But other cases, like cases where there

(01:20:28):
have been have you encountered a lot of people who
as that? Yes?

Speaker 3 (01:20:33):
That really?

Speaker 4 (01:20:35):
Murder memorabilia is a huge market, huge market. Oh absolutely,
they got like Ted Bundy's bug hit the car that
he used to kidnap women in it, like a museum
somewhere in Tennessee. Like yeah, I mean they they've got
like a I think uh Dahmer's glasses. Yeah, oh yeah,

(01:20:58):
murder memorabilia is a huge, huge, huge market.

Speaker 6 (01:21:02):
Interesting, we'll buy that stuff.

Speaker 3 (01:21:03):
People buy that stuff, not me right the same, but
something will do by that stuff. Yeah, for sure.

Speaker 6 (01:21:10):
May thank you for the talk back.

Speaker 4 (01:21:11):
I appreciate I appreciate knowing that if I need, you know,
to buy a new car, that that Lesus is available.

Speaker 3 (01:21:19):
I appreciate it. About another one getting let's see another one, yeah.

Speaker 17 (01:21:26):
High team, I just have a suggestion. I think it
would be great for you guys to bring on some
book authors who wrote a book about the Delfai murders
to sort of go over all of body's hesitations about
the crime. They wrote a book book and it's pretty
well regarded, and they were at every single part of
the trial and the prelims and all of that. So
that would be a really good look into the crime

(01:21:49):
that's not necessarily slanted one wire or the other. There
Anya Kane and Kevin Greenley who wrote I think it's
called In the Shadow of the Bridge. That would be great.
I would be really exciting to hear that and hear
bodies questions being answered by like a reliable person. Thank
you so much.

Speaker 3 (01:22:05):
Yeah, they have a great podcast. I'm very familiar with them.

Speaker 4 (01:22:10):
They have a great podcast called The Murder Sheet, and
every day they went to the trial and they would,
you know, do an episode after the trial every night
and let everybody know what happened during the trial that day.
And they were very pro prosecution. I think they're very slanted,
So I would disagree that they're not slanted. They were

(01:22:32):
very pro prosecution, which I get, like I'm pro prosecution
in many cases. That's not an insult, you know, this
is just the way things work sometimes, and so what
I would do every day during the Delphi trial because
it wasn't televised, is I would go to work and
I would get my little tablet and I would watch

(01:22:52):
three YouTubers that were also at the trial and watched
them and all of those people were lawyers. Watch Andrea Burkhart,
I would watch Bob Mada from Defense Diaries and Lawyer Lee.
Then I would listen to Murder Sheet because I wanted
to get a well rounded opinion from lawyers. Now I

(01:23:14):
should say the Defense Diaries and Andrea Burkhart were very
defense sided. They're defense lawyers, Okay, okay. Lawyer Lee was
kind of more in the middle right, And then I
would listen to Murder Sheet for.

Speaker 3 (01:23:28):
The prosecution side of things.

Speaker 6 (01:23:30):
Interesting.

Speaker 3 (01:23:31):
And that's those two authors.

Speaker 4 (01:23:32):
And by the way, I'm in a book about Delphi
called Down the Hill written by Susan.

Speaker 3 (01:23:38):
Susan Hendrix. If you're looking for another book.

Speaker 6 (01:23:40):
Oh okay, yeah, tell me to me for that book.

Speaker 4 (01:23:43):
She did, Okay, Yeah, she just wanted to know because
I was so involved at the very beginning, like what
social media was like in the Delphi case. And so
she interviewed me for the book. Yeah, and I'm actually
on the jacket. I gave her a little oh yeah,
and it's pretty fun. But Murder Sheet is a great podcast.

(01:24:05):
I think they do a great job. I have not
read the book, but I will definitely think about that,
and I think it would be great to have them
on for sure.

Speaker 3 (01:24:13):
So I agree, appreciate.

Speaker 4 (01:24:15):
I appreciate that that talk back a lot, like a lot,
because being confused with Delphi does not sit well with me.

Speaker 3 (01:24:21):
I don't like it. I don't like that. I don't know.
I wish I wish I did right. I wish I
felt strongly one way or the other.

Speaker 5 (01:24:29):
M h.

Speaker 3 (01:24:30):
It's not fun.

Speaker 9 (01:24:30):
And this is one of several cases we've had where
sometimes we're you know, there's a divisive or we're not
sure where it stands. I've always had this sort of
fantasy of having two people on either side on our show,
like someone who has written about, you know, one side
of it and the other, and then maybe the team,
the three of you sort of weigh what you're hearing,
almost like a mini trial by someone who's dug deep

(01:24:53):
intel shoulsis. It woul pretty an interesting way to hear
all sides of it.

Speaker 4 (01:24:58):
That would be really interesting, especially if like well like
us to disagree correct like we did with Karen Reid.

Speaker 3 (01:25:07):
I was going to say, like and listen. It depends.
It depends on what's like.

Speaker 2 (01:25:13):
I remember distinctly right after closing arguments and you and
I each kind of represented it was what we did
away and listen.

Speaker 3 (01:25:23):
When you're laying out one.

Speaker 2 (01:25:25):
Side at a time, whatever is being laid out can
sound that's pre de compelling.

Speaker 3 (01:25:30):
It does, right.

Speaker 4 (01:25:31):
You know. What's interesting though, is that we can disagree
about a case and move on with our life. Lately,
I feel like on social media, if you disagree about
points in a case or what is considered evidence or
what is not, it's like vitriol. It's like it's it's
ben it's getting really bad out there, Like it's getting

(01:25:52):
really really bad. And there's some cases that are very
devices Karen, Karen Read and Delta great examples of those there.
It's very like you're you know, you're the worst person
imaginable if you question things or you're you know, I
don't know, it's it's crazy.

Speaker 3 (01:26:12):
It's very sad. And I don't think it's only specifically
uh true crime.

Speaker 18 (01:26:17):
On social across the border and I just I think
it's a sad shame that kind of engaging in a
discourse is now a bad thing, and you have to
then think poorly of someone because they don't share the
idea that's in your own head, like Chris is very.

Speaker 1 (01:26:35):
Sad to me.

Speaker 4 (01:26:37):
I have learned the most in my life in a
disagreement with somebody, right, I have learned, and you know,
having conversations with people about why they think the way
they do because maybe they'll convince me like, oh, yeah,
you know, that's a good point. But today it just
seems like nobody can get to the point where like,
oh yeah, I can see that side of things, that's

(01:26:57):
actually a really good point. Everybody has to be right
all the time or something. It's crazy, it's neat. I
like to have the conversation. I like the conversation. I
do too.

Speaker 9 (01:27:06):
I like understanding where someone stands or what they think
about something, because to your point, like, that's the only
way that I'll get out of my bubble if I'm
only thinking one way.

Speaker 6 (01:27:16):
But I actually know people personally who just were like
if they don't agree with me, I don't even want
to talk to them. I'm like that, Yeah, that's it's ridiculous, Like,
how are you going to even move forward? I don't
know we need to change that, but do.

Speaker 3 (01:27:28):
We have time for some more talk decks?

Speaker 19 (01:27:30):
I think we do all right, Petrock Creme tonight, Speaking
on the documentary The Crash. I was going to watch it,
but then I stopped myself because I happened to come
upon a interview that the mom of the.

Speaker 3 (01:27:44):
Victim did, and she was against it.

Speaker 19 (01:27:46):
She did say that if you do watch it, please
keep the victims in mind and make sure to know
that they had no say and able to tell in
their story. But I don't know if I should watch
it or not.

Speaker 3 (01:28:00):
I didn't know that.

Speaker 9 (01:28:02):
I didn't either, and I'll have to say, in all honesty,
I started it last night, but it was late after
we finished, so I got a little sleepy, but it
sucked me in. It looked really good and what I
got to so far is extremely compelling. I did not
know this either, that like the victims were normal. Well,
I don't know if I should watch it, and now

(01:28:22):
I have mixed feelings.

Speaker 4 (01:28:23):
But I did too well, and we should say the
victims in this incident are Dominic Russo. He was twenty
years old, and Davian Flan again he was nineteen years old,
and they were the victims of Mackenzie Shrilla who drove
her car going over one hundred miles an hour into

(01:28:45):
a building in some attempted, preplanned murder suicide type situation
that she had planned. And there was evidence, you know,
they used like the black box or the recorder logs
and surveillance footage, and it proved that the accelerator was
being pushed down anyway, there's a bunch of evidence against her.

(01:29:06):
But that's a really good point that the victims weren't
a part of it.

Speaker 3 (01:29:10):
I didn't know that.

Speaker 6 (01:29:11):
I haven't seen it yet, right, and I had watched
it far enough to see it. Makes me also wonder
were they not asked to be a part of it
or did they choose not to. I wonder if.

Speaker 9 (01:29:25):
We're gonna have to look in but into it. But
when Stephanie's back will unpack it some more, because I
know she's watched it, and by them, we'll have all
seen it together and we'll have to kind of wigway
how we feel about the victims not being their side
of the story not being told.

Speaker 6 (01:29:41):
But from the portions that I did see.

Speaker 9 (01:29:43):
They did seem to show a lot of the victims
family members and photos, and they were explaining it. But
I'm curious as to more of the details of why
they're not involved.

Speaker 2 (01:29:54):
They wanted to, so they absolutely might not have wanted
to my understanding, and I could be wrong because I
as well, we all all three of us, you know,
we stuck to our word. All three of us actually
started it separately, started cozy up in our bed together,
but we all started to watch it all fell asleep.
But I believe that the fathers that Dominic Russo's father

(01:30:19):
and sister, as well as Davion Flanagan's father interviewed for
the project. However, it's absolutely true that Dominic and Davine's
mothers chose not to take part. But yes, okay, I
was remembering again. I was a little bit sleepy, but
I remember that Dominic's sister specifically, and also the father saying,

(01:30:43):
you should never have to be put in a position
where you have to tell the mother of your child
or the sister of your child that they've passed away.

Speaker 3 (01:30:53):
So not every single family member was part of the document.

Speaker 2 (01:30:59):
Yeah, Well, to answer your question whether you should or not,
you you go with what your gut tells you, and
I think that's uh.

Speaker 3 (01:31:09):
That's very likely that nobody was paid any money for
this documentary.

Speaker 4 (01:31:14):
I would be shocked. I would be shocked. So if that,
if that makes you feel better about watching it. It
is very unlikely that the parents of you know, the
killer in this case or the killer herself made any more.

Speaker 3 (01:31:28):
That's very unlikely.

Speaker 6 (01:31:31):
That's a good point that makes you feel m hm right,
we have time for one more, time for one more,
A light fun one.

Speaker 8 (01:31:39):
Here we go.

Speaker 20 (01:31:40):
Okay, guys, this is tamer for New Jersey. I wanted
to see if you guys would go to a restaurant
called The Last Meal. It's in Galion, Ohio. I just
saw a TikTok on it, and they serve the last
meal of prisoners just before they've been executed, like Ted
Bundy for example. They also have a museum called the
Horror Music and they have memorabilia, movie props, everything from

(01:32:03):
OJ to the X Files.

Speaker 3 (01:32:05):
What are your thoughts, Oh, I love the Files.

Speaker 6 (01:32:09):
The other stuff, I don't know.

Speaker 4 (01:32:12):
I mean, listen, I don't love the death penalty, so
I'm not sure that I would go and celebrate.

Speaker 5 (01:32:19):
It in that sense.

Speaker 3 (01:32:21):
Does that make sense?

Speaker 6 (01:32:22):
I agree, I don't hate it.

Speaker 3 (01:32:23):
I just don't love it.

Speaker 6 (01:32:24):
And it also seems to glorify these killers and and
I don't know that it makes me feel a little uncomfortable.
I don't I don't know.

Speaker 4 (01:32:33):
If I don't know, for listen, if I don't have
to pay for it, and I got invited, like to
review it or something, I probably go, Okay, I'm just
being real.

Speaker 3 (01:32:43):
I probably wouldn't pay for it myself.

Speaker 5 (01:32:44):
Though.

Speaker 3 (01:32:45):
What about you, court, Well, I'm curious, what's that line
for you money? I don't want to pay I don't
want to pay for it.

Speaker 9 (01:32:55):
Is it the money that you feel is being given
to the people running it? Or just like I, it's
my money, I don't want.

Speaker 3 (01:33:01):
No, it has something to do with my money.

Speaker 4 (01:33:03):
It's just that I don't necessarily want to financially support
that kind of place, right, But I wouldn't mind seeing
next file.

Speaker 3 (01:33:11):
Stuff, is what I'm trying to say, right So, you know,
I think.

Speaker 2 (01:33:15):
It's a really interesting idea. And I remember even just
doing try whatever, developing some show around last meals in general.
It had to do with in the White House in
eighteen hundred. You know, it was all across and it's
an interesting slice of life.

Speaker 3 (01:33:34):
I yeah, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:33:36):
I'd be curious who the was was profiting and if
it was rent our tours and they're their best, then
it I'd be fine with it.

Speaker 3 (01:33:44):
I think it's it's curious to see, like I'll tell you,
look right, I'd be.

Speaker 6 (01:33:50):
Curious, curiosity.

Speaker 9 (01:33:52):
And maybe if the money went to the families, the
victims families, I could I have a.

Speaker 4 (01:33:57):
Lore or even the Innocent Project kind of into places
and be okay with that, you know, or victim advocacy
organizations and not all the money.

Speaker 3 (01:34:08):
I mean people people have to pro got like five
percent or something. I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:34:14):
Yeah, interesting, it's interesting that you guys, that is the night.
But it looks like, okay, tomorrow we're gonna have Michelle
McPhee joining us, and that is a very very exciting
regarding her podcast.

Speaker 3 (01:34:31):
Kingdom of Fraud. So good a lovely Wednesday, Have a
good night, Good night,