Bryana "Bana" Bongolan Accused of Lying Under Oath — Defense Demands Mistrial, Justin Baldoni’s $650M Lawsuit Tossed, and Travis Decker Search Turns Federal

Karen Read’s defense spent time with several witnesses to support their theory that Read did not hit John O’Keefe with her SUV. Baudi unpacks Luigi Mangione’s manifesto and the alleged “thought process” of the 27-year-old — along with one of the most infamous manifestos of all time. Spotlight on Christine Walters (23) and Jeremy Jourdain (17), because someone, somewhere, is still waiting. Tune in for all the details.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

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

Speaker 2 (00:20):
Welcome to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio, where we talk
true crime all the time. It is Monday, June ninth.
We made it through Monday. Thank you so much for
spending the evening with us, because we have a stacked
night of headlines. Sean Didtycombe's trial that never seems to end.
Week five begins, Jane Doe back on the stand today.

(00:40):
Also the Karen Reid retrial. We may have closing statements
as early as tomorrow, so we absolutely do need you
to weigh in on this. And also we're looking into
the newly released pages of Luigi Mangione's manifesto body who
is with us, of course, is the expert on manifesto's
and we're doing a deep dive into what he said
and also the connection to the unibomber and Ted Kaczynski.

(01:03):
So just to get us started for the night correctly, welcome.
I'm Stephanie Leidecker, I, head of KAT Studios, where we
make true crime podcasts and documentaries, and I get to
do that with Courtney Armstrong.

Speaker 3 (01:14):
She's our producer and host.

Speaker 2 (01:16):
She hosts all kinds of our podcasts as well as
Body Movin, our crime analyst, who will also remember from
Netflix's Don't f With Cats. So where should we begin?
Let's start with Diddy? I believe body. What's the latest?

Speaker 3 (01:29):
Today? Week five? Right? Week five? Band?

Speaker 4 (01:33):
Today was pretty rocky? Today was like a rocky day
because the defense filed a motion for a mistrial over
the weekend. So like they want to have the entire
case basically start over because they're accusing one of the
witnesses of lying. That's not a good thing. What they're saying.

(01:55):
Run no, I mean not in any trial, right, I mean,
of course this is this could potentially devastating for the
prosecution if the defense gets their way.

Speaker 3 (02:03):
Right.

Speaker 4 (02:04):
So what happened was Briana bag I can never say
her name.

Speaker 3 (02:09):
I think she goes by Bana.

Speaker 4 (02:10):
She does, she goes by Banna. Let's just call her Bana.

Speaker 3 (02:12):
Okay.

Speaker 4 (02:13):
So she testified last week that, you know, Diddy basically
hung her over the balcony a seventeen stories up. You know,
we all heard the story and was really rough with
her and whatnot. Well, the defense is saying they can
prove that she's lying. And they're saying that they can
prove that she's lying because on the day she said
it happened on this specific day, did he was thousands

(02:35):
of miles away? And they have like the receipt for
some restaurant I think he ate at on that day,
which is not even.

Speaker 3 (02:41):
In that city. So yeah, so, I mean.

Speaker 4 (02:43):
That's potentially pretty devastating if you know, the judge says, yeah,
this is not gonna work. Now, it also could be
that she's lying and the judge doesn't just you know,
say it's a mistrial. That could also happen. But it
was pretty devastating today for the prosecution.

Speaker 2 (03:00):
It really undermines all of the great testimony we've gotten
so far too. So if in fact that's accurate, does
that really just undermine some of the testimony that has
been so gripping.

Speaker 4 (03:12):
Yeah, I mean I think it does. But Cassie said
on the stand that she witnessed Ditty doing this, right,
so she coroborated this testimony and when confronted, when confronted
with these text messages, and you know, this idea that
Diddy wasn't even there. Cassie said, I saw what I saw,
So she's double downing on seeing this happen.

Speaker 3 (03:32):
Now.

Speaker 4 (03:33):
I kind of think it might be possible that it
didn't happen on the day they think it did. R right, Like,
you know, it was many years ago kind of situation.
You don't remember like the exact date. You know, maybe
it's something like that, but I don't know if the
judge is going to give them that kind of leeway.

Speaker 2 (03:46):
And there were a lot of drugs involved by everybody's
version of the story. You know, these were drug fueled times.
And does that play a part in the timeline? Maybe
they just have it wrong.

Speaker 4 (03:57):
Yeah, And you know Jane Jane is you know, the
witness that has been testifying lately.

Speaker 3 (04:02):
She was Ditty's partner. You know.

Speaker 4 (04:04):
She said that they started off kind of in secret
because he was seeing many other women. She knew about it,
and she was like okay with that, but as time developed,
he kind of enveloped her entire life, right like, he
kind of controlled everything that she didn't. It happened kind
of slowly, I kind of you know, hecking it to
a frog in a pot, right, you don't know you're

(04:26):
being boiled alive until it's too late. Right.

Speaker 2 (04:28):
I've never heard that saying before this is terrible. No
oh yeah, boil a frog and a pot.

Speaker 4 (04:35):
Well, maybe it's I don't know, maybe it's where I
grow up. I don't know, but yeah, it's like you
don't realize things are happening because it happened so slowly, right,
like if frog in a pot, the water rises so slowly,
you don't realize you're being boiled alive until it's too late.

Speaker 3 (04:49):
Totally.

Speaker 4 (04:49):
And I think this is something that kind of happened
with with Jane.

Speaker 5 (04:53):
Yes, And I'm remembering she she was a single mother
and over time did he ended up he was financing
her life in order for her to make herself available
to him at any time for.

Speaker 3 (05:06):
Freak offs and otherwise.

Speaker 5 (05:07):
And yeah, so it was sort of her family, her finances,
and he was claws in all the baskets, right.

Speaker 2 (05:13):
And look, that is a way of if you're somebody
who's being love bombed, which is like stage one of
any of this abuse, if that's how you see it,
here you are you get love bombed by Ditty allegedly,
and he starts buying new things and you're perceiving that
as gifts and luxury items, and he's so generous, and
it's not generosity. He's essentially paying for your silence and

(05:36):
paying for you to participate in something whether you want
to or not. And I guess that's kind of at
the crux of it, the idea that Banna the previous testimony,
that that's you know, up for discussion in terms of
this mistrial. That's pretty alarming. There's been some online chatter. Again,
this is just the chatter online take.

Speaker 3 (05:54):
I love the chatter.

Speaker 2 (05:55):
The chatter this is not based in fact so allegedly
that some are saying that Ditty's defense team almost planted
Banna into this whole scenario, knowing full well that she
was an unreliable witness because it's alleged that she had
been getting drugs for them, and and and so like
the conspiracy theories have gone awry, and which one of

(06:18):
them are true and what's true and what's not. It's
really hard to decipher, you know. I think it's so
interesting that the chief of staff KK is being brought
into this.

Speaker 3 (06:26):
Kay.

Speaker 2 (06:26):
We're slowly starting to see the drip drip of some
of these larger names that would potentially point to a RICO.

Speaker 4 (06:33):
Operation, right, because they're the KK, who, by the way,
is Christina Karm. She was Ditty's chief of staff, right,
she goes by KK. They're alleging she was involved in
like a recording, right, like she was responsible for recording
Ditty's calls apparently, And that's yeah, because Jane. Basically what
happened today was that they read when Jane was testifying

(06:56):
that when she read Cassie's lawsuit, initially she recognized some
of the behaviors that she was experiencing with Ditty real
time in Cassie's lawsuit. And three days after Cassie filed
a lawsuit, she had a phone call with Diddy and
a recording was made and it was played in court today.
Now the recording had been retrieved from KK, and Jane

(07:19):
told the court she did not record the call and
she was also not aware she was being recorded. So
that happened today and it was pretty you know, it's
pretty explosive.

Speaker 2 (07:30):
Pretty damning too because kk's come up in a few
of the civil lawsuits as well as somebody who maybe
coordinated these efforts, whether that's drugs or for the freak offs,
the hotel, stays, extra sheets, lighting whatever. The cozy oiltion
is a thousand bottles at Savy Oil, full time job.
Apparently she was the chief of all of it. So
how does that person not have any knowledge? She of course,

(07:53):
claims to have no involvement with anything regarding freakofs or
drugs or trafficking.

Speaker 5 (07:59):
I think this mistrial is nothing more than good lawyering
on the defense's part, to be honest, I think they
saw an opening an inch and they're trying to make
it an opening a mile. And I think it's as
simple as that. I think both of you speaking about
all of the drugs and how long this happened that
confusing Toesday the twenty first, for Thursday the twenty third,

(08:21):
could happen innocently that said judge could disagree.

Speaker 2 (08:25):
And you know, keep in mind this, you know, we
discussed this last week briefly that you know, it had
been alleged or Trump himself just said that, you know,
he would you know, review the material regarding a pardon
when asked, by the way, he didn't volunteer this information.
He was you know, pointedly asked about a pardon for
ditty all that to be said, you know, a pardon

(08:45):
would only really be granted if there was something to
point to that would show Ditty was being mistreated or
that this trial was being mistreated. And if there's somebody
giving testimony on the stand that can't be you know,
taken back. That really does speak to the center of
this reco case, which is this coordination and bodyguards and
people being on the books at you know, Diddy enterprises

(09:09):
also being utilized for things of a sexual manner or
for trafficking. You know, it's sort of an evolving mess.
I guess they're just throwing it all at the all
at the wall right now.

Speaker 4 (09:20):
Well, and I don't you know, regarding the chatter that
you were talking about earlier about you know, was she
planted as a witness that could backfire on the prosecution.
And I just I have a hard time buying that.
But you have to understand, I have like this, I
put like the judicial system on like a pedestal, you know,
I really do. And I know, I know you guys

(09:42):
that is so naive of me. I know, but it's hard.
It's hard for me to look at professional attorneys, you know,
especially federal attorneys, right that would ethically be in a
bad spot if they did something like that, like they
could lose their license, they could they could be disbarred
for things like that. So I just don't really think
that lawyers of this caliber and maybe that's you know, listen,

(10:05):
I'm willing to admit that that's a naive of me.

Speaker 2 (10:07):
Like I already am with you one hundred percent on that,
I too rever the justice system. I do find it interesting,
like the lawyering is really the majority of it, right, well,
the lawyers lawyer wins.

Speaker 4 (10:19):
Yeah, these lawyers have investigators, right Like they pay pis.
They pay investigators to do like these timelines and go
through all the discovery. I mean, you think the lawyer
is sitting there with all those banker boxes full of discovery. No,
it's clerks, it's investigators. It's people that are going through
it all. And they are the ones that probably found
this discrepancy, you know. And I would really like to

(10:40):
know a little bit more about the details of these
discrepancies between her testimony and like this receipt apparently in
these text messages, but I don't have any of those
details yet.

Speaker 2 (10:50):
Yeah, And there was a text exchange between Bannat and Cassie.
Apparently that Cassie is making this suggestion that she's physically
not there even though her memory is serving her as
she was. Yeah, it's complicated stuff, and you know, we
were doing a little bit of a deeper dive into
Ditty's backstory in general. You know, many of us know
him as this prolific person from the nineties.

Speaker 3 (11:10):
Where you know he.

Speaker 2 (11:11):
Was it was East Coast West Coast Rappers. There had
been some allegation that he was somehow wrapped up in
the again allegedly allegedly, allegedly into the Tupac murder. This
is again folklore, things that have been written about forever.
If you followed this. It's interesting because that case, Tupac's
actual case, is also coming up for trial. And here

(11:34):
something to watch because apparently Diddy's at the center of
that too.

Speaker 5 (11:38):
Yeah, and that has got to be a sight to see.
We're going to continue this when we come back. We
will also be covering the retrial of Karen Reid. Could
tomorrow be the last day? Later in the show, we're
talking Luigi Mangione. His latest release pages of the Manifesto
could even inspired by the unibomber. And then it's Missing
Persons Monday and we need your help keep it here.

Speaker 3 (12:00):
True Crime tonight.

Speaker 2 (12:12):
Yeah, so Diddy, we were just mentioning before the break
that he basically started bad Boy Records.

Speaker 3 (12:18):
That's what he's.

Speaker 2 (12:18):
Probably the most known for. By the way, such an
appropriate title for a company, right right, In fact, actually
his company, you know, the inner circle the execs within
bad Boy Records were referred to as Hitman. How interesting
is that kind of all tracks now that.

Speaker 3 (12:35):
We're sort of fearing manifests?

Speaker 2 (12:37):
What you focus on manifests perhaps, and you know, look,
you know we talk a lot about Diddy today, but
he does have kind of an interesting backstory in terms of,
you know, where he comes from. He know, born in
New York. He lost his father at two years old.
Allegedly his dad was involved with some sort of organized
drug crimes and he was shot and killed in Central

(12:59):
Park When did he was just two years old? So
he was essentially raised, you know by his mother, Janis,
who we've seen in the courtroom. She's larger than life
with those blonde wigs, and so much has been made
about their relationship, and you know, she's to always have
her nails, you know, manicure in a certain way, with
that very blush, pink or white nail polish that apparently

(13:19):
he would have all of the women in his life
specifically had to have the exact same nail care. And look,
she's been very devoted to him. It must be very
difficult to sit there behind your son and show such
a strong front. Again, she's also allowed his children, several
of which your daughters, be there to hear some of
this really agonizing testimony. It's complicated. What do you make

(13:40):
of that?

Speaker 5 (13:41):
I have to feel, you say, it would be hard
to sit there and watch it, so for myself, I
have to agree. But and I'm gathering this just from
watching documentaries about P Diddy, I feel like his mother
is almost such his life force that she would be
almost just as enraged that this was being done to
her son. I really, I kind of That's the vibe

(14:03):
I get, is that's the purview that she would have
more so than oh, all these terrible things my son
allegedly did.

Speaker 3 (14:10):
So that's my thought.

Speaker 2 (14:12):
It's kind of hard to deny some of those tapes,
though you're seeing some of this stuff on the front line.
I guess the scoop of that is that it was consensual.

Speaker 4 (14:19):
That's the Listen, I look at this completely different. Let's
hear it, because you know, I come from like a
true crime well I I come from like a crazy
true crime place, right, Like, I immediately go to he's
wanting to like be with his mother, well, you know,
like ed imply like ed Gean right, like how he

(14:40):
basically wanted to wear his mother's skin. You know, I
feel like Diddy like, especially with the nails. That is
such an interesting like piece for me, you know, and
as I sit here with like cream colored nails on
right now, I'm going to go change it as soon
as you're done. But it's such an interesting I feel
like he has some kind of you know, psychological Freudian

(15:00):
thing with mom, like one hundred percent.

Speaker 2 (15:02):
Well, like, listen, she you know worked hard. She was
a working single mother, and she applied. You know, she'd
likes to die for him. He has like a little
Madonna figure potentially. That's so interesting. We should have a
therapist on to kind of break down for us.

Speaker 4 (15:14):
I want to talk to him anyway.

Speaker 2 (15:16):
Listen to her credit, she got him, you know, out
of the city and then you know, he grew up
basically in the suburbs. And he gets the name Puff
apparently from in high school when he was acting all
puffed up, like he would act a little tough because
he was like a slim, nice kid being raised in
a you know, a middle class neighborhood. It doesn't really
have the same like air quotes gangster vibe that I

(15:37):
think he perpetuates or likes to perpetuate. And by the way,
he went to Howard, you know, he went to a
wonderful school. Howard's a great school, amazing school, highly and
those are.

Speaker 4 (15:46):
Things that like Tupac like would call him out for,
like kind of like being a poser, like hit him up.
That's the famous you know call up to bad boy
records from Tupac. Right, Likeac, Tupac knew who Puff was, right,
Tupac knew it. And I fell Listen, I'm all about
the Tupac trial. It's happening, by the way, in February
of twenty twenty six in Vegas.

Speaker 3 (16:06):
It all seems crazy.

Speaker 4 (16:07):
I'm going to be reporting on scene. Okay, this is
going to be my assignment. I can't wait. I can't
wait for it.

Speaker 2 (16:13):
And it's significant because that trial, which you know, not
to jump around too too much. But it's relevant because
Tupac's death, which you know, was you know, you've all
heard about this. It was a major moment in music history.
Tupac was traveling with sug Night, infamously who's been you know,
giving a lot of interviews from behind bars. It was
the two of them in a car and they were,

(16:34):
you know, basically shot and killed. At least Tupac was
by a drive by car. And in that regard this
new trial, his name is Keith d and he basically
says that his words, not ours that did he paid
a million bucks to have Tupac killed. So there is
sort of a major piece of Diddy in that trial
to come as well.

Speaker 4 (16:54):
I can't wait for that, Fortney. What's going on with
Kieren Read.

Speaker 5 (16:57):
It's day twenty nine in the retrial of Karen Read.
It's been a long road and it could be a
road that's ending, as she said, as soon as tomorrow, body,
which I couldn't.

Speaker 4 (17:07):
Even Oh, I can't imagine it's going to be.

Speaker 3 (17:10):
I think it's going to be like Thursday, Yeah, she
whatever it is.

Speaker 5 (17:13):
Reid has told reporters that she does expect that her
team to do rest their case this week, and there
were a lot of different testimonies today. To very briefly
catch people up. Karen Reid is on a retrial for
allegedly running over her boyfriend, police officer John O'Keeffe with
her SUV after a night of drinking. Her defense is

(17:37):
that knows she is being framed by other police officers,
that some kind of altercation happened and he was somehow
beat up, ended up dead and she was framed.

Speaker 3 (17:47):
So that's what's happening.

Speaker 5 (17:49):
So today we heard from doctor Elizabeth Laposada I believe
it is forensic pathologist, and she testified that O'Keefe's fatal
head injuries were con with a backward fall onto potentially
a ridge surface, so that could be something that happened
inside of a house versus by a vehicle's tail light.

(18:09):
And she also indicated that there's a scalp laceration above
his right eye that could have been caused by a
fist or an object. I mean, we've all seen fighters
when you split your eyebrow, you know, yeah, and it
seemed like that was the kind of thing she was describing.
Another piece of testimony that I thought was really interesting
was John Tedman. He's a private investigator, and what he

(18:31):
did was interesting. He visited thirty four Fairview Road, and
that is the place where Karen Reid's defense teams suggests
John o'keef left karen Reads suv very alive and walked
into this home where police officers were gathered having a
very very boozy night, and that something happened. So he

(18:54):
took photos and did measurement points all around the house
and the entryway, particularly the garage, and suggested where John
O'Keefe could have been injured or where his body could
have been moved from prior to his body being found
in the snow. So his analysis, he wasn't setting it
out to prove John O'Keeffe was allegedly murdered. Here, he

(19:17):
was saying it was. She raised reasonable doubt that an
attack happened inside the house.

Speaker 3 (19:22):
It could have.

Speaker 5 (19:23):
And remember, guys, all she needs is reasonable doubt, right.
It's such a like expert versus expert. You know, it's
so interesting.

Speaker 2 (19:31):
You put an expert forward and they say, yep, that's
totally true. It was a dog bite and he was
obviously killed in the house and placed outside. And as
a result, she's been framed. That's a rough one because
that doesn't it's hard to debate that when the next
expert on the other side says the exact same thing

(19:52):
but opposite, and you know, you're kind of left an
expert land. It's hard to decipher.

Speaker 3 (19:57):
It really is.

Speaker 5 (19:58):
And that also Another very recent testimony was Michael Wolf.

Speaker 3 (20:02):
He came back on.

Speaker 5 (20:03):
The stand which he had started his testimony on Friday,
and as an expert, he testified that the damage to
Karen Reid's suv right tail light appeared quote generally consistent
with having a drinking glass thrown at it, but not
having struck a person. So that's important because there is

(20:24):
video evidence of the night of the murder or the accident.
You know, John O'Keeffe's losing his life, that he was
walking out of a bar with a glass. So if
there was an altercation, did he throw his glass at
the tail light instead of the suv backing into him?

Speaker 2 (20:41):
Oh, that's a big piece of it. I think it's
really when you boil it down, it's what's up with
the dog bites? What's the reality led that dog alleged
ledged ledge If only we had the dog to do
a proper imprint of its mouth seems just it just
seems strange that the dog is nowhere to be found. Talk,
you know, maybe that's just terrible timing. And yes, this

(21:03):
sort of tomato tomato of headlights. Was it a human
or was it a glass?

Speaker 4 (21:08):
Though?

Speaker 2 (21:08):
Seem so different to me that it's kind of shocking
that a person's life is kind of in limbo just
based on which expert you believe the most.

Speaker 5 (21:16):
But that does seem what it's boiling down to, It
really does. And ps, you said maybe the dog's disappearance
was a fluke or something. I don't know, Stephanie. It
raises every hackle I have that Chloe the German Shepherd
no longer is where she lived, and if she was
allegedly part of this, you know.

Speaker 2 (21:34):
Can we get Chloe the Shepherd back, Like, can we
just find out?

Speaker 3 (21:37):
Sure, Lovely, is there not a phone we can call
to just one crime?

Speaker 2 (21:43):
Yeah, if you know anything about Chloe's whereabouts, but it
can't see as though, that's like at the core of
a lot of what's being discussed. Is this this you know,
sweet animal. Hopefully you know, hopefully that is something that
they can get to the bottom of.

Speaker 4 (21:58):
Yeah, we'll see, well, maybe we'll find out this. So
coming up next, we're going to be talking about recently
released pages in Luigi Menngion's alleged manifesto, and in the
eleven o'clock hour, we're going to be discussing listen, perhaps
the King of Manifesto's manifesto Monday, the Unibomber. It's one
of my favorite cases. I can't wait to fill you in.
And it's missing Person Monday. We need your help solving

(22:19):
these cold cases. We'll be right back.

Speaker 3 (22:21):
Keep it here. True Crime Tonight.

Speaker 2 (22:32):
Lots to get to, but first we have a talk back,
so let's go to that first.

Speaker 6 (22:37):
Hi, it's Cynthia. I just wanted to comment on the
Pdity trial. I'm just surprised no one has mentioned the
two words coerce of control in regards to Diddy and
his freak offs and everything else concerning what he's been
charged with. What are your thoughts?

Speaker 4 (22:52):
That is such a good observation, right, because course of
control is basically, if for those that don't know, it's
a pattern of abuse. Yeah, and there it usually happens
in relationships, right Listen. I'm not an expert in this,
but from my understanding. It's kind of like the frog
in the pot, Like.

Speaker 2 (23:12):
We're back to this poor frog that's forever getting more oiled.

Speaker 3 (23:14):
But it's a slow burn.

Speaker 4 (23:16):
It's a slow burn, and it you know, there's threats,
there's humiliation, intimidation, all kinds of things to basically isolating
to your victim, to completely control everything about them, right,
And I mean, according to testimony, this is what Diddy
has done.

Speaker 2 (23:34):
And people really idolize him so much, like all of
these women seem to hold him at such high regard, right,
They all wanted to impress him, they all wanted to
be exclusive with him, they all seem to really want
more attention, more one on one time. We heard that
from Jane today. You know, she just really was hoping
to have this more intimate time with him, and every
time she tried to go down that path, he would

(23:56):
add more escorts or add another person. And you know, look,
I sometimes we choose there's this great quote that I'll
for sure we're going to mess up right now, But
sometimes we choose a familiar hell to an unfamiliar heaven,
meaning we just get used to this behavior, and it
is it's a drip, drip, drip, and suddenly you do
know that you're the frog all of a sudden, and

(24:17):
you can see how that happens. And this is such
a kind of a masterclass on what that is.

Speaker 4 (24:22):
Right, So really good, really good observation. Cynthia, thank you
for leaving us a talk back. For those that don't know,
all you have to do is open up the iHeartRadio app,
find the True Crime Tonight podcast and then click on
one of the episodes and just leave us a little
message by using the little microphone button. It's really simple,
really easy, and we'll play it on the show. Yeah,

(24:43):
so I'm gonna jump right into Luigi go for burn
in time.

Speaker 3 (24:47):
So let's do it.

Speaker 4 (24:48):
Meet Luigi Manifesto.

Speaker 3 (24:50):
Listen.

Speaker 4 (24:51):
Stephanie said, I was like the expert on the manifestos. No,
I'm definitely not manifesto. I'm not a manifesto, butod I'm
obsessed with manifesto. I think they're so interesting because Okay,
so a manifesto is basically a way for somebody that's
done something to communicate why they're doing it right. And
I'm going to get into this later in another segment

(25:13):
about the unibomer, but there's also a violence manifesto, and
that's basically basically making excuses for why you've committed violence. Okay,
and this is a term that was created by like
accredited people in criminal sciences and whatnot. So Luigi has
left a manifesto, and you know, when he got arrested,
we got a little piece of it and it was

(25:34):
pretty it was pretty interesting. But there's more and we
just just got more pieces of this manifesto, more pieces.

Speaker 3 (25:41):
So for those who.

Speaker 4 (25:41):
Don't know anything about Luigi, he faces eleven charges in
New York State, the most serious being first degree murder
as an act of terrorism. He faces for federal charges,
including murder through the death of a firearm, which unfortunately
carries a federal death sentence. So I think they're personally

(26:02):
using the death penalty federally to get him to plead,
because I think the last thing the system wants is
a public trial in this. I really do, really like,
oh yeah, well, because the ideas in the manifesto are
so revolutionary, and if you're discussing these things in a
court of law where people have you know, access to

(26:23):
hear them and maybe themselves get radicalized or even be like,
you know what, He's right, this is crap. Then it's dangerous.
Like the same reason that they did. They did the
same thing to Ted to Kazynski. They you know, wanted
him to uh he was being charged federally and they
wanted him to plea and is his lawyers wanted him
to plead insanity and he was like, no, I'm not crazy.

(26:45):
My ideas are important and they need to be discussed.
And so the idea of manifesto is you have all
these important ideas and the only way you can get
people to listen to you is by violent being violent.
But that's what discredits the idea, right, It's.

Speaker 3 (27:02):
Right kind of circular reasoning.

Speaker 4 (27:04):
Yeah, right.

Speaker 2 (27:05):
My understanding of a manifesto was that it had to
be some like prolific moment of poetry and intention.

Speaker 3 (27:11):
Doesn't that show guilt? Also?

Speaker 4 (27:14):
Yeah? Well sure, and and certainly with Luigi's the new
pieces we've got, it certainly points to that.

Speaker 3 (27:19):
Right.

Speaker 4 (27:20):
So here's some things. Here's some quotes. Okay, again, Luigi's
being charged with basically gunning down the CEO of United Healthcare,
Brian Thompson. Okay, and here are some of the quotes
from the manifesto. I'm just going to read them. Verbatim. Okay,
say what you want to rebel against the deadly green
fueled health insurance cartel? Do you bomb the headquarters?

Speaker 3 (27:41):
No?

Speaker 4 (27:42):
Bombs equals terrorism, so he was he was recognizing he
could get a terrorism charge for bombing the irony. Instead,
one should whack the CEO at the annual parasitic being
counter convention. It's target and precise and will not risk innocence.

(28:03):
So that's interesting. So he he recognized like basically Ted Kaczinski, right,
he recognized that Ted Kazinski had these incredible ideas, but
he was basically considered a terrorist because he was killing
innocent people by inordinately bombing the postal system and disgracing it.
So that was pretty interesting. Another one is the point

(28:25):
is made in the news headlines insurance ceo killed the
annual investor's conference. It conveys a greedy bastard that had
it coming.

Speaker 3 (28:33):
Wow.

Speaker 2 (28:34):
Wow, why would he put that in writing? So this
is all in his notebook that they found in his
backpack at the McDonald's.

Speaker 3 (28:40):
Yeah, so he was.

Speaker 2 (28:41):
Ready to be caught if he had that notebook, because
the manifesto that I saw when his arrest first happened
was kind of a strong start. It had something really
important at the top, and then it really tailed off.
So this is excerpts from more things that were found more. Wow,
this one's to me very interesting. For example Ted K,

(29:03):
he's referencing the Eda Barmber. For example, ted k makes
some good points on the future of humanity, but to
make his point, he indiscriminately mails Bomb mail Bomb's innocence.
Normies categorize him as an insane serial killer and focused
on the act atrocities themselves and dismiss his ideas. And
I think this is a really accurate assessment because by

(29:24):
and large, critics acknowledge that Ted Kaczynski's manifesto raised like
pretty valid concerns about technology and society, but the violent
actions that he committed completely negates all those ideas and
discredits them. Yeah, and bodies something positive with that manifesto, Right,
Why does a manifesto have to end in death? Is
that always the case? Can I have a living manifesto?

Speaker 3 (29:45):
Sure? Oh yeah, absolutely you can. But they don't get
any attention, right, nobody will listen.

Speaker 6 (29:51):
Yeah, yea.

Speaker 3 (29:52):
I think he was insightful of Luigi.

Speaker 5 (29:55):
I mean, he's right with the perception of quote the normies,
which would be I guess everyone who is not on
his perceived level of himself of seeing him as this
Robin Hood which we've talked about before, and well is
it Rolling Stone called him and he is seen as
a hero and heralded for that.

Speaker 4 (30:15):
Right, people are selling candles.

Speaker 2 (30:17):
Yeah, it's goes fund Me is hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Speaker 4 (30:20):
Yeah, I mean people have really Robin hooded him, right,
They've made him Saint Luigi. His face is adorning candles
with Saint Luigi on him. I mean, he's definitely being
put on a pedestal, and you know, his message is
resonating with a lot of people, and his messages is
that the healthcare are parasites. In fact, the one of
the later points that we have in the manifesto is

(30:42):
the target is insurance. It checks every box, which is
really interesting to me because it basically implies that he
had criteria right, like almost like he wanted to be
a martyr for something and eventually kind of whittled down
to insurance. And I kind of wonder what other kind
of industries was he looking at? What was his criteria?

(31:04):
What checklist did he have to check every box? What
other places, what other targets were there. I'll be so
comes out me too, and where do this.

Speaker 3 (31:14):
Deep dive happen?

Speaker 2 (31:15):
So we know when he was apparently having all of
these back issues. If you don't know, Luigi had a
surfing accident and he had to have a very terrible
back surgery. Apparently that caused him much pain. It's been
intimated that maybe that's caused some a mental disorder or
some sort of depression, perhaps because of the pain that
he was in. By the way, we've heard interviews with

(31:37):
his roommate at the time when he was living in Hawaii,
who said he was lovely and engaging and yes he
was in pain, but nothing would suggest he was capable
of something like murder. And that's kind of disturbing. You know,
his mom, We kind of went through their backstory a
little bit too, and his mom had filed a missing
person's report for him in November of twenty twenty four

(31:58):
in San Francisco, which is his last known place prior
to the murders, about a month later. So what does
that say. He obviously had lost contact with his family.
We saw a lot of social media posts of you know,
he had lots of cousins and family, etc. That had
been reaching out to him saying, hey, I haven't.

Speaker 3 (32:14):
Heard from you in a while.

Speaker 2 (32:15):
He seemed to have gone missing, you know, check in,
let us know that you're okay. And apparently those calls
were not being received or returned. And yeah, missing persons,
you know, report by mom before the holidays. That's a
real tell just in terms of where he's getting radicalized
or when this transition perhaps happened. Our body is giving
us the rundown on all things manifestos, both with Luigi

(32:38):
Mangione and with Ted Kaczinski, the You and Obomber, they
have some crossover. We also have some developing headlines for
the Night Courtney. You want to fill us in.

Speaker 5 (32:47):
Yeah, So there's new leads in the Travis Decker man
hunt and that has been prompting massive searches near the
Pacific Crest Trail.

Speaker 3 (32:55):
Without going into any gory.

Speaker 5 (32:57):
Details because this is a horrific crime, police in central
Washington state are still looking for thirty two year old Decker.
He's a man who they allege killed his three young
daughters and left them near a campground. This happened Monday,
May second. Now, the National Guard has been deployed in
this huge manhunt for Decker. He is in this moment

(33:18):
homeless and had searched quote how to relocate to Canada
just days before the girls went missing and he went missing.
The sheriff's office just said they're bringing in the federal
authorities to give them, give the sheriffs a break. They
have been working exhaustively. Now the sheriff, Yeah, they maintained
the lead investigation for the deaths, but the federal government

(33:43):
is heading up the search.

Speaker 4 (33:44):
And that makes sense.

Speaker 3 (33:46):
Yeah, I mean, on all hands on deck, just we
need to find.

Speaker 4 (33:50):
Have you seen the area? Have you looked at the
area in that it is really wooded, right, it seems
like it's like a forest, and I'm sure some of
it is like park lands and whatnot. So bringing in
the federal authorities to me, makes all the sense in
the world, especially if they possibly think he might have,

(34:12):
you know, snuck over to Canada. Right.

Speaker 2 (34:14):
It seems like he probably snuck over to Canada, or
at least that's what he kind of thinking to believe
that's what his searches would suggest. He was apparently googling
and searching ways to you know, pick up and start
anew in Canada, which is of course very close to
the border there. So it is also implied that this
wasn't just a one off event in the moment that

(34:34):
he was and not to lose too much time on
this because it's so incredibly sad, but you know, according
to his Google searches and authorities for suggesting that he
was in fact planning this event and planning a getaway
potentially to Canada, so they have their work cut out
for them. Yeah, he is armed and dangerous potentially.

Speaker 5 (34:52):
He absolutely, he is considered dangerous police in this moment
don't know if he's armed, but he also is really
well equipped to survive in those great wilderness you were
speaking about body. He has training, he went to survival school.

Speaker 3 (35:06):
Yeah.

Speaker 5 (35:06):
Anyone with any information is urged to call the nearest
US Marshall's office. The communications center's number is one eight
hundred three three six zero one zero two, and you
can also submit a tip to the I'm pronouncing it wrong,
Chilan County Sheriff's Office. I think you're saying it right, okay,

(35:26):
And we're going to put that link on our socials.
And there's been more than five hundred tips from the
public so far, and there is an award of twenty
thousand dollars.

Speaker 3 (35:37):
Let's get this man found. Yeah, houdible tips.

Speaker 2 (35:40):
And as a reminder too, he has some you know
health stuff. You know, he was supposed to be on medication.
We don't know if he was or if he is,
and that could make somebody very dangerous. So this is
a great opportunity for all of us to a put
our hearts out to the family and.

Speaker 3 (35:56):
Mom who lost so much.

Speaker 2 (35:58):
And then also if you see or have any information,
definitely reach out.

Speaker 3 (36:03):
We'll be right back.

Speaker 2 (36:04):
We have more true crime coming up where we're talking
true crime all the time. I'm here in some manifesto
chatter coming up next day with us. These manifestos are
going to have a deep dive. So body, I hope

(36:26):
you are. You're excited and ready because first we have
to go to Justin and Blake.

Speaker 3 (36:31):
I don't know if I can wait. Yeah, I know.

Speaker 2 (36:33):
It's like a very quick update because we're shocked. I
was dumbfounded today when the news broke that. You know,
we talked about this earlier, you know, late last week,
that Justin Baldoni and Blake Lively case. If you haven't
been following it. It centers around that film. It ends
with us Blake Lively claimed sexual harassment and said that

(36:54):
Justin Baldoni, who was also the director and partners in
the studio making the movie, that he not only sexually
harassed her and made her feel uncomfortable, but created sort
of an uncomfortable work environment. She put a civil lawsuit together,
and then that civil lawsuit was reported upon in the
New York Times famously and that has snowballed into the

(37:15):
biggest lawsuit of all time. Justin Baldoni and his partner
again Justin's the director of the movie and his partner
at Wayfarer, who was also a very wealthy man. They
countersued Blake Lively very very quickly for four hundred million
dollars plus another to the New York Times. And really
their whole thing was defamation, right, So at its core

(37:38):
they felt that Blake Lively's civil complaint, which is very real,
and you know, he not only disputed that in the press,
but he also believed this is again Justin Baldoni is
the he that basically it was a smear campaign that
excerpts from this were being released to the press or
released to the New York Times even and therefore it

(38:00):
making Justin look very, very bad, even though he had
receipts to kind of combat her harassment suit, and that
he was basically retaliating because she had made these complaints
against him. So I don't know, if you did a
poll with any of us a week ago, it looked
like Justin Baldoni and the way for our team were
coming in for the win, essentially because Blake Lively and

(38:20):
her husband, Ryan Reynolds, who we've always been huge fans of,
have gotten a ton of bad press, and it was
seeming like the public at least was really pro Justin.
And you never know what happens until the judge makes
the decision. So today the decision was made, and it's
a huge win for Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds their harassment.

(38:44):
Her harassment civil lawsuit will still be heard by the
judge and that will be in March of twenty twenty six,
but the rest of it a lot of money don drain.

Speaker 3 (38:54):
The judge did.

Speaker 4 (38:55):
Say that Baldoni could amend and refine file his counterclaims,
but he has to do so by June twenty third.
So here's here's the thing. And I would love to
talk to somebody with actual legal knowledge because I don't
have any right. Yes, but my understanding is is that
the judge is saying, listen, Valdoni, you counterclaimed with defamation right,

(39:20):
and you can't do that because she's not defaming you.
She filed a legally protected document where she's making allegations.
She's not going on like you know, Entertainment Tonight or
People magazine or Vanity Fair to do interviews in like
slandering you in any fashion. She just filed a document
that she's allowed to file and saying that this happened

(39:43):
while she was working for you. That's legally protected. I
guess the issue is, though, that the New York Times
ran this peace right but before the lawsuit was publicly
accessible on the docket, And I think that's the issue, right,
that's at.

Speaker 3 (39:58):
The root of it.

Speaker 2 (39:58):
And like you know, they're claiming pr people were involved
in a smear campaign, which all sounds very interesting and
sexy and important and scary all at the same time.
But at its core, she was saying this was a
hostile work environment and I felt unsafe and I made
a complaint and that should be protected. And he doesn't
get to just like throw a bunch of resources and.

Speaker 3 (40:20):
Money at it.

Speaker 2 (40:21):
And it really has been this media frenzy. In this case,
it's been just popularity central between the two of them,
and we'll see.

Speaker 5 (40:29):
Well, I mean, I think, honestly, it's really rich that
Baldoni is saying that Blake Lively and her husband Ryan
Reynolds were engaged in a spear campaign since he I don't.
I mean, it's such a fact in my mind. I mean,
his pr There's been so many different correspondents where it's
literally like, yeah, light her up and we're gonna, you know,

(40:50):
turn the tides. And I feel like it's a matter
of fact that Justin Baldoni they were creating a spear
campaign against Blake Lively, that's what they were engaged in.

Speaker 2 (41:00):
It kind of seems that way, right, Well, it's a
lot of money on the line. And by the way,
I think also at its core was that it ends
with us is the film, and that film is based
on a book series by the same name that is
highly regarded. People love it, I love it, And basically
Justin Baldoni and his partner were able to secure the
rights for that and those rights stay with them unless

(41:23):
there is some sort of complaint or something like a
sexual harassment allegation that would therefore put the rights in
jeopardy and give permission to the author to redirect those
rights potentially to Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds for season
two or have That's like a real thing. I mean, again,

(41:45):
this is not my opinion. This is just what's been read,
what I've read and has been said many times.

Speaker 3 (41:51):
So at its core, was this a play.

Speaker 2 (41:53):
To be able to get the rights back and by
filing a sexual harassment lawsuit civilly that really can't be
you know, refuted. It is what it is, right, it's
out there. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Is this just strategy gone badly? Has Blake Lively just
gotten a bad rap? People really have jumped on her,

(42:14):
you know like that really at its core has made.

Speaker 3 (42:17):
Her very unlikable.

Speaker 2 (42:18):
Unlikable and Ryan Reynolds has been dragged into this as well,
and then Taylor Swift. It seems like the Taylor Swift
piece of it that might have been a pileon that
the judge wasn't having and was really essentially saying that
this lawsuit and.

Speaker 3 (42:31):
The new York Times lawsuit was pretty baseless.

Speaker 5 (42:33):
Well, and the judge also, obviously since he threw away
the New York Times, judge was not having that. To
use your words, Stephanie, and the judge's words were the
alleged facts indicate that the Times reviewed the available evidence
and reported, perhaps in a dramatized manner, what it believed
to have happened. The Times has no obvious motive to

(42:54):
favor Lively's version of events, like they were just doing
their job as reporters.

Speaker 3 (43:00):
Yeah, but how did they get it?

Speaker 2 (43:01):
How did they get it in the first place. I
guess this is a little I guess it doesn't matter though. Yeah,
somebody has to call us and.

Speaker 4 (43:06):
Tell us the scoop please eight eight eight.

Speaker 3 (43:09):
Three one crime. I got it, you didn't you.

Speaker 2 (43:12):
Got it to no frog boiling right now. I would
love to do a little bit of a deep dive
into just the idea of what a smear campaign even is.
That sounds so diabolical and like only in Hollywood or
fancy celebrities could actually pull that off. But that was
also a big piece of Blake Lively's side of this.
She felt as though there had been this like onslaught

(43:35):
of bad press, frankly on social media, where people were
reposting interviews of Blake Lively from yesteryear where she appeared
unpleasant or was you know, not so friendly and not
so cozy, or you know, here she is, you know,
promoting a film that is based on domestic violence, and
she's talking about her other businesses that are completely unrelated.

(43:57):
That maybe seemed a little tone deaf at the time,
but she got slammed for it, and she felt as
though Justin Baldoni and his partner were essentially coordinating a
campaign against her and basically hiring people to be posting
all of this nasty stuff. And then it makes you think,
does that actually happen? And I know the answer is yes.

(44:18):
I could hear you all yelling at us right now.
Of course it is.

Speaker 3 (44:22):
But it's terrible. How do you combat that?

Speaker 5 (44:24):
I mean, it's money versus money versus money. But listen,
speaking of bad press, this, I think this is justin.

Speaker 3 (44:32):
It just hit my radar, Jared Rido. I saw this,
Oh my, Jared, Jared Jared.

Speaker 5 (44:40):
So listen, there was an expose. It was just published
in airmail a couple of days ago. This past Saturday,
and it contained interviews with nine different women, all accusing
Jared Ledo of sexual misconduct, many of them saying this
took place while they were still underage. O, so.

Speaker 3 (45:00):
That's the thing.

Speaker 4 (45:00):
Just like again that sounds Jordan Catalano.

Speaker 3 (45:03):
Do you remember myself called life?

Speaker 4 (45:05):
Do you remember that?

Speaker 3 (45:06):
Yeah? I've never seen it.

Speaker 2 (45:08):
Some true confessions so good and true confession is also
a good one, and like, how do we reconcile that.

Speaker 3 (45:14):
Let's just put that aside for let's talk.

Speaker 2 (45:16):
Yeah, let's put that, like even just putting the underage
piece aside. That's horrible and is that I guess this
also it's all about lawyers, right, and the perception of things,
like once that allegation is put into the press, you
really can't take it back. And I think that's scary.
You know. Again, if we're doing expose A's for example,
and we're we're naming victims, that should probably go to

(45:37):
a courtroom, right.

Speaker 5 (45:38):
It seems like absolutely it should, depending upon what you know,
what the claims are. But in this moment, doesn't seem
like anyone is pressing charges. We certainly will be following
to see what develops, and maybe it's nothing or maybe
it is another big court case. I mean, listen, these
allegations they date back almost twenty or more than twenty

(45:59):
years to the early two thousands, and it's been called
a quote open secret that he texted sexual remarks to
teenage models and celebrities like James Gunn Yeah and Dylan
Spouse who have publicly commented on his predatory behavior before.

Speaker 3 (46:18):
Oh oh dear, oh yeah, so this will be I believe.
Here's the thing.

Speaker 4 (46:23):
I automatically believe them, the victim, I do, and I listen,
I love Jared Little not anymore. I love Jared Letto,
not anymore. But I believe them. And I mean, if
it's untrue, that's terrible like that, I that I automatically
believe them, but I can't help that. I do.

Speaker 2 (46:39):
I believe it, of course, and that's why it's out
there right. That's the spirit, and that's the goal. And
I'm just like you. Of course, if a woman comes
forward or a man that's nine, I have been, you know,
violated in some way, you know, of course, that requires
immediate attention. It's just you know, you can't take it back,
and you know, people's lives really do end as a result.

(47:00):
I mean we've seen this, even going back to a
previous story with Ditty, This whole Ditty case broke open
because Cassie vintor, his ex girlfriend, put together a civil
lawsuit knowing that that would actually be public records so
she can put her accounts of these freak offs and
things in a document that can be now released to
the press, which really cracked this case open. And it's

(47:24):
also a workaround so you don't have to be beholden
to your non disclosure agreement that everybody really.

Speaker 3 (47:29):
Has to sign.

Speaker 2 (47:30):
So that's very disappointing to hear, and I'm really sad
to hear it.

Speaker 4 (47:35):
I would I would expect charges to be filed because like,
why would they bring it up otherwise, right.

Speaker 5 (47:40):
And the allegations, I mean, they're they're pretty gnarly. They
include pursuing girls who were under eighteen when he was
in his thirties. There's nudity, there's excuse me being masturbation
in front of young girls without their consent. No, yeah,
it gets it gets really dark, terrible, but listen, stick around.

Speaker 3 (48:02):
We have much more to dig into.

Speaker 4 (48:05):
So body let it rip, Okay, like I've been waiting
still Monday I've been waiting for this moment. This is
like my moment, right, my special interests. Right, So listen,
I love a manifesto And one of the reasons I
like manifestos is I'm super into forensic linguistics, all right,
And forensic linguistics is kind of like within the last

(48:28):
couple of decades really making headway at the FBI to
like find people based on manifestos or letters they write things,
you know, because sometimes killers will write letters. We have
a list of killers that did this, you know, like
Jack the Ripper famously wrote letters to people, the Zodiac Killer. Right,
there's all Kings of Killers, Son of Sam, Charles Manson, BTK,

(48:53):
Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer. So there's this developing
science of forensicallyistics, and I find it really fascinating, specifically
because the things that I focus on when I'm like
doing my sleuthing work is crimes that appear on the Internet,
and internet communication is typically written, right, excuse me. So

(49:14):
I find the idea of forensic linguistics to be super fascinating.
So what is a manifesto. A manifesto is just like
a public statement that explains like what a person or
a group believes in what their intentions are and what
they want to do.

Speaker 3 (49:30):
That's just.

Speaker 4 (49:30):
And anybody can have a manifesto. A company can have
a manifesto an organization like an about page, you know,
that's basically a manifesto. But there's a different kind of
manifesto and it's called targeted violence manifesto. And that was
coined by Julia Kupper, who is a forensic linguistic analysis analyst.

(49:51):
I can't even spot speak right now. I'm so excited,
I am. I'm like so nervous and excited to talk
about my special address. Well, her and Jay Re Maloy,
who's a forensic psychologist, came up with this term targeted
violence manifesto. And that's the kind of manifesto that like
Luigi wrote, like some school shooters like Dylan Roof oh right,

(50:12):
you know, yeah, yeah, the guy in uh what's his name,
Elliott Roger? Oh sorry, yeah, Santa Barbara the in cell.
He gets compared to Brian Coberger quite a bit actually, right.
So the idea is that you know, you get a manifesto,
it's usually many many words that can be dissected and

(50:32):
you know how like you have like regional dialect like
my dad, for instance, he says orange instead of orange
because he's from Pennsylvania, like an area of Pennsylvania. That
that's how they say orange. They say orange.

Speaker 2 (50:44):
Orange, or pop versus soda.

Speaker 4 (50:47):
Right. Like those kinds of things can like determine where
a person lives or where they grew up. Right, So
basically they were looking for or water instead of water.

Speaker 3 (50:59):
Right.

Speaker 4 (51:00):
Basically when they're looking at these manifestos, they're looking for
the water. They're looking for those kinds of things. Well,
one of the reasons I'm interested in manifestos is Luca
from you know, Jonier Kats because all of my communication
with Luca was via writing online and I would have
to find like all of his fake accounts and I

(51:21):
would authenticate them using really layman's terms. I was very
aware of the unibomber and how they caught him, and
I'm going to get into that, and I use those
techniques to find Luca's accounts, and that's how I could
authenticate them. Because he always spelled the same word wrong,
always like he could not spell it, and he used
that word a lot, and the word was probably.

Speaker 3 (51:43):
He would always spell it wrong, and it was a
had hard word.

Speaker 5 (51:46):
Is it almost like so forensic linguistics, is it almost
likening writing to someone's fingerprint.

Speaker 4 (51:55):
Yeah, that's a good way of putting in the court.
I think that's a really Yeah, it's like they're voice.
Everybody has a unique writing voice, you know, like sentence
structure of punctuation. Another thing Luca did was he could
never really get the idea of punctuation. He always did
it very weird and very uniquely. So I was able
to say, okay, this is definitely a lucask account. And

(52:18):
you know I kept these things quiet in our little
group privately, so he didn't know that I was observing
those things, right, Like that's really important. Okay, when it
comes to the unibomber though, do you guys, have you
guys ever heard the the term you can have your
kit you you can't have your cake and eat it too?

Speaker 3 (52:35):
Why not? Yes? Sure of course the frog and the
boiler and it has cake. It's an idiom's test time.

Speaker 4 (52:47):
Well that's how they caught him. Was this this this proverb.
So it's not you can't have your cake and eat
it too. That's not it. We we've been saying it
wrong all this time. It's can't it's suppose used to
be you can't eat your cake and have it too,
because you can't eat it and also possess it at
the same time. Right, once you eat it, it's gone.

(53:07):
So the correct way to say this is you can't
eat your cake and have it too. And what happened
was they the unibomber and he, you know, he mailed
packages to people and technology because he was very against technology.
He thought technology in the Industrial Revolution was disconnecting humans
from other humans. Okay, so he would target like technology executives,

(53:31):
you know, airplanes, things like.

Speaker 3 (53:33):
That body that's so interesting.

Speaker 4 (53:36):
Yeah, so you again, just to recap, you can't have
your cake and eat it too, is how we've been
saying it for years. But the correct way to say
it is you can't eat your cake and have it too.
And a lot of people don't use it, and barely
anybody uses it correctly. Right, So what happened was te
Kozinski wrote like letters to a ton of people, like

(53:58):
for decades, trying to get this manifesto published. Well, finally
the FBI agreed to publish the manifesto and do it
in the Washington Post. And they did it because they
were hoping They were hoping somebody would recognize the ideas
present presented in the manifesto and say, you know that
kind of sounds like my cousin, you know who, that
guy is kind of crazy and you know whatever, Well,

(54:20):
that's not what happened. Well it kind of is kind
of is what happened. So what happened was they published
a manifesto and David Kaczinski, Ted's brother, recognized the ideas,
but specifically recognized that in the manifesto it said as
for the negative consequences of eliminating industrial society, well you

(54:41):
can't eat your cake and have it too.

Speaker 3 (54:43):
And he said this also in a letter to his mother.

Speaker 4 (54:48):
Okay, so that's what really brought So that's what really
brought the unibomber down. Wow, is this other specific phrase,
you can't eat your cake and have it too? And
so what they did was the FBI went started going
through the manifesto and comparing it to letters to David
Kazinsky and of course Ted Kezinki's mother, and the same

(55:10):
set in structure, the same words were used, the same
idioms everything, and also the same ideas. Right because Ted
Kazinski famously lived in that little cabin in Montana. He
had rejected industrial life and he was basically saying, you know,
we are way too, way too dependent on technology. We
got to get basically, we have to get our feet

(55:32):
in the grass. It connect to humanity, wasn't wasn't Ted
Kaczinsky did. Did the forensic linguistic experts Were they also
looking at his academic work because he wasn't academic he was, Yes, absolutely,
he was a professor of math like he was. This
guy was a brilliant guy. He went to Harvard and

(55:52):
he was a professor at Berkeley. I mean, he wasn't
no slouch. And unfortunately the ideas presented in his manifesto
are completely discredited because he killed so many innocent people.
And you know, the message gets lost, right, and the
message is, you know, again, the industry of revolution has
really disconnected us from being human. In fact, it's very

(56:14):
interesting because he warned us of all this technology right
well recently AI Right, everybody's using it.

Speaker 3 (56:22):
Everybody using it?

Speaker 4 (56:23):
Did you guys know that they do all these safety
checks on AI? Okay, And recently a recent safety test
was conducted by a company named Paliside Research, and they
told AI complete all these one of the models, complete
all these assignments, and then when you're done, shut down.
AI fought back. It said no, it said no, and

(56:46):
it would not shut down. And this is the kind
of thing that Ted Kaczinski would literally freak out about.
I mean, he's gone now, he's passed away. Well, these
are the things that he kind of warned us about. Yeah, AI,
AI save us, So what are we going to do?

Speaker 2 (57:01):
Like, that's very harrowing thought. I feel like I've seen
that in a scary movie. That's very I don't even
know the movie top of head.

Speaker 5 (57:07):
It's like I feel like we're in a nineteen eighties
sci fi in Space Invaders.

Speaker 3 (57:13):
The guy the.

Speaker 4 (57:13):
Diet paliside Research, his name is Jeffrey Lattish. He's just
as like a little bit of comfort. He said, it's
great that we're seeing warning signs before the system becomes
so powerful that we can't control them.

Speaker 3 (57:25):
I don't know if that's reassuring or no.

Speaker 2 (57:28):
But it is a good little gut check. And it's
nice that they forget they're doing these safety checks. But
I guess that's the genies, Like not in the bottle
any longer, Right, it's here, It's potentially here to stay.
Who's controlling what?

Speaker 5 (57:39):
I guess it's well, it begs the question of the
testing and who you know, who is doing that, because
what is your intention?

Speaker 3 (57:48):
Is it good or evil? And oh it just came
to me war games is.

Speaker 4 (57:56):
That's like a perfect in cancer encapsulation of Ted Kaczynski's fear.
You know, we all of our decision making, specifically decision making.
He was terrified that decision making was going to be
left up to machines and not people. And look at
AI is doing that for us, right. AI is making
decisions on healthcare famously with United Healthcare, is making decisions

(58:17):
on moderation, on social media.

Speaker 3 (58:19):
It's doing it's.

Speaker 4 (58:20):
Making a lot of decisions so humans and to make Yeah, yeah,
so I mean, listen, he was absolutely a horrible person.
He killed He killed three people and injured countless others,
and he terrified the nation by using the postal service,
the one thing that we trust, right, you put a
stamp on a letter, you trust it's going to get
to the person. It's a very trusted thing. And he

(58:40):
messed with that and ruined you know, the he ruined
his message.

Speaker 5 (58:44):
Body thank you for jumping my IQ up a couple
of points tonight that was so fascinating.

Speaker 3 (58:50):
Stick around.

Speaker 5 (58:51):
We've got so much more to dig in missing person Monday.
We need you to help us out. And we've got
more on the courtroom, players in the care Karon Reid retrial.
That and more true crime tonight. We're talking true crime
all the time.

Speaker 2 (59:17):
So yeah, Karen Reid Courtney, where should we continue unpacking this?

Speaker 5 (59:21):
Okay, there is so much, especially with such a short
amount of time. Whether it's tomorrow or the end of
this week, that's when it ends. But listen, the mistrial.
The first trial ended on July one, twenty twenty four,
and that was after twenty seven hours of deliberation and
being starkly.

Speaker 3 (59:41):
Divided with the jurors.

Speaker 5 (59:44):
So that's less than one year ago that this happened,
and the jury unanimously found Karen Reid not guilty of
second degree murder and leaving the scene of a personal injury. However,
they hung they could not come to an agreement the
charge of manslaughter while operating under the influence.

Speaker 3 (01:00:04):
So that's where it's. Yeah, that's where it ended.

Speaker 2 (01:00:07):
I was going to say one edition after that, particular
after Karen Reid's first trial there were some jurors that
came out and spoke to the press after the you know,
hung jury occurred, and they claimed that the jury was
unanimous in two of the three charges, not all of them,
thus the hung jury, but on two counts they were unanimous.

(01:00:31):
And then of course Karen Reid's defense attorney was like,
that seems like foul ball if those two charges are
off the table. Otherwise it's like double jeopardy. And then
the judge was like, that's not how it works and
basically shut that down. But just some contexts as we
enter into this you know, recap of this current.

Speaker 4 (01:00:50):
Trial, could she get another miss trial?

Speaker 3 (01:00:52):
What a great question.

Speaker 5 (01:00:53):
I don't know why not. There's not I mean, if
the jury hangs again, if they can't come.

Speaker 2 (01:00:59):
To this, could you guysn't have much time. I mean
you say a year, and it does seem like not
a very long time ago, but a year. Can you
imagine if you're in this scenario, this pressure cooker, you're
the frog and the boil for an entire year. That's intense,
Like even right now, knowing full well that the defense
might rest or that you know, these jurors that you've

(01:01:19):
been staring at for weeks now making eye contact with
that they are going to decide your fate.

Speaker 3 (01:01:25):
Do they like you? Do they not like you?

Speaker 2 (01:01:27):
Are they compelled? Are they not compelled? You know there's
so much talk about lexuses and you know how the
car backed up, and you know engineering chatter. Is it
too much or you know, is it just enough? Idilocks,
goldilocks exactly well. And there have been some adjustments between

(01:01:48):
the first trial and this trial.

Speaker 5 (01:01:50):
I guess we all live and learn. So there are
fewer witnesses this time on both sides, and they're trimming
if they want to tighten their narrative they saw how
it played out, and also to avoid jury fatigue, so
for example, there are fewer first responders and experts and
having sat through some trials, and Stephanie most memorably was

(01:02:12):
in piked in Ohio, which.

Speaker 3 (01:02:14):
Another manifesto by the way, speaking another time next Monday.

Speaker 5 (01:02:21):
But in that case, you know, the first responders really
are there to set and say, okay, a body existed here,
and if you have sort of seven of them, so
you know there are much some people on the stand.
And then also there have been some changes in the
legal teams, so the prosecutor in the first trial was

(01:02:43):
Assistant District Attorney Adam Lally, but now the retrial has
been led by special Prosecutor Hank Brennan.

Speaker 3 (01:02:52):
Excuse me, I have marbles. Isn't he a guy that
prosecuted like Whitey Bulger. That's exactly right. Yeah, that's exactly right.

Speaker 5 (01:03:00):
And then on the defense side, this is a kick
to me. I don't know how this how this detail
escaped me. But an attorney named Victoria George. She actually
served as an alternate juror in the first trial of
Karen Reid and was then added to the defense team,

(01:03:21):
So right, I didn't know this, to be very clear,
As an alternate she did not participate in the deliberations,
but her perspective. Can you imagine how much that could
help defense better understand the juror's perspective having literally sat
in that chair.

Speaker 4 (01:03:41):
But she didn't participate in deliberations, so she doesn't know
what they were talking about.

Speaker 3 (01:03:45):
That's correct.

Speaker 5 (01:03:46):
But she did sit as an alternate juror, so she
saw the entire thing play out.

Speaker 4 (01:03:53):
Oh, I didn't know that. I really didn't, And.

Speaker 2 (01:03:55):
That really is some inside sourcing, right, So if ever
you wanted to have some who knows the beehive. You
would want that person that's coming in as an alternate
to be on your team.

Speaker 3 (01:04:06):
Yeah, that's kind of astounding. Yeah, interesting.

Speaker 5 (01:04:09):
And then a consistency is Judge Beverly Cannon, and she's
still presiding over the case, which is common to keep
the same judge, but she was. The defense actually tried
to have her recuse herself. This was in July twenty

(01:04:29):
twenty three. At the first trial. The defense claimed that
she was impartial, and their argument was that online rumors
and there was a pattern of bias in her rulings
that might have led to the public doubting her fairness.

Speaker 2 (01:04:45):
She gives the best reactions, Honestly, it is a stage
to be seen. If you haven't been watching along for
any of it. It's like that inside the courtroom stuff,
you know, she does. It's a show, right, You get
to know all of the players by sitting there whole time.

Speaker 3 (01:05:00):
Right, Yeah, she she really does.

Speaker 5 (01:05:03):
She seems like the epitome of just a cool, collected,
in charge judge.

Speaker 4 (01:05:10):
Everybody calls her antbev.

Speaker 2 (01:05:11):
Yeah, she has sort of an antbev vibe, right, you know,
she does sort of like she does make like facial
expressions and stuff that you know, have gotten a lot
of attention.

Speaker 3 (01:05:20):
Yeah, that's fair.

Speaker 5 (01:05:22):
And now we're actually going to go into a missing
person's case. What Yes, and we're trying to make missing
persons Monday.

Speaker 3 (01:05:33):
Listen.

Speaker 5 (01:05:34):
There's so many people who do go missing. I mean,
what is it, six hundred thousand. Yeah, their stats are
pretty staggering every year. And we figure, you know, if
we have the airtime, let's do whatever good we can,
you know, to try and help get them found. Yeah,

(01:05:54):
so this is a sad story. Christine Walters is twenty
three years old at the time when she vanished back
in November of two thousand and eight, and this is
when she was visiting Humboldt County, California. And I don't
know if either of you have been, but it's really
sort of you call it beautiful, it's wonderful.

Speaker 3 (01:06:13):
It's beautiful out there.

Speaker 5 (01:06:15):
Christine was last seen in Eureka, California, and after being
found naked and bleeding on a stranger's doorstep. Oh god, yeah,
what a vulnerable state. At the time, she said that
demons were after her and that she had been running
naked through the forest for many hours. So police did
the right thing and took her to a hospital, but

(01:06:37):
she was released only four hours later. So at that time,
her mother sent paperwork to help Christine Walters get a
temporary ID to come back home to Wisconsin. She picked
up the paperwork from a local copy shop, and that
is the last place she was ever seen.

Speaker 4 (01:06:58):
Oh my goodness. I wonder if she ever got her
I'd probably not.

Speaker 5 (01:07:02):
I don't know, nobody, I mean, in this moment, without
a trace, in this moment, nobody knows well.

Speaker 4 (01:07:08):
I mean, she was clearly exhibiting distress signals, right, Like
she was thinking demons were chasing her, and she was
naked and bloody. Right, there's something going on, right, I
mean clearly.

Speaker 5 (01:07:21):
Absolutely, And prior to her disappearance, she was exhibiting signs
of paranoia. And she was also discovered to be part
of a Green Life Evolution cult, which yeah, it's yeah. Now,
no suspects from the cult have been named, and it

(01:07:43):
appears it was disbanded two years after Christine's disappearance. But
something notable if that triggers anything.

Speaker 3 (01:07:53):
In anyone's you know mind.

Speaker 5 (01:07:55):
Right, And people believe she may have fallen victim to
foul play. But really who knows, so her family wants
her back. Christine would now be forty years old. She
also goes by the names of Star Airy Star and
Star Meadow. She is five foot two, about one hundred

(01:08:16):
and fifteen pounds back in two thousand and eight, and
she does have a bluish green, bluish green eyes, strawberry
blonde hair, and a large green and purple iris tattoo
on her on the back of her neck and a
butterfly on her hip.

Speaker 4 (01:08:34):
So that tattoo is very important to know, you know,
because that's not really something that you can change you
very easily, right, Like, it's not like a hairstyle or
you know, what she was wearing. The tattoo is important.
I'm kind of wonder about this cult now, you said
cult in my ears Burke done, just like everybody just
got excited about the they did it answer here. They
disbanded two years after she went, she disappeared. I wonder

(01:08:56):
how long they were active.

Speaker 3 (01:08:58):
I'm not sure. So I'd never heard this still reading.

Speaker 5 (01:09:01):
Yeah, So it's the Green Life Evolution and they're an
environmental spiritualist group and they're known for shamanistic rituals ayahuasca
tea closing ceremonies, and which actually makes sense that up
in the area where she was last seen sort of,
the Humboldt area is very can be very spiritual, and

(01:09:26):
you know a lot of crystals going on there well, looking.

Speaker 2 (01:09:29):
For missing persons cases. It's such a big piece of
even what we're doing here, and you know, every night,
this is a way to get the word out. And
you know, we've seen the success of amber alerts and
crowdsourcing for information, specifically where it comes to a missing person.
So if you do have any information, please please reach
out to us. We'll make sure it gets to the

(01:09:50):
right place. Or if you're missing somebody, you know, reach
out to us too. You know, we are, you know,
hopefully here to to create a swell so we can
bring them home.

Speaker 4 (01:10:00):
Yeah, definitely, I'm I'm you guys know that I'm really
into the missing a murdered indigenous movement. It's like all
we think about, yeah, yeah, and so I'm very interested
in the missing person's cases, you know, all of course obviously,
but particularly when it comes to disadvantage communities because they
just don't get enough attention.

Speaker 3 (01:10:17):
I sure don't.

Speaker 5 (01:10:18):
They don't get enough attention and the missing person, like,
the likelihood is so much higher if you're.

Speaker 3 (01:10:24):
A Native American woman. Where else do we go from here?

Speaker 2 (01:10:28):
I feel like there's cases this week that we're going
to be tracking very very closely, Karen Reid, we all
have to be on major watch for that. It could
be this week that we might get a decision.

Speaker 3 (01:10:39):
Who knows. So we again, we want to.

Speaker 2 (01:10:41):
Hear what you're thinking, So make sure you reach out
eight eight eight three one crime and you know court.
Where should we begin?

Speaker 5 (01:10:47):
Well, I there's a talk back that I want to
get right into because my favorite part, and I think
yours is hearing hearing from others, So let's play it.

Speaker 7 (01:10:57):
Hey guys, my name is Julie so So I used
to be such a huge fan of Diddy and I
still like his music, but I feel really conflicted about
it given all these terrible things that are coming out,
And I'm just so curious what your take is on
fans that still admire his music even though they completely
hate all the actions that are coming to life.

Speaker 3 (01:11:17):
Such a good question. That's a loaded one.

Speaker 4 (01:11:19):
You know, we just kind of experienced that when we
were talking about Jared Letto, you know, like, oh not
Jared Letto.

Speaker 3 (01:11:26):
You know, like it's so hard.

Speaker 4 (01:11:29):
My girlfriend is she's very into Kanye, like loves Kanye,
and you know, given all the things that he's been
tweeting and whatnot and what not, She's like, I just
have to cut him off. I can't be a fan
of Kanye anymore. Yeah, And I kind of feel the
same way about Ditty. I do, and listen, I'm a
fan of Ditty's music too, But you know, I kind
of dealt with this one. Michael Jackson. You know, I

(01:11:50):
was like, oh my god, what am I going to do?
And you just kind of have to Okay, I'm not
supporting that any That's how I am. I'm very black
and white. Even if Diddy he is found not guilty,
the allegations made toward him and corroborated by like what
I believe to be credible evidence in people, some of
it is true, and I'm just not in a position

(01:12:12):
that I want to support him in any way.

Speaker 2 (01:12:14):
And even just seeing that violent video of him abusing
Cassie Ventur at the end, I mean, or at that hotel,
that alone makes it kind of a game over. But
it's a really fair question, it is, And we were
all ditty fans back in the day, and that is
so done for me too. I think I'm probably the
opposite of you, who's very black and white. I live
in the gray a lot, and you know, try to

(01:12:36):
give the benefit of the doubt, but there's no benefit
and that this is a violent offender who has very
little regard for.

Speaker 3 (01:12:43):
Women or frankly anybody around him.

Speaker 5 (01:12:46):
Yeah, if what's being said in court is true, I
kind of view him as Michael vick Ooh you guys,
remember he was an NFL football player who then was
charged of having dog fighting and just the most hideous,
horrendous abuse possible. And in that instance, you know, I

(01:13:06):
don't care how fast and far someone can run. I
think they should be not applauded at all. I mean,
I think they should be put in a cage.

Speaker 2 (01:13:15):
Sometimes I worry too, because we do talk so much
about these cases or the people that are on trial.
Number one, I hate cancel culture first and foremost, I
just do. I think we all have to give it's
a fit of the doubt a bit, but we can't
escape what we've been seeing and what we've actually seen
as hardcore evidence, because oof, the two just don't meet

(01:13:38):
the public life and the private life. They have to
be in some sort of alignment. Well, we're going to
have to continue the Diddy coverage tomorrow obviously, you know,
big day of testimony. It's set to be explosive of
all Jane continuing, Jane is not continuing. They have a
new stretch, and we're going to also hear you know,
he's still craven that mistrial. And then of course Karen Reid,
you know, this could be the week that the defense

(01:14:00):
guests and the jury goes into deliberation last time, as
Courtney just shared, you know, twenty seven hours, that's pretty quick.
We definitely want to hear your opinions, so make sure
you join us tomorrow. We're here Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday,
two hours live. This is True Crime Tonight where we
talk true crime all the time.

Speaker 3 (01:14:19):
Thank you for being with us. Good night, Join us
Sundays too. Sundays