Charlie Kirk Court Fight, Delphi Appeal, and the Hollywood Fire Devil

A new development in the Delphi murders case as convicted killer Richard Allen is granted an appeal hearing. We break down the controversial courtroom battle in the accused Charlie Kirk assassination case, the renewed backlash surrounding convicted killer Mackenzie Shirilla after a new Netflix documentary, and the latest in the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie. Legendary arson investigator Ed Nordskog joins us to unpack the Palisades Fire investigation and the terrifying “Hollywood Fire Devil” serial arson spree that set Los Angeles ablaze. 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 on iHeartRadio. We're talking true
crime all the time. I'm Stephanie Leidecker and I'm here
with Courtney Armstrong and body Move in and listen, everybody.
It is Tuesday, May nineteenth, and we have a stack
knight of headlines. Accused Charlie Kirk assassin Tyler Robinson had
a very contentious day in court today. Also, have you

(00:40):
guys seen the documentary called The Crash on Netflix?

Speaker 3 (00:43):
I keep hearing about it, but no, Stephanie, I haven't.

Speaker 2 (00:46):
It's everywhere. Social media has blown up about this case.
It's highly controversial. If you haven't seen it, it's okay
because we're going to unpack the true story behind it.

Speaker 3 (00:56):
Also, there's a small update on the.

Speaker 2 (00:58):
Delphi murders and finally, fired death scene investigator Ed Nordskog
joins us to discuss the mindset of an arsonist.

Speaker 3 (01:07):
And it's ironic, I have to say, because here in
Los Angeles today we are having some fires up in
Seami Valley in Los Angeles, New Yoro thousand and a.

Speaker 4 (01:17):
Halfs very terrible.

Speaker 3 (01:18):
I saw that. That's so scary. Wishing everybody well.

Speaker 2 (01:21):
But first, Courtney, what is happening with Tyler Robinson. This
was a huge explosive day in court.

Speaker 3 (01:27):
So the twenty two year old Robinson, he is the
one accused of fatally shooting Charlie Kirk, who of course
was Turning Point USA founder. This happened back in September
of last year at the Utah Valley University and we
remember it because most of us saw it with or
without wanting to. So the defendant, he's been charged with

(01:47):
aggravated murder, and interestingly, he hasn't answered a plea yet.
Prosecutors have said they do indeed intend to seek the
death penalty if he's convicted. And during a hearing today
the defense and prosecution they were arguing about whether an
upcoming preliminary hearing in July should be open to the

(02:09):
public and the media, and that kind of hearing is
where prosecutors establish probable cause, so they explain a lot
of what their evidence is. Additionally, defence the defense moved
to sanction the Utah County Attorney's Office for alleged rule
violations and improper out of court statements.

Speaker 5 (02:31):
What do you think.

Speaker 4 (02:33):
I saw the armored truck arriving. There was like this
big tank almost I want to s major pulling up
to the courthouse with him in it. I was like,
Oh my gosh, Like the security that they have for
this these hearings is kind of like unseen before in
my opinion, What.

Speaker 2 (02:53):
Do you make of the optics of that? Is that
something to be considered. I mean, fast says when a
person who has not yet been convicted enters the courtroom,
we learned in the Luigi Mangioni case, is a big deal,
right sometimes if it's a really big, you know, spectacle,
that of course right there could taint to Jerry Pool

(03:13):
and the live coverage piece of it. I'm curious what
do you guys think about that. I think it should
be live. I think it should do to coverage.

Speaker 4 (03:20):
Especially the family of Charlie Kirk wanted to be on display.
I think that obviously the family should be respected in
that sense. And I you know, I've always been a
big proponent of you know, things being out in the open, transparency,
you know things shouldn't be done in the dark, so
to speak. So I definitely think it should be a

(03:41):
public What about you, guys.

Speaker 3 (03:43):
Well, I got to say because I before today's hearing,
I was one hundred percent, and I do think that
the trial itself should be covered with cameras. As you
said to the you know, so there's the public can
see what's actually happening. I thought the defense made a
really good point, though not only of course, they argued

(04:05):
that the live media coverage will generate adverse publicity for
their defendant. Understood, however, this is what stands out the
defense attorney Stacey Visser. She noted that preliminary hearings it
relies on what they call reliable hearsay and evidence that
eventually might be ruled in admissible at a trial, which

(04:26):
therefore could jeopardize the defendant's right to a fair trial.
I think that's fair.

Speaker 4 (04:31):
I mean, I don't need to see the prelim, you
know what I mean need I don't need to see
a grand jury, obviously, I don't need to see a prelim.
I do think the trial itself should be public, but
I'd be totally okay if the prelum was closed.

Speaker 3 (04:46):
I'm with you on this one completely.

Speaker 4 (04:47):
And by the way, trials should be live.

Speaker 2 (04:50):
Because it's going to become increasingly more difficult to hear coverage,
you know. I think we're entering a time as AI
enters the equation on social media, how things are being
covered outside of the courtroom is really it sometimes can
be hard to track, and let's be honest, courtrooms are
filled with emotion and nuance and the layers of being

(05:12):
there is hard to it's hard to ignore, and I
think people just generally seeing that and can interpret it fully.
I think then people won't feel confused all the time.

Speaker 3 (05:24):
I think that's a fair point. Yeah, and that's a
lot of the prosecution's argument, you know, both that the
public and the media do have a constitutional right to
open proceedings for all the reasons you just said, Stephanie,
and this one particularly in this case. The deputy County

(05:44):
Attorney Chad Grunander, so he emphasized that these open hearings
are vital to counter online conspiracy theories that do surround
this case. I think more than anything that comes to
my memory. Wow, Yes, I think you're probably well. I
think there's been conspiracies in every case. I just feel
like the conspiracies in this one are so big, you know,

(06:08):
and being right and being said by people with big microphones, right,
and so I think that I think that the transparency
is going to be important. However, I also think that
no matter what kind of transparency has shown, the conspiracies
are still going to run wilds.

Speaker 2 (06:29):
I would imagine that would lower that a little little bit,
but it is so true this particular case. I mean, obviously,
for good reason, we watch somebody lose their life. This
is somebody's you know, husband, and he's a father. That
was you know, a terrible, terrible thing. But it has
also become so divisive and political as well. So yeah,

(06:50):
I don't know the spectacle of it all. Though with
cameras outside of the courthouse, I don't know what the
workaround is on that.

Speaker 3 (07:00):
I'm not sure about that. But well, the prosecution had
one more argument point, and that was to maintain an
open courtroom, but implement that they referred to it as
just a middle ground, and to restrict the public and
media from viewing or copying or handling sensitive exhibits. And
that includes two videos of the victim, Charlie Kirk's killing,

(07:25):
they're both making really reasoned arguments. I have to say,
but in this case, for the prelim, I do go
with the defense and have that closed, because if evidence
is said, that is then an admissible that that bell
is wrong.

Speaker 2 (07:43):
Which is why sometimes people do want that to be
open and visible for that very reason.

Speaker 4 (07:49):
It's probably a strategy.

Speaker 6 (07:51):
Oops.

Speaker 2 (07:52):
Sorry, I want me to say that, you know, and
now boom, it's out there. You can't put it back
in a bottle. So that is something to keep very safe.

Speaker 3 (08:03):
So we'll see, this will be rolled on. There was
one other big sort of argument today, and that was
a request for sanctions against the prosecution. So Richard Novak,
he's the defense attorney, and he's now accused one of
the prosecutors, Christopher Ballard, of contempt of court, and he
cited a Fox and Friend's appearance where Ballard went on

(08:27):
he discussed forensic evidence as well as the defendant, Tyler
Robinson's guilt. So that seems very off color and inappropriate
to me. I don't know what do you guys think.

Speaker 4 (08:41):
I mean, you know, I mean we have seen prosecutors
give press conferences before. I mean, we just recently saw
the prosecutor in Los Angeles give a press conference about
David's guilt. I mean, he wasn't sitting down with Fox
and Friends, but he was giving a press conference Bill
Thompson in Idaho. You know, when Brian Coberger was arrested.
We learned some things about that. I don't necessarily think

(09:04):
that that is prejudicial. Necessarily, I think I would be
kind of more talking about, you know, the statements like
from the president and stuff. You know, that would be
more my thing. But you can't really sanction the President
of the United States in court, you know, at the
state level. So maybe that's probably why they didn't. But

(09:24):
I don't necessarily think that's super sanctionable. But that's just
my opinion. I don't disagree.

Speaker 3 (09:30):
Yeah, so we'll see, we'll see what the judge comes down.
So there wasn't an there wasn't a ruling today, But
these are all the main arguments that played out, and
the judge, Tony Graff Junior, he's taking the arguments under
advisement and he's going to issue his decision. It's going
to be during a virtual hearing on June first, so

(09:54):
that is coming right up. And then after that the defendants.
You will also be there virtually and then it will
be followed by an in person hearing on June twelfth.

Speaker 4 (10:04):
That's going to be very interesting that, you know, and
the bullet is still kind of a thing that the
Deputy County Attorney Ryan McBride and the prosecutor Christopher Ballat
argued that you know, this bullet framing how they said
the bullet doesn't you know, match and whatnot, that that
was a big problem today because the bullet. They said

(10:27):
that the it admitted crucial content right context. The ATF
report did not exclude the bullet. It simply could not
decisively include it, as you know, it had shattered. So
that's going to be interesting. This is true crime tonight.
We're on iHeartRadio. We talked true crime all the time.
What do you guys think Should this trial be open

(10:47):
to the public and televised for all to sea or
is it better for the country and the family that
this all be done behind doors? Give us a call,
let us know, let's go to a talk.

Speaker 7 (10:57):
Back regarding the death as a ladies overboard in the boat,
what about their cell phones when she fell over? Didn't
have a phone that he could make a phone call
off that boat? Or can't they track the previous locations
of the phones and stuff to determine how accurate the
story is. I believe her phone would turn off once
it hit the water. I don't know.

Speaker 4 (11:18):
Totally A great point, great question. Brian Hooker said that
his cell phone, because that was like the first thing
I think all of us thought of. Why didn't he
call somebody?

Speaker 3 (11:28):
Right?

Speaker 4 (11:29):
He says that his self, we didn't have cell service.
He said, it only works via Wi Fi okay, and
he doesn't have a signal because he's not near the
boat or near a Wi Fi signal, so he had
no way to call now. Lynette's daughter said that her
mom carried her phone with her all the time, all
the time.

Speaker 2 (11:49):
Of course, she's a functioning person in the world. She's
not going to get on a boat run about any
form of communication with a man who she was already
like if something happens to me, you know who, and
is basically pointing at his picture without anybody knowing, you know,
she was giving some signals. This is unbelievable and it's
such a great point. I mean, the basics where maybe

(12:12):
the phone fell out of her pocket, if this in
fact happened, which let's assume it did, because he claims
his innocence. But if in fact that did happen, of
course she had the key to the boat, wherein her
phone probably fell in the water as well.

Speaker 3 (12:27):
Can't we contrue? You know, get that and that's a
pro timestamp.

Speaker 4 (12:31):
Well we know too that when they searched the boat
they took like some kind of cellular devices or cellular
equipment of some kind. It was mentioned in a couple
of different reports that they had taken some electronic equipment
that was related to cell service or I can't remember
the exact verbage understood that it was.

Speaker 3 (12:50):
Something along those lines.

Speaker 4 (12:52):
So yeah, I don't know, but yeah, Brian Hooker is like, oh,
my cell phone doesn't work without a Wi Fi.

Speaker 3 (12:57):
Which I gave.

Speaker 4 (12:58):
If you don't have cell service and you make all
your calls or Wi Fi, okay, fine, but that's weird.
That's a little convenient to me, right.

Speaker 3 (13:07):
Is it something about being in another country or no.

Speaker 2 (13:11):
I don't know why I would you not have your
phone if you're in another country and just going to
get on a boat and open water without any form
of communication. She was obviously being very careful if she
had the key to the boat in her pocket.

Speaker 3 (13:25):
My cell phone works down there. No, my cell phone
for sure wouldn't work.

Speaker 2 (13:30):
And by the way, if it were me, you'd all
roll your eyes because she didn't have her phone. Yes,
but I feel like she would have had her phone.

Speaker 6 (13:38):
I feel, and that's what I happened. I don't think
it's odd to have your phone overseas and not not working.
Like when you do dock back in your natural country
or wherever you're from, your service comes back on. So
to me, it's not odd that you would have a
phone that only works that didn't work in that area.

Speaker 4 (13:55):
And maybe it's that kind of situation where you know
that he didn't have like the right sim car for
the country he's in or something, and that's why it
only works via Wi Fi.

Speaker 3 (14:05):
But I don't even know if that.

Speaker 4 (14:08):
If that's a thing, well, and then she's just the
time stamp.

Speaker 2 (14:11):
It's less about him being able to communicate and get help, right,
It's more about just the actual pin of Okay, that
was the last time she was, you know, likely nearby.
You know, if he was trying to stage something, would
it have been appropriate to even toss it over If
this was something that was you know, thought through beforehand, which, man,

(14:34):
I hope that's not the case.

Speaker 3 (14:36):
Let's assume that's not.

Speaker 4 (14:38):
It kind of feels like it is a little bit.
It kind of feels like it is the case a
little bit, especially with the bartender.

Speaker 6 (14:44):
Right, every time we talk about it, I feel that
way more and more. Like at one point I was like,
poor mister hooker, why are they all going after him?
And now sure, huh, I'm changing too.

Speaker 4 (14:54):
Well, they've had the boat for a hot minute too.
Now they might have found something by it. I mean
maybe by now, right, it's getting prosper that hasn't been arrested,
So maybe there's some true to his innocence, and let's hope.
So let's hopefully you know that he is innocent, because
you know, you don't want anybody to hurt their wife much, brother,
you know. Anyway, we'll stay updated on that when we

(15:14):
come back though. The case they called a murder by
car crash and why, a new Netflix documentary about convicted
killer Mackenzie Shrilla is now creating a fresh backlash. Keep
it right here, tr Crime Tonight.

Speaker 2 (15:38):
Welcome back to True Crime Tonight, an iHeartRadio. We're talking
true crime all the time. I'm Stephanie Leidecker here with
Courtney Armstrong and body move in taha Is with us,
of course our favorite producer, and of course we have
Sam and Adam in the control room.

Speaker 4 (15:53):
Listen, big turnout last night on the music seems like
I hate.

Speaker 2 (15:56):
We've got a lot of positive feedback, So more to
talk about on that front. And listen, have you guys
seen this documentary called The Crash on Netflix.

Speaker 3 (16:07):
It's just buzzy right now if.

Speaker 2 (16:10):
You're on social media or on any of the boards,
it seems to be dominating the conversation. So we figured
we would unpack the real life case because you guys
were following it pretty closely when it happened. I was
kind of from a distance. But it's an everyone and
that documentary is craziness.

Speaker 4 (16:31):
Yeah, it's not doing any favors for Mackenzie and her family, right,
So let's at the table. Let's at the table first,
and then we can just start talking about it. Okay,
So on July thirty first of twenty twenty two, it's
like four years ago now, seventeen year old Mackenzie Shrilla
she intentionally crashed her twenty eighteen Toyota camry into a

(16:55):
brick wall in Strongsville, Ohio, while traveling at over one
hundred miles per hour at like five thirty in the morning. Now,
the crash resulted in the immediate deaths of her two passengers,
while Mackenzie she had severe you know, injuries and multiple
bone fractures. And it was initially considered like a tragic accident, right,

(17:19):
but investigators uncovered evidence that provide, you know, proved the
crash was a premeditated murder suicide attempt that was sparked
by Mackenzie's fear that one of her passengers, her boyfriend, Dominic.

Speaker 3 (17:34):
Russo, was going to break up with her. Oh okay, yeah,
good lord.

Speaker 2 (17:40):
So that was a very good set, by the way, Yes,
that's a very excellent set.

Speaker 4 (17:44):
Okay. Yes, So last Friday, just on the fifteenth of May,
Netflix released a documentary it's called The Crash on the Case,
and it's triggered like a fresh wave of public backlash
and it's directly, you know, kind of impacting Mackenzie's direct family. Now, yeah,
I don't think this went the way they thought it

(18:04):
was going to go.

Speaker 2 (18:06):
No, No, it appears that it's gone very sideways.

Speaker 3 (18:08):
It must watch.

Speaker 4 (18:11):
I can't wait. If you haven't watched it, please do.

Speaker 2 (18:13):
I've only been able to binge little pieces of it
because but I'm seeing it so many.

Speaker 4 (18:18):
Places that it's a possible not to.

Speaker 2 (18:21):
So it's an important case because yeah, I had a
certain opinion of it at the time. It's really a
look at a family and parenting and the sort of
interesting generation of people behind bars that have like no
connection to what their actions are equaling. And I see

(18:42):
that as a little bit of a trend and it
might just be a timing thing since this case is
not a new one.

Speaker 3 (18:48):
So when you said didn't go the way they planned,
did the accused Mackenzie Shrilla and her family participate in
this documentary.

Speaker 4 (18:57):
Where they did? And they did come up cross the
way I think they thought they were going to come
across because I have not seen it, but I have
seen the reaction.

Speaker 3 (19:08):
From people to it.

Speaker 4 (19:08):
It's all over my TikTok, like every other video is
like people talking about this documentary and how infuriated it
made them at the parents and Mackenzie you know that
she's the killer in this, about how flippant they are
about it, and apparently like after the crash, you know,
Mackenzie went to the hospital because she was severely injured,

(19:30):
and she was making like dance, like not dances, but
like singing like songs about how you know, she doesn't care,
and just making it like like nothing had happened.

Speaker 2 (19:42):
And she was famous in a way, like this was
sort of something that she was leaning into. Remember at
the time, she was considered a victim, not the perpetrator,
but it was sort of a grab, attention grab at
a very difficult time.

Speaker 3 (19:57):
So yeah, it felt wildly tonally wrong scented, but I understand.
Go ahead. Please, First of all, I am you guys
are really making me want to watch this doc immediately
and listen if you are just joining us. This is
true crime tonight and we are talking about a documentary
the crash and the actual crime behind it. And we

(20:19):
actually have a talk back right now.

Speaker 8 (20:21):
Hey girl, so are you all watching the crash on
net foot? It is crazy and this Mackenzie girl is
totally giving Judy.

Speaker 2 (20:31):
I love you, Okay, really, I feel like we're like
jumping the shark. But boy, do you and I think
the same you know, same thing. It is like watching craziness,
Like I don't even know that they're aware how completely
out to lunch their parenting is. It's a scary, like
parasocial look at parenting. I don't know what the connective

(20:54):
tissue is, like was everybody just is this like the
afterpath of COVID?

Speaker 3 (21:00):
You know, she seems so desensitized.

Speaker 2 (21:02):
You know, let's assume that this young girl was in
shock and that she's innocent. But there's some like really
kind of wicked conversations between mom and daughter when she's
behind bars. It saw this clip out of context, but
there's hard to unhear it. It was played in court
of you know, them kind of realizing that this story

(21:23):
is like global news I'm paraphrasing, but like it had
caught caught on, like there was fame being attached to it,
and you know, that kind of intersection between the fame
of doing something infamous like this in a young girl's
mind and the parenting behind it is pretty it's wild.

Speaker 4 (21:43):
I want to talk about a little bit about the evidence,
because we said we were going to talk about the
crime behind it, right, Yes, just for those who don't
know why she was convicted of this. So on, there's
onboard vehicle computer diagnosies that were done that showed that
she pressed on the accelerator pedal and it was fully
depressed at the time of the crash, and the brakes

(22:04):
were never applied, so her foot was on the pedal
all the way down, and the vehicle successfully navigated a
high speed left right a dog leg turn immediately before
the impact, disproving the defense claims that Mackenzie blacked out,

(22:25):
all right, because they said she blacked out. It was
a terrible accident, but it navigated this complicated turn right
before the crash, so that was disproven. Then they used
GPS tracking and that revealed that she had scouted the
crash location three days prior to the accident. That was

(22:46):
really hard to come back from.

Speaker 2 (22:47):
That evidence was hard to come back from. But again,
this is a young girl. Frontal lobes not fully developed.
If we're giving the benefit of the doubt. She was seventeen, right,
you know, seventeen years old? Like what a whacky like
is there? And then but the aftermath was real weird.

Speaker 3 (23:04):
Oh so the aftermath okay?

Speaker 4 (23:05):
So yeah, the TikTok in the social media controversy, right,
because Mackenzie during her hospital recovery, it sparked a lot
of outrage. You know, she posted those videos from her
hospital bed that I had mentioned, she made satrical tiktoks
declaring I'm just one of those girls that can do
a lot of drugs, and photos of her and her

(23:28):
friends that were dressed as corpses for Halloween. You have
to remember there were two young men who she killed
in this accident, this car w act, well this car wreck,
I should say, non accident. These two young men, they're gone.
That is deplorable what you just described.

Speaker 2 (23:45):
And the mom is sort of giggly about like they
have an affect.

Speaker 3 (23:49):
I just can't wait to discuss it when you see it.

Speaker 4 (23:51):
Sorry to do continue, no please, you know, and you
know I had mentioned that it's impacting the family rather adversely.

Speaker 3 (23:59):
Right.

Speaker 4 (23:59):
Well, today it was revealed that Mackenzie's father, Steve, was
placed on administrative leave from the Catholic pre k school,
where he's an art and digital media teacher. Viewers in
the school community heavily criticized him for several of the
moments in the film. Over Mackenzie's lifestyle. Steve stated the

(24:24):
dad he said, I don't have a problem with her
smoking dope. If you're going to smoke a drug, that's
the one I believe should take now. It's important to
note that police found mushrooms like psychedelic mushrooms and a
digital scale in her possession at the crash scene, and
Dad's totally okay with it.

Speaker 3 (24:44):
She said, Does the scale indicate that she was then
selling or somebody was selling drugs? I don't think you
need a scale to use them. I don't know.

Speaker 2 (24:54):
No, we're deep in it. There's a scale involved. Seems
like this is no, you know, a drive by with
marijuana and the kind of cavalier nature that mom and dad.
Again not trying to pi alon. Mom and dad seem
to have a lot of pie alon happening today. But
I think it's an interesting conversation point. If you just

(25:15):
pull a shame out of the conversation, I'm sure even
they would be an interesting thought, you know, even watching themselves,
they'd probably have.

Speaker 3 (25:24):
An opinion about it.

Speaker 8 (25:26):
Well.

Speaker 3 (25:26):
They do really interesting.

Speaker 4 (25:28):
The father, you know, he's been very critical of the
editing that was done in the documentary. He's very critical
of it. He does maintain that, you know, his daughter's
innocence and claims the crash was an accident, but he
has expressed frustrations with the documentary's editing, but the documentary
did not. I can't imagine they forced him to wear

(25:50):
the shirt that he was wearing, because another thing that
he's getting criticized is the shirt that he was wearing.
Apparently I haven't seen it, but it's got a big
boom crossed like in letters across the shirt and people
found it really insensitive. We have to discuss that. Can
we pause even right there?

Speaker 2 (26:08):
So imagine he's wearing like a button down over a
T shirt. We've all seen that look and sometimes the
logo you can't fully read it, but it looks like
something actiony, right it kind of so you see it if.

Speaker 3 (26:19):
You're looking for it. But he literally says.

Speaker 2 (26:23):
Boom and you know, with like it looks like an
explosion almost, which seems yeah, so totally ridiculously inappropriate. Much
like your daughter who dressed like, you know, a dead
person on Halloween after tour for friends including her boyfriend,
were killed. You know, even if you were innocent, that

(26:45):
would be incredibly inappropriate, right, but the parents were really
odd about it.

Speaker 6 (26:51):
So yeah, Can I ask a quick question for the
two people who are involved with producing docs. If he's
sitting down to do an interview and you see that
shirt that says boom. Do you even consider the idea
of saying, hey, maybe you should change or let me
just curious what you're feeling.

Speaker 3 (27:10):
Would be they they would.

Speaker 4 (27:13):
I was told, you know, as somebody in the documentary,
I was told, don't want anything with any writing on it.
Don't wear anything that's gonna look weird on a camera.
Wear a dark or light, solid colored shirt with no logos,
no writing, no nothing. If I would have shown up
with even like a polo little alligator, they probably would

(27:33):
have told.

Speaker 3 (27:33):
Me to change.

Speaker 4 (27:35):
And that's my experience too.

Speaker 2 (27:36):
And here's why, from a practical standpoint, in a trademark perspective,
if your logo on your T shirt is being worn
and presented in a program that could have legal trademark issues,
So typically you'd have to remove it, or you're in
the shirt inside out, or you know, take a ball
cap off, that kind of stuff. And they know that

(27:57):
in advance.

Speaker 4 (27:58):
And even for the mole they were, you know, because
the reality show, they're like, no logos, and I'm like,
what about my nikes? And I'm like, well that'll be
probably okay, but no logos allowed. And even some of
the clothes that we brought, like if they had like
stripes on them, They're like, no, absolutely, Oh it's the worst.

Speaker 2 (28:18):
Yeah right, You're like the screen kind of goes craziness,
so it doesn't even look like the sweater when you're
watching it on camera. So yeah, those are some of
the rules. So back to your original point, they had
to have seen it. Is that a choice?

Speaker 3 (28:31):
Do you let it slide? I don't know the answer.

Speaker 2 (28:34):
I would have, for certain assumed because there was some
sort of a graphic tea that that would have had
to be removed, or this guy just didn't really notice
it and it is like universe.

Speaker 3 (28:47):
And they even that shirt to put over it, that's right.

Speaker 6 (28:51):
Yeah, I think they were trying to cover it in
some way, shape or form. Or he might have given
a lot of pushback and said, no, I'm wearing the shirt.
You don't tell me what to do.

Speaker 3 (28:58):
So the doctor and if he is being the purest
document the director, then you would in that instance, she
would say, you would say nothing. How this person is
choosing to show up and represent themselves.

Speaker 2 (29:16):
To say what's nice and what's not nice. You know,
it's all very specific. It's all very you know, a
person's choice. So if they want to wear you know,
dynamite on their clothing, you don't want to wreck the vibe.
But there is a legal trademark issue. So yeah, I
mean it was a discussion I'm sure with someone at
some point.

Speaker 3 (29:35):
Well, he's getting some backlash for it.

Speaker 4 (29:37):
And then the last thing is that Steve and his
wife Natalie. You know, they defend their daughter Mackenzie, obviously,
but they also said that she they defended her against
claims from the classmates that she was a bully who
once told a peer to end their life, despite school
records confirming her history of disciplinary action for bullying. So

(30:01):
it's almost like we're getting gas lit by the parents
a little bit like she wasn't a bully, but the
school record show she was, and she was so indisciplined.

Speaker 2 (30:09):
It's like completely like I don't see no evil, hear
no evil. It reminded me of some of the parents
we've covered on the show over the past year who have, like,
for example, given their child who's underaged, who has you know,
a mental health history, a gun for Christmas, when you know,
the principal even said please no guns around this kid.

(30:32):
He seems a little off, and then that kid goes
and he uses said gun. You know, where are the
parents in this? I think is kind of the convo. Again,
not placing blame. I just think it's an opportunity to
kind of see it play out and how it's played
out and really learned from it because it is.

Speaker 3 (30:49):
Really shocking and I can't wait to watch.

Speaker 4 (30:51):
I'm gonna watch it tonight because I watched another TikTok
of this girl and don't know what's going on. I
when I be upset, so I need to watch it night.

Speaker 2 (30:59):
Yes, like that commitment, So listen stick with us because
later in the show, we have fired death scene investigator
Ed Nordskog joining us to really unpack the mind of
an arsonist and just some general safety things out there
with fires. And if you're just joining us, we'd love
to hear from you Live eight eight eight three one

(31:20):
Crime because there's been a little bit of an update
in the Nancy Guthrie case, obviously Savannah Guthrie's beloved mother.
The search continues and everyone still wants answers. Courtney, do
you want to give us a little set up there?

Speaker 4 (31:35):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (31:35):
Well I can tell you who does not appear to
have answers, and that's Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos. So
this is of course regarding the missing eighty four year
old Nancy. This back in February first, when she went
missing from her home, and authorities, you know, believe she
was taken against her will. Many of not most of us,
have seen the surveillance footage showing a massed individual the

(31:59):
night she went missing, tampering with her doorbell camera.

Speaker 4 (32:03):
Well, the sheriff.

Speaker 3 (32:04):
Nanos, he revealed in a new interview that he's no
longer in personal contact with Nancy Guthrie's family, and that
is a shift from the earlier time when he was
indeed occasionally texting and calling Savannah Guthrie, Nancy's daughter. So,

(32:26):
I mean, I think that a lot of this has
to do We've spoken before about the FBI and the
Sheriff's office. They're at odds. I don't think that's a secret,
and a lot of this really it just seemed like
it's now a formal separation. And you know, Sheriff Nanos
just wanted to say he stepped back from personally handling

(32:48):
these updates and he's going to leave that to the
case investigators to the FBI and on the ground detectives. Yeah,
I think that's appropriate.

Speaker 4 (33:00):
I mean, if something happened to me, God forbid, or
my brother the chef flspeg as sheriff is then calling
me that the investigators are not the sheriff.

Speaker 2 (33:12):
No, anythings can get lost in translation. And there was
always a little bit of this target on the sheriff's
back too, that he was a showman, or that he
was taking the spotlight or milking it, maybe because of
the connection to Savannah Guthrie. And then you know, just
a general you know, attention this case was getting globally

(33:33):
was you know, really I'd heard of so, you know,
I can't believe we don't have answers, And you know,
for Savannah who still has to go to work all
the time and push through this, this is a terrible thing.

Speaker 4 (33:47):
I cannot imagine not knowing what happened, dear mom.

Speaker 3 (33:52):
I mean, it's coming up on four months. Oh my gosh,
it's coming up on four months. So really it's kind
of the entirety of the update is just that the
sheriff Nanos has you know, hands it off communication with
the Guthrie family and that's what's going and as of

(34:13):
today no new information.

Speaker 4 (34:16):
Well, I can get right into the next update. If
you guys want, let's do it. It's a little bit bigger.
This is in regards to the Delphi murders back in
twenty seventeen, the day before Valentine's Day, February. I can
do this from memory before the day before Valentine's Day
and in twenty seventeen, two young teenage girls, Abby Williams

(34:39):
and Liberty Libby German, they vanished while hiking a trail
near the mon On High Bridge in Delphi, Indiana, and
they were found murdered the following day. Despite a vital
smartphone smartphone audio and video recording of the suspect that

(34:59):
was captured so bravely by Libby, the investigation stalled for
over five years due to a misfiled police tip. Okay,
the oversight was discovered in twenty twenty two, leading to
the arrest and subsequent twenty twenty four conviction of Richard Allen,

(35:20):
who was sentenced to one hundred and thirty years in prison. Now,
now this is the update. The Indiana Court of Appeals
has granted Richard Allen's defense team oral arguments that you know,
for his appeal, and it's going to happen on September
twenty first to challenge that conviction. I mean, this is

(35:43):
a huge win for Richard Allen, some massive win. You
know a lot of people there are I mean, this
case is so divisive. I talked about this a little
bit with Taha. You know, you either believe one hundred
percent that Richard Allen is guilty and when he's where
he belongs, or you believe that he's been railroaded. Because listen,

(36:07):
I follow Delphi. I followed it for seven eight years,
like the whole time.

Speaker 9 (36:13):
You know.

Speaker 4 (36:13):
The first time I ran across Delphi was back in
twenty twelve. We had just come off the Lucah thing,
like it was kind of like happening around the same time,
and there was a Facebook post on my feed that
said find the Snapchat killer, and I was like, what
is this And it was a video of the bridge
guy and the bridge guy is walking towards the girls

(36:35):
on the Mona on High Bridge and then it edits
and then all you hear is down the hill or
guys down the hill and it's mumbled.

Speaker 2 (36:45):
You know now that you're listening for it. It seems
very very clear, and it's kind of an unimaginable audio
because it was from one of their cell phones.

Speaker 3 (36:54):
If I'm not mistaken, right.

Speaker 4 (36:56):
Libby's Libby's cell phone. Yeah, in my opinion, it was
very grave her to get this footage, and so I
was immediately like, oh my gosh. And I mean from
that day, I've been following this case. So let me
just give a little bit of background, a little bit
of background. We don't have a lot of time because
this case is so complicated. But in September of twenty

(37:18):
twenty two, a volunteer discovered a misfiled tip from twenty
seventeen from Richard Allen himself, who had self reported his
presence on the trail. But you know, it was mistakenly filed,
so they never really you know.

Speaker 3 (37:35):
They'll investigate the tip and accidentally put it away.

Speaker 4 (37:39):
I see, right. So he was arrested and charged, and
while incarcerated, Richard Allen confessed to the murders over sixty times, okay,
in writing, in person, and over the phone to his family, inmates,
and prison staff. The prosecutors claims that these confessions revealed
exclusive crime scene details, right that only the killer would

(38:02):
know and that was very damning.

Speaker 3 (38:05):
Right.

Speaker 4 (38:06):
Forensics linked an unfired forty caliber bullet found between the
victim's bodies in the crime scene, and they linked it
to his pistol.

Speaker 3 (38:16):
It was on fired. Very interesting.

Speaker 4 (38:19):
Wow. It cited distinct marks left on the casing and
testifying in court, the state Police master trooper matched Richard
Allen's voice to the bridge guy because we hear bridge
guys say down the hill, right, and he says that
he matched the voice. Richard Allen admitted again he self

(38:40):
reported that he was on the high bridge trailed during
this timeframe. Now, there's a lot of issues with this
case though, all right. The Indiana Court of Appeals will
hear these oral arguments on September twenty first at ten
am at the Indiana Statehouse. Each side is going to
have thirty minutes to present before a three judge panel.

(39:04):
The defense argues that the trial was fundamentally unfair because
the jury only heard half of the story, focusing on
three main pillars. Okay, okay, Now, these confessions they say
happened during a psychotic break, all right. The defense argues
that Richard Allen's sixty plus confessions were involuntary and produced

(39:28):
the product of a man that the state broke. Richard
Allen didn't go to jail. He went to prison while
he was under trial. He was in like hardcore prison,
all right. He spent thirteen months in solitary confinement, during
which his weight dropped fifty pounds. Fifty pounds. He went

(39:48):
from one to eighty to one thirty five. Wow. During
his confessions, he ate his Bible, He smeared the poop
on the walls and stuff. He was rolling around in it.
He drank the toilet water and believed the world was
going to self destruct if he went to sleep. He
was having I mean legit, he was having heresing his mind.

(40:10):
He was losing one hundred percent. And also he confessed
to crimes that didn't happen. He said he shot the girls.
The girls were not shot girls. They were killed with
a knife.

Speaker 2 (40:22):
And they were placed too if I remembering this correctly, right.

Speaker 4 (40:26):
So the actual depends on the us. Interesting, it was
very posed right. He had the girls weren't wearing the
right clothing. Libby sadly was nude and Abby was wearing
her clothes. There were sticks placed over them that the
SBI kind of said, this looks kind of like a
ritual killing.

Speaker 6 (40:48):
Right, ask, didn't you say for release in his confession
that he he pointed out exclusive crimes stead details, So
how would he know those details?

Speaker 4 (40:59):
Well, well, that's I'm going to get into some controversy
here to now. I told you this is a controversial case.
There is a detail that the doctor, the psychologist that
worked at the prison, doctor Walla, she said that Richard
Allen saw a white van and got spooked and that's
why he killed the girls. Well, doctor Walla was in

(41:21):
a bunch of Facebook groups about the crime and followed
a bunch of YouTubers talking about the crime, and one
of those YouTubers said that I think this white van
spooped him off, And now suddenly it's part.

Speaker 3 (41:36):
Of his confession.

Speaker 4 (41:38):
Ah, you can see why oral arguments have been granted.

Speaker 3 (41:43):
God right, you can see that it's possible.

Speaker 4 (41:46):
And you know they argue that this odin theory that
I mentioned that the FBI mentioned was suppressed and it
was they were not allowed to present this alternate theory
because you know, there's a high level you have to
meet in order to present third part paraty calpability, Right,
you have to meet a certain level, and the judge
goal in this case ruled that they didn't meet this level,

(42:06):
so they were not allowed to present this odin theory
that they were this happened in some kind of ritual situation.
In the brief, Allen's attorney said that within a week
of the murders, the Carroll County Sheriff's office enlisted the
FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit to evaluate at those sticks.

Speaker 3 (42:27):
You know that were put on the girls.

Speaker 4 (42:29):
Well related to pagan rituals, and the FBI said it
remains possible that a new believer or a rogue believer
in Odinism, this norse you know, religion was involved in
the case. And then a Purdue a Purdue professor said
that the victim's body, it could it's very plausible that

(42:50):
this was a nourse Odinism situation. But they were not
allowed to present that. So they're going to be able
to argue that as well. You know, there's just there
there's a lot with ALFI.

Speaker 3 (43:05):
So was so the the defense boiling down because I
did not follow this case like you can, I mean
not remotely, And so is the issue. So the defense
is saying, listen, we weren't able to make a proper
defense because we weren't allowed to introduce these things. And
is that is that correct? And if so, is it
falling on the judge being too harsh and not allowing

(43:28):
evidence in.

Speaker 4 (43:29):
Is listen yest? It's such a good question because there
were some issues with the judge and the defense team.
In fact, the judge dismissed the defense team and said
that they're off the case at one point.

Speaker 3 (43:44):
You're not allowed to do that.

Speaker 4 (43:45):
They took it all the way to the Indiana Supreme
Court and they the Supreme Court. The Indiana Supreme Court said, yeah,
you can't do that, so they got back on the case.
But I mean, there were a lot of problems with
the judge, judge goal and the defense team in this case.
They also claim that, you know, we've talked about Frank's
hearings before. I think where the defense will you know

(44:07):
a pine that the sheriff lied in order to get
a search warrant. Well, they're saying that happened here as well,
and that they're Frank's motion was denied. They're going to
be arguing that they believe that the search of Richard
Allen's home, which uncovered this gun that match this unfired
bullet was unconstitutional due to law enforcement omitting very important

(44:30):
things that happened in the case. So there's a doli is.
And listen, I don't even know everything, you know what
I mean, there's people that know everything about this case.
I am not one of those people. But I'm like
kind of like sitting on the fence, you know, like
I don't want to support a child killer. And at
the same time, I'm like, I don't know if he's

(44:51):
the one. You know, I don't know that bullet.

Speaker 3 (44:55):
Also, it's again and I'm coming in so neutral on
this of course. Yeah, but the bullet seems convenient, Like,
how do you accidentally drop a bullet right where a
murder happens?

Speaker 4 (45:10):
Well, it wasn't fired. How do you match ballistics of
an unfired bullet. It wasn't a fired bullet. It was
an unspent bullet.

Speaker 3 (45:19):
Like it fell out of someone's pocket.

Speaker 4 (45:21):
Well, and again you have to understand too, this is
rural Indiana and this is like kind of like a
nature area. I know, people go shooting or squirrel shooting,
and you know whatever, I don't know, I don't know.
I just I've never experienced a trial where there's ballistics

(45:41):
on an unfired bullet. You know how like you the
guns have those like pins that like you cock it
back in it. That's what they matched, like the cock thing.
I don't know what's called.

Speaker 3 (45:53):
The you know what I mean.

Speaker 2 (45:54):
The Yeah, there he was so having been in didn't
around the area because it was inclement that day, there
was there was a reason that people were home from school.
So yeah, it was a teens were all off, which
also added to the confusion.

Speaker 3 (46:13):
That's right, that's right. Well, we'll keep you updated, but listen.
Humming up, we are having arson expert Ed Norskog, and
he's expected to testify in the upcoming Palisades wildfire trial.
He is going to join us and break down how
investigatives trace massive wildfires back to the origin. We're very excited.

(46:34):
Keep it here True Crime Tonight. Welcome back to True
Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio RETALKD True Crime All the Time.
I'm Courtney Armstrong. I'm here as always with Stephanie Lidecker

(46:56):
and Body Movin and listen. Don't forget if you have
missed any part of the show, you always would catch
us on the podcast and we want to hear from you.
Give us a call. We're at eighty eight three one
Crime and you can specifically call now if you want
to speak with Ed Norskog, who is a fire death

(47:17):
scene expert and serial arson analyst.

Speaker 5 (47:21):
Hello Ed, Hi, Ed lord, Hi, Hi.

Speaker 4 (47:25):
We're so happy to have you back.

Speaker 3 (47:27):
And when to sing your praises and tut your horn
for just one second, because it's a big deal. Ed
is literally one of the most experienced arson investigators in
the whole country. Spent more than thirty years with the
La County Sheriff's Department and has investigated more than twenty
one hundred arson cases. Wow, and which is I mean?

(47:47):
How about that? And it's interesting, So fire death scene
analysis expert, it's a rare specialty. It combines homicide investigation
with arson science.

Speaker 4 (48:02):
So yes, here we are.

Speaker 10 (48:05):
Corners and corners work too a corner aspect of it.

Speaker 3 (48:10):
Too interesting.

Speaker 2 (48:12):
What an incredible job, by the way, that is so
important and meaningful.

Speaker 4 (48:17):
And yes, we're so glad to have you shed some light.

Speaker 3 (48:21):
Thank definitely, absolutely so listen, we we know that you
are going to be testifying about the Pacific Palisades and
Malibu fires, so we will stay away from that. But
can you actually go back and tell us how in
the world you got pulled into this world of ours
and investigation and carve out this unbelievable career.

Speaker 4 (48:45):
Yeah.

Speaker 10 (48:46):
Well, I'd like to say I have altruistic motives, but
I did it for.

Speaker 5 (48:49):
The money, with no doubt the uh.

Speaker 10 (48:54):
I worked for Los Angeles Sheriffs and it's literally the
highest paying job on the whole department. But I didn't
really know that when I applied. It was just it's
interesting in the detective world to stay in. The two
most senior jobs are either arson or homicide, and if
you're going to spend the rest of your career in

(49:14):
one of those, I chose arson. Didn't really have a
love for it, and once I got into the business, I.

Speaker 5 (49:21):
Actually really really enjoyed it.

Speaker 10 (49:23):
So I've had quite a bit of a good good
success with it.

Speaker 4 (49:26):
Is What's like, what when you first arrived on a scene,
what's the first thing you look for that would stand
out as suspicious?

Speaker 10 (49:37):
Are you talking about any fire scene or like a
wild plan?

Speaker 5 (49:39):
I don't know, if you guys want to.

Speaker 10 (49:40):
Focus this is it's a huge Yeah, Yeah, you're gonna
the firefighters so when I arrived, the firefighters are usually
putting out the fire. They're usually just about done putting
out the fire, and they'll have the first clue of
something not wrong at the location. Maybe they walked in,
there's a dead Maybe they walked in and there's a

(50:01):
dead body. Maybe they walked in and there's a gas
can with a highway flarre sticking out of it. That's
called a clue.

Speaker 5 (50:09):
And so that's that's where my work begins.

Speaker 10 (50:13):
But without that obvious evidence, Without that obvious obvious evidence,
we do basically scene profiling or analysis, which is the
time of day is very important most fires. Why do
fires start at certain times? And then if it's a
structure fire, did anybody perish? Most people should and do

(50:34):
survive structure fires. So it is suspicious on its face
if there's somebody deceased, and if they are deceased in
North America in a structure fire, it's predictable who it
will be. So I teach whole classes on looking at
your victimology of fire guts and who should die in

(50:55):
a fire, not not really should, but who you will
normally find on a accidental type event, and it's very predictable.
In modern times, who's going to die which groups of
people and things like that. However, if there's people that
are outside of that norm, young, healthy, ambulatory people, people
that can move fast, they should never die in a fire.

(51:17):
So something else is going on there. Maybe they're drug overdose,
maybe they were murdered, maybe they were too drunk. So
that's when you really step up your game. Fire has
changed the scene, and then the fire department has changed
it even more. So, fire suppression has changed it even more.
And so the job of the fire investigators first figure

(51:38):
out what the heck happened here? And it's even a crime,
it's a crime.

Speaker 4 (51:43):
Yeah, you mentioned something interesting, like maybe there was a
drug overdose or you know, if you're young and healthy,
do people often use fire to cover up or try
to cover up like a murder? So like I'm going
to shoot my wife, but I'm going to burn the
house down to kind of cover it up.

Speaker 2 (52:01):
Does that happen just in the news right now with
the man who tried to do this to his brother
allegedly in a scenario family, Yeah, breaking story story for
a different day.

Speaker 3 (52:11):
So I guess it does happen.

Speaker 5 (52:13):
It happens all the time.

Speaker 10 (52:14):
It's OK, it's very difficult. It's so wrap your mind
around this. It's very difficult to murder somebody with fire.
In fact, it's close to impossible most of the time.
You can't murder an intended victim very well with fire.

Speaker 5 (52:30):
It's a slow moving weapon. You can't aim it. Most
people are.

Speaker 10 (52:34):
Unsophisticated on how to use it. So fire usually comes
after a murder, if there's a murder involved, or if
the people are already incapacitated somehow, maybe they're unconscious, maybe
they're bound and gagged in a back room and you
set the house on fire. But just trying to kill

(52:55):
somebody with fire is actually extraordinarily difficult to do. Seed
and that that murder or fire after the death scenario.

Speaker 3 (53:05):
Interesting, And you had mentioned, you know, there's a vast
difference between sort of structure structure fires and nature fires.
What about when there is an absolutely massive wildfire that
you have been brought into, how do you even begin
to begin?

Speaker 10 (53:23):
Yeah, so modern days, it's pretty easy. I work I
still work in the Los Angeles area, so we're very
close to a mega city of you know, eleven twelve
million people. You're always gonna have somebody that's sought. So
we always have some witnesses that can point as roughly
where they first saw fire.

Speaker 5 (53:43):
And we're spoiled. In Los Angeles, the police.

Speaker 10 (53:46):
And fire departments have lots of helicopters, so investigators will
go right up into a helicopter right away and get
an overhead view of a wildland fire. And if wildland
fires happen on high wind days, it's very easy to
figure out where they started. You just go the furthest
blackground upwind. You just follow the burnt round until it

(54:09):
gets to a very narrow spot and that's where the
fire started.

Speaker 5 (54:13):
That's on high wind.

Speaker 10 (54:14):
Days, so if the wind's really blowing, it makes it
easier to figure out where the fire started.

Speaker 5 (54:21):
If the wind's not blowing.

Speaker 10 (54:22):
Then fire will spread slowly three hundred and sixty degrees
on the ground, and that's a lot more work to
figure out exactly where it started.

Speaker 3 (54:32):
So it spreads in a circle.

Speaker 10 (54:35):
Yes, if everything's the same, there's no hills, there's no hills,
there's no barricades.

Speaker 5 (54:41):
Fire will burn generally in a circle.

Speaker 4 (54:45):
So that's how you find the ignission point, right.

Speaker 10 (54:49):
But then once it's burned out a few hundred yards
it's in the firefighters have come and drop water on
it or sprayed water. Now they're destroying what we call
our fire indicators, which tells us how the fire moved.
So we try to get there very quick before they've
destroyed everything, and try and read all these fire patterns

(55:11):
backwards to where the fire started.

Speaker 2 (55:16):
It's everybody's worst fear too, you know, like the idea
of being caught off guard in one of those situations.
And by the way, we so respect you not being
able to talk about the Palisades fire, but there are
so many other fires happening in real time and popping up.
Is there something productive that we should know just in
the basics, just to remind people how to just protect

(55:38):
themselves or their home and broad strokes. I know some
of this sounds obvious, but some of it's really not.

Speaker 4 (55:44):
In the moment.

Speaker 10 (55:47):
Well, the most common thing, if you live in a
fire prone area with dry vegetation, obviously keep it away
from your structures, and there's laws that you're supposed to
do that. It means everything. But if you have even
if you have good clearance around your home, if it's
a high, windy it's impossible to stop a large fire.

(56:08):
The biggest fire agencies in the world cannot do it.
They can focus it, they can kind of push it
into a direction, they just can't stop it. So yeah, anyway,
so you're not gonna be able to stop it.

Speaker 5 (56:23):
So you need to know how to get away from it.

Speaker 3 (56:27):
And yeah, what are some of I think you're saying
for basics that people should just know in the moment, Okay,
there's a fire and I need to leave my house.
Is there step one to get into the house.

Speaker 4 (56:40):
First step is that accurate.

Speaker 10 (56:43):
Move very fast, always have gas in your vehicle unless
it's electric, And know the streets to get out, because remember,
as you're trying to leave a bunch of police and
firefighters are coming your way, you're going to block these
narrow streets very quickly. Get out as quick as possible
before they all show up.

Speaker 2 (57:04):
And sometimes the navigation might not be working. So even
if you have navigation and you're trying to go through
some cross streets in and around, that's not even necessarily
the perfect ticket.

Speaker 3 (57:14):
So how like something in your art, a good old atlas.

Speaker 10 (57:20):
I don't think a lot of people know what that is.
You can find them an you can find them an
antique stores. Yeah, mass, I mean little things like that
people forget during any sort of catastrophe, for whether it's
floods or even the smoke from fires, it actually affects
your electronics.

Speaker 5 (57:38):
And if you're just a.

Speaker 10 (57:39):
Slave to that cell phone or to some sort of
guidance system, you kind of got to know how to
get out of your neighborhood at least get to someplace
fairly safe close to you.

Speaker 3 (57:52):
If you're just joining us, this is true crime tonight,
and we're so thrilled to be joined by Ed Nordskog,
and he's one of the literal leading experts in fire
death scene analysis. If you have any questions for him,
you can give us a call eighty eight three one Crime.
So you're are there, like, excuse me? With arsenists? Do

(58:15):
they tend to share similar behavior patterns? Is there a commonality? Yeah?

Speaker 10 (58:21):
So Hollywood has programmed us to believe that, and that
it's not true.

Speaker 5 (58:26):
It's so complicated.

Speaker 10 (58:29):
There's so many subtypes of arsonists, and one of those is.

Speaker 5 (58:34):
A serial arsenist.

Speaker 10 (58:35):
So a serial arsenist by definitions three or more fire
events in their lucks that are that are unconnected. That's
a serial arsness somewhat similar to a serial killer. But
people are forever, and when I go to court, this
will happen. When I go to court, people always want
to conflate an arsenist versus a serial arseness. So you

(58:58):
guys are in the true crime.

Speaker 5 (58:59):
You know who's sky Peterson is.

Speaker 10 (59:00):
He's a famous white male who killed uh, who murdered
a victim?

Speaker 5 (59:07):
Yeah, and then you.

Speaker 10 (59:08):
Have then let's compare him to Jeffrey Dahmer, who is
a famous white male who murdered several victims. The only
thing else to have in common other than being male
is their murderers. But they have nothing else in common,
so you cannot compare the two. Scott Peterson is a
one and done murderer, I mean, unless there's stuff that

(59:29):
nobody knows about. And of course Jeffrey Dahmer is one
of the more famous serial killers, in his target selection
was different. So nobody lumps all murders into the same
into the same categories, but they seem to do that
with arsenists. And so a lot of the time when
I go to court, I have to spend a lot

(59:49):
of time fixing the Jerry's mind and the judges and
sometimes the attorneys because they've always been given this stuff
that all arsenists do this, or all arsenals do that,
and none of that is true. There's no one profile
for an arsenist. There's there's dozens of subtypes based on
motives and their psychological makeup. Even amongst serial arsenists, there's

(01:00:12):
at least thirty different types of serial arsen.

Speaker 5 (01:00:17):
So I study that.

Speaker 10 (01:00:18):
I've been studying that for twenty plus years and I've
looked at sixteen hundred cases of serial arsen and they're
all different, and they do share some So to answer
your question and long winded, they do share some general traits, the.

Speaker 5 (01:00:31):
Majority of them do.

Speaker 10 (01:00:33):
But one ind one arsenists or could be a guy
bringing his car for insurance fraud.

Speaker 5 (01:00:39):
He's not a real arsenist.

Speaker 10 (01:00:41):
Yes he'll be convicted of arsen but he's not a
real arsenist that I'm concerned about. We'll prosecute him, but
he's not probably not going to light a fire again.
So if somebody you know does the fire because they're upset,
they probably aren't going to light another fire.

Speaker 5 (01:00:57):
But it's these people that have.

Speaker 10 (01:00:58):
A psychological edge or need for fires, that's the ones
that really interests me. And that's the ones they'll like
fifty to five hundred fires and just keep going and
going and going until we catch them.

Speaker 4 (01:01:14):
And is that just a power grab?

Speaker 2 (01:01:15):
They're doing that because they want to feel powerful in
some cases.

Speaker 5 (01:01:20):
Wow, well, so that's a great point.

Speaker 10 (01:01:23):
Steph is the ATFS and FBI have long believed that
it is a flexing of power, power over the fire department,
power over their neighbors, and that may be a segment
of it. It's kind of hard to measure that. When
I've interviewed and i'veewed, I've interviewed over three hundred and
fifty of these people, most of them I've arrested and

(01:01:44):
then we got to interview them. Is the majority of
them all expressed to me that they were angry, angry, upset,
and really frustrated. And so those were much more calm
and feelings. And someone goes, oh, a need for power
or excitement, those are not very common things to me.

(01:02:06):
It's more anger, frustration, resentment, and just frustration.

Speaker 3 (01:02:13):
Oh god, so interesting, Thank you for that. You know,
just overview and listen, stick around because Ed Norskog is
going to do so, and we're going to talk about
one of the biggest serial arson cases in Los Angeles history.
It's the Hollywood Fire Devil Case. Keep it here, True
Crime Tonight.

Speaker 2 (01:02:41):
Welcome back to True Crime Tonight and iHeartRadio. We're talking
true crime all the time. I'm Stephanie Leidecker here with
Courtney Armstrong and body move in and we are talking
all things arson. If you are just joining us and
new to the conversation, we're talking about all things fire
and both preventing it, but also some really important cases

(01:03:02):
that our very special guest, Ed nord Skog, has covered himself.
So we have the guy court Do you want to
give us a little bit of a setup.

Speaker 3 (01:03:11):
Yeah, absolutely, so we are going to talk about the
Hollywood Fire Devil case. And it was it was just
an infamous serial arts and investigation in Los Angeles that
happened right here. It started over New Year's Weekend in
twenty twelve, and there was a serial arsonist who literally

(01:03:32):
terrorized Hollywood. They said fifty two fires in just three nights,
which we need to get into the details because I
can't physically imagine that. And those fires stretched from cars
to apartment buildings and triggered one of the largest serial
arsen task forces in US history. Eventually the suspect was

(01:03:53):
identified as Harry Burkhardt, who was a German national who
was later linked to fires in Canada and Germany as well.
Oh my gosh, and Ed Nordskog, he was the lead
investigator on the case. And what do you remember about
that first night when these fires started? Like, just take

(01:04:13):
us there to that moment. Oh my gosh.

Speaker 10 (01:04:16):
All right, I got about ten minutes to tell you,
ninety six hours. So I was in an uncomfortable position
because I was on duty and I had just released
my very first book three weeks before that on serial arsenal,
and so I became the leader of this task force.

(01:04:37):
And more than one fire chief said, I find it
very suspicious that you just wrote a book on Cereal
arsenals and now we have the biggest serial arsen case
in LA history. Son advice the angry fire chiefs. So
that that that marked my part of my first two days. Anyway,

(01:04:57):
So what's what happens. It's easy to describe what happens
because he did the exact same thing like a robot,
fifty two fires in a row with almost zero deviation.
So in Los Angeles, in twenty eleven, they had just
had these big occupy movements fit in, took over City Hall,

(01:05:21):
thousands of people, and they sat there and sat there
and sat there for weeks and whatnot, and they broke
up right before Christmas. So ten days later, all these
fire starts, and immediately in what the very first night
was the twenty ninth, just before New Year's seventeen fires
in one night. All of them were structure fires, which

(01:05:43):
is extraordinary because California is a fire safe state. As
modern buildings, they'll get two or three structure fires on
a given busy night, seventeen not in just all through
Los Angeles seventeen within you could walk to all the scenes.
So and what they were is the individual unknown person

(01:06:07):
had went into If you know Hollywood, there's car ports
underneath the living quarters, underneath the apartments. Most of them
are open. Most of them are open to the street
without security. So they would have ten to twenty cars
underneath apartments for people's sleep, which is dangerous. And the

(01:06:28):
arsonist walked into a car the car port right after
midnight on the twenty ninth, and he set a fire
a fireplace log you know those duraflame style logs. Yeah,
well there's small versions of those, uh. And he set
one of those underneath the front bumper of a car,
and he had a little chemical boosters. They sell them

(01:06:51):
at the same grocery stores or by the logs, or
they make the flames on the log go from about
two inches to about twelve inches and he wouldlight that
with a little torch and walk away. It would take
him about twenty seconds to do all that. And he
had this whole setup in a bag like he's a
food delivery person, so he had tactics, he had some skills.

(01:07:15):
He was only on target for under twenty seconds. Once
he would set that. It would probably take ten minutes
before the fire to really develop and for anybody to
really notice it, even in the middle of Hollywood, which is.

Speaker 5 (01:07:29):
Extraordinarily busy area.

Speaker 10 (01:07:30):
Even on this even in the neighborhoods, there's always people out,
especially in the middle of the night. It's just it
was just right around Sunset Strip and all that stuff.
And these fires would start one car on fire, and
then because they're underneath the building, the heat would radiate
and go boom boom, boom boom and start five cars
on fire. Now the whole building is on fire and

(01:07:51):
people are jumping out of windows. This all went on
the first night. He did seventeen of those and the
scenes were all close enough to talk to. But what
he did to confuse us, not intentionally, is Hollywood is
from Los Angeles City, which would have LAPD, and West Hollywood,

(01:08:12):
which is right next door.

Speaker 5 (01:08:15):
Is LA Sheriffs. So it's four different agencies LA City Fire, LAPD.

Speaker 10 (01:08:21):
On one side of the street, LA County Fire, and
LA Sheriff on the other side, the four biggest agencies
in the Western United States. By the way, we were
begging for mercy. By the second night, nobody had lit
to this day in the US history, that many fires
in that short period of time, and there were significant fires.
They grew, most of them grew quite large, and so

(01:08:45):
you have this relentless onslaught of arson in a short
area to the point where everybody was confused. That the
fire dispatchers believe there are so many calls that one
hundred and thirty.

Speaker 5 (01:08:56):
Fires went off in one night when it.

Speaker 10 (01:08:57):
Was only seventeen. So I got lucky, my partner and
I we went to the very first scene and it
was a failed event. There was smoke coming out of
underneath the car, and right next to the whole building's
on fire. And on the other end, two blocks away,
we can see another building on fire. But we're looking
at a car port with smoke coming up from a car.

(01:09:20):
So I crawled under the car and I found this
fire log in a bag with a little chemical booster.
And I was stunned because I've done thousands of arsons
and I wrote a book on incendery devices. I'd never
seen anybody use this to burn a car. And what
I didn't know at the time was extremely.

Speaker 5 (01:09:40):
Common in Europe to do that.

Speaker 10 (01:09:42):
So and our offender was from Europe, and so anyway,
he did that, and then he just jogged down the
street and did another one, and then went around the
corner and did another one, and so on and so on,
and by four in the morning he was back in bed.
And so the next day we brought it in a
task force of about forty investigators who said, this is

(01:10:04):
you know, wow, somebody lit all these fires. We quickly
realized every single car had the same exact device underneath
it in the same exact spot, to the point where
it was so robotic that only only one person could
have done that. You can't get groups of people to
act consistently like that. So that's a bit of profiling

(01:10:25):
for you there.

Speaker 5 (01:10:26):
But our problem was.

Speaker 10 (01:10:28):
The next morning, the politicians wanted to pretend they're investigators,
which ask any good detective that happened in every major case,
all of a sudden, the mayor and maybe the sheriff
himself or the police, you think they're investigators. They want
to come and tell you how to do your job,
and bring the media and bring council members and people.

Speaker 5 (01:10:46):
Like that, and they did that.

Speaker 10 (01:10:47):
So we had an investigators meeting with just about twenty
investigators and over two hundred people showed up, and only
ten of them were investigators. The rest were politicians and the.

Speaker 5 (01:10:58):
Media and whatnot.

Speaker 10 (01:10:59):
So we had problems from the start protecting our our
case sensitive information. We actually had to hide it from
our own department, and we had to hide it from
our own departments and give them fake information, which is
what we did for three days just to throw them
off so they wouldn't bother.

Speaker 4 (01:11:19):
Oh my, So we got under enormous pressure. This was
you guys were under enormous pressure that you were even
fitting to your own people. So that you could discontinue
your investigation without getting bothered.

Speaker 3 (01:11:32):
Is that right?

Speaker 5 (01:11:33):
Right?

Speaker 10 (01:11:34):
Because we knew we had a unique event. We knew
that right away because nobody'd ever.

Speaker 5 (01:11:38):
Seen anything like that, And we knew that we.

Speaker 10 (01:11:40):
Had a unique device, so we needed to protect that
from everybody. And we in the first night, we recovered
seventeen of those devices. Some of them were burned quite bad,
but we could figure out what they were, and so
we all day long we wrote reports. So we've been
up all night, worked all day, and then at sundown
the next day, we all went home to get some sleep.
We go, let's guy did so much work, he'll never

(01:12:01):
come back. He started by eight o'clock at night, and
he did seventeen more fires, and then he started burning
a couple couple famous people's homes. And by the second
first after the first night, everybody wanted to play and
be detective. After the second night, nobody wanted to be detective.
They were done because they all got freaked out that
it was going to ruin their careers.

Speaker 5 (01:12:22):
So they all wanted to leave that.

Speaker 10 (01:12:26):
And so I went to the head of LAPD and the.

Speaker 5 (01:12:28):
Head of the sheriff.

Speaker 10 (01:12:29):
I said, I need two hundred three hundred investigators.

Speaker 5 (01:12:32):
I don't need you, just.

Speaker 10 (01:12:33):
Patrol offers I need and LA can do that. Los
Angeles can do that. And they gave me four hundred
people between the FEDS, five federal agencies.

Speaker 5 (01:12:41):
And all this stuff.

Speaker 10 (01:12:42):
So by the next night I had four hundred people
working for him, which I've never had in my life
or ever will again. And we caught the guy through
using basic police work, which is we went out, went
to every scene, obviously, pulled the evidence, and then canvassed
by knocking on doors. And we knocked on several thousand

(01:13:02):
doors and one day with all these investigators, and that
was just when ring cameras were coming in and so
there wasn't a lot of them, but there's enough, and
that we were getting glimpses of the same person over
and over, and then we figured out a vehicle it
was had Canadian plates on it. And this person was
very distinctive. He looked like a vampire, except a chubby vampire.

(01:13:26):
But he had a ghost white round faith and slicked
back hair, and he never changed his clothes. They were
dark black and for the whole three or four days
because I know I interviewed him, he's stunked. I haven't,
but I never went home. I never slept for almost
four days.

Speaker 5 (01:13:44):
Just every time I tried to go home, he'd start
lighting more fires. Right in the end.

Speaker 10 (01:13:50):
In the end, we tracked his vehicle that we found
from across the border. We figured out what it was,
and we put out a bulletin to our patrol guys,
and they caught him four minutes after we release the information.

Speaker 5 (01:14:02):
And he was out lighting fun.

Speaker 10 (01:14:04):
Yeah, it took four minutes once we got all the
right information, and by that time we had we looked
at seven hundred tips, and we looked at probably seventy
or eighty pieces of video and figured out put everything together.
And it's just it's just managing massive amounts of information
and people to try and do that.

Speaker 5 (01:14:25):
I was busy while on.

Speaker 8 (01:14:27):
All this stuff.

Speaker 10 (01:14:29):
So we caught the guy so fast that everybody forgot
about it within a few days. It was the biggest
story in the media for five.

Speaker 5 (01:14:36):
Days and then it was over. Then it then.

Speaker 10 (01:14:38):
Everybody got awards and medals and letters, except the actual
investigators on the case. People were they were on the
Ellen Degenerous Show, they were on various TV shows, Good
Morning of America, all these all these chief officers and whatnot.

Speaker 5 (01:14:54):
They had nothing to do with the case.

Speaker 3 (01:14:57):
Okay, if we had medals to give a collect actively,
we would give you one because what you just described
is such a perculean effort in the face of just
a monstrous amount of fires going on all at once,
and just your forethought to it's wild and it's laudable.

Speaker 2 (01:15:16):
And the passion that it requires as an investigator to
stay so steady and so mindful of just the evidence
in front of you with no conclusions.

Speaker 3 (01:15:26):
It's so dangerous too. And think about it.

Speaker 4 (01:15:28):
You're up for four days, three or four days, right,
You're having you have to have your wits about you
to invest exactly, and you're not getting any sleep. You're
under immense pressure. The media is on you. The mayor's
visiting you apparently, Like imagine having to keep your wits
about you and solve this case at the same time.

Speaker 6 (01:15:49):
Yeah, that's right.

Speaker 10 (01:15:51):
We have we have such a short time. This is
so fascinating. It's a five hour breakdown that I presented
to like the FBI people, and how to get you
with a case like this because of all the other
weird stuff that came in there was we saw multiple
other arsens by the way, in this while doing this,
because from all the tips we got there were other

(01:16:11):
arsenists and then and then we were arresting fake police
officers and fake firefighters and showed up. So we had
so much stuff going on to interfere with our investigation,
not to mention a lot of our own brass. They
wanted to be the one to release it to the
media and we were hiding it.

Speaker 3 (01:16:31):
Wow.

Speaker 4 (01:16:33):
Ed, thank you so much for joining us tonight again.
Ed Nortzgog. He's the author of the Arsonist Profiles, Portard Minds,
and Tortured Is Like a Torch Like a Fire Torch,
Fire death Investigation, and arson Investigations in the wild Lends.
You can find his books and more of his work,

(01:16:53):
which I definitely want to dig into, at arsonprofiler dot com.
And I can say this about this next weekend, you're
gonna find out at crime Con. He's gonna be presenting
at crime Con. I can't wait to see you there. Ed.
He's gonna be there on He's gonna be presenting on Saturday,
the big day. He got a big good bill there.

(01:17:14):
So you'll find him at Arsonprofiler dot com. Ed Thank
you so much for joining us. We love having you on.
You're such a good wealth of knowledge. We totally appreciate.
I can't wait to meet you on Saturday, Arsonprofiler dot
com and stick around. We have a lot more to
dig into. We got some really good talkbacks coming up tonight,

(01:17:35):
everything from a heartfelt reactions to wild opinions. Get ready
to laugh, maybe a little argue, and maybe you can
yell a little bit, a little bittle, a little bit,
stick around, little bit of crime tonight, a little bitt.

Speaker 2 (01:17:58):
Welcome back to true Crime tonight on iHeart Radio. We're
talking to crime all the time, or some of the time.
I'm Stephanie Leidecker here with Courtney Armstrong and body move in.

Speaker 4 (01:18:09):
And what a great guest. I mean, he's so intrusting.

Speaker 2 (01:18:12):
You're just talking about Arson and yeah, everybody make sure
you go out and see him at Crime Cash.

Speaker 4 (01:18:19):
I wish we could have asked him about the Palisades fire, though,
I mean, he's testifying.

Speaker 2 (01:18:23):
He will be testifying, so maybe after maybe after he
gave the show and we can talk exactly.

Speaker 4 (01:18:30):
There's a lot of questions I want to ask, but
I can't, you know, exactly, and I didn't.

Speaker 3 (01:18:35):
I mean, that's why I didn't even Yeah, go within,
we could have gone closer, but honestly, it's not worth the.

Speaker 4 (01:18:44):
Hollywood. It was so funny, not funny, funny, not funny.
But he was talking about Hollywood. And then he said,
and then its Hollywood, and I just happened to be
looking at Taha and he goes.

Speaker 3 (01:18:56):
Straight up.

Speaker 6 (01:18:59):
That's why I wait, what's happened?

Speaker 3 (01:19:03):
Not in my neck of the woods.

Speaker 4 (01:19:06):
But he made a face, and I couldn't have a gigle.

Speaker 3 (01:19:08):
I was like myself.

Speaker 6 (01:19:10):
I was, gosh, I don't have the worst poker face,
so you can tell when something all.

Speaker 4 (01:19:14):
Of us kind of have bad poker.

Speaker 2 (01:19:16):
Well, I don't know, we really well, I guess we
wouldn't know because the poker facers are so good, Taha,
you would, I for sure do not have good Oh I.

Speaker 6 (01:19:23):
Said a million times. If you want money, I have
a second money.

Speaker 4 (01:19:27):
You guys would probably you know, could pick and choose.
If you guys come out to crime Con, we are
going to play around a poker to see who has
the best poker face. Oh, okay, let's do it. Wouldn't
that be fun, like just like fun little dollar game
or something.

Speaker 2 (01:19:41):
Yes, yeah, I know you're going to be great. I'm
probably good at gambling though.

Speaker 3 (01:19:48):
No, no, I haven't played poker in years.

Speaker 4 (01:19:52):
Like I'll together, You're welcome. When do I have?

Speaker 6 (01:19:58):
Yeah?

Speaker 3 (01:19:59):
No, I just feel like you know everything.

Speaker 2 (01:20:01):
So just like knowing a fine hand of poker just
seems like it's something in the toolbox. I mean, that's
the coolest way, you know, as people who just like
know how to kind of playpool casually and just can
go up there and hold the sticks and like.

Speaker 3 (01:20:16):
You just needs to do that.

Speaker 2 (01:20:17):
You know, it's one song on the piano that kills
you know, it's like beautiful.

Speaker 6 (01:20:22):
It's funny. Yeah, I almost see bodies like you can
maybe count a card if you you know.

Speaker 4 (01:20:26):
The cow I think I am.

Speaker 3 (01:20:31):
Puts on her sunglasses and nights and stat at the table.

Speaker 4 (01:20:36):
I like this movie.

Speaker 3 (01:20:37):
Yes, sexy shaggy, Yes exactly.

Speaker 4 (01:20:42):
I like those sunglasses. They look good. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:20:46):
So in the movie, in my mind, you know, body,
you kind of are solving all of it and making
sure everyone's like where they're supposed to be and coordinating
it and.

Speaker 6 (01:20:55):
All the things like our own oceans eleven something like exact.

Speaker 4 (01:20:59):
Yes, you're in the maybe something that go down. Let's
go to a talkback.

Speaker 8 (01:21:05):
Hey, Patrick from ksus's Love you Guys that movie. The
only thing you're probably upset with is they're making a
movie about them and they're not getting part of it.
That's probably one they're mostly upset. I think, kudos to them,
what do you make the movie? Because they are good actors.
I really to see this movie play out. Thank you,
Love you'all.

Speaker 4 (01:21:27):
He's talking about the Matt Damon ben Affleck lawsuit of
those cops are suing Ben Affleck and and uh, Matt
Damon for making this movie. It's like loosely based on
one of the crimes they worked on, right, and they're
these these two retired cops are suing them for like defamation.

(01:21:50):
I think is that I can't remember, but basically it
comes down to makes them look bad, right, and.

Speaker 2 (01:21:57):
They believe that the portrayal is kind of a giveaway.

Speaker 3 (01:22:02):
So in their town or in their maybe.

Speaker 2 (01:22:05):
Their buds at work were all saying, oh, it's based
on you guys, and.

Speaker 3 (01:22:09):
It's not a great look.

Speaker 2 (01:22:11):
But you know, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, can they
really do any wrong?

Speaker 10 (01:22:15):
No?

Speaker 6 (01:22:15):
I know I feel the same way. I can't get
up there. I mean they can, sure they can.

Speaker 3 (01:22:20):
But Ben Affleck did marry Jlo?

Speaker 4 (01:22:24):
You have? J Loo? Yes you have. You're not.

Speaker 3 (01:22:27):
I'm not a Jelo fan. I'm with you on that
party and I love this is so this is a
thousand years ago.

Speaker 4 (01:22:34):
But Matt Damon was.

Speaker 3 (01:22:37):
What's the kosha? The teasing? Ben Affleck. Do you guys
remember when he did that music video where he was
literally smooching her behind on a yacht? Oh yeah, yeah,
I love that video.

Speaker 2 (01:22:49):
How you come video Jenny by the Black Air Come
On in Miami?

Speaker 4 (01:22:56):
Yeah, it was. That's very famous.

Speaker 6 (01:23:00):
Are in the same team, you guys.

Speaker 3 (01:23:03):
She got him to kiss her shiny heimy with all.

Speaker 2 (01:23:05):
The oil on it on the yacht, like exactly sect
Miami vibes that he was.

Speaker 3 (01:23:12):
You know, I disagree.

Speaker 6 (01:23:14):
I'm a fan j Lo. If you're listening, I'm a fan.

Speaker 4 (01:23:16):
So all right, you take Patrick, You're great, Thank you.
I think she's annoying.

Speaker 3 (01:23:27):
I can't help it. Stop stop.

Speaker 2 (01:23:31):
We're not going to go see her in Vegas partying
at crime Con. We're not going to go check out
the the performance of Okay.

Speaker 6 (01:23:40):
I'll return the tickets when we're okay.

Speaker 4 (01:23:42):
Fair enough we'll take those back tomorrow. I'm glad I'm listening.

Speaker 2 (01:23:48):
I'm glad we're having the conversation now that would have
been awed.

Speaker 3 (01:23:52):
You wearing your Daylo shirt totally.

Speaker 4 (01:23:55):
Another's do another talk.

Speaker 11 (01:23:58):
I was wondering if it's points you would be willing
to cover crimes against animals, especially stuff like this Yabo
that's through the Rock at the Monks Feel in Hawaii.
Also check out Ethan. It's a dog and he's on
social media and they call him Ethan Almighty. They're making
a movie about him, starring Somema Blair. It's a dog
that was left near death in a parking lot of

(01:24:19):
a humane society in Louisville. And he's also going to
be at Crime Con this year in Vegas. And the
man that adopted him his tirelessly campaigned to have legislation
passed in Kentucky to make it a felony to abuse
an animal. Love you guys, listen to every show. Thanks
love it.

Speaker 4 (01:24:36):
Oh girl, you know you really are speaking to my
heart right now. You know this is Bobby and obviously, uh,
you know, crimes against animals or something that I'm very
passionate about. But I will tell you it's hard to
talk about because people don't want to hear it. People
when I bring up, like because I have to, I

(01:24:56):
you know, John Green and I and whatnot. We've done
other ca is outside of the one that was featured
in Don't Have with Cats, And when people ask me
about them, like, hey, what are the cases that you
worked on? And I start to tell them because they
asked me, they kind of like their eyes kind of
glaze over and they just kind of start walking away backwards,
like ooh, oh oh. You know. Like one thing I

(01:25:19):
learned throughout the last you know, twelve years or actually
fourteen years of doing this is that there's three things
that people get really upset about, and rightfully so abuse
of children or you know of any kind, abuse to
the elderly, and abuse to animals. I think it's the

(01:25:41):
defenseless part of you know, these different distinct, very distinct things.
And I listen, I totally agree it's hard to hear.
I think it's important to hear though, because you know,
it sheds light on the epidemic, because there is an

(01:26:02):
epidemic of animal abuse in this country that goes unpunished.

Speaker 3 (01:26:07):
You know, it goes and.

Speaker 4 (01:26:08):
Talked about and it's also a precursor for a lot
of a lot of things. You know, I did that
presentation with doctor Chris Mahandi at Crime con.

Speaker 3 (01:26:19):
A couple of years ago about.

Speaker 4 (01:26:21):
Animal abuse and how I'm you know, talking about it
right now, and uh, you know, I learned a lot
from him about the precursor and like domestic violence, it's
a massive precursor to domestic violence. It's also a reason
spouses hurt animals is to control their popole. Sometimes it's revenge.

(01:26:46):
Sometimes it's a way to keep them. Many women won't
leave their animal behind because they aren't accepted in shelters,
and so the animal stays at home and continues to
be abused.

Speaker 3 (01:26:57):
It's a listen.

Speaker 4 (01:26:59):
I if it were me, I would have a show
seven days a week about the cases against animals.

Speaker 3 (01:27:05):
It's just people don't want to hear.

Speaker 6 (01:27:06):
It, but they need to.

Speaker 4 (01:27:08):
Yet you do want to hear it because we all
love animals so much. It's hard to hear it. Hard information,
That's what I mean. It's stuff. Yeah, yeah, and I
get it. It is hard. It's hard to talk about.
It's time to look at by the way, I get it.

Speaker 2 (01:27:25):
All of those cases that were just mentioned, and thank
you so much for the thoughtful talk about that. We're
shocking to see where you're like, what is wrong with
a human being who would try to harm an endangered species?
Or you know, break into the zoo where punch the
monkey is you know coming, you know, it's like, I mean,

(01:27:47):
come on, this is where you know they throw away
the key gets in me and you know where I'm like,
that is just really can you just be kind? And yeah,
and then some of the sicko stuff, the beagles being
removed from cat activity. I don't know if you've been
catching what was happening on these animals farms, these breeding
farms where they're being used for labs. Body would speak

(01:28:09):
to it better than me, but basically this farming of
beagle dogs and I've only seen the release of it,
you know, very a lot of people have rallied to
kind of storm this farm and release these you know,
sweet beautiful dogs that are held captive and being used
for experiments and sold to labs for experiments. Yeah, it's

(01:28:33):
so anger inducing. I wonder why ye.

Speaker 4 (01:28:37):
My beagles?

Speaker 3 (01:28:38):
I actually don't know.

Speaker 4 (01:28:39):
It's a really interesting observation. It's always the answer.

Speaker 3 (01:28:44):
Fifteen hundred of them have been released and are very hopefully,
very soon on their way to homes where they sleep
on pillows upon pillows upon couches, as they should.

Speaker 2 (01:28:58):
But that's the interesting thing though, because I'm one of them,
I feel like everybody and the brother is trying to
get a beagle now because it's so shocking to see it.

Speaker 3 (01:29:05):
You're like, how can I help? How can I help?

Speaker 2 (01:29:07):
The empathy for this release of these beagles? I would
venture to say every one of them has been accounted for.
You know, it seems like there's been an onslaught of
love because it's so painful. So covering some of those cases,
I think people really can get behind.

Speaker 3 (01:29:25):
I agree, so not Okay, what's the matter, I'm gonna
give you. I'm sorry. I just I googled. If you
want the answer to why beagles are predominantly used. Oh,
I don't know. Could I brain handle it? Okay, I
don't know. It's going to be a little.

Speaker 4 (01:29:40):
Uh.

Speaker 3 (01:29:41):
They are predominantly used in lab settings because they are small,
but also because they are exceptionally docile. They are forgiving,
and they have trusting temperaments. The nice ones are the targets.

Speaker 2 (01:29:53):
By the way, isn't that what serial killers also say
about their perfect target ted Bundy.

Speaker 3 (01:29:58):
We like them nice and kind to the type.

Speaker 4 (01:30:00):
Of person that's gonna hold my books.

Speaker 2 (01:30:03):
If I'm you know, hobbling around on a cane, that
is a real crime. Wow, I mean the crime. I
don't know how people sleep. Did you want to see
something about Yogi?

Speaker 4 (01:30:16):
Yeah, my dog. Yogi came from a situation there was
in Las Vegas. There were one hundred and sixty three
Pomeranians shoved two and there were you know those little
dog crates, the little carriers. There were two and three
in a carrier, in a U haul, one hundred and
sixty of these of these animals, and they were left

(01:30:37):
in the middle of the desert, and you know, and
somebody saw it and went up to it, and there
were all these Pomeranians in the back of this U
haul and this happened I think it was twenty twenty
or twenty nineteen, and you know, everybody in Vegas was like,
oh my gosh, my mom. It was like I got
to get one of those dogs. So we had to

(01:30:58):
enter a lottery. My point in bringing this up is
that there were so many people that wanted these dogs,
and yet so many still in the shelter. Right, but
this story brought out people that wanted you know what
I mean. So when you do talk about these things
like the beagles, and now some people line up to help.

(01:31:21):
So that's what I'm saying.

Speaker 2 (01:31:22):
So there is like an outpour of empathy. I think
around these types of stories and I think which would
cover more of them? Frankly, and then punch the monkey.
We punched the monkey is like the biggest, perfect, quintessential
example of hit. Everybody should watch.

Speaker 3 (01:31:38):
Punch the monkeys.

Speaker 2 (01:31:39):
You know, entire life to this point has been one
to aspire to. And now some you know, dope is
breaking into the zoo.

Speaker 6 (01:31:49):
All right, Yes, something something a little fun to end
on a happier note because I'm sorry, let's do it.

Speaker 3 (01:31:58):
Yeah, Okay, I have a question the listeners.

Speaker 12 (01:32:01):
Am I the only one thinking that this entire time,
the girls have been saying ta Haa's house instead of
knowing that that's his last name. I just clicked literally today,
and I just want to know, am I?

Speaker 4 (01:32:16):
Am I the only one that is so perfect? By
the way it is, it is.

Speaker 13 (01:32:21):
Because it's me saying it probably taha house. But you
know Taha's house if we say sam an Ad in
the studio, so it's like where identify.

Speaker 3 (01:32:37):
By the way is in the house. But thinking that
in the house, that's pretty.

Speaker 6 (01:32:46):
Funny that that's the last name. H O w z
E supposedly Old English German background or something that sound German. Yeah,
that's but it could be a little bit. But yeah,
even I used to work on house Hunters.

Speaker 4 (01:33:06):
I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:33:08):
House Hunters forever. Yes, tips and tricks, Oh.

Speaker 6 (01:33:13):
We're going to I'll pha you in on those later.
There's some good ones, because we've got some good things
that have happened. But uh, in the meantime, I don't
think we have time for another talk back. But I'm
excited about quick. I know that was a short one
because we're running out of a little bit of time.
But tomorrow, can I tell you what I'm excited about?

Speaker 4 (01:33:31):
Yes, of course.

Speaker 9 (01:33:32):
Does everyone remember Judge Michelle Locke's cool? I love her,
Probably the coolest judge I've ever talked to, Like, you know,
like I would want to go out for beers with her.
But yeah, I'm exack and she's going to talk about
that case with the former assistant principal Ebony Parker.

Speaker 6 (01:33:49):
Her trial is coming up. She's the one that was
involved with the deadly Nashville school shooting. So right it's
going to be a heavy topic, but Michelle is going
to really she had some light on it and talk and.

Speaker 3 (01:34:00):
Bring some clarity. Well, uh, excellent and listen, Taha, you
will forever be up in the house, in the house