Luigi’s Manifesto, a Death Row Release, and Epstein’s Final Night

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
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. It's Monday, May eighteenth, and we
have a stack night of headlines, so listen to.

Speaker 3 (00:29):
The Luigi trial is about to heat up.

Speaker 2 (00:32):
Will the gun and backpack be admissible? Plus the accused
murderer Alex Murdoch and his defense team have officially revealed
their new civil lawsuit, and an Oklahoma death row prisoner
is walking free after thirty years behind bars. And the
prison guard who's on duty during Jeffrey Epstein's suicide, well, listen,

(00:55):
they face questioning by Congress today and we have the
updates on that. We are so glad to be here tonight.
I'm Courtney Armstrong.

Speaker 4 (01:05):
And Stephanie's being patch straight in Stephanie Leidecker.

Speaker 3 (01:10):
So you're passed.

Speaker 2 (01:12):
Look at that mid sentence, catching right up with you, guys,
mid sentence, where did I lose you? I was? Do
you ever get that on a phone call when you
just you're still talking I was still legitimately yapping about
Luigi and so on court.

Speaker 3 (01:29):
Where did I lose you? I?

Speaker 4 (01:32):
You know, actually we were just we got the headlines.
But just a quick mention that Mark Furman, who was
you know, huge in the headlines during the O. J.
Simpson trial, but he died today. Interesting, Yeah, just as
a mention. But body, I think you had a bunch
to get into about Luigi.

Speaker 5 (01:52):
Gosh Luigi. Yeah. So today there was a ruling from
the Manhattan Supreme Court. Judge Gregory Caro issued kind of
mixed evidentiary ruling for the state murder trial against Luigi Mangioni. Again,
he's accused of fatally shooting United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson,

(02:14):
and this follows a nine day suppression hearing. The judge
ruled that some of the evidence that was stemmed from
that improper warrantless search, but some of the most crucial
items are still admissible. Luigi mangione he's a defendant in
this case. He has pled not guilty to all charges,

(02:37):
which carry a twenty five year to life in prison.
His state trial is officially scheduled to begin on September
eighth of this year, with an expected duration of six
weeks or more. Now, here's the admissible evidence, Okay, The
things that are going to be allowed to be entered.

(02:58):
It's everything they found owned when they got to the
police station, okay, And they did an inventory search of
his backpack, and that includes the three D printed gun
and the attached silencer, and that's suspected to be, you know,
have been used in the shooting. The notebook containing writings

(03:19):
you know, that we often refer to as the manifesto,
that's going to be admissible, and that details a lot
of Luigi's deep frustration with the American healthcare industry. All right.
And the other thing that's going to be allowed is
his initial responses to police regarding his real name, his data, birth,

(03:40):
and his middle initial now.

Speaker 2 (03:42):
Which were it's extremely suspicious too, write like that was
very critical. Like when he was allowing to police about
who he knows his ID.

Speaker 5 (03:51):
Well, that's when that's when we get to because that's
not going to be admissible. The things that are not
going to be admitted into evidence are the things like
his answers on why he initially lied about his his
his identity, and whether or not his idea was fake.
Those are struck from the record because that he didn't
wasn't read Miranda. So that's number one. So those those

(04:14):
admissions are not going to be allowed.

Speaker 3 (04:17):
And then.

Speaker 5 (04:19):
The other thing, the prosecutors are blocked from you using
the items that were pulled from the backpack during the
initial warrantless search when he was at the McDonald's. Okay,
remember we talked a long time about the fourth.

Speaker 2 (04:33):
Of course, Nodly, this is a huge win, This is
a huge prosecution. If this is a terrible loss, frankly
for Luigi's defense.

Speaker 5 (04:43):
Well, I don't know, it's a it's a mixed bag.
I think it's mixed. So so the the items that
aren't going to be suppressed, that are not going to
be allowed are the loaded the loaded magazine, and that's
going to be a blow to ballistics. So when you're
on a trial and you have to present these things,

(05:03):
the cell phone and the cell phone, we don't really
know what was on the cell phone. I mean, I'm
imagining it's it's probably the biggest loss for the state
not to be able to present this because it probably
contained some like location data and maybe some other evidence
that would have shed light on Luigi's movements and actions

(05:25):
during a really crucial time period, right right, A passport,
a wallet, a computer chip, and of course his answers
on why he now. But here's the thing. People are
probably like, what's the big deal? Why wasn't why is
this a problem? Well, the backpack has been removed. Initially

(05:47):
it was kind of like on the table out of
Luigi's control. Okay, and if it's removed, if the if
a locked container or a container of some kind is
removed from a suspect in me mediate area, police generally
can't search it as a search incident to arrest because
there is no extension circumstances or a threat to the

(06:09):
public because it's not like they think there's a bomb
in there or something. Right in.

Speaker 4 (06:15):
Flying in the face of the bodycam footage in which
the police officer the mention of oh boy, what if
there's a bomb in there? We better search this saying
because they actually that office had accidentally brought a bomb
to the precinct.

Speaker 5 (06:32):
Right, So the items that they found in the inventory search.
You know, when they finally arrest him and they bring
him back to the station and they go, okay, let's
go through this back back and take inventory of everything
that's in here, Everything that that's found from that search
is going to be admissible. The only thing I'm kind
of like overall is there's a thing called the inevitable

(06:55):
discovery doctrine, Okay, and it applies to the Fourth Amendment.
I know that I'm a huge Forth Amendment nerd, and
so if I start to like go off the rails,
just interrupt me. There's a thing called the inevitable discovery doctrine,
and I would imagine that would apply to everything found
in the backpack. The inventory its search itself was totally lawful,

(07:19):
as the court held, right, and officers were going to
inevitably find those items anyway, right, But because they didn't
follow proper procedures, you know the rule. It really highlights
how narrowly courts, you know, have to detour unlawful searches
by law enforcement. They're basically punishing the state for law

(07:41):
enforcement not doing what they were supposed to do.

Speaker 2 (07:45):
And you'll remember, and I know, Courtney, you just set
the table for this. But just as a reminder, this
was not in New York City. You know Luigi Mangoni, right,
we were all looking for him. This was a high
stakes right in person murder that happened on the streets
of New York City was you know, on every news
channel real time. Remember he like scooted through Central Park

(08:06):
and got on a this and scooted from there to Altoona.
Like this was a very big man hunt. So for
these local police officers to show up and suddenly feel
as though this guy might be super dangerous, might have
a bomb in that bag, this to me seems like
real cause to make this all go away. I recognize

(08:28):
the distinction and why it's so important and how significant
it is that we're discussing it, because it just kind
of goes to show really how narrow this really does
have to be dissected. That's the law, and these are
important stories to unpack because on one hand it seems
completely counterintuitive and this might not be why the law

(08:49):
was written, and on the other hand, it's the law,
and that can be narrow, and it's narrow for a reason.
And yeah, to your point, this is like both a
win and a lie.

Speaker 5 (09:01):
Yeah, I mean, it's a mixed bag. And you know,
I think oftentimes too, we're going to find that constitutional
protections are tested in these high profile cases, not easy ones. Right.
This is a hard This was a hard decision, I
think for the judge. And these are where the constitutional
protections shine, not in the easy cases. This is a

(09:22):
difficult decision. And you know, suppressing evidence is meant to
deter unlawful searches by law enforcement and court cults. Listen
to me. Courts use these rules to reinforce that constitutional
violations can have really real consequences in criminal cases.

Speaker 3 (09:42):
And we're seeing that every night.

Speaker 2 (09:44):
I feel like we're covering so many cases where it
is to the t and the letter of the law
can really change things. Courtney, what were you going to say?

Speaker 4 (09:54):
It's going to say if anyone's just joining us, this
is true crime tonight. And I'm Courtney Armstrong and I'm
here with body Moving and Stephanie Leideker, and we're just
given the sort of the TikTok of what's happening with
luigiman Gione and what evidence will indeed be admissible in
the case and what evidence has been not allowed? If
you went away and give us a call eighty eight

(10:15):
to three one crime. I have a question about the magazine.
So the loaded gun magazine was suppressed will not be allowed.
Does that mean that any bullet fragments which, if we recall,
had were inscribed.

Speaker 3 (10:33):
Yeah, will those not be able to be matched to
this gun?

Speaker 5 (10:39):
I think, I mean they'll be able to refire. I
think using the gun. I'm not really I don't have
a three D printed gun, so I'm not one hundred
percent sure, but they would be able to load different
you know, ammunition and fire and test it. They wouldn't
be able to, you know, fire that exact brand of
ammunition or that same lot maybe even you I mean

(11:00):
like they wouldn't be able to use those, like the
bullets in the magazine match the ones, you know, that kind.

Speaker 2 (11:07):
Of ballistic stuff.

Speaker 5 (11:08):
But I think ballistics testing can still be done because
they're going to be able to use the gun.

Speaker 2 (11:14):
Do you think there was a larger plan in place
by Luigi Mangioni himself in some of these categories, knowing
that this trial might hit these certain passes or is
this just dumb unluck or luck? I don't know what
the word is, but I certainly can't be a mastermind
at work here.

Speaker 4 (11:35):
You couldn't mastermind the Altoona, Pennsylvania police coming while you're
eating your hash brown at McDonald's on that morning at
eleven am or whatever it was. So I can't imagine,
and like you said, you'd need to running the universe.

Speaker 5 (11:54):
When this first happened, I was so into it because
you know the bullet they were inscribed with that deny depot,
you know, the what was it denied depos and something else.
But it was very like ooh, and then remember they
found the backpack in Central Park full of monopoly money, right.

Speaker 3 (12:14):
And not had a meaning At the time. We were
having these dots.

Speaker 2 (12:18):
I don't even want to tell you the dots that
we were connected at that time, but it was like this,
like this, we were collecting the clues.

Speaker 5 (12:25):
Right, So I have expected the Riddler to be out there, right,
this big mastermind, you know, the social kind of justice guy. Right,
and then they could And then we find out he's
he's just sitting in McDonald's eating hatch brown, right, and
with no real plan, and he's carrying all this evidence

(12:46):
on him. And I know this isn't the Riddler, this isn't.

Speaker 2 (12:49):
The Yeah, you know these stinks and you've now murdered
a person money, but yeah, for sure, and not to mention,
oh wait, it also is a person who comes from
a very wealthy fan who's been highly educated, who could
also really make something of themselves and actually make an
impact on the healthcare system, which we all desperately need
that attention. This is, by the way, giving that no attention.

(13:13):
Has Luigi made any impact on us healthcare?

Speaker 4 (13:18):
No?

Speaker 2 (13:18):
But what Luigi has is collected one point three million
dollars somehow in money because people like the guy and
think he's handsome and some interesting renegade who is about
to spend the rest of his life behind bars, Like
to what end? Like what is the what am I
missing here? On the messaging Luigi? Did he just give

(13:39):
up the fight? The manifesto was weak, not that any
manifesto that is put in the with murder obviously is terrible.
But even if he's coming on this soapbox, it was
it was junk and yeah, he was just like stuck
at a McDonald's eating hash browns. For those who are supporting,

(14:01):
I think they should be annoyed and really look at
what it is that is making people want to get
behind him, because I get it. He has galvanized people. Really,
he has you.

Speaker 5 (14:16):
Know, fans outside of courtroom, you know, holding free Luigi
signs and making speeches and you know, kind of saying
some off the wall stuff. But yeah, he's galvanized a
bunch of people and he's not saying anything of importance,
you know what I mean, collecting money and I mean listen,
he's behind bars. How much can he say? Really? Right,
but he's not really he's not really the person the Riddler,

(14:39):
let's say, right, he's not really like the super villain
like or or hero however you look at it, that
is making some kind of like moral statement. In my opinion,
he's just this weak guy in McDonald's, you know, make
telling lies to law enforcement at this point in my opinion, right.

Speaker 2 (14:57):
Wow, yeah, I couldn't agree with you more.

Speaker 4 (15:00):
Yeah, no, it does seem all for naught. I mean,
in addition to a man losing his life and just
to bring back what you were saying, body, the bullet
Casings said, deny, defend, and depose and that was taken yeah,
from a prominent book on why on how health insurance

(15:20):
claims are often can be denied.

Speaker 3 (15:22):
Well, listen, stick around when we're back. Murdered.

Speaker 4 (15:25):
Teen Anna Pepner was honored posthumously at her graduation. Meanwhile,
her stepbrother is out trough Crime Tonight.

Speaker 2 (15:44):
Welcome back to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio. We're talking
true crime all the time of Stephanie Leidecker here with
Courtney Armstrong and Body move in. We also have producer
Taha with us as well, and Sam and Adam in
the control room standing by the phones. Eight eight eight
three one Crime here by the way, Big day everybody,

(16:04):
because it's Monday. If you have a case of the mondays,
fret na because Adam might have a little bit of
a musical premiere with us this evening.

Speaker 3 (16:15):
So depending upon how.

Speaker 2 (16:16):
This night shakes out, who's on their best behavior? So yes, Adam,
I'll let you speak for yourself, and I don't want
to overpromise, but it sounds like we might have some
music to be hearing and listen, we can all use it.
In the Kepners. You remember the Anna Keepner case. Eighteen
year old Anna Kepner who lost her life on board

(16:37):
a family cruise that she took with her family. It
was really the first trip that Anna and her now
blended family, her birth father and her now new stepmother
had ever been on. And it appears her step brother
is the reason for her death or at least that's

(16:58):
what he's being accused of of. Tough day because she
would have graduated. So I'll talsk to you guys, what
do you think?

Speaker 4 (17:07):
Yeah, it was a sad and I can't imagine how
bittersweet this was. But indeed, Anna Keepner the victims, she
would have graduated today and over the excuse me. Over
the weekend her school in Titusville, Florida, they held its
commencement ceremony and the paid tribute to Anna Keepner and

(17:31):
her father, Christopher Kepner. He accepted her high school diploma
on her behalf. Meanwhile, her sixteen year old step brother,
he was indicted by grand jury on adult federal charges
of premeditated murder and aggravated sexual assault, which, if convicted

(17:52):
on both counts to which he's plied not guilty, the
stepbrother faces the possibility of two life sent says, although staggeringly,
he is still I mean, at large isn't the right word.
But the judge has allowed this defendant pre trial release.

(18:12):
He is not in custody and he is staying with
a family member for now until the trial, which will
be scheduled in September.

Speaker 5 (18:21):
I still can't believe that he's not behind bars. I'm very,
very surprised by this. Although people you know that have
been indicted for murder have been you know, out on
pre try really, so the judge might have some kind
of you know, not pity, but some kind of apprehension
about putting him behind bars at such a young age, right, maybe.

Speaker 2 (18:42):
Well, what about putting him in a mental health facility
or something that perhaps could not only keep him safe,
but maybe even prepare him for what's to come, because
no matter how you slice it, he is in for
a long road in terms of a trial for a
young man as well. It just seems as though in
some cases this would be considered a flight risk. Yet

(19:04):
in this case, somehow it's not right. It surprises me,
It surprises me as well. I'm definitely surprised by.

Speaker 3 (19:12):
This, absolutely, and the family as well is not happy.

Speaker 4 (19:15):
And by family I mean the victim, Anna Kepner's biological
father and Anna Kepner's stepmother. She also does not believe
that the defendant th should be freed right now, and
she is his biological mother, which I think that's speaks
some volumes and also maybe underline Stephanie throwing out the

(19:39):
suggestion of potentially a mental health facility.

Speaker 3 (19:44):
But the graduation tribute.

Speaker 4 (19:47):
Anna Kupner's father, he was seeing he was wiping away tears.
There was a standing ovation from the auditorium and he
said it was very hard to be in her place,
was a very hard thing to do. So I can't imagine, oh,
I mean impossible. And the entire Captainer family was there.

(20:11):
They honored Anna at the ceremony, and her father, Christopher
and her half brother wore shirts featuring blue butterflies, which
are Anna Keepner's favorite.

Speaker 3 (20:24):
So that is, uh, that is the update of what's happened.

Speaker 5 (20:29):
This isn't tonight.

Speaker 3 (20:30):
Oops, go ahead, sorry, no tell us.

Speaker 5 (20:32):
I know I want to hear your thoughts. I was
going to reach it.

Speaker 2 (20:35):
I was just gonna. I was getting a little caught
up just thinking about Anna Kepner. When you look at
a photograph of her, you know she has her braces
on still.

Speaker 3 (20:43):
You know, this was her graduation.

Speaker 2 (20:45):
She would have been having prom you know, she was
going to go off and do very important things, and
like what a waste also and just in one family trip,
like what would have happened had that trip not happened?
I know this is an impossible place to go. But
was this something that was inevitable because it was, you know,
growing below the surface. If in fact this is true. Again,

(21:09):
this young man, he claims his innocence, it doesn't seem
like too many people are standing by him, which is also,
you know, difficult I would have to assume for his
birth mother.

Speaker 5 (21:20):
I don't know.

Speaker 3 (21:21):
These are like tough spots.

Speaker 2 (21:22):
To be in.

Speaker 5 (21:23):
They really are, Yeah, they really are.

Speaker 3 (21:25):
Absolutely this is true crime.

Speaker 5 (21:27):
Tonight We're on iHeartRadio. We were right in the middle
of talking about the Anna Kepner case. If you want
to weigh in and if you have any thoughts, give
us a call eight eight eight thirty one crime, or
just leave us a little talk back in Boom. You'll
be on the show Courtney, what's going on with the murder?
I've been dying to hear about what's going on with
Murdle girl.

Speaker 4 (21:46):
It is such a mess. It is such a mess.
So if the name rings a bell but you don't
quite remember. In twenty twenty three, the South Carolina attorney
Alex Murda he was convicted of the double murder of
his wife, Maggie and their nineteen year old son Paul,
that happened in twenty twenty one, well way back in

(22:07):
the news, because just a couple of days ago, the
South Carolina Supreme Court unanimously overturned those convictions and they
ordered an entirely brand new trial. And the ruling is
because the former court clerk, Becky Hill, engaged in jury interference.
And there's more details I was not aware of until today.

(22:30):
State prosecutors they are vowing to retry the murder case
by the end of the year, regardless of the outcome.
And Murda, however, he will remain behind bars. He's serving
a decades long sentence for financial crimes. But today Murda's
legal team announced they have filed a federal civil rights

(22:51):
lawsuit against this former clerk, Becky Hill, and they are
seeking six hundred thousand dollars in damages to hold her
accountable for violating Alex Murda's constitutional right to a fair trial.
And I think we actually have a clip of the
defense attorney, Dick Harpulian.

Speaker 6 (23:12):
The law is clear that he cannot seek the death
penalty if it is if it is due to vindictive prosecution,
that is, and here's the question, what does he know today?
He didn't know five years ago. Why is he saying
he's going to seek the death penalty? Is there some
new piece of evidence. So we're a little sick and tired.

(23:36):
And we've seen this process since the beginning of this case,
where Alan Wilson plays politic as opposed to playing prosecutor.
He's got great lawyers, great lawyers on his staff. He
should listen to them, defer to their judgment. Clearly the
statute says he is whoever tampers with a jury or

(23:57):
attempts to tamper with a jury is guilty of a crime.
Judge told fact finding, we're queer. Becky Hill attempted the
Supreme Court this week. Last week, Becky Hill attempted, so
please allan focus on your job and not the politics.

Speaker 5 (24:17):
Ooh that he makes good points though, I mean it's
so fair.

Speaker 2 (24:21):
It's a fair point, even though their evidence against Alex
Murda is incredibly damning, or is it? You know, this
is again we're talking about the same semantics like we
were talking about in the Luigi Mangioni case. In the
last segment. You know, by the letter of the law,
this is how it is written. And this is an

(24:45):
example of it maybe going sideways. And again this is
a real learning opportunity for anybody who works at the
clerk's office or who works at any capacity around these trials,
Like you were not serve justice at this point, you
are disserving him.

Speaker 5 (25:03):
I agree. And let's ask the question without the financial
crimes right, without that being so hit upon in trial,
because the judge did criticize the state for using that
right said it was too prejudicial. So without that and
without the you know, finger on the scale by the clerk,
you know, telling the jury, oh, don't you know necessarily

(25:27):
believe you know him, make sure you look at his
body language, and let's get this verdict done quick without
that interference. Will he get convicted? What do you think?

Speaker 7 (25:39):
No?

Speaker 5 (25:39):
And you guys know both a lot about the case.

Speaker 4 (25:42):
Yeah, I I think he will, even if you take
the financial I absolutely think you will. There's there was
a video recording that there was there's a lot to
point to his guilt. I think ultimately this will be
rectified to exactly right where it was before this former clerk,
Becky Hill came on the scene. But here's a few details.

(26:04):
And again I didn't know about this. So again, the
defense is arguing that this clerk deprived Alex Murder of
his constitutional right to a fair trial, she executed improper
external influences on the jury, and some of the hyper
questionable behind the scenes interactions include that this clerk had

(26:27):
multiple private conversations that went on five to ten minutes
with the jury four person, including they went into a
single occupancy bathroom together and walked off for a private
discussion during a jury visit to the crime scene.

Speaker 2 (26:44):
What it's like, it's a fathom of crazy. It really
is so ready. And by the way, there's usually like
people that kind of run interference. Like having been to
several trials, you know, there's always an officer, a security person.

Speaker 3 (27:00):
It's very it's very dignified, right.

Speaker 2 (27:03):
This woman is like strapping her way in the bathroom
and you know, gossiping like she's one of the chickens.
And you're like, no, no, no, no, you're not.

Speaker 3 (27:11):
It's not just us.

Speaker 2 (27:12):
Chickens, Becky, this is very serious and very sacred to it,
and you're messing it up.

Speaker 4 (27:19):
But Stephanie, she is the one whose duty it is
to make it run with dignity. And she's like, come here,
hopp in the can with me, you know, shut the.

Speaker 3 (27:29):
Door and it's crazy.

Speaker 4 (27:31):
And the lawsuit quotes a passage from the book that
this clerk co authored, and it implies that, I'm sure
it's beautiful prose. It implies that she and members of
the jurys shared quote an epiphany regarding Murda's guilt while
viewing the property where the crime took place. That private conversation. Yes,

(27:53):
but this is a sort of multiple.

Speaker 2 (27:55):
Yeah, it's yeah, I really it's subs to me. And listen,
Alex was not winning a fan in me anytime soon.
That trial was unoften hinged.

Speaker 7 (28:06):
It really was.

Speaker 2 (28:07):
But by the way, if you take out all of
his lying and cheating, I mean, he was a real liar,
and you're like, he was straight faced lying every day
at work. He was lying to everybody who knew him.
He was a raging drug addict lying to the world.
That was real color though, because he kept getting called
out for his lies. Granted in some cases they were financial,

(28:29):
but it was egregious, Like you just really, by the
time it got down to it before you was a
scoundrel who was oozing of troubles and a ticking clock
in financial worries, and he was about to get found out.
You watched him unravel and lie. So if that, if
that's all taken away and you're just looking at the

(28:51):
evidence of what happened to Paul effectually known as Papa
and his wife, Really it was that audio in the barn.

Speaker 3 (29:00):
That was the big yeah, the big who've done it?

Speaker 2 (29:03):
Moment? And if you really think of it just as that,
And I don't know the answer, I'd be curious what
you guys think. And if anyone listening has an opinion
on this, jump in eight eight eight three one crime
or just leave us a talkback. Do you think that
audio was enough? Because I don't know. It's kind of
like hearing the ghost. Is it possible? I don't want

(29:24):
to even put this out there because I'm not suggesting
that Alex Murdoch should like start a new and get
a whole new life. Sounds like he was up to
no good. But if we're looking at the letter of
the law, is that what we wanted to hear? Because
by the time we got to that audio, he was
really like a liar, liar pants on fire.

Speaker 5 (29:43):
He was sweating voice. Oh did we hear what we
wanted to hear?

Speaker 6 (29:47):
Right?

Speaker 2 (29:47):
He kind of like you would in a ghost show
with the confirmation, you know, ghost show, which I've learned
from Courtney and from you guys on this show. So
when I listened back to it, I wonder, hm, if
I'm the defense attorney. Boy, there seems like there's a
real crack in the armor right now. Can you imagine
if Alex Murda walks? What world do we live in?

(30:10):
We have Luigi Mangioni, who potentially is having some very
critical information tossed out of his trial, Alex Murda, who's
been lying, stealing and cheating, doing all kinds of bad things.
He might get like some sort of treatment. And we
have the court clerk, Becky Hill.

Speaker 4 (30:29):
She is running ripshod over the Justice departments.

Speaker 2 (30:36):
She should run for office, she'll probably get elected. Crazy,
what world are we in right now? I feel like
it's a little upside down.

Speaker 3 (30:45):
It really is upside down.

Speaker 5 (30:47):
Monday, Oh wow, Well, we're gonna have to listen. We're
gonna have to follow this new lawsuit throughout and see
what goes on with it, because it is pretty it's
pretty crazy.

Speaker 2 (30:58):
This case just keeps to get stranger and stranger and stranger.
Let's go to a talk back about it right now, Hi, y'all.

Speaker 8 (31:05):
Jackie from North Carolina, love y'all, Thank you great. I'm
not completely convinced that Murda was a drug addict. I
believe he might have used drugs at some point, but
I do not think that he had the addiction that.

Speaker 9 (31:17):
He said he did.

Speaker 8 (31:18):
There would be some real tell tale signs if he
did say by, have a great day, y'all.

Speaker 2 (31:24):
Oh interest you. So maybe he was saying he was
a drug addict as a cover up to get maybe
sympathy maybe, but that he would be like it would
be excusable making he didn't really have a clear memory,
or he was maybe overstating his drug abuse to justify
all the money he was stealing.

Speaker 5 (31:47):
Right because, I mean, he on the stand he said
he suffered from a decade's long, you know, opioid addiction.
And then remember his friend Chris, I think his name
was his best friend, testa Chris Wilson, Chris will thank
you testified. Yeah, Alex confessed to me that he was
embezzling money to pay for his drug addiction and you know,

(32:09):
prior to the murders and everything like that.

Speaker 4 (32:11):
And interesting thought. But the prosecution as well. They connected
Murda's addiction. They like unraveled the whole paper trail of
the monies that were used to fund his habit that
went directly to a dealer named Jerry Rivers.

Speaker 3 (32:26):
So and.

Speaker 5 (32:29):
Paul the Son remember the text he sent him. He
sent Alex a text he said, Dad, Mom found a
bunch of pills a up in like the computer bag
or something. I can't gosh, it's been but Mom found
a bunch of your pills in your computer bag and
there were hundreds of them. I can't remember the exact thing,

(32:51):
but there were like a huge amount of pills in
his computer bag. I don't know. I think he did
have an addiction.

Speaker 3 (32:57):
Yeah, I mean interesting theory and who but I have it.

Speaker 5 (33:01):
I do think it is possible to our talkbacks point
that he did play it up a little bit though,
Like he did.

Speaker 3 (33:08):
He was crying, yeah.

Speaker 2 (33:10):
Carrying on so Sey, Yeah he was. It was a
spectacle of a trial. If you guys haven't seen any
of it, it's worth a watch because it was. It
seemed as though, and this is my perception at the time,
was that they were really pulling at anything. It was
like and then the kitchen sink, and then this, and
then this, and he was just taking it straight to

(33:32):
the bitter end. And by the way, then he choked
at the bitter end and honestly fell apart. And his
drugs were part of his excuse. He seemed like he
was riddled with shame. And again a lot of noise.
But if you cut through all.

Speaker 3 (33:49):
That noise, what do they have.

Speaker 7 (33:51):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (33:51):
I'm curious about this one. I'm really curious to see
how this plays out.

Speaker 5 (33:55):
I really want to echo kind of what you said.
If you haven't watched this, you really shod. At least
get caught up, because if if this upcoming trial is
anything like the last one, it is going to dominate
conversations in the true crime sphere I think for quite
some time. And if you want to, you know, get

(34:16):
in on the action and how the conversations watched the
first trial. It won't take long.

Speaker 3 (34:20):
Yeah, or at least a highlights together.

Speaker 2 (34:23):
Yeah, do that. That kind of will tie into our
big announcement that's coming up.

Speaker 3 (34:28):
So exciting. I agree, agree, I like it.

Speaker 4 (34:31):
Oh, so, we didn't talk much about the financial demands
and the damage in the lawsuit. In the lawsuit exactly
so again, Alex Murda's legal team are they've filed the
civil rights lawsuit against this former clerk, Becky Hill, seeking
the six hundred thousand dollars in damages, and that number

(34:54):
is exactly precisely the amount that Alex murdapaid to his
defense attorneys.

Speaker 5 (35:01):
What have we thought about all? Isn't that wild?

Speaker 10 (35:04):
Mmmmm?

Speaker 4 (35:06):
I know eder the lawsuit, so it's asking for compensatory
and for punitive, so you know, compensate me and you
should be punished. But the attorney said that none of
the recovered money will go to Alex Murdach personally, but
it didn't say who it's.

Speaker 3 (35:25):
Going to that I saw. But what they said, I mean, right.

Speaker 2 (35:29):
Is it I don't know.

Speaker 3 (35:30):
I don't know.

Speaker 5 (35:31):
I don't know what I'm guessing if he owns them
maybe six hundred thousand dollars for his trial, you know,
they say he paid a flat rate, right, yeah, well
it's probably going to go to them. I mean, this
is the exact amount that they charged him, right yeah,
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (35:46):
Interesting, Okay, do you think they're just all grateful to
Becky Hill right now? Or is Alex Murdoch is in
his cell as we speak someplace far away. Is he
just counting his blessings that this has happened?

Speaker 3 (36:02):
And what's the alternate theory?

Speaker 2 (36:04):
So if Alex didn't kill his beloved wife and his
youngest son, who does he think did well?

Speaker 5 (36:13):
They say they're going to introduce new evidence and third
party culpability. So they're saying it's either a burglar or
somebody scorned, or maybe a jilted glover of some kind.
They're going to try to introduce something else. But I
think you're a dealer.

Speaker 2 (36:29):
Perhaps that was like making all that oxy coto in
his way. Oh what, maybe you know it's funny, another
interesting listen. You know, it's a shame. I wouldn't mind
trying to get her on. He had a maid. There
was a housemaid, housekeeper, I should say, who is very
beloved and a member of the family who would tend

(36:51):
to the house.

Speaker 3 (36:52):
And she came out and I.

Speaker 2 (36:53):
Believe also wrote a book, but did a very interesting
interview that I happened to watch, and you know, the
broad strokes of it were he was kind of messy,
and she was clocking certain things and certain behaviors in
and around the time of these murders that now she
can't unsee that in retrospect, as she connected the dots backward,

(37:14):
she noticed his clothing that he didn't really change, and
you know some of the things that he was doing
around the murders that were just weird that in a
case of somebody who was, you know, so sad about
losing their wife and their child, that these would not
be the behaviors. And it's interesting and I think with

(37:34):
this lens, I wonder how critical her testimony is going
to become as well as too, because on the stand
in the last trial, she got kind of crucified. She
didn't have she seemed to have gotten caught off guard
the process, seemed like she was on trial for reasons
that were none so she kind of came out thereafter.

(37:58):
So again, it all speaks to the idea that anything's
possible for this trial moving forward and mad as hell.

Speaker 4 (38:05):
You know, these are two people who lost their lives. Yeah,
because the defense put up up excuse me, taha.

Speaker 7 (38:11):
Oh please, but no. I was just going to say.

Speaker 11 (38:12):
Her name is Blanka Simpson, and we started to talk
about her just a little bit yesterday and they asked
her about the retrial and she mentioned that while this
retrial reopens old wounds. She respects the court's decision because
everyone deserves a fair trial, so she is open to
moving forward with everything.

Speaker 7 (38:29):
But sorry about that, Courtney, what were you going to say? Please?

Speaker 4 (38:32):
Oh, first of all, that is interesting, and yeah, that
would be hard to see her cross examined again unless
you know it went a little differently, because that was
rough to watch. But what I was going to say
was the defense they really did put up quite a defense.
I mean, they maintained throughout the whole time that Murda
was with his sick mother and then he couldn't possibly

(38:54):
have been there. That the prosecution like they they were
attacked by the state and the physical evidence. They also
challenged it really hard and saying that no murder weapons
were immediately recovered, and there was unidentified male DNA found
under Maggie's fingernails that was never, according to defense, thoroughly investigated.

Speaker 3 (39:18):
So it is if that's true.

Speaker 2 (39:20):
If that's true, and there was in fact DNA under
mom's nails at the time of her death that's unidentified,
of course that should not be the case.

Speaker 3 (39:31):
So that is interesting in and of itself.

Speaker 2 (39:33):
And going back to Blanca, the person who did this interview,
who worked at their home. She has a lot of
information for sure, But is it in her best interest
for this to go to trial as well?

Speaker 3 (39:44):
Because she wrote a book? Is that going to help
book sales?

Speaker 7 (39:47):
That's a good point.

Speaker 2 (39:48):
Oh, it's not even my opinion. I'm just asking the question.
I'm just kind of down this rabbit hole of This
is one of those cases that was so sensationalized that
you can't really put it back in a bottle. So
how does justice really get served at this state? It
concerns me.

Speaker 3 (40:07):
It really concerns me.

Speaker 5 (40:09):
It really does Becky Becky.

Speaker 3 (40:12):
Be okay, one more thing about Becky and then we'll switch.

Speaker 4 (40:16):
But this is literally an unrelated thing that happened.

Speaker 3 (40:21):
But she also pleaded guilty.

Speaker 4 (40:23):
This happened last year for showing sealed court exhibits to
a photographer and then she went ahead and lied about
it in the court.

Speaker 2 (40:32):
Becky. The more I hear, the more I go nuts.
How is Becky even in the mix? But again, how
do you prevent that kind of thing from happening?

Speaker 4 (40:44):
Well, she faced lawsuit for six hundred thousand dollars. I
think that'll give you pause. But listen, if you're just
joining us. There's true crime tonight, and we have been
talking about the absolute mess of the Alex Murdoch case.
And now you had some information on Richard Glossup.

Speaker 5 (41:03):
Yeah. Richard Glossop, he's been in prison for the past
twenty nine years behind bars. He's sixty three years old
now and he was released from the Oklahoma County Detention
Center last Thursday, May fourteenth. He was convicted of the
nineteen ninety seven murder of motel owner Barry Van Trees. Okay,

(41:24):
and this is a murder that Richard Glossop maintains he
did not commit. Okay. Richard secured his release after Kim
Kardashian paid the fifty thousand dollars required for his five
hundred thousand dollars bond. Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner, I can't

(41:45):
say that name. It's very Oklahoma Gentner. Drummond, what a name.
He intends to try Richard Glossop for a third time.
And this trial is expected to happen in twenty twenty
seven or later, and prosecutors are no longer seeking the
death penalties. So here's what happened, Okay, Just a really

(42:05):
quick rundown in nineteen ninety seven. It is undisputed that
Justin Sneed, he was then nineteen years old and he
was a maintenance worker. He is the individual that beat
the victim, Barry Van Trees, to death with a baseball bat. Undisputed. Okay, Okay.
Now the killer in this case, Justin, he avoided the

(42:27):
death penalty by taking a life without parole plea deal
in exchange for testifying against Richard Glossip. Okay, Now he
testified that Richard Glossip offered him ten thousand dollars to
commit this murder. Okay, So Justin goes to prison for
the rest of his life and Richard Glossip he gets tried.

(42:51):
He rejected a similar plea deal. He maintained his innocence.
He admits that killer Justin Sneed told him about the
murder after fact, which Richard Glossop never reported, but he
denies any involvement in planning it or paying him money.
No involvement.

Speaker 2 (43:08):
Okay.

Speaker 5 (43:09):
So this starts the legal troubles for him for the
next thirty years.

Speaker 8 (43:13):
Right.

Speaker 5 (43:14):
He was convicted and sentenced to death in two thousand
and one, and a criminal Court of Appeals in Oklahoma
overturned the verdict. Citing extremely weak evidence surrounding the testimony
of this, you know, the real killer, Justin's need and
an effective assistance of counsel. So it gets overturned. They

(43:35):
try him again in two thousand and four, and he
was convicted a second time and sent back to death row. Well,
he had nine execution dates, he even had three last meals.
It kept getting commuted, kept getting commuted, right, Well, they
had just really bad evidence against him. Public there was

(43:58):
legal scrutiny, and it intensified after a fellow Oklahoma inmate
named Clayton Lockett suffered a botched forty three minute lethal injection.

Speaker 3 (44:09):
Oh my gosh.

Speaker 5 (44:10):
Yeah. Nine months later, another Oklahoma inmate named Charles Charles Warner,
he was executed under a similar protocol, crying out that
his body felt on fire during the execution. This is
cruel and unusual punishment, which is against you know, the
United States. You can't, you know, do this kind of thing.
And they did autopsies on these men, and they revealed

(44:31):
that Oklahoma officials used the wrong, unapproved chemical in these executions.
All right, so why is he out? Why is he out?
Why is this guy out? Well, the Supreme Court intervened
In twenty twenty five, the High Court ruled that prosecutors
knowingly allowed the real killer in this You know, the
guy that did it with a baseball bat, justin Sneaed. Yeah,

(44:54):
they knowingly allowed him to give false testimony on the stand,
complete deletely undermining his credibility as the star's state witness.
So this guy is the central key for him being
on death row. And the Supreme Court said, not so fast.
This guy gave false testimony and it undermines his credibility.

(45:16):
Now they're going to try this guy again. So Richard Glossop,
he's out now. Kim Kardashian paid it. And while he's
awaiting his third trial, he must wear an ankle monitor.
He has to they a curfew, stay in Oklahoma, avoid
any of the witnesses, and refrain for all drugs and alcohol.
The family the victim, Barry Van Trees, they remain convinced

(45:38):
that Richard Glossop is guilty. So they're really like kind
of upset by this because they really believe he's guilty
of hiring the real killer. I keep saying that, but
I don't know. We'll just call him the real killer
of doing this. So very upset and this is a quote.
This was a bad case in nineteen ninety seven, it
was a worst case in two thousand and four. It'll

(45:59):
be a disaster or for the state in twenty twenty
seven or whatever. It's going to be tried, Richard Glossop's
defense told CNN's Jake Tapper on Thursday. So we'll be
following that. So stay tuned for more on.

Speaker 4 (46:11):
That absolutely, and also stick around because at the top
of the hour, it's Missing Persons Monday and tonight, we're
going to talk about the case of nineteen year old
they crash their suv and then seem to vanish without
a trace.

Speaker 3 (46:25):
Don't forget. We'd love to hear from you always.

Speaker 4 (46:27):
We're at eight of eight three one crime, True Crime Tonight.

Speaker 2 (46:41):
Welcome back to True Crime Tonight an iHeartRadio. We're talking
true crime all the time. I'm staff here with Courtney
and Body And if you've missed any of the show,
you can always catch us after as a podcast. So taha,
I know we have a talkback that you would also
like to set up for us.

Speaker 3 (46:58):
Hold that thought. Let's go to the talk back first.

Speaker 12 (47:01):
Hi, t com tonight. It's highly calling from Australia. Just
going to say thank you so much for bringing on
the segment about missing in America. There were so many
people missing worldwide. We have so many in Australia, and
I just want to say that we should MISSI get
these people and it's a real pleasure and important thing
what you are doing.

Speaker 7 (47:25):
Wow, that is yeah. Yeah, were so appreciation and it's true.

Speaker 11 (47:31):
We don't want to forget these people that are missing,
and we try to continue to shine a light on
these stories as much as possible. And I have to
say our audience really responds to these and we get
so many different dms and.

Speaker 7 (47:45):
Talk backs about it.

Speaker 11 (47:47):
I got a DM of another case that I found
interesting that I'd love to share with you guys, if
you guys are.

Speaker 7 (47:52):
Open to this one.

Speaker 11 (47:53):
Okay, this one is from Mary and she says, Hey, y'all,
this is Mary Hey in Cincinnati. I want to recommend
that you look into the case of missing Bryce last
Pisi las Pisia. I'm sorry, las Pisa. I should have
that name correct. He's out of California in twenty thirteen.
He was missing since twenty thirteen. It's absolutely the strangest

(48:16):
disappearance that I've ever heard of the way that he
was acting strangely and interfering with the police right beforehand.
Love you guys and you chicks. So that's that case.
So I did a little digging to just understand a
little bit more about the case and just wrap my
head around it.

Speaker 7 (48:34):
So I'd love to share some with our audience with
you guys, please. I don't know this case, okay.

Speaker 11 (48:39):
So back in August of twenty thirteen, He's a nineteen
year old college student and his name is Bryce las Pisa,
and he disappeared in California after deeply disturbing series of
events that unfolded under about There was about a twenty
four hour period that this all happened. So Bryce had
been driving home from his northern California area from his

(49:02):
home where he lived to go see his parents and
all of his friends and family. They noticed some behavior
that was sort of unusual, let's just say, erratic and
not his typical behavior. He reportedly got very emotional and detached,
and he spent hours alone in his car. He was

(49:23):
just sitting on the roadside and he just kind of
stopped there without explanation. His parents called and they were
continually trying to understand what was going on. They even
contacted the police and roadside the roadside assistant, and Bryce
never made it home. Hours later, his crashed SUV was
found overturned, the rear window was kicked out, and a

(49:46):
small amount of blood was found inside. Bryce was gone
and he has never been found since. So that's been
the case with that one. Yeah, let's and talk together.

Speaker 5 (49:57):
So he's driving to he's driving to his parents' home. Correct,
he just pulls over on the side of the road
for hours.

Speaker 7 (50:06):
That's exactly it. He was a student at Sierra.

Speaker 11 (50:09):
College, which is near Sacramento, and that's where he lived,
and he was going to be driving home to see
his parents in Laguna Negal, California area. Yeah, oh I
didn't know that, Okay, So he was heading to that area. Well,
like I said, he was sort of acting unusual beforehand,

(50:29):
Like even leading up to this, friends noticed he had
become detached. He was drinking heavily, and I found this odd.
He began giving away belongings. I'm sure we're all kind
of we're all thinking the same thing, but it still
has something that is unusual about the case. Like his

(50:49):
mother even said she felt that he was off and
things were a little unusual. But to your question, body, yeah,
he did sit in his car in an area called
Button Willow for a couple of hours and he just
didn't move and respond to react, which you know it does.
It does seem unusual. Well, he repeated. His parents tried
to contact him constantly during that time period to understand

(51:12):
what was going on, and they even said roadside assistance.
But the tow truck operator when he got there, he said,
Bryce appeared calm, but not fully himself.

Speaker 7 (51:22):
I found that odd because how would the tow truck
taken't even know?

Speaker 11 (51:26):
Yeah, yeah, like if I pulled over on the side
of the road, Like, how would he know my normal behavior?

Speaker 7 (51:30):
That that stood out to me. It's a little unusual.

Speaker 5 (51:32):
But please, can we impact that real quick?

Speaker 7 (51:35):
Yeah, I'd love to.

Speaker 5 (51:36):
So not acting like yourself from a total stranger is
an odd phrasing, but it could be that he was
acting so Arabic and that was just a very polite
way of saying he wasn't himself.

Speaker 4 (51:48):
You're right, he didn't seem himself. He seemed like anyone
who seems outside of themselves.

Speaker 7 (51:53):
Yeah, right, I see.

Speaker 2 (51:54):
That's actually a really good point. That's a very interesting point.

Speaker 5 (51:59):
Yeah, and you know a lot of in listen. I
don't know if this is I don't know thing about
this case, but you know a lot of people when
they're contemplating or they're having suicidal thoughts, they'll sit in
their car for hours because that's when they usually knew
it because it's contained, it's cleaner, They're not going to
ruin someone's home, you know, it's it's a place some

(52:22):
things happen.

Speaker 11 (52:23):
I agree with you, and I think this is why
the case still has a mysterious ending or.

Speaker 5 (52:30):
Where why Obviously that's not what happened well, because car
crash exactly.

Speaker 11 (52:37):
So to lead up to that, what happened was around
five point thirty in the morning on that on August thirtieth,
they found his suv and had been crashed down in
an embarkment. They said the rear window was kicked out
from inside, and again they found a little bit of
blood inside of the suv, but the authority said the
crash was survival survivable and it raised the possibility that

(53:00):
he walked away. Afterwards, search dogs they tracked his scent
towards the lake area, but the trail just sort of
disappeared like they were never able to find him, and
please Courtney jump in, Well, I mean if it was
if he was alone and the window was kicked out,
which first of all, that boyet, that would be so

(53:20):
much effort.

Speaker 4 (53:21):
Like, there's no other explanation that we're aware of other
than he got out of the car by kicking out
the rear window.

Speaker 7 (53:29):
Right, That's all we have at this point.

Speaker 11 (53:32):
Yeah, So again I can see all of your wheels
turning where you're kind of connecting the dots.

Speaker 5 (53:38):
And where did do you know? So you said that
the dogs were sniffing the scent and that the trail
went cold, and you said something about a lake. Did
it go Do you know if it went cold at
the lake?

Speaker 7 (53:56):
It's up towards the lake, is what we're here. So
I don't have anything further.

Speaker 11 (54:01):
I would have assumed I didn't look or see anything
further As to whether they searched or dragged the lake
and did that, I would imagine in this case they
probably would have done that. But up until this point
there have been no confirmed sightings of him. They never
found a body. So it's the family just I think
ultimately wants closure or in an answer.

Speaker 5 (54:24):
Of course, a poor family. I mean they this has
been what thirteen years now that he's been missing, such a.

Speaker 4 (54:32):
Such a young man, nineteen, just like we were saying
with Anna Kaepner, just really on that precipice of beginning
your adult life. And I did a one second search,
and yes, the La County Sheriff's Department, it was extensive
in the area. It was the Sheriff's special diving teams
were underwater, there was helicopters patrolling overhead, there were horseback

(54:55):
units going into these remote ravines.

Speaker 5 (54:58):
So the same thing Courtney about the cause of the accident.

Speaker 3 (55:04):
But he had not in my one second search.

Speaker 5 (55:07):
It does not all it's fine, it's fine, it's fine.

Speaker 7 (55:10):
Yeah, I listened to that too. There was I know,
there are a lot of questions with this when I didn't.

Speaker 11 (55:14):
See it seems like a specific cause, and of course
I think we all went to the idea of this
feels like he might have been in a dark place. Yeah,
maybe he ended his own life, but it doesn't I
beg the question.

Speaker 5 (55:26):
Giving away all your possessions is like the number one
sign that somebody is likely feeling suicidal. It's one of
the bigger signs, you know, but or you know, listen,
maybe he was just wanting to move and didn't want
to have all the stuff. It's just giving away his possessions, so,
you know, not necessarily, but you know usually you know

(55:49):
that in combination with acting erratic and not himself, and
you know, if his friends and family were noticing that
he was being different than obviously suicide would be something
that I would be looking into. And I asked about
the crash because I wondered if he drove his car.

Speaker 3 (56:04):
Into a board, hit a tree or something on purpose.

Speaker 11 (56:07):
Yeah, yeah, I think that's where my mind went as well.
But well, I appreciate Mary, Thank you Mary kay Cincinnati
for reaching out to us and letting us know about
this case because it was a new one, and just
you know, every case that we go into, I do
check every Monday to see if there's been any updates.
So far are the ones that we've covered. There hasn't

(56:28):
been any news that's been relevant to share, but I'm
going to keep on top of them and we'll keep
those going. So thank you, Mary, and maybe Adam and
Sam have something else that we can turn to after
we do a little reset.

Speaker 5 (56:42):
Before we do that, Bryce was nineteen years old at
the time of his disappearance. He was described as about
five ft eleven and approximately one hundred and seventy pounds,
and uniquely, he has red hair and blue eyes, so
he should stand out if somebody sees him, and what
he would be ye thirty five now that he was

(57:04):
last believed to be wearing a white T shirt and
red basketball shorts and he drove a two thousand and
three tan Toyota. Oh my gosh, Toyota High Plander. Anyone
with information, if you see Bryce or you have some information,
maybe you even saw him on the side of the road,
give the Los Angeles County Sheriff's apartment a little buzz

(57:26):
with your information.

Speaker 2 (57:27):
Yeah, thank you, Thank you.

Speaker 5 (57:29):
Boddy, You're welcome. This is true Crime tonight. We're on iHeartRadio.
I'm Boddy Movin. I'm here with Courtney Armstrong and Stephanie
Leidecker and we were just doing missing Persons Monday. But
I think we're gonna switch things up. I'm go to
a little talk back a team.

Speaker 13 (57:43):
This is Alicia from Atlanta. I just listened to my
talk back and I am literally blushing. I appreciate the
compliment about my voice. My line of work actually is,
I'm a social worker and I'm actually back in school
for my masters and social work after being out of
college for like over twenty years. But thank you so

(58:06):
much for the compliment.

Speaker 7 (58:07):
I love you guys.

Speaker 3 (58:08):
Oh we love you too.

Speaker 2 (58:10):
By the way, isn't that so inspiring to after twenty
years to be starting anew I just want to throw
that out there. We've heard that from a few callers recently,
you know, and covered a few cases, and I'm one
of them too, Just throwing my own hat at me. No,
I am too kind of you know. I have, after
becoming a mom, like a career shift later in life,

(58:31):
and I'm so grateful for it.

Speaker 5 (58:34):
I have been contemplating going and getting my masters in
criminal justice. Oh no, it's been it's been thirty years
since I graduated college, and so you know, these phone
calls and stuff kind of give me the little push
that maybe I should.

Speaker 3 (58:48):
It's inspiring, right, I've been very inspiring. Yeah.

Speaker 4 (58:51):
Yeah, I've been poking around a little bit myself. There's
the we have one more so I've been, yeah, trying
to trying to figure that out, to get that show.

Speaker 2 (59:02):
Back to school is that the new show. It's called
back to School, Back.

Speaker 3 (59:07):
To School and you guys go to school.

Speaker 7 (59:10):
I love it.

Speaker 5 (59:11):
Back to true crime school, true crime homework tonight. Yes,
we'll be on the show. I'll be doing my homework. Wait,
let me get the answer.

Speaker 3 (59:24):
Like the term paper is due. I mean, I get
a cold chill.

Speaker 2 (59:27):
But like, honestly, I feel like you both would be
the professors already. But I do think it's so inspiring
just any career shift, or whether it's going back for
education or just shaking it up and trying your passion
later in life. It only gets better with age. And
you know, it's so easy to lose courage.

Speaker 3 (59:47):
Yeah, it's easy to lose courage.

Speaker 5 (59:48):
Yeah, if you ladies had to go back to school tomorrow,
what would you go back to school for law school?
You would you go to law school?

Speaker 2 (59:58):
No brainer. I would have gone to law school. That
was the that was on the agenda at one point. Yeah,
I thought this isn't a law is so interesting?

Speaker 7 (01:00:09):
Right?

Speaker 2 (01:00:09):
So, and we use so much of it in our
line of work. It just is beneficial to all facets, right,
and sometimes it really doesn't make sense, So understanding it better,
I think, is how to explain it better. I don't
know that I would want to be practicing law, but
I would want to.

Speaker 3 (01:00:28):
Be Maybe you get it at this stage.

Speaker 5 (01:00:29):
You could get a JD. Right, the jurisd doctorate. You know,
you go to law school, you don't necessarily pass the bar,
you become a JD. Isn't that what that is?

Speaker 2 (01:00:38):
I think that's what Kim Kardashian was trying to do.
I assume, by the way, we haven't.

Speaker 3 (01:00:43):
Talked about that too.

Speaker 2 (01:00:43):
And the last story she had given fifty thousand dollars
to have that man see his day. Yet she has
withdrawn from, you know, fighting to become an attorney. Interesting.
You know, sometimes you can do good things in the
world and it doesn't mean that you have to have
a degree. Despite what you might think about Kim Kardashian.

Speaker 4 (01:01:04):
Yes, you absolutely do not need any kind of a
degree to do good things. But I don't know, man,
people were talking about her giving up the fight to
be an attorney, and there was no fight. Listen, she
has done great things for justice and she has moved
the needle on people's.

Speaker 3 (01:01:22):
Actual lives, and that is laudable.

Speaker 4 (01:01:25):
However, trying like not going to law school and not
taking proper classes, even pass the bar and then crying
about it.

Speaker 3 (01:01:33):
I don't have a lot of patience for that. It's
like me saying she.

Speaker 5 (01:01:35):
Actually went Did she not go to law school?

Speaker 2 (01:01:38):
She went, She went to she took the mini bar,
you know study. I knew she did that, Graham, and
I think ultimately was taking the exam and had failed
it and had to kind of poney up and start over.
And I'm sure that's a pretty full commitment. Am I
defending Kim Kardashian's And then.

Speaker 3 (01:02:00):
I figure, how dare you?

Speaker 2 (01:02:02):
But Kim on behalf of all of us. We implored
your decision. I mean, listen, it's a hard test and
it should be.

Speaker 4 (01:02:13):
Yeah, well keep it here, because coming up, we're going
to talk about the prison guard who might have been
the very last person to see Jeffrey Epstein alive. Her
questioning is interesting. True Crime Tonight.

Speaker 2 (01:02:38):
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 listen. Later in
the show, we're going to get to some of Adams's
personal music that he has brought in as proof because
we have gotten a lot of listeners who are asking
to hear his music, so we're excited about that. Before

(01:03:01):
we go any further into this, Epstein Soaka because it continues,
and the last person to technically see him alive, the
guard at the prison where he died, has now gone
before the House Oversight Committee.

Speaker 3 (01:03:16):
So before we even get.

Speaker 2 (01:03:17):
To that, I just want to put a kapper, Courtney,
what would you go to school for if you went
back right now?

Speaker 12 (01:03:23):
So?

Speaker 4 (01:03:24):
I've always wanted and I don't need it, but I would.
I've always had the goal to get a doctorate.

Speaker 3 (01:03:31):
It'd be great.

Speaker 4 (01:03:32):
So and so, I mean there's a couple of different things.
Rhetoric I'm really interested in. I've studied it a lot,
so something to I would do something that would build
on the masters to not like let those.

Speaker 3 (01:03:43):
That time go wasted.

Speaker 4 (01:03:44):
But yeah, rhetoric is of interest to me. And even
that actually collides with a lot of stuff when we
were talking about, like forensic writing.

Speaker 3 (01:03:55):
So I don't know, it might be something.

Speaker 5 (01:03:58):
That's a really good podcasting too. Rhetoric you could run
with that.

Speaker 2 (01:04:04):
Right, boom boom boom.

Speaker 4 (01:04:06):
Interesting, Well, listen, I think great, I feel like we're
all to talk about precipices earlier.

Speaker 3 (01:04:11):
We're all in the precipice of that's right things. Buddy boo,
what would you?

Speaker 5 (01:04:18):
I would probably do criminal justice. I have a Bachelor
of Science degree already, so I would I would probably
do criminal justice or like, uh, you know stuff. I've
go to law school.

Speaker 2 (01:04:29):
One of the two would be a great lawyer. Both
of you would.

Speaker 5 (01:04:32):
I'm very interested in constitutional law and obviously criminal law
because I mean of you know, yes and stuff, but yeah,
criminal justice or criminology even yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:04:44):
Yeah, both of you have the quality of a dog
with a bone in terms of if you believe in
someone or something or cause someone's innocence or someone's guilt.
You know, with the information, you would go to the
carpet and the I would.

Speaker 5 (01:05:00):
Love to be a defense attorney. Honestly, it's nothing, for real,
I don't know why. If there's somebody that I believe
is innocent, I would fight like to the end. I mean,
like with every fiber of my being. I really believe that, and.

Speaker 4 (01:05:14):
I think you would do it regardless. It's a it's
I think it's a valiant career.

Speaker 3 (01:05:18):
You all know. I feel about Jeremy, it is something
like it.

Speaker 4 (01:05:23):
I see it as like a value take. It is
an oath. It's an oath to the court. So people
deserve protection, every single person in this country, district.

Speaker 5 (01:05:34):
And even if we don't like it, right, that's correct,
if we don't like it. But yeah, that's what I
would do, criminal justice or even like forensics something, you know,
something in that line. I'd be mini jokes baby body, but.

Speaker 3 (01:05:51):
Baby body joke.

Speaker 2 (01:05:58):
Role at school and Joseph Scott mon be your professor
to doing the world's colliding. Yes, I could.

Speaker 3 (01:06:05):
I love that and I want you on this teacher.

Speaker 2 (01:06:09):
That's amazing. You would be pressure the teacher's pet in
any pass I might add, that would be amazing. Yeah,
and like again, like this keeps heating up with the
Epstein stuff in this House Oversight Committee. The list has
you know, it's getting longer and longer. Courtney, do you
want to fill us in on the most recent developments.

Speaker 4 (01:06:28):
It's the most recent developments. And I got to tell
you I was a little more excited in a really
anticipatory way. But now I'm going to give you the
details of what actually went down. So, uh, you mentioned
it was the former prison guard. Her name is tooven
no Well, and she was talking about the August nineteenth
suicide of Jeffrey Ebstein and it took place under her watch.

Speaker 3 (01:06:52):
The session itself was about four hours.

Speaker 4 (01:06:54):
Lawmakers questioned her about unpremed cell checks. So we had
you heard about that that Epstein was not being checked
on as often as he probably.

Speaker 2 (01:07:08):
Should have.

Speaker 4 (01:07:10):
Toven no Well also googled Jeffrey Epstein really right before
his death. And then also part of the conversation was
her belief that her termination was not fair. So today
her conversation also is part of sort of a broader
congressional sweep of Epstein's network in general and institutional failures

(01:07:35):
that allowed him to evade accountability for decades and continues
apparently to this day.

Speaker 2 (01:07:41):
I was surprised that she was surprised by her termination,
because no matter how you slice this, it seems as
though whatever happened that night was out of line with
the typical protocol. God willing. If it is a typical protocol,
what is this for a prison? It seems like everybody
was out to lunch or dinner, yeah, or having a nap.

(01:08:03):
How is that even possible?

Speaker 4 (01:08:04):
Yeah, all of the above it seems like a lot
of napping was going on. But you know, she did
testify that she believed she was indeed the last person
to see him alive at the Metropolitan Correction Center in Manhattan.
And then when asked about what FBI investigators had already

(01:08:25):
questioned her about, which are the Google searches from the
very morning of Epstein's death, she simply she had a
sword statement that said I don't remember doing that, which
seems like a theme in these House Oversight Committee sessions.

Speaker 3 (01:08:42):
And can we like to stop there for one second?

Speaker 2 (01:08:44):
So the House over Psyched Committee, of course, is now
taking all of these interviews. They're like intake interviews, and
there is there a point where someone says, Aha, now
what we just kind of collecting information, and it seems
like it's okay for people to be like, I have no.

Speaker 5 (01:09:04):
Memory that remember I have?

Speaker 4 (01:09:05):
You know?

Speaker 2 (01:09:06):
So is that is that because they're not technically on trial,
they're not really what are mistakes here?

Speaker 3 (01:09:12):
I guess? Is this just formative?

Speaker 5 (01:09:15):
Don't they swear an oath if you want to Congress?
It's a it's a felony.

Speaker 4 (01:09:21):
But they also they don't have what they can do, like,
let's say you were on the stand.

Speaker 3 (01:09:26):
And this was not a lot of research done on
my end.

Speaker 4 (01:09:28):
But buddy, if you were on the stand and you're like, yes,
I robbed that candy store congressional oversight.

Speaker 3 (01:09:34):
They can't prosecute you.

Speaker 4 (01:09:36):
What they can say is, hey, d o J, you
really need to look into this candy theft, of course.

Speaker 2 (01:09:41):
So they can prosecution. It's the same grouping of people.
It's like, yeah, they're back to the same beginning of
the loop.

Speaker 5 (01:09:49):
It's the same thing though, if you want to Congress
like Bill Clinton did, like he got impeached for him,
you can go to jail for lying to Congress. So
you either get investigat by the DOJ for googling Jeffrey
Epstein in the morning, or you get investigated by the
DJ for lying, like I don't know, maybe lying's the

(01:10:09):
least of the problems.

Speaker 2 (01:10:11):
I guess that.

Speaker 4 (01:10:12):
Or again, just saying I don't remember seems I mean,
I guess if you say you don't remember, what I.

Speaker 5 (01:10:19):
Mean if you don't remember. If you say you don't remember,
but then your spouse is like, well, she doesn't remember,
but she told.

Speaker 3 (01:10:24):
Me six weeks ago.

Speaker 5 (01:10:27):
Like the details you know about why she did this
or you know, I don't know. I'm just making it up,
but I don't know. It just seems silly. I'm just saying,
so many people have suddenly lost their memory exactly.

Speaker 2 (01:10:38):
It's shocking. Yeah, it's shocked.

Speaker 4 (01:10:43):
So during this four hours, the lawmakers they pressed the
former guard Tova Nowel, and this was regarding if you
guys remember that she was getting semi regular financial payments
between April eighteenth and July nineteenth, and those were attributed
by Tova Noel to funds for working over time, and

(01:11:09):
that seemed, you know, credible. So the bottom line is
the committee members pretty much attributed this lack of monitoring
of Epstein to an institutional and competence and not a
cover up. Representative Sumeranean cited a systemic issue at the
facility driven by end quote inetness and laziness. So that

(01:11:36):
that's kind of it was a little anticlimactic and I'll
leave it with. In this four hours, it also came
out that Jeffrey Epstein got some unwarranted privileges, some extra
bed linens and a SEPAP machine with a big long court.

Speaker 2 (01:11:53):
How about that? How about that? How about that's lots
of special privileges. Well, remember his his actual cell was
a mess. I don't know if you guys have seen
photographs of it, but at the time of his body
being discovered, there were sheets strewn all over the room.

(01:12:14):
You know, prisons are pretty buttoned up and clean and neat,
you know, typically that's part of the bed check, right,
and in this case it was just a pig sty.
And then there's an added variable is that there was
no camera footage on at that time. There was this
missing minute, and then it turns out there was really
more of a missing three plus minutes. Then, of course,

(01:12:35):
you know the guard who testified being the last person
to see him, they seemingly napped a bit, but somehow
found time to google the one person in the building
who died while they were on duty.

Speaker 3 (01:12:50):
These are protocols. And then the person who.

Speaker 2 (01:12:54):
Was you know, bar Robert Barr, Who am I saying
that correctly? Yeah, Robert Barr, who also oversaw this investigation
into Jeffrey Epstein's Bill Barr. Forgive me excuse me, Bill Barr.
He was overseeing the investigation, and they claimed that it
was in fact merely a suicide, although so many people

(01:13:15):
have said otherwise. So this becomes such this story of
folklore and also intrigue.

Speaker 3 (01:13:21):
And also it's very scary.

Speaker 2 (01:13:24):
If this is in fact true and he took his
own life, well that's a very scary. Look at the
protocols that are happening in this very high functioning prison
where a lot of high profile people that we've covered
even on this show are housed. That's a very dangerous
thing for fellow inmates. And if he took his own life,
didn't take his own life and was was killed, obviously,

(01:13:47):
that's a whole other set of problems. It's like a
lose lose almost yet I feel like it's also getting
just swept under the rug.

Speaker 3 (01:13:56):
Yeah, agreed.

Speaker 4 (01:13:58):
Did you guys hear about what's happening in France regarding
Ebstein connection to Epstein, Yeah, let's talk about it.

Speaker 1 (01:14:06):
Yeah.

Speaker 4 (01:14:06):
So they've been around twenty suspected victims of Epstein, and
they've contacted French authorities after a public appeal that happened
a couple of months ago. So out of these twenty,
about ten they are completely new victims. They were previously
unknown to investigators, and some of these victims survivors live

(01:14:28):
abroad and investigators are starting to coordinate bringing them to
Paris to provide official testimonies. So the prosecutors they're reopening cases,
they are scouring through Epstein's computers that they have seized
and telephone records. So it seems like France is putting,

(01:14:51):
you know, kind of a lot of attention, and they've
launched a human trafficking investigation, which also speaks to the timeliness,
meaning France is not only looking backward, they're also looking
real time.

Speaker 2 (01:15:04):
And also, hey, what levers are not being pulled correctly?
That to ensure that this is not currently still happening
in their land. And by the way, they're being really
probably that it's very real, and that it's a global operation,
and that likely this global operation is far from shut down.
In fact, it's probably full throttle. Given there's a green

(01:15:24):
light and no accountability on any level in any place.

Speaker 5 (01:15:28):
It's amazing.

Speaker 2 (01:15:29):
And the people that are in charge of governing it
are the ones making the rules in the first place,
who were actually in the documents.

Speaker 5 (01:15:37):
Right well, I think too, they're probably in the French
authorities are probably very concerned because a lot of the
women that were trafficked were trafficked through those modeling agencies
that were in Paris, and that was like a hub, right,
that's right, I mean so like that Jean Luke Brenell guy,
he was the he committed suicide in all of this.

Speaker 2 (01:16:00):
Prison by the way, so iconic modeling agencies too.

Speaker 3 (01:16:05):
This was as vague as it got.

Speaker 2 (01:16:08):
If you were in Paris or Milan during that time,
you were you you had arrived and come to find out, no, no, no,
it wasn't that you arrived. You've just been targeted as
a beautiful victim. And give us your pi to live
with it, and give us your passport and your secrecy,
because we're going to humiliate you and shame you into

(01:16:29):
being quiet for decades. And then they finally can speak
out in r and what is happening?

Speaker 5 (01:16:37):
Nothing?

Speaker 4 (01:16:38):
Well, well again in France, they're trying to prosecute, they
would like to prosecute defenses that did occur on French soil,
and the Paris prosecutors said that immediately. Right now the
focus is simply I'm listening to the victims. But in

(01:16:58):
addition body to Jean Luke Burnell, there's also Gerarald Gerald
Marie excuse me, who was a former model agency boss
and he had faced a sexual abuse probe. It was
closed because the statue limitations, but fifteen women recently urged
France to reinvestigate him for links to Epstein.

Speaker 5 (01:17:22):
So that's a very valid reason to open it again. Wow. Okay,
well that's good. And then there was another news right,
and then another one done. Danielle said a modeling scout
accused by two former models of grooming them, one explicitly

(01:17:42):
to be delivered to sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein in the
two thousands.

Speaker 7 (01:17:47):
Wow.

Speaker 5 (01:17:48):
So there's three people that are main co conspirators. Pop. Well,
we know that Jean Luke Burnell was a main co conspirator,
but Gerald and Danielle there's just ties. So there's reason
enough enough, you know, to see what these these victims
have to say. I think that's it's great that they're
being proactive. Well, stick around, We've got more to dig into.
It's time for your talkbacks with your takes on the

(01:18:10):
biggest true crime stories and headline controversies. Keep it right
here True Crime Tonight.

Speaker 2 (01:18:24):
Welcome back to True Crime Tonight and iHeart Radio. We're
talking true crime all the time. I'm Steph here with
Courtney and with body and listen to the talkbacks are
just coming in. We want to make sure we're getting
to some of those getting Did I just say getting
am I official.

Speaker 7 (01:18:42):
Official?

Speaker 2 (01:18:43):
Yes, we want to make sure we're getting to it
this Monday. So let's go to a talk back.

Speaker 9 (01:18:50):
Now, Hey there this as well. Really love this show.
I just musk lost the open AI lawsuit, and I
was wondering, do you think AI companies are getting way
too powerful too fast without any government oversight or any
guard rails. It feels like we're watching just like a
handful of billionaires fight over who's going to control this technology?

(01:19:12):
And I'm just wondering, you guys think about that. Thanks,
I you'll get.

Speaker 5 (01:19:16):
To start at the worst. Yes, all I mean right, yes,
listen the Yes, I do believe it's moving too fast
without guardrails. I do believe that there needs to be
some oversight because I do kind of think that whoever
kinds of you know controls AI is literally going to
control the world moving forward.

Speaker 2 (01:19:38):
Now, you guys think the largest conversation we should be
having with ourselves right now is our digital imprint, which
is a larger convo. But yeah, it seems like number one.
Why so many billionaires at the top, uh number two
share the wealth. But I think the larger, you know,
conversation that we should at least start art is to

(01:20:02):
what end? So we're giving away all of our privacy,
which you know, we used to think was because it
was for buying a purse or oh they know our
shopping habits, but it's.

Speaker 3 (01:20:13):
Far, far worse than that.

Speaker 2 (01:20:16):
It is really our habits as an in general, as
a human being that are being copied, and the regulations
are being passed through government so quickly with no oversight,
because these are rules and regulations that have never existed before,
nor have they needed to exist before. So the exact

(01:20:38):
same people that are at the at the table, and
there by the way, this is the Epstein class.

Speaker 3 (01:20:44):
By the way, adjacent consider it the same table.

Speaker 2 (01:20:47):
Right, So whoever's again I'm overstating, Please save, don't yell
at me. But this is what I'm noticing right now
is that this table of rich, rich people are also
the ones that are creating the systems that they are
also regulating. We are getting no say whatsoever, and suddenly

(01:21:08):
a data center is going to appear in your backyard
and steal all your energy, give your kids cancer because
it's spoiling the soil and eventually taking our water because
things need to be powered by energy, and that I
think might be the biggest story of this century will
be data centers and how AI creators are in this

(01:21:32):
same little club.

Speaker 3 (01:21:33):
They're all buds. They all did this together.

Speaker 2 (01:21:36):
It's as if they're like adversaries and equals, all at
the same time who came up in the same class.

Speaker 5 (01:21:42):
Right. I don't know if this is good news or
bad news, but the jury in the lawsuit of Elon
must suing open AI, the jury did dismiss the lawsuit
after only two hours of deliberation, ruling that Elon Musk
waited too long to sue and that fired his legal
claims and handed open AI a massive win. Although he

(01:22:05):
does plan to appeal the decision. Legal experts are saying
it's very unlikely that it's going to be a returned
so is a larger question messaging.

Speaker 2 (01:22:15):
So if you own chatch EPT and we've all been
encouraged to use it and you can learn your prompts asked,
you know chat GPT. It's a nonprofit, so suddenly we're
all using it, but really, while using it, it's really
learning from us what our brain is thinking based on
things that we're asking it. Right, So we're getting trained

(01:22:35):
alongside something that is also training us to need it.
Does that make sense? I know, that's like I'm getting
in the weeds on it. If the same few people
own the like the way Elon Musk now owns X,
they in fact can control messaging. And that's the biggest
scariest part of this is that as we see cable

(01:22:58):
companies going away and kind of consolidating, it's like the
same key people are making sure that the messaging is
what they want it to be. And it's only the
people at that table that we just talked about. So
this continues. Like whoever, whether it's Sam Altman or Elon Musk,
does it really matter.

Speaker 5 (01:23:18):
I mean, it sounds like an oligarchy to me, right,
where it's like a system where power is really concentrated
in the hands of a very small group of people
rather than shared by the public. Right, which is why
I think what we're supposed to be this isn't all true.

Speaker 4 (01:23:34):
That's my one hundred percent is I was listening to
some of it was actually the Daily which is something
that Taka listens to today and one of the reporters
who's been there every day. You have to get there
like five am to get into the courtroom. But during testimony,
Elon Musk was literally testifying about like yeah, and it's

(01:23:57):
my responsibility to save humanity, and the.

Speaker 3 (01:24:01):
Reporter the whole day, yeah, your favorite words.

Speaker 4 (01:24:05):
She's like, well, you can either see that person, as
I suppose, altruistic or a complete megalomaniac in that really
I am. I am here to save.

Speaker 7 (01:24:18):
You.

Speaker 4 (01:24:18):
Don't need to bleep me humanity. That's insane. And yet
that is what is happening with running. What is happening
with running you know humanity right now? Absolutely, I have
hope in I have hope in lawsuits. I have hope
in insurance. I have hope that there will be judgments
that will hit these companies monetarily if.

Speaker 2 (01:24:43):
It then later Yeah, but we's not hacking it as consumers.
We have to all be talking about it and really
being aware of it. Because legislation is being passed, real time,
safety guards are being removed, real time. The biggest commodity
in the in the world right now is the algorithm
who's controlling that? And war is a pretty expensive adventure.

(01:25:07):
And if AI is the big is the big thing
to have. If that's the what is it call when
you get the deal? If that's the biggest contract would
be arms in war in the defense of the United States.
That's a very big contract. It's these same guys that
are sort of at the same table. It's it's yeah,

(01:25:28):
it's none of it's bad. AI inherently is not a
bad thing at all. It just depends who's calling the
shots with it.

Speaker 11 (01:25:36):
I agree, Well, yeah, we'll have to keep keep an
eye on that. But hopefully, like you said, government, then
everyone will be watching it. But I think it moves
so quickly. Technology moves too quickly for them to keep
up with. We can barely keep up with it. But
let's hope. In the meantime, we have another talk back
that I think you'll find interesting about the Bahamas case

(01:25:56):
that we've been following very closely.

Speaker 14 (01:25:59):
Good evening, lady.

Speaker 1 (01:26:00):
This story sounds strangely like the Natalie Wood story and Catalina.

Speaker 2 (01:26:05):
I was working on that movie when it happened.

Speaker 10 (01:26:07):
It's pretty interesting.

Speaker 2 (01:26:09):
What working on the What does this mean? You need
to call us in live, please, please please, I want
to hear everything. This is the story that my mother
and I will talk about till the end of days
because it's like an unsolved horror story, and it's devastating
because you know, Natalie Wood.

Speaker 5 (01:26:30):
Was so loved, Yeah, she really was. And she was
on the boat with her husband, right, Robert Wagner.

Speaker 2 (01:26:36):
Is that right?

Speaker 3 (01:26:37):
Was a very famous actor, very famous.

Speaker 5 (01:26:40):
Who's the other guy? Can't remember?

Speaker 2 (01:26:43):
Why am I spacing Christopher Walker? Christopher also such a
famous actor, the three of them, and.

Speaker 5 (01:26:50):
She went on report. That's the report, right, just like
one booker.

Speaker 10 (01:26:56):
Was.

Speaker 2 (01:26:57):
Yeah, the report a little different though, is that with
Well maybe not so different, but definitely there were reports
that Natalie would and Robert Wagner were having a heated
discussion slash fight on this boat and Christopher Walkin, who
was the third person, third wheel, it was alleged to

(01:27:17):
you know, that he went off to bed and you know,
they were fighting, and and and that when Natalie was discovered,
she was wearing a flannel nightgown without any undergarments. And
the implication was that she she didn't fall off the boat,
that maybe she had had an argument with Robert, and

(01:27:39):
that she hopped on a dinghy to go ashore because
she was you know, mad, But in reality, she couldn't
swim and was very afraid of the water and would
never have gotten into a dinghy by herself in the
black of night to you know, bring herself to shore.
Not to mention, she's a movie star, one of the
most recognizable humans in all of the world.

Speaker 3 (01:28:01):
She's not going to roll up.

Speaker 2 (01:28:02):
In her her like flannel nightgown and out without any undergarments.
So that part of the story was always up for conversation,
but it has never been proven.

Speaker 11 (01:28:12):
And I'm reading really quickly that they opened it later
and she reportedly had bruises and scratches on her body.

Speaker 3 (01:28:18):
That's correct.

Speaker 7 (01:28:19):
We raised even more suspicion, but no one has ever
been charged.

Speaker 11 (01:28:22):
In that one, so I mean, nobody will be nobody
will be point And by.

Speaker 2 (01:28:28):
The way, that case also had a lot of celebrity
around it, so you know, if in fact, anything the
fairies did happen, that was the time of like real
hardcore pr machines, pre social media. You only saw what
the celebrity machine put out, so it went away to
some degree. It's pretty shocking that that hasn't gone further

(01:28:50):
because fairly recently, if I'm not mistaken somebody who was
in the marina that night. Well, it sounds like there
was a movie being made around the corner, and we
have the gun just called in love to talk back.
Please come. Yeah, it's a fascinating story and terribly sad.
And I just hope that Lynette Hooker, maybe there's a
change and something positive will happen.

Speaker 7 (01:29:13):
Agreed, Yeah, agreed, Well I feel sad.

Speaker 2 (01:29:17):
Let's get let's get No, let's go.

Speaker 7 (01:29:20):
This is what was discussed.

Speaker 11 (01:29:23):
Well, let's play this talk back into people can hear
what they're requesting, because we've got people who've been writing
and saying they want to hear the music you've done,
so Adam, let's play that talkback first so people can
understand where that's coming from.

Speaker 5 (01:29:35):
This is Lisa from Pittsburgh with an official request to
hear music from Sam or Adam unless it breaks copyright law.
Please please please breaking?

Speaker 2 (01:29:47):
How great? How give the.

Speaker 4 (01:29:49):
People what they want?

Speaker 13 (01:29:52):
Can? Can?

Speaker 7 (01:29:53):
We can?

Speaker 2 (01:29:53):
We go center stage? Where's the spotlight? Let's queue it
first off? Yeah, is there anything you need to know
about the name of the song? Our anything about it
than you the table for us.

Speaker 14 (01:30:06):
I'll give a brief setting of the table I have
a music project called gold Star gold Star. It's a
songwriting duo between me and my friend who's also named Adam,
and we have two records out and this is a
this is one of the songs. So this is a
song called Okay, yeah, obviously the same. It's from our

(01:30:26):
last record here, so our love is the same. Our
love is the same.

Speaker 5 (01:30:30):
That's right, I love it already. Our love is the same.

Speaker 10 (01:30:35):
Okay, here you go much, just are okay, I'll bring

(01:31:21):
it down here.

Speaker 2 (01:31:26):
It's great pride, it's very according to me, yeah, it's
like no, it's like a supermash of the Beach Boys
and the Beatles and even like who.

Speaker 5 (01:31:38):
Else California dreaming.

Speaker 3 (01:31:42):
It reminds me of.

Speaker 14 (01:31:45):
Yes, no, the Beach Boys are my favorite band, well
the Beatles Boys.

Speaker 10 (01:31:49):
It goes back and forth.

Speaker 15 (01:31:50):
But okay, you got it.

Speaker 2 (01:31:55):
Right now, Adam, that was beautiful, Thank you?

Speaker 4 (01:31:58):
And is that indeed Adam Miller and Adam Obermeyer.

Speaker 10 (01:32:02):
That's right.

Speaker 15 (01:32:03):
Yeah, I'm Adam Miller my partners.

Speaker 2 (01:32:07):
Yeah. Can we put that on the KT website?

Speaker 3 (01:32:10):
So our KT website.

Speaker 2 (01:32:12):
It's kind of an annoying website though. At KT dash Studios,
there's an underscore there somewhere if you look our goal
star you. But we want to definitely put music up
on the website so that people can get your music. Yes,
that's an immediate thing with a picture and all the things.

Speaker 3 (01:32:32):
And you have a second song too, I believe.

Speaker 15 (01:32:35):
No, no, I won't. I won't trouble you with the
second song.

Speaker 5 (01:32:38):
Oh, I love it.

Speaker 3 (01:32:39):
I will totally.

Speaker 4 (01:32:40):
You have to send us your music and we will definitely, yeah,
be posting.

Speaker 7 (01:32:45):
I loved it. It was so good. Yeah, I could
actually see you. It's just the two of you.

Speaker 10 (01:32:50):
It's the two of us.

Speaker 15 (01:32:51):
Yeah, we recorded everything on that.

Speaker 10 (01:32:54):
We had.

Speaker 14 (01:32:55):
We recorded it at our apartment and our friend's house
who has a piano, really drums using h.

Speaker 3 (01:33:05):
Just for us city.

Speaker 4 (01:33:07):
The Instagram is actually it's KT like kitchen Table Kat
Underscore Studios. So that's the Instagram and you will be
finding Adams and Adams music there and much more.

Speaker 7 (01:33:19):
I love that, and don't forget you. No, we love it.

Speaker 11 (01:33:23):
You're going to get that Grammy and you'll probably forget
all about us.

Speaker 3 (01:33:25):
But I know that those people.

Speaker 4 (01:33:30):
Kat Underscore Studios is the Instagram.

Speaker 7 (01:33:34):
That's right, the Instagram.

Speaker 5 (01:33:36):
Okay, listen follow Kat on Instagram.

Speaker 11 (01:33:38):
Guys, and we might have to have you play another
song in the future, so put something to the side
for another show, maybe tomorrow, because tomorrow we're going to
be covering a lot.

Speaker 7 (01:33:47):
We have a.

Speaker 11 (01:33:48):
Tennessee We're going to talk about the Tennessee Judge that's
warning the Quadruple murder suspect Austin Drummond is trying to
represent himself in court and the judge is saying, I
don't think that's a good idea. So we're going to
cover that, and we're going to talk about the Delphi
murder Richard Allen. Yeah, you've heard about that. He's fighting
overturn his conviction. So this is a fun show, you guys.

Speaker 7 (01:34:09):
I loved it.

Speaker 5 (01:34:10):
Have a good night.

Speaker 3 (01:34:11):
Good night.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

Hey Jonas!

Crime Junkie

Betrayal Weekly

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Luigi’s Manifesto, a Death Row Release, and Epstein’s Final Night

Episode Transcript

Popular Podcasts

.css-r6mb8g{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:1;overflow:hidden;}Hey Jonas!

Crime Junkie

Betrayal Weekly

All Episodes

Luigi’s Manifesto, a Death Row Release, and Epstein’s Final Night

Hey Jonas!