Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Now look, we know that Parliament's sitting at the moment
and the Member for Johnson yesterday put forward a motion
in the Parliament calling for the Commonwealth to establish an
independent body to have oversight of deaths in custody, deeming
it a national shame with Indigenous people overrepresented in their statistics.
Miss Davis telling Parliament there's no independent body to investigate
(00:22):
deaths in custody and pointed to the recent deaths of
Kumenjai Walker and Kumenjai White in the Northern Territory and
called on the lack of action in implementing the three
hundred and thirty nine recommendations of the Royal Commission into
Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Now, Justine wants it taken syrant
seriously excuse me, and wants urgent action. She joins me
(00:45):
on the line right now, Good morning.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Justine, Hey Katie, how are you going?
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Yeah, really good, Thanks so much for your time this morning. Now,
what specifically are you calling for to oversee deaths in custody?
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Yes, so this is actually a real sinful motion, joining
or supporting calls from across Australia and from within the
Territory to set up a national oversight body to both
set minimum standards for average and tourist rata under people
in custody and set up a robust process to have
independent investigations. Exactly as you just said, this is a crisis.
(01:21):
There are more than six hundred average on tourist rat
under the people that have died in the care of
the state since the Royal Commission findings average and tourists
are under people are five times or sometimes six times
more likely to die in the terror of the state than
a non Aboriginal person. The only difference is that they're Aboriginal,
(01:43):
and so we have to do whatever we can to
address this. The issue of having independent oversight and having
robust processes so that we can make sure that we
are doing whatever we can to address it. That's all
this motion course of very simple, not asking the territory
to do anything different, set up any new processes, put
any money into it. Just take some leadership. We are
(02:06):
in a unique position here. We know these issues very well.
We can take some leadership and say to the Commonwealth
you need to step in here and help and help
all of Australia. It's certainly not just an issue for
the territory to address this issue.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
Justin we know the coronial in quests are already mandatory
for all deaths in custody. Why do you think that
doesn't go far enough?
Speaker 2 (02:29):
An in quest is you're right, the inquest is great,
and in quest makes findings, but it doesn't have the
power then to do anything with those findings. And it's
clear that the systems that we have at the moment
are not working because of the so the statistics that
we're seeing, and so we need we need to do more,
We need to do something different. I heard the Chief
(02:50):
mean it's the same relation to another issue, this theory
that we have a duty of care to the people
in our prisons, and that's exactly right, and if this
is what's happening, then we need to be doing whatever
we can, as I said, to try and address it.
And all across Australia, all the human rights organizations and
community have called really clearly that this is something that
(03:12):
needs to happen, as I said, not just here in
the territory, but across Australia.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
In terms of the debate, the discussion that happened yesterday,
I mean, was there a votion, what happened. Is an
Northern Territory government coming to the table on this.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
No, the CLP government voted against it. There was some
confusion I think in the Parliament. Some members of the
chambers suggested that calling for independent investigations some of pound
men we don't trust police. That's absolutely not the case,
complete mischaracterization of what this motion said. In fact, it's
(03:46):
really good for police to have robust independent processes. It
protects police officers, It provides public confidence, it removes the
impossible burden of police investigating their own colleagues in traumatic circumstances.
And I've talked to many please who would welcome who
would welcome something, So it's certainly not an anti police motion.
And that was for anyone who watched the chamber yesterday,
(04:08):
you may have seen that that was the CRP response.
That's that's not what this motion was about. It it's
about making sure that we do whatever we can to
address this issue.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
On that note, Justine, I have got a bit of
audio from yesterday Jered Mayley certainly firing up. Take a listen,
you made.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
Speak and I arise and make my contribution in relation
to this, But matters bigger before I start. I just
want to make it very clear that I am completely
disgusted and offended by the words meant for john you
spoke about that, please not being trustworthy? My father was
a police officer. How dare you say not trustworthy? Madam Speaker,
(04:45):
memberph Barkley is a police officer. I know he's offended
by your words. Are you going to apologize to him?
Are you saying he's not trustworthy? How embarrassing? Members disgusting?
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Direct your commentsary me?
Speaker 3 (04:56):
Please sorry, Madam Speaker, I appreciate you. I'm just getting
very fired up that. How dare she call the police untrustworthy?
The police are the first person to run into danger.
They're the first person territorians call when there's a problem.
I bet you re Member for Johnson's called the police,
I'll better be one of her friends is called the police.
And yet she stands here and says they're not trustworthy.
(05:17):
And now she used the words police agents of injustice.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Justine, do you believe the police are trustworthy or did
you say yesterday that they are not trustworthy?
Speaker 2 (05:29):
Okay, I absolutely did not. I explicitly did not say that.
In fact, I welcome people to go and have a
look at handstard, that was a red herring in relationship debate.
It's not about what the issue was actually about. And
I mean, I think the other thing to say is,
I think if people here that way of being spoken
(05:50):
to in your workplace, that is not appropriate behavior. That's
not what this issue is about. But just hearing that again,
that level of aggression shouted at someone in their workplace
is not something that we should be accepting in parliament.
This should be we should be having in the highest
standards of behavior. However, people feel personally about an issue,
(06:12):
and to be attacked like that in parliament, and I'm
certainly not the only person that has happened to do
does not in any way set the standard that I
think we should be expecting.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
Look, I'm not a fan of the yelling and some
of the carry on that we have in parliament, but
I do want to ask, did you refer to the
police as agents of injustice?
Speaker 2 (06:35):
I read out a quote from the National Human Rights
Commissioner where he said something I can I can pull
up the exact quote, but I did not say that myself.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
No, I guess I guess the concern is that that
some may be worried after hearing that and after that
part of Jurram Bailey's speech, and I specifically wanted to
hear hear what he had to say because I was
interested in the fact that he was yelling, you know,
and firing up in that way. But I guess people
(07:09):
are going to want to know whether you know whether
you do have trust in the police, or you know
why that reference of agents of injustice was used.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
So the quote which I quoted in my speech was
from the Human Rights Commission President where he said, and
I can I can read out the quote and if
you want. Since colonization, Australian law has too often delivered injustice.
The first nations people police have often been the agents
of this injustice, helping to administer laws and policies like
those that enable to stolen generations. When police investigate themselves,
(07:44):
it breeds mistrusts and increases the risks of poor investigations
and lack of accountability. So that's a quote from our
National Human Rights Commissioner. I said very explicitly when I
spoke yesterday that this is not about individual police. It's
not about me trusting the police. I completely agree that
the police do an incredible job here. Exactly is that?
(08:07):
Exactly is thereby is that I have an uncle who's
a police officer. I have a brother now who's a
police officer. You know, across the territory. We are all,
you know, deeply connected. We rely on our police. This
is not about attacking the police. It's that that's a
total distraction from what this motion was actually about.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Let's go back to the motion. So where too from here?
Because I guess if we're in a situation now where
you've put this forward, you know it has gone to
a vote, they've voted it down. Where to from here?
Do you think justin.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
I mean, I think I know that there is a
lot of work being done at a national level about this,
and so that's something that you know, I think there,
I know there are people here in the territory are
the keem to support that. I think that we need
to do, as I said, whatever we can to make
sure that everyone who is in the care of the
state we are responsible for them. We need to do
whatever we can to address that. And at the moment
(09:00):
that there are gaps in that, you know, in many
areas across our correctionism as we know, so I mean
in terms of this particular issue. It's something that I
will be continuing to have conversations on because it's something
that people have come to me saying this is something
that's really important to us.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
Justine, as you touched on just a moment ago as well.
We spoke to the Chief Minister Leafanocchio earlier this week
about a letter that was written by the Women's Forum
of Australia to all state and territory premiers and Chief
Ministers as well as the Prime Minister in relation to
male offenders in women's prisons is how it's titled now.
(09:39):
When I spoke to the Chief Minister on Monday, I
pointed to part of that letter that referred to one
instance at least that was reported by The Australian last
week in Portagusta and a Portagusta prison where there was
a situation where a male and female offenders it accommodates
(09:59):
both male female offenders in the prison. Now, a female prisoner,
the letter said, was failed in every way imaginable by
the state's correctional services. She was placed in a cell
with a notoriously violent, trans identified male offender and was
subjected to a horrific sexual assault by him, an assault
that was not prevented by the fact that he had
(10:20):
a full gender reassignment surgery. The Chief Minister responded to
that and said that there would not be males going
into the female prison here in the Northern Territory. Do
you agree with that sentiment.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
I think I'm really disappointed by the way this happened
over the last few days here in the territory, the incident.
Everyone deserves to be just as we were talking about,
everyone deserves to be safe in prison. Everyone needs to
be protected. Whether they're a woman, whether they're a man,
whether they're a trans woman, whether they're a historic or
whoever they are, they deserve to be safe and protected.
(10:57):
The case that the Chief Minister was talking that happened
in twenty nineteen interstate is a terrible case. It's not
about someone being transgender. It's about violence, and to equate
being transgender with being violent is completely misleading. And the
other thing to say is that here in the territory
there is very clear corrections policy about how people who
(11:17):
are transgender need to be looked after in the correction system.
I've heard the Chief Ministers say several times in the
media and yesterday in Parliament that they changed that policy
in twenty twenty four. I've seen the policy in twenty
twenty four. There was a machinery's government change, but there
was no operational change. So I'm also curious to know
(11:40):
what is the actual policy at the moment in correction,
is that being followed. What's the Chief Minister referring to
when she says the policy has been changed.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Well, we'll see if we can get to the bottom
of that. I mean, should women's rights though be taken
away or be hampered in any way to a mad
people who identify as women.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
What I'm not really even clear what that question means, Katie.
Of course women need protected. Of course women's rights need
to be protected. Trans women's rights need to be protected.
It doesn't have to be set up as something that's
mutually exclusive. The current policy enables everyone's rights to be protected.
And there have been no incidents in Northern Territory prison,
(12:28):
no incidents of this nature and in Northern Territory prison.
So I'm not sure what the issue is here that
seems to be have been blown up into this issue.
And I can tell you that there are people in
this community who have been very harmed in our community
is very harmed by the debate this week, and it's
(12:50):
a total invitation to hate speech. I know social media
is a dangerous place, but I can tell you generally
on my social media when I get comments, they're generally
very respectful when people disagree, you know, or have different views.
The level of hate speech and vitriol that people have
been putting on my social media in relation to this
(13:11):
issue is shameful and it doesn't actually do anything about
addressing the issue. If the Chief Minister's issue is that
women in prison need to be safely protected, then let's
talk about that well.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
Justine Davis, the Independent Member for Johnston, always appreciate your time.
Much happening in Parliament today or anything we should know about?
Speaker 2 (13:32):
Yes, So today, interestingly, off the back of that, we
we'll be debating changes to the Anti Discrimination Act. So
there are two main changes that people might remember. That
was meant to be debated last in the last sittings,
but it was pulled in response to pressure from the
Christian lobby saying that they wanted the changes, the proposed
amendments to be strengthened. I'm unclear whether there've been any
(13:55):
further amendments. I haven't seen that yet. We will see
this morning. There are two major changes proposed, so one
is basically weakening protection against hate speech, and the other
is enabling religious schools to discriminate on the basis of
religion when they employ their stuff. So we'll be debating
that in Parliament today. As always, I welcome everyone come
(14:18):
into Parliament House, if your house, come in and see
how things happen here, how laws are made, how your
representatives actually represent you. It's an interesting experience.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
It certainly is. I've watched probably too much Parliament in
my time, Justine, hi, but I still try to every day.
Thank you so much for your time. Always appreciated. Thank
you you two
Now look, we know that Parliament's sitting at the moment
and the Member for Johnson yesterday put forward a motion
in the Parliament calling for the Commonwealth to establish an
independent body to have oversight of deaths in custody, deeming
it a national shame with Indigenous people overrepresented in their statistics.
Miss Davis telling Parliament there's no independent body to investigate
(00:22):
deaths in custody and pointed to the recent deaths of
Kumenjai Walker and Kumenjai White in the Northern Territory and
called on the lack of action in implementing the three
hundred and thirty nine recommendations of the Royal Commission into
Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. Now, Justine wants it taken syrant
seriously excuse me, and wants urgent action. She joins me
(00:45):
on the line right now, Good morning.
Speaker 2 (00:47):
Justine, Hey Katie, how are you going?
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Yeah, really good, Thanks so much for your time this morning. Now,
what specifically are you calling for to oversee deaths in custody?
Speaker 2 (00:58):
Yes, so this is actually a real sinful motion, joining
or supporting calls from across Australia and from within the
Territory to set up a national oversight body to both
set minimum standards for average and tourist rata under people
in custody and set up a robust process to have
independent investigations. Exactly as you just said, this is a crisis.
(01:21):
There are more than six hundred average on tourist rat
under the people that have died in the care of
the state since the Royal Commission findings average and tourists
are under people are five times or sometimes six times
more likely to die in the terror of the state than
a non Aboriginal person. The only difference is that they're Aboriginal,
(01:43):
and so we have to do whatever we can to
address this. The issue of having independent oversight and having
robust processes so that we can make sure that we
are doing whatever we can to address it. That's all
this motion course of very simple, not asking the territory
to do anything different, set up any new processes, put
any money into it. Just take some leadership. We are
(02:06):
in a unique position here. We know these issues very well.
We can take some leadership and say to the Commonwealth
you need to step in here and help and help
all of Australia. It's certainly not just an issue for
the territory to address this issue.
Speaker 1 (02:20):
Justin we know the coronial in quests are already mandatory
for all deaths in custody. Why do you think that
doesn't go far enough?
Speaker 2 (02:29):
An in quest is you're right, the inquest is great,
and in quest makes findings, but it doesn't have the
power then to do anything with those findings. And it's
clear that the systems that we have at the moment
are not working because of the so the statistics that
we're seeing, and so we need we need to do more,
We need to do something different. I heard the Chief
(02:50):
mean it's the same relation to another issue, this theory
that we have a duty of care to the people
in our prisons, and that's exactly right, and if this
is what's happening, then we need to be doing whatever
we can, as I said, to try and address it.
And all across Australia, all the human rights organizations and
community have called really clearly that this is something that
(03:12):
needs to happen, as I said, not just here in
the territory, but across Australia.
Speaker 1 (03:15):
In terms of the debate, the discussion that happened yesterday,
I mean, was there a votion, what happened. Is an
Northern Territory government coming to the table on this.
Speaker 2 (03:25):
No, the CLP government voted against it. There was some
confusion I think in the Parliament. Some members of the
chambers suggested that calling for independent investigations some of pound
men we don't trust police. That's absolutely not the case,
complete mischaracterization of what this motion said. In fact, it's
(03:46):
really good for police to have robust independent processes. It
protects police officers, It provides public confidence, it removes the
impossible burden of police investigating their own colleagues in traumatic circumstances.
And I've talked to many please who would welcome who
would welcome something, So it's certainly not an anti police motion.
And that was for anyone who watched the chamber yesterday,
(04:08):
you may have seen that that was the CRP response.
That's that's not what this motion was about. It it's
about making sure that we do whatever we can to
address this issue.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
On that note, Justine, I have got a bit of
audio from yesterday Jered Mayley certainly firing up. Take a listen,
you made.
Speaker 3 (04:24):
Speak and I arise and make my contribution in relation
to this, But matters bigger before I start. I just
want to make it very clear that I am completely
disgusted and offended by the words meant for john you
spoke about that, please not being trustworthy? My father was
a police officer. How dare you say not trustworthy? Madam Speaker,
(04:45):
memberph Barkley is a police officer. I know he's offended
by your words. Are you going to apologize to him?
Are you saying he's not trustworthy? How embarrassing? Members disgusting?
Speaker 2 (04:55):
Direct your commentsary me?
Speaker 3 (04:56):
Please sorry, Madam Speaker, I appreciate you. I'm just getting
very fired up that. How dare she call the police untrustworthy?
The police are the first person to run into danger.
They're the first person territorians call when there's a problem.
I bet you re Member for Johnson's called the police,
I'll better be one of her friends is called the police.
And yet she stands here and says they're not trustworthy.
(05:17):
And now she used the words police agents of injustice.
Speaker 1 (05:21):
Justine, do you believe the police are trustworthy or did
you say yesterday that they are not trustworthy?
Speaker 2 (05:29):
Okay, I absolutely did not. I explicitly did not say that.
In fact, I welcome people to go and have a
look at handstard, that was a red herring in relationship debate.
It's not about what the issue was actually about. And
I mean, I think the other thing to say is,
I think if people here that way of being spoken
(05:50):
to in your workplace, that is not appropriate behavior. That's
not what this issue is about. But just hearing that again,
that level of aggression shouted at someone in their workplace
is not something that we should be accepting in parliament.
This should be we should be having in the highest
standards of behavior. However, people feel personally about an issue,
(06:12):
and to be attacked like that in parliament, and I'm
certainly not the only person that has happened to do
does not in any way set the standard that I
think we should be expecting.
Speaker 1 (06:23):
Look, I'm not a fan of the yelling and some
of the carry on that we have in parliament, but
I do want to ask, did you refer to the
police as agents of injustice?
Speaker 2 (06:35):
I read out a quote from the National Human Rights
Commissioner where he said something I can I can pull
up the exact quote, but I did not say that myself.
Speaker 1 (06:47):
No, I guess I guess the concern is that that
some may be worried after hearing that and after that
part of Jurram Bailey's speech, and I specifically wanted to
hear hear what he had to say because I was
interested in the fact that he was yelling, you know,
and firing up in that way. But I guess people
(07:09):
are going to want to know whether you know whether
you do have trust in the police, or you know
why that reference of agents of injustice was used.
Speaker 2 (07:20):
So the quote which I quoted in my speech was
from the Human Rights Commission President where he said, and
I can I can read out the quote and if
you want. Since colonization, Australian law has too often delivered injustice.
The first nations people police have often been the agents
of this injustice, helping to administer laws and policies like
those that enable to stolen generations. When police investigate themselves,
(07:44):
it breeds mistrusts and increases the risks of poor investigations
and lack of accountability. So that's a quote from our
National Human Rights Commissioner. I said very explicitly when I
spoke yesterday that this is not about individual police. It's
not about me trusting the police. I completely agree that
the police do an incredible job here. Exactly is that?
(08:07):
Exactly is thereby is that I have an uncle who's
a police officer. I have a brother now who's a
police officer. You know, across the territory. We are all,
you know, deeply connected. We rely on our police. This
is not about attacking the police. It's that that's a
total distraction from what this motion was actually about.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Let's go back to the motion. So where too from here?
Because I guess if we're in a situation now where
you've put this forward, you know it has gone to
a vote, they've voted it down. Where to from here?
Do you think justin.
Speaker 2 (08:38):
I mean, I think I know that there is a
lot of work being done at a national level about this,
and so that's something that you know, I think there,
I know there are people here in the territory are
the keem to support that. I think that we need
to do, as I said, whatever we can to make
sure that everyone who is in the care of the
state we are responsible for them. We need to do
whatever we can to address that. And at the moment
(09:00):
that there are gaps in that, you know, in many
areas across our correctionism as we know, so I mean
in terms of this particular issue. It's something that I
will be continuing to have conversations on because it's something
that people have come to me saying this is something
that's really important to us.
Speaker 1 (09:17):
Justine, as you touched on just a moment ago as well.
We spoke to the Chief Minister Leafanocchio earlier this week
about a letter that was written by the Women's Forum
of Australia to all state and territory premiers and Chief
Ministers as well as the Prime Minister in relation to
male offenders in women's prisons is how it's titled now.
(09:39):
When I spoke to the Chief Minister on Monday, I
pointed to part of that letter that referred to one
instance at least that was reported by The Australian last
week in Portagusta and a Portagusta prison where there was
a situation where a male and female offenders it accommodates
(09:59):
both male female offenders in the prison. Now, a female prisoner,
the letter said, was failed in every way imaginable by
the state's correctional services. She was placed in a cell
with a notoriously violent, trans identified male offender and was
subjected to a horrific sexual assault by him, an assault
that was not prevented by the fact that he had
(10:20):
a full gender reassignment surgery. The Chief Minister responded to
that and said that there would not be males going
into the female prison here in the Northern Territory. Do
you agree with that sentiment.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
I think I'm really disappointed by the way this happened
over the last few days here in the territory, the incident.
Everyone deserves to be just as we were talking about,
everyone deserves to be safe in prison. Everyone needs to
be protected. Whether they're a woman, whether they're a man,
whether they're a trans woman, whether they're a historic or
whoever they are, they deserve to be safe and protected.
(10:57):
The case that the Chief Minister was talking that happened
in twenty nineteen interstate is a terrible case. It's not
about someone being transgender. It's about violence, and to equate
being transgender with being violent is completely misleading. And the
other thing to say is that here in the territory
there is very clear corrections policy about how people who
(11:17):
are transgender need to be looked after in the correction system.
I've heard the Chief Ministers say several times in the
media and yesterday in Parliament that they changed that policy
in twenty twenty four. I've seen the policy in twenty
twenty four. There was a machinery's government change, but there
was no operational change. So I'm also curious to know
(11:40):
what is the actual policy at the moment in correction,
is that being followed. What's the Chief Minister referring to
when she says the policy has been changed.
Speaker 1 (11:49):
Well, we'll see if we can get to the bottom
of that. I mean, should women's rights though be taken
away or be hampered in any way to a mad
people who identify as women.
Speaker 2 (12:07):
What I'm not really even clear what that question means, Katie.
Of course women need protected. Of course women's rights need
to be protected. Trans women's rights need to be protected.
It doesn't have to be set up as something that's
mutually exclusive. The current policy enables everyone's rights to be protected.
And there have been no incidents in Northern Territory prison,
(12:28):
no incidents of this nature and in Northern Territory prison.
So I'm not sure what the issue is here that
seems to be have been blown up into this issue.
And I can tell you that there are people in
this community who have been very harmed in our community
is very harmed by the debate this week, and it's
(12:50):
a total invitation to hate speech. I know social media
is a dangerous place, but I can tell you generally
on my social media when I get comments, they're generally
very respectful when people disagree, you know, or have different views.
The level of hate speech and vitriol that people have
been putting on my social media in relation to this
(13:11):
issue is shameful and it doesn't actually do anything about
addressing the issue. If the Chief Minister's issue is that
women in prison need to be safely protected, then let's
talk about that well.
Speaker 1 (13:23):
Justine Davis, the Independent Member for Johnston, always appreciate your time.
Much happening in Parliament today or anything we should know about?
Speaker 2 (13:32):
Yes, So today, interestingly, off the back of that, we
we'll be debating changes to the Anti Discrimination Act. So
there are two main changes that people might remember. That
was meant to be debated last in the last sittings,
but it was pulled in response to pressure from the
Christian lobby saying that they wanted the changes, the proposed
amendments to be strengthened. I'm unclear whether there've been any
(13:55):
further amendments. I haven't seen that yet. We will see
this morning. There are two major changes proposed, so one
is basically weakening protection against hate speech, and the other
is enabling religious schools to discriminate on the basis of
religion when they employ their stuff. So we'll be debating
that in Parliament today. As always, I welcome everyone come
(14:18):
into Parliament House, if your house, come in and see
how things happen here, how laws are made, how your
representatives actually represent you. It's an interesting experience.
Speaker 1 (14:29):
It certainly is. I've watched probably too much Parliament in
my time, Justine, hi, but I still try to every day.
Thank you so much for your time. Always appreciated. Thank
you you two
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist
It’s 1996 in rural North Carolina, and an oddball crew makes history when they pull off America’s third largest cash heist. But it’s all downhill from there. Join host Johnny Knoxville as he unspools a wild and woolly tale about a group of regular ‘ol folks who risked it all for a chance at a better life. CrimeLess: Hillbilly Heist answers the question: what would you do with 17.3 million dollars? The answer includes diamond rings, mansions, velvet Elvis paintings, plus a run for the border, murder-for-hire-plots, and FBI busts.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com