#034 Pat Harris EXCLUSIVE: New Evidence May Lead to New Trial for Scott Peterson

Pat Harris, Scott Peterson’s attorney, sits down with Sara for an exclusive interview about shocking new evidence regarding the disappearance and murder of his wife Laci Peterson and son Connor, as well as Scott Peterson’s road to a possible new trial. Sara and Pat talk at length about the extensive defense investigation over the past two decades, and the Los Angeles Innocence Project’s recent motion dump. They also discuss the media firestorm that seems to follow the Scott Peterson case, prosecutorial misconduct, and the blatant and intentional withholding of evidence from the defense. Later, Pat shares about the case of Will Lynch, a vigilante who nearly killed a priest he accused of child abuse, as well as his experience defending Chris Brown. Before the conversation wraps, Sara grills Pat on his relationship with Susan McDougal: sex with a client, or was it a pre-existing relationship? 

Art – Simon & Associates
Music – Caleb Fletcher 

Episode Transcript

(00:22):
Welcome to the Presumption. I'm SarahAzari and I'm joined by our wonderful producer
Matt Bond, a leer today,and my special friend Pat Harris. Welcome
Pat to the Presumption. Thank you, thanks for having me so uh.
You know, we're missing Jim Griffin, his big loss because Jim is also
in the South like you. Butwe have a very important conversation today because

(00:45):
not only Pat has a lot ofgreat cases to share with us, but
specifically the Scott Peterson case that's beenin the news lately. For the viewers
and the listeners who don't know Pat. He is the Kremla Crem of the
criminal defense bar, a true Southerngent as you can tell from his accent,
and an La lawyer, and I'vehad the pleasure of working with him.

(01:07):
We used to share an office together. He's tried over one hundred and
fifty cases to jury, many ofthem involving high profile defendants, and some
of them were going to be talkingabout today, Susan McDougall, Michael Jackson,
Chris Brown, and of course ScottPeterson. Pat's also New York Times
bestselling author for his book The WomanWho Wouldn't Talk Susan McDougall, who at
some point was also your fiancee,which I'm going to get to for sure.

(01:32):
And then his second book was coauthored with Mark Gerrigo, is called
Mistrial, which is a behind thescenes look at the American justice system.
So welcome pat to the precation.So Scott Peterson's wrote to possible new trial.
Everybody's freaking out saying this guy isa killer. He's going to be
out on the streets, and I'mlike, just sit down and shut up.
At best, he's going to geta new trial. I mean,

(01:53):
am I correct to conclude that way? I think that's the logical outcome here.
There's a there would be a smallpossibility that the court could actually rule
that everything that we're asking or sayingis right and just dismissed the case.
That's a rarity, and really thereal possibility is here as a neutrop Yeah,

(02:15):
and this would this would go onthe federal track, it would go
to the Ninth Circuit, and thenif the relief is granted, then he
may be able to get a newtrial in the trial court in the county
where he was, you know,convicted. It's been almost twenty years It
was November of twenty oh four whenScott was convicted of murdering Lacy, his

(02:37):
wife, and their son, Connor, and then he was sentenced to death.
Later, the death penalty was vacatedand he was re sentenced to life
without parole. This was because thejury, a death penalty jury has to
be really sort of you know,weeded out for bias against the death penalty,
and apparently that had not occurred inthis case, so the death penalty

(03:00):
went away, which was, youknow, one step towards justice for Scott.
And now it seems like you've gota judge in San Mateo County who
I thought was a male because Iwork in a man's world, but apparently
it's a female and you called mea sexist. Uh, this woman,
this judge is going to decide whatof this tremendous amount of discovery should be

(03:25):
turned over to the Los Angeles InnocenceProject, and then and then from there,
I guess there's that, you know, I always say, discovery opens
the door to more discovery. Themore you know that, you realize there's
more that you don't know, andthen you know you're this is gonna be
years of sort of going through andfighting and retesting and independently testing until you

(03:46):
get to the your relief motion essentially, So was this you were trial council
alongside uh Mark gerra Goes. Werethese things that you knew were existed at
the time and they just weren't turnedover or you didn't know and you didn't
ask for them. I'm not veryclear on this. It was actually a

(04:06):
combination of both. There were thingsthat we did ask for that we were
told didn't exist, which when Ifound out they do exist, That's a
big part of it. There arealso things that we asked for that we
were told, yes, we're turningthis over, and now we find out
that partial parts of it were turnedover. And there were things that were

(04:27):
just hidden that we didn't know existed, things that we were never told about
or never had any access to.And so it's been just a real combination
of things. But I can tellyou that throughout that trial it was almost
a daily occurrence that we had somesort of discovery dispute with the judge and
the prosecutors. The judge ended upscreaming at them at one point, and

(04:51):
in fact, when there was awitness on the stand that they had failed
an a discovery on the judge actuallystruck her testimony and removed her as a
witness because he had had enough ofit. But even then, with all
the yelling and screaming and our pleadingand begging to get this discovery, we
still did not receive. We nowknow we did not receive a huge amount

(05:13):
of things that would have been insome cases we believe exculpatory or at the
very least would have been things thatwe would have used at trial. What
would be the reason for the prosecutionto be holding all of this information and
just not making people aware of it. This was a huge, huge,
huge trial. I mean, peopleforget now because it's been twenty years,
but at the time, if youput Scott Peterson on television, anything to

(05:38):
do with Scott Peterson, the ratingskyrocketed. It was a big, big
deal. There was no way inthe world the Santasauce County DA's office or
the Modesto police department, we're goingto lose this case. We're going to
let this happen, I see.And they were under huge pressure because it
was such a Again, it's hardfor us to even hard for even myself

(06:00):
looking back, to remember just howcrazy it was at the time, and
that there was this obsession with ScottPeterson. The polls were showing he was
the most hated man in America,this fertilizer salesman from the Desko, and
it just was the pressure was oneverybody, including as well, I'm sure

(06:21):
talk about shortly the jurors to geta conviction, and no matter what what
it took to get it. Andyou know, I'm always careful about not
you know, accusing prosecutors of I'vehad to fight for discovery, and not
every withholding is intentional or nefarious.But when you're when you're telling me about

(06:43):
this much discovery that you had askedfor and we're told doesn't exist, it
was. It's not one or twothings. I read those the hundreds of
pages that the La Innocent's Project filed, because I'm that kind of nerd,
but you know, it's a lotof stuff that should have been turned over
that wasn't. And then whenever there'slike partial disclosure, that always is a

(07:05):
red flag to me. It's like, what you know, Okay, fine,
we'll give you this. It's likegiving you little breadcrumbs. So you
know, I'm careful about not accusingprosecutors just off the bat that they're they're
nefariously withholding intentionally withholding stuff. Butdo you think that's I mean, it
seems to me like that is thecase here. I've made it very clear

(07:28):
it was intentional. Yeah, I'veevery time I've discussed this, it was
intentional. There's no doubt in mymind. I've been in the same boat
as you, Sarah. I've hadprosecutors who for whatever reason didn't turn something
over. Sometimes it was just anaccident, you know, something they somebody
messed up and didn't put it onthe right disc or whatever. Those things
happen. Yeah, but this wasa series of I'm saying every single day

(07:53):
it was a fight. It waslike pulling teeth, and it was a
constant. It was clear to us, and both from just dealing with the
Santasauce County DIA's office, the MedestoPolice, especially especially the Modesto Police,
but also not only this case.We just got inundated with people sending us

(08:16):
things about their cases and what theyhad had to deal with and how crooked
the Modesto Police department was. AndI refer people to the La Times did
a ten part series on a caseinvolving a lawyer up there named Frank Carson.
Frank Carson had the audacity to runfor DA against Burget Flatteger and was

(08:37):
rewarded for that effort by being chargedwith murder. She turned around and actually
charged him with murder, put himin jail for a year before he was
the judge released him because there wasa lack of evidence. The case went
to trial, he was found notguilty, same sort of things, over
and over, lack of discovery,the same things we ran into. And
I wish I could say that thatwas the only other case received. I

(09:01):
would I would guess an excess offifty to sixty calls emails from people with
a similar experiences. Yeah, andI've told Jim this too about the Murdock
case. You know that the Murdockcase started about, you know, over
all, this really corrupt family downin Low Country, and Murdoch was corrupt
and we got to bring him down. And you know, and then as

(09:22):
things are unfolding in his case,which I feel he was wrongfully convicted,
it it starting to shed light onmuch bigger corruption down there with within courthouses,
within you know, prosecutorial agencies,and so your case. I always

(09:43):
love these cases that are so highprofile that even after decades, something gives
an avenue to justice opens up andthen you know, hopefully helps other people,
because I mean, I can't imaginehow many people have been screwed in
Modesto because know they had a publicif id not the public offenders are bad,
but just you know, they don'thave the resources, or they had

(10:05):
a crappy lawyer someone that didn't followthrough, and you know it just they
just got travesties. So is therea can you like petition to have somebody
disbarred? If like they just areproving time and time again to just be
you know, ignoring these legal precedents, Like it seems crazy to me,
how does this guy still have ajob. It's uh, well, first

(10:26):
of all, you have to provethat they've done it. But secondly,
yeah, it does happen. Uh, I won't think I don't think this
will shock you, but it's happenedseveral times in Texas because there was actually
a prosecutor there, if I'm notincorrect, put somebody on death row.
Uh, and he had the exculpatoryevidence, the clear exculpatory evidence, and

(10:48):
he was disbarred, and I believehe ended up being charged as well.
I think they actually charged him criminally, but it happens rarely. I mean
that's not something yeah, and it'sit's interesting. It's like, you know,
as I was reading these motions thatthe LAIP filed, I mean,
these are look, I don't knowwhat's in these or what these test results
are going to be, or what'sin these things that we've asked for,

(11:09):
these statements of leads, the tipsthey had they didn't follow through. But
I mean, if these things starttrickling in and they are you know,
it's like doubt after doubt after doubt, then clearly this was intentional. Withholding.
You don't even have to believe PatHarris, you know, because it's
like they handpicked what they don't wantto turn over because it would not be

(11:31):
good for their case. So Iwant to get into some specific questions,
and please, you know, we'relawyers first on this podcast, and so
we understand the parameters of you know, representing our clients and not talking about
specifics of the case that we can'ttalk about. So if there's something you
need to decline to answer. Itotally respect that. But these motions came

(11:54):
about. I understand there was areporter who just this conviction was not settling
to him, came back, nevergave up, relentlessly interviewed people and sort
of put together what the LAIP isnow using. So to the people out
there who are under the wrong impressionthat this is some frivolous, multi hundred

(12:15):
page filing that Scott Peterson's coming tocourt with, I mean, what's your
response to that, I mean,what is this? These motions are that
there are fruits of years of investigation, right, that's correct. There are
fruits of years and years of investigation. Plus when the la Innison's project jumped
on board, they took it toanother level. They have taken it into

(12:39):
another level. They have because oftheir resources and because of their experience knowing
what to do and how to goabout doing it, getting new trials they
have I would say they have probablytaken what we've done and multiplied it bout
five or ten. So it's beensort of us sowing the seeds. And

(13:01):
again that's largely Jamie Peterson to alarge degree, but myself and my investigator
Jason DeWitt, we went to Odesto, We interviewed some people who had knowledge
of what happened that day, andultimately we put all this together, we
turned it over. They have nowsaid they've taken into the stratosphere and that's

(13:22):
how the whole thing came about.Yeah, and we're recording this interview on
Tuesday, March twelfth, the daythat Scott Peterson is appearing in court to
on these motions for discovery towards aruling as to what of it will be
disclosed. And you're not there becausethis is the laip's case. But the

(13:43):
LAIP is getting a lot of heat. I'm hearing people say I've volunteered for
the Loyola Innocence Project. My goodfriend of mine, Justin Brooks, who
was on this podcast as well,ran the I think it was called the
California and Innocence Project in San Diego. I'm very familiar with the organization.
My friend Mark Mike Kevaluzzi just dida trial with Paula Mitchell not too long

(14:05):
ago. So the bottom line ispeople are after the la I P because,
oh my god, they're not evena real innocence project. There's some
made up, concocted thing by,and I'm like, first of all,
the Innocence Project gets funded by privatefunding, public funding, grants, et

(14:26):
cetera. And a lot of volunteers, trial lawyers, law students, et
cetera. And they typically follow justsort of a standard guideline of how they
vet cases and what they do andhow they raise their funds. But there's
no headquarters. You know, someonecame after me saying, you know,

(14:46):
I don't understand because they're not partof the headquarters. I'm like, there
is no headquarter for Innocence Project.So it just goes to show you and
the media is so you know,the spotlight is on particular defendant or case.
It's just you know, it's alwaysleaning towards guilt. The guys should
be locked up forever everything went correctly, you know, he shouldn't get out.

(15:11):
So anyway, I just wanted toaddress that with the Innocence Project because
that is just bullshit. Our peopleare just upset with them because it's Scott
Peterson, because I mean, they'veobviously handled thousands of other cases that no
one has any problem with. Butnow at the enemy. It's funny you
say that, Matt, because PaulI am the Innocence Project and some of
the others working on it. Idon't think anybody, I don't think any

(15:33):
of them understood what I always referto as a Scott Peterson effect. And
when they did take it, Ithink they were all stunned because the death
excuse me, death threats stopped startedcoming. They started getting things from emails,
people saying I'm never going to contributeto you again. I'll fight against

(15:54):
you from now on. I mean, even lawyers they just said they were
really sort of stunned by the uh, just the anger. Still. Yeah,
and you know, I have agood friend who was very liberal,
very sort of pro you know,criminal justice reform and all that, and
she called me up and she goes, what do you think about this.
I give a lot of money tothe Innocence Project. I just want to

(16:17):
make sure like this is legit.Is this legitimate? Like, of course
it is legit. It's like sevenhundred plus pages worth of legitimacy. Okay,
just sit down, you know.Anyway, people are just yeah,
it's one of those really hot,you know, hot cases. Still after
all these after all these years.So going to some of the specifics,
there was evidence that a burglary hadoccurred across the street from the Peterson home

(16:41):
where Scott and Lacey lived, atthe same time that Lacey, I guess
had disappeared or around that same time. Can you tell us what that evidence
is and whether or not it waspresented during the trial. Well, what
happened is we had bits and pieces. We obviously everyone knew that what had
happened was that there was a burglaryat the house directly across the street from

(17:04):
Lacy and Scott. The Modesto policefound the two guys, supposed two guys
that were involved, and they arrestedthem and based on what we were given,
they discovery we were given. Wewere told and it was explained to
us that the robbery occurred on Decembertwenty sixth, which is two days after

(17:26):
Lacey disappeared. We were told thatone of the people passed a lot of
detector test. We were told thatin essence, they had backed they had
investigated the robbery, further investigated otherleads and they led nowhere. All this
we were told at the time,and we were given very little information we

(17:48):
presented. I was to me itwas an immediately immediate reaction that if there's
a burglary at the same time acrossthe street. And keep in mind there
was testimony from Lacey's mother and others. Lacey was a little bit of a
firecracker that she would confront people inthe streets. If she saw somebody,
a homeless person, digging through trash, she would confront them. That was

(18:11):
the testimony. So it struck meimmediately that if there was a robbery there
across the street, we could showthat it was the twenty fourth and not
the twenty sixth, that we wouldbe you know, we would go a
long way into proving Scott's innocence.Unfortunately, we didn't have enough information and
as you know, Sarah, inCalifornia, one of the I think it's
the strictest law in the country interms of blaming someone else for a murder,

(18:37):
you have to show before you canever point the finger at anyone else.
You have to show quite a bitof evidence to the judge who makes
a ruling and says, okay,yes, you can proceed with that defense
against that person or no. Inthis case, we didn't have much evidence
at that time, although we weredigging and trying, but we just didn't
have it. And the judge reallydidn't let us, let us tell the

(19:00):
jury that there was a burglary.And then of course they got up and
said it was a twenty six.But that was about it. So it
was a combination of evidential ruling thatwasn't great for you and this, you
know, misinformation frankly from the prosecution. Absolutely, and the DA is still
in fact in an interview not toolong ago, apparently they said, well

(19:22):
that that issue, the burglary issue, was decided by the jury already.
Issue has never decided decided, right, and that is that is the issue
that is the doubt here, youknow, absolute. I cannot stress enough
that here you have a husband.Of course we know he ended up having
an affair, but by all accountswith everyone, they had a great marriage.

(19:45):
They did well together. He lovedher a lot. They are witnesses
who talked about how excited he wasabout the baby and doing classes and how
you know, buying clothes and justreally thrill with the way with the pregnant
see versus that's the guy who killsher, versus burglars across the street breaking

(20:07):
into a house at the exact sametime she disappears and clearly the obvious I
mean, our obvious conclusion is sheconfronted him and interrupted him in some way.
So you take the choice between thosetwo which is the most likely.
Sometimes it's not even interrupting. Sometimesit's it's uh, you know, just
the fact that someone just saw you, you know, would prompt someone who's

(20:30):
committing a crime, in the middleof a crime to want to get rid
of that person. That's and Iwouldn't have And again I can't get too
far in the details, but wehave witnesses that she's specifically confront of them.
The part of our one of thekind of news headlines that I've seen
is related to this van that wasdiscovered. Is that sort of part of

(20:53):
the same you know, narrative strandas the robbery is the implication that the
robbers use this van and try totorch the van or we know we know
two things. We know that there'sa witness who reported the next day that
she had seen a van in thedriveway and described the van. Uh.

(21:15):
And then we also have the burglersthemselves who claimed who admitted that when they
broke into the house, the onewho first broke in was on a bicycle.
There was a huge safe which heand another guy pulled out into the
front yard and they had obviously theycouldn't take it on a bicycle, so
they called some friends and a vancame over and picked it up. So

(21:40):
we have both vand sightings and thefact that this is what was basically told.
So yes, there is some backgroundon that. One of the things
you asked the trial, right,this this stuff that you're just saying that
what you're saying about the van andthe driveway and then calling the van to
come back up the safe. Thisall came out in the trial. Right.

(22:00):
No, No, we weren't allowedto get into this. We were
not allowed that. We were notallowed again because the judge ruled that there
was not sufficient evidence to point ourfingers this. There are two vans at
issue, basically, there are twopotential vans at issue. That's correct,
and there's one van that I guesswasn't I don't know. It was an

(22:23):
orange van that was found burnt onChristmas morning that may have had blood samples
in it at the time of thetrial, where they collected and tested or
are those things that you're hoping wouldbe tested as a result of these motions.

(22:44):
The way it worked was is thevan was found the day after on
Christmas Day, and we were oneof the fire chiefs went down. I
was told that there's a burning vandown there. Went down, looked at
it. I found that a mattressin the back with bloodstains, especially a
big area of bloodstains, like onehuge circle of blood stains, which was

(23:07):
covered up by I think it wasa gas can had been put on top
of the blood stains. He reportedit to Medesto police. They took the
van in and when you ask aboutdiscovery issues, for example, we were
provided the pictures of the van andthe mattress in black and white, and

(23:30):
we requested color. We never gotthem. Well, black and white you
don't see the blood. It's justan oil stain. Pictures you can't even
see. So then we found outlater down the road that in fact,
there had been some DNA testing done. And I can't get too far into

(23:53):
this, but ultimately it was notdone correctly. And that's what the LA
Innocence is dealing with that. Butso two questions about the DNA. First,
obviously, there's been so many advancementsin that technology that I assume that's
one of the reasons why you're seekingto retest some of the things, even
if you know maybe they weren't improperlytested at the time. But is it.

(24:18):
Can you tell us if Lacy's DNAwas found in the van? We
don't know. Oh, we don'tknow. I will say this, and
I think this is important. Whatthe Only Innocence Project is doing is a
myriad of things, a lot ofthings, and the DNA testing of the
mattress is just one thing. AndI know we've already been h they've already

(24:38):
been criticized and said, well,okay, if you know, that's going
to come back as a big nothing, and that'll show you that this whole
thing's a wild goose chack, verywell made. But the point is this
is just one example of things thatthat should have been notified during the trial.
We should have known what was goingon, and we weren't. It
was kept from us. That's thereal issue here, and that's just this

(25:03):
is just one thing out of asyou said, there's seventy pages of it.
So yes, that's that's the realissue. So the Orange van has
always been a mystery to me thatit was in a warehouse I remember that
it was toe to warehouse. Isthat the orange is that orange van from

(25:25):
the driveway or the one that droveup to take it take the safe We're
not sure. We actually don't knowyet. Okay, but you guys,
both parties went to this warehouse andwere able to inspect the orange van and
whatever was on it. Is thatnot true? We weren't. No,
you never got to go see thevan. You were only of the van.

(25:48):
We weren't even know where they werestoring it. We knew that there
had been a burn van. Wegot pictures of it. It just showed
a burnt van, and ultimately theytook pictures of the inside. All we
see is a mattress that has noblood on it or whatsoever. Essentially,
we were told, we were actuallytold a couple of things that indicated it
was not It was not related toLacey, and we we weren't even aware

(26:15):
that the van had been anything otherthan some parts of the mattress had been
cut out. That was the onlything we were aware of. So the
inspection of the van, no independentcould text testing of the van, and
all you got is black and whitepictures of the mattress, yes, which
led it. There was no suspicionof that, say that's orange because you

(26:37):
got black and white photos, right, that's part of it. I mean
it was burnt out as well.I think one of the bigger parts that
it's frustrating here is that we wewould have done more research. And as
you mentioned, there was a reporterwho's stuck with this and he has done
more research. And one of thethings that at this point I can't get
into but will come out is theresearch she's done and he has traced the

(27:02):
origin of the van, and theorigin of the van goes to people we
suspected we're involved in around. That'shuge And and you know, the other
thing I read was that the materialfound near Lacey's body is another thing that
the LAIP wants to test. Isthat even something I've never had a case

(27:22):
like this, so I don't knowit could I mean, when after being
in water for so long, isthat even something that can be tested?
You know, I don't know.To be honest with you, I don't
know the answer that question. UhMy gut reaction is no, that it's
still there. It would still study, but I don't know that to be
true. I be honest, Inever had a situation either. And then
you were mentioning this phone call whereand in Me tells his brother on a

(27:48):
jail call to shut up about Laceybeing kidnapped that day. What's that about.
Well, we were we were inthe last week of trial. I
mean we were literally in the lastweek. We're getting ready to do the
last witnesses in our closing when wereceive information that there is a phone call,
a recorded phone call from a prisonnorcote down in southern California, and

(28:14):
that the essentially the shift supervisor wasone of the sergeants came as you know,
they listened to all the phone calls. He comes to the supervisor and
says, you really need to hearthis because this is about Lacy Peterson.
So he listens, and in hisdeclaration the supervisor he says that it's two

(28:36):
brothers, one of who's been incarcerated, the other who's out. And one
of the brothers starts saying talking aboutLacy Peterson, and the other says,
shut up. You know, wecan't talk about that, this is being
recorded. Shut up about it,blah blah blah, and that he felt
was obviously important. He says inhis original declaration that he got that tape

(29:00):
and gave it to Modesto Police.Modesto Police denies it that they ever got
the tape. They then turned around, they interviewed him and he denies that
he ever gave him the tape himself. He says, well, maybe I
didn't give him the tape. Sohe changes the story. Now we have
an undersworn declaration that he gave itto him, signed under penalty of purture.
Okay, but he changed his story, came back and said, well,

(29:22):
maybe I didn't give it to him. Obviously, he's sticking with law
enforcement. But we know that exists, we know, we believe, we
think we might even know where thattape is. Now that's a long shot,
but we at least have a leadas to where that tape may be.
They they could potentially play this tapeand it will just be like the
ultimate bombshell, Like to just hearsomething like that, that's you would think,

(29:45):
so, yes, wow, youthought this was crazy twenty years ago.
I got I got news for you, my friend. This thing comes
back and then goes that way,this is going to just like blow up
the entire world. That's insane somethingthat I just love how people just kind
of gloss over as just a salaciousnothing burger. Is the claim of a

(30:11):
romantic affair between the DA and thelead detective that they failed to disclose to
the defense. That is huge,and in fact, recently, in another
state, a conviction was overturned becauseof that very reason. And so,
first of all, why don't wehear it from you? Why is that
a problem in this case? Andwe're I mean, do you think it's

(30:33):
just a fact that you threw inthere that might dilute all the other substance
of stuff you're arguing, or isit a real issue. Well, if
it's true, it's a real issue, it's a very important issue. And
the circumstances are that one of thedistrict attorneys, a woman named Berget Flatger.
She was not the head district attorneyat that time. She was an

(30:53):
assistant district attorney. She came everyday to trial and she would sit in
the audience. She didn't sit atcouncil table, but she would sit in
the audience. Then all of asudden, when the detective, the lead
detective, he was the last witness, she got up and she did the
direct testimony of the witness, andthere was this simpatico. They were heavily

(31:15):
praised for their ability to communicate,and what a great job he did,
and what a great job she did. I'm presenting it all and that's great,
you know, you pat them onthe back and say congratulations, Except
that we've now learned that there isa distinct possibility, and we actually learned
it from an inside source that theywere having this affair at the time.

(31:37):
We know that they ended up togetherafter the trial. That's not in dispute,
but there is now evidence that theymay have been awarding during the trial.
Why is that important Because a policeofficer technically is supposed to be a
neutral witness. Now we all knowlaw enforcement testifies for the prosecution usually,

(32:01):
but they are supposed to be neutral. They're supposed to investigate, present their
facts. They're sleeping with somebody whosecareer literally hangs on this, then how
do you know you're getting honest testimony? You don't int you'd assume the opposite
that you're not getting honest testimony becausethey are definitely biased in trying to help

(32:23):
the person they're essentially sleeping with,and this is not analogous to like Fannie
Willis and Georgia with her colleague thespecial prosecutor, and that issue is completely
different. This is exactly like whatPat is saying. It's that you've got
this sort of neutral, unbiased personthat's supposed to just present evidence, you

(32:45):
know, gather evidence, not foreat either side, you know, helpful,
hurtful, whatever it is. Andthen you've got someone who's looking for
a guilty verdict. And so it'sanyway, that was mind boggling, and
I I think that, I mean, if you have a good you have
a good claim if it's corroborated byan inside source. You mentioned some Amber

(33:08):
tapes because they're not Amber alert things. Those are a person referring to a
person. Is it Amber Fry?Amber Fry? That was? Who is
that? Amber Fry was a womanthat he Scott had had. I don't
call an affair because I think hesaw her total of four times they had
basically a sexual relationship. Uh thatbegan. It's called booty call these days,

(33:32):
that's probably more accurate. One nightstand booty call. Let the record
show it was all a new termside chick. Well. Originally, the
prosecution and the trial tried to saythis was a motive that Scott was going
to kill Lacy so he could bewith Amber. That became stupid. I
mean, it was just ridiculous.He had no love interest in Amber.

(33:57):
He just was interested in sex,and she lived in Fresno a few hours
down the road and was not awarehe was married. So ultimately, what
happened here is Amber sort of figuresout what's going on, who Scott Peterson
is after Lacey disappears. It tookseveral weeks, but she sort of figures
it out. She actually didn't owna television. She may be the only

(34:17):
human being on the planet that doesn'town a television, so she didn't see
it all. She finds out,however, about Scott. She goes to
law enforcement and they start taping thephone conversation between her and Scott. And
truthfully, if you look back atthe trial, the first two or three
months of testimony, it was awipeout. I mean the defense destroyed.

(34:40):
We destroyed them to the point wherethe local newspaper said that it prosecution may
need to look at dismissing this case. Every single witness got destroyed. Then
Amber took the stand and it wasnot her testimony that hurt. It was
the tapes. And the reason thetapes were so just devastating is Scott is

(35:00):
on there lying and lying to herabout Lacey, and he's lying about where
he is. They make a lotof fun Scott. Why, I'm sorry
she taped Scott? Why? Becauseshe went to law enforcement and told them
and they wanted her. They askedher to tape him. Got it.
So she was doing it under thereand they were feeding her the questions.

(35:22):
He was telling her all kinds ofcrazy stories about being in Paris and things
like that, And the reason hewas doing it was because he didn't want
her coming to Medestal. He kepttelling her he was out of town.
He kept creating stories about being inEurope and places so she wouldn't come to
Modesto looking for him. And becauseat this point he didn't know, she
knew. So ultimately he's giggling withher, He's laughing on the phone there.

(35:50):
I won't say they're being romantic,because I wouldn't call it romantic,
but there's you know, cute littlesides back and forth. And when you
play that to a jury, awoman's missing that we know she was dead
and you play that to them andyou hear that the husband giggling and laughing
with another woman. It was devastatingand you could watch, I mean it

(36:12):
was almost palpable watching the shift,not only in the media the courtroom,
but certainly the jury. And there'sjust the intense hatred began for him and
it's it's because of the tapes.And Okay, well, I guess this
woman, I mean, did theyhad they had she she rejected? Or
was that she wanted more than abooty call and she didn't get it?

(36:35):
I mean, what, what?What was her story to flip on him
like that? I think she justscared. I think she was scared.
She found herself in this hurricane.And the police just basically said, you
can help us, and Scott Peterson'sa murder and murdered his wife and you
need to help us. So there'susually probably you know this there, They
probably threw a little bit of asort of a threat in there that if

(36:59):
you don't help us, you couldbe considered part of this. Correct,
you can be asser aid or ina better or whatever, like accomplice after
the fact or something. Sure,so compound question, you know, you
you attribute the conviction also to thejuries aside from the Ambertives disregard for computer
evidence that was before them that showedLatecy at the computer the morning before she

(37:22):
went missing. Number one, whatwas that evidence and why do you think
it would have made a difference potentially? And number two, you've also mentioned
that there were juror issues. Whatwere the jur issues? Well, first,
with the computer, this was amazingbecause they had a computer expert that
they hired. The prosecution, wehad a computer expert we hired and paid

(37:43):
a ridiculous amount of money. Neitherone of them found anything that was on
the computer that was worthwhile. Mark, the prosecutions expert, got up.
Mark. Mark has an ability todo some very bizarre, great cross examinations,
and somehow or another he saw something. He's not a computer x but
he saw something and it clicked,and he got the prosecution could be their

(38:06):
expert to go back in and lookin and by the time it was over,
the prosecution expert said, yes,it looks like somebody was on Lacey's
computer that morning. Somebody was lookingat sunflower umbrella stands specifically, and Lacey
loved sunflowers. She had a sunflowertattoo. They were looking at women's sweaters
and I forgot the third thing,but they were. It was pretty clear

(38:27):
it was things that were probably her. We thought this is great because the
prosecution at this point is arguing thatLacey was killed the night before, that
he'd killed her that on the twentyfourth, on Christmas Eve. So we
thought this was great. We presentedto the jury. We mentioned it closing
two, three, four times.People went back to it. This prous

(38:49):
that they don't know the case,that she wasn't murdered, and that later
that night, after the verdict,the jurors were interviewed on Larry King and
they're like six or seven. They'rein a panel and Larry King asked them
straight out and said, what didyou Why did you not believe the computer
evidence was important? And I'm tellingyou, if you ever see the clips

(39:12):
on YouTube, a bunch of blankfaces. I mean it's like they didn't
they had no clue, they didn'tthink about it. At that point,
they'd shut down. I mean wementioned it at least three times in the
closing. They weren't listening. Theydidn't care. I think, you know
what I think when jurors when somethingclicks, and it's just one piece of

(39:35):
evidence in the face of a lotof you know, reasonable doubt. Nothing
else matters, you know, likethe hamber tapes were probably so they were
so disgusted with that that you know, by that that they didn't care,
you know. Yeah, So itjust you know, and and what were
the jur issues aside to talk aboutjury issues, because the they tried to

(40:00):
come out and act like that theyhad they really didn't feel any pressure and
they were just doing the right thing, and it just wasn't true. And
for example, I use one ofmy favorite examples is one of the jurys
came out was being interviewed in thebig area outside the courthouse and he's being
interviewed and he says, you knowwhat really drove me, what bugged me.

(40:23):
And one of the reasons we convictedScott was because he'd come out of
that you know, the back there. He'd come up to the table and
he'd be smiling and strutting and he'dbe waving in his family or just kind
of just laughing like it was alla big circus and just a good time.
And we proved to you, Scottieboy, it wasn't a good time.

(40:43):
You know you're going to spend yourtime in San Quentin. Now,
well, you know, Sarah,there's a problem with that. Number One,
A defendant is never brought out withthe jury present. It was never
present in that courtroom. When ScottPeterson was brought out, eight came in
the room. He's sitting next tome. Okay, So that was just
a bullshit, made up story.But it shows you the anger and you

(41:08):
know he was proud of himself.Yeah, we got you, Scottie boy.
That you're not laughing anymore. Scottwas never laughing. That was just
absolutely But again it's that it showsyou and the jury issue we had with
the one who essentially we believe goton the jury where she admits that she

(41:28):
was there to fry and I meanthere were just all kinds of jury issues
that we had. Most importantly thejury. The jurors, there were two
of them that were willing to findScott innos that we're both kicked off the
jury. One midway through the trialand he came out on Larry King Who's
interview and he said, no,there's no evidence. I don't know why

(41:49):
they're going after this guy. Andthen later in jury deliberations. The four
person, who was a doctor anda lawyer both. He was the four
person. He was leading it,and aparently he was leading it in a
direction where he was being very thoroughabout the evidence, and the other jurors
didn't like it, and one ofthem threatened him physically, I'm literally threatened
to hurt him, and that jurorcame to the judge and said, I

(42:13):
want off. I want off,and instead of the judge kicking the person
who threatened off, which is whatshould have happened, let the four person
go. So, you know,I just wanted to ask because it's kind
of related to a question that Ihad, which was about this idea of
jurors being improperly dismissed. So that'ssort of what you were alluding to before

(42:35):
that. As important as it isto have people on the jury, you
know that can have an open mindabout this case, there are sometimes issues
where it's not even about who wason the jury. It's about somebody who
didn't get to vote. That's right, that's exactly right. And you know
there's there's this still chatter about hisblonde hair. You mentioned miscellaneous circumstantial evidence

(42:59):
that you know, you felt likeyou had properly explained or sufficiently explained,
and nonetheless like the dyed blonde hair. To this day, people argue that
it was all he was trying toescape. He was, you know,
he was trying to go under theradar, so he's not detected. Just
briefly, what's a little blonde hair. I'll throw you two things. The

(43:21):
blonde hair thing was so silly becausethey said, well, he was trying
to escape and he was going torun to Mexico, so he dyed his
hair blonde. Well, we actuallyshowed a picture was put into evidence of
Scott in his truck speaking to thedetective, the main detective, with blonde

(43:43):
hair after his hair had he haddyed his hair. And it's kind of
a funny story because he went andgot some cheap when he was trying to
avoid the media. He wasn't tryingto avoid the police. I was trying
to avoid the media. He've gota cheap hair thing. It was supposed
to turn his hair kind of ared. But then he went to a
friend's house and he got the pooland the chlory turked at blonde, so

(44:04):
it came out this funny color.But the heat. We have a picture
of him sitting with the police withthat hair, and who in the world
would disguise themselves from the police andthen go meet with the police. I
mean, it was just stupid.There was so many stupid things about escaping
to Mexico. He was actually drivingnorth, he was a driving south.

(44:25):
He was driving north, wrong direction, wrong direction. So also Modesta residents
have said that they saw Lacey walkingher dog after Scott went fishing, so
she was around, and many ofthem say the police never followed up with

(44:45):
them. Are these some of thoseallegations and the motions that you know about
leads that weren't followed through with orOkay, absolutely, there's a lot of
that. There's there are some newones that were not evidence. This new
evidence. I don't need to knowall the details, but the new evidence.

(45:06):
Is it accurate that it consists ofwitnesses and forensics or is it witnesses
and a request to get the forensics. It's a combination of both. It's
witnesses, forensics and a request toget some additional forensics. Okay, so
you do you also do have forensics? Yes, Okay, I'm gonna I'm
almost done. With this before wemove on. I promise it's a big

(45:30):
case. So we obviously don't knowhow Lacey died and where she died and
when. In these motions, thela I P is claiming that these leads
were not followed. Are any ofthese forget about reasonable doubt, but are

(45:53):
any of these just abandoned ignored leadsones that could not only say could have
been the burglars, but could itin fact identify a specific suspects and what
happened to her and how she died. To a degree, we have put

(46:14):
together what we believe is a fairlyaccurate rendition of what happened and who was
involved. We have a group ofpeople involved. In fact, we know
that the burglary was more than twopeople. We now know that it was
a number of people. The waythat they worked in Modesto is they worked
in groups, and for example,if somebody found a house that was empty,

(46:35):
they would call others and say comeon over, and they'd sit there
and watch TV, drink their beerand steal their stuff. Guys come over.
So we have identified a group.So the witnesses, some of the
new witnesses help with that, butI can't say that they specifically say,
oh, this person, this person, this person, And it's not the

(46:58):
job of a defendant to do that. I mean, obviously the burden is
a lot higher when you're trying toexonerate yourself, but and it's on you,
and it's not on the prosecution,but at the trial level. You
know, it's funny to me whenpeople say, well, if he didn't
do it, then who did it? Wanting to go investigate it and find

(47:19):
out who did it. I'm like, it's not my damn job to do
that, you know, So it'stheir burden to prove that my is guilty,
be hot a reasonable doubt. Soanyway, this was a great conversation
and I hope that when you areable to share more that you definitely come
back and talk to us. Anothervery interesting case that you had, and
I was telling Matt about it andhe was just like, bewildered is the

(47:44):
priest case I'm going to turn overto Matt. Yeah, this is just
like a wild story of in myopinion, vigil anti justice is what it
should be. This guy's a hero, He's Batman as far as I'm concerned.
But as the story unfolds, yourepresented a man named Will Lynch who
beat up a priest who trigger warningfor our listeners. You know, I

(48:08):
don't know if he actually molested himand his brother, but kind of made
them perform sexual acts on each other, super traumatizing. Of course, Will
tried to get this handled through theauthorities, but no help from different DA
offices, and so finally he findsout that this guy, the priest,

(48:29):
has been moved to like a retirementhome, and he gets inside and beats
the shit out of this guy tothe point where he thinks that maybe he
killed them. Not that that's likea right thing to do, but like,
I feel like there's so many moviesabout this, like what is one
man supposed to do? And he'sbeen wronged so tragically so that the retirement

(48:49):
home was not really a retirement home. It was for dirty priest right abusing.
The majority of the priests are notall, but the majority of the
priests there had been moved there forthe very reason that they had been either
accused or found guilty of having unlesswhatever. Yeah, that's exactly how it
was, as you said. Imean, you laid it up very nicely.
They were He and his brother werefive and seven, years old,

(49:12):
I believe for six and seven,and they went on a Catholic treat with
their parents and the priest got himaside in a tent and molested them and
then made them performances on each other, which was obviously extraordinarily traumatizing. Will
grows up as he gets into hislate thirties and early forties. He starts
going to district attorneys and police apartmentsand they're telling that statue limitations, you

(49:34):
know, forget about it go on, and so he's very frustrated. Ultimately
he finds out this priest is atthis location and you just mentioned it,
Sarah. It's a place where theyput a lot of a lot of the
bad apples. And he goes downthere. He lies, tells him that
the priests of somebody he knows andhe needs to tell him something. Gets

(49:54):
in to see the priest and thenstarts walloping it and walops in pretty good
and to the point, like Isaid, he thought he killed him.
So then he leaves. He goeshome. About a month later, the
police show up at his door andhe's got a roommate and they said,
we want to talk to him,and so Will goes back while his roommate's

(50:15):
talking to police, goes back andcalls our office. I don't know why
he called our office to this day, I'm not even sure. He doesn't
even know. But he talked tothe receptionists. Receptionist filters things and sends
cases other people. But she calledme said you need to pick up this
case. You need to And Isaid why, She said, just just
pick up the phone. So Ipicked up the phone and Will's in the

(50:37):
line. He said the police arehere, and I said, okay,
what did you do? He said, I think I killed a priest.
I said, okay, I'll beright there. He was in northern California.
I was in southern California. Igot on a plane that night.
I said, you stay. Youtell him, get a card and tell
the roommate that Will he's got alawyer, and his lawyer will bring him

(50:57):
in. So we went, broughthim in, was arrested, released,
and then they charged them with fourcounts, two of an assault of the
deadly weapon his fists, and twoof elder abuse because the priest was over
seventy. And we went to trial, and before trial, Will told me
they offered a pretty good deal,but Will said no. He said,

(51:19):
I want to tell my story.I want people to understand what happened and
why this happened, and I wantit to be able to protect other people.
So I said, well, there, you know you clearly did it.
He said, I'm going to geton the stand and admit it.
Well, the only chance you havethen is jury nullification. That's the only
event you have, and we're notallowed to bring that up in court.
We can hint around it, wecan kind of hopefully push the jury,

(51:44):
but we can't. We can't sayit. We can't utter those words,
meaning that you can't tell the jurorsthat they have to nullify this case.
They have to kind of reach thatconclusion themselves. Exactly okay, exactly right.
So we go to trial. Willgets on the stand, he said,
looks at the jerry and said,yeah, I did it. And
what was crazy about the thing?Before trial? The judge had told us

(52:08):
he was not going to let usget into the molestation. He said,
I will let you say one sentencethat you were molested when you were a
child by a priest. He said, that's it. I'm won to get
you anything else. For some bizarrereason, which I will never understand.
The prosecution chose in their opening statementto put on a television interview that Will

(52:31):
had done He had done it theweek before. We frankly did it because
we were trying to get it outthere. And Will's on this television interview,
and I guess the reason they putit on is because Will's admitting he
did it, but we were goingto do that trial anyway. But he's
also crying and he's talking to molestation. They played a good two to three

(52:52):
minutes of that in their opening statements, and at that point, as soon
as it stopped, I said,excuse me, I want to go back
in chambers now. I looked atthe judge and said, they've opened the
door to this. And the judgelooks at the prosecutor said, you sure
did, said mister Harris, youcan talk about it all you want.
Wow. It was just crazy.So the priest got on the stand.

(53:14):
This was another crazy story. Hegets on the stand, he testifies to
what happens at four twenty five.Court goes till four point thirty four twenty
five. They asked him the question. The prosecutor asked him, did you
molest Will Lynch? He says,no, we recessed for the day.
The next day we come back.I mean, I'm chomping at the bit.

(53:36):
I can't wait. I mean,you can imagine Sarah that get in.
He comes and he's got a lawyer, and the lawyer tells the judge
he's taken the fifth. And thejudge said, well, you've already testified,
and he said, well, I'mnot testifying anymore. I'm taking the
fifth. So the judge then struckall his testimony. But at that point

(54:00):
they had heard it. The juryhad heard it, so that wasn't a
great solution for me. I askedfor the case to be dismissed. But
anyway, we go forward to thetrial. Things go seem to go well.
The jury gets the goes into deliberations. One hour later, the jury
sends out a note that says,what is jury nullification and can we do

(54:22):
it? The judge terrible, Imean, we fought like crazy for an
hour. I mean, I'm researchingeverything I can and I've got four different
people researching to get the right answer. The judge sent back this terrible answer
that essentially threatened them, saying,you have to do your duty as it's

(54:43):
by law and you could even beprosecuted. I mean, he doesn't say
prosecute, but you can't. Youcould even be held in contempt or something
if you don't do your job.So I'm thinking, okay, we're screwed
now. An hour later, theycame back to not guilties and we were
so floored that I got a holdof the juror. The juror foreman.
I said, how in the world, ad dury nullification? You use that

(55:05):
phrase? How did you know touse that phrase? And he said one
of the jurors solid on an episodeof Law and Order. Your Law and
Order has just done a lot ofinteresting things for us. You know,
it's funny because it's not even likehow things really work. But my sister
to this day, you know it'snot she's not a lawyer, but she

(55:27):
says every time I go to trial, she says, you know, you
could you could try it out onme. You could do your opening statement,
your closing argument. Because I justhave watched every episode of Law and
Order, I really understand trials.I'm like, right, you could be
a little last person. I'd bedoing it. One final thing about that,

(55:47):
it's just pretty amazing. One ofthe local uh radio stations was covering
it. They nicknamed the place wherethe priests were rapist resort. What caught
up nicknamed it the rapist They wouldcall it the rapist resort, and that
caught on you where you go forR and R. It's pretty crazy.

(56:14):
I mean there were there were actuallylawsuits against that place because there were some
incidents there where the priests were rapingthe help there. So anyway, so
I want to close with obviously,you know, I know how how big
a highlight it was to represent MichaelJackson, but you also represented Chris Brown,

(56:35):
several other high profile individuals and SusanMcDougall. There is a question I
have to ask you as Chris Brown, because I think this is also a
case that you and Mark Arragos hadtogether. And I remember I was in
the office when Chris would come infor his probation you know, check ins
or whatnot after the fact. Butthere's been a lot of criticism. Well,

(57:00):
he just pled to the sheet.He fled to the sheet, and
I you know, tell people,do you understand what a DV charge is
all about? Because it's like it'sa battery like any other batteries up between
domestic partners, and your best defenseis self defense. And you know where
there's injuries and you've got a femalevictim. I mean, it's very difficult

(57:24):
to change the sheet. So thefocus then becomes on, you know,
the terms, whether you can getjail time or not, you know the
term approbation, all that stuff.So what I mean, did Chris Brown
have any defense to go to child? No, he didn't. To his
credit, I found one of theinteresting things about him is he was nothing

(57:46):
like the press portrayed him as hewas. Actually he walked in the very
first day and said, I needto take responsibility for this. I was
out of my mind. He said, she did get violent with me,
but I responded wrong. I mean, he was very, very straightforward.

(58:07):
But he was just an interesting character. And I tell people, you know,
we're all a mixture of good bad. Sometimes we go off the rails,
sometimes we do things we shouldn't,but we're all a mixture of good
and bad, and you can't hewas being vilified. At the same time
he was being vilified. I hada fourteen year old boy in my office
when Chris Brown came in one day, and a fourteen year old boy I

(58:30):
was trying to get out of trouble, and who was troubled a lot of
issues, and he was just wideeyed when he saw Chris Brown. He
said, oh, my god,he's my hero. I love him,
blah blah blah. And so Iwent to Chris Brown and I said,
would you just say hello, justshake his hand? You go see that
hello to the kid. Chris Browngot up, went sat on a couch

(58:51):
with him and sat there with himfor fifteen minutes and talked to him.
And it was one of the Itreally was one of the I mean,
my god, that made the kid'slife. It was just one of those
things where you realize that your clientcan be vilified. And yes, they
do sometimes do horrible things or badthings, but we're all we all have
our good sides, and we allhave good things about us, and sometimes

(59:14):
we just do something stupid. Sometimesnot Yeah, it's violence, you know,
it's not. It's really not alwaysabout the person being a violent person.
It's a toxic relationship really leads toan aberrant incident of violence. I
mean that's been my experience is,like, you know, most of my

(59:37):
DV clients are not you know,people who go around beating people up,
or their girlfriends or their wives up. It's just that they for whatever reason,
like you said, we all haveour bad, broken sides, and
that broken part of them ends themup in a very toxic relationship they should
not be in. And then youadd alcohol and drugs to that. It
is the nightmare. And that islike instead of leaving, you beat the

(01:00:00):
person up, not saying it's okay, but you know, but that's sort
of the usual thing. So let'sclose with Susan McDougall because I'm like,
you were violating your ethical duties havingsex with the client, Like, how
are you doing that? Well,let's be clear, Susan I dated or

(01:00:22):
were together, I guess you'd sayfor almost seventeen, no, sixteen years
for our listeners. Who was SusanMcDougall. Google was the Whitewater partner of
Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. Sheand her husband, her husband at the
time, Jim McDougall, the fourof them were the Whitewater partners and when

(01:00:43):
everything started getting investigating in Whitewater,they desperately wanted Susan to testify against the
Clintons. They were determined to gether because Jim McDougall had gone sort of
psycho and he couldn't be a witnesseven though he was cooperating. Clearly,
the Clinton's weren't going to cooperate,so they thought they could get Susan,
and they tried to pressure her intodoing it, and she refused, and
to the point where they put itin front of a grand jury, and

(01:01:05):
she refused, and she ended updoing twenty two months in different prisons and
jails across the country her refusal totestify. So that's who Susan McDougal is.
We were together and for a longlong time before I went to law
school, and then I went tolaw school. We got out, we
got engaged, we had these plans, and then all hell broke loose with

(01:01:29):
Whitewater, Clinton getting elected by ninetytwo, and then starting in ninety three
to ninety four, they went afterSusan. So I get to at least
claim I was sleeping with her beforeI became a lawyer. Okay. Then
good thing, you clarified it.Okay. So and you wrote the book
on I wrote the book called TheWoman who Wouldn't Talk, which did really

(01:01:52):
well. Susan was a fascinating character. She has a fascinating character to the
point where now this is a womanwho's been through all kinds of craziness.
She is now a chaplain at thelargest medical center in Little Rock, Arkansas.
She's the head chaplain there. Imean, her story since all this
is pretty incredible, so unique individual. Yeah, that's amazing. Go ahead,

(01:02:15):
Matt, you were going to saysomething, No, I just was
gonna kind of try to bring ithome here and just say thank you so
much for coming on the show.Amazing stories in perspective and just really fascinating
to hear everything. So thank youso much. It's my pleasure. Thanks
for having me. Thank you,my friend. And I hope that you
know when you can talk more aboutPeterson, that we can continue the conversation,

(01:02:37):
because in the meantime I'll be textingyou and calling you and bothering you
anyway. But you could have anytime, Sarah on the record conversation.
And until next time, Well,first of all, please follow us,
follow us on YouTube at the presumption, and then also on wherever you get
your podcasts, Apple, Spotify,all of it, download, follow us

(01:03:01):
and don't miss an episode. Anduntil next time, we rest HM