Eddie & Rocky -- 12/23/25

Dan Carroll and Jason Williams talk with Dave Hatter about the use of AI. Connie Pillich discusses the new information released in the case against Elwood Jones. Curt Hartmann gives a former judge's perspective on the Elwood Jones case. Kevin Aldridge joins the show.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:07):
All right, it's see Eddie Rocky Show. Eddie Rocky out
Jason Williams alongside my partner in pod Dan Carol. How
are we looking, brother, good? You're already I'm good man.
You came in here hot. Let me know you're you're
ready to play some golf tomorrow as this weather is
heating up.

Speaker 2 (00:27):
Yeah, buddy of mine, buddy of mine contacted me earlier today,
so we got tea times for tomorrow.

Speaker 1 (00:32):
I said, I'm there, go win some money, my friend.

Speaker 2 (00:34):
So so my I'm gonna say this right up front.
I'm gonna lean on you tomorrow for show prep. I've
already been working my friend already been working it. I've
already go enjoy, go enjoy there your time at the
golf court. I'll show prep tonight. I show prepped all
day today. I'll show prep tonight.

Speaker 1 (00:54):
Them you know what, I got an easy way for
your show prop Just just ask Ai Ai Ai? Who
should I? What should I do for my radio show tomorrow?
I mean, is that? Is that what you do?

Speaker 2 (01:06):
I am using AI sparingly now when I want to
get some get some facts or some background on some stuff.
But I have not asked it to create anything for me.

Speaker 1 (01:18):
Well, interesting, you bring this up because we have our
official Eddie and Rocky a oh, I did, okay, the
main our official AI correspondent of the Eddie and Rocky Show,
our good friend Dave Hatter, who as long ago gotten
rid of his tinfoil hat because he it's officially everything
he says is true.

Speaker 2 (01:38):
Well you you asked the first question, because I'm going
to be busy responding to this text message.

Speaker 1 (01:42):
It says we dropped the ball on that one, Dave,
Dave Hatter mayor Merry Christmas? How are you.

Speaker 3 (01:50):
Merry Christmas? Birth? I'm good, thanks for having me on.
I took the day off. And Jason, you may be
too young to appreciate this. The damn will. I just
watched the original Alice Cooper Band how about that Songs
for Christmas Pudding event the other night. It's pretty awesome.

Speaker 1 (02:06):
Really, I'll get much better than that. Well, it's funny
because Alice Cooper, when I was a kid, was seen
as like, oh man, like he's like one of those
satan heavy rocker guys, and like he's about as normal
in that world as you get, speaking of a normal. Well,

(02:30):
they dan just mentioned there about using Ai. I did
not do this in thinking we were going to have
you this week, but over the weekend, Dave Hatter, I
was looking to make a special logo for a special
event for my youth baseball team, my thirteen year old
baseball team. And I'm like, oh, you know what, and

(02:52):
it's a slogan that we use for the guys. And
I'm like, I have a co pilot on my laptop up.
So I'm like, all right, and I took the plunge.
I used AI for the first time, and I got
down a two hour rabbit hole with AI on designing
all kinds of different logos for my baseball team, not

(03:15):
just the specific slogan one, but just other ones. And
I am I am fascinated by it. And not only that.
So then I turned around, just you know, an hour ago,
I'm given this gift of he's not listening baseball tickets.
We were trying to pick this a different stadium each
year to go to my sons and I and so

(03:35):
we're going to go to Atlanta next year, and so
you know, I wanted to make like kind of a
fake ticket stub to give to him as part of
his Christmas gift. I'm like, ah, man, I got to
find a template. No, I go back to AI boom.
Five minutes later, we got it all tweaked. It's good
to go, ready to print out, Dave Hatter, I have

(03:57):
crossed the threshold. I found the AI am I am?
I Is that a good thing for me to be
using that? Or is it? Is it stealing all of
my info as I'm doing this and it's going to
come back.

Speaker 4 (04:11):
To haunt me?

Speaker 3 (04:13):
Well, possibly some combination of both. Like most technology, Jason,
you know, it depends on the platform. You know. Here's
the thing with AI where it stands today. Now, you know,
I think a lot of the bloom was coming off
the roads, and you've got a lot of the people
who have been involved in it for a long time saying,
you know, it's it's kind of perhaps peaked based on

(04:33):
its current the current way that they've engineered it. I
don't know, We'll see. I can just tell you it's
funny you mentioned the graphics thing, because just recently used
it for something similar to that, and all I wanted
to do was replace a single word in the image
that it created, and I could not get it to
replace that word. Just one work so you know, I

(04:54):
think as long as you understand what it's good at
and what it's not good at, when you understand the
issue of foluc nations and so forth, and then to
your point about it sucking up all your information that
the trade offs that you might be making when you
use it, it can be a really valuable, really handy
tool as long as you stay within the guardrails. You know,
if you don't know anything about a subject and you
just assume that what it tells you it's fact, that

(05:16):
can be really problematic. But as long as you stay
within the guardrails, it can save you an enormous amount
of time, especially like from a prototyping standpoint, if you
just want to get an idea for something, it's super
handy for that kind of thing, Like it will save
you an enormous amount of count.

Speaker 1 (05:30):
And I thought this was pretty harmless and it was fun.
It was actually fun, like and I know what you say.
I know what you're saying, though, Like there were some
points where it's like, hey design this, and then it
would keep coming back and it wouldn't get You'd literally
tell it, hey drop that C logo, and it would
kept dropping that in there somehow, some way, and finally
I'd be like, let's do a reset get rid of

(05:53):
the sea with the quote, because it was calling at
that and then it finally did. So it took some time,
but on some tweaks, but I found it to be
useful and fun, and I think I'm going to use
one of those logos that it spit out.

Speaker 3 (06:08):
Yeah, it really can be useful. Again, as long as
you kind of understand the limitations and work within those guidelines,
it can be a very handy tool for any number
of different things and an enormous time saver. But but yeah,
here's the thing I think a lot of people don't understand.
You know, the guy who spent a long time as
a software engineer. Most of the time the kind of

(06:30):
software I was writing was for business use, and it
was deterministic. You know, if you gave it a formula
and certain inputs, it would produce the same outputs every time. Right,
it had to be correct. These large language models are
using a probabilistic model. You can ask you the question
twenty times and you might get twenty different answers, and
some of them will be just completely made up. Right,

(06:51):
That idea of hallucinations. So depending on you know, if
you need a deterministic answer, that is not necessarily a
good way to go about it. And if you don't
understand hallucinations, again, you could be setting yourself. There's been
all kinds of stories about people trying to use AI,
you know, based large language model g in AI type
things like rock or chat or chat GPT or Gemini

(07:15):
to like plan a vacation and it, you know, plots
places on their itinerary that just don't exist. So again,
when you understand those kinds of things and you understand
it is not deterministic, it can be really valuable.

Speaker 2 (07:27):
You know, Dave, There used to be a saying back
in the the relatively early days of computing called geigo
garbage in garbage out right.

Speaker 1 (07:35):
Uh?

Speaker 2 (07:36):
I think I think that same basic principle still applies.
And I caught this story the other day when I
was getting ready for one of my weekend shows, and
it turns out Merriam Webster Dictionary has chosen their year,
their word of the year, and that word is do
you know it, Dave.

Speaker 1 (07:53):
Flop slop?

Speaker 3 (07:54):
I do know it? Ye slop?

Speaker 2 (07:56):
Or yeah, AI generated junk? Tell me about that? Tell
me about slop. I think that's a cool term because
I mean, that's still sad. That sounds to me like
the same principle of garbage in garbage out them all.

Speaker 3 (08:08):
Right, well more or less, yes, and I think that's true.
You know, when these large language models get trained. Again,
you know, I'm not a mathematician and I don't build
this stuff, so I can't tell you exactly what's happening
inside it. And that's one of the problems. I'm not
sure anyone can. But you know, it's using a probabilistic
model to figure out okay, you use this word, this

(08:29):
is the word that's most likely to go with that,
and it's all based on probability. That's why, again you
can ask the same question and get a different answer
each time. And that's why you know, until recently, it's
been really poor at math of doing things like give
me an image of an analog clock that's showing a
certain time, and it can't do it right. But the

(08:51):
bottom line is, yeah, Dan, if the input you're using
to train these models is biased, if it's incorrect, that's problematic.
And again I'm not an expert on the inner works
of this stuff, but there are a lot of people
who have been well known people in this space who
have now started to come off some of the more

(09:12):
hyperbolic predictions that all of our jobs are going to
be replaced, and you know, we're going to have AI
wipe us out and all this sort of stuff, at
least on this particular path. There are different types of AI,
and there are people doing different things, but there are
some folks who are speculating that's the large language model
that powers things like Gemini at Rock and catch GPP.

(09:34):
If it hasn't peaked already, may have peaked. And one
of the problems gets back to what you just said, Dan,
which is this idea of garbage in garbage out. If
I have an AI model and it generates the output,
and I eed that into another AI model, and it
generates the output which goes back into the original model
you originally. You eventually just hit this. It's all just

(09:55):
made up stuff. It's slamp. It's just garbage being thrown
out by these things. And as you get more non
human generated original content, the slop causes entropy. And there's
an actual term in the business called model collapse. And
I'm not saying we're there and this might never happen,
But there are people predicting that, you know, based on
these tools the way they work now, with the kind

(10:17):
of limitations they have, they they may not be able
to progress much beyond where we are now. And there
have been several very well known people say the idea
of getting to artificial general intelligence, this sort of you know,
it's better than human beings and everything and eventually wipe
us out. It will never happen using this particular technique.
Now again, you know, I only know what I read

(10:38):
and what I see, and I've seen evidence of the
slop and the Internet is now full of all these
ridiculous videos and means being generated by AI, which is
then get sucked back into the AI. So I think
there's something to that idea of entropy. And I do
love the term flop because so much of what you
see from this stuff really is just garbage.

Speaker 1 (11:00):
Changes.

Speaker 3 (11:00):
But that's want to go back and say, when you
understand all of the things we're talking about here, and
you know how to work with the tools the right
way where things are good at they can be unbelievably handy.

Speaker 1 (11:12):
Dave, We've got a couple more minutes, Dave, had or
our tech guy here on the Eddie and Rocky Show
speaking of sloping garbage. It is prime Christmas fishing season
with a pH any particular scams going on out there
right Nowadave that people really need to be on alert for.

Speaker 3 (11:34):
Well, I'm glad to ask about that, Jason, because the
FBI has just recently, the FBI had a great website,
the Internet Crime Complaints that are IC three dot gov
and then just the standard FBI website. They've put out
a lot of warnings and PSAs lately on social media
and so forth about scams and broad and the sort
of things to see this year. You know, those are
always talk full of useful tips because it's not just speculation,

(11:56):
it's it's stuff that being reported to them. You know,
the standard scams this time of year typically revolve around Okay,
this deals too good to be true. I have to
act on this now or your package is delayed. And remember, folks,
fishing comes in all kinds of forums. Now, it's not
just email, it's text messages, it's voice calls. Voice calls

(12:16):
that might be using some kind of AI tool to
close somebody's voice. So you know, back before Amazon Prime Day,
I saw a study that over two hundred thousand in
a four month period of time, over two hundred thousand
fraudulent websites were set up to scam people around Prime Day.
So you can bet there's at least a similar amount
that have been created to try to scam people between

(12:39):
Black Friday, Cyber Monday, and holiday shopping at General. So,
you know, be skeptical, take a brass. If it seems
too good to be true, it probably is. Don't click
the links, don't call the numbers. You know, if you've
got an email that has a deal it's too good
to be true from Walmart, then you go to the
Walmart website or the Amazon website or whatever. Hey, go

(13:00):
read those tips from the FBI. You know, a lot
of times if you just see a credible source putting
out information like Daddy, you read it. Could you just
put enough awareness to help avoid some of the scams
that are always rampant this tiny year.

Speaker 1 (13:13):
Dave always great stuff. Always appreciate uh. Whether I'm I'm
on with Eddie and Rocky or with Dan Carroll or
I'm I'm a listener. I always always am informed by
what you know, by what you what you talk about
You're the best, buddy, You're the best.

Speaker 3 (13:30):
All right.

Speaker 1 (13:31):
You were, Dave. You were as Eddie as Eddie. As
Eddie says in our prep show preps when we have
you on, he always says, Hatter on Hatter stuff. You
were Dave Hatter on Dave Hatter stuff today spot on
Mary Christmas, my friend.

Speaker 3 (13:45):
Thanks you guys to see you see, Thank you. Dave.

Speaker 1 (13:47):
News Radio seven hundred w l W Jason Williams, Dan
Carroll in for Eddie and Rocky and we got a
hot off the presses here as you heard on our
our news break there. UH prosecutor Hamilton County Prosecutor Connie
Pillag has put out a statement setting the record straight.
UH And now Hamilton County Corner UH locks me san

(14:11):
Marco has retracted what she said yesterday regarding the Elwood
Jones case. It' it's it's kind of complex, but let's
go right to the source here. We've got a Hamilton
County Prosecutor, Connie Pillach on the phone who to talk
about setting the record straight on basically yesterday locks me

(14:33):
San Marco, the coroner saying that she had uncovered new
new evidence in uh the uh the Elwood Jones case
regarding the lady who was murdered wrote to Nathan, now,
Connie Pilach saying, hey, no, that's not true. Now. Also,
just within the last handful of minutes here, doctor Lockxamee

(14:55):
San Marco has said she has retracted that as well. Yeah,
she writes that today.

Speaker 2 (14:59):
I'm in reciping of a document titled Microbiology Reference Laboratory
Test Report provided by Attorney David Hine. In that document,
there are reference numbers the correspond to our autopsy and
death records. In the body of the report, there's a
reference to a cadaver specimen. The printed result state the
blood specimen was hepatitis B surface amage and positive. Considering

(15:21):
the correlation of the numbers on the report with our records,
it appears that this is the actual Hepatitis B test
report result for Rhoda, Nathan. And with that, let's go there.

Speaker 1 (15:32):
There's a lot there, Dan, but let's let's yeah, let's
let's get to Hamilton County Prosecutor Connie Pilach, Uh, Prosecutor
pillag thank you for joining us here. And I know
this is kind of crazy, and uh, there's a lot
lot here, but uh yeah, I mean Connie, you your
your your press release, I think related out for you.

(15:54):
Uh you know you're here to set the record straight
on this and it sounds like, uh now that lotchiby
San Marco. The Corner is on the same page with
with your office as well, and more importantly, on the
same page with what's the truth of the evidence that
was undiscovered was discovered in this case? Correct?

Speaker 5 (16:13):
Yeah, that's right, and thanks so much for having having
me on.

Speaker 1 (16:16):
To thank jumping on so quickly, Thank you.

Speaker 5 (16:20):
I'm happy to do so.

Speaker 3 (16:22):
So.

Speaker 5 (16:22):
Yeah, the Corner did not uncover any new information about
the victim's medical history. What she had done was review
a laboratory report that actually was reporting on the blood
of Elwood Jones, and she made mistakenly attributed mister jones

(16:44):
negative appetitus B result to the victim. So this was
just a mistake and it was just a misreading of
the test. I did speak with the corner just just
when I sent this press release out clear things up,
and she understood that this was a mistake and told
me she was going to retract her comments. But look,

(17:09):
it's very clear. It's very clear that every part of
the file that we received from the coroner said that
on September eighth, nineteen ninety four, testing done through the
coroner's office showed that Roda Nathan.

Speaker 3 (17:27):
Had hepatitis B.

Speaker 5 (17:29):
And this test was even stipulated to by both sides
in the federal case, and.

Speaker 1 (17:35):
Elwood Jones evidence said that he did not have hepatitis B.

Speaker 5 (17:39):
Correct, that's right. And we also learned that his test
was taken on September sixteenth, nineteen ninety four, so about
a week after the murder, and then late twenty years
later he was tested again by a defense expert. The

(18:00):
test done and he was found to never have contracted
and still has not contracted hepatitis B. This is one
of those antigens that stays in your bloodstream forever, so
we would have been able to find out.

Speaker 2 (18:16):
China, billis this is this is Dan Carroll and uh,
thank you so much for the for the for the
for the time today. So the the the guilt or
innocence of Elwood Jones. Are you suggesting that that guilt
or innocence rides on whether or not he has hepatitis
B and contact contracted it through there did not contact

(18:38):
it through contact with the with the victim in this.

Speaker 5 (18:42):
Case, No, because there was a lot of other evidence
that was disclosed long after his conviction that produced a
lot of doubt.

Speaker 2 (18:55):
Well evidence, Okay, what what evidence are you talking about?

Speaker 5 (18:58):
Oh, well, we had numerous witnesses that were interviewed by
the police that pointed to a different individual or a
couple of different individuals, and these were these were noted
in some investigators notes, and that stuff was never disclosed
to the defense until years after.

Speaker 2 (19:20):
Well, Mark Mark Pete Meyer, who tried the case, was
suggested that all these avenues were explored during not only
during the case, but during up and down the appellate process.
So let me ask you this, Uh, there there were
a lot of a lot of evidence in this case
that that connects Elwood Jones to the murder. You've got

(19:42):
test results, and we had the cut on on Elwood's
hand that that the Joe Dieters and Mark Pete Myer
suggests came from connecting with the teeth of Rhoda and
this unique gumback here. How did that get onto Elwood's hand?

(20:02):
What about the diamond brooch that wound up in his toolbox?
What about evidence like that?

Speaker 5 (20:08):
Well, let me respond to some of this because I
spent months pouring through the case file, looking at transcripts,
looking at DNA test results, looking at investigator's notes, all
these things. And I understand, I really really like Mark

(20:29):
Pete Meyer, and he was very good to me in
the transition, and I understand that he's proud of his work.
But what I can tell you right now, from all
of the evidence I see that Mark didn't have as
far as I can tell, didn't have any access to,
I'm not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Elwood Jones

(20:49):
committed this murder, and therefore it's unethical for me to
try it.

Speaker 1 (20:54):
Well, we're not.

Speaker 6 (20:55):
But we're not going to I'm not.

Speaker 5 (20:56):
Going to relitigate the case. I put out a statement.

Speaker 1 (20:59):
I did a but but isn't that isn't that where
we are now? Isn't that?

Speaker 2 (21:04):
Where aren't we relitigating this entire case now? Because of
all this back and forth that that has gone on. Yeah,
I mean, look, I mean, look, Elwoo Jones is are
He's a freeman. He's a free man. He's free to
go because the judge ordered said he deserves a new trial.
You looked at the evidence that I'm not going to
bring it and that that that's your prerogative. But what

(21:25):
Joe Deeters was especially upset about that you suggested that
there was in his office there was some attempt to
withhold information. There was some attempt made to maybe not
do this case one hundred percent by the books. How
do you respond to the comments of Joe Dieters, who
was on this station a week ago, came on here

(21:46):
with Bill Cunningham for an entire entire segment to defend
him himself in the integrity of his office.

Speaker 5 (21:56):
Well, what we do know, and what is a stand
list fact, is that the state, which could have been
the police or the prosecutor's office, I don't know which
because I wasn't in this office at the time, but
they failed to turn over a large amount of evidence.
And in nineteen sixty three the United States Supreme Court

(22:16):
said in Brady v. Maryland that you can't do that.
We want to make sure we lock up the guilty,
but we also have to make sure trials are fair,
and if they're not fair, then you get a new trial.
So that's what that's prong number one. But number two,
I understand I don't know if Joe was on the
case or not. I believe he was in the office

(22:38):
at the time. It's very understandable for people to have
emotional attachment to the work they've done or the work
of their respected colleagues. I don't blame them for that.
But what I'm dealing with now is the reality of
a lot of witness statements not being disclosed. Witnesses that
pointed to a different person, Multiple people at in the

(23:02):
hotel that could not collaborate with the theories of the
case were at the time, and none of that was disclosed.

Speaker 3 (23:10):
And that's not how.

Speaker 5 (23:11):
We run a trial. We try to do a trial
with integrity. And what I can tell you now is
that after my review, I wasn't the only person who
reviewed this case. My top criminal lawyer reviewed it as well.
We compared our notes and discussed our conclusions, and we
both agreed that this case could not go forward. And
that's the end of the story. But what happened afterwards

(23:34):
with the coroner deciding on our own to just suddenly
open up the case files and investigate, I don't know
what that was about it because she's not the investigator.
I'm not the investigator. The police were the investigators, and
the coroner and I are all part of the same
law enforcement universe. We should be working together.

Speaker 2 (23:54):
Okay, because Joe Deaters in the open letter that he
wrote to you, says that you never contacted him. And
Joe Dieters was it was his office. He was the
prosecutor at the time that this case was going on.
And you talk about in the statement that you put
out that prosecutor pillage a surprise the coroner would rush

(24:16):
to judgment before having a conversation with the prosecutor's office. Well,
didn't you do the same thing. Didn't you come to
your conclusion on this before you had a conversation with
Joe Deaters and Mark Pete Meyer specifically about this case?

Speaker 1 (24:30):
You did? Are are you saying you contacted them?

Speaker 4 (24:35):
Oh?

Speaker 1 (24:36):
Well why not? Why would?

Speaker 5 (24:38):
You're having a lot of fun with me. So I'll
try to respond. But look, it's not appropriate for me
to contact a justice of the Ohio Supreme Court about
a case that he may or may not have remembered
long ago.

Speaker 3 (24:50):
And it's not.

Speaker 5 (24:51):
Appropriate for me to talk to me because of you.
Let me finish. The court will speak through the evidence
that was collect I don't need somebody's opinion. I need
the evidence because I can't go on somebody's opinion or
their emotional feelings about how hard they worked and how
hard they tried to do the right thing. What I

(25:11):
need to go through is to create the case transcripts
and the court filings and the evidence that was collected.
That's what I'm allowed to do, and that's my duty
to do. This is not supposed to be a gossip
chain now. And when you talk about the corner, you know,

(25:33):
we work together all the time, and I don't know
why she didn't talk to me. First of all, I'm
her lawyer, this office is the lawyer of the coroner's office.
But also we are collaborators in the law enforcement community
and we have done so before, so she can only
answer those questions. But look, the thing is a victim

(25:56):
and her family are still without justice. There's no excuse
to get the facts wrong without being deliberate as deliberate
as I try to do, and I'm confident that my
team and I came to the right conclusion. You know,
I'm really sorry for the victim's family to have to
be have this stuff blow up in their face again yesterday.

(26:19):
That's that's got to be excruciating.

Speaker 1 (26:21):
Well, Connie, Connie, thanks, we got to get to a
break here. Thank you for joining. Yeah, a lot of
more questions. I didn't even jump in there, but it's
really appreciate you taking the time here on this and
jumping on a quick turnaround there and the statement everything.
So Merry Christmas to you and we will catch you

(26:44):
catch you some other time. Let's get to a break
here on News Radio seven hundred double Welcome back to
the Eddie and Rocky Show. Jason Williams, Dan Carroll. I'm
Jason Williams. He's Dan Carroll and trying to get my

(27:04):
heart rate down. They say, man, I was trying to
get I was trying to I was trying to get
a question and number one, number two, well number one,
I was trying to get you to calm down. Number two,
I was trying to get a question in. Well it
took in order to help calm you down. But I
also understand where you were coming from because I know
exactly when I covered politics, there were a handful of

(27:24):
times when I would get fired up like that. Not
with Connie Pilach. I don't think I ever talked to her.
I'm talking about just in general. There were times when
things I get so passionate about it that I would
just get going.

Speaker 2 (27:36):
And I don't know if Connie Pillager remembers me. But
I interviewed her years ago back in my Fox nineteen days,
and I forget what office she was running for at
that time, but she was a candidate and she was
in the studio and and we sat down and we
talked for I don't know, six seven minutes something like that.
So I have met her before she State Rep. Then
she might have been running for State Rep at that time,

(27:59):
so I had we have spoken before. So you know,
I don't know if she actually remembers me.

Speaker 1 (28:04):
Though. The biggest thing here was that appreciate because I
don't think she's done very many interviews on this if
I don't know fIF at all, and and so the
fact that really appreciate her coming on.

Speaker 2 (28:15):
Oh we're coming on great. Yeah, I mean it, And
she did it on short notice. There's been a lot
of back and forth there there. We're talking to Kevin
Aldrich about this at the bottom of the hour, and
we're also we talked to are we talking to the
judgment a little bit? But I was going to talk
to Kevin Aldrich and ask him the question because, Uh,
I read the Channel nine story on this, I read

(28:36):
the Fox nineteen piece on this, A Channel twelve had one,
and they all said, Hey, we reached out to the prosecutor,
we've got no response.

Speaker 1 (28:42):
And that was.

Speaker 2 (28:44):
What our newsroom here at seven hundred WLW was saying
all day long until just then. And she put this
statement out and then she came on to UH to
actually talk about and stand behind her statement.

Speaker 1 (28:57):
And I appreciate her and absolutely, and that's been that's
been great between all the different shows here now in
the past week, we've had Joe Deaters, we've had Locksham,
San Marco the Corner, and we've had Connie Pillach, Yes,
the the you know a lot of the key players
past and present, UH in this case. So we thank
all of them for that. And let's let's continue on

(29:17):
the analysis of this and some other political issues with
our good friend and we hope yours former Hamilton County
common please Court judge, all around, good guy local attorney
Kurt Hartman, judge, how are you? How was that intro?
My friend? That's like it's like Saturday.

Speaker 7 (29:35):
Night, Jason, it just flows out of your mats like
it's natural, like it's meant to be.

Speaker 1 (29:40):
So that's great, But well, the history there is, uh,
you know, I'm filling on Saturday nights. I've had occurred
on as I know you have as well, Dan, and
uh so I've got a little intro for him. But
I tongue tied myself if the first few times when
I said former Hamilton County Common Police Court judge that, uh,
that used to uh really stump me. We're good to

(30:01):
go now, judge.

Speaker 2 (30:02):
Let me let me ask you a question when it
comes to Joe Deaters being the prosecutor in this town,
the this and and this is what really cracks my
cookies about this whole thing. Uh, the suggestion that somehow
his office was guilty of sloppy work or maybe cutting corners,
or maybe not being thorough or maybe being slightly unprofessional

(30:25):
in some way, shape or form.

Speaker 3 (30:28):
Uh.

Speaker 2 (30:28):
When when you hear that sort of suggestion, what, uh
you know relative to to the office that Joe Dieters ran,
what's what's your response to that?

Speaker 7 (30:39):
Well, Well, let me start off kind of in a
generic aspect. Now, you know, well, while as attorneys, you know,
we want we're there to advocate for our clients and
try to win the case for them. Your prosecutors have
a different ethnic ethical standard, and that their ethical standard
is not to win a case. Their ethical standard is
to do justice.

Speaker 1 (30:58):
Yes, and so that's a.

Speaker 7 (31:00):
Little different and so and that's what I think, at
the end of the day, we all want. Now when
it comes to it, I'm gonna be honest with you.
In the generic sense, prosecutors' offices, some of them tend
to play a little bit fast with the rules. They
think different rules apply to them. They think, you know,
they should because they're doing justice. Hey, we've got a
victim here, and we know, we know this person did it.

Speaker 3 (31:25):
Yeah.

Speaker 7 (31:26):
I don't always think and I mean a little bit
of a skeptic in me, a little bit of the
civil libertarian and me I do think at times prosecutor's
offices maybe play a little fast and loose. I've never,
when I was on the bench, never had an experience
knowing where they clearly did not, you know, comply by
the rules. Uh, you know that they were subject. I

(31:47):
think they did not like sometimes being subject to the rules,
and sometimes try to cut the little corners here and there.
But in terms of not turning over evidence. You know,
I know there have been accusations in the past against
Joe's office. I never had that personal experience. I don't
know of any personal experience in that regard. And it
is a very serious accusation.

Speaker 3 (32:09):
Uh.

Speaker 7 (32:10):
You know that that if I was an attorney, if
I was a prosecuting attorney, would take great umbrich at.
But also, but also I'm not going to be naive
and say it does not occur generally speaking, you know.

Speaker 2 (32:25):
I general I asked about Joe Dieter's office and the
way he ran things.

Speaker 7 (32:29):
Yeah. Now, like I said, I think, I mean when
I was on the bench, I bumped heads with certain
prosecutes I did. I found some of them somewhat arrogant.
I found some of them to be so full of
themselves that they were so self righteous that they kind
of lost that pole star of their ethical obligation to
do justice. On the other hand, I found some some

(32:51):
of them very professional, respectful, trying to do the right thing.
But would they do but to go so far as
to say I'm gonna withhold evident And I mean, if
that comes out, that's a law license. You lose your
law license on something like that. I'd be hard pressed
to believe anybody would go that far. But again I'm
not naive to say maybe it never occurred. You know,

(33:14):
it's interesting, you know, Kanyie Pillage comes out and makes
this kind of accusation, but it's a very generic accusation.
I want to see what's the evidence, you know, I'm
in a lawyer. I want to see the evidence that establishes it,
not just Connie Pillage telling me that's what happens along.

Speaker 1 (33:32):
Those same lines. And Connie Pilach did and she said
she did not talk to Joe Dieters or any of
the prosecutors who are on the case back in the nineties.
Given that that accusation is there, and I'm asking you
for your opinion, judge on this, do you feel like

(33:56):
if you were in the prosecutor's shoes, do you do
you owe a call to the prosecutor from back then
or no? You just look at you look at all
the case that's laid out there, and you can make
your own decision. And it's totally fine. And I'm not
putting words in your mouth one way or the other.
I am clearly a neutral person on this in terms
of that that piece of it because I I'm not
an expert on it and you are. What does the

(34:18):
prosecutor in a case itor.

Speaker 7 (34:21):
Tony Keillich has conducted this is no, she did not
reach out. Let me talk to all the actors involved, right,
I want to get all the facts. And it seems
in a certain sense by the fact that she did
not reach out to Joe Dee or she did not
talk to the prosecutors involved previously, she didn't want to
get all the facts. Well, maybe you know, maybe she
sees this piece of evidence and is viewing it one

(34:43):
way but doesn't perceive it differently. How the prosecutors might
be able to explain something to her. You know, if
I'm doing if I was in this position, I'd want
to get all the facts. I want to know what
am I missing, What don't I understand, what am I
viewing wrong? Those will be the type of questions I
would ask, And I just think and then part of
me is, like I said, I wasn't a fan with

(35:05):
with Joe Dieter's office in certain regards of how they operated,
But I don't have the confidence right now in Connie
Pillage's office either. I just see right now we are
so divided partisanally, and you know, the Democrat Party has
been taken over by this aggressive progressive wing of the party,
and we see it on the bench. We're seeing it,
i think, in the prosecutor's office. So I'm not confident

(35:28):
in her pronouncement. I'd rather we get everything out there, Connie,
you know, put everything out on the table. Let the
public see everything.

Speaker 1 (35:38):
This is where for ourselves.

Speaker 7 (35:39):
I mean, people are smart if you show it to them,
here's what happens, here's how I connect point A to B, two,
C T D. We don't have that, you know, We've
got for a lack of a better head. And I
don't know you fucking heads or you know, people talking
and saying, here's what the situation is, but we don't.
We the people don't have that evident to support it

(36:00):
one way or the other. And that that just doesn't
give me confidence either way, you know. So I'm not
taking if you will, I'm not taking Joe Deeer's side.
I'm not taking Connie Connie Coligen's side.

Speaker 1 (36:10):
Sure, I'm skeptical.

Speaker 7 (36:11):
On both sides.

Speaker 2 (36:12):
Well, you know, she said, she says she doesn't want
to relitigate this whole thing. But based on what's happened
in the last four or five days, we I mean,
we are going to We're not going to relitigate it
in the courts, obviously, but we're going to reltigate it
here on the radio and the newspaper, in the court
of public opinion because of all this information and all
this back and forth that has been going on, and

(36:33):
the and the fact that this guy who was on
death row is is now a freeman, and now he
can now you know, even even if he came out
to the point to where he said that that I
did it, he could still walk away from that.

Speaker 7 (36:49):
No. And I think in a certain sense, this case,
the way it's been handled one way, whichever way you
want to take spin you want to put on that
which the way it's been handled, it needs to be
put out re litigated, if you will, for the jemt,
for the public, for Edward Jones, for Rondy Nathan and
her family.

Speaker 4 (37:08):
I mean in a certain.

Speaker 1 (37:09):
Sense that try on correct. Wasn't there another trial on
it in December of twenty in twenty twenty two, did
it not know?

Speaker 7 (37:21):
There was a hearing ok with Judge Cross about whether
that was.

Speaker 1 (37:25):
Yeah, it was judge Cross was the was the judge? Okay,
so that wasn't and that wasn't another trial. It was a.

Speaker 7 (37:32):
Theory. But I just think, you know, you're not going
to go back into a courtroom and relitigate it. But
what I think you can do, you know, for mister
Jones sayings, you know, for the victim's sake, for her family,
and for the general public, because what is you know,
is lay it all out there. Just don't tell us
what her conclusions are. Lay everything out there, subjected to

(37:55):
the light of day, you know, suscept that to public
scrup me Because right now what is going on beat
by Joe Dieters and by Connie Pillage does not exude
confidence in the judicial system.

Speaker 1 (38:11):
Yeah.

Speaker 7 (38:12):
I don't care which side of the spectrum you're on,
it does not. And it's Connie Pillage is going to
be true to that ethical obligation to do justice. I
think she now has an obligation, not necessarily an ethical obligation,
but at least a moral obligation to put it all
out there.

Speaker 1 (38:28):
Yeah. Well, Kurt, we're out of time.

Speaker 7 (38:30):
Do me and everybody can see it and we can
judge for ourselves.

Speaker 1 (38:35):
Absolutely, Kurt well said, that's where we need to go.
Kurt Hartman, local public interest attorney, former Hamilton County judge.
And we didn't even talk about what he wanted. We
didn't want to talk. We had but we had breaking
news as well. And this is why we appreciate our
legal analyst and you and Steve Gooden and the fantastic
work that you all do. And I know James Bogan

(38:55):
as well. This is why we get you and you
can adjust because you keep up with this stuff. Dan
and I are together for another week, so maybe we'll
have you jump back on with us and chat about
some of the other stuffy. Merry Christmas, my friend.

Speaker 7 (39:11):
You all have a merry Christmas. Your listeners have a
merry Christmas.

Speaker 1 (39:13):
Marys appreciated Buddy trafficing weather coming up right now. Welcome
back to the Eddie and Rocky Show. Eddie Rocky, Eddie Rocky.

Speaker 2 (39:28):
I know we're a couple of days away from Christmas
and tomorrow we'll get into our Christmas mode.

Speaker 1 (39:34):
Yes, well, we had.

Speaker 2 (39:35):
This breaking news today and uh and we I mean,
we're gonna keeping We had to jump on it.

Speaker 1 (39:40):
He's Dan Caro, I'm Jason Williams.

Speaker 2 (39:42):
By the way in for Eddie and Rocky, and for
Eddie and Rocky, but you know the whole thing with
the case against wood Jones being dismissed. We had Connie
Pilloch on a couple of segments ago, I had the
judge on, and the judge said, I thought Kurt Hartman,
former judge, said something I think was very important. He said,
he said, right now he has no confidence in this

(40:03):
prosecutor's office and the office of Collie County Pillage is running.

Speaker 1 (40:08):
It's interesting.

Speaker 2 (40:09):
I think that is an important I think the people
of Hamilton County need to have confidence in the prosecutor's office.
And this, for lack of a better term, excrement show
is not not really not really helping to build up
that company.

Speaker 1 (40:28):
Well, it's it's become quite a war, a war of
words on the these on these airwaves here. As we
mentioned earlier, we've in this past week here on WLW,
Joe Dieters has come on with Willie uh doctor Lockshmi
San Marco yesterday with Willie, and then today Connie Pillich
joined us. So it's good, this is good, this is good,

(40:49):
and we're and you and I are continuing to touch
on this story we didn't plan on that necessarily today,
but we're continuing to hit this from all angles. And
our latest guest, our next guest is our friend, uh,
the Inquirer Opinion editor of my colleague at the Inquirer,
all around awesome guy who I know is following this story,

(41:09):
and uh, I also enjoy catching him when he fills
in on Lincoln War Show. Really really really does a
great job on the on the air. And I know
you you like to have him on when you host
the show. Kevin All that's a long winded way of
saying Kevin Aldritch joined Usnow.

Speaker 2 (41:24):
Kevin, he's taking all your time. Brother, ka kay, how
are you Merry Christmas?

Speaker 3 (41:29):
Hey?

Speaker 7 (41:30):
Hey, I'm doing good.

Speaker 8 (41:31):
I'm used to that, and I sometimes used to do
combo columns.

Speaker 1 (41:37):
Like Jason was that.

Speaker 7 (41:40):
I get like two in and then everybody'd be like, man,
Jason chews you up in that argument.

Speaker 8 (41:44):
I'm like, man only got two hundred works.

Speaker 2 (41:49):
Oh, not only is he a Mike call, he hogs
the he hogs all the space and then the paper too.

Speaker 1 (41:55):
How about that? That's fantastic bur have him step in
and mediate now, Kevin, Hey, thanks for joining here. Merry Christmas.
To you and your family and Kevin do We had
Connie Pelach on a little bit ago, and I know
you followed this story as head of the Inquire opinion

(42:18):
page and the editorial board there, and well, I guess
just opening the question now of the game, what do
you what do you make of all this? As you've
as you've heard deaders and and pillag and you've seen
the case, You've read about it, you've reported on it. Uh,
you know your sam Marco came out yesterday, Now she

(42:39):
came back out today, like what are you? What do
you make of all of this?

Speaker 4 (42:44):
Yeah?

Speaker 8 (42:44):
So, I think what I've been really kind of disappointed
and stunned by is is some of the unprofessionalism that
I've seen in this case. And I'm gonna I'm gonna
touch on each of the three individuals that you kind
of talked about. First off, We'll we'll start with the
latest news, which is, you know, doctor sam Marco's report.

(43:04):
I just think that that was so egregiously careless on
her part that to put out information that one you
didn't conclusively verify, and present it as if you had
new revelations that changed the dynamics of this case. I

(43:26):
think it's just gross miss you know, malpractice. You know,
in her profession as a doctor, you know, you're supposed
to do no harm. And I think that extends beyond
just sort of like the physical aspects of caring for
someone's health. But I think putting out inaccurate information that

(43:47):
you didn't take a considerable amount of time to verify, Jason.
You know, if we did something like that in journalism,
where we were just that careless about putting information out
there for the public, that would be ground for termination.

Speaker 1 (44:01):
That's the first thingation or maybe termination right out of
the gate. Yeah, you're exactly right.

Speaker 8 (44:07):
Absolutely so the fact that she did that to me
is just it's just unconscionable and inexcusable because of what
it does to both sides of this, no matter whether
you think Elwood Jones is guilty or innocent. You know,
the the Nathan family has already been through a lot.
They're trying to process this decision by the prosecutor, and
then you throw this out here, and even it was

(44:30):
even though it was only twenty four hours or whatever,
to put that family through that again, I think for
whatever reason the coroner did it. I just think it's
inexcusable in my opinion. The next thing I kind of
had an issue with was prosecutor Pillage dismissing the case
with prejudice. Now she's come out and she said, I

(44:51):
don't I don't particularly have an opinion on her decision
to dismiss the case, but I think dismissing it prejudice
was I think something she didn't have to do because
it fully closes the door to the possibility of new evidence.
I mean, if Elwood Jones were to come out today

(45:12):
and say, you know, hey, I did it, there's nothing
that could be done on that. You know, he essentially
can't be charged again. So I'm not going to sit
here and say that with the evidence that the prosecutor
talked about, that at a minimum, he would have been
entitled to a new trial, right. I think, regardless of
what you think, we should all be in the interest
of seeing justice done. And if somebody hasn't gotten a

(45:34):
completely fair trial where they're going to be sentenced to
death beyond a reasonable doubt, and we find out that,
you know, some evidence was being withheld, critical evidence that
might have suayed a jury. Other persons of interest who
may or may not have been investigated, and the defense
doesn't know about that or have an opportunity to explore

(45:55):
that all of those things could have resulted in a
different verdict. They're dynamic in the court case, and so
whether you're a fan of Joe Dieters or not, none
of that matters. I think sometimes we get caught up
in these personalities in the politics when our overarching concerns
should be getting justice done right, and if that means

(46:15):
that prosecutors didn't follow the rules and do all of
the right things, then we need to be up there
behind to make sure that they're doing that, that they're
turning over all of the evidence. So potentially, you know,
if you do have a bad person or a bad
guy who commits something that they don't get off on
a technicality or something because you didn't follow the rules.
So I think we're.

Speaker 1 (46:35):
Selective in terms of.

Speaker 8 (46:38):
When we want to see a full airing and vetting
of the case. Because there have been other cases and
I haven't agreed with every decision prosecutor Pillage has made,
and I've written about a few of those, but I
think in those cases, some of the same people who
are screaming about Elwood Jones had no problem with prosecutor
pivileage not releasing all of the facts, putting things out there.

(47:00):
So I think we cherry pick when we want to
see justice done and when we want to see a
full airing and transparency from the prosecutors or whomever in
a case. And that's what frustrates me is sort of
the hypocrisy and the politics.

Speaker 1 (47:15):
That revolves around that.

Speaker 8 (47:16):
Our main concern should be justice and making sure that
we're holding everybody in that process accountable.

Speaker 1 (47:23):
Kevin Aldridge, Inquire Opinion Editor, you are tying it all
together here so beautifully. That's the voice of reason on
this on you know, man, when we got Connie Pilich earlier,
we had just gotten a very convoluted and Dan read
it on the air, and I'm still my head spinning
from San Marco's statement. And for you to come in

(47:47):
here and lay you've answered even some of the questions
that I that I had had, you know, just about
kind of the bigger picture of all this, laying it
out there. And I know Dan is itching to get
a question into you, so I'm gonna turn it over
to him.

Speaker 2 (48:00):
Well, I mean, what you just said, Kevin Aldrich was
was very well said, and we should as a community
demand better from those elected representatives that we have, be
it in the prosecutor's office or be it in the
in the coroner's office. I think Lakshmi Smarco has built
up a lot of goodwill and has enjoyed a really

(48:21):
good reputation, but this is a this is a stain
on that reputation. The way she she went about this.
When I was listening to her on this radio station yesterday,
it seemed as if she was, you know, a little
bit tepid when when asked some of the questions and
responding to some of the questions. And then we coobe
come to find out today that she, you know, may

(48:43):
have made him although she doesn't admit that she made
a mistake in this statement, but it certainly you can
connect the dots there, and she's saying, look, we got
this record over here, in this record over here, you know,
and it came out the way the way it did.
But Kurt Hartman said something that I think is very
important that he said as it relates to the prosecutor's office,

(49:06):
and he said, you know, he doesn't have a lot
of confidence in this prosecutor's office right now, and I
think the way Yeah, you know, I asked Connie Pilichis
on the air. She said that she surprised the coroner
would rush to judgment before having a conversation with the
prosecutor's office. Well, didn't she come to this judgment before
she had a conversation with Joe Dieters, before she had

(49:28):
a conversation with Mark pete Meyer, who tried the case.
And then she suggested that, well, you know, I don't
know if they'll remember it. I don't know, but it
just seems to me maybe as a professional courtesy, just
to make sure all your eyes are dotted and your
teas across that you might want to talk to the prosecutor,
the people who tried the case and say, look, here's

(49:49):
my theory on this, let's see if it holds water.
It just seems to me that would be a standard
step you might want to take. No, I don't I
don't disagree with that. I I think that goes to
the point that I was making about dotting every eye
and crossing every team. When you're going to make big
decisions or big declarations, or hold a press conference or

(50:10):
put out a press release.

Speaker 1 (50:12):
This is just my thought.

Speaker 8 (50:13):
You want to make sure that you've checked off all
of the boxes because you know where the criticisms and
the second guessing and all of that is going to
be coming from. I try to think about this when
I write a column. I try to think about, Okay,
what are all of the ways that the people who
disagree with me are going to try to dissect my argument.
I try to do my best to try to address

(50:34):
those things. I think when you're in public office in
these big cases, you know, checking off those boxes. So
obviously she's the prosecutor. She has the prerogative of who
she wants to contact and all of that. But I
would think that in the interests of trying to insulate yourself.

Speaker 4 (50:49):
Even if you don't even if you talk.

Speaker 8 (50:51):
To Joe Dieters or whomever and say and they say
you've got it wrong, you shouldn't do this, there's nothing
that says that she still couldn't have come through with
the same decision. But then she could say, hey, look
we at least talked to these individuals. Now here's what
I will say. I wanted to say this because there
was a third leg of my initial statement.

Speaker 1 (51:10):
I didn't get to Joe Diaters.

Speaker 8 (51:12):
I understand Joe Deaters wants to defend himself his reputation
in his office, but I really felt he was a
Supreme Court justice now and I kind of feel like
what he did in coming out and making these comments
was beneath the office, was beneath the robe. I thought
Joe Deaders should have just he's not the prosecutor anymore,

(51:33):
and I think he should have just withheld the dignity
of that office. There are other folks, there are other
folks who are going to come out and defend him
and fight for him and all of that.

Speaker 1 (51:44):
All of that different. Let those individuals.

Speaker 8 (51:47):
Do that and honor the robe, honor the office that
you're in now. And I just think, as I think
as a Supreme Court justice, to come out and just
kind of comment on this, I thought that was another
level of unprofessionalism that bothered me a little bit.

Speaker 1 (52:03):
I don't have anything.

Speaker 8 (52:04):
I don't have anything against Joe Deear's I've talked to
him a few times and my time with the inquir
I think he's a pleasant guy. That's not the issue.
But this is the issue of that is he's a
Supreme Court justice, and I just felt like him coming
out and feeling the need that he had to defend
himself in his office that he no longer occupies. I
just kind of felt like was a little bit beneath

(52:25):
the office, a little bit beneath the dignity of the role.

Speaker 4 (52:28):
But that was just my opinion.

Speaker 1 (52:30):
Kevin Aldridge since then Choirer Opinion editor. Check out his
columns on Cincinnati dot com, including you wrote a really
awesome piece recently on the mayor aft have pure balls
the repossession of his vehicle. When you talk about, you know,
looking and thinking through all these pieces and the nuance

(52:50):
you nailed it. That was a model of Kevin's columns.
And always appreciate your opinions, even when I don't agree
with them. Go check out his columns. Kevin Well said
here today we got to get to a trafficking weather,
but I want to wish you your wife, your family,
and merry Christmas. And really appreciate you bringing that kind

(53:13):
of overall viewpoint and touching on everything as regarding rate okayspective.
Thanks Kevin Well, Thank you guys.

Speaker 7 (53:24):
Same to you guys.

Speaker 9 (53:24):
Appreciate you having me see it. There you go, job,
Welcome back to news radio.

Speaker 1 (53:35):
Seven hundred w O w Eddie Rocky, Eddie and Rocky
keeps saying Eddie Rocky show. The Eddie and Rocky showed.
It's not Eddie Rocky show. It's Eddie and Rocky. Ed
Jason Williams alongside Dan D. C. Carroll will not be
What a day? What a day? Man? It's flown by.

(53:56):
You will not be Newslash. You will not be writing
your Harley Davidson tomorrow as rain is in the forecast,
because Matt Reach just handed that, Tommy, Yes he did,
he'd hands the latest forecast see tomorrow eve, Christmas Eve,
Christmas Eve, patchy fall otherwise partly sunny with a higher
fifty tomorrow listening to tomorrow night one hundred chance of rain. Good,

(54:21):
how about that? I'd rather have snow. But uh, anyway,
I got riding his motorcycle today. Did you realize, like, man,
I should I should be out there today. It's a
nice day out there temperature wise, it was it was
it was today. I could have ridden today. I just
I didn't have to wear my coat today. Right, you
didn't wear a coat, did you? It's out in the car.
You impressed me as a guy that probably doesn't wear
a coat unless it's negative ten degrees, it's out in

(54:42):
the car. Are you what do you? You used to
probably be one of those guys that were shorts too
in the winter, right, No, you know what, No, I've
never done that. Had a guy. I have friends that
do that now, Yeah, I do too. We had a
guy in the newsroom for years. It's twenty below and
I have got a pair of shorts on. You would
always wear shorts in for the night shift copy editing
night shift. Anyway, we are what a show. As Dan said,

(55:06):
we have continued on with this. Elwood Jones wrote a
Nathan case and if you missed this, catch it on
the iHeartMedia app. In the podcasts, we had Hamilton County
Prosecutor County Pillach on earlier. Then we had former Hamilton
County Judge Kurt Hartman, and we had an Inquire Opinion
editor Kevin Aldridge really covering this story from all different angles,

(55:32):
and the latest being that the coroner came out today
locksheby San Marcos saying after a further review, essentially I
misspoke yesterday. That essentially what she's saying, Yeah, well, I
mean she's not really saying she made a mistake. She writes, yesterday,
I issued a press release based upon information contained in
our case file for Rodea Nathan. It consisted of a

(55:54):
single negative hepatitis B result dated nine, sixteen ninety four
covered on twelve, eighteen, twenty five. Attempts were made to
coroborate those findings with medical records from Trihalth, as well
as additional attempts to contact the testing laboratory. Failing that,
we communicated with her family trying to obtain additional medical information. Then,

(56:17):
she says, today, I'm in receipt of a document titled
Microbiology Reference Laboratory test Report provided by Attorney David Hine.
In that document, there are reference numbers that correspond with
our autopsy and death record numbers. Additionally, in the body
of the report there's a reference to a cadaver specimen.
The printed result states that the blood specimen was hepatitis

(56:41):
B surface antigen positive. Considering the correlation of the numbers
on the report with our records, it appears that this
is the actual hepatitis B test result for Rhoda Nathan.
So essentially, she's saying that wrote A Nathan tested positive

(57:03):
for hepatitis right now, and he's ignil just trying to
make the case that if she was positive for hepatitis,
then necessarily Elwood Jones would have tested positive for hepatitis
hepatitis P. Elwood Jones did not test positive for hepatitis P.

(57:25):
Connie Pillach and and what she didn't clarify during our
conversation was that she said, uh, you know, in uh
in her when she made the had the press conference
that she was releasing him from that she was dismissing
the case. She said, new medical testing or new medical
tests or tests that are available, and I don't remember

(57:47):
the exact phrasing, uh, you know, eliminates him as a suspect.
And Joe Dieters makes the point afterwards that he said,
he said, here's here's what Joe Dieters wrote to her
first here claim that modern day medical testing excluded Jones
from the murder, and Dieter says, it is demonstrably untrue.

(58:10):
You stated that because Ms Nathan had hepatitis, Jones would
have necessarily have contracted it had he been the perpetrator.
Yet the defenses own paid expert testified there was only
a thirty three percent chance Jones would have contracted hepatitis.

(58:30):
Even if he were the person to beat her to death,
a thirty three percent probability of transmission isn't is not exclusion.
So that is Joe Dieters responding to this. I mean,
and he did this days ago before this information came out.
So this whole thing about hepatitis be to my way

(58:53):
of thinking the case and the innocence of the day Dan,
I don't think it's again criminal justice. I don't think
it's the most important from what I'm hearing. I'm just
that's my question, is that was it ultimately that major
of a thing to the whole case who had it
and who didn't have heppatitis B.

Speaker 2 (59:15):
I don't think it's the most compelling element of this case. Yeah,
it's a it's an element, yes, But is it the
I don't think it's the most important. I don't think
it's the most compelling. I don't think the guilt or
innocence hinges on this fact being true or not true.

Speaker 1 (59:30):
Well, we want to we've spent a lot of time
on this. You've heard us talk about it, you've heard
others talk about it. We want to give you a
chance to talk about it. The phone lines are filling
up five one, three, seven, four, nine, seven thousand is
a big one. And uh, you know what I'm gonna
We've already got a bunch of people on whole, but
no one has been a whole longer than Pete uh
in Lebanon. Who wants to weigh on Pete? What you got?

Speaker 4 (59:53):
Gentlemen, thanks for taking my call, and Merry Christmas.

Speaker 1 (59:57):
Merry Christmas, and it's time to celebrate on a couple
of days ago. Right, I think you did it.

Speaker 4 (01:00:04):
Okay, you stole one of my points by saying, what
difference does it make if either one of them had hepatitis? Right,
even though it's very contagious, If if if the you know,
the so called criminal had it and she didn't have it,
or vice versa, what what difference does that make with
a conviction with a thirty percent, you know whatever rate

(01:00:26):
of getting of catching it?

Speaker 3 (01:00:28):
Right?

Speaker 4 (01:00:29):
So you guys also missed an opportunity to ask the prosecutor,
all right, if this guy didn't do it, who the
hell did it? And do we have a murderer out
there that's roam in the streets.

Speaker 2 (01:00:41):
Well, if you if well, if you listen to the
US when we were speaking to her and thanks. She
brought up the suggestion that there were other there a
witness or other witness statements that were not fully explored.
And she alluded to this idea that somehow the work

(01:01:02):
was not thorough, or the work might have been a
little bit sloppy or a little bit careless.

Speaker 1 (01:01:07):
I don't know.

Speaker 2 (01:01:07):
Let you, however, you wanted to describe it. And I just,
you know, making that sort of reference to the work
that had been done by Joe Dieters and the people
that worked for him over the years that I covered
his office and saw them in action on a daily basis.
That does not jive with my own eyewitness accounts of

(01:01:31):
how I saw these people work over the years.

Speaker 1 (01:01:33):
Yeah, let's go to Kate, who wants to weigh in
about the hepatitis BE topic. Hey, Kate, Hi, I.

Speaker 6 (01:01:43):
Was an infection control supervisor for hospitals here in Cincinnati
for years. And Joe Dieters, it sounds like he's got
either an infectious disease doc or an epidemiologist who supports
this thirty three percent chance of transmission versus sixty six
percent not And when Mark introduced the hepatitis V vaccine

(01:02:05):
years ago, I worked the er before that, and if
it was one hundred percent transmission, all of us would
have had it, because before AIDS or the HIV virus,
we were none of us wore gloves.

Speaker 3 (01:02:18):
Everybody was up to.

Speaker 6 (01:02:19):
Their elbows in blood in the er. And when Mark
introduced the vaccine, they did assays of nursing personnel in
various hospital departments, and they thought the highest rate would
be in ther where you're up to your elbows in blood,
but they were gloved, and they were about a nineteen
percent trans Nursing personnel were positive antigen assays. But the er,

(01:02:44):
where nobody wore gloves and weighed right into accident victims
and everything else, I think they were more like about
twenty oh god, they were like twenty three percent or
something or twenty six. So again, we all would have
had it if it was one hundred percent transmission. And
I'm just curious to a certain extent that this prosecutor

(01:03:05):
won't disclose why she's so convinced. And I'm sorry it
raises kind of the vaccine nonsense from you know, the
COVID where people told us, oh, it stays in your arm,
it doesn't go anywhere. It's like, I'm sorry, it's fluid.
A body is over eighty percent fluid. You're not going
to be able to keep it in your upper arm,

(01:03:26):
you jerk.

Speaker 1 (01:03:27):
So let me ask you. Let me ask you this.

Speaker 2 (01:03:30):
When Joe Dieters writes that the defense's own paid expert
testified there was only a thirty three percent chance the
Jones would have contracted hepatitis beat if he were the
person who beat her to death, you're telling me that
that statement rings true with you based on your knowledge

(01:03:50):
and your experience.

Speaker 6 (01:03:51):
Yeah, okay, yeah, because again, yeah, we all would have
had it if it was one hundred percent transmission. And
if anybody opens up, you know, any of the research
about hepatitis B antigen transmission, I think that's what they're
going to find. I don't think those numbers changed over
the last twenty five years.

Speaker 3 (01:04:12):
So you know, let's set it up.

Speaker 6 (01:04:13):
A demiologist and an infectious disease talk. We have them
in Cincinnati, say can testify.

Speaker 1 (01:04:19):
Good call, Kate, great call. Yeah, thank you for hanging
in there and staying on hold forever. And uh, it's
always great to have all of our callers. We appreciate,
but it's great to do with someone who has an
expertise area, who hears us and picks up the phone
and calls, and.

Speaker 2 (01:04:35):
She makes she makes an excellent point. So you know,
she was in an environment where that stuff is flying
around and you're working in it all day long, right,
and and she said, you know, said, what were the numbers?
There were what less than twenty percent? So speaks for itself.

Speaker 1 (01:04:50):
Yeah, guess what we're going to do, Dan, a little
trafficking weather together, and we're going to hit it on time.
This time, we got more calls on hold. We're going
to keep taking calls, So hang in there, take more
call trafficking weather. What do we got? Jason Williams alongside
Dan Carroll in for Eddie and Rocky. What a show
it's been, Dan, And we'll be here tomorrow. Wrong Christmas Eve,

(01:05:11):
and we got some specials saying we're gonna lighten it
up a little bit tomorrow.

Speaker 2 (01:05:13):
I want to talk about Christmas movies. Christmas, We're going
to talk about Christmas songs and Christmas movies. Yes, so
I want the American people to think about what Christmas.
We did this last year and came up with a
lot of really interesting Christmas songs and a lot of
them that I had not heard before, and we played
little snippets of it, and some of them were really
good because our callers called in and yeah, let us

(01:05:36):
know on some of those. So, Liam, are you going
to be here? Liam's you got to be ready, man,
But those callers, you got to look up them songs.

Speaker 1 (01:05:43):
Man, you ready for it. He's locked in. He's locked in,
he says. And by the way, tis the season, Dan,
And you know what, you know what season it is?

Speaker 3 (01:05:53):
Uh?

Speaker 1 (01:05:53):
You tell me?

Speaker 3 (01:05:55):
Uh?

Speaker 1 (01:05:55):
For the state to release their rejected license plates? Is
that an annual thing?

Speaker 3 (01:06:00):
Yes?

Speaker 1 (01:06:00):
Do they do that every year? And I love The
Inquirer gets these every year since I dot com and
they put them up. And this year they put them.
I love they put it in a photo gallery and
they put it on the template of the Ohio license plate.
There's a list. It's great. Heeey Brown did this at
the inquire since II dot com And uh, this is

(01:06:20):
this is a lot of fun. Now, I know, we'll
read off the lettering and the numbers here. We can't
say some there's a couple of them.

Speaker 2 (01:06:28):
You don't yeah, phonetically, you don't want to do the
whole the whole biscuit there because we have a license
to them.

Speaker 1 (01:06:36):
That's exactly. But we can just we can just basically
list off the the license plate number that was rejected.
My good friend Charlie, Charlie Norman, who is the registrar
of You know, Charlie.

Speaker 2 (01:06:49):
I don't think I do. Yeah, I think we've talked
about him before, but I don't think. I don't think.

Speaker 1 (01:06:55):
Cincinnati guy Charlie originally what was his stuff? Well, he's
from he's from Cincinnati and he went to Xavier. UH
and he what did he do before he became registrar.
I think he did some stuff in the wine's office.
But anyway, it's funny. H Charlie Norman, by the way,

(01:07:16):
great guy. Uh. He sends us a Christmas card every
year of him and his two sons and my wife
the other day says, Who's who's this? Like we get
a car? I was like, and every year I tell her,
I was like, pull out your license and look at
the name on the license, and it's that guy. So anyway,
Charlie Norman and crewe denied UH. And this is the

(01:07:39):
annual denial of UH. These are actual, real, real license
plate request he does not strike me as a vanity
plate kind of guy.

Speaker 2 (01:07:49):
No, I think it's dumb. You don't strike me as
one either. Tricia Mackie used to have one. I don't
know if she still does, but I know when we
worked at Fox nineteen together, she had a anti plate
that read n w S in w S National Weather
Service News and for news and had a letter to

(01:08:12):
and then it said me to me, news to me.

Speaker 1 (01:08:15):
Okay. I don't know if she still has it on
her on her vehicle or not, but well, you know
I can read this one. I can read this. I'm
gonna start off, Dan, and you've got you've got it
up here, You've got it right in front of it,
so you know what, I'm gonna take the I'm gonna
take the easy one here.

Speaker 2 (01:08:28):
And I do want to say the fact that they
printed these out to look like they're an actual Ohio
license plate, the visual makes them a lot more understanding.

Speaker 1 (01:08:38):
Absolutely, So I would encourage if you want to go
look at this since the nay dot com and just
type in license plates like that's what I did, and
it pops right, you'll find it. So I'm gonna start
with this one, Dan, because I could say this and
on the air, and it's spelled out just as the
words spell it. Old fart. You should say that on me.

(01:09:01):
The old park got denied olda what now?

Speaker 8 (01:09:04):
What now?

Speaker 1 (01:09:04):
Why? Why would you deny that one? That's a good question.

Speaker 2 (01:09:09):
I mean, it's it's look, it's something that people say
all the time. It's there's a there's a little bit.
I just called you that at the break. It's probably
it's probably.

Speaker 1 (01:09:19):
Thanks.

Speaker 2 (01:09:21):
I was gonna say, it's self deprecating. Yes, if if
you're the elderly person that's that's driving the vehicle, Hey,
how old are you, William? I'm old as dirt, right old? Yeah,
you hear people say that all the time. So I
don't know, I don't know why that would get rejected.
What this next one too? Why would this one have

(01:09:42):
gotten rejected?

Speaker 1 (01:09:43):
H V? The number so the letter h VS in Victor,
let the letter or the number two and then P
O O P that one's not I mean, I guess,
you know, I guess it's stupid, but you know everyone
has to do that at time from time to time.
And then uh, well, I'm gonna let you read something

(01:10:07):
somebody I don't even know. I can't we might need
help on this one. If someone wants to call out,
I don't know about that. We have to take that
call off.

Speaker 7 (01:10:16):
There.

Speaker 1 (01:10:18):
I got the dumb button here, I'm ready to go.
It's all letters f T H M k D S
f T H.

Speaker 3 (01:10:29):
M k D.

Speaker 2 (01:10:30):
I mean, I look at this and I think you
got it. Yes, you know what it is? I and again,
did we know what it was before we stought we
went on the air with this because we were talking.

Speaker 1 (01:10:43):
About it off the air. I think I figured it out,
but I didn't share with you. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (01:10:47):
I mean if if I'm on Jeopardy, I could not
solve the puzzle.

Speaker 1 (01:10:50):
On this one. I think it's uh, I think it's
bleep them kids, I think is what it is. I
think so.

Speaker 2 (01:11:00):
Anyway it can I don't know. I don't know if
it's not jumping out that. This one did not jump
out at me either initially, but after some discussion before
we got on the air, I can see it now.

Speaker 7 (01:11:15):
Uh.

Speaker 1 (01:11:15):
Here here are all the letters M I L F
mb L. Yes, M I L F M b L.
And we we don't want your calls on this, by
the way, We just wanted to enjoy, enjoy the enjoy
the Christmas gift that I'm trying to hide license dates
in the state of Ohio.

Speaker 2 (01:11:33):
If you're driving seventy miles an hour across for Fort
Washington Way, how how hard is that to visualize?

Speaker 1 (01:11:39):
What the hell is these guys talking about? Right, we
are talking about this is not us that we are
talking about the denied license plate vanity license plate requests
in the state of Ohio in twenty twenty five that
h my good bud Charlie Norman said, Nah, baby, nah,
we're not doing those. Here's another one for you. Dank

(01:12:00):
the letters. I'm spelling it out f D T m
U s K.

Speaker 2 (01:12:11):
I think I know what that one means. I think
I think that is for someone. And again now that
there was one here, if even though that does not
suit me in a political sense, if if I was
making the call on this, I'd probably let that one
slide because there's going to be just as many aimed

(01:12:33):
at the other Canada on the the you know, the
other on the other side.

Speaker 1 (01:12:38):
And I think I think last year's had I think
last year did last year's did have a it's not
a great Biden one similar let's go Brandon. Was there
a let's go brand. I think the last year and
I got the nied to. I believe it did, all right.

Speaker 2 (01:12:52):
Well, if you're going to deny it for some, then
deny it for all. I guess what I'm saying. Be
consistent in this regard. Yes, you see, you want me
to give you another, and you got one for me. Okay,
let's see, I want to want I'm just scrolling back
up to the top because it was like the second
or third one that I wasn't sure I've got.

Speaker 1 (01:13:14):
Another one on here Dan that I'm like, you mean later, Okay, okay,
this is one where I'm like, why would you deny this?
Especially like let law enforcement? No, right, this person's request
was l u V l u V m E t
H love me love meth. Now why now now to me?

(01:13:38):
Like you know what, hey, buddy, you want you want
love meth in your lisis plate. Nothing like putting a
target on your back by by law enforcement. So okay, there, pal, hey,
look at me, I love myth. Look at me I
love hey.

Speaker 2 (01:13:53):
You swear you swerve in a little bit there, follow
me around there you go, gee. I don't think it's
fair they fall let me around all over the place right,
MAYD be like and uh and goodfellas when Rayleiot is
driving around the helicopter's following around the.

Speaker 1 (01:14:10):
Yeah, what else you got? I don't, I don't.

Speaker 2 (01:14:13):
I have no clue what this is. P m p
O l g y p M p O l g
y p m p O l g y O l
g and p m P could stand.

Speaker 1 (01:14:27):
Oh, yeah, I don't know what that one. I couldn't
figure that one. Yeah, that's a that's a tough one.
I mean, maybe are they just rejected because they're too
hard to figure out? I don't know. Maybe that one is.
Some of these are pretty.

Speaker 2 (01:14:38):
Because I can see I can see where if you're
driving behind someone and you see that license plate, can
you get distracted by that? You're like, oh man, I'm
trying to figure out that license plate. In the meantime,
you're not paying attention to, you know, the squirrel crossing
the road or the red light or something like that.

Speaker 1 (01:14:56):
Did we say this one? L eight A A G N.
And that's the top one on the on the on
the photo gallery at the Sina dot com L one's
that one's not too hard on L eight a F
A g N. Yeah, laid again, I see if you
just you're just not included the skipped over the middle,

(01:15:18):
if you just not included a couple of letters, I
would again would have been I would bet I would
bet there's an L eight A G. Is it a
G N at.

Speaker 2 (01:15:26):
The Yeah, I would bet there's one out there that
I would Here's one. I have no no clue at all.
I T that one.

Speaker 3 (01:15:36):
I don't.

Speaker 10 (01:15:37):
Yeah, b R I T B I T b R
I T B I have I have no.

Speaker 1 (01:15:48):
I can't figure that one out.

Speaker 2 (01:15:49):
And there's a space between the I T and then
the B R I T and the space between the
T and the B.

Speaker 1 (01:15:56):
Yes, that makes not working for me. No, I have
no idea. Let's see what else we got here. Okay,
how about this one? Uh? Oh?

Speaker 2 (01:16:08):
And again A three? There's a six letters, three sets
of two letters. Here we go O, N M Y
B S oh so on my B S. I have
no idea what the BS stands for? Well, I mean

(01:16:29):
I know a BS, but right, I mean on my yeah,
that does That doesn't sound like a familiar phrase.

Speaker 1 (01:16:36):
I've never heard that. But anyway, we've gone through those these.
If you want to read more Coda Cincinni dot com.
They've got them all, a bunch of fifteen or twenty
more and you can interpret it however you want to,
but we're not going to share those on the air.
So anyway, Dan, great work with you today. We're back
at it the R three o'clock. I'll be here, tom

(01:16:58):
I'll be here. We got some got ever everything planned
out for you so you can go golfing tomorrow. NewsRadio
seven hundred WLW