Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
It's Lacy.
[00:00:06] Speaker B: And I'm Lauren, and welcome to another
[00:00:09] Speaker A: episode of the Llamas podcast.
[00:00:12] Speaker B: So today we are going to discuss another Netflix documentary. It is called
[00:00:19] Speaker A: the Widower.
[00:00:21] Speaker B: Yeah. And it's a. It was very creepy, but fun to watch, I guess, but just kind of like, I wanted to give a little update on a few things. So we haven't heard anything else really about Pike. Like, we don't know what's going on there. Myrdal. They did have emotion, but it really wasn't anything that significant.
It was emotion to compel.
And I felt like that everybody's saying the judge did an amazing job, but at the same point, like, to me, if the other side's not giving you what you want, you got to file a motion to compel. Now. Granted, I think they filed it a little premature, but I know in the civil world, we. The judge said she had never filed them. We end up having to file them a good bit. In the civil. Now, a lot of times we will get it worked out, but we do have to file them because, like, sometimes the other side won't produce, and sometimes it's not even the. Like, in the civil world, a lot, maybe it's not even the other side's attorney. It's. The client is not giving them over the documents we requested. And like, I think when you file the motion, it makes the client realize how serious it is kind of thing. So. But that's all it was. It was a motion to compel, some discovery stuff.
And because the trial is like, what, in the spring, I believe is what they said before.
So they just were wanting to get everything together, but it was nothing, like, notable for a huge case or anything.
[00:01:58] Speaker A: I get her point. Yes, we should work together to make sure all discovery is turned over. But realistically, like you said, that just doesn't always happen. And you have to file those motions one, because if you don't, you're not preserved for appeal if something comes up later. Like if you.
If there's a document that they have and they forgot to turn over, I mean, you can still fight it, but it makes it stronger if you specifically requested it and it wasn't turned over. And so I. I have a case right now pending where I filed a motion to compel. And then I learned that it didn't exist, but I learned that other things existed. So I requested those, didn't get them filed another motion to compel.
I still didn't get anything from the state. We had a hearing, and the judge put a Ton of pressure.
He didn't specifically say he would toss the case, but he was really disappointed with where things were. And guess what? I got documents because I think the state knew the judge was considering tossing this or maybe suppressing some of the evidence because they weren't giving me what I proved existed in that case. And we even had a letter from Sled saying we don't have anything.
And guess what? Once the judge granted my motion to compel, I got stuff. So this, they lie. I mean, that's, that's just, that happens.
[00:03:15] Speaker B: And I think it's honestly malpractice if you don't push these motions for your client. Because what if, obviously there's no smoking guns, I don't think, but like, if you don't get all the evidence you need that is there, that does exist and you lose your case, what if that piece could have made a difference? And that's malpractice to me. So I just felt the judge was, she's like, I never had to file a motion to compel. I mean, that's awesome. And maybe you've worked with some awesome attorneys and maybe their clients have been good people, but in the world we live in now, people try to hide
[00:03:55] Speaker A: stuff or like in my case. So for a Brady motion, what the state has to turn over is everything within the state's possession. Well, guess what? If a cop doesn't give something to the prosecutor, the prosecutor may not know it exists. And half the time, a lot of prosecutors in my case aren't looking at all the evidence. I literally got an offer on a case last week and I was talking to the prosecutor and he hadn't watched the videos, and I pointed out which videos he needed to go watch. That I think mitigates my case.
So sometimes he's pros and they're overworked. You, you know, I know they're, they have so many cases and this, this office is very short staffed and this specific prosecutor is getting a ton of cases from prosecutors that have left or been fired. And so I know he's overwhelmed. So I'm like, I'm not hating on him for not watching the videos in my case, but sometimes that happens. So they may not know if other videos, other witnesses where like, we're missing written statements and stuff because they didn't watch the videos. So. So when I file that motion, you know, requesting it, that puts it on notice it exists. And if they ask the cop for it and they don't get it, I file a motion to compel. Sometimes it's not the prosecutor not turning it over. It's the cops. And one thing Judge Taylor has started doing on motion to compel is because he's so frustrated with cops not turning stuff over and the prosecutor's asking for it, he has started making the prosecutor subpoena the cop to court.
So he'll grant the motion to compel.
[00:05:25] Speaker B: He'll.
[00:05:25] Speaker A: And if it's not done in 30 days, he has the state bring in the officers. That's not turning over the discovery because it states possession. So even if it's in the cop's possession, the prosecutor has to turn it over. But if the cop's not responding to the prosecutor's emails and phone calls, it gets, you know, complicated. So, I mean, I love that for her that she never has done it. But I have filed several motions to compel, and I will continue to do so if I'm not getting the things that I need to represent my client.
[00:05:54] Speaker B: I agree. I mean, I just think no matter what field of work you're in, there's always going to have issues with people you work with. And it's the same thing with attorneys. And it's the same thing with people because some of it's never the. I mean, I will know in some cases, I truly don't think it's the attorney. I think it's their client. And, you know.
But moving on. Nothing exciting happening much in the pop culture world of crime this week. So with the Netflix documentary, although a
[00:06:30] Speaker A: little bit, if you watch Dancing with the Stars, one of the pros was suspended.
[00:06:36] Speaker B: I saw that. Because carrying a nar. Did he, like, harass carrying a nar?
No.
[00:06:43] Speaker A: And I want to get your thoughts on this real quick before I get to our topic. So what happened was his wife is also on the show. Valentine's suspended. Jenna is his wife, and on the show, she is dancing with Harry from Glee.
Carrie Ann. Her thing is lifts. You cannot do an eagle illegal lift. And I didn't even know the policy behind it, but it's because they don't want unfair advantages for partners that can't lift each other.
You know, maybe one, you know, somebody just can't lift the other person, and that wouldn't be fair. So there's certain ballroom dances that you cannot do a lift on because it's unfair. There are certain things.
Right. So it made sense, but apparently there was an illegal lift. But my understanding is Harry wasn't lifted by Jenna. He was actually lifted by the troop. So that's why there was some, like, confusion but regardless, Carrie Ann called out the lift, and Jenna was confused because she doesn't remember the lift. And she's like, there was a lift. And so then Carrie Ann, like, read the rule to her, and. And it was a little rude. But, I mean, this is television. You got to have some excitement. So, I mean, it was what it was. And then Val posted that he almost went. Will Smith, referring to the awards show where he slapped. What was it? Chris Rock?
[00:08:02] Speaker B: No.
Was it Chris Rock? I can't.
[00:08:06] Speaker A: Whoever he slap for saying stuff about his wife,
[00:08:12] Speaker B: his fake life, he.
[00:08:13] Speaker A: He posted on social media. And I just thought it was like a joke. I didn't. I didn't think that. I didn't find that serious. But I guess that would be the equivalent of me saying that about a judge. If a judge did something to somebody I didn't like, or. Or I, you know, something to me, if I went. But I almost went with Will Smith on a judge. So when I put it in that context, I. My opinion changes. But from a viewer, this is a television show. This is for entertainment. I didn't take it that seriously. So I don't. I don't know.
[00:08:46] Speaker B: I mean, I think it's.
So we went and saw Daniel Tosh Saturday night. He was at the Spartan Memorial Auditorium.
He's completely like.
He says things that probably most comedians don't say.
His standpoint was to do, to have the life I want to have. I only need 20 shows a year, he said, so I really don't need that many people to like me, so I don't care if I piss you off. And he made a few jokes about, like, Will Smith and the whole thing. And they were probably a little tasteless. So much. But they were funny. Like, it is what it is. So I probably wouldn't read too much into it, but. Because, like, if somebody. So I'll. I'll give you an example of something I will say.
So I'm protective of my dogs. I'm very protective of them. Like, they are like my children.
Especially when I had Harvey. And if somebody messed with Harvey, I tell people I'd go John Wick on them. So, I mean, I don't really read too much into it. Like, it's not like he really was going to do it.
[00:09:54] Speaker A: No, I thought it was a joke. And he deleted it not long after and apologized and then carry in, you know, somebody said it to her, she's like, thanks for bringing this to my attention. And then they suspended him for a week. But, I mean, as long as he Apologized. I mean, the View was saying that if he had a problem with Caran, he should have gone to her. But I don't know. I don't know that Val was really taking it that ser. I think he's just making a joke because everybody was talking about how she was going off on Jenna and how was inappropriate. So I think he just played off of what was happening with viewers. But I don't know
[00:10:30] Speaker B: reality tv. So who's to say the producers didn't say, hey, go do this to get, you know, some views.
[00:10:42] Speaker A: So anyways, that's the pop culture update. Not crime related, but drama. So he is not going to be dancing tonight.
So moving on to Netflix. Okay, what is the guy's name? I completely forgot. He's creepy.
[00:11:00] Speaker B: I'm not judgmental in a lot of. I am judgmental, but he is, I'm looking his name. He is not a good looking man at all. Whether he was, his name is Thomas Randolph. Could not remember his name either.
[00:11:17] Speaker A: But Randolph is a convicted murderer at this point.
[00:11:23] Speaker B: He's appealing it. But he is convicted, correct?
[00:11:26] Speaker A: Right now he's convicted. But what he's convicted of, it may not be his only murder. So that's what the Netflix documentary went through. This man has had six wives and he.
[00:11:40] Speaker B: Four have died.
[00:11:42] Speaker A: Four have died.
So you just want to start from the top and roll through them.
[00:11:47] Speaker B: Well, yes, and then I have some like questions procedurally. Well, one thing I want to say about this too is this Netflix documentary really came about because of a journalist. Like there was like a prostate, a cop that, a detective that was really working with this journalist to get this man. Because the journalist and the infer, like the thing about this journalist, he's usually on the opposite side. He is usually a journalist that is trying to get people wrongly convicted out of jail. So it was kind of cool to see this one.
I guess he has an open mind with journalism because this one, he knew this guy was guilty and he was trying to help get him convicted and play the friend role to get information.
Yeah, well, kind of how the documentary starts out realistically is showing the last murder, right? The one he's on trial for and is so this. I just want to once again state this man is just downright ugly.
Like I don't know how all
[00:12:56] Speaker A: charismatic,
[00:12:57] Speaker B: I think, like I can kind of tell like when he talks, he probably is a smooth talker and he does try to manipulate people. Like you can see that in his interviews. But pretty much it starts with his last murder, which was and I Will say the victim's daughter was pregnant during some of filming this documentary. She is so strong. Like they all talk about how strong this woman is, but pretty much he marries this woman in Las Vegas and she. They go out to dinner and then comes back and she supposedly person had broken to their house and murdered her. And he's like going over the way the murder happened and like it was really weird watching that video because he was like, pow, pow, pow, poom. Like not how a grieving widower would feel. I felt like, I know we cannot judge people a lot of times, but he was very just dramatic. Like he was enjoying it almost.
And so it went through that. And so the daughter was given testimony and pretty much he had went and got a huge life insurance policy on this woman.
And he could, because they were spouses.
And then when we see that, then we go back in time to his first wife.
[00:14:28] Speaker A: And so there one of the cops was like, this isn't adding up. And they wanted to. I think most people, most of the cops were like, this is closed. It was intruder.
And the not intruder man was also killed. So he murdered two people.
But what he said just didn't add up because the. I guess, I think he shot him in the head. But his mask didn't have any blood on it and his mask was off of his face.
And he had known this person. He'd been working on them. And then as they dug into it, they talked to his family. Family.
[00:15:04] Speaker B: This person had a Carolinas connection because he was from North Carolina and had kind of moved out to Vegas to have like a fresh start.
[00:15:18] Speaker A: And so they did come to North Carolina and South Carolina to talk to family. And he had told his family that he met this crazy white man.
He offered him a substantial amount of money to kill his wife. So that's when they are like, okay, this might not be the open and shut case that we thought it was. We need to dig back. And then I think that's when they got in contact with the officer that investigated him before on another murder.
And then it kind of goes back in time through the wives. So the first one he did not kill, she is still alive.
And that is who I believe he had children with her.
[00:15:54] Speaker B: He had two children with her. But we find out he was at a bar one night and kind of was propositioning this guy. Hey, well, how much would it take for you to kill my wife? Kind of like joking, but we know he was now serious.
So we learned that. And she did have two kids with them. They don't really say anything about the kids. My gut tells me they have no relationship with their dad.
But she was smart. She left. She got divorced. Like, it was done.
[00:16:24] Speaker A: But the guy she married is who he propositioned because he was friends. And he said in the interview, he was like, yeah, he asked me to kill her. I'm like, I'm not doing that because I knew how well that was going to happen. He would have shot me and shot her and then claimed I was like I was breaking in. Or he. Because act like an intruder. And he said, I knew how that was going to happen. Have killed me.
[00:16:45] Speaker B: He said, I'll split the insurance money with you.
[00:16:49] Speaker A: So that kind of let them know, like. So that was eerie because that is exactly like what was happening with the last. The.
[00:16:55] Speaker B: And what state was that in?
[00:16:58] Speaker A: I don't remember what state she.
[00:16:59] Speaker B: It wasn't. It might have been. It was in a different state. I believe he was in one state. And to make it make more sense, like, in today's time, you know, we can. We know headlines from all over, but in that time, this was back in the 70s, we didn't have all the news like we do today. Like, it wasn't. These crimes weren't reported on, as we know. OJ Was the first one where we had such live action reporting. And that's in the 90s. So I think we have to remember the time this was going on. So after he leaves this woman and they're divorced, he act.
He actually was already seeing his second wife. Like he was cheating on wife number one and he marries wife number two.
Wife number two commits suicide, supposedly.
And then that was the one he getting some confused.
[00:17:57] Speaker A: She was the one that. What she.
[00:17:59] Speaker B: They said she committed suicide, but that was the one he went to trial on.
[00:18:04] Speaker A: Ah, I'm back now. Okay. Because they said she would have had to been ambidextrous. I can't say that word. But he. Yeah, she would have had to shoot herself with her hand that was not prominent, like, and then twist the gun and like her body and like, it just wasn't. It was not possible to shoot herself in the way that she was shot.
[00:18:31] Speaker B: So they end up charging him in this case, but he goes to trial and he testifies on the stand, like he testified, got not guilty, but he
[00:18:42] Speaker A: was found guilty of witness tampering. Because this was another one where he offered a man money and the man got scared and Leia left.
And so.
[00:18:55] Speaker B: But pretty much he got time served, I think. Right.
[00:18:58] Speaker A: Yeah, he didn't have time but that man left. I'm like, I don't think that's the one he got convicted with. I don't know if he talked to jurors or something, but I do know he got convicted of witness tampering, but not guilty on the murder. So then we move on, and he
[00:19:13] Speaker B: leaves the state at that point. So that's when he leaves whatever state he's in, goes to a new state, marries another woman.
That woman, I. I get the wives confused, but it appear. I think the next one is one he marries, but she packs up and leaves in the middle of the night.
[00:19:34] Speaker A: This is. No, the third one is the one that died from cancer.
[00:19:37] Speaker B: Okay, so he married one, they got divorced. She died of cancer years later. So he did have nothing to do with her death. The next one is still alive. And she packed up and left in the middle of the night pretty much, because she.
But it turns out he was trying to make a hit on her as well. And she kind of realized it. She was.
Because he was once again propositioning people at the bar to kill her. So at this point, I don't think he actually killed anybody yet.
[00:20:11] Speaker A: He killed the second one that committed suicide, I think.
[00:20:14] Speaker B: I don't think he killed her directly. Didn't somebody else kill her, but he paid him or.
[00:20:21] Speaker A: No, no, I think he did it. The guy that he was trying to get to kill her wouldn't do it.
[00:20:26] Speaker B: Okay, okay.
[00:20:27] Speaker A: Yeah. So he killed her second one, unless there's a witness we don't know about.
[00:20:32] Speaker B: So he got off on that one where he wasn't. So then he tried to kill number four, but she left, and she left. So now we're back to his new wife that he just killed because he had one and two.
One
[00:20:53] Speaker A: suicide, but actually murdered.
[00:20:58] Speaker B: He had another one in there
[00:21:01] Speaker A: and
[00:21:01] Speaker B: died in the hospital after a procedure.
And he sued that doctor for malpractice and got a big settlement. See, I had forgot about that one. So, yes, the next wife after that needed to have some surgery that it was not even one that I think she had to have. I mean, it wasn't like a cost.
[00:21:22] Speaker A: Say she needed the procedure. Her family had said she had needed this procedure, but he took her to
[00:21:28] Speaker B: another state where he knew the doctor to get away.
She was fine. The family said after the surgery, everything hell went well.
[00:21:37] Speaker A: And I'm thinking in the hospital. And when they left, she had.
[00:21:43] Speaker B: Something suddenly went wrong and she died.
And then he actually sued the doctor for malpractice and won that suit and insurance on top of the life insurance. And so he's got all this money from that. So then after that is when he meets the last wife. Right. And this is where it all comes full circle. And I think it is because of the daughter and this journalist and the detective. Yes, the three of them together. Push. Well, this is kind of where I have the procedural side of things. So in his first trial, they allowed the evidence that from.
They allowed them, huh?
[00:22:29] Speaker A: I think it was Utah. Utah, yeah.
[00:22:32] Speaker B: They allowed the Utah case to come in even though he was acquitted in it.
They allowed it to come in and the jury.
[00:22:41] Speaker A: Suicide.
[00:22:42] Speaker B: Yes, because the person that testified and that. They allowed it to come in and the person that testified in that case was a person who said he.
He approached me about killing his wife and I fled because that person, like disappeared to Alaska or something. Because they were terrified of everything.
Right.
And that was the one. He was found guilty and given the death penalty.
That's the one he witnessed tampered in,
[00:23:15] Speaker A: I think it was. Yeah, yeah. So the witness that came back told them what happened and did testify against him in the Utah case where he was acquitted. Because that evidence did come into the jury when going to trial on the murder of the sixth wife.
[00:23:31] Speaker B: Because he put a hit on somebody. So that's what it was. In the jail, they had an undercover detective, too, and he tried to put a hit on one of the witnesses. Yes.
So. But he did get the death penalty. Now he appeals it. They win on appeal because they said that. So in. When you bring in prior bad acts, you have to look at. Was it more prejudicial than probative?
And so the Supreme Court in that case said it was more prejudicial and it shouldn't have came in.
Realistically, what are your thoughts on that one?
[00:24:12] Speaker A: Because it's like it. Because I think he did it.
I. I agree with the court on that one. I do think it was highly prejudicial.
The fact.
[00:24:21] Speaker B: Now, if he'd been found guilty, would that have changed your mind? Because he was acquitted, obviously he probably would not be out and able to commit this. If he had been found guilty, he probably would still be in jail.
[00:24:36] Speaker A: But for me, I think it would have had to been more than just if they.
So one of the things you can do to bring prior bad acts in. One of the exceptions is prior or to show motive, common scheme or plan.
So for me, if they had had. If they had tried to introduce the first case where he said that he approached me to kill his wife, wife number one, and the Second case where he approached someone again to try to kill the second wife and then the fourth wife where he approached people if they had all those witnesses there to testify to a common scheme or plain plan that he had done this multiple times, four times, yes, that's prejudicial. But it's that you have the exception of common schemer playing. So I think under the rules of evidence you can get that in. But just the one, no.
Especially since he was plan.
[00:25:31] Speaker B: I kind of felt like, honestly when I was watching it and they let that. So I didn't know about this case outside the Netflix documentary. So I did not know what was happening. So watching it was a completely new, new thing for me. So when we were watching the documentary and I hear they did that, I was like, that's an appeal right there. Because I did feel like the fact he was acquitted, I just felt like a judge was going to say that shouldn't have came in. And that's what did happen. He went back to trial though, and it wasn't a death penalty case. I don't know if Nevada had gotten rid of the death penalty in this time or if they just decided not to go for it.
But he was found guilty again. Sentenced to two lives in prison, I believe, because he was found guilty on the murder of the wife and on the murder of the friend.
Friend that killed him.
And I will say in this, I think what really shocked him is the mom kind of started to get an idea of who he was. The, the wife at the time because she went and read it all, her will and everything to get him. He wasn't getting anything. It was all going to the daughter, like the house and everything.
So.
And then he is now appealed his current charge. I can't remember what the appeal was for,
[00:26:53] Speaker A: but yeah, what got me too is like before the first trial, it took about seven years for that case to go to trial.
[00:27:01] Speaker B: He kept firing his attorneys.
[00:27:04] Speaker A: But yet when it came to the trial and the journalist is filming it, it's like, oh, I've been ready. I just had to get the right attorney. But I've been ready. I'm so ready for this name. Like, dude, you are a liar. Like, you were not ready. You were scared. You were scared you were going to get convicted of something you did.
So that was just, that was so annoying when he was like, oh, I'm so ready. I've been ready.
[00:27:28] Speaker B: He did have these hot shot lawyers, like, but he spent all his money and his, his mom was still alive. I don't know she is to this day or not. But at the time she was alive, she got like a equity line on her house to pay these lawyers.
And the first one he got seemed just like your basic no nonsense attorney. The second one he got had actually been convicted of something and went back to law school because of that.
So it's funny to me is at the end though, he spent all his money and he's ended up with a public defender.
[00:27:59] Speaker A: Oh, I know.
[00:28:01] Speaker B: Like, to me, and I will say, look, I don't judge public defenders for the most part because they are overworked, understaffed, I mean, and they can't pick their clients. Like at the end of the day, like if you had somebody come in and you just couldn't stand them, you could say, I'm not taking on this case because you have a right to do that. But as a public defender, you don't have that right. But I will say his public defender, some of the statement, I didn't watch the whole trial, obviously all I saw. But he got up there and was like quoted for us to go up. He said, and that's all I got to say about that.
[00:28:37] Speaker A: It was nice. I mean, and I've said this so many times in consults. Some of our best lawyers are public offenders. Some of our best lawyers in the state are public defenders.
Some of the. Some of our worst lawyers are in private practice. You have both everywhere, right? Private practice and public offenders. But I do agree with you. I don't believe his attorney, public defender or not, did a great job.
He had lawyers that I think probably would have done a better job. That has nothing to do with public defender versus private practice. But just seeing how some of them were in the documentary, I think some probably had tried more murders, had done this before, had more experience, or were just better because they're just better. Some people are just better.
[00:29:19] Speaker B: Well, and here's the thing I think about trial attorneys too.
You can be so smart on the law. Like, you can be like that public defender could have been brilliant on the law.
But when you're a trial attorney, you have to be charismatic too, to a certain degree. Like, especially when there's juries involved. Like there was a case the other week that a lawyer I know, she lost. She's a public defender and she lost and it broke her heart. She lost. Right.
But the jury came back and wanted to send her a note that they thought she did. Absolutely incredible. So to me that meant you just had a client that did really bad things and they saw no way around it. But in no way did it reflect on you because you did an awesome job. But I think in this case you had a bad client and an attorney that just was not giving the presence out. But at the same point, I know he's filed PCRs and all that. I don't think any attorney was going to get him off of this one though, to be honest.
[00:30:27] Speaker A: So.
Yeah, so I mean, this case has dragged on for so, so long. One of the problems, I mean, when he was arrested, it was seven years before his first trial. Appeals usually take a year or two, like basically. So the. The woman that was pregnant when her mom died for this murder, her daughter is now like 14, 15 years old.
[00:30:48] Speaker B: So that's how she's almost an adult.
[00:30:51] Speaker A: Has been dragging on. So now he has appealed again and I don't think they have they made a ruling. Have they upheld it?
[00:31:00] Speaker B: I don't think they have made a ruling yet. But I think this time I think everything was by the books. It's pretty. He's probably going to stay in jail.
It was two consecutive lives, I believe, for both the people I just like. It's crazy to me, once again how dumb us women can be.
Yeah.
Because he was so ugly.
[00:31:24] Speaker A: He didn't look good. He had to be charismatic.
[00:31:27] Speaker B: He had a mullet at one point with a mustache.
[00:31:32] Speaker A: Mullets are back.
Women like it. I don't, but. So they're back, unfortunately.
[00:31:39] Speaker B: But this case was really interesting. I felt like procedurally. Because it really did come a lot of it. Like what got in and out of the case could make a difference. And seeing that if things aren't done properly. Right. Appeals do happen. So I would recommend everybody go watch this.
If you think he's just as ugly as I did, you can let us know.
I have noticed, like, but I will say, yeah, the reporter, he did have a rapport. Like they had a good back and
[00:32:10] Speaker A: forth and let us know how many wives you think he killed. I believe he killed three. I think he killed the one that he claimed by suicide. That he was acquitted of the last one. And I also think he did something in that hospital room. To the. To the fourth. I want to say fourth wife.
[00:32:27] Speaker B: Yeah, he like probably pulled something, did something.
[00:32:31] Speaker A: Something. So I think he killed three out of the six. I don't believe he had anything to do with the one who died later from canc.
[00:32:38] Speaker B: But I do think he would have killed five if he could have because we know he tried to kill two other ones. So yeah, very interesting case. Let us know what you think. And we will keep on with the true crime.
[00:32:51] Speaker A: See y' all next week.
[00:32:52] Speaker B: Bye.
