Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
[00:00:07] Speaker B: And I'm Lauren, and welcome to another.
[00:00:09] Speaker A: Episode of the Llamas podcast.
[00:00:11] Speaker B: And so today we're just going to kind of give you, like, an update on some of the people we've talked about in the past, because there's a lot of stuff coming out on some of these big cases that we've went over, and it's really a lot in the legal world because it's dealing with appeals and those type things. So we're going to give you some update today as far as a question. I haven't posed this to Lacey yet, but I kind of have a question.
So I guess recently we had the 4th of July, and I've just been curious, like, if somebody violated the law and shot fireworks where they weren't supposed to, not on the personal injury side of things, but can you get arrested for stuff like that? Like these little city ordinances, those type things? Like, how does that work?
[00:00:57] Speaker A: Most of the time it's a civil fine and a civil penalty. Like, I know my cousin Sean was texting me that people were shooting fireworks late at night, and I was like, yeah, I really wish they had a curfew because, I mean, I have small kids. A lot of people have small kids. Like, yes, we shot fireworks and we did it at 9:00'. Clock. And so. But some people have them go to 12, 1 o'. Clock. I actually learned the next day that Lexington did impose a curfew that said that you could only shoot fireworks between 9 and I think it was 11.
And there was a fine of $150 if they caught you. So most of the time it's a civil penalty for stuff like that. Now, this is very different, but discharging a firearm is completely different and can be arrested for that. But fireworks, for the most part, in every place is different. Every jurisdiction is different. But most of the time, if you violate a curfew or where you're supposed to shoot them, most of the time it's a civil penalty.
[00:01:58] Speaker B: I wasn't sure because at my house, I live in the city, so you're not supposed to shoot fireworks at all where I live because I'm in city limits.
And so we didn't have an issue like a lot of people did, but I heard a lot of people complaining that people were shooting them till, you know, 2 and 3 in the morning. And not just July 4, but, you know, all different days. And so I was just curious, as if you could end up. If I called somebody in, could they go to jail for that? I guess, yeah.
[00:02:24] Speaker A: And I think most of the places will be fines. But remember, every city can have ordinances, so there could be an ordinance creating a misdemeanor for it.
So you just have to check your local ordinances, because cities can put that. Put that into place.
[00:02:42] Speaker B: That's interesting to know. Well, at least if your neighbor's making you really mad still shooting them, you can get them to have to pay a fine. So.
[00:02:50] Speaker A: Oh, Sean opened his window and was like, I'm gonna call the cops. And they quit shooting the fireworks because it was, like, after midnight. So he disguised his voice and, like, just cracked open his window and had every. All of his lights down.
And he said that did deter them, and they quit, you know, shooting them at that point, but it was just getting excessive. And I love fireworks. My oldest son loves fireworks. Luke is just obsessed. And so we shoot them. We love them. I like seeing them. But, yeah, it is annoying when people are not being courteous of it. And it's not just kids. Right? I mean, I think about veterans with that, with those issues as well. It'd be really nice to have a set curfew, and everybody abide by it. Like, let's celebrate, but let's be thoughtful as well, especially those who actually fought for the freedoms that we're celebrating on July 4th and may have PTSD from the sounds.
[00:03:46] Speaker B: Well, we're not. I'm not the biggest fireworks person, but my children did not care about local fireworks because once you've seen them at Disney, they said, nothing else compares.
[00:03:56] Speaker A: So I know Luke is gonna be so excited. I'm so excited for him to see him in Disney because, you know, we're going in December, so. Yeah, we'll see. He's gonna. Now. Mac doesn't really care much for him, and he really hated the sparklers. Luke started a small lawn fire with his sparkler.
[00:04:14] Speaker B: Well, moving on to our topic, so the first one I think we're going to talk about is Murdoch. So, Lacey, you want to tell us about that one?
[00:04:24] Speaker A: Yes. So I'm gonna do a little plug. So my friend Lori, she's on Tick Tock, Tick Tock. Lawyer Lori I just saw, she posted, like, two hours ago that there is a new issue for the Murdoch appeal. So. So apparently there were text messages between Murdoch and cousin Eddie the day of the murders. Talking. And that's what I gathered. Talking about a drug deal and something about picking up a check. So Fitz News was digging into the case, still found these text messages, and it turns out the state had them. From what she was Saying and did not turn them over to the defense.
So just everybody's aware that the state has to turn over any and all evidence. And if it's not, that could be grounds for appeal.
That would be what's called a Brady violation.
And I, from what I'm gathering, almost, it's like, I don't know if they're maybe trying to say maybe cousin Eddie could have been the one that did it because, like, he didn't get his check or maybe they met up some somewhere to. To do this deal and that would be an alibi.
But, you know, I think Dick Hart P. In the attorney for Murdoch said he would have called cousin Eddie to the stand in Murdoch's defense if he had had these text messages.
So if the state had them and they have exculpatory value, which would mean it would go to show innocence, the Supreme Court could overturn the case and send it back for a new trial.
And with that, I don't know if you saw on Twitter, but Dick Carpoolian did like a Twitter live about a month ago and I watched it. He's coming out with a new book on Peewee Gaskins. If you don't know who Peewee Gaskins is, maybe we should do an episode. But he is a.
[00:06:24] Speaker B: For like just a second for the people who aren't in South Carolina.
Dick Carpoolian has been one of the biggest criminal defense attorneys in the state for years. I mean, when you think criminal defense, he's one of the first people you think of like, people like him and Jack Swirling. So he's a pretty big deal around here, I guess, for defense.
[00:06:49] Speaker A: Yeah. And he's a former prosecutor, which I didn't know until I heard this, but he was the prosecutor for Peewee Gaskins. So he has a book coming out. But when he was discussing his new book of cur, of course, Murdoch came out and I swear, like, he said something about they had evidence showing that Murdoch was not there, but the judge didn't allow it in.
So remembering that and now these text messages, if this is all true, I mean, the state really could be in trouble. They have until, I think Lori said Aug. 8 to reply to the appeal. But I would imagine that there's going to be additional briefs filed by the defense raising this Brady violation with these text messages and not turning them over, if they did have them and did in fact not turn them over. So, you know, this is just a case that I think is going to keep South Carolina churning and have our interest for many years to come.
[00:07:47] Speaker B: I. I was looking. I just googled to see, like, what the text are, I guess, and what's kind of going on. It looks like these texts are given like a legit time. Like it's pretty much him.
Yeah. Just really go, like looking at them. It's like when they were going through where they were and those type things. And one thing I did notice that Mr. Harpoulian said in all of this, on looking at it, that Cousin Eddie is probably the biggest oxy dealer in the Palmetto State.
One thing I think that's interesting, didn't Amy that's been on the podcast hasn't. Wasn't she representing Cousin Eddie in some type of hearing at some point?
[00:08:32] Speaker A: Yeah, she did. And then there was another attorney that was stepping in to represent him to. Who was that I saw in court with her that day.
I remember who it was, but Amy has represented him. I don't know if she's still on his case. And he had two lawyers.
But I know there was some confusion. I saw. I was in court when he got his bond revoked.
Judge Neiman, I think it was Judge Newman revoked his bond.
[00:09:03] Speaker B: So if he does get a new trial, I mean, I guess how is that. I mean, if he gets granted a new trial, I imagine they're not going to let him take. I mean, I know he ultimately will decide if he takes the stand. I imagine they're going to push for him not to take the Sam. Because pretty much all the jurors said, like, when you watch the jurors who did go do interviews and all that type of stuff, their reason for convicting for the most part was the Snapchat and him taking the stand. How, as a defense attorney, are you going to erase that from everybody's mind that we all can still see him on the same crying with the snot running down his. Right. Like, how do you overcome that in a new trial?
[00:09:44] Speaker A: I don't know. I mean, like, it's going to be really hard to find another jury that has not heard anything about this case and is coming in with completely fresh eyes.
But, you know, I say that and there's there. You know, I. I do think some people just tune stuff out and don't follow this, like many of us. So maybe it's possible. I don't know if it'll be possible in Hampton County.
I don't think that that, like everybody in that county is out. I think it's going to have to be a change of venue. I think you're gonna have to go somewhere that's a really big county.
Maybe the upstate, maybe in Greenville, Spartanburg. Like you're just going to have a very different jury pool. And I think you might have more success there. Finding a jury pool.
Hasn't seen everything.
[00:10:38] Speaker B: It's still so hard because, you know, he has connections to the upstate because, you know, son went to Walford. So like a lot of people that are, you know, in the welfare circle. His sister taught at Union for years. Like, oh yeah, she was a teacher and a lot of people were still friends with it. Like I got on Facebook and found her on Facebook, went on like all this. But I do think it's gonna be really hard because that trial, it like I remember going and getting my hair cut one day and it was part of the trial and my, I was sitting with my hair processing. She was sitting there watching her phone. So like, yeah, people that aren't even into this here in South Carolina. So I think now would he. If you represent him and it gets back, can you still like as be his defense, like, can Dick Carpoolian still be his attorney again?
[00:11:28] Speaker A: Yeah, absolutely.
And I've known attorneys that have represented somebody, got the case overturned and represented them again now after an appeal. I don't know if you came for post conviction relief, that would be interesting because post conviction relief is saying that your attorney was ineffective.
I don't know that there's a rule barring an attorney from representing them again. But if you get a new trial based on ineffective assistance of counsel and then hire the same counsel, it's kind of weird.
[00:12:02] Speaker B: But then I guess that's on you. If you thought they weren't effective but you still want them again, like, you know, I guess there's like that. Well, that is our Murdoch update. And starting with another M name that we've talked about recently, the Menendez brothers, pretty much that is all over the news right now.
And kind of the same situation, the new evidence because the sexual abuse by their father and there's new evidence relating to that.
And so now the prosecutors in the same situation, like are on the hook to explain what, why they shouldn't get this new trial. And I think the judge is really looking into this at this point. I don't think this is just like talk. I feel like at this point this is serious because I feel like the judge is actually sitting there debating, you know, I want to see good reason for why this shouldn't happen, why this sexual abuse wasn't brought in. And as we know, in that first case where the sexual abuse was Brought in, it was a hung jury, right?
Not an acquittal, but a hung jury. And then in the second case where the abuse wasn't brought in, they were found guilty. So, you know, if there is more evidence of the abuse and that gets to come in, that leans to the fact that they might be out.
[00:13:25] Speaker A: And so what's important to note in all these things, right, we're talking about appeals, post conviction relief.
What's going on with the Menendez brothers is a lot of people forget prejudice, okay? So a court is not going to overturn an appeal if a judge made an error. If there's not prejudice, right. If, if the appellate court thinks that this is a minor error that didn't prejudice the jury and is so small, it would not have changed their minds, then they're not gonna, you know, overturn a conviction. Same for post conviction relief. You have to prove that you're attorney was ineffective and a prejudice element. And that's what's important with the Menendez brothers. These prosecutors can't say that this evidence would not have helped them because of the mistrial, right? When you have a trial, this evidence came in and there was a mistrial, and then only when it's not in, you get a conviction. It is clear cut that this prejudice element is met, you know, with the, with the, with the evidence, and it's only stronger now with more evidence of the abuse. So I, you know, I'm glad the judge is looking into it because like the, the prosecutors just can't say, well, judge, this wouldn't have mattered anyway. They would have convicted him even if it had came in. They literally can't, because when it came in, it was a mistrial.
[00:14:45] Speaker B: Oh, and it also is so like, so some of the new evidences came in is there's an affidavit from somebody also stating they were raped by the dad, I believe is what part of it is.
So that does give more, I guess, like credibility. Somebody else is saying, you know, the dad's not on trial here, obviously he's dead. So it's not like we're trying to like do that, but show that, you know, if he was a pattern, like, I guess that, you know, he raped people to make it more believable that the two brothers were actually raped and molested as well if he was doing it outside the family.
So I think with this case is one to keep watching. I believe I was looking up the deadline.
I believe they have until sometime in August to give some information to the judge.
So it will be coming up soon. I mean, they've already won a victory in the fact that they were given the. They will go before the parole.
[00:15:42] Speaker A: Right.
[00:15:42] Speaker B: The parole board soon.
[00:15:44] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:15:45] Speaker B: But that doesn't mean, as we've seen, Susan Smith didn't get out. Like, there's a good chance they're not going to get out on parole, but this may give them an option where they get out. I don't know how I feel about all of it, but I think we want to make sure justice is properly handled and everything.
[00:16:03] Speaker A: I think, like. Yeah, I mean, it is.
I think people have wondered, like, did they make this abuse up just to try to get out of what they've done? And the other person signing that affidavit just gives them credibility that this actually was happening and. And going on. And, you know, if true, it definitely needs to be taken consideration, in my opinion, with parole eligibility, you know, and whether you let somebody out on parole.
I've said before, I support the parole board's decision in denying Susan Smith, but I do hope the Menendez brothers are granted parole.
[00:16:44] Speaker B: I don't know how I feel. I mean, I. I feel sorry for them if they were truly sexually abused, and I'm not saying they weren't, but they had opportunities to escape, and they went back and killed them. And very there.
The murder was just so brutal, I think was part of it. It wasn't like I took a shotgun and, like, one bull or like, a pistol bullet to the head. It was a complete bloodbath and, like, killed.
It was, I think, for me, and I guess I think this is probably how a lot of jurors probably saw it, too, in the first trial. I think they probably were really torn because, yeah, they were sexually abused, but after you saw pictures of that murder scene, it's like, I don't know, like, killer for me.
[00:17:32] Speaker A: I think it shows how irrational of a state of mind they were in, and I can easily tie that to the abuse.
[00:17:40] Speaker B: Yeah, I just. It was so gory, brutal. Like, I don't know. I'm glad, though, in the Murdoch case, I never saw the picture. Like, pictures actually made it out of what Paul looked like.
And I'm thankful I never saw those because I heard those were completely horrible.
[00:18:00] Speaker A: Yeah. I mean, to. To think about how he was killed, they had to have been horrible. Yeah.
[00:18:05] Speaker B: But it's gonna be interesting to see what happens, and we'll keep you up to date on it.
And I'm sure, you know, Netflix will have a new Part three to their.
[00:18:17] Speaker A: That.
[00:18:20] Speaker B: Our last one is P. Diddy. And this was requested by Lacey, so she's gonna go for it.
[00:18:27] Speaker A: I think people are gonna be mad at me, but hear me out, okay? So after the PDD verdicts were read, I, I wasn't too shocked because with the trafficking acquittals, okay. And I saw a lot of people upset. This is why women don't come forward, and this is why women are not believed. And I disagree with that statement. And so, you know, P. Diddy was found guilty of.
[00:19:01] Speaker B: What was it?
[00:19:01] Speaker A: The prostitution over state lines. Two counts of that. But he was found not guilty of trafficking persons. So the trafficking is by force, by fraud, by coercion. Right. So that's what trafficking is. And when you think about the evidence, right, because emotionally I do believe the juries believed the, the victim in this case. Right. I believe they believe the victims. But we have to remember that he was not on trial for domestic violence.
I think that is clear cut domestic violence. They absolutely would have convicted of that. Clearly they convicted of the prostitution. They do believe he was paying people for sex. That was not the issue. They did believe the victim. And I'm assuming that because this happened so many years ago, maybe there's a statute of limitations where they couldn't charge him for the domestic, or maybe he's already charged for it for that video and then it was later dismissed. I don't know all the circumstances with that, but if I had to guess, I would guess that the jury absolutely believed the victim in this case, but it did not match the statutory requirements by the state to prove trafficking. And the reason for that is the.
The allegations that I heard. I did not watch the whole trial, but I do know that they had people that were adults coming in for these sex parties, getting paid, from my understanding. But then they could leave and they did not have to come back. There was no evidence that I heard of these people being forced to come back into this information, into this situation.
And I absolutely believe P. Diddy abused her wholeheartedly. I believe that he raped her probably multiple times. I'm not saying that. But trafficking is a different standard and burden of proof that I do not.
From what I heard, I don't think the state met it. I think P. Diddy is a horrible piece of human trash.
Nobody should ever date him. It makes me sad that people are in situations where they would go and do some of these things that he wanted for money. And I hate that people are in that position. And he used his power to do that. But when you think of trafficking it, you're taking away somebody's ability and control to do what they want to do in those acts. And the people had that choice to go or not go to those parties.
And it's very hard for a woman to leave a domestic violence, domestic violence, like, relationship. Right. And I think the statistics say it takes like three, four times of leaving for them to finally leave.
[00:21:50] Speaker B: And.
[00:21:52] Speaker A: And the statistics are also high for the. The danger they are in to leave. Right.
But that's not trafficking.
You know, I have all the empathy in the world for her and what she endured, and I wish she felt she could have gotten out sooner than what she did, but that's not trafficking. She did have a choice to leave and leave him. And she eventually did, you know, was she put in danger for that? Yes, I think so. And I think he threatened, but that's not trafficking. That's a separate charge, and he wasn't on trial for that. So I think there's a lot of things he was guilty of, and it came out in her testimony, and it is believable, but that's not what he was charged with. And so people are really hung up on. This is why victims don't come for work. And this is why we need victims to come forward right away. Right? We need them to come forward as soon as possible, because then you don't have to worry about the statute of limitations.
The evidence is stronger and your credibility is built. I don't think anybody doubted that what she was saying wasn't true. I just don't think it amounted to what he was charged with.
[00:23:00] Speaker B: Well, it's kind of, I guess in her you believe she was true. Like, everything she said was true and all that, but there also wasn't. If you come forward sooner, there is more evidence because you probably could have more fluid samples, like, doctor. And I know a lot of times people that have been abused do not want to go to the doctor, but I think it's important.
I know it's hard, but I think that's one of the biggest things is if you can go and get a DNA rape test, like those swabs, which I know have to be incredibly painful after what you've been through, because I think that is one of the things that people look at a lot is, is there. It's so hard even if you have believable witnesses, because you still want to see, like, is there some other proof? Like, is there some concrete evidence? And I feel like in his case, they maybe didn't have that as much. I think in public opinion, he's garbage, like you said. But I don't think what we all know on the outside held as much as what went on, because what went on in the inside is here's this statute. You have to meet prongs, ABCD and all of those.
You're not guilt. And the state had to prove every single prong. And maybe that's where, you know, legislation needs to come into play to update these statutes or things like that, but it is. If only one prong wasn't met, you didn't meet your burden, so the jury had to look at it.
[00:24:23] Speaker A: And I just think when you're saying that you're recruiting people for these sex parties and these people that are being recruited have the ability to come and do these acts, but then also have the ability to leave and not come back. And, you know, it's hard to prove that force and coercion when they still have will. You know, in. In cases that I have seen that are actual trafficking, you know, these are situations where these, you know, women are not allowed to leave. You know, they are told who to go sleep with and bring that money to the pimp or who, you know. And, you know, this is what you're gonna do. You're gonna bring me the money, and then we're gonna go find someone else. And they're not free to leave. They're not free to leave them. That person dictates every part of their lives and gets them to recruit other people that are then within their control and have to go and do these things and bring that person that money, and then they're not free to go. They. Every single thing.
So I think when there's testimony that some of these people recruited are coming to these parties and leaving of their own accord, it's hard just to prove that that force and to make it to that level to meet the burden that the state was required to meet to get a conviction by the jury. But I do not believe. I really do not believe the jury didn't believe her testimony. It's just he was not on trial for rape or domestic violence, and if he were, I believe there absolutely would have been convictions because he is guilty of those things.
[00:26:01] Speaker B: So switching topics a little, and we didn't talk about this beforehand, but I'm just curious, since this is on the news right now, you think those Epstein files need to come out?
[00:26:17] Speaker A: So, I. I don't.
I don't know. So here's my.
Did you ever watch, what was it, the Ashley Madison, where there's like an online leak of people that were using this website. And some. And, you know, I watched there was a documentary and some people had very innocent reasons for being on there and some just. It was such a minor involvement in, in what was going on and stuff. And so my only worry with the Epstein files being released is, is there, is there, are there going to be names where people are on there that really didn't do anything and this could completely, you know, destroy their reputation.
Because I don't believe we as the public at this point have the ability to comb through information educationally, you know, and that's proven. Whenever somebody's arrested for a crime, you can go and look at all the comments, oh, throw him in jail.
[00:27:21] Speaker B: Murder.
[00:27:21] Speaker A: You know, let's. Death penalty right now. And this is just a warrant. There's been no evidence at that point when somebody's been arrested, you know, turned over, no defenses given. I mean, I have seen somebody arrested for shoplifting and they. In a comment of somebody, you know, let's hang them up. So I don't know. I don't know that the public can handle a list of names and go through them and comb through them educationally and, and give people fair chances.
If there are names on that list that, you know, are not pedophiles should not be on there and we don't know why they are on there. I, I don't think the public can handle it, I will say, but I can. I would like them for myself and.
[00:28:07] Speaker B: There were certain celebrities on there. It would, I would naturally, it would break my heart to see certainly if I saw somebody like Tom Hanks on there or Paul Rudd, like if Paul Run was on something, it honestly would break my heart and I might cry a little bit because I love him and I just feel like he's such a good person, like easy to be with. So, I mean, it would be hard for me to go through it and not think, oh God, you're terrible, like you deserve to go to jail. And it would break my heart a little. So I don't know, I may be part of the public that can't handle it because it would break me a little.
[00:28:44] Speaker A: Yeah. And things like, we don't know. We don't know why their names. I mean, it might not mean anything. We. I don't know what, how Epstein had his files and what if somebody didn't do anything and he just hated them and so he put these people on the list like, you know, to make people think he did something when they didn't, but he just didn't like them or they crossed him for some reason and now he's put them on a list to make him look like a pedophile. I mean, I just don't know. But this man was not saying. I can't trust everything in his documentation.
And I would want to know, hey, why is this person on there? What's the allegation? What evidence do they have to prove this allegation? And unless all that's going to be be released as well, I don't, I don't know. I want to see it. I very much want to see it. I personally want it released for myself. But I just worry if there are people on there that are innocent and it would just ruin them if it came out.
[00:29:49] Speaker B: Well, yeah, I mean, you see, like some celebrities have been ruined. I mean, like, even when I talked about the Johnny Depp thing, I think he's bounced back from it, but it definitely, a lot of people, it ruined his reputation. He didn't really even do anything that bad. So I mean, like, I mean, he did bad stuff, but like he was a victim too kind of thing. So I definitely think, you know, the court of public opinion sometimes matters a whole lot more than the legal court in some situations. I mean, obviously if you go to jail, that's a big deal, but as far as if you're in Hollywood, like right now we have the whole still going on with Blake Lively and Justin, whatever. I can't remember his last name, but you know, people have already made opinions on that and that hasn't even gotten to court. And public opinion matters a lot. And I think if you're crucified in that, it can mean the end of your career.
[00:30:39] Speaker A: Now, I will say I, I do believe some, like maybe the FBI, I don't know, should have a lit and be able to conduct a proper investigation into the names to see who is a pedophile and if there's enough evidence to charge whomever and, you know, bring them to court, I do believe there should be an investigation into the files for sure. I just don't know that the public can handle them.
But I do think it should be investigated fully.
But, you know, thinking about these types of charges and people ruined Danny Masterson.
[00:31:21] Speaker B: That'S his name, right, from that 70 show.
[00:31:24] Speaker A: Yeah. You know, he was convicted of rape and Ashton Kutcher and his wife wrote letters to the judge for his sentencing and they were crucified for that. And it's hard, you know, they, in those letters, they're not saying that these victims are lying they're just. They just made a blanket statement about what Aldeni Masterson meant to them as a friend.
And, you know, we do that routinely on the defense side, is get letters of support for people whether they're guilty or not. It just goes for some people. If it's an isolated incident, it could show the prosecutor this is not a pattern of behavior and who this person is. But these letters humanize people, and they can be useful to a judge and stuff.
And, you know, there's plenty of people we can think of, loved ones that we love so much. If they were caught in even the worst of things, we may still write a letter just because we want to. You know, we've loved them for so long. And, you know, maybe it's a crime that we don't agree with, but if we can just show love to them, you know. But, you know, they got so. Like, Ashton and Mila got so much hate for. For doing that. And it's just something so standard in our world. I didn't think anything of it. I didn't think they were calling the victims liars or not liars. They were just literally writing a letter for a friend of theirs that they've had for decades and not knowing what to do. And maybe they're torn. Maybe they don't know if they were telling the truth because they're so close to him and can't imagine that he'd ever do something. And they're in a really hard position, but they were judged so harshly by the public after doing something so normal in the criminal world.
So, you know, I think about that with releasing the Epstein files, I just.
I don't know that the public can handle it with thoroughness.
[00:33:11] Speaker B: That makes sense. I do remember when that happened with Danny Masterson. I love that 70 show I grew up watching.
Really broke my heart that, yeah. You know, was this type person. Yes. And I remember, I think, when it happened, even, like, I think Topher Grace came out and made a statement kind of against what Ashton did, as they all. I think they all were friends on the show. Like, I do think that they were, but I think he kind of. I remember something where he kind of said something else, but it is definitely hard.
But I hope I didn't, like, drop the bomb on Lacey with that and have her too much in a position. But thank you all for joining us today.
We hope you enjoyed our little roundup of all these criminal activities and things. And we'll continue to do these every so often when we see big things happening in cases, especially legally, that we want to make sure you understand what it really means.
[00:34:04] Speaker A: Yeah.
So I hope people don't hate me after my P. Diddy analysis. But if you've got questions, if you disagree, hit me up, let me know.
Message us. And we'd be more than happy to dive in further if y' all have questions. If not, I think next week we're moving on to our Women series that we've talked about, killers, accused killers and stuff like that. So if you have any recommendations for stories to share. Again, we're going to go over Karen Reed, the coroner case that just happened in Myrtle beach, and a couple others. So we will see you next week.
[00:34:41] Speaker B: Bye.
[00:34:42] Speaker A: Bye.
