رونوشت کامل Alex Murdaugh Bombshell, the Bahamas Missing Wife & the Latest on the Menendez Brothers

former attorney Alex Murdoch's murder conviction. And this has to do with the twenty twenty one fatal stabbings of his wife, Maggie and his only nineteen year old son Paul. So what the justices as unconstitutional was the jury tampering by former court clerk Becky Hill that we were just referring to and Gee Hill as she was pressuring jurors to not be quote fooled by the fence. Also, the justices ruled that the judge who oversaw the case improperly allowed extensive testimony regarding Murda's financial crime, so that they were just excessive and it shouldn't have happened. So this original double murder trial, it previously exposed the absolute unraveling of Alex murdau crumbling financial empire, his wildly severe opioid addiction that was happening while he was going to work as an attorney. Even though right now the murder verdict has been overturned, Murda does remain imprisoned. He's serving a forty year sentence for stealing about twelve million dollars from his clients and his law firm. 00:07:04 Speaker 5: This guy, I mean, this was the trial of the century. Everybody I know watch this one, everybody. 00:07:12 Speaker 2: And there's been so many different versions of things to watch on this trial. You know, there were many documentaries from different angles. If you haven't seen the one with the children who were affected by Alex Murdau. Alex Murdaw's son who was also the victim in this remember he was as Paul Paul Murda. He was nineteen years old, as you mentioned, Courtney, and he was in a boating accident and in that boating accident one of his best friends was killed to Mallory Beach and he was looking at felony charges for voting under the influence. That trial was about to happen, and of course he was murdered prior to it. So you know, some of the chatter around this case was that Alex, who was a very prominent guy. If you've seen him on TV, he's the red haired guy. You've seen him at some point on the news. You couldn't escape this story. But basically the son is brought up on charges was about to stand trial. Alex's dad is a flaming drug addict in a way that we can't describe. I mean, he was taking up to sixty pills a day. Do the math on that, and was really out to lunch and embezzling money out of his clients' pockets. And this was like a generationally fancy family in the town. You know, they'd been there forever. Their name is on all sorts of buildings, so they've kind of had elite status that obviously Alex the dad, was clearly taking advantage of. But some speculated that because the son had this upcoming trial that really could have a not turned out well. Also would have been a total financial strain on the family. This guy's hiding up this crazy drug addiction, which is also not you know hat he helping finances for the family, and I think his wife was slowly starting to catch on. So these were messy times for the Murdoch family. This trial was wild. We actually weren't covering it real time often, so I'm sort of playing a little bit of catch up to it as well. In Boy, it's a tangled weave of terribleness. 00:09:24 Speaker 4: It really is, I mean, just complicated and yeah, to your point, many documentaries. So in terms of what's happening in this moment, the general, the Attorney General Alan Wilson, intends to seek a speedy murder retrial, and they're aiming for the end of the year. And actually, you know, they're saying, in light of the Supreme Court's decision, we're back to square one on this case, and that means that all our legal options are on the table, including the death penalty. 00:09:56 Speaker 5: Earlier point, I mean, this appealed to really backfire and some ways right like the death penalty could be on the table, and I don't know if that's ever happened before. This is something that we really should talk to Jarrett Farantino about. Has there ever been a case in recent history where there's an appeal and it's been one and the death penalty was added. I'd really like that. 00:10:20 Speaker 2: I mean, this is it's sort of yeah, this could be one of a kind in many ways. Also, there was the scripted version of this family Dynasty as well, starring what is his name? Well, the actress Patricia Arquette plays Alex Murdau's wife. 00:10:38 Speaker 3: In this film, and she's excellent in it. 00:10:40 Speaker 2: And it's a movie on Hulu, or it's a scripted series, I should say, on Hulu. My point being is everybody has seen some version of this case. If you haven't, it's very interesting and there's tons of content to see but if you're him looking at a death sentence trial, surely that's going to play a role. 00:11:01 Speaker 4: Absolutely, And the defense attorney representing him Dick hert Uh Carpooltian excuse me, yeah, Dick Carpuultian and Jim Gaffigan. So they're saying that, first of all, that the Attorney General is just using this as a political statement because he's in a current gubernatorial campaign, so he's saying that that's politicized. And then the defense attorney also hints it at potential new evidence and third party culprits, and he promised fascinating announcements at a news conference that's scheduled for tomorrow afternoon. 00:11:40 Speaker 5: Yeah, I'm going to be glued. We have right together. We'll be covering the group chat and watch it together. 00:11:48 Speaker 3: And sister. Yeah. So that's that's what's going on legally. 00:11:56 Speaker 4: And meanwhile, Buster Murda, the surviving son, he has absolutely stayed right by his father's side the whole time. 00:12:06 Speaker 2: I mean, this poor guy has been through a lot. Obviously, he's lost his mother, he lost his younger brother, and now dad behind bars. He also came under some suspicion in the death of Stephen Smith. Do you guys remember that he was a young man who was killed in twenty fifteen and Buster was being sort of linked to this that ended up not really panning out and kind of frankly went away. 00:12:32 Speaker 3: And Buster has stood by his dad. He has since. 00:12:34

Speaker 2: Remarried or not remarried, married for the first time back in twenty twenty five. And you know, again, all the family members have to go through this yet again. 00:12:46 Speaker 5: This is true crime tonight. We're on iHeartRadio. We talk true crime all the time. Or right in the middle of giving an update on the Alex Myrdal retrial, if he went away and give us a call. Eighty eight thirty one crime Stephanie, was that the young man that was hit on the road? That's correct, that's right, Yes, I do remember that, Nyeah, I did that did kind of go away? That is interesting, That is interesting. The murder just made a lot of troubles go away. They absolutely did. I mean they county. 00:13:15 Speaker 3: Yeah, that was kind of the lead to this. 00:13:17 Speaker 2: You know again, at the time, it seemed as though this was a really clean example of what we're seeing probably in many places and on many cases where whoever has the most money wins, right, So this was a family, or specifically a man, Alex, the dad who was pretty used to getting what he wanted whenever he wanted, and if not, his uncle would bail him out, or his dad would bail him out, or his granddaddy would bail him out. Like really being called to the carpet and having to be accountable was. 00:13:45 Speaker 3: Really not the Murdoch law. 00:13:48 Speaker 2: And now here's this son, Paul, who's nineteen years old looking to frankly could be up on these terrible felony charges. Where this happened in their town, a loved one, one of you know, the friends being killed. That was very divisive and many people feel like they were trying to pay their way out of having to deal with it. 00:14:08 Speaker 5: Well, and it went back, it went back really deep too. There was an oil painting of Alex Murdau's grandfather, he was the former solicitor Randolph Buster Murdall junior, and it was temporarily removed from the walls of the county courthouse because of this murder trial, Like they couldn't. The family is so influential in that county they had to remove paintings of their relatives or this trial, Well that's you know it goes deep. 00:14:36 Speaker 4: Well, I gotta say, this defense attorney has me hook line and sinker talking about the nursing party culprits and brand new evidence and all kinds of stuff coming out. 00:14:49 Speaker 3: The initial attorney. 00:14:51 Speaker 4: Just to quick aside, the defense attorney mentioned that the first trial costs six hundred one thousand dollars, but that was he was hired on a flat fee. And quote him, that case ain't over till it's over, So they're going to represent him gratis, you know, for the flat fee. And very understandably, the defense is pushing for a change of venue for the new trial. 00:15:17 Speaker 5: Ooh, I want to buy it will be granted, I have I don't know, I would imagine, but to. 00:15:22 Speaker 3: Quote Stephanie, you have to allot it on the moon. That's what I'm saying. 00:15:26 Speaker 2: I think this one might actually not happen, or yeah, it probably. 00:15:31 Speaker 3: Will get moved, but I don't know what good that will do. 00:15:35 Speaker 5: I don't know either, but we're definitely going to stick around and find out. And please stick around because we have coming up next. The disappearance of Lynette Hooker and the Bahamas takes a dark turn after federal agents sees the couple's sailboat and questions her husband's story. Keep it right here, True Grant Tonight. 00:16:01 Speaker 2: Welcome back to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio. We're talking true crime all the time. I'm Stephanie Leidecker here with Courtney Armstrong and Body Move in and listen. We have Robert rand joining us later in the show. You'll remember he's been on before talking about the Menendez brothers. He's an author and a journalist and very close close to the brothers. Believe it or not, it's been one year since their sentencing was denied, so there's lots of new activity happening around them. Plus this Bahamas story. You'll remember Lynnette Hooker, who you know, apparently went overboard while you know, with her husband on their boat, and she hasn't been found. And now there are these new developments from one of their family friends, Boddy. 00:16:46 Speaker 3: Do you want to give us a little bit of the scoop on this one. 00:16:49 Speaker 5: Yeah, for sure. So the search for you know, she's fifty five years old, Lynette Hooker, it's transitioned into a federal criminal investigation after she went missing from this dinghy right in the Bahamas on April fourth. So the story is is that you know her husband, Brian Hooker. He claimed there were a bunch of like rough waters and Lynnette Hooker fell overboard with the dinghy's little key to the engine, forcing him to like row this dinghy for like eight hours to the harbor. Okay, Brian Hooker. He was initially detained by the authorities for questioning, but he was released without charges and returned to the United States. 00:17:35 Speaker 7: Well. 00:17:36 Speaker 5: Last week, the US Coast Guard intercepted and seized the couple sailboats or the couple's sail boat right, and federal agents are currently processing the sailboat for forensic evidence. Fox News is now reporting that Blaine Stevenson, he's a friend of Brian Hooker. He said that after a three to four hour search with officials on the fifth, which is the day he would have landed on shore to look for her, Brian Hooker returned to his sailboat and remained there for about twenty four hours. 00:18:14 Speaker 3: So bank of that. 00:18:15 Speaker 2: So that means he could have been with any evidence, if there was any that was still there. 00:18:21 Speaker 3: Why would they let him do that? 00:18:23 Speaker 5: Right? Well, so I would am I thought they would have like you know, uh, sealed off the sailboat, right, But apparently they didn't really think it was criminal at this point, so he just laughed out there is a world that we live in in which he was exhausted and had to get some

sleep or something. Right, we can live in that world for a moment, give him the benefit of the doubt. He was searching for his wife. He had been rowing all night long to get to shore, and then he spends three to four hours searching with the authorities for his wife. And then what do you do. You leave and you go to your sailboat and go to sleep, Like, what do you do in that situation? 00:19:03 Speaker 2: Well, just playing devil's advocate here, is it possible that he was so exhausted and devastated, which is incredibly fatiguing. 00:19:11 Speaker 3: Obviously he's panicked. 00:19:13 Speaker 2: Now he needs to sleep while authorities in the Bahamas are doing their job, so he decides to go maybe rest his eyes for a little bit. I can get on board with that. I mean, twenty four hours is a little extreme, Like, that's Brian, I think we need to get up a little early and get back looking for your wife. That's the part that I think we all get confused by. We're getting allegedly allegedly allegedly. We're not accusing Brian Hooker of murdering his beloved wife, but remember, Lynnette's daughter has some she had her own suspicions about whether or not Brian was involved. Brian said he would never leave the island until she was found, which you would imagine would be so of course he left the island, you know, twelve hours after saying that and really hasn't been back. So was that a cleanup job that he went to the boat to make sure that police would never find any evidence, And maybe he had to go back to the United States to also hide any information that would suggest maybe they were fighting or there was a problem. 00:20:14 Speaker 5: If something did happen on the boat. Let's live in that world where something happened on the sailboat, wouldn't he clean it up before he landed in marsh Harbor? Like, wouldn't he have cleaned it up before getting on the dinghy and pretending to be like lost and stranded and that his wife you know, fell over? 00:20:31 Speaker 4: Well, But but I mean, did you ever leave your house and think for a hot second, oh, did I leave a light on or a burner on or something like? Can you imagine the compulsion to double check your work. Absolutely if in fact a crime occurred, you let see, you thought you did a good job. But I'm sure alarms would be going off in anyone's head if in fact that's. 00:20:55 Speaker 2: Or maybe he thought she would returned to this boat. I just can't believe that sweet Lynnette is still missing. So there's no assumption of her being dead. Why is there an assumption that she's not going to turn up? Like why would Brian, her husband, go back to the United States and not be compelled to be there for her return. It's like he's almost jumped to the conclusion that she's not coming home. 00:21:20 Speaker 5: Right. While the Blaine Stevenson hit the friend of Brian Hooker, he went on, he kind of mimics what you just said there. He said he was shocked that Brian Hooker didn't make more of an effort to find his wife.

And he said, at no point did he really look at the situation and give anybody any more details than he had at the beginning when supposedly he was in shock. So he lands he gives the authorities the general information we were on this dinghy. The waters were rough and the current and the crosswinds and whatnot. She fell off the boat, she had the vessel I couldn't the engine was dead. He didn't give them any more details apparently after that. According to that part, it's just wild. 00:22:03 Speaker 2: And we've all interviewed, and I can just speak for myself. This is a personal thought. We've spoken to so many mothers and fathers who have missing children, and it's literally all they can talk about think about. You can't eat, drink, or sleep without this being the first and last thought that you come to. It actually sounds like the worst case scenario a human being could be in missing somebody they love because you never have that closure, right, It's never enough if you sleep for two hours, you should only have slept for one because maybe you can find them. So yeah, just the idea that from an optics perspective, even that he is so low key about finding her, and then furthermore, going past the optics, he would be you would imagine him screaming and crying and the guilt in the worry or the assumption until we find her body, we are not giving up. 00:22:55 Speaker 3: He just goes back to the real world. 00:22:57 Speaker 2: That none of that makes sense, And I think I'm not alone in this I think collectively we're all curious why Brian Hooker isn't stepping up to the bat. 00:23:07 Speaker 5: Right, So let's just go through a timeline so that the listeners and us to get re caught up right. So this apparently happened the night of April fourth, that she fell into the water. Okay, April fifth, because of course midnight passes, so April fifth, Brian Hooker, he paddles that disabled dinghy for about eight hours into Marsh Harbor and he starts raising the alarm and according to the friend Blaine Stevenson, after three to four hours and a rescue patrol, Brian Hooker returned to the Soulmate, which is her sailboat, and remained alone on board for nearly twenty four hours. That was April fifth. April sixth, Brian Hooker. He would go on to stay at the conch Inn, which is in Marsh Harbor, and he stayed there until he was arrested. On April eighth, a police force came. They arrested him for questioning regarding cause harm resulting in death due to narrative inconsistencies, which is interesting to me, right, So they that's. 00:24:14 Speaker 2: Very interesting right, what lies meaning he's not keeping his story straight, right, that's the implication in that, that's. 00:24:22 Speaker 5: The implication that maybe he said, you know, she fell off and they had the key, and then maybe they found the key on the dinghy in question, and he was like, oh, I didn't realize it was there. You know that kind of stuff. I think. You know, I'm not saying they hip have the key. I'm just saying, like, you know, things like that. So they arrested him on April eighth, and they kept him as long as possible. You know, they can only hold you for so long. On April thirteenth, due to those statutory limits of holding him, they did not file any formal charges, so they had to release him, and then he left. He gets out and he goes, I'm not leaving until I find my wife, right. And he gets out and he goes home. He goes home and he says that my mom is ill. I need to get out of here. So he leaves the Bahamas. That was April thirteenth. On almost a month later, right May eighth through the tenth, the soul Meat, which is the sailboat, is spotted leaving the Bahamas mooring and it was crude by two men. The US Coast Guard intercepts and seizes the sailboat just off the course off the coast of Melbourne, Florida. 00:25:33 Speaker 4: Listen, if you are just joining us, this is true crime tonight. And we're talking about fifty five year old Lynette Hooker. She's the woman who allegedly fell off a boat in the Bahamas. This happened in early April. She is still missing. Her husband, Brian Hooker is being looked at with the raised eyebrow. 00:25:52 Speaker 3: There are I don't. 00:25:53 Speaker 4: Believes unless it's changed body. There are no charges in this moment. 00:25:57 Speaker 5: Correct, none right now? Yeah, none right now. And the friend you know is really kind of questioning him. And this is Brian Hooker's friend. And he says, you know the friend, and it says other friends they noticed a distinct lack of urgency, and they started criticizing Brian Hooker for isolating on himself on that sailboat for nearly twenty four hours instead of actively assisting in their recovery mission. And here's what he says. So, the incident happened Saturday, April fourth, at seven point thirty. He came ashore at four a m. The search and rescue took him out for three or four hours and brought him back to his boat. He sat on his boat for almost twenty four hours until the search and rescue brought him his dinghy. So once he got his dinghy, he went to the hotel. You know, he's kind of trapped on the on the sailboat. Really, right, I don't know at no m. It is very strange, it is. And listen, I'm not really familiar with the Bahama Bahamas police force. Right, they might we have to give, you know, some kind of devil's advocacy here. They might have said, listen, this guy's becoming a nuisance. We can't actively search for his wife with him in tow. Okay, if we come across her body, that's the last thing we want him to see. Right. They could have been like, dude, you have to go back to your boat. They could have right, you're a nuisance, you're caught. You know, you're you're acting irrational because maybe he was frantic. I don't know, but according to his friend that he was. You know, there was really this no urgency. But if they dropped him off on his boat, as this says, the police dropped him off on the boat and he's moored. He's stranded on the

boat without a dinghy. Hmm, right, right, they delivered the dinghy and he he goes and checkson into a hotel. I don't know, but he had twenty four hours to clean up that boat. If something did happen. 00:28:09 Speaker 2: Even the idea of him going to a hotel is weird. This is all so strange, And again the jurisdiction is an issue. So ultimately, if there is perhaps something found or identified on the boat that now the US has capsized or taken not capsized, capsize means it tipped over. 00:28:28 Speaker 3: I don't mean that. Yeah, I'm not the fisherman. 00:28:31 Speaker 8: I am not. 00:28:32 Speaker 2: But if they've taken that into custody and they find something, then he would in fact be extradited, not back to the Bahamas. 00:28:40 Speaker 3: Well, I don't know. 00:28:42 Speaker 5: This is an interesting legal question. The boat is an American boat, it's got an American flag, it's registered to the American like to the United States. Is it considered United States land at that point? Right? Did the if something happened on the boat and she was God forbid murdered, would the murder have taken place on the United States soil because it's a United States vessel. I don't know. I'm not a lawyer. 00:29:12 Speaker 7: Yeah, that's a maybe a jagged question, or we'll have to dig in. 00:29:18 Speaker 5: And I think that, you know, I think the officials do think something happened on that boat, because right before it was you know, captured, the coast Guard put out a kind of a call. Uh, they said, who the sailboat that was parked parked moored next to the soulmate, if you were parked next to that you know, sailboat, let us know. Obviously they think something happened that night on that boat, and they want to know if anybody heard or saw anything. And they're looking specifically for the boat that was moored right next to them. So they and and they captured the boat. They really think something happened on the boat, right, I still don't you think? 00:30:04 Speaker 7: It's still odd though, that during a search and rescue they would allow someone back onto the boat. Like that's the part that I would I'm going to have to dig into this to see in a search and rescue, would you let someone who is let's say the only person that was involved with that person back onto the boat. 00:30:20 Speaker 8: That that. 00:30:22 Speaker 5: If you're let's say your child goes missing, right, right, and they go back in the house. The parents go back in the house, right, something could have happened in there, right. The default is that your child ran away or you know, it's something. It's not that you did something. So the default I believe for the police is we have to find the missing. We have to find Lynette. This accident happened, she fell off. You know, they're believing his story, right, right. I mean, maybe things need to change the way investigations are handled, but I do believe that's how it is handled right now. 00:30:58 Speaker 4: Yeah, Brian Hooker does have He's hired an attorney. She's based in Michigan, and her name is Crystal Marie Hauser, and I just wanted to put out there she has urged public restraint and suggested, you know, trauma shop they manifest really uniquely in individuals, so we all handle things differently. 00:31:19 Speaker 3: So I just wanted to give voice to that. 00:31:22 Speaker 2: And we have a very special guest back with us, Robert rand who's also an author and a journalist. 00:31:28 Speaker 3: He's been on many times. 00:31:30 Speaker 2: It's the one year anniversary of the Menendez brothers having their resentencing. Basically tossed momentarily, as Robert will tell us, and I know you've spoken to him recently, Robert, so welcome back to the show. Because the Menandez brothers, Eric and Lyle are really hoping that they'll have another swing at freedom. 00:31:55 Speaker 8: Well, remember that this case is thirty six years old. Actually, August twenty nineteen or twenty twenty sixth will be the thirty six year anniversary of the crime. The brothers were arrested in March of nineteen ninety and back in nineteen ninety, you know, there was no Internet, there was no social media, so you just had the old school, primary legacy media, and the story they were putting out was green rich kids killed this lovely couple on a Sunday night in Beverly Hills. And that turned out not to be the story, but that's the story that people were initially spoon fed. So the fact that let's fast forward to a year ago this week, that Eric, Alumnandez were resentenced from the original sentence at the end of their second trial in March of ninety sixth. The original sentence was life without parole, and now they have been re sentenced to fifty years of life, which makes them immediately eligible for parole in California. They appeared before the par board at the end of last August. They were found not suitable for parole. But they're going to be back again in front of the pro board, probably in sometime in early twenty twenty seven. 00:33:35 Speaker 4: Oh so, in the scope of things, twenty the beginning of twenty twenty seven, given that this is now thirty six years in time from the actual crime, you know, that's a half a year away. And by the way, if you're just joining us, this is true crime tonight, and we're joined by Robert Rand. 00:33:53 Speaker 8: Now. 00:33:53 Speaker 4: Robert is an Emmy and DuPont winning award winning journalist and he's covered the Menendez brother's case since the day after those murders that all those thirty six years ago, and Robert interviewed Eric and Lyle Menendez both before the arrests. He has attended both trials and still speaks directly to the family. Also, if you want more information, Robert Rand also is the author of The Menendez Murders, The Shocking, Untold Story of the Menendez Family and the killings that stunned the nation. And lastly, Robert is executive producer of Menendez and Menudo boys betrayed. So all that to say, Robert knows the case of Eric and

Lyle Menendez inside and out, and they are in prison, of course for shooting and killing their parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez back in Beverly Hills. So so Robert, So one year after those resentencing hearings. 00:35:02 Speaker 3: Where are we today? 00:35:04 Speaker 4: So are we just waiting for for early twenty twenty seven for a new trial or what's happening. 00:35:13 Speaker 8: In early twenty twenty seven, Eric Lyilemandez will go back in from the California proward in separate hearings. Remember these are actually two different cases. We think of them as one case because they're Thennda's brothers, but they are two separate individual cases. And in August twenty twenty five, the brothers had their first chance to speak to the pro Award and the first day was Eric Mendez's hearing, which lasted about ten hours. The second day was Lylemandez's hearing that lasted about eleven hours. The typical pro board hearing in California is two to three hours, so this was very strange. You know, I've actually read the hearings were not livestream anywhere. There was a pool reporter in Sacramento at the CDCR headquarters, and you know, obviously there was a lot that went on in the twenty one hours of hearings. But one of the things that happened was, I think the pro board made it very clear to Eric and Wile what they had to do to come back and be successful in asking for their release, right. 00:36:50 Speaker 5: And that was followed like the rules, right, like to. 00:36:52 Speaker 8: The latteral law right. I mean, it's kind of crazy, but actually both brothers had individual cell phone possession violations after the rescensing process had started with former DA George Gascon in October of twenty four And I know, you know, the average person is going to say, yeah, what's the big deal. You know, why is a cell phone such a big issue? And here's the reason why. Because the only way that inmates can get cell phones in a prison is if they are smuggled in by a guard. And that's obviously a problem. If inmates have cell phones, hypothetically they could you know, be involved in criminal activity, setting them drug deals, maybe setting up an escape. 00:37:56 Speaker 9: And so. 00:37:58 Speaker 8: That's why it's a serious issue to the person. Officials and by the way. 00:38:04 Speaker 2: While that is for sure and infraction, I must say, like so many of the prisoners that we've even dealt with in projects, it's a pretty common thing as well. So if you're looking to make sure someone gets dinged and has a reason to not make this parole, yes, that's something to point to. But it's not as though they were egregiously doing something that is not air quotes fairly common. I know, Robert, you spoke with the brothers very recently. How are their spirits and how are they holding up? 00:38:38 Speaker 8: Actually, they're holding up very well. Both brothers completed the programs for their Bachelor of Arts degrees in twenty twenty four, and there's a program at RJ. Devin

Person near San Diego that's run through youse See Irvine in which inmates can take classes by zoom to achieve their college degrees. And Lyle is actually working on his MBA degree, so he's gone beyond the BA and now he's going for an NBA. But basically they're good spirits. They're just really doing the same thing that they were doing before the spotlight came back on the case, which is they are teaching classes to help other inmates. They are really have become a service to their inmate community. And these are things, as I said, that they were doing before. They are not you know, they didn't just start, you know, doing things after the media spotlight was on the case. 00:40:05 Speaker 5: You followed this case longer, I think than anyone. You've followed it since the beginning, since nineteen eighty nine. If you had to point out the biggest misconception people still have about the Menendez case and the Menendez brothers, what would that be. 00:40:22 Speaker 8: The biggest problem When the media coverage of the case, particularly the original media coverage in the nineteen nineties, was that Erkilil Menandez were a pair of greedy, rich kids who killed their parents because they were in a hurry to inherit their state. And that is not the actual story. You know, the way things were back in nineteen ninety when the brothers were arrested, the DA's office here in La County had a dozen people that did nothing but public relations. They did spin. In other words, if I had to poison the potential jury pool by putting out a story, and which was their story, their point of view, and also mainstream media, you know, really signed on to that greedy rich kids story, and so, as I said, there was no internet, no social media, so it's very difficult for a dependent to fight back once the media had decided, oh, this is your story, this is your log line. 00:41:34 Speaker 4: Absolutely, And you know, with TikTok and all of social media in general, how much do you think that's shaping the public perception of the brothers, particularly with younger audiences who are consuming that. 00:41:50 Speaker 8: I believe that TikTok, Instagram, social media have become a huge positive issue for the brothers. My son, who's fourteen at the time, came to me in the summer of twenty twenty and he said, Dad, you have to look at TikTok. It's full of Menendez Brothers' videos and oviusly I knew what kaktokws play, didn't have an account on it. Now I do, And I went down the rabbit hole and for three or four hours, I just watched video after video, and I kept watching TikTok over the next few months, and I called a friend of mine, an editor at the New York Times, and I said, something really strange is going on. And so they actually ran a major story in February twenty one, and so this whole you know, interest by social media goes back that far. It didn't just happen with the Monsters Menandez that premiered in twenty twenty four, followed by Netflix documentary. But this was building not only in the stakes, but also all over the world. There are people, actually there are more social media followers outside of the US than in the US. 00:43:17 Speaker 2: Kind of interesting, you know, thinking of like you know, when the murders actually happened, sort of, the infamy of the case probably worked against them, right because their origin story didn't really come out. They were subjected to an imaginable abuse by their father, which you know may have informed the sentencing. But ironically, I think I ironic would be the right word. You know, cut to decades later, because of that fame and infamy, they were selected to be the story in the scripted version of the Menendez Brothers story, which you know was a Ryan Murphy scripted show on FX, and that really reinvigorates some of the interest in the case. 00:44:03 Speaker 3: So many years later. 00:44:05 Speaker 8: I would like to thank Ryan Murphy because I sold more books in the past eighteen months than in the previous seven years since the original version of the book came out. However, don't take Monsters Menendez as one hundred percent fact because there are a number of fictionalized scenes. But regardless, that's okay, because you know, the case was so the coverage of the case was so one sided by the media at the time of trials in the nineteen nineties that the fact that you know, a major dreamer would release something that was somewhat sympathetic to the Brothers, I think that reflects the change of the public and also the social media sport. 00:45:00 Speaker 5: Absolutely right. And you mentioned you know the books. We know you're working on some new projects right now. Can you tell us about about one of them or two of them. 00:45:10 Speaker 8: I'm actually working out a new book I'm related to the Brothers that will probably come out in about a year. It's a story I've been reporting on for ten years. I can't tell you or I will tell you that. 00:45:26 Speaker 3: Geezer. 00:45:28 Speaker 8: But I am about to launch a Menandez Brothers subsect because I have so many banker boxes of files sitting in a room in my house, and so I want to unload some of my archives and most of the post on the upcoming subsect will be available free to subscribers. 00:45:56 Speaker 5: Well, you're going to have to come back and tell us all about the sub sect because I definitely want to subscribe to it. Robert, thank you so much for joining us tonight. We always appreciate your insight and insight into this case. And for anyone wanting to go deeper into the Menenda story, please check out Robert Rand's book, The Updated Edition The Menendez Murders. It can be found on Amazon and other major book websites. Also check out the Peacock documentary Mendes and Menendo Boys Betrayed. Robert, It's always so good to see you. And coming up at the top of the hour, there's new FBI details from Brian Coberger's family after the Idaho student murders, while Harvey Weinstein's legal chaos deepens again.

Don't forget to give us a call eight at eight thirty one Crime Keep it right here, True Crime Tonight. 00:46:54 Speaker 2: Welcome back to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio. We're talking true crime all the time. I'm Stephanie Leidecker with Courtney Armstrong and Body. Move in and listen. If you are just joining us or missed any of the first hour of the show, remember you can always catch us right after as a podcast and you can call us live eight eight eight three one crime. In fact, we have a caller right now, Amanda, welcome to the show. 00:47:18 Speaker 3: We're so glad to have you. Hi. Yeah, I love it so oh we're so. 00:47:23 Speaker 10: Glad to call you guys for a month. Yeah, me and my husband are addicted. Oh yah, yeah, it's awesome. We had a question about Lynette Hooker, So when was the last time that she was seen with her husband, because like our question is he could have killed her before and then threw her off out in the ocean, Like because it was me or my husband, we would have jumped in in that boat thing. I saw the picture. It's so small, Like, how would you not know that she went in right? Amanda labbed her like, there's yes, you. 00:47:55 Speaker 5: Are hitting to the crux of the situation. In my opinion, this is body by the way, you are hitting the nail on the head. Because I don't know if you remember the bartender, right, the bartender on the fourth they supposedly went to this bar, right, and he said that Brian Hooker was really nice to him, and you know, he ordered a couple of drinks and he commented about how at least he was with the service being so quick, and he said that everything seemed very normal. But he also said, very importantly, he also said he never laid eyes on the wife. Right, the wife was never with him, that's right. So could it be could it be that, yes, your theory is correct that he did this maybe on April third or the second, we did something terrible, right, But yeah, you know, she didn't go to the restaurant, and this was all just a ruse to kind of like give attention that he was actually at the restaurant with his wife when he actually maybe never was at all. However, according to investigators and Brian Hooker's own account, Lynnette was reportedly last seen alive on that evening of April fourth, around sunset roughly at seven point thirty while in that dinghy. But you know, it's really unclear though how accurate this all is. This and remembered in another country. 00:49:17 Speaker 2: And by the way, Amanda, just to add to that, this is Steph, just to kind of add to your theory with your husband, and by the way, thank him for listening as well. You know, is it possible that maybe Lynette lost her life on land and listen, maybe it was accidental. Maybe it was, you know, not nefarious. I'm going to give Brian Hooker the benefit of the doubt here because we don't want to accuse anybody of murder. However, from an optics perspective, this is not looking great. And if it's possible that this murder happened elsewhere and he disposed of the body and then came up with this pococta plan that would at least explain some of the behaviors that we're seeing from him. 00:49:55 Speaker 3: On the flip of that. 00:49:56 Speaker 2: Is it possible that Look, yeah, the guy's been through a traumatic event. Who's to say how he's going to respond. Maybe he's sick in the bed, licking his wounds and caring for his mother. 00:50:06 Speaker 3: Maybe this is just an. 00:50:08 Speaker 2: Issue of optics and not actually an issue of crime. 00:50:12 Speaker 5: What do you think, Court, I. 00:50:13 Speaker 4: Mean, I think it's fishy. And I was I was the last one on board. I was like, leave this man alone, letting him grieve. We don't know, you don't know that's what you want to do. 00:50:24 Speaker 5: You want to you know, if he's a victim, you don't want to like make him look bad, right, you don't want to talk about him. 00:50:31 Speaker 2: Yeah, But remember even the daughter his you know, his stepdaughter maybe was raised by for twenty plus years. Even she came out and said that she had her suspicions. She wasn't standing up saying, oh, my stepdad would never do that, because they also had a pretty contentious relationship. By several accounts, they've police were called to their home more than once. So there's a little bit of history here, is my point. 00:50:58 Speaker 10: Yeah, definitely, Ada, you're just a rock star. 00:51:01 Speaker 3: Yeah, thank you for calling. 00:51:03 Speaker 10: Yeah, thank you. Well, definitely call back. We listen every night you guys are on. 00:51:08 Speaker 5: Oh great, Yeah, definitely love about that. Don't be a stronger. Thank you, Amanda. We really do appreciate it. But yeah, until this timeline is really setting stone on what when Lynette Hooker was actually had the last eyes light on her. It's really kind of murky right now. So stay tuned for that. Will definitely be following it along. But I have some news in Brian Coberger if we want to dig into that for a little bit. 00:51:29 Speaker 3: Yes, yes, and the handle it. 00:51:32 Speaker 5: I know, I hate that we have to keep talking about, you know, Brian Coberger, but you know, there's this new book out and whatnot, and you know, there's a lot of information that's coming out about it. There was a book came out in April of last month. It's called Broken Plea, and it's written by a former FBI agent and a defense forensic expert, and it's revealed a lot of sealed details about the investigation and all the trial preparations that were happening in the Idaho student murderer's case. Right, And these defense arguments never faced a jury because Brian Coberger, of course pled guilty to those crime, that crime in the summer of twenty twenty five, to that quadruple murders in Moscow, Idaho, all to avoid the death penalty, right, and he received four consecutive life sentences without parole. However, the books disclosures have triggered backlash from Brian Coberger's defense

counsel, who accused one of the co authors of violating a strict confidentiality agreement. This controversy is unfolding alongside a separate criminal investigation into the highly sensitive pre pre leaks that happened to NBC's Dateline and you know victims. Some of the victim's families believe that these leaks fundamentally ended the chance for a clean trial, which is why Brian Coburger plied. I mean, there's a lot of things going on right now. 00:53:07 Speaker 3: I don't disagree. 00:53:08 Speaker 2: By the way, this is really messy and extremely unfortunate. So it just to kind of set the table a little bit if you're just playing catch up to this case. We made the podcast The Idaho Massacre. You can also download that on your iHeartRadio app. And then Kat also made the documentary for Peacock that's out now called The Idaho Student Murders. And I say that simply to make the point that we have been following this case very very closely for a really long time, and parts of it really didn't add up. And I'm going to speak for myself. You guys have heard this before. We've said this many times. I was probably the last person to really get on board with Brian Coberger's guilt. I was really holding out hope that maybe he was not the guy, and that this PhD student was just weird and maybe not capable of something so grizzly, because remember, there was no known connection between the accused Brian Coburger now convicted, and the victims, and that level of stranger danger is very is very rare, right, that would make this a straight up thrill kill, which is extra disturbing giving the circumstances that Brian Coburger was getting his PhD in criminal psychology and he was going to become a criminologist, or getting his PhD rather in criminology, and that he was studying the exact thing that he would later be accused of. So that's always been a backdrop that's hard to shake, and we've heard many mixed things, and probably until the date line leaks, I was still very much on the what if he didn't, What if he didn't, What if he didn't, What if he didn't. At that point it seemed ooh, these leaks are pretty bad, and it had some really very relevant information of the amount of pings he'd been in and around the area. I think somewhere around twenty three times. That's hard to explain away. That he had purchased the cobar, the bar, the knife that was used in this hideous murder. Remember, whoever did this, Brian Coberger would have stabbed one hundred and fifty times these beautiful four young children, young adults, I should say. So this is a real grizzly typically an intimate thrill kill if you're using a knife a k bar. That's kind of when this all went a little fishy to hear now after the fact that there was in fact some real questions behind closed doors with his defense team, and that the chain of custody, for example, with the DNA under the snap, if that was being brought under suspicion or if they were having a hard time piecing stuff together. That's all very relevant information but is not great information to hear about today like that to me is a real a real shame. But at the same time, what do you think, Boddy, I see you just made it a face. 00:56:06 Speaker 5: So the whole chain of custody thing with the sheath that you're talking about, I don't think it's anything. And this is something that we really should discuss with Josephcott Morgan. Maybe we can talk about it with him on Tuesday when he's here. 00:56:18 Speaker 3: But it's a great idea. 00:56:20 Speaker 5: The whole thing that they're talking about in the book is that you know, the handwriting something with the signatures on the bag. 00:56:27 Speaker 3: That's right. 00:56:28 Speaker 5: The issue with that is is people don't really use those. That's not like a legal chain of custody. It's all done. It's all technical now, it's all done via barcodes that are underneath all that stuff. So the front facing thing that you and I see when we look at photos is it's not really anything. It's not what they use for chain of custody. So there's a lot of things in this book. In my opinion, only in this something that again we should just discuss with Joseph. I'm not an expert, so let me just say that really quick. I think a lot of it is explosive for book sales, and I think that people need to be very careful about what they believe. 00:57:07 Speaker 4: And I have to say that Ann Taylor, who was Brian Coberger's defense attorney, who put up any and every imaginable motion, she just really seemed to do an incredibly excited job. 00:57:21 Speaker 3: Job she is. 00:57:25 Speaker 2: I think she yeah, alibi, I don't know. I'm not sure that I agree. Sorry, oh, fair, that's fair. 00:57:31 Speaker 4: But you can't make something out of absolutely you can't say that Julie saw you that night if Julie didn't see you that night. But anyway, yes, the plea was ridiculous, but what are you gonna do? But this book The Broken Plete. It's co author, but it's a former FBI agent and a defense expert, Brent Turvey. Well Ann Tayler, the defense defense attorney, is is craised and saying that Brent Turvey, he absolutely is still under a confidentiality agreement that what he has put out should not it's outside of his purview of expertise. And I got to hop on what you said body of you know, some of it may well be incendiary for book sales, and don't forget. 00:58:17 Speaker 3: It doesn't matter though, yes, go ahead, Boddy. 00:58:20 Speaker 5: This is the guy also that won't talk to investigators about the dateline week. Same guy, okay, but he's you know, doing a YouTube tour about everything, but he won't talk to the investigators about the leak. Even though in her statement and Taylor says that she has given him permission to talk to investigators. He's saying, no, I can't because I'm under this you know straight. 00:58:43 Speaker 3: You can't have it both ways, is the point. 00:58:45 Speaker 2: You can write a book in my tell all and at the same time, you know,

be kind of careful about what you're saying because you have this non disclosure agreement, just you know, for the inside baseball of it all. It's very common to have a non disclosure agree basically in anything we do in true crime, because it's sensitive information. You don't want things being repeated. Stories change, they evolve, so it has to be considered very sacred, certainly if you're the defense attorney. By the way, this was a death sentence trial who it had been through now at change of venue, You'll remember it was moved from Moscow. We were at the finish line for this trial. So this is pretty sensitive, sacred stuff. That's not the kind of thing that you think should be you know, paraded about after the fact. The dateline leak, though, is extremely serious. Agree, And if he was associated with that dateline leak, which he claims he was. 00:59:40 Speaker 3: Not, that's also extremely serious. 00:59:44 Speaker 2: And much like the murder's story that we covered at the top of the show, where you know, justice was interrupted because somebody was being messy, this would apply here too. I don't know if I'm on the coburger side or if I'm the victims' families, I would feel an annoyed by all of this because it did it undermined the process. 01:00:04 Speaker 5: You know, Steph, you mentioned the alibi and how silly it was, and I agree it was one hundred percent silly. The alibi was that he was out stargazing. Okay, right, and I'm just making insistinct, but he was basically out stargazing and he did have the service because he was out in the middle of nowhere. Okay at I think Laki Ki Park or something, I can't remember. Any who, AnyWho, if Ann Taylor is going to submit that as his alibi, and I do agree with Courtney, I do believe Ann Taylor fought and she submitted motion after motion after motion. If there was really an issue with chain of custody and the biggest piece of evidence they had against him, which was his DNA on that sheath, don't you think she would have put in emotion to exclude that evidence. 01:00:46 Speaker 3: I do, I do, I mean I do too. 01:00:50 Speaker 2: But again, the chain of custody is a very big deal. I would think generally speaking, this case had some flaws. The crime scene hadn't been secured course, a bunch of photographs of people tracking in and out of that that were not wearing proper you know, gloves, and they were not you know, sacred about the crime scene. If I'm Ann Taylor, I'm defending somebody for their life. I think there were enough holes in this case that this trial might have surprised us. And I've often been curious about why he pled out in the eleventh hour, because what did he have to lose at that point he was going full throttle one way or the other his life. Yes, but again looking at his life now, there was a lot of holes in this case. They didn't really have his face in that alauntra Now there's being some chatter online that there was another car in the area that looked very similar. There's

you know, other accounts in chatter that there was more blood that was found at the crime scene that was never tested. You know, this is all stuff, But would that stuff have been meaningful a trial. We truly will never know. And it's people like this that would prevent that from happening in future trials. 01:01:59 Speaker 4: Shame them, Shame my goodness. Well, listen, do stick around because we're going to talk about the Elon Musk and the Sam Altman courtroom war that's happening. 01:02:10 Speaker 3: It's gotten dark. 01:02:11 Speaker 4: Keep it here a True Crime Tonight. 01:02:23 Speaker 2: Welcome back to True Crime Tonight on iHeartRadio. We're talking true crime all the time. I'm step here with the Courtney and with body, and we also have producer Taha with us, and Sam and Adam are in the control room in case you want to join us Live eight at eight to three. 01:02:39 Speaker 3: One crime. 01:02:40 Speaker 2: So Harvey Weinstein at it again, his third time up to bat and by the way, this might. 01:02:48 Speaker 4: Go on forever. Courtney, do you want to fill us in? Yeah, third time for Harvey Weinstein. Schild is not a charm. So on Friday, a Manhattan judge declared a mistrial again, and this of course refers to the absolutely disgraced producer Harvey Weinstein. And it's a rape trial where the jury became hopelessly deadlock. They were deliberating for more than two days. And this indeed is the third time that Weinstein faced charges for allegedly raping a woman named Jessica Man. She's an inspiring actress. And this goes all the way back to an incident that was in a motel excuse me, a Manhattan hotel room back in twenty twenty three. So it just like you said, it just kind of keeps going on infinitely. Initially the case resulted in a twenty twenty conviction, but that was later overturned. The second trial also had a deadlock jury on the rape count. And you know, following this consecutive mistrial, the Manhattan District attorney his name's al Alvin Bragg, So now it's time to decide if his office is going to try to try Harvey Weinstein for the fourth time. I mean, what do you guys think? 01:04:19 Speaker 5: All right, listen, I'm not in the business of defending sex crimes. I'm just not right. But at what point do you say, Okay, this is the fourth time. There is no legal limit, by the way, he can get retried a bunch of times. But at what point, as a taxpayer, let's say that has to pay for these trials, at what point do you say, Okay, you've tried, you've tried, you've tried, it's not working out. At what point do you do that? However, the victim in this case, I'm sure, wants there to be a conviction, which I completely support. But I mean, what you have to face reality. This is the now the third time that the jury's by deadlock to not be able to come to a decision. The case is either not ready or it's just they don't have enough evidence. 01:05:09 Speaker 2: But it's possible that I don't know how to say this correctly. I'm going to choose

my words carefully. Is it possible that the times have changed in terms of juries and the jury pool. We were in the Me too movement and maybe it's just a function of some of the cases that we talk about here every night, but it feels like we don't anymore. You know, the Me Too movement had such a moment and everybody was rallying, and it feels like so many of the cases that we've covered that have at its core a sexual predator or predators kind of goes no place that they get light sentences, that they don't really get tried, or there's no accountability whatsoever. So here's Harvey Weinstein, who really, did, you know, take the hit frankly, rightfully so back in the day, and now here we are years later, and the climate seems to have changed to, hey, we don't actually care that much about women who are being sexually assaulted. 01:06:13 Speaker 3: Sorry to me. 01:06:14 Speaker 2: That is a takeaway of twenty twenty six. On the one hand, finally victims are feeling empowered to speak up and speak their truths, and hopefully they're realizing that they're so not alone, and that there's so many women especially, but women and men who have faced some level of either sexual or domestic violence in some way. I mean, the numbers are staggering, and you know, we're all sort of getting the courage to say something and speak up. Let's be honest, it goes nowhere. So is that somehow playing a role in this jury pool when it comes to Harvey Weinstein? 01:06:52 Speaker 3: Does that mean sense? Do you see what I'm saying? It does make sense? 01:06:55 Speaker 4: And that's you know, that's a lot of what There was a statement from Jessica Man and we'll get to more of it in a little bit, but what she said was, you know, I've submitted myself to the highest standards transparency and accountability and coming forward through the justice system, choosing integrity even when the process flayed me open. The power of predators remains too great. So true, it's this the truth, though, it's like this horrible truth. Like on the one hand, we're finally waking up and we're supporting each other. 01:07:34 Speaker 3: We hear it here on the show. 01:07:36 Speaker 2: Daily we get emails of people who are saying things for the first time because they've been wounded or traumatized or sexually abused and now they can see, hey, you're not alone. Turns out everybody else was also, but just nobody gets accounted for. There seems to be no prison time. And yes, of course the Epstein stuff, but that's just like the most obvious thing to point to. But I feel like every case we work on, it seems like they kind of got away with it. 01:08:03 Speaker 3: Yeah, let's give me, you know, fifty months. 01:08:06 Speaker 2: H Let's just you know, see how that goes and look the other way, and it's. 01:08:10 Speaker 3: Making me mad as hell. 01:08:12 Speaker 5: Well, I just don't think they have enough evidence without so we should probably lay it out a little bit. Yeah, don't you think court? 01:08:19 Speaker 4: Okay, I was just about to say, to give the TikTok of what happened. So here is here's the timeline. The first trial occurred in twenty twenty, so you know, that's obviously six years ago, and that was it really was in the time of Me Too movement, right, being very prevalent in the news and on people's minds. So at that first trial, Harvey Weinstein was accused of sexual assault of a production assistant named Mariam Haley, as well as the twenty thirteen rape of aspiring actress Jessica Man. So he Weinstein was convince did on both counts and he was sentenced to twenty three years and it was an absolute landmark moment that this one of Hollywood's most prolific producers who put out, you know, some generation making movies, that he could be taken down. Well, that was overturned in twenty twenty four by the New York Court of Appeals and the conviction was overturned and a retrial was set to be because there was testimony from women whose allegations were not part of the formal charges, and the argument was that that unfairly biased the jury, which I mean I think is the right call, right. 01:09:45 Speaker 5: And without the testimony of those women moving forward, they haven't been able to convince a jury with the evidence that they are able to present that he is guilty of these new these charges against the you know, the vic don Jessica Man. And you know, I don't like that, right, I mean, I feel terrible for this victim, But there's just not enough, apparently, right. 01:10:12 Speaker 2: And we can't convict somebody just because they have a bad rap, and that is that they've done this too many women. 01:10:18 Speaker 3: I mean, as much as it's frustrating. 01:10:20 Speaker 5: I feel gross saying that. 01:10:22 Speaker 3: It makes me. 01:10:23 Speaker 5: Hey, I'm a girls girl, you know. I just but the you can't convict someone with the right evidence, you just can't. 01:10:31 Speaker 4: Well, and that does appear so in the second trial, which happened in twenty twenty five. That retrial again was prosecuted by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg, and the outcome of that trial was Harvey Weinstein was indeed convicted of a criminal sexual act against production assistant Miriam Hayley. However, the jury deadlocked on the Jessica Man rape charge. Because of that, the judge Justice Cartiss Farber declared a partial mistrial on the deadlock count and then ordered a new trial exclusively for Jessica Man's allegations, which. 01:11:14 Speaker 2: I think I follow that which brings us here. Yeah, can I just make sure that we're following. Can you sum that up a little clearer? 01:11:22 Speaker 3: Court? 01:11:23 Speaker 2: Basically, the trials were separated essentially, right, So this most recent trial is its own thing, separate of any other ancillary allegations that may have swayed a juror. 01:11:36 Speaker 5: Yes, this is just the trial with the victim, Jessica Man. Yes, because because Miriam he was convicted on it. So that's done and put to

bed, right, yeah, unless he appeals it moving forward, but that's done and put to bed. So the only one remaining, the only victim remaining is miss Jessica, Miss Jessica. And you know they mistrialed again on the mill again because yeah they did first time too. 01:12:02 Speaker 4: Or correct and so this this just happened, you know, May two thousand, present day, and it was a single count of rape against Jessica Man, and unlike the previous childs, the prosecutors presented the story of just that one accuser to your point, Stephanie. 01:12:22 Speaker 3: And the jurors. 01:12:23 Speaker 4: The jurors were asked to weigh Jessica Man's testimony directly against Harvey Weinstein's denials, and there was no corroborating testimony from anyone else, and there also was no physical evidence. And then quite simply on Friday, the Justice said it was very clear the jurors were hopelessly deadlocked, and he said, you know, there's no reason to go further in deliberations. It's not meant to be a coercive process, which I think that's. 01:12:57 Speaker 2: Totally fair, and like that's the way it showed be It's interesting, like the Weinstein time was such a unique time, both in the industry but just in the world. 01:13:07 Speaker 3: Think about it. 01:13:07 Speaker 2: It was all those iconic movies that he was making, and it was like the casting couch we always heard about. Right, Oh, little woman, you want to have the starring role in my upcoming film, Well, come to my hotel room. I'm going to answer the door wearing a weird, creepy robe, and I'm going to assume you're going to have sex with me. That seemed to have happened time and time and time and time again. 01:13:31 Speaker 3: Does that matter today? I don't know. 01:13:34 Speaker 2: I feel like now we're encouraged to come out and speak up. But tell that to Tina Farmer, who's still waiting for justice, despite the fact that she's been you know, dismissed for years and even the Epstein files corroborating her her. 01:13:49 Speaker 3: Part in this. 01:13:51 Speaker 2: In Epstein's case, for example, Like, nobody seems to be signing up, and it's frustrating. I think all of the industry in Holly would too, Like where is everybody speaking up? 01:14:04 Speaker 5: I think they're may be a little bit afraid to some backlash too. Right, We're going to continue days Oh yeah, I know. We're going to continue to keep following this. Obviously, if there is a retrial in the charges that Jessica is bringing, we will definitely fall through with a higher Rewinstein thing. We'll keep everybody updated. This is true crime tonight, give us a call eight to eight thirty one crime. I wanted to tell you guys about this, this Elon Musk thing. So, Elon Musk is suing open ai for one hundred and fifty million dollars billion dollars okay. He says he doesn't want the money personally, he wants any damages redirected back to open AI's original nonprofit mission because at the center of all this is Musk's claim that open ai has betrayed its founding promise to remain an open, nonprofit AI lab and instead it transformed into a Microsoft backed commercial giant. Okay. Musk is asking the court to force open ai to unwind for its for profit structure and even remove CEO Sam Altman and President Greg Brockman. So yeah, this is just feels to me like a power move right. It's it's being presented like Elon Musk really cares and he wants us to be open and available to everyone, and a this lab to be there and whatnot. But I think in reality, you know, Elon Musk has grock, which is a very popular AI, right, and then open AI has chat gpt, which is probably the most popular one probably I don't really know, and were in direct competition with one another, right, Yeah, this feels like a kneecap. 01:15:50 Speaker 4: Oh man, you know, I like justin Timberlake said crime a river, Elon Musk, I'm with your I just was in it for the charity of it all. Give me a break. 01:15:59 Speaker 3: Yeah, it is right. 01:16:01 Speaker 2: It is gross though how they all start with the whole we're a nonprofit, so we're a nonprofit. Is here's chat gpt. Everybody start learning it. It's a nonprofit. Give us all your information, and then you find out, oh no, no, it's extremely profitable and that that is the goal. And this whole nonprofit thing is really just code for give us your stuff for free, and by the time we infiltrate your entire world and you can't live without us, then we're going to remind you that surprise, we have all your info anyway, and we're going to sell your data. It's a dirty game and It's also that same dirty game is now being utilized in war. We're seeing this surveillance becoming part of the deal. It's tracking us. So whether it's Claude or Grock or whomever, it seems like all of these guys are not helping our cause in the long run, I totally agree. 01:16:55 Speaker 5: But Opening I kind of fired back though. They said that the original chair already remains intact as a public benefit corporation, holding a twenty six percent stake in the commercial wing, and to counter Elon Musk's claims, they presented like, like, this is drama, like when you have screenshots. They presented text messages and a twenty seventeen proposal showing that Elon Musk previously attempted to transition open Ai to a for profit entity under his total personal control. So I mean this is like, this is like billionaire mudslinging. And listen, you know me, I am here for the screenshots. Give me the screenshots of these text messages. Man, I want to zoom in on them, I want to authenticate them. I'm all up in it, So keep it here. We're going to keep everybody posted on that too. 01:17:45 Speaker 4: Receipts proof timeline receipts, Yes, snaps out everything right, stick around. 01:17:50 Speaker 5: We have a lot more to dig into. We're going to be listening to some of your talkbacks with your theories, your thoughts, and all your opinions. Keep it right here at Your Crime Tonight. 01:18:07 Speaker 2: Welcome back

to true Crime Tonight at iHeartRadio. We've been talking true crime all the time. 01:18:12 Speaker 3: I'm Steph. 01:18:13 Speaker 2: You're with Courtney and Body and listen those talkbacks keep them coming because we are eating them up. 01:18:19 Speaker 3: Let's go to one right now. 01:18:21 Speaker 11: Hello, I'm My favorite true seachers is Amanda from Mississippi. So you guys are talking about Cattypet right now and how it's basically told is a god how to do everything for murdering those two students. It's funny because I try to use chat DPT to show me what I looked like after my bood job, and it kept telling me you couldn't do that, but it could tell people how to murder and how to murder the mask, which is ridiculous. 01:18:44 Speaker 10: Anyway, I love you guys. 01:18:45 Speaker 2: Bye, we love good job is amazing. Yeah, I hope it turned out well. Oh man, if I had any courage, boy, the things that I would do if I had courage to so baby the I'm just to FLI same, same, And I'm afraid I have this like little pocket of fat over my eye and it's messing with my ability to wear contact lenses. 01:19:11 Speaker 3: And even I'm too afraid of that. It's called an upper leff is what it's called. 01:19:16 Speaker 2: Oh yeah, And they say it's like not a big deal, but I don't know. I feel like I've seen several real knail actors who have had it, and it seems pretty noticeable and it kind of steals your I think I want to live a wrinkles. I think I'm going to try. This is going to be hilarious, famous last words. In this moment, I will say, I think let's do less. Let's not turn ourselves into artificial intelligence and actually embrace some of our natural laugh lines. And you know, we earned those sorrow lines. You know, it's nice to be human. You know here at iHeart we sound human, but let's physically look human too, so and it's so much less expensive. 01:19:59 Speaker 3: And that's my story. And I'm hoping to live up to. 01:20:03 Speaker 5: Get fish glasses. 01:20:05 Speaker 3: Yeah, I keep losing them. The problem a lip flanny. 01:20:11 Speaker 4: They I mean, they are like selling them at that the corner bodega. They're like, come in thirty nine dollars special. It's terrifying it it literally it flips your lip up so it looks fuller. 01:20:23 Speaker 5: Yeah, and I don't fuller, Okay, I don't want it for cosmetic reasons. My lip I have like pretty big lips. I don't great lip, I do so, but my my lip I have dental implants and my teeth are I love my new teeth, but they're a little bigger than my natural teeth were, and my lip gets caught on them a lot. And so my dentist was like, you need to get a lip flip so that your lip doesn't rub up against your teeth, so that it's not causing you issues. And so he's like, you need to get a lip flip. So I looked into it and I was like, oh, I haven't had a procedure ever, a cosmetic one. Well, I guess the teeth would be. However, like a you know, facial or I want I mean, I want to do it, but I'm scared. 01:21:08

Speaker 3: I want to do it too, but I'm too scared. 01:21:09 Speaker 5: Totally, we totally just like do. 01:21:12 Speaker 2: It at the same time and just together. I think both of those are very small, small, small, like you don't even get put under or maybe you don't. 01:21:22 Speaker 3: I don't know. Sounds scary, though I don't know the reason why. 01:21:26 Speaker 5: So the point of our talk back though she was saying she can't even put in results, but chat, GPT and the other AI systems are telling people how to commit murder, and I think she's got a little bit of a point. During Halloween, I was submitting, you know, everybody was making pictures with the scream guy a ghost face in the background, so I was going to upload mine and it was chat GPT or Gemini told me it's too violent. I can't do that, and I was like, what what do you mean? 01:21:55 Speaker 6: What do you mean? 01:21:55 Speaker 7: I can do it almost daily. Well, a lot of the stories as we're researching, occasional put something in and look up something, but anything that has the word suicide something to get flagged, like, oh what are you doing? So I mean, I'm glad that they do have those guardrails up and they're protective, but sometimes it's unusual the things that you can look up and that you can't. It feels like it's not it's not set up perfectly. 01:22:19 Speaker 3: Just therey. 01:22:20 Speaker 2: I can tell you for certain that chat GPD is not always correct, so sure are using it in any way you have to fact checked. You might have to fact check from two different sources, maybe three. And I'm also noticing on my Instagram account that some of my usual suspects, if you will, and there are different experts, you know, like Aaron Parness, who we'll have on hopefully back soon. Aaron Parness, who's like an independent journalist. 01:22:48 Speaker 3: But I kind of try to. 01:22:49 Speaker 2: Find, you know, the far right, the far left, the middle right, the middle left, the independent. 01:22:56 Speaker 3: You know. 01:22:56 Speaker 2: Oh, let's add the BBC, let's add London News. Like I try to keep a wide net. And I can tell you some of the ones that I always see on Instagram, some of them are getting silenced, like they're not popping up shuttle band? 01:23:12 Speaker 3: Are there been shadow bands? What does that even mean? Shadow band? That sounds so scary. 01:23:16 Speaker 5: You're not you're not banned, but they're not recommending you in the algorithm, right. 01:23:20 Speaker 2: But who who decides that? Who's getting who decide he's the shadow band? Decide the button pusher? 01:23:28 Speaker 5: Yeah? 01:23:29 Speaker 3: Is that these questions? 01:23:30 Speaker 2: Is that the epstein elite who are making these decisions for us because they don't want certain pieces of information to countradict what the greater messaging. 01:23:40 Speaker 7: Maybe well we'll have to We don't have the answer to that one that's behind closed doors, but maybe we have the answer to this next talk back. How wout we go to that? 01:23:52 Speaker 3: How fun that would be? Hey, guys love the show. It's Meghan from Vancouver. 01:23:57 Speaker 5: My mom decided to stop breastfeeding me little after a year old because I looked her in the eye and chomped down on her nipple. 01:24:06 Speaker 9: So sometimes the kids will tell you anyways, have a good one too. 01:24:16 Speaker 2: Yeah, like if you have a full set of teeth, that's pretty intense. 01:24:20 Speaker 3: Yes, I mean I mean when when you know, you. 01:24:22 Speaker 5: Know, toy chopping from Vancouver. 01:24:29 Speaker 4: Yeah, quite known that my game. 01:24:33 Speaker 5: When do kids get their teeth? I don't even know. Did they get them at like one? Is that about the time? 01:24:38 Speaker 4: I can tell you it's usually No, it's before one generally. I mean I can start as early as like four months, but by six you got a tooth or two usually. And Deck my boy, he was one years old. He did not have one tooth in his head, and I was I was freaking out. I said, because you really you're a little nuts. Well, I'll speak for myself, you're a little nuts, you know. Is my baby doing what they should? Are they falling behind whatever? So he didn't have any teeth, and my pediatrician assured me they'll come. If he has hair, he'll get teeth. I'm like, well, okay, and then they all popped out and it's all fine. 01:25:17 Speaker 5: Wait a minute, so is your hair connected to your teeth? Somehow? 01:25:21 Speaker 3: That was just made me think of that either. I don't know, it's. 01:25:25 Speaker 4: What she told me. 01:25:25 Speaker 5: The funniest video I've ever seen in my life. As this girl she's sitting in her bedroom and she goes, I just found out that your hair grows from your scalp, and not like where your hair ends. She thought your hair grew from the bottom of your hair. She didn't realize that it came from your scalp. And oh my god, it's the funniest thing ever. 01:25:46 Speaker 2: I candidly, I'm not gonna lie. I actually was surprised to learn that. At some point longer, it was a recent but I remember feeling pretty embarrassed in a group of friends. We're like, tell me, tell me you knew that, and I was like, well, funny that you mentioned. 01:26:03 Speaker 3: Maybe I just hadn't thought about it. I was an adult. 01:26:06 Speaker 2: I was for sure an adult, and I owned a brush and probably drove a car, so no excuse, it's funny. 01:26:12 Speaker 7: So it was like really long in the head and growing. 01:26:17 Speaker 2: I mean candidly, I didn't really think about it. I've always had sort of weak care. But then why am I cutting it all the time? If I'm always trimming off those dead ends? 01:26:25 Speaker 3: What does it matter? 01:26:27 Speaker 4: Because because the nutrients go to like try and repair. 01:26:31 Speaker 3: It, and it's a ways. It's like it's what you do with. 01:26:35 Speaker 5: The guard Yeah, startmpy, we started tumpy. 01:26:42 Speaker 3: Hear you though, And.

01:26:43 Speaker 2: By the way, it's so terrible because first of all, breastfeeding is not for everyone that everybody can and then they get bullied into feeling like half moms or that they're not good enough because suddenly you know, formula is going to be the death of them. 01:26:55 Speaker 3: I was one of those people that got bullied. 01:26:57 Speaker 2: I felt like longer than I needed to, and I would cry because you're trying to produce milk for a while, and like the mental torture that I put myself through was so unnecessary. You know you want happy, calm moms. And he is as healthy as they come. And he was on formula by eight months. 01:27:19 Speaker 5: Now days breaks my heart when I go into the store and I see all the formula locked up breaks. 01:27:26 Speaker 3: They're going to steal something like. 01:27:28 Speaker 5: Why you need to steal baby formula for your baby. I'm fine with that. 01:27:32 Speaker 3: I'm fine with you. 01:27:34 Speaker 2: I feel like that's like, if somebody needed it, they should just yeah. 01:27:38 Speaker 5: I met you. 01:27:38 Speaker 2: If you asked a woman in the store and we're like, I need to formula and I just don't have the money, I would do it in a heartbeato. 01:27:47 Speaker 5: And if I got scammed, well you know what I mean, Like I tried. 01:27:50 Speaker 3: That's right exactly. 01:27:52 Speaker 5: If you see me in the grocery store and you need formula, please don't be afraid to ask the same for me. Yeah, let's uh, let's go another third. 01:28:00 Speaker 9: Hey, y'all, this is Mary Kay and Cincinnati, and I just have to say that I did have to represent myself in court once I was going to court to change my son's last name. His father, who I had not seen in years, showed up with a lawyer, so I had to represent myself in front of the judge, and he contradicted everything I said, and I looked like an idiot and it. 01:28:22 Speaker 5: Was scary and I would never choose to do it again. 01:28:25 Speaker 9: Love you guys, Bye Mary. 01:28:28 Speaker 7: Kay. 01:28:30 Speaker 3: How that's a curious process too. 01:28:32 Speaker 2: So there you are on you know, advocating for your child who wants to change their name, and then you know, deadbye dad who hasn't been in the mix for a long time. All of a sudden he comes to the party with a lawyer on top of it. Suddenly he has cash to pay for a lawyer to make you look bad. 01:28:48 Speaker 3: Sure, it's so. 01:28:50 Speaker 2: It's so eager driven, right, isn't it that at that stage when all you care about is the name, let your child be whatever they feel most comfortable. And if that means it's not dad's name, that's okay. And if it means it is Dad's name, that's okay too. Whatever they're comfortable with. But the idea that you get browbeaten or you know, get out lawyered because of something like. 01:29:15 Speaker 3: That, it's really hard on a kid. Well, they're lucky to have you. 01:29:20 Speaker 8: Yeah, you. 01:29:23 Speaker 5: Know, she's thinking, Okay, this is going to be, you know, an easy kind of process. Here's the paperwork judge, and here's the reason. And you know, dad, who you know apparently was not involved for many years, shows up suddenly. You know that's also going to be kind of saftle the son, right, Okay, that sucks. Mary, Kay, we should have you talk with our judge too that we have period. 01:29:50 Speaker 2: Yea, she may have some more advice for you too, and I'm sure would be happy to dole out some advice if you want to set up another day to come back on the show and discussed. 01:30:00 Speaker 5: Or you know, if you want to leave a talk back in preparation, we'll just save it. Yeah, he's a great idea, So leave us a little talkback. Get your little question. Listen to me like little. This is a big question, I'm sure, but your question, and we'll play for the judge. And she says, I think that's a really idea. 01:30:16 Speaker 3: I love that. 01:30:17 Speaker 2: It's so counterintuitive, having lived it myself, you know, really, the process of trying to do what's best for your child and have a consistent life, sometimes depending upon the state you live live in, can be really difficult to understand the system. 01:30:33 Speaker 3: It's really hard to navigate alone. 01:30:35 Speaker 5: It's navigating it right knowing what forms to fill out with. 01:30:38 Speaker 3: Yeah, it's just a little counter into different sometimes exactly. They don't make it easy. And you know people like Judge Michelle have all the scoop. 01:30:47 Speaker 7: She certainly do. 01:30:49 Speaker 5: Let's let's got another talk about high team. 01:30:52 Speaker 12: This is Alicia from Atlanta and this one is for you body. I have to recommend the Cult of Nature boy on who last say, I was hooked, confused, and completely stuck on the audacity of this man. 01:31:07 Speaker 3: He was truly cuckoo for cocopuff. I love like hold. 01:31:12 Speaker 12: I think this will be a great watch for you or the entire team. 01:31:16 Speaker 5: Have a good one, guy, let's watch it for I've loved it. I've heard it's insane. I've heard it's insane. I watched somebody. I watched somebody on YouTube cover it a little bit, but I was doing other stuff around the house. What's I've heard it's insane? Boy, there we go. 01:31:34 Speaker 4: It's four part It's on Hulu. I'm just learning about this in this instant And by the way, thank you for that. Alicia from Atlanta. 01:31:46 Speaker 7: Do I know? 01:31:48 Speaker 3: I think it's Alicia. 01:31:50 Speaker 2: We don't know what your line of work is, but we think that voiceovers or being a radio star has your name written all over it, so I want to come on a little bit more often. 01:32:01 Speaker 3: We'd love to have you. 01:32:03 Speaker 5: I love that, So let's put a pin in that one for a consideration for true Cremanhill. Because we do have a couple other suggestions. I understand you are correct. 01:32:13 Speaker 7: We actually surprisingly I'm not sure why, but over the past couple of days, we have about four or five different people who are suggesting shows we should watch, so we might have to sort of put a few out there and then decide and then do all vote. 01:32:26 Speaker 3: Okay, this is Summer House. Is Summerhouse on the list, and. 01:32:30 Speaker 2: I would like to recommend Summer this final season, maybe the last four episodes only it is so diaboliz Is it good that Bravo they just know how to screw a person? It seems like they went back in and cut the show the last four episodes that are airing right now, and yeah, you watch it, you're like, oh, those two jing Dongs were fully having a relationship right under everyone's nose. And it's a little ugly, but that's what reality shows are great for. It's seeing real things play out. You see feelings get hurt and you don't do that, you know. So I think it's actually a really good learning a learning tool. 01:33:13 Speaker 5: You know, the other suggestions going to ask you if the crash was one of them. The crash is not on our list. No, I'm not familiar with that. 01:33:20 Speaker 3: I watched it Crash this weekends. 01:33:23 Speaker 5: Oh really like it? 01:33:24 Speaker 3: Yeah? I did. 01:33:26 Speaker 2: I mean it's terrible, it's terrible material. Oh, it's good, but it's very good. It's about a crash, a car crash, one hundred miles an hour, girl driving one hundred mile an hour into a building and two are killed. So anyway, we will talk about that at a different time. We will be back tomorrow on Monday. Taha, what are we covering? 01:33:51 Speaker 7: Oh you will have to tune in to see because it's going to be good. 01:33:53 Speaker 3: Good night everybody, goodbye, good night.