The Cheat Sheet: Bites and Brainwashing

[00:00:00] Thank you so much to our sponsor, Viya Hemp. These folks make delectable gummies for you to enjoy of the THC and THC-free CBD and CBN varieties. We love the CBD and CBN options. There's something for everyone, whether you want to relax, get high, become more productive,

[00:00:19] or boost your sleep routine. Whatever mood you're trying to create, Viya's got you covered. These gummies are delicious and legal to ship to all 50 states. If you're like us, you might need some help settling down at night to go to sleep.

[00:00:32] We can be downright jittery after a day spent running around looking into disturbing stories about crime. I've found Zen to be a nice THC-free option. CBN and CBD help me unwind as I try to catch some Zs. Viya's new Dreams formulations also can help with sleep.

[00:00:50] They allow for a fully customizable sleep journey, featuring 2, 5, and 10 mg options, depending on the strength you're seeking. Head to viyahemp.com and use the code MSHEET to receive 15% off, plus one free sample of their award-winning gummies for people age 21 and older.

[00:01:07] That's viiahemp.com and use MSHEET at checkout. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Get the rest you deserve with Dreams from Viya. Content warning. This episode contains discussion of child abuse, the sexual abuse of children, violence, and murder.

[00:01:25] Today we're going to be covering some cases that are pretty close by in Indiana and Illinois, as well as a few further flung cases in Colorado and Alabama. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist. And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is the Murder Sheet.

[00:01:42] We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases. We're the Murder Sheet. This is the Cheat Sheet, Bites and Brainwashing. So Anya, I don't know if you heard the news this week, but the Supreme Court did something. Oh God. Okay. Yeah.

[00:02:47] Not that, not that, not that, not that. Just relax. Fill in the blank on what it is. They declined to hear the case of McCrory v. Alabama. So what's McCrory v. Alabama and why are we talking about it?

[00:03:04] So before we get into this case, I want to say something that, and I'm going to acknowledge upfront, this is unfair. And I'll explain later why it's unfair. But it reminded me of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. You're familiar with that franchise?

[00:03:21] Well, I've never read it, but I saw the movie with Martin Freeman. So you have the worst possible introduction to the franchise. It's the books, the Douglas Adams books are what you need to do.

[00:03:32] And in one of those books, they talk about the greatest technology in the world to hide something, to cloak something is an SEP field. And SEP stands for somebody else's problem. Like if you look at something, if you see like a plug that's unplugged and it should

[00:03:49] be plugged in and it's someone else's responsibility to take care of, you don't see it because it's somebody else's problem. It's protected by an SEP field. And so I thought that this reminded me a little bit of the SEP field situation with the Supreme Court invoking that.

[00:04:09] And again, that's somewhat unfair. So what happened in this case was all the way back in 1985, this man, McCrory is convicted of the murder of his wife. And a big part of the evidence against him is bite mark evidence. Uh-oh. Why do you say uh-oh?

[00:04:32] Bite mark evidence, my understanding has been largely scientifically discredited as junk science. Yes, you're exactly right. So somebody testifies the bite marks on the body are his bite marks. And since then, as you say, that field of science has been completely discredited.

[00:04:53] And even the man who offered the testimony that the bite marks matched, he has formally retracted his testimony. I can't stand behind this testimony anymore. So now we have the situation where we have a man behind bars, at least partially because

[00:05:11] of evidence that was presented as being scientifically valid that is not considered scientifically valid anymore. So what do we do? Hopefully seek relief in the appellate courts and hire if needed. Well, one of the problems is the states have frameworks for how to handle wrongful convictions

[00:05:37] or when mistakes are made. There's like certain categories of mistakes made. And we can look and say, oh, this state has a law that says if there's ineffective assistance of counsel, we can do this or we can do this.

[00:05:52] It's not up to the Supreme Court to make new laws or say there's new categories we should consider. But the problem is none of the categories set up in the great state of Alabama seem to really

[00:06:07] apply to the situation where an entire field of science has been discredited. Ineffective assistance of counsel, for instance. That doesn't fit. You can't say a counsel was ineffective for not challenging something that was then accepted as science. No, that's not an effective counsel.

[00:06:27] That's people at the time just not having that information. You can't say, oh, the expert was incompetent or corrupt or had secret motives if you have a situation where the expert who was offering the testimony was offering testimony that was

[00:06:46] consistent with the understanding of science at the time. Right, right. That's not necessarily... This is not one bad guy. This is a systemic issue that you had junk science being introduced into the courtrooms. So nobody's necessarily lying. People are just not doing good science.

[00:07:04] And then you have a category of the prosecution is deliberately introducing bad evidence. If that happens, we know what to do. In this case, the prosecution did introduce bad evidence, but they didn't know it was bad evidence because it was consistent with the scientific understanding of the time.

[00:07:24] So it's like there's no real category that it fits. So what do you do? Don't look at me. I'm just a humble journalist. The truth will set you free. We live by that on the murder sheet.

[00:07:39] We're always looking to get at the truth when we cover criminal cases, when we're parsing through legal documents and stories from survivors and detectives and attorneys, just trying to get the full picture.

[00:07:49] So you can imagine why we love to listen to Brittany Ard's Quest for the Truth on the new podcast, You Probably Think This Story's About You. RIT is all about getting an answer to a deeply personal question.

[00:08:03] What if the person you thought was your soulmate never really existed? After a chance meeting on the Hinge dating app, a man named Kanan stole Britt's heart. He fell hard for him, but he ended up dragging her into a web of lies.

[00:08:18] The Kanan she came to love was an invention, a ghost. Britt's journey to piece together this disturbing mystery isn't just compelling. It's a raw look at self-discovery and the power of coming together to form a community through shared grief and trauma.

[00:08:33] Listen and follow You Probably Think This Story's About You wherever you listen to podcasts. The temptation, and I think it's frustrating, is you think, can't we fix it anyway? Can't we do something? But if there's not something written down in the law, you can't just expect the Supreme

[00:08:53] Court to kind of legislate on its own. And so basically, Sonia Sotomayor wrote a statement. The Supreme Court was asked to hear this case and determined Mr. McCrory and his attorneys wanted them to basically rule that he didn't get a fair trial because of bad evidence.

[00:09:18] And Ms. Sotomayor explained that the Supreme Court is declining to hear this case because there needs to be more laws written, it needs to go through the courts more, and she calls on the different states to make laws and write laws to deal with this specific problem.

[00:09:38] Yeah, I think that is that one would hope that they would, but I'm increasingly jaded about whether many legislators care about this stuff. Some legislatures do. They do. I mean, there are a few states.

[00:09:55] There are a few states where laws to handle this situation are already on the books. One of those states might surprise you, Texas. OK. Yeah, it's just there's other things involved here, too, that make it complicated because

[00:10:14] courts also generally look with disfavor if a person keeps on raising the same arguments. And that's a problem here because there is not one moment where a switch is flipped and people go from thinking, oh, this evidence is great and scientifically valid to suddenly

[00:10:34] thinking no, it's not scientifically valid. That's a process. And so if you say you can only introduce an argument once and if you introduce it when people are beginning to have doubts but those doubts aren't completely formalized, would you run the risk of wasting that argument?

[00:10:51] Yeah, you would. And let me just also say that, like, I mean, this is just shows you the real devastation that can be wrought by junk science. Nobody wants people who are rightfully convicted by a jury of their peers to get off on a technicality

[00:11:07] because years later one person says, well, I don't know about this kind of evidence anymore. But I think it's pretty clear cut with bite marks. I think it's pretty clear cut that this was an issue and this was not something that should have ever been allowed.

[00:11:23] So I don't know the rest of the case against Mr. McCrory, but ultimately it doesn't really matter because if he was convicted based on something that's nonsense, then he shouldn't be in prison. Obviously, Alabama is arguing what we think the other evidence is sufficient.

[00:11:42] I'm not even going to get into that. But to me, the issue is what do we do when evidence that is accepted as scientifically valid in the 80s or the 90s or whatever is then found to not be scientifically valid?

[00:11:59] And I think this is an issue that's going to come up again and again. And I think it might be cold comfort to McCrory and people in that situation who turn to the Supreme Court for justice only to find the Supreme Court saying, passing the buck to

[00:12:14] the state legislature. And the state legislature is my, who knows? But justice is a process and I do understand the argument. So yes, Sotomayor is making here. What do you think about all of this? I think he should get a new trial.

[00:12:31] I mean, if the rest of the evidence was so solid, then I guess the state should roll the dice again. But I don't think it's fair to... I mean, I don't know. Again, I'm not a lawyer.

[00:12:44] All of this, I think in the interest of fairness, just speaking as a layperson, it would be better if he got a new trial because that's serious enough that I feel that rises to the level of new trial.

[00:12:56] If somebody is testifying, his bite mark matches, you know, if I'm an 80s juror, that's going to seal the deal for me. You know, who else bitter? I mean, come on. It's a match. We got him.

[00:13:08] So I feel like there may have been some really good other evidence that piled up against him and stacked up against him. And in that case, then... I mean, but then again, the problem with this is that when the evidence in the case is that

[00:13:25] old, that, you know, witnesses can die, evidence gets lost in the shuffle. So the state may not have that much of a case anymore. So that is something to note. And I want to highlight the man who offered the testimony saying the bite marks are the same.

[00:13:44] He submitted an affidavit and he wrote, quote, under today's scientific consensus and the changes in the American Board of Forensic Odontology Guidelines, it would be unreliable and scientifically unsupported for me or any forensic odontologist to offer individualizing testimony that McCrory

[00:14:04] was the source of the teeth marks, as I testified in 1985. I therefore fully recant my testimony that these teeth marks were made by Charles McCrory. There's no waffling there. No, it's not waffling. And you know, a lot has changed in forensic science.

[00:14:22] A lot has changed along the lines of instead of being able to testify that this is a match, you have to hedge a lot more in general. But with bite marks, that was seen as sort of a really gold standard.

[00:14:35] It came into the Ted Bundy case, but it was ultimately kind of shown to be very faulty. Doesn't mean that Ted Bundy was innocent, but... And McCrory asked for a new trial in Alabama under Alabama rules which say that convictions

[00:14:56] can be vacated based on newly discovered material facts. But is the fact that scientific testimony is found to be invalid? Is that a newly discovered fact? Usually a newly discovered fact is something like you discover a confession or you discover some piece of evidence.

[00:15:14] Well, that certainly matches his situation closer than some of the other options that were, you know, found to be lacking. I mean, I don't know. Give the guy a break. I feel like that's close enough for me. But again, I'm not a fancy judge.

[00:15:30] Well, as I say, the problem is you don't really want the Supreme Court to suddenly be writing new laws about what Alabama or other states should be. It really is up to the legislature. So I find this a very frustrating decision.

[00:15:47] It sounds like it's somebody else's problem situation, but I fully understand why the court is reluctant to get more directly involved. Yeah, in all seriousness, I can understand where they're coming from.

[00:16:00] I would love to see states write laws to cover this so judges faced with these facts would have some guidance as to what to do. It really needs to be done because I don't think this is justice and I don't think this is fairness.

[00:16:18] And science is going to keep on progressing. Yes. It's entirely possible that other methods of scientific evidence are going to be found to be invalid tomorrow or 10 years from now or 50 years from now. It's just so frustrating, all the buck passing, you know?

[00:16:33] And listen, again, I know the Supreme Court, I think they have valid reasons for not wanting to get involved in this. I really do sincerely feel that. But it is frustrating and I imagine it's incredibly frustrating for McCrory's team to see all the buck passing.

[00:16:47] And frankly, it is incumbent upon Alabama to deal with this situation because you don't want this. You don't want to win in an invalid way with faulty evidence. You want to win fair and square.

[00:17:03] Not just Alabama, but any state that doesn't have a statute on the books covering this situation should get on that right away. Look at Texas. Copy Texas. Copy the good citizens of Texas. Yeah, figure this out because again, no one wants people getting off on technicalities.

[00:17:20] Nobody wants innocent people sitting in prison. And frankly, you shouldn't want guilty people sitting in prison because they were convicted in an unfair manner. This is not how our system's supposed to work. If a guilty person can get convicted in an unfair manner, you are legitimizing that unfair

[00:17:37] manner and it could be turned around and used to convict an innocent person down the line. Yeah, exactly. With that said, I think you wanted to talk about a case that's a bit closer to home. Yes, this is out of Cass County, Indiana.

[00:17:50] My sources for this are Wish TV and Fox 59, two great local channels, as well as an excellent article from 2020 from Sports Illustrated. So this is a very sad and disturbing case. It involves the family of Daniel Muir. He is a former Indianapolis Colts player.

[00:18:11] They, of course, are a National Football League team. And his wife, Kristen Wright, and their son, 14-year-old Bryson Muir. Recently, if you're in Indiana, you probably saw news articles about this. Bryson went missing and the circumstances were quite disturbing.

[00:18:30] So this child went to visit his grandmother, Cheryl Wright, in Ohio. And when he was there, she noticed that his face was swollen, battered, bruised. She took photos of him showing him with a black eye, a bruised lip.

[00:18:48] And he told her that his father, Daniel, had beaten him. But he still wanted to go back to the Muir family compound. I say compound because it's not just like a house. It's like a whole large property in Logansport, Indiana, in Cass County.

[00:19:07] And Cheryl Wright, being a concerned grandmother, was very concerned and called the police and last saw him on June 16th when his mother went to pick him up in her Chevy Suburban. So minutes seemingly after Kristen Wright leaves with her son Bryson, she's pulled

[00:19:30] over by police in Ohio and Bryson appears to not be in the car anymore. So that's a bizarre twist. And he kind of remains missing. But the grandmother's kind of report ends up sparking an investigation with Cass County

[00:19:48] Department of Child Services, who then asked the Indiana State Police to get involved and to go to the 1700 block of West US 24 where this compound is and sort of check in on Bryson. So there are all these negotiations between ISP and Muir's Muir and his wife.

[00:20:09] And eventually they agree to bring Bryson into the Peru post of the ISP. But at the last minute, they pull out of that agreement. So I'm seeing all these stories at this point. I'm feeling incredibly concerned for Bryson, this teenage kid who is missing, seemingly was beaten recently.

[00:20:28] It just really looked very bad. And I was concerned that this case would have a really horrifying outcome. But fortunately, ISP served a search warrant on this property and found Bryson alive and So he is OK. He has been removed from this situation.

[00:20:50] And Kristen Wright and Daniel Muir have been arrested and hit with charges of domestic battery and obstruction of justice. I think it's just obstruction of justice in the wife's case. So this gets even weirder. Basically, when you look at property records for.

[00:21:15] This property, it's all owned by Servant Leaders Foundation, which is described as a nonprofit religious group. Their car is owned by Servant Leaders Foundation. There's no actual signage on the property for Servant Leaders Foundation. Instead, it says this is a sign that ran on Wish TV.

[00:21:35] There's a sign outside their property saying, Welcome to Straightway, Indiana Goshen. So what what is straightway? Well, we'll get into that later. But let me give an example of how Muir himself seems to very much want people off his property.

[00:21:52] So this is a February 9th, 2023 probable cause affidavit. It talks about how Indiana State Police Troopers TJ Zizer, Matthew Rogers and Chris Millers were asked to help the Indiana Department of Transportation or INDOT move a bunch of

[00:22:09] big metal barrels filled with sand rocks tethered together with a cable away from this property. It turned out that Muir had gotten into a big dispute with the transportation department about keeping these barrels along the highway and road frontage and the right of way.

[00:22:27] And they're basically saying, you can't keep that here. And he's saying, no, don't touch my barrels. Apparently almost as like a barricade to keep people out or whatever. And so he comes up to them while they're all moving this and he's screaming and cursing

[00:22:39] and freaking out about his barrels. And Robert N. Mathis is with him, who apparently I don't know football at all. He's apparently like a player turned coach. I don't I don't know. The whole thing is so bizarre. So it's you know, the whole thing is very strange.

[00:22:57] I'm not an expert, so I do not feel qualified to call this straightway organization that Muir is involved in a cult. I will say they have the Straightway Truth Ministry, which is based in Tennessee and has chapters all over the place. It includes on its website ramblings.

[00:23:18] I mean, putting it putting it kindly ramblings about homosexuality, obesity and how Roman Catholics conspired to trick Christians to believe that Jesus was crucified on a cross, not a tree, in order to trick them into celebrating on Sunday. So it's yeah, there's some interesting things.

[00:23:42] I know that the Sports Illustrated article that I cited has a lot more information will link to that. This organization seemingly attracted a number of NFL players into its ranks, and this organization is associated with physical and sexual abuse of children.

[00:24:01] There are cases involving people within this organization sexually and physically abusing their children. One horrifying anecdote from this came with a family whose kids were sexually abused, and the family went to the leader of Straightway, Pastor Charles Dowell, who maintains very

[00:24:23] strict control of this group, and told him of this abuse. And he basically did nothing but accuse the girls involved of lying to smear a man of God, and then suggesting to their parents that, well, you know, they should get married.

[00:24:42] And when they were saying, well, we want them to marry for love, suggesting that they become concubines instead. So very, very, very disturbing. And unfortunately, more disturbing information has come out now that court documents are out. Bryson, as I mentioned, told his grandmother that his father hit him.

[00:25:01] Apparently in a conversation with his brother-in-law, Daniel Muir said, quote, speaking of his son Bryson, I whooped his ass like a grown-ass man. This apparently dispute arose over something involving contact with other children. It's unclear what that means.

[00:25:18] And then he also made a comment that I find very disturbing, talking about how if they lived in their homeland, redacted would be put to death for his acts. Instead, they live in the United States, so they could not put him to death.

[00:25:29] I don't know if he's talking about his son there or somebody else, but either way, this sort of violent language combined with admissions of child abuse are very disturbing. And now they've been charged and they're being held without bond because they are considered a flight risk.

[00:25:48] Their attorney has released a statement saying nobody should rush to judgment and they were unproperly targeted. I don't know how you can argue that this any of this was an improper targeting, given that seeing those pictures of that kid all beat up.

[00:26:04] I'm very glad that he's alive and has been removed from that situation. I very much hope that there is a very thorough investigation into what happened here because children do not deserve to be beat up and abused, whatever their parents' religious beliefs are or put in danger.

[00:26:25] And I'll say this, I know Bryson's grandmother talked about how he wanted to go back to this compound, wanted to go home, and she felt that he had been a victim of brainwashing. So there's a lot of talk of cults, a lot of talk of child abuse here.

[00:26:41] It's disturbing, but again, very glad to see that Bryson Muir is alive and I hope he gets the help that he deserves. Yes, I do too. This is a very troubling story. So I think we're ready to go on to Denver, Colorado.

[00:27:00] Let's go to Denver and this is a story I found by Kelly Reinke of 9news.com. And depending on how you look at it, this is either a story that you see represents something good about the justice system or maybe you'd be a little bit frustrated that

[00:27:21] things got to this point. So this is kind of an unusual circumstance. A man is charged with first degree murder and he is brought to trial and testimony actually begins in this trial. And the prosecutors end up dismissing the case on their own. So what happened?

[00:27:52] There was body cam footage from police officers and other people who were on the scene at the time of the murder shortly thereafter, shortly after the murder. And this body cam footage showed that the man who had been killed had something called

[00:28:11] a tactical pen, which I understand can be used as a weapon in his hand at the time of the murder. The problem is that there was an officer on the scene who moved this object without taking a picture of it.

[00:28:30] So it was not known to prosecutors or anybody that the man was armed at the time he was killed because of the mistake of this particular officer who was a rookie. And so when the prosecutors are reviewing this body cam footage in this trial and they

[00:28:50] notice this, they realize this man, the defendant, could make a self-defense claim now. And we don't have any way of disproving that claim because the man, the victim, was in fact armed. So they had no choice but to dismiss it.

[00:29:08] And some people are saying, well, why didn't the defendant at some point speak up and tell people that the guy was armed with a weapon? And the thing to remember is that once you are in custody, once you're arrested, you're under no obligation to speak.

[00:29:25] It wasn't his responsibility to tell the prosecutors that they were making a mistake. So you can be very upset that things got to this point or you can be happy that when the mistake was discovered, the prosecutors acted immediately even though they had already invested

[00:29:45] a great deal of time, money and effort into this case. And they dismissed it. You would have hoped they would have seen, noticed this in the body cam footage earlier. But when they did notice it, they did act. Okay, several questions. Several questions here.

[00:30:01] Yes, you do not have an obligation to speak to law enforcement or prosecutors. Do we think that he mentioned this to his defense attorneys? Because I mean, there's keeping quiet to people who are working to convict you and then there's

[00:30:12] keeping quiet to like the people who are trying to get you acquitted or get charges dropped. That's unclear because the trial had just begun. Okay, so they may have been like waiting for their Perry Mason moment.

[00:30:25] Yeah, they may have been waiting and they probably would have advanced the self-defense claim in the trial. Okay, fair. But we don't know. And it would be it would have been tough for them to introduce that this claim in motion so the guy was armed.

[00:30:43] There's no evidence that he was armed. So they probably weren't. So I think it is bizarre that he didn't go to his defense attorney and they went, you would hope that they would then go to prosecutors and say, you need to look at this again.

[00:30:57] Look at all the body cam footage, drop the charges before we're in trial. I find that bizarre. But if your client does tell you the man is armed and there's no evidence that he was armed because an officer moved it. What can you really do? I don't know.

[00:31:13] I mean, so you're saying it wasn't captured at all on the body cam footage? It was captured in the body. Okay, then how then you review the discovery, see that and then bring it and, you know, flaunt it in their faces.

[00:31:27] The thing to read, it must I haven't seen this footage. It must not have been super clear because the prosecutors indicated that they'd seen and reviewed the footage many times themselves before noticing this. Okay, well, I still find it odd. So you're on the frustrated side?

[00:31:43] Well, I'm on the baffled side because it's like, what are you just going to be like passive aggressive and go to prison? I mean, like, you know, I don't have to tell anybody this. It's like it's going to exonerate you. What are you doing?

[00:31:54] But maybe he did do, maybe he was pushing it behind the scenes. We just don't know. But if he wasn't, then I find that bizarre. Also, a thing to remember is pretty much everybody if you're charged with killing somebody

[00:32:07] and there's no doubt that you pulled the trigger, pretty much anybody is going to try to concoct a self-defense defense. That is true. Now, here's other questions. Oh, gosh. I mean, I guess you're not mentioning names.

[00:32:23] There are not a lot of details about what exactly happened here, right? Yes. The news outlet chose not to mention the name of the man accused because he was no longer charged. Right. Fair. I think that's a good call. Yeah.

[00:32:38] So we don't really know, though, what the overall dispute was about or how this led to this point. OK. So personally, I think the prosecutors did completely the right thing. I'm glad that they jumped on it when they saw it.

[00:32:52] It is very frustrating that this got to this point. It's frustrating that one mistake could lead to such an unfair situation for this man. Ultimately, yeah, you would have hoped that there would be better communication.

[00:33:06] But the relief being that it's all dropped very quickly is ultimately something to be commended. You don't want prosecutors digging their heels in in a situation like this and trying to force something or force the pieces to match what they want. That's how you get wrongful convictions.

[00:33:23] So I'm glad they did that. Hopefully this can be a wake up call for Denver Police Department to really drill into everybody, including rookies, that don't move anything, don't touch anything, just leave it. And document everything. Document everything. Yeah.

[00:33:43] So it's disturbing that it would take such a traumatic, you know, almost, you know, going to trial for murder to get there. So I'm not happy with that. But ultimately, I think when you have major mistakes being made, you know, seeing people

[00:33:57] drop things quickly and just, you know, get out of there, that's what you want to see. And I think you want to wrap with a missing persons case. Yeah, this is a longtime listener reached out to us. This is a case out of Naperville, Illinois.

[00:34:09] And there's not a lot of information out there right now, but I wanted to just put it out there and we'll link to the flyer that we received about this case in our show notes.

[00:34:18] So you can take a look at this missing person and sort of see her information. And if you're in the area, perhaps consider sharing it. Or if you know people in the area, perhaps consider sending it to them. There's a woman named Danielle Bacon.

[00:34:32] She is 42 years old and she was last had she'd last had contact with people in her lives on in her life on June 7th, 2024. So this is a recent missing persons case. And the listener who reached out said like, this is one of those cases.

[00:34:46] Maybe if there's some sort of break in it early, that can kind of wrap things up quickly and not be one of those cold cases that drags on. And I agree, like oftentimes, you know, early action, early intervention in these cases can make a huge difference.

[00:35:02] So she was last seen in person on May 28th, 2024. Her mother received one last text from her on June 7th, 2024. Since then, there's been zero contact with family, friends or her son. And people in her life described this as highly unusual. And again, she's in the Naperville area.

[00:35:25] The lead agency on this is the Naperville Police Department. They have listed her as missing and endangered. And so if you have information, please call the Naperville Police Department at 630-420-6666. So let's keep an eye out in that area for Danielle.

[00:35:47] We hope that her family gets answers soon. Yes, definitely. But anyways, thank you all so much for listening. Isn't it interesting? Isn't it interesting? I get mocked and derided for my transitions to the t-shirt ads. But when I don't do it, you just start wrapping up the show.

[00:36:07] You just start wrapping up the show. Just trying to get out of it. I think. Oh, you're trying to get out of it because you don't want our listeners to look stylish. You don't want our listeners to look stylish.

[00:36:18] And you don't want our listeners to experience the feeling of walking down a street and hearing people whisper in awe. That's a murder sheet person. That's what I want for our listeners. You don't care. You mock me for my transitions. You don't even try. You don't even try.

[00:36:35] Now redeem yourself. Can you do that, please? You're the worst. Can you do that? I'm just sitting here waiting for you to do some artful transition to show me up. Anya, that artful transition never happened. You know what? I don't know. That artful transition never happened.

[00:36:53] I am shocked by the sass of this man sometimes. Redeem yourself. I'm not going to redeem myself. I don't need to redeem myself. Tell people about the shirts. Oh my God. Okay, so we have shirts. They are very nice. They're very beautiful.

[00:37:10] Beautiful shirts that are made by a wonderful printer. Lovely colors. People who got them seem to really like them. We've not gotten any virulent swear-laden complaints or anything like that. What a salesperson you are. Everybody's happy. Everyone's having a good time.

[00:37:30] One woman attributes getting a job promotion to buying the t-shirt. And Kevin's trying to get us shut down by the FDA with some of these claims. So when he starts spouting off about how they'll clear your skin and make things work out for you at work, don't worry.

[00:37:46] He's just joking. I have not started a murder sheet cult. But you can be a murder sheet person and tell everybody that you have really good taste in true crime by wearing these shirts and maybe start a rumble at CrimeCon next year. I don't know.

[00:38:03] You can have fun with it. It's kind of whatever you want, but it's one of those things where if you join our Patreon at the $5 level, you get free shipping. So there's a little perk there.

[00:38:13] But otherwise, if you buy it, it's going into our funds for documents requests and travel to go to trials and stuff. And so it really helps us out. And honestly, everyone who bought one, thank you so much.

[00:38:29] Every time we got a little order, I'd be like, oh, wow. It was nice to see all the support. And we just really appreciate you guys. And if you want one, yeah, just get one. It's just good.

[00:38:39] So if you join on $5, you get a couple of extra lives from us. Yes. We're very unhinged. We're more... We're actually more unhinged than at the end of these cheat sheets. So if you want that, then that's there as well.

[00:38:53] And then we have a little book club in our Patreon called The Red Sheet. And we have early episodes and ad-free episodes. So you get a lot of perks if you join a $5 level. But otherwise, you don't have to.

[00:39:05] You can just get the shirt and show off your sense of style and your sense of true crime. Or you can just listen to the show. Or you can do nothing. Or you could never listen to the show again if you're just so upset. That's not an option.

[00:39:19] That's not an option. Sorry, I forgot. You guys are not allowed to do that. So just... You're locked in for life. Apologies. Kevin has spoken. Are you going to like bang a gavel or something? I mean, what are you doing?

[00:39:31] You're sentencing them to a life sentence of listening to the show. Of having good podcasts in their lives. You make it sound so awful. Of having good podcasts? You make it sound like, oh, these people are going to be listening to the show for the

[00:39:45] rest of their life. How dreadful. I don't want them to feel like they're joining a cult. I'm not trying to lean into that. Anya, Anya, Anya. Isn't it interesting? I'm sorry. I am a terrible saleswoman. I feel uncomfortable selling things. I really do.

[00:40:02] So I am the worst spokesperson for myself and our products of all time. It's true. Yes, you're a disgrace. At the very least, if I do a transition next, we just don't mock it because obviously I'm doing better than you. Well, you know what?

[00:40:20] Like, I just feel like you sound like one of those old-time radio guys where like, okay, the news is that, you know, 500 people were killed in this flood. And then ding! Now we're going to talk about like peptide chewing gum, and like this little music in the background.

[00:40:34] And I just find that amusing. Oh, oh, you're going to ice me out? I gave you a chance this week to do better. And your transition was thank you for listening. Goodbye everybody.

[00:40:47] That was your, that was your, that was your, I was going to say thanks for listening. Happy Fourth of July, making conversation, building up to talk about the t-shirts, building up. I was building up and you just shot it all down.

[00:41:00] I don't think a single listener believes that. There's not an Anya cult who believes everything you say. You know what? Maybe there should be. Maybe I can make that happen. What a turn. A minute ago, you're saying we shouldn't have a cult.

[00:41:12] Now you, you don't want a Murder Street cult, you want an Anya cult. Yes. I'll take all the power. I think we're done here. Oh my God, this has gone totally off the rails. But no. Did you tell them where they can find the shirts? Oh, geez.

[00:41:26] I don't think you can do that. Find the shirts on any street corner. Let's see. What is the link? I always forget. I never want to say the wrong thing. So it's murdersheetshop.com. M-U-R-D-E-R-S-H-E-E-T-S-H-O-P dot com. Isn't it interesting? Have a lovely Fourth of July, everybody.

[00:41:53] I guess you'll be listening to this after the fourth, but happy post-fourth. Thanks so much for listening to The Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheetatgmail.com.

[00:42:11] If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities. If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet.

[00:42:29] If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support. Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for The Murder Sheet, and

[00:42:48] who you can find on the web at kevintg.com. If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much.

[00:43:06] We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.