The Cheat Sheet: Faces and Photos

[00:00:00] Content Warning, this episode contains discussion of topics like murder and rape. Well, this week on the cheat sheet, it fell on me to pick the cases. Anya was otherwise occupied. She was back doing something, I think organizing the t-shirts or something, or perhaps actually she was working hard. You don't think the t-shirts are hard work? What do you think goes into these ads?

[00:00:28] Well, she was working hard to come up with an ad for the end of the show. So I'm really looking forward to that as I'm sure all of you are. Thanks a lot. So two of these cases will be out of the great state of Ohio, our neighboring state. We also have a case out of California and a case from Hawaii. So let's get to it. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist. And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet.

[00:00:58] We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet. And this is The Cheat Sheet, Faces and Photos.

[00:01:10] I want to apologize because I nearly forgot my own title. This is one of those rare weeks when I came up with the title of the Cheat Sheet episode. I almost...

[00:02:04] Panicked. Yeah, I freaked out as you've all heard. I didn't think it was that bad of a delay. At least you weren't sighing during the opening music like somebody did recently. Or coughing. That was you. So the first case we're going to be talking about is one I found at SCOTUS blog.

[00:02:25] And so readers who are familiar with that site know that that is the Supreme Court of the United States blog, which is a little clue that this case somehow involves the United States Supreme Court. And it's a pretty interesting case that actually did not quite make it all the way to the court because the court declined to hear it. And I'm going to be very curious.

[00:02:50] I've not discussed this with my co-host, the lovely Anya Kane, prior to our discussion. So I'm going to be curious as to where you come down on this. You're going to blindside me about it. Yes. I always find it interesting when some cases involving criminal law reach the higher levels of the court. So this is a case that, as I mentioned, happened in Ohio.

[00:03:14] And it involves a man named David Smith, who ultimately was convicted of committing a brutal attack on a woman named Courtney Tolliver. I apologize if I'm mispronouncing that name. And this attack on Ms. Tolliver was so brutal that she had to be put into a medically induced coma.

[00:03:41] And when she was brought out of that coma, she's shown a variety of pictures of people who police consider like suspects in the assault on her. And she doesn't identify any of them. And then later, a police officer comes to her and shows her a picture of Mr. Smith and says, this is the guy that attacked you and shows her the picture. She doesn't.

[00:04:07] Then later on, she identifies him as the attacker. So the question is, does the fact that she was shown a picture of a man and told this is the man who did it, does that make her identification of him as hopelessly corrupt and unreliable? I mean, I'm not a lawyer. I mean, I would. How important was her identification of him to the overall case?

[00:04:35] I would imagine that any time you have a victim in a beating case like this making identification, it's probably pretty crucial. Pretty crucial. But I mean, if there's also stuff like DNA or surveillance footage that definitively shows him. I don't know. But yeah, I mean, obviously, that's problematic. Why would they why would they do it that way? Why would the police officer? I mean, aren't isn't the training pretty much to not do that?

[00:05:04] Yeah, this is this is frowned upon because obviously it is problematic. It's like kind of similar to, you know, if. Anya takes me outside and point. I take you outside? What are you, a dog? And you point up at the sky and say, look, Kevin, that cloud up there looks like a rabbit. Then I will look at the clouds and I will see the rabbit because she's preconditioned me to see that.

[00:05:27] And so if you have a police officer you trust showing you a picture and saying this is who did it, that might precondition you and it might make your identification ultimately unreliable. Arguably. I mean, we've seen cases where police show a photo lineup and one of the photos is slightly different. And that's been raised as an issue where it's like that one. It made it stand out.

[00:05:53] So that makes it problematic or that they didn't show enough photos or there was something distinctive or like there's a lot of ways to mess up that sort of thing. And, you know, you would just hope that the training would be better. It's better to give options and be cleaner about it. Yeah. You could also argue that the way we figure out how to train people is to look at things that go wrong and say, don't do this. Yes. Yeah. And this would certainly be the.

[00:06:22] Well, what happened in this case is they tried him and he was convicted. And the state court of Ohio said, well, yeah, that that really wasn't a good idea. I'm simplifying here. They say that identification really wasn't handled well, but if it was still reliable, sure, it can come in. And so they allowed it.

[00:06:46] But then a federal court ended up throwing the conviction out, saying, no, this this prejudice, the whole thing. He needs a new trial. And so then the state of Ohio took the matter up to the Supreme Court and asked them to basically reinstate the conviction. In other words, don't make us go through the trial. Just say the court of appeals was wrong. Make him guilty again. And the court declined to take the case.

[00:07:15] Clarence Thomas was against that decision. And he felt that the federal court should have been paying more deference to the state court and how the state court handled it. So it's not that the Supreme Court is ruling on it. It's there to saying pass. Well, so now does it just go back and they have to do the retrial? Yeah, because now the Supreme Court is not taking it up.

[00:07:40] The earlier judgment of the court of appeals is, in effect, not sure what will happen there. But, yeah, the Supreme Court is one of those places where they basically get to decide their own workload because lots of people want the Supreme Court to hear their cases. But the Supreme Court gets to vote and decide what cases they hear or don't hear. Well, I certainly feel very bad for Ms. Tolliver throughout all this.

[00:08:05] I mean, to be brutally beaten like that and then have to go through all of this is truly a horrible outcome. Yeah, it's frustrating when mistakes happen that might compromise the ability to get justice in a case. Absolutely. And, yeah, it's just frustrating.

[00:08:29] But I tend to agree with the federal court that this is unfortunate, but there's no way around it. I'm not sure how much faith I would be able to put in that identification. Right. Yeah. I mean, and as you said, that can be very important in a case like this.

[00:08:49] So now the thing is they'd have to go back and do it again if they were going to do it again and just not have the identification aspect in it and see if they convict him again based on the remaining evidence. So we will keep an eye on that and see what happens. And that this case was just turned down for a review by the Supreme Court just a few days ago. Got it. So it's very interesting. There was a case out of Valley. How do you pronounce that?

[00:09:20] Vallejo? Vallejo. I'm not good with the words. We're working very hard on a book. It's very unfortunate given that you're writing a book and now you're saying you're not good with the words. You're saving all your words for the book, in other words. Is that fair to say? Sure. It sounds like I'm doing a riddle, but I'm really not. I'm just losing my mind slowly. Anyways. So Vallejo? Vallejo? Vallejo. Where is that?

[00:09:49] I believe it's in California. Okay. So a man in Vallejo. Vallejo, I think. Was stabbed to death earlier this month. And it turns out that he was a crucial witness in an upcoming murder case where. Oh, my God. And oh, my gosh, he was 82 years old. It's an 82-year-old man, Curtis Lind. There's something about, I don't know why.

[00:10:18] When people victimize the elderly, there's something that really upsets me. I don't know. I mean, I'm sure it upsets a lot of people. There's just something, I don't know, that makes me really angry. Yeah. 82-year-old man, obviously not, at least by the details we have here, he's not a threat to anybody. And he is targeted for attack not once, but twice.

[00:10:43] Because as it turns out, he was seriously injured a couple of years ago in this earlier incident where he got into a kind of a confrontation with some tenants at a property he owned. And the fight there turned violent. He was attacked by these people. They used a bunch of knives and swords.

[00:11:09] And his view was that they were intending to basically dismember him, cut him up, and try to dissolve him in chemicals. He survives this attack, though. He actually shoots two of his attackers, injuring one of them and killing the other. And we all know about felony murder.

[00:11:34] And so the other attackers were charged with felony murder because of what happened there. And he was basically the only witness. And he was scheduled to testify in this upcoming trial. And now he has himself been murdered. Well, that's horrible. I mean, and it sounds like they were squatting on his property as well. Yeah. So. The person who killed him stabbed him in the neck on January 17th of this year.

[00:12:03] A guy wearing a mask and a black beanie. It is not clear if this is related to the earlier attack. I'm going to tell you, it's related to the earlier attack. Yeah, it would seem like a deliberate effort to prevent this man from testifying. Yeah. I mean, and obviously these people think they're, you know, can do whatever they want with impunity. They're squatting. They're trying to dismember people. And now, you know, some of them, some of their group are on trial.

[00:12:32] So they send somebody out to kill the witness. I mean, I know cases involving people who murder witnesses in trials are often taken pretty seriously because, as you've said, and as I said on the show, it's an attack on the system as well as on an individual. And I can only hope that a lot of effort is put into this because you should, I mean, hopefully this is obvious. I don't think I'm, I think I'm probably preaching to the choir with our listeners.

[00:13:00] But like, you should not be able to get away with crimes by just killing all the people who could, you know, pose a danger to you at a trial. Yeah. And he is, as I indicated, he was very crucial when the prosecutors mentioned that there was less evidence than usual in a homicide. In this case, he was going to testify in that he was the only eyewitness and his testimony was absolutely crucial.

[00:13:29] And now he won't be able to offer it. Well, I want to ask you, Kevin, like, I mean, I'm not, I'm not knocking this prosecutor's office or, you know, I just, I just don't know the circumstances. But like, in certain cases where there are witnesses like this, are there, should there be more resources put into protecting them potentially from stuff like this happening?

[00:13:52] If there's maybe a, there's maybe an indication that somebody is testifying against, you know, people who have connections. I don't know if there's, I'm not saying there's organized crime here. I don't know. But like, or there could be kind of a, a possibility like something like this can happen. Yeah. They, they certainly need more protection of these sorts of witnesses. I don't know who to blame here. I'm not saying anyone is to blame. I mean, the person who killed him is to blame. Yes.

[00:14:21] But I don't know if it was a case of him declining protection or what have you. It does sound like in this particular case, he moved out of this area, but where the, both attacks occurred. But he would go back there sometimes because he's still on this piece of property that he was trying to sell. So, I mean, obviously hindsight 2020, but certainly maybe when he went back to that area, he should have had people with him. Yeah. To protect him. Yeah.

[00:14:47] Well, yeah, it's certainly not victim blaming here because, you know, you should be able to walk around without getting killed by people, obviously. But it's just, yeah, I just wonder in cases like that, I don't know if you have a case where there's like one witness and that witness is super important and maybe, you know. But then again, I don't think a lot of prosecutors offices necessarily have a ton of resources by way of that.

[00:15:11] And there's also, you know, it's not like you can, you know, I don't know if that would call for like witness protection program where you start a new life. I think that, you know, that might be too extreme, but there's, you know, then suddenly you might have to get police on overtime. Like it can add up the expenses, I'm sure can add up. So there's a practical side to it too. But unfortunately in this case, you know, obviously it costs a man his life. Right.

[00:15:36] I want to move on and my, or I should mention that the source we use for that, I will let you open Valiejo. Okay. We'll go with that. That is. I don't know how to say it either. Well, these are things one must look at before recording. Rubbing my face in it. I want to move on to Hawaii case.

[00:16:03] We always enjoy covering cases out of Hawaii. Although maybe enjoy is usually not necessarily the word you'd use when you talk about a murder, but maybe to some extent it is appropriate for a case like this where someone was murdered decades ago. And finally the perpetrator appears to have been identified and arrested. I saw this come up in the news, actually, this case that you're going to talk about. So I'm really glad you selected it. Yes.

[00:16:32] And my source for this was the Guardian, which is headquartered out of the UK, but they did cover this. This is a case about a murder that occurred in Honolulu, Hawaii on the island of Oahu in March of 1977. And an arrest was just made in this case very recently in the state of Utah. The victim in the case was a 16-year-old girl named Don Momohara.

[00:17:01] I apologize if I mispronounced that. She was found dead on March 21st, 1977. She'd actually gone missing the night before. She told her mom she's going to go somewhere to meet some friends. She never comes back. She was found dead on March 21st, She was deceased. And there was evidence that a sexual assault had occurred.

[00:17:26] And despite the best efforts of authorities at the time, they were unable to come up with sufficient evidence to make an arrest or identify a killer back then. And we all know about how great DNA technology is getting and how it can be used to work almost miracles.

[00:17:52] And so with the advances in science and technology, some of the items belonging to the victim and samples from the murder scene were retested back in 2020. And using these advanced techniques, they were able to get a genetic profile of an unidentified male. They did this by taking a DNA sample from the victim's shorts. Wow.

[00:18:22] And then just a couple of years ago, they then received some information suggesting that Gideon Castro or his brother William Castro could be potential suspects. They didn't make it clear how they got that information. The Castro brothers were students at the school. At least Gideon was. They were able to get DNA from the children of the Castros. William's child's DNA cleared William.

[00:18:51] When they took some DNA from the son of Gideon Castro, it came up that this DNA belonged to a biological child of the unidentified male, whose DNA was found at the crime scene. Wow. So earlier in January, detectives traveled to Utah. They collected some DNA from Gideon Castro, who's now 66.

[00:19:17] And they found that it matched the DNA profile from the scene. And so they got the warrant and they arrested him. And he's been charged with the murder of this girl. Good. Good. I hope all the elderly rapists and murderers are just terrified every time they see a story like this come up. Like, honestly. Like, your time's coming next. You know? And he said this was William McKinley High School? Is that it? I believe so.

[00:19:46] When I looked it up, I think that's what I saw. And that's, like, a very well-known high school in Honolulu. Like, I think Duke Kahanamuko went there. And, like, a lot of famous people. Like, it's a very well-known central school there. And what a horrible tragedy. I mean, not only her family, her friends, but just imagine being a student there. You know? A young woman there.

[00:20:12] Like, you know, suddenly you go from being a student there trying to learn to being, like, possible prey for a predator. It's horrible. It's horrible. And think how it affected those other students for the rest of their lives. Having to deal with this. A friend of theirs having this awful thing happen to them. Yeah. It's just, you know. And, again, so many of these cases. You know, people try to, I don't know. Sometimes they feel like a lot of crime is a lot simpler than we want to think.

[00:20:40] We want to think everything like some, you know, brilliant serial killer or whatever. I think a lot of these crimes are, you know, basically somebody wants to get sexually gratified. And they're willing to kill for it. You know? Because somebody else's human life doesn't matter as much to them. So they kill. And they get gratified. And then they move on with their life. And maybe they don't even kill anyone else. But, you know, it's not.

[00:21:09] I mean, it sounds like something that we can't understand. Or, like, you almost want everyone to be a serial killer. Because then at least, like, they kind of keep doing it. And that's just their life. But someone kind of doing something like this and then slipping back into the, you know, into life. It's almost, like, harder to conceptualize that. But I think that's extremely common.

[00:21:28] Yeah, it's a terrifying thought to think that people around us could be living ordinary lives, going to the grocery stores in the aisle ahead of us, eating at fast food places, one table over. And they may have done these terrible things. Yeah. I mean, and they are and they have. And they're out there. And, you know, just some people are bad people. And they don't care about other lives to the extent that they are willing to do something like this.

[00:21:56] So I don't, I just, I think it's horrifying. But I think it's something that we have to accept. But I'm just glad that DNA is ushered in sort of an era where a lot of this stuff is getting kind of closed. And while we're on the topic of new technology, obviously DNA has been a boon. Other new technologies may also potentially be a boon.

[00:22:24] But first, we have to kind of figure out what are the rules? How do we use these new technologies? And how reliable are they? I'm sure we can ask the lawyers for help with that. They'll figure it out. Yes, let's all turn to the attorneys. And those questions arise in the final case I wanted to talk about this week. And my source for this was Cleveland.com. And this involves facial recognition and AI.

[00:22:55] And so it begins, of course, with a murder. Last February, actually on Valentine's Day, a 33-year-old man named Blake Story was walking on the street not far from his house. And someone comes up from behind, robs him, and then shoots him. And then the shooter runs away. Story is very badly wounded.

[00:23:20] Somehow he manages to stagger the last bit of his walk home. And his father discovers him dead in the bathtub the next day. Oh, that's awful. It's a terrible story. So the murder was captured on a surveillance camera, but the images weren't really clear enough to identify anybody.

[00:23:45] Later, officers found that there was a security camera that had recorded a guy later identified as, I know I'm going to butcher this name, Kayon Tolbert. They captured this man leaving his own home and going to a convenience store in the same general neighborhood. And one of these cameras at the convenience store gets a picture of his face.

[00:24:13] And police kind of think this guy in this footage kind of looks like the shooter. So they were able to go to the convenience store. They got a copy of the video. And then they had it turned over to an AI-powered facial recognition organization called Clearview AI.

[00:24:39] Clearview AI runs this through their, I don't even know what the proper word is, through their database, would you think? I don't really understand technology. I'm not going to lie. They run it through their processes. They run it through their processes and they come back with eight pictures. Now, two of those pictures turn out to be of Tolbert. Other pictures come from like Instagram and YouTube.

[00:25:07] One is just a post of a guy who's riding a bicycle near a statue. And there's also, oddly enough, a YouTube video that comes up of people eating chicken. Buffalo Wild Wings. Buffalo Wild Wings. That's chicken, isn't it? Yeah. So this report includes Tolbert's name and his arrest record, all sorts of identifying information.

[00:25:36] And so detectives think this must be the guy. And so they go to a judge and using this information, get a search warrant of the guy's apartment. And when they search it, they recover the murder weapon. So there are some problems. So there are some problems, one of which is this Clearview AI on the bottom of their report.

[00:26:03] It says anything that turns up as a result of this cannot be used as admissible evidence in court.

[00:26:38] Oh, no. This isn't right. It literally says on the report, this can't be used as evidence. And you're trying to use it as evidence to get a search warrant. And a judge agreed, and he threw out the warrant, which also means that the fact that the murder weapon was in this man's home was also thrown out. So that can't come back in for any reason.

[00:27:07] Let's not even go there. Okay. Probably not. Yeah, so this would seem to be a fatal blow to the case. That's brutal. Because he's obviously guilty. I'm sure it's going to come up for appeals and such. But it would seem that if we're going to start using some of these technologies, we need to have clear rules and roadmaps as to how they might be used.

[00:27:33] You need to have the most nervous guy or gal in your prosecutor's office be basically walking through every second of any case that you're going to do. You know, you're right. There need to be – I mean, listen, I understand where they're coming from. They're trying to get a person who's willing to gun down a guy over nothing. But it has to be done in the right way. And, you know, with – the thing that kind of came to my mind is investigative genetic genealogy.

[00:28:03] You know, when they use that, you don't just – it doesn't just go into, like – it's a tool to get you to somebody's door. Like what you were talking about with the Hawaii case. And then, you know, if someone discards some trash and it's legal for you to grab that, you can grab that and test it and see if your theory is correct.

[00:28:28] But you don't just kind of skip over that step and throw someone in prison or jail or what have you over that new technology. In this case, it seems like there could have been a way. This would have required a lot more work. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this would be easy.

[00:28:48] But having something where somebody's maybe surveilling this person or looking for other ways to kind of get in his house would have been the way to get in the house. And then you could say, well, listen, the AI led us there, but it didn't get us in the house. We didn't present it to a judge and say, have this convince you to let us in his house. Am I making any sense? Does that –

[00:29:16] Because my concern – my concern – obviously here the AI led them to the right person. But it's very easy to imagine a circumstance. The AI also pulled back this video of people eating chicken wings. Yes. What if Anya and I were those people eating chicken wings? We probably would be. Or at least I would be. I don't know if you really like chicken wings. I'm not into that. But you could imagine a situation.

[00:29:42] If that's all it takes is to have your picture show up in an AI report, does that mean that if it pulls up the video of me eating chicken wings with my wife, the police can then come and search my home? Oh, God. Yeah. It is concerning. And I'm kind of – I think I'm kind of somewhere in the middle because I don't really have a problem with there being technology used in this situation to lead you to somebody.

[00:30:13] But at that point you need more. You can't just do anything based on the AI. Maybe it points out like this guy is looking pretty good, but you need more from it. And how you get that more might involve more old-fashioned police work, surveillance, having people undercover who are trying to get him to talk. You got to get something. Or maybe – I don't know. Maybe he's – there's drugs involved and you get in that way.

[00:30:41] You could figure something out, I guess. But I – but basically like we can kick down your door because AI told us that you were the guy. As you said, in this case, they found the murder weapon. He's obviously guilty as hell. I mean he's a bad person. He's probably going to get away with it at this point. But the people who are just – you know, have their Instagram up there, they're not bad people.

[00:31:06] They don't – you know, if they're reported for some reason said, no, it's this guy, then, you know, it's just – you have to have parameters. And I would really – I think hopefully this is a lesson because I think, you know, I think people are often – you know, they're looking for tools to help with policing and to, you know, keep communities safer and whatnot. So they're trying to adopt new things. And I don't necessarily think – I don't think that's a bad thing.

[00:31:33] But I think it's just underscoring adopt new things very, very carefully because otherwise, you know, a case could implode like this. And apparently the detectives who worked this case had not had any special training about how to use AI. Okay. So this just really calls out we need to have some nationwide standards as to how to use this technology.

[00:32:01] Obviously, again, it identified the person. It meant – it was intended to identify. So there seems to be a really strong potential there. But we just have to make sure we use it in a way that protects everyone's rights. Yeah. I think what you said, strong potential. You know, that's good.

[00:32:20] But it cannot be a situation where just bust down the door because, you know, my Instagram happened to make me look slightly similar to someone who did something bad because that's violating to my rights. Right. I have a question. Is what I said about IGG at all relevant? Like it's okay for something like this to maybe get you to somewhere, but you can't – you almost need to build a bridge still to kind of cross over and get to the point where you're actually arresting someone.

[00:32:50] Yeah, a big part of a case obviously is identifying your suspect. But then once you identify your suspect, that doesn't mean you automatically get to have all the warrants you want. Certainly there are steps they could have taken once they identify this man. I'm not even clear if they even tried to interview him. Yeah. Like I don't mind that part. I feel like everything up to them is working great. But it's not – it's not acceptable.

[00:33:18] Yeah, that's just – that's not going to be good for anybody. So I think what you said, hopefully there can be further training. Hopefully there can be discussions. Hopefully things like this can – I mean and it sounds like in fairness to Clearview they said in their report like don't use this. So it's not like, you know, like that was probably, you know, the right approach to kind of be more cautious.

[00:33:43] But it's going to start looking really dystopian if, you know, if it's not kind of – if they're not rules put in. Yeah, agreed. Well, while I was picking the cases, you were using your quill to write ads for, I believe, the book and for the t-shirts. Yes. So I'm awaiting this. Wow. I'm not going to interrupt. Okay. Well, we'll see if that lasts.

[00:34:13] So Kevin and I are writing a book. It's called Shadow of the Bridge. It's about the Delphi murders. We've been working on that case. A lot of people say we've been working on the case since the beginning. We didn't know each other in 2017. We started working on this case in, I believe, 2021. Does that sound right? Uh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know. You know, 500 years. And it's a case that's deeply important to us.

[00:34:42] It's important to us that the public understands and knows about the case. It's important to us to tell the stories of all the people involved in the case on all sides, all angles. So this is going to be a very, very comprehensive book. We hope it's a book that's meaningful and we're trying our best to make it as good as possible. And we, I think it'll be worth your time. Yeah. We've been working very hard on it. The first draft is actually. Due very soon.

[00:35:10] It's actually the day you hear this, I believe, is the day that first draft is scheduled to be turned in. So as soon as we're done recording, we're going back and doing some more editing. Yeah. But the reporting process will be continuing for a while. Yes. You know, a draft is a draft, but we're still working on it. So rest assured. But I'm hopeful that after we get this initial draft done, we will be able to have time to work on some other cases because there's people have been suggesting a lot of cases to us that we very much want to cover.

[00:35:39] Yeah, we do want to cover other cases right now. It's just not it's really just not feasible for us to be, you know, doing interviews for this book and then diving into another case that would be doing a disservice to everyone. And, you know, hopefully that'll change soon and we can kind of get back to it. But this book is is really, really important to us. I hope it. It's not it's about the Delphi case.

[00:36:05] It's very much about the Delphi case, but I think it also underscores something about. True crime, which our listeners might be interested in and how there can be a real dark side to an extreme amount of interest in a case. And how while most of us who get interested in a high profile case are very well meaning and not doing anything wrong and in fact probably helping focus resources by keeping that case in the public spotlight.

[00:36:31] There can be a dark underbelly to that where there's a lot of inhumanity and callous behavior. And I think shining a light on things tends to, you know, destroy the mildew. So it's going to be looking into some of that. It's going to be looking into the facts of the case and how it developed over time. And we're really, really putting a lot of work into it. And it would mean a lot if you preordered, if you hadn't already. And should be an audio book, too. So that's something to look out for.

[00:37:00] But, you know, preorders help us a lot. If you can preorder for yourself and then tell your friends about it, it's something like you think they would be interested in. Tell your friends. You can tell your enemies. You can tell all kinds of people, no matter how you feel about them. Tell them about the book. But, yeah, that's what we've got going on recently. So I'll include links to where you can preorder. It's on Amazon. It's on bookshop.org. It's on Simon & Schuster's website. We've been working like 16 hours a day on this book.

[00:37:28] So I'm optimistic that we will not be working 16 hours a day after we finish the rough draft. That's what you think. So I'm hopeful we'll be doing other cases and stuff sooner rather than later. What about shirts? Yes. We're working 16 hours a day to get these shirts sold. So we also, I almost said we own shirts. Of course we own shirts.

[00:37:56] But these are shirts that we're selling. I'm guessing that everybody within the sound of my voice owns shirts. Yeah. I'm guessing that every man, woman, and child on this planet owns shirts. Wow. Okay. So what are we selling them? If they already have them, what's the point? This is futile, Kevin. What are we going to do? Pack it in. No, I'm telling you, that shows there is a universal interest and need. Oh, okay. So it means that they're going to want more. Obviously.

[00:38:26] Do you think exponential shirts? So you believe that all people need in life is a single shirt. No, I don't believe that. I'm just saying you kind of made it sound like they don't need us. How many shirts do you think a person should own? I don't know. I'm not going to. I don't know. I'm not good with guessing numbers. What do you think? I think everybody was in the sound of my voice. The number of shirts. The only ones who's in the sound of your voice is me. We're in the same room.

[00:38:55] What about the listeners? Okay. Well. I believe everybody was in the sound of my voice. The number of shirts you have now is close to the number you need. You just need one more. Just need one more. And that's the Murder Sheet People t-shirt. Yes. And it's a beautiful, stylish shirt of cotton, I think. And it has our logo on it and it says Murder Sheet People. And it's a way to become a Murder Sheet person in a way. I mean, that's kind of, I mean, it's right there on the shirt. No confusion there.

[00:39:28] And it's just beautiful. It's beautiful colors. Beautiful details. You could buy it at MurderSheetShop.com. I think it'd be a great gift for Valentine's Day. A Valentine's shirt. And then you could wear it in the Easter parade. Wow. With an Easter bonnet? Yes. Wow. You got plans for the holidays. But what about St. Patrick's Day? It's not green.

[00:39:57] So I don't know. Maybe you don't do that. I think the fact that it's... You can pin a shamrock to it and then you're good. Well, I think if people don't start ordering these shirts, I think that for every holiday in the future, that's the gift you're getting. Help, guys, please. Well, if that's my fate, then I guess that's same for you. Happy birthday, sweetheart. It's a box of shirts. It's...

[00:40:29] Cut to Kevin looking dejected in all his birthday photos. Yeah, we... You know, we... I mean, but there really are great shirts. I really... Like, all kidding aside, they're pretty cool. And, you know, I mean... It's a... I mean, you gotta love the merch, you know? Everyone loves merch. So I think just check it out.

[00:40:53] And also, you know, drop a hint to your spouse or to your, you know, significant other or to whoever in your life is kind of like what... You know, I think our listeners are an intriguing and intelligent bunch. So that's hard to shop for. So maybe you start leaving some links lying around for people. They get the picture. They know what you want for the holidays or for your birthday. So these links are like a physical object? What are you, high? I...

[00:41:23] We should leave links lying around. I don't know what texted to people. Not... What? That's not lying around. It's just a saying. You're picturing, like, URLs, like, hovering in space. What is going on? I dream... You look at things as they are and say, why? I look at things... I dream things that aren't and say, why not? And I dream of a world where, yeah, maybe URLs are just floating around.

[00:41:51] And people can buy Murder Sheet t-shirts with ease. Just hit the buttons. Yeah. Gladly. 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 murdersheet at gmail.com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[00:42:16] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet. 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.

[00:42:41] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for The Murder Sheet, and 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. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages.

[00:43:11] Thanks again for listening. Can we talk a little bit before we go about Quintz, a great new sponsor for us? I think in one of the ads that we've already done for them, we talked about the compliments I'm getting on my jacket. I know you're a very modest woman, but can we talk about the compliments you're getting on the Quintz products you wear? Yeah, I've got two of their Mongolian cashmere sweaters.

[00:43:35] They're a brand that just does this sort of luxurious products, but without the crazy costs really well. They give you Italian leather handbags. They do European linen sheets. You have a really cool suede jacket, and I really like the way I look in my sweaters. I like the way you look in your bomber jacket. It looks super cool. You've gotten a lot of compliments when you go out wearing these sweaters. I think I have, yeah. And deservedly so.

[00:44:03] Also, I'm one of those people, my skin is very sensitive. I'm kind of sensitive. So when it comes to wearing sweaters, sometimes something's too scratchy. It really bothers me. These are so soft. They're just very delicate and soft. Wearing them is lovely because they're super comfortable. It's not one of those things where you're like, you buy it and it looks great, but it doesn't feel that great. They look great. They feel great. But yeah, I really love them. And you got your cool jacket.

[00:44:31] I mean, that's a little bit of a – you're the guy who wears the same thing all the time. So this was a bit of a gamble for you, a bit of a risk. You got something a bit different. I do wash my clothes. I know you wash your clothes, but I mean – you're filthy. You just made me sound awful. So no, I wash my clothes. But you don't really – I laundry them. You don't really experiment with fashion that much is what I'm saying. So this is a little bit out of the norm for you, but I think you really like it and it looks good. Thank you. Great products, incredible prices. Absolutely. Quints.com.

[00:45:01] There you go. So you can go to quints.com slash msheet. And right now they're offering 365-day returns plus free shipping on your order. So that's quints.com slash msheet. That's quince.com slash msheet. Before we go, we just wanted to say another few words about Vaya. This is really a wonderful product. I think it's really helped both of us get a lot better rest.

[00:45:27] Vaya is pretty much, I guess you'd say, the only lifestyle hemp brand out there. So what does that mean? It means that they're all about crafting different products to elicit different moods. Kevin and I really like their non-THC CBD products. Specifically, Zen really helps me fall asleep. Some Zen can really just kind of help me get more into that state where I can relax and fall asleep pretty easily. And they've been such a wonderful support to us. They're a longtime sponsor. We really love working with them.

[00:45:56] And they really make this show possible. I'm going to say this. You may not realize this, but when you support our sponsors, you're supporting us. And it kind of makes it possible for us to do this show. So if you or one of your loved ones is interested in trying some of this stuff, you're going to get a great deal. It's very high quality, high value. Anya, if I wanted to give this discount you speak of, what do I do? Okay, if you're 21 and older, head to Viahemp.com and use the code MSHEET to receive 15% off.

[00:46:24] And if you're new to Viah, get a free gift of your choice. That's V-I-I-A, hemp.com, and use code MSHEET at checkout. Spell the code. M-S-H-E-E-T. And after you purchase, they're going to ask you, hey, where did you hear about us? Say the murder sheet because then it lets them know that our ads are effective and it really helps us out. Before we wrap up this episode, can we take just a moment to say a few more words about our great new sponsor, Acorns?

[00:46:54] Yeah, thanks so much to Acorns. Remember, when you support our sponsors, you're supporting us. And our sponsors make it possible for us to do this job. So we really appreciate them. We love our sponsors. Absolutely. Acorns is a terrific investing app. It's the perfect thing for somebody who wants to get started with their personal finance journey. That can seem daunting. It is daunting. I'm so not financially minded. For me, it's always really hard to get started with something like this where you're like, what am I doing?

[00:47:22] But Acorns sort of takes the guesswork out of that. It gets you started and it will essentially help you take control of your financial future. You can get set up pretty quickly and it allows you to start automatically saving and investing. That money can help you, your kids, if you have a family, your retirement. And you don't need to be rich. You don't need to be an expert to do this. It's very simple. And you can start with only $5 or whatever change you have. It's not like you need to put in some massive payment.

[00:47:51] So it's a great fit for people who are starting out, but they want to take the next step and improve themselves financially and make their money work for them more. So if you're interested, head to acorns.com slash msheet or download the Acorns app to start saving and investing for your future today. Paid non-client endorsement. Compensation provides incentive to positively promote Acorns. Tier 1 compensation provided. Investing involved risk. Acorns Advisors LLC and SEC Registered Investment Advisor.

[00:48:20] You important disclosures at acorns.com slash msheet. Acorns Advisors LLC and SEC Registered Investment Advisor.