The Cheat Sheet: Self-Publishing and Selfies

[00:00:00] We'd like to thank our wonderful new sponsor, Happy Mammoth. This is a terrific wellness brand that can help you maintain optimal hormone levels and boost your gut health. Hormones can be a bit of a mystery, and one well worth solving. From your skincare routine, to the dinner you're eating, to the air you breathe, hormone disruptors are all around us. And those hormone changes can have a big impact on your quality of life.

[00:00:23] The good news is Happy Mammoth is on the case. Take their two-minute quiz and get a tailor-made recommendation to help you ensure that your hormones are in an optimal spot. I've been taking hormone harmony supplements. These are great for women at all stages of life. I'm taking it because it's a great way of promoting gut health and reducing cravings. That's been my experience.

[00:00:45] For women dealing with menopause and perimenopause, it can help relieve those symptoms, give you more energy, and help you sleep. It's a wonderful solution for so many women. Hormone Harmony has science-backed herbal extracts known as adaptogens. Those help your body adapt to stressors. That's great for me because as you probably realize from listening to the show, I'm often a walking personification of stress. Plus, it's great because hormone harmony has no sugar, no gluten, no dairy, or GMOs.

[00:01:14] I've also really enjoyed using Happy Mammoth's prebiotic collagen protein powder. It's got a sweet, mild vanilla bean flavor, and it's helping me keep my skin healthy. For a limited time, you can get 15% off on your entire first order at happymammoth.com. Just use the code MSHEAT at checkout. That's happymammoth.com and use the code MSHEAT for 15% off today.

[00:01:39] It's spring. It's warming up outside. You might be thinking about spring break, future travel plans. I know we have a few spots we'd like to go to to look at historical murder sites and maybe, I don't know, relax and chill out for once. But you know when we're getting ready, we're going to be packing up some of our favorite quince essentials. It's time for you to travel in style. You can get terrific luggage and tote bags from quince.

[00:02:03] Lounge sets, silk tops that are washable, European linen styles that are lightweight and perfect for spring. You can look and feel like a jet setter without breaking the bank. Our terrific sponsor, Quince, prioritizes ethics. They save by partnering directly with responsible and safe factories and cutting out the middleman. Remember, Quince's prices are 50% to 80% less than those of their competitors.

[00:02:31] So you're getting some terrific pieces for less. This spring, I'll be wearing my Mongolian cashmere sweaters. They're cozy but lightweight enough for the spring weather. For your next trip, treat yourself to the luxe upgrades you deserve from Quince. Go to quince.com slash msheet for 365 day returns plus free shipping on your order.

[00:02:55] That's q-u-i-n-c-e dot com slash msheet to get free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash msheet. Content warning, this episode contains discussion of murder as well as domestic violence. So today on the cheat sheet, we're going to be going to Missouri. We're going to be going to Hawaii. We're going to be going to Tennessee. And then we're going to be returning to our beloved state of Indiana.

[00:03:25] You spent a lot of time planning that itinerary I know. And then at the end of the episode, stay tuned because we're going to have some news about a live appearance. We have this coming up. Absolutely. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist. And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is the murder sheet. We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases. We are the murder sheet. And this is the cheat sheet, self-publishing and selfies.

[00:03:55] I think we're going to start this week.

[00:04:41] Correct me if I'm wrong, misconductor, but we're going to start this week in the show me state, the great state of Missouri. Yes. And our source for this was SCOTUS blog and the Supreme Court of the United States of America. So one thing I really love about the law is that oftentimes in the law or in life or in the academic setting, you get kind of abstract questions that don't sound particularly interesting.

[00:05:08] And in the law, when those questions come up, there's always like a really interesting story or a case behind it. And so the abstract question in this, this is the case of Shockley versus Vandergriff.

[00:05:25] The kind of the abstract question here is, well, in different parts of the United States, different courts of appeals have some different rules about what is needed in order for your appeal to continue. In some states, you just need one judge to look at it and say, hey, I think there's an issue here. And even if the other judges disagree, that's enough. And some other states, no, you need more.

[00:05:55] And so the question is, is that fair? Is it fair or right if in one part of the United States you get this right and you give this privilege to have your case continued? While in another part of the United States, the very same circumstances, you don't. So that's the question. And let me tell you about this case. And it is an interesting one. Has a few twists and turns.

[00:06:22] So there is this man named Lance Shockley. And he gets involved in a traffic accident. It's actually a drunken driving traffic accident where his, a relative of his is actually killed in the accident. And he is investigated by the police for possibly being involved in this accident.

[00:06:49] Well, like, I mean, like as in he's possibly the drunken party. Yes. And he's also suspected of leaving the scene of the accident. So basically he is under suspicion for causing a death as a result of his drunk driving. A pretty serious offense. As this investigation is going on, the investigator is murdered.

[00:07:14] And the and Shockley is charged with murder, murdering that man. And he's ultimately convicted of that crime and sentenced to death. And and that and that that person he murdered was Sergeant Carl Dwayne Graham, Jr. Yeah. Thanks for making sure his name gets mentioned. I always like to make sure we mention the name of the victim and not just the perpetrator, because the victim is ultimately who should be remembered.

[00:07:44] And he left behind a very young son. And I actually read an article on the Missouri State Highway Patrol website about him. And he sounded like a really terrific guy. Yeah, he was just doing his job and he certainly did not deserve to have this happen to him. And it's just can I just also say how unusual is it?

[00:08:04] You and I know this in movies, right in films, you'd think that, you know, people were constantly trying to murder detectives, journalists like anyone who's looking into anything really doesn't happen that often. So because it's a very stupid thing to do, you know, usually a sign of a pretty impulsive and frankly stupid offender. But in this case, obviously, it did happen. And law enforcement officers take that very seriously, understandably.

[00:08:30] And I remember of all things, I'm having a flashback to an episode of the color dragnet. I saw years ago as a child where they're discussing the issue of cop killers. And Joe Friday says, yes, police officers take that extra seriously. And one reason is if you're crazy enough to kill a police officer, what would you not do? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Fair.

[00:08:57] And certainly if you try to kill a police officer in what seems to be a pretty transparent attempt to stop an investigation into your crime, that's not going to work. Yeah, it's stupid and it's impulsive. And it's definitely a scary thing because, as you said, what will they do next? So he is I say he's charged. He is tried. He is convicted. He's ultimately sentenced to death. But something.

[00:09:24] Let's go back to the beginning of his trial. Anya, as you know, from our experience in Delphine elsewhere, what's like the very first thing that happens in a trial? Jury selection. Jury selection. And so as they're seating the jury, one person who's being considered for the jury says, you know, I think you guys should know the lawyers, the judge, you should know. I'm a self published author.

[00:09:52] It's important for you guys to know that. I have my book on Amazon. And the lawyers like, oh, OK, good for you. And they don't really take that too seriously. And so the moment passes, this man ends up getting seated on the jury. And so what the attorney didn't do is ask, well, tell us about your self published books.

[00:10:18] And his self published book was he described it as like a fictionalized autobiography where a character apparently based on this juror himself is upset that a person was involved in a drunk driving incident and got probation for it. And got a slap on their wrist from the system. And this person goes out and gets revenge against the drunk driver.

[00:10:44] And that's a set of facts that is not identical to the situation that Mr. Shockley was in. And it's also not that far off. It's intriguing. And if you have a person on the jury who obviously has very strong feelings about that and has feelings of people charged with this might get off too easily, that's a potential issue.

[00:11:10] And so this actually comes out and is revealed between the time the man is convicted of the crime, but prior to the sentencing. And so when that comes out, the judge says to the defense attorney, obviously I'm paraphrasing. He said, the judge says, hey, this is a pretty big deal.

[00:11:31] If you want, we can call the jurors in and you can ask them about this on the record, about if they knew about this book, if it influenced them, anything of that nature. And the defense attorney says, nah, we don't need to do that. And so because of that, a lot of information that could have been relevant was not put on the record. And as I say, the man went on to be sentenced to death.

[00:12:00] So subsequently it is revealed that this man, the self-published author, and I should say he was kicked off the jury once that was revealed. But he shared copies of this self-published book with court personnel, I think some bailiffs. He shared copies of the book with other jurors. And so why would that be troubling, Anya?

[00:12:26] I guess if he's giving out this book that reflects his opinion on drunk drivers slash violent people, then he is potentially influencing other members of the jury with his opinions. Is that it? Yeah. The obvious question would be, how would you feel?

[00:12:49] Well, you're on trial for stealing cereal, and one of the jurors wrote a self-published manifesto about how people who steal cereal and love trains should be killed. And then he gives this to everybody on the jury. I think you might be concerned that maybe that influenced some opinions. Yeah, I guess so. I mean, I guess one gap for me here is he's on trial for murdering a police officer, right? I mean, he's not on trial for drunk driving.

[00:13:19] That is correct. So we're kind of beyond that point. You know? And, you know, I guess to me, I mean, I think of myself as, you know, if I was on a jury, some guy was passing around a self-published book about this, I'd be kind of like, okay. I'd probably be like, that's nice. And, like, that's kind of quirky. But I wouldn't, like, be like, I'm going to adopt this man's opinions on everything wholesale. So I don't know.

[00:13:47] I mean, I think I can, I understand why they made a big deal about it. Not really sure why the defense attorney at the time didn't make a bigger deal about it. Like, it just seems to me like it's weird enough, but, like, I don't necessarily, I don't know. Am I minimizing it too much? Maybe I'm just putting my own, like, my own feelings about it would just be, I'd be like, okay, thanks for the book, man. Like, whatever. Kind of odd. But, you know, good for you. You're out there hustling. We're trying to sell books. He's trying to sell books. You know, you've got to respect him. Wait.

[00:14:17] In my mind, I can understand why the defense attorney, the guy says, oh, I'm a self-published author. I could imagine why the defense attorney doesn't say, oh, tell us about your book, sir. I can understand that. He should have. Obviously, he should have. I could understand why he chose not to do that. I don't understand why when the trial judge basically is saying there's a big enough problem here, we should have a hearing where you look into it more and get more information.

[00:14:47] I don't understand why he didn't take that invitation up. That seems like a big mistake. But, I mean, is it enough to, like, overturn it? Is it ineffective? Well, let me, there is a quote. This was, the Supreme Court was asked to hear this case. And I will get to that in a moment. But a quote from Sonia Sotomayor, Justice of the Court.

[00:15:10] She says, quote, it is difficult to see how an attorney's decision not to call witnesses in support of a credible mistrial motion when invited to do so by the presiding judge in a capital murder trial could fail to constitute an effective assistant of counsel. Yeah, I can understand where she's coming from there. I think that's pretty, pretty extreme.

[00:15:36] So, with that said, this was taken to two different appellate courts in Missouri. And they did not side with Mr. Shockley. Although, in one of the Court of Appeals, one judge did. It was heard by a panel of three judges, I believe. And two judges says, no, this isn't an issue. And one judge said, yes, it is.

[00:15:58] And in some other jurisdictions, that would be enough to get the appellate process to continue, but not in Missouri. And so, Mr. Shockley's attorneys went to the Supreme Court and said, can you guys look at this? One of the things the Supreme Court does is, if two different high-level courts in the United States are saying different things, sometimes the Supreme Court will look into it and say, well, here's how it should be resolved.

[00:16:29] But in this case, the Supreme Court decided, well, you know, this is just an administrative matter for the different courts, not really worth looking into. And so they are not going to hear the case. Okay. Do you agree with that or do you think they should have? I think that my opinion is I think they should have.

[00:16:48] Over and above the specific facts of this case, it makes me uncomfortable when there are situations where if I am in Indiana, I have a different set of rights than I have in Missouri, than I have in California. I would think that if I qualify to have my court case move forward in one state, it should be very similar, especially when it's a federal issue. So I want to make sure I have one thing clear.

[00:17:18] I don't know if I understood this properly. So this jury foreman, he was the foreman, the author, the self-published author. He – so did he – was he kicked off the case? After the conviction but before the sentencing. Okay. And so I should have made that clear and I should also make it clear that these are like federal courts. And different federal courts across the country have different standards about how things should move forward.

[00:17:47] So the Supreme Court is being asked to decide federal law and settle it and they chose not to do it in this case. Yeah. And the – because I was going to say before the sentencing. So he didn't have ultimately – I mean I guess who decided the sentencing? The judge? The judge ultimately decided the sentence. Okay. Because the jury couldn't agree. Okay. So the – okay. Well, okay.

[00:18:12] That's one thing where I'm kind of like I don't know in this case because if the concern is this guy infected – like this guy whipped everyone into a frenzy and we need to give this guy the death sentence and then they voted for that and that's how he got the death sentence. I think that's – although I guess you could say maybe he prevented them from being able to vote against the death penalty in this case. So maybe there's that.

[00:18:37] But maybe he said, oh, it's so awful when people involved with drunk driving get a slap on their wrist. We have to take this very, very seriously and make sure this guy pays the price. Yeah. I mean I don't know. Again, at this point we're beyond drunk driving. So, I mean if he wrote something about – if he wrote a similar story about a cop killer then I might be a little bit more like, yeah, that's one for one. Obviously this is a good lesson to like not do anything like this if you are called to a jury.

[00:19:07] And also just, you know, if you have something where you wrote something and it kind of even just barely mirrors the facts of the case, be really loud about that. Like you don't want something going on like this, right? Yeah, this guy tried in fairness. He brought the issue to the attention. I don't blame this juror. I don't – I mean like, you know, we kind of joked a little bit about him bringing in his books. But I – you know, he did – it wasn't like he was concealing it.

[00:19:35] He was like this is what I – this is what I do and no one asked him about it. So, I mean, yeah. But I think – you know, I don't blame the defense attorney for not picking up on that immediately. It is kind of odd that they didn't do anything when they were kind of basically nudge, nudge, you want to do something about this? But I don't know. It's also a lesson to attorneys if someone in the jury selection process thinks to raise an issue. Yeah, like why are you bringing that up right now? Why do you think it's relevant to mention that you're a self-published author, sir?

[00:20:05] Yeah. Tell us more about this. And if it's just something like, oh, I write, you know, like just like something like romance novels, then okay. Well, we don't need to worry about it. But if it's something more than – then you can be aware. But yeah, I mean it's interesting. Hello, Murder Sheet people. Stick around for the end of today's episode because we have a sneak peek for a show that we think you guys are going to absolutely love. So stay with us and let us know what you think of the Crime Scene Weekly from ABC Audio.

[00:20:35] What do you think about the larger issue? Do you think federal courts in different parts of the country should be able to administer things involving matters like this differently? No. Yeah, that seems bad. Like simply no.

[00:20:53] The court seems to be taking the position here that if it's basically not substantive law, it's basically they just have differences of opinions on administrative or procedural things. And obviously you don't necessarily have to have the Supreme Court come in to say you have to do your procedural things and your administrative things the same way. I feel this rises above that. Right.

[00:21:22] And I think my federal rights in Indiana should be the same as my federal rights in Missouri is the same as my federal rights in New York. But that's just me. Right. Yeah. Fair. Well, I mean, that's an interesting case you found out in Missouri. Yes. The Show Me State. So this is now he's is he done? I mean, is he like that was his shot? His case was not going to be heard by the Supreme Court of this great land.

[00:21:51] So his attorneys might try to come up with something else. I don't know. I'm sure they will. But, you know. Yeah. So are we on to Hawaii now? Sure. Always happy to hop on the Cane Plane and head across the Pacific Ocean to Hawaii. I believe this case kind of involves two different islands, right? Yes, it does. Oahu and Maui. Oahu being where the capital of Hawaii is, which, of course, is Honolulu.

[00:22:20] But today we're going to talk. And this is actually thanks to a wonderful, lovely listener who sent us the document. So thank you to that person. And this is a case we previously covered. It is the case of Gerhardt Koenig. This is a person, a physician we mentioned earlier on the show. He's an anesthesiologist who is accused of attempting to kill his wife. And now we have the probable cause affidavit.

[00:22:49] So that's even more details now than we had before about what happened. And it's a very chilling document. It's short and I'm going to read part of it. But I, you know, just domestic violence obviously is going to be discussed here. A probable cause affidavit. What does that mean? Why do you ask me? You explain. Jump in. Just jump in and explain. A probable cause affidavit is basically when arrest is made, you can't just go around and arrest people because they annoy you. What?

[00:23:18] Otherwise, Anya and I would be in a lot of trouble. No, can I tell you though? When we looked up, we looked up on newspapers.com a guy with my ancestor's name. Remember this, Kevin? Yes. And so we don't know if it's the same guy, but he had my ancestor's name and he lived in Brooklyn at the time that my ancestor would have probably lived in Brooklyn. And we saw that a guy with that name got arrested for being annoying. That's what it said. The newspaper literally said. And I'm like, yeah, that is definitely my ancestor.

[00:23:48] So you can't just arrest somebody for no reason. You have to be able to explain to the court, we want to arrest this person for this particular crime. We have probable cause to believe that this person committed this crime. And here's what makes us believe we have probable cause. So it's basically an explanation for why an arrest was made. Exactly. See, people want to hear you explain legal concepts.

[00:24:18] They don't want to hear me badly explain legal concepts and then have you have to correct it. So you might as well save time. Just say it. So, yeah, this is the probable cause affidavit. And I'm not going to be naming witnesses. And I'm also not going to be naming the victim in this case or the, you know, the victims who is alleging the abuse and who is alleging the attempted homicide. So I'm just going to, I think, use initials here.

[00:24:46] But I think I'll just read through. There's a couple of about two pages here. So I'm just going to read through the probable cause affidavit and then we can discuss it. Quote, that your affiant is currently assigned to the Honolulu Police Department here and after HPD, strategic enforcement detail here and after SED, which works under the criminal investigation division here and after as CID.

[00:25:10] On March 24th, 2025, Officer Ken Chun, here and after referred to as Officer Chun, was assigned to District 5 in uniform patrol and responded to an incident of assault reported at Pali Lookout, specifically on the Pali Puka Trail in Honolulu, Hawaii. Upon arrival, Officer Chun made contact with the female caller who was one of two witnesses to the event.

[00:25:36] And A, here and after referred to as A, and S, here and after referred to as S, had called 911 to report witnessing an assault between a male and a female on the Pali Puka Trail. Officer Chun spoke to the victim at the scene, later identified as AK, here and after referred to as AK, who was verbally identified and appeared sober and coherent during the course of the investigation.

[00:26:00] AK stated that she was on the Pali Puka Trail with her husband, later identified as Gerhard Koenig. She mentioned that while on the trail, Koenig was standing close to the edge and asked her to take a selfie with him. AK expressed that she did not feel comfortable taking a picture with him that close to the edge, so she declined and began to walk back. AK stated that Koenig then yelled at her to come back, and when she refused, he pushed her into the bushes and they began to struggle. AK managed to get away from him.

[00:26:30] She reported that Koenig then picked up a rock and struck her on the head approximately 10 times while also grabbing the back of her hair and smashing her face into the ground. AK indicated that she was yelling for help and heard the two other hikers. She was able to crawl over to them. AK observed Koenig take out two syringes from his bag and attempt to use them on her, but she was able to get them away from her. She stated that she did not give Koenig permission to assault her and that she is willing to press charges.

[00:26:59] A stated that on March 24th, 2025, at about 10, 28 hours, she began hiking up Polly Pooka. approximately five to ten minutes into her hike, she heard a woman screaming, help, help me, repeatedly, prompting her to run to the top as she thought someone was falling off the side of the mountain. When A reached the top, she saw a girl lying on her back in the grass with

[00:27:27] a man on top of her hitting her on the head. A described that the man had a rock in his hand, and when he saw her, she stopped and got off of the woman. A recalled the woman, later identified as AK, stated, he is trying to kill me, he is hitting me in the head with a rock. Concerned for her safety, A stepped away while her friend S called 911, all the while keeping an eye on

[00:27:48] Koenig and AK. According to A, AK was able to move away from Koenig and towards her. Once AK reached her, Koenig moved up the trail toward the puka. A related that AK did not pass out and was talking to them the entire time. AK informed A that it was her husband, Koenig, who had assaulted her. A stated that she would be able to identify the suspect if seen again. AK sustained multiple

[00:28:17] large lacerations to her face and head as a result of the altercation. Emergency Medical Services, EMS, arrived shortly after the incident and transported AK to Queens Medical Center in serious but stable condition for further evaluation and treatment. On March 24, 2025, after speaking to AK and the two witnesses, Officer Chun formed police dispatch to broadcast an all points bulletin or APB for Koenig, last seen wearing a light gray t-shirt, blue shorts, and last seen going up the Polly Puka

[00:28:47] Trail. On March 24, 2025, Detective Tracy Spacek, hearing after Detective Spacek, arrived at Queens Medical Center to interview AK about the events that occurred at the Polly Puka Trail. During the interview, AK disclosed that her husband, Koenig, was a suspect who attempted to kill her by striking her on the head with a rock approximately 10 times. She also reported that he tried to inject her with

[00:29:12] a syringe containing some sort of fluid. Detective Spacek showed a current color photograph of Koenig, which AK positively identified as her husband, to all units in the area to assist in locating him. Detective Spacek requested assistance from SED to locate and arrest him, arrived at Polly Lookout to carry out a comprehensive ground and area search. On March 24, 2025, at about 1810 hours, your affiant was making checks in the area and observed Koenig on foot walking down

[00:29:39] Nuano Polly Drive. Koenig was then placed under arrest for attempted murder in the second degree documented under Honolulu Police Report No. 25-1109-58. The suspect verbally identified himself as Gerhard Koenig and his identity was also verified via the police database by photograph and information provided by Koenig. The aforementioned facts and circumstances occurred entirely in the state

[00:30:04] of Hawaii, city and county of Honolulu. End quote. Okay, so obviously very disturbing. Very disturbing, very upsetting. That what that sounds like to me, and again, innocent into proven guilty. These are all allegations at this point. But first of all, a damning affidavit if I've ever seen one. I mean, this attack is witnessed by people. The victim survives and is able to recount what happened

[00:30:33] and has to be treated in the hospital for getting, you know, hit in the head with a rock multiple times. But I was confused when this story came out. It's like, you know, it almost was like, did he freak out because she didn't take a selfie with him? But what it sounds like, and again, this is all speculation based on what we've just read. Speculation based on some facts.

[00:30:58] We'll have to see what Koenig's defense team has to say if he decides to go to trial and plead not guilty. But it sounds like he was going to push her off the mountain and kill her that way. The selfie was like a ruse. And when she didn't want to do it, then he shifted and had backup methods for trying to kill her. Yes. That's what it sounds like. Yeah, it does.

[00:31:22] Because, you know, he's prepared to attack her with a rock. He's prepared to inject her with mysterious syringes. He's a doctor. He's an anesthesiologist. So he presumably probably has some insights in what could, you know, what different drugs could do to a human body. But yeah, so they're living in Maui. They're visiting Oahu. And this happens. And yeah,

[00:31:45] the PCA kind of, you know, PCAs tend to be written in very kind of a plain matter of fact language. And for the reasons that Kevin cited earlier, because what they're supposed to do, but reading all this happening to this poor woman in this situation. And, you know, we talked about this last time, but this couple was, you know, highly educated, you know, people who are prominent

[00:32:10] in the community doing well. That doesn't matter. Domestic violence can happen to anyone in any social demographic or, you know, financial demographic or whatever, what have you. Any person in society, man or woman, you know, regardless of who you are, this can happen. And

[00:32:30] I'm very glad that this lady survived this horrible attack. But yeah, horrifying. I'm glad those other women stepped, you know, stepped in when they heard someone calling for help. Yeah, I am too. Hello again, Murder Sheet people. Thank you so much for sticking around. So here's that special sneak peek we let you know about earlier. Check out this new podcast from ABC Audio. It's called The Crime Scene Weekly, and it's awesome.

[00:32:59] The Crime Scene Weekly features ABC News correspondent Brad Milkey interviewing journalists who report on the ground about the hottest headlines and the most disturbing tales. In the latest episode, Brad is going to talk to ABC News reporter Matt Goodman about one story that gripped true crime through resentencing efforts of Eric and Lyle Menendez. Keep listening and you'll get to hear the first few minutes of the episode. Anyways, here's the clip. We think you're going to really like it.

[00:33:30] 35 years after the gruesome double murder that gripped the nation, the Menendez brothers are back in the spotlight and fighting for their freedom. But it's not just what you know, it's who you know and who you can get on your side. Over the last couple of weeks, that's all changing. Welcome to The Crime Scene. I'm Brad Milkey. I host ABC's daily news podcast, Start Here. And every week, we're bringing you the

[00:33:56] latest on what's big and what's new in the true crime scene. This week, we're talking to ABC chief national correspondent Matt Gutman, who's based in LA and has been following this case for years. He's with us now. Hey, Matt. Hey, Brad. Before we get into the recent news, I just want to revisit some important details here because I grew up in Southern California, Matt. Like I grew up on the OJ trial, the Tupac killing, and yet this still remains one of the most infamous double murders of its day. So Lyle and Eric Menendez, 18 and 21,

[00:34:26] gunned down and killed their parents, Jose Menendez and Kitty Menendez in Beverly Hills. That's not in dispute, right? They were convicted of murdering their parents. Can you take us back to that time? What was life like for this family? We're talking about Kitty and Jose Menendez. And Jose Menendez was really a star in the entertainment world, right? He's involved in music producing. He has become a millionaire. He has single-handedly

[00:34:53] raised his family and all of his extended family up. This is an American success story, right? Basically came from Cuba. They were virtually penniless. And now he is living in a multi-million dollar Beverly Hills mansion. He's got these two kids, Eric and Lyle, chiseled faces, four arms, muscled and veined from tennis and sports. And they're just like poster children

[00:35:18] of Beverly Hills kids, you know, with these mops of thick, dark hair. You know, they look the part, but obviously something went very, very wrong. And on this hot August 20th night, 1989, Kitty and Jose are gunned down. And not just gunned down. This is like brutal, nasty, visceral, up-close murder.

[00:35:44] Shotgun blasts to the kneecaps, to the back of the head on Jose. The mother is crawling at some point. She's shotgunned. They actually had to reload the shotguns, whoever the assailants were. And it was so gruesome that police didn't quite know what to make of it initially, especially because Eric and Lyle Menendez, as you mentioned, 18 and 21 at the time, were like, hey, it's not us. They were intruders.

[00:36:13] And then the different stories started to come out. And they never quite made sense. And then in March of 1990, police pretty much started to piece together what was going on. They arrested Eric and Lyle, and they understood that these two young men had premeditated this murder. They had planned to murder their parents. They had purchased shotguns. They had driven down to near San Diego to buy them.

[00:36:38] They had shotgunned their parents. They had reloaded at some point. It was face-to-face and intimate. This was a killing that involved a tremendous amount of personal hatred. And so in 1993, their trials began. I think they were tried separately at the time, right? They both pleaded not guilty. What was the claim they were making?

[00:37:05] Right, right. They are now saying that they murdered their parents because they had to, because of self-defense, because they were afraid of their father. And this unspools something else that was also completely novel and really sort of earth-shattering. There was now open talk in court and in the public about these two now young men being sexually abused by their father, Brad. Well, and speaking of this moment, this was also the beginning of cameras in courtrooms,

[00:37:33] as we now know them. And there was footage from this trial that ABC has. And in fact, here's a clip of Lyle Menendez on the stand talking about what, again, at this moment, was sort of earth-shattering for us to hear. So let's listen to that. So that is the Crime Scene Weekly. Please check it out and let us know what you think. We love chatting about our favorite true crime podcast with other listeners. To hear the rest of the episode, including real courtroom audio obtained by ABC News, find the Crime Scene Weekly wherever you get your podcasts.

[00:38:00] That's the Crime Scene Weekly. Because, yeah, that's heroic. So I think, yeah, we'll be kind of looking at how this case develops. But I mean, what are your thoughts? I mean, what do you think about this PCA in terms of the strength of the case against the doctor so far? It seems to be a pretty damning case. Yeah. And I hope his wife is doing okay. Mm-hmm.

[00:38:28] So let's move on to the great state of Tennessee. Is that the volunteer state? Yes, it is. The great volunteer state of Tennessee. And my source for this is newschannel9.com. And it's kind of in a very loose way, similar to the first case that I talked about today. Because it's important to remember that when we put someone on trial, not only...

[00:38:58] There's a greater question of whether or not the person is guilty or innocent. We want afterwards to be able to say that we're completely confident in the verdict and we're completely confident in the process. In the first case where the man was convicted of killing an investigator, frankly, just taking an admittedly superficial look at it, he's probably guilty.

[00:39:21] But I'm not convinced that the process was completely fair enough for me to be able to say I have confidence in that verdict. And so this is a case where, you know, in Tennessee, where a man named Daryl Roberts is about to go on trial for murder.

[00:39:42] And what's interesting here is they've selected a jury. The jury really hasn't been sworn in yet. And they start reading some charges that might be part of it. And they accidentally, in the course of reading, refer to the man on trial is a convicted felon.

[00:40:10] And those were two words that were not supposed to be said in front of this potential jury. Because we all, human nature being what it is, if you hear that someone is a convicted felon, there's the chance that's going to affect your opinion of him. And it's not going to be affected for the better. Is it true that he is a convicted felon? Oh, okay.

[00:40:42] So, but whether or not he's a convicted felon ultimately has nothing to do with whether or not he committed this specific murder. And you don't want a person to be convicted of a crime just based on the fact that he did other bad stuff. No, yeah, you don't. Especially if it's not linked in some, you know, I mean, if it's, yeah. And it's hard to unring that bell with a jury.

[00:41:06] If you, if the jurors hear that he's a convicted felon, even if the judge says, well, yeah, but don't think about that. Just forget you ever heard that. Don't worry about it. That's hard to be confident that the jury would put that out of their mind. Well, like, how can you, you know? Like, yeah, I mean, even if it's vague, it's like, well, he got convicted in the past, so we probably did this one too. I mean, it's, it, it, yeah, you can't unring the bell.

[00:41:36] You can't unring the bell. Because what it was, was one of the charges that was, they were considering charging him with possessing a firearm, which he wasn't allowed to do because he was a convicted felon. And then he decided not to present that to the jury and just present the first degree murder charge. Uh, but there was a mistake made. And so the jury, uh, heard this thing about the convicted felon. And.

[00:42:03] So after this happened, the judge talked with the prosecutors. He talked with the defense lawyers and they decided we, we just have to start over. So there's going to be a two week delay. They're going to start with a brand new jury. And that must be frustrating to the family and loved ones of the victim. But the thinking is ultimately it will save time because if this man goes on to be convicted,

[00:42:31] I would guarantee you that any appellate attorney worth their self would immediately raise this issue is. Remember that time you guys called him a convicted felon? Yeah, I would, I would imagine they would. And it is frustrating, but sometimes. Some frustration in the beginning is better than, um, even more frustration down the road and having to go through a trial all over again. You know, that's a nightmare.

[00:43:00] So yeah, they're obviously doing the right things. And I think this is prudent on all sides where they're like, well, let's just start over. Better to start over at this point than start over when you're further down the road. Yeah, it's, it's frustrating, but it's necessary because again, it's more than just guilt or innocence. We want it to be fair. And I don't think this would have been fair to continue. Yeah. So what, what exactly is the guy accused of doing? I'm just curious.

[00:43:29] You mean the murder itself? Yeah. Like what's the underlying case here? I'm assuming it's a homicide. Yes, it's a homicide. He is charged with, uh, shooting, uh, a businessman named Christopher Wright on a sidewalk. Uh, and there was, uh, some, this crime was captured on a surveillance, uh, video. And there were witnesses that, uh, identified this man is the shooter.

[00:43:54] And it also looks like they found, uh, trace evidence of blood on his bathroom sink at his apartment and his light switches. And, uh, yeah. Interesting. Yeah. Yeah. So it, it sounds like they have, uh, some pretty strong evidence there. But so if he's convicted, let's convict him on that. Let's not convict him on stuff he may have done in the past. Makes sense. Makes perfect sense. So.

[00:44:21] I think you wanted to chug into our home station here in the great state of Indiana. Yeah, Indiana. This is not a murder. This is kind of a mysterious and intriguing situation that is unfolding in our state. And, uh, it's really, honestly, at this point, it's really just more smoke and mirrors and kind of pointing out, hey, what the heck is going on here as opposed to any underlying crime?

[00:44:42] Because one odd thing about the situation is, like, there's a lot of stuff happening, but no one seems to know what exactly is anyone is accused of doing here. If any. Like. Yeah. Um. So my sources for this were Ars Technica as well as the Indiana Daily Student, which is a terrific student newspaper from, uh, Kevin's. Indiana University. Kevin's alma mater. So Indiana University. So shout out to them. Or any Pyle School of Journalism. I don't know if they'd still call it that, but they should. Yeah.

[00:45:13] It's, it's, uh, I was a student journalist in college, so I always have a fun spot for the student newspapers. And they do great work. They've, they've been covering this in depth. I mean, they're, they're kicking butts. So congrats to them. Uh, WTHR has also been doing some great reporting. And so this is a situation in involving, and I apologize if I pronounce any names wrong. I'm trying my best here.

[00:45:34] But, um, Xiao Feng Wang, he is a professor, or was, rather, I should say, a professor at, um, Indiana University in Bloomington. Had a residence in Bloomington as well as Carmel, Indiana, which is in Hamilton County to the north. And he was, um, an associate dean, actually, at the Luddy School of Informatics, Computing, and Engineering.

[00:45:59] This is a guy who was incredibly well-respected in the sort of cybersecurity field, computers, computer scientists. These are things that you and I know nothing about. We, we are not technical people. But anyway, this man, um, had a degree from Carnegie Mellon University, which is a terrific engineering school. And, you know, just very well-respected.

[00:46:24] His wife, a woman named Ma Nyan Li, she also, uh, worked, I believe, at one of the libraries, um, associated with IU. And, yeah, so things are going great, right? They're this kind of academic power couple, seemingly, and doing good things.

[00:46:42] But, this all kind of came crashing to a halt very recently when people started noticing that the Federal Bureau of Investigation, as well as the Department of Homeland Security, were raiding residents, two residences in Bloomington and Carmel. And it turns out they were both, um, belonging to, uh, Wang.

[00:47:04] And then things got weirder because, uh, on the same day that these raids were occurring, the university fired him. Just sort of like that, you know? Like, so, like, no one knows what he's accused of. The FBI isn't saying anything. Um, the school is very vague. So, this is what the, uh, Indiana Daily student had to say about it.

[00:47:34] They got some information. They, they had a document from, um, the provost of the school, whose name is, uh, Rahul Srivastav. Sorry. Srivastav. Sorry if I'm saying that wrong. But he, um, he alleges, like, this is completely off the wall. He alleges that Wang, quote, had accepted a faculty position with a university in Singapore. End quote.

[00:48:01] And not only that, because of that, he would not be eligible to be hired again at IU. So, like, what? That, that doesn't make sense. Because just because you take a job elsewhere doesn't necessarily mean you need to be fired or even leave your other job. And certainly, you should be allowed to be rehired. Makes no sense. And this is what the statement they gave to, um, the IDS.

[00:48:27] Indiana University was recently made aware of a federal investigation of an Indiana University faculty member. At the direction of the FBI, Indiana University will not make any public statements regarding this investigation. End quote. So, the email that IDS obtained does not refer to any sort of, like, hey, we think you're embezzling. Or, you know, like, any sort of, like, we think you're doing something illegal. It's just, like, you took this other job. So, there's obviously a lot that's not being said at this point.

[00:48:54] The FBI, again, is not, they're saying, we looked into this. They both, you know, these two houses, we're, like, looking at them. But they're not confirming anything. And meanwhile, where is the professor? So, what's going on with that? Well, WTHR got comments from lawyers for the couple. And this is what they had to say. This is from WTHR Channel 13.

[00:49:23] Quote, while we are unable to provide substantive comment on the investigation at this time, neither Professor Wang nor Ms. Ma have been arrested. And both are currently safe. Further, there are no pending criminal charges, as far as we are aware. Professor Wang and Ms. Ma are thankful for the outpouring of support they've received from colleagues at Indiana University and their peers from across the academic community. They look forward to clearing their names and resuming their successful careers at the conclusion of this investigation. End quote.

[00:49:52] So, yeah. What is going on? I mean, like, without knowing anything about any sort of underlying crimes that are alleged to happen here, it's really difficult to speculate. And it's, you know, for people who care about, you know, academic freedom and things like that, you know, seeing kind of a professor get raided and not really knowing why, it's a bit concerning. Obviously, if someone's doing something illegal, though, you know, being a professor shouldn't shield you from that.

[00:50:22] So it but, you know, who knows? I know for I do know, though, that the. You know, the firing or the termination happened the same day as the raid. So like a lot seems to be happening at once. This this this is something to note, though, that the American Association of University Professors put out a letter on March 31st.

[00:50:51] Condemning all of this. And this is what they had to say. Quote, the executive committee of the Bloomington chapter of the American Association of University Professors has learned that the Luddy School of Informatics, Computing and Engineering Professor Xiaofeng Wang's appointment with tenure has been summarily terminated. Termination of a tenured faculty member is an action that requires the highest level of scrutiny and due process.

[00:51:17] Required steps for termination are specified in the University Policy ACA 52, Section D, appended below. ACA 52 has been adopted by both the UFC and the IU Board of Trustees. It is our understanding that Professor Wang was not provided with the due process specified in ACA 52. His appointment was terminated without the required notice and a hearing before the Faculty Board of Review. We are aware of news reports indicating that Professor Wang is under investigation by law enforcement.

[00:51:45] While the outcome of those investigations may ultimately bear on Professor Wang's continued appointment at IU, the mere fact of an investigation or of an unadjudicated allegation cannot justify failure to comply with the university policies on the part of the administration. It is fundamental that individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty. As we are sure you are aware, under current conditions, the protection of due process is of the utmost importance to protecting academic freedom.

[00:52:12] Protection of academic freedom and support of shared governance are fundamental to the mission of the AAUP and of our chapter. Neither shared governance nor academic freedom can survive if critical policies developed through shared governance are summarily bypassed by the administration. Therefore, we ask that you revoke Professor Wang's immediate termination and provide the notice and hearing required by university policy ACA 52 in order to protect academic freedom and the academic mission of Indiana University.

[00:52:42] We ask that you publicly report to the Bloomington Faculty Council at its upcoming meeting that you have taken these actions. Silence fuels suspicion and distrust and makes shared governance harder." End quote.

[00:53:23] And what the letter here is saying, hey, there might be a good reason to fire this guy, but you have to do it in the right way. Have to do it in the right way. You can't just, you know, if there's a policy, if there's a policy for here's how you strip someone of tenure, then you do that. You got to follow it. You don't just randomly kind of come in and say, well, no, he's gone. The whole thing is bizarre. The professor is seemingly, no one knows where he is, but he's safe, according to his lawyers. There's who knows how this will develop.

[00:53:53] People have suggested like espionage and such. I don't know. It's it seems like very difficult to speculate on any of that at this point. But either way, I hope we can all appreciate that, you know, due process is important here, you know, for everything, not just the law, but in this case, policies within a university, because you don't want academic freedom to be stifled. That that doesn't benefit anyone. And, you know, just because someone is accused of someone doesn't make them guilty.

[00:54:19] If they are accused and they turn out to be guilty, there should be a proper way of removing them from the environment. And that was not followed here. But you and I actually did take the liberty of going out to explore the neighborhood where in Carmel, where Wang's house was.

[00:54:43] And it was just I mean, my recollection, just a very nondescript kind of very nice subdivision in Carmel. You know, I think we recorded some audio of us walking around, but I don't know how valuable that is because it's just a lot of shuffling. And I think a very nice couple said hello to us once. So shout out to them. Thanks for me. God bless them. Thanks for making us feel welcome in Carmel. And and there was a guy with a very well behaved dog.

[00:55:11] So, I mean, it was just like it's just kind of this, you know, when we looked at their house, there was the I believe like a I don't know what the official term is. The the Christian symbol of a fish on the front door and daffodils. It was very nice, but it just, you know, it didn't look occupied. But there was no sign of FBI activity anymore because it was a couple of days later.

[00:55:36] But, you know, as as with most houses, as with most neighborhoods, you know, you see it's just a house. It's no no indication of any things suspicious going on. So I don't know. I'll be really curious to see how that ends up. What do you think? I have no idea. You don't know what's going on. I'm completely baffled. Thrown for a loss. Thrown for a loop. What do you think about this happening at your your alma mater? Yeah, the great university, Indiana University. Yeah.

[00:56:05] What what do you what do you think about it happening there? Does it concern you that they kind of just fired him abruptly like this? I mean, I hate to be the tentative lawyer here, but I think you just have to wait. There's stuff going on here that we don't know about. And there's these professors are right to stand up and assert their rights.

[00:56:29] And if the rights of the professor were violated, I am confident that he will and should be made whole. And if there is a good reason for what has happened, if for some reason national security or what have you, I hope we hear that.

[00:56:50] But it's right now, to me, it seems more or less equally plausible that there's a really good reason that's being kept secret or this is a huge violation of his rights. I don't know which. I think either. It's got it. It's I mean, I would think it would be one or both, you know, like one or one or one or the other, you know, like this, like whatever this is seems pretty extreme. But I think that like I think there is something to be said for if there's a process in place, let's use that even if it's extreme.

[00:57:17] And I imagine if Anya found out I was going to, in addition to my duties on the Murder Sheet co-host podcast in Singapore, I don't think she would immediately fire me and call the FBI. Although she might. That's what you think. No, I mean, certainly not. But it's it's yeah, it's very perplexing. But we'll we'll follow it. You know, just weird things always happening in India. And I guess that's just that's just the vibe here. But is that all we've got?

[00:57:47] Can I can I risk the ire? Oh, gosh. Of my co-host by briefly talking about a case, you know, I haven't previously discussed in the context of the program. And this is a case that has ties to New York and Indiana. And this is the case of the delightful co-host of the Murder Sheet, Anya Kane, because this weekend marks the anniversary of her birth. So I want to wish a happy birthday to her.

[00:58:17] She has really enriched my life and made it so much better and more delightful in every way. And so I just want to thank her and to New York. I'm sorry that Indiana lured her away because she made Indiana better at the cost of making New York a bit worse. You're going to make me cry. That's really sweet, baby. Thank you. So happy birthday. Oh, thanks, babes. I love you. You're really sweet. Oh, man.

[00:58:47] Now I don't know what to say. I'm sorry I threw you for a loop that way. I'll move on because I don't want to. You're very sweet. You don't want to get this too sappy. People are like, oh, gross. You're very sweet. Oh, gross. Well, we get all mushy with each other. But you're really, really sweet in your wonderpaws, Ben. So we have a live appearance coming up on May 13th.

[00:59:11] And it's in my hometown of all places, Columbus, Indiana, which people always told me when I was there that they called it the Athens of the Prairies. I'm not sure. You're walking down the street and some guy just throws his arms up and says, welcome to the Athens of the Prairies. I never once heard anyone call it that, but I was told that. It is an interesting place. If I say it's known for having a lot of buildings, that sounds pretty dumb.

[00:59:40] But the buildings are designed by, like, world-renowned architects. If you guys were the Athens of the Prairies, who was the Sparta of the Prairies or the Sparta of the Plains? You guys could have had a regular Hoosier-Peloponnesian war. But it's a great place. It's right off the interstate. Very easy. It's easier to go to Columbus than not to go to Columbus. World-renowned architects. Beautiful buildings.

[01:00:07] They have an ice cream parlor there that opened up in 1900. And it's still very vintage. And it's quite an experience to go to. It's a Heracos. It's a Heracos. And it has us. And the fish shop that you like. Yes. Ye olde fish house. So, yeah. If you can come, you should come. We don't have any information to share about buying tickets yet. But we have like a save the date, I think. Yeah. May 13th. May 13th. Tuesday, May 13th.

[01:00:36] About an hour south of Indianapolis. Right off the interstate. My hometown. Love to see you there. Yeah. Come and hang out with us. We'll be our awkward selves. But it'll be fun. And get there a little bit early. Go to the Heracos. Get some ice cream. And then go and have dinner. I think it's like a dinner thing, isn't it? I think it is. Yeah. Yeah. It's going to be really fun. I'm really excited. We always love Columbus and Kevin's family is there and they're awesome. Am I allowed to say the name of the venue yet? I don't know. Why not?

[01:01:07] The name of the venue is eerily appropriate considering something Anya's done. One of my incidents. Anya often talks about True Crime Swine 69 and then the more family friendly True Crime 989. No, True Crime Swine 89. That's when he rebranded. Yes. He's not real. Well, he's real in my heart in a way. True Crime Swine, for people who are like, what are they talking about?

[01:01:34] Which I guess is probably a pretty popular reaction to this show in general. But True Crime Swine is my imagination's kind of catch-all for your typical ridiculous bad YouTuber. You know, so in my mind, the True Crime Swine is like your typical guy who's like ranting and just conspiracy theorizing.

[01:01:55] And so, you know, part of me wonders if somehow I manifested the swine into life and if somehow this is a trap by his followers to get us. So if you never hear from us again after the event, you'll know what's happened. It's at a place called the Swine and Dine. Yes. This is going to be our red wedding. No, I'm just kidding. Who could have thought it? Remember, we want people to come. Oh, yeah. No, you should. Well, come and protect us, please. No, I'm just kidding. You should come.

[01:02:25] It's going to be really fun. It's not going to be the red wedding, probably. It's not going to be a trap by the swine's fanatic following to get us, probably. Because he doesn't exist. He can't hurt you. We'll probably talk about some Indiana Columbus cases, do some Q&A. Yeah. Do a tap dance routine. What else are we going to do? So Anya's going to tap dance. You've heard her promise. No, it's not a promise. It was a sarcastic suggestion.

[01:02:55] It was our sarcastic jibe. I'll tap dance to distract the swine and the followers. No, he's not real. It's just I think I said it on I think I said it in a conversation with our friends, Brett and Alice from the prosecutors. And then it's funny because periodically I'll see comments or we'll get emails about people being like, I think they think he's like, wait, did someone like is the true crime swine real? And did he do something bad? And I have to explain. No, it's just my sick mind.

[01:03:24] Churn that out. Yes. So apologies. I don't know what's wrong with me. So May 13th, we can probably give you information about how to get a ticket next Friday. But if you're a member of our Facebook group, we may be able to post it there a couple of days early. Post in our Facebook group. If you're a Patreon member, we'll post it there. But yeah, just stay tuned.

[01:03:53] It'd be cool to see some of you guys. And we really enjoyed doing the live show up in Kendallville, Indiana a while ago. And so this is kind of an opportunity to do something else like that. Would you be willing to like sign boxes of cereal? Sure. Yeah. I'd do it. Do it in a heartbeat. Just come up to me on the street. I'll do it. I don't care if that's something people want.

[01:04:24] Our listeners are like, yeah, I'll pass. But anyways, this is – yeah, that'll be fun. And I guess is that all we have to say on that so far? At this point, yeah. Stay tuned. Keep your eyes peeled. And we will – oh, also buy our book. We're still kind of coming up on that coming out over the summer. So preorder it. People have asked us, is there going to be an audio book?

[01:04:50] Our understanding is yes, but we don't have any information and won't be sharing anything until we get information on that. Yes, we're not going to share information before we have that information because the reliability of said information would not be high. Yes, exactly. But we have been told that there will likely be an audio book. So everyone who's asking us, there will be. Are we going to be the people – no, probably not. Almost certainly not. That rarely –

[01:05:20] There'd be a greater chance of like Jimmy Durante reading – He's dead, Kevin. That's what I'm saying. He's dead. And can I just say, speaking of him, to the person who posted one of his old serial ads in our Facebook group, God bless you. That thing haunts my dreams. It's a weird Jimmy – it's a tiny – someone posted this video in our Facebook group. It is a tiny Jimmy Durante puppet that's jumping around a family's breakfast and talking about serial. And they're like, this is Anya. And I was like, thank you.

[01:05:50] This is the greatest thing I've ever seen. It's terrifying. It's both terrifying and adorable. And I loved it so much. So, yeah, that commercial lives like Renfri in my head now. So, there we go. I understand we have shirts. We also have shirts for purchase. Shirts can be purchased at the link in our show notes. Yeah, that's my understanding. Sources say – many are saying.

[01:06:20] It's a word on the street. It's a word on the street. So, you can get your shirts and that's kind of it. We seem out of gas, right? We're out of gas. The cane train has sputtered to a stop on the rails and now needs to be refueled. So, I guess we are closing up now. And happy birthday, Anya. Aw, thanks. Thank you so much. And thank you all so much for listening. We always really – it's fun to get to meet with some of you. Some of you have said hi to us on the streets recently and it made us really happy and it was nice to meet you.

[01:06:49] And we always just like to meet our listeners. So, don't hesitate to reach out and say hi. And just – we appreciate you. So, thank you so much. Great. Bye. Can we talk a little bit before we go about Quince, 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 Quince products you wear?

[01:07:17] Yeah, I've got two of their Mongolian cashmere sweaters. They're a brand that just does this sort of luxurious products but without the crazy costs really well. They are – they give you Italian leather handbags. They do like 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.

[01:07:47] And deservedly so. Also, like I'm one of those people – my skin is very like – I'm kind of sensitive. So when it comes to wearing sweaters, like sometimes something's too scratchy. Like it really bothers me. These are so soft. They're just like very delicate and soft and make – wearing them is lovely because they're super comfortable. You're not – 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 – you know, your cool jacket.

[01:08:16] I mean that's a little bit of a – you're the guy who like 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 launder 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. Quince.com.

[01:08:46] There you go. So you can go to Quince.com slash msheet and right now they're offering 365-day returns plus free shipping on your order. So it's Quince.com slash msheet. That's Quince.com slash msheet.