← Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield
Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield
Shocker: Husband REFUSES to Cooperate in Suspected Murder Probe of Missing Wife?! | Lynette Hooker
00:33:22
Loading summary
Transcript50 lines
- [00:01]
A
You never know where your next unforgettable experience will pop up. That's why bringing along an American Express card opens the door to rewards wherever you go. Morning coffee, run with an old friend. Earn cash back. Weekend getaway. Earn miles. Dinner at the hottest restaurant in town. You get the idea. No matter the place or the plan. Amex rewards your inner explorer. Learn about card options@americanexpress.com turn terms apply.
- [00:36]
B
Hey, everyone, I'm Ashley Banfield. This is drop dead serious. Welcome to the Northern Outpost in Canada. Big news for you again today in the Lynette Hooker investigation. First and foremost, let me say this. If you have seen headlines anywhere that say that the Coast Guard has concluded their work into this missing person's case and this investigation, it is so not true. Let's like a hundo. It is not true. It is so on. That I can tell you right now. I learned from my sources today that Brian Hooker is not cooperating with the investigators, even though he's got this new federal experienced lawyer. Right? This is a. A lawyer who apparently has experience with the Department of Justice, and yet Brian Hooker will not cooperate with them. And I can also tell you this. The Coast Guard would have brought all that stuff back, right? The dinghy, the other evidence that was retrieved from the Royal Bahamian police force, everything that they acquired on their four day trip. I get it. Not Lynette's remains. That was a big disappointment to a lot of us that they didn't find her. But it was absolutely worthwhile. According to my sources, that trip broke brought back a lot of very telling evidence. And so the way it typically works in my line of work, I get this, I've done this a million times. Is now you need time to process it, right? And that takes time. It takes paperwork. There might be a moment of quiet for a while, but it sure as f does not mean that this is over. I'm hearing the exact opposite. It's ramping up, up. So there's a lot of curiosity that I have when I hear that. So later on in this podcast, I got a treat for you. I'm going to talk to Mark Garagos, who, as you'll know, has been an attorney to the super rich and famous and powerful and, you know, people like Michael Jackson who can afford the best of the best and they mount robust defenses. Well, guess who else. Mark Garagos defended Scott Peterson. That was a guy whose wife vanished and he said he wanted to find her and yet was found running for the border. So Mark Garagos had to mount a pretty robust defense for Scott Peterson when he was tried. And so I think that this is a great conversation because I'm seeing a lot of parallels between these cases. First and foremost, if this were over, all that evidence would be given back, right? That. That. That evidence would be given back. It's not being given back. It is in impound in the Southern district in Florida. Okay, so that's huge. Number two, why would be we hearing this communication about Brian Hooker's lawyer, the new federal guy, who is not the same as Crystal Marie Hauser, the state level attorney that he originally hired in Michigan? This is a brand new dude. This is someone who's got experience dealing with federal cases. Because guess what? Coast Guard's a federal case. And that lawyer saying Brian's not interested in communicating, he's not interested in cooperating. So I don't get that. Because if Brian's story is that he's a victim in all of this, if his story is that he's lost his wife and he's in mourning, she bounced off the back of the dinghy, and I tried to rescue her. And then I was marooned for hours, you know, in the rough seas that were angry, my friend, and ended up washing up on Marsh Harbor. Why isn't he helping? Why isn't he helping anyone at any time? So, for instance, I've done interviews with Lynette's mom, Darlene, and her husband Bill. That's stepdad. Right. Devastated. They're doing everything they can to help the Coast Guard find Lynette. Brian's not. Brian won't cooperate. He won't talk to them. He won't talk to the Coast Guard. He won't even talk to his family. I've also done interviews with Dan and Kathy. Dan is Lynette's dad. Kathy's Lynette's stepmom. They are devastated and doing everything they can to help the Coast Guard to help find Lynette. Brian's not. Brian's not cooperating. Brian's not even talking to them and their family. That's his father in law. Not a word from Brian. Now, if Brian's innocent, wouldn't he be helping? Wouldn't he be connecting with his family? How about Carly? Daughter? He's known since she was 3. She's helping the Coast Guard. She's giving information to the Coast Guard. She's giving her DNA to the Coast Guard, as are Darlene, Lynette's mom, and Dan, Lynette's dad. They're all giving their DNA they're helping to get the dental records for Lynette. They're helping the Coast Guard. And you gotta ask yourself, why did the federal investigators with the Coast Guard Investigative Service, why did they ask for DNA after they seized Soulmate? You know, the 46 foot Morgan where Brian and Lynette had been living for the last four years on board this lovely sailboat? Why would they ask for the DNA after they seized Soulmate? Did they find something? Did they find something on board that boat? Hmm. Anyway, something to contemplate and maybe something we're going to learn in the near future. And Lynette's husband. Nothing. Never, never lifted a finger. Instead fled the Bahamas right after he said he would never leave until he'd helped to find her. It would take a higher power to get him to leave the Bahamas without his wife. The higher power was an airplane the next day. And while he was saying all that, he was in the background with the US Consulate or embassy and getting his emergency passport in order for his flight the next day. So in my line of work, that's called consciousness of guilt. And if there's a trial. I'm not saying there's going to be a trial. He's not charged with anything yet. But if and when a jury hears this stuff, that's called consciousness of guilt. And that's very, very powerful because jurors do not check their common sense at the door when they deliberate. And their standard is reasonable doubt. Reasonable. What's reasonable in all this? What's reasonable behavior? What's reasonable? None of what Brian Hooker is doing is reasonable, right? None of it. Refusing to speak to the Coast Guard. They were just in the Bahamas for four days searching. Brian. Didn't you want to help find your wife? Why wouldn't you help them? Why did you refuse to talk to them then? Why are you refusing to talk to them now? Just ask yourself, is this reasonable? Because in my line of work, it's called unreasonable. Maybe that federal attorney, that attorney who has worked in the federal system before has said to Brian Hooker, you are. Which is, I'm sorry for the F bomb, but exactly the language one of my sources gave me, who is in deep knowledge of the investigation. So maybe that lawyer, the new lawyer that he's hired has said, you in trouble, fella? Tell me everything because we're going to need to mount a case. This looks like they may have you body. Don't worry about it. If you have watched my episodes before, you will know that I have done many, many cases with no body ever Recovered no body does not mean no case. Do not believe it when people tell you that. I'm sorry, I'm just going to tell you it is bullshit. I have done the cases myself, many of them where there has been a conviction and yet no body was ever found. Doesn't matter. Sometimes the evidence is just as compelling and not finding the body doesn't matter. Finding all the lies and finding all the other evidence, that matters. Because let's not forget Lynette's family was asked to give their DNA. Yeah, that. That's for identification purposes. For sure. If they had found Lynette's remains, sure, that would be for identification purposes. But there could be all sorts of other reasons, too. All sorts. And I'm going to get into that in further episodes, but today I think it's critical to sort of analyze the fact that a guy who refuses to cooperate with the Coast Guard right after he said all he wants to do is find his wife and they're there looking. What exactly does that mean? Well, I'll tell you what. Mark Aragos is the guy who defends guys like this. And they're entitled to a reasonable defense. They are entitled to a robust defense in the United States. God bless America, y'. All. I do love it because I have worked as a war correspondent in places like Iraq, where Saddam Hussein's justice was a hood and that was it. You're not entitled to a defense. So I actually really appreciate lawyers like Mark Garagos who say, you know, the wrongly accused, sometimes the case looks so bad against them, they deserve a robust defense defense. So I sure hope this fella that Brian Hooker has hired can give him a robust defense, because I don't want Brian Hooker coming back if he's charged. I'm not saying he is. He's not charged. But if he's charged, I don't want him coming back after a trial that might yield a guilty verdict saying ineffective assistance of counsel. I hope he got a really good lawyer, like the best, because I think this evidence is strong. I think the evidence they're mounting and the case they're mounting against him is going to be irrefutable for a jury, a jury that might use reasonable doubt as a standard. So here's my conversation with Mark Garagos. So, Mark Garagos, what do you make of the fact that Brian Hooker is being uncooperative? He will not cooperate or speak to the US Coast Guard, all at the time that they've been looking for his wife in the Bahamas four days over there? But he will not help. Everyone else is helping. He won't help.
- [11:11]
C
Well, the problem is, is that people have already decided he's the chief suspect. They're not buying his story. He did. Speaking of cooperation, as is always the case, he's asked what happens. He gives a story. Now the holes have been punched in that story. There is no upside to him helping anymore because at this point, they have, as you have detailed, they've seized the boat. They've. You, you have done a yeoman's job in terms of masterfully destroying some of the logical inferences of his story. If he's got a lawyer who has any kind of criminal defense experience, they're just going to tell him, that ate the pun. But the ship has sailed. You need to shut it down.
- [11:58]
B
Yeah. So that's what you know, that's, that makes perfect sense in the, in the community that you and I live in and work in, which is you've got to protect your rights. You know, it can't be used against you that you use your right to remain silent. But jurors are a different animal. They want to know why you weren't there in a boat helping to search. Why did you get on a plane the day after you said, it's going to take a higher order to keep me from leaving the Bahamas when the higher order was the airplane the next day.
- [12:31]
C
It's not a bad or wrong thought. I've always laughed when judges instruct a jury that you have to ignore the fact that a defendant does not take the stand to testify. Very similar. He hasn't been charged with anything. But people are like, why aren't you cooperating? Well, even though you tell people that you've got good reasons for it, or my lawyer told me not to, it makes you look guilty. So if you've got the resources and it's a high profile case or a, even a relatively media case, you should be doing everything possible, absent you talking publicly to look for your ex or figure out what happened. But to his credit or detriment, he has given a story. His story is not going to change. There's nothing that he can do that is going to shed any more light on it. He is sold what he says happened after that. What more can he do? He's not an expert in marine wind patterns. He's not an expert. Or maybe he's an expert in boats, but doubt. Well, actually he is or does have some expertise in how to track things or himself. Right.
- [13:53]
B
Yeah. And he's been a sailor living aboard his Boat for four years. So this guy knows you know everything about. Well certainly has been, I think at the time that this happened he'd been nine weeks I think in the Abacos. So had really intimate knowledge of this place. But you know, mum's the word. The other thing that I wanted to ask you about, I get not talking to the authorities because a good lawyer will say even if you're innocent, don't talk to the authorities. But what about the fact that he hasn't spoken to his entire family? If he's innocent and in mourning, wouldn't he be with his daughter that he's known as a stepdad since she was three, commiserating with her with his mother in law Darlene, who's at her wits end wanting to find her daughter. Not a word to them since like a couple days after this happened.
- [14:35]
C
Well, I. Look, I don't think anybody, unfortunately, I hate to be state the obvious, does anybody think she's alive? So I know, I mean nobody does and I don't know that finding her body is going to give anybody any. I mean it will give you the solace of closure that you can bury the person and go through the ritual. But I don't think at this point given the amount of time that's elapsed that it's going to tell you anything that actually happened. Maybe you never know. I don't want to foreclose that. But if his mother in law and if his stepdaughter are not supportive, then there's no upside to that because normally the police, if those people suspect, suspect him of wrongdoing, they're going to use those people as a pretext to get information, admissions, confessions, anything oral. And then how do you, what are you going to do? You're going to wire him up, you're going to say any, as the lawyer, you're going to say yeah, go talk to your stepdaughter about it, go talk to your mother, your mother in law about it. And that would be irresponsible and almost malpractice per se for the lawyer to give that advice as well.
- [15:45]
B
I get you, that makes perfect sense. The only thing I don't get is that you know, Brian Hooker, if his story is true, lost his wife in a horrible tragedy, should be. A broken man leaves the bahamas like within 12 hours of saying I'll never leave here without my wife and stops talking to his de facto daughter and his mother, mother in law before anybody made an accusation against him. So his behavior preceded those who now come to the Determination because of his behavior, that he must be guilty. And again, not saying he's guilty, he's not charged, but that's timing.
- [16:26]
C
Yeah. And it is. I think you put your finger on the pulse of one of these cases and I've done enough of them to know, obviously, anybody you ever talk to, any investigator, you, anybody who's covered these things, the first person who comes under suspicion is the intimate partner or the partner of an intimate relationship. And so you don't have to be a genius or have an IQ of over 120 to figure out that he is a suspect. If he's talked to a lawyer and said, what the heck should I do? I'm at wit's end. Do I stay here? Do I look forward to what do I do? Most lawyers are going to shut him down and tell him there is no upside to this. It's unfortunate, it sounds cold and callous and in some ways it is. But at the same time, spending the rest of your life in a prison because for something you didn't do is as cold and callous as it gets.
- [17:24]
B
Yeah, the optics are bad. But I get what you're saying. Can I ask you this? Lynette's family, her mom, her dad, their spouses, Lynette's daughter and Lynette's friend, they have all detailed prior bad acts that weren't charged and convicted. Right? One was charged and he was exonerated. He was acquitted of choking his 12 year old daughter. The other incidents that Lynette contemporaneously reported to her friend and her mom and her dad was that he was beating her up and she'd say, flee the Bahamas and come and stay with them and then eventually would go back and they lament that she had battered woman syndrome. She just kept going back to her batterer. Again, accusations not charged, not convicted. If he's charged with this crime, can the investigators, can the prosecutors bring these acts before a jury?
- [18:17]
C
Absolutely. And you'll remember the Harvey Weinstein case where there was just a 9 to 3, 4 acquittal hung jury determined. The first time that case was tried, that was the third trial. First time, that is what in New York State court they called Molyneux. In California, we call it 1101. And federally, you've got 404, which are similar acts that may be uncharged. The judge, the gatekeeper function, where he has to say, is this more prejudicial than probative? Does this tend to show a pattern? For instance, does this show a motive? Does this have some kind of relationship that is tethered to the current charge. You don't. I always call it the character assassination block, where every good prosecutor uses it, where they figure if I don't have enough evidence, I'm just going to get the jury to hate this person by throwing everything up there. Every bad act I can think of, even if he was acquitted, even if he was never charged or arrested, but it's still a bad act. It's up to the judge to ferret that up.
- [19:33]
B
I never understand it because in Phil Spector, woman after woman after woman after woman all said the same thing. I tried to leave after the this date and he held a gun to my head. And yet the judge only allowed a couple of them, not all of them. So I get the pattern. But sometimes I am curious about unconvicted prior bad acts. Just allegations that maybe, you know, someone might have a dog in the fight, who knows? But let me well remember in the
- [19:59]
C
Diddy case also, and what. And on the appeal there, the judge sentenced him and invoked and the prosecution said, hey, he was acquitted on this stuff, but the conduct he was acquitted on, we want you to enhance his sentence on that. So that's up in the court of the federal Court of Appeal right now as we're talking.
- [20:21]
B
It's all very subjective and jurisdiction to jurisdiction, it changes. I think I know what I'm doing and then suddenly I get into some of someone else's courtroom and it's like slapped in the face and I'm, you know, schooled again, know at my right
- [20:36]
C
and to your point, it is a patchwork across the country in the state courts and it is different in different circuits in federal courts. So it's up to. It's a highly, highly subjective determination. Is it more too prejudicial? Is it probative? That's what they go through. Does it show us something? And I really think it's in the eye of the beholder.
- [21:01]
B
Well, all of us out here in layperson land, we all think it's probative. You know, we all think what the heck? What do you mean prejudice?
- [21:07]
C
Exactly.
- [21:08]
B
You know, trials are prejudicial. You're trying to convict the guy.
- [21:11]
C
You know, I've often, I've often said that in the. And I always laugh when the shoes on the other foot, when the prosecutor argues that, hey judge, you can't let this defense evidence in. It's going to prejudice us. And I said, you know, this whole case about prejudice my client, that's what evidence is.
- [21:29]
B
It's prejudicial it's pre. It's judging. Anyway, let me ask you this. I was curious about this. The Coast Guard obtaining DNA from Lynette's dad, Lynette's mom, and Lynette's daughter, but not for weeks and weeks. They only did it after they seized Soulmate, and they were starting to process Soulmate. What does that say to you? Because I know you would look at that through a different lens.
- [21:55]
C
They. My guess is they've got. They swabbed Soulmate. They have what is called kind of mixed DNA. They're trying to exclude. They're trying to do various techniques where they're able to identify exactly what they've got and the. Whether it's hers, whether it's excluded from her, whether it's her. Her daughters, for instance, and things of that nature. Normally when you've got a mixture, they have to do that.
- [22:24]
B
Yeah. But I think, oh, my God, I've lived on a sailboat. I have not lived just like, for like a week at a time, you know, but it is tiny, right? It's tiny. And so the liver is going to have DNA all over the place inside that boat. So there's got to be something a little bit more forensic to this. Meaning DNA of hers is somewhere maybe it shouldn't be.
- [22:48]
C
Well, I don't know that it's where necessarily it shouldn't be. But there are also different kinds of DNA. There's DNA that you can identify that would be more consistent with sweat. You would have DNA that would be more consistent with blood style evidence or excretions or things like that. You can do some pretty sophisticated testing with DNA and you might want to have different samples so that you make sure that if a defense lawyer gets up there and starts cross examining, they haven't done their homework in terms of eliminating possibilities or false positives.
- [23:30]
B
So if you were, and I know that you're a. You know, you're a lawyer who deals with state cases, you don't ever handle federal cases. Correct. Or do you?
- [23:39]
C
Oh, I do all the time. In fact, more. More of them now federally than since.
- [23:43]
B
Okay, so tell me, if you were Brian Hooker's lawyer right now, other than telling him not to cooperate with the United States Coast Guard Investigative Service, what else would you be telling him?
- [23:57]
C
Probably that every. I would be conducting a parallel investigation. Investigation that matched exactly what I would think the feds are doing. It would download what his icloud shows on his phone. I would see whether or not he had apps open that were tracking him at the time he may know that was apparently, by all accounts, pretty sophisticated when it comes to that. And it worked at the phone company, those kinds of things. I would look at computer searches because I guarantee to you they looked at all of his devices to see what kind of his. What his search history looks like a very prevalent law enforcement idea. They're going to look at his phone records, see who he talked to, when he talked to them. They're going to look. They're going to scour his financial records. They're going to take a look at anything, and they're going to investigate anything that his wife was doing. So they will be talking to the wife's friends. They will be. The defense will probably go down as far as they can in terms of retrieving any of the wife's information and data that they've got. They're going to want to know everything or try to know everything that the prosecution is doing.
- [25:12]
B
Usually at this time, this is when I say, oh, they'll be looking at his Google searches, I'm sure. But now, Mark Aragos, there's a whole other area that you're going to have to look at, and that is AI, because we know based on some of the messaging and the maps that he had created to send to his friends, these are. These are red herrings because his GPS said he didn't do that trip that he told everybody he did. He used Gemini to do those searches and create those maps. So now there's a whole other area for not only federal investigators, but defense attorneys to also run down as well. The AI searches in the map creations. You know.
- [25:46]
C
Yeah. And that, and that can be devastating because when you start, your AI is so interactive in terms of asking questions. Look for this. It really is like somebody's brain. You're actually, you know, I used to make the argument 20 years ago that a circumstantial evidence case, when you want to look at the intent, because almost all of the cases that you cover and that I defend have to do with the mental state. Right. It's always trying to prove the intent. And menswear. Exactly. Now you now have a searches where you literally are looking at somebody's brain, having an internal conversation. I can't imagine getting a better kind of window into somebody's intent in real time than in a conversation.
- [26:40]
B
You know, I'm. I keep wondering if AI is any different than Google, meaning, you know, it's not private if you went to Google and you did that, that you don't have an expectation of privacy. I can't imagine it's any different with AI Although I've even heard it's less private in some ways.
- [26:58]
C
It is less private in some ways. Legally, clients now, you have to warn the client. Any search you do, depending on the jurisdiction you do in AI in discovery, you can sometimes have to turn that over, be ordered to turn that over. I mean, that might seem unfair to somebody because it's so prevalent at this point, but that's a danger. That's a real danger.
- [27:24]
B
Well, I hope I don't murder anyone, because my AI and my search history is all about.
- [27:29]
C
About murder. Oh, my God, Ashley. I can only imagine the rabbit holes you're going down in your AI and your AI must think at a certain point, he wants to put guardrails around you.
- [27:40]
B
I think AI has probably called the FBI on me. I'm sure of it. At some point. I know I've had to tell HR when I work for NBC and when I work for Core TV and these Nation, I had to tell hr, this is not porn. We're dealing with a very bad guy. You know, you always have to just sort of.
- [27:57]
C
I used to not want to. In cases. In certain cases, I used to tell the prosecutor, you keep this stuff. I'll go look at it at your location. I don't want. At your office. I don't want it. Don't give it to me.
- [28:11]
B
I'm with you. I'm with you. I just want to ask you something. Listen, I've known you for a long time, and the cases that you've done in your life, I mean, you're kind of the goat, right? You've had everybody all the way up to Michael C.H. jackson. And so you're not cheap, you know, like, you're an expensive lawyer. And all I keep thinking is when you said parallel investigation, that Brian Hooker's lawyer is going to have to conduct a parallel investigation against the weight of the United States Coast Guard Investigative Service and the day and the doj. I just feel like this is. This could cost millions.
- [28:43]
C
Oh, it's. You have no idea. I. I'm in Washington, D.C. just got here. Here, there used to be a football coach. And the football coach was hired, and the owner, when he fired him, said something to the effect of, I gave him a blank check and he already exceeded it. That. I always laugh because that is literally the US Government, when they come at you, there is no. You can't imagine the resources they bring to business to bear. So, yes, it's very expensive. It's. Why when People say, oh, it's got, you know, their justice is a rich man's sport. No, the very richest of the rich can't even. They pale in comparison to what the resources the government can bring to bear on somebody.
- [29:31]
B
So, you know, I think a lot of people wonder then, well, how would a guy like Brian Hooker. I mean, Lynette had the money. All of the friends and family and colleagues and co workers. Everybody we've talked to said Brian had blown through his 401k. Lynette had something like 650,000, maybe $700,000 in her 401k. There's no death certificate. Like, he can't just be helping himself to that. So financially, what kind of tools does he have to work with in order to hire this former DOJ lawyer who's got to do all the things that you just listed?
- [30:06]
C
Well, there's a lot of. There's a lot of creative things you can do, but I'm not going to give away those secrets.
- [30:12]
B
But, But I can say this. If there is a death certificate, technically he would have the survivor benefits, right? Until. Unless. Unless. Or until he's charged and then it's shut down, right?
- [30:24]
C
Correct. Although I had a case years ago, I tell this story where the woman was. The husband had told the wife, I'm going to bring my mistress home. She's going to live with me in the bedroom. You can live downstairs. And she put on a negligee, went upstairs that night, tried to seduce him, and he kicked her and said, get out of here. She got the sashimi knife, she stabbed him, went downstairs, stabbed herself, but she survived. The prosecutor charged her death penalty case or the special serves. We got her eventually, a voluntary manslaughter. I forgot to mention, her dead husband was a vice president of a life insurance company. Because she was not convicted of murder, she collected a very large life insurance policy, and the widow lived happily ever after.
- [31:15]
B
Different circumstance. And I would never go on the record saying this, but I kind of get.
- [31:21]
C
It's kind of fun. Funny, because just like other cases, the, the, the jury, when they hung initially between second and voluntary manslaughter, it was a gender split. I'll let you guess which voted for manslaughter and which said murder.
- [31:42]
B
Well, I think you and I might have been on the same side on that one.
- [31:45]
C
Yes, exactly.
- [31:47]
B
But, you know, here's Lynette and all I ever hear from her co workers and her friends. Friends, and of course her family, but is that she was just so nice, you know, and so I wonder Mark, I always think, was there another woman? But they lived on board a sailboat.
- [32:01]
C
They lived on the boat together. I. That's why. I don't know. He may look bad, but I give him the presumption and. And you'll be out there putting together circumstantial evidence that I never thought of. Which is why I never. You never cease to amaze me. Thank you, Ashley. I've got a job.
- [32:19]
B
I learned from the best. You know, you've been a tutor of mine for 25 years now, so thank you. You know, I'm sure you didn't want that to happen where I'd be out there ripping everybody. And again, I have to just keep saying, he's not charged with anything yet.
- [32:34]
C
Correct. Thanks, Ashley.
- [32:37]
B
Good to see you, Mark. Thank you. My great thanks to Mark Garagos. I tell you, with defense attorneys like that, that's what makes courtroom drama just so compelling. Because when you have somebody skilled and experienced who's got decades of this behind him, these are the real stories about the human dynamics of true crime, right? If, and I'm only saying if Brian Hooker is charged, he's gonna need someone like Mark Garagos. And I have no idea who this other guy is, who he's hired, who's got, you know, experience as a U.S. attorney, but I hope this guy knows his way around a courtroom because I think Brian Hooker is going to need it. As always, I ask you to please subscribe if you haven't already. It is free and it's fun to do. I mean, boink. And also join our membership. We're going to have one of the ask me anythings coming up in the next week. And so it's really fun because we just, you know, pour a glass of wine and it's an open conversation. You can ask anything about any case or just about, you know, I don't know. The Northern Outpost. Thanks so much, everyone for listening and thank you for watching. And remember, the truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead serious.