B (3:20)

Well, the prosecutor in me is hoping she'll get life. I like to believe she'll get life in prison. But I actually think that the statements made by the victims and by Corey Richards, her elocution when she gets up and if she speaks, which I think she will, I think that's going to matter here. And I want to hear what you think. Think, actually, because normally the cake is baked by this point. There's mandatory minimums. A judge knows what the judge is going to do. But I think here that we all want to hear Corey Richards to see if she will show any remorse, any humanity, or is she going to go down with a ship and continue her professor, that she's innocent, that she was the victim herself. Remember, she wrote that book and we'll get to it. But that had an impact on this jury. I mean, it just makes her look like a huge sociopath to write a book about grief when you're the one who caused your kids to be orphaned. So I just think that in this case, the statements by the victims and by her will have an impact, but I'm leaning towards life in prison.

C (4:23)

Yeah, I agree. I mean, I think the judge is most likely to give her life. You know, the question for me is whether or not he's going to give her the chance of parole. And I'll answer your question about what, what I would do or, you know, what my opinion would be as far as her testifying. But then I want to talk a minute about, you know, life with parole versus life without parole. And I'll go on my soapbox minute about that. But, you know, it's hard when you have a client who's just gone to trial and they got convicted. They're trying to get over that, and they're trying to weigh their options and figure out what's next. The problem is if she allocates is what we call it, if she gets up there, makes a statement, and her statement says, I did it, I'm sorry, you know, and what she needs to do to get a lenient sentence, you know, more lenient sentence, she needs to get up there and she needs to admit what she did. She needs to, you know, show real remorse. Show real remorse. Explained, explain it something that the judge can actually see. And, you know, after doing this a while, you kind of become a human lie detector test. And I think judges are really good at being able to see true remorse. The problem with that, and this is what's hard when you're advising someone like that, is that affects her ability to appeal. So if she wants to appeal the case, and you got to remember, she's making this decision before she is sentenced, so she doesn't know if the judge is going to give her a chance of parole or if the judge is going to give her life without parole. So, you know, in my opinion, if he gives her life without parole appeal, you have absolutely nothing to lose. You're going to spend the rest of your life in prison. So why would you not appeal? But if there's some hope there, maybe she would make the decision, you know, to actually say what happened if she did do it. And, you know, there's always the chance she didn't do it. I know that's an unpopular opinion, but there's always that chance. But, you know, to get a lenient sentence or get a more lenient sentence, you really need to be honest about it. And that's a problem because she's got the, you know, appellate rights. My issue with the life without parole versus, you know, life with. I think she's going to get life either way. But to me, and I, you know, I have a lot of clients. I do a lot of appeals. And so when you do appeals, you have a lot of clients in prison. I didn't get them there, but I represent them and they're in prison. And one of the things that I've learned is that life without parole, it's an awful sentence, in my opinion, because it removes hope. And when you remove hope, you have what we see in our prison system, which is an awful, awful, horrible system of, you know, just people acting horrible, it's very hard to control Human behavior when there's no hope, most of the things that humans do are because there's some hope of something better. And so if you remove all chances of hope, I just think that that'. That's a very difficult population to house because, you know, they're really living for their own entertainment at that point. And so that's when you see violent violence happen, because it's more fun. If you're never going to get out of prison and you don't even have anything to be good for, it's more fun to at least get out of yourself or something. You know, going to court becomes a game. And so there's something psychologically, I think, that happens. So I wish more judges took that into consideration and at least gave hope. Because let's be honest, she's never going to get paroled. I mean, honestly, Eric's family is going to speak against it forever. So why not give her some hope?

B (7:11)

Well, she'll have hope because she can always win an appeal. Even if she shows some remorse here in the sentencing, there's always hope that maybe a future governor could give her a pardon or commutation of her sentence.

C (7:26)

Right.

B (7:26)

So there's hope in that way. I mean, keep in mind, if you allow for parole, the victim's family will have to go through the process over and over again. Every time there's a parole hearing. They got to get their self together and relive this nightmare and testify, and then they won't have. Have full closure knowing that the killer could one day go free. So there is a flip side to that. You know, in Florida, actually, we don't have these kinds of problems because we don't have parole.

C (7:51)

We got rid of it. It's crazy. I wonder why. And I. I actually really appreciate that opinion. Thinking about the victims going through it again and again with the parole hearing. It's a great perspective, you know, the other side. And I think. I think it's just. It's a hard decision. We have parole here in Georgia, and it is, I hate to use the word, but a crapshoot, really.

B (8:09)

I'm going to put you on the spot with a. Here's a little interesting question. Okay.

C (8:13)

Okay.

B (8:14)

In Florida, we do not have parole. We got rid of it, and it's because they want to get tough on crime. No more parole. You have to serve up to 85% of your sentence. So not. Not, excuse me, not up to at least 85% of your sentence. So you could get, with good behavior, 15% of your sentence off. But you have to serve at least 85% of your sentence called truth in sentencing. No more parole. But here's a question for you, Ashley, and for our audience. If Florida has no parole, then why do we have a parole commission now? It's named, it's given another name. It's I think the Offender Review Commission, but it's still the parole commission. Why do we still have a parole commission if we got rid of parole years ago?

C (8:52)

Okay, I have some guesses. You still have people that were sentenced under the old system, and so they weren't sentenced under the Truth in Sentencing, so they still have to have parole. I'm also guessing you probably have clemency and that probably falls under parole. So people probably. And what a lot of folks don't know is clemency is like a medical reprieve. You know, if you, if you have two weeks left to live. Let's. I'd like to say that the prison system wants to be humanitarian and let you go die with your family, but they really don't want to have to pay for the care but, you know, clemency. So I'm guessing it's those. Did I get it right? Did I get it right?

B (9:20)

You got it right. You're so good. That's why you get paid the big buck. That's why you're in demand. And you were featured in the New York Times. How long ago was that, by the way?

C (9:30)

That was about a year ago. Yeah, about a year ago. It's a good time.

B (9:34)

Well, you know, really the main reason is because under the Constitution, you can't take away someone's parole when that was part of their sentence at the time of sentencing, it's ex post facto. You can't go back and take it away. So until those defendants die off, the parole commission will remain. And it's a unique sort of anachronism in Florida, but it still exists. As far as your other reason that's interesting, I'm not, I don't know myself, the level of involvement in clemency that that board has, but that's something I'm going to look at. See, you turned around my trick question and gave me a homework assignment.

C (10:09)

Yes. I love it. I like, I like us talking a little bit about sentencing because I think it's interesting to talk about how the different states do sentencing. The truth in sentencing is really fabulous. We don't have that in Georgia. So in Georgia, it's kind of crazy. For most crimes, you can get one to 20 years. So you could literally and the problem in Georgia is that in one county, that county may be really lenient. Well, in the next county, they may be really tough. So you could have the exact same crime and get 20 years in one and one year in the other. So we don't have that truth in sentencing. Our parole is. Is there to try to even out those sentences. So yours, you guys have these sentencing guidelines and, you know, the whole point is to make sure that there's not these outliers. You know, there's not this crazy one sentence and this really lenient sentence. You know, try to sort of get them all in the middle. So, you know, fun facts on sentencing, but very interesting.

B (10:55)

And maybe we'll get a question from a listener, viewer on sentencing because it's something that out the public, people want to know about. I mean, people have believed for years that sentencing is always too light because we get all these maxims. Well, they could get 30 years in prison. Yes. The maximum. They're never even going to get close. Probably probation may be exaggerating, but generally people are usually disappointed in sentencing. So it's important. Maybe we should talk more about it. But I'd like to go on something I mentioned earlier about juror number two, who's the four person of this jury, because the juror came out thankfully and spoke. Because I love hearing jurors speak.

A (11:34)

Right.

B (11:35)

And her name was Laura. Is Laura. And what's interesting is we have a clip about. Let's hear her first and then we can go talk about sod number one. I think the sod on the juror

C (11:48)

there was never a not guilty check with anything, even though it was just three hours. I felt like we came into that deliberation fully loaded to evaluate the case

B (12:06)

and to look at the evidence. We had to zoom in on these

C (12:10)

little bits of evidence and kind of

B (12:13)

ignore all the fluff and ignore the drama.

C (12:15)

We were so pent up with so much information and emotion, and so we decided to just go one by one around the table and just let it out.

B (12:28)

Yeah, you know, it's great to hear because they. They got it. They seem to. To really get it. Right. It's interesting. She did say that they sort of wanted to find her not guilty, like they wanted to believe in her. And then the evidence started coming in.

C (12:44)

Yeah. It's interesting, whenever I talk to jurors after whether they believe that someone was guilty or not, they're always very saddened by what happens. And I think that just shows the humanity. And I like to at least know that the jurors care about that because at the end of the day, you don't want a family to be devastated, even if they did something awful. I thought it was interesting, though, that the juror also said when they saw Corey, they thought she was kind of nondescript. And the juror said that she didn't really show much emotion. And that was one of the things that we had been talking about a lot. They said that they were trying to get a vibe from her, and it was very hard to pick up on any kind of vibe. I think that's interesting. And one of the things that I always argue, it's a motion that prosecutors hate. But if you look at how courtrooms are set up so we watch all these trials and people stop. They don't really look at how everything's laid out. So I want to kind of just walk you through this. I'm curious what you would do if I'd filed this motion with you, Dave. So the defendant is as far away from the jury as humanly possible. You've got a courtroom, you've got the jury, you've got the prosecution, and then way over on the other side, you've got the defense lawyer and the defendant. They are literally as far as possible from the jury. And, you know, there's some modern courtrooms where they actually try to, like, position them a little bit, because you've got to have confrontation, you've got to actually see the defendant. But now we've got monitors up at court tables, and regularly the jury and my client can't see each other, and it drives me bonkers. So I file a motion. I call it my table motion, and it's a motion to take the table that's closest to the jury because there is no assigned seats. Oh, I filed the table motion every time. Every now, though. Every time. Every time.

B (14:16)

When I was state attorney, that was the thing we took pride in that we have the table next to the jury because we have the burden of proof. The defense doesn't have to have any burden. Right. And we represent the people. So have you actually won where you got to have that table next to the jury? I didn't think that was ever possible, not once.

C (14:33)

But I'm going to keep trying. I'm going to keep trying because there is absolutely no law that says that that is your table. There's none. And so I keep arguing, and I argue it as a fairness thing. But I think it's interesting because as we have these televised trials, we're hearing more and more, everybody wants to Know about the emotion they want to watch. They want, you know, think about all the times we talk about it. They want to see what the defendant's doing, how they react, all that stuff. And, you know, we set them as far as humanly possible. And, I mean, I've done a deep dive on the history behind it and stuff. We used to actually put the defendant in the middle of the courtroom. Kind of crazy. And then we started moving them to the side. And the excuse I get most of the time, I'll be honest, is that the jail door is usually over by my table. And I'm like, well, that's because that's how you guys set this courtroom up, you know. But, yeah, I don't. I haven't won it yet, but I'll let you know if I do want it.

B (15:19)

But, yeah, it's so interesting, because that's something you learn really quickly at the state attorney's office, is that we always sit next to the jury because we have the burden. We represent the people, the state, and the defense doesn't have to show or prove anything. And so we have the table next to the jury. And then I don't think anyone's ever bothered asking me. I haven't. Is it in the Constitution? Is it in the law? Could that ever be changed by motion? I mean, I've never even thought that a defense lawyer would make a motion. But, hey, let me know if it ever works for you.

C (15:50)

I will. I call them the fairness motions. You know, I have a whole slew of them. We can bring them up as we go along. But, you know, one thing I did want to talk about before we move on, about not just this juror, but Corey Richards has another case that might go to trial. And, you know, in my experience, typically when prosecutors get a, you know, verdict like this, which is probably not going to come back on appeal, I mean, let's be honest, there wasn't really anything crazy that went on. So she's probably going to be stuck with the sentence. Are they going to go and try her on this second case? You think they'll actually spend the money because it's expensive? And what are they going to do if she gets a life sentence? What, add 20 years on? I mean, come on.

B (16:24)

Yeah. Remember we. We saw this with the doomsday mom, Lori Valo Daybell, how they kept trying her even after she in prison. They do it as a backstop just in case the original sentence goes out the window, somehow an appeal. And. But I think that they may not. We'll See, I mean maybe they do it as as a backstop. If she gets life with parole, she gets life without parole. Maybe they just call it a day. I mean they are going to confer with the victim's family.

A (16:55)

Support for this podcast comes from Progressive, America's number one motorcycle insurer. Did you know? Riders who switch and save with Progressive save nearly $200 per year. That's a whole new pair of riding gloves and more Quote today Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates national average 12 month savings of $197 by new customers surveyed who saved with Progressive between October 2024 and September 2025. Potential savings will vary this year.

C (17:23)

Perfect your morning routine with Nespresso Vertuo up with a three second start, easy open lever and dedicated coffee creations mod.

B (17:31)

It's easier than ever to brew coffee

C (17:33)

with smooth flavor and rich crema over ice or milk. It's your coffee your way at the

B (17:39)

click of a button.

C (17:40)

Sip for yourself and shop vertuo up@nespresso.com Spring is a glorious time of year, but it also wreaks havoc on allergies. But let me tell you about Beekeepers Naturals. Their Propolis Nasal Spray Max is a non toxic nasal spray. It can be used daily during allergy season to flush out irritants and soothe sinus irritation. Paired with their Propolis Immune Support Throat spray. Get protected with antioxidants that defend against germs on the spot. The spray provides soothing relief with slippery elm and menthol, calming inflammation without a single nasty additive. Today, Beekeepers Naturals is giving you an all exclusive offer. Go to beekeepersnaturals.com Megan or enter code Megan to get 20% off your order. That's beekeepers naturals.com Megan or just enter the code Megan when you check out B e e k e-e p e r s naturals.com Megan or enter the code Megan when you check out. These products are also available at Target, Whole Foods, Walmart, Amazon, CVS and Walgreens.

B (18:48)

I always wanted to know about the impact of the book on the jury because to me that showed she was a sociopath. I didn't know until later on that she didn't even write the book on grief. She paid a ghostwriter and I guess she thought she would make money off it, paying $2,500 that she thought she'd sell millions of copies. Or maybe she thought she would use it in her own defense. That look, I couldn't be guilty. I grieved. But first, what do you think about the Book. And then after I get your thoughts, I want to hear from the foreperson how she and the jurors thought about it. So first you, Ashley, what did you think about it?

C (19:26)

I would have fought my ass off to try to keep that book out of court. There is no way I would have wanted that book to go into the courtroom, especially knowing that she had a ghostwriter. Not a good look. Definitely not a good look. And it sounds like the jury agreed. I mean, one of the jurors. So this juror that spoke out talking about this self published book, they thought she said everyone just felt like they're hit with a truck. We're like, what? What the hell is this? It's so odd and so strange. So then we've got the actual foreperson talking about this. In Sawtoon in 2023, Richens published this children's book on grief she says was to help their sons with their loss. Even promoting it on tv. The jurors shocked when they were told about the book. In the final days of testimony, everyone just felt like they're hit with a truck. We're like, what? Like, what the hell is this? It was so odd and so strange.

B (20:20)

Yeah, yeah. This is what happens because jurors are like the rest of us. They will pick up on something that us lawyers, since we're so close to it, we focus on the evidence, the law. We could miss. I mean, the impact of like, wait, you wrote a book about grief and then went on TV to hock it? And then you didn't even write it yourself?

C (20:42)

What?

B (20:42)

So, yeah, I just add something to that. I had a case when I was state attorney where the defendant was a wealthy person who was on trial for DUI manslaughter. And the thing that seemed to capture the public's imagination the most was when he tried to hide his assets by adopting his girlfriend.

C (21:02)

Oh, my God.

B (21:04)

One.

C (21:04)

I remember that case.

B (21:06)

That's. That was like not even a big part of the case. That's not to prove his guilt or innocence. That's just a little sideshow. And what, I mean, it's hard to get around things like that. Like the ghost written book.

C (21:16)

It was crazy. No, that was a crazy case. And you're right, it is hard. But you know, the jury, they do care. And it is traumatic. You know, I feel this way all the time. If my client comes in and says they did it, you know, you, you hate the aftermath because there's trauma for everybody. And I, I think the juror. And we can hear this in slot Three, they were really sad because she's got kids, you know, and these kids are gonna, they lost their dad, now they're gonna lose your mom. People were really sad because they did not want to find her guilty. They were really hoping that she was innocent. And we couldn't come to that conclusion. And it was really heartbreaking. This devastating reality that this light, this family was torn apart and these poor kids will really basically never have a dad or mom. It is heartbreaking. So we'll know pretty soon. May 13th. Sentencing's coming up and we'll keep everybody posted. So did you hear about the missing retired General William McCasland I believe is how you say his name. He's a 68 year old retired major general from the United States Air Force and he mysteriously vanished from his Albuquerque home recently on February 27th. He has got a longtime veteran 34 year military career. But what was really interesting is he worked on some very highly classified programs related to space acquisition and astronomical engineering. So he led a laboratory called the Wright Patterson Air Force Base. And that is a site that's often linked to UFO conspiracy theories. So, you know, I think there's a lot of speculation about whether or not that had anything to do with his disappearance. But what we know so far is that he disappeared around 11 in the morning from his home in Albuquerque. And the last person who saw him was he had a repairman that visited at his home around 10, interacted with him and then his wife left for a medical appointment. When she came home, he was missing and he has not been seen or heard from since.

B (23:09)

Yeah, I've seen this show. This is Pluribus, which is also set in in Albuquerque from the makers of Breaking Bad, where the aliens come and they turn everyone into aliens by kissing them. Or there's like a ray that comes down and turns everyone and all they want to do is to make people happy.

C (23:26)

Right.

B (23:26)

I don't think. Right. It's a great show, by the way, and they're not even sponsors of this, of our program. But I think here just. I think you have to deal with facts. He has had some mental fog, as they say. He was previously reported it and he could have walked off. Maybe there is no foul play. We don't know. But if there is foul play. Yeah, like with Nancy Guthrie. But I think that aliens taking him or something related to his work with aliens, I don't know. We'll have to get more evidence before I can believe that kind of stuff.

C (23:59)

I know, I know, right.

B (24:01)

But you know what makes it More interesting to me is as a music fan, that somehow there's a connection to Blink 182. What?

C (24:09)

I know you'd like that.

B (24:11)

Yeah, explain that. I mean, I can see Green Day being involved in, but Blink? Why would they?

C (24:16)

I did not know I learned something new with the Blink 182. So apparently Blink 182, the band, one of their guitarists, their guitarist, his name is Tom DeLonge. So apparently he paid or unpaid? It was an unpaid. I'm sorry, unpaid consultant. McCaslin served as an unpaid consultant for a brief period after he retired from the Air Force. Apparently he was supposed to provide authority to military and scientific matters. To DeLonge's entertainment, aerospace and science company, to the Stars, Inc. Which promotes fringe science and the investigation of UFOs.

B (24:53)

So, okay, so you have the person who's missing is supposed to be an unpaid consultant to the Blink 182 guitarist, right?

C (25:05)

Right.

B (25:07)

And that is this company promotes fringe science and the investigation of UFOs.

C (25:16)

I know, it's crazy. It's wild. But what's really wild is how many missing people we. Have you heard about this missing Alabama student?

B (25:24)

Yeah, yeah. That is a 20 year old college student, right? Jimmy Gracie, who was on spring break in Barcelona. And he was last seen outside of a nightclub. It has some Natalie Holloway vibes here, doesn't it, Ashley?

C (25:38)

It does. It really does freaks me out. I know I have a daughter going to college next year. She's not going to be a Florida Gator, she's going to be a Georgia Bulldog. But University of Alabama, a lot of her friends are going there. A lot of them are going to University of Alabama. And this hits close to home. Going to Barcelona, tons of kids are studying abroad, getting ready for their summers abroad, things like that. So he was at a nightclub on March 17, seen outside this nightclub at Barcelona Beach. And he left with an unidentified person after his friends had left earlier. He never made it back to his Airbnb, which was about two miles away. So the police. This is what's kind of really upsetting about the whole thing. The police reportedly have recovered his phone during an arrest of another person who is suspected to be linked to the case. So, yeah, unlike Guthrie, I think we may have a lead here.

B (26:25)

Well, and his wallet was found floating in the water off the beach. So this is bad. Obviously, he's foul play and I just. I'm hoping for the best, but this does not look good.

C (26:37)

No, it doesn't. It doesn't. I feel so bad for their family and friends. They're searching. They're searching, but foul play is definitely suspected. Hopefully it'll get some answers soon.

B (26:47)

Hopefully soon, Ashley. And we'll keep following here on our true crime channel, MK True Crime. Next, criminal defense attorney and host of Crime Talk, Scott Reich joins us to dig into the latest on the disappearance of Nancy Guthrie and more. Stay tuned

C (27:06)

day or night.

B (27:07)

VRBO Care is here 24, 7 to

C (27:10)

help make every part of your stay seamless. If anything comes up or you simply need a little guidance, support is ready whenever you reach out.

B (27:20)

From the moment you book to the

C (27:22)

moment you head home. We're here to help things run smoothly

B (27:26)

because a great trip starts with the right support. And hey, a good playlist doesn't hurt either.

A (27:35)

Ever notice how life's best stories don't happen in your living room? They happen on the open road, out on the water or parked under the stars. At Progressive, they get that you want to focus on the experience, not worry about the what ifs. That's why they offer quality insurance designed for your ride, whether That's a boat, RV or motorcycle adventure with confidence. Visit progressive.com and see how easy it is to protect your favorite way to get away. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates not available in D.C. prices vary based on how you buy.

C (28:06)

Washington politicians are always getting in your wallet. Now they're messing with your credit card. Your credit card and the security it offers are under attack. Senators Dick Durbin and Roger Marshall want to change the nation's payment system to benefit corporate megastores like Walmart and Target at the expense of everyday Americans. Credit cards keep your payments secure and provide rewards that families use to help make everyday purchases more affordable. The Durbin Marshall mandates would let corporate megastores cut corners on credit card processing, routing transactions over cheaper, untested networks with weaker securities and fewer protections. That means higher risk of fraud, greater chance of stolen personal data and the loss of rewards programs just so corporate megastores can pocket billions of dollars in higher profits. Tell Congress to guard your card. Visit guardyourcard.com to take action and learn more. Welcome back to MK True Crime. Joining us now is criminal defense attorney and host of Crime Talk, Scott Reich. Scott, we're gonna discuss Nancy Guthrie, the Mackenzie Shurilla case, which I'm excited to hear your take on, but you've been covering the Corey Richards trial extensively on your show Crime Talk. So let's talk about what your post mortem take is on the trial on Corey Richards.

A (29:23)

Well, on Corey Richards, I think the jury got this case. Correct. We've heard it from some of the jurors, and of course, they were a little sympathetic at the beginning, thinking, oh, poor Mom. But then there was just too many coincidences that took place that, you know, she really just couldn't explain it away. And obviously the defense didn't have a whole lot to work with. I mean, we've all been there where you've got that case that has to go to trial. There's no offer. Maybe the client's completely unreasonable, thinking that, you know, something's going to happen, it's all going to just, you know, work out okay. But in this particular case, the defense didn't have a whole lot to work with. I think that was evident throughout the trial, throughout the cross examinations, and obviously the lack of any defense presented by the defense. But I don't hold that against them. I've won more trials when we don't put on a defense and just hold the government to their burden of proof. But in this particular case, I think they would have liked to have heard something to explain away all those coincidences about the fentanyl, the affair, the money problems, and they just weren't able to do it.

C (30:28)

Yeah, I agree with you. I think they should have put a defense on. Did you. Did that surprise you? Did you think that they would put a defense on?

A (30:34)

I thought they were going to put a defense on me, too. Come up with something, at least have Corey Richards get up and say, I am innocent. I didn't do this. I loved my husband. Right. That's what I was expecting her to say. And I would never do this. And sure, we all have financial problems, people go through marital issues, but I would never kill them. I expected at least that. But we got nothing.

C (31:00)

I did, too. I expected that. And then with their opening, when they made some promises about the drug use, I really expected some evidence about this drug use and was really surprised that we didn't get anything for that.

B (31:09)

That.

A (31:10)

Yes. And, you know, if you make promises to a jury and you do not deliver, you're done. They're going to hold that against you. You know, it would have been better to get up and say, my client is not guilty. All it takes is an allegation to get through those doors. But when you hear the evidence, the government's evidence will fail, and it'll be your duty to say, not guilty. Leave it at that. Make no promises. Hold the government to their burden of proof, which you're going to hear the judge repeatedly say in the instructions in the opening statements. You know, in the opening instructions, the burden of proof, it's on the government. It's on the government. Anything if you can't deliver.

B (31:45)

This is an experienced criminal defense lawyer. Why did she do that?

A (31:48)

I think she thought that maybe she could get it into evidence somehow. Maybe it was gonna, you know, she thought she was gonna get it in through another witness. And I just don't think that, you know, we all make mistakes. We all get excited, we all, you know, we get into trial psychosis and we think, oh yeah, other than, you know, the purchaser of the drugs coming to trial, the boyfriend coming to trial, the financial issues, the forgery, all that coming in, we've got a chance. That's called trial psychosis. And I think the attorneys who are all very experienced, you know, we all make mistakes. I think they made that mistake by promising something they couldn't deliver.

C (32:29)

Yeah, I definitely think so too. I wonder if she had told them she was going to testify and then maybe pulled that last minute. But still, you know, you keep count on that. You can't over promise. You definitely can't. Wow. So what's your prediction on sentencing?

A (32:41)

Oh, I think the judge is going to give the maximum, sent the maximum sentence that can be imposed. And you know, it's, it's well deserved. I mean, you know, it's, it's a, it's a cold blooded murder. It was planned out, it was pretty methodical. You know, it's not like they beat him with a hammer or something along those lines. But the reality of it is she planned, she plotted to kill her husband. And if you believe the evidence, which the jury did not once, but at least twice, she tried to do this. You know, what, what really is there to do? It's not a minimum sentence kind of case. It is the maximum sentence that should more than likely be imposed. You know, this judge has to live in that community. And we can't have people going around trying to kill their spouses just because they've got a new fling on the side, you know?

B (33:30)

Exactly.

A (33:31)

Don't kill your spouse. You know, you can get a divorce, go to marriage counseling, but don't kill your spouse.

B (33:37)

You know, it is amazing because when I talk to people about cases like this, whether it's Lori Valo or this case, it's like, well, why just, just divorce them? I mean, right? The Murdoch case was, was a little different because he was trying to get sympathy with his financial struggles. What a sociopath that guy is. But here it's like, yeah, there's a lot worse Things in the world. I mean, divorce is terrible and it's painful, but hey, you know what's also painful? How about a life sentence?

C (34:06)

Exactly. It's not that painful. Yeah, get a divorce. It's fine.

B (34:09)

Yeah, of course. Remember, her mother, I guess, didn't like her partner. Well, we should. I don't have enough evidence to say, but there's suspicion that her mother did the same thing to her life partner. But, you know, that's something.

C (34:21)

She got away with it. So.

B (34:22)

Yeah, maybe that's. That was a lesson. So. Yes, we also want to ask you about Nancy Guthrie, because that is a hot topic still for our audience, and you have been really doing some great work covering it on Crime Talk. Can you give us the latest? What you think about this investigation? Is it a cold case already?

A (34:42)

Oh, yeah. This. This thing is so cold, it's in the freezer right now. I mean, listen, if this was going to be solved, it was going to be, you know, solved within the first week and 48 hours, you know, just like the. The TV show, you know, they can figure they got 48 hours to solve this. And I think that what is so. I wouldn't say surprising, maybe more disappointing is the appropriate word, is the fact that in today's world, with all the technology, right. In every case you get these days, you've got, you know, video from every different angle from every street corner. You've got cell phone data, you know, cell phone tower data coming in from everywhere. And they can't find this guy that's at the doorstep with a holster hanging, you know, in front of him with gloves. I mean, this guy is either a genius. I mean, he covered up his face so they can't prove identity. Right. Had the big rubber gloves or some kind of gloves that looks like that he had on. And the reality of it is he disappeared. They have nothing. And it's surprising. Like I said, in today's world, with sensitive surveillance cameras, ring doorbells, nests, whatever, you know, if somebody walks by, you know, on my ring doorbell, I get. I get a notification, you know, when somebody walking their dog out front. And I understand that area. I'm familiar with the Tucson area. And so, you know, the Helms are set back, but I am just surprised that they have found nothing. Like I said, this. This person is either the luckiest person in the world or a criminal mastermind. But right now, he's got the better on the police and the FBI because they've got nothing, at least as far as what they've told us.

C (36:29)

Yeah, it's kind of crazy. And Megan had, on earlier this week on our show, she had Chad Ayers, who's a former SWAT team leader, and he was talking about some of the latest developments. And apparently everybody in the family has passed a polygraph, has passed a lie detector test, and they've got literally no leads, no solid leads at all. And that's from a trusted source. And that every single member of the family had passed a polygraph with flying colors, which I think is huge, you know, and Megan had pointed out that that's huge. It means, and you know, not everybody believes in polygraphs, but that means that everybody can move on from this brother and, you know, brother in law, the sister, move on to try to actually figure out who took Nancy.

A (37:08)

Yeah, I saw that, I saw that interview and I was like, well, I mean, good for them. Yeah, that is a good thing. I mean, polygraphs, you know, there's two camps, you know, if my client can pass them, they're the greatest thing ever.

C (37:21)

Exactly.

A (37:22)

You know, you tell the polygrapher, I don't need that report, but the reality of it is it's a tool of interrogation, right?

C (37:29)

It is, it's an investigative tool. It's not, it's not really a yes or no, you know, fail safe.

A (37:34)

Exactly. But it shows somebody's willingness to come forward and say, I've got nothing to hide. Let's, you know, let me ask your questions. And you know, if those machines are so sensitive, if they thought that there was something there, they could focus in on that and say, well, that, you know, you paused a little bit there. My, my little chart's telling me you were deceptive.

C (37:54)

Right.

A (37:55)

Is there something you'd like to tell me? And you know, those polygraphers, you know, they, they're usually pretty straight shooters. If and if they think people are passing, they're going to pass. If they thought there was something there, they would move forward. So, you know, good for the family. I personally didn't think any of the family was involved in this particular case.

C (38:14)

Right.

A (38:16)

So good for them. I think, I hope that that clears, you know, some of the speculation about that because, you know, having an allegation like that, that somehow you're involved with the death of your mother or your, your mother in law, I mean, that's a serious allegation, you know, and you better have some proof to back it up if you're going to make that.

C (38:33)

Yeah, it's a horrible accusation. It's a really strong accusation. And I guess, you know, the family, rightfully so, in Savannah are pretty outraged about the claims that were made. You know, Ashley Banfield had reported that she had a source, she said she had a very good source that she believed, saying that the brother in law, Savannah's actual brother in law, that was somehow tied to this disappearance. And now there's some, you know, some speculation that she may be suing Ashley Banfield about it. She's livid and definitely does not suspect anymore. Does not suspect the brother in law. So hopefully this will have cleared the air on that. You know, I thought it was interesting. We've got some, some reports about the sheriff which we've talked about on this show before. The sheriff, Nanos, apparently he is now facing some scrutiny. He's being fired by furious locals over the handing. You know, he's facing being fired. They want to recall him. They want to fire him. And he's the sheriff in charge of the investigation and the abduction. He's the local sheriff. They're not the federal sheriff, which I thought, or the federal government. That was really interesting because he didn't want the federal government in because apparently he doesn't get along so well with them because they've got some beef in the past. I don't know if you heard about that, but what do you think about them trying to get rid of the sheriff now?

A (39:42)

I, I did hear about that. And what is it with sheriffs in Arizona that they all have huge personalities and going to do what they want? And I understand Sheriff Nanos has this beef from years ago when he had a little run in with the feds. You know, I mean, I, I think this will not go anywhere. I mean, you know, if they get enough votes to recall the guy, you know, so be it. But, you know, you can't go recall the sheriff just because you think they're not moving fast enough on a case that had high profile and, you know, of great notoriety. That's not the way the system works, you know, and now he's going to have to spend time, you know, dealing with the recall if they get the appropriate number of people to sign the, the signatures, you know, let the man do his job. I mean, listen, if there's anyone that probably want this case solved more than anybody, it's Sheriff Nanos right now. And I'm sure he has put pressure on his people and urged the FBI. If you've got something, we're more than happy to, you know, act on it. But it has to be actionable information that's going to be enough to actually have probable cause to go Arrest somebody.

B (40:51)

You know, he has been his own worst enemy though, with pr. I mean, he was out there at a sporting event while this was all going on. I saw a picture of a sports car that he was driving. And I don't know if that, if you saw, seen that, if that's, if that's accurate or true. I don't know what to believe on the Internet. But he definitely has his detractors and a lot of it is just is the PR that he doesn't look like he is focusing on the job. And quite frankly, it has not been a model investigation by local law enforcement. What is interesting to your point? First, Scott, well done on the call back to Sheriff Joe Arpaio from Arizona. He was the most infamous sheriff there until now, Sheriff Nanos. But the person who is organizing the recall process is a congressional candidate. So it's someone who wants to get elected to Congress. And he said he told the New York Post that he has 500 volunteers working to collect at least 120,000 signatures on a petition to fire the sheriff. Now here's something. As someone who was in politics for years, there's 500 volunteers. I wish I had 500 volunteers for any reason. How do you get that? I don't know if that number is to be believed.

C (41:56)

Yeah, yeah.

B (41:58)

Well, how do you get 500 organized? You're pretty good if you can have 500 people out there giving up their time to go outside the supermarket getting signatures.

C (42:07)

Oh, yeah, but that's not enough signatures, though.

B (42:09)

120,000 signatures is a lot.

C (42:11)

Oh, yeah.

A (42:12)

But you know, who's going to run, you know, if, if he gets recalled and say, I'm going to run a platform, I'm going to solve the, you know, the case of missing Nancy. I mean, like, it doesn't make sense. Take those 500 volunteers and, you know, maybe start go sweeping the area around the home that, you know, that hasn't been done or expand the search area or something along those lines. It just doesn't seem like a great effort. And I get it. You know, the sheriff looks kind of silly. He's had a lot of criticism, rightfully so. I think they acted a little too slowly, I guess is the word I want to use on the investigation. But let's face it, if this was your mother or my mother and she had disappeared, do you think that you would have had all those resources if, you know, your, your, your daughter wasn't the co host of a, you know, the NBC Today show? Probably not. You would have got a political Officer and maybe a couple of detectives. So, you know, I think he's rolling with the punches and unfortunately he's going to have to take a couple on the chin. But he'll get through it.

C (43:21)

Yeah, most likely. Well, you've been covering a case that's new to us that we want to talk about, Mackenzie Shurilla. So I know you've talked about a lot about this case, but just to catch all of our viewers up, early morning on July 31st in 2022, 17 year old Mackenz Shurilla drove into a brick building at almost 100 miles per hour. She killed her passengers. Which one of them was her boyfriend Dominic, who was 20, and then also a friend, Davion Flanagan. So she was. The two men were pronounced dead at the scene. This happened in Ohio and she was flown to a hospital in Cleveland for treatment. She had some confusion, broken bones, things like that. The first responders reported that one of the first things she said when she became responsive was how is Davion? During the assessment though, the first responders also found a baggie of mushrooms in her shirt. They found some marijuana and a bong as well as a vape. The records reflect that her blood alcohol was negative and she said she didn't use drugs. But she did report that she wanted to die and that it was her fault for killing her boyfriend. The crash investigation found that the vehicle was working fine. There was no evidence of the brake being extended, the brake application being extended prior to the crash. And it appeared that she actually had her foot on the accelerator. So we actually have a video of the crash if we can play that. And those of you that are watching on YouTube can actually see it. I know you can't hear it, but we'll kind of narrate it for you a little bit. Oh my gosh.

B (44:46)

Yeah, it's going much faster than you think.

C (44:49)

Yeah.

A (44:49)

Yeah.

C (44:50)

Wow.

A (44:51)

Not an accident.

C (44:52)

Definitely not an accident. Oh my God. I'm surprised she lived. Wow. How did she live, my Lord?

A (45:01)

By the grace of God, it looks like.

C (45:03)

Yeah, definitely. So apparently if the accelerator was applied instead of the brake, there was an expert that testified he would expect to see the data recording event reflect the accelerator go from 100% to zero at some point prior to the crash. And that's really, you know, the black box. We hear about the black box. So, you know, black boxes, they, they record incidents like this. And so that's really telling in a case like this. But, you know, you've been covering this case extensively, so I'm Curious what your opinions are on this. What do you think happened? You think she tried to kill him?

A (45:34)

Oh, yeah, no doubt, no doubt. You know, you don't, you know, I mean, obviously in the judge, since she was, she was technically 17 at the time of this was a juvenile, but the reality of it is you don't drive your car with your boyfriend, you know, into the side of the building by just sheer accident. I mean, that was heading straight for it. So, you know, the, the, the finding that, you know, she was guilty of murder, I think was completely appropriate. The appellate courts affirmed it. And then obviously she had a little problem with this whole post conviction thing, but hey, what's one day amongst friends, right?

C (46:14)

But she opted for a bench trial. So, so, you know, those that haven't heard about the case, she, she was arrested and then her defense attorney opted for a bench trial, which is where you waive a jury trial and you let a. And that judge, of course, shockingly, on August 14th of 2023 found her guilty of four counts of murder, four counts of assault, two counts of aggravated vehicular homicide, one count of drug possession, and one count of criminal tools. In the bench trial. And the judge highlighted that they thought the act was not reckless driving, but a mission of death, saying that she morphed from a responsible driver to literal hell on wheels as she makes her way down the street and that she, she executed it with precision. So this time I think we actually can hear the judge's words calling her literal hell on wheels. From 2023 in SOT 7, she morphs from a responsible driver to literal hell on wheels as she makes her way down the street. Mackenzie alone made the decision to drive the car, to drive an obscure route, a route she visited a few days before and around and opportunely taken by her. Mackenzie Olam chose the time to make the drive early in the morning, when any reasonable person would expect a few people would be nearby to witness it or offer life saving assistance. She made these decisions despite knowing, as any reasonable person would, that her mission of death could have involved others. Not even in the car with her. Other people and the cars, the destroys. She had a mission and she executed it with precision. The mission was death. Wow. So she got 15 years and you know, I don't know why anybody would wave a jury trial. You got to have some really good reasons to do that. But judge gave her 15 years. Yeah, right. But why. Yeah, I know, right. Any idea why she waived it? I mean, did she think she was going to get a better Deal from the judge.

A (48:06)

You know, I, I, I, I never understand why you would waive a jury trial. Why give up the fact that you have, make the prosecution prove it to 12 people. Right. Instead of one, the one who is, you know, more than likely a former prosecutor.

C (48:21)

Yeah. Sorry, Dave. They are, though.

B (48:24)

Oh, yeah. We had a lot in my office get appointed to the bench.

A (48:28)

Even, you know, former public defenders that become judges, you know, they got to let their new friends know that they're, they're no longer friends with their old friends. So, you know, public defenders make some of the worst judges ever.

C (48:42)

I would agree with that. Yeah.

A (48:44)

But, yeah, no, never prove it unless you have some sort of maybe super technical argument that you think it's just so over the top. But I just can't believe that because juries decide complicated, you know, patent cases, you know, things like that all the time. So they can handle a traffic accident case, you know, where somebody died.

C (49:02)

Right. And I always think, you know, the jury, if they get it wrong, the judge, we know the judges don't like to, but in theory, the judge can direct a verdict. So, you know, you kind of get a bench trial if you want a judge to direct a verdict of not guilty. So I'm not sure why you'd give up the 12 people. And, you know, you get kind of two shots at the apple. Even though we all know judges don't ever do it.

B (49:20)

Is it the same legal team that filed the appeal a day late after the 365 day deadline? And by the way, my, my favorite argument from the defense is that, wait, wait, we didn't miss a deadline in 2024. That was a leap year. So we should have been given an extra day. And the appellate court was like, 365 means 365. You're out of luck.

C (49:42)

Yeah, that's heartbreaking.

A (49:44)

Yeah, Those attorneys should be, you know, calling their malpractice carrier and making a claim and it's not good. And I went and I, I've read the opinion and the appellate court goes through it pretty clearly that, you know, they're talking about what date records were certified and the record was, you know, official and when the first day should have started. And, you know, I understand, you know, we've all kind of missed, you know, a deadline here or there. But when it's, if you're not sure about the day late, you better get it early find, get in it in early if there's any doubt and don't miss it. Now, it was for post conviction relief, right?

C (50:26)

Yeah.

A (50:28)

And so there was a jurisdictional deadline, and now the court's like, my hands are tied. I can't do anything. You missed the deadline. And so, you know what's really the remedy? Go to federal court and say, we've exhausted all of our remedies right now. We now we need to, you know, federal habeas.

C (50:45)

She's probably screwed on that because federal habeas is a year. And so, you know, if the state, she filed a state one after a year and it's not told. So until they file this, you know, this state one. So if she filed it after a year, she's probably toast on the federal one also. But you know why this is kind of interesting right now is there is a Netflix documentary coming up. So Netflix has this documentary called the Crash about her, and it's about to be turned into the latest true crime documentary. It's gonna on May 15, and the crash is going to take a deep dive into the actual volatile relationship at the center of this crash. Examining the shifting narratives of that fateful night to explore where a fatal mistake ends and cold blooded murder begins. That is what Netflix says for their logline. So I think we'll all be looking forward to that. Well, thank you so much for joining us, Scott. Where can we. Where can our audience find you?

A (51:37)

Well, thanks for having me. It was great. You can find us on just about any platform these days. Crime Talk with Scott Reichstag and We're there. As well as any of your podcasting apps. You can find us there as well.

C (51:51)

Awesome.

A (51:51)

Thanks for having me.

C (51:52)

Thank you so much.

B (51:53)

Thank you, Scott.

C (51:54)

All right, well, next we've got our closing arguments and your questions. Stay tuned with VRBoCare. Help is always ready before, during, and after your stay.

B (52:06)

We've planned for the plot twists, so support is always available because a great

C (52:11)

trip starts with peace of mind. Hey, everyone, it's me, Morgan Stewart, and I have a new podcast called the Morgan Stewart Show. Join me each week as I talk about pop culture, fashion, my personal life, and just a warning, I'm gonna be giving my opinion on everything. I'll also have some really fun guests to join in on the fun. The Morgan Stewart show is out now. Listen and follow wherever you get your podcasts or watch full video on YouTube.

B (52:36)

Ever been in a bad relationship? You know the kind, it just wears you down. You settle in, even though deep down you know this isn't how it's supposed to be. That's what daily aches and pains can feel like. You stop expecting to Feel good. You start thinking, maybe this is just life now. But it doesn't have to be. With Relief Factor, you can break up with pain. Just like Anthony quote, I was dealing with debilitating pain and fatigue. I've been taking Relief factor for about two months and now I'm back to running my business, fishing, gardening, doing the things that really matter to me. So maybe it's your back pain, knee issues or stiffness that's slowing you down. Relief Factor will give you mobility back. Relief factor is 100% drug free and it targets the inflammation that causes pain so you can move better, feel better, and actually enjoy life again. Try the three week quick start for just 1995. Go to relieffactor.com or call 800 for relief. That's 800 for relief. Break up with pain and get back to what matters. Welcome back to MK True Crime Time. And as we're recording this, some sad news. We just learned that the remains of Jimmy Gracie have been recovered. That's the University of Alabama student who is missing in Barcelona. So our prayers go out to his family and loved ones. It's, it's rough when you see a young life lost like that. And hopefully there'll be justice to whomever was involved with this.

C (54:19)

Yeah, we'll keep everybody updated on any news that we get about that.

B (54:23)

That, yeah. And we will go into our question and it's from Amber. And Amber, thank you for reaching out to us. Amber wrote MK True Crime hosts. I love your show and catch it twice every week. Do you know what I found most interesting about the Corey Richards trial? The judge. I've never actually tuned into trial coverage while it's in progress before this week. And I was just so impressed with the judge's professionalism and kindness and patience and overall friendly demeanor. In your trial experience, is this typical? Thanks for your fresh takes on true crime every week. Ashley. Is that typical?

C (55:00)

I would not say typical. I wish I could say typical. You know, there are some great judges and I love a good judge better than just about anything in the system. But there are some awful judges out there too. There really are. And you know, especially after doing it a while, I think some judges get a little cranky and they get a little frustrated. So I wouldn't say it's typical. It is a lovely delight that when you have a judge like, like this and you know, it's one of the things that we keep hearing over and over again how great this judge was. And I love it. I think it's that he was fabulous and it doesn't have to be a miserable experience to practice criminal law and do a criminal trial. You know, everybody's there. I always say, you know, we're there doing our jobs. This is a day job just like, you know, everyone else. And so there's no good reason for a judge not to be pleasant like that.

B (55:41)

It's a good point. I've experienced a lot of good judges, but if you get a bad one, and not only is it a bad experience for you, but also is it's almost impossible to get rid of it, the judge. Because you can try, you can try to get the judge to recuse himself or herself, go on appeal, but if you try to make us think about it, that judge, they have ways to get you at this trial in the future one. So yeah, just it can be luck of the draw. And you hope you get a judge like this one. He was great. Totally agree.

C (56:12)

Yeah. And some judges are elected, some judges are appointed. So you see a little bit different difference in how the judges act depending on things like that. I think as well, which is surprising. I actually think the appointed judges tend to be more pleasant than the elected ones. Surprisingly interesting.

B (56:27)

Well, yeah, because us politicians, you know, there's got to be something wrong with us if we're going to put our name on the ballot, raise money, ask people for money and, and promote ourselves. Although when you're running for a judge, you can't directly ask people for money of a committee to do that. That's another video for another day. So thank you, Ashley. We, we're now upon the most popular part of the program, closing statements. Why don't you go first?

C (56:49)

All right. Well, thank you, Dave. So it's interesting we talked about judges in our question because I'm going to talk about a judge that did something that's just going to kind of blow your mind. So my rant today is going to be another episode of why we can't have nice things in this lovely justice system we have. But really, you know, spending money. A lot of the justice system is about judicial resources, judicial economy, things like that. That. So I'm going to back up a minute. I get an email yesterday from my kids teacher. They need parents to donate Kleenex. Why? Because the school can't afford Kleenex. They can't afford tissues, so they need tissues to help clean up the lab and they need parents to donate those at the exact same time. I'm working on a case, I'm working on a case where an elderly woman, same county, she just Had a stroke and she is sitting in Rikers Island. She's sitting there on a hold from Georgia. Same county that can't afford the kleenex. Over a 20 year old minor possession of drug case. So here's the problem. Originally, 20 years ago, the prosecutor goes behind the judge, goes behind everyone's back. Goes to the judge without the defense lawyer there, without the defendant there. No notice, no hearing, no lawyers, and got an order to arrest her and send her to prison based on that original charge. Violates the constitution hands down. Hands down violates basic due process, which by the way, basic due process. You hear that thrown around a lot. What does that mean? It's notice and an opportunity to be heard. That's it. That's basic due process. You gotta know something's gonna be talked about and you gotta have a chance to talk. That's really it. This in particular though also violates Georgia law.

B (58:29)

Law.

C (58:30)

There's a statute that specifically says you cannot do this. You cannot enter an order sending someone to prison under these circumstances. And you know, I'm not going to bore anyone with those details, but under this circumstances you can't do that. It's illegal. It's a statute that says it. So fast forward, she's boarding a flight 20 years later, gets arrested on this order, ends up in one of the most overcrowded, notorious jails in the country, Rikers Island. So now here's the kicker. She's there awaiting extradition from Georgia to be extradited. It costs, I don't know, anywhere between 10, $20,000 to extradite her. And you know, we've talked about that before, but there's a lot of cost involved because when you extradite someone, you got to basically pay for two armed guards to get them from point A to point B. So cost enough money for me to get here to New York without armed guards. We're talking about armed guards feeding all this stuff. It's expensive. So we have money to do that, but we don't have money for Kleenex in my kids classroom. So I tell the prosecutor all this. I didn't tell him the stuff about the, the Kleenex, of course, but I tell him all of this, you know, hey, can't we figure something out? This is an unlawful order, it's going to be set aside, it's illegal, it violates the law, not to mention it violates the Constitution. Guess what his response is, and it's a quote. I think she should be extradited. No consequences, no accountability, Nothing will Happen. A new judge will fix it. A smarter, better, more fair judge that follows the law. She'll be released. But what's going to happen to the system? Nothing. Nothing will change. In my kids classroom, they still need tissues. We don't have a funding problem. We have a priorities problem. And it is why we cannot have nice things things. So, Dave, I'll let you take it away.

B (60:17)

Wow. That also goes to Amber's point about the importance of people in powerful positions like judges. Yeah. Wow. Well said. Thank you, Ashley. And as if we haven't had enough things to worry about in the year 2026, now it's Jurassic Park. Coming to a neighborhood near you. I was reading an article in the Guardian about a company called Colossal Biosciences using DNA to bring back extinct species like the dodo bird and lab grown dire wolves. On the pro side, they're boosting genetic diversity to save endangered species. Good. The cons? Well, dinosaur DNA is too degraded to use. But by resurrecting ice Age beasts, which is still possible, we're still flagrantly ignoring the central bloody thesis of Jurassic Park. You know the part where the hubris of playing God ends with a lawyer getting devoured on a tropical toilet. And who is funding this $10 billion operation? Well, you have investors like Paris Hilton and Tiger Woods. Because when you need strict ethical boundaries and responsible ecological oversight, well, you naturally turn to early 2000s reality stars. And professional golf. Critics call this a massive moral hazard. If we can just resurrect animals from the dead, then why protect their habitats today? Right? No more hunting seasons. It will be 24,7 in the future. Because we all have figured out how to clone whatever someone shoots. Legally speaking, if a Franken wolf escapes. Now, how about this for a legal question? Who catches the civil suit for reckless endangerment? Are we aiding in abetting an invasive species? Are these scientists committing a crime against nature or trying to reverse the ones humanity already committed? I don't know.

A (62:21)

Know.

B (62:22)

But until the jury comes back on this one, I'm going to keep my sweet beagle on a very, very short leash. That's my closing statement. I want to thank all of you for watching here today, for listening and thanks to our guest, Scott Reich, and of course, my co host, Ashley Merchant. Thanks for being here. Have a Great Weekend

C (62:51)

with VRBoCare. Help is always ready before, during and after your stay.

B (62:57)

We've planned for the plot twists, so support is always available because a great

C (63:03)

trip starts with peace of mind.

A (63:06)

Pilots know that weather factors like storms, turbulence and ICING can turn routine flight into a challenge. But what if you had satellite delivered weather data giving you the full picture

C (63:17)

of what's around you?

A (63:18)

With SiriusXM Aviation, get coast to coast high resolution weather info, all without altitude limitations or line of sight restrictions.

B (63:27)

Fly confidently knowing you have the best

A (63:29)

information available to make decisions in flight. Visit SiriusXM.com aviation to learn more.